Officials at the Seoul Metropolitan Election Commission sort campaign posters for candidates running for Seoul mayor and Seoul superintendent of education on May 20, one day before the official campaign period began for the ninth nationwide local elections. The top row shows superintendent candidates and the bottom row mayoral candidates. Unlike mayoral candidates, who are nominated by political parties and assigned ballot numbers accordingly, superintendent candidates run without party nominations and are listed in a randomly determined order.JOINT PRESS CORPS
Oh Se-jung
The author is a professor emeritus of physics and astronomy and a former president of Seoul National University.
GoogleAdmanager-KJD
The fallout from the troubled ninth nationwide local elections on June 3 has yet to fade. Public anger erupted after ballot shortages at some polling stations disrupted voting. Some protesters remain encamped at Seoul's Olympic Park. Media reports later revealed what critics described as incompetence and unlawful practices by the National Election Commission, prompting the National Assembly to launch a parliamentary investigation. Bills proposing fundamental electoral reforms, including abolishing early voting, have also been introduced. President Lee Jae Myung has argued that the commission needs stronger oversight and checks, even raising the possibility of a constitutional amendment. The controversy has created momentum for broad changes to Korea's election system.
If lawmakers are prepared to undertake such sweeping reforms, they should also reconsider the long-debated system of directly electing provincial and metropolitan superintendents of education. Although unrelated to the recent election controversy, the system has long been criticized as one of the factors weakening Korea's education system.
A superintendent oversees elementary and secondary education in a province or metropolitan city. The office holds broad authority over teacher appointments and manages budgets amounting to nearly one-third of local government spending. Such an important position should ideally be filled by a respected education expert with the ability to lead regional schools. Too often, however, directly elected superintendents fail to meet that expectation.
The root problem lies in the election system itself. Direct elections were introduced to allow residents to choose education leaders who reflected local preferences. In reality, however, most voters pay little attention to these races. Before superintendent elections were held alongside local elections beginning in 2010, turnout generally remained in the teens. Combining the two elections raised participation, but not voter engagement. Invalid ballots in superintendent races still far exceed those in gubernatorial elections. In this year's June 3 local elections, the invalid ballot rate in Seoul's superintendent race reached 5.7 percent. Many voters simply did not know the candidates or chose to leave the ballot blank. Many readers of this article likely cannot remember the names of the candidates, let alone their education policies.
As superintendent elections have failed to reflect informed public opinion, political calculations have increasingly taken center stage. Because candidates' education platforms rarely reach voters, campaigns are reduced to the familiar labels of "progressive" and "conservative." Elections become ideological contests, and each camp works to unite behind a single candidate before voting begins. Unlike party nominations, however, these unification processes exist outside any legal framework, making them opaque and difficult to scrutinize. Such a system inevitably favors seasoned political operators over accomplished educators.
The qualifications for superintendent candidates have also been steadily relaxed. Requirements intended to ensure educational expertise have been lowered, allowing politicians with limited experience in education to enter the race. As a result, the overall quality of candidates has deteriorated. In this election, 15 of the 58 candidates, or 26 percent, had criminal records. Among the 16 winners, three, or 19 percent, also had criminal convictions. Those entrusted with leading the nation's schools and serving as role models for students should be held to a higher standard.
An even greater concern is that education policy shifts dramatically every four years depending on who wins. Education has long been described as a plan for the next century, yet policies are repeatedly reversed after each election. Parents are left struggling to keep up with abrupt changes. The debate over autonomous private high schools and specialized high schools is a prime example. Depending on the political orientation of the superintendent, policies swing between expansion and abolition every four years. Families must worry not only about where their children wish to study but also whether those schools will continue to exist. That is hardly the approach a country whose greatest resource is its people should take.
It is time to return education to educators rather than politicians. Education policy should be designed and implemented from the perspective of students and parents, with an eye toward the future instead of ideological rivalry. Reforming the direct election of superintendents should be the first step. Various alternatives have already been proposed. If those directly involved can work together with students' long-term interests in mind, they should be able to devise a better system than the current one. As the AI era transforms the knowledge and skills future generations will need, this broader debate over electoral reform presents an ideal opportunity to reconsider how Korea chooses its education leaders.
This article was originally written in Korean and translated by a bilingual reporter with the help of generative AI tools. It was then edited by a native English-speaking editor. All AI-assisted translations are reviewed and refined by our newsroom.
