The crackdown on unaccredited international schools: legal standards and realities on the ground
InsightCorporate & BusinessBy Jaehoon Lee
As Korea's Ministry of Education has recently stepped up oversight of so-called unaccredited international schools, interest has been growing among the institutions involved and among parents. From the end of last year through March of this year, a concentrated reporting period and on-site inspections took place, and in April the Ministry announced an action plan that includes notices of violations, follow-up inspections, criminal complaints, and referrals for investigation.
But what exactly is an international school, and why have some of them run into legal problems?
When people hear "international school," they usually picture a school that teaches in English, follows the curriculum of the United States or another foreign country, and prepares students for universities abroad. However, the name "international school" alone does not give an institution the status of a school under Korean law. Some foreign schools and foreign educational institutions are formally accredited under Korean law, while other facilities offer a foreign curriculum without having obtained accreditation to establish a school in Korea. The latter are what are commonly called unaccredited international schools.
These institutions have long served as one educational option for students and parents seeking a foreign curriculum. But as questions have been raised about the gap between school accreditation requirements under Korean law and how these institutions actually operate, some of them now have to consider changing how they operate or shutting down.
Few would dispute that certain standards for establishing and operating schools are needed to protect students and ensure educational quality. In applying those standards, however, it is also necessary to take into account the educational demand that has built up over many years, the studies of the students involved, and the realities of how these institutions operate.
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 educational institutions established and operated under the relevant laws. By contrast, alternative education institutions may operate by registering under the Act on Alternative Education Institutions, and ordinary private academies (hagwon) register and provide instruction under the Act on the Establishment and Operation of Private Teaching Institutes and Extracurricular Lessons. Each has different requirements for establishment, a different permitted scope of operation, and different rules on whether its studies are recognized as formal schooling. In particular, being a lawfully registered educational institution does not necessarily mean that its graduates are recognized as having completed a regular Korean school.
Does this mean that every academy or educational facility teaching a foreign curriculum must obtain accreditation as a school? No. Teaching English or another foreign language, or teaching subjects needed for admission to universities abroad, does not by itself make a facility an unaccredited school.
The problem arises when a facility in practice operates as a school.
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act requires anyone seeking to establish a private school to obtain accreditation from the competent superintendent of education. So even if a facility calls itself an academy or an education center, if it recruits students and operates with a school-like structure, such as grade levels and semesters, a regular curriculum, and full-day classes, it may be found to be a facility that requires accreditation as a school.
The courts, too, have looked not only at a facility's name or registration status but at the overall picture, including its actual curriculum, class hours, academic administration, and students' school life.
In fact, the Seoul Central District Court held that even a facility registered as a private academy and accredited by an overseas educational body violated the Elementary and Secondary Education Act where, taking into account its grade-level system, credit system, full-day classes, and various school activities, it was in substance operating as a school. The Constitutional Court of Korea has also upheld as constitutional the provision imposing criminal penalties for operating an unaccredited school.
In 2021, in another case involving an unaccredited educational facility, the Supreme Court of Korea affirmed the lower court's ruling to the effect that the illegality of operating an unaccredited school is not cured even if the facility explained to students and parents that they would not be recognized as Korean high school graduates and obtained written acknowledgments from them. In other words, the fact that parents understood and chose that form of education cannot substitute for the legal requirements for school accreditation.
Ultimately, the key question is not whether a facility runs 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, starting November 20, a system is scheduled to take effect under which, if a facility fails to comply with a closure order issued after that date, a compliance enforcement fine of up to KRW 30 million may be imposed repeatedly, up to twice a year.
- Legal standards and realities on the ground
- What, then, explains the emergence and growth of these educational institutions?
Above all, there is steady demand for foreign curricula. Some families are preparing their children for universities abroad or want an English-centered learning environment, and 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, have admission requirements that are restricted by law. Not every student living in Korea is free to enroll.
I myself once handled a case in which legal issues were raised over the acquisition of foreign nationality in order to enroll in a foreign school. That case arose against the backdrop of the restrictive admission requirements of accredited foreign schools. As this shows, 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 educational demand alone cannot justify applying the legal requirements for establishment and operation differently. Still, to understand the current situation, it is worth recognizing that these institutions did not simply emerge to evade legal regulation, but grew in response to educational demand that the existing system did not fully meet.
The problem is that meeting this educational demand while adopting a form of operation that complies with current law is not always easy.
Formal accreditation to establish a school involves strict requirements. Registration as an alternative education institution is also not available to every educational facility. The Act on Alternative Education Institutions excludes from registration facilities whose main purpose is admission to foreign universities, facilities that use a foreign language as the main language of instruction, and facilities whose main purpose is foreign language learning, among others. And registration as a private academy does not by itself permit a facility to operate in substance as a school.
As a result, some educational institutions may find it difficult to transition to a lawful form of operation while keeping their existing educational model. If they need to change their curriculum, class hours, or student recruitment methods, it may not simply be a matter of going through registration again; they may have to restructure how the institution itself operates.
In this situation, it is important to examine specifically how the institution's actual operations would be assessed under the law, what changes are needed for lawful operation, and to what extent the existing curriculum can be maintained.
A shutdown also affects students and parents
When an educational institution has to change how it operates or shut down, 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 other schools and were being homeschooled. The causes and circumstances of one facility's closure cannot be generalized to all unaccredited international schools, but the case shows how directly a shutdown of an educational institution can affect students.
In particular, students who have spent years in a foreign curriculum may face a range of issues when moving to a Korean school, including grade placement, school records, and differences in curriculum. Students who were preparing for universities abroad may also have to reassess their transcripts, credits earned, graduation requirements, and even their admission timelines. Changing educational institutions is not simply a matter of changing where classes are held.
The Ministry of Education is also aware of these problems. Along with the current measures, it has said it will guide students who wish to return to public education toward enrollment options such as regular elementary, middle, and high schools and alternative education institutions, and will help them return at a grade level suited to their abilities.
This is a necessary step. But the situations students actually face vary. The support they need may differ depending on whether their studies are recognized in Korea, how much of their existing curriculum they have completed, and the educational path they hope to pursue. The fact that a return pathway exists on paper does not necessarily mean that each student will be able to continue their studies without difficulty.
Parents, too, may face questions about refunds of tuition already paid and losses resulting from the interruption of educational services. If an institution stops teaching mid-semester or cannot provide the curriculum it originally promised, disputes over refunds and damages may arise, depending on the terms of the contract and how it was actually performed. How the institution explained its legal status and whether its studies would be recognized at the time of admission may also become important issues.
- Changing or ending operations, and the legal issues that follow
- For operators of educational institutions as well, the tightening of oversight poses significant challenges.
They must first examine what status their current form of operation has under Korean law and, if their operations need to change, decide how they can adjust their curriculum and academic administration. In some cases, they will also need to consider ways to let current students complete their programs, as well as the follow-up measures required if they wind down operations.
In this process, a number of contractual relationships may become intertwined, in addition to the administrative law questions surrounding school accreditation.
For example, if a change in operations or a shutdown means that the planned curriculum cannot be provided, the scope of tuition refunds and liability for damages may become issues. If staff employment is adjusted or terminated, the requirements and procedures for dismissal under the Labor Standards Act and issues of wages and retirement benefits must also be reviewed. If there are foreign staff, the impact on their immigration status and working conditions must also be considered.
If long-term leases or partnership agreements with overseas educational institutions remain in place, separate issues may arise from amending or terminating those agreements. In particular, while accreditation by or a partnership with an overseas educational institution does not take the place of school accreditation in Korea, those agreements may be closely tied to how the curriculum is delivered and to students' admission to further education.
Accordingly, when considering changing or ending operations, it is necessary to look not only at the response to individual administrative actions but also at the legal relationships with students, parents, staff, and business 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 face different legal assessments and require different measures if their actual curricula, operating methods, and contractual structures differ.
The purpose of the crackdown is, ultimately, to protect students
The tightening of oversight of unaccredited international schools is intended 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.
But in applying those standards, the educational demand that already exists 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 operating systems to meet that demand. Changing or unwinding these relationships in a short time is by no means simple.
Therefore, in addition to making oversight effective, it is important 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 closely examine their current form of operation and fully prepare for any necessary changes or follow-up measures.
Strictly applying legal standards and carefully managing the disruption that arises in the process are not contradictory. Rather, if the purpose of regulation is to protect students, it is important that students do not suffer unnecessary harm in the course of enforcement as well.
The current crackdown on unaccredited international schools could be an important turning point for clarifying the legal status of these institutions and reviewing how they operate. What is needed in this process is an accurate understanding of the legal standards, together with a careful and systematic response that gives due consideration to students' right to learn and the realities on the ground.