ED/GEMR/MRT/2017/C1/1

Country case study prepared for the 2017/8 Global Education Monitoring Report

Accountability in education: Meeting our commitments

The State of Accountability in the

Education Sector of Republic of Korea
This paper was commissioned by the Global Education Monitoring Report as background information
to assist in drafting the 2017/8 GEM Report, Accountability in education: Meeting our commitments.
It has not been edited by the team. The views and opinions expressed in this paper are those of the
author(s) and should not be attributed to the Global Education Monitoring Report or to UNESCO. The
papers can be cited with the following reference: “Paper commissioned for the 2017/8 Global
Education Monitoring Report, Accountability in education: Meeting our commitments”. For further
information, please contact gemreport@unesco.org.

Pearl J Chung 2017

1. Defining accountability

In the Republic of Korea (hereafter, Korea), the term “accountability” is called “chaek-moo-sung,” in which the
root word “chaek-moo” has the meaning of duty, requirement, and/or responsibility. Most commonly, it is an
obligation that an individual is entitled or commanded to carry out. In the education sector, accountability is a
widely used term for answerability and/or controllability (Park, 2013); entitling and/or commanding an individual
to report, explain and justify certain issues (Shin & Kim, 2014). In educational policy, debates around
accountability often involve quality and effectiveness of education that 1) emphasize the desired outcomes of
education and 2) request duties and/or responsibilities to educational personnel working in diverse fields of
education, beyond individuals in schools (Lee, 2010).

1. Introduction and country profile

The first Korean provisional government was established in the 1910s; however, Korea underwent the Japanese
colonial rule until the 1940s, and entered into a civil war that lasted three years from 1950 to 1953. The civil war,
which occurred in part due to ideological differences between the North and the South, ultimately affected the
division of the two Koreas (Martin et al., 2014). Since the 1950s, Korea has rapidly developed into one of the
world’s largest economies, in which Korea’s per capita income increased from 69 US dollars in 1955 to 28,000 US
dollars in 2014 (Ministry of Education & KEDI, 2015); furthermore, it became a donor country from an aid-
recipient country in the 1990s (Korea Official Development Assistance, 2012).

In terms of political process, it was not until 1987 that Korea transitioned to democracy under the democratic
Sixth Republic (Park & Bae, 2008); for the first time, Koreans democratically voted for President and the
Constitution was revised to guarantee the freedom and right of people, equal opportunities in all sectors (e.g.,
politics, economy, society, and culture), and a welfare state. Prior to this transition, Korea was led by
authoritarian regimes, and “political institutions and practices were characterized by limited public contestation
of power, executive domination over the legislature and the judiciary, control of mass media, curtailment of civil
and political rights, and little protection of social rights” (Park & Baek, 2008, p. 2).

The Korean government has three branches system; executive, legislative, and judiciary branch. The president,
who is elected through a direct election for one five-year term, leads the executive branch. The President
appoints a Prime Minister, in which they serve as the Chair and Vice Chair of the Cabinet of 15 to 30 members.
The President also has responsibilities as the 1) head of Government, 2) head of State, 3) commander in Chief of
the military, and 4) chairman of the State Council. The Judiciary branch is composed of six types of courts
including Supreme Court, municipal courts, district courts, family courts, administrative courts, and the patent
courts. The Courts have “the power to judge all legal disputes unless otherwise provided by the Constitution”
(Supreme Court of Korea, 2012). The legislative branch makes laws, approves the annual budget, makes decisions
regarding foreign relations, and so forth. The National Assembly is composed of 299 members.

Education System: In Korea, the central education authority has a major role in the decision-making process of
educational policies, and sets standards for primary, elementary, and secondary education. Ministries and
affiliated research institutes such as KEDI (Korean Education Development Institute), KICE (Korea Institute of
Curriculum and Evaluation), NILL (National Institute for Lifelong Learning, Ministry of Finance, and Ministry of
Labour work collaboratively. At the municipal level, Metropolitan and Provincial offices of education and local
offices of education manage budgets and school facilities in the local area, and it consists of “a municipal council

2
as the legislative institution, and governors and a Superintendent of Education as the administrative institution”
(OECD, 2016, p. 14).

