Council of Superintendents Rebuts Ministry of Education's '10% Increase' Claim: "Distorting Public Opinion with Misleading Comparisons"

Only 3.2% Increase When Supplementary Budget Included: "Wrong Basis of Comparison" Revenue Down by KRW 1.8 Trillion, Fixed Costs Rising, Resulting in Real 'Fiscal Pressure' The Council of Superintendents of Education of the Republic of Korea (hereafter 'the Council of Superintendents') has directly refuted the Ministry of Education's claim that next year's local education finance allocation will increase by 10.1%. The Council argued that the government, by emphasizing only the increase and omitting factors that actually reduce funding, is misleading public opinion. According to the Council of Superintendents on September 7, the Ministry of Education recently announced in its 'Explanation on the Restructuring of Local Education Finance Allocation' that, based on a comparison between the 2026 main budget (KRW 71.7 trillion) and the government's 2027 plan (KRW 78.9 trillion), the allocation appears to increase by 10.1%. The Korea Council of Superintendents of Education visited the National Assembly on the 7th to express concerns about the reform of local education finance grants and to convey educational issues. Photo provided by the Council of Superintendents of Education View original image However, the Council of Superintendents pointed out that this comparison is a 'distortion' based on the wrong benchmark. They explained that if the actual allocation for 2026, which has already risen to KRW 76.4 trillion after the supplementary budget in accordance with the current 'local tax linkage' system, is used as the basis, the real increase for 2027 amounts to only about KRW 2.43 trillion (3.2%). The Council criticized the comparison, stating, 'The additional allocation for 2026 is not a discretionary resource secured by each local education office, but the result of the current post-settlement system. Under the new restructuring plan, this post-settlement mechanism will be abolished entirely; thus, comparing the new system simply with the current one without including the additional allocation means using fundamentally different standards.' They further clarified that even an increase of KRW 2.43 trillion in the allocation does not actually expand the financial capacity of the local offices of education. This is because, during the same period, the allocation for free high school education provided by the national government will decrease by about KRW 274.1 billion, and local education tax revenue from the tobacco consumption tax (about KRW 1.6 trillion) will be excluded from income sources, causing major effective income to decrease by approximately KRW 1.87 trillion. In addition, the Council analyzed that essential rigid expenses such as personnel costs, school operating expenses, meal expenses, and mandatory fiscal demands like the integration of daycare and preschool are continually increasing, which will further worsen the financial situation experienced on the ground. The Council also provided a point-by-point rebuttal regarding the 'KRW 3.7 trillion in city and province education office funds at the end of 2026,' which the Ministry of Education cited as evidence of abundant fiscal capacity. The Council explained that these reserves have been declining by an average of KRW 4.5 trillion per year since 2022, asserting that this is not a sign of ample finances but rather of these offices rapidly exhausting their existing buffer resources in order to absorb the shock from declining revenues. Furthermore, the Council noted a lack of objective grounds in the government's proposal to reflect 35% of the rate of decrease in the school-age population in the allocation formula. They explained that, even if the number of students declines, fixed school costs such as personnel and facility maintenance do not decrease proportionally. Jeong Geunsik, president of the Council, stated, 'Local education finance cannot be judged by the increase rate of the allocation alone. The government must clearly indicate the net fiscal impact for each of the 16 city and provincial education offices, reflecting not just the local education finance allocation, but also national transfers, local education tax, reserves, and essential expenditures—applying the same standards to all.' He added, 'The Ministry of Education must not mislead public opinion by presenting the 10.1% calculated from the 2026 main budget as if it is the growth rate compared to the current funding size. Instead of concealing the actual challenges faced by schools with numbers, it should listen to voices from the field and thoroughly consult with local education offices before pursuing this institutional restructuring.' This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services. © The Asia Business Daily. All rights reserved. Unauthorized AI training and use prohibited.