Out of the Shadows : The Global Intensification of Supplementary Education 9781781908174, 9781781908167

Citation preview

OUT OF THE SHADOWS: THE GLOBAL INTENSIFICATION OF SUPPLEMENTARY EDUCATION

INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES ON EDUCATION AND SOCIETY Series Editor: Alexander W. Wiseman Recent Volumes:

Series Editor from Volume 5: David P. Baker Volume 5:

New Paradigms and Recurring Paradoxes in Education for Citizenship: An International Comparison

Volume 6:

Global Trends in Educational Policy

Volume 7:

The impact of Comparative Education Research on Institutional Theory

Volume 8:

Education For All

Volume 9:

The Worldwide Transformation of Higher Education

Volume 10:

Gender, Equality and Education from International and Comparative Perspectives

Series Editor from Volume 11: Alexander W. Wiseman Volume 11:

Educational Leadership: Global Contexts and International Comparisons

Volume 12:

International Educational Governance

Volume 13:

The Impact of International Achievement Studies on National Education Policymaking

Volume 14:

Post-Socialism Is Not Dead: (Re)Reading The Global In Comparative Education

Volume 15:

The Impact and Transformation of Education Policy in China

Volume 16:

Education Strategy in the Developing World: Revising the World Bank’s Education Policy

Volume 17:

Community Colleges Worldwide: Investigating The Global Phenomenon

Volume 18:

The Impact of HIV/AIDS on Education Worldwide

Volume 19:

Teacher Reforms around the World: Implementations and Outcomes

Volume 20:

Annual Review of Comparative and International Education 2013

Volume 21:

The Development of Higher Education in Africa: Prospects and Challenges

INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES ON EDUCATION AND SOCIETY VOLUME 22

OUT OF THE SHADOWS: THE GLOBAL INTENSIFICATION OF SUPPLEMENTARY EDUCATION EDITED BY

JANICE AURINI University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada

SCOTT DAVIES McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada

JULIAN DIERKES University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada

United Kingdom
North America
Japan India
Malaysia
China

Emerald Group Publishing Limited Howard House, Wagon Lane, Bingley BD16 1WA, UK First edition 2013 Copyright r 2013 Emerald Group Publishing Limited Reprints and permission service Contact: [email protected] No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, transmitted in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without either the prior written permission of the publisher or a licence permitting restricted copying issued in the UK by The Copyright Licensing Agency and in the USA by The Copyright Clearance Center. Any opinions expressed in the chapters are those of the authors. Whilst Emerald makes every effort to ensure the quality and accuracy of its content, Emerald makes no representation implied or otherwise, as to the chapters’ suitability and application and disclaims any warranties, express or implied, to their use. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN: 978-1-78190-816-7 ISSN: 1479-3679 (Series)

ISOQAR certified Management System, awarded to Emerald for adherence to Environmental standard ISO 14001:2004. Certificate Number 1985 ISO 14001

CONTENTS LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

ix

FOREWORD

xi

OUT OF THE SHADOWS? AN INTRODUCTION TO WORLDWIDE SUPPLEMENTARY EDUCATION Janice Aurini, Scott Davies and Julian Dierkes

xv

PART 1: COUNTRIES WITH HIGH INTENSITY FORMS OF SUPPLEMENTARY EDUCATION THE INSECURITY INDUSTRY: SUPPLEMENTARY EDUCATION IN JAPAN Julian Dierkes

3

SUPPLEMENTARY EDUCATION IN TURKEY: RECENT DEVELOPMENTS AND FUTURE PROSPECTS Aysit Tansel

23

RESEARCHING SUPPLEMENTARY EDUCATION: PLANS, REALITIES, AND LESSONS FROM FIELDWORK IN CHINA Wei Zhang and Mark Bray

67

PRIVATE TUTORING IN VIETNAM: A REVIEW OF CURRENT ISSUES AND ITS MAJOR CORRELATES Hai-Anh Dang

95

v

vi

CONTENTS

SUPPLEMENTARY EDUCATION IN BRAZIL: DIVERSITY AND PARADOXES Alexandre Ventura and Candido Gomes

129

PART 2: COUNTRIES WITH LOW INTENSITY FORMS OF SUPPLEMENTARY EDUCATION SUPPLEMENTARY EDUCATION IN A CHANGING ORGANIZATIONAL FIELD: THE CANADIAN CASE Janice Aurini and Scott Davies

155

BUT DID IT HELP YOU GET TO UNIVERSITY? A QUALITATIVE STUDY OF SUPPLEMENTARY EDUCATION IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA Martin Forsey

171

SUPPLEMENTARY EDUCATION IN THE UNITED STATES: POLICY CONTEXT, CHARACTERISTICS, AND CHALLENGES Izumi Mori

191

SUPPLEMENTARY EDUCATION IN GERMANY: HISTORY AND PRESENT DEVELOPMENTS Thomas Koinzer

209

PART 3: COMPARING HIGH AND LOW INTENSITY FORMS OF SUPPLEMENTARY EDUCATION MAKING MARKETS: POLICY CONSTRUCTION OF SUPPLEMENTARY EDUCATION IN THE UNITED STATES AND KOREA Christopher Lubienski and Jin Lee

223

Contents

vii

FAMILY CAPITAL: A DETERMINANT OF SUPPLEMENTARY EDUCATION IN 17 NATIONS Darby E. Southgate

245

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

259

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS Janice Aurini

Department of Sociology and Legal Studies, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada

Mark Bray

The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China

Hai-Anh Dang

The World Bank, Washington, DC, USA

Scott Davies

McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada

Julian Dierkes

University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada

Martin Forsey

The University of Western Australia, Crawley, Australia

Candido Gomes

Catholic University of Brası´ lia, Brası´ lia, Brazil

Thomas Koinzer

Humboldt University Berlin, Berlin, Germany

Jin Lee

University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign, Champaign, IL, USA

Christopher Lubienski

University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign, Champaign, IL, USA

Izumi Mori

Rikkyo University, Tokyo, Japan

Darby E. Southgate

Los Angeles Valley College, Valley Glen, Los Angeles, CA, USA

Aysit Tansel

Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey

Alexandre Ventura

University of Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal

Wei Zhang

The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China ix

FOREWORD The supplementary education phenomenon is simultaneously both familiar and mysterious. The term “shadow education” first captured this blend of mystery and familiarity in a way that resonated with many researchers worldwide. As Janice Aurini, Scott Davies, and Julian Dierkes assert in this coedited volume, the phenomenon is much bigger (and perhaps even more menacing) that what researchers first found lurking in the shadows. This volume on supplementary education worldwide is a strong fit for the International Perspectives on Education and Society series because it relies upon the fact that internationally comparative research on education addresses many diverse global problems and topics. Some of these are cross-national in scope, while others are uniquely situated in particular cultures and communities. Few, however, encompass as much diversity in scope, theory, and method as Aurini, Davies, and Dierkes’s volume on supplementary education. The worldwide expansion of mass education has been documented and debated as one of the foremost issues in comparative and international education research in the 20th century, but the expansion and institutionalization of supplementary education promises to usurp mass education as the most important (and still among the least understood) education phenomena of the 21st century. In short, this supplementary education volume is both greatly needed and long overdue. An essential function of the International Perspectives on Education and Society series is to present new research on and syntheses of comparative and international education research as well as to provide conceptual and methodological frameworks to help make sense of the research and its application. The contribution of this volume on supplementary education to research in the field of comparative and international education is great. For instance, this volume addresses the distinguishing as well as overlapping characteristics of supplementary education, shadow education, and private tutoring within unique cultural contexts and across traditional boundaries. Clarifying supplementary education-related terms and their meanings is crucial to the research endeavor because how the phenomenon is discussed and debated relies upon what each of these concepts encompasses and where these concepts may be limited. xi

xii

FOREWORD

Volumes in the International Perspectives on Education and Society series address phenomena, which either reveal or result in significant change in both education and society. For example, all the chapters in this volume address
either directly or indirectly
the rapid and massive global expansion of supplementary education as both a phenomenon and as an industry. As Aurini, Davies, and Dierkes suggest in their introduction to the volume, supplementary education is a “monster of an industry,” but it is also important to recognize that supplementary education is not a single corporation or unified entity. It is still a largely uncoordinated global process; it is a structure; it is a set of assumptions about education and society
all of which intersect in particular activities and organize around specific expectations that we then call supplementary education broadly speaking. The International Perspectives on Education and Society series also provides an opportunity for critical analysis of research in the field of comparative and international education itself, which is often neglected in the periodical research literature. For example, even though single country or case studies of private tutoring are becoming frequent in the published research in comparative and international education, truly internationally comparative research on supplementary education is still hard to find. Even most of the chapters in this volume are not internationally comparative in scope, but rather single country studies. Balancing both global and local research of supplementary education, therefore, is important to moving research on this phenomenon forward and addressing the many layers of context in which supplementary education occurs. The work by Mark Bray has left an indelible mark on research related to private tutoring, which is a significant area of study within the broader scope of supplementary and shadow education. Still, cross-nationally comparative research on supplementary education is still hard to find compared to the plethora of single case or country studies on the topic. The advent and availability of international educational assessment and survey data, however, has made cross-nationally comparable data on education available for research on supplementary education. For example, my own introduction to shadow education came through the early work on shadow education by David P. Baker. Stevenson and Baker’s (1992) work on shadow education in Japan was first introduced to me as a graduate student and emphasized the single country focus of research on supplementary education, which still dominates research on supplementary education in the early 21st century. Later I had the opportunity to work on some

Foreword

xiii

cross-nationally comparative work on shadow education myself using international survey data (Baker, Akiba, LeTendre, & Wiseman, 2001), which brought the phenomenon into stark contrast across multiple educational systems and societies. Many others in the field have had similar experiences. Shadow education and private tutoring have become high profile phenomenon in comparative and international education research, which means that most graduate students and researchers in comparative and international education and many related social science disciplines are familiar with it. As the phenomenon of supplementary education expands worldwide, many more will have had firsthand experience participating in either after-school programs, private tutoring, juku, cram schools, learning centers, or another type of supplementary education. As a result, researchers have a unique opportunity with the wide practice of supplementary education worldwide to combine personal experience, single case or country study, and cross-nationally comparative data to provide almost a 360-degree view of supplementary education. Aurini, Davies, and Dierkes’s volume pushes the research on supplementary education in this direction. Finally, each volume in the International Perspectives on Education and Society series offers an overview and critical examination of a problem, issue, or topic in comparative and international education. This volume does this in part by highlighting how research investigations into supplementary education (often discussed as shadow education, and more frequently private tutoring) have expanded almost as rapidly as the phenomenon itself. The research agenda that Aurini, Davies, and Dierkes move forward in this volume has come from its beginnings as a unique and heavily theorized topic related to “extra lessons” and educational activities that mimic formal schooling outside of schools, which few researchers were making their main focus in the 1990s, to the massive multinational research projects that focus exclusively on private tutoring and are funded by major educational and development organizations in the 21st century. In a way, research on private tutoring has become institutionalized itself over the past 20 years, and Aurini, Davies, and Dierkes’s volume has come along at just the right time to rattle the iron cage of supplementary education both to reframe the discourse and to question and build on the research that has come before. Alexander W. Wiseman Series Editor

xiv

FOREWORD

REFERENCES Baker, D. P., Akiba, M., LeTendre, G. K., & Wiseman, A. W. (2001). Worldwide shadow education: Outside-school learning, institutional quality of schooling, and cross-national mathematics achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(1), 1
17. Stevenson, D. L., & Baker, D. P. (1992). Shadow education and allocation in formal schooling: Transition to university in Japan. American Journal of Sociology, 97(6), 1639
1657.

OUT OF THE SHADOWS? AN INTRODUCTION TO WORLDWIDE SUPPLEMENTARY EDUCATION Just as the shadow cast by a sun-dial can tell the observer about the passage of time, so the shadow of an education system can tell the observer about change in societies. (Bray, 1999, p. 17)

INTRODUCTION: OUT OF THE SHADOWS This book is about “supplementary education.” Supplementary education refers to academic instruction that takes place during nonschool time including after school, on the weekends or during summer vacation. Juku, cram schools, and private tutoring are common examples. These supplements are typically offered outside of formal education systems, and do not lead to a recognized credential. Some scholars refer to these supplements as “shadow education,” emphasizing how some forms of supplementary education serves to mimic and closely parallel instruction and curriculum in mainline school systems. But the shadow metaphor also connotes another meaning. Despite its clear academic content and goals, and despite inducing many people to pay for it through personal fees, supplementary education can be a relatively “hidden” form of education. Few governments regulate it or even count it in their official records. Students rarely list their participation in this sector on their school transcripts, portfolios or resumes. Nor does it necessarily look like “school.” The sector operates across a wide variety of settings, from living rooms to church basements to libraries to office buildings to shopping plazas. Large swaths of people in many nations may have never encountered it. Some, including government officials, policy-makers and researchers have never even heard of it. But this is changing. Our volume xv

xvi

JANICE AURINI ET AL.

extends the current literature on supplementary education and “shadow education” by highlighting three key themes:

Out of the Shadows? This sector is starting to emerge “out of the shadows.” Scholarship on education has traditionally focused on established, credentialing forms of schooling, particularly those sponsored by governments or by private, nonprofit entities. In comparison to mainline schooling, supplementary education can appear to be relatively obscure. But there is evidence that supplementary education is large in many nations, and is growing in many others. Millions of children around the globe are receiving private tutoring, shadow education, and instruction at “learning center” franchises. Japan and Korea have the most highly developed supplementary education marketplaces. In those countries, supplementary education swallows up vast amounts of children’s after-school time and their parents’ disposable income. Many scholars report that several other nations, including those as economically and geographically diverse as Greece, Turkey, Kenya, Cambodia, and the United States, also have sizable and growing supplementary education sectors. No scholars, to our knowledge, are reporting a contraction of this sector in any nation. A series of available figures suggests that supplementary education has become a multibillion dollar industry worldwide. Tallying the best estimates from just 17 countries, the supplementary education industry generates a staggering $41,708,731,000 per year (see Table 1). This figure would likely more double to $80 billion if we could add reliable consumption data from countries like the United States and Canada, as well as many countries in South America and Africa. To put this figure in context, consider the 2012 sales of international companies such as General Motors ($4.7 billion), Starbucks ($3.8 billion), and Nike ($19.2 billion), each of which are well known to most of the planet’s population. These companies are also of great interest to governments, and in some cases considered “too big to fail.” Yet strangely, a monster of an industry has quietly developed, sometimes with little acknowledgment of its existence. As a consequence most government responses to supplementary education have been reactive, rather than proactive, as in the case of Vietnam (Dang, 2013).

xvii

An Introduction to Worldwide Supplementary Education

Table 1.

Yearly Consumption of Supplementary Education Services from 17 Countries. Country

Figure (USD)

Source

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Austria Azerbaijan Cyprus Egypt France Georgia Germany

$163,466,000 $57,000,000 $144,265,000 $18,000,000 $2,867,140,000 $48,000,000 $1,222,100,000

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Greece Italy Japan Kazakhstan Korea Romania Slovakia Singapore Spain Turkey

$1,235,860,000 $544,887,000 $14,000,000,000 $20,000,000 $17,300,000,000 $389,205,000 $13,300,000 $200,000,000 $583,808,000 $2,900,000,000

Bray (2011) Silova (2006) Bray (2011) Bray (2009) Bray (2011) Silova (2006) Bray (2011); note estimates range so we used the most conservative figure Bray (2011) Bray (2011) Bray (2007) Silova (2009) Bray (2009) Bray (2011) Silova (2006) Bray (2007) Bray (2011) Bray (2011)

Total

$41,708,731,000

Note: All figures have been translated into U.S. dollars.

Similarly, researchers know relatively little about supplementary education. Only a handful of social scientists have conducted empirical research on this form of education. Despite the efforts of a handful of leaders in the field, most notably Mark Bray, there is still a dearth of comprehensive, high quality, and cross-national data on the topic. Comparative research on supplementary education is only just starting to emerge (Dang & Rogers, 2008). Why should governments and researchers “wake up” to the potential of supplementary education? Put simply, this scale suggests that supplementary education has more and more potential to have a variety of impacts on societies. It can become an alternate source of human capital development, for instance. Or, it might trigger more intense competitions for schooling credentials among students, and thereby lessen or worsen inequalities in educational outcomes. It might spark more rivalry among different kinds of instructional providers, representing in many contexts an unrecognized form of privatized education. In any of these scenarios, as children spend

xviii

JANICE AURINI ET AL.

more and more hours in supplementary education, this sector becomes harder to ignore. One of the main challenges for conducting research on supplementary education is the shortage of publicly available data. Since supplementary sectors are largely private, unregulated, and rarely officially recorded to be part of the formal education sector, few governments attempt to track its size or investigate its inner workings, though some key exceptions exist. The sector’s semi-institutional status gives it either a “shadowy” presence in official policy discourse or makes it unnoticed entirely. This situation poses a predicament for researchers in many nations. The paucity of data makes it difficult to address some burning questions, most notably: How big is this sector at the national or international levels? Does it work in terms of enhancing students’ knowledge, grades or advancement? Are participants more likely to enter prestigious postsecondary institutions? Do supplementary educators offer quality of instruction that is worse or better than that provided by traditional educators? In many respects, supplementary education is coming “out of the shadows.” A growing chorus of scholars is calling for more research on supplementary education. Their studies are showing that this sector is quite large and impactful in many nations, and is growing in others. This volume takes a next step toward appreciating the international scale of this sector, and its impact on families, formal education systems, and economies.

From Shadow Education to Learning Centers We also use the term supplementary education to highlight the tremendous diversity of this sector. Shadow education illustrates the manner in which these services have tended to mimic instruction and materials from formal school systems, and offer homework support or test preparation. But in recent years, other kinds of supplements have emerged. Some are large scale and have a distinct mission. “Learning centers,” based in multisite, corporate franchises, have developed their own unique curricula and diagnostic tools. In North America, for example, franchises like Sylvan Learning Centre do not simply “shadow” school material, but claim to build generic skills in their own right by their own criteria. And in other countries, non-profit charities and public schools providers have also started to offer tutoring after school and on weekends, often to help disadvantaged children keep pace with their more advantaged peers. In sum, the sector is increasingly characterized by a mix of organizational models,

An Introduction to Worldwide Supplementary Education

xix

missions, and pedagogies, ranging from fee-paying to publicly-subsidized instruction, from “shadow education” to instruction that deviates from the teachings of formal schools. The term supplementary education captures the variety we have asked our volume authors to illustrate. This term is intended to encompass both shadow education discussed by Dierkes (2013) and Zang and Bray (2013) as well as the kinds of services found in Canada and the United States as discussed by Mori (2013), Lubienski and Lee (2013), and Aurini and Davies (2013). It highlights academic-oriented instruction that does not lead to formally recognized educational credits or credentials. It is limited to formal instruction in core academic subjects like math, science, and languages, thereby excluding extracurricular activities such as dance, sports, religious, or music lessons, and excluding informal, unpaid teaching that may be offered by families or friends. Following the lead of Bray (1999), this definition also excludes formal education outside of conventional public schools, as offered by private schools or public schools of choice, or services through other accredited bodies that lead to recognized credentials or course credits. Our definition focuses on institutionalized services for academic-oriented preparation but not recognized academic credit. Children (or more exactly, their parents) seek supplementary education to help them pass standardized tests, understand homework, or even fill afterschool hours and long summer vacations.

Varying Intensity, Capacity, and Authority The term supplementary education also allows us to highlight the third theme of this volume, namely the varying levels of growth, development, and impacts of supplementary education in a range of nations. It builds on a three-day workshop in 2010 hosted by Janice Aurini, along with Scott Davies and Julian Dierkes, at the University of Waterloo, Canada. It aims to offer a “big picture” by comparing the intensity of supplementary education across nations, and varying relations between this sector and formal schooling systems and policies. Our comparative approach aims to capture the organizational diversity that underlies its broad international growth, to extend the current international scope of research, and to help forge a formal network of scholars in this area. Our contributors hail from a range of disciplines, including economics, Asian studies, education, and sociology. Most chapters focus on a single nation. To familiarize the reader and orient their findings, these chapters provide an overview of the education

xx

JANICE AURINI ET AL.

system and policy context of supplementary education. Two chapters are comparative. One contrasts Korea and the United States (Lubienski & Lee, 2013), which vary not only in terms of their enrollments in the sector, but also in terms of the attitudes of policy-makers to the sector. Another chapter examines characteristics associated with supplementary education across 41 countries (Southgate, 2013). Methodologically, chapters include large scale quantitative analyses and smaller scale qualitative case studies.

