Next Article in Journal
Lessons in Lockdown: Rethinking LGBTQ+ Inclusion in Post-Pandemic English Secondary Schools—Teachers’ Perspectives
Previous Article in Journal
“The Medical System Is Not Built for Black [Women’s] Bodies”: Qualitative Insights from Young Black Women in the Greater Toronto Area on Their Sexual Health Care Needs
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Social Sciences
Volume 14
Issue 10
10.3390/socsci14100582
socsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Barriers to Promoting Structural and Relational Integration Among Students with Refugee Backgrounds in the South Korean Education System

by
Jisun Jeong
1,* and
Jihae Cha
2
1
School of Education, American University, 4801 Massachusetts Ave NW, Washington, DC 20016, USA
2
Graduate School of Education and Human Development, The George Washington University, 2134 G. St. NW, Washington, DC 20037, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Soc. Sci. 2025, 14(10), 582; https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci14100582
Submission received: 15 August 2025 / Revised: 22 September 2025 / Accepted: 24 September 2025 / Published: 28 September 2025
(This article belongs to the Section International Migration)
Versions Notes

Abstract

This study examines refugee integration in South Korea’s emerging asylum context by analyzing how education policies and practices shape inclusion, drawing on interviews with 23 key informants from government and civil society. Despite legal frameworks guaranteeing access, findings reveal how institutional, sociocultural, and political factors create significant policy–practice gaps, hindering both structural integration (enrollment, curriculum, language of instruction, certification) and relational integration (sense of belonging) in schools. Barriers include bureaucratic obstacles, language barriers, discrimination, and limited post-secondary pathways. While civil society actors create opportunities, broader systemic changes are needed to promote the meaningful inclusion of students with refugee backgrounds in South Korean society.

1. Introduction

Refugee integration is a two-way, sociocultural process of participation and belonging in host communities (Castles et al. 2002; Ager and Strang 2008; Hovil 2014). While access to quality education is recognized as crucial for successful integration, it remains understudied within refugee and forced migration research. Previous research on children and forced migration has primarily focused on legal approaches (Buckner et al. 2018), mental health, social work, and ethnographic approaches (Hart 2014). Moreover, studies on refugee education increased following the Syrian refugee crisis, its geographical distribution remains uneven, dominated by studies in Global North resettlement contexts (Morrice et al. 2020; Gandarilla Ocampo et al. 2021; Reid and Mourad 2024; Evans et al. 2022) and select large refugee-hosting contexts in the Global South (Chopra et al. 2023; Mendenhall and Falk 2023; Reddick 2023; Brun et al. 2024).
The Asia Pacific region has seen a substantial increase in refugees and asylum seekers over the past decade, from 4 million in 2014 to 7.7 million in 2023; yet, there is a paucity of research on refugee education in the region with few exceptions (Nilsen et al. 2023). Within this context, South Korea experienced a 67 percent increase in asylum seekers from 2022 to 2023 (UNHCR 2024). Of 122,095 refugee status determination applications received from 1994 to 2024, only 1544 applicants have been recognized as refugees (NANCEN Refugee Rights Center 2025). The top five countries of origin for asylum-seekers are Russia, Kazakhstan, China, Pakistan, and India, while the largest number of recognized refugees came from Myanmar, Ethiopia, Egypt, Bangladesh, and Pakistan. (Note that North Koreans who defected to South Korea are not included in this figure as they are recognized as Korean citizens (Choi 2018)). Many rejected applicants remain in the country undocumented (Kim et al. 2023). Children under 18 comprise 36.5% of recognized refugees (49.7% when including humanitarian visa holders). Among children and youth aged 6–24, 10.5% had never attended school despite having the legal right to do so, highlighting the need to examine `practical barriers to accessing education in South Korea (Kim et al. 2023).
Despite its growing school-aged population with refugee backgrounds, research on refugee education in South Korea remains limited. While some studies have reviewed education-related legislations (Kim and Lee 2023) and education programs (Park 2022), empirical research has focused mainly on schooling experiences from a social work perspective (Nho et al. 2018) and within specific refugee communities (Kim et al. 2020). Scant research has examined education policy and practice for students with refugee backgrounds more broadly across the country, particularly from the perspective of policy actors who implement these policies and programs.
This research addresses gaps in forced displacement literature by examining perceived barriers to accessing quality education for refugees in South Korea’s emerging asylum context. Drawing on the concept of structural and relational integration, this qualitative study examines how South Korea’s policies have promoted or limited refugee inclusion in the national education system, highlighting the disconnect between policy and practice. Through in-depth interviews with 23 key informants (government officials and civil society actors), the study addresses the following questions: How do educational stakeholders view the experiences of students with refugee backgrounds in accessing quality education in South Korea? What are the perceived barriers to refugee integration into the national education system? To what extent do policies in South Korea promote or limit refugees’ inclusion in the national education system?
In this study, we use ‘children (or youth) with refugee backgrounds’ consistently for those who seek refuge in South Korea, avoiding the exclusive nature of different refugee and asylum seeker categories and labels. However, interviewees used various terms to refer to children and youth with refugee backgrounds: multicultural students, immigrant and refugee children, foreign students, and new arrivals. We preserve these original terms when reporting interviewee responses.

2. Context: Refugee Education in South Korea

Official Policy Landscape

The South Korean Government (hereafter ‘the Government’) signed the 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees in 1992, declaring its responsibility to provide protection to those seeking asylum in the country. About two decades later, the Government passed the Refugee Act in 2013, allowing individuals fleeing conflict and persecution to apply for refugee status. Based on the Convention, the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) determines who can be categorized as ‘recognized refugees’ and eligibility and access to social services, including public education. According to Article 13 of the Refugee Act, ‘recognized refugees and their children may enter school prescribed in Article 2 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act or apply for transfer admission by following standards and procedures prescribed by education-related statutes.’ Moreover, the Refugee Act and relevant policies also allow the following: (a) subsidization of education costs (Article 33 (2) of the Refugee Act and Article 60-4 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act); (b) participation in social integration programs (Article 14 of the Refugee Act and Article 29 of the Immigration Act); and (c) vocational training (Article 15 of the Refugee Act and Article 12 of the Act on the Development of Vocational Skills of Workers to the Minister of Employment and Labor).
Beyond the Refugee Act and relevant policies discussed above, other temporary legal frameworks allow various categories of refugees and asylum seekers (see Table 1) to enroll in public systems. For instance, in 2022, the MOJ passed a conditional relief policy for ‘illegal’ (hereafter unregistered and undocumented) children born in South Korea. Under this policy, the Government provides D4 (General Trainee, Korean Language Program) visas until high school graduation to children under 19 (the age of legal adulthood) and G1 (Miscellaneous or Humanitarian Stay) visas to their parents or guardians. While this grants access to elementary and secondary education, the policy is temporary, ending in March 2025 (as of December 2024). Upon graduation or reaching legal age, children must obtain a one-year G1 visa then transition to another visa type for college or the workforce, while parents must leave the country. The policy remains inaccessible to many families with refugee backgrounds due to required fines (between 600,000 won and 30,000,000 won, depending on the length of undocumented stay). Therefore, the relief policy is considered ‘temporary and limited’ (Sung 2022).
In addition to refugee-specific policies, South Korea enacted the so-called Multicultural Families Support Act in 2008 to support the livelihood of multicultural families as they integrate into Korean society. Under this law, a ‘multicultural family’ comprises a South Korean national and either an immigrant by marriage or a person who has acquired South Korean nationality (Framework Act on Treatment of Foreigners Residing in Republic of Korea and Nationality Act). The Ministry of Gender Equality and Family (MOGEF) is responsible for establishing a master plan for policies on multicultural families every five years, which include educational support. Based on these plans, each Office of Education—whether a Special Metropolitan City (Seoul), a Metropolitan city, or a Special Self-Governing Province—devise and implement measures ‘to enhance understanding of multicultural families in schools, according to Article 5 of the Multicultural Families Support Act.