Korea traditionally had “a centrally controlled system of educational administration connecting a municipal and
provincial educational office, a local educational office, and schools vertically and hierarchically, with the central
government as the center” (Lauver et al., 2013, p. 11). However, Korea began to grant more autonomy to local
offices of education and schools in the 1990s, as it underwent a process of democratization of educational
administration (Seth, 2002). In particular, Korea introduced the autonomous local educational system, the Local
Educational Autonomy Act, and school autonomy policy in the late 1990s and early 2000s to decentralize and
liberalize the education system (Lauver et al., 2013).

In line with this Act, Korea has endeavored to move away from the conventional goal of unity, supporting the
development of a distinctive, localized curriculum that meets the need of the community and/or school. The
Ministry of Education has also decentralized decision-making process with regard to the implementation and
organization of the national curriculum through role distribution among the central education authority,
Metropolitan and Provincial offices of education, local offices of education, and individual schools (Ministry of
Education & KICE, 2014). Thus, schools have been given more opportunities to incorporate extracurricular
activities, offering various learning opportunities that meet their needs.

On the other hand, there are opposite views. For instance, Kim (2014) indicates how the central education
authority has used the policy aim of “decentralizing education system” as a strategy not to empower schools but
to control them. This is because the central education authority, in reality, has promulgated policies without
having inputs from school members in the decision-making process; most often decisions were made by political
and bureaucratic hands. For instance, eliminating NAEA (NAEA: National Assessment of Educational
Achievement), changing the education theme, adopting the education agenda, and promoting policy initiatives
were primarily decided by the central education authority. In addition, there have been questions about the
meaning of autonomy in the Korean context since teachers, by law, are to follow the national curriculum
guideline and use centrally recognized and/or approved textbooks for teaching and learning. In other words,
there has been controversies around what it means to liberalize and/or decentralize education in a country with
a highly centralized education system.

How, if at all, has accountability emerged as an issue in education?: In the field of education, the notion of
accountability emerged in the mid-1990s as the Education Reform Proposal (ERP) of the Presidential Commission
on Education Reform (PCER) was adopted. It primarily addressed ways to “better prepare children for a
knowledge society, where knowledge will be critical for the prosperity of both individual and society” (Kim, 2002,
p.36). ERP aimed to: 1) increasing accountability measures, 2) implementing curriculum reforms to enhance the
quality of teaching and learning, and 3) extending educational opportunities for all students regardless of their
backgrounds.

Kim (2012) noted that the reform proposal introduced words commonly used in the economic field such as
autonomy, competition, consumer, and services for the first time in the education sector. The proposal also
accentuated educational outcome not only to improve the quality of education, but also to ultimately help
restore the nation's economy (Kim, 2002). Several factors affected the accountability movement, and it includes
the need for ‘transparency’ with regard to the educational outcomes as well as the influence of neoliberal and/or
market logic which was a dominant approach in the global context at the time. The following timeline provides
further information about the effects of accountability in education (Source: Chung & Hong, 2015):

1998-2007: the government conducted the first NAEA (NAEA: National Assessment of Educational Achievement)
in 2000, primarily to monitor and manage academic progress of a nationally representative sample of students

3
(3-5%) in grades six, nine, and eleven (Kim et al., 1998). The government interpreted NAEA scores, measured the
achievement gap among students from diverse backgrounds, and analyzed the annual changes in academic
achievement (Shin & Shin, 2010). Based on ERP, the central education authority also ensured personalized
learning, differentiated instructions, and tracking and/or ability grouping for the first time in schools (Kim et al.,
2013).

2008-2012: The accountability measure was dramatically increased since the inauguration of the Lee Myung-Bak
administration in 2008; concrete strategies were implemented to improve Korea’s educational competitiveness,
underscoring decentralization and deregulation through the ‘Zero plan for below-basic students’. In this context,
one of the noticeable shifts was extending the sample-based NAEA to a census-based NAEA, conducting NAEA
to all students in sixth, ninth, and eleventh grades. Subsequently, three major changes occurred under the
comprehensive reform initiative: (a) publically reporting school-level NAEA results (www.schoolinfo.go.kr) based
on proficiency levels (advanced, proficient, basic, and below-basic), (b) increasing accountability through rewards
and sanctions to improve the productivity of schools, (c) designating low-performing schools or schools with a
high number of students at the below-basic proficiency level on NAEA (Ministry of Education, 2012). At the
teacher level, rewards included incentives (e.g., additional points for promotion, higher salary, smaller classes,
reduced teaching time, etc.) to exemplary teachers selected by local offices of education (Kim et al., 2012), and
sanctions included writing a letter to the principal about causes of students’ low performance and/or future
plans.

