Korean Comparative Education Society, Donghyun Kim, Dongyub Lee
[Purpose] This study aims to compare the structural patterns of autonomous curriculum areas in elementary schools across three East Asian countries—South Korea, China, and Japan—amidst the global trend of curriculum decentralization. Furthermore, it seeks to identify the governance dynamics between curriculum autonomy and state control as conceptualized by each nation. [Methods] Bereday’s (1964) four-step comparative methodology—description, interpretation, juxtaposition, and comparison—was applied. Focusing on South Korea’s 2022 Revised Elementary School Curriculum, China’s Compulsory Education Curriculum Plan (2022), and Japan’s Course of Study for Elementary Schools (2017), the study conducted a cross-analysis of the ideal human images and educational goals, the intensity of structural control over time allocation, and the modes of achievement standard setting, learning experience organization, and assessment and implementation support systems associated with each nation's autonomous curriculum areas. [Results] First, South Korea’s ‘School Autonomy Hour’ was identified as a ‘Radical Power Delegation Model’ of a hybrid nature, where radical temporal flexibility is granted yet operates within the constraints of administrative regulatory guidelines. Second, China’s ‘Comprehensive Practical Activities and Labor’ was found to be an ‘Instrumental Reproduction Model’ that mandates the practice of state ideology within a framework of formal decentralization. Third, Japan’s ‘Period for Integrated Studies’ was confirmed as a ‘Protected Integration Model’ that secures methodological discretion within fixed instruction hours. [Conclusion] While South Korea’s ‘School Autonomy Hour’ represents an unprecedentedly innovative attempt at decentralization, it simultaneously confronts a ‘paradox of autonomy,’ imposing significant design burdens and professional responsibilities on teachers. To prevent this initiative from devolving into institutional neglect or fragmented classroom practice, the study advocates for the systematic development of national-level modular curriculum prototypes, the expansion of principals' approval authority for previously sanctioned subjects, the restructuring of governance toward Professional Learning Communities(PLCs), and a transition from result-oriented inspection to process-centered consultative supervision systems.
This study aims to analyze and compare education financing systems in Finland, Japan, the United States, and Indonesia, with a focus on identifying key characteristics, philosophical differences, and policy implications of each model. The research employs a systematic literature review combined with comparative analysis, using management-oriented indicators including equity, efficiency, governance, and sustainability. Findings indicate that Finland implements a full public funding model emphasizing equity, Japan operates a hybrid model with high transparency, the United States exhibits significant disparities due to property-tax-based decentralization, and Indonesia remains in a transitional phase with challenges in fiscal capacity and governance accountability. The study highlights that successful education financing depends on consistent policy implementation, clear funding distribution formulas, and integrity in governance systems. The results provide actionable policy implications for improving national education financing, including the adoption of needs-based funding formulas, digitalized accountability systems, and diversified funding sources through public–private partnerships. By integrating management and governance dimensions, this study contributes to a better understanding of effective and equitable educational funding practices across diverse contexts.
