We Must Not Eliminate Elite Schools

Elite schools in South Korea started with the purpose of providing diversified curricula for students with talents. Contrary to their primary goal, elite schools focused on sending as many students as possible to prestigious universities¹⁾. Since university admission plays a significant role in Koreans’ lives such as marriage and employment²⁾, people started to assert that we should abolish the elite schools, and promote equality in Korean education. However, we must maintain elite schools as they are the results of people’s voluntary choice, serve as positive externalities, and in fact, have continuously tried to boost equality within elite schools, making education fairer.

Elite schools are doubtless the result of people’s choice to receive high-quality education in order to refine students’ talents. Every student has different talents, and professional education tailored to each student’s aptitude and trait is undoubtedly beneficial for the student’s development. Elite schools, established with the goal of providing diversified curricula as well as an environment for intensive studying, have done this job excellently. Global schools have set the stage for students to become creative global leaders, and autonomous schools, with their freer courses and activities, have given students the chance to plan their own projects and learn from trial and error. It is true that these elite schools perform much better on the College Scholastic Aptitude Test, and they may seem to create “rankings among high schools”, increasing disparity in education³⁾. However, considering the fact that elite schools are places for not only engaging in specialised education, but also for concentrating on regular school studies, this is a natural outcome. The focus should be on the fact that these schools have successfully achieved their goals as well as people have actually wanted this in the first place.

Apart from diversified curricula, elite schools provide high-quality education – a positive externality. Gregory Mankiw, a renowned economist, stated in his book Principles of Economics that education is the foundation for long-term development within an economy as well as society⁴⁾. High-quality education allows people to explore more diverse fields and cultivate their skills, increasing the overall human capital and facilitating efficient specialisation. When the economy develops in the long term as a result of high-quality education, welfare policies are implemented, fostering a better society for most people to live in. Elite schools are the institutions that can realistically bring the positive externality and make the entire society better off. It is doubtless valid to argue, as the main opposition party Liberty Korea Party did, that the abolition of elite schools “may have long-term negative influence on future generations”, nipping the positive externality in the bud⁵⁾. It is reasonable to question whether Mankiw’s statement on education’s positive externality will really take place as a number of microeconomic theories do not happen in reality. However, this theory is a long-term theory, which often realise as shown in the market heading towards an equilibrium in the long run. Therefore, though there are claims that elite schools increase social disparity, making it more difficult for the underprivileged to survive, in the long run, it is elite schools that will improve the society on a national level.

Some harbour the idea that elite schools are unaffordable for have-nots, and establish a barrier in advance for students not studying at elite schools, depriving them of their opportunity to attend prestigious universities, so elite schools should disappear. This is a partly valid opinion in that elite schools charge “three times higher on average” than non-elite schools, and “parents usually spend 1.4 to 1.7 times more on private education” so that their children could be accepted²⁾. However, despite this depressing truth that seems to discriminate against the underprivileged, elite schools have striven to guarantee equality of opportunity. Hana Academy Seoul (HAS), since its establishment, has granted need-blind scholarships to students from low-income families registered by the government. When they graduate, HAS even gives them scholarships for attending universities if they need them. In addition to providing financial aid, HAS sets a quota on the places students are from so that it could ensure that more applicants enjoy equal opportunity. These efforts to decrease inequality are often undermined by the current administration’s policy to prohibit external organisations such as Hana Financial Group from funding elite schools; but these efforts are truly the unsung efforts. Abolishing elite schools may make our society look more equal. However, it actually strips the underprivileged of their chance to receive quality-education promised by elite schools, and makes the current efforts of elite schools to reduce educational disparity null and void (in this sense, abolition of elite schools creates inequality). Elite schools are becoming more affordable with generous financial aid for have-nots, and eliminating them is not the solution for decreasing inequality in education.

Elite schools began with the goal of providing high-quality specialised education to students with talents. No one can deny that they still have problems such as unaffordable tuition for the poor and their sending a disproportionate number of students to prestigious universities. However, in order to truly reduce educational disparity, we should give more freedom to elite schools rather than abolish them so that with more financial support they receive from external organisations such as banks and firms, they could ensure equal opportunity for the underprivileged and educate them to mingle with each other. Additionally, the government should consider granting more funds to elite schools as well as non-elite schools so that more students can relish the benefits of high-quality education. With flourishing elite schools supported by the government and society, South Korea will enjoy both the fruits of high-quality education as well as reduced social disparity.

References

1)      Bahk, Eun-ji. “Parents protest closure of 2 elite middle schools.” The Korea Times. http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/nation/2020/06/113_291061.html

2) Ock, Hyun-ju. “Elite high schools to be abolished in 2025.” The Korea Herald. http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20191107000794&ACE_SEARCH=1

3) Korea Times. “Row over elite schools.” The Korea Times. http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/opinion/2019/06/137_271239.html

4) Mankiw, Gregory. “Principles of Economics.”

5) Hwang, Jang-jin. “S. Korea split over fate of embattled elite high schools.” Yonhap News Agency. https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20190626005900315?section=search