Abstract
This study aims to derive effective organization and operation strategies for School Autonomous Time under the 2022 Revised National Curriculum. To this end, a survey of elementary and middle school teachers and a questionnaire-based inquiry with teachers in research schools were conducted in 2024 to analyze perceptions and required support factors. The results are as follows. First, regarding perceptions and support factors, elementary school teachers tended to view School Autonomous Time as a means of implementing school-specific activities and integrated thematic learning aligned with the school vision, whereas middle school teachers primarily perceived it as a mechanism for curriculum restructuring, such as securing information subject hours and opening elective courses. Common challenges included increased teacher workload, conflicts arising from instructional hour adjustments, and burdens related to assessment and school record documentation. In particular, middle schools identified the mismatch between teacher staffing confirmation schedules and curriculum planning timelines as a structural constraint. Accordingly, key support factors across the stages of preparation, design, organization, operation, and evaluation included consensus building on themes, securing time for collaborative curriculum design, provision of exemplary cases and instructional materials, continuous professional development and consulting, and clarification of assessment and documentation criteria. Second, in terms of organization and operation, the study highlights the need to clearly define themes aligned with school goals, select appropriate organizational models—intensive, distributed, or hybrid—based on school conditions, and establish operation structures grounded in teacher collaboration. Instruction should be designed around inquiry-, project-, and collaboration-based learning to enhance student outputs such as presentations, reports, and portfolios. Furthermore, assessment should prioritize process- and growth-oriented principles over ranking, with clear guidelines on responsibility sharing, scope of records, and sample documentation statements.
Keywords
School Autonomous Time, Career Exploration, School-based Specialization
1. Introduction
1.1. Background of the Study
1.1.1. Societal Changes and the Need for Curriculum Transformation
Contemporary society is undergoing complex social transformations driven by the rapid advancement of artificial intelligence and digital technologies, the climate crisis, and demographic changes. These shifts demand the restructuring of existing social systems and call for fundamental changes in school education. Education is increasingly expected to move beyond the mere transmission of knowledge toward fostering learners’ competencies to recognize and solve real-life problems on their own. Consequently, curricula now require autonomous design and implementation that reflect the contextual needs of schools and local communities, rather than being operated solely through uniform national standards
.
1.1.2. Expansion of School Autonomy and the Introduction of School Autonomous Time
Korea’s national curriculum has likewise demonstrated a gradual trend toward greater autonomy in response to these demands. In particular, the 2022 revised national curriculum institutionalized expanded school-level autonomy by defining schools not as passive implementers but as active designers of the curriculum
| [2] | Ministry of Education. (2022). General guidelines of the 2022 revised national curriculum. Ministry of Education. |
[2]
. Within this reform, School Autonomous Time was introduced as a key policy instrument that enables schools to autonomously organize and operate new subjects or activities by reflecting students’ needs and local characteristics.
School Autonomous Time is expected to serve as a powerful means of expanding learning experiences connected to students’ lives, promoting interdisciplinary and integrative learning beyond subject boundaries, and realizing school-based curricula that reflect each school’s distinctive features. However, despite its introduction, schools face multiple implementation challenges, including insufficient understanding of the concept and purpose of School Autonomous Time, difficulties in securing instructional hours, increased teacher workload, and confusion regarding assessment and student record documentation practices
| [3] | UNESCO. (2024). Global education monitoring report 2024/5: Leadership in education—Lead for learning. UNESCO. |
[3]
. Therefore, to ensure that School Autonomous Time fulfills its intended policy goals and educational values, it is necessary to comprehensively examine practitioners’ perceptions and operational conditions in schools and to develop feasible strategies for curriculum organization and implementation.
1.2. Necessity and Purpose of the Study
1.2.1. Research Necessity
To realize the policy intent of expanding curriculum autonomy through School Autonomous Time, it is necessary to move beyond a descriptive explanation of the policy itself and closely examine the perceptions of teachers and other school stakeholders who implement it in practice, as well as the support factors required across the entire operational process. In particular, although elementary and middle schools differ substantially in curriculum structure and student developmental characteristics, they operate School Autonomous Time within the same institutional framework. Accordingly, analyses and differentiated support strategies that reflect school-level contexts are required
| [4] | OECD. (2019). Future of education and skills 2030: OECD learning framework 2030. OECD Publishing. |
[4]
.
1.2.2. Research Purpose
This study aims to analyze elementary and middle school teachers’ perceptions of School Autonomous Time using survey and interview data, and to identify the support factors needed throughout the full cycle of preparation, design, organization, implementation, and evaluation. Based on these findings, the study seeks to propose practical strategies to help School Autonomous Time become stably embedded in school practice. Furthermore, this study reconceptualizes School Autonomous Time not merely as an issue of adjusting instructional hours, but as a broader transition in school curriculum governance and culture toward decentralized educational governance
.
2. Theoretical Background
2.1. Policy Trajectory of Curriculum Autonomy in Korea
Korea’s national curriculum has maintained a centralized and standardized system for a long period since the establishment of the First National Curriculum. In the early stages, the curriculum was designed in a way that the state tightly controlled educational goals, content, instructional hours, and operational procedures, thereby leaving limited room for school-level autonomy in curriculum implementation. However, with democratization in the late 1980s and the introduction of the local self-governing system in the early 1990s, the need for decentralization and greater autonomy in curriculum implementation gradually began to be raised
| [6] | Ministry of Education, Science and Technology. (2009). Plan for school autonomy to promote school-based accountability management (policy context section). Ministry of Education, Science and Technology. |
[6]
.
