Artificial intelligence (AI) is changing the game in education. Students complete assignments using generative AI, while the private education market is rapidly expanding AI-based customized learning and college admissions consulting. Yet public education, in reality, has failed to properly utilize the education data accumulated over decades and cannot keep pace with the speed of change. Discussions on reforming the local education finance grants are also intensifying, citing a declining school-age population and imbalances in the education budget. Yang Jung-ho, a professor of education at Sungkyunkwan University and an expert in education policy, said in an interview with Seoul Economic Daily on the 27th, "AI is not a technology that replaces teachers, but a tool that can revive the competitiveness of public education." He added, "The starting point of education reform is making the public trust schools again." Professor Yang stressed, "We must combine the public data accumulated by schools and universities with AI to support customized learning and career planning, and education finance must also be redesigned to fit future education." He emphasized, "Education must become a long-term national project, not the policy of an administration."
- Where should education reform begin?
△ Restoring trust in public education comes first. Education must be designed with a view of at least 10 years, or as long as a generation. Yet we have revised curricula and admissions systems every time the administration changes. This is why parents worry more about policy changes than about schools. Education is not a project for the government's short-term achievements, but a long-term national system. We need a social consensus so that the broad direction of education does not waver even when the administration changes.
- Is AI education's enemy or its companion?
△ What AI should replace is not teachers, but teachers' repetitive work. It takes hours for a teacher to read and check the reports of 30 students one by one, but appropriate use of AI can greatly reduce the time spent on repetitive reviews. Teachers can use the time saved to closely examine students' learning levels, career paths, and emotional states. AI is not a technology that weakens teachers' expertise, but a tool that helps teachers focus more on students. Of course, this must be premised on a system in which teachers verify and take responsibility, rather than accepting AI's judgments as they are.
- Will AI also change the essence of education?
△ AI is nothing more than a tool and cannot change the essence of education. Past governments raised slogans such as information and communication technology (ICT) education, creative education, and convergence education, but in the end, education comes down to nurturing creativity and problem-solving ability. The basic framework in which students formulate their own questions and review materials to find answers does not change. Even Stanford University concluded that the core of university education in the AI era is not technology, but basic disciplines and thinking skills. The more it becomes the AI era, the more important the fundamentals become.
- Why does private education keep growing?
△ Admissions competition exists in every country. The reason private education is so large in our country is not competition but uncertainty. Policies change frequently, and admissions information accumulates faster in the private education market than in schools. The more anxious parents are, the more they turn to private academies. Rather than an approach of eliminating private education, a realistic solution is to have schools provide accurate information and sufficient career counseling so that people do not turn to private education out of anxiety.
- What is a realistic solution to reduce private education?
△ The places with the most data on students and education are schools and universities. College admissions materials are held by universities and the Korean Council for University Education, and students' learning records are accumulated in NEIS. Right now, this information is scattered across institutions and is not properly provided to students and parents. If the data is organically connected, students' academic levels, aptitudes, and career paths can be analyzed far more precisely. If schools provide information on each student's learning and college admissions and the available paths, much of the admissions consulting that private academies have monopolized can be brought into public education.
- The controversy over local education finance grants is significant.
△ It is not easy to immediately adjust the ratio that allocates 20.79% of domestic taxes to local education finance grants. However, considering the declining school-age population and changes in the economic and social structure, the method of distribution and where the money is used must be reformed. There is a need to broaden the scope of investment to early childhood education and to universities and lifelong education, and to focus on areas that raise the quality of education, such as AI-based customized learning, career counseling personnel, and the operational foundation for the high school credit system. What matters is not how much is spent, but where it is invested.
- Why is the high school credit system faltering?
△ The problem is not that the system itself is wrong, but that it started without an operational foundation. In the United States, a counselor works with each student to design their course selection and career path together. In contrast, in our country, the homeroom teacher handles teaching, life guidance, and even administrative work. Under this structure, it is difficult to properly support students' course selection. Because the courses offered and teaching conditions differ by school, students' right to choose can vary depending on the region and the school. Only the system was imported, without preparing the foundation to support it, such as counseling personnel and joint curricula.
- Will "Creating 10 Seoul National Universities" succeed?
△ I understand the intent of fostering regional flagship national universities, but competitiveness does not arise simply by increasing budgets. We must first change the rigid administration of national and public universities, the seniority-based reward system, and internal vested interests. Chinese universities offer exceptional rewards and research autonomy to the talent they need, whereas we apply complicated procedures and uniform standards even as we claim to attract outstanding talent. Unless we create a structure where people are rewarded according to performance and can conduct research freely, "10 Seoul National Universities" is likely to end up as a financial support project with only a changed name.
- What is a realistic way to revive regional universities?
△ We must create universities that students "want to attend." Having universities in the capital region and regional universities share their curricula and operate joint or dual degrees is also a good approach. We must also show a path in which the knowledge learned at university leads to employment and entrepreneurship, in connection with local companies and research institutions. Contract-based departments are not the answer to every problem. We cannot know whether promising advanced industries such as semiconductors today will guarantee the same level of employment four to six years later when students graduate. Universities must be places that cultivate the fundamental capabilities and convergence skills to adapt to changing industries.
- What about the discussion on the crisis of teachers' authority and its protection?
△ It is a period of confusion rather than a crisis. The boundaries of how far teachers can guide and discipline students have become ambiguous. Through COVID-19, parents directly experienced teachers' lessons through online classes and other means, and the way they view teachers has changed. From teachers' perspective, there is a heavy burden that guiding students could lead to complaints or legal disputes. But will creating an organization like a teachers' rights protection bureau solve the problem? We must socially redefine teachers' authority and responsibility, students' rights, and parents' roles, and at the same time change the work structure of schools so that teachers can focus on education without being drained by unnecessary administration and dispute handling.
- Should the school organization change?
△ The most avoided tasks in schools are life guidance, school violence, and information and grade management, yet new or transferred teachers, rather than experienced teachers, often take on these tasks. It is a structure that assigns the most difficult work to the least experienced people. Teachers who enter school with a passion for education become exhausted, running into complaints and administration from their very first task. Separate specialized personnel should handle school violence, legal responses, and information management, and teachers should spend more time on teaching and guiding students. Focusing teachers' expertise on teaching and counseling is the starting point for restoring the competitiveness of public education.
- What is the solution to private education for infants and young children?
△ It is difficult to solve through regulation alone. In an era when families have only one or two children, parents try to do everything they can for their children. English kindergartens and various forms of early education also begin from the anxiety that a child might fall behind. Banning exams does not make the anxiety disappear. What matters is raising the quality of public education and care from the infant and early childhood stage, objectively assessing a child's language, cognitive, and emotional development, and providing parents with reliable information. Public education must inspire enough trust that parents feel they "do not need to bother with private education."
