The $4 Million Teacher

[Politically_Incorrect12]

The $4 Million Teacher
South Korea's students rank among the best in the world, and its top teachers can make a fortune. Can the U.S. learn from this academic superpower?


Kim Ki-hoon earns $4 million a year in South Korea, where he is known as a rock-star teacher—a combination of words not typically heard in the rest of the world. Mr. Kim has been teaching for over 20 years, all of them in the country's private, after-school tutoring academies, known as hagwons. Unlike most teachers across the globe, he is paid according to the demand for his skills—and he is in high demand.

Mr. Kim works about 60 hours a week teaching English, although he spends only three of those hours giving lectures. His classes are recorded on video, and the Internet has turned them into commodities, available for purchase online at the rate of $4 an hour. He spends most of his week responding to students' online requests for help, developing lesson plans and writing accompanying textbooks and workbooks (some 200 to date).

"The harder I work, the more I make," he says matter of factly. "I like that."

I traveled to South Korea to see what a free market for teaching talent looks like—one stop in a global tour to discover what the U.S. can learn from the world's other education superpowers. Thanks in part to such tutoring services, South Korea has dramatically improved its education system over the past several decades and now routinely outperforms the U.S. Sixty years ago, most South Koreans were illiterate; today, South Korean 15-year-olds rank No. 2 in the world in reading, behind Shanghai. The country now has a 93% high-school graduation rate, compared with 77% in the U.S.

Tutoring services are growing all over the globe, from Ireland to Hong Kong and even in suburban strip malls in California and New Jersey. Sometimes called shadow education systems, they mirror the mainstream system, offering after-hours classes in every subject—for a fee. But nowhere have they achieved the market penetration and sophistication of hagwons in South Korea, where private tutors now outnumber schoolteachers.
Tutoring services are growing all over the globe, from Ireland to Hong Kong and even in suburban strip malls in California and New Jersey. Sometimes called shadow education systems, they mirror the mainstream system, offering after-hours classes in every subject—for a fee. But nowhere have they achieved the market penetration and sophistication of hagwons in South Korea, where private tutors now outnumber schoolteachers.

Viewed up close, this shadow system is both exciting and troubling. It promotes striving and innovation among students and teachers alike, and it has helped South Korea become an academic superpower. But it also creates a bidding war for education, delivering the best services to the richest families, to say nothing of its psychological toll on students. Under this system, students essentially go to school twice—once during the day and then again at night at the tutoring academies. It is a relentless grind.

The bulk of Mr. Kim's earnings come from the 150,000 kids who watch his lectures online each year. (Most are high-school students looking to boost their scores on South Korea's version of the SAT.) He is a brand name, with all the overhead that such prominence in the market entails. He employs 30 people to help him manage his teaching empire and runs a publishing company to produce his books.

Read more at:  online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324635904578639780253571520.html?mod=trending_now_1

[Sum Dum Gai]

But it also creates a bidding war for education, delivering the best services to the richest families,

So, it's really no different from the education system we've had for the last couple hundred years?

[billisonboard]

From the link in the OP:

Nearly three of every four South Korean kids participate in the private market. In 2012, their parents spent more than $17 billion on these services. ...
...
For decades, the South Korean government has been trying to tame the country's private-education market. Politicians have imposed curfews and all manner of regulations on hagwons, even going so far as to ban them altogether during the 1980s, when the country was under military rule. Each time the hagwons have come back stronger.

"The only solution is to improve public education," says Mr. Kim, the millionaire teacher, echoing what the country's education minister and dozens of other Korean educators told me. If parents trusted the system, the theory goes, they wouldn't resort to paying high fees for extra tutoring.

So Korean parents invest additional money in private tutoring to supplement public education. American parents certainly are free to do the same in this country.

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Aug 4, 2013 18:49:24 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

But it also creates a bidding war for education, delivering the best services to the richest families,

So, it's really no different from the education system we've had for the last couple hundred years?

If "nearly three of every four South Korean kids participate in the private market," it would seem it is available at a range of prices for people to afford.

[Politically_Incorrect12]

Aug 5, 2013 0:48:16 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

From the link in the OP:

Nearly three of every four South Korean kids participate in the private market. In 2012, their parents spent more than $17 billion on these services. ...
...
For decades, the South Korean government has been trying to tame the country's private-education market. Politicians have imposed curfews and all manner of regulations on hagwons, even going so far as to ban them altogether during the 1980s, when the country was under military rule. Each time the hagwons have come back stronger.

"The only solution is to improve public education," says Mr. Kim, the millionaire teacher, echoing what the country's education minister and dozens of other Korean educators told me. If parents trusted the system, the theory goes, they wouldn't resort to paying high fees for extra tutoring.

So Korean parents invest additional money in private tutoring to supplement public education. American parents certainly are free to do the same in this country.

Of course if almost 75% of South Korean kids participate in this extra tutoring, it might also say something about the value parents place on education within the culture as well.

[billisonboard]

Aug 5, 2013 8:06:16 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

...
Of course if almost 75% of South Korean kids participate in this extra tutoring, it might also say something about the value parents place on education within the culture as well.

I think it says a great deal about parents within that culture.

Can the U.S. learn from this academic superpower? (from the OP)

Yes, U.S. parents could learn a lot.

[jkapp]

Aug 5, 2013 0:48:16 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

From the link in the OP:

Nearly three of every four South Korean kids participate in the private market. In 2012, their parents spent more than $17 billion on these services. ...
...
For decades, the South Korean government has been trying to tame the country's private-education market. Politicians have imposed curfews and all manner of regulations on hagwons, even going so far as to ban them altogether during the 1980s, when the country was under military rule. Each time the hagwons have come back stronger.