These changes should not be understood only as an internal institutional shift in Korea; rather, they are also connected to internationally expanding trends of decentralized governance and School-Based Management (SBM)
| [7] | Caldwell, B. J., & Spinks, J. M. (1992). Leading the self-managing school. Falmer Press. |
[7]
. In other words, this policy direction aligns with efforts to transfer educational decision-making authority from the central government to local authorities and schools, thereby transforming schools into substantive actors responsible for curriculum implementation and outcomes.
The Sixth National Curriculum is often regarded as a turning point in this transition, as it began to emphasize the role of provincial and metropolitan superintendents and accelerated the movement from a centralized curriculum system toward a more decentralized structure
| [8] | OECD. (2017). The governance of school education systems. OECD Publishing. |
[8]
. Subsequent curriculum reforms further strengthened policy orientations toward the “localization,” “autonomization,” and “decentralization” of the curriculum.
In particular, the 2009 Plan for School Autonomy to Promote School-Based Accountability Management allowed schools to increase or decrease standard instructional hours for each subject by ±20%, adjust hours across subjects, and operate block scheduling or intensive courses, thereby establishing an institutional foundation for schools to function as key actors in curriculum operation. Later, under the 2015 revised national curriculum, cross-subject hour adjustments became possible in most subjects (except physical education and arts), and schools were also allowed to autonomously select and operate creative experiential activities, further expanding curriculum autonomy
| [9] | Ministry of Education. (2015). 2015 revised national curriculum: General guidelines. Ministry of Education. |
[9]
. Within this cumulative trajectory of autonomy-oriented reforms, School Autonomous Time under the 2022 revised national curriculum may be understood as an institutional outcome introduced in line with a policy trend that has progressively expanded curriculum decision-making authority from the nation to regions, from regions to schools, and ultimately to teachers.
2.2. Key Features of the 2022 Revised National Curriculum and School Autonomous Time
The 2022 revised national curriculum is evaluated as a reform that strengthens school-level curriculum autonomy institutionally while setting the development of learners’ core competencies and growth as central goals in response to future societal changes. In particular, the reform introduced the concept of curriculum design, explicitly defining schools not merely as implementers of the national curriculum but as autonomous agents capable of designing and operating curricula in accordance with their philosophy, context, and conditions.
School Autonomous Time is presented as a key institutional mechanism to operationalize this curriculum design concept at the school level. Following the official announcement of the 2022 revised national curriculum, the Ministry of Education provided guidance on the rationale and principles of School Autonomous Time through explanatory documents and “Understanding the 2022 Revised National Curriculum” materials, while also refining the institutional framework based on analyses of elementary and middle school pilot-school outcomes
| [10] | Ministry of Education, & Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation. (2023). Guidelines for organizing and operating elementary and middle school curricula under the 2022 revised national curriculum. Ministry of Education. |
[10]
.
Furthermore, the OECD has recently pointed out that curriculum flexibility and teacher/school autonomy are emerging as essential tasks for contemporary education systems in order to respond to learner diversity and local contexts, emphasizing the need to balance national standards with school-level autonomy. Such discussions are aligned with the policy orientation of the 2022 revised national curriculum, which aims to expand schools’ authority to reconstruct curricula through School Autonomous Time
| [11] | OECD. (2024). Curriculum flexibility and autonomy: Promoting a thriving learning environment (policy implications section). OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/eccbbac2-en |
[11]
.
2.3. Guidelines and Institutional Characteristics of School Autonomous Time in Elementary and Middle Schools
Although School Autonomous Time was introduced as a common policy across both elementary and middle schools under the 2022 revised national curriculum, its actual application differs depending on school level due to distinct curriculum structures and operational contexts. Elementary schools, characterized by higher levels of curricular integration and homeroom-teacher-centered operations, tend to have relatively favorable conditions for implementing School Autonomous Time through integrated thematic learning or school-specific programs.
In contrast, middle schools operate within a more differentiated subject structure and a staffing system based on teachers’ subject specialization. As a result, School Autonomous Time in middle schools is more likely to take the form of adjustments to specific subject hours or as elective course offerings. These structural differences directly affect how School Autonomous Time is organized and implemented, suggesting that differentiated support strategies tailored to school-level characteristics are required even under the same institutional framework
.
In addition, the implementation of School Autonomous Time is likely to be shaped by school-level decision-making structures, teacher professionalism, and school leadership. UNESCO has emphasized in its recent report that school leadership and decision-making capacity significantly influence school improvement and the quality of teaching and learning, arguing that expanding autonomy should be accompanied by strengthening implementation capacity (leadership, professionalism, and support systems). Therefore, for School Autonomous Time to become established as practical school-level implementation rather than remaining an institutional requirement, systematic support that considers school-level structures and reinforces teacher and school leadership must be provided in parallel
| [13] | UNESCO. (2024). Global education monitoring report 2024/5: Leadership in education—Lead for learning (policy recommendations section). UNESCO. |
[13]
.
2.4. Prior Studies on School Autonomous Time in Korea and Abroad
Domestic studies have generally viewed School Autonomous Time as a core institutional policy instrument for expanding school-level curriculum autonomy, highlighting its potential to enable the operation of school-specific curricula
| [14] | Gu, Gyo-Jeong, Kim, Young-Gwon, Park, Jin-Seong, & Kwak, Ji-Soon. (2024). A study on organization and operation strategies through an analysis of perceptions and support factors for School Autonomous Time. Incheon Metropolitan City Office of Education. |
[14]
. In particular, School Autonomous Time has been positively evaluated as providing a foundation for promoting interdisciplinary integrated learning and implementing participatory curricula that reflect students’ interests and needs. These studies suggest that School Autonomous Time can enhance flexibility and diversity at the school curriculum level by supplementing and extending traditional subject-centered curricula.
