Were there one Asian country that could offer development tuition lessons to Sri Lanka, it is Korea. China is too big, Singapore – too small. Japan’s development happened over centuries. Korea, on the other hand, was in the same league (maybe even a bit behind us) in the 50’s and took a quantum leap to become the 12th richest nation in the world. No doubt, they must have adopted some strategies we can easily replicate. That is the first reason for me to select Korea over the rest. Second, and more importantly, I was recently privileged to hear about Korea’s experience from one of its ex-education ministers himself. Professor Ju-Ho Lee, Minister of Education, Science and Technology of the Republic of Korea (2010-2012), and now an academic at KDI School of Public Policy and Management, took us carefully through the comprehensive journey of Korea’s learning curve.
How is education in Korea different? What have we missed? They say they have given importance to public education over private education. So have we, in Sri Lanka. They say they offered ‘free education’ – affordable to everyone. Haven’t we? They say they have paid their teachers well. Same here, although the compensation a Sri Lankan teacher receives in real terms is admittedly nowhere near what her Korean counterpart receives now. They also claim to have improved the conditions of their schools. Again, so have we. So why were they successful and we not?
First, some facts. The most interesting: Korea’s primary and secondary education structure is not too different from those of other countries.
Primary school in Korea comprises six grades, and is for students aged six to 12 years. Students learn subjects including Korean language, mathematics, science, social studies, Korean history, fine arts, English (from third grade onwards), physical education, moral education, practical arts and music. Usually, one teacher covers all subjects, unless separate teachers become necessary for subjects such as English or physical education. Middle school follows elementary school, and comprises three grades, roughly corresponding with grades seven to nine in the North American system. Subjects include Korean, algebra, geometry, English, social studies and science as the core; and music, art, physical education, Korean history, ethics, home economics and technology as electives. The number of hours devoted to each subject varies according to the school, the grade and even the student. From middle school, Koreans may graduate to high school, where they study for three more years and graduate at age 18 or 19. High school students are usually expected to study longer hours each year as they move closer to graduation due to the competition to enter the best universities. Continuing education to high school is not mandatory. However, according to a recent study of OECD member countries, 97% of South Korea’s young adults have completed high school. This was the highest percentage recorded in any country. In terms of average years of schooling, Korea is ahead of most other developed countries in the west.
Government spending on education was highest in Korea among OECD countries in 2013. While the OECD average was 3.9%, Agenda Education Korea spends 4.2% of its GDP on primary and secondary education. Private sector spending has typically been 40%.
[pullquote]Korea’s primary and secondary education structure is not too different from those of other countries[/pullquote]
Teaching is a highly respected profession in Korea. It is among the most popular career choices for young Koreans. This is largely due to competitive pay, job stability and good working conditions. It is, however, highly regulated: even part-time lecturers are required to obtain teaching certificates. It is, thus, not open to all. Teachers are also well-paid. For instance, lower-secondary school teachers can expect a mid-career salary of about $50,000 – much higher than the OECD average of $41,701. Even lowersecondary school teachers with minimum educational qualifications in Korea receive a starting annual salary of about $30,000. The most successful make as much as $85,000 by the end of their careers. While the starting salary is slightly below the OECD average of $31,687, salaries at the top of the pay scale are much higher than the OECD average of $51,317. Teachers’ salaries compete well with that of other professions too. In fact, even starting teacher salaries are higher than the GDP per capita.
So we see little difference between the system we have here and the one in Korea, except for higher spending. Higher spending can make the quality of teachers better, but frankly I do not think Sri Lankan teachers are bad. Sri Lankan students too show excellent results at exams. Even the structure of the education system in the two countries is the same. We too have formal, state sector schools that are ably supported by private tutoring. Thus, the prescription seems to be the same. The question is, why has it worked for one patient and not the other?
The only reasonable conclusion: Sri Lanka’s education system per se works fine. We may even have the best education system in South Asia. What makes Korea different from us in South Asia is their economy. It can absorb the output of the school education system, while ours cannot. Most youth in South Asian countries, at least high school dropouts, are underemployed. A bus driver can perhaps teach in a school, but as there are no vacancies, he has to drive. There was an office aid in my place of work some time ago who had completed high school with a distinction in Sinhala language. A maid my family hired at the same time for a monthly salary of Rs10,000 had completed high school with a distinction for economics. At first, we didn’t want to hire her, concerned about offending her achievements, but she pleaded, saying her only other option was to join a garment factory for a lower salary. So I do not think the problem is with capacity. It is our difficulty to give them the jobs they deserve. That is where Korea has scored well.
The bottom-line, at least in my opinion, is that, to get the best out of our education system, we must fix certain problems elsewhere. Not that the education system does not matter; they have their own issues, and needs constant fine-tuning. However, other issues demand more of our attention. Do students have the correct socioeconomic environment at home that allows them to concentrate on their studies? Do they have enough incentives to get good grades? (If a student has to end up as a bus driver even if he completed high school, I do not think he would care much for good grades.) Do we have the right social system that encourages education? Is our economic system ready to absorb the output? These are the questions we should ask ourselves.