Home > Opinion > Columns

Education superintendent elections caught between early overheating and voter apathy

Published: 21 Jan. 2026, 00:02

Chun In-sung

The author is social policy editor at the JoongAng Ilbo.

The season of politics has returned to Korea’s education sector with the approach of the nationwide superintendent elections scheduled for June 3. From the start of the year, prospective candidates across the country have been holding book launches and announcing their intentions to run. This will be the fifth nationwide election since the introduction of the direct election system for education superintendents, yet this cycle has been notably louder and more contentious than usual.

Former Deputy Prime Minister for Social Affairs and Education Minister Yoo Eun-hye (center) visits the Gyeonggi Nambu Provincial Police Agency on Jan. 7 to file a complaint against Gyeonggi Superintendent Lim Tae-hee over allegations that former presidential protocol secretary Kim Seung-hee sought to cover up a school violence case involving her child. Yoo is preparing to run for Gyeonggi superintendent of education. [YONHAP]

Traditionally, superintendent races begin to heat up around early February, when preliminary candidate registration opens and rival camps on the progressive and conservative sides move toward candidate unification. Negative campaigning, including personal attacks, smear tactics and legal complaints, typically intensifies after mid-May, once official candidate registration is complete and formal campaigning begins.

This year, however, the confrontations have arrived far earlier. On Jan. 7, former Deputy Prime Minister and Education Minister Yoo Eun-hye, widely expected to run for superintendent in Gyeonggi, filed a police complaint against incumbent superintendent Lim Tae-hee. Reviving allegations from more than two years ago involving claims that a former presidential protocol secretary sought to cover up a school violence case involving her child, Yoo accused Lim of acting as an “accomplice to wrongdoing.” Local media described the episode as a sign that the superintendent election had opened with legal warfare rather than policy debate.

In North Chungcheong Province, conservative civic groups and progressive-leaning prospective candidates clashed last week. Conservative groups filed multiple complaints accusing progressive activists involved in candidate unification efforts of illegal pre-campaigning. The progressive side dismissed the accusations as smear tactics and said it was reviewing legal responses of its own.

Other regions have also seen turbulence. In Incheon last month, a progressive figure mentioned as a potential candidate claimed that incumbent superintendent Do Sung-hoon had promised not to seek a third term during unification talks four years ago. Do rejected the allegation, saying it was an issue for the accuser’s own reflection, but the controversy has lingered. In North Jeolla Province, plagiarism allegations surfaced against a teachers college professor who had topped some opinion polls. Three other prospective candidates stepped forward with press conferences and statements sharply criticizing the case. While candidate vetting is clearly necessary, the aggressive involvement of undeclared figures before even registering as preliminary candidates struck many observers as unusual.

Despite the early sparring among prospective candidates, voters appear largely unmoved. Since late last year, roughly 20 opinion polls related to superintendent races have been published, and in most provinces the largest group of respondents has been undecided voters. In other words, the share of people saying they had no preferred candidate or were unsure exceeded support for any single contender.

In Seoul, incumbent Jung Geun-sik, who led among potential candidates, recorded just 14.4 percent support, while nearly half of respondents surveyed, 46.5 percent, said they had no preference or did not know. In Gyeonggi, the combined support for the top three figures — incumbent Lim Tae-hee, former five-term lawmaker Ahn Min-seok and former deputy prime minister Yoo Eun-hye — still fell short of the undecided group, which approached 46 percent.

A representative of a teachers organization attributed the early overheating to a unification formula hardened by repeated elections and to anxiety among candidates and camps. In a system that excludes party nominations and operates amid widespread voter indifference, every prospective candidate feels compelled to secure the label of camp representative. Failing to prevail in unification talks often means having little chance in the general election, prompting candidates to fight early to consolidate internal support and sideline rivals. Both progressive and conservative camps also share a persistent fear that failure to unite quickly will lead to defeat.

Seoul Superintendent of Education Jung Geun-sik delivers a New Year’s address at the 2026 opening ceremony held at the Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education in Jongno District, central Seoul, on Jan. 2. [PROVIDED BY SEOUL METROPOLITAN OFFICE OF EDUCATION]

Against this backdrop, allowing party nominations has emerged as a proposed remedy for what critics call mudslinging and “blind” superintendent elections. Supporters argue that party primaries, subject to legal oversight, would be procedurally more transparent than opaque unification deals among loosely defined education civic groups and would reduce the burden on voters.

The education sector has long opposed party nominations, citing political neutrality and local autonomy. Yet circumstances are changing. The current government and ruling party have pledged to expand teachers’ basic political rights and are moving toward legislation. That raises a question: Is it coherent to allow teachers greater political participation while entirely excluding political parties from selecting superintendents?

Party nominations are not the only possible solution. What is clear is that the current system has repeatedly produced an odd coexistence of overheated candidate competition and voter apathy. If this pattern persists or worsens, responsibility cannot rest solely with individual candidates. Political leaders and the education establishment alike must answer for maintaining a flawed system. If elections launched in the name of education autonomy are instead eroding public trust, the system itself deserves renewed scrutiny.

This article was originally written in Korean and translated by a bilingual reporter with the help of generative AI tools. It was then edited by a native English-speaking editor. All AI-assisted translations are reviewed and refined by our newsroom.