The modern educational prison has no bars. Students attend, comply, pass tests, receive diplomas — and emerge unable to use what those diplomas certify. This paper formalizes that decoupling as CM-001 (Idolatry Failure) in educational governance using the Zero Leap Theory (ZLT) framework. When the Alignment Gate (Φ) closes — through mandatory curricula, high Forced Exposure Ratios (FER), and assessment-driven instruction — the system enters an Idolatry Failure regime: the proxy (standardized scores, compliance metrics) is optimized while the structural target (transferable learning capacity, V_real) drifts. The Structural Delusion Index for Education (SDI_edu) is positive and growing. Internal metrics report success. External audit reveals divergence. This paper is the structural complement of ZLT-P15 (The Credential Standardization Trap). P15 addresses the quadrant where exit is blocked (C → 0): coercion is visible. P16 addresses the orthogonal quadrant: exit is available (C > 0), but Φ has closed. Students remain. Metrics stay green. The structural damage is invisible — precisely because assessment pressure simultaneously suppresses the behavioral signals (dropout, resistance) that would trigger correction. This is the Invisible Prison: a five-criterion observable configuration detectable with existing OECD instruments. Core empirical result: Using PISA 2022 and the OECD Survey of Adult Skills 2023 across 33 OECD countries: ρ(FER, SDI_edu) = 0.795, p < 0.0001. Higher Forced Exposure Ratio is strongly associated with greater proxy/competence decoupling. t-test high-FER vs low-FER countries: t = 4.986, p = 0.0008. Prediction 3 of ZLT-P16 confirmed. The structural triangle: South Korea presents the canonical case of sophisticated proxy/competence decoupling: top-3 PISA globally, 79% school belonging (above OECD average), but 22% life dissatisfaction (above OECD average). In the Survey of Adult Skills 2023, Korean adults (16-65) score below the OECD average in numeracy and adaptive problem-solving. Among Korean youth (16-24), literacy is above OECD average, but adaptive problem-solving falls below — the structural signature of compliance-type learning: succeeds where assessment trains, fails specifically on transfer competence. Finland is the proof-of-concept: comparable proxy outcomes, SDI_edu near zero, adult skills above OECD average across all three domains including youth 16-24. Two core corollaries derived from CM-001/P75 and I-3/P_SYNTH: P16.C1 (Alignment-Divergence): when Φ < Φ_min, SDI_edu grows monotonically — proxy improves while ρ(proxy, V_real) declines. P16.C2 (Invisible Acquiescence): the conditions that close Φ simultaneously suppress the behavioral signals that would alert the system to its own failure. The prison self-conceals. New constructs: SDI_edu three-layer audit family (SDI-1 within-system, SDI-2 young-adult orthogonal, SDI-3 long-run structural); Compliance Cascade Onset Point (CCOP); Invisible Prison as five-criterion observable state; IAS-CUR v2.1 audit standard; Attribution Inversion Principle (P16.AIP). This Zenodo record includes: ZLT_P16_v2_2_zenodo.pdf — full paper (14 pages, DOI embedded) ZLT_P16_v2_2.docx — Word source ZLT_P16_v2_1_with_appendices.docx — version with embedded figures and Appendices D–F zlt_cur_audit.py — IAS-CUR v2.1 executable audit tool (4/4 canonical tests passing; run: python zlt_cur_audit.py --test) zlt_p16_phase_diagram.py — Phase Diagram Suite: FER vs SDI_edu for 33 OECD countries (run: python zlt_p16_phase_diagram.py) zlt_p16_knowledge_decay.py — Knowledge Decay Index (KDI) exploratory tool with honest null result zlt_p16_ias_cur_interactive.html — IAS-CUR v2.1 interactive browser-based audit (open in any browser, no server needed) 9 companion PNG figures (phase diagram suite + KDI suite) All scripts run in Google Colab without API keys or external downloads. No authentication required. Part of the Zero Leap Theory (ZLT) series. Upstream: ZLT-P75 (CM-001 / doi:10.5281/zenodo.18940742), ZLT-P_SYNTH (I-3, OD-1 / doi:10.5281/zenodo.19498184), ZLT-P15 (structural complement / doi:10.5281/zenodo.18344309). Series root: doi:10.5281/zenodo.18264279. v2.2 changelog: Corrects empirical overclaim on Korea 16-24 youth data present in v2.1. Accurate data per OECD Survey of Adult Skills 2023: literacy above OECD average, numeracy near average, adaptive problem-solving below OECD average. Domain-specific decoupling framing (compliance-type learning fails specifically on transfer competence) replaces the v2.1 maximal claim. Theory, structure, and all other empirical claims unchanged. Companion tools added in this version.
Educational inequality persists across ASEAN despite improvements in enrollment and literacy, reflecting structural rather than merely access-related challenges. This study examines how governance structures, financing mechanisms, institutional capacity, and socio-economic stratification interact to produce disparities in educational access, participation, and progression. Using a qualitative-dominant mixed-methods design with cross-national comparative policy analysis, the research integrates macro-level quantitative indicators with in-depth qualitative evaluation of policy frameworks across ASEAN member states. Findings reveal that while primary enrollment approaches universality, secondary and tertiary education exhibit pronounced attrition, particularly among rural, low-income, and minority populations. Centralized governance, equitable public financing, and targeted support correlate with higher retention and reduced disparities, as evidenced in high-performing systems such as Singapore, whereas decentralized or under-resourced systems exacerbate structural inequities. Moreover, digital access and institutional capacity emerge as critical factors influencing educational trajectories. The study underscores that addressing inequality requires systemic reforms integrating governance coordination, progressive financing, institutional strengthening, and equity-focused interventions. By foregrounding structural determinants and cross-national variation, this research contributes to theoretical and policy debates on educational equity, providing evidence-based guidance for ASEAN strategies aimed at achieving inclusive, high-quality education across diverse socio-economic and geographic contexts.
From July 1, 2025, Vietnam will replace its three-tier local government structure with a two-tier model, raising questions about how far legal decentralization can deliver more inclusive and collaborative governance in key sectors such as education. This article uses doctrinal legal analysis to examine the constitutional, organization- al, and fiscal architecture of the reform, focusing on the education decentralization decrees issued by the government. It asks how the two-tier model reallocates powers across the center, province, and commune, whether finance, performance indicators, and data governance rules are aligned with subsidiarity, fiscal equivalence, and trans- parent multilevel coordination, and which combinations of rules create a real scope for collaboration. The analysis finds that inclusive collaboration is most likely where devolved mandates are matched by predictable, equalized funding, clearly specified Education Management Information System (EMIS)-based information flows, and enforceable participation procedures, while ambiguous oversight clauses and frag- mented data systems risk precautionary recentralization, especially in capacity-con- strained provinces. The article concludes by proposing doctrinal benchmarks and a phased implementation roadmap to help policymakers translate the two-tier reform from formal devolution into operational collaboration in the education sector.
This comparative study investigates China’s policy reform waves alongside global education trends, analyzing 334 central-level policy documents published by the National People’s Congress, State Council, and Ministry of Education between 1979 and 2023. The study identifies three waves: enhancing access (1979–1990), improving quality and accountability (1991–2010), and enforcing equity (2011–2023). Even though the decentralization of finance and administration of education led, a few years later, to equity and quality concerns, several key differences to global reform trends remained: decentralization did not lead to deregulation; outcomes-based regulation complemented but did not replace input-based regulation; equity remained central, especially in the final reform wave.
This comparative policy analysis examines the education systems of South Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore—East Asia’s “Asian Tigers”—focusing on their historical development, philosophies, objectives, structures, financing, administration, and teacher policies. Utilizing Bereday’s (1964) comparative method, the study synthesizes secondary sources, including government reports and academic journals, to explore how these nations leverage education for economic and social progress within distinct political and cultural contexts. South Korea’s system emphasizes fierce competition and STEM excellence, driven by high-stakes exams like the CSAT, yet grapples with equity issues due to private tutoring prevalence. Taiwan prioritizes holistic development, bilingualism, and a 12-year compulsory framework, fostering inclusivity but facing rural-urban disparities. Singapore champions meritocracy, aligning its streamlined 6-4-2 structure with economic needs through early streaming and robust public funding, though it risks rigidity. Commonalities include centralized governance, rigorous academic standards, and public-private partnerships, while differences in financing and decentralization reflect contextual priorities. The findings highlight policy coherence as a driver of educational success, offering lessons for developing nations like Ethiopia, such as investing in teacher quality, early education, and equitable access. This study underscores the transformative potential of education when aligned with national goals, providing actionable insights for global education reform in an interconnected world.
I Gusti Ngurah Darmawan, Ace Suryadi, Dasim Budimansyah, Susilo Susilo
This chapter discusses the transformation of future elementary education policies in Indonesia. As a right of all citizens, elementary education has been mandated through constitutional amendments, stating that the government must finance compulsory and free elementary education. However, this provision is not in harmony with Law No. 20/2003 on National Education Standards, which imposes some costs on the community through private schools. A reorganization is needed regarding the pathways, types, and levels of education; one of them is the integration of vocational education into high schools with training programs as an option for students. Regarding the level of autonomy, it is noted that the previous National Education Standards Law did not align with regulations on government autonomy, resulting in obstacles to decentralization. For a strong educational autonomy to exist, it is suggested that the role of local governments be strengthened. Finally, the discussion on education financing highlights the need to formulate more concrete and measurable provisions in the revised National Education Standards Law. Education financing should include funding and budgets that reflect the needs of provision, as well as the roles of various levels of government in contributing to the funding of education.