At the same time, domestic research has also identified limitations and challenges in the implementation process. Major obstacles include burdens on teachers’ curriculum design capacity, increased administrative workload, and ambiguity in assessment procedures and student record documentation standards, all of which hinder institutional stabilization. Such issues indicate that School Autonomous Time, while granting autonomy to schools and teachers, simultaneously requires new forms of responsibility and accountability in curriculum design and operation
. This highlights the dual nature of the policy: autonomy expansion accompanied by increased institutional and professional demands.
International research tends to approach concepts comparable to School Autonomous Time not as a fixed “secured time” arrangement but rather from the perspective of school-level authority to autonomously organize and operate curricula. In this view, autonomy is not primarily a matter of allocating additional time, but of granting schools substantive decision-making power over curriculum content, teaching and learning methods, and assessment practices. Moreover, the recent results from TALIS 2024 indicate that teachers in many countries have opportunities to participate in school decision-making and that leadership and participation structures at the school level constitute critical conditions for educational improvement
| [16] | OECD. (2025). Results from TALIS 2024: Insights and interpretations. OECD Publishing. |
[16]
. This supports the argument that School Autonomous Time should be understood not as an isolated institutional arrangement but as part of broader school-based curriculum governance—namely, a reallocation of decision-making authority within school-based curriculum management systems.
3. Research Methods
3.1. Research Procedure
As illustrated in
Figure 1, this study employed a mixed-methods research design that combined quantitative and qualitative approaches. In the quantitative phase, a survey was administered to elementary and middle school teachers to examine their perceptions of School Autonomous Time. In the qualitative phase, questionnaire-based inquiries were conducted with teachers in charge of School Autonomous Time at research schools in order to analyze their practical experiences and support needs in greater depth. This mixed-methods approach enabled a multifaceted examination of the current status of School Autonomous Time implementation and contributed to the development of more realistic and context-sensitive strategies for its organization and operation.
Figure 1. Research Procedure.
3.2. Research Methods
This study employed a mixed methods design to comprehensively analyze perceptions of and operational conditions surrounding School Autonomous Time. In the quantitative component, the survey sample consisted of one vice principal, one head of academic affairs, and one teacher from each participating elementary and middle school in Incheon Metropolitan City who had completed professional development related to School Autonomous Time. Participants were evenly sampled across the eastern, western, southern, northern, and Ganghwa regions, yielding 72 respondents each from elementary and middle schools. The survey focused on perceptions of School Autonomous Time, expected outcomes, operational challenges, and support needs, and the items were designed to encompass all stages of implementation, including preparation, design, organization, operation, and evaluation. The collected data were analyzed using descriptive statistics to compare differences by school level.
In the qualitative component, questionnaire-based inquiries were conducted with teachers responsible for School Autonomous Time in designated research schools to examine actual implementation experiences and institutional issues in depth. This qualitative analysis complemented the quantitative findings and contributed to the identification of implications for the stable organization and operation of School Autonomous Time.
4. Analysis of Perceptions and Support Factors Related to School Autonomous Time
4.1. Analysis of Perceptions of School Autonomous Time
Perceptions of School Autonomous Time differed by school level in both the survey and the interview data, and the two sources complemented each other by explaining the same phenomenon at different levels. The survey results first revealed a clear contrast between elementary and middle schools in terms of the perceived purposes and modes of utilization of School Autonomous Time. Elementary school teachers tended to view School Autonomous Time as a means of implementing school visions and educational goals through school-specific programs and activity-oriented operation, and they responded that it could expand the flexibility of the school curriculum. By contrast, middle school teachers were relatively more likely to perceive School Autonomous Time as an instrument for meeting structural needs of the curriculum, such as securing instructional hours for informatics, opening elective subjects, and adjusting subject organization.
These school-level differences were further confirmed through the interviews, which provided concrete contexts and underlying mechanisms. Elementary school teachers described School Autonomous Time as “a time when schools can address topics they consider important without being constrained by existing subjects,” emphasizing its potential for integrated thematic instruction and school-specific activities. This finding suggests that the activity-oriented and flexibility-enhancing perceptions identified in the survey are linked to actual implementable experiences in the field, given the structural characteristics of elementary schools, where curriculum operation is relatively integrated and centered on homeroom teachers. In contrast, middle school teachers stated in the interviews that School Autonomous Time is “in practice understood as an adjustment mechanism for securing instructional hours,” indicating that the survey tendency to view it as a tool for curriculum restructuring is not merely a difference in perception but rather reflects realities constrained by subject-hour requirements and teacher allocation issues. In other words, in middle schools, School Autonomous Time functioned less as an opportunity for curricular design and more as an institutional adjustment mechanism aimed at ensuring operational stability.
Regarding perceived effects, both the survey and interview data consistently supported the direction of positive impacts. In the survey, teachers in both elementary and middle schools recognized strengthening autonomous curriculum operation and expanding curriculum practices reflecting school and local characteristics as major benefits. Similarly, interview participants repeatedly evaluated School Autonomous Time as “an opportunity to revisit and discuss the school curriculum.” This suggests that, regardless of specific modes of implementation, School Autonomous Time plays an institutional catalytic role in fostering reflection and deliberation on the school curriculum within schools.
