Inequality of Educational Opportunity in Korea by Gender, Socio-Economic Background, and Family Structure

Abstract

In this paper, I summarise empirical findings regarding the degree of and trend in inequality of educational opportunity in South Korea to indicate the extent to which individuals' educational outcomes are associated with their ascribed characteristics such as gender, socio-economic origin, and family structure. To gauge the degree of educational inequality in South Korea, I refer to various studies that provide cross-national comparisons in the effects of gender and socio-economic background on educational achievement and attainment. To address how educational inequality has changed over time, I review studies that have tracked the effects across different birth cohorts. I also address the implications of recent demographic changes surrounding family structure, particularly increasing single parenthood and a growing number of children born in South Korean-foreigner families, for educational inequality. In helping understand the context of educational development in South Korea, I provide a short description of educational expansion in South Korea during the past few decades as well as some major features of the South Korean educational system.

Notes

1. Richard Breen and John O. Jonsson, ‘Inequality of Opportunity in Comparative Perspective: Recent Research on Educational Attainment and Social Mobility’, Annual Review of Sociology, Vol.31 (2005), pp.223–43.

2. An indicator of significant gender inequality would be a markedly low rate of South Korean women's labour force participation. Only half of the South Korean women of working age were in the labour force in 2000, compared to 75 per cent of men. See Uhn Cho, ‘Gender Inequality and Patriarchal Order Reexamined’, Korea Journal, Vol.44, No.1 (2004), pp.22–41.

3. For example, see Catherine Freeman, Trends in Educational Equity of Girls and Women: 2004 (NCES 2005-016) (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 2004), for recent findings of gender differences across several indicators of education in the United States.

4. Breen and Jonsson (note 1) p.224.

5. United Nations Children's Fund, A League Table of Educational Disadvantages in Rich Nations (Innocenti Report Card no. 4) (Florence: UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre, 2002), p.19.

6. Claudia Buchmann, ‘Measuring Family Background in International Studies of Education: Conceptual issues and Methodological Challenges’, in Andrew C. Porter and Adam Gamoran (eds), Methodological Advances in Cross-National Surveys of Educational Achievement (Washington, DC: National Academic Press 2002), pp.150–97. The author argues, at p.154, that compared to research on educational attainment where the effect of socio-economic background has been a central concern, research on educational achievement especially led by educational researchers and policy analysts has been concerned more with identifying school factors that may contribute to student learning, sometimes not paying serious attention to the role of socio-economic background.

7. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Education at a Glance 2004 (Paris: OECD, 2004).

8. OECD publications on education use the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED 97) to distinguish levels of educational attainment. According to the classification, tertiary-type A refers to theory-based programmes that prepare students for professions with high skill requirements or for advanced research programmes such as graduate schools. Type B tertiary education is oriented towards practical and vocational education that usually prepares students for employment. See Glossary in OECD, Education at a Glance 2004, ibid.

9. For more information on PISA, see OECD, Literacy Skills for the World of Tomorrow: Further Results from PISA 2000 (Paris: OECD 2003).

10. OECD, Problem Solving for Tomorrow's World: First Measures of the Cross-Curricular Competencies from PISA 2003 (Paris: OECD 2004), p.16.

11. Ibid. p.27.

12. OECD, Education at a Glance 2003 (Paris: OECD 2003), Table B2.1c. Among these countries, the Czech Republic (13,806 GDP per capita in 2000 in equivalent US dollars converted using Purchasing Power Parity calculations (PPPs)) and Greece (15,885) have the level of economic development similar to South Korea (15,186), while Italy (25,095) and New Zealand (20,372) have a higher level: ibid., Table X2.1.

13. Ibid., Table B3.2.

14. OECD, Education at a Glance 1997 (Paris: OECD 1997).

15. In South Korean private universities, tuition fees amount over 95 per cent of budgets. OECD, Education at a Glance 2003 (Paris: OECD 2003), p.215.

16. Ibid. pp.213–14.

17. More detailed discussions on various features of the South Korean educational system across different levels of education can be found in two previous studies: Hyunjoon Park, ‘Educational Expansion and Inequality’, Research in Sociology of Education, Vol.14 (2004), pp.33–58; Hyunjoon Park, ‘Educational Expansion and Inequality of Opportunity for Higher Education in South Korea’, in Y. Shavit, R. Arum, A. Gamoran and G. Menahem (eds), Expansion, Differentiation and Stratification in Higher Education: A Comparative Study of 15 Countries (in press).

18. Note that the equalisation policy has been applied to academic high schools only. Applicants for vocational schools have the opportunity to choose their schools.

19. OECD, Education at a Glance 2005 (Paris: OECD 2005), Table A1.4.

20. For example, advancement rates from academic secondary education to tertiary education in 2004 were 89.8 per cent for both males and females. KEDI, Educational Statistics System, http://cesi.kedi.re.kr/jcgi-bin/index.jsp (accessed 1 December 2005).

21. Park, ‘Educational Expansion and Inequality of Opportunity’ (note 17); Sang-soo Chang, ‘Patterns and Change of Educational Attainment in Korea’, presented at the annual meeting of International Sociological Association, Research Committee 28, Tokyo, Japan, 1–3 March 2003; Hanam Phang and Kihun Kim, ‘Educational Stratification of Korean Society’, Korean Journal of Sociology, Vol.37, No.4 (2002), pp.31–65 (in Korean). Park compared four birth cohorts (those born before 1951, 1951–60, 1961–70, and 1971 or after) and Chang examined differences between four birth cohorts (1926–45, 1946–55, 1956–65 and 1966–75). Phang and Kim distinguished those aged 30 or below, 31–40, 41–50, and 51 or above, using data collected in 2001.

