[Opinion] Challenges of the Transition Committee Without Education Experts

These days, news about the Presidential Transition Committee (Transition Committee) is a hot topic. This is because who participates in the Transition Committee, which is responsible for 'understanding the current status of government organization, functions, and budget' and 'preparing to set the policy direction of the new government,' is important. Following last week's appointment of transition members, the appointments of expert members and working-level members were completed this week.

Last November, in this column, I called for minimizing education pledges under the theme of 'Concerns and Expectations about Presidential Election Education Pledges.' This is because education pledges presented by presidential candidates to gain political power can have political bias and implementing hastily prepared education pledges can undermine the stability of education policy, causing confusion. Unlike in the past, this presidential election did not have many noticeable education pledges, but this can also be interpreted as an expression of indifference toward education.

Watching the appointments to the Transition Committee, I thought that the scarcity of education pledges was the result of indifference to education or the absence of education experts. The education community views the Transition Committee without education experts with concern. Although university professors in the science and technology field are undoubtedly education figures, they are not education experts. Even a former 2nd Vice Minister of the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology is difficult to regard as an education expert. It was said that education experts would participate as expert members to supplement, but when the lid was actually opened, there were no expert education professionals other than current and former education bureaucrats.

Judging by the composition of the Transition Committee, it seems obvious that science and technology policy will be prioritized over education policy. In a Transition Committee without education experts, the role of expert members has become more important than ever, but expert members have the limitation of having no final decision-making authority. Expert members are only expert members, not transition members.

There are already talks about integrating the Ministry of Science and ICT and the Ministry of Education. It seems as if the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology from the Lee Myung-bak administration is being revived as the Ministry of Science and Technology Education. The reason for splitting the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology into the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Future Creation Science when the Park Geun-hye administration began seems to have already been forgotten. The Ministry of Education, Science and Technology was established not for education but for the needs of science and technology, and the Ministry of Future Creation Science was also for the needs of science and technology. If it becomes the Ministry of Science and Technology Education again according to the needs of science and technology, education will be pushed from the center back to the periphery.

I am concerned about education, not the Ministry of Education. There are about 480,000 education-related public officials (about 40% of all public officials), and when combined with about 300,000 private school staff, the number of teachers and staff reaches about 780,000. The number of students from kindergarten to graduate school is about 9.16 million.

Looking at the proportion in the education field, it is incomprehensible that among the 26 transition members, there is not a single education expert. The absence of education experts in the Transition Committee does not mean education will not function. However, the fact that some people have already given up hope even before the new government starts does not seem desirable.

I have previously pointed out that the core of education pledges should be finance, not policy. A representative education pledge, the integration of early childhood education, is a long-standing issue that has been discussed at the government level for 10 years. Expanding university support is also a regular item in presidential pledges, but university finances continue to deteriorate. Securing funding is the biggest obstacle for both, but the funding plan in the pledges is merely expenditure restructuring. Since the Transition Committee without education experts cannot be changed anyway, rather than recklessly shaking education policy, I hope at least solid measures for securing funding for university support and early childhood education integration are prepared. Stop the meaningless discussions of repeatedly attaching and detaching education and science and technology, which have become tiresome with every administration. Everything is possible, but not everything is beneficial. I only hope that the concerns of the education community about the Transition Committee without education experts are groundless.

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

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