[Opinion] Is the Private School Act a Graveyard of Regulation?

On the 31st of last month, after much controversy, the revised Private School Act, which was approved by the National Assembly's Education Committee on the 19th of the previous month, passed the plenary session of the National Assembly. This means that the amended law, including new regulations, passed the National Assembly just three weeks after its promulgation. The amendments include regulations related to the board of directors of school foundations, a recurring topic in revisions to the Private School Act, as well as elevating school operation committees to deliberative bodies, strengthening the functions of various committees, and expanding the involvement of supervisory authorities in disciplinary actions against faculty and staff.

The most contentious provision concerns the method of hiring teachers. It stipulates that when hiring new teachers, the process must be an open competition including a written exam, and that the written exam must be entrusted to the city or provincial superintendent of education. Although there is a clause allowing substitution of the written exam with another test or exemption from entrustment if approved by the superintendent, it appears ineffective in practice.

Mandating that the open recruitment process be entrusted to the superintendent of education is a measure to restrict school foundations from exercising substantial authority over teacher appointments. While it is clear that persistent corruption in private school teacher recruitment led to these regulations, stripping the appointment rights not only from corrupt private schools but also from sound private schools seems excessive. Although the final interview process by the school foundation remains, so it cannot be said that appointment rights have been completely revoked, it would be difficult for a school foundation to reject a candidate recommended by the superintendent after an open recruitment process through an interview. This would inevitably disregard each school's founding philosophy and uniqueness, reducing the school foundation's appointment procedures to a mere formality.

Who would oppose strengthening transparency and fairness in the hiring process of private school teachers, just as in public schools? However, the problem lies in the fact that the responsible party must be the city or provincial superintendent of education. What if the hiring process for parliamentary aides was entrusted to the Secretary-General of the National Assembly? Or the hiring process for professors at national universities was entrusted to the Minister of Education? Corruption sometimes occurs even in the hiring of parliamentary aides or national university professors, and since the state fully covers their salaries, there is a need to enhance transparency and fairness in those processes as well.

Parliamentary aides should vary according to the interests and political orientations of the members of parliament, and professors should differ according to the circumstances of each university and department or the specific subfields required. I fully agree. They should naturally differ. To think that private schools should have their appointment candidates selected by the city or provincial superintendent of education just like public schools ignores the differences between private schools and the differences in their founders.

Even in public schools, new teachers sometimes cause confusion and conflict because they do not fit the needs of the school or subject, but there is an expectation that such issues will be resolved after a few years through the transfer system. Private schools, which lack such an escape route, have no proper solution when problems arise with teachers they have appointed themselves, sometimes leading to unfair dismissal cases. Hiring teachers selected externally could cause even greater problems.

Since the Private School Act was enacted in 1963, this revision marks the 52nd amendment, excluding those made under other laws. Although regulatory provisions have been continuously added and strengthened, it does not seem that corrupt private schools have been eradicated. Strengthening regulations on private schools may temporarily suppress corrupt schools, but sound private schools suffer from diminished motivation, increased inconvenience, and decreased administrative efficiency as side effects.

Until now, the Private School Act has been a treasure trove for members of the National Assembly to increase the number of bills they propose, most of which were regulatory bills. The continuous proposal of regulatory bills is evidence that the regulations have been ineffective. The Private School Act has been a graveyard of regulations. At this point, after weighing the pros and cons of universal regulations that dampen the enthusiasm of sound private schools, shouldn't the direction shift toward support?

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

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