This study analyzed the characteristics of local educational autonomy and finance operation and explored the future role and tasks of the local council. To this end, the trend of local educational autonomy and the role and operation direction of education finance were t summarized based on policy and institutional changes and related issues. Even though securing stable education finance is a precondition for realizing local educational autonomy and a necessary condition for the development of local educational autonomy, as the school age population continues to decrease, there is a growing demand for appropriate size of local educational finance. In addition, as local autonomy has been strengthened and fiscal decentralization has expanded, interest in fiscal soundness and accountability has also increased. Internally, it is necessary to establish cooperation between local administration and educational administration centered on the local council.
The RISE (Research on Improving Systems of Education) Programme political economy team focused on “adoption” (PET-A) examines the political conditions required to put learning at the center of an education system. This work stream has produced 12 historical case studies and three synthesis papers which draw on this rich material. This paper is part of the latter effort and offers a comparative analysis across five of the countries with RISE Country Research Teams (Ethiopia, Indonesia, Pakistan, Tanzania, and Vietnam), as well as additional case studies focusing on Chile and Peru. Building on the RISE systems framework (Pritchett, 2015), our political economy analysis incorporates issues of competing interests, power, and political strategy. We focus on the promoters and blockers of learning-oriented education reform and their respective powers and strategies to parse out the political contestations that are endemic to the reform processes that impact system coherence around learning. In this paper, we present a binding constraints framework to explore what a politics for learning might look like and examine areas of intervention that present critical bottlenecks impeding a country’s ability to deliver learning outcomes which, if addressed, pose the potential for large impact relative to other constraints. We draw upon the PET-A country case studies to include analysis of different factions and reform champions within government, including but not limited to the executive office (president/prime minister), Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Education, competing ministries, decentralized government levels, and local leaders. In doing, we elucidate how politics permeate nearly all accountability relationships in education systems and the likelihood that any given program will positively impact learning.
Abstract There are large variations in the choice of a decentralized or centralized education finance system across countries. We examine the financing of public primary education in China as a unique case study. China has successfully established modern universal basic education in the century from 1912 with very different education finance systems in different historical periods, ranging from a completely decentralized education finance system to a completely centralized system. This chapter presents a brief summary of China’s public primary education finance reforms and then provides a credible causal evaluation of its most recent centralized reform in 2006 using confidential school finance data as well as survey and census data. Similar to the recent literature on the centralization education finance reforms in the United States, we find that the 2006 reform in China leads to an increase in educational spending that translates to increases in student school enrollment and academic achievement. We also document unintended reform consequences that call for further research and policy design improvements.
Jul 1, 2022·Sohag University International Journal of Educational Research (SUIJER) /Sohag University International Journal of Educational Research (SUIJER)
The ministries of education in federal governments in the United States of America outline education, such as national standards and distant national plans, and state governments contribute the largest share of spending on education through the tax money that is collected. The federal government also intervenes to support spending on education in the poor American states, the central government also intervenes in Washington to provide the necessary costs necessary to achieve the minimum academic progress, in addition to providing the necessary costs to meet the needs of learners from the accompanying educational activities, in addition to providing the necessary funds for academic programs. And the technological devices needed to operate it. The education financing system in the United States of America stands out as a successful system that was able to build a decentralized model in which the laws governing the structure and content of education programs vary greatly from one state to another, with the diversity of educational funding sources in educational institutions. From a review of America's experiences in financing education, what can be used in providing Egyptian educational financing, such as: Searching for additional sources to provide Egyptian educational financing. Among the additional sources for financing educational institutions in the United States of America are national and private banks and the stock exchange, in addition to the private sector and the business sector. There is also a so-called grant law, whereby educational loans are granted to students, Granting Educational Loans, and supported by student loan programs from federal governments, and state loan programs, in addition to loans provided by educational institutions (colleges) there - in addition to grants and donations from associations Eligibility and endowment institutions in it. The educational vouchers system granted to parents in the United States of America is widely spread in American society, as this system is based on the assumption that these bonds increase competition between schools and rationalize spending in the field of education, and then work to improve the quality of education provided in all From public schools and private schools.
