the pisa results and the education system in · pdf filethe pisa results and the education...
TRANSCRIPT
1
Mee-Kyeong Lee
Research Fellow
Korea Institute of Curriculum & Evaluation (KICE)
The PISA Results and
the Education System in Korea
2
Outline
Introduction to Korea
The PISA results for Korea
The CBAS results for Korea
The Korean education system
Current reform initiatives
3
Introduction to Korea
Total land area: 222,154 square kilometers
Divided by a 241 kilometers demilitarized zone
South Korea: 99,313 square kilometers
Population: 49 million people (2008)
4
Economic Development
GDP (Unit: US$ billion)
2
8
64
264
512
970
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2007
GNI per Capita (Unit: US$)
76
254
1645
6147
10841
20045
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2007
Source: The bank of Korea
5
The PISA Results for Korea
6
Trends in Student Achievement in Korea
500
510
520
530
540
550
560
Reading Math Science
Mean
PISA 2000
PISA 2003
PISA 2006
7
Trends in Reading
PISA 2000 PISA 2003 PISA 2006
Country Means Country Means Country Means
Finland
Canada
New
Zealand
Australia
Ireland
Korea
.
.
.
546
534
529
528
527
525
.
.
.
Finland
Korea
Canada
.
.
.
.
.
543
534
528
.
.
.
.
.
Korea
Finland
Hong Kong-China
.
.
.
.
.
556
547
536
.
.
.
.
.
8
Trends in Reading
350
400
450
500
550
600
Arg
entina -
--
Rom
ania
---
Spain
---
Bulg
aria -
--
Japan -
--
Icela
nd -
--
Russia
n F
edera
tion -
--
Norw
ay -
--
Italy
---
Fra
nce -
-
Austr
alia
--
Gre
ece -
Thaila
nd -
-
Isra
el o
Mexic
o -
Irela
nd o
Sw
eden o
Czech R
epublic
o
New
Zeala
nd o
Canada o
Belg
ium
o
Bra
zil
o
Denm
ark
o
Austr
ia o
Fin
land o
Port
ugal o
Hungary
o
Sw
itzerland o
Hong K
ong-C
hin
a +
Germ
any o
Latv
ia +
++
Indonesia
++
Lie
chte
nste
in +
++
Pola
nd +
++
Kore
a +
++
Chile
+++
Score Reading score in PISA 2006 Reading score in PISA 2000
Source: OECD(2006) PISA 2006 volume 1 Figure 6.21
9
Trends in Mathematics
PISA 2000 PISA 2003 PISA 2006
Country Means Country Means Country Means
Japan
Korea
New Zealand
.
.
.
.
557
547
537
.
.
.
.
Hong Kong-China
Finland
Korea
.
.
.
.
550
544
542
.
.
.
.
Chinese Taipei
Finland
Hong Kong-China
Korea
Netherlands
.
.
549
548
547
547
531
.
.
10
350
400
450
500
550
600
Fra
nce -
--
Japan -
-
Lie
chte
nste
in -
Icela
nd -
--
Belg
ium
--
United S
tate
s -
Neth
erlands -
Sw
eden -
Czech R
epublic
o
Slo
vak R
epublic
o
Canada -
Norw
ay o
Spain
o
Austr
alia
o
Italy
o
Luxem
bourg
o
Hong K
ong-C
hin
a o
Macao-C
hin
a o
New
Zeala
nd o
Irela
nd o
Denm
ark
o
Austr
ia o
Thaila
nd o
Port
ugal o
Turk
ey o
Germ
any o
Hungary
o
Latv
ia o
Sw
itzerland o
Fin
land o
Uru
guay o
Pola
nd o
Kore
a o
Tunis
ia o
Russia
n F
edera
tion o
Bra
zil
++
Gre
ece +
++
Mexic
o +
++
Indonesia
+++
Score
Math scores in PISA 2006 Math scores in PISA 2003
Trends in Mathematics
Source: OECD(2006) PISA 2006 volume 1 Figure 6.21
11
Trends in Science
PISA 2000 PISA 2003 PISA 2006
Country Means Country Means Country Means
Korea
Japan
.