In contrast, while both data sources pointed in the same direction regarding negative factors, the qualitative evidence further refined and elaborated their meanings. The survey identified increased teacher workload, conflict during subject-hour adjustments, and burdens related to assessment and documentation in student records as common challenges. Taken together, the interview data indicate that this “workload burden” does not simply refer to an increase in teaching hours, but rather arises from the combined effects of unclear responsibilities and standards for assessment and documentation, role conflicts occurring in cross-subject coordination processes, and heightened accountability pressures regarding operational outcomes. In particular, middle school teachers perceived structural constraints such as excessive homeroom-related duties and a mismatch between the timing of finalizing teacher staffing allocations and the timing of curriculum organization. In interviews, they pointed out that “the curriculum must be planned in advance, but teacher assignments are confirmed later,” explaining that this structure serves as a practical limitation that increases operational uncertainty rather than expanding School Autonomous Time as an opportunity for educational design. Thus, the barriers identified in the survey were further specified through interviews, underscoring that administrative and organizational support must precede implementation in order to secure the stability of School Autonomous Time operation.
4.2. Analysis of Support Factors for School Autonomous Time
The support factors for the effective operation of School Autonomous Time were derived by operational stage through both the survey and interview data, and the quantitative and qualitative evidence complemented each other by clarifying the nature of support needs in greater detail. The survey results indicated that teachers perceived systematic support as necessary across the entire process of School Autonomous Time—preparation, design, organization, implementation, and assessment—with particularly high demand for support at the design and assessment stages. The interview data further confirmed that teachers’ strong demand for support in these stages was not merely due to an increase in workload; rather, it was closely associated with structural burdens in which responsibility becomes concentrated while criteria remain unclear.
4.2.1. Preparation Stage
First, regarding the preparation stage, the survey results showed that selecting topics that reflect school characteristics and the needs of the educational community, as well as building consensus among stakeholders, were key support factors. The qualitative evidence further specified that the success of the preparation stage depends less on topic selection itself than on organizational conditions that enable consensus-building. Interview participants noted that whether School Autonomous Time can be implemented “depends on how clearly the principal sets the direction and whether teachers are given sufficient time for discussion.” In other words, the survey finding on the importance of consensus was refined by the interview data, indicating that it becomes feasible only when principal leadership and deliberative structures (time and procedures) are secured.
4.2.2. Design Stage
At the design stage, the survey results highlighted strong needs for curriculum design and instructional material development based on teacher collaboration. However, the interview data revealed that the underlying issue goes beyond a general call for collaboration and lies in a structural problem whereby design burdens are concentrated on individual teachers. Teachers repeatedly stated that “designing a new subject or activity alone is highly burdensome,” emphasizing that support should prioritize securing time for joint design, sharing prior cases and exemplary practices, and providing professional development and consulting rather than simply supplying materials. This suggests that the survey-based demand for support at the design stage reflects a broader request for a collaborative support system that can mitigate the 현실 of “individual teacher-based design.”
4.2.3. Organization Stage
With respect to the organization stage, the survey results identified institutional flexibility—allowing schools to choose operational models (e.g., intensive, distributed, and hybrid) based on local conditions—as an important support factor. Yet, the interview data showed that such flexibility cannot be secured solely by schools’ internal willingness. In particular, in middle schools, curriculum hour adjustments and teacher placement issues functioned as the greatest barriers at the organization stage. Middle school teachers pointed out that organizing School Autonomous Time is not merely a matter of scheduling, but rather an organizational issue directly connected to curriculum structure and teacher supply. Thus, the survey finding regarding the need for flexibility in selecting operational models was further refined by qualitative evidence demonstrating that, especially in middle schools, such flexibility is achievable only when structural conditions (teacher placement and subject hour allocation) are addressed in advance.
4.2.4. Implementation Stage
At the implementation stage, the survey results indicated that lessons emphasizing student outputs and presentations were perceived as factors that enhance the effectiveness of School Autonomous Time. Similarly, the interview data repeatedly highlighted project outcomes, presentation activities, and inquiry reports as key elements that promote student engagement. However, qualitative evidence suggested that effective implementation cannot be achieved solely by selecting activity types; rather, continuity in field-based support that enables teachers to receive ongoing assistance during implementation is essential. Interview participants stated that sustained, site-based training and consulting are more helpful than one-time workshops, emphasizing that implementation-stage support should be designed not as mere “material provision,” but as feedback and problem-solving assistance throughout the execution process.
4.2.5. Assessment Stage
Finally, at the assessment stage, the survey results showed the highest demand for clarifying assessment criteria and reducing the burden associated with student record documentation. The qualitative evidence demonstrated that this burden does not stem simply from excessive workload, but rather from a structure in which tasks become concentrated on particular teachers under conditions where responsibility for assessment and documentation is unclear. This issue was repeatedly raised especially when multiple subject teachers participated, as record-keeping responsibilities tended to fall disproportionately on specific teachers. Therefore, assessment-stage support should go beyond general calls to “reduce documentation burden” and be further specified toward establishing institutional conditions such as process-oriented assessment criteria aligned with the nature of School Autonomous Time, detailed guidelines on the amount and format of records, and a clear role-sharing system.
5. Strategies for the Organization and Operation of School Autonomous Time
5.1. Strategies for Organizing School Autonomous Time
The organization of School Autonomous Time should be closely integrated with the overall school curriculum, as decisions made at the organizational stage critically influence the stability of subsequent implementation. According to the survey and interview findings presented in this study, the central challenge in organizing School Autonomous Time lies not merely in securing instructional hours, but in clearly positioning School Autonomous Time within the broader curriculum structure.