Low-performing schools were screened based on a fixed percentage of students with below-basic proficiency
level (e.g., 5% in elementary school, 20% in middle and high school) on NAEA; they were named the Academic
Improvement schools, receiving up to 100,000 US dollars to implement supplementary educational services,
interventions, summer/winter schools, and assistant teachers for extra academic assistance (Ministry of
Education, 2009). The main purpose was to provide support for students with academic struggles with the
government fund, and reduce the number of students at the below-proficiency level. The Academic
Improvement schools were categorized into 1) newly designated schools (schools in their first year as Academic
Improvement school), 2) at-risk schools (school that did not make improvement in one year), 3) achieved schools
(schools that made improvement), 4) remaining schools (schools that did not make improvement for two
consecutive years), and 5) borderline schools (schools that are at the borderline of making improvement) (Kim
et al., 2012). However, in Korea, where parents have high interest for their children’s academic success, having
the name of Academic Improvement schools implied ‘incompetent’ or ‘bad’ schools. Thus, schools endeavored
to reduce the percentage of students with low performance.

Kim et al. (2012) indicated that exemplary schools that improved their academic performances were selected by
the local offices of education, and exemplary local offices of education were selected by the Ministry of Education
to benchmark their strategies, teaching and learning, methods, and so forth.

[Table 1] Incentives and sanctions at the school- and teacher-level

Level Incentives & Sanctions
School-level Incentives: selected as an exemplary school by the local offices of education
and/or the Ministry of Education
Sanctions: low-performing schools are labeled as Academic Improvement
schools, recognized as “incompetent” or “bad” schools by parents, Academic
Improvement are held accountable for the government fund to improve
students’ academic performances
Teacher-level Incentives: additional points for promotion, higher salary, smaller classes,
reduced teaching time

4
 Sanctions: writing a letter to the principal to explain causes of low performance,
punishment if teachers refuse to conduct NAEA
Source: Kim et al., 2012

According to the Ministry of Education and KICE (2014), the percentage of elementary students with below-basic
proficiency dropped from 2.3% in 2008 to 1.5% in 2010, and to 0.7% in 2012. The percentage of below-basic
proficiency middle and high school students also decreased by 5% (middle school) and by 7% (high school)
through comprehensive efforts of teachers, parents, and students (Chung & Hong, 2014). On the other hand,
there were a number of incidences where teachers took low-performing students on a field trip on the day of
NAEA to dismiss them from taking the test or illegally fixing students’ answers. In addition, there were negative
consequences such as watered down curriculum, teaching to the test, and cheating; some schools provided
morning and after-school supplementary classes to teach test-taking strategies specifically for NAEA (Kim et al.,
2012). Due to these negative consequences, some teachers refused to conduct NAEA; however, in response, the
central education authority used its legal power to penalize them (Chung & Chea, 2016).

2013-Present: In addition to the negative consequences from the NAEA, Korean students’ low happiness albeit
high achievement in international assessments became a critical issue (Martin et al., 2014). In response, the Park
Geun-Hye administration established a new education theme, “Education for happiness: nurturing students’
dreams and talents,” with an aim to alleviate academic stress and reduce the percentage of students
participating in shadow education (Ministry of Education, 2014). Based on the new theme, the government
eliminated NAEA at the elementary school level (Kim et al., 2013), implemented the free semester (i.e., an exam-
free semester where middle school students partake in diverse activities for one semester such as career
exploration activities, club activities, and volunteer services to explore their dreams and talents), revised the
2015 national curriculum guideline to include key competencies, and launched a holistic intervention for
students with academic struggles. Thus, Korea shifted its gear away from an outcomes-based accountability
system (Chung & Hong, 2015), striving to lessen test-related burden and providing more conducive learning
environment for students.

Education challenges: Korea is facing various challenges in education, which include the following (Source:
Ministry of Education & KEDI (2015))

Skills mismatch in the labor market: In secondary and higher education, the skills mismatch between industrial
sectors and higher education learning has escalated, becoming a critical problem as it affects low employability
of youths. Korea has endeavored to link industry and academy, launching apprenticeship-based vocational high
schools, university-industry cooperation, work-study dual program and so forth.

