[Reporter’s Notebook] Education Integration in Greater Gwangju-Jeonnam: Ambitious Expansion, But Budget Shortfall Risks Half-Measures

Concerns Over Decreased Education Transfers Due to Special Tax Rate Adjustment
Securing Substantial Funding Is Essential for Core Educational Services

After much difficulty, the Special Act on the Establishment of Jeonnam-Gwangju Integrated Metropolitan City finally passed the National Assembly on March 1.

This passage is a welcome milestone, marking an ambitious first step toward preventing regional extinction in the face of the Seoul metropolitan area’s dominance, and driving transformative regional balanced development through the creation of an ultra-wide megacity. The rosy blueprint of attracting companies and creating jobs by forming a single economic bloc is already stirring excitement within the local community.

However, the mood within the education sector—who should be celebrating most—is not entirely bright. This is because, within the grand vision for the newly launched large-scale municipality, ‘education’ for future generations faces the risk of being left behind.

The controversy stems from the ‘special tax rate adjustment provision’ specified in Article 61 of the Special Act. There are concerns that giving local governments the drastic authority to increase or decrease local tax rates by up to ±100% through local ordinances to attract businesses could become a double-edged sword.

This is because local education taxes and statutory transfers, which are the core sources of funding for the education offices, are directly linked to local tax rates. Even through simple arithmetic, the concerns are realistic. If the local government lowers the tax rate to the minimum, it is estimated that up to 542.3 billion won in transfers to the Gwangju and Jeonnam education offices could vanish.

As a result, there are growing concerns that essential educational programs—such as after-school care, multicultural education, and improvements to aging facilities—could be disrupted. Of course, there is an existing safeguard in the form of the Local Education Finance Grants Act. If local government transfers decrease, the Ministry of Education compensates the shortfall through ordinary grants.

However, this is only a short-sighted interpretation. Covering the income decrease of a specific region with the overall grants essentially reduces the ‘pie’ to be shared among all 17 provincial and metropolitan education offices nationwide—a balloon effect. A fiscal operation that fills one’s own coffers by dipping into others’ pockets can hardly be called a true model of autonomy.

The true completion of the local era begins with the independence of ‘educational autonomy.’ However, during the legislative process, core provisions for the transfer of authority—such as special privileges for foreign students, which were regarded as a potential solution to the decline of regional universities—were blocked by the central government’s rigid standards. Demanding educational innovation tailored to local characteristics without providing either authority or budget is akin to asking someone to drive a supercar without fuel.

The success of a megacity does not simply lie in breaking down administrative boundaries. Young parents will not take root in a city where quality educational services are not guaranteed. An integrated special municipality with a collapsed educational infrastructure is nothing but a castle built on sand.

It is imperative to secure stable educational funding that matches the enlarged scale. This is why, during the process of enacting enforcement ordinances, local education taxes should be excluded from tax rate adjustment targets, or clear provisions must be established to compensate for any reductions.

To avoid the stigma of being a ‘half-baked integration,’ robust measures to protect the education budget must be established—even at this stage.

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