[Viewpoint] Should Education Finance Be Reduced as the Number of Students Declines?

The decline in the number of students has been steep since 2000. Compared to 2000, the number of kindergarten students increased by 10.1% this year, but elementary school students decreased by 33.1%, middle school students by 30.6%, and high school students by 40.6%. On the other hand, the budget for early childhood, elementary, and secondary education increased 4.1 times from 19.7 trillion won in 2000 to 80.4 trillion won in 2019 based on expenditure settlement amounts.

Of course, it cannot be ignored that the debt for new school construction costs covered by private investment (BTL) since 2005 amounts to 7.8 trillion won, and the issuance of local education bonds over the past 20 years has reached 24.3 trillion won. Unlike national bonds, local education bonds are repaid within the revenue from local education finance grants, so there is a problem of double counting in execution performance to the extent of local education bonds. It is natural to reduce education finances when the number of students decreases, but since the grants are legally set at 20.79% of domestic tax revenue, the grants automatically increase when domestic tax revenue increases regardless of the number of students. The argument that education finances should have been reduced proportionally since the number of early childhood, elementary, and secondary students decreased by 29.5% from 8.52 million to 6.01 million over 20 years seems plausible.

However, this argument has several problems. First, it does not consider the poor educational conditions in 2000. The number of students per class was so high that statistics could not be submitted to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Continuous investment was made in projects to improve educational conditions by reducing the number of students per class, raising the educational environment to nearly the international average level. Compulsory middle school education was completed, and after free early childhood education, free high school education was started last among OECD countries. It should not be overlooked that improvements in educational conditions and systems were achieved by taking advantage of the opportunity of declining student numbers.

Second, it overlooked that interest in improving the quality of education has only been recent, as most efforts were focused on improving educational conditions. It is not yet the stage to expect results, and continuous investment is necessary. Massive resources are expected to be required for expanding educational welfare, implementing the high school credit system, and innovating school spaces. Now is not the time to reduce education finance demand, nor is it the stage to cut the education budget.

Third, it ignored that the unit of consumption for education finance is the class, not the student. Although the number of students decreased by 29.5%, the number of classes increased by 19.6% from 230,000 to 275,000, and the number of teachers increased by 48.1% from 370,000 to 548,000. The number of classes and teachers increased while reducing the number of students per class. It was inevitable that the scale of education finance would increase.

The decrease in the number of students and the decrease in the number of classes are not proportional. When the number of students decreases, the number of classes should also decrease, but for a certain period, the number of classes may not decrease and may even increase. When the population moves socially, the number of classes may not decrease at schools where students transfer out, but may increase at schools where transfers concentrate.

Even if educational conditions or per-student education expenses reach the OECD average level, education finance should not be hastily reduced. It has only been 2 or 3 years since reaching near the international average level. As of the end of last year, the remaining debt is 7.8 trillion won, and compared to countries that have continuously invested at average levels, the difference in infrastructure accumulation is still significant. I want to ask those who, upon seeing the clear decline in student numbers, hastily insist on quickly cutting education finance without considering the circumstances. Do they truly consider education as a national long-term plan?

Eventually, education finance will decrease as the number of students decreases, and efforts to reduce it should be made. However, now is not the time. Only recently have systems been established to guarantee the public nature of education through compulsory middle school education, free early childhood education, and free high school education. Investment for qualitative improvement of education starts now.

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

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.