A
recent news report on Japan's growing use of lawyers to mediate school disputes
prompted a closer look at Korea's own teacher-protection system. This piece
compares the two countries' approaches, argues that teacher-rights violations
are a structural problem rather than a uniquely Korean phenomenon, and raises a
concern about who should be entrusted with defending teachers on the front
line.
A Problem That Crosses Borders
A
recent Yonhap News Agency article reported that Japanese schools, like their
Korean counterparts, are struggling with unreasonable demands and conduct from
parents, and that a new system is being introduced in which lawyers step in as
representatives for schools to help resolve these disputes. My first reaction
to the article was mild surprise: Japan, it turns out, is grappling with a
strikingly similar problem. The fact that infringements on teachers' rights are
not confined to Korean society but appear in a neighboring country as well
suggests that this issue may stem less from any particular nation's cultural
characteristics and more from structural conditions inherent to the school
environment itself.
That said, when I compare the boundary-crossing behavior Japanese teachers face from parents with what Korean teachers experience, my personal impression is that the Korean cases tend to be more severe. This is admittedly not a judgment grounded in objective statistics but rather a subjective impression formed through years of media coverage. Even so, when I look at the pattern of reported teacher-rights violations in Korean society, it is difficult to shake the sense that, in both intensity and frequency, these cases are far from minor.
Echoes in Popular Culture
This
article also brought to mind the Netflix series “Chamgyoyuk” (literally, “Real
Education”), based on the Naver Webtoon of the same name, which can be viewed
on the Naver Webtoon platform. I am not certain whether the same title is
available on Line Manga, Japan's webtoon platform, but if it is, Japanese
readers may be able to gain an indirect sense of the general landscape of
teacher-rights violations occurring in Korea through this work as well.
Comparing the Japanese and Korean Systems
According
to the article, the Japan Federation of Bar Associations has proposed
establishing a system in which lawyers can act as representatives for schools
in resolving disputes with parents, and the Osaka Bar Association already
operates a lawyer-dispatch program known as the “School Lawyer” system, under
which lawyers are assigned to schools. Looking at Korea's situation in light of
this, one notable parallel is the Gyeonggi Provincial Office of Education's
recruitment of “Teacher Rights Protection Officers” to work within Gyeonggi
Province. This program, however, has a geographic limitation in that it applies
only to schools in Gyeonggi Province rather than nationwide (Seoul included),
and more importantly, it differs from the Japanese model in the scope of who
may be selected for the role. In Japan, lawyers serve as the schools'
representatives, whereas Gyeonggi's Teacher Rights Protection Officers may be
drawn from a broader pool that includes not only lawyers but also ordinary
residents of the province, teachers, and other professionals.
A Cause for Concern
This
difference raises a concern worth flagging. When dealing with a parent or other
individual who has crossed a line, there is a risk that, even once a Teacher
Rights Protection Officer arrives on the scene, the other party may attempt to
probe whether the officer's own words or conduct run afoul of the law. In other
words, the officer, too, occupies a position where they must stay within legal
and professional bounds—and if that officer is not a lawyer, there may be a
greater risk that the officer inadvertently crosses that line themselves. For
this reason, I find myself genuinely concerned about Korea's decision to
broaden the pool of Teacher Rights Protection Officers beyond legal
professionals to include members of the general public.
A
Japanese lawyer quoted in the article advised that resolving school disputes
without damaging the relationship between parents and teachers requires
restraint—engaging calmly rather than intervening excessively. This advice
seems worth taking to heart not only in Japan but also in how Korea operates
its own Teacher Rights Protection Officer system. Ultimately, the effectiveness
of any such system will depend on how firmly the people running it adhere to
the law, to sound principles, and to a measured, disciplined approach.