22. Mary C. Brinton and Sunhwa Lee, ‘Women's Education and the Labour Market in Japan and South Korea’, in Mary Brinton (ed.), Women's Working Lives in East Asia (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press 2001), pp.204–32. According to Brinton and Lee, advancement rates among women from high school to junior college increased from 2.4 per cent in 1955 to over 20 per cent in 1995. During the same period, advancement rates among men remained stable at less than 5 per cent.

23. Richard Breen and John O. Jonsson, ‘Analyzing Educational Career: A Multinomial Transition Model’, American Sociological Review, Vol.65 (2000), pp.754–72; Samuel R. Lucas, ‘Effectively Maintained Inequality: Educational Transitions, Track Mobility, and Social Background Effects’, American Journal of Sociology, Vol.106 (2001), pp.1642–90.

24. Park, ‘Educational Expansion and Inequality of Opportunity’ (note 17). See also Kihun Kim and Hanam Phang, ‘Social Class and Gender Differentials in Korean and Japanese Higher Education’, Korean Journal of Sociology, Vol.39, No.5 (2005), pp.119–51 (in Korean). Because of the small sample size for each cohort and the method of contrasting only with the oldest cohort of 1940–49, Kim and Phang's study is not quite sensitive enough for detecting changes over time. But the overall trends in gender differences observed in their study are generally consistent with what I have found.

25. OECD, Literacy Skills for the World of Tomorrow (note 9) Table 5.2a.

26. Ina V. S. Mullis et al., Gender Differences in Achievement: IEA's Third International Mathematics and Science (TIMSS) (Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College 2000). Also see OECD, Literacy Skills for the World of Tomorrow (note 9) p.142.

27. OECD, Education at a Glance 2004 (note 7) Table A9.5.

28. Ibid. Table A4.2.

29. For more information on the index, see OECD, Literacy Skills for the World of Tomorrow (note 9) p.233. See also Harry B. G. Ganzeboom, Paul De Graff and Donald J. Treiman, ‘A Standard International Socio-Economic Index of Occupational Status’, Social Science Research, Vol.21, No.1 (1992), pp.1–56.

30. OECD, Literacy Skills for the World of Tomorrow (note 9) Table 6.1a.

31. Hyunjoon Park, ‘Cross-National Variation in the Effects of Family Background on Educational Achievement: Relevance of Institutional and Policy Contexts’ (PhD Dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison 2005).

32. Adam Gamoran, ‘Curriculum Standardisation and Equality of Opportunity in Scottish Secondary Education: 1984–90’, Sociology of Education, Vol.69, No.1 (1996), pp.1–21.

33. Breen and Jonsson (note 1) p.225; Robert Mare, ‘Change and Stability in Educational Stratification’, American Sociological Review, Vol.46, No.1 (1981), pp.72–87.

34. Mare (note 33). Yossi Shavit and Hans-Peter Blossfeld (eds), Persistent Inequality: Expansion, Reform, and Opportunity in Thirteen Countries (Boulder, CO: Westview Press 1993). The 13 studies included in the edited volume by Shavit and Blossfeld used basically the same model of educational transition.

35. See Park ‘Educational Expansion and Inequality’ (note 17) p.33; Park, ‘Educational Expansion and Inequality of Opportunity’ (note 17); Chang (note 21); Phang and Kim (note 21) p.31; Kim and Phang (note 24) p.119.

36. Park, ‘Educational Expansion and Inequality of Opportunity’ (note 17). Chang (note 21) has found that the increasing effects of the father's education are particularly apparent among women.

37. Sara McLanahan and Gary D. Sandefur, Growing Up with a Single Parent (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press 1994).

38. Sara McLanahan, ‘Diverging Destinies: How Children are Faring under the Second Demographic Transitions’, Demography, Vol.41, No.4 (2004), pp.607–27.

39. Timothy J. Biblarz and Greg Gottainer, ‘Family Structure and Children's Success: A Comparison of Widowed and Divorced Single-Mother Families’, Journal of Marriage and the Family, Vol.62, No.2 (2000), pp.533–48; Paul R. Amato and Bruce Keith, ‘Separation from a Parent during Childhood and Adult Socioeconomic Attainment’, Social Forces, Vol.70, No.1 (1991), pp.187–207.

40. OECD, Social Expenditure Database 1980–2001 (2004), http://www.oecd.org/social/expenditure (accessed 1 December 2005).

41. Misook Kim et al., Life Conditions of Low Income Single-Mother Families and Policy (Seoul: Korea Institute for Health and Social Affairs 2000) (in Korean).

42. Brinton (note 22).

43. Hyunjoon Park, ‘Growing Up in a Single-Parent Family in Korea’, Paper presented at the annual conference on Korean Education and Employment, Seoul, South Korea, 7 October 2005.

44. Kyehoon Oh and Kyunkyun Kim, ‘Effects on Children's Academic Achievement of Family Structure’, Journal of Sociology of Education, Vol.11 (2001), pp.101–23 (in Korean).

45. National Statistical Office (2005), http://www.kosis.nso.go.kr; Sung-bae Oh, ‘A Case Study of Kosian Children's Development and Environment’, Journal of Korean Education Vol.32, No.3 (2005), pp.61–82 at p.62.

46. Oh (note 45).

47. Park, ‘Educational Expansion and Inequality’ (note 17).

48. Chang (note 21).

49. Jiho Jang, ‘Economic Crisis and its Consequences’, in Doh C. Shin and Conrad P. Rutkowski (eds), The Quality of Life in Korea: Comparative and Dynamic Perspectives (Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003), pp.51–70.

50. Alan C. Kerckhoff, ‘Effects of Ability Groups in British Secondary Schools’, American Sociological Review, Vol.51 (1986), pp.842–58.

51. OECD, Literacy Skills for the World of Tomorrow (note 9) p.83.