3. Key Actors in Refugee Education in South Korea

In South Korea, the MOJ has the authority to make decisions regarding the legal status of refugees and asylum seekers, which determines their eligibility for public services. As a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Convention on the Rights of the Child, South Korea allows refugees and asylum seekers to enroll in public education and non-formal programs established by the MOE (Ministry of Education) and different Offices of Education. Additional support is provided by MOGEF under the Multicultural Family Support Act. MOE, local Offices of Education, MOGEF, and their regional contractors implement programs based on the Government’s policies and guidelines.
In addition to government actors, civil society actors are actively involved in providing educational services and advocating for rights of children and youth with refugee backgrounds in South Korea. Major intergovernmental organizations (IGOs) and international non-governmental organizations (INGOs) include the UNHCR, Save the Children, ChildFund International and the National Human Rights Commission of the Republic of Korea.

4. Literature Review

4.1. Integration and Refugee Education Policies Globally

The concept of integration remains contested, lacking an agreed-upon definition (Robinson 1998; Castles et al. 2002; Ager and Strang 2008). Conceptual frameworks and research using the term ‘integration’ have focused on integration in the Global North, both as a policy goal and as a project target outcome (Ager and Strang 2008, 2010; Hynie 2018a, 2018b; Phillimore 2021) and sometimes both refugees and asylum seekers (Ferris 2020). Recently, ‘inclusion’ has emerged as preferred terminology by policymakers and organizations to describe the sociocultural process, especially when there are no pathways to citizenship (Hynie 2018a; UNHCR et al. 2023). UNHCR’s (2019) ‘Strategy for Refugee Inclusion,’ exemplifies this shift, envisioning inclusion of refugee children and youth in national education systems to ‘contribute to resilience and prepare children and youth for participation in cohesive societies’ (6). Multiple international frameworks guarantee refugees’ right to education, including the 1951 Convention and its 1967 Protocols, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Sustainable Development Goal 4, and the Global Compact on Refugees.
Despite refugees’ recognized legal rights and UNHCR’s global policy promoting refugee inclusion in national education systems, the provision of education for refugees falls under the jurisdiction of national governments hosting refugees, with varying degrees of implementation at the national and local levels (Waters and LeBlanc 2005; Dryden-Peterson 2016). Researchers have advocated for including refugee students and teachers in the national education systems. Mendenhall et al. (2017), through a 16-country global survey and case studies in Beirut, Nairobi, and Quito, documented the complexity of urban refugee education and advocated for full integration and inclusion of refugee students into national schools. Dryden-Peterson (2016) illustrated the tension between global education rights and national education systems designed for citizenship development. While acknowledging the success in increased educational access for refugees since UNHCR’s 2012 strategy which emphasizes inclusion, Dryden-Peterson emphasized the need for broader economic, political, and social participation of refugees in host countries.
Subsequent empirical research found a disconnect between global policy and local implementation, primarily in the Global South. Dryden-Peterson et al. (2019) identified varying models of inclusion policy across 14 refugee-hosting nation states, ranging from no inclusion (e.g., Bangladesh, Sudan) to limited access to national schools with geographic or temporal separation from nationals (e.g., Lebanon, Pakistan) to full inclusion (e.g., Rwanda, Uganda). At the school level, they demonstrated how refugees face limitations in both quality learning and belonging due to their exclusion from post-schooling opportunities. Marcus et al. (2023) documented diverse inclusion approaches in the Global South, with Ecuador serving as an example of progressive inclusion through simplified admission procedures and anti-discrimination policies. Recent scholarship has highlighted the disconnect between aspirations and realities by examining experiences of refugee youth, teachers, and families in the Global South. These studies documented refugee youth’s desire to contribute economically and civically to their communities, despite their realities of ‘protracted waiting and being in limbo’ (Chopra et al. 2023; Dryden-Peterson and Horst 2023; Mendenhall and Falk 2023). In an empirical study of service providers serving unaccompanied immigrant children in the resettlement context in the United States, Evans et al. (2022) identified key challenges in unaccompanied immigrant students’ integration into the school system and called for building community partnerships and creating welcoming policies. Limited literature exists examining inclusion in the national education system in emerging refugee contexts, particularly in South Korea or the broader East Asia region.

4.2. Refugee Education Research in South Korea

The existing literature on the educational experiences of children and youth with refugee backgrounds in South Korea is sparse. Two notable empirical studies are conducted by Nho et al. (2018) and Kim et al. (2020).
Nho et al. (2018) examined pre- and post-migration experiences and social adaptation through in-depth interviews with five individuals (ages 10 to 17) and focus group discussions with ten others (ages 9 to 18). They found children faced myriad challenges in adapting to a Korean culture and school environment, including language barriers, academic challenges due to a lack of foundational learning skills, cultural differences (particularly related to Islamic religion), and discrimination. Similarly, Kim et al. (2020) interviewed eleven parents and eight children and youth with refugee backgrounds, revealing similar challenges: language barriers, lack of cultural understanding and support from teachers and peers, discrimination, and bullying. Parents reported additional difficulties accessing school enrollment information, understanding the school system, communicating with teachers, and participating in school events.
Other studies have conducted desk reviews of existing studies to investigate the integration of refugees in the national education system. Kim and Lee (2023) conducted a review of literature to examine the current status of refugee education support legislation across various levels in South Korea, from early childhood education to higher education. They found that the existing policies, such as the Refugee Act, lack specific provisions for early childhood education, upper secondary education (high schools), and higher education. Some of the challenges faced by children and youth include lack of access to childcare services, exclusion from formal admission notifications, strict visa requirements, and lack of financial support (student loans). Similarly, Park’s (2022) desk review of refugee integration in South Korean society pointed out that most existing programs—which also face the issues of insufficiency in quantity and accessibility—focus primarily on language learning and cultural adaptation. Her study identified a need to implement holistic programs that support refugee social integration, including academic and skills certification procedures, interpretation and translation services, language education, employment support, and access to healthcare.

5. Conceptual Framework

In this study, we draw on Dryden-Peterson et al.’s (2018) definition and analytical framework of inclusion, which distinguishes structural integration and relational integration. This framework helps us to investigate the extent to which the South Korean education system allows refugees to access educational institutions, national curriculum, national language, and certification (structural integration), while allowing them to develop a sense of belonging and connectedness in classrooms, schools, and the larger society (relational integration) (Korac 2003; Ager and Strang 2010). We use this framework to examine the education stakeholders’ perceived barriers to fostering both structural and relational integration of students and families with refugee backgrounds in the South Korean educational system, with a focus on the educational goals of inclusion: access, quality, and well-being. In the discussion section, we reflect on the macro-contextual factors that emerged as prominent influences affecting refugees’ successful inclusion in the national system.
We conceptualize access to quality education opportunities as a critical domain for successful integration, consistent with Ager and Strang (2008). Their conceptual framework defined access to education as an indicative public outcome of successful integration along with access to employment, housing, and healthcare. We also considered Phillimore’s (2021) concept of ‘opportunity structure,’ defined as the ‘sets of resources, arrangements, and pathways that can facilitate or block integration’ in analyzing our data. Phillimore outlined five domains of the opportunity structures, which consisted of locality, discourse, relations, structure, and initiatives and support (1952). Our perspective on policy is understood as a complex process and practice that must be examined as a continuum within specific broader economic, political, historical, and cultural contexts beyond the education sector (Dale 2005; Rizvi and Lingard 2009). This multiple interdisciplinary scholarship allowed us to understand and analyze our data at both the individual student level and the broader network level, examining how families, teachers, community organizations, peers, and other stakeholders contribute to or hinder integration processes.

