This study focuses on the characteristics of the Area-Based Initiatives in Korea, named the Education Welfare Priority Project (EWPP). The term “Area-Based Initiatives (ABIs)” has been used by policymakers in the EU and other country contexts to denote special social, cultural and economic interventions targeted at schools and disadvantaged areas. Examples of ABIs include EAZ/EiC (England), ZEP (France) and the Harlem Children’s Zone (US). Under the influence of EAZ and ZEP, EWPP in Korea came into effect by government actions starting in 2003. This project selects educationally and culturally poor places in low-income areas and aims to improve the quality of educational, cultural and welfare services through a cooperation of the government, school and local community.
Firstly, Section 1 outlines the historical development of educational welfare policies since the 1990s and describes the current state of the problems with them in recent years. The author identifies an element that helped lead to a sudden increase in education welfare policies: increasing involvement of politicians, followed by the adoption of “universal” (i.e. made available to everyone) social benefits, such as free school meals and childcare. In addition, it reveals that the term “education welfare” has also not been defined clearly in Korea, which has caused confusion in school settings.
Section 2 examines how the EWPP has evolved over time and analyzes the impact of the local-governance autonomy in education. In 2011, the transfer of the decision-making authority, resources and responsibilities of EWPP from central to local governments took place. This policy shift enabled expansion of the EWPP nationwide and increased autonomy and accountability in local governments. Critics, however, point out that the transfer has created disparities in the goals and the resources between the regions.
In the next section, two regions (Seoul City and Kangwondo Province) were selected to explore the reality, and the author comparatively investigates the differences between the two regions in terms of aims and aspirations, the contents of the programs. In-depth interviews with the social workers and teachers were also conducted to find out how the schools have been changed by the operation of the EWPP.
In the case of Seoul City, programs in five categories (tutorial/cultural/counseling/health/support) were provided, and closing the gap in educational attainment was also considered important. In Kangwondo Province, in contrast, emphasis was placed more on targeted student interventions, which focused on enhancing the functioning of socio-economically disadvantaged students, particularly by providing additional resources. The school’s annual budgets were also different: ₩9,609,000~64,826,000 for Seoul City and ₩9,000,000~20,000,000 for Kangwondo Province (as of 2018).
Despite these differences, a new place named the “Education Welfare Room” and a new type of social worker named the “Education Welfare Worker” were introduced in both regions. In addition, welfare services such as a breakfast and medical services have been implemented. Most importantly, school-based networking has been successfully formed both inside and outside of school.
In Section 4, the author clarifies three characteristics of the EWPP. First, there was a tendency to provide child welfare services in the EWPP. While the term “education” was used for the EAZ (Education Action Zones) and the ZEP (Zones’Education Prioritaires), the EWPP (Educational Welfare Priority Project) in Korea used the word “education welfare”. As new OECD data shows in 2016, the ratio of South Korea’s GDP to its public expenditure on social welfare was the lowest among members of the OECD. Under this circumstance, the area-based initiative for the educational (View PDF for the rest of the abstract.)
View full abstract