National Association of Top Secondary School Teachers President Kwon Hyeok Sun

On May 8, the Korean Teachers and Education Workers’ Union (KTU) and the Teachers’ Union held a press conference in front of the Government Complex Seoul in Gwanghwamun. “The Ministry of Education is using students as experimental tools and schools as testing grounds,” they claimed, demanding the immediate abolition of the high school credit system. Among various messages presented, the phrase “Suspend the semester system that increases students’ burden” stood out. According to their arguments, the semester system heightens students’ burden regarding academic records, complicates career choices, and poses difficulties in school curriculum design.

But is this really the case? Educational policy should be based not on isolated grievances or implementation hurdles but on objective data and facts. This column aims to analyze the pros and cons of the grade-based and semester-based systems through three examples and clarify some misunderstandings about the semester system.

The Ongoing Debate: How Should Inquiry Subjects Be Structured?
One of the long-standing controversies in general high school curriculum planning is how to organize and deliver inquiry subjects. Under the 2015 curriculum, most general high schools adopted a grade-based approach.

Case 1: Limitations of the Semester System in Practice

The grade-based system splits the same subject across two semesters in one academic year. The 2015 curriculum recognizes five credits as standard, allowing ±2 credits. In Case 1, an example of a regional high school, inquiry subjects are offered in 6-credit blocks. Students can only select three social science and three science subjects. However, if they choose only one subject in either domain, they are restricted to taking only two in the other. Although it appears to offer choice, the actual options are limited. In grade-based systems, students cannot take subjects not selected in Grade 11 during Grade 12. Additionally, subjects with fewer applicants—such as physics, chemistry, economics, or world history—often aren’t offered due to their low popularity, impacting students' academic record considerations.

Case 2: Slightly Expanded Choice, Increased Burden

In Case 2, a school structures inquiry subjects as 4-credit courses (2 hours per week per semester), allowing students to select up to four subjects—more flexible than Case 1. Students can take all four social and four science subjects or mix two from each domain. This resolves the issue seen in Case 1. However, it leads to a different problem: students often end up taking over 10 subjects per semester. This dramatically increases their academic burden and raises questions about whether student-centered, inquiry-based learning is even feasible under such conditions. Overwhelmed by regular exams and performance assessments, students feel pressured, and many consider transferring or dropping out. Indeed, the number of dropouts has steadily increased, reaching 25,792 in 2024. The root cause of this increase lies in the grade-based system and the rigid relative evaluation (9-grade system), not in the semester system.

The Importance of Criterion-Referenced Evaluation and Support for Minimum Achievement
Unions argue that implementing criterion-referenced (absolute) evaluation and minimum achievement standards will increase dropout rates due to the stigma and pressure. However, data from 2024 show that the percentage of first-year students failing basic skills tests is negligible. Even in rural areas or vocational schools, the number of students failing to meet minimum standards remains low, thanks to differentiated instruction and diagnostic assessments by subject teachers. Supporting students who have fallen behind is a challenging yet essential task in realizing the true purpose of education. Spreading anxiety about dropout rates under this system is essentially a call to give up on education itself.

Grade-Based Curriculum Limits Flexibility in College Preparation
Every April 30, universities announce their entrance exam policies for the upcoming two years. This includes changes to admission methods, quotas, and selection criteria. For Grade 11 students, these announcements come after the first semester has already begun. During transition years between curricula (e.g., 2015 to 2022), colleges frequently revise their plans. The ability to adapt to these changes is crucial, but under the grade-based system, students cannot change their course selections within the academic year. In contrast, the semester system allows students to adjust their curriculum after completing one semester, offering greater flexibility for career planning.

Case 3: A Model Example of the Semester System
Why, then, do some claim the semester system restricts student choice? The issue lies not in the system itself, but in its improper or superficial implementation. Case 3 shows an ideal semester-based structure. Students take two inquiry subjects per semester, reducing their academic load to eight subjects or fewer per term. This decreases stress and supports student-centered, in-depth learning. Teachers, too, benefit from more opportunities to improve instruction and assessment quality. With four hours of class time per week per subject, teachers can incorporate varied activities and even conduct performance assessments during class time. This allows for tailored, career-oriented learning experiences.

However, many schools misuse the semester system, creating so-called “pseudo-semester” structures. Case 4 demonstrates this flaw—different courses are offered in the first and second semesters, reducing actual student choice. For example, students can take Physics I only in the first semester and are forced into Physics II in the second. This undermines the flexibility and intent of the semester system, prompting criticisms and calls for its abolition.

Why do schools opt for this approach? Some cite student preferences influenced by GPA considerations or logistical burdens of offering the same subject twice in one year. Others express concern over conducting two assessments for the same subject in one year. However, schools that implement the semester system properly report no significant difference in difficulty compared to the grade-based system.

Administrative and Logistical Concerns — Still Valid?
It’s true that semester-based systems require scheduling and administrative tasks twice a year instead of once. Some argue that this wastes resources. However, the spread of Learning Management Systems (LMS) and digital tools has greatly reduced this burden. What schools need is not to abandon the semester system but to receive more support from the Ministry of Education in areas like timetable management.

There are also concerns about having to record student progress in the school record book (student report cards) each semester. Yet, core subjects like Korean, English, and Math are already assessed per semester. For elective inquiry subjects, dividing the documentation into two semesters can actually improve the quality of records by distributing the workload.

A Time to Rethink What Future Education Truly Needs
This column has examined the arguments presented by KTU and the Teachers’ Union in support of abolishing the high school credit system. While some concerns are understandable, most examples they raise actually highlight the necessity of maintaining and improving the system, not discarding it. With accurate data and analysis, we must rethink what future-ready education truly requires.