The recent series of teacher suicides is a new chapter in South Korea’s discussion on the education system. The initial shockwave hit with the death of the 24-year-old teacher at Seoul Seo2 Elementary School, who was subject to long-term parent bullying. Though the extent varied, many public school teachers have subsequently confessed that they have also experienced an infringement of teachers’ rights in the form of invasion of privacy, disruption of classroom decorum, or even false accusations of child abuse, all of which the teachers had to endure on their own.

The teaching community and the public are urging a review of the status quo of teachers’ rights in South Korea. The prevailing sentiment is that the emphasis on the student’s rights is uplifted at the expense of the teachers’; those at the extreme even argue that the teachers at the chalkface should revert to the “traditional” method of teaching where teachers had absolute authority in classrooms, with students fearing and thus obeying them. 

Until the late 20th century, the supreme authority of teachers was to be observed in almost every classroom. Upon disturbance of the classroom atmosphere, the teachers could scold the students in front of their classmates or their summoned parents, make them stay for detention after school, or even resort to corporal punishment. This led to most students painstakingly abiding by teachers’ instructions, which led to rather untroubled classroom scenes.

Whether this was an effective form of education for students is a completely separate question. The teacher unilaterally controlling the students via horror and humiliation may silence the classroom, but this will not do anything beyond instilling traumatic memories of school years. In fact, it is rare to see any Korean adult who experienced such education speak of severe punishment in a positive light.

Moreover, corporal punishment, as well as other forms of excessively severe punishment, may lead students on the wrong path. Using such primitive methods of discipline may be the less complicated option in that the teachers do not have to ponder the students’ long-term development. However, instead of reflecting on their faults, the students will instead resent why they had to be so strictly punished. If the teachers are not encouraging the students to ask the right questions about their behaviors at school, who can? In this regard, saying that teachers should regress to the old, harsher method is a rather irresponsible suggestion, considering that most students will leave schooling without getting a proper chance to reflect upon themselves.

Asserting dominance in classrooms will not benefit the teachers either. Teachers severely punishing the students may deter them from doing whatever has bothered the classroom at that moment, but, in the long term, it only provokes the students’ resistance. For one, they may rebel even more, to the point where no form of punishment can stop them, even temporarily.

The status quo, in which teachers are less authoritative than in the past, itself does not pose a problem. Teachers bear a duty to teach. This means that their lessons have to be understood, not injected. However, setting up an environment where they can do so unfortunately cannot be done by them alone.

Parents bear the most important role. Teachers nowadays receive complaints from parents even when they have instructed the children in the most civilized manner. This is preventing teachers from carrying out their job to educate students; some are even forced to fall back on inaction. Making a meaningful change to the education scene is only feasible when all parents pay teachers the same degree of respect they expect from teachers. Breaching teachers’ rights by belittling their valid teaching methods and then justifying that it was for the children is absurd. Being responsible for children does not come with overprotection or excessive parental involvement; it is rather about encompassing a humble and objective attitude to accept feedback from other members of society and teaching the child the same so that they can grow. 

For the single child that the teacher could not discipline, the infringement of teachers’ rights equates to a loss of opportunity to learn the right conduct at the right time. For the entire class, it signifies a prolonged disturbance in learning. For South Korea as a whole, it might mean that bright youths equipped to successfully nurture students hesitate to become teachers, which will, in the end, jeopardize the very standard of public education that the nation boasts. Leaving behind the discussion on how much rights teachers deserve, we should now shift our focus to the role of the wider educational community, which includes the parents and the public. How teachers’ rights can be ensured should not be a lonely burden on the teachers.