6. Data and Methods

This qualitative study drew primarily on interviews with 23 key informants, including South Korean government officials (including metropolitan/provincial and local offices of education), government contractors, IGOs, INGOs, and civil society actors. Two researchers conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews, some of which were in person in South Korea and others were conducted via phone/video calls from July to October 2024. Participants were recruited through snowball sampling. A detailed breakdown of the research participants interviewed appears in Table 2.
A total of 20 interviews (with 23 participants) were recorded and transcribed for analysis. After conducting quality control on the transcripts, both researchers first established inter-relater reliability through joint testing on two sample transcripts, then engaged in a three-phase coding and analysis process. In the first phase, we applied an inductive, open coding strategy that prioritized participants’ voices. Using in vivo coding, we reviewed all transcripts to identify recurring terms, phrases and concepts that reflected the emic perspectives of participants (Saldaña 2021). These emergent codes were compared and synthesized into a shared preliminary codebook. In the second phase, we integrated these emic codes with etic codes derived deductively from our conceptual framework—namely, insights from the literature review, research questions, and dimensions of education such as access, quality and well-being, and developed them into categories. Then, the codebook was systematically applied to all transcripts using NVivo (version 14). The finalized categories included: existing systems (e.g., policies, actors, and mechanisms) for refugee education; challenges and opportunities in practice; perceived barriers to schooling for refugees; and recommendations and promising practices. Then, in our third phase of analysis, we clustered categories and developed analytic memos on the following themes: (a) South Korean education system legally ensures refugees’ right to education in elementary, middle, and high school levels; (b) significant barriers to structural integration exist including administrative and academic barriers; (c) significant barriers exist for relational integration with peers, teachers, and parents which impeded socio-emotional well-being of students.
During our coding process, we also attended carefully to concerns that might otherwise be overlooked: we created a separate code to capture insights that emerged less frequently or diverged from the broader patterns. While these “outlier” perspectives did not recur often enough to constitute major themes, we recognize their value in opening new analytical directions and enriching the overall understanding of refugee education policy and practice in South Korea.
This study is not without methodological limitations. Recruiting participants, particularly government officials, posed challenges, as some civil servants were hesitant to speak openly about specific policies or noted that their rotational postings (typically every three years) limited their capacity to comment in depth. While we sought to include perspectives from all 17 metropolitan and provincial offices of education, several declined participations, which may have constrained the representativeness of our sample. In addition, one participant preferred to respond via email rather than through real-time interviews, which required us to rely on text-based answers that were often less detailed and conversational in nature. We also could not record one interview based on the participant’s preference, therefore, we had to rely on handwritten notes.
The study was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB), and no ethical dilemmas arose during the research process. All participants were adults working in government, international, or civil society organizations, and informed consent was obtained prior to each interview. Interviews were conducted with careful attention to voluntary participation and confidentiality. Some participants expressed concerns about their privacy, particularly those whose institutional affiliations might render them more easily identifiable; to address this, we grouped certain categories of respondents when reporting findings to better protect their privacy and anonymity.

7. Findings

South Korea’s current education policy for students with refugee backgrounds creates opportunities for structural integration while simultaneously presenting significant barriers to accessing and realizing their right to education in practice. The legal frameworks, particularly the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (Government of Republic of Korea 1997) and the Refugee Act (Government of Republic of Korea 2013), ensure integration of refugees into the national education system—across elementary, middle, and high school levels. In principle, this means school-aged children and youth with refugee backgrounds can officially register in any formal school, be taught in the national curriculum, and sit for national examinations. However, the findings suggest a significant policy–practice gap that hinders both structural and relational integration of these students into Korean society.