First, it is necessary to clarify organizational themes that are aligned with school curriculum goals. At the organization stage, schools should prioritize the educational purposes they intend to achieve through School Autonomous Time. Interview data indicated that elementary school teachers were more motivated to implement School Autonomous Time when it functioned as “a period devoted to addressing core themes that the school considers important.” Accordingly, School Autonomous Time should be organized in direct connection with the school’s vision, core educational goals, and priority agendas (e.g., career development, digital competence, community linkage, and ecology or environmental education).
Second, differentiated organizational strategies by school level are required. In elementary schools, given the high degree of curricular integration and the homeroom teacher–centered operational structure, it is desirable to organize School Autonomous Time not through reductions in subject-based instructional hours, but through integrated thematic activities or school-specific programs. Consistent with this, survey results showed that a high proportion of elementary school teachers perceived School Autonomous Time as “a flexible period that complements and extends existing subjects.” In contrast, in middle schools, where curricula are subject-differentiated and teacher deployment is based on subject specialization, more realistic approaches include linking School Autonomous Time with information subjects, career-related courses, or elective subjects, or concentrating it within a specific grade level or semester. Interview participants frequently suggested that “concentrating School Autonomous Time in a single grade level, rather than distributing it across all grades, reduces the operational burden.”
Third, it is necessary to specify and operationalize the criteria for selecting an organizational type (intensive, distributed, and hybrid). As shown in
Figure 2, the organizational types of School Autonomous Time can be categorized into three models: intensive, distributed, and hybrid. According to the survey results, teachers emphasized the need to expand school autonomy so that schools can select an operational model that best suits their local conditions. Although the implementation period differs across metropolitan/provincial education offices, School Autonomous Time is generally applied based on the following standard instructional hours: 29 hours for Grades 3–4 in elementary school, 31 hours for Grades 5–6, and 33 hours for middle school. Among these, the intensive model concentrates School Autonomous Time at the end of a semester or during a designated period, making it particularly suitable for project-based activities and lessons centered on performance outcomes and presentations. The distributed model is implemented continuously throughout the academic year, typically for approximately one period per week, and is effective for long-term inquiry-based learning or themes closely connected to students’ daily lives. The hybrid model combines distributed operation during the semester with intensive operation toward the end of the semester, and it is regarded as a model that can secure both operational stability and educational effectiveness.
Figure 2. Organizational Types of School Autonomous Time.
Therefore, schools need to receive sufficient guidance and support so that they can select and adjust the most appropriate model among these options by comprehensively considering their curriculum implementation conditions and teachers’ workload. In particular, School Autonomous Time should not be viewed merely as an issue of allocating instructional hours; rather, it constitutes a key domain for reflecting the distinctive characteristics of the school curriculum and designing meaningful learning experiences that foster students’ growth. Accordingly, selecting an organizational type requires both consensus among school members and systematic deliberation. For example, schools aiming to strengthen project-based learning can provide highly immersive learning experiences through the intensive model, whereas schools seeking to organize instruction around life-related themes or sustained inquiry can secure curricular continuity across the semester through the distributed model. Meanwhile, the hybrid model can enhance operational stability by integrating the advantages of both the intensive and distributed models; however, it also requires additional strategies, such as adjusting the school calendar and carefully planning the timing of evaluations and presentations. In this regard, educational authorities and school support systems should not impose a single uniform operational model. Instead, they should provide diverse operational scenarios that reflect each school’s curriculum structure, student characteristics, local context, and teachers’ working conditions, thereby enabling schools to autonomously design the optimal operational model.
Fourth, it is necessary to strengthen administrative and organizational support during the curriculum organization stage. In particular, in middle schools, a structural mismatch between the timing of finalizing teacher staffing allocations and the timing of curriculum planning was identified as a key issue. Interview data also showed that middle school teachers repeatedly noted “the difficulty of having to design School Autonomous Time without confirmed teacher assignments,” suggesting that such uncertainty may undermine the feasibility of curriculum organization and the stability of implementation. Therefore, at the level of metropolitan/provincial offices of education, it is necessary to reinforce advance guidance, provide early access to information regarding teacher placement, and systematically align teacher supply and placement policies in ways that reflect the organization of School Autonomous Time.
5.2. Strategies for Operating School Autonomous Time
The effective operation of School Autonomous Time is more likely to be sustained when it is embedded within school-level collaborative structures and support systems, rather than relying solely on the enthusiasm of individual teachers. Findings from the survey and interview data indicate that the presence or absence of support at the operational stage is a critical factor determining the substantive outcomes of School Autonomous Time.
First, it is essential to establish an operational structure premised on collaborative curriculum design. Survey results identified curriculum design burden as the greatest challenge faced by teachers in operating School Autonomous Time, and interview data repeatedly highlighted concerns about “the burden of having to design new subjects or activities individually.” Accordingly, schools should form curriculum committees or small design teams to collaboratively deliberate on theme selection, lesson sequencing, and assessment methods as part of the operation of School Autonomous Time.
Second, greater specificity is required in implementing instruction centered on student participation and tangible outputs. The educational effectiveness of School Autonomous Time is closely related to the level of student engagement. Survey results revealed strong perceptions that instruction emphasizing student outputs and presentations is effective, while interview participants similarly identified project outcomes, presentations, and portfolio-based activities as key factors enhancing student immersion. Therefore, School Autonomous Time should be operated through inquiry-, project-, and collaboration-based instructional approaches rather than lecture-centered instruction.