UNDERSTANDING WORLDWIDE SUPPLEMENT EDUCATION: KEY QUESTIONS We asked authors to orient their chapters around one or more of the following key questions: First, what is the degree of “intensity” of supplementary education in their nation of interest? What factors shape that intensity? By intensity, we refer to the enrollment rate in supplementary education, whether it is used episodically or continually, and its impacts on family time use and resources. We intentionally selected experts on countries that exhibit “high” levels of supplementary education use such as China, and also from “low intensity” countries such as Germany. Judgments about what constitutes “high” or “low” level of intensity is based on our contributors’ quantitative and qualitative understandings of the nature, size, and position of the supplementary education sector. Quantitatively, our authors used the measures mentioned above (e.g., enrollment). Southgate (2013), for example, uses a cut-off of 40% to differentiate high and low levels of use (or intensity); and in fact there are few “grey areas” since most countries exhibit much lower (e.g., Canada) or much higher (e.g., Japan) levels of supplementary use. Qualitatively our authors marshalled their knowledge of the policy context of supplementary education and attitudes about its use or importance. These judgments are part art and part science since there are no hard rules about what constitutes “a lot” of supplementary education! But we consider our general positioning of countries to be a reasonable approximation and shared by experts on this topic. Using tutoring periodically to “brush up,” as illustrated by Forsey (2013), is a far cry from seeing tutoring as a real extension of and even a substitute to the regular school system as Dierkes (2013), Lubienski and Lee (2013), or Zang and Bray (2013) discuss. This method of charting different levels of intensity allows readers to ponder the reasons for these varying levels. A possibility is that the growth

An Introduction to Worldwide Supplementary Education

xxi

of supplementary education is driven by the rise of high stakes standardized testing regimes. We do find that this sector does indeed tend to be sizeable in countries with those exam regimes. But the sector is also budding in countries with few such entrance requirements, such as Canada. Another possibility is that large supplementary education markets arise when the resources or nature of public schooling fail to meet parent or student demand as suggested by Koinzer (and others 2013). But we also find that these markets also exist in nations that devote great public resources to schooling, and that both high achieving and remedial students appear to be seeking supplementary education. If supplementary education is attracting a widening variety of student types, not just those prepping for high stakes tests, this suggests that the sector is taking on multiple purposes, and has the potential to grow further. A key question is whether countries that currently have low intensities might soon increase their intensity, or whether their circumstances are unique enough to leave little room for supplementary education to develop further. Second, what is the varying “capacity” of supplementary education to influence and structure formal school systems and educational processes? To what degree does supplementary education sector structure students’ after-school hours, how conventional schools teach, how youth compete to enter postsecondary institutions, and how they are channeled into stratified streams? In nations like South Korea and Japan, supplementary education has altered the very experience of childhood and youth. But elsewhere, it is less clear how it affects other nations with sizable supplementary education sectors, including those as culturally, economically, and geographically diverse as Greece, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Cambodia, and the United States (Baker & LeTendre, 2005; Bray, 2007). Supplementary education can alter relations among education systems, private businesses, families, and children, especially in nations where they are starting to gain visibility. In some contexts, it may serve as an alternate source of human capital that can boost skill levels of future workforces. In other contexts, it can divert sizeable proportions of family incomes to an unproductive educational “arms race.” It can equalize educational opportunity by providing extra support to disadvantaged children, or it can deepen educational inequality by providing a market-based resource for advantaged children. It can represent a relatively hidden and unregulated form of private education, or it can be directed by governments, as in the case of provincially funded tutoring in the Canadian province of Ontario, or in the case of the US federal government provision of “supplementary education services” through its No Child Left Behind Act. These potential connections between supplementary education on the one hand, and issues of student

xxii

JANICE AURINI ET AL.

achievement, social mobility and inequality, educational privatization, and changing notions of children’s leisure time on the other hand, and is vaulting research in the area to a new prominence in many countries, especially those in which more and more students are receiving tutoring. Third, what degree of “pedagogical authority” does supplementary education have in each country? Many of our authors relate the supplementary education sector to broader currents in education policy. Taken as a whole, supplementary education appears to have a wide range of connections to policy. In some countries, like Canada, it is generally off the “radar screens” of government, and does not attract any policy attention of any kind. In other nations, such as the United States, the federal government has enlisted “SES” as a tool for school improvement and accountability, though not without considerable controversy (see Lubienski & Lee, 2013). In countries with the highest levels of intensity, supplementary education has received far greater attention and has encroached on the authority and legitimacy of their main government-sponsored school systems. South Korea, for instance, has attempted to regulate the number of hours that hagwon can operate, in fear that it is triggering an unproductive, unfair, and stressful form of educational competition. But rather than being feared, supplementary educators in Japan have wrested a significant amount of authority from mainstream educators, and have even been hired to teach educators how to teach. Taken as a whole, this volume will inform academic research and policy-making on a rapidly changing and growing form of education around the world.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We are indebted to a variety of organizations and people. An Aide to Workshop grant through the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council provided much needed funding. Importantly, this grant allowed us to bring our group of international scholars together for a three-day workshop. The University of Waterloo, Faculty of Arts, generously added to these funds and provided a venue for the workshop. Several research assistants also facilitated this volume. We also thank Emerald Press, particularly Alexander Wiseman, for embracing this volume with great enthusiasm and much needed support. This book also benefited from several experienced reviewers. There comments, suggestions, and criticisms provided our authors with much needed

An Introduction to Worldwide Supplementary Education

xxiii

guidance. Special thanks goes to Dr. Akarca (University of Illinois Chicago), Drs. Baker and Byun (The Pennsylvania State University), Dr. Berument (Bilkent University), Dr. Goyette (Temple University), Dr. London (City University of Hong Kong), Dr. Ross (John Hopkins University), Dr. Quirke (Wilfrid Laurier University), Dr. Windle (Monash University), and Dr. Zarifa (Nipissing University). We also thank the following Ph.D. candidates for their thoughtful comments: Jaesung Choi (University of Pennsylvania) and Steven Entrich (University of Potsdam). And lastly, we thank our families for putting up with the travel and work that these kinds of projects demand. Janice Aurini Scott Davies Julian Dierkes Editors

REFERENCES Aurini, J., & Davies, S. (2013). Supplementary education in a changing organizational field: The Canadian case. In J. Aurini, S. Davies, & J. Dierkes (Eds.), Out of the shadows: The global intensification of supplementary education (Vol. 22, pp. 155
170). Bingley, UK: Emerald. Bray, M. (1999). The shadow education system: Private tutoring and its implications for planners. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Bray, M. (2007). The shadow education system: Private tutoring and its implications for planners (2nd ed.), Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Bray, M. (2009). Confronting the shadow education system: What government policies for what private tutoring? Paris: International Institute for Educational Planning. Bray, M. (2011). The challenge of shadow education: Private tutoring and its implications for policy makers in the European Union. Europe: European Commission. Dang, H.-A. (2013). Private tutoring in vietnam a review of current issues and its major correlates. In J. Aurini, S. Davies, & J. Dierkes (Eds.), Out of the shadows: The global intensification of supplementary education (Vol. 22, pp. 67
94). Bingley, UK: Emerald. Dierkes, J. (2013). The insecurity industry: Supplementary education in Japan. In J. Aurini, S. Davies, & J. Dierkes (Eds.), Out of the shadows: The global intensification of supplementary education (Vol. 22, pp. 3
21). Bingley, UK: Emerald. Forsey, M. (2013). But did it help you get to university? A qualitative study of supplementary education in Western Australia. In J. Aurini, S. Davies, & J. Dierkes (Eds.), Out of the shadows: The global intensification of supplementary education (Vol. 22, pp. 171
189). Bingley, UK: Emerald. Lubienski, C., & Lee, J. (2013). Making markets: Policy construction of supplementary education in the United States and Korea. In J. Aurini, S. Davies, & J. Dierkes (Eds.), Out of the shadows: The global intensification of supplementary education (Vol. 22, pp. 223
244). Bingley, UK: Emerald.

xxiv

JANICE AURINI ET AL.

Mori, I. (2013). Supplementary education in the United States: Policy context, characteristics and challenges. In J. Aurini, S. Davies, & J. Dierkes (Eds.), Out of the shadows: The global intensification of supplementary education (Vol. 22, pp. 191
207). Bingley, UK: Emerald. Silova, I. (2009). Private supplementary tutoring in central Asia: New opportunities and burdens. Paris: UNESCO International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP). Silova, I., Budiene, V., & Bray, M. (Eds.) (2006). Education in the hidden market place: Monitoring of supplementary education. New York, NY: Open Society Institute. Southgate, D. E. (2013). Family capital: A determinant of supplementary education in 17 nations. In J. Aurini, S. Davies, & J. Dierkes (Eds.), Out of the shadows: The global intensification of supplementary education (Vol. 22, pp. 245
258). Bingley, UK: Emerald. Zang, W., & Bray, M. (2013). Researching supplementary education: Plans, realities, and lessons from fieldwork in China. In J. Aurini, S. Davies, & J. Dierkes (Eds.), Out of the shadows: The global intensification of supplementary education (Vol. 22, pp. 67
94). Bingley, UK: Emerald.

PART 1 COUNTRIES WITH HIGH INTENSITY FORMS OF SUPPLEMENTARY EDUCATION

THE INSECURITY INDUSTRY: SUPPLEMENTARY EDUCATION IN JAPAN Julian Dierkes ABSTRACT Purpose
To understand high demand for juku and yobiko, this chapter reviews the history, institutionalization, areas of innovation, and future of supplementary education in Japan. Design/Methodology/Approach
supplementary education institutions.

Fieldwork

in

owner-operated

Findings
The Japanese government has long publicly disavowed the existence of a large-scale supplementary education industry (juku and yobiko). Over the past 20 years or so, waves of moral panics regarding education (bullying, breakdown of classroom discipline, decline of academic abilities, school refusal, etc.) have led to a profound sense of insecurity among parents. While supplementary education has its roots in demographic and economic developments of the 1970s, its recent growth and further institutionalization into a mature business sector has been built on parents’ insecurity. This institutionalization marks Japanese supplementary education as a high-intensity system.

Out of the Shadows: The Global Intensification of Supplementary Education International Perspectives on Education and Society, Volume 22, 3
21 Copyright r 2013 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3679/doi:10.1108/S1479-3679(2013)0000022003

3

4

JULIAN DIERKES

Originality/Value
Juku is particularly interesting in comparative perspective since Japan contains a highly institutionalized form of “hyper-education.” Keywords: Japan; juku; corporatization; service industry; curriculum; innovation

INTRODUCTION: THE SUPPLEMENTARY EDUCATION INDUSTRY IN JAPAN
DEFINITIONS AND TERMINOLOGY Juku and yobiko are central to the history and institutionalization of the Japanese supplementary education industry over the past 40 years. Given the unique Japanese character of the juku phenomenon, precise definitions of it that can be easily understood by non-Japanese readers are difficult to come by. The most common English equivalent is “cram school.” An alternative English term centers on the notion of “shadow education” (Bray, 1999; Stevenson & Baker, 1992). Juku providers generally “shadow” the curriculum and pedagogy of conventional schools very closely and precisely. This term also carries some negative connotations (“shady,” as in illegitimate). Importantly, the existence of juku has long been perceived by the Japanese public as something that is undesirable and unfortunate, yet “can’t be helped.” In Japan, as elsewhere, earlier supplementary education existed entirely in the shadow of conventional schools. But it has become more and more mainstream. This is true in supplementary education’s ubiquity in East Asian cities, but also indicated by the significant corporate mergers in this sector that have taken place in Germany and France, where the tax deductibility of supplementary education has further drawn it from any “shadow” that it may have inhabited in the past.

HISTORY OF SUPPLEMENTARY EDUCATION The institutionalization of supplementary education in Japan over the past 40 years is clearly rooted in a prior history of pedagogy and school institutions. Through the Edo era, education occurred primarily within terakoya and various academies established by feudal lords. Importantly, all these forms of organized education (as opposed to the employment of personal

The Insecurity Industry: Supplementary Education in Japan

5

tutors) were private and focused on individual teachers. In terms of their pedagogy these forms of education focused primarily on a recitation of classical knowledge. With the Meiji Restoration in 1868, the Japanese state quickly pursued policies to nationalize existing private institutions into a public system of education. During the transition some private educational institutions persisted and others were newly founded, perhaps most famously Keio University that had its start as Keio Gijuku. Despite this prominent example and the general currency of the term juku, few juku existed prior to the advent of the “juku-boom” in the 1970s. Four factors were essential in causing the sudden blossoming of juku and the founding of large numbers of small and medium-sized enterprise (SME) juku. 1970 was an economic watershed for Japan. Household income rapidly grew, the number of children per family declined, and higher education expanded massively and rapidly. Somewhat paradoxically, competition to access the newly “massified” higher education became more intense. Given the strong collective belief (supported by some statistics) in the importance of educational credentials for Japanese men’s careers and life chances, additional investments in education seemed like an obvious choice for many Japanese households. There was a near-unanimous collective belief in the links between investments of time and effort in education and subsequent achievement. During this period juku were founded as small for-profit businesses. SME juku dominated the supplementary education industry through this “bubble” era. Founders often simply continued their practice of tutoring younger students as a part-time job during their university years. Others expressly sought employment in a sector that was free of the perceived strictures of conventional schools, or was seen as a haven to 1970s student activists who had been blacklisted from other employment (Dierkes, 2010). In these early years, founders of SME juku certainly struggled for legitimacy, fighting against reservations on the part of banks to finance them. Throughout the 1980s more corporate education businesses began to emerge from the SME juku. Two trajectories were particularly prevalent. In one stream, urban SME juku began offering classes in additional locations. As these branches multiplied, a corporate structure began to emerge. In another stream, juku emerged out of the publishing and learning aids industry. Yotsuya Otsuka, for example, initially provided sample tests for juku teachers to estimate placement scores for their students. Later, Yotsuya Otsuka began offering courses using their teaching materials, and eventually turned itself into a corporate juku. Enrollment in SME juku

6

JULIAN DIERKES

generally peaked in the early 1990s when the echo baby boom and the affluence of the late bubble combined to pack their classrooms with students. Since then, SME juku enrollments have declined by about half, partly due to the shrinking number of school-age children, but partly due to the competition from the growing corporate supplementary education industry. Some key issues have endured from this brief history of the supplementary education industry. First is a stark contrast between the deliberate lack of tracking in conventional schools and the minute tracking that has been developed by corporate juku. This illustrates a tension between egalitarian aims and individual aspirations in an era of declining birth rates. Juku always provided some assurance to parents that their children are receiving the best opportunities available, and now their operations have increasingly expanded beyond classroom teaching. The supplementary education industry has become somewhat of an “insecurity industry” (fuan sangyo).

SCALE OF SUPPLEMENTARY EDUCATION IN CONTEMPORARY JAPAN Few observers would dispute that supplementary education plays a massive role in the contemporary Japanese education system. In the years since the initial juku-boom, the supplementary education system has become firmly institutionalized and well-entrenched. Attendance varies significantly across ages and regions of residence. In a November 2007 survey of all parents of children at public elementary and middle schools nationwide (Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, 2008), the Ministry of Education found that attendance at juku rose monotonically through grades 1
9, from 16% in grade 1, through 38% in grade 6, to 65% in grade 9. These rates are generally up from a 2002 survey, though just below the peak of 1993. Over the span of four surveys (1988, 1993, 2002, 2007) the figure for grade 9 fluctuated from 47% to 67%, 62.5%, and 65%. The overwhelming majority of students covered by the surveys attend classes in Japanese (kokugo) and math (sansu) while middle school students’ attention is more evenly divided between the five examinable subjects (adding social studies (shakai), science (rika), and English to Japanese and math (sugaku)). Across all different categories expenditures have more than doubled since the 1988 survey. Average per student expenditures in 2007 rose from

The Insecurity Industry: Supplementary Education in Japan

7

¥12,000 in lower elementary to ¥18,500 in upper elementary and ¥26,000 for middle school. Nearly half of respondents now spend less than ¥10,000 on elementary school juku, while the distribution is more even for middle school students between the categories 0. x0i represents the explanatory variables, and εi the error terms. For more details on the Tobit model, see Greene (2012) or

121

Private Tutoring in Vietnam

Long (1997). This model is estimated using the software Stata (StataCorp, 2009). Standard errors are clustered at the household level to account for household heterogeneity. As a robustness check, Tobit estimates using household random-effects (not shown) provide very similar results. 24. To minimize the number of missing values due to this logarithmic transformation, this variable is set to 0 for households with zero expenditure on tutoring. 25. The marginal impacts for household propensity to spend is calculated using  actual spendthe formula ∂Eðyi |xi Þ=∂xi ¼ β, and the marginal impacts for household
ing is calculated using the formula ∂Eðyi |xi Þ=∂xi ¼ βΦ x0i β=σ . See Greene (2012) or Long (1997) for more details. 26. These dummy regional variables are for the six regions, North East and West, North Central, South Central Coast, Central Highlands, South East, and Mekong River Delta. The reference region is the Red River Delta (that houses the country’s capital Hanoi). These dummy variables are negative in all the regressions, indicating these regions have lower expenditures on tutoring than the Red River Delta.

REFERENCES Bach, N. (1999). Ha Noi: Chan Chinh Cac Co So Luyen Thi Dai Hoc (Hanoi: Rectifying supplementary education centers for university entrance examinations). Education and Times, 71, p. 5. Banerjee, A., Cole, S., Duflo, E., & Linden, L. (2007). Remedying education: Evidence from two randomized experiments in India. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 122(3), 1235
1264. Baulch, B., Nguyen, H., Phuong, P., & Pham, H. (2010). Ethnic minority poverty in Vietnam. Chronic Poverty Research Center. Working Paper No. 169. Retrieved from http://www. chronicpoverty.org/publications/details/ethnic-minority-poverty-in-vietnam Becker, B. (1990). Coaching for the scholastic aptitude test: Further synthesis and appraisal. Review of Educational Research, 60(3), 373
417. Becker, G. (1993). Human capital
A theoretical and empirical analysis with special reference to education (3rd ed.), Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Becker, G., & Lewis, H. (1973). On the interaction between the quantity and quality of children. Journal of Political Economy, 81(2), S279
S288. Bray, M. (1999). The shadow education system: Private tutoring and its implications for planners. Paris: UNESCO Institute for Educational Planning. Bray, M. (2009). Confronting the shadow education system: What government policies for what private tutoring? Paris: International Institute for Educational Planning. Bray, M., & Lykins, C. (2012). Shadow education: Private supplementary tutoring and its implications for policy makers in Asia. Mandaluyong City: Asian Development Bank. Briggs, D. (2001). The effect of admissions test preparation: Evidence from NELS: 88. Chance, 14(1), 10
18. Buchmann, C., Condron, D., & Roscigno, V. (2010). Shadow education, american style: Test preparation, the SAT and college enrollment. Social Forces, 89(2), 435
61. Byun, S., & Park, H. (2012). The academic success of East Asian American youth: The role of shadow education. Sociology of Education, 85(1), 40
60.

