Entrusted as the “Centennial Blueprint” Problem Solver... National Education Commission Becomes a Redundant Bureaucracy [University Transformation] ⑧

Held Three Workshops Promising a May Announcement,
But Mid- to Long-Term National Education Development Plan Repeatedly Delayed
First Term Ends Without Even Presenting a Draft
Zero Self-Initiated Proposals Among 30 Resolutions in Three Years

The National Education Commission has entered its fourth year since its establishment, but strong criticism is mounting that it has effectively lost its function as the “control tower” of education policy. The original intent of designing a “century-long blueprint” for education policy at its launch in September 2022 has all but disappeared, replaced by political strife and dysfunction, fueling controversy over its redundancy. Not only has the commission failed to produce any tangible results over the past three years, leading to criticism of wasting taxpayer money, but recent allegations of “selling positions” involving its inaugural chairperson have further undermined its authority.

Key issues related to universities, which are at the core of higher education, have barely been discussed. Despite pressing concerns such as the collapse of regional universities due to declining school-age populations, unfilled graduate school quotas, and weakening research competitiveness, the commission has failed to fulfill its role. Now that the “second term” of the commission has begun, there is a growing call for it to secure neutrality and independence that transcend the ideological leanings of the current administration, and to focus all of its resources-including the expertise and capabilities of its members, as well as the necessary time and budget for policy development-solely on education.

Yonhap News

Ultimately, No “Mid- to Long-Term National Education Development Plan”... “Reduced to a Cheerleader, Applauding Squad, and Subcontractor for the Ministry of Education”

There are increasing calls within and outside the commission for a complete overhaul. Chung Dae-hwa, a standing member who participated in the first term, held a press conference at the Government Complex Seoul on September 25, a day before his retirement, and reflected, “Over the past three years, the commission has been reduced to a sunflower gazing at the Ministry of Education, a bystander, an applauding squad, a subcontractor, an agent, and a nominal body. I had many dreams when I started, but in the end, we achieved nothing.”

In particular, regarding the fall in the commission’s status due to various allegations against former chairperson Lee Bae-yong, he said, “The commission was launched to resolve the crisis in Korean education, but I feel a sense of shame that we may have only deepened the crisis.”

The reason the commission held three workshops this year-compared to just one last year-was to prepare the “2026-2035 Mid- to Long-Term National Education Development Plan,” a core task of the first term, according to schedule. However, after repeatedly postponing the release of the draft, the commission ultimately failed to announce any results.

The revised plan for the 2026-2035 Mid- to Long-Term National Education Development is highly likely to be applied starting with the 2032 college admissions cycle. Once the commission drafts and finalizes the plan, the Ministry of Education and local education offices will develop detailed implementation plans. The original roadmap was “draft announcement in September 2024-finalization in March 2025-implementation in January 2026.” However, the commission kept delaying the draft announcement from September last year to January and then May of this year. As a result, the schedule to apply the plan from 2026 to 2035 became impossible, and it was shifted to a “2027-2036 plan.”

The responsibility has now passed to the second-term commission. The new commission, launched under the new administration, is aiming to announce the draft of the mid- to long-term education development plan around March next year. New chairperson Cha Jeongin stated, “Since this plan will be applied from 2027 to 2036, it is an extremely important ‘ten-year blueprint.’ We need to proceed quickly, but we must not rush it.”

Hampered by Internal Conflict and Factionalism

The commission has continuously faced criticism for failing to fulfill its role due to being overly conscious of the administration’s stance. Internally, criticism of being a “rubber stamp” has been constant. The commission is an administrative body under the president, with 14 out of its 21 members-two-thirds-appointed by the president or recommended by the ruling and opposition parties. It is responsible for establishing national education development plans, including improvements to the education system, teacher policies, university admissions policies, and appropriate class sizes. The commission was originally established to develop mid- to long-term education policies based on social consensus, regardless of the administration’s political orientation, but concerns were raised from the outset that the pronounced political leanings of its members could lead to political strife. Ultimately, discussions repeatedly broke down due to intensified factional conflicts over sensitive issues such as the difficulty and format of the college admissions system, the dual structure of the national college entrance exam, the method of high school academic evaluation, and whether to maintain high school equalization.

As a result, instead of setting its own agenda, the commission has only handled items submitted by the Ministry of Education. Of the 30 items resolved by the commission over the past three years, not a single one was initiated by the commission itself. Standing member Chung stated, “All major agenda items were proposed by the Ministry of Education, and the commission did not create or decide on any agenda items independently.”

“The Chairperson’s Term Should Be Guaranteed for at Least Five Years to Ensure Neutrality”

The education community is united in calling for the second-term commission, launched with the new administration, to regain its original function. Above all, it must secure neutrality and expertise, free from political strife. The president of a private university emphasized, “The chairperson must wisely mediate political disagreements, and the chairperson’s term should be guaranteed for at least five years to ensure stable leadership of the commission.”

There are also calls to clarify overlapping work between the Ministry of Education and the commission, as both bodies are seen as focused only on avoiding responsibility. Many believe the Ministry of Education should focus on guaranteeing university autonomy and expanding financial resources, while the commission should concentrate on developing mid- to long-term plans based on social consensus. Chairperson Cha has made “normalizing the commission” his top priority upon taking office. He stated, “If there are factional disagreements among the members, I will have candid discussions with them. In addition to the college admissions system, I will lead comprehensive and expert discussions as the control tower of national education policy on major issues such as the integration of early childhood education and care, private education for young children, protection of teachers’ rights, the high school credit system, vocational education, special education, and lifelong education.” Chairperson Cha plans to announce details of the commission’s reform around December 23, marking his 100th day in office.