Third, the establishment of a system of continuous support for strengthening teacher professionalism is necessary. Interview findings indicated that professional development programs that share actual implementation cases and provide immediately applicable materials and guidance are more beneficial than one-time training sessions. Consequently, effective support for the operation of School Autonomous Time should include the dissemination of exemplary practices, linkage with teacher professional learning communities, and the provision of ongoing consulting.
Fourth, the clarification of assessment practices and school record documentation emerged as a key task. In the survey, teachers identified assessment and documentation as the most burdensome aspects of operating School Autonomous Time, and the interview data likewise repeatedly highlighted ambiguity in assessment criteria and the concentration of documentation responsibilities on specific teachers. Accordingly, assessment in School Autonomous Time should be guided by process- and growth-oriented evaluation principles rather than hierarchical achievement ranking, and should be supported by detailed guidelines specifying the allocation of documentation responsibilities, the scope of record-keeping, and sample record statements. In particular, to address the “ambiguity” surrounding assessment, presenting a sample assessment framework or a logic model would help clarify assessment standards and procedures, thereby strengthening the feasibility and persuasiveness of the “Strategies” section.
6. Conclusions and Implications
Based on the perception survey on School Autonomous Time and the analysis of support factors, this study developed operational and implementation strategies and derived the following conclusions.
First, clear differences were found between elementary and middle schools in both perceptions and operational approaches to School Autonomous Time. Elementary school teachers primarily regarded School Autonomous Time as a means to implement school-specific programs and activity-based learning, whereas middle school teachers tended to utilize it for structural needs, such as securing instructional hours for the Informatics subject or opening new courses. Accordingly, elementary schools showed a preference for activity-oriented hybrid models, while middle schools favored subject-centered regular (distributed) models. Differences were also observed across school levels in how instructional hours were secured and how assessment was conducted. These findings indicate that even within a single policy framework, School Autonomous Time is interpreted and reconstructed differently depending on the curriculum structure (integration vs. subject differentiation) and operational contexts of each school level. Therefore, School Autonomous Time should not be understood as a standardized model; rather, it should be conceptualized as an applied case of decentralized governance and School-Based Management (SBM) that substantively guarantees curriculum design authority tailored to local school contexts.
Second, School Autonomous Time was perceived as having both positive effects and potential risks related to increased workload and conflict. While School Autonomous Time was recognized as a policy mechanism capable of enhancing curriculum autonomy and reflecting school–community characteristics, it was also seen as likely to intensify teachers’ workload and generate conflicts within the educational community. Specifically, elementary schools frequently reported increased workload and conflicts arising during collaborative deliberation processes, whereas middle schools highlighted homeroom teachers’ excessive burden and the issue of teacher staffing finalization timelines. These results suggest that because School Autonomous Time expands autonomy, it must be accompanied by adequate institutional and administrative support. This aligns with international discussions indicating that expanding autonomy does not automatically improve educational quality; sustainability is more likely when autonomy is combined with capacity and scaffolding/support systems. Since School Autonomous Time grants curriculum-design authority while simultaneously demanding accountability for outcomes, insufficient curriculum leadership and inadequate restructuring of workload may result in field resistance and symbolic, rather than substantive, implementation.
Third, required support factors differed significantly by school level.
Elementary schools emphasized the need for support in activity design and instructional hour allocation, as well as simplification of record-keeping tasks. In contrast, middle schools prioritized adjustments to the timing of teacher staffing finalization and clearer guidance on assessment systems. During implementation, elementary school teachers experienced major difficulties in securing instructional hours and managing increased workload, whereas middle school teachers reported overall workload escalation and insufficient understanding of assessment methods. These findings demonstrate that although School Autonomous Time is an autonomy-oriented policy, its implementation conditions are embedded within structurally different constraints across school levels. Support strategies should therefore be differentiated: elementary schools require assistance in activity-based curriculum design (e.g., resources, templates, and training), whereas middle schools need structural-level improvements such as staffing, timetabling, and early confirmation of teacher allocations. This empirically supports the necessity of differentiated support, which is a core requirement of decentralized policy implementation.
Fourth, systematic support throughout the entire process—preparation, design, organization, implementation, and evaluation—was confirmed to be necessary. For elementary schools, theme selection reflecting teachers’ input, teacher collaboration, and flexible hour adjustment were key factors. For middle schools, the activation of liberal-arts-related areas and Informatics-related domains, curriculum organization reflecting community demands, and linkages with the Free Semester Program and career education were highlighted. Assessment and documentation were expected to be operated around student outputs, but teacher training and education-office-level support were also identified as essential. These results clarify that School Autonomous Time is not merely an issue of reallocating instructional hours; it represents a restructuring of the school-level curriculum operating system. In particular, the assessment and record-keeping domain—identified as the heaviest burden for teachers—may function as a bottleneck for implementation unless addressed. Therefore, it is necessary to institutionalize process-oriented evaluation principles, provide detailed guidelines including the subject of responsibility, scope of documentation, and sample writing formats for student records, and reduce ambiguity. Moreover, to strengthen feasibility and implementation in practice, presenting a concrete sample framework or logic model for process-oriented evaluation would significantly enhance the validity and actionability of the Strategies section.