122

HAI-ANH DANG

Chu, H., & Kien, A. (2001a). Thay Gi O Cac Lo Luyen (What we see in supplementary education centers). Education and Times, 73, p. 6. Chu, H. (2002). Luyen Thi Cap Toc O Ha Noi: Nhung Chuyen Chi Co O Thang 6 (Cramming in Hanoi: Things that only happen in June). Education and Times, 73, p. 2. Dang, H. (2007). The determinants and impact of supplementary education classes in Vietnam. Economics of Education Review, 26(6), 684
699. Dang, H. (2008). Supplementary education in Vietnam: An investigation of its causes and impacts with policy implications. Saarbrucken, Germany: VDM Verlag. Dang, H. (2012). Vietnam: A widening poverty gap for ethnic minorities. In G. Hall & H. Patrinos (Eds.), Indigenous peoples, poverty and development (pp. 304
343). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Dang, H. (2013). Review of shadow education: Private supplementary tutoring and its implications for policy makers in Asia by M. Bray & C. Lykins. Comparative Education Review, 57(2), 334
335. Dang, H., & Glewwe, P. (2009). An analysis of learning outcomes for Vietnam. Report submitted to the World Bank. Dang, H., King, E., & Waite, J. (2013). Teacher effort and responses to monetary and nonmonetary incentives: Evidence from a low-income country. Washington, DC: World Bank. (Draft version). Dang, H., & Rogers, H. (2008). The growing phenomenon of supplementary education: Does it deepen human capital, widen inequalities, or waste resources? World Bank Research Observer, 23(2), 161
200. Dang, H. & Rogers, H. (2013). The decision to invest in child quality over quantity: household size and household investment in education in Vietnam. Working Paper No. 6487. World Bank Development Research Group. Retrieved from http://www-wds.worldbank.org/ external/default/WDSContentServer/IW3P/IB/2013/06/17/000158349_20130617114828/ Rendered/PDF/WPS6487.pdf Davies, S. (2004). School choice by default? Understanding the demand for supplementary education in Canada. American Journal of Education, 110(3), 233
255. Dinh, L. (1999). Chan Chinh Day Them
Hoc Them Viec Lam Can Thiet (Rectifying the supplementary education situation is necessary). Education and Times, 27, p. 5. Dinh, L. (2001). Luyen Thi Dai Hoc O TP. HCM: Di Tim Tia … Hy Vong (Cramming for university entrance examinations in Ho Chi Minh City: In search of a Glimpse of Hope). Education and Times, 76, p. 2. General Statistical Office (GSO). (2003). Statistical yearbook of Vietnam 2002. Hanoi, Vietnam: Statistical Publishing House. General Statistical Office (GSO). (2006). Vietnam Household Living Standards survey, 2006. Retrieved from http://www.gso.gov.vn/default_en.aspx?tabid=515&idmid=5&ItemID= 8183 General Statistical Office (GSO). (2012). Statistical yearbook of Vietnam 2011. Hanoi, Vietnam: Statistical Publishing House. Glewwe, P., & Kremer, M. (2006). School, teachers, and education outcomes in developing countries. In E. Hanushek & F. Welch (Eds.), Handbook of the Economics of Education (950-1007). North Holland: Elsevier B.V. Greene, W. (2012). Econometric analysis (7th ed.), New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Hall, G. & Patrinos, H. (Eds.) (2012). Indigenous peoples, poverty and development. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Private Tutoring in Vietnam

123

Hoai, N. (2013). Nha` gia´o, phụ huynh ’bẻ’ thoˆng tư 17 về dạy theˆm học theˆm (Teachers and Parents Picking at Circular 17 on Private Tutoring). Retrieved from http://dantri.com.vn/ giao-duc-khuyen-hoc/nha-giao-phu-huynh-be-thong-tu-ve-day-them-hoc-them-688338.htm Huynh, C. (2005). Day Them Hoc Them, Mot Van De Can Phai Thong Nhat Nhan Dinh (Supplementary education, one issue that need a common viewpoint). Teaching and Learning Today, 1/2, pp. 41
42. Jacob, B., & Lefgren, L. (2004). Remedial education and student achievement: A regressiondiscontinuity analysis. Review of Economics and Statistics, 86(1), 226
244. Jayachandran, S. (2013). Incentives to teach badly? After-school tutoring in developing countries. Working Paper. Department of Economics, Northwestern University. (Draft version). Khanh, B. (2013). Quản ly´ dạy theˆm, học theˆm: Ta˘ng mức xử phạt, co´ khả thi hơn? (Regulating Private Tutoring: Is Increasing Punishment More Feasible?) Retrieved from http://sggp.org. vn/giaoduc/2013/3/313887/ Kim, S., & Lee, J. (2010). Supplementary education and demand for education in South Korea. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 58(2), 259
296. Kuan, P. (2011). Effects of cram schooling on mathematics performance: Evidence from junior high students in Taiwan. Comparative Education Review, 55(3), 342
368. Lavy, V., & Schlosser, A. (2005). Targeted remedial education for underperforming teenagers: Costs and benefits. Journal of Labor Economics, 23(4), 839
874. Long, J. (1997). Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Mac, V. (2002). Day Them, Hoc Them
Y Kien Nguoi Trong Cuoc (Supplementary education
Insider opinions). Education Development, p. 5. Ministry of Education and Training (MOET). (2001). Bo GDDT Tra Loi Kien Nghi Cua Cu Tri Ve Day Them Hoc Them (Ministry of education and training’s answers to national assembly delegates’ questions on supplementary education). Education and Times, 73, p. 4. Ministry of Education and Training (MOET). (2002). Hoi Nghi Tong Ket Tuyen Sinh Dai Hoc, Cao Dang Nam 2002 Va Trien Khai Cong Tac Tuyen Sinh Nam 2003 (Report on Conference Summarizing University and College Admission Activities 2002 and Implementing University and College Admission Activities 2003). Vinh, Vietnam. Ministry of Education and Training (MOET). (2006a). Education statistics on numbers of students taking university entrance examination and numbers of places available for the years 1993
1998. Hanoi: MOET. Ministry of Education and Training (MOET). (2006b). Decision 19/2006/Q-BGDT. Retrieved from http://thuvienphapluat.vn/archive/Quyet-dinh-19-2006-QD-BGDDT-Quy-che-thi-totnghiep-trung-hoc-co-so-pho-thong-sua-doi-17-2002-QD-BGD-DT-13-2004-QD-BGD-DT06-2005-QD-BGD-DT-vb12051.aspx Ministry of Education and Training (MOET). (2007). Quy ịnh về Dạy Theˆm, Học Theˆm (Regulations on supplementary education). Retrieved from http://vanban.moet.gov.vn/? page=1.15&script=viewdoc&view=6521&opt=brpage Ministry of Education and Training (MOET). (2012). Thoˆng tư 17 Ban ha`nh Quy ịnh về Dạy Theˆm, Học Theˆm (Circular no 17 providing regulations on supplementary education). Retrieved from http://thuvienphapluat.vn/archive/Thong-tu-17-2012-TT-BGDDT-day-hocthem-vb139414.aspx Nam, V. (2002). Cac Ong Chu Lo Luyen (Owners of supplementary education centers). Education and Times, 70, p. 2.

124

HAI-ANH DANG

National Assembly of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. (NASRV). (1991) 8th Legislature, 9th Session. Law on universalization of primary education 1991. Retrieved from http://www.vietlaw.gov.vn/LAWNET/docView.do?docid=2221&type=html National Assembly of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. (NASRV). (2005) 11th legislature, 7th session, education law 2005. Retrieved from http://www.edu.net.vn/ National Assembly of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. (NASRV). (2009). Law No 44/2009/ QH12. Retrieved from http://www.chinhphu.vn/portal/page/portal/chinhphu/hethongvanban? class_id=1&mode=detail&document_id=92515 Nguyen, V. (2002). Day Them, Hoc Them: Mot Van De Con Nhieu Nhuc Nhoi (Supplementary education: A Thorny Issue). Education Maganize, 27, pp. 42
44. Nguyen, B., Albretch, J., Vroman, S., & Westbrook, M. (2007). A quantile regression decomposition of urban
rural inequality in Vietnam. Journal of Development Economics, 83, 466
490. Ono, H. (2007). Does examination hell pay off? A cost-benefit analysis of ‘Ronin’ and college education in Japan. Economics of Education Review, 26(3), 271
284. Pham, M. (1998). Vietnam’s education: The current position and future prospects. Hanoi, Vietnam: The Gioi Publishers. Pham, L., & Fry, G. (2004). Universities in Vietnam: Legacies, challenges, and prospects. In P. Altbach & T. Umakoshi (Eds.), Asian universities: Historical perspectives and contemporary challenges. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Pham, Q., & Sloper, D. (1995). Funding and financial issues. In D. Sloper & L. Can (Eds.), Higher education in Vietnam: Change and response. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press. Phi, Q. (1999). Ha Noi: Mua Luyen Thi (Hanoi: Cramming season). Education and Times, 31, p. 5. Powers, D., & Rock, D. (1999). Effects of coaching on SAT I: Reasoning test scores. Journal of Educational Measurement, 36(2), 93
118. Silova, I., Budiene, V., & Bray, M. (2006). Education in a hidden marketplace: Monitoring of private tutoring. Budapest: Education Support Program of the Open Society Institute. StataCorp. (2009). Stata statistical software: Release 11. College Station, TX: StataCorp LP. Tran, C., Thiep, L., & Sloper, D. (1995). The organization and management of higher education in Vietnam: An overview. In D. Sloper & L. Can (Eds.), Higher education in Vietnam: Change and response. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press. VnExpress. (2008). Trẻ lớp 1 dược diểm thấp vı` khoˆng dến nha` coˆ học them (First-Graders suffer bad grades for not attending tutoring classes at their teachers). Retrieved from http:// vnexpress.net/GL/Ban-doc-viet/Xa-hoi/2008/10/3BA06FE9/ VnExpress. (2011a). a˜ dến lu´c no´i khoˆng với dạy theˆm cưỡng bức (It is time to say no to compulsory tutoring lessons). Retrieved from http://vnexpress.net/gl/xa-hoi/giao-duc/2011/02/ da-den-luc-noi-khong-voi-day-them-cuong-buc/ VnExpress. (2011b). Ha` Nội cấm dạy theˆm cho học sinh tiểu học (Hanoi forbids tutoring lessons for primary students). Retrieved from http://vnexpress.net/gl/xa-hoi/2011/04/ha-noi-camday-them-cho-hoc-sinh-tieu-hoc-1/ World Bank. (2000). Vietnam living standards survey, 1997
1998: Basic information. Washington, DC: Poverty and Human Resources Division. World Bank. (2003). Vietnam development report 2004. Hanoi, Vietnam: Joint Donor Report to the Vietnam Consultative Group Meeting. World Bank. (2006). Accelerating vietnam rural development: Growth, equity and diversification. Washington, DC: East Asian and Pacific Region, Rural Development and Natural Resources Sector Unit.

Private Tutoring in Vietnam

125

World Bank. (2012). Vietnam Poverty Assessment Report 2012: Well begun, not yet done: Vietnam’s remarkable progress on poverty reduction and the emerging challenges. Hanoi, Vietnam: World Bank. World Bank. (2013). World development indicators. Washington, DC: World Bank Group. Retrieved from http://databank.worldbank.org/data/views/variableSelection/selectvariables. aspx?source=world-development-indicators Zhang, Y. (2013). Does private tutoring improve students’ National College Entrance Exam performance? A case study from Jinan, China. Economics of Education Review, 32, 1
28.

No. of sisters, age 15
17

No. of sisters, age 11
14

No. of sisters, age 6
10

No. of sisters, age 0
5

No. of brothers, age 15
17

No. of brothers, age 11
14

No. of brothers, age 6
10

No. of brothers, age 0
5

No. of siblings, age 15
17

No. of siblings, age 11
14

No. of siblings, age 6
10

No. of siblings, age 0
5

Model 1

Model 2

Model 3 −0.507*** (−6.51)

Model 4

−0.369** (−2.57) −0.310** (−2.49) −0.621*** (−5.46) −0.753*** (−5.61)

Model 5

−0.403** * (−2.06) −0.353** (−2.06) −0.770** * (−4.96) −0.742** * (−4.15) −0.357** * (−1.76) −0.290* (−1.69) −0.505** * (−3.54) −0.774** * (−4.35)

Model 6

Determinants of Household (Per Child) Investment in Tutoring Classes, Children Age 6
17, Vietnam 2006.

No. of siblings, age 0
17

Table A.1.

APPENDIX 126 HAI-ANH DANG

−11980 8373 5046

−11953 8373 5046

−11916 8373 5046

−11910 8373 5046

−11908 8373 5046

1930.27

Note: * p < 0.1, * * p < 0.05, ** * p < 0.01; robust t-statistics in parentheses accounts for clustering at the household level. All regressions control for regional dummy variables.

Log likelihood No. of children No. of left-censored observations

χ2 −12171 8373 5046

0.045 (0.98) −0.310** * (−2.81) 0.151** * (7.11) 1.127** * (7.72) 1.145** * (6.66) −13.187** * (−9.02) 4.089** * 3.470** *

3.881** *

(4.93)

0.694

0.045 (0.99) −0.305*** (−2.81) 0.152*** (7.14) 1.129*** (7.53) 1.141*** (6.64) −13.228*** (−9.05) 4.090***

3.887***

(4.92)

0.856** * (3.79) 1.681** *

2.302** *

0.039 (0.85) −0.333*** (−3.06) 0.150*** (7.04) 1.095*** (7.53) 1.171*** (6.83) −12.837*** (−8.78) 4.095***

0.849*** (3.77) 1.673***

−0.332** * (−6.08)

ρ

0.044 (0.96) −0.243* * (−2.24) 0.170* ** (7.99) 1.016* ** (6.93) 1.336* ** (7.78) −13.174* ** (−8.95) 4.122* **

−0.331*** (−6.06)

σe

σ σu

Constant

Urban (1=Urban, 0=Rural)

Log of household expenditure

Head’s years of schooling

Sex (1= Male, 0=Female)

Age

0.307*** (16.58) −0.261** (−2.39) 0.180*** (8.38) 1.057*** (7.17) 1.340*** (7.78) −16.659*** (−11.93) 4.141***

3.892***

4.094* **

0.302** * (16.02) −0.258** (−2.33) 0.248** * (11.75) 1.299** * (8.69) 1.552** * (8.75) −15.503** * (−10.88) 4.245** *

(4.97)

(5.54) 4.187***

Upper secondary school

Ethnic majority (1=majority, 0=minority)

0.847*** (3.85) 1.688***

0.894* ** (4.09) 1.870* **

−0.324*** (−5.93)

−0.330* ** (−6.05)

Lower secondary school

Years before last grade

Private Tutoring in Vietnam 127

SUPPLEMENTARY EDUCATION IN BRAZIL: DIVERSITY AND PARADOXES Alexandre Ventura and Candido Gomes ABSTRACT Purpose
This piece of research provides an overview on supplementary education in Brazil based on the available literature. Methodology/approach
Literature review. Findings
In a country plenty of social and educational contrasts, student failure and high repetition rates in basic education are the main factors of supplementary education flourishing. Additional factors are the quick expansion of access at all levels of schooling and the ascension of a new lower middle class that can afford to pay for supplementary tutoring. Tutors at their homes and in small offices are still one of the most common means for students who want to overcome their difficulties and improve their knowledge and skills. However, franchising outlets have grown since the 1980s and in particular the 1986 with the winds of globalization. Their most important branches are foreign languages and preparatory courses, especially for college entrance and public servant selection examinations. This branch of business has been financially very

Out of the Shadows: The Global Intensification of Supplementary Education International Perspectives on Education and Society, Volume 22, 129
151 Copyright r 2013 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3679/doi:10.1108/S1479-3679(2013)0000022006

129

130

ALEXANDRE VENTURA AND CANDIDO GOMES

attractive for entrepreneurs. Official data on family budget show that families spend each year a significant amount of resources, impacting the sophistication and complexity of the supplementary education market. In sum, supplementary education is a result of quality deficiencies and inequity. At the same time, it increases the lack of equity between students from different human capital backgrounds. Research limitations (if applicable)
Main limitation is that research on supplementary education in Brazil is still recent and scarce. On the other hand, till now, no public policy has paid attention to this phenomenon. Practical implications
Public policy, research, and evaluation fields must consider the phenomenon of supplementary education in Brazil as an important variable contributing to inequity and to academic performance. This chapter calls attention to the need of increasing research on this issue. Social implications
As it is more valued and easily available to relatively more privileged social groups, supplementary education in Brazil contributes to increasing education inequity. Originality/value
This chapter contributes to improving knowledge on supplementary education in Brazil, and its causes and implications. This portrait of the Brazilian scenario can also be instrumental for comparative education purposes at regional and global levels. Keywords: Private supplementary tutoring; Brazil; education market; equity

“Brazil is the country of the future” and “God is Brazilian” are some of the excessively proud expressions that reflect the grandeur and contrasts that exist between the many countries that make up Brazil. One of the borders that crosses the country internally is that between those who avail themselves of supplementary education and those who do not. The large and growing supplementary education sector in Brazil can be divided roughly into offerings that are focused on accompanying primary and secondary education, and those that are specifically aimed at facilitating the transition into higher education. While the former are rooted in perceptions of the quality of conventional schools, the latter are aimed at least partly at the cost-savings that parents might achieve if students are

Supplementary Education in Brazil: Diversity and Paradoxes

131

able to enter public universities. This latter cost-saving gives rise to an odd pattern where Brazilian families with higher education aspirations and some economic resources are able to invest these resources in preparatory courses for entrance examinations that give their children access to lowerfee higher education opportunities. With an area of more than 8.5 million square kilometers (OEI, 2013), Brazil, a member of the G20, is currently considered an emerging country; it is also characterized by a wide range of social, sectorial and regional inequalities. A little over half a century ago around half the population of the country was concentrated in cities. The economy divided itself between exports of primary products and industrial production that substituted for imports. The two Brazils of the time melded into a complex mosaic that ranged from the export of commodities, to tourism, finance, and other services. The export-oriented economy only arrived in the 1990s, increasing the economic concentration and the precariousness of working conditions. According to the 2010 Census, 91.2% of the population resides in cities, out of a total of 190 million inhabitants (Brazil, Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatı´ stica
IBGE, 2012). The same Census detected 57.4 million homes, of which 3.2 million were considered to be “substandard,” where 6.4% of the population lived. Following a period of high debt accumulation, both internal and external, and vulnerability to international crises, Brazil has been able to overcome inflation and reach a relative level of fiscal responsibility. Its convalescence, in the form of high growth and a somewhat more equal distribution of income, only got underway at the beginning of the 2000s. By 2009 the percentages of earned income for the richest and the poorest reached 42.8% and 1%, respectively (Brazil, Ipeadata, 2013a). Even though the poor continue, as in the parable, to wait for the crumbs to fall from the table of the rich, a small change was enough to provoke real revolution in consumption and social mobility, giving rise to substantial domestic consumption. Brazil is a federal state with three levels of government: federal, state, and municipal, whose complexity and regional diversity are obstacles to a fluid functioning. In the history of education, periods of centralization alternate with periods of decentralization, accompanied by periods of political closure or openness. A slow process of decentralization has been underway since the early 1980s, while at the same time the federal government has maintained its importance to formulating policy and providing technical and financial support to the states and municipalities. Each state has its own education system, while the municipalities can decide when to set up their own education system, having fulfilled the necessary conditions to do so. The 1996

132

ALEXANDRE VENTURA AND CANDIDO GOMES

General Education Act has an important role in the process of decentralization, in-line with the notion of a federal state. The most basic levels of education are the most decentralized, starting with early childhood education (ISCED 0). At this level, in 2011 some 71% of enrollments were the responsibility of the municipalities. Considering that this percentage was 66% in 2001, the slow progress of decentralization can be seen, both at this and subsequent levels. In 2011 the enrollments in private institutions accounted for 28.1% of the total, while a decade earlier they were 28.7%. The nine years of primary education (ISCED 1 and 2) are more and more often becoming the responsibility of the municipalities: in 2011 32% of students were enrolled in state-administered institutions, while 54.4% were enrolled in the municipal sector; 10 years earlier these percentages were 42.3% and 48.6%, respectively. In turn, with 85.5% of the enrollments in secondary education (ISCED 3), the states have primary responsibility (in 2001 that number was 82.5%), while at the same time the enrollments in private institutions have been falling, taking 13.6% of the total in 2001 and 12.2% 10 years later. Higher education remains the responsibility of the federal government, following a tradition started in the 19th century when it was a preserve of the elite. Its expansion has come about primarily through private sector activity, which in turn is supervised by the central government: notwithstanding expansion in the public sector, in 2011 72.2% of enrollments were in the private sector institutions, while in 2001 this proportion was 69.0%, not including distance learning (Brazil, Ministe´rio da Educac¸a˜o, 2013). The most significant result from cooperation between the different levels of government is the Basic Education Fund, receiving earmarked tax contributions from states and municipalities, as well as from the central government. This has a leveling effect, reducing regional inequalities. The resources are distributed according to minimum expenditure values per student, by level and type of education.

