Differentiation Makes Success - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 31
About This Presentation
Title:

Differentiation Makes Success

Description:

Title: Differentiation Makes Success Last modified by: user Created Date: 6/2/1999 2:55:06 PM Document presentation format: A4 (210x297 mm) Other titles – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:191
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 32
Provided by: world203
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Differentiation Makes Success


1
Education in South KoreaChallenges and Reforms
Taejong Kim (KDI School of Public Policy and
Management)
2
School System in South Korea
3
Per student expenditure primary and secondary
4
Per student expenditure Tertiary
5
Intro.
QA
eBays success
Growth
Labor Economics 2003 Fall
Roadmap
The Structure of the Presentation

6
Section 1. Performance in Korean Education
ltTable 1gt Average Test Scores
(Unit Ranking out of 31)
Korea Japan U.S U.K France Germany Sweden Canada Italy Mexico
Scientific Literacy 1 2 14 4 12 20 10 5 23 30
Math Literacy 2 1 19 8 10 20 15 6 26 30
Reading literacy 6 8 15 7 14 21 9 2 20 30
Source OECD Knowledge and Skill for Life, PISA
2000
7
Section 1. Performance in Korean Education
ltTable 1-1gt Distribution of Test Scores Reading
literacy
(Unitpercentage)
Korea Japan U.S U.K France Germany Sweden Canada Italy Mexico
Below level 1 1 3 6 4 4 10 3 2 5 16
At level 1 5 7 12 9 11 13 9 7 14 28
At level 2 19 18 21 20 22 22 20 19 26 30
At level 3 39 33 27 27 31 27 30 28 31 19
At level 4 31 29 21 24 24 19 26 28 19 6
At level 5 6 10 12 16 8 9 11 17 5 1
Source OECD Knowledge and Skill for Life, PISA
2000
8
Section 1. Performance in Korean Education
ltTable 2gt Student Engagement
(Unit percentage)
Korea Japan U.S U.K France Germany Sweden Canada Italy Mexico
Student with Low sense of belonging 41 38 25 17 30 23 18 21 23 22
Student with Low Participation 8 4 20 15 15 13 24 26 22 21
Source OECD Student Engagement at School, PISA
2000
9
Section 1. Performance in Korean Education
ltTable 3gt Student participation in educational
courses outside school
(Unitpercentage)
OECD Average Korea Japan U.S U.K France Germany Sweden Canada Italy Mexico
Participation 1 24.9 63.6 70.7 24.7 20.1 N.A. 10.4 7.8 14.4 5.6 51.4
Participation 2 32.3 57.5 17.3 28.8 24.4 N.A. 36.2 7.8 31.6 48.0 47.1
Source OECD Knowledge and Skill for Life, PISA
2000
  1. Percent of students who have sometimes or
    regularly attended courses in the language of
    assessment, courses in other subjects, or
    extension or additional courses in the last three
    years
  2. Percent of students who have sometimes or
    regularly attend courses in the language of
    assessment,
    remedial courses
    in other subjects, training to improve study
    skills or private tutoring in the last three years

10
Section 1. Performance in Korean Education
ltTable 4gt Teacher Evaluation by Student
(Unit WARM estimator, Ranking out of 27)
OECD Average Korea Japan U.S U.K France Germany Sweden Canada Italy Mexico
Mean 0.00 -0.67 -0.17 0.34 0.50 -0.20 -0.34 0.21 0.31 -0.28 0.07
Ranking - 27 18 4 1 19 24 7 6 21 13
Source OECD Knowledge and Skill for Life, PISA
2000
11
Section 1. Performance in Korean Education
ltTable 4gt Teacher Evaluation by Principle
(Unit WARM estimator, Ranking out of 27)
OECD Average Korea Japan U.S U.K France Germany Sweden Canada Italy Mexico
Mean 0.00 -0.72 0.14 -0.04 0.02 N.A. -0.01 0.34 0.08 -0.69 0.39
Ranking - 26 10 18 13 N.A. 16 5 11 25 3
Source OECD Knowledge and Skill for Life, PISA
2000
12
Section 1. Performance in Korean Education
ltTable 5gt Test Scores and Other Skills at age 9
(1992)
Source IAEP/ETS. Learning Math. 1992/ IAEP/ETS.
Learning Science 1992
13
Section 1. Performance in Korean Education
ltTable 6gt Test Scores and Other Skills at age 13
(1992)
U.S.A
Canada
Spain
Israel
Taiwan
Korea
55
55
64
71
73
73
Average Percent Correct in Math Test
67
68
69
74
76
78
Average Percent Correct in Science Test
28
36
40
51
19
11
Percent of Students Who Read for Fun Almost Every
Day
49
63
31
47
38
28
Percentage of Students Who Solve Problems in
Groups at least Once a Week
90
89
81
85
79
71
Percentage of Students Who Have Positive
Attitudes Towards Mathematics
57
78
55
59
51
27
Percentage of Students Who Have Positive
Attitudes Towards Sciences
Source IAEP/ETS. Learning Math. 1992/ IAEP/ETS.
Learning Science 1992
14
Section 1. Performance in Korean Education
Trade-off Test Scores vs. Creativeness
  • Good performance of students in international
    tests
  • Test scores become relatively lower as age
    increases
  • Problems of test-oriented education
  • Focus on test-skills and rote learning
  • Fail to nurture other valuable skills such as
    reading, creative thinking and social interaction

