Jeollabuk-do Cuts Private Tutoring With Neulbom School Model

The Jeollabuk-do Office of Education says a public-education push centered on the Neulbom School program and academic improvement initiatives is delivering tangible results, including a drop in reliance on private tutoring among students in the province.

A Ministry of Education survey on private tutoring expenditures for elementary to high school students in 2025 shows Jeollabuk-do recording the lowest private tutoring participation rate in Korea at 66.4%. That figure is the lowest among Korea’s 17 provincial and metropolitan education offices, with the national average at 75.7%. Seoul remains the highest, at 82.6%.

The same survey shows average monthly private tutoring costs per student at 33,200 won, a 3.5% year-over-year decline, marking a five-year downward trend in the country. The Jeollabuk-do education office attributes these shifts largely to strengthening public education through the Neulbom School model and related academic-improvement programs.

Under Neulbom School, elementary students can participate in after-school time featuring a range of subjects and talent-imbued activities. The program has recorded the highest participation and satisfaction levels in South Korea for three consecutive years, and is viewed as a public-education-based after-school model in the region.

For older students, the education office highlights tailored middle- and high-school programs, including supplementary and advanced coursework meant to raise overall achievement. In high schools, programs such as Academic Advancement Challenge School and what is described as a Pure Study Time Camp are designed to help students improve within the school day environment.

acting Superintendent Yoo Jeong-gi said the goal is to build a continuum from elementary through high school that supports students inside the school, reduces dependence on private tutoring, and increases trust in public education. He indicated the policy will be expanded to broaden public-education coverage and continue to shift resources away from private tutoring.

For international readers, the Jeollabuk-do case offers a concrete example of how a regional government pursues education reform to curb private tutoring costs and keep learning inside the school system. It underscores what sustained investment in after-school and in-school programs can look like, and how such policies might affect families, local economies, and labor markets in other countries navigating similar debates about education funding, equity, and the cost of schooling.

The contrast with Seoul—where private tutoring participation remains the highest—illustrates urban-rural or regional differences in family reliance on external tutoring. The Korean experience provides data points for policymakers abroad weighing whether expanded public after-school offerings and school-based academic supports can reduce private expenditures and improve overall educational outcomes.