7.1. Structural Integration: Barriers to Accessing Quality, Equitable Education

7.1.1. Barriers to Accessing Primary and Secondary Education

Students and families with refugee backgrounds encounter multiple barriers to school enrollment across all levels, with particular difficulties at the high school level. According to Article 17 of the Enforcement Decree of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (Government of Republic of Korea 2019), a parent or guardian can register their children and youth with either of the following documents: (a) a document that proves the entry into and departure from South Korea and verifies the alien registration; or (b) a document that verifies his/her residence in South Korea, such as a written lease contract or letter of guarantee from his/her neighbor. Even when they secure documents, families with refugee backgrounds face obstacles such as insufficient and ineffective communication by the Government about enrollment requirements, challenges in obtaining necessary documentation, a lack of non-Korean language support systems, discriminatory admission requirements by schools, and inadequate centralized guidance for schools implementing the policy.
Several respondents pointed to a critical challenge students and families with refugee backgrounds face, which is their inability to fully understand admission requirements due to insufficient and ineffective communication. While the MOE asserts that refugee and immigrant families automatically receive school enrollment information upon their arrival in South Korea, access to such information is limited and often does not reach newly arrived populations, especially those seeking asylum. Officially, once families arrive in South Korea, MOE receives information from the MOJ; then, the Central Multicultural Education Center, which is under the supervision of MOE, is responsible for sending the guidance materials about school enrollment to newly arrived families with school-aged children and youth. One of the key official documents identified as contributing to the information gap was the school enrollment notice, which should technically reach almost all families with school-aged children. Then, parents or guardians reach out to their local multicultural education centers for assistance regarding school registration. However, families with refugee backgrounds often do not receive the notification. Most respondents reported that such an information-sharing system fails to function effectively, which delays the access to schooling for many families.
A civil society actor explained, ‘While Korean children receive a school enrollment notice at home when entering elementary school after kindergarten graduation, foreign national children do not receive this. Sometimes parents miss the enrollment period if they are not aware of it’ (NGO #7). Without the information, only those parents or guardians who visit schools can find out about the admission process. Another respondent from a local office of education further confirmed, ‘Since foreign families do not receive school admission notices like other children do, they suddenly come to school in the middle of the school year when class assignments are finalized’ (Met Office of Ed #1). He elaborated that the enrollment delays cause challenges for school administrators. ‘Schools feel burdened [due to the number of new arrivals], and as a result, they become more reluctant towards admitting multicultural children’ (Met Office of Ed #1). Even when families end up accessing resources, some struggle to make sense of them due to language barriers, which requires additional guidance. One respondent from a civil society organization explained,
The Government claims that they have everything prepared—not just education but also employment guidance, guidebooks, livelihood support applications, and so on. In reality, it’s very difficult for refugees to utilize these resources. Many can’t make use of existing materials because they don’t receive proper guidance. Moreover, some refugee parents are illiterate, which restricts their access to information completely.
(NGO #3)
Several NGO respondents reported that those families with delayed or limited access to information about school enrollment opted for homeschooling or non-accredited alternative schools instead.
A lack of documentation could also impede access to education. Families with refugee backgrounds who lack legal status in South Korea struggle to obtain lease contracts or letters of guarantee from their neighbors, either or both of which are required for school enrollment. Moreover, with their undocumented status, some are reluctant to share their residence. One respondent from the metropolitan offices of education noted, ‘Even though we assure them that we don’t have interactions with the immigration offices, some students still miss educational opportunities because of this [fear of being deported]’ (Met Office of Ed #7). Without proper documentation, school administrators find it difficult to verify the identities of students with undocumented backgrounds. Another respondent noted, ‘There are complaints from elementary school principals and administrators saying they cannot issue proof of enrollment certificates. They are also confused about whether there are any legal issues in accepting them’ (Met Office of Ed #1).
At the high school level, the major barrier is the extensive discretionary power of school principals, who are often called ‘street-level bureaucrats’—public service employees who have discretion in exercising authority (Lipsky 2010). Several respondents from metropolitan offices of education acknowledged the ongoing discriminatory practices of school principals in their jurisdiction. One respondent shared,
Some high schools are reluctant to accept multicultural students. When there are many multicultural students, teachers often find it challenging to manage them, leading to exclusionary practices. Because South Korea focuses heavily on college entrance exams, many principals direct multicultural students to vocational or technical high schools without consideration.
(Met Office of Ed #3)
Another respondent from an implementing agency emphasized, ‘School principals have extensive discretionary power, and when they refuse admissions, even the local education office can’t push back. No one can. When principals demand unreasonable requirements, families must comply to secure admission’ (Implementing Agency #2).
While education offices advocate for these students’ admission, civil society actors found these efforts have had limited success. A respondent working at an NGO shared an anecdote that in a specific neighborhood, non-Korean students are often steered toward one particular elementary school where foreign nationals make up half of the student body.
When we accompanied parents for enrollment to a school in the neighborhood, the school staff suggested, ‘Why don’t you try registering at [NAME] Elementary instead?’ It’s frustrating. They wouldn’t reject Korean children the same way, but since outright rejection would cause problems, they use subtle discrimination. Parents often give in and say, ‘’I’ll just enroll them in [NAME] Elementary.’ How would parents feel comfortable sending their child to a school that shows rejection from the start?
(NGO #7)
Without documentation, students with refugee backgrounds face additional challenges: securing appropriate grade placement and completing their full high school education. First, students are often forced to enroll in lower grades due to the academic rigor or achievement standards of South Korean schools. At the high school level, students are typically placed in grades below their age-appropriate grade level. One respondent explained, ‘High schools only accept students in March and generally prefer to enroll students in the first grade of high school. Many students are placed one or two grade levels lower; they become adults before graduating. This becomes an issue because, as adults, they must obtain their own residency status or face legal repatriation’ (Implementing Agency #2). In most cases, students from specific countries, mostly low-income countries, would likely face such issues as academic qualification recognition is limited to certain countries and internationally recognized schools (Met Office of Ed #7).
Finally, in addition to the multiple barriers to access across all levels of education, students with refugee backgrounds reportedly have limited access to early childhood education and higher education opportunities in South Korea. Early childhood education is subsidized, and the cost for sending children to an early childhood education and care institution is minimal for South Korean citizens. However, children with refugee backgrounds are treated differently. ‘In the case of refugee applicant families, they aren’t included in our social welfare system. So, even if they send their children to daycare, the costs are quite high’ (NGO #5). Higher education is also out of reach for a majority of students with refugee backgrounds, which will be further discussed in the following section.

7.1.2. Barriers to Post-Secondary Pathways

Civil society actors and implementing agencies highlighted the lack of post-secondary pathways as a critical gap for youth with refugee backgrounds in South Korea. While government officials noted the MOE’s mandate extends only to high school education, most respondents believed that students with refugee backgrounds typically prefer to remain in South Korea after graduating high school, whether for higher education or employment opportunities.
Nevertheless, significant barriers were identified that hinder the ability of these students to fully integrate into higher education and the labor market. For instance, students with refugee backgrounds must prove their financial capacity to attend universities in South Korea. ‘They must provide six months of bank statements and demonstrate a balance of more than 20 million Korean Won,’ said a respondent (NGO #6). Given that most refugee families face financial hardships, this requirement becomes a major barrier for high school graduates who are academically capable and wish to pursue further education. Moreover, due to the limited post-graduation employment opportunities for foreigners, students with undocumented or refugee status face constraints on the selection of majors and specializations in college. As a practitioner noted, ‘What really troubles us is that we encourage youth to ‘find your dream,’ but often that dream doesn’t connect to a job or guarantee a visa. Since the types of jobs that can get you a visa in Korea are very limited, students with refugee backgrounds have to choose majors based on visa eligibility rather than their interests. They are then not really happy because of this mismatch between aspirations and reality’ (Implementing Agency #2). The disconnect between students’ aspirations and legal possibilities was a particularly salient theme among civil society actors providing academic and career support.

7.1.3. Language Barriers and Academic Challenges

South Korea’s public education system places strong emphasis on academic performance. The curriculum and assessment standards reflect the academic objectives of above-average Korean-national students. All students, regardless of their backgrounds, are expected to meet the same standard academic outcomes. As a result, students with refugee backgrounds often struggle to keep pace with their peers academically. Despite such challenges, there is not only a lack of a specialized curriculum designed to address the unique needs of students from refugee backgrounds but a strong reluctance to adjust academic achievement standards. One respondent explained that the South Korean education system is ‘quite conservative’ to make these adjustments, saying, ‘Without necessary adjustments, teachers also often find it challenging to align multicultural students with the achievement standards set for domestic students’ (Met Office of Ed #3).
This is further exacerbated by the lack of structured preparatory programs to build the foundational language and academic skills of newcomer students. While some provinces and cities offer short-term language programs, students are still unable to meet academic demands. As one respondent observed, ‘Children who have studied Korean for only three months to a year often struggle significantly to keep up with academic demands once they enter school’ (Implementing Agency #2). One respondent highlighted that for Burmese students, lack of exposure to formal education could be a contributing factor to their learning difficulties. ‘For those who spent extended periods in Malaysia before arriving in Korea, some children received non-formal or informal schools and therefore, many lacked exposures to formal academic curricula. These schools often face significant gaps compared to standard curricula in Korea. This can lead to foundational learning challenges’ (Implementing Agency #1).
Moreover, an additional burden is posed by the emphasis on reading in Korean schools. One respondent explained, ‘Many foreign parents lack fluency in Korean, limiting their ability to support their children. Consequently, these children often enter school with insufficient vocabulary, poor pronunciation, or delayed language development’ (Implementing Agency #2). Pointing to the Basic Learning Assessment and Diagnosis data, one respondent noted, ‘We witness a higher percentage of multicultural students who experience difficulties in foundational skills’ (Local Office of Ed #2).
As students advance in grade levels, the academic gap becomes quite significant. As one respondent explained, ‘In preschools and elementary schools, students with refugee backgrounds tend to get along with their peers and experience relatively few academic challenges. However, as they progress to higher grades, the academic disparities become more evident’ (Local Office of Ed #1). As they reach middle and high schools, they are exposed to the highly competitive environment where most classmates are under the pressure of national examinations. As another participant explained, ‘In some high schools, students are not receiving adequate support. They struggle with the high pressure of the entrance exam system and report difficulty adjusting’ (Met Office of Ed #5). Therefore, many students with refugee backgrounds tend to gravitate toward vocational schools rather than academic or liberal arts high schools. As one interviewee stated, ‘Since many of these students struggle with Korean language, they are more likely to enter vocational schools rather than liberal arts high schools‘ (Local Office of Ed #2).