THE VOICE OF THE MAGIC MIRROR One of the aspects holding Brazil’s development back is education. On the one hand, education historically has been formative for citizenship and a promoter of the common good, yet schooling is seen as instrumental in climbing the social ladder. Because of this, for half a century, the Brazilian educational system was organized like a pyramid, with a wide base, where the number of students would continually decrease on approaching

Supplementary Education in Brazil: Diversity and Paradoxes

133

the peak. This was due first of all to students repeating years and second to students dropping out. This tough internal selection resulted in the development of a parallel structure of supplementary education, a system outside of the officially recognized institutions and in need of more research to gain a proper understanding. The flow of students would start like the Amazon river and, over time, would be transformed into a trickle of water, leading to the creation of a parallel structure of supplementary education. Brazilians have clamored for political solutions to the perception that education has hindered further growth collectively as well as individually. Politicians have responded with a focus on an overall expansion of education and access to higher levels of education, rather than with a focus on quality. Clearly, this focus replicates political choices in many countries around the world with the global expansion of education from the 1960s onward. In 1992, 13.9% of 15 years old completed eight years of compulsory primary schooling (ISCED 1 and ISCED 2
UNESCO. Institute of Statistics, 2012). With the rapid expansion of education, especially after 1996, this number rose to 41.8% by 2009. During the same period the proportion of 18 year olds who completed secondary education (ISCED 3) rose from 7.5% to 32.1%, while the share of 25 year olds and over who had concluded higher education rose from 5.9% to 10.6% (Brazil, Ministry of Education, 2010). Accordingly, the waters of the great education river widened its banks; although floodgates still exist that continue to incentivize supplementary education to flourish. From a low level of participation in preschool education, attendance rises to 91.9% for the age group 6
14 (ISCED 1 and 2) and 50.9% for 15
17 year olds (ISCED 3) (Brazil, Ipea, 2013b). Indeed, in 2011 the annual loss of repeaters due to failure and dropout was higher in the second, sixth, and ninth years of schooling, corresponding respectively to 8.1% (ISCED 1), 19.9% (the challenging transition to ISCED 2), and 14.5% (conclusion of ISCED 2). It is clear that having so many students held back to repeat a year once or more represents a serious loss, both for the individual and for society. While the students are usually accused by parents and teachers for failures, due to a lack of capability or application to their studies (Ireland et al., 2007), nothing is said as regards the responsibility of the schools. In secondary education (ISCED 3) the situation is worse: repeaters and dropouts correspond to 29.8% of the enrollment in the 10th year of schooling and to 14.5% in the 11th year (Brazil, Ministe´rio da Educac¸a˜o, 2009). At this level enrollments start to decline. Young people, having previously

134

ALEXANDRE VENTURA AND CANDIDO GOMES

repeated one or more years of schooling, feel the curriculum to be irrelevant and find themselves at an age when they are looking to draw up new plans for their lives (Gomes, Capanema, Leal, & Caˆmara, 2011). In particular, for those years of schooling where most students fail, private tutoring, besides supplementary education in general, becomes more necessary. The number of repeaters in Brazil’s basic education system has declined in recent decades, although it continues to be high. The failure of so many students results from a number of factors: marginally relevant curriculums, primarily concerned with communicating concepts that quickly become obsolete; poorly trained teachers, in a professional career that largely attracts those candidates that are least equipped for higher education; buildings and equipment that are frequently not up to the task; and incapable management, to a large degree subject to political fluctuations, that have great difficulty in making use of the scarce resources. Meanwhile, the parents, for the most part with a lower level of education than that of their children, place great value on schooling, although they are not able to clearly define the reasons for the failure of the students. In choosing a school, they frequently consider how demanding schools are of the student and the proximity to their place of residence. In the case of private schools, the choice is driven by the quality of the buildings and equipment (Branda˜o, Canedo, & Xavier, 2012; Oliveira & Schwartman, 2002; Silva et al., 2002). Homework, in abundance in the schools considered to be more demanding, has become a major stumbling block as the majority of the students cannot complete it unaided. As the level of schooling of the parents is on average low, elder siblings are an important source of help (Ireland et al., 2007). To the parents, the fragility of the results of learning as shown by national and international evaluations and discussed in the mass media is not so obvious; they are more concerned with the difficulties their children are facing over the year, often followed by an end-of-year failure. In this way their children become repeaters, wasting time and family resources. These are the biggest fears: failing the year and becoming a repeater. Because of this, parents who value education and have the resources turn to supplementary education to overcome the learning difficulties of their children. Preparatory courses, largely tuned to develop test-taking skills, are seen as the golden key of success when aspirations for the students are high, such as enrolling in a prestigious technical course or higher education. In addition to attending conventional school, students frequent such courses to boost their knowledge and skills in a bid to face competition. In the course of this work, supplementary education is held to mean all types

Supplementary Education in Brazil: Diversity and Paradoxes

135

of courses and explanatory sessions that are not recognized by the formal education system but follow the curriculum that conventional schools adhere to. This type of education is predominately private and paid for by the students and/or their families. The public sector furnishes, free of charge, supplementary education in almost all cases when students with difficulties can be brought together outside of normal class hours for programs designed to help catch-up with learning. One of the forms of supplementary education is private tutoring, referring to instruction carried out individually or in small groups most frequently offered by teachers to students with learning difficulties, but also, as in the case of foreign language classes and other subjects, with the objective of increasing effectiveness. This competition gives rise to supplementary education on a wide scale, such as preparatory courses, didactic materials, and tutoring. The most important point of selection in the Brazilian education system is the passage from basic education to higher education. This level is no longer the exclusive preserve of the elite, due to democratization policies, including the adoption over the last decade of affirmative policies in favor of ethnic minorities and underprivileged social groups. Today it is relatively easy to gain entry in to a college of education, but it continues to be difficult to gain access to more contested fields, such as medicine and engineering. At the same time, it is easier to gain entry in to a private higher education institution compared to a public institution, which, according to the Constitution, must be free. While levels of employment have been maintained, the cost/benefit relationship has been shown to be positive. If they had declined, it would still be worthwhile, as in other countries, to cushion the fall in situations of credential inflation. As such, the investment in supplementary education still has a guaranteed return. The family or personal investment pays off given that it is a catalyst for academic, professional, and social success. Public spending on education has increased substantially in the last decades: in 2000, it represented 4.7% of GDP having increased to 5.8% by 2010. Meanwhile, inequalities remain, favoring higher education to the detriment of basic education, where the most socially vulnerable section of the population is enrolled. Basic education (ISCED levels 0
3) that year received 4.9%, where 0.4% went to preschool (ISCED 0), 1.5% went to the first four years of schooling (ISCED 1), 1.2% went to went to the next four years (ISCED 2) and 0.6% went to secondary education (ISCED 3) (Brazil, Ministry of Education, 2013). The differences are more obvious when taking into account the average annual outlay per student: besides being much

136

ALEXANDRE VENTURA AND CANDIDO GOMES

lower than those countries classed as developed, it was US$2,024 for basic education as compared to US$10,161 for higher education (Brazil, Ministry of Education, 2013).1 The gap between both has declined to historically low levels, in particular from 1995 onward, but continues to be noticeable. While this is the state of public spending, it is also necessary to describe the private educational spending as part of family budgets, considering the family as a consumption unit. There are methodological difficulties in making comparisons with previous research, due to questions of category groupings, but this category of spending has increased in real terms. The most recent survey, in 2008, found that, faced with general limitations, such expenditures were relatively low, on the order of 2.5% of the total outlay (Table 1), and concentrated in urban areas which represented 96.2% of the total. Looking at the total sample, it can be seen that higher education courses account for a larger share of expenditure than regular basic education, Table 1. Monetary and Nonmonetary Educational Expenditure: Average Yearly Total Outlay per Family and by Extreme Classes of Incomes, 2008 (In PPP Dollars for Family Consumption). Categories

Education (total) Compulsory schooling (except higher education) Higher education Other courses and activities Didactical books and technical Journals School articles Others Number of families % of all families Average number of people

Total

Up to US$ 510.42a

More Than US$ 6,380.00

US$

% of total

US$

% of total

US$

% of total

478.32 124.20

2.5 0.6

50.4 7.08

0.9 0.1

3,020.52 971.28

2.9 0.9

151.08

0.8

4.80

0.1

925.20

0.9

114.48 20.52

0.6 0.1

8.28 4.32

0.2 0.1

811.32 114.12

0.8 0.1

39.42

0.2

21.84

0.4

80.40

0.1

28.80 48,808,989

0.1

3.96 8,820,720

0.1

118.20 2,128,377

0.1

100.0

18.1

3.2

2.9

4.4 3.3

Source: Brazil, Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (2010). a The group with monthly income up to US$510.42 includes families without any income. The number of families corresponds to the extended national sample.

Supplementary Education in Brazil: Diversity and Paradoxes

137

given the high proportion of enrollments in private institutions, and notwithstanding government financial assistance. According to the stated definitions, supplementary education was included in “other courses and activities” and “others,” even, as is in this case, leading to some overestimation. The lowest income group displayed very limited spending, but it is worth noting that “other courses and activities” were more important than “regular courses,” implying that some part of the population, participating in state education, resorted to supplementary education, even though this category included adult education, free by definition in the public sector. In contrast, the top income sector, spent less on higher education courses than compulsory education, in its way reflecting a perverse zigzag: the best private compulsory education increases the probability of gaining access to public higher education which is free. There is no data regarding these types of investment in basic education, however, in principle, the parents can choose between different options: (1) private schooling, with a larger or smaller component of supplementary education, that can reach a significant level of costs; (2) private schooling without recourse to supplementary education, having a moderate level of costs; (3) public schooling, employing a larger or smaller component of supplementary education; (4) public schooling without recourse to supplementary education, resulting in the lowest level of costs. The average number of people per family, less in the higher income groups, reflects the slowdown in population growth whose annual rate of 3.1% in 1950
1955 fell to only 1.3% in 2000
2005 and finally to 0.9% in 2005
2010 (United Nations, 2013). The extended sample makes it possible to estimate family spending on supplementary education. When multiplying the number of families by their respective spending, a tendency can be seen for spending to rise over time. Concentrated in the cities, the total of US$6,993,600,000 per year is far from being residual for an emerging economy. For the lowest income group, including those without income, this represents approximately US $912,000,000 million per month reaching US$198,000,000 in the top group. The biggest part of the financial effort seems to fall on the intermediary income groups, suggesting that expenditures weigh relatively more heavily on their budgets. In the total extended sample educational expenses corresponded to 2.5% of total expenditures, while for the top group they were 2.9%. “Other courses and activities,” adding in the other expenditures, were 0.7% and 0.9%, respectively. Of course, these numbers refer to averages, not accounting for measures of variance. .

138

ALEXANDRE VENTURA AND CANDIDO GOMES

HISTORICAL PROFILE Brazil became part of history when the great Portuguese navigators attributed it the economic role of tropical agriculture (Furtado, 1963). With slave labor, education was almost entirely only for the elite and privately provided by the Jesuits. In the period of enlightenment, when Brazil became a great producer of gold and diamonds, the Marquis of Pombal, a controversial prime minister, expelled the Jesuits from all Portuguese territories, looking to substitute religious teachings with those of the state. In Brazil, this reform was much less successful than in the metropolis. During this long break without schools, even though funding was tight, courses were taught separately, thereby making the students responsible for integrating the elements of the curriculum. This structure remained until the 1930s and 1940s when basic education gained real substance (Azevedo, 1963; Sakkis, Carvalho, & Santos, 2000). With the courses offered in disaggregated course groupings and teachers frequently unpaid, home teaching became an important form of supplementary education, latterly certified by exams, so substituting for regular schools. Teachers went to the homes of students or the students went to the homes of teachers, while part of the elite hired exclusive tutors, often living in their homes. Home classes were offered by paid teachers or by members of the family and clerics, who did not charge for lessons. The tendency was to follow a timetable and the programs from the few colleges that existed. For example, in Rio de Janeiro in the beginning of the 1920s, the grandfather of one of the authors of this work waited for his six daughters and stepdaughters to finish primary school to organize a coherent curriculum for Portuguese and French, mathematics and piano, with private teachers at home. Over the course of the 19th and early 20th century, home schooling continued, although losing importance, while private and public schools were being created (Azevedo, 1963; Vieira, 2012). The ideas associated with democratic public schools, inspired by the French and in particular the Americans, only gained real acceptance in the 1920s and 1930s, when they started having some influence on public policy. Schools with official certification, either federal or state, then became the ultimate goal for families.

SHADOWS OF BASIC EDUCATION The darkest of shadows hang over basic education, whose remit involves the majority of the least empowered people. Even so, basic education is

Supplementary Education in Brazil: Diversity and Paradoxes

139

historically more extensive in early childhood. Official and private establishments, with these being divided into legal and extralegal, took in a small percent of the children whose parents sought care. Moreover, women provided and still provide services, taking care of children, often together with their offspring, receiving only modest payment. The more acute became the needs of child care and education, the more this segment became the subject of social and political movements, which usually received a significant payback in popular votes (Kramer, 1982). As such, a wide spectrum of relatively fragile institutions became established, included in the third sector and subsidized by the governments. The second phase was brought about by the 1996 General Law for Education, known as the Darcy Ribeiro Law, after the outspoken social anthropologist that developed and drafted the law. Here education is predominant over care, establishing the first level of childhood education (ISCED 0) as part of basic education. The third sector activities remain, as well as home care for children, while the public sector moves on apace (Brazil, Ministe´rio da Educac¸a˜o, 2013). The statistical data is limited to the school censuses, but what is certain is that many entities from the third sector and, overall, home support, are not covered by this network. It is thus very difficult to estimate the actual extent of subscription to supplementary education services at this level. Meanwhile, the expansion of enrollment in all educational levels also induced the growth of private tutors, as individuals or businesses, sometimes acting remotely. The fear of failing a year and the difficulties that parents have in supporting their children’s learning, either because their level of schooling is insufficient or because they work such long hours as to be unable to help, both appear to be motives for seeking help from private tutors, almost always women. A national survey showed that, contrary to the opinion of the teachers, students are not able to do their homework by themselves, which becomes a barrier to educational democratization. In many cases, especially where families are on low incomes, the older siblings that have more years of schooling give help to the younger ones, given the backdrop of blame and self-blame of the student for poor performance (Ireland et al., 2007). On the other hand, Carvalho (2004) points to the negative role of household chores for equality, given that it is based on two suppositions: that the parents have time to create space for learning at home and that the parents would like to refresh their knowledge and go back to school. As both are not seen in practice, people will resort to a strategy of rhetoric, blaming the negligence of the parents. Private tutors often find themselves playing the role that the school expects of parents. Here, two studies, of an ethnographic nature, were

140

ALEXANDRE VENTURA AND CANDIDO GOMES

employed to analyze cases of private tutors in the outskirts of Rio de Janeiro. The private tutors, who are generally capable, engage with small groups, or on an individual, one-to-one basis, in informal environments, such as verandas, back yards, or dining rooms. Relying on their knowledge gained from their experience with helping students with difficulties, it is not uncommon to see these tutors using traditional teaching methodologies, such as exercise books for calligraphy and multiplication tables. They had between and 45 students in different shifts, generally ranging from first readers to the end of primary education (ISCED 2), who stay for two to three hours daily. Students from private schools are most in evidence, not because they are more able, but because their parents have more resources to pay for tutoring, further widening the inequality gap in the social system. In these cases, the specter of being held back a year, with the personal and family shame associated to this situation, or being transferred to a public school incentivize the students to study in earnest, while for parents it makes financial sense to pay a tutor rather than run the risk of losing a school year. Therefore, parents with higher income were able to pay private schools as well as tutors. This “double booster” (private school and tutoring) generates a double inequality besides the human capital differences of the families. Tutors’ monthly charge is between US$15.76 and US$31.53 per student, translating into a monthly income range of approximately US$94.58 to US $772.43 (with GNP per capita US$8,810 per annum or US$734 per month). Many tutors suffered frustrating experiences in private schools, which illegally retain teachers without a written work contract. So, they have to teach in precarious labor conditions in private schools. To some degree, since tutors earn a living from informal and precarious work in peripheral neighborhoods, they find themselves in the same type of socioeconomic conditions as the families of their students. For spreading the word of the services on offer, tutors used the network of relationships between parents and their neighbors, along with posters hung in their homes. In general, they deliver what they promise; that is, they prevent students from becoming repeaters, and were known and recommended on this basis. In some cases, as in the rest of the country, the tutors are completely invisible, given that they remain in the shadows and can only be located by asking people in the neighborhood (Mattos, 2007; Nascimento, 2007). It was, as such, a business in the shadows, as much for being interwoven into the social fabric as by the fact that it represented a black market activity. We can classify those very common tutors in the category of “informal supplementary education,” considering that they were not institutionalized as formal businesses.

Supplementary Education in Brazil: Diversity and Paradoxes

141

Outside of socially disadvantaged areas, private tutors can be found but they are legally invisible, although the family resources available would permit the setting up of small businesses, besides international franchises, such as Kumon and other brands. Still, even when the tutors work in groups, away from home, it can be difficult to identify them and gain an idea of the size of their business, even if one searches registers and telephone directories. Successful tutors, with many students, are interested in their independence and their own organization. High business costs and complex bureaucracy are obstacles, even if some taxes may be lower for business. To some degree this was the profile of the tutors that were sought for two unrepresentative cases of secondary school colleges (ISCED 3) in Brası´ lia, one public and another private. The risk of failing at school at the last stage of basic education has serious implications, both for further study and for entry into the job market. The certificate obtained on completing school is used as a selection criterion for entry into certain types of job. The results of the studies referred to here detected that 22.0% of students from public schools and 51.9% from private schools resorted to private tutoring on a regular basis, especially in mathematics, physics, chemistry, and biology, in this order of importance. While demand was diverse for the after-hours courses (cursinhos), English was seen to be the most sought after. The average yearly spending in 2008 was US$1,388.88 for public school and US$2,456.40 for the private school students (GNP per capita was US$10,160), reflecting the differences in the socioeconomic level of the families. The poor quality of education and the corresponding school failures contributed to social inequalities. In a cumulative process, since families are endowed with different levels of resources with which they can resolve the difficulties of their children, private tutoring has played a major role in educational and social inequality, accentuating the gap in opportunities and academic and social success. The lack of equality is exacerbated by differences among schools in terms of resources and performance as measured predominantly by standardized tests in national language and mathematics. Limited as they are, schools could play a relevant role, but, in many cases, they are a long way from being capable of providing a good education (Gomes et al., 2010a, 2010b). The aspects previously referred to mean that students and their families feel that the school does not do a competent job in developing students’ minimal competences in reading, writing, and numeracy. A study with English language university students captured an image that the school and

142

ALEXANDRE VENTURA AND CANDIDO GOMES

language courses are dichotomous: the first, especially the public offering, does not teach and even discourages, while the latter teaches, developing both oral and written capabilities (Barcelos, 2006). While this vision can be stereotypical and the language courses can sometimes offer more in the way of appearance than substance (Oliveira & Mota, 2003), the territory is fertile and expansive. In a city of 260,000 inhabitants, analyzing the opinion of private tutoring business managers gathered from semi-structured interviews, Velter, Castro, Silva, Scherer, and Grohmann (2011) concluded that the most influential factor for the sector is the rivalry between competitors, which leads to a search for differentiation. In this city there were eight companies, mainly franchises, that were part of national networks founded between 20 and 45 years ago, consisting of between 71 and almost 1,000 outlets in the country. This portraits, as in many other countries, an increasing market nature of supplementary education in Brazil. Franchising outlets grew, particularly starting in the 1980s and 1990s, with the winds of globalization, being heavily driven by the growth of what would become the new lower middle class, resulting from the economic dynamism and the relative distribution of income. Moreira (2010) compared 17 franchising operations in the city of Sa˜o Paulo. With the first being founded in 1975, around half were established from 2000 onwards. The operations were composed of a total of between 14 and 1,000 outlets, promising the franchisees profit margins of between 25% and 70% and an average monthly turnover of between US$8,840 and US$73,496 per outlet (GNP per capita in US$ 10,980). As a result, data from the Brazilian Franchising Association (Associac¸a˜o Brasileira de Franchising, 2013) placed the education and training sector in eighth place, with a turnover of approximately US$330
US$339 million in 2011. It should be stated that the large scale of networks of language courses and their high business volume allow some publicly available information to be obtained. The same, however, does not widely occur for the so-called “free courses,”2 that encompass sports, recreation, computing, Portuguese writing skills, preparatory courses for a wide range of competitions, and a myriad of simple or combined programs that seek to fulfill the needs of parents and children of all ages. While up to 1971 the state secretaries for education would authorize and inspect the so-called “free courses,” they stopped doing this, precisely because they can operate freely. As such, they receive a license to operate from local government authorities that, in Brazil, are close to 6,000 in number. Because of this, it is very problematic to compare data across jurisdictions. The gigantic dimensions of the Brazilian territory and this micro-level of business records of smaller

Supplementary Education in Brazil: Diversity and Paradoxes

143

businesses operating in the market for private tutoring greatly confound the characterization of the phenomenon at a national level. This factor contributes to the fact that, in practice, this social phenomenon continues to remain largely in the shadows, despite its growing visibility.

