Compulsory education funding has taken effect across North Korea through a newly obtained law. Specifically, the Standing Committee of the Supreme People’s Assembly adopted the Education Support Law on December 21, 2023. Authorities subsequently revised the legislation on June 10, 2025. This amended law contains 29 articles covering all aspects of education financing. Consequently, compulsory education funding now shifts the financial burden away from the central government.
The law defines education support as social assistance for educational development. For instance, this includes constructing educational institutions and improving classroom conditions. Enhancing teachers’ qualifications also falls under this definition. The Education Support Fund collects money and materials from donors. Institutions, enterprises, organizations, and citizens must all contribute. Therefore, compulsory education funding extends obligations to virtually every North Korean entity.
The law’s guiding principle establishes a social culture of support. In particular, all of society must become enthusiastic parent supporters of education. The Cabinet provides unified direction for all education support activities. The central education guidance organ shares responsibility with local people’s committees. Relevant agencies also participate in this mandatory funding system. As a result, this compulsory education funding structure leaves no room for voluntary participation.
A notable feature of the law is its broad recipient eligibility. For example, kindergartens and primary schools qualify for donations directly. Lower and upper secondary schools also receive funding through this system. Universities, orphanages, and schools for disabled people qualify as well. Students’ palaces, youth camps, and community youth centers receive support. Vocational schools, sports schools, and arts academies complete the recipient list. In fact, virtually every education-related institution in North Korea qualifies for funds. Thus, this compulsory education funding touches every level of the education system.
The law specifies multiple methods for making donations. For instance, donors may contribute directly to their alma mater or another school. Alternatively, they can channel donations through the education support fund management body. Donations may also go through the local people’s committee education department. Notably, electronic payment is authorized under this new system. This detail reflects the expanding role of digital transactions in North Korea. Furthermore, foreign companies and international organizations may also donate to the fund. Overseas Koreans and foreign nationals can contribute as well. Therefore, this compulsory education funding even contemplates international community support.
Donated funds must go into a dedicated education support account. This account remains exempt from financial service fees. Donated materials require recording by item name and quantity. Monetary value is based on state-set prices for all items. Receiving institutions must issue a donation certificate to each donor. Together, these provisions create a formal paper trail for all contributions.
Professor Choe Kyubin from Handong Global University provided expert analysis. He noted that fund donation is framed as encouraged rather than mandatory. However, for lower-level local units, it effectively functions as pressure. Prior education law already allowed distribution of education support work. But the revised law goes one step further than previous versions. In essence, it formalizes education support fund work as a mandatory obligation. Consequently, this compulsory education funding represents a significant legal escalation.
The law defines sponsoring organizations with specific duties. Specifically, these are institutions, enterprises, and organizations bearing a social duty. They must undertake support work for given educational institutions. The Cabinet and local people’s committees designate sponsoring organizations. As a result, each educational institution receives at least one designated sponsor. Depending on size and regional characteristics, one sponsor may handle one or two schools. Sponsors must monitor management and operational conditions continuously. Likewise, they must resolve problems as they arise without delay. Concentrated support must occur during school support months. For instance, March and October serve as these designated support periods.
A performance evaluation system has also been established. For example, funds and materials provided by sponsors receive reflection in economic assessments. Notable contributors become eligible for state commendations and preferential treatment. Study tours and tourism opportunities await those who give generously. Media organizations must publicize exemplary cases of support. In particular, newspapers, radio, and television will promote this system widely. However, the law does not specify concrete evaluation criteria. Consequently, this leaves room for arbitrary judgment in oversight processes. Thus, this compulsory education funding carries significant enforcement ambiguity.
Penalties appear across four articles within the amended law. Previously, education law contained no separate penalty provisions. The revised law introduces a graduated system of sanctions. A formal warning applies to mishandling of fund registration or disbursement. Failure to issue donation certificates or commendations also triggers warnings. More serious cases warrant a stern warning from authorities. Unpaid labor of up to three months applies to fund misappropriation. Damaging donated materials carries the same unpaid labor penalty. Refusing without justification to fulfill funding requests also triggers punishment. Moreover, more serious cases may result in sentences exceeding three months. Demotion, dismissal, or removal from office is authorized for grave violations. Finally, criminal acts face legal accountability under the criminal code. Therefore, this compulsory education funding carries real legal teeth.
Choe noted that North Korea views education disparities as local responsibility. The authorities do not see structural problems in the system. Through this Education Support Law, the state can shift the burden. In effect, improving local educational conditions falls onto the North Korean people. Increased mobilization under the pretext of improving education enables this shift. The wide range of sanctions from warnings to criminal prosecution concerns experts. Specifically, education support legislation may become a tool to control institutions. This could worsen the human rights situation for North Koreans. Previous laws required local support for education as well. However, the enactment of standalone legislation with penalties signals growing financial demands.