Low birth rate: Korea is faced with a steady decline of birth rate; in 2013, the birth rate was 1.3 children per
household, which was the second lowest in the world. There also has been a decline of school-age population
(ages 6-12), which may decrease from about 9.36 million school-age children in 2013 to about 8.16 million
children in 2018 and to 7.12 million children in 2030 (Ministry of Education & NIIE, 2015). In response, the central
education authority implemented the restructuring of universities, reducing the number of universities and
entrance quota based on strict evaluations.

High achievement, low happiness: As previously mentioned, nurturing students’ happiness is the main theme of
education. Indeed, the central education authority eliminated NAEA in elementary school, implemented the free-
semester in middle schools, and revised the 2015 national curriculum guideline to incorporate key competencies
(e.g., self-management competency, knowledge-information processing skill, creative thinking skill, aesthetic-
emotional competency, communication skill, and civic competency) for the first time. However, students’ low

5
happiness is still a problem due to a high percentage of students participating in private education along with
the prevalent academic factionalism, education zeal, and excessive competition.

Multicultural education: There has been an increase in the number of students from multicultural backgrounds
due to international marriages, foreign residents, and so forth. Indeed, the number of students from
multicultural families escalated from about 26,000 students in 2009 to about 56,000 in 2013, and Korea expects
to see an increase of about 6,000 bi-racial and/or bi-ethnic students per year. In order to meet the needs of
students from diverse backgrounds, the central education authority has attempted to promote SDG 4, including
GCED (Global Citizenship Education) and ESD (Education for Sustainable Development).

2. Actors and accountability:

Government in policy formulation process: In Korea, the procedure to policy implementation is comprised of1)
setting up the agenda, 2) making decisions with regard to policy, 3) enacting the policy, and 4) evaluating the
policy (Moon, 2015). Policy formulation process often involves 1) and 2). In setting up the agenda, the
government peruses and/or analyzes diverse social issues and demands from multiple perspectives, decides on
the priority, and establishes agenda that attempts to resolve them. Then, the government makes decisions; in
this process, it endeavors to establish a satisfactory solution, in which decision makers “decide what constitutes
an acceptable solution” (Hoy & Miskel, 2013, p. 334). The government then establishes a plan; specifying
alternatives, predicting the consequences of each alternative, and selecting a plan of action (Hoy & Miskel, 2013).

For instance, in order to increase the accountability measures in 2008, the government took the following steps
(Source: Chung & Chea, 2016):

1) Korea had a national achievement test since the 1960s, however, it was never systematically organized or fully
implemented until the government conducted the sample-based NAEA in the 1990s. In the 2000s, the Lee
Myung-Bak administration recognized the problem of not having a robust national evaluation system that
annually tracks performances of schools and students. In particular, the administration identified the increasing
importance of conducting a national achievement test in the globalized context, as countries such as UK and US
promoted the outcomes-based accountability system at the time. The central education authority thus took
prominence of the issue, and funded public research institutions for research to further analyze the problem and
collect relevant data.

Against the central education authority’s push for the census-based achievement test and outcomes-based
accountability system, several organizations of teachers, parents and lawyers contended opposite views. They
thought it would worsen shadow education (e.g., private tutoring, private institutions) since a high percentage
of students (about 70% of all students in Korea) were taking part in it (Statistics Korea, 2013) and it influenced
the gap between students from high and low socioeconomic status. In particular, they questioned the
effectiveness of the outcomes-based accountability system adopted in Korea’s centralized educational context,
since NAEA reinforced more regulations around testing (Chung & Chea, 2016).

2) Research conducted by the public research institutions indicated the following results: a) the existing sample-
based NAEA lacks a comprehensive monitoring system to track and/or measure all students academic
performances at the district, school, and individual student level, b) the outcomes-based system can induce ‘well-
intended’ competitions and improves school performances, and c) data-driven policies and instructions through
NAEA are necessary to motive school members (Chung & Chea, 2016). Based on these findings, the central
education authority decided to adopt the outcomes-based accountability, implementing the census-based NAEA

6
with the aims to diagnosing individual students’ academic level, enhancing school competency, supplementing
students with academic difficulties, and improving curriculum by providing relevant support (Kim et al., 2009).