THE THRESHOLD OF HIGHER EDUCATION While, as previously mentioned, the culmination of basic education reveals deficiencies in the education system, at the same time, it throws a large percentage of the students into competition for a place in the promised land of federal higher education. The roots of this narrow bottleneck date from 1915, when the number of candidates surpassed the number of places. Because of this, the 1920s saw the birth of “revision courses,” at first in a small way and, later, starting in the 1970s, with large business networks; at the same time, entry exams began to exhibit highly complex features. It should be noted that the conclusion of secondary education (ISCED 3) does not ensure access to the next level. Because of this, the vestibular exam was created in 1911, deriving from the word vestibule, meaning hall or atrium as a passage into specific higher education courses. From this point “revision courses” were transformed into “pre´-vestibular” courses (Whitaker, 2010). This means that the written and standardized exams became the focus of competition. The 1996 General Law of Education sought to create opportunities for innovation, substituting the vestibular exam for selective entry processes. In practice, however, little has changed: the selection continues to be done using written exams, at the maximum dividing the exams into three stages, reflecting the different levels of secondary education (ISCED 3). In this way, this level of basic education, which some teachers defend as formative, succumbed totally to preparatory forces, from start to finish. The rite of passage today is prolonged for three painful years and, in the unbridled competitive process, private schools already publicize the start of preparations from the last year of primary schooling (ISCED 2). The instrumental character of education and the ample opportunities for business converted the path to higher education into a long and painful rite of passage, which engulfs students from both public schools and private schools (Whitaker & Fiamengue, 2001), given that the qualitative differences between them are not so important. It would even be beneficial if the painful pressure would remediate the deficiencies of basic education, but as we know, especially with the current

144

ALEXANDRE VENTURA AND CANDIDO GOMES

stream of standardized tests, evaluation is to the effective process of education what a mask is for a face. It is a camouflage operation of the students’ learning experiences at school. A good evaluation process, more than merely measuring results, seeks to capture reality. Evaluating using tests and exams, as refined as they may be, provokes test-taking skills that benefit those who have learned to do exams and have familiarized themselves with the inevitable tricks involved (see, e.g., Bangert-Drowns, Kulik, & Kulik, 1983; Popham, 2000). Besides this, the large-scale, high-stakes tests also provoke teaching-to-the-test, employin, a tunnel-vision in the approach to the curriculum and a redundancy view to the study materials or practicing competences that are more likely to be tested. Normally, in public or private school, class time does not allow the degree of repetition required by those students that are less academically able or that have higher academic expectations. For this reason, preparatory courses in general (and not only those for entry into higher education) fight for a place: if they are effective, those students that do not participate are disadvantaged. Thus, in addition to the preparation and training throughout secondary education (ISCED 3), vast networks of preparatory free-courses are available, varying in costs, and which act as a kind of booster to the probability of success for those who attend. This bottleneck, which is highly selective from the socioeconomic and sociocultural point of view, caused social movements and universities to create a wide range of alternative preparatory courses, also known as community courses. Drawing on volunteer teachers, these courses allow young people from the more economically disadvantaged levels of society to prepare for examinations. Frequently resulting from the actions of social, union-linked, or religious movements, the genesis of these community courses can be traced to Educafro, a black movement in favor of education dating back to 1990 and which became a notable force during that decade (Whitaker, 2010; Zago, 2008). As these are free courses, quantitative data is fragmented, with 15 being registered in 2000 for the city of Sa˜o Paulo (Bacchetto, 2003) and 97 for the metropolitan region of Rio de Janeiro (Carvalho, 2006). Their common goal has been to offer preparation to students from the general community, at a low cost, so that students can contend for places in the non-fee-paying public institutions as well as for study grants for private institutions. This derives from the fact that their income level is most often insufficient to pay tuition and fees (Rosistolato, Helaye¨l-Neto, & Xavier, 2011), besides the relatively high indirect costs (transport, study materials, equipment, food,

Supplementary Education in Brazil: Diversity and Paradoxes

145

housing, and the opportunity cost, that is, the cost of not working or earning less in order to spend quality time studying). On the other hand, it displays a certain degree of instability, drawing on voluntary teachers that are not always “competitive” with those from the conventional preparatory courses. On this basis some contradictions emerge which are highlighted in the literature: (1) the complexity of the socioeconomic status of the students for whom a low cost of preparation is necessary, but often insufficiently available; (2) the contradiction between the instrumentality of preparation, looking at the same time to develop test-taking skills, and civic responsibility; (3) areas of overlap between social movements and political parties, especially during elections. In the first case, a certain frustration can be seen with the complex nature of the socioeconomic and sociocultural conditions of the students. The socially less fortunate element of the population is characterized by multiple needs, besides the fact that the alternative preparatory courses embody a difficult mission at the end of basic education. In this sense there is a lack of clarity regarding the number of students that in reality were able to gain access to higher education. In Brası´ lia it was found that at least 20% of students were successful in enrolling as grant holders in the Catholic University, which had organized a network of community preparatory courses (Leal & Gomes, 2011). This was the same percentage found by Carvalho (2006) for Rio de Janeiro. The socioeconomic context presents difficulties: a project created by the University of Sa˜o Paulo, in a self-management experiment, founded three income-generating groups, with only one successful, pushing against the flow of globalized capitalism (Roa & Hur, 2010). According to one case study, one of the reasons for weakness was the dropout rate from alternative courses, primarily for reasons not related to the course but to the student’s own survival (Silva, Guerra, Arau´jo, & Almeida, 2010). Meanwhile, in a project of the Catholic University of Brası´ lia, despite the low costs, the “survivors” had substantial prospects of increased income, employability, and intergenerational social mobility in comparison to their peers that did not participate in the predominantly academic course the University offered. Moreover, as the teachers were students that were duly supervised as part of the teacher training courses of the university, the well-founded relationships between theory and practice were one of the strong points of the evaluation. In the face of such difficulties, some political movements, in opposition to a “meritocracy,” turned to defending affirmative actions in favor

146

ALEXANDRE VENTURA AND CANDIDO GOMES

of ethnic minorities and social quotas for the students arriving from public secondary education, so clearly recognized as being of the poorest quality. These proposals were adopted by the Federal Government for their higher education institutions in later years. Social quotas were introduced for exams in 2012 in the heat of the electoral campaign. It is too early to evaluate their impact, although teachers foresee the necessity for profound changes in public institutions: up to this point they have selected only the cream of the cultural capital, while from now on there will be a notable increase in the heterogeneity of the student body. This social engineering intervention by way of political decision-making is at the origin of a very intense debate in Brazilian society. The second contradiction is the simultaneous pursuit of two partially conflicting goals: instrumental preparation for tough competition and an increased awareness, according to Freire’s emancipatory pedagogy (Freire, 2000), of the social conditions of those who are less privileged. Various courses, in accordance with the movements that gave rise to them, adopted subjects that covered topics that do not exist in the vestibular exams, such as human rights, social values, and civic responsibility, besides seeking to enrich the cultural capital by way of films and theater pieces with ensuing debates (Bacchetto, 2003; Mendes, 2011; Mitrulis & Penin, 2006). In this way, Carvalho found himself affiliated with Freire’s pedagogy in written projects, notwithstanding a practice of pre-prepared contents, which had no association with the experiences of the lives of students, along with a lack of cooperative teaching. In this way, the stated values were at odds with the values that could be observed. Taking into account the instrumental vision of the vestibular competitions, it certainly would not be easy to ensure high priority for subjects that were not part of the exam. Finally, for the case of one preparatory course that was part of a social movement, with a necessarily partisan political leaning, controversies and suspicions were raised in relation to the connection that a number of teachers had to a particular political party, as well as the support given to a candidate in the elections (Mendes, 2011). The question was if the enrollment of a student in the preparatory course created and maintained by a social movement with partisan political leaning would not oblige the students to give up their constitutional freedoms, pledging support, even in elections. It was an attempt to influence policy, but one that did not restrict the freedom of choice and expression of the students.

Supplementary Education in Brazil: Diversity and Paradoxes

147

CONCLUSION This chapter analyzed the enormous and growing supplementary education sector in Brazil. Considering the size and the diversity of this country, almost a continent, this is indeed a huge task that can only result in a brief overview of reality. Summarizing, there are two types of approaches: Supplementary education that is focused on accompanying students from primary and secondary education, and supplementary education that is specifically aimed at facilitating students’ entrance into higher education. The Brazilian phenomenon gives rise to a paradox of having middle-class and upper-class families strongly investing in supplementary education during non-higher education stages in order to spend less money with their children during higher education attendance. In Brazil, as in other regions of the world, “there is an increase in the sophistication and complexity” (Neto-Mendes, Costa, Ventura, Azevedo, & Gouveia, 2013, p. 153) of the supplementary education market and the several dimensions that are associated to this phenomenon from the sides of demand, provision, and impact. Given the political decision-making in recent years of reinforcing high stakes testing at all levels of the education system, the tremendous dynamic market approach, and the perceived value for money of the investment made by students and families, one can say that the trend is clearly of strengthening the supplementary education sector in Brazil in the coming years. The more we know about the phenomenon, the more we are concerned about its implications on teaching, learning, and equity. The only solution is to increasingly engage in researching, understanding, and influencing political decision-making according to sustainable research findings.

NOTES 1. All values in this chapter were converted into PPP (Purchasing Power Parity) dollars for family consumption, in conformity with Ipedata (Ipea, 2013), being based on original data from the World Bank World Development Indicators (WDI). 2. Free courses, or cursos livres, refers to courses that are not provided by an institution capable of awarding degrees or diplomas recognized by the State. They are “free” in the sense that there are no rules regarding their workload, course structure or access requirements. Besides academic subjects, they may include some

148

ALEXANDRE VENTURA AND CANDIDO GOMES

sports and physical fitness, beauty, and other areas. Therefore, this definition, of an administrative and bureaucratic nature, is wider than that of supplementary courses.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT This work is financed by FEDER funds through the Operational Program “Thematic Factors of Competitiveness”
COMPETE and by Portuguese national funds through FCT
Foundation for Science and Technology, within the scope of the project “Xplika International
comparative analysis of the private tutoring market in five capital cities” (PTDC/CPE-CED/ 104674/2008).

REFERENCES Associac¸a˜o Brasileira de Franchising. (2013). Desempenho 2011
2012: Faturamento do Setor de Franchising (Performance 2011
2012: Turnover of the Franchising Sector). Portal do Franchising. Available from http://www.portaldofranchising.com.br/site/content/interna/ index.asp?codA=11&codC=13&origem=sobreosetor. (Accessed on March 8, 2013). Azevedo, F. (1963). A cultura brasileira (Brazilian culture). Brası´ lia: Universidade de Brası´ lia. Bacchetto, J. G. (2003). Cursinhos pre´-vestibulares alternativos no Municı´pio de Sa˜o Paulo (1991
2000): A luta pela igualdade no acesso ao ensino superior. (The alternatives for pre´-vestibular courses in the Municipality of Sa˜o Paulo (1991
2000): The fight for equality in the access to higher education.) M.A. Thesis in Education. Sa˜o Paulo, Sa˜o Paulo University. Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. C. (1983). Effects of coaching programs on achievement test performance. Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 571
585, Winter. Barcelos, A. M. F. (2006). Narrativas, crenc¸as e experieˆncias de aprender ingleˆs. [Stories, beliefs and experiences in learning English.] Linguagem & Ensino, 9(2), 145
175, July/December. Carvalho, J. C. B. (2006). Os cursos pre´-vestibulares comunita´rios e seus condicionantes pedago´gicos. [Community pre´-vestibular courses and their pedagogical conditioning factors.] Cadernos de Pesquisa, 36(128), 299
326, May/August. Carvalho, M. E. P. (2004). Escola como extensa˜o da famı´ lia ou famı´ lia como extensa˜o da escola? O dever de casa e as relac¸o˜es famı´ lia-escola. [School as an extension of the family or family as an extension of the school? The duty of the home and the family-school relationship.] Revista Brasileira de Educac¸a˜o, 25, 94
104, January/April. Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum. Gomes, C. A., Mariano, F., Oliveira, A., Barbosa, A., Sousa, J., & Friedrich, N. (2010a). Reforc¸o escolar: Gastos e desigualdades sociais. [Schoolwork support: Spending and social inequalities.] Revista Brasileira de Estudos Pedago´gicos, 91(227), 55
74, January/April.

Supplementary Education in Brazil: Diversity and Paradoxes

149

Gomes, C. A., Vargas, A., Paiva, G., Rodriguez, G., Pereira, L., & Viana, R. (2010b). Sistema educativo sombra: Recortes no Brasil e em Portugal. [The shadow education system: Tales from Brazil and Portugal.] Revista Iberoamericana de Educacio´n, 52/6, 1
14, October. Gomes, C. A., Capanema, C., Leal, H., & Caˆmara, J. (2011). Ensino me´dio: Decifra-me ou te devoro. [Secondary education: Decode me or I will eat you.] Boletim Te´cnico do SENAC, 37(1), 49
60. January/April. Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatı´ stica – IBGE (2010). Pesquisa de Orc¸amentos Familiares, 2008-2009. Rio: IBGE. Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatı´ stica – IBGE. (2012). Caracterı´sticas da populac¸a˜o e dos domicı´lios do Censo Demogra´fico 2010. Retrieved from http://www.ibge.gov.br/ home/estatistica/populacao/censo2010/caracteristicas_da_populacao/tabelas_pdf/tab1.pdf. Accessed on April 23, 2013. Ipeadata. (2013a). Base de dados: social educac¸a˜o. Retrieved from http://www.ipeadata.gov. br/. Accessed on March 12, 2013. Ipeadata. (2013b). Base de dados: social renda. Retrieved from http://www.ipeadata.gov.br/. Accessed on March 12, 2013. Ireland, V., Charlot, B., Gomes, C., Gusso, D., Carvalho, L., Fernandes, M., Ennafaa, R., & Garcia, W. (2007). Repensando a escola: Um estudo sobre os desafios de aprender, ler e escrever. (Thinking again about school: A study of the challenges of learning, reading and writing.) Brası´ lia, Ministe´rio da Educac¸a˜o, UNESCO. Kramer, S. (1982). A polı´tica da pre´-escola no Brasil: A arte do disfarce. (The pre-school policy in Brazil: The art of disguise.) Rio, Achiame´. Leal, H. B., & Gomes, C. A. (2011). A promoc¸a˜o do acesso a` educac¸a˜o superior: Custos e benefı´ cios de um projeto de extensa˜o. [Promoting access to higher education: Costs and benefits of a project to increase access.] Meta: Avaliac¸a˜o 3(7), 41
60, January/ April. Mattos, L. O. N. (2007). Explicadoras do Rio de Janeiro: Encontros e desencontros em trajeto´rias profissionais singulares. [Private tutors in Rio de Janeiro: Meetings and missed meetings in singular professional trajectories.] Revista Brasileira de Estudos Pedago´gicos, 88(218), 140
156. January/April. Mendes, M. T. (2011). Inclusa˜o ou emancipac¸a˜o? Um estudo do Cursinho Popular Chico Mendes/Rede Emancipa na Grande Sa˜o Paulo. (Inclusion or emancipation? A study of the Cursinho Popular Chico Mendes/Rede Emancipa in Greater Sa˜o Paulo.) M.A. Thesis in Education. Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul Federal University. Ministry of Education. (2009). Polı´tica de educac¸a˜o infantil no Brasil: relato´rio de Avaliac¸a˜o. Brası´ lia: Ministe´rio da Educac¸a˜o, UNESCO. Ministry of Education. (2010). Indicadores educacionais: educac¸a˜o ba´sica. Retrieved from http://portal.inep.gov.br/indicadores-educacionais. Accessed on March 12, 2013. Ministry of Education. (2013). Investimentos pu´blicos em educac¸a˜o. Retrieved from http:// portal.inep.gov.br/estatisticas-gastoseducacao. Accessed on April 6, 2013. Mitrulis, E., & Penin, S. T. S. (2006). Pre´-vestibulares alternativos: Da igualdade a` equidade. [Alternative pre-vestibular courses: From being equal to equality.] Cadernos de Pesquisa, 36(128), 269
298, May/August Moreira, D. (2010). 17 Franquias de cursos de idiomas. (17 Franchises for language courses.) Exame.Com. Available at http://exame.abril.com.br/pme/noticias/franquias-de-ensino-deidioma#1. (Accessed on March 8, 2013).

150

ALEXANDRE VENTURA AND CANDIDO GOMES

Nascimento, A. S. (2007). Os explicadores: Das “sombras” ao ensino paralelo. (The private tutors: From the “shadows” to parallel teaching.) M.A. thesis in Public Policies and Human Formation. Rio, Rio de Janeiro State University. Neto-Mendes, A., Costa, J., Ventura, A., Azevedo, S., & Gouveia, A. (2013). Private tutoring in Portugal: Patterns and impact at different levels of education. In M. Bray, A. E. Mazawi, & R. G. Sultana (Eds.), Private tutoring across the Mediterranean: Power dynamics and implications for learning and equity (pp. 151
165): Sense Publishers and Mediterranean Journal of Educational Studies. OEI – Organizacio´n de Estados Iberoamericanos Para la Educacio´n, la Ciencia y la Cultura. (2013). Sistemas educativos nacionales: Brasil. Retrieved from http://www.oei.es/quipu/brasil/index.html. Accessed on March 12, 2013. Oliveira, E., & Mota, I. O. (2003). Trabalhos de Linguı´ stica Aplicada. [Work in Applied Linguistics.] (42), 125
134, July/December. Oliveira, J., & Schwartman, S. (2002). A escola vista por dentro. Belo Horizonte: Alfa Educativa. Popham, W. J. (2000). Testing! Testing! What every parent should know about school tests. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Roa, F. A. C., & Hur, D. U. (2010). Grupos de gerac¸a˜o de renda no Curso Pre´-Vestibular Psico-USP: Uma experieˆncia de autogesta˜o em um cursinho popular. [Income generating groups in the Pre´-Vestibular course Psico-USP: An experiment in self-management in a community short course.] Cadernos de Psicologia Social do Trabalho, 13(2), 163
175. Rosistolato, R. P. R., Helaye¨l-Neto, J. A., & Xavier, M. D. S. (2011). Juventudes populares em um pre´-vestibular: A construc¸a˜o coletiva de expectativas e campos de possibilidades educacionais. [Common youth groups in a pre´-vestibular course: A collective construction of expectations and fields of educational possibilities.] Revista Brasileira de Estudos Pedago´gicos, 92(232), 616
638, September/December. Sakkis, A., Carvalho, G., & Santos, J. (2000). O ensino me´dio no Brasil ou a histo´ria do patinho feio recontada. (Secondary schooling in Brazil or the story of the ugly duckling retold.) Brası´ lia, Universa, UNESCO. Silva, C., Bandeira, C., Silva, D., Campos, M., Chiaradia, N., & Fischer, N. (2002). Consulta sobre qualidade da educac¸a˜o na escola. N.p.: Campanha Nacional pelo Direito a` Educac¸a˜o. Silva, R. B. G., Guerra, S., Arau´jo, M., & Almeida, L. (2010). Evasa˜o no cursinho pre´-vestibular da FCA/UNESP: A interpretac¸a˜o do aluno evadido. [Dropouts from the pre´-vestibular course of FCA/UNESP: The side of the dropout student.] Revista Cieˆncia em Extensa˜o, 6(1), 67
82. UNESCO. Institute of Statistics. (2012). International Standard Classification of Education: ISCED 2011. Montreal, UNESCO Institute of Statistics. United Nations. (2013). Department of economic and social affairs, population division. Detailed indicators. Available in http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/unpp/p2k0data.asp. (Accessed on April 8, 2013). Velter, A. N., Castro, A., Silva, V., Scherer, F., & Grohmann, M. (2011). Ana´lise da dinaˆmica competitiva no ensino de idiomas: Um estudo multicasos. [Analysis of the competitive dynamics in the teaching of languages: A multi-case study.] Revista da Micro e Pequena Empresa, 5(3), 129
146, September/December. Vieira, A. H. P. (2012). “Escola? Na˜o, obrigado”: Um retrato da homeschooling no Brasil. (“School? No thank you”: A portrait of homeschooling in Brasil.) B.A. monograph in Sociology. Brası´ lia, University of Brası´ lia.

Supplementary Education in Brazil: Diversity and Paradoxes

151

Whitaker, D. C. A. (2010). Da “invenc¸a˜o” do vestibular aos cursinhos populares: Um desafio para a orientac¸a˜o profissional. [From the “invention” of the vestibular to community courses: A challenge for professional orientation.] Revista Brasileira de Orientac¸a˜o Profissional, 11(2), 289
297. Whitaker, D. C. A., & Fiamengue, E. C. (2001). Ensino me´dio: Func¸a˜o do Estado ou da empresa? [Secondary schooling: Role of the State or the company?] Educac¸a˜o e Sociedade, 22(75), 200
232, August. Zago, N. (2008). Cursos pre´-vestibulares populares: Limites e perspectivas. [Community pre´-vestibular courses: Limits and perspectives.] Perspectiva, 26(1), 149
174, January/June.

PART 2 COUNTRIES WITH LOW INTENSITY FORMS OF SUPPLEMENTARY EDUCATION

SUPPLEMENTARY EDUCATION IN A CHANGING ORGANIZATIONAL FIELD: THE CANADIAN CASE Janice Aurini and Scott Davies ABSTRACT Purpose
In this chapter we draw on research from Canada to develop a framework for understanding the variety of forms of supplementary education and their position within broader organization fields of education. The chapter asks: What is the nature and organizing logic of supplementary education in Canada? and, How does supplementary education relate to public schools in Canada? Design/methodology/approach
Data come from a variety of secondary sources. Findings
Distributed between three relatively autonomous settings
state, market, and nonprofit
supplementary education exhibits tremendous variety in its use value to parents, instructional content, and organizational form. Supplementary education is popular among Canadian parents and appears to be growing, yet it has failed to fundamentally alter the technical core of Canadian schooling, processes that stratify students, and child and family usage of their time or income. Supplementary education’s inability to penetrate these processes reflects

Out of the Shadows: The Global Intensification of Supplementary Education International Perspectives on Education and Society, Volume 22, 155
170 Copyright r 2013 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3679/doi:10.1108/S1479-3679(2013)0000022007

155

156

JANICE AURINI AND SCOTT DAVIES

its peripheral position within the broader organizational field of Canadian schooling. Originality/value
The adoption of an organizational field approach generates new ways of thinking about determinants, forming and organizing logics of supplementary education both nationally and comparatively. Keywords: Supplementary education; tutoring; organizational field; private education

INTRODUCTION In this chapter, we draw on research from Canada to develop a framework for understanding the variety of forms of supplementary education and their positions within broader organization fields of education. We pose two questions. First, what is the nature and organizing logic of supplementary education in Canada? Second, how does supplementary education relate to public schools in Canada? We first argue that Canadian supplementary education has grown steadily, but has done so simultaneously in government, market, and nonprofit settings, and in forms that vary greatly in their degree of formality. Providers vary widely in the extent they “shadow” public schools. Some closely follow school curricula; others craft independent and potentially competing educational materials. Second, applying the concept of “organizational field,” we argue that despite its rising popularity, supplementary education remains on the periphery of the broader field of Canadian education. Compared to “intensive” countries such as Korea and Japan, Canada’s supplementary education sector has only weak impacts on formal schooling, social stratification, and socialization processes. We conclude by discussing how this framework may be further developed in order to capture variations in other national contexts beyond Canada.

