As the Ministry of Education tightens its oversight of so-called unaccredited international schools, the institutions involved and the parents of their students are paying closer attention. A period of intensive reporting and on-site inspections ran from late last year through March of this year, and in April the Ministry announced a plan of follow-up measures including notices of violations, further inspections, criminal complaints and referrals for investigation.
But what exactly is an international school, and why are some of them now facing legal problems?
When people hear "international school," they usually picture a school that teaches in English, follows a U.S. or other foreign curriculum and prepares students for universities abroad. The name "international school" alone, however, does not confer the legal status of a school under Korean law. Some foreign schools and foreign educational institutions are formally accredited under Korean law, while other facilities offer foreign curricula without having obtained accreditation to establish a school in Korea. The latter are what are commonly called unaccredited international schools.
These institutions have become an established option for students and parents who want a foreign curriculum. As questions have been raised about the gap between the accreditation required under Korean law and how these facilities actually operate, however, some of them now have to consider changing how they operate or closing altogether.
Few would dispute that certain standards for establishment and operation are needed to protect students and ensure the quality of education. In applying those standards, however, it is also important to consider the long-standing demand for this kind of education, students' studies and the operational realities of these institutions.
What Is the Legal Problem with Unaccredited International Schools?
To begin with, not every institution in Korea that offers a foreign curriculum has the same legal status.
Accredited foreign schools and foreign educational institutions are schools or institutions established and operated under the relevant laws. Alternative education institutions, by contrast, may operate by registering under the Act on Alternative Education Institutions, and private academies (hagwon) register and provide instruction under the Act on the Establishment and Operation of Private Teaching Institutes and Extracurricular Lessons. Each type differs in its requirements for establishment, the scope of its activities and whether its credentials are recognized. In particular, a lawfully registered institution does not necessarily confer a diploma recognized as equivalent to graduation from a regular Korean school.
Does every academy or facility that teaches a foreign curriculum then need accreditation as a school? No. Teaching English or other foreign languages, or teaching the subjects needed for admission to universities abroad, does not by itself make a facility an unaccredited school.
The problem arises when a facility in fact operates as a school.
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act requires anyone wishing to establish a private school to obtain accreditation from the competent superintendent of education. Even if a facility calls itself an academy or an education center, it may be found to require accreditation as a school if it recruits students and runs a school-like system with grades, semesters, a formal curriculum and full-day classes.
The courts, too, have looked beyond a facility's name or registration status, considering as a whole its actual curriculum, class hours, academic administration and students' school life.
The Seoul Central District Court, for example, held that a facility registered as a private academy and accredited by an overseas educational body nonetheless violated the Elementary and Secondary Education Act because, taken together, its grade system, credit system, full-day classes and various school activities showed that it was in fact operating as a school. The Constitutional Court has also upheld the constitutionality of the criminal penalties for operating an unaccredited school.
In 2021, in another case involving an unaccredited educational facility, the Supreme Court affirmed a lower court ruling to the effect that explaining to students and parents that no Korean high school diploma would be recognized, and obtaining their written acknowledgment, did not cure the illegality of operating an unaccredited school. The fact that parents understood and chose this form of education cannot substitute for the legal requirements for accreditation as a school.
The key, in the end, is not whether a facility teaches a foreign curriculum, but whether it actually performs the role of a school that requires accreditation under Korean law.
The current tightening of oversight can be understood as a move to apply these legal standards more actively. In particular, from November 20, a new system is scheduled to take effect under which a non-compliance penalty of up to KRW 30 million may be imposed repeatedly, up to twice a year, where a closure order issued after the system takes effect is not complied with.
Legal Standards and Realities on the Ground
What, then, explains the emergence and growth of these institutions?
Above all, there is steady demand for foreign curricula. Some families are preparing for university abroad or want an English-centered learning environment, while others prefer a different approach from the standard curriculum. As international mobility has increased and educational choices have diversified, this demand has naturally grown.
Accredited foreign schools, however, are subject to statutory restrictions on admission. Not every student living in Korea can enroll freely.
The author has handled a case in which legal issues arose over the acquisition of foreign nationality in order to gain admission to a foreign school. That case stemmed from the restrictive admission requirements of accredited foreign schools. In this way, there has long been a gap between the demand for foreign curricula and the institutional pathways available to meet it. Today's demand for unaccredited international schools is not unrelated to this trend.
Of course, strong demand for education is no reason to apply the legal requirements for establishment and operation differently. To understand the current situation, however, it is worth recognizing that these institutions did not simply arise to evade regulation; they grew in response to educational demand that the existing system did not adequately meet.
The difficulty is that meeting this demand while operating in a form that complies with current law is not always easy.
