A Comparative Analysis of After-School Program Policy in Korea and China from an Institutional Perspective

Purpose The purpose of this study is to comparatively analyze the after-school programpolicies of Korea and China froman institutional perspective in order to obtain implications for after-school programs currently being expanded in Chinese elementary schools. Methods To this end, this study comparatively analyzed national education policy on after-school programs in China and Korea (three policy from each country). For analysis, this research explored the similarities and differences between the two countries' relevant policies in three dimensions of institutional theory suggested by Chen (2008), such as value function, subject identity, and social behavior. Results The results of the study show that, first, in terms of the value function dimension, Korea has a clear evaluation and supervision system for after-school programs, while China's policy provisions on supervision and evaluation are more general, and the supervision system needs further refinement and improvement. Second, in terms of subject identity, Korea's policy shows a more comprehensive and systematic emphasis and arrangement on the subjectivity of teachers and students. On the other hand, although China's policy mentions that students' individuality should be respected and students' academic burden should be reduced, it generally pays less attention to student subjectivity and intensity than Korean policy. Third, in terms of social action, Korea focuses on diversifying teaching content and promoting social participation, while China emphasizes the standardized management of after-school programs and the overall development of students, and should further strengthen the diversification of teaching content. Conclusion Through the comparative analysis of after-school programs in Korea and China, this study identified that China needs to strengthen the construction of supervision and evaluation systems, pay attention to the needs of teachers and students, and enrich the forms of teaching content to continuously improve after-school programs, so as to promote the quality and balanced development of after-school education.