POLICY CONTEXT OF SUPPLEMENTARY EDUCATION IN CANADA Canada provides an interesting policy context to examine the contours of supplementary education. Canada is a relative newcomer to supplementary education, but these services are becoming increasingly popular among

Supplementary Education in a Changing Organizational Field

157

Canadian parents. According to recent estimates, 33% of Canadian parents have purchased supplementary education, and 21% of 9-year-old children have received some kind of private tutoring, (Canadian Council of Learning, 2007; Statistics Canada, 2009).1 Canadian parents can purchase “shadow education,” a form of tutoring that closely mirrors the school curriculum, as well as more general tutoring programs aimed at improving basic literacy, numeracy, or other skills related to scholastic achievement (Aurini & Davies, 2004). The demand for supplementary education has taken root in a particular context. Canadian education is not organized into a national system. It is the only country in the developed world without a national or federal education body (OECD, 2011a, 2011b). Canada’s 10 provinces and 3 territories are each responsible for all levels of education, and exercise great autonomy over the organization and assessment of schooling. Further, locally organized school boards are bound to provincial curricular and assessment policies, but have much flexibility to craft programs or policies that reflect their local communities. Yet, despite the absence of a federal body to regulate education, there are substantial similarities across the 13 jurisdictions.2 Virtually all provinces emphasize the ongoing development of numeracy and literacy, the inclusion of educational alternatives to meet diverse populations, and various initiatives for safe, healthy, social just and inclusive schools (Aurini & Davies, 2010; Council of Ministers of Education, Canada, 2010a, 2010b). Elementary and secondary schooling in Canada is dominated by public institutions. The private sector enrolls only 6
8% of all school-aged Canadian children, mostly in private religious schools (Davies & Aurini, 2011). The remaining 92
94% of the population between the ages of 5 and 18
representing 5.1 million children
attend one of the 15,500 publicly funded elementary and secondary schools across the country (Council of Directors of Education, 2010a; Guppy et al., 2005). These schools do not charge tuition fees, and funding is not based on the taxation generated within a particular catchment area. Instead, provinces pool funds from local taxes and distribute them using funding formulae that are geared toward the needs of various student populations. As a result, schools receive mainly equal funding, though disadvantaged neighborhoods often receive additional support and programs (Davies & Aurini, 2012). Public schools in Canada are also staffed by highly qualified personnel (Barber & Mourshed, 2007). Virtually all public school teachers in Canada have at least a 3-year bachelor’s degree, plus a 1
2-year post-degree through a recognized teacher accreditation program, and certification by a

158

JANICE AURINI AND SCOTT DAVIES

professional licensing body. Teacher accreditation programs are highly competitive and tend to attract students with very good undergraduate grades and volunteer experiences in teaching-related activities. An increasing number of teachers have additional qualifications including specialist qualifications (e.g., special education) and master’s degrees. Canadian teachers are relatively well paid and enjoy substantial benefits such as generous pensions and extended health care. Consequently, teaching in Canada is a highly sought after profession that attracts bright and ambitious students (for a discussion that focuses on Ontario, see OECD, 2011a, 2011b). While debates about the quality of education surface periodically, Canadian public schools enjoy relatively high levels of public support and confidence. Survey research consistently shows that most Canadian parents rate schools highly. A 2005 national survey of parents and teachers, for example, found that 72% of parents gave schools grades of “A” or “B,” only 4% lower than similar ratings given by teachers themselves. The vast majority of parents (80%) “agreed” or “strongly agreed” with the statement “My child’s teacher is doing a good job” (Guppy et al., 2005). Beyond attracting high quality staff, Canada’s relative strong performance internationally may contribute to positive perceptions about the quality of education. Canada’s ranking in a recent Programme for International Student Assessment (OECD, 2011a, 2012b) made a big splash in Canadian media and was widely covered in its major national newspaper, The Globe and Mail. While the quality of PISA data has been criticized, its results continue to be celebrated by ministries of education in many Canadian provinces (Statistics Canada, 2010b; for an example see Simpson, 2010; see also OECD, 2011a, 2011b).3 Canadian postsecondary education is also dominated by publicly funded institutions, with 68 public universities and 51 public colleges. Provinces have allowed only a small handful of private universities to operate, and they enroll only 1
2% of all university students in the country (Davies & Taylor, 2007; Pizarro Milian, 2013).4 Universities are primarily responsible for traditional undergraduate, graduate and professional training that lead to recognized degree credentials (e.g., B.A., LLB). Community colleges offer diplomas and certificates in a wide variety of vocationally oriented fields, ranging from auto mechanics to graphic design to early childhood education. While tuition continues to rise, postsecondary education is relatively inexpensive in Canada, averaging $5100 per year for university and $2500 per year for college (Council of Ministers of Education, Canada, 2010a; Statistics Canada, 2011).5

Supplementary Education in a Changing Organizational Field

159

In relative terms, Canadians are highly educated. Almost 50% of the population aged 25
64 has attained some form of tertiary education. This figure includes 23% with university credentials, 20% with college credentials, and 12% with trade certificate or degree holders. Less than 15% of the adult population aged 25
64 does not hold at least a high school diploma (Statistics Canada, 2010a, 2010b). Although these educational outcomes are quite stratified by parental income and education, Canada’s system has been described as conforming to a “democratic” uplift model of schooling (Brint, 2006) since it is structured to graduate most secondary students in academic programs and move many on to postsecondary levels. “Tracking” (streaming) in secondary schools is relatively weak, and entry into Canadian postsecondary institutions does not require standardized tests, essays, interviews, references, or “portfolios” as common in many other countries, including the neighboring United States. Instead, most programs simply require students to fill out an application and to submit high school transcripts. While students certainly compete, most competition is generated for entry into lucrative fields such as medicine after a student has completed either 1 year or 2 of undergraduate study in a general program (e.g., science, social science) or after the completion of an undergraduate degree. And in contrast to other countries such as the United States or Japan, Canadian universities are not arranged into a steep prestige hierarchy that provides entry into elite occupational tracks. In other words, most students compete to simply get into a university, rather than to get into the “right” university. Consequently, most undergraduates in Canada attend a university within their home province and enjoy the benefits of postsecondary credentials regardless of which institution they attend (Davies & Hammack, 2005; Davies & Zarifa, 2012). Overall, major characteristics of Canada’s education system have likely served to curb some of the more extreme forms of inequality that have been documented in other countries (Brint, 2006), including equalized funding, highly trained teachers, relatively loose and flexible tracking, programs that facilitate multiple opportunities to enter postsecondary levels, and much parity between institutions. Moreover, the relative consistency of academic programs offered by public schools, along with relatively high qualifications for teachers and relatively generous compensation, makes the supplementary education sector a less attractive alternative (and certainly not a substitute) to the public school system for Canadian parents, students, and teachers.

160

JANICE AURINI AND SCOTT DAVIES

THE NATURE AND ORGANIZING LOGIC OF SUPPLEMENTARY EDUCATION IN CANADA This context shapes the nature and organizing logic of Canadian supplementary education. While a lack of available data limits our ability to trace the number of supplementary education users over an extended timeframe, we have mapped growth in supplementary education businesses. From the 1990s into the 2000s, the sheer number of these businesses grew between 200% and 500% in three major Canadian cities (Vancouver, Toronto, and Hamilton). In Ontario, Canada’s largest province, the number of businesses more than doubled between the early 1990s and mid-2000s (Aurini & Davies, 2004; Davies, 2004).6 Parents who purchase supplementary education in Canada tend to be more affluent and educated (Canadian Council of Learning, 2007). Parents earning more than $100,000 and who have at least a high school diploma are much more likely to purchase these services. These families also tend to be more involved in their children’s schooling and report spending more time helping their children with homework and other school-related activities than non-tutoring families. While a higher proportion of parents with academically struggling children purchase tutoring, the majority who purchase tutoring describe their child as an A or B student. Thus, tutoring and other academic supports tend to be purchased for average or above-average children, or help below-average students close achievement gaps among (Canadian Council of Learning, 2007). While the CCL study suggests that parents who purchase tutoring are less satisfied with public schools, other research finds them to be not necessarily dissatisfied with public schools (e.g., Hart & Livingstone, 2007). This is an important distinction. Many parents generally use supplementary education to bolster their children’s competitive advantage, as simply another afterschool lesson, or as a way to structure their children’s nonschool time (e.g., Adler & Adler, 1994; Lareau, 2011; Quirke, 2006; Stevens, 2001). Our own research suggests that supplementary education is motivated by broader instrumental (e.g., better grades) and expressive (e.g., self-esteem) goals. The marketing of supplementary education in Canada resonates with these motives by emphasizing its ability to help children “learn how to learn” and to have “confidence” in their abilities (Aurini, 2006; Davies & Aurini, 2008). The nature of education in Canada is also reflected in the organizing logic of supplementary education. First, while supplementary education defies a singular description, it can be roughly divided into three main

Supplementary Education in a Changing Organizational Field

161

settings: state, market, and nonprofit philanthropists. One setting is provided by government. Provinces offer a variety of tutoring programs. Ontario public schools, for example, currently offer six tutoring programs that each house a variety of programs, including “Ask a Teacher” (high school literacy, math, and science), “Homework Help” (grades 7
10 math), and online options that connect students to certified teachers during after-school hours (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2011). Similarly, Quebec offers video-on-demand options, online courses, and online tutoring under the umbrella program “LEARN.” Another setting is market based. The market-oriented forms of supplementary education vary widely, ranging from private lone tutors, to small independent businesses, to online operators, to large franchised tutoring businesses, the latter often referred to as “learning centers.” A third setting is offered by nonprofit organizations. A variety of charities offer supplementary education through libraries and religious organizations, and some large and well-established philanthropic organizations also offer tutoring and other school supports. Second, supplementary education varies by its degree of formalism. In the public sector, teachers have long offered informal tutoring or homework help after school hours. But in more recent years, these offerings have become more formalized through initiatives such as summer literacy or numeracy programs, or in programs such as LEARN described above. Ontario for example now offers 3-week intensive summer literacy programs, aimed at boosting students’ skills and closing achievement gaps (see Davies & Aurini, 2013). Market-oriented supplementary education varies similarly in its degree of formality. At one end of the spectrum, casual, part-time tutors can offer their services in home settings. In the middle of the spectrum, independent businesses often operate more regular tutoring in spaces in shopping plazas or individual homes. At the most formal end of the spectrum, corporate franchises such as Sylvan, Kumon, and Oxford, which have grown rapidly over the past decade, have distinct and recognizable study spaces, curricula, instruction, and evaluation materials. In the nonprofit sector, informal types of supplementary education are offered by religious organizations or libraries, while the most formal types are offered by national charitable organizations. As an example of the latter, “Pathways for Education Canada” operates in many communities across the country, soliciting corporate and government donors and frequently partnering with school boards. They have a readily transportable operating model that offers lower-income students tutoring and a variety of other academic supports including mentoring and postsecondary scholarships to help them transition to postsecondary levels.

162

JANICE AURINI AND SCOTT DAVIES

Third, supplementary education in Canada varies tremendously in the degree to which it “shadows” the public school system; or the degree that its delivery, instructional focus, organizational forms, and educational materials mimic public school content (Aurini & Davies, 2004). Because Canada lacks the kinds of national, high-stakes, competitive exams that serve to structure educational contests in many other nations (Bray, 2009), any close mimicking of Canadian schooling in supplementary education takes a looser, relatively unstructured form such as basic homework support and test preparation. The lack of a national curriculum and high-stakes tests shapes the form and content of any shadow education in Canada. Those supplementary educators must respond to local school requirements and schedules, and as a result, the market demand for shadow education is very sporadic and localized. When there is an upcoming test at a local school, some nearby supplementary educator may make a living by echoing that school’s content and helping prep students for its tests. But as a result, Canadian businesses cannot expand beyond their immediate locales by offering shadow education, since school content and evaluations vary from region to region. Shadow education operators thus tend to be relatively small and informal in Canada. But some supplementary educators have moved beyond shadow education. A collection of larger businesses have recently thrived by offering more generic educational instruction, whether in literacy, numeracy, or other academic areas. They have developed business models that are relatively autonomous of school curricula or timetables, and have carved a growing market niche by using their own curriculum and evaluations. Offered largely by franchised corporations (e.g., Sylvan), these businesses attempt to appeal to families by promising to develop children’s general learning capacities. These “learning centers” seek to expand their client base by developing program that range further in age than does shadow education; many are developing early literacy programs in addition to their standard high school level instruction. They wish to remain open yearround, and thus depend less on school calendars. Some now have programs in July and August, promising to help children avoid summer learning loss, for instance. And, wishing to rely less on school grades or test scores as their prime indicator of successful intervention, these operators have developed their own evaluation materials and also advertise their ability to assist with nonacademic goals, such as building children’s self-esteem. Importantly, this kind of generic and autonomous supplementary education has allowed its providers to standardize and rationalize their offerings, and

Supplementary Education in a Changing Organizational Field

163

thereby expand beyond their local areas through corporatization and franchising (see Aurini & Davies, 2004).

SITUATING SUPPLEMENTARY EDUCATION WITHIN THE ORGANIZATIONAL FIELD OF EDUCATION Despite its prevalence and diversification, supplementary education resides on the periphery of the “organizational field” of education. Organizational fields are a set of related structured entities that constitute a jurisdiction of activity such as health care, banking, and the military (Scott & Meyer, 1991). In the case of education, the field consists not only of public schools, but also a laundry list of supporting organizations such as textbook companies, teacher training institutes, teacher professional associations, educational consultants, food and transportation services, research institutes, think tanks, advocacy groups, and a variety of private actors. Public schools interact with a variety of government agencies and professional services including child and youth agencies, the criminal justice system, social workers, and psychologists. Where does supplementary education fit within the broader organizational field of Canadian education? In some nations, “shadow education” has become a multi-billion dollar industry precisely by moving to the center of educational landscapes, influencing core organizational processes like teaching, homework, and preparation for high-stakes tests.7 Indeed, in Japan and South Korea, public educators sometimes receive training from shadow educators. In contrast, supplementary education plays a minor role in Canadian schooling. While it has made the educational field more diverse, it resides on its periphery. Supplementary educators lack formal connections to public schools; our own research suggests that public educators have successfully resisted their presence in schools with minimal effort. As a result, supplementary educators do not influence Canadian curriculum, pedagogical approaches, or teaching practices. They have not penetrated the technical core of schools and are unlikely to do so in the near future.8 Similarly, supplementary education in Canada also plays a relatively minor role in stratification processes. In Japan and South Korea, many see supplementary education as vital for students who wish to compete for

164

JANICE AURINI AND SCOTT DAVIES

access to prestigious postsecondary institutions or fields of study. But in Canada, there is no evidence that elementary and high school students see supplementary education as a vehicle to enter elite academic tiers. As a result, Canadian supplementary education is purchased relatively sporadically, and for a greater variety of reasons, whether to assist with a particular class or subject matter, to alleviate stress associated with homework, or to participate in one of many after-school activities (Aurini, 2006; Canadian Council of Learning, 2007). Indeed, many regard supplementary education not as an essential part of education, but instead as just one of many after-school activities that middle and upper-middle class children participate in, alongside sports, dance, and other recreational pursuits. Some have found that Canadian parents view supplementary education as a less expensive form of private education, and would send their child to a private school if they could afford the expense (Davies, 2004). But this tendency notwithstanding, supplementary education’s influence on Canada’s stratification processes pales in comparison to other countries. Beyond schooling and stratification processes, supplementary education is also weakly connected to daily lives of Canadian children and families. Very few restructure their after-school and work time to accommodate supplementary education classes. Few Canadian parents allocate large portions of their household income for these services, or sustained investments over several years in supplementary education. Most instead purchase it periodically or for relatively short durations, such as a few hours per week. In comparative terms, supplementary education does not greatly shape the lives or life chances of Canadian children, nor does it structure household resources or the rhythms of family life.

DISCUSSION The case of Canadian supplementary education is interesting in an international context. It has recently risen in popularity and is now offered by many large corporate franchises. But this growth has occurred not by shadowing Canadian public schools, but by remaining on the periphery of the broader organizational field, and by having a relative weak impact on schooling, stratification, and socialization processes. We argue that thinking about these characteristics, along with using an organizational field approach, can energize comparative research on supplementary education. Most importantly, we are interested in understanding why supplementary

165

Supplementary Education in a Changing Organizational Field

education enters the core of the organizational field of education in varying degrees across different nations. In high intensity nations, supplementary education is near the center of the field; in low intensity nations, it remains on the periphery. Why? Below we identify three key variables that could be used to guide cross-national research on supplementary education and help explain national variations in intensity. See Table 1 for a summary. One key variable that can shape the reach of supplementary education providers across nations is the character of the public education system including their varying degree of centralization in education. Highly centralized education systems can bolster supplementary education by standardizing curriculum, testing, and tracking on a large scale. Centralized systems can concentrate sorting and selecting processes, funneling students through similar sets of consequential, even life-defining, channels. Such channels allow supplementary educators to align their services to these processes on a massive scale, as we have seen in high intensity nations like Japan and Korea. In contrast, decentralized systems may not evaluate students with common yardsticks like standardized tests or highly structured tracks. As such, they may provide less fuel for some forms of supplementary education, particularly shadow education. The absence of a unified or central sorting and selecting process may reduce popular demand for a highly rationalized set of pedagogical supports, and instead trigger a more heterogeneous and relatively less stable demand for a variety of supplements. Decentralized Table 1. Conceiving Connections between Organizational Fields and Supplementary Education. Characteristics

Non-Intense Supplementary Education

Intense Supplementary Education

Decentralized High, stable High, consistent High confidence

Centralized Low, varied Low, varied Low confidence

Formal (public) schooling

Centralization Funding Quality Public support

Stratification

Mechanisms of access

No high-stakes tests Opportunity structures Weak tracking PSE stratification Flat

High-stakes tests Strong tracking Steep

Family and teacher socialization

Cultural norms Competitiveness Professional norms

Stable Coherent Weak

Evolving Diffuse Strong

166

JANICE AURINI AND SCOTT DAVIES

and diffuse sorting and selecting processes in mainstream schools may limit the role of supplementary educators to shape schooling processes, and forestall any kind of a “system” of supplementary education. The character of the public education system also includes the relative stability of funding, perceived quality and training and status of teachers. Where public schools are seen to have greater variations in quality
whether due to inconsistent funding levels or uneven quality of schools
parents may turn to supplementary education as a way to shore up any perceived deficiencies in schooling. Similar processes may fuel calls for school choice. Indeed, low and/or wavering levels of public support for mainstream schools may divert parents toward private options such as independent schools or homeschooling, and in those settings, shadow education may also thrive, or be an alternative to school choice. In contrast, parents may have fewer incentives to turn to such alternatives where mainstream schools are perceived to be of reasonably high quality. A second variable related to supplementary education is the structure of educational competition. If stratification processes are rigidly institutionalized by gender, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, and religion, and if highstakes tests are used to ration entry to the most advantageous educational tracks, tiers, fields of study, and institutions, supplementary educators may enjoy large and relatively unified market demand for their services. For instance, nations that have pronounced hierarchies of postsecondary institutions can generate wants for supplementary education. In countries such as the United States and Japan, for example, postsecondary institutions vary greatly in terms of their institutional prestige, and top institutions are highly sought after (e.g., Espenshade & Radford, 2009; Karabel, 2005; Mullen, 2010). The use of high stakes tests in such contexts can similarly fuel demand for supplementary education; in extreme cases, test prep offered by shadow educators is prized more by students than is mainstream curriculum and classroom teaching (e.g., Bray, 2009). Such processes propel shadow educators to the core of the organizational field in those nations. In contrast, a lack of high-stakes tests, open and less definitive sorting and selection of students, and flat institutional hierarchies can limit the immediate utility of supplementary education, and thus give fewer incentives to parents to devote substantial amount of time or financial resources to ongoing supplementary education. A third variable related to supplementary education includes the character and organization of family life and childrearing. The relative stability of cultural norms, perceptions of competition, and professional norms can influence degrees to which supplementary education shapes family life and

Supplementary Education in a Changing Organizational Field

167

socialization processes. If cultural norms about parenting are stable and if structured activities are normative among professional teachers, then supplementary education may gain a firm grip on family socialization processes. Where supplements are viewed as an integral part of preparing for important educational competitions, supplementary education will be seen as something that “good” parents do for their children, and will influence how parents make decisions about their household resources
time and money
devoted to their children’s education.

CONCLUSION This chapter outlines the nature and organizing logic of Canadian supplementary education. It occurs in three relatively autonomous settings, across states, markets, and nonprofits, exhibiting tremendous variety in its usage, instructional content, and organizational forms. Supplementary education is popular among Canadian parents and appears to be growing, yet it has not fundamentally altered the technical core of schooling, the stratification of students within Canada’s education system, or ways in which students and families spend their time or income. Canadian supplementary education provides a unique point of comparison in international perspective, especially by grounding the analysis within the larger organizational field of education. By situating supplementary education within larger constellations of organizations that comprise the field of education, we can determine the varying reach of supplementary education, including whether these providers compete with, support, or even transform public schools. As others have noted (e.g., Bray, 2009), until recently supplementary education has received little attention from researchers and policy makers. But as it grows, its potential to impact the broader field of education becomes harder to overlook. In some countries supplementary education reflects and reinforces existing forms of inequality along gender, race, religion, rural and urban, and socioeconomic lines (Bray, 2003). More appropriate data in the future could uncover conditions in which supplementary education becomes a core or peripheral actor within the organizational field of education, and in which it wields influence over key institutional processes or plays a mere supporting role. An organizational field approach, armed with new types of data, can reveal the determinants, nature, and the organizing logics of supplementary education, along with its full societal impact, domestically and comparatively.

