(EDITORIAL from the Korea Times on Dec. 22)

Students' Human Rights
Diverse, Creative Ideas Come Only From Such Environment

Korea's largest provincial education office is waging a near-Quixotic but
quintessential battle against the governing party ??? or the Establishment
itself.

The "ordinance on students' human rights," announced by Gyeonggi Provincial
Office of Education last week, calls for, among other things, abolishing corporal
punishment as well as allowing students to decide on a wide variety of matters,
such as their hairdo, mobile phone use and after-school lessons. Add to these the
freedom to hold meetings and take part in making some school policies, and the
new decree well deserves the term "revolutionary," considering the nation's
educational environment.
Unfortunately, the decree, worked out by progressive educational chief, Kim
Sang-gon, will hardly be able to go into effect ??? as least not as it is now ???
given the adamant opposition from the Gyeonggi provincial government and council,
both of which are dominated by conservative Grand National Party members.
GNP administrators and councilors call Kim's reform plan "populist" educational
policy aimed at only pleasing students and some leftist teachers, while at the
same time "abandoning" basic educational responsibility by setting them free
without minimal restraints.
We agree in part with these criticisms not just because there is always a gap
between ideals and reality ??? even if those ideals and reality reflect Korea's
peculiar circumstances ??? but because one can't be fully certain whether
students can be responsible in receiving unprecedented freedom all at once.
If the critics really agree at least with the spirit of the ordinance as they
say, which calls for a shift in the perception of students from the objects of
control and regulation to human beings with independent characteristics, however,
they should discuss how to adjust the tempo of reform with supplementary steps
instead of ditching it in a lump sum, as the GNP officials want to do. For
instance, the freedom over hair styles should not necessarily mean emulating rock
groups and the unrestricted carriage of cell phones shouldn't allow for free
talking in classes.
But students will show far better self-restraint if they are allowed to work out
these self-regulatory rules ??? as the ordinance calls for ??? instead of being
forced to follow decisions by principals and senior teachers as is now the case
in almost all schools.
Various surveys indicate students feel a far greater sense of violence from
verbal abuse and controls on personal appearances, such as the style and length
of hair, than physical violence, reflecting that youngsters are more mature than
most grown-ups ??? their parents and teachers ??? give them credit for. Come to
think of it, the older generation ought to ponder whether they identify the term
student with a "study machine" either for family honor or national
competitiveness, while alleging the enormous pressure is for the future of the
students themselves.
Sadder still, the inefficiency of the military-style, order-and-obey study
pattern has been demonstrated by the longest study hours and highest suicidal
rate of secondary school students among OECD member countries.
Education should be about neither politics nor ideology, nor even the economy. It
is about cultivating humans and their creative, diverse ideas, which is possible
in only such a climate. The new ordinance is an attempt deserving sufficient
attention and support.
(END)