7.2. Relational Integration: Social Relationships and Well-Being of Children and Youth

In addition to the administrative and academic barriers hindering structural integration, students with refugee backgrounds face barriers for relational integration in South Korea. A variety of interrelated factors—language and cultural barriers, negative peer relationships (such as bullying and discrimination), insufficient attention and support from teachers, and limited parental care—significantly influence the academic and socio-emotional well-being of students with refugee backgrounds.

7.2.1. Relationship with Peers

Regarding peer interactions and relationships, students with refugee backgrounds most commonly experience initial support, followed by isolation. One respondent from an implementing agency observed, ‘On their first day, students are greeted by their homeroom teacher or peers, but by the next day, they report feeling ignored. As their peers are too busy with their own studies, the attention and willingness to offer assistance are no longer evident’ (Implementing Agency #2). Especially those who are enrolled in public schools with relatively a small number of foreign-background students, they may experience marginalization. Another respondent from the same region elaborated on this issue: ‘By the time they reach middle or high school, students tend to form distinct groups, and these students often feel out of place, making social interaction more difficult’ (Implementing Agency #3). This highlights the social alienation that students with refugee backgrounds may experience within classrooms. A representative from an NGO pointed to the deep-rooted nature of discrimination in society, which is reflected in the school environment. He said, ‘Domestic students often make derogatory comments about skin color or tell newcomer students to go back to their home countries. This reflects a broader societal issue where human rights awareness remains insufficient’ (NGO #5).
Some students report more frequent experiences of racial discrimination than others. One respondent shared:
Children from African backgrounds often face discrimination related to their skin color. When they experience teasing or bullying, their first point of contact is usually the homeroom teacher. However, many teachers are not equipped to handle these issues, and they may not even recognize such remarks as racist. As a result, students stop reporting incidents, believing that speaking out will only make things worse.
(NGO #7)
This indicates the profound impact of racial discrimination and inadequate preparation of school leaders and educators to address these concerns. Another respondent shared a similar perspective: ‘It is inevitable that such discriminatory experiences would lead to a significant decline in refugee students’ self-esteem. However, despite this, it is not a viable solution to suggest that they stop attending school altogether. We try to support them as much as we can’ (NGO #5).
As students with refugee backgrounds are aware that exposing their multicultural identity will quickly lead to discrimination or difficulties, they hide their identities as refugees. One respondent bitterly shared, ‘By concealing their identity, these students carry a sense of shame and inferiority. As this eventually becomes apparent, it places considerable stress on them’ (NGO #2). Some of these students are considerably more at risk than others. ‘Among multicultural students, such children often face the additional challenge of lacking stable housing. They may end up in shelters or local child protection centers, and many are at risk of exposure to child abuse’ (Local Office of Ed #2). The same respondent stressed that it is essential for the education offices to collaborate with child protection agencies and other institutions and establish a network to find appropriate solutions for these cases. She continued, ‘The question remains: how do we manage these children, where should they be sent, and how can schools be supported to address such issues?’ (Local Office of Ed #2).

7.2.2. Relationship with Teachers

According to most respondents, teachers’ lack of training and limited information about existing programs and resources impede their ability to offer the necessary support. Teachers in South Korea typically do not receive pre-service or in-service training on how to work with multicultural students, despite the growing number of students from immigrant and refugee backgrounds. One respondent shared the perspectives of teachers who struggle to meet the needs of a diverse student body. ‘Most teachers enter the classroom after completing their teacher training without exposure to multicultural education. This lack of preparation makes it extremely difficult for teachers to adapt to and integrate students from diverse cultural backgrounds,’ said a respondent (Met Office of Ed #3). Some educators are unaware of the existing resources and initiatives offered by provincial and local offices of education. ‘We have a wide range of projects, but some teachers are not even aware that these programs exist. For example, when a multicultural student arrives in a classroom, they call and ask us how they can support these students. When we inform them about the available resources, many respond, I had no idea such things existed’ (Met Office of Ed #3). This highlights a gap in awareness regarding available support for newcomer students.
Alongside their educational duties, teachers also face the burden of administrative responsibilities. One respondent commented,
Schools are required to follow directives from the Local Offices of Education, and teachers often struggle to balance these administrative obligations with teaching. Administrative tasks, such as informing parents about necessary procedures, are also areas where significant support is needed, yet teachers often lack adequate assistance. They are already overloaded, which only adds to their stress and challenges’.
(Implementing Agency #3)
To mitigate teacher burdens, some schools have begun recruiting more teachers to support students with immigrant and refugee backgrounds. The same respondent shared, ‘Recently, some schools have appointed specialized teachers for these students, taking on the counseling roles. These teachers are responsible for managing various programs and initiatives within the school, tailored to the needs of these students.’
While some schools and teachers make commendable efforts to address the academic and social needs of their students, others exhibit a lack of awareness and interest or, in some cases, hold negative attitudes toward these students. Some school leaders and teachers express concerns about the allocation of public resources to support refugees and immigrants. This reflects broader societal attitudes toward multiculturalism. One official noted, ‘There remains a significant lack of understanding and awareness among educators regarding issues related to refugees and multicultural students. Many teachers still view multiculturalism as a localized issue rather than recognizing its growing relevance across various regions, where these demographics are expanding’ (Met Office of Ed #3). The official further highlighted that Korea’s deeply rooted perception of being an ethnically homogenous society influences these attitudes. Challenges persist in the classroom environment. Another respondent explained, ‘Some teachers feel that having students who cannot speak Korean in the classroom disrupts the learning atmosphere. They argue that it lowers the overall academic level/standard of the class, which they fear negatively impacts Korean students’ (Implementing Agency #2).
The findings of this study suggest that inadequate training, limited access to information and resources, and negative perceptions undermine teacher-student relationships. This is coupled with the lack of attention and support from and communication with parents and/or guardians due to: (a) work commitment; (b) lack of prioritization of education; and (c) language barriers affecting homework support. One respondent mentioned,
In South Korea, the role of parents in a child’s education is considered very significant. However, some immigrant and refugee parents may not fully understand these expectations. They might perceive that once their child is at school, the school should take full responsibility for their education, and they may wonder why they are expected to be involved (Implementing Agency #2).
When parents cannot respond to school notices due to limited Korean proficiency, teachers struggle to address the academic and socioemotional needs of students effectively.