Accreditation to establish a school requires meeting strict requirements. Registration as an alternative education institution is not available to every educational facility either. The Act on Alternative Education Institutions excludes from registration, among others, facilities whose main purpose is admission to foreign universities, facilities that use a foreign language as their main language of instruction, and facilities whose main purpose is foreign language learning. And registration as a private academy does not by itself permit a facility to operate as a school in practice.
Some institutions may therefore struggle to convert to a lawful form of operation while keeping their existing educational model. If they need to change their curriculum, class hours or student recruitment, the task may go beyond simply going through registration again and require restructuring how the institution operates.
In this situation, it is important to examine specifically how the institution's actual operations would be assessed legally, what changes are needed to operate lawfully, and how much of the existing curriculum can be retained.
A Shutdown Also Affects Students and Parents
When an institution has to change how it operates or close, the greatest concern is the continuity of students' education.
Last year, the media reported that after an unaccredited international school in Gangnam, Seoul closed, some of its students were unable to transfer to another school and were being homeschooled. The circumstances of one facility's closure cannot be generalized to all unaccredited international schools, but the case shows how directly a shutdown can affect students.
Students who have spent years in a foreign curriculum, in particular, may face a range of issues when transferring to a Korean school, including grade placement, academic records and differences in curriculum. Students preparing for universities abroad may need to revisit their transcripts, credits earned, graduation requirements and even application timelines. Changing institutions is not simply a matter of changing where classes are held.
The Ministry of Education is aware of these issues. Alongside the current measures, it has said that it will guide students who wish to return to public education toward enrollment in regular elementary, middle and high schools or alternative education institutions, and help them return at a grade level suited to their abilities.
This is a necessary step. Students' actual circumstances, however, vary. The support they need may depend on whether their credentials are recognized in Korea, how much of their previous curriculum they have completed, and the educational path they hope to pursue. The existence of a formal pathway back does not necessarily mean that every student can continue their studies without difficulty.
Parents, too, may face questions about refunds of tuition already paid or losses resulting from the interruption of educational services. If an institution stops teaching mid-semester or cannot deliver the curriculum it promised, disputes over refunds and damages may arise depending on the terms of the contract and what was actually provided. How the institution explained its legal status and whether its credentials would be recognized at the time of admission may also become a key issue.
Changing or Ending Operations, and the Legal Issues That Follow
For those who run these institutions, too, the tighter oversight poses significant challenges.
They must first assess what legal status their current form of operation has under Korean law and, if changes are needed, decide how to adjust their curriculum and academic administration. In some cases, they will also need to consider how to allow current students to complete their programs and what follow-up steps a closure would require.
In this process, administrative law issues relating to school accreditation can become intertwined with a number of contractual relationships.
If a change in operations or a closure makes it impossible to deliver the planned curriculum, for example, the extent of tuition refunds and liability for damages may be at issue. Adjusting or terminating staff employment requires a review of the requirements and procedures for dismissal under the Labor Standards Act, as well as wages and severance pay. If there are foreign teachers or staff, the effect on their visa status and working conditions must also be considered.
Long-term leases or partnership agreements with overseas educational institutions may raise separate issues if they need to be amended or terminated. Accreditation by, or a partnership with, an overseas institution does not take the place of accreditation as a school in Korea, but those agreements may be closely tied to how the curriculum is delivered and to students' university admissions.
When considering a change in operations or a closure, it is therefore necessary to look not only at the response to individual administrative measures but also at the institution's legal relationships with students, parents, staff and counterparties.
Above all, the appropriate response may differ depending on each institution's specific form of operation and circumstances. Even institutions that are all called unaccredited international schools may call for different legal assessments and measures if their curricula, operating methods and contractual structures differ.
The Purpose of the Crackdown Is Ultimately to Protect Students
The tighter oversight of unaccredited international schools is meant to protect students' safety, the quality of their education and their right to learn. Given the purpose of the school accreditation system, it is necessary to require educational institutions to meet certain legal standards.
In applying those standards, however, the demand for education that has already taken shape and the realities on the ground should not be ignored. Students and parents had reasons for choosing these institutions, and the institutions built their curricula and operations to meet that demand. Changing or unwinding these relationships in a short period is by no means simple.
It is therefore important not only to make oversight effective, but also to protect the continuity of students' education and to allow institutions to carry out the necessary measures in an orderly way. Institutions, for their part, need to review their current form of operation closely and prepare thoroughly for any necessary changes or follow-up steps.
Applying legal standards strictly and carefully managing the disruption that may follow are not in conflict. On the contrary, if the purpose of regulation is to protect students, it is important to ensure that students do not suffer unnecessary harm in the course of enforcement.
This crackdown on unaccredited international schools could be an important turning point in clarifying the legal status of these institutions and reviewing how they operate. What it calls for is an accurate understanding of the legal standards, together with a careful and systematic response that gives due weight to students' right to learn and the realities of education on the ground.
Related practice: Corporate & Business Advisory