Fifth, successful institutionalization requires sufficient deliberation and consensus among members of the educational community. School Autonomous Time aims to provide students with diverse learning experiences reflecting school and local characteristics. By selecting an operational type suited to school conditions (intensive, distributed, or hybrid), schools may strengthen both student participation and teachers’ curriculum-design capacity. This suggests that School Autonomous Time requires consensus-based decision-making within schools, and ultimately, its success depends on whether schools can function as genuine curriculum-design agents. Accordingly, choosing an operational type should not be treated as a purely technical decision; rather, it should be approached as an SBM-driven strategy reflecting the school’s vision and curricular identity. When teacher participation, distributed responsibility, and institutionalized collaborative structures are secured, School Autonomous Time can move beyond symbolic adoption and serve as a practical mechanism for substantive decentralization and curriculum innovation.
Based on these conclusions, the following implications are proposed. First, School Autonomous Time should be utilized as a core mechanism for realizing school-based distinctive curricula. In particular, at the middle school level, it needs to be expanded beyond the limited function of supplementing specific subjects (e.g., securing instructional hours for Informatics) toward an activity-centered and interdisciplinary curriculum connected to students’ lived experiences. As this study shows, middle schools tend to operate School Autonomous Time as an adjustment mechanism due to subject-based structures and staffing constraints; therefore, reconceptualizing it in line with its original policy intent—substantively expanding schools’ curriculum-design authority—is necessary.
Second, School Autonomous Time should be systematically integrated with the free semester program and career-linked education in order to strengthen coherence between curricular goals and learning experiences and to develop an integrated curriculum model that ensures continuity across semesters and grade levels. In particular, linking School Autonomous Time with free-semester and career-education activities can enhance curriculum consistency, maximize student participation, and also help reduce confusion related to assessment and documentation.
Third, to address the curriculum-design burden identified as the greatest challenge in operating School Autonomous Time, schools should institutionalize collaborative systems for joint design and implementation through school-based autonomous professional development and professional learning communities. In addition, strengthening case-based training, consulting support, and practical resources related to process-oriented assessment and school record documentation is necessary to systematically enhance teachers’ curriculum-design competencies.
Fourth, it is necessary to address the structural challenges of implementing School Autonomous Time through district-level measures, including adjusting the timing of teacher staffing confirmation and providing additional human and financial resources. When staffing allocations are confirmed late, schools face difficulties in designing stable curricula and timetables that incorporate School Autonomous Time, which in turn shifts operational burdens onto schools and teachers. Therefore, district authorities should make staffing confirmation more flexible or finalize staffing earlier to strengthen schools’ capacity for advance planning. In addition, they should enhance feasibility by allocating dedicated personnel (e.g., instructors, assistants, or coordinators) and providing separate budget support specifically for School Autonomous Time implementation.
Fifth, the increase in teachers’ workload has emerged as a major barrier to the institutionalization of School Autonomous Time. Thus, beyond a broad statement such as “district-level support,” the manuscript should propose concrete measures that can practically reduce administrative burdens. For example, district authorities should systematically disseminate standardized operational resources (e.g., sample curriculum plans, instructional design templates, and assessment/recording guidelines) to reduce schools’ burden of developing materials independently. They should also simplify approval and reporting procedures and minimize repetitive administrative tasks, enabling teachers to focus on curriculum design and instructional implementation. Furthermore, expanded professional development—such as case-based training, consulting-linked support, and hands-on workshops—should be provided to strengthen teachers’ capacity to design and operate School Autonomous Time effectively. These district-level supports can serve as essential policy scaffolding, ensuring that School Autonomous Time goes beyond formal compliance and functions as a meaningful mechanism for realizing school-level curriculum autonomy in practice.
Abbreviations
SBM | School-based Management |
OECD | Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development |
UNESCO | United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization |
TALIS | Teaching and Learning International Survey |
DG | Decentralized Governance |
Author Contributions
Gu Gyo-Jeong is the sole author. The author read and approved the final manuscript.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
References
| [1] |
OECD. (2024). Curriculum flexibility and autonomy: Promoting a thriving learning environment. OECD Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1787/eccbbac2-en
|
| [2] |
Ministry of Education. (2022). General guidelines of the 2022 revised national curriculum. Ministry of Education.
|
| [3] |
UNESCO. (2024). Global education monitoring report 2024/5: Leadership in education—Lead for learning. UNESCO.
|
| [4] |
OECD. (2019). Future of education and skills 2030: OECD learning framework 2030. OECD Publishing.
|
| [5] |
UNESCO. (2024). Global education monitoring report 2024/5: Summary—Leadership in education: Lead for learning. UNESCO.
https://doi.org/10.54676/ZNLI9227
|
| [6] |
Ministry of Education, Science and Technology. (2009). Plan for school autonomy to promote school-based accountability management (policy context section). Ministry of Education, Science and Technology.
|
| [7] |
Caldwell, B. J., & Spinks, J. M. (1992). Leading the self-managing school. Falmer Press.
|
| [8] |
OECD. (2017). The governance of school education systems. OECD Publishing.
|
| [9] |
Ministry of Education. (2015). 2015 revised national curriculum: General guidelines. Ministry of Education.
|
| [10] |
Ministry of Education, & Korea Institute for Curriculum and Evaluation. (2023). Guidelines for organizing and operating elementary and middle school curricula under the 2022 revised national curriculum. Ministry of Education.
|
| [11] |
OECD. (2024). Curriculum flexibility and autonomy: Promoting a thriving learning environment (policy implications section). OECD Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1787/eccbbac2-en
|
| [12] |
OECD. (2018). The resilience of students with an immigrant background: Factors that shape well-being. OECD Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264292093-en
|
| [13] |
UNESCO. (2024). Global education monitoring report 2024/5: Leadership in education—Lead for learning (policy recommendations section). UNESCO.
