As the government seeks to overhaul the calculation method for the 'Local Education Funding' that has been a cornerstone of secondary education finance for 55 years, education superintendents from across the country voiced their opposition at the National Assembly. They criticized attempts to reduce public education funding under the pretext of declining student numbers, calling it a bureaucratic approach that ignores the realities of the education sector and hinders future investment in education.
On September 16, superintendents from 16 provincial and metropolitan education offices held a joint press conference at the National Assembly, demanding a comprehensive review of the 'Local Education Funding Reform Proposal' submitted by the government on September 3.
The government's proposal aims to abolish the existing 'domestic tax linkage (20.79%)' method and replace it with a new formula that reflects economic growth rates and changes in the school-age population.
Chairman Jeong Geun-sik, who is also the Superintendent of Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education, described the reform as a significant issue regarding how the state guarantees educational resources and maintains educational autonomy. He rebutted the government's claim of a '7.2 trillion won increase in funding' as a statistical illusion, stating that the actual increase compared to this year's funding is only 2.4 trillion won. When accounting for the expiration of various compensatory funds and reductions in national funding for free high school education, the net increase is merely 225.9 billion won, representing a growth rate of just 0.3%.
In contrast, the natural increase in personnel costs and essential expenditures due to national policy initiatives, such as the 'Early Spring School' and integration of childcare, is expected to surge by over 3.14 trillion won, putting educational finance in a serious deficit, according to the superintendents.
The education officials pointed out that the biggest flaw in the government's proposal is the simplistic economic logic that equates declining student numbers with reduced educational costs. They emphasized that even with fewer students, costs for maintaining schools and classes in overcrowded new cities and underpopulated rural areas continue to accrue.
They also raised concerns about the urgent need for improvements to aging school facilities, support for increasing numbers of special education and multicultural students, ensuring basic academic skills, mental health support for students, and the introduction of AI digital textbooks, all of which contribute to rising educational demands.
Chairman Jeong warned that the new formula lacks any mechanisms to adjust funding based on personnel costs, operational expenses, and increasing educational demands. He cautioned that this burden would lead to a contraction in educational activities and widen educational disparities, ultimately affecting students who need more support the most.
He reiterated, 'A decline in student numbers should not be a reason to cut educational funding; rather, it should be an opportunity to provide better education to each student.'
The council presented three strong demands to the National Assembly:
- Thoroughly verify the scale of funding reductions compared to current laws and their impact on educational autonomy. They called for clear disclosure of the basis for calculating the standard amounts and the objective rationale for reflecting a 35% change in the school-age population, as well as the establishment of a funding adjustment mechanism to accommodate increasing educational demands.
- Given the complexity of this reform, which intertwines with future response funds, education tax distribution, and local finance reform, they argued that relevant committees, including the Finance and Economy Committee and the Administrative Safety Committee, should jointly review the entire financial structure rather than leaving it solely to the Education Committee.
- Finally, the council officially requested the National Assembly Speaker to exclude this bill from being designated as a supplementary law to the revenue budget proposal to prevent it from being rushed through without adequate review.
Concluding the press conference, Chairman Jeong stated, 'To change a system that has been the foundation of educational finance for 55 years, there must be sufficient evidence and social consensus that the new system can provide more stable educational guarantees for children.' He urged the National Assembly to make responsible judgments and develop alternatives.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.