In the process of globalization, the Global Education Policy Field(GEPF)has been formed, and as a result, educational policies from various countries are being influenced by each other (Lingard&Rawolle, 2014). Many international organizations(IOs) promote globalization of education, and IOs themselves play an important educational policy role. In particular, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has played a crucial role in the transition of educational policies across countries through the PISA exams (Bieber, 2016). In this regard, the impact analysis of IOs on the educational policy process of countries around the world has been an important topic in the study of educational policy.

Several previous studies show that the influence of international organizations on educational policy in many countries is not unilateral but dependent on the institutional conditions of the country's policies(Martens, Knodel, & Windzio, 2014). This study acknowledges that a political institution in one country is an important condition for constraining the impact of IOs on the educational policy of that country, but it is worth noting that the impact of IOs must be evaluated on various levels. In other words, the influence of IOs may differ between central and local government levels. Furthermore, the impact of IOs on the frontline school may be quite different from the impact on the central government.

This study examines the effects of IOs on an empirical basis through analyzing the process of introducing and implementing a ‘competency concept’, which is a representative ‘good’ of the OECD, into the national curriculum of South Korea. In Korea, the OECD has held the same position as a ‘missionary’ in education policy. The OECD’s policy recommendations have been unchallenged and the policy recommendations of the OECD are considered to be a shortcut to accelerate changes in Korean education. In Korea, which had to overcome the narrow concept of academic ability centered on test scores, the concept of competency was expected to be a facilitator to change school education. In fact, teacher unions and progressive educators were more enthusiastic about introducing competency concepts than the government officers were. They anticipated that competency could contribute in changing traditional teaching and learning practices of memorizing fractional knowledge. Several progressive superintendents tried to construct the local curriculum using the concept of competency. In the end, the central government tried to revise the traditional academic curriculum as a competency-based curriculum in 2012. To this extent, the influence of the OECD on the school curriculum in South Korea can be said to be quite significant.

However, there has been a very significant change since then. First, some progressive educators started to doubt that competence may be a concept that can be used to nurture ‘compliant’ workers. Most importantly, there seems to be no meaningful change in the classroom where the new curriculum has been enacted. It is true that the concept of competency proposed by the OECD is included in the national curriculum document, but it is difficult to argue that it has changed the practice of teachers in the classroom.

This study analyzes the process of introducing and implementing the concept of competence on three levels - central government, local government, and school - in order to analyze the impact of IOs more comprehensively. Documents analysis and interviews with policy makers will be conducted. First, previous studies on the way IOs influence educational policies of individual countries and the extent of their impact will be reviewed. In particular, previous research on the impact of IOs on the national curriculum of individual countries will be analyzed in depth. Then, policy documents of various government agencies, research reports of national research institutes, and research papers of individual researchers related to the introduction of the concept of competency into the national curriculum of South Korea will be analyzed. In this analysis, how the various policy makers adopted the OECD-proposed competency concept will be clarified. Interviews will be conducted following the review of the literature. First, the interview will begin with identifying the process of accepting the concept of competency proposed by the OECD by interviewing bureaucrats of the Ministry of Education and researchers who participated in the revision process of the national curriculum. Then, an effort will be made to unveil the perceptions of competence concepts to policy actors at the local government level and the progressive educational movement groups, such as teacher unions. Finally, interviews with several teachers who are enacting the new curriculum will be conducted. Teachers' perceptions of competency-centered new curriculum will be identified.

In Korea, there has been serious controversy surrounding the concept of 'academic achievement' between conservative educators and progressive educators. The competency concept proposed by the OECD empowers progressive educators who have tried to break away from the traditional concept of academic achievement, as well as school curriculum. On the other hand, the OECD's authority was naturally accepted by conservative central government officials. As a result, there was no major problem in the process of introducing the competency concept proposed by the OECD into the national curriculum. However, although the content of the national curriculum document has changed, there seems to be limited change in the curriculum management of teachers. It can be said that there is a difference between policy shifts at the central government level and changes in classroom practice. Why this difference appears requires a deeper analysis. In a sense, it is possible that, as Reid(1998) says, “the curriculum is an institution” and, therefore, not likely to change, despite international institutional policy recommendations. Discussions on the impact of IOs, including the OECD, on education policy in each country are particularly active in many European countries. This analysis of South Korean education policy cases will contribute to expanding the understanding of the process of accepting policy recommendations of IOs in European countries.

Andere, E.(2008). The Lending Power of PISA: League Tables and Best Practice in International Education. Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Center. Archer, C.(1994). Organizing Europe: The Institutions of Integration (2nd ed.). London: Edward Arnold. Ball, S.(2006). Education Policy and Social Class: The selected Works of Stephen J Ball. London: Routledge. Ball, S. and M. Maguine(2011). How schools do policy: policy enactments in secondary schools. Abingdon: Routledge. Grek, S.(2009). Governing by numbers: The PISA effect in Europe. Journal of Education Policy, 24(1). 23-37. Haas, P.(1992). Introduction: epistemic communities and international policy coordination. International Organization, 46(1). 1-35. Henry, M., B. Lingard, F. Rizvi, and S. Taylor(2001). The OECD, Globalization and Education Policy. Bingley: Emerald. Lingard, B., W. Martino, and G. Rezai-Rashti(2013). Testing regimes, accountabilities and education policy: commensurate global and national developments. Journal of Education Policy, 28(5). 539-556. Lingard, B. and S. Rawolle(2011). New scalar politics: implications for education policy. Comparative Education, 47. 489-502. Martens, K., P. Knodel, and M. Windzio(eds.)(2014). Internationalization of Education Policy: A New Constellation of Statehood in Education. Hamspire: Palgrave Macmillan. Meyer, H-D. and A. Benavot(2013). PISA and the globalization of education governance: some puzzles and problems. In Meyer, H-D. and A. Benavot(eds.). PISA, Power, and Policy. Oxford: Symposium Books. 7-26. Nóvoa, A., and T. Yariv-Mashal(2003). Comparative research in education: a mode of governance or a historical journey. Comparative Education, 39(4). 423-439. Ozga, J.(2009). Governing education through data in England: from regulation to self-regulation. Journal of Education Policy, 24(2). 149-162. Ozga, J., P. Dahler-Larsen, C. Segerholm, and H. Simola(eds.). Fabricating Quality in Education: Data and Governance in Europe. London: Routledge. Pereyra, M., H-G. Kotthoff, and R. Cowen(eds.). PISA Under Examination: Changing Knowledge, Changing Tests, and Changing Schools. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Ranson, S.(2003). Public accountability in the age of neo-liberal governance. Journal of Education Policy, 18(5). 459-480. Reid, W.(1998). Curriculum as institution and practice: essays in the deliberative traditions. New York: Routledge. Sellar, S. and B. Lingard(2014). The OECD and the expansion of PISA: new global modes of governance in education. British Educational Research Journal, 40(6). 917-936. dOI: 10.1002/berj.3120 Steiner-Khamsi, G.(ed.)(2004). The Global Politics of Educational Borrowing and Lending. NY: Teachers College Press. Steiner-Khamsi, G.(2014). Understanding policy borrowing and lending: building comparative policy studies. In Steiner-Khamsi, G. and F. Waldow(eds.). Policy Borrowing and Lending in Education. London: Routledge. 3-17. Woodward, R.(2009). The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development(OECD). Abingdon: Routledge.