South Korea Sets Curfew to Ban Tutoring Academies After Dark

In "Teacher, Leave Those Kids Alone", Amanda Ripley portrays the government's attempt to reduce the country's addiction to private, after-hours tutoring academies called Hagwon. South Korean authorities recently began to enforce a curfew to ban the operations of Hagwon after 10p.m. Government employees patrol the academies after hours and even fine the violators in hopes to ease the academic pressures. At the national and local level, politicians are changing testing and university admission policies to reduce academic stress for students in South Korea. President Lee Myung-bak vowed at his inauguration in 2008 that the one-size-fits-all education system that rides solely on the college-entrance examination is not acceptable.

At first glance it may appear ridiculous for the government to deny children of private tutoring. If the parents and the children wish to seek private tutors for extra academic assistance, shouldn't they be encouraged to do so? Cramming is a deeply embedded concept in Asia because top grades often directly translate into professional success. In a country where 74% of all students engage in private after-school tutoring, there is a serious problem in its educational system. There are a several issues being contested, one of which questioning who has the right to decide the kinds of education a child receives. While the state education ministry plays a large role in the school curriculum, often the wishes of the parents and of the students still dictate the education that a child receives. This raises issues in all areas of knowing, as basic education integrates areas of math, sciences, history, the arts, and ethics. Is it ethical for parents to force their children to follow such rigorous schedules? Some parents argue that it is for the benefit of the child since the competitive atmosphere leaves no room errors. However sometimes the pressure does not necessarily reflect competition between students, but rather a competition between their parents. In which case, the parents should assist the government in their efforts to ease tension off students. Another issue contested is whether or not the government has the right to interfere in a child's education? Who holds the power to dictate a child's academic future?

Though there are definition ethical considerations, another crucial issue raised is a language issue in defining responsibility. Who is responsible for dictating the education of a young? At what point does one become responsible and independent from their guardians? What does it mean to be responsible? If the parents are deemed 'abusive' to the child, it then becomes the responsibility of the state to check these behaviors. But what is the line between good and bad parenting? The reason these issues arise in numerous situations is due to the ambiguity of language. Language is a tool for man to express his thoughts, but also to understand the perspective of others. But miscommunications often occur because language is spoken through the lens of one and perceived through the lens of another. So many styles of literature exists because language can be a very personalized tool. A phrase can adopt several meanings, giving the context of the situation. Therefore language cannot accurately pinpoint social issues since language is much dictated by the perception of the speaker and the receiver. The definitions of responsibility will vary greatly between each country, and even between each person. While a large number of South Korean parents have assumed the responsibility of ensuring their children the best opportunities to receive a high testing score, who is to say that the parents even have the right to dictate the education that a child received.

In this particular case, the state have chosen to enforce a curfew to reduce the pressure that students receive from their parents. By doing so the state may possibly jeopardize the steady trend of academic success produced by the South Korean students in recent years. The parents may be offended and interpret this action as a war against education. Another negative consequence of this curfew could also result in decline in business of the academies. Although it is certainly unusual for there to be more tutors than official teachers in a state, who is to say that private tutoring is not the most ideal way for students to learn? Perhaps in private tutoring students will receive more attention and have more drive to succeed. The advantage of enforcing the curfew is that it is an effort to reduce the pressure that students receive. This will force students to be more efficient in their studies, to get the material down in decent hours. The state is enforcing this in attempt to improve the health conditions of the students. Personally I agree with the state's decision to enforce a curfew. While I believe that individual families are responsible for the lifestyle of the individual, at one point when the pressure from the environment forces an individual to make decision that’s are potentially harmful to his health, such as losing sleep, a state should step in.

Another real-life case that shares a common root issue in language issue is the lawsuit the was called out over Apple's Stealth iOS Tracking Data. Apple products currently have the stealth IOS file that records the geolocation information of a device using the signals from the closest cell phone transmission towers. This data is continually collected regardless of whether the user has disabled this function. The U.S senator Al Franken was concerned with the power of this tool and sued Apple for the violation of privacy. While there are certainly ethical issues in this lawsuit, there are also language issues involved. In the case of South Korea's curfew, there was the language issue with defining the responsibility. Again there is a language issue with individual responsibilities in protecting their personal information. It is no secret that Apple openly admits to this function. The language question lies in what is privacy and how does this definition vary from person to person. A teenager may not consider this tracking of the geolocation as an invasion of privacy simply because it is a convenient function that can be used to track the device if it is lost. On the other hand a man of certain importance may feel extremely uncomfortable with another knowing his whereabouts at all times. Also what are the rights of an individual and what are the rights of the society and individual corporations? How can rights be defined?