168

JANICE AURINI AND SCOTT DAVIES

NOTES 1. The best estimates come from 2007 surveys of parents by the Canadian Council of Learning (CCL) and by the National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth (NLSCY). The CCL asked parents with children aged 5
24: “Have you ever hired a private tutor or a tutoring company to assist your child or children with the following elementary or secondary school subjects: reading and writing, math, science, or other subjects?” (2007). The NLSCY asked parents “During the previous school year, did this child receive any additional help or tutoring?” (Statistics Canada, 2009). 2. CMEC, the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada, is an inter-government body that may provide some consistency across provincial jurisdictions (http://www.cmec.ca/). While it does not have any formal power to dictate policy, it does bring together a variety of key stakeholders across Canada who develop projects and reports, and consult on issues related to elementary, secondary, and postsecondary education. 3. According to the 2009 PISA, only 4 of the 65 participating countries outperformed Canadian students in reading; only seven countries outperformed Canada in mathematics; and only six countries outperformed Canada in science (e.g., Statistics Canada, 2010b). The point is not whether PISA is an accurate measure of student performance, but rather that it appears to generate positive media and public support in Canada. 4. There is, however, a sizeable sector of private vocational colleges, also known as trade colleges, that reportedly enroll over 100,000 students (Davies & Taylor, 2007; Pizarro-Milian, 2013). 5. Canada’s private costs (tuition fees and foregone earnings) are below the OECD for men and women (OECD, 2012). 6. The authors have searched all available phone books and business directories from Canada’s largest reference libraries. Figures are based on the more recent information they were able to obtain. As discussed in the introduction, government bodies do not gather information on supplementary education services. 7. Researchers, for example, have documented how school teachers who tutor purposefully withhold critical parts of lessons during the school day to coerce families to pay for their services during after-school hours (Bray, 2009). 8. As noted by Dang and Rogers (2008, p. 186) Canada is one example of a country that has the “capacity to regulate private tutoring” but does not because this sector is considered “outside the sphere of their responsibility.”

REFERENCES Adler, P. [Patricia], & Adler, P. [Peter] (1994). Reproduction of the corporate other: The institutionalization of after-school activities. Sociological Quarterly, 35(2), 309
328. Aurini, J. (2006). Crafting legitimation projects: An institutional analysis of private education businesses. Sociological Forum, 21(1), 83
111.

Supplementary Education in a Changing Organizational Field

169

Aurini, J., & Davies, S. (2004). From shadow education to learning centres: Education in a franchise form. Canadian Journal of Sociology, 29(3), 419
438. Barber, M., & Mourshed, M. (2007). How the world’s best-performing school systems come out on top. London: McKinsey and Company. Retrieved from http://www.mckinsey.com/App_ Media/Reports/SSO/Worlds_School_Systems_Final.pdf Bray, M. (2003). Adverse effects of private supplementary tutoring: Dimensions, Implications and Government Responses. International Institute for Educational Planning. Bray, M. (2009). Confronting the shadow education system: What government policies for what private tutoring? International Institute for Educational Planning Policy Forum, UNESCO. Brint, S. (2006). Schools and societies (2nd ed.), Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Canadian Council of Learning. (2007). Survey of Canadian attitudes toward learning: Results for elementary and secondary school learning (Ottawa). Retrieved from http://www.ccl-cca. ca/pdfs/SCAL/2007/SCAL_Report_English_final.pdf Council of Ministers of Education, Canada. (2010a). Education in Canada. Retrieved from http://www.cmec.ca/pages/canadawide.aspx#02 Council of Ministers of Education, Canada. (2010b). Report to UNECE and UNESCO on Indicators of Education for Sustainable Development: Report for Canada 2007
2010. Retrieved from http://www.cmec.ca/Publications/Lists/Publications/Attachments/265/esdcanada-report-2007-2010-en.pdf Dang, H., & Rogers, F. (2008). The growing phenomenon of private tutoring: Does it deepen human capital, widen inequalities or waste resources? World Bank Policy Research Paper. Davies, S. (2004). School choice by default? Understanding the demand for private tutoring in Canada. American Journal of Education, 110(3), 233
256. Davies, S., & Aurini, J. (2008). School choice as concerted cultivation: The case of Canada. In M. Forsey, S. Davies, & G. Walford (Eds.), The globalization of school choice (pp. 55
71). London: Symposium Books. Davies, S., & Aurini, J. (2011). Determinants of school choice in Canada: Who chooses what and why? Canadian Public Policy, 37(4), 459
477. Davies, J., & Aurini, J. (2013). Summer learning inequality in Ontario. Canadian Public Policy, 39(4), 287
307. Davies, S., & Hammack, F. (2005). Channelling competition in higher education: Comparing Canada and the US. The Journal of Higher Education, 76(1), 89
106. Davies, S., & Taylor, A. (2007). A profile of private post secondary providers in Canada. Report for the Canadian council on learning. Davies, S., & Zarifa, D. (2012). The stratification of universities: Structural inequality in Canada and the United States. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 30(2), 143
158. Espenshade, T., & Radford, A. (2009). No longer separate, not yet equal: Race and class in elite college admission and campus life. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Guppy, N., Crocker, R., Davies, S., LaPointe, C., & Sackney, L. (2005). Parent and teacher views on education: A policymaker’s guide. Kelowna B.C.: Society for the Advancement of Excellence in Education. Hart, D., & Livingstone, D. (2007). Public attitudes towards public education in Ontario 2007. Retrieved from http://www.oise.utoronto.ca/oise/About_OISE/OISE_Survey/16th_Survey. html Karabel, J. (2005). The chosen: The hidden history of admission and exclusion at Harvard, Yale and Princeton. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

170

JANICE AURINI AND SCOTT DAVIES

Lareau, A. (2011). Unequal childhoods: Class, race and families (2nd ed.), Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press. Mullen, A. (2010). Degrees of inequality: Culture, class and gender in American higher education. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press. OECD. (2011a). Lessons from PISA for the United States, strong performers and successful reformers in education. OECD Publishing. Retrieved form http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/978 9264096660-en OECD. (2011b). Ontario, Canada: Reform to support high achievement in a diverse context. Strong performers and successful reformers in education: Lessons from PISA for the United States. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264096660-en Ontario Ministry of Education. (2011). Tutoring programs for students. Ontario Ministry of Education
Ministe`re De L’E´ducation. Retrieved from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/ students/tutoring.html Pizarro Milian, R. (2013). Re-thinking stratification in higher education: Organizationally maintained inequality (OMI)? Doctoral dissertation proposal, Department of Sociology, McMaster University. Quirke, L. (2006). “Keeping young minds sharp”: Children’s cognitive stimulation and the rise of parenting magazines, 1959
2003. Canadian Review of Sociology, 43(4), 387
406. Scott, W., & Meyer, J. (1991). The organization of societal sectors: Propositions and early evidence. In P. DiMaggio & W. Powell (Eds.), The new institutionalism of organizational analysis. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Simpson, J. (2010). Canada is not becoming outclassed. The Globe and Mail, December 10. Retrieved from http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/canada-is-notbecoming-outclassed/article1831853/ Statistics Canada. (2009). Canadian nine-year-olds at school. Retrieved from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/89-599-m/89-599-m2009006-eng.htm Statistics Canada. (2010a). Canada yearbook. Retrieved from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11402-x/2010000/chap/edu/edu-eng.htm Statistics Canada. (2010b). Measuring up: Canadian results of the OECD PISA study: The performance of Canada’s youth in reading, mathematics and science. Retrieved from http:// www5.statcan.gc.ca/bsolc/olc-cel/olc-cel?catno=81-590-X&CHROPG=1&lang=eng Statistics Canada. (2011). Undergraduate tuition fees for full time Canadian students by discipline, by province (Canada). Retrieved from http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/educ50aeng.htm Stevens, M. (2001). Kingdom of children: Culture and controversy in the homeschooling movement. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

BUT DID IT HELP YOU GET TO UNIVERSITY? A QUALITATIVE STUDY OF SUPPLEMENTARY EDUCATION IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA Martin Forsey ABSTRACT Purpose
This chapter reflects the findings of a qualitative study of supplementary education in Western Australia, showing a commitment to understanding the broader social context of the individuals receiving educational assistance beyond their normal classroom activities. Design/methodology/approach
The chapter is based on 10 semistructured interviews conducted with university students who had utilised supplementary education services of a tutor made available through their schools and a variety of secondary sources. Findings
The study also reveals that student access to university is not necessarily enhanced by private tutoring. It uncovers an under-researched component of the overall educational process in pointing to some of the

Out of the Shadows: The Global Intensification of Supplementary Education International Perspectives on Education and Society, Volume 22, 171
189 Copyright r 2013 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3679/doi:10.1108/S1479-3679(2013)0000022008

171

172

MARTIN FORSEY

emotional dimensions of the supplementary education industry. While tutoring did not appear to harm the chances of students making it to university, the beneficial effects of tutoring are not as clear-cut as some suggest they are. Overall the research suggests that, emotional support effects notwithstanding, perhaps we should not worry overly much about the inequalities brought by private tutoring as, yet again, the market shows itself to less efficient than some hope it to be and that others might fear it is. Originality/value
Market-based supplementary education remains massively under-researched in Australia. While qualitative research is unable to address the effects of educational interventions definitively, the study adds important layers of complexity to questions about educational effectiveness and inequality. It helps validate concerns about social and economic inequalities; it also mollifies these concerns, partially because some of the programmes described here aim at addressing some basic inequalities, particularly those related to rural and remote education. Keywords: Tutoring; shadow education; educational inequality; school
industry partnerships; rural education

INTRODUCTION: AUSTRALIANS AND SUPPLEMENTARY EDUCATION PROGRAMMES Australia like many other nation-states around the globe has experienced a surge of interest in various forms of supplementary education. Watson (2008), using figures made available through the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), has shown that financial commitments to private tutoring has increased significantly in Australia in the recent past, from 3.98% of total average household expenditure on children’s education in 1998
1999 to 4.88% in 2003
2004. Looking from a different angle, Kenny and Faunce (2004, p. 115) show that the number of registered coaching ‘colleges’ in Sydney, the capital of the state of New South Wales, increased nearly fourfold over the course of 14 years, from 60 in 1989 to 222 in 2002. Meanwhile in Melbourne, the capital of the state of Victoria, Pate (2008, p. 1) reports a marked increase in the use of community-based learning support programmes. Demand often exceeds supply and she estimates that up to 1,300 persons participate in the volunteer-led programmes, the target

A Qualitative Study of Supplementary Education in Western Australia

173

groups for which are recent migrants, especially refugees, persons of nonEnglish-speaking background, those who are financially disadvantaged and those categorised as underachieving students. The minuscule research literature on Australian supplementary education, the extent of which is more or less captured above, points to the usefulness of categorising the sector in three broad groupings. These categories, summarised in Table 1, are grouped according to their main locus of activity, whether they are market based, school centred and/or community centred. They are not mutually exclusive by any means; sometimes it can be difficult to separate out the boundaries between them. Market-based outside-school learning is organised in three main ways. Usually the tutoring business consists of a single individual who is a current or retired teacher. This ‘cottage industry’ mode of organisation is the one used by six of the students interviewed for this study. None of the students employed the services of a tutor working for one of the many centres strewn throughout Western Australia’s capital city, Perth. Schools are also involved in supplementing the formal education they provide. Julie’s and John’s story, related in some depth later in this chapter, reveals some of the ways in which some schools do this. In Julie’s case the high-fee school she attended ensured that students had access to after school tuition that was provided by the teachers employed by the school as part of their extra-curricular activities. My experiences in various school types suggest that extra-school tuition activities are part of their standard business model. Such services are less frequent in low-fee private or government schools. John, for example, attended a low-fee Catholic school in Karratha, a mining town more than 1,500 km north of Perth. As will become apparent, he was able to take advantage of a structured course of extra instruction set up by his school in partnership with the mining companies that dominate the economy of the town. This particular supplementary Table 1. Centre of Activity Market

School Community

Types of Supplementary Education. Main Forms of Organisation Cottage industry Small business Multinational corporation After school classes Structured courses Voluntary organisations Private
government partnerships

174

MARTIN FORSEY

education programme aims squarely at encouraging students to complete their schooling in the town and increasing the numbers of students going on to university. As Watson (2008, p. 10) notes in reflecting upon government sponsored programmes of school-based tutoring, the shortage of suitable tutors in rural and remote Australia makes such programmes one of the very few ways available to address concerns about the high proportion of rural students not meeting national literacy and numeracy benchmarks. Market-based supplementary education remains massively underresearched in Australia, but what little there is suggests that paying for the services of an educational coach does not necessarily yield the sorts of results a parent or student most likely aim for in engaging a private tutor. Taking one example, Kenny and Faunce (2004) invited the entire school population of a high-fee independent school in Sydney to participate in a study testing the effectiveness of academic coaching in improving student performance in end-of-year examinations for a range of subjects. They received very few refusals from the students and their parents, were granted access to all academic records of consenting students and were able to show that academic coaching was generally ineffective in boosting performance in English, mathematics or science examinations (p. 124). Furthermore, they show that those students in particular year groups who were tutored privately in English tended to fare worse in examinations than their un-tutored counterparts.

DATA COLLECTION Methods and Profile of Interviewees The research reported here stems from interviews conducted in the Australian Summer of 2010 with 10 individuals enrolled at that time at The University of Western Australia (UWA), the institution I am employed at. Six of the students were recruited from a first year anthropology unit conducted in 2009, for which I was one of the lecturers. The remaining four students were recruited as part of a larger project assessing the impact of a supplementary education project in Karratha (see Forsey, 2011, 2012). Their former high school principal passed on their names to me and I then contacted them by email inviting them to participate in the study. All but one of the conversations were one-to-one interviews, each lasting

A Qualitative Study of Supplementary Education in Western Australia

175

approximately 45 minutes. The exception was an interview conducted with a pair of students who were part of the Karratha Cohort. Aside from their enrolment at UWA, another common thread linking all but one member of the group of students interviewed is that they all completed their final year of high school in 2008. Tables 2 and 3 capture some of the key educational information for the students interviewed for this project. The students from Karratha are labelled as ‘The KEI Cohort’, while the second group, each of whom attended different schools and were tutored by different individuals, are referred to as the ‘Schooled in Perth Cohort’. The tables indicate a range of backgrounds for the various students. Six of the 10 students interviewed are from White, Anglo-Celtic backgrounds, 1 is of mixed Asian and Anglo-Celtic descent, 2 others have family origins in Eastern Europe and Pete is of Mediterranean descent. Differences in occupational backgrounds of the parents of the two cohorts are notable. The parents of the ‘Schooled in Perth Cohort’ are generally working in professional or white-collar occupations, while the fathers of each of the young men in the KEI Cohort work in blue-collar occupations, although it is likely that each of them is earning more than most of the parents of the Schooled in Perth Cohort. It is also interesting to note that the KEI Cohort are engaged in major areas of study associated with professional degrees much more than the Perth Cohort, but this is likely to be an artefact of the different processes of selection used to identify the interviewees for this project. All but one of the 10 students were tutored in their final year of schooling, Pete being the exception in that he is the only student not to have completed Year 12 as part of his educational journey.

Context While some comparisons are drawn between rural and urban student experiences and formal and informal forms of supplementary education, it is essentially a study aimed at deepening understanding of what it meant to 10 young people to receive the assistance of tutors outside of the formal classrooms they attended as high school students. The students matriculated and at the time of the research in 2010 were studying at UWA, which is Western Australia’s ‘establishment university’. The research adds a particular qualitative flavour to other research showing the ineffectiveness of academic coaching aimed at improving secondary school student performance in end-of-year exams (Kenny & Faunce, 2004). It also uncovers an under-researched component of the overall educational process in pointing

Maths
Year 12

English
Year 5 Maths
Year 10 Maths
Years 11
12 English literature

Struggled with maths; not happy with teaching in literature

1 hour per week for each subject

Subjects tutored

Reasons

Timing

Maths
Year 9

N/A

1.5 hours per week

1 hour per week

Step up to Year 12 was Teacher’s advice, very difficult struggling with maths

1. Applicable maths 2. History 3. Human biology 4. English

1. Discrete maths 2. Applicable maths 3. English literature 4. Biology 5. Politics and legal studies 6. History

Years 7
12, moderate- Year 11, went to fee Anglican government secondary but did not complete

Years 6
12, high-fee independent

Pete Male

Year 7, local Years 1
10 various government primary Catholic and independent schools

Karen Female

Year 6, government

Julie Female

1 hour per week per subject

Seeking to get into higher streams in maths; struggling in other subjects in Year 12

German
Year 12 Maths
from Year 9 English literature
Year 12

1. Media studies 2. German 3. English literature 4. Discrete maths 5. Drama 6. Politics and legal studies

Years 3
7 government primary Years 8
12, government secondary

Year 2, montessori

Ella Female

Azatui Female

1.5 hours per week

Struggled in both subjects; sister had been tutored previously; used same tutors

Chemistry
Year 11 Maths
Years 11
12

1. English 2. Applicable maths 3. Human biology 4. History 5. Art

1 hour per week both

Ill in Year 12 and struggling with these subjects; poor teacher for physics in Year 12

Physics and chemistry

1. Applicable maths 2. Discrete maths 3. Physics 4. Chemistry 5. English 6. French

Years 1
4, rural Years 1
7, low-fee Catholic Catholic primary Years 5
7, Years 8
12, government primary moderate-fee Year 8
12, moderateuniting Church fee Anglican

Geraldine Female

Summary of Key Information from Semi-Structured Interviews Conducted with Six University of Western Australia Students Who Engaged a Private Tutor in Final Year of High School.

University entrance subjects

School type

Pseudonym Gender

Table 2.

Parents’ occupation

Did tutoring help you get to university? Parents’ education

Tertiary Entrance Rank (TER score) Current university major

University entrance subjects

School Type

Gender

Father
boilermaker, process operator

Mother
dental nurse

Father
high school

Mother
high school

Somewhat

Medicine

Years 1
7, government primary Years 8
12, low-fee Catholic 1. Physics 2. Chemistry 3. Applicable maths 4. Human biology 5. English 96.75

Male

John

Mother
high school Father
high school Mother
volunteer Father
mechanical fitter

Commerce/ Engineering Yes

Did not discuss

Did not discuss

Years 1
12, government

Male

Mark

Mother
deputy principal, high school Father
business owner

Father
high school

Mother
tertiary

No

Health Science

Did not discuss

Did not discuss

Year 1
12, low-fee Catholic

Female

Lucy

Mother
Laboratory Technician Father
N/A

Father
N/A

Mother
High School

Yes

Commerce/Engineering

Years 1
11, government Year 12, low-fee Catholic 1. Physics 2. Chemistry 3. Applicable maths 4. Calculus 5. English 90.5

Male

Jason

Table 3. Summary of Key Information from Semi-Structured Interviews Conducted with Four University of Western Australia Students Who Completed Secondary Schooling in Karratha.

A Qualitative Study of Supplementary Education in Western Australia 177

178

MARTIN FORSEY

to some of the emotional dimensions of the supplementary education industry (Brugen & Labhart, 2013). While the academic effects of tutoring may be at best mixed, it can and does offer various forms of emotional support to young people in what can be stressful periods in their life, particularly in the moments leading up to university entrance examinations. That said, the research also points to a number of frustrations associated with the tutoring processes. UWA’s status as the state’s leading university helps position the interviewees as part of the success story of their particular cohort of Western Australian high school students. A key question for the project focused on whether the students thought tutoring had helped them get to university. The project links methodologically with one of the more extensive studies of supplementary education conducted by Silova, Budiene, and Bray (2006), revealing some of the ‘hidden marketplaces’ of education in former socialist states. The authors limited the study sample to first year university students based on two assumptions: (1) that the school experience of such students was recent enough for accurate recall and (2) that they would be more objective and outspoken about the use of private tutoring in secondary schools (p. 67). There are also advantages in drawing upon the hindsight of students with the benefit of some, but not much, distance from their high school years. The fact that they had qualified for university entrance allowed me to ask about the degree to which they felt that private tutoring assisted them in achieving this goal and the advantages and disadvantages offered to them by the process. Arguably, their positive outcome allows for more nuanced reflection, and a greater range of attribution of causality, than a negative result might do. As will become clear, some of the interviews help demonstrate a need for some caution in asserting that university entrance scores have more to do with tutoring than with what the schools and their teachers do for students (Russell, 2002), and that supplementary education increases educational inequity.