The unification of South Korea and North Korea is a plausible idea yet it requires a comprehensive preparation in advance. As a method to achieve fiscal efficiency in public services, decentralization theory1 is consistently applied. However, the current literature and political reality argue that decentralization does not always hold its efficiency. Therefore, this paper focuses on finding an ideal education finance model for post-unification Korea by studying how one country’s academic/economic status is related to their education finance model. This paper conducts the OLS linear regression analysis with 40 OECD and its partner countries’ information on GDP per capita, Gini Index, PISA mathematics score, and the form of education finance system. The main findings of this research are that the political and fiscal decentralization are different ideas, and fiscal decentralization does not always hold its efficiency as the decentralization theory states. Among the types of decentralization, the optimal education finance model for academic and economic improvement is deconcentration – which is a combination of fiscal centralization and political, or administrative, decentralization to empower regional autonomy.
Jun 14, 2021·Sohag University International Journal of Educational Research (SUIJER) /Sohag University International Journal of Educational Research (SUIJER)
The current article provides general features about the Japanese experience in the educational system and the inputs to its financing and spending, as the Department of Education in Japan is characterized by complementary between centralization and decentralization by providing double budgets for the advancement of education, so that the local authorities contribute almost half of the education expenses. Also, the amount of government spending on Japanese education exceeds about 20 % of the total national income, and these funds are often used well to serve the educational process. The local (municipal) municipal authorities participate in the central government in financing education, and each local authority provides the necessary financial support to educational institutions in it. Donations of individuals and organizations play a greater role in financing education, as do financial donation habits from banks, and those who hold funds contribute to financing Japanese educational programs. These financial donations appear to fund educational activities as the end of life nears the Japanese. This article concluded that Japanese government spending is on educational institutions (both public and private), and financial subsidies are provided to all educational entities, public and private, to students and families, and the private sector there supports educational funding.
Abstract This article examines how self-managed faculties in socialist Yugoslavia adopted market mechanisms in the 1970s and 1980s to attract international students and thus contributed to a commercialization of higher education. In the 1950s, Yugoslavia became a destination for students from postcolonial states because of its nonaligned politics. While Yugoslav officials first emphasized aid to students through scholarships, this article argues that projects based on profit seeking began to dominate thinking about aid in the late 1960s. Using archival records in Croatia and Serbia as well as UNESCO and World Bank reports, this article shows how domestic and international factors influenced these changes. Domestically, decentralizing political reforms and decreased funding for higher education allowed republic policy makers to disconnect technical aid from political priorities and to pursue self-financing international students. Detached from centralized policy making, Yugoslav university and republic leaderships, primarily in SR Croatia and SR Serbia, chose the immediate profits of international students over long-term investments in scholarship students. Internationally, reforms promoted by UNESCO and the World Bank shifted aid away from university training abroad to vocational training in situ. These new policies complemented an emerging international division of labor suited more to the economic interests of OECD states and multinational corporations than developing states.
Innovative policy in high school management of Vietnam is focused on giving more autonomy in decision making of task performance for education quality improvement. International literature reviews have shown that decentralizing on school curriculum development and delivering, finance allocation and human resource management is one of performance enhancing policies in education. This effort proposes an autonomous public high chool model in the context of 2019 Education Law enforcement and fulfillment of 2018 general education program.
The article probes into factors that determine processes of decentralization in managing the general education system. The study entails a review of pertinent literature and an analysis of the distribution of powers among entities managing the general education system based on the European countries' experience. The study concludes that the education management system in the most EU-countries is decentralized or gradually being decentralized and de-concentrated on the basis of the subsidiarity principle. The results of our research give the possibility to affirm that the successful implementation of the decentralization reform requires the following two conditions: political support for proposed changes and the ability of those charged with carrying out the reform. An analysis of literature confirms that decentralization as a process is also a function of factors other than political will and capacity. These factors include trust (the extent of decentralization depends on the central government’s trust in the local government, and vice versa), financial troubles, path dances, international developments, etc. An analysis of the distribution of decision making powers in areas of financing and human resources demonstrates that there is a trend towards decentralization, albeit inconsistent due to obstacles on the level of centralized management. The article maintains that there has to be an adequate balance between centralization, which is necessary for the implementation of general national educational objectives, and decentralization, which allows teachers, schoolchildren, parents and the representatives of local communities to participate in education management.
Symbolic of the rise of neoliberal principles in Irish education policy, there is now a move towards advancing school autonomy and decentralizing decision-making to individual schools, possibly emulating the academy model that has become widespread in England. Increasing the freedom and independence of schools may involve using private actors to provide what has traditionally been the service of the state, but it will most definitely involve schools behaving more like private sector organizations. While some of the new powers that would be devolved to schools might seem attractive, especially in how they are presented at an official level, this paper highlights how features of autonomous schools that may initially seem appealing are, in practice, likely to be unsuited to the Irish context. In this regard, this paper advises that school autonomy should not be advanced in Ireland.
이 논문에서는 지방교육재정분권의 개념을 정리하고, 세입과 세출 측면에서 현황을 간략하게 살펴본 뒤, 지방교육재정분권을 위한 향후 과제를 제안하였다. 재정분권화는 지방교육자치제도 발전을 위한 핵심요소로서 권한 및 재원의 지방 이양, 지방의 자율성 제고와 더불어 이에 상응하는 책임성이 요구된다. 한국의 지방교육재정은 세입분권 측면에서 이전재원중심의 불안정한 세입구 조를 보이고 있고, 세출분권 측면에서는 중앙의 통제권한과 국가사업수행을 위한 재정지출 과다, 재정운용의 자율성 취약의 특징을 보여준다. 앞으로 지방교육재정의 세입분권 강화를 위해서는 지방교육발전을 위해 필요한 재정 확충, 안정성 강화, 과세자주권 확보가 필요하다. 세출분권 강화를 위해서는 관련정책 결정 및 법령 제·개정시 참여 보장, 재정운용의 자율성 확대, 지방교육자치 제도의 강화가 요청된다. 그리고 책무성 확보를 위해서는 재정관리 역량의 강화와 협력적 거버넌 스의 확대가 병행되어야 한다.In this article, the concept of local education finance decentralization was summarized, and the present situation was briefly reviewed in terms of revenue and expenditure, and the future task for decentralization of local education was proposed. Fiscal decentralization is a key factor for the development of the local education autonomy, which requires the delegation of authority and financial resources, the improvement of local autonomy, and the corresponding accountability. In Korea, the local education finance shows the characteristics of the dependency of transferring resources and the unstable revenue structure in terms of revenue decentralization. And in terms of expenditure decentralization, there is excessive central government control and fiscal expenditure for national projects, and fiscal autonomy is weak. In order to strengthen the decentralization of local education finances, it is necessary to secure stable financial resources for the development of local education, to secure its own resources, to simplify the tax structure and to secure taxation autonomy. In order to strengthen the decentralization of expenditure, it is required to guarantee the participation in decision-making of related policies and regulations, the autonomy of financial management, and the strengthening of local education autonomy. In order to secure accountability, it is necessary to expand cooperative governance and enhance financial management capacity.
Social policy scholars often take the view that welfare states can be classified into different types based on distinct political philosophies and stable institutional features. However, it is a challenge to fit China squarely into any existing taxonomy. Using the volatile growth of educational expenditure in recent years as an example, this paper contends that China’s social policy in general, educational policy, in particular, has not evolved into a stable model. Much of the irregularity stems from the tension between centralized mandates and decentralized financing, often leading to underfunded social programs. In response, the central government relies on top-down mobilization to achieve unfunded or underfunded policy mandates. Mobilization, however, cannot last long as it stresses and strains local governments. The alternation between mobilization and post-mobilization accounts for the great irregularity in educational financing and poses a serious challenge for China’s welfare state building. There is a need to replace mobilization with a more regularized, sustainable and equitable financing mechanism for education and other social programs.