8. Discussions and Conclusions

While South Korea has adopted legal frameworks and policies that guarantee access to quality education for students with refugee backgrounds within the national education system, our findings reveal significant gaps between policy and practice. Despite policies enabling structural integration, multiple barriers impede equitable access and inclusion of students with refugee backgrounds in the South Korean education system (Dryden-Peterson et al. 2018). The findings reveal complex bureaucratic barriers experienced by students and families with refugee backgrounds. In practice, street-level bureaucrats—including metropolitan/provincial, local office of education officers, principals, teachers, and civil society actors—hinder structural integration through their interpretation and implementation of policies at the local level. These barriers include insufficient and ineffective communication about enrollment requirements, challenges in obtaining necessary documentation, limited non-Korean language support, discriminatory school admission requirements, and inadequate centralized guidance for schools. These findings align with literature on gaps between policy texts and everyday policy appropriation (Lipsky 2010; Rodríguez-Gómez 2019).
Even when conditions for structural integration exist and students with refugee backgrounds are able to enroll in public schools in South Korea, inadequate support addressing foundational language barriers and academic challenges hinders their sufficient structural integration in the national education system. Unlike the majority of refugee education literature concerning inclusion in poor-quality education systems in Global South refugee-hosting contexts (Dryden-Peterson et al. 2018, 2019), South Korea presents a unique case. While renowned for its academically rigorous education system, South Korea’s test-score-driven standards create circumstances where students with refugee backgrounds struggle both linguistically and academically without proper support for their unique needs. Moreover, our findings show that students with refugee backgrounds’ everyday experiences with peers and teachers rarely contribute to or enable relational integration. Negative peer relationships (such as bullying and discrimination), insufficient attention and support from teachers, and limited parental engagement often fail to develop ‘deep, productive relationships’ or a ‘shared sense of membership within a learning community.’ (Dryden-Peterson et al. 2018, p. 43). While students with refugee backgrounds can officially access education, the system is designed for these students to ‘assimilate into’ the South Korean system rather than accept and respect their multilingual and multicultural identities or prepare them for multiple possible futures (Dryden-Peterson et al. 2019).
The disconnect between official policy texts and barriers to structural and relational integration of students with refugee backgrounds in the South Korean education system suggests these barriers extend well beyond the education sector (Dale 2005). Our study finds that legal restrictions, systemic structural issues in government, and negative public perception impeded refugees’ inclusion in the national education system. Nevertheless, civil society actors have emerged as key facilitators and created opportunity structures promoting refugees’ inclusion in South Korea’s education system. Our findings contribute to previous literature on refugee integration, in which scholars have identified how the multidimensional social, political, and economic contexts of refugee-receiving societies influence refugee integration (Phillimore 2021).
The legal status of the students with refugee backgrounds has emerged as a fundamental barrier to their structural and relational integration into South Korea’s education system and society. This barrier particularly affects access to high school, university, and employment opportunities. This finding aligns with prior research showing how legal barriers can constrain students’ aspirations for economic and civic engagement (Bellino et al. 2023; Dryden-Peterson and Horst 2023). The education system, primarily designed for Korean citizens, creates exclusion even for a few of those granted refugee status. Considered as foreigners or outsiders at school, students face barriers within the school system. Beyond academic and linguistic challenges, their legal status prevents full participation in academic and social activities, hindering both structural and relational integration in South Korean schools and society. For instance, even if a student has excellent grades and wants to enter competitions (e.g., arts, sports), their nationality and legal status may prohibit them from participating in regional or national competitions. Students with refugee backgrounds also cannot attend school field trips or retreats, as these activities require school insurance enrollment.
Our analysis identified structural issues in the South Korean government system as the next critical barrier to refugee inclusion, with challenges existing both within education offices and across ministries. The multicultural departments in the MOE and local education offices that are responsible for students with refugee backgrounds lack adequate human and financial resources to manage the growing student population. This is attributed to the hierarchy and power dynamics among ministries and departments: MOE has limited to no decision-making power regarding refugees’ legal status and ranks low among central government ministries. Moreover, multicultural education positions are often considered undesirable among civil servants due to heavy workloads, resulting in high turnover rates. Directors reportedly stay as little as six months, and local multicultural education examiners often lack relevant expertise with students with refugee backgrounds or immigrant students.
The fragmented, hierarchical structure between ministries (i.e., MOE, MOJ, and MOGEF) further hinders effective collaboration, leading to deferred responsibilities and delayed policy formation and implementation for students with refugee backgrounds. These systemic challenges make it difficult to develop and implement evidence-based education policies responsive to the specific needs of refugee-background students and their families. Improved inter-ministerial coordination and streamlined cross-sectoral approaches are crucial for comprehensive education policies that promote structural and relational integration of students with refugee backgrounds.
Negative public perception of refugees, asylum seekers, and undocumented migrants is found as a final key cultural barrier affecting the relational integration of students with refugee backgrounds in Korean schools and society. In historically homogenous South Korea, cultural and linguistic differences are often viewed as problems rather than assets. Xenophobia and discrimination are particularly severe toward Muslim students and those from African regions, as evidenced by public reactions to Yemeni refugees in Jeju in 2019 and Afghans in Ulsan in 2022.
These attitudes extend to school settings, where some teachers and principals perceive refugee-background students as individuals who exhaust resources that should be allocated to Korean students and pose potential threats in sports competitions. These negative attitudes were found to directly affect the sense of belonging and well-being of students with refugee backgrounds. They report experiencing discrimination from both peers and teachers due to their multiple identities, leading many to conceal their legal status out of fear or shame. This finding is aligned with refugees’ misrepresentation in public discourse and official policies in other refugee-hosting contexts. For example, Luu and Blanco (2021) found that refugees are often invisible and represented as “economic burdens” rather than assets in the United States’ federal policy documents.
Despite these above-mentioned contextual barriers that often hinder the meaningful structural and relational integration of students with refugee backgrounds into Korea’s education system and society, a vibrant civil society provides opportunities through various programs and initiatives. NGOs have evolved from offering basic language programs to implementing holistic, longer-term support addressing academic, socio-emotional well-being, and career development needs of students with refugee backgrounds. While these offerings still fall far short of the growing demands, strong civil society coordination has advanced significant policy changes. Notable achievements include human rights legal groups’ role in the 2013 Refugee Act of Korea and the 2022 ‘conditional relief policy for unregistered and undocumented children born in South Korea.’ However, civil society actors note that policy changes lag behind the speed of the children’s developmental needs. A more comprehensive whole-of-society approach is needed to address these contextual barriers and promote structural and relational inclusion, enabling students with refugee backgrounds’ economic, political, and civic participation as productive members of South Korean school and society. This finding is aligned with previous scholarship that refugee students’ support networks often co-construct education pathways for refugee students in contexts where the formal education system is misaligned with unique experiences and needs of refugee students (Evans and Unangst 2020).