Approach to Data Collection In keeping with my commitment to practice focused research emphasising the socio-cultural and structural influences on human agency, the semistructured interviews conducted for this project aimed at locating the students’ ‘tutorial stories’ in the wider social context of the their lives (Forsey, 2008). A key difference between the two cohorts under investigation here is

A Qualitative Study of Supplementary Education in Western Australia

179

in the place in which the schooling took place. Rural and remote education in Australia is clearly linked to educational disadvantage (Australian Government, 2008). Making links between socio-economic status and academic achievement, Bartholomaeus (1998) is correct to point out that in general the socio-economic characteristics of rural communities are lower than in metropolitan areas. However, this is certainly not the case for the mining town of Karratha, where locals are experiencing the joys and challenges of life in a ‘boom town’. In 2010 74% of the State’s export production was extracted from Pilbara, the region in which Karratha is located, which is 30% of the national export production and 6% of Australia’s GDP. Not surprisingly, it is a noted area of high disposable income and low unemployment. For example, in the 2011 Census the weekly median household income in Karratha was nearly double the national figure
$2,870 versus $1,415 (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2012). The economic boom has exacerbated some educational problems, particularly when it comes to attracting teachers on their relatively low salaries when compared to those working in the mining industry, to a town whose real-estate costs and other general living expenses are inflated to a very high degree. At the same time the increased wealth associated with the town has also allowed the schools to enrich their educational offerings in ways that are out of the normal reach of many a school, be it in other rural towns, or in the State’s capital. As already indicated four of the interviewees for this project were given access to a supplementary education programme
the Karratha Education Initiative (KEI)
that was financed by various mining companies based in the town, the details of which emerge in some of the following discussions, particularly through John’s story. The writing up of this research reflects the desire to avoid wrenching research subjects out of their social context by productively summarising significant amounts of interview transcripts into readable, vibrant stories (Bowe, Gewirtz, & Ball, 1994; Forsey, 2010). This means putting on display only some of the story-portraits available to me as ‘curator’ of the gallery produced from the interviews (Miller, 2008). The portrayals of Julie and John that follow were selected not because they were somehow more representative of the sample but rather for the comparisons and contrasts they offered. The most obvious reason for choosing these two stories is that they are drawn from each of the two broad groupings under investigation, Julie being from the ‘Schooled in Perth Cohort’ sample, while John is a member of the cohort offered the opportunities afforded by the KEI in 2008. Aside from the obvious differences in gender, John and Julie’s stories offer interesting and revealing contrasts in socio-cultural influence and

180

MARTIN FORSEY

family background, especially for students who have won their way into the two most difficult to access courses at the establishment university in Western Australia.

GETTING INTO LAW, GETTING INTO MEDICINE: TWO SUPPLEMENTARY EDUCATION PORTRAITS Both John and Julie were 18 years old at the time of the interview. Julie was studying law
arts at UWA, while John was studying medicine. Julie comes from a line of lawyers. Her grandmother, herself the daughter of a legal practitioner, was among some of the first women to graduate in law in Western Australia and has been a source of inspiration for Julie in a number of ways. To emerge from her studies on a path to becoming a political correspondent with the Australian Broadcasting Commission is Julie’s dream at present, but she is interested in international relations more generally and has her eye on the diplomatic service. Julie’s parents are medical doctors, one specialising in orthopaedics; the other works as a general practitioner. Growing up in the affluent western suburbs of Perth, Julie attended a government primary school for the first 6 years of her schooling. The school offered immersion in the French language, which was its main drawcard for Julie’s parents. When she transferred to a high-fee private schools for girls located in her home area, Julie found that the French teaching was not as strong as it had been in the government primary school; indeed, teaching standard was to be an issue for Julie throughout her time at the new school. John by contrast was the first of his family to go to university. His father left school at the age of 15 to take up an apprenticeship as a plumber, while his mother trained as a nursing aide. Up until the point of going to university in Perth, John spent all of his life in Karratha, where his dad has worked for many years as a process operator for one of the big mining companies in the town. His mum manages a local health clinic. John completed his schooling at the local Catholic secondary college, having attended for the first 7 years of his formal schooling the government primary school that is just round the corner from his house. Unlike Julie who readily identifies herself as ‘an education, nerdy type of person’ who has known for as long as she can remember that she was going to university, John only started to focus on university in Year 11. Julie and John both opted for courses that required them to score very highly in the State-wide university entrance exams, which they both sat for

A Qualitative Study of Supplementary Education in Western Australia

181

in 2008. Both were quite calculating in working out a pathway to university, drawing upon various educational resources beyond the classroom. Julie accessed various experts available to her either through the school, her kin network, or from the network of teachers and former teachers available for hire as private tutors in the Perth metropolitan area. There is no such network in a town like Karratha. John accessed a programme made available by his school using funds provided by the KEI to provide various TEE workshops for final year students. These workshops were held at different times of the year, in Perth and in Karratha. The programme also allowed John and others in his class to access their teachers as tutors throughout their final year at school. Julie first started accessing the service of private tutors as early as Year 5 when her parents arranged for her to have an English tutor. ‘It was not because I was struggling, they just wanted to extend me’. When considered alongside the French immersion Julie was involved in at her first primary school, the use of an English tutor for an already highly motivated and able student appears to be part of a strategy of concerted cultivation on the part of Julie’s parents (Lareau, 2003), ‘nurturing a stimulating environment in the name of child development’ (Davies & Aurini, 2008). However, once students are in secondary school, in a place like Western Australia where university entrance depends upon examination results, the stakes are higher and competitive positioning becomes more important than cultivating a commitment to broader educational values. The move from primary to secondary school may well mark a shift from enrichment to remedial assistance in the field of supplementary education, particularly among the wealthier members of society (Baker, Akiba, LeTendre & Wiseman, 2001; Watson, 2008). Maths is arguably the key indicator of the maximising rationality that begins to motivate the use of supplementary education services later in the schooling careers of students. More students are tutored in maths than any other subject (Ireson, 2004; Ireson & Rushforth, 2005). Helping to capture the important place that maths holds in the imaginations of students, Julie reported having been quite ill for a few weeks at a key moment in Year 10, which in Western Australia is the year in which selection for TEE-focused subjects begins. The sickness came at a time when, in the words of Julie, an ‘integral bit of the year 10 maths course’ was being taught and she struggled to come to grips with this. As she put it, ‘I have never been as naturally good at maths, I am definitely a humanities person’. When she failed a test, scoring something like 32% or 34%, Julie thought, ‘I am not doing so well with this so why not get a tutor’.

182

MARTIN FORSEY

The school helped locate the tutor employed by Julie’s parents to help her catch up with what she had missed. As it happened the tutor was not particularly helpful, and after a few months Julie decided she no longer needed her services. She recovered the ground lost due to illness and proceeded into what is often referred to as the ‘top maths’ subjects in upper school. However, Julie was disappointed to find she had been allocated to the second top group of the students doing the same maths subject as hers. Not liking the style of the teacher allocated to this second group she was determined to win her way into the top class ‘where the teacher was really very, very good’. Despite having access to regular after-school study classes available to her as part of the normal practice of the school, Julie and her parents chose to invest further in her education by employing the services of another maths tutor. The aim was to reach the top stream. This time the tutor was a male who worked as a teacher at one of the other high-fee schools in her area. Julie recalls his charges being quite high, ‘it was something like $60 to $80 an hour’, but it was definitely worth it as she ended up in the top group in Year 12, with the teacher that she really respected. Quality of teaching was under fairly constant surveillance by Julie. At the beginning of Year 11 for example she quit French because ‘the teacher wasn’t that good and I wasn’t getting much out of it’. She also encountered an English literature teacher who she described as ‘terrible’. In order to address these problems she drew upon the voluntary services of her aunt, who was teaching English literature at the time, in order to ‘go over the texts, and the people and poets we were studying and fill in the gaps that he [the classroom teacher] was leaving’. She ended up doing very well in the subject, achieving a distinction in her TEE, a result that Julie has no hesitation in attributing, at least in part, to the influence of her aunt. Maths was a different matter. Julie’s results in the two maths courses she studied in Year 12 did not count in her final assessment. Instead, her four best subjects of English literature, biology, history and political and legal studies were used to calculate her Tertiary Entrance Rank (TER). When I asked Julie if, despite it not helping her get to university, her education in maths had been helpful in her university studies, she responded in the negative, pointing out that she never has anything to do with maths and that she could not recall anything from the two courses she did in Year 12. That said, she was grateful for the assistance she received from the tutor employed by her parents, if only for the psychological assistance it gave her. ‘Just keeping up, was better than the stress of not being able to keep up and not doing that well. And you never know what is going to be counted in the end, which is a trick of the system’.

A Qualitative Study of Supplementary Education in Western Australia

183

John, whose mathematical aptitude certainly helped him to get to university, spoke of how the Catholic school he attended in Karratha encouraged them to do as well as they could. This was done not only through the education initiative (KEI) that was largely negotiated by the principal of the school, but also through mechanisms such as getting them to sign a contract that committed them to graduation and where they agreed not to work any more than 10 hours a week. As for the TER, he knew that his required score of 96 was less than it might have been had he been studying in a Perth school because of a special concession made to rural students through a scheme known as UWAY. Raising the matter of a friend who did not get into medicine despite getting a higher TER than he did, he acknowledged that the little bit of help from UWAY probably helped him get there. Contemplating the issue of fairness, John is quick to point to the extra resources available to city students, symbolised most strongly for him by the State library with its four floors of materials compared with their little library in Karratha. Later in the interview he spoke of the difficulties posed by a sheer lack of numbers of students doing particular TEE subjects in a town like Karratha. Unlike Julie whose maths classes were split into two streams due to the excessive number of students in the class, the Calculus class in the Karratha Catholic school had two students. These students had to do the subject by correspondence because they could not get the extra teacher required. This sort of impoverished educational background provides important impetus for supplementary education in towns like Karratha. What the KEI enabled John to do was attend revision courses in Perth in his final year of school. This was followed up with weekends of cram classes that were held close to the end of the school year. John described how ‘a bunch of teachers and ex-TEE markers were flown up every second weekend and they just crammed everything into one day’. Over six weekends they covered the range of subjects, with the tutors available for 8 hours per day. Many times we got comments like ‘you are much better than my students are. You have a much better grasp of that than my students’. That was encouraging. And they gave us their emails, so we got a lot of help from them. They were sending us extra problems to deal with, extra advice right up until the time that we did our TEE. They were very helpful.

John attended all of the science classes on offer in the cram classes, but he did not bother going to the English tutorials. As he put it, ‘English is English, and I was doing well enough’. The subject was not included in his TER, all he had to do was pass in the subject and he was, ‘sitting on 70% in English anyway’.

184

MARTIN FORSEY

Against the odds in many ways, John is now studying medicine in Perth. With a scholarship from the local mining industry helping him on his way, he is enjoying his studies immensely. John acknowledges readily enough that the supplementary education programme helped his cohort focus in on getting to university: ‘Our class was one of the first to have a 100% graduation, and last year it was 96% or 97%. And so there are these things that are starting to reflect that the school is committed’. However, when it comes to his own particular achievements John is a little more circumspect. He does not believe that the KEI gave him the edge for getting into medicine: ‘In reality I think I could have done the same thing if left to study on my own because it was work on my part that got me to where I have come now’. However, as John readily acknowledges this is impossible to measure in any definitive manner; he knows that you cannot run a controlled experiment to test this.

IS IT EFFECTIVE AND DOES IT INCREASE EDUCATIONAL INEQUALITY? A QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT OF SUPPLEMENTARY EDUCATION John’s musings on the benefits of academic coaching help pick up two of the key questions pursued in the supplementary education literature: is it effective and does it increase educational inequality? (see Bray, 2009; Dang and Halsey-Rogers, 2008; Ireson, 2004; Tansel and Bircan, 2005; Watson, 2008). His insights about the general benefits of the KEI and the questions he has about whether he did any better than he might have done otherwise reflect the difficulties associated with measuring individual effects in the midst of general trends. The Catholic school principal is in no doubt about the beneficial effects of the KEI on the school he led up until the end of 2009. Retention rates to Year 12 increased dramatically, as did the proportion of students graduating and eligible for a TER. Figures also showed a spectacular increase in high achieving students at St Luke’s, with the first year of the KEI coinciding with 12% of the student population ranked at 95.0 or better (Bothe, 2009). In the 2 years immediately prior to this no student achieved this score. John has some company in asserting the limited effects of the KEI on his academic success. Of the three other students from the KEI Cohort, only Rene is sure that the project helped him in getting to his university of choice. Both Lucy and Mark shared John’s view that they probably would

A Qualitative Study of Supplementary Education in Western Australia

185

have done just as well on their own. Lucy is interesting in that when I first raised the question about whether tutoring helped her get to university, she concluded that she would have gone regardless; however, she thought that it probably improved her grades. A little later in the interview I asked about what she might have achieved had she stayed in Perth; Lucy decided that her marks would have been more or less the same. Mark, who was interviewed alongside Lucy, also suggested that he would have still achieved very well regardless of the KEI. When I asked him if he thought the KEI had helped him to get into engineering, he responded, ‘Not really. I had already decided about that so I’d have got it. And I am usually pretty relaxed about exams so I wasn’t really worried about them’. Obviously there is no way of assessing whether the claims made by John, Lucy or Mark reflect widespread liberal fantasies about self-made persons or not. Qualitative research can rarely address such questions in any definitive manner. However, the study does help address the key questions posed at the opening of this section by adding some layers of complexity to questions about effectiveness and inequality. While a number of students were happy with the services offered by their tutors, many were not, and even those who were content did not necessarily benefit very much, at least not in terms of boosting their TER to any significant degree. The interviewees attest more to the ineffectiveness of tutoring than to its efficacy. Pete for example, from the ‘Schooled in Perth Cohort’, spoke of the ineptitude of his tutor employed by his parents when he was in Year 10. Every Saturday morning for a semester Pete’s parents drove him quite a long way to the house of an ex-principal who took group classes around his kitchen table. Pete recalls a man wearing a tracksuit and smelling of Deep Heat (an ointment used to treat joint pain), who was largely ineffectual in teaching him the finer points of maths. ‘His style of tutoring didn’t help me’, he commented, ‘I needed something much more intensive. After a while I started getting fed up with it and then the semester was over. But, you know, without the interest on my part it wouldn’t have worked anyway’. As Julie’s story reveals, her parents also employed an ineffectual maths teacher when she was in Year 10, also at the suggestion of one of the teachers at the school. Ella, who was largely happy with the various forms of tutoring she received in addition to her formal schooling, also reported dissatisfaction with the German tutor employed by her parents when she began Year 12. Despite her enthusiasm for the language, she found herself ‘sitting there for an hour and not learning anything’. Karen and Geraldine offer a slightly different take on the ineffectiveness of tutoring. Both

186

MARTIN FORSEY

attended the same moderate-fee Anglican school in the northern suburbs of Perth and both ended up having to enrol in a maths unit at university in order to meet the prerequisites for their science major. They would not have been required to complete any more formal studies in maths had they passed their Year 12 maths exams. They didn’t, despite having employed what they described as highly effective tutors in their upper school years. Similar to Julie’s story, Geraldine’s maths results did not contribute to her TER, and she achieved a similarly high rank despite this. At the end of Year 11, Geraldine achieved an A in the maths unit she completed. She was tutored through much of that year and was very happy with the services she received from the tutor. Year 12 was a different matter. Despite using the same tutor she ‘bombed out completely’. Geraldine attributes her failure in maths to her increasing disinterest in the subject in her final year of school: ‘I just remember being totally disinterested in any form of maths and when the TEE came up studying really hard for human biology, English, and history. Maths got left. And I think having the tutor on a Sunday morning had a sort of stultifying effect on me also’. Geraldine’s friend Karen worked much harder on her maths course and still failed. Despite this Karen did better than she expected in only just failing to reach the magic 50% mark in her maths exam, and thinks that the tutoring did assist her in getting just enough in her TER to qualify for UWA. Azatui is the only person of the 10 interviewed for this study who did not get tutored in maths. She employed a tutor in the final phases of Year 12 because she had not been very well in this final year of her schooling. Describing herself as one who never really liked school, Azatui spoke of how she did not like ‘the feeling’ of getting a tutor. She remembers thinking that ‘only dumb people need tutors’ and she was anything but that. Nevertheless she acknowledges that at some point in her final year she needed ‘a kick up the bum’. Two tutors were employed by her parents at this time, the first lasted a week as he was ‘a monotone drone’. The second worked much more effectively for Azatui: … he had an air of enthusiasm about him. He sat over my shoulder. I worked through the text book with him. My physics and chem marks went up about 12 over the time and he probably got me to uni. I was a couple of marks over and it did get me the numbers
probably.

Azatui’s reflections on her experiences of being tutored point to the importance of feeling some level of ease or control while dealing with the emotions associated with high-stakes examinations. In her case she find the sorts of motivation she needed to get through the examinations. As she

A Qualitative Study of Supplementary Education in Western Australia

187

said of the second tutor, ‘letting him be there was my own kick up the bum. I would have cruised to a 70 without tutoring and that was unacceptable to me at that time’. Julie’s need to keep on top of the stress arising from not being able to keep up and not doing as well as she wanted to and the ways in which her maths tutor helped her do this have already been highlighted. It offers another point of comparison with Geraldine and Karen who both spoke of how being tutored in maths helped them to cope with the pressures of the year. Even though neither of them passed the maths exam, they are grateful for the comfort it brought them in this stressful year and both would recommend the use of tutors if only for this reason. The emotional, comforting components of the tutoring experiences are barely mentioned in the research assessing tutoring processes. We probably need to look more closely at these less direct effects of supplementary education in assessing its efficacy. As Lucy from the Karratha Cohort commented, the tutoring may not have increased her marks in any dramatic manner, but ‘it did help with my mental state and being able to sit the exam and be prepared for it’. The Karratha Educational Initiative offers a reminder of the potential for well-planned supplementary education programmes to help redress some of the imbalances in the educational equation. But it also reminds us that this rebalancing can only occur if significant resources are directed at sites where students are deprived of the sorts of educational resources that are often taken for granted in the administrative centres of dispersed populations and states. That said, we should not lose sight of the fact that Karratha is far from financially underprivileged. Many of the parents living there have access to financial resources that are unavailable in some parts of Perth and in most other rural towns in Western Australia. In the absence of rich mining companies to form productive partnerships with in most of the townships strewn across the 2 million square kilometres of Western Australia, the need for governments to take responsibility for the people they represent remains a very live one. The individuals interviewed for this study offer ‘deep support’ to the more generalised studies suggesting that academic coaching is at best uneven in its effects. The stories captured here help show how this happens. In some cases the tutoring is simply incompetent or inappropriate to the needs of students. Sometimes the student loses the requisite motivation to do well in certain subjects. Geraldine offers a particularly useful case study in this regard as she was otherwise a very able student, achieving a TER equal to that of the law student Julie. In her case we are not searching around for intellectual or sociological explanations for the ineffectiveness

188

MARTIN FORSEY

of tuition, as she comes from an intellectually privileged background and is very much interested in the sciences; it is difficult to imagine any hidden injuries of class or gender at work here. A third, and related, point is worth emphasising. In two of the six cases in the ‘Schooled in Perth Cohort’ the students felt they were very competently tutored in a subject that did not in the end count in their Tertiary Entrance Ranking. Clearly this would not happen in systems that do not make concessions to a student’s weaker hand, but in Western Australia at least we have examples of students who did very well in their university entrance examinations, yet intensive, expensive tutoring in no way contributed to their success. In a third case the same sort of input contributed little, and of the other three cases in this cohort, one did not find tuition efficacious at all. Education systems are intricate and the ways in which human beings interact with them add further layers of complexity to this. This study asked the fundamental question of those who participated in it whether tutoring helped them get to university. Predictably enough some thought it did, others thought not, while still others were not sure either way. The process seems to have helped some deal with the emotional strain brought by the final year of schooling in a place that imposes high stakes examinations on its population, and this may well offer some advantages to those who can afford it. However, this study suggests that perhaps we should not worry overly much about the inequalities brought by private tutoring. Yet again the market shows itself to less efficient than some hope it to be and that some others might fear it is.

REFERENCES Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2012). Census home page, data and analysis. Retrieved from www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/censushome.nsf/home/data?opendocument#from-banner=LN Australian Government. (2008). Review of Australian higher education. Canberra: DEEWR. Retrieved from www.deewr.gov.au/HigherEducation/Review/Documents/PDF/Higher% 20Education%20Review_one%20document_02.pdf Baker, D., Akiba, M., LeTendre, G., & Wiseman, A. (2001). Worldwide shadow education: Outside-school learning, institutional quality of schooling, and cross-national mathematics achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(1), 1
17. Bartholomaeus, P. (1998). School and community: An important partnership. Peer referenced paper presented to the Australian association for research in education national conference, Adelaide. Bothe, P. (2009). A mutually beneficial school/industry partnership in a remote area. Presentation to the Australian council for educational leaders annual conference. Retrieved from www.acel.org.au/fileadmin/.../PETER%20BOTHE%20SAT%201430.ppt (Accessed on May 3, 2009).

A Qualitative Study of Supplementary Education in Western Australia

189

Bowe, R., Gewirtz, S., & Ball, S. (1994). Captured by the discourse? Issues and concerns in researching parental choice. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 15(1), 63
78. Bray, M. (2009). Confronting the shadow education system: What government policies for what private tutoring? Paris, France: UNESCO International Institute for Educational Planning. Brugen, S., & