[Opinion] Equality and Diversity in Education

The high school equalization policy was implemented in 1974. I entered high school in 1973, so I belong to the last generation before equalization. Later, while studying education policy, I learned that at the time of its introduction, the policy did not equalize school conditions or educational standards; rather, students who scored above a certain level on the joint entrance exam were selected and then assigned to schools by lottery.

Unlike the 1969 middle school non-exam admission system, the equalization policy did not open the doors of high schools to all students who wished to enter. To be assigned to a general academic high school through the joint entrance exam, students had to achieve above-average grades. The disparities in educational conditions between schools were not completely eliminated. The fact that it was not a complete equalization paradoxically means that educational diversity still existed.

As the policy continued, the gap in educational conditions between schools was somewhat reduced. The problem lies in the widening academic achievement gap within schools. As new high schools were established to meet educational demand, and as general academic night schools converted to day schools and vocational schools transitioned to general academic schools, the competition rate for general academic high schools gradually decreased, leading to a growing academic gap among students.

At the time of the equalization policy’s introduction, students selected with above-average grades attended classes together. However, now that the joint entrance exam has been completely abolished and most students can enter high school if they wish, the academic gap within classes has widened further. With the removal of filtering mechanisms based on academic achievement from elementary through middle to high school, it appears that all students receive equal education in the same classroom, but in reality, they are receiving unequal education unrelated to their abilities.

Nevertheless, if asked whether I support or oppose the equalization policy, I would vote in favor. I have personally experienced the harms of high school-specific entrance exams, and I believe the equalization policy was effective in alleviating excessive school hierarchy and the overheating of high school entrance competition. However, this does not mean the side effects of the equalization system can be ignored.

Ensuring educational equality is the ideal of education policy, but it is not easy to achieve in reality. To realize the constitutional spirit of equal educational opportunities based on ability, diversity must be considered as much as equality. Even identical twins born on the same day have different abilities, so it is unreasonable to bind all students under a uniform system.

No policy is perfect. The equalization policy is necessary but not sufficient. While ensuring educational equality is important, securing diversity is also necessary. This is why I support the introduction of foreign language high schools, international high schools, and autonomous private high schools as supplements to equalization.

The Moon Jae-in administration, which emphasized equality, has begun the process of converting foreign language high schools, international high schools, and autonomous private high schools?originally introduced to secure educational diversity?into general high schools. This is because they viewed the negative effects more than the positive ones. If the diversity of the high school system is abandoned, the side effects of equalization will become more pronounced. Although policy authorities seem to expect that the implementation of the high school credit system will resolve the side effects of equalization, the side effects of equalization will simply transform into side effects of the credit system.

Various programs are needed, but various schools and policies are also necessary. The reason I support equalization in principle despite recognizing its problems is that the main axis of general education policy should be based on equality. For educational equality to thrive, educational diversity that complements it must be supported.

While the controversy over the abolition of foreign language high schools, international high schools, and autonomous private high schools remains unresolved, recently the Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education decided to convert international middle schools into general middle schools, and the Ministry of Education reportedly agreed. I do not know the detailed circumstances of how poorly international middle schools were operated or whether evaluations were properly conducted, but I worry that this is a result of undervaluing diversity through the lens of equality. Just because education is compulsory does not mean all middle schools must be the same. When the channel of educational diversity is open, equality is also persuasive.

Song Ki-chang, Professor, Department of Education, Sookmyung Women’s University