The National Assembly, led by the opposition party, passed an amendment to the ‘Elementary and Secondary Education Act’. Deputy Prime Minister Lee argued that shifting costs to parents and concerns about learning disparities were present. Textbook developers might initiate civil lawsuits or file constitutional complaints. Teacher organizations generally welcomed the amendment, though the Korea Federation of Teachers’ Associations expressed concern.
On December 26th, Deputy Prime Minister and Education Minister Lee Ju-ho announced the government’s position on the revised legislation related to AI digital textbooks at the government complex in Seoul. The legislation affected AI digital textbooks, which were expected to be used by students in elementary, middle, and high schools nationwide from the next academic year. The status of these textbooks was downgraded from ‘textbooks’ to ‘reference educational materials’. This change means that schools are not obligated to use AI textbooks. Concerns about children’s digital over-engagement among parents and the hesitance of teachers might lead to low adoption rates. Deputy Prime Minister Lee expressed opposition to the decision by the National Assembly and indicated plans to request a re-deliberation (veto) by the acting president.
During a session on the 26th, the opposition-led National Assembly passed an amendment to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, reclassifying AI textbooks as educational materials rather than textbooks. This affected 76 AI textbooks that had already passed evaluations and were ready for distribution, downgrading them to the level of reference materials.
The Ministry of Education immediately opposed the decision, arguing that it could cause significant disruption as the AI textbooks were a key educational reform initiative of President Yoon Suk-yeol’s administration, with implementation planned just three months away. Deputy Prime Minister Lee issued a statement after the amendment passed, citing concerns about potential confusion at schools and in society, proposing a re-deliberation. He further emphasized in a press conference that educational materials, unlike textbooks, are not entitled to free and compulsory education, which might shift the financial burden onto students and parents and cause disparities in educational quality based on the financial resources of regions or schools, potentially leading to learning gaps.
Developers of the AI textbooks, who invested significant resources, were expected to oppose the amendment. The Education Ministry argued that the legislation could be in violation of the constitutional prohibition of retroactive legislation since it effectively cancels the verified status of the AI textbooks. This could potentially result in developers filing civil lawsuits to recover their investment or even filing constitutional complaints.
Teacher organizations broadly welcomed the decision not to mandate the use of AI textbooks in the coming year. The ‘Joint Countermeasure Committee for Stopping AI Digital Textbooks,’ comprising 126 education, civil, and social organizations including the Korea Teachers and Educational Workers Union, issued a statement hoping the amendment would reduce confusion in schools caused by the enforced use of AI textbooks and promote diverse educational growth through discussion and consensus.
Meanwhile, the Federation of Korean Teacher’s Associations raised concerns that textbook policies might fluctuate under political influence, potentially leading to legal disputes and increased confusion in schools.