Lawmakers move to curb private education spending

Ahead of the September mock test for the 2026 College Scholastic Ability Test, or CSAT, a press conference was held in late August at the National Assembly urging passage of a law to prevent “killer questions.” These extremely difficult questions go beyond the standard curriculum and often determine whether the exam is considered unusually hard. Every year, videos such as “Harvard Professor Solves CSAT English” or “Chemistry Professor Tackles Killer Questions” circulate online, poking fun at the intense competition. The proposed law would amend the Public Education Normalization Act to bring the CSAT under regulations limiting advanced study.

A related bill, called the “Elementary Medical School Prevention Law,” aims to curb excessive early learning. It bars private academies from teaching material beyond the standard curriculum or testing students on content not yet covered in schools. Another bill, still pending in the National Assembly, would prohibit academic instruction and early English education for children under 36 months. This proposal is known as the “English Kindergarten Ban.”

At a recent forum on early childhood private education, some lawmakers suggested introducing a “private education spending cap” to limit household spending on tutoring, which could lead to new legislation in the future.

These initiatives stem from the country’s massive private education expenditures, estimated at 29.2 trillion won last year by the Ministry of Education and Statistics Korea. That figure set a record high, and spending is expected to rise further as private education extends to younger children and repeat exam takers. The total even exceeds South Korea’s national research and development budget for 2024, 26.5 trillion won, highlighting the extraordinary scale of private education spending.

It is unclear whether these laws would reduce private tutoring. After the English Kindergarten Ban was proposed and pre-entry tests for so-called “4-year-old exams” were banned, some prestigious English kindergartens in Seoul’s Gangnam district said only students from affiliated prep programs could enroll. Parents generally support the law’s intent but worry that regulation may simply push private education to younger ages.

Even if the law temporarily curbs demand, public confidence in schools must improve to prevent cycles such as enrolling in another private academy just to qualify for an English kindergarten. Private education spending is high not because these programs are superior but because students and parents distrust public schools.

A November 2024 report by the Korean Educational Development Institute noted that inconsistent admission policies drive families to rely on private tutoring for information. As long as policies remain unpredictable, new legislation alone is unlikely to reduce overreliance on private education.