Education Story

Korean education has long been described by the phrase "entrance exam competition." However, the problems occurring in schools today are not about competition. Currently, in Korean society, teachers are exhausted, students are unhappy, and parents are anxious. Education is no longer a space for growth trusted by the entire community, but is transforming into a tense structure where everyone monitors and defends against each other. In this situation, the upcoming superintendent of education election is not just a local administrative election, but a critical turning point that will determine the very direction of Korean education.

The current reality for teachers is very serious. The fact that more than half of teachers surveyed by the Korean Teachers' Union Federation responded that they considered resigning or changing jobs is not just a matter of job dissatisfaction. Teachers feel that their educational activities are being stifled by malicious complaints and conflicts over student guidance. While in the past, the issue of abuse of teacher authority was serious, today, conversely, an atmosphere has formed where even teachers' legitimate guidance and educational judgments are easily attacked. In a situation where teachers face complaints when guiding students and have to worry about legal conflicts with parents, they increasingly adopt a passive, defensive stance.

The problem is that even though teachers' authority has collapsed, students haven't become happier. On the contrary, adolescent depression and stress continue to increase. In particular, the fact that mental health indicators temporarily improved during the COVID-19 period when students were not attending school shows how much Korean education operates as a strong pressure structure for students. This means that school is perceived not as a place of learning, but as a place where competition, control, ranking, and comparison are concentrated.

Why did students feel happier when they didn't go to school? This is not a matter of "hating school." Korean schools have failed to sufficiently respect the diversity of individual students within an overly uniform discipline and grade-centric structure. Many students feel evaluated and monitored at school rather than expressing themselves. Friendships also become unstable when combined with a competitive structure, and the pressure to fail becomes increasingly severe. Students become beings who cannot rest, are constantly compared, and must continuously prepare for the future.

However, that does not mean that dismantling all school authority is the right answer. In fact, in schools where teacher authority has collapsed, student human rights are often not adequately protected. When teachers lose authority, the classroom eventually degenerates from an educational space into a space of power struggles. When guidance becomes impossible and responsible adults disappear from the classroom, it is ordinary students who suffer the most. The phenomenon of the entire classroom being swayed by some aggressive behaviors or group dynamics also arises in this context.

Therefore, true restoration of teacher authority is not a return to the authoritarian era of the past. In the past, Korean schools had corporal punishment and coercive control, and students' individuality and human rights were not fully respected. Today, the restoration of teacher authority should not be about regaining the right to suppress students, but rather about restoring public authority and social trust to fulfill educational responsibilities. Teachers are not administrative laborers but educational professionals, and they must be recognized with a certain level of professionalism and discretion in classroom management and student guidance.

However, there is a point here where the Korean teaching community must also reflect soberly. This is the question of whether our teachers are demonstrating sufficient professionalism and self-innovation to demand the restoration of teaching authority now. Some teachers still largely adhere to old-fashioned rote learning and authoritarian attitudes, and they sometimes show a lack of understanding of individual student characteristics and psychological changes. Furthermore, there is criticism that they are passive in educational innovation within an overly stability-oriented culture and a bureaucratized school structure.

Of course, this is not solely the responsibility of individual teachers. The Korean education system itself ties teachers down with excessive administrative tasks and an entrance examination management system. The quality of education cannot improve in a structure where teachers spend more time on official document processing and civil complaints than on educational research and student counseling. Ultimately, the restoration of teaching authority cannot be solved solely by strengthening laws and punishments. It requires the simultaneous strengthening of teacher professionalism, reduction of administrative burdens, restoration of trust with parents, and expansion of student psychological support systems.

At this point, the importance of the superintendent of education election grows. The superintendent is not the head of school administration. It is a position that designs the regional educational philosophy and direction. Some superintendents may emphasize easing competition for college admissions, while others may prioritize restoring basic academic skills and student guidance. Still others may consider balancing student rights with strengthening teacher authority. Educational policies are difficult to show results in the short term, so a long-term philosophy and consistency are even more important.

This is also why the Finnish case is often mentioned. Finland's educational reform did not succeed with just a few good policies. It was the result of decades of consistent national direction, strengthening teacher professionalism, and building social trust. Teachers were respected, and at the same time, demanded a high level of professionalism. Students learned in a growth-oriented education system rather than one focused on competition. Ultimately, this shows that education is an area that can only be achieved when the culture and philosophy of society as a whole change together.

Korean education also needs a change of direction now. The system that unconditionally pushes students towards grades and universities, as in the past, has reached its limit, and conversely, the method of dismantling all authority and discipline is also proving to be a failure. What is needed in the future is neither 'freedom without control' nor 'authoritarian return'. It is a balanced school where students' human rights and teachers' authority are respected simultaneously.

To achieve this, the tasks that need to be improved are clear. First, the entrance exam-oriented education structure must be eased. Second, teachers must be guaranteed practical educational autonomy and the authority to guide student life. Third, the parent complaint system must be rationally adjusted to strengthen teacher protection mechanisms. Fourth, student mental health support and counseling systems must be significantly expanded. Fifth, teacher training and retraining systems must also be innovated to meet the changing times.

Schools are not factories for producing test scores. They should be spaces where students learn about society, learn about relationships, and come to understand themselves. And teachers should not be administrators who control problems, but rather experts who co-design the direction of growth. The crisis facing Korean education today is not a matter of declining teaching authority or fierce college entrance competition. It is a crisis of philosophy regarding what kind of human beings our society wants to raise in future generations. Discussions on education policy, including superintendent elections, must restart from that very question.