TEACHER UNIONS, SOCIAL MOVEMENTS AND THE POLITICS OF EDUCATION IN ASIA
For my wife Jeune Son without whose love and support this book would not exist, and my daughters, Emily, Gretel and Julia
Teacher Unions, Social Movements and the Politics of Education in Asia
South Korea, Taiwan and the Philippines
John P. Synott
Queensland University of Technology
First published 2002 by Ashgate Publishing
Reissued 2018 by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017, USA
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
Copyright John P. Synott 2002
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.
Notice:
Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.
Publishers Note
The publisher has gone to great lengths to ensure the quality of this reprint but points out that some imperfections in the original copies may be apparent.
Disclaimer
The publisher has made every effort to trace copyright holders and welcomes correspondence from those they have been unable to contact.
A Library of Congress record exists under LC control number: 2001093275
ISBN 13: 978-1-138-73734-1 (hbk)
ISBN 13: 978-1-315-18548-4 (ebk)
The 'miracle of the Han River' was a widely-used term to describe the rapid industrialisation and economic development of South Korea in the closing decades of the twentieth century. In development jargon the South Korean economy 'took off during those decades on a spectacular trajectory that took it from the ruins of war and aid-dependency to membership of the OECD and the fifteenth biggest economy in the world. The South Korean success story was important in providing a living example of the rewards that would flow to any underdeveloped nation that followed the growth model advocated for Newly Industrialising Countries, or NICs. Another NIC success story was Taiwan while the Philippines, though starting down the road, has not realised the NIC potential. The economic miracle of South Korea became a shining beacon in development ideology, a light to which other post-colonial nations in Africa, South America and Asia could aspire in their struggles against poverty, or so it was advocated. While the patterns of global relationships had become those of core in the North and periphery in the South, South Korea proved the existence of the semi-periphery and a continuum of growth and modernisation that was available to all societies, so long as they put the correct policies and politics in place. They did not have to be democratic, but need to be politically mobilised in the right direction for capitalist-based export-oriented industrialisation.
The values implicit in the NIC model and its success stories like South Korea and Taiwan have remained important in the most recent thrusts towards globalisation. For in the developments towards an integrated global economy with each society exploiting and trading on the basis of its comparative advantages while using the facilities offered by the communications and information revolution, the NIC success stories remain paradigmatic. Follow the formula and every society will grow, it is maintained, towards a global age of mass consumption and production. Boundaries between North and South will disappear, poverty and international inequality will be things of the past.
A key feature in the development model pursued by the NICs and now advocated at a world level, was the role of education as a national economic investment. The policy of mass low-cost education as a means to rapidly increase a nation's pool of human resources, and thus its comparative advantage in human capital, was recognised as a key national strategy in the South Korean case. I watched with fascination as, some years after South Korea embarked down that path, I saw education in my own country, Australia, restructured and redirected along similar lines. The jargon that was introduced and the approaches used to increase teacher productivity, lower costs, and maximise graduate outputs were framed differently in Australia, but they followed the same concepts and directions as the NICs, as indeed happened in most Western nations during the same period. Measuring staff performance, stimulating increased competition between universities for students and research funds and forcing them to compete in the world of capitalist free-trade for profits from international students were effective measures of entrenching the human capital model of education for economic growth. Similar policies are currently being implemented in schools in Australia, the USA and throughout the world. Thus, the South Korean case is important for what it teaches about the role of education in development at a global level.
One of my main motivations in undertaking the research for this book was my recognition of a glaring paradox in South Korean education during those development decades, for while their story was held up to the world in the development literature and in the reports of the World Bank as an illustration of success, inside South Korea the education system was beset by misery, repression and on-going crisis. How, I thought, can this situation of chronic over-work by teachers and competitive stress on students that denies childhood and leads to regular suicides, be a model for world development? The answer was clear, that little was known outside South Korea about the educational realities inside. While impressive statistics on literacy rates and school participation rates seemed to declare a nation mobilised towards education for development, they did not announce that such mobilisation was more like a military campaign than a voluntary participation of the nation's youth and that teachers in that process experienced their roles as agents of authoritarian regimes and peddlers of circumscribed information much more than professional mentors or educators for the growth of skilled, well-rounded citizens of the nation's future society.
Taking up the task of exploring the contradictions between international appearance and local reality, I began a research quest that lead me deep into Korean history, culture and international contexts as a way of understanding the particular formation of the development model for education in South Korea. My research began through attending to the most prominent crisis in South Korean education through the 1980s, which emerged from the efforts of groups of teachers to form a teachers' union. The teachers' union movement was calling for radical reform of the school education system, and it was by gathering the accounts of their experiences and witnessing their struggles that I was able to form the foundations of an analysis of education in South Korea that made sense of the crisis experienced by teachers, students and parents. This analysis not so much challenged the official representations, for the statistics on literacy, participation, cost-effectiveness etc. were true enough, but it provided a more comprehensive and contextual, thus counter-hegemonic, understanding of education in South Korea. Such an understanding demanded recognition of the political and local cultural contexts of education, as being essential in considerations of development. It also emphasised the folly of pursuing 'development diffusion' as a model for world educational planning.