15
Section 1. Performance in Korean Education
Two Types of Human Capital
Test Skills
Inefficiency
Distortion
Creativeness
16
Section 1. Performance in Korean Education
Equity Concerns
  • Increase in out-of-school private educational
    expenses
  • Students future career is strongly dependent on
    the ranking of the university one graduated

17
Section 2. Rapid Expansion of Education in Korea
18
Section 2. Rapid Expansion of Education in Korea
Dire Status in 1945
  • Enrollment rate -Primary school 65
  • -Secondary school
    less than 20
  • -Higher education
    about 2
  • Severe teacher shortage
  • Japanese teachers were more than 40 in primary
    school
  • and 70 in secondary school
  • Population growth
  • Korean War made the situation worse

19
Section 2. Rapid Expansion of Education in Korea
Rhee Major commitment
Universal primary education by 1951 1. More
building 2. More teachers 3. More students 4.
Relative high tuition and fee
20
Section 2. Rapid Expansion of Education in Korea
Big increase in primary
1965
1945
1.4 Million
5 Million
Enrollment
E. Rate
60
More than 90
Teachers
20,000
100,000
21
Section 2. Rapid Expansion of Education in Korea
Side - Effects
  • Higher teacher-student ratio
  • Crowded classroom
  • Increased demand for secondary schools
  • -Severe competition for secondary school
  • Private tutoring and stay-over in 6th grade
  • -More new private secondary schools

22
Section 2. Rapid Expansion of Education in Korea
Student-Teacher Ratio
23
Section 3. Secondary School Equalization Policies
Parks Equalization Policies
  • Concerns over Excessive Competition
  • among Students
  • Assignment of students by lottery
  • Equal tuition and fees for all students
  • Fiscal subsidy to private schools
  • Eliminate elite schools
  • Equal curriculum across schools

24
Section 3. Secondary School Equalization Policies
Middle school equalization policies (1969-1971)
  • Stated policy objectives
  • To promote normal development of children
  • To normalize primary school education
  • To discourage private tutoring
  • To narrow gaps among middle schools
  • To reduce the burden of middle school entrance
    exams

25
Section 3. Secondary School Equalization Policies
High school equalization policy (1974- 1980)
  • Stated policy objectives
  • To normalize school education
  • To reduce quality difference among secondary
    schools
  • To promote vocational school
  • To promote balanced growth of schools across
    regions
  • To reduce private tutoring
  • To reduce urban concentration

26
Section 3. Secondary School Equalization Policies
School System and School Autonomy in Korea
Special school
Schools outside Equalization Policy
Schools under Equalization Policy
Private
Public
Private
Public
Private
Public
?
?
?
?
?
?
Student Recruiting
?
?
?
?
?
?
Teacher Principal
?
?
?
?
?
?
Curriculum Textbook
?
?
?
?
?
?
Decision on Tuition
27
Section 3. Secondary School Equalization Policies
Consequences
  • Rapid expansion in secondary schools
  • Failure to dampen the rise in private tutoring
  • Strengthened bureaucratic control
  • No local initiatives
  • No competition among schools

28
Section 4. Private Tutoring
Rising Private Tutoring Expense (per GDP)

29
Section 4. Private Tutoring
Reasons for rising private tutoring expense

1. Higher income 2. More high school graduates
seeking tertiary education 3. Decreased
effectiveness of schools because of excessive
government control 4. Perceived high rent for
better universities
30
Section 4. Private Tutoring
Misguided government policy objectives
  • To reduce private tutoring rather than to
    increase effectiveness in schools
  • To use regulation (including college entrance
    exam rules) to achieve objectives

31
Section 5. Policy Recommendation
Conclusions
  • Absorb demand for private tutoring at primary and
    secondary levels into public education
  • school autonomy
  • local initiatives
  • accountability by teachers and schools
  • Beef up expenditures for other levels of
    education
  • - college, kindergarten, continuing education
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com