Multicultural Education Policy in South Korea: Current Struggles and Hopeful Vision

Abstract

The global immigration of people has increased the call by governments for multicultural education. Across the globe, in country after country, multicultural education have come to represent the theory and practice to teach majority and minority citizens and immigrants and to explore issues of policy and practice as it relates to: ethnicity, religion, gender, immigration, language and race. This article is concerned with the approach to multicultural education that the South Korean government has employed to meet the needs of its people and those of immigrants and South Korean citizens. Using framework of "politics of difference" and five different approaches of multicultural education discussed by Grant and Sleeter, the article examines how South Korea's multicultural education policy treats new comers as "different." This article argues the significance of movement from a discourse about cultural difference to multicultural social justice education that challenge oppression and structural inequality and illuminate the politics of difference.

The Study of Multicultural Education and Teachers’ Multicultural Teaching Competency in Singapore and South Korea

“…The first approach, Teaching the Exceptional and Culturally Different, aligns with conservative multicultural education, aiming to assimilate students into society's existing culture and schools by teaching them the mainstream language, values, and other cultural norms (Jenks et al, 2001;Grant & Ham, 2013;Sleeter & Grant, 1999). Jenks et al (2001) place the second approach, Human Relations, within a liberal framework because it promotes harmony and tolerance for diversity based on an existing culture, fostering positive attitudes, and reducing prejudice and stereotypes among students (Sleeter & Grant, 1999).…”

“…Both countries have been implementing multicultural education to address the challenges and opportunities presented by their diverse populations, promote cultural diversity, enhance social cohesion, and prepare competent students for an increasingly globalized world. While numerous research has been conducted to discuss multicultural education in Singapore (Dimmock et al, 2021;Goh, 2008;Ho, 2009) and South Korea (Grant & Ham, 2013;Kim, 2020;Park, 2014) as separate contexts, limited resources have provided insights into the approaches that the two countries employ to implement multicultural education within their specific sociocultural and sociopolitical context. This paper aims to identify the approaches employed in multicultural education policies in Singapore and South Korea.…”

Functions and Strategies to the Integration of Multicultural Values in Textbook Discourse for Elementary School Students

“…In an attempt to anticipate these problems, multicultural education has been introduced as a solution to build civilization and harmony. The practice of multicultural education to foster tolerance and peace is an educational policy that has been included in the curriculum in several multicultural countries, such as Malaysia, Thailand, South Korea, United Kingdom, USA, and Finland (Fry, Chun, & Apahung, 2019;Grant & Ham, 2013;Ibrahim, 2007;Johnson & Caraballo, 2019;Vorapanya & Dunlap, 2012;Zilliacus, Holm, & Sahlström, 2017).…”

Effects and Limits of Core Schools for Multicultural Education

“…이와 관련된 또 하나의 문제가 제한된 다문화교육의 영역이다. 말하자면, 소수 학생들의 적 응에 초점을 맞춘 결과 동화주의적 관점이 우리나라의 다문화교육을 지배하게 되었다는 것이 다 (박민정, 2012;Grant & Ham 2013;Olneck, 2011). 동화주의적 접근은 소수 집단이 주류 집 단의 문화적 표준과 기존 질서에 순화되어야 한다는 생각에 바탕을 두고 있기 때문에, 매우 제한된 형태의 다문화교육이라고 할 수 있다 (박민정, 2012).…”

“…이러한 이유에 서 다문화교육의 선구자들은 소수자 적응을 넘어 주류 집단의 지배적 인식 체계에 대한 비판, 편견과 차별의 철폐 등을 다문화교육의 주요한 내용 영역으로 포함시켜 왔다 (Banks, 2001;Bennet, 1990). 그러나 우리나라의 경우 다수 학생들을 위한 다문화교육은 매우 주변화되어 있을 뿐만 아니라, 대부분 문화이해 교육에 그치고 있다는 지적이 이어져 왔다 (박선웅 외, 2010; 이정민, 2013 (교육부, 2014a, 2014b (교육과학기술부, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012; 교육인적자원부, 2006 (류방란, 2013;박민정, 2012;Grant & Ham, 2013 This study investigates curriculum programs of core schools for multicultural education and teachers' responses to their effects and limits. To address these topics, this study analyzes curricular documents collected from 18 elementary and secondary schools selected as exemplary cases in 2014.…”