On September 4, 2023, over 50,000 individuals assembled in front of the National Assembly in Yeouido, Seoul, and 120,000 people in total nationwide took to the streets. It was 49 days after the death* of a teacher at Seoyi Elementary School in Seoul who took her own life inside the school in July 2023. Following the incident, with escalating demands for actions against the erosion of teachers’ rights* and heightened public focus on the protection of these rights, the National Assembly, in a plenary session on September 21, approved the amendments to the four acts on the protection of teachers’ rights (hereafter amendments).

     Meanwhile, some are calling for abolition of the Student Human Rights Ordinance, which includes the right of students to be free from violence and danger and not to be discriminated against on the basis of gender, religion, and so forth, arguing that it overly protects the students’ rights and is contributing to the collapse of the teachers’ rights. So, do teachers’ rights and students’ rights go against each other? The Argus will look over the Student Human Rights Ordinance and the amendments to the four acts on the protection of teachers’ rights, the remaining portion of which will go into effect in March, and aims to clarify that teachers’ rights and students’ rights are not an either-or proposition, and therefore, we will explore strategies for fostering optimal education and contemplate a more cohesive approach for the entire school community.

*49 days after the death: A Buddhist belief that a deceased’s spirit leaves the human world 49 days after death.
*Teachers’ rights: In this article, teachers’ rights include all rights including teachers’ human rights and teachers’ rights to education.

Before Reading

The Death of a Teacher at Seoyi Elementary School

On July 19, 2023, a teacher in her twenties was found dead at Seoyi Elementary School in Seocho Ward, Seoul. It was ruled, an act of suicide. Just before her death, there was a so-called “pencil incident” in which a student hit another student’s forehead with a pencil, and suspicion has been raised that the teacher was suffering from distress due to the parents’ complaints related to this incident. However, on November 14, police concluded that the investigation did not indicate any criminal wrongdoing, including harassment, verbal abuse, assault, or intimidation by the parents. The parents sued another teacher, who had written a post on the Internet raising suspicions about the suicide of the original teacher, and netizens for defamation. And in January 2024, the teachers’ union held one-person protests several times in front of the Seoyi Elementary School and Seocho Police Station in Seoul, demanding a reinvestigation into the parents’ allegedly malicious complaints and recognition of the teacher’s death in the line of duty. 

1. The Amendments to the Four Acts on the Protection of Teachers’ Rights

1) Background of the Amendment

Incidents of violation to teachers’ rights by various entities have been continuously occurring knowingly or not in South Korea (hereafter Korea), but the death of a teacher at Seoyi Elementary School in July 2023 led not only the educational circles, but also the entire Korean society to realize the seriousness of the issue and to be concerned about teachers’ rights. The first memorial rally was held on July 22, 2023, calling for an investigation and demanding the truth about the death of the teacher and the protection of teachers’ rights. Moreover, given that the deaths of several teachers, who took their own lives, both prior to and following the incident, were also suspected to be linked to malicious complaints from parents, there has been a heightened engagement in rallies advocating for the truth and the restoration of teachers’ rights. Teachers across the country took to the streets every Saturday. The seventh rally held on September 2, The 500,000 Teachers’ Memorial Rally, was the largest, with a procession of 200,000 to 300,000 people in front of the National Assembly. Teachers named September 4, 49 days after the teacher’s death, the Day to Pause Public Education, and took sick and personal leave to commemorate the deaths and demand the truth and normalization of public education. Also on that day, about 30 schools across the country decided to close for a discretionary holiday, and some parents submitted applications for off-school field trips to join the Day to Pause Public and so as to demonstrate their support for teachers by not sending their children to school. 

     The Ministry of Education declared 2023 as the year of restoration of teachers’ rights. Subsequently, a four-way consultative body for superintendents of ruling, opposition, political, and municipal superintendents was formed to work together on legislation to protect teachers’ rights. The amendments including the Special Act on the Improvement of Teachers’ Status and the Protection of their Educational Activities (hereafter Teachers’ Status Act), the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the Early Childhood Education Act, and the Framework Act on Education, were passed by a plenary session of the National Assembly on September 21, 2023, and became effective on September 27. The Teachers’ Status Act, excluding articles related to restrictions on the removal from a position, will take effect on March 28, 2024, six months after its promulgation.

