[Editorial] If Changing the Education Grant, Do It Properly

The domestic tax-linked structure of the Local Education Fiscal Grant (Education Grant) is set to change for the first time in 54 years. It is understood that discussions are underway on how much and in what form to fill the reduction in budget size resulting from changes in the Education Grant allocation method. Given that there have been persistent controversies over waste in the Education Grant budget, proper principles must be established to avoid accusations of a new round of budget sharing.

The Education Grant is a budget for local education offices funded by 20.79% of domestic taxes and part of the education tax. For this reason, it could not be used in principle for higher and lifelong education institutions such as universities that fall outside the jurisdiction of education offices. Because it is linked to taxes, the Education Grant increased by 78% over the past decade, from 43.2 trillion won to 76.4 trillion won. Meanwhile, the school-age population (ages 6–17) has decreased by nearly 1.75 million people and stands at around 4.922 million this year. With student numbers declining while budgets continued to rise, many directly elected superintendents of education offices have recklessly spent the grant on cash welfare-type support such as free tablets and graduation or enrollment celebration funds. This is why the need for institutional reform has been consistently raised.

The Ministry of Planning and Budget and the Ministry of Education are currently discussing a proposal to abolish the current system that automatically allocates the Education Grant based on domestic tax revenues, instead securing additional funding through a Future Response Fund tied to semiconductor industry tax revenues. Considering volatile semiconductor tax revenues as a basis for budgeting is not appropriate. It is also far from improvement to request that the Ministry of Education legally codify safety mechanisms to ensure a consistent annual level of total grant funds allocated for elementary and secondary education. We must examine why discussions are taking place now due to the prevailing practice of determining budgets first and then finding places to spend them.

Investments necessary for elementary and secondary education must be guaranteed, and sufficient resources should be allocated to small-scale local schools as well as care and special education. However, existing barriers must be removed to allow funds to also be used for universities, lifelong education, and cultivating future talents in the age of artificial intelligence (AI). Advanced countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, and Japan determine their education budgets annually after calculating actual demand. It is not acceptable to be swayed by collective actions from education groups that have repeatedly derailed improvement discussions. Reforming the Education Grant to reflect growth rates and changes in the school-age population is a first step toward rational budget planning and use of government funds.