Future research should build on these findings by interrogating more closely the persistent policy–practice gap in refugee education in South Korea. In particular, in-depth analyses of multicultural education policies and their enactment at national and local levels would help clarify how structural barriers are reproduced—or potentially mitigated—through bureaucratic processes and street-level implementation. Equally important, it is imperative to include the perspectives of students with refugee backgrounds and their teachers in research, as their lived realities provide critical insights into how inclusion and exclusion are experienced in schools. Longitudinal studies that follow students across educational levels would further investigate how opportunities and barriers accumulate over time, influencing their educational trajectories.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.J. and J.C.; methodology, J.J. and J.C.; software, J.J. and J.C.; validation, J.J. and J.C.; formal analysis, J.J. and J.C.; investigation, J.J. and J.C.; resources, J.J. and J.C.; data curation, J.J. and J.C.; writing—original draft preparation, J.J. and J.C.; writing—review and editing, J.J. and J.C.; supervision, J.J. and J.C.; project administration, J.J. and J.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Review Board of American University (protocol code IRB-2024-302 and date of approval 11 June 2024).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets presented in this article are not readily available because of privacy and ethical restrictions, as approved by the IRB.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to our research participants who dedicated their time to share their invaluable insights.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Ager, Alastair, and Alison Strang. 2008. Understanding Integration: A Conceptual Framework. Journal of Refugee Studies 21: 166–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Ager, Alastair, and Alison Strang. 2010. Refugee Integration: Emerging Trends and Remaining Agendas. Journal of Refugee Studies 23: 589–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Bellino, Michelle. J., Rahul Oka, Marcela Ortiz-Guerrero, Deng Mabil Khot, Ali Adan Abdi, and Arii Awar Magdalene. 2023. Many a Slip between Cup and Lip: Navigating Noncitizenship and School-to-Work Transitions in Kakuma Refugee Camp. Journal of Refugee Studies 36: 756–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Brun, Catherine, Cyrine Saab, and Maha Shuayb. 2024. Decolonising Knowledge Production in the Field of Refugee Education: Unsettling the Ontology and Epistemology of a Nascent Field. Centre for Lebanese Studies, Beirut. Available online: https://lebanesestudies.com/publications/decolonising-knowledge-production-in-the-field-of-refugee-education-unsettling-the-ontology-and-epistemology-of-a-nascent-field/ (accessed on 5 January 2025).
  5. Buckner, Elizabeth, Dominique Spencer, and Jihae Cha. 2018. Between Policy and Practice: The Education of Syrian Refugees in Lebanon. Journal of Refugee Studies 31: 444–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Castles, Stephen, Maja Korac, Ellie Vasta, and Steven Vertovec. 2002. Integration: Mapping the Field, Project by University of Oxford Centre for Migration and Policy Research and Refugee Studies Centre. Contracted by the Home Office Immigration Research and Statistics Service. Home Office Online Report 28/03. Oxford: University of Oxford Centre for Migration and Policy Research and Refugee Studies Centre. [Google Scholar]
  7. Choi, Gyubin. 2018. North Korean Refugees in South Korea: Change and Challenge in Settlement Support Policy. The Korean Journal of International Studies 16: 77–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Chopra, Vidur, Joumana Talhouk, Sarah Dryden-Peterson, and Carmen Geha. 2023. Creating Educational Borderlands: Civic Learning in a Syrian School in Lebanon. Journal of Refugee Studies 36: 782–801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Dale, Roger. 2005. Globalisation, Knowledge Economy and Comparative Education. Comparative Education 41: 117–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Dryden-Peterson, Sarah. 2016. Refugee Education: The Crossroads of Globalization. Educational Researcher 45: 473–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Dryden-Peterson, Sarah, and Cindy Horst. 2023. Education for Refugees: Building Durable Futures? Journal of Refugee Studies 36: 587–603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Dryden-Peterson, Sarah, Elizabeth Adelman, Michelle J. Bellino, and Vidur Chopra. 2019. The Purposes of Refugee Education: Policy and Practice of Including Refugees in National Education Systems. Sociology of Education 92: 346–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Dryden-Peterson, Sarah, Elizabeth Adelman, Sagra Alvarado, Katelin Anderson, Michelle J. Bellino, Ranya Brooks, Sayeda Bukhari, Elizabeth Caoa, Vidur Chopra, Zuhra Faizi, and et al. 2018. Inclusion of Refugees in National Education Systems. Background Paper Prepared for the 2019 Global Education Monitoring Report. Available online: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000266054 (accessed on 10 November 2024).
  14. Evans, Kerri, and Lisa Unangst. 2020. The K-12 to university pipeline: Refugee student access to higher education. In Refugees and Higher Education: Trans-National Perspectives on Access, Equity, and Internationalization. Edited by Lisa Unangst, Hakan Ergin, Araz Khajarian, Tessa DeLaquil and Hans de Wit. Leiden: B Brill Sense, pp. 295–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Evans, Kerri, Gabrielle Oliveira, Robert G. Hason, III, Thomas M. Crea, Sarah E. Neville, and Virgginia Fitchett. 2022. Unaccompanied Children’s Education in the United States: Service Provider’s Perspective on Challenges and Support Strategies. Cultura Educación Sociedad 13: 193–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Ferris, Elizabeth. 2020. Making Sense of Public Policy on Refugee Integration. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 690: 200–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Gandarilla Ocampo, Maria, Cyril Bennouna, Ilana Seff, Michael Wessells, Mackenzie V. Robinson, Carine Allaf, and Lindsay Stark. 2021. We Are Here for the Future of Our Kids: Parental Involvement in Refugee Adolescents’ Educational Endeavours in the United States. Journal of Refugee Studies 34: 4300–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Government of Republic of Korea. 1997. Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Available online: https://elaw.klri.re.kr/eng_mobile/viewer.do?hseq=64084&type=sogan&key=2#:~:text=Every%20citizen%20shall%20send%20sons,school%20until%20they%20graduate%20therefrom (accessed on 10 November 2024).
  19. Government of Republic of Korea. 2013. Refugee Act. Available online: https://elaw.klri.re.kr/eng_service/lawTwoView.do?hseq=43622 (accessed on 10 November 2024).
  20. Government of Republic of Korea. 2019. Enforcement Decree of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Presidential Decree No. 30088. Available online: https://elaw.klri.re.kr/eng_service/lawView.do?hseq=51993&lang=ENG (accessed on 10 November 2024).
  21. Hart, Jason. 2014. Children and Forced Migration’. In The Oxford Handbook of Refugee and Forced Migration Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 383–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Hovil, Lucy. 2014. Local Integration. In The Oxford Handbook of Refugee and Forced Migration Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 488–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Hynie, Michaela. 2018a. Refugee Integration: Research and Policy. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology 24: 265–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Hynie, Michaela. 2018b. The Social Determinants of Refugee Mental Health in the Post-Migration Context: A Critical Review. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry 63: 297–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Kim, Chulhyo, Won Geun Choi, Nahyun Han, Eunsook Kang, Jinsoo Kim, Youngah Kim, Jaehun Ko, Il Lee, Janette Yeoncheon Rhee, and Minju Shin. 2023. Results Monitoring Survey Data Collection Report: Republic of Korea 2022. Report Commissioned by UNHCR, Korea. Available online: https://microdata.unhcr.org/index.php/catalog/933 (accessed on 20 December 2024).
  26. Kim, Hyung-Kee, and Eun Chae Lee. 2023. Current Status and Future Tasks of Refugee Education Law in Korea—From the Perspective of Human Resource Development in the Era of Population Decline. 한국의 난민 교육법제 현황 및 향후 과제. Journal of Law: Kookmin Law Review 36: 343–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Kim, Hyun Mee, Seul Gi Kang, Sa Gang Kim, Im Hyo Park, Jung Hyung Park, Sang Guk Lee, and Ji Won Paik. 2020. Save the Children: Study on the Status of Refugee Children’s Right to Education in Korea. 세이브더칠드런 국내 거주 난민 아동의교육권 실태 연구. Yonsei University Industry-Academic Cooperation Foundation Research Organization. Seoul: Save the Children Korea. [Google Scholar]
