3 p.m. school dismissal policy could save 60,000 teaching jobs

Jang Yoon-sook

The author is a former inaugural secretary-general of the Presidential Committee on Ageing Society and Population Policy.

Teachers' organizations have rallied outside the National Assembly, demanding the complete withdrawal of a proposal to keep elementary school students in class until 3 p.m. and greater government responsibility for child care.

Citing heavier workloads, interference with teaching and inadequate facilities, they are even resisting public discussions proposed by the National Education Commission.

Parents' groups and civic organizations, meanwhile, welcome a uniform dismissal time. They argue that children leaving school around 1 p.m. face a child care gap that forces them into private academies, disrupts parents' careers and widens educational inequality.

Although both sides are sharply divided, organized teachers' groups have dominated the debate. Their opposition appears powerful enough to influence politicians.

But the issue demands consideration beyond competing interests. By opposing expanded public education in the name of protecting teachers, these organizations risk undermining their own future amid Korea's demographic collapse.

Paradoxically, extending school hours until 3 p.m. could become the strongest justification for preserving teaching positions as declining enrollment threatens massive staffing cuts.

Consider the projections. Estimates based on Education Ministry and national statistical agency data suggest that teacher numbers will rise slightly from approximately 170,000 in 2023 to 172,000 in 2030. Student enrollment, however, will plummet from 2.6 million to 1.6 million over the same period.

Faced with a nearly 40 percent decline in students, fiscal authorities will inevitably seek reductions in teaching positions.

If teachers reject additional classroom hours while insisting on maintaining the existing system, Korea could face a surplus of approximately 60,000 teachers by 2030. Beyond a collapse in new recruitment, existing teaching positions could face sweeping cuts.

For teachers' organizations, expanding the regular curriculum through the 3 p.m. dismissal policy offers a way to confront this looming crisis.

There are currently approximately 76,000 classrooms serving first through fourth graders. Suppose weekly instruction increases by six hours for first and second graders and three hours for third and fourth graders, averaging 4.5 additional hours per classroom.

If additional full-time teachers handle these lessons without increasing homeroom teachers' workloads, demand for at least 16,000 teachers would emerge.

Reducing class sizes in lower grades to around 15 students and introducing multiple-teacher arrangements could preserve tens of thousands more positions while strengthening public education.

Surplus teachers should not automatically become targets for cuts. They should instead be treated as essential resources for improving education.

They could support two-teacher classrooms, provide basic academic instruction and deliver personalized lessons to small groups, substantially reducing individual teachers' workloads.

Even with longer school hours, teachers would face lighter responsibilities and have more opportunities to focus on individual students.

Korean elementary education relies heavily on homeroom teachers. Reforming this structure could distribute responsibilities more effectively while improving instructional expertise and diversity.

As parents' groups emphasize, success cannot simply mean keeping children at school longer. Extending conventional, lecture-based instruction by another hour or two would only increase fatigue and resistance.

Although Korean elementary students spend fewer hours in class than their counterparts abroad, their curriculum is demanding. Additional instructional time must therefore accompany comprehensive curriculum reform.

Schools should offer integrated education combining play, physical activities, culture, arts, creative experiences and individualized academic support in a safe environment. Teachers' organizations cannot simultaneously demand protection of growing education budgets and oppose a policy that could justify maintaining teaching positions.

If schools retreat from educational responsibilities while demanding that the government handle child care separately, the teaching profession will become increasingly vulnerable to enrollment-driven staffing cuts.

Teachers' organizations should abandon their defensive demand to scrap the 3 p.m. dismissal policy and work with the government on a concrete road map for modernizing public education.

The priority should be protecting teaching positions by expanding educational opportunities, not defending a shrinking system against demographic realities.