2) Contents of the Amendments

In the case of the Teachers’ Status Act, which underwent the most changes among the four laws, the articles were separated and stipulated, and several articles were added, increasing the number of articles from 22 to 35 after the amendment. As such, the amendments include several new articles to protect teachers’ educational activities, impose obligations on guardians such as respect and cooperation, and strengthen the dministrative support system to address issues that hinder normal educational activities at educational institutions. In other words, it is an institutional supplement to protect teachers’ rights by preventing infringement of their rights by parents and students and the failure of the schools and the state.

     Here’s a look at some cases where teachers were not protected by the existing law and the articles of the amendments that can be applied to the case. First, in November 2021, there was a case where a parent came to the classroom of an elementary school in the city of Incheon, 2.7 kilometers west of Seoul and both verbally and physically assaulted a teacher in front of the students. In addition, the Office of Education was criticized for its poor response to the incident, as it only paid a portion of the teacher’s lawyer’s fees. In order to protect teachers from parents in such situations, the amendments prohibit parents from infringing the human rights of teachers or other students and stipulate sanctions on parents who disrupt educational activities. Also, the concept of the disruption of educational activities, which was previously unclear because it was not separately defined, was separated into an individual article, and the types of infringement were expanded to include general criminal offenses such as obstruction of justice, false accusation, and malicious complaints. This clarifies the standards and protects teachers and their educational activities. Moreover, to solve the problems that individual teachers have had to bear for various disputes and lawsuits related to educational activities, the articles of the Teacher Protection Deduction Project have been clarified. This ensures that teachers can receive support for legal fees for legal disputes arising from their educational activities, injuries and psychiatric treatment costs arising from infringement of educational activities. This extends to protection services in case teachers face threats, aiming to aid the victimized teacher and prevent further harm in the event of an issue.

     Meanwhile, in December of that year, a teacher at an elementary school in the city of Uijeongbu, Gyeonggi Province, 21.6 kilometers north of Seoul, killed himself after suffering from malicious complaints from parents. However, the school reported the incident to the Uijeongbu Office of Education as a death from a simple fall, even though the school knew that a violation of teachers’ rights had occurred. To prevent such problems, the amendments prohibit the reduction and concealment of the infringement of educational activities during the reporting process, and stipulate that disciplinary action will be taken against the school’s principal or a member of the school’s faculty if they attempt to reduce or conceal the infringement. In addition, in order to protect teachers and their educational activities from malicious complaints from parents, the act of repeatedly making unjustified complaints has been defined as an infringement of educational activities. Reflecting the fact that teachers’ rights are often violated in the process of handling complaints, the principal is now responsible for handling complaints, which was previously the responsibility of teachers, so that teachers can focus on their educational activities.

     Aside from these, there are also cases of infringement of teachers’ rights by students. In August 2022, there was a video that went viral showing a student using a smartphone while lying on the floor next to a standing teacher in class at a middle school in Hongseong County, South Chungcheong Province, located 110 kilometers south of Seoul. Again, in June 2023, a disturbing incident occurred at an elementary school in the city of Daegu, 237 kilometers south of Seoul. During a life guidance, a student rushed to the restroom and confronted the teacher with a toilet lid. The amendments strengthened measures against students who commit such infringements by requiring immediate separation of the offender from the teacher in the event of such situations, and special education or psychological treatment, imposing fines if the student does not comply. In addition, the existing Teacher Healing Support Center was expanded and reorganized into the Educational Activity Protection Center to strengthen the prevention of infringement of educational activities and provide support for the mental recovery of the affected teachers.

     In addition, there have been many cases where teachers faced complaints or reports of child abuse for disciplining students for problematic behavior including actions like waking a sleeping student during class. According to the Ministry of Health and Welfare, the number of reports of child abuse against teachers has been increasing every year, but the actual prosecution rate of child abuse reports is only 1-2 percent. This means that teachers are not protected from baseless reports of child abuse. In order to protect teachers from this, the amendments stated that a teacher’s legitimate life guidance of students’ lives will not be considered a violation of the prohibited acts of the Child Welfare Act, and stipulated respect and support from parents for the teacher’s legitimate guidance. Also, it restricted the disposition of teachers who are reported for child abuse crimes without justification, ensuring that teachers are not excluded from educational activities due to unreasonable complaints or suspicions. Furthermore, the amendments stipulate that anyone who witnesses or becomes aware of an infringement of educational activities must immediately report it to a relevant organization such as the school, making it mandatory for not only the victimized teacher, but also other teachers or students who may be involved to report the case. In addition, reflecting the serious infringement of educational activities and teachers’ rights by parents, a new article on the obligations of guardians stipulates that they should respect the role of teachers and actively cooperate with their educational activities.