|
| [14] |
Gu, Gyo-Jeong, Kim, Young-Gwon, Park, Jin-Seong, & Kwak, Ji-Soon. (2024). A study on organization and operation strategies through an analysis of perceptions and support factors for School Autonomous Time. Incheon Metropolitan City Office of Education.
|
| [15] |
Kim, Geon-woo. (2024). Policy implications of the School Autonomous Time system. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 42(1), 1–25.
https://doi.org/10.15708/KSCS.42.4.2
|
| [16] |
OECD. (2025). Results from TALIS 2024: Insights and interpretations. OECD Publishing.
|
Cite This Article
-
ACS Style
Gyo-Jeong, G. A Study on the Organization and Operation of School Autonomous Time Through an Analysis of Perceptions and Support Factors. Sci. J. Educ. 2026, 14(1), 13-23. doi: 10.11648/j.sjedu.20261401.12
Copy
|
Download
AMA Style
Gyo-Jeong G. A Study on the Organization and Operation of School Autonomous Time Through an Analysis of Perceptions and Support Factors. Sci J Educ. 2026;14(1):13-23. doi: 10.11648/j.sjedu.20261401.12
Copy
|
Download
-
@article{10.11648/j.sjedu.20261401.12,
author = {Gu Gyo-Jeong},
title = {A Study on the Organization and Operation of School Autonomous Time Through an Analysis of Perceptions and Support Factors},
journal = {Science Journal of Education},
volume = {14},
number = {1},
pages = {13-23},
doi = {10.11648/j.sjedu.20261401.12},
url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.sjedu.20261401.12},
eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.sjedu.20261401.12},
abstract = {This study aims to derive effective organization and operation strategies for School Autonomous Time under the 2022 Revised National Curriculum. To this end, a survey of elementary and middle school teachers and a questionnaire-based inquiry with teachers in research schools were conducted in 2024 to analyze perceptions and required support factors. The results are as follows. First, regarding perceptions and support factors, elementary school teachers tended to view School Autonomous Time as a means of implementing school-specific activities and integrated thematic learning aligned with the school vision, whereas middle school teachers primarily perceived it as a mechanism for curriculum restructuring, such as securing information subject hours and opening elective courses. Common challenges included increased teacher workload, conflicts arising from instructional hour adjustments, and burdens related to assessment and school record documentation. In particular, middle schools identified the mismatch between teacher staffing confirmation schedules and curriculum planning timelines as a structural constraint. Accordingly, key support factors across the stages of preparation, design, organization, operation, and evaluation included consensus building on themes, securing time for collaborative curriculum design, provision of exemplary cases and instructional materials, continuous professional development and consulting, and clarification of assessment and documentation criteria. Second, in terms of organization and operation, the study highlights the need to clearly define themes aligned with school goals, select appropriate organizational models—intensive, distributed, or hybrid—based on school conditions, and establish operation structures grounded in teacher collaboration. Instruction should be designed around inquiry-, project-, and collaboration-based learning to enhance student outputs such as presentations, reports, and portfolios. Furthermore, assessment should prioritize process- and growth-oriented principles over ranking, with clear guidelines on responsibility sharing, scope of records, and sample documentation statements.},
year = {2026}
}
Copy
|
Download
-
TY - JOUR
T1 - A Study on the Organization and Operation of School Autonomous Time Through an Analysis of Perceptions and Support Factors
AU - Gu Gyo-Jeong
Y1 - 2026/02/09
PY - 2026
N1 - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.sjedu.20261401.12
DO - 10.11648/j.sjedu.20261401.12
T2 - Science Journal of Education
JF - Science Journal of Education
JO - Science Journal of Education
SP - 13
EP - 23
PB - Science Publishing Group
SN - 2329-0897
UR - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.sjedu.20261401.12
AB - This study aims to derive effective organization and operation strategies for School Autonomous Time under the 2022 Revised National Curriculum. To this end, a survey of elementary and middle school teachers and a questionnaire-based inquiry with teachers in research schools were conducted in 2024 to analyze perceptions and required support factors. The results are as follows. First, regarding perceptions and support factors, elementary school teachers tended to view School Autonomous Time as a means of implementing school-specific activities and integrated thematic learning aligned with the school vision, whereas middle school teachers primarily perceived it as a mechanism for curriculum restructuring, such as securing information subject hours and opening elective courses. Common challenges included increased teacher workload, conflicts arising from instructional hour adjustments, and burdens related to assessment and school record documentation. In particular, middle schools identified the mismatch between teacher staffing confirmation schedules and curriculum planning timelines as a structural constraint. Accordingly, key support factors across the stages of preparation, design, organization, operation, and evaluation included consensus building on themes, securing time for collaborative curriculum design, provision of exemplary cases and instructional materials, continuous professional development and consulting, and clarification of assessment and documentation criteria. Second, in terms of organization and operation, the study highlights the need to clearly define themes aligned with school goals, select appropriate organizational models—intensive, distributed, or hybrid—based on school conditions, and establish operation structures grounded in teacher collaboration. Instruction should be designed around inquiry-, project-, and collaboration-based learning to enhance student outputs such as presentations, reports, and portfolios. Furthermore, assessment should prioritize process- and growth-oriented principles over ranking, with clear guidelines on responsibility sharing, scope of records, and sample documentation statements.
VL - 14
IS - 1
ER -
Copy
|
Download
Share This Article
Twitter
Linked In
Facebook
