Controversy arose after a homeroom teacher at Jeonju M Elementary School reported a specific parent to the authorities and it was revealed that they voluntarily took on the role of homeroom teacher for the child of that parent.

On the 21st, regional human rights and civic organizations such as Jeonbuk Regional Joint (Representative Kim Haksan), Disabled Human Rights Association (Representative Choi Chang-hyun), and Balpyeongjasamo (Representative Imira) issued a joint statement urging the immediate separation measures and investigation by the Jeonbuk Office of Education. The organizations defined this incident not as a simple conflict between a teacher and a parent, but as an event where the duty of the education office to eliminate misunderstandings and prioritize the protection of students has been neglected.

According to the statement, continuing to assign the child of the parent who was reported to the authorities as a homeroom student lacks procedural legitimacy and is considered a high-risk situation that infringes on the emotional stability and right to education of the child. The fact that the education office allowed the teacher in question to be assigned as the homeroom teacher is problematic from the start.

The homeroom teacher, before concluding their term as the Jeonbuk branch head of the National Teachers Union in December last year, posted on their social media that they had reported a parent to the authorities and applied for a transfer to Jeonju M Elementary School upon reinstatement, mentioning that they expected to become the homeroom teacher of the PD Notebook class if there was no competition despite having low scores. They further expressed fear about how they would meet the parents as the homeroom teacher after reporting a parent for baseless child abuse and malicious complaints.

Despite the Jeonbuk Office of Education being fully aware, they allowed the teacher in question to transfer to Jeonju M Elementary School and become the homeroom teacher of the student in question.

The organizations pointed out that during this incident, the frame of 'malicious complaints' was reproduced without verification. Objective data such as call logs were exaggerated or distorted and spread, leading to the demonization of parents and causing secondary harm to students.

The Jeonbuk Office of Education was also criticized for repeatedly engaging in 'proxy reporting,' where they filed complaints on behalf of teachers against parents. The statement criticized this practice as not just a matter of legality, but as a means to pressure and intimidate parents even after the results showed 'no suspicion.' It was deemed inappropriate that the education office continued to unilaterally respond without investigating the truth or demonstrating administrative neutrality and the principles of necessity and proportionality.

The organizations emphasized that student protection should be the top priority in this incident. They criticized the Jeonbuk Office of Education for essentially abandoning support for the student's recovery while demanding immediate separation measures with substitute homeroom teachers even during the semester to cease regular contact in the classroom. They also added that a trauma-informed psychological and educational recovery plan for students should be established and implemented.

Regarding the issue of educational authority, it was stated that "educational authority can only be established when the rights and dignity of students are guaranteed." While the dedication and expertise of teachers should be respected, it was argued that errors in some distorted decision-making and organizational responses should not undermine the dignity of all teachers. The organizations emphasized that a structure that guarantees student rights is the path to preserving the legitimate authority of teachers.

Through the statement, civic organizations demanded three specific measures. Firstly, immediate separation measures and the implementation of a substitute homeroom system applicable even during the semester to resolve conflicts. Secondly, the establishment of an independent private fact-checking committee composed of child rights, education law, and conflict resolution experts for truth-finding. Thirdly, the establishment of standard protocols for communication between schools and homes, formalization of response deadlines, record-keeping methods, and mediation lines.

They stated, "The public arena should be a space for rebuilding community trust through facts," and expressed their goal as not about the victory of specific individuals but about restoring a school where students can learn peacefully, teachers can teach with respect, and parents can cooperate with trust.

The Jeonbuk Education Newspaper has been continuously covering this issue since last year. The newspaper confirmed that the call logs and complaint frequency of the parents identified as 'malicious complainants' by the teacher organizations were exaggerated. It has also been advocating for institutional improvements by continuously reporting cases where the education office engaged in proxy reporting and continued pressuring parents even after the 'no suspicion' decision.

This statement signifies the formalization of the appeals of students and parents, which have remained as minority voices in the public arena. The attention of the local community is now focused on whether the Jeonbuk Office of Education will approach the matter not as a confrontation between teachers and parents but with an administrative principle centered on student protection. Education is not about power but about trust, and in transparent fact-checking and fair procedures, the rights of students and the authority of teachers can coexist.