.
.
.
552
550
.
.
.
.
Finland
Japan
Hong Kong-China
Korea
.
.
.
.
548
548
539
538
.
.
.
.
Finland
Hon Kong-China
Canada
Chinese Taipei
Estonia
Japan
New Zealand
Australia
Netherlands
Liechtenstein
Korea
.
563
542
534
532
531
531
530
527
525
522
522
Difference between PISA 2006 and PISA 2003 science scores based on link items :
-10.4 (not statistically significant)
12
Percentages of Students at the Top
Proficiency Level
0
5
10
15
20
25
Reading Math Science
%
PISA 2000
PISA 2003
PISA 2006
13
% of Students at Each Proficiency Level
on the Reading Scale (PISA 2006)
100
80
60
40
20
0
20
40
60
80
100
Ko
rea
Fin
lan
d
Ho
ng
Ko
ng-
Ch
ina
Can
ada
Ire
lan
d
Ne
w Z
eal
and
Lie
chte
nst
ein
Au
stra
lia
Ne
the
rlan
ds
Swe
de
n
Po
lan
d
Esto
nia
Be
lgiu
m
Swit
zerl
and
Ch
ine
se T
aip
ei
Ge
rman
y
Jap
an
Slo
ven
ia
De
nm
ark
Un
ite
d K
ingd
om
Mac
ao-C
hin
a
Fran
ce
Au
stri
a
Ice
lan
d
No
rway
Hu
nga
ry
Cze
ch R
ep
ub
lic
Luxe
mb
ou
rg
Latv
ia
Cro
atia
Po
rtu
gal
Ital
y
Lith
uan
ia
Slo
vak
Re
pu
blic
Gre
ece
Spai
n
Isra
el
Turk
ey
Ch
ile
Ru
ssia
n F
ed
era
tio
n
Uru
guay
Bu
lgar
ia
Me
xico
Thai
lan
d
Arg
en
tin
a
Serb
ia
Jord
an
Bra
zil
Co
lom
bia
Ro
man
ia
Mo
nte
ne
gro
Tun
isia
Ind
on
esi
a
Qat
ar
Aze
rbai
jan
Kyr
gyzs
tan
Level 2 Level 1 Below Level 1 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
Level 5: 21.7%
Level 4: 32.7%
Level 3: 27.2%
Level 2: 12.5%
Level 1: 4.3%
Below Level 1: 1.4%
Source: OECD(2006) PISA 2006 volume 1 Figure 6.1
14
% of Students at Each Proficiency Level
on the Mathematics Scale (PISA 2006)
100
80
60
40
20
0
20
40
60
80
100
Fin
lan
d
Ko
rea
Ho
ng
Ko
ng-
Ch
ina
Aze
rbai
jan
Can
ada
Mac
ao-C
hin
a
Ne
the
rlan
ds
Ch
ine
se T
aip
ei
Esto
nia
Au
stra
lia
Jap
an
Lie
chte
nst
ein
Swit
zerl
and
De
nm
ark
Ne
w Z
eal
and
Ire
lan
d
Ice
lan
d
Be
lgiu
m
Slo
ven
ia
Swe
de
n
Cze
ch R
ep
ub
lic
Un
ite
d K
ingd
om
Po
lan
d
Ge
rman
y
Au
stri
a
Latv
ia
Slo
vak
Re
pu
blic
Hu
nga
ry
No
rway
Fran
ce
Luxe
mb
ou
rg
Lith
uan
ia
Spai
n
Ru
ssia
n F
ed
era
tio
n
Un
ite
d S
tate
s
Cro
atia
Po
rtu
gal
Gre
ece
Ital
y
Isra
el
Serb
ia
Uru
guay
Turk
ey
Ro
man
ia
Thai
lan
d
Bu
lgar
ia
Ch
ile
Me
xico
Mo
nte
ne
gro
Arg
en
tin
a
Ind
on
esi
a
Jord
an
Co
lom
bia
Tun
isia
Bra
zil
Qat
ar
Kyr
gyzs
tan
Level 1 Below Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6%
Level 6: 9.1%
Level 5: 18.0%
Level 4: 25.5%
Level 3: 23.5%
Level 2: 15.2%
Level 1: 6.5%
Below Level 1: 2.3%
Source: OECD(2006) PISA 2006 volume 1 Figure 6.19
15
% of Students at Each Proficiency Level on
the Science Scale (PISA 2006)
100
80
60
40
20
0
20
40
60
80
100
Fin
lan
d
Esto
nia
Ho
ng
Ko
ng-
Ch
ina
Can
ada
Mac
ao-C
hin
a
Ko
rea
Ch
ine
se T
aip
ei
Jap
an
Au
stra
lia
Lie
chte
nst
ein
Ne
the
rlan
ds
Ne
w Z
eal
and
Slo
ven
ia
Hu
nga
ry
Ge
rman
y
Ire
lan
d
Cze
ch R
ep
ub
lic
Swit
zerl
and
Au
stri
a
Swe
de
n
Un
ite
d K
ingd
om
Cro
atia
Po
lan
d
Be
lgiu
m
Latv
ia
De
nm
ark
Spai
n
Slo
vak
Re
pu
blic
Lith
uan
ia
Ice
lan
d
No
rway
Fran
ce
Luxe
mb
ou
rg
Ru
ssia
n F
ed
era
tio
n
Gre
ece
Un
ite
d S
tate
s
Po
rtu
gal
Ital
y
Isra
el
Serb
ia
Ch
ile
Uru
guay
Bu
lgar
ia
Jord
an
Thai
lan
d
Turk
ey
Ro
man
ia
Mo
nte
ne
gro
Me
xico
Arg
en
tin
a
Co
lom
bia
Bra
zil
Ind
on
esi
a
Tun
isia
Aze
rbai
jan
Qat
ar
Kyr
gyzs
tan
Level 1 Below Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6
Level 6: 1.1%
Level 5: 9.2%
Level 4: 25.5%
Level 3: 31.8%
Level 2: 8.7%
Level 1: 2.5%
Source: OECD(2006) PISA 2006 volume 1 Figure 2.11a
16
The Reasons Behind Different
Achievement Levels Across the
Three Domains
17
Why is Achievement in Science
Declining?
The instructional time in science was reduced an average of 45 minutes a week for grade 4, 5, 6, 7, 10.
Science subjects became optional, not core for grade 11 and 12 students.
Science and Technology professions have become less attractive to Korean students.
The university entrance system changed. Students don’t need to take exams on science although they will continue their studies in areas related to science in university.
18
Students’ Perceptions of the Importance of Doing
Well in Science, Reading and Mathematics
50
60
70
80
90
100
Thailand
Jord
an
Colo
mbia
Kyrg
yzsta
n
Tunis
ia
Indonesia
Chile
Mexic
o
Bra
zil
Azerb
aijan
Arg
entina
Lithuania
United K
ingdom
Canada
Uru
guay
Port
ugal
Qata
r
Bulg
ari
a
United S
tate
s
Esto
nia
Italy
Turk
ey
Macao-C
hin
a
Rom
ania
Chin
ese T
aip
ei
Norw
ay
Pola
nd
Monte
negro
Germ
any
New
Zeala
nd
Russia
n F
edera
tion
Kore
a
Irela
nd
Gre
ece
Spain
Sw
eden
Neth
erl
ands
Austr
alia
Slo
venia
Hong K
ong-C
hin
a
Latv
ia
Denm
ark
Isra
el
Icela
nd
Japan
Luxem
bourg
Hungary
Austr
ia
Serb
ia
Lie
chte
nste
in
Belg
ium
Fra
nce
Cro
atia
Sw
itzerl
and
Fin
land
Slo
vak R
epublic
Czech R
epublic
Science Reading Mathematics
Source: OECD(2006) PISA 2006 volume 1 Figure 3.11
19
Why is Achievement in Reading
Improving?
The new national curriculum put more
emphasis on critical and creative thinking skills
through reading and writing.
Reading assessment more focused on thinking
ability.
The university entrance system changed. Essay
test that assesses both writing skills and logical
thinking abilities introduced.
20
Attitudes Toward Each Domain
Attitudes toward each domain are
relatively low.
21
General Interest in Science
0 20 40 60 80
What is required for scientificexplanations
Topics in geology
Ways scientists design experiments
The biology of plants
Topics in physics
Topics in chemistry
Topics in astronomy
Human biology
OECD average
Korea
Spain
Source: OECD(2006) PISA 2006 volume 1 Figure 3.8
22
Enjoyment of Science
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
I am happy doing scienceproblems.
I like reading about science.
I am interested in learning aboutscience.
I generally have fun when I amlearning science topics.
I enjoy acquiring new knowledgein science.
OECD average
Korea
Spain
Source: OECD(2006) PISA 2006 volume 1 Figure 3.10
23
Self-concept in Science
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
School science topics are easy for me.
Learning advanced school sciencetopics would be easy for me.
I can easily understand new ideas inschool science.
I learn school science topics quickly.
When I am being taught school science,I can understand the concepts very well.
I can usually give good answers to testquestions on school science topics.
OECD average
Spain
Korea
Source: OECD(2006) PISA 2006 volume 1 Figure 3.7
24
GermanyHungary
Czech RepublicSwitzerland
Luxembourg
Denmark
PortugalGreece
Poland
Mexico
Italy
United Kingdom
Belgium
United StatesFrance
AustraliaNew Zealand
AustriaNorway
IrelandCanada
Sweden
Finland
Iceland
KoreaJapan
Spain
420
440
460
480
500
520
540
560
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25
Equity in Reading Literacy (PISA
2000)
Social equity
Read
ing
lite
racy
High qualityLow equity
High qualityHigh equity
Low qualityLow equity
Low qualityHigh equity
Source: OECD(2001) Knowledge and skills for life, Table 2.3a
25
United States
Turkey
Switzerland
Sweden
Spain
Slovak Republic
Portugal
PolandNorway
New Zealand
Netherlands
Mexico
Luxembourg
KoreaJapan
Italy
Ireland
Iceland
Hungary
Greece
GermanyFrance
Finland
DenmarkCzech Republic
CanadaBelgium
Austria
Australia
375
400
425
450
475
500
525
550
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15
Equity in Mathematics Literacy (PISA 2003)
Social equity
Mat
hem
atic
s lite
racy
High qualityLow equity
High qualityHigh equity
Low qualityLow equity
Low qualityHigh equity
Source: OECD(2004) Learning for tomorrow’s world, Table 4.3a
26
Equity in Science Literacy (PISA
2006)
Sweden
Portugal
Bulgaria
Czech Republic
Japan
Hong Kong-China
Montenegro
Greece
Chinese Taipei
Thailand
Azerbaijan
Estonia
UruguayChile
Indonesia
Spain
Brazil
Romania
Argentina
Russian Federation
Liechtenstein
Belgium
Lithuania
Austria
Canada
Latv ia
New Zealand
Mexico
Jordan
Croatia
Ireland
Colombia
United Kingdom
Australia
United States
Finland
Iceland
Tunisia
Israel
Ky rgy zstan
Norway
Slov enia
HungaryMacao-China
Poland
Turkey
Netherlands
Serbia
Italy
Luxembourg
Denmark
Slov ak Republic
Korea
France
Switzerland
Germany
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
0102030
OECD mean
Source: OECD(2006) PISA 2006 Volume 1, figure 4.10
High qualityLow equity
High qualityHigh equity
Low qualityLow equity
Low qualityHigh equity
Social equity
27
The CBAS Results for Korea
28
Implementation of CBAS
Aims: to add value to science assessment and to implement computer-based assessment in an international setting.
Participating countries: Korea, Denmark, Iceland
When : June 2006
The number of Korean schools participated: 79
The number of Korean students participated: About 1500 (20 students per school)
Testing Period: 1-hour
29
Characteristics of CBAS Items
Adding value to science assessment
allowing assessment of aspects of science not available in
paper and pencil test
providing real life contexts by using simulations and videos
Production of items consistent with the conceptual
framework for PISA 2006
Reducing reading load in order to reduce influence of
reading ability
Minimising ICT skills requirement in CBAS
30
Gender Differences by Region
CBAS Means by Gender
486492
488 489
509
538
482
515
450
460
470
480
490
500
510
520
530
540
550
Metropolitan Urban Rural Total
Region
Mean s
core
Female
Male
Paper and Pencil Test Means by Gender
503506
490
500497
520
466
494
430
440
450
460
470
480
490
500
510
520
530
Metropolitan Urban Rural Total
Region
Mean s
core
Female
Male
31
Enjoyment of CBAS & P.P Test
1,36,6
31,0
16,7
44,4
3,35,7
26,5
18,8
45,7
0
10
20
30
40
50
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree No response
(%)Enjoyment of Computer Based Assessment
girlboy
7,5
27,9
16,6
3,6
44,4
11,1
24,0
14,9
4,3
45,7
0
10
20
30
40
50
Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree No response
(%)Enjoyment of Paper and Pencil Test
girlboy
32
What do the PISA Results Mean for the
Korean Education?
The PISA results provided an opportunity:
To restore public trust in public education
to identify the strengths and weakness of the Korean educational
system
to re-confirm the necessity of efforts to maintain and develop
students’ high achievement during their university studies and into
their adulthood
33
The Korean Education System
34
Population that Has Attained at Least
Tertiary Education (2006)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Rus
sian
Fed
erat
ion
1
Can
ada
Japa
n
Kor
ea
Isra
el
New
Zea
land
Irela
nd
Bel
gium
Nor
way
Fran
ce
Den
mar
k
Uni
ted
Sta
tes
Spa
in
Sw
eden
Aus
tralia
Finl
and
Uni
ted
Kin
gdom
Net
herla
nds
Luxe
mbo
urg
Est
onia
Sw
itzer
land
Icel
and
Pol
and
Gre
ece
Slo
veni
a
Ger
man
y
Hun
gary
Por
tuga
l
Aus
tria
Mex
ico
Chi
le 2
Italy
Slo
vak
Rep
ublic
Cze
ch R
epub
lic
Turk
ey
Bra
zil 2
25-to-34-year-olds 55-to-64-year-olds
1. Year of reference 2002; 2. Year of reference 2004
Source: OECD(2008) Education at a glance Chart A1.2
35
History of Education In Korea
4th C – 1910: Traditional Confucianism
1910 – 1945: Japanese Occupation
1945 - 1950s: Expansion of Democratic Education
1940s: Established a modern education system (single track system
6-3-3-4)
1950s: Introduced compulsory education (Elementary education)
1960s - 1970s Quantitative Expansion
1968 : Abolition of Entrance Exam to Middle School
1974: High School Equalization Policy
1980s: Qualitative Development
1980: July 30 Educational Reform
1990s – present: Human education in preparation for future society
1995: Education Reform
2008: New challenges
36
Expenditure on Educational Institutions
as a Percentage of GDP (2005)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
Icel
and
New
Zea
land
Uni
ted
King
dom
Isra
el
Den
mar
k
Switz
erla
nd1
Mex
ico
Kore
a
Slov
enia
Swed
en
Aust
ralia
Belg
ium
Fran
ce
Finl
and
Uni
ted
Stat
es
Portu
gal
Pola
nd
Aust
ria
Can
ada2
Esto
nia
Hun
gary
Irela
nd
Chi
le3
Ger
man
y
Net
herla
nds
Italy
Cze
ch R
epub
lic
Spai
n
Slov
ak R
epub
lic
Japa
n
Gre
ece
Nor
way
1
Luxe
mbo
urg1
Braz
il1
Rus
sian
Fed
erat
ion1
Primary, secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education% of GDP
Public expenditure on educational institutions Private expenditure on educational institutions
OECD average
Source: OECD(2008) Education at a glance Chart B2.2
37
Ministry of Education, Science & Technology (MEST)
Metropolitan & Provincial Offices(Metropolitan: 7, Provincial: 9)
Regional Offices (180)
Schools (More than 10,000 schools)
Structure of Educational Administration
38
School Ladder System
399
Number of Schools by Type (2006)
Kindergarten 8,275
Primary School 5,647
Middle School 2,947
General High School 1, 382
Vocational High School 713
Special School 142
Junior College 161
University – undergraduate 224
Total 19,586
Source: MEST(2008)
40
Average Class Size in Educational
Institutions, by Level of Education (2006)
0
10
20
30
40
Kore
a
Japa
n
Israe
l
Braz
il
Chile
Mex
ico
Germ
any
Pola
nd
Spai
n
Unite
dFr
ance
Aust
ralia
Aust
ria
Czec
h
Esto
nia
Slov
ak
Port
ugal
Unite
d
Gree
ceHu
ngar
y
Italy
Slov
enia
Denm
ark
Irela
nd1
Luxe
mbo
urg
Icel
and
Switz
erla
nd
Russ
ian
Turk
ey
Number of students
per classroom
Primary education Lower secondary education
1. Public institutions only
Source: OECD(2008) Education at a glance Chart D2.2
41
National Curriculum
The national curriculum has been revised regularly in
accordance with a five- to ten-year cycle.
The national curriculum sets strict regulations for the
number of school days, the subjects to be taught for
each school year, and the time allocation for each
subject in each school year.
But there is some room for modification by local
education authorities and schools.
The national curriculum provides criteria for the
development of textbooks and general guidelines for
teaching-learning activities and methods of assessment
42
Korean National Curriculum Revision
Revision Proclamation Year Features
1st National Curriculum 1955Curriculum centered
around school education
2nd National Curriculum 1963 Experiential curriculum
3rd National Curriculum 1973Curriculum focused on
academic enrichment
4th National Curriculum 1981 discipline-centered
5th National Curriculum 1987 Student-centered
6th National Curriculum 1992 Student-centered
7th National Curriculum 1997 Student-centered
2007 National Curriculum 2007 Student-centered
Change of Curricular Choice
National Local School Student
1998 42% 52% 6% 0%
2002 26% 20% 20% 20~50%
43
Teacher Education Programs
Elementary School TeacherSecondary School Science
Teacher
Institution
11 university of education
1 national university of
education
1 Private university
College of education
Teacher training courses at
ordinary universities
Graduate school of
education
Credit
requirements
Minimum 140 credits
(30-44 credits in liberal arts,
12-20 in pedagogy, 43-63 in
subject education, 3-5 in
teaching practicum, 6-16 in
Arts and PE practices, 15-30
in advanced courses)
College of education: 130-
150 credits (20% in liberal
arts, 60% in major subjects,
20% in elective subjects)
Teacher training courses: 30
credits (9 education general
and 3 teaching practicum)
Teacher’s
qualification
examination
Conducted by metropolitan/provincial offices of education
1st exam: a written test on both pedagogy and special
areas
2nd exam: essay writing,
3rd exam: practical test, interview
44
Professional Development Programs
Type Purpose Organizer Period
Certificate
training
programs
To promote (Grade II
teachers → Grade 1
teachers)
Metropolitan/
Provincial Office of
Education
180 hours
Professional job
training
To improve teachers’
effectiveness and
their ability to teach
subjects
District office of
education, science
institutions,
science center,
academic society
15, 30, 60
Hours
Overseas in-
service training
To improve
international
understanding and
professionalism
Metropolitan/
Provincial Office of
Education
2 – 4 weeks
Special training To improve teacher
professionalism
Domestic or foreign
training centers
designated by the
Ministry of Education
Up to 2 years
45
Number of Teaching Hours per Year,
by Level of Education (2006)
Hours per year
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
Unite
d S
tate
s
Mexic
o
New
Zeala
nd
Russia
n F
edera
tion
Scotla
nd
Chile
Austr
alia
Bra
zil
Isra
el
Germ
any
Port
ugal
Neth
erlands
Irela
nd
Spain
Slo
venia
Belg
ium
(F
l.)
Icela
nd
Belg
ium
(F
r.)
Norw
ay
Denm
ark
Luxem
bourg
Czech R
epublic
Fra
nce
Esto
nia
Austr
ia
Italy
Fin
land
Gre
ece
Hungary
Kore
a
Turk
ey
Lower secondary education
Primary education
Upper secondary education, general programmes
Source: OECD(2008) Education at a glance Chart D4.2
46
Teachers' Salaries in Lower Secondary
Education (2006)
Equivalent USD converted using PPPs
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
100,000
Luxe
mbo
urg
Sw
itzer
land
Kor
ea
Ger
man
y
Japa
n
Irel
and
Sco
tland
Net
herla
nds
Aus
tral
ia
Spa
in
Eng
land
Uni
ted
Sta
tes
Bel
gium
(F
l.)
Den
mar
k
Aus
tria
Bel
gium
(F
r.)
Fin
land
New
Zea
land
Nor
way
Fra
nce
Por
tuga
l
Gre
ece
Italy
Sw
eden
Slo
veni
a
Icel
and
Cze
ch R
epub
lic
Mex
ico
Isra
el
Hun
gary
Chi
le
Est
onia
Salary after 15 years of experience/ minimum training
Source: OECD(2008) Education at a glance Chart D3.1
47
National Assessment of Educational
AchievementPurpose:
To diagnose the educational achievements and the trends of the achievements
To provide basic information to improve the curriculum and to check the problems of the curriculum implementation
Yearly survey
Subjects: Korean, Social Studies, Science, Mathematics, English
Grade: 6th, 9th, 10th
Sampling: 3-5% students
Test results: Provides students with their scores and achievement levels
Publish reports at the national level
48
Characteristics of Korean Education
Rapid Expansion in all Levels of Schooling
Efficiency in policy implementation
High Equity in education
Zeal for education
49
Problems & Issues of Korean Education
Extreme Competition for College Entrance
Low confidence in school education
High private expenditure for tutoring
Over-centralized educational administration
Lack of diversity
Debate between Excellence and Equity
50
Current Reform Initiatives
32
51
Current Reform Initiatives (I)
1. Autonomy & Accountability
Disclose School Information : School administration system and
policy, budgeting and planning process
Autonomy of Local Education Offices and Schools
Central Government plays a minimum role in establishing standard for
the education system and narrowing educational gap
Provide national education policy through consultations with local
education offices
Transparent Education Administration
Source: MEST(2008)
52
Current Reform Initiatives (II)
2. High School Education Reform – 300 Project
Designate 100 private schools by 2011 with autonomy in school administration
Start with schools in rural areas and small towns in 2008
150 Public Boarding Schools
Select schools in rural areas to become public boarding schools:
88 in 2008 -> 150 in 2011
100 Autonomous Private Schools
Source: MEST(2008)
50 Professional “Meister” SchoolsDesignate 50 specialized vocational schools to meet the needs of
industry: 20 in 2008 -> 50 in 2011
53
Current Reform Initiatives (III)
3. Primary and Secondary Education
Support and Stimulate Low-Performance Students
Analyze cause of low-performance and strengthen support to narrow the educational gap
Identify best practices of guiding low-performance student and provide incentives to best teachers
Provide tutoring and counseling to low-performance students
Source: MEST(2008)
54
Thank you