Korean Education: Where Efficiency is the Greatest Inefficiency

    Victor Hugo is a world-renowned playwright and a novelist, whose works include the famous and influential novel Les Miserables. Yet not many people recognize his efforts as a social activist who emphatically addressed the urgency of a reform in education of the nineteenth century France and remarked “He, who opens a school door, closes a prison.” His words and endeavors, as well as those of his colleagues, seem to have been not in vain, for a majority of students receive education in one form or another. As an evidence, for instance, the world’s illiteracy rate been halved in 2005 since it was measured in 1970. While the problems that Mr. Hugo faced certainly seem to have been alleviated, the world faces yet another set of dilemmas: inefficiency and inequality in the learning of students. Such perplexities seem to be dominantly observed in South Korea, where one can trace the problems to be in two sources, which are government’s pursuit of budget efficiency and misunderstood connotation of efficiency in the information input.

     The issue of pursuit of budget efficiency shows its outright inefficiency and inadequacy in the recent situations in Korea. The world of education has been, in a number of cases, exerted much effort to expand the quantity of education, so that more students would be able to accommodate learning. What it did not direct much focus upon was increasing the quality of education. While the “problem of quantity” seems to have diminished at least in the wealthier nations such as Korea, the governments are making minimal effort in tackling the quality issue, presumably enforcing the thought that such an issue is not negotiable. The education reformers of such countries have constantly pecked on the issue of increasing educational quality by taking measures like increasing the diversity of courses provided. Yet, the issue has been hardened like a rock thanks to the negligent attitude of the governments. In Korea, specifically, the public education has even cut its budget, making parents more dependent upon private academies than public schools for the learning of their children(1). The reason why the blind attempt to simply keep the budget efficient and to provide little available courses is inefficient for the students’ learning can be sighted in Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences(2). A well-accepted psychological theory about human intelligence, this theory argues that there exists different types of intelligence and thus, students cannot be standardized like products from a factory. Sir Ken Robinson, an expert in education reform, also has commented, “[The education system of nowadays] focuses the head, slightly to one side.” This suggests, lucidly, that the spectrum of education that has been provided for the students is not extensive enough(3). Korean education system, in spite of all the criticisms, is still obstinate on focusing to supply the students with uniform learning experience for all students. Thus, it may be appropriate to say that efficiency is the greatest inefficiency in educational sector.

[Sir Ken Robinson on TED Talks]

The issue of inefficiency and insufficiency in education has been aroused by not only the pursuit of budget efficiency but also the misinterpreted meaning of efficiency in information input. In not only the world of education, but also the modern world in general, the word “efficient” has been a constantly irritating false synonym for “fast.” Korea, which has unfortunately achieved the feigned reputation as an education guru in the modern world, has been especially placing emphasis of great amount of input in a shorter period of time. Yet it can be seen from the comparison of Korean and Finnish education systems that there is more to understanding of the students other than the input itself. In a short documentary made by BBC, the two systems are contrasted. The documentary shows that the Korean model focuses on the efficiency of information input and the implementation of a hierarchical relationship amongst students to endorse competition. On the other hand, the Finnish system places more weight upon its policy of “no child left behind” and instilling a less formal sense of cooperation amongst students and teachers as well. On the façade, it may seem that the Korean education system is more effective due to the expressed ardor for the students’ extensive learning. However, the statistics have shown that the Finnish system managed to prevail in a standardized test to measure students’ level of knowledge(4). Such a result is definitely another evidence for the statement asserting that an efficiency in one sector leads to a greater inefficiency in another.

[Finnish education success]

[Korean education - where it is headed]

It is hard to grasp a firm solution to this problem of Korean education. In a situation where the educators and education policy makers have to consider the efficient use of monetary and human resources provided to the sector, it is hard to come up with a "panacea policy" to get rid of all the troubles. Yet an attentive investigator will be able to find that the current Korean education policy, despite the policy makers' claim that they are running an efficient system, is not fully economically proficient either. This is because the monetary resources are not being allocated into right places. In Korea, such inadequate allotment of budget has often been much related to the internal corruption of bureaucracies. In February, 2010, even the president of Korea, Myung-bak Lee, addressed the issue of corruption in the educational sector with utmost urgency(5). He remarked, "It will be a great obstacle for the advancement into future if we do not take care of the corruptions in many parts of educational sector." Since 2010, however, there seems to be little significance in the termination of such wrongdoings. 

[President Myung-bak Lee of Republic of Korea]

Yet a perfect example for the extinguishing of this educational corruption can be seen in Waiting for Superman, an award-winning documentary analyzing the failures of American education which continue to thrive despite the years of attempts to reform. A part of this movie shows the former chancellor of the District of Columbia Public Schools System, Michelle Rhee, finding and raking the "mucks" of the predecessors. By destroying corruption that her former counterparts had engendered, Rhee was able to succeed, to a certain degree, in making the system more efficient and fit for new changes(6). This particular achievement illustrates that mobilization towards a greater efficiency is needed, not by cutting down the current budget but by finding out the puncture that causes the "leak" of scarce monetary resources. 


The aforementioned examples map the road to make the Korean education system truly efficient, not just superficially. In this complicated world where efficiency is the greatest inefficiency, no change may come without trial and error. Despite the conservative dissidents' claim that reform will bring a great damage, the sustainment of current situations will only aggravate the problems. The problems are more than noticeable, frantically waiving their hands to be recognized. They have to be removed, for the future generation should not  suffer from same obstructions. Victor Hugo and his fellow reformers sought to deliver public education to the French students of the nineteenth century - and eventually succeeded. Likewise, there is hope that their modern counterparts of Korea will also succeed in solving this great paradox inefficiency of efficiency.

Sources

1. http://www.sisainlive.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=6680
2. Dongkyung's blog - Theory of Multiple Intelligence
3. Mr. Garrioch's blog - TED Conference Video Clip - Sir Ken Robinson
4. Seewan's blog - video clips of Finland vs. Korea
5. http://www2.enewstoday.co.kr/sub_read.html?uid=229025&section=
6. In-class: Waiting for Superman

The World of Education: Where Efficiency is Inefficiency

     Victor Hugo, a world-renowned playwright and novelist whose works include the famous and influential novel Les Miserables, remarked an emphatic quote to address the urgency of an education reform in the nineteenth-century France: “He, who opens a school door, closes a prison.” Thanks to the attentive and active reformers of the past, a number of problems of education seem to have been, to a certain degree, alleviated. World’s illiteracy, for instance, has been halved just in the time period of between 1970 and 2005. It seems that the educational system is finally covering more of the society’s prospective learners. Yet it is not to remark all problems have been vanquished. If Mr. Hugo was revived in today’s world, he would definitely be drawing an immense exclamation mark upon the issue of the inequality in the level of education and would comment, “He, who opens a door of a “good school,” closes a prison.”

     One may ask, then, why such a problem of inequality exists in the modern world. He or she may further pursue to find why the educational goals have deviated from those aspiring educators of the past had set. While finding specific details for this question may be difficult, the general answer to such inquiry is, rather, simple: governments’ pursuit of “budget efficiency.” The world of education has been, in a majority of situations, trying to expand the quantity of education, so that more students can accommodate learning, rather than increasing the quality of it. Yet, the “problem of quantity” seems to have been diminished at least in the wealthier nations. In such countries, education reformers are constantly pecking on the issue of increasing the quality and diversity of education provided; this issue has been hardened like a rock thanks to the constant ignorance of governments. According to Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences, a well-accepted psychological theory about human intelligence, there are different types of intelligence and thus students cannot be standardized like products from a factory¹. Sir Kenneth Robinson, an expert in education reform, also has commented, “(The education system of nowadays) focuses the head, slightly to one side,” meaning what the world provides for the students is not extensive enough². The education administration, rather, focuses on giving uniform learning experience for all students. It seems, thus, that it is appropriate to say that in the world of education, efficiency is the greatest inefficiency that people face.

     The issue of focus on efficiency does not seem to lie only on the issue of budgets, but also that of the information input. In not only the world of education but also the modern world in general, the word “efficient” has been a constantly irritating false synonym for “fast.” Thus, those countries that were regarded as education gurus in the modern world were often associated with the great amount of input in a shorter period of time. Yet the basis of this concept seems to be paradoxical itself, for more input does not mean more understanding; rather, more input means more time required for the thorough comprehension. As such, the efficiency of students’ learning seems to be inversely related with that of information input. A proof can be found by comparing and contrasting two different educational systems, the Korean one and the Finnish one. In a short documentary made in a Korean broadcasting company, EBS, the two systems are differed in a way where in which Korean one focuses the efficiency of information input, as well as implementing a hierarchical relationship amongst students through competition and the Finnish one focuses on “no child left behind” and a sense of cooperation. Despite the Korean system’s educational ardor on its façade, the Finnish system managed to prevail in a standardized test to measure students’ level of knowledge³. Such a result is definitely another evidence for the statement for an efficiency leading to a greater inefficiency.

     The solution to this educational crisis seems to be hard to grasp. This is because one cannot deny that there is a certain need for the efficient use of monetary and human resources provided in the educational sector which are limited to certain amounts. Yet one should detect the fact that the current system is, not at all, fully efficient. What is significantly important is the allocation of such resources into right places. For instance, the budget for education is, many times, related to the internal corruption of bureaucracies, and if one can unearth such filthy yet serious truths, a lot of monetary resources will be correctly relocated. This is significantly shown in the documentary Waiting for Superman, an award-winning documentary analyzing the failures of American education which continue to thrive even after the years of attempts to reform. A part of this movie shows the former chancellor of the District of Columbia Public Schools system, Michelle Rhee, finding out the “muck” of her predecessors and by destroying the corruption, making an effort to make the system closer to a status of efficiency⁴. As this example illustrates, mobilization towards a greater efficiency is needed, not by decreasing the budget for the current system but by finding out where the “leak” is. Furthermore, as the aforementioned examples such as theory of multiple intelligences and Korea-Finland comparisons indicate, there is a need to increasing the efficiency for students, not only the budget-wise efficiencies.

     In this complicated world where efficiency is inefficiency, one could rather remark that there is no other trustworthy solution other than trial and error. Often, some conservative dissidents of reform may remark that by changing the system as a whole, a greater damage will be received by it. Yet the problems are clear as if they are desperately waiving their hands to be noticed. Such problems have to be removed, for the future generation should not suffer from the same obstructions. Just as Victor Hugo and his contemporaries strived to deliver public education to the French students of the nineteenth century and eventually succeeded, there is no guarantee that their modern counterparts will fail in solving this paradoxical inefficiencies of efficiencies.

Sources

1: Dongkyung’s Blog: Theory of Multiple Intelligence

2: Mr. Garrioch’s Blog: TED Conference Video Clip – Sir Kenneth Robinson

3: Kyuhong’s Blog: EBS Clip – Finnish Education

4: In-class: Waiting for Superman