Abolishing autonomous and foreign-language high schools undermines diversity and equality

Starting next year, Daewon International Middle School and Younghoon International Middle School will be converted into regular middle schools. Hankuk Academy of Foreign Studies, my alma mater, also faces the danger of being converted into a regular high school. This is because the Moon Jae-in administration pledged to abolish all autonomous private high schools and foreign language high schools by 2025. Amid this trend, nine schools—including Sungmoon High School, Paichai High School, and Ewha Womans University High School, whose autonomous private high school designation was revoked in 2019—have been engaged in administrative lawsuits ever since.

Anyone who aspires to a pluralistic society should clearly oppose this policy direction. The policy of abolishing foreign language high schools and autonomous private high schools only worsens the evils of state-controlled education, which forces a single way of thinking within a single system. Can an education system truly be called pluralistic when “all schools” are compelled to teach centrally prescribed curricula in state-approved ways and assess students according to state-determined standards? Autonomous private high schools and foreign language high schools were, however limited, a mechanism that allowed schools and students at least a small breath of freedom within the uniform structure of public education.

Of course, even “autonomous” private high schools do not enjoy a sufficient degree of autonomy. Education authorities broadly intervene in school operations, such as by mandating minimum class hours for certain subjects or restricting schools from leading activities such as overseas language training programs. Still, compared to regular high schools, where autonomy is virtually nonexistent, autonomous private high schools are clearly subject to fewer government regulations. Some argue that autonomous private high schools and foreign language high schools have degenerated into so-called “college admissions prep schools” and therefore should be abolished, but this makes no sense. Under the curriculum required by the public education system, the primary function of high school is plainly to help students advance to college—are schools being asked to neglect their duties? At the same time, autonomous private high schools can help students prepare for college while also providing diverse educational experiences. Students can take the lead in organizing student councils, freely create clubs, cooperate and compete with one another, and host events inside and outside the school, thereby becoming the main agents in fostering the dynamism of education.

Many commentators say the problem is precisely that only children from well-off families receive that kind of education. I agree. And for that very reason, even more schools should be granted autonomy and given the chance to transform themselves like foreign language high schools or autonomous private high schools. Of course, that would require sweeping reform of the public education system as a whole. If only a small number of people can afford the Shilla Hotel’s apple mango bingsu, banning its sale altogether would do nothing to advance the bingsu market.

The core of the policy to abolish autonomous private high schools and foreign language high schools is the claim that it will eliminate the “privileges” of entrenched interests. It is a fraud to pretend that abolishing these schools—supposedly the “exclusive property” of the wealthy—will usher in a grand egalitarian society in education. In reality, inequality becomes worse when education is standardized. If autonomous private high schools and foreign language high schools disappear, schools in Gangnam’s District 8 will become even more sought after. Since admission to these schools is difficult without moving into Gangnam’s District 8, inequality will deepen further. Housing prices in Gangnam will surge once again, worsening economic inequality at the same time, and “their own little league” will become as impregnable as a fortress. To be sure, foreign language high schools and autonomous private high schools currently have many students from affluent families, but they also include some students from households that do not own homes in Gangnam’s District 8, as well as a small number from low-income families. That is because various auxiliary admissions and scholarship systems have lowered barriers to entry for low-income students and the socially disadvantaged.

And it is not only schools in Gangnam’s District 8. If the channels for excellence-based education, such as autonomous private high schools and foreign language high schools, are shut down, demand for studying abroad and international schools will also soar. Given the high barriers to entry posed by the enormous cost of overseas study and international school enrollment, this would further exacerbate inequality. A representative example is Chadwick International in Songdo, whose surrounding school district has already enjoyed considerable windfall benefits from the policy abolishing autonomous private high schools.

It is widely known that the education provided by regular high schools is, frankly, in disarray. Yet this irresponsible government looks to foreign language high schools and autonomous private high schools as the cause of regular high schools’ failures. In truth, however, the failure of regular high schools is nothing more than the natural result of the comprehensive failure of public education policies governing staffing, budget procurement, and curriculum design. Systems such as seniority-based pay and teacher rotation, along with every other institution that blocks competition among education providers, are eating away at public education.

These policies provoke backlash from many citizens because many children of senior officials in the current government attended specialized high schools, international schools, or overseas boarding schools. Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education Superintendent Cho Hee-yeon’s two children both attended foreign language high schools, and former superintendent Kwak Nohyun’s son also attended one. Yet Superintendent Cho even went so far as to say on a radio program, “The abolition of the yangban class is only persuasive when advocated by a yangban.” It is worth noting that he held egalitarian views on education long before his two sons entered high school and had every opportunity to refuse to become a “yangban” himself. In the end, the essence of this policy is ladder-pulling, pure and simple. They used excellence-based education to send their own children to prestigious universities, and now they are kicking away the ladder, saying “excellence-based education is unacceptable.” They have no intention whatsoever of creating many more ladders that are stronger and safer. They merely toss down a rotten rope and expect gratitude for it.

---

Original title: 자사고·외고 폐지 정책, 다양성과 평등에 역행한다

Author: Beom-su Jo

Date: 2020-08-10

Source: https://www.cfe.org/bbs/bbsDetail.php?cid=free_opinion&pn=13&idx=22992