[The Editors' Verdict] Catastrophic Appointment of Education Chief... and a Hasty Resignation

Kyung-ho Lee, Head of Social Affairs Division

"It was all my fault and my mistake." "All controversies are due to my fault." These are the resignation statements of the first and second heads of the Ministry of Education under the Yoon Seok-yeol administration. The first was nominee Kim In-cheol. He became the first ministerial candidate of the Yoon administration without even undergoing a confirmation hearing. The second was Minister Park Soon-ae, the first cabinet member to be dismissed since the launch of the Yoon administration. Although Kim withdrew before he could implement his intentions, Minister Park's dismissal is absurd. Despite various controversies and suspicions, Minister Park was appointed without a parliamentary confirmation hearing and received the presidential appointment letter. The period from inauguration to dismissal was 34 days.

Politically, this could be seen as a measure to recover the president and ruling party's low approval ratings and the severely diminished momentum of state affairs. But what kind of position is the Minister of Education? The elevation of the minister to Deputy Prime Minister reflects the importance of education as a national long-term plan, despite the administration's single five-year term, and aims to empower the head of the ministry accordingly. Education policy is notoriously difficult to resolve, even for someone like Jeongal Gongmyeong (Zhuge Liang). From kindergartens to elementary, middle, high schools, and universities, stakeholders are entangled like a skein of yarn, making it difficult to implement any policy. Even the issue of enrolling five-year-olds in elementary school involves countless parties: the National Assembly, government, education offices, local governments, students, parents, teachers, educational organizations, and teachers' unions. Although the interests are complex, if a policy must be pursued in the short or medium to long term, the process to go through is public deliberation. The enrollment of five-year-olds in elementary school or school system reform is not new. Past administrations have also considered these issues in response to changes in demographics and educational environments. Not only five-year-olds but also the current 6·3·3 system (6 years elementary, 3 years middle, 3 years high school) have been topics of discussion.

Under normal circumstances, research projects on more comprehensive topics including the enrollment of five-year-olds and the 6·3·3 system should have been commissioned. Even if there was backlash, it could have been explained that "research does not necessarily mean policy implementation" or "five-year-olds are only a very small part of the research topic." Alternatively, these topics could have been naturally raised during National Assembly briefings or committee Q&A sessions to gauge public opinion. If the intention was to implement five-year-old elementary school enrollment within the term, a full public deliberation process should have been conducted. However, this time the order was reversed. Minister Park announced a schedule assuming social consensus: a national demand survey in 2023, presentation of a draft in 2023, pilot implementation if accepted in 2024, and nationwide implementation in 2025. The minister declared it as a fait accompli. Despite the obvious backlash, a deadline was set. Although public deliberation was promised, it was already a too-late remedial measure.

The head of the Ministry of Education will inevitably be vacant for more than two months. While it is important for the ruling party, government, and presidential office to find a suitable candidate, they must also examine why such a disaster occurred. First, where did the controversial agenda of enrolling five-year-olds in elementary school originate? Few believe it came from Minister Park, a professor-turned-public administration expert. Regardless of the source, it is also questionable why Minister Park threw that card without any consideration. If the excuse is "because it was the minister's first time," then what were the presidential office and ruling party doing, and why were the Ministry of Education officials so passive or bystanders? These questions cannot be ignored.