Government: In Korea, the central education authority (Ministry of Education of Republic of Korea) is the
government body that entitles and/or commands Metropolitan and Provincial offices of education, local offices
of education, and schools to perform duties and/or responsibilities. In fact, the Ministry of Education supervises
the Korean education system and enacts educational policies “based on reviews of President’s Decrees and the
National Council, in cooperation with other Ministries and government bodies” (Ministry of Education, 2013, p.
131). The Ministry of Education also works with multiple public research institutions to understand a wide-range
of educational issues through research, surveys, and data analysis. In terms of accountability, the government is
evaluated by: 1) parliamentary inspection of the administration, 2) evaluations by government institutes, 3)
protests and/or petitions of civic organizations, teacher unions, and citizens.

International community: In terms of accountability, international community including international

assessments and global educational agenda influence education in Korea. For instance, as previously mentioned,
the Park Geun-Hye administration initiated happiness as the education theme in part due to the result of PISA
survey; despite high academic achievement ranking as one of the top five highest countries in math and reading
(OECD, 2014), the percentage of Korean students who agreed with the statement, “I feel happy at school” ranked
the lowest among all OECD countries (OECD, 2012). In the same survey, Korea ranked first in the question that
asked parents about their expectation for their child to complete a university degree. This demonstrated the
conflict between students and parents; while parents had hopes for their child to receive higher education,
students’ depicted low contentment in schooling.

In addition, the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of the United States affected Korea’s decision to implement the
outcomes-accountability policy (Kim & Kim, 2012; Yang & Sung, 2009). The administration, in particular, adopted
a neoliberal and neoconservative policy approach that aim for standardized movement and efficiency-driven
learning. Similarities can be found in NCLB and Korea’s outcomes-based accountability system, including having
the census-based evaluation, publically announcing the results by proficiency levels, and increasing the choice of
parents (Yang & Sung, 2009).

Other cases where international community influenced Korea:

The competency-based curriculum in New Zealand, France, Canada, and Australia affected Korea to include “key
competency” in the 2015 revised national curriculum guideline. Key competencies in Korea is defined as: 1) self-
management competency to lead one’s life with self-identity and confidence based on basic abilities and
qualifications necessary for life and career, 2) knowledge-information processing skills to process and utilize
knowledge and information from diverse fields to solve problems in reasonable ways, 3) creative thinking skills
to discover something novel by integrating knowledge, skills, and experiences from diverse professional fields on
the basis of broad foundational knowledge, 4) aesthetic-emotional competency to find and appreciate the
meanings and values of life, based on an empathetic understanding of others and cultural sensitivities, 5)
communication skills to respectfully listen to opinions of others and effectively express one’s thoughts and
feelings in diverse situations, 6) civic competency to actively participate in improving the community with values
and attitudes required to be a member of local, national, and global communities (Ministry of Education, 2015).
The revised 2015 national curriculum guideline is expected to take effect in 2017.

Superintendents: Superintendents are leaders of the Metropolitan and Provincial offices of education (a total of
17 in Korea; one per each metropolitan and provincial area) in charge of education, arts, and sciences. They are
responsible for matters at the local government level, as a representative of the metropolitan and/or provincial
area, selected by direct votes of residents. In terms of accountability, residents, minister of education, and local

7
council have the right to oversight and/or request to see superintendents’ performance. It can be carried out
through petitions, evaluations by the metropolitan and provincial offices of education, investigations, and so
forth. However, it is not easy to oversight and/or request to get the performance of superintendents because 1)
there is no relevant and/or explicit law that specifically defines the accountability of superintendents, and 2) it
is quite difficult to oversight superintendents’ duties and make decisions about their performance as their work
often requires professional judgment (Kim, 2004).

Instructors: In Korea, teaching is one of the most respected professions, as the process of becoming a teacher is
extremely competitive, and the teaching profession is highly valued in society. The constitutional law also
ensures teachers’ status. In this regard, teachers have full responsibilities to educate students, and at the same
time, they are civil servants obligated with a special public responsibility to teach, support, and guide all students
(Ministry of Education, 2013). In terms of accountability, teachers in public and private schools are evaluated by
the teacher appraisal and monitoring evaluation. By law, teachers are to be evaluated at least once a year, and
the evaluation is composed of two sections: achievement evaluation and professionalism evaluation. The
achievement evaluation is evaluated by the school principal, vice principal, and colleagues, whereas the
professionalism evaluation is assessed by colleagues, students, and parents. Procedures and standards for
evaluations vary by the central and local education authorities, but they commonly evaluate teachers’
professionalism, teaching and learning, work ethics, attitudes, and character. (please refer to the case study for
further information)

Students and Parents: Students’ academic process is evaluated by diverse methods and/or assessments in Korea.
In elementary school, students in the upper grades take the basic skill assessment that evaluates 3Rs. The local
office education creates and disseminates the test, and students take it in their own classroom. The main purpose
is to screen students who do not meet the third-grade level in reading, writing, and arithmetic skills. Students in
ninth and eleventh grade take NAEA once a year, which evaluates their academic ability, as well as formative and
summative assessments in each subject-area. Students in twelfth grade take CSAT (College Scholastic Ability Test)
for university admissions. In terms of accountability, students are accountable for their evaluation results, and
those who struggle with academics receive interventions (e.g., after-school interventions, one-on-one tutoring,
counselling, etc.) that support their academic, social, emotional, and physical health. Grade retention is not
common in Korea, and thus, students at a high risk of academic failure have an option to attend alternative
schools.

Korea has traditionally placed a high value on education for diverse reasons, and thus many Koreans have zeal
for education. However, a high number of students from low-income families struggle with academics primarily
due to imbalance in learning opportunities. In particular, low academic performance is more prevalent among
students from remote areas (Lauver et al., 2013). As a result, teachers commonly take genuine care of students
in their homeroom (most Korean teachers have their own homeroom), and make calls to parents or visit homes
if necessary to hold them accountable for their child’s education.

3. Small Case Study

Teachers: Teachers in Korea have three rights: educational rights (e.g., right to design curriculum, select
textbook, guide students), rights for social position, and property rights (e.g., salary and other incentives)
(Ministry of Education, 2013). The main responsibilities of teachers include educational duties (e.g., teaching
students, curriculum design, communicating with parents), professional duties (e.g., collaborating with
colleagues, devoted to school work, efforts to improve their knowledge), and management duties (e.g.,
participate in school management, efforts to enhance the efficiency of school budget). In addition, teachers, as

8
civil servants, have ethical obligations under the law “to fulfill duty of faith practices and obedience; to avoid
desertion of post; to fulfill duty of kindness and fairness, secrecy, integrity, and maintaining dignity; and to be
prohibited of profit-making activities and concurrent offices, political activities, and group behaviors (Ministry of
Education, 2013).

Besides teacher evaluations that appraise teachers’ performance in professional duties, they are also evaluated
by students’ test results on NAEA at the school level. Although it does not directly influence their job status as
civil servants, understanding that Korean parents have high interest in education, publically announced NAEA
result ranks schools by performances, creating a social recognition of “competent” and/or “non-competent”
schools and/or teachers (Kim & Kim, 2011). Also, teachers are under pressure to improve performances, so that
the school is not designated as a low-performing school (Chung, 2016). On the one hand, research institutes
and/or local offices of education select competent teachers as exemplary cases, recognizing teachers’ inputs and
giving incentives (refer to Table 1). On the other hand, non-competent teachers, in some cases, have to write a
note to the principal explaining possible causes of students’ low performance.

Previously, schools with a high percentage of below-basic students were designated as low-performing schools,
in which teachers had an increased obligation to improve outcomes. In this context, instructions often focused
on the mastery of academic skills, and teaching and learning reflected “one-size fits all” instructions, at times
preparing students for the standardized test (Oh et al., 2012). For instance, qualitative research by Chung (2016)
revealed that, in order to prepare students for NAEA, teachers designed instructions specifically to achieve
academic goals, taught students to the test, reduced class time for non-tested subjects, provided morning and
afternoon classes to teach testing strategies, and taught students through memorization and drills.

Since 2013, the Park Geun-Hye administration enacted policies to make several changes at the elementary school
level, which includes (a) eliminating standardized national test (NAEA) in elementary schools, (b), discontinuing
NAEA result-based interventions in elementary schools, (c) implementing a new intervention that approaches
students holistically. In addition, the administration established happiness as the theme of education at all levels,
and thus increasing opportunities for students to partake in diversified activities. The administration also has
attempted to reduce accountability measures by decreasing test-related, academic pressure. However, it needs
to be noted that census-based NAEA is still conducted in middle and high schools, evaluating academic
performance of students in ninth and eleventh grade in Korean language, mathematics, and English. In this
regard, it appears that issues with accountability due to NAEA may be ongoing.

In efforts to reduce students’ stress and burden of learning, all middle schools since 2016 have implemented the
free semester. The free semester, as mentioned previously, is one semester in middle school, in which students
do not take any exams. Instead, they are allowed to freely engage in a wide-range of activities including arts,
sports, club activities, volunteer activities, and so forth. Teachers also endeavor to provide instructions that are
related to everyday life issues, working closely with students to make teaching and learning more relevant and
practical. Thus, school instructions are more student-centered, providing project-based learning, discussions,
and career exploratory activities.

4. Policy Recommendations:

The bottom-up approach to implementing policy is necessary; making a policy shift in a top-down manner can
create a gap between policy and policy implementation. Korea made two substantial shifts with regard to the
national achievement test within five years; making NAEA to a census-based test in 2008 and eliminating NAEA
at the elementary school level in 2013. In this process, the direction of education was changed without much

9
consensus from teachers who are considered policy implementers, creating issues and negative consequences
at the school level. Therefore, it is imperative listen to voices of those who implement policy and make careful
attempts to appropriately respond and effectively implement relevant educational policies.

Korea has pursued the theme of happy education by introducing diverse experiences and curriculum activities.
In line with the theme, Korea has eliminated NAEA at the elementary school level and implemented the free
semester. However, even though the outcomes-based accountability is eliminated in elementary school, it is
crucial to have a system in place where teachers reinforce academic success, in particular for students with
academic struggles. This can be achieved by having accountability among school members, creating
“collaborative cultures where growth-oriented assessment and feedback are a regular practice of teachers and
leaders offer a more effective and sustainable solution to the improvement of the teaching profession” (Fullan
& Hargreaves, 2015, p. 10).

5. Reference

Chung, P. J. (2016). Towards a holistic approach to interventions for elementary students with academic
struggles in South Korea (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from Yonsei University.

Chung, P. J., Chae, H. W. (2016). In W. C. Smith, The Global Testing Culture: Shaping Education Policy,
Perceptions, and Practice: South Korea's Accountability Policy System and National Achievement Test. Oxford
Studies in Comparative Education.

Chung, P. J., Hong, W. P. (2014). Supplemental Educational Services in the United States and Korea, Korea
Journal of Comparative Education Society, 24(5), 127-152.

Chung, P. J., Hong, W. P. (2015). Transitions in Education Policy and Interventions in South Korea. KEDI
Korean Journal of Education Policy, 12(2), 151-171

Chung, Y. S. (2012). Research on Superintendents. Local Educational Policy Research Institute. Seoul: Author.

Fullan, M., Rincon-Gallardo, S., & Hargreaves, A. (2015). Professional capital as accountability. Education Policy
Analysis Archives, 23(15).

Hoy, W. K. & Miskel, C. G. (2013). Educational administration: theory, research, and practice. New York: McGraw-
Hill.

Kang & Lieu (2014). Analysis of continuity and discontinuity of education reform policies. The Journal of
Education Assignment Institute, 20(3), 43-66.

Korea Official Development Assistance (2012). History of Korea’s ODA. Retrieved from
https://www.odakorea.go.kr/eng.overview.History.do

Kim, C. G. (2012). The process and characteristics of neoliberalization of Korea education: becoming like
competitive cram schools and establishment of ‘neoliberal governmentality.’ The Journal of Education Research,
10(1), 119-149.

10
Kim, J., Kim, J., Park, K., Choi, J., Jin., K., Chung, K., Kang, Y., Yoo, J., & Yang, Y. (1998). The 7th National Curriculum:
Differentiated Curriculum and Development of Curriculum and Instruction. Seoul: KICE.

Kim, K., Shin, J., Park, I., Lim, E., Goo, N., & Han, J. (2013). Elementary School Academic Achievement Evaluation
and Accountability Policy Reform. KICE Issue Paper, 57(11), 1-24.

Kim, G. T. (2004). A study on the system building to enhance the accountability of the superintendent in Korean
provincial education administration. The Journal of Korean Education, 31(2), 27-46.

Kim, G. J. (2002). Education Policies and Reform in South Korea. Secondary Education in Africa: Strategies for
Renewal, 29-39.

Kim, M. S. & Kim, K. K. (2011). The impact of student assessment policy on educational practices in individual
schools. Korean Journal of Educational Research, 49(1), 93-121.

Kim, K., Kim, H., Noh, W., Sang, K.., Shin, J., Chung, H., Woo, S., Lieu, S., Han, J., Lauver, S., McClure, C., Cairns,
M.., Fu, B. (2012). Korea-US bilateral study on the effects of the basic academic policy. Seoul: KICE

Kim, P. (2014). Teachers’ participation in decision-making and professional development for the implementation
of the national curriculum: focusing on the policy for school curriculum autonomy. The Journal of Curriculum
Studies, 32(3), 95-122.

Lauver, S., Kim, K., Kim, H., McClure, C., Roh, W. K., & Sang, K. S. (2013). Korea-US bilateral study on turnaround
schools. Korea: Ministry of Education Science and Technology.

Lee, C. Y. (2010). Conceptual clarification and developmental tasks on the accountability of schooling. Journal of
Educational Research, 18(3), 33-69.

Martin, S. N., Choe, S. U., Kim, C. J., & Kwak, Y. (2014). Employing a Sociohistorical Perspective for Understanding
the Impact of Ideology and Policy on Educational Achievement in the Republic of Korea. Closing the Achievement
Gap from an International Perspective, 5, 229-250.

Moon, Y. B. (2015). The Process Analysis on the policy formulation of free school lunch in Gyeonggi-do. The
Journal of Local Education Management, 18(2), 64-89.

Ministry of Education (2012). Academic achievement test in 2013. Seoul: Author.

Ministry of Education (2013). Education in Korea. Seoul: Author.

Ministry of Education (2014). Accountability Policy to Raise Dreams and Talents of Students with
Underachievement. Press Release. Seoul: Author.

Ministry of Education & KICE (2014). General Plan for Basic Skill Improvement System in Korea. 2014 Information
on Accountability Policy and Achievement Report. Seoul: Author.

Ministry of Education (2015). The 2015 National Curriculum Guideline. Seoul: Author.

Ministry of Education & KEDI (2015). Dynamic Education for Individual and National Development: The Case of
the Republic of Korea.

11
Ministry of Education & National Institute for International Education (2015). Education in Korea. Seoul: Author.

OECD (2012). Equity and Quality in Education: Supporting Disadvantaged Students and Schools. OECD: Author.

OECD (2014). PISA 2012 Results in Focus: What 15-Year-Olds Know and What They Can Do With What They Know.
OECD: Author.

OECD (2016). Education policy outlook: Korea. Paris: Author.

Oh, S., Yi, H., & Chang, K. S. (2012). Seeking for the better instruction for low achievers in schools through the
school-community cooperation. Seoul: Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation.
Park, C. M., & Bae, J. H. (2008). The state of democratic governance in South Korea: from the perspective of
ordinary citizens. Presented at the Asian Barometer conference on the State of Democratic Governance in Asia,
Taiwan.

Park, S. H. (2013). Educational accountability: Its conceptual definition, core theoretical components and
debating issues. Korea Journal of Educational Administration, 31(2), 117-150.

Seth, M. J. (2002). Education Fever: Society, Politics, and the Pursuit of Schooling in South Korea. University of
Hawaii Press.

Shin, J. S., & Kim, K. T. (2014). Critical reflections on primary and secondary education accountability research in
Korea. The Journal of Yeolin Education, 22(4), 347-370.

Shin, H.S., & Shin, W.H. (2010). An analysis of policy situation about National Assessment of Educational
Achievement (NAEA) by Lee Myung-Bak Government. Korean Educational Methodology, 22(1), 121-145.

Yang, K. & Sung, Y. K. (2010). Implications to Korean education out of lessons from NCLB Act of the USA. Journal
of Korean Educational Methodology, 21(1), 69-88.

Statistics Korea (2013). Korea’s private education expenses. Retrieved

from http://kostat.go.kr/survey/pedu/pedu_dl/1/index.board?bmode
=read&aSeq=31189

Supreme Court Korea (2012). Introduction to the Judiciary branch. Retrieved from
http://eng.scourt.go.kr/eng/judiciary/introduction.jsp

12