  28. Korac, Maja. 2003. Integration and How We Facilitate it: A Comparative Study of the Settlement Experiences of Refugees in Italy and the Netherlands. Sociology 37: 51–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Lipsky, Michael. 2010. Street Level Bureaucracy, 30th Ann. Ed.: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. [Google Scholar]
  30. Luu, Diep H., and Gerado L. Blanco. 2021. Exploring US Federal Policy Discourse on Refugee Access toPost-Secondary Education. Higher Education Policy 34: 456–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Marcus, Rachel, Susan Nicolai, Carmen Lón-Himmelstine, Shelby Carvalho, Asma Zubairi, and Ruth Rodas-Kamminga. 2023. Including Refugee Learners in National Education Systems. Available online: https://inee.org/sites/default/files/resources/UNICEF-Innocenti-refugee-learners-2023.pdf (accessed on 5 January 2025).
  32. Mendenhall, Mary, and Danielle Falk. 2023. National Inclusion Policy Openings/Barriers for Refugee Teachers: Critical Reflections from Kenya. Journal of Refugee Studies 36: 649–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Mendenhall, Mary, Susan Garnett Russell, and Elizabeth Buckner. 2017. Urban Refugee Education: Strengthening Policies and Practices for Access, Quality and Inclusion. New York: State Department Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration, Teachers College Columbia University. [Google Scholar]
  34. Morrice, Linda, Linda, K. Tip, Rupert Brown, and Michael Collyer. 2020. Resettled Refugee Youth And Education: Aspiration And Reality. Journal of Youth Studies 23: 388–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. NANCEN Refugee Rights Center. 2025. Current Status of Refugees Status Determination (As of 31 December 2024). [통계] 난민 심사 현황 (2024. 12. 31기준). Available online: https://nancen.org/416311 (accessed on 20 September 2025).
  36. Nho, Choong Rai, Sukyoung Yoon, and Juae Ko. 2018. Voices of refugee children in Korea. Children and Youth Services Review 94: 606–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Nilsen, Marte, Jessica Olney, Khin Maung, and Lucky Karim. 2023. Community-Led Education among Rohingya Refugees and the Politics of Refugee Education in Bangladesh. Journal of Refugee Studies 36: 712–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Park, Sang Hee. 2022. Refugee Integration in South Korea: Current Situation and Policy Implications Focusing on Ager and Strang’s Conceptual Framework for Integration. 한국의 난민 통합 현황과 정책적 함의: 에이거와 스트랭 (Ager and Strang) 의 통합 분석틀을 중심으로. Contemporary Society and Multiculturalism 12: 105–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Phillimore, Jenny. 2021. Refugee-Integration-Opportunity Structures: Shifting the Focus From Refugees to Context. Journal of Refugee Studies 34: 1946–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Reddick, Celia. 2023. Who Can Participate, Where, And How? Connections Between Language-In-Education and Social Justice in Policies of Refugee Inclusion. Journal of Refugee Studies 36: 668–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Reid, Carol, and Zainab Mourad. 2024. ‘There Seems to Be Some Disparity Then Between Our Syrian and Iraqi Refugee Children Who Seemed to Have Everything’: Constructing ‘Good Refugees’ and the Ensuing Equity Issues in Australian Schools. Journal of Refugee Studies 37: 376–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Rizvi, Fazal, and Bob Lingard. 2009. Globalizing Education Policy. London: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  43. Robinson, Viviane. 1998. Defining and Measuring Successful Refugee Integration. In ECRE International Conference on Integration of Refugees in Europe. Brussels: ECRE. [Google Scholar]
  44. Rodríguez-Gómez, Diana. 2019. Bureaucratic Encounters and the Quest for Educational Access among Colombian Refugees in Ecuador. Journal of Education 5: 62–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Saldaña, Johny. 2021. The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar]
  46. Sung, Soo Jung. 2022. A Study on Remedy Option for Undocumented Immigrant Children born in Korea. 국내 미등록 이주아동’의 구제방안 연구. Korean Association of International Culture Exchange 11: 193–214. Available online: https://www.kci.go.kr/kciportal/ci/sereArticleSearch/ciSereArtiView.kci?sereArticleSearchBean.artiId=ART002844541 (accessed on 15 October 2024).
  47. UNHCR. 1951. Text of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. Available online: http://www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10 (accessed on 20 December 2024).
  48. UNHCR. 2019. Refugee Education 2030: A Strategy for Refugee Inclusion. Geneva: UNHCR Media Relations and Public Information. [Google Scholar]
  49. UNHCR. 2024. Asia and The Pacific Regional Trends—Forced Displacement and Statelessness 2023. Available online: https://www.unhcr.org/asia/asia-pacific-regional-trends (accessed on 30 January 2025).
  50. UNHCR, UNESCO, and UNICEF. 2023. Building Inclusive Education Systems. Available online: https://www.unhcr.org/sites/default/files/2023-09/building-inclusive-education-systems-for-refugees.pdf (accessed on 20 December 2024).
  51. United Nations. 2018. Global Compact on Refugees. A/73/12 (Part II). Available online: https://globalcompactrefugees.org/sites/default/files/2019-12/Global%20compact%20on%20refugees%20EN.pdf (accessed on 20 December 2024).
  52. Waters, Tony, and Kim LeBlanc. 2005. Refugees and Education: Mass Public Schooling Without a Nation-State. Comparative Education Review 49: 129–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Categories of refugees and asylum seekers in South Korea.
Table 1. Categories of refugees and asylum seekers in South Korea.
Under the Refugee Act (Government of Republic of Korea 2013) and related legal frameworks in South Korea, refugees and asylum seekers are categorized into six groups based on their legal status:
  • Recognized refugees: Individuals whose refugee status has been officially granted by the South Korean government under the1951 UN Refugee Convention criteria. They receive long-term residence permits and access to social welfare benefits, healthcare, and employment.
  • Asylum seekers: Individuals with pending refugee status application. During the review, they may receive temporary G-1 visas allowing them to stay in South Korea. Stateless individuals may be included in this category, with cases addressed by the government individually.
  • Rejected refugee applicants: Individuals whose asylum applications have been denied. They may appeal or file lawsuits, or face deportation after exhausting all legal options.
  • Resettled refugees: Refugees resettled through UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees) resettlement programs. South Korea has occasionally accepted small groups, such as Syrian and Burmese refugees (United Nations 2018).
  • Afghan Special Contributors: Afghan individuals and families who supported South Korean operations in Afghanistan, such as interpreters, medical staff, or other workers. Though not classified as refugees, they were granted humanitarian status following the Taliban’s takeover in 2021.
  • Humanitarian Stay Permit Holders (G-1 Visa): Individuals who don’t meet the 1951 UN Refugee Convention’s refugee definition but receive permission to stay for humanitarian reasons. For example, Yemeni refugees in Jeju received humanitarian stay permits in 2018.
While South Korea also has ‘multicultural students’ (children with at least one non-Korean parent, including children of immigrants and migrant workers), this study focuses specifically on refugee-background children and youth. These are individuals ‘unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion’ (UNHCR 1951).
Table 2. Overview of key informants.
Table 2. Overview of key informants.
Organization TypeNumber of InterviewsNumber of Informants
Government (MOE, metropolitan/provincial, local offices of education, etc.) 910
Government contractors (hereafter implementing orgs)33
IGOs/INGOs 23
Civil society actors (hereafter NGOs)67
Total2023
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Jeong, J.; Cha, J. Barriers to Promoting Structural and Relational Integration Among Students with Refugee Backgrounds in the South Korean Education System. Soc. Sci. 2025, 14, 582. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci14100582

AMA Style

Jeong J, Cha J. Barriers to Promoting Structural and Relational Integration Among Students with Refugee Backgrounds in the South Korean Education System. Social Sciences. 2025; 14(10):582. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci14100582

Chicago/Turabian Style

Jeong, Jisun, and Jihae Cha. 2025. "Barriers to Promoting Structural and Relational Integration Among Students with Refugee Backgrounds in the South Korean Education System" Social Sciences 14, no. 10: 582. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci14100582

APA Style

Jeong, J., & Cha, J. (2025). Barriers to Promoting Structural and Relational Integration Among Students with Refugee Backgrounds in the South Korean Education System. Social Sciences, 14(10), 582. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci14100582

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop