The PISA Results and the Education System in · PDF fileThe PISA Results and the Education System in Korea. 2 Outline ... Score Reading score in PISA 2006 Reading score in PISA 2000

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



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


11

Trends in Science



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%


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%


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


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


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


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


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





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





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



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


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


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

Documents

The PISA Results and the Education System in · PDF fileThe PISA Results and the Education System in Korea. 2 Outline ... Score Reading score in PISA 2006 Reading score in PISA 2000