"The only solution is to improve public education," says Mr. Kim, the millionaire teacher, echoing what the country's education minister and dozens of other Korean educators told me. If parents trusted the system, the theory goes, they wouldn't resort to paying high fees for extra tutoring.

So Korean parents invest additional money in private tutoring to supplement public education. American parents certainly are free to do the same in this country.

Good idea on its face, but remember we have the Democrats in this country who would never allow people with means to get something those without means won't or can't get.  So, the Dems would be calling for subsidies to low income families for "private" tutoring.  So, then, the American taxpayer would be paying for both a dismal public education system and "private" tutoring.  So why not just cut out the failing public school system altogether since we'd be paying double at that point?

[billisonboard]

Aug 5, 2013 8:59:54 GMT -5 jkapp said:

... Good idea on its face, but remember we have the Democrats in this country who would never allow people with means to get something those without means won't or can't get. ...

Do you not realize that private tutoring takes place in this country currently? Not on the scale that it takes place in Korea, but it is happening here now.

Google: private tutors About 7,150,000 results (0.13 seconds)

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Aug 4, 2013 18:49:24 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

But it also creates a bidding war for education, delivering the best services to the richest families,

So, it's really no different from the education system we've had for the last couple hundred years?

What's wrong is the bidding war for PUBLIC education.  Schools are determined by geography, not real competition- so the competition is to live in the "good school districts".  Not surprisingly, one of the biggest obstacles to true school choice are Realtors and the real estate industry and related lobbies.  Can you imagine what would happen to home values across the country in "good" school districts if there was true school choice?

There's a bidding war for education, only you have to bid for the HOUSE - purchase, or rent- to get it.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Aug 5, 2013 8:54:10 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Aug 5, 2013 8:06:16 GMT -5 Politically_Incorrect12 said:

...
Of course if almost 75% of South Korean kids participate in this extra tutoring, it might also say something about the value parents place on education within the culture as well.

I think it says a great deal about parents within that culture.

Can the U.S. learn from this academic superpower? (from the OP)

Yes, U.S. parents could learn a lot.

The perception that education is "free" is like the perception that housing, food, healthcare or anything else can be "free".  Parents have no incentive to learn.  Parents don't care.  It's an entitlement. Parents flip out that they need to supply their own glue and pencils.

[billisonboard]

Aug 5, 2013 16:55:32 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Aug 5, 2013 8:54:10 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

I think it says a great deal about parents within that culture.

Can the U.S. learn from this academic superpower? (from the OP)

Yes, U.S. parents could learn a lot.

The perception that education is "free" is like the perception that housing, food, healthcare or anything else can be "free".  Parents have no incentive to learn.  Parents don't care.  It's an entitlement. Parents flip out that they need to supply their own glue and pencils.

And if we did away with taxpayer supported education, many parents still will not learn. At least with it in place, some kids do learn in spite of parents.

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Aug 5, 2013 17:48:42 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Aug 5, 2013 16:55:32 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

The perception that education is "free" is like the perception that housing, food, healthcare or anything else can be "free".  Parents have no incentive to learn.  Parents don't care.  It's an entitlement. Parents flip out that they need to supply their own glue and pencils.

And if we did away with taxpayer supported education, many parents still will not learn. At least with it in place, some kids do learn in spite of parents.

Yeah, but instead of having free babysitters, and interrupting the kids that do want to learn, these parents could be held responsible for their minor children in other ways.

[billisonboard]

Aug 5, 2013 19:04:29 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

... these parents could be held responsible for their minor children in other ways.

Who would hold the parents responsible? What would the parents be held responsible to do with their children?

[djAdvocate]

the argument presented here is hilarious.  private schools are stellar in the US.  what is to improve?

[fairlycrazy23]

Aug 5, 2013 23:19:24 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

the argument presented here is hilarious.  private schools are stellar in the US.  what is to improve?

Affordability, it is true private schools in the US are very good, but it is hard to compete against "free".
 

[djAdvocate]

Aug 6, 2013 7:29:13 GMT -5 fairlycrazy23 said:

Aug 5, 2013 23:19:24 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

the argument presented here is hilarious.  private schools are stellar in the US.  what is to improve?

Affordability, it is true private schools in the US are very good, but it is hard to compete against "free".
 

exactly.  and how are $4M salaries going to make them more affordable, again?

[fairlycrazy23]

Aug 6, 2013 14:52:29 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Aug 6, 2013 7:29:13 GMT -5 fairlycrazy23 said:

Affordability, it is true private schools in the US are very good, but it is hard to compete against "free".
 

exactly.  and how are $4M salaries going to make them more affordable, again?

I wasn't specifically talking about the $4million dollar teacher, just private school in US in general, but it is probably a little misleading to say he has a $4M salary, that might lead people to believe that he mostly sits in front of kids and lectures and it these students tuition's are paying for his salary, when it is not at all like that.

[djAdvocate]

Aug 6, 2013 18:52:51 GMT -5 fairlycrazy23 said:

Aug 6, 2013 14:52:29 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

exactly.  and how are $4M salaries going to make them more affordable, again?

I wasn't specifically talking about the $4million dollar teacher, just private school in US in general, but it is probably a little misleading to say he has a $4M salary, that might lead people to believe that he mostly sits in front of kids and lectures and it these students tuition's are paying for his salary, when it is not at all like that.

no, i agree.  i was referring to the OP, fc23.  if the objective is to get a meritocracy based on pay among teachers, and college is already too expensive, that indicates only ONE possible outcome- and it is exactly the opposite of the one in South Korea.