Designing Korea's Integrated Quality Assessment System for ECEC: Lessons from International Experience

Abstract

[Issue 32] Designing Korea's Integrated Quality Assessment System for ECEC: Lessons from International Experience

I. Background

II. Three Types of ECEC Quality Assessment Systems Type 1: Centralized External Evaluation. Type 2: Hybrid (External Evaluation + Self-Assessment) Type 3: Reflective Internal Evaluation with External Support

III. Five Common Design Principles Principle 1. Process Quality-Centered, Observation-Based Indicators. Principle 2. Institutionalized CQI Cycles (Evaluation → Support → Feedback → Re-evaluation). Principle 3. Narrative-Based Disclosure with Concurrent Support Linkage. Principle 4. Three-Layer Governance Alignment (Central–Local–Institutional). Principle 5. Embedded Values of Inclusion and Equity.

IV. Policy Suggestions for Korea's Integrated Quality Assessment System Recommendation 1. Adopt a Hybrid CQI Model as the Foundational Architecture Recommendation 2. Redefine the Evaluator Role from Inspector to Coach Recommendation 3. Functionally Separate Supervision and Quality Evaluation. Recommendation 4. Strengthen Narrative-Based Disclosure with Support Integration Recommendation 5. Align Three-Layer Governance with Unified Data Architecture Recommendation 6. Embed Equity as Structural Design

V. Conclusion

References

[KICCE Policy Brief Issue 32] Designing Korea's Integrated Quality Assessment System for ECEC: Lessons from International Experience

- Author: Changhyun Park, Ph.D. Research Fellow - Download: https://m.site.naver.com/2dZSQ

· Korea is merging its kindergarten and childcare systems into a single ECEC system. Before the two become one, a prior question must be answered: in a unified system, what counts as good quality, and how should it be measured? How Korea answers this will decide whether integration genuinely improves what children experience, or only rearranges which ministry is in charge. · Today the two systems are assessed in different ways, and both are already changing, in the same direction. · Both tracks thus stand at a turning point, converging on a shared path: away from grading, toward support. The hard part is making the two connect — ensuring that what an evaluation finds actually changes what happens in the classroom, rather than sitting in a report. International experience shows that this connection, more than the strictness of inspection, is what separates evaluation systems that work from those that do not. Integration is Korea's chance to build that connection in from the start. · To find out how, this brief compares how ECEC quality is assessed across 15 countries, groups them into three governance types, draws out the design principles that make evaluation lead to real improvement, and applies them to the system Korea is now building. · Drawing on OECD reference reports and country case documentation, this analysis classifies international systems into three governance types based on two dimensions: the locus of evaluation authority (centralized vs. distributed) and dominant evaluation logic (external verification vs. internal reflection). Each type embodies a distinct institutional logic regarding what quality is and what evidence supports quality claims. · The typology captures dominant features rather than fixed states. Many systems are in transition: England has replaced single-word grades with report-card reporting (Ofsted, 2024; 2025), the Netherlands integrates process-quality observation into supervisory practice (Inspectie van het Onderwijs, 2022), and New Zealand’s review office has redefined its role from inspection toward improvement facilitation (ERO, 2020; 2025). The classification is therefore best read as a descriptive lens for design comparison, not a static ranking. · In Type 1, national supervisory bodies inspect institutions against standardized criteria, backed by legal authority. Its strength is setting a clear minimum-quality floor that every institution must meet, with the power to enforce it. Its structural risk is that when evaluation works mainly through rating and public disclosure — with little connection to improvement support afterward — institutions tend to orient toward passing the inspection rather than genuinely improving quality. · Type 2 combines the two logics: external evaluation for accountability and institutional self-assessment for improvement, joined in a repeating cycle of Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI). The critical design point is that a self-assessment portfolio works as a genuine improvement tool only when it is built to spark improvement dialogue — not when it becomes one more compliance document. · In Type 3, evaluation is treated mainly as a process of learning and reflection rather than judgment. Its central insight is that when quality is understood as relational, evaluation shifts toward dialogue and shared sense-making. The teachers’ own team-based reflection is the core mechanism, while external evaluation plays a supporting role — meta-feedback that strengthens the quality of internal evaluation. Several Type 3 systems also retain external review; the typology reflects where the emphasis falls, not the absence of external evaluation. · Despite divergent governance structures, the most effective systems converge on five interconnected principles. These are not a parallel checklist but a unified design logic — each principle reinforces the others and loses force in isolation (authors’ analysis based on OECD, 2021; 2025; Park et al., 2025). · For Korea, the central design challenge is to build a system in which accountability and autonomy reinforce rather than undercut each other, extending the consulting-based reforms already underway in both the kindergarten and childcare tracks. International evidence points to one workable direction: keep supervision and quality evaluation as distinct functions, yet connect them through shared data infrastructure. The six recommendations below translate that direction into design choices for Korea’s unified system. · International evidence converges on a single observation: the most effective quality assessment systems treat evaluation as infrastructure for learning and trust, as much as a tool for accountability. What sets them apart is not the strictness or frequency of external oversight, but whether evaluation is structurally linked to improvement support and professional growth. · Where evaluation is treated as a periodic compliance event isolated from ongoing support, it often breeds defensive practices and evaluation fatigue, regardless of whether the system is centralized or decentralized. In contrast, where evaluation outcomes are integrated into processes such as coaching, consulting, and subsequent re-evaluation, they foster sustained improvement and genuine professional engagement. · For Korea, integration is a rare and time-bound opportunity. Because both tracks are already moving toward consulting-based support, the task is not to start over but to lock in that convergence — a system in which supervision addresses risk while quality evaluation speaks the language of observation, feedback, and improvement, the two joined through a single data hub so that practitioners record their work once and that record serves accountability, improvement, and professional learning at the same time. The moment of integration is when this choice gets made. The evaluation system Korea designs now will define what quality means for young children in the unified system for years to come — and that, more than the merger of institutions, is the true measure of whether the reform succeeds.