The (dis)connection between policy and practice: Primary English education in South Korea

In today's South Korean society, English is valorized as a prominent and international language. Since it was officially introduced at the primary level in 2001, the necessity of English has been so heightened that new societal phenomena have emerged, including the unprecedented expansion of the private sector of education. As more resources are invested in English, it has been blamed to cause social stratification and inequity. With this background, this research employed a dominantly qualitative mixed-model research design aiming to explore how the Korean government's primary English education policy is implemented and perceived by primary English teachers.;The research occurred in three phases starting with policy analysis. Then interviews and classroom observations were conducted with seven teachers at six schools in different areas in Seoul. Subsequently, a questionnaire was developed and administered to thirty-two teachers in various areas of Seoul. Findings from the study revealed contradictions in fundamental conceptualizations about English and Koreanness in policy and to some extent practice that further submitted Koreans to the hegemony of English. Teachers were found to generally comply with the policy but negotiate their practices based on their beliefs and their social contexts. Private sector education was found to be a particularly influential factor; teachers in areas displaying relatively lower rates of participation in private sector education seemed to demonstrate more critical views on the interest around English than their counterparts in areas with higher rates of participation in private sector education. These attitudes were then reflected in their practices. Despite difficulties, the teachers were found to be bona-fide policy makers in their own right, reflecting agency and autonomy through their practices in response to the issues and obstacles that existed in their contexts.;This research is significant in that it accents the role of teachers in policy implementation and in that it offers insights directly coming from the ground on how policy is implemented in practice. It will also contribute to the literature on globalization and the role of language education policies that prioritize the English language by looking at how governments and individuals conceptualize and act on global and local expectations.