     “Until now, if something went wrong, there was a tendency to blame it on the incompetence of individual teachers and to solve it on their own. There were many cases where no one protected teachers when parents filed complaints or lawsuits. I think it is a progressive achievement that the amendments have prevented the system from being overhauled and mitigated the abuse of the law to a certain extent,” said Kim Seong Cheon, a professor of Education Policy at Graduate School of Educational Policy and Administration of Korea National University of Education, who evaluated the amendment favorably. The amendments are significant in that they provide a legal basis for the protection of teachers by improving and complementing some of the deficiencies in the operation of the current system.

2. The Student Human Rights Ordinance

1) Background of the Enactment

In Korea, students have been treated as objects of protection rather than as individuals with dignity and rights, not only at school but also in society and at home. Corporal punishment, which was taken for granted in the name of the so-called “rod of love,” regulations of hairstyles such as “3 cm below the ears for girls, and neat crew cut for boys,” and self-study after school, which was enforced in the name of autonomy, have been raised as serious social problems. A well-known case is the so-called “Oh Jang-pung case”. In 2010, Oh, a teacher at an elementary school in Seoul, became the subject of controversy after he ruthlessly assaulted students by throwing him to the ground and slamming his head into a wall. Oh even assaulted a student who had hemophilia. “Students were often exposed to corporal punishment beyond the scope of what was allowed by law, and teachers tried to justify violence in the name of corporal punishment. In short, student human rights were egregiously disregarded as violence and verbal abuse against students were rampant,” said Lee Deok-Nan, a legislative researcher at the National Assembly Legislative Research Service Education and Culture Team and president of The Korea Society for Education Law, about the situation before the enactment of the Student Human Rights Ordinance (hereafter ordinance). “There were many things students were told not to do, but there were also many cases where students were not able to enjoy their rights. Clubs and student organizations were nominal,” Professor Kim said, referring to the school culture of strong authoritarianism and competition for entrance exams, as well as the zero-period remedial classes and inspection of belongings. He further expressed the appropriateness of the ordinance, saying, “There was a need to institutionally specify the value that students are not machines to study and to be controlled, but human beings with rights that they should enjoy as citizens.” The ordinance did not come out of nowhere, but rather was the culmination of a long line of movements to ensure student rights, as many people were aware of the seriousness of the situation and felt the need for improvement.

2) Contents of the Enactment

Among the 17 Municipal and Provincial Offices of Education in Korea, Gyeonggi Province enacted the ordinance on October 5, 2010, followed by Gwangju, Seoul, North Jeolla Province, South Chungcheong Province, Jeju Province, and Incheon. Article 1 of Chapter 1 of the Gyeonggi Province Student Human Rights Ordinance, which was the first to promulgate and enforce such an ordinance, reads, “This ordinance aims to ensure the dignity, value, freedom, and rights of students as human beings by ensuring that their human rights are realized in the school education process based on Article 31 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Articles 12 and 13 of the Framework Act on Education, and Article 18-4 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.” As such, although there are slight differences between each city and province, the ordinance has the common purpose of ensuring student human rights so that all students can realize their dignity and value as human beings in the school education process. Thus, it is significant that it provides an institutional basis to protect students from infringements of students’ rights that have been prevalent in schools in the past, including the right not to be discriminated against, the right to be free from violence and danger, the right to education, freedom of conscience and religion, and freedom of expression.

     For example, in the past, many schools had excessive regulations on hair and dress, requiring a certain type of dress without any consideration for weather or comfort, hair length, sock color, nail length, and even the color of girls’ underwear. The rationale was that students lack the ability to exercise rational judgement, and that a lack of regulation would not only interfere with their studies, but could also lead them to enter entertainment establishments for adults. In response, Article 12 of the Seoul Student Rights Ordinance states that students have the right to realize their individuality in terms of appearance. Comparable articles can be found in ordinances in other regions, and many regulations have been relaxed, such as the current liberalization of hairstyles.

     An illustrative case highlighting the issue of severe corporal punishment occurred in July 2010. A student at a high school in the city of Miryang, South Gyeongsang Province, 279 kilometers south of Seoul, tragically took his own life. This unfortunate event was precipitated by severe punishment administered by his homeroom teacher due to the student’s lack of preparation, resulting in significant psychological distress. In the past, it was all too common for teachers to use physical punishment that bordered on violence, such as striking students on the buttocks with a wooden paddle or delivering punches to the body to maintain discipline. To protect students from such violence, Article 6 of the Seoul Student Human Rights Ordinance states that students have the right to be free from all physical and verbal violence, and similar articles have been enacted in other regions. As such, the ordinance was enacted to address the issue of teachers infringing on students’ rights and to establish an institutional basis for protecting students.

     Since its enactment, the ordinance has served as a shield to protect students’ rights. In accordance with the Seoul Student Human Rights Ordinance, enacted in 2012, the Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education conducted surveys of student rights in 2015 and 2019, among students enrolled in schools in Seoul. In the second survey, 70.5 percent of elementary school students, 73.3 percent of middle school students, and 68.3 percent of high school students agreed that the ordinance helps to ensure students’ rights. Also, there was a positive change in the percentage of students who answered that they had experienced physical or verbal abuse by teachers or staff at least once, decreasing from 22.7 percent in 2015 to 6.3 percent in 2019.

     However, despite the positive aspects of the ordinance, since the discussion about the enactment of the ordinance, and even now, some conservative groups and parents have consistently claimed that the promotion of students’ rights resulting from the ordinance has led to a decline in teachers’ rights. Among these arguments, calls for the repeal of the ordinance were raised after the death of the teacher at Seoyi Elementary School. From July 25 to 26, 2023, the Korea Federation of Teachers’ Associations conducted a survey of about 30,000 teachers, and 84.1 percent of them responded that the ordinance has contributed to the decline of teachers’ rights. This shows the negative perception that teachers have about the ordinance. In addition, concerning the violation of teachers’ rights, the Minister of Education and some conservative organizations have argued that the ordinance has made it difficult for schools to conduct educational activities and life guidance. As a result, calls for its abolition or revision have gained traction. In December of last year, the South Chungcheong Provincial Council passed a bill to repeal the South Chungcheong Provincial Student Human Rights Ordinance, putting it at risk of being abolished. On February 2, the South Chungcheong Provincial Office of Education requested a reconsideration, and the ordinance was narrowly defeated, falling two votes short of the threshold for passage. Other regions are also debating whether to repeal the ordinance, and it is still in danger of extinction.

3. Teachers’ Rights and Students’ Rights: Are They at Odds?

Why are some people calling for abolition of this ordinance? Those calling for repeal have cited the ordinance as the cause of problems in schools, such as bullying, in addition to violations of teacher rights. The debate is ongoing. Some parent unions and civic groups insist on the unconditional abolition of the ordinance, claiming that it violates the Constitution, or that it causes infringement of teachers’ rights by strengthening student rights, or that it encourages sexual relations, pregnancy, childbirth, and student delinquency; while others argue that the problem is that there is only an ordinance for students’ rights. Some, including Professor Kim, argue that the ordinance should be developed into a law instead of the level of an ordinance; others, including President Lee, suggest that it should be completely revised. In order to conclude this debate and resolve the issue, the first thing that needs to be clarified is whether the enactment of the ordinance has actually led to the decline of teachers’ rights.
     Professor Kim said, “There are various actors who infringe on teachers’ rights, and the causes of the decline of teachers’ rights are complex,” explaining that parents, teachers, principals, offices and ministries of education, and more are involved, so it cannot be said that students are the only ones who infringe on teachers’ rights. He also cited the emergence of some selfish parents and the abuse of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment of Child Abuse Crimes as key reasons for the decline of teachers’ rights. President Lee said, “The enactment of the ordinance coincides with the collapse of teachers’ rights. They were all taking place in the same space, so there is some relationship. However, it is difficult to conclude that the ordinance itself caused the decline of teachers’ rights.” While there may be correlation between the enactment of the ordinance and a decline of teachers’ rights, it is not a cause-and-effect relationship. In response to the controversy that some articles of the ordinance violate higher laws, President Lee advanced the opinion that the ordinance does not violate higher laws such as the Constitution, which was also recognized by the Constitutional Court. However, he also commented “Despite the warnings that the ordinance could give students the misconception that only their rights are being strengthened, and that it could make it hard for teachers’ guidance, superintendents of education have not responded appropriately enough over the past decade.” Repealing the ordinance does not lead to an end of the violation of teachers’ rights. The fact that in some cases, the rate of increase in violations is higher in areas without the ordinance than in areas with the ordinance, suggests that the existence of the ordinance itself is not a threat to teachers’ rights. That is, teachers’ rights are not in conflict with students’ rights.

4. Prospects

A lack of recognition of the relevant laws and a misunderstanding of the ordinance that leads to a false sense of rights is a big part of the current situation. The ordinance lists dozens of articles about students’ rights. In contrast, in some areas, there are no articles on the authority of teachers, respect for teachers’ guidance, or responsibilities of students; or if there are such references, they are only declaratory. Furthermore, students, parents, and even pre-service and in-service teachers do not have access to adequate legal education. This is because the Ministry of Education and the universities that train teachers do not offer mandatory education law courses. The purpose of the ordinance is to ensure the freedoms and rights of all students and to improve the educational environment. However, in reality, there are situations where the original purpose is distorted. Many students and parents have a distorted sense of rights regarding rights-focused ordinances, believing that they are enforced to ensure that only their own rights and freedoms are protected. “Although democracy is emphasized on paper, it is only conveyed as social science knowledge, and the values and practices of democracy are not naturally acquired in school culture,” commented Professor Kim. He also added, “It is not that the ordinance is the reason for the infringement of teachers’ rights, but rather that the philosophy and meaning of the ordinance have not been properly internalized by the people.” Rather than focusing on the ordinance alone, we should be thinking about how to address the lack of opportunities to learn about human rights. In such a situation, teachers experience atrophy in their student life guidance and educational activities, perpetuating a vicious cycle. In order to overcome the current crisis, it is necessary to conduct sufficient legal education and improve the balance between rights and responsibilities.

     In addition to adequate legal education and a full understanding of the law, the ordinance itself needs to be overhauled. Have students’ rights and freedoms actually been guaranteed in schools since the ordinance was enacted? Have students’ rights and freedoms been fully realized, such as the freedom to self-study after school and the liberalization of hairstyle and dress? Not quite. President Lee also raised a question about the effectiveness of the ordinance. “A lot of people talk about the need to guarantee freedoms and rights, but they neglect to support the actual implementation of the ordinance for it to be effective. There should be educational legislation and a policy of the superintendent of education policy capable of effectively addressing the difficulties of reality, including the ordinance.” In addition to improving the ordinance and raising awareness of the law, efforts should be made to strengthen the effectiveness of the ordinance, including administrative and financial support from the state and Offices of Education to ensure that the ordinance is not just nominal but actually increases rights. Moreover, “The ordinance itself is more significant in terms of improving social awareness in situations where student rights have been weak than in ensuring legal force to guarantee those rights,” added President Lee. In general, the awareness and regulation of human rights in Korean society continues to improve and strengthen. However, repealing the Student Rights Ordinance would represent a clear regression in the history of guaranteeing human rights. Rather than restricting and taking away the freedoms and rights of some to protect the rights of others, the focus should be on moving forward together.

     To achieve this, the rights and responsibilities of all members must be balanced so that there is no misunderstanding about the contents of the ordinance. President Lee said, “It would be good to completely revise the Student Human Rights Ordinance and revise it as the ‘Ordinance on the Rights and Responsibilities of School Members’. It should stipulate the rights, freedoms, and powers guaranteed to each member and at the same time stipulate the duties and responsibilities that must be adhered to.” In detail, he suggests, “The ordinance should be organized in such a way, that it addresses the resolution of conflicts between rights and powers. It should assign the principal the responsibility for overall management and inspection while imposing responsibilities on the superintendent of education to provide prevention and support. Additionally, the ordinance should establish procedures and mechanisms for resolving conflicts and competing rights and prepare measures to strengthen the guarantee of rights.” Subsequently, it should ensure that all members of the community, including parents, students, and teachers, receive a proper legal education so that they are aware of their rights and responsibilities and are taught that these are the rights and responsibilities of the community.

After the death of the Seoyi Elementary School teacher, mourning was soon followed by the debate over the prioritization between teachers’ rights and students’ rights. In these circumstances, attention is directed toward the anticipated impact of the amendment, and the debate surrounding the ordinance persists. But first, there is a need to reorganize the relationship between teachers’ rights and students’ rights. The bolstering of student rights, as facilitated by the ordinance, should not be perceived as a challenge to teachers’ rights, and the reinforcement of teachers’ rights should not be construed as an attack on students’ rights. Teachers’ rights and students’ rights are not, and should not be, in conflict. Can human rights, the fundamental entitlements of individuals, genuinely be considered human rights if one’s freedom and rights are prioritized or violated solely based on one’s status as a student or teacher? In this transitional situation, fostering a sense of community is crucial. To develop a better educational environment and enhance the human rights of all community members, efforts are required not just from school members but also through institutional improvements and support at both national and local levels.