During the past semester, the education system in South Korea was marked by heated debates over the high school credit system and the Minimum Achievement Guarantee Guidance (MAGG). The controversy surrounding MAGG, attributed to causing excessive workload for teachers, intensified the debate even further. As October arrived, information regarding the academic achievements of the previous semester was disclosed through school notifications.

The effects of MAGG, which had been a fierce topic of debate, can be verified through the distribution of academic achievements. While the exact number of students who did not meet the standards is unknown, let's examine this year's achievement evaluation and MAGG guidance by comparing the achievement levels of 2025 and 2024. Until 2024, the rank grade was an absolute indicator of academic competence. The distribution of achievement levels recorded in student records was of little interest.

With the full implementation of the high school credit system in 2025, along with the 5-rank system, the evaluation of achievements was conducted, and supplementary programs for students who did not reach the minimum achievement level were made mandatory. Consequently, there was a heightened interest in the proportion of students falling under achievement level E. By examining the distribution ratio of achievement levels A and E, it is possible to grasp the academic achievement status by subject based on the achievement evaluation. Efforts to prevent students expected to fall below the minimum achievement level can be partially glimpsed through teaching and evaluation.

Analyzing the results of the achievement evaluation from the previous semester using the example of a local general high school, let's compare the curriculum and achievement distribution of the 1st semester of 2024 and 2025 for 1st-year students.

There are not significant differences in the 1st-year curriculum, which follows the national common curriculum. However, there are changes in the names of subjects, with the addition of the word 'common' before Korean, English, and Math subjects. In the 2025 curriculum, 'Common Math' and 'Basic Math' were separately organized and operated. For students falling below achievement level E, the plan was to grant them the choice. However, it is difficult to identify students falling under achievement level E in the 1st-year curriculum before entering high school due to issues such as the relative evaluation system, the advantages and disadvantages of internal credits, and the negative stigma effect. Therefore, most schools do not grant students the choice.

The scope of the exploration area for the college entrance exam has shifted to the 1st-year curriculum, 'Integrated Social Studies' and 'Integrated Science,' increasing the operating hours from 3 credits to 4 credits. Contrary to 2015, there is a phenomenon where the range of subject choices has actually decreased from 1st year to 2022. About 2 credits worth of student elective subjects disappeared from the 1st year.

In 2024, more emphasis was placed on rank grades than achievement levels. However, some schools gradually adapted to the achievement evaluation scheduled for 2025, considering the distribution ratio of achievement levels in teaching and evaluation. It seems that example schools made similar efforts. In the case of Mathematics, the proportion of level A increased from 7.7% to 14.4%. While it is unclear whether level A achievement is a fixed or estimated division, the proportion of students judged to have understood 90% of the learning content more than doubled. However, the proportion of students who understood less than 60% of the learning content also increased from 20.6% to 28.8%. There is still much to ponder. In other subjects, the proportion of students at achievement level A increased by more than 50%, and the proportion of students at level E decreased by more than 50%. While it is difficult to ascertain the actual changes in teaching, the evaluation results clearly show a decrease in the proportion of students who are marginalized by giving up on classes compared to before.

In some educational circles, concerns have been raised about the tendency towards 'grade manipulation,' such as lowering the difficulty of test questions excessively and abnormally increasing the performance evaluation ratio. Then, how should we explain the distribution of achievement levels in the subject 'Science Exploration Experiment' for the same 1st-year students? The proportion of level A is 98.8%. Of course, it is an experiment-centered subject. However, the situation is even more pronounced when considering that the proportion of students who understand the theoretical subject 'Integrated Science' by more than 90% is only 11.3%. Is it fair that students excel in experiments without understanding the theory? However, this is not considered grade manipulation. Isn't it absolute evaluation? It is because it is an achievement evaluation. By designing achievement levels based on students' academic abilities, it is possible to conduct teaching and evaluation.

The distribution of achievement levels in Physics, Chemistry, Biology, and Earth Science for 2nd-year students from the same school is presented. All are general elective subjects. The proportion of level A achievement is 3.7% for Physics I, 8.8% for Chemistry I, and relatively higher at 11.1% for Biology I. However, the proportion of level E is over 20% for all. General elective subjects are evaluated based on a 9-grade relative evaluation and a standard reference evaluation, which assesses the relative position of students within the group compared to other students.

The 3rd-year career elective subjects are evaluated based on 3 levels of A, B, and C. It is an absolute evaluation method that assesses how much learners have reached the set criteria. The distribution of achievement levels corresponding to level A, which was only 3.7% in Physics I for 2nd-year students, improved to 68.2% in Physics II. Chemistry II also increased to 52.8%, and Biology II to 59.6% in level A. Although there is a difference between the 5-grade system of the 1st year and the 3-grade system of the 3rd year, it is a fact that the proportion of level A achievement is relatively high.

The example ratio of level 3 is 40%, 30%, 30%. However, this situation is not considered grade manipulation. It's just that no one worried about the lower 30%. There was a lack of reflection. In such a situation, demands for absolute evaluation to ease competition would only lead to concerns about 'downward standardization' as feared by the media. The alternative solution proposed was the MAGG. In the difficult reality of 1st-year students demanding absolute evaluation in a relative evaluation situation, efforts of on-site teachers seem to have been somewhat confirmed through the information disclosure in the 1st semester. It is expected that the results of achievement distribution in the 2nd semester will show further improvement compared to the 1st semester. Progress will not only be in terms of numbers but also in actual teaching and evaluation.

In achievement evaluation, the reliability based on the difficulty level and correct answer rate of questions is considered more important than the discrimination power of questions. Teaching and evaluation at a level suitable for students' academic levels are the most crucial indicators in achievement evaluation. Therefore, rather than opposing MAGG, there should be a reflection on the teaching and evaluation centered around some top-ranking students and the shift towards a system that designs teaching and evaluation according to students' achievement levels.

As achievement evaluation is an assessment of whether educational goals have been achieved, the distribution of question difficulty and reliability based on students' achievement levels is more crucial than the discrimination power of questions. Designing teaching and evaluation at a level suitable for students' current academic levels is the most essential indicator of the achievement evaluation system, aiming to enhance the achievement of all students.

Therefore, there should be a thorough reflection on the existing relative evaluation and exam-oriented teaching and evaluation methods that have been operated focusing on some top-ranking students. Furthermore, there should be contemplation on redesigning educational processes and evaluation methods suitable for each student's achievement level to transition the education system towards realizing the original purpose of the achievement evaluation system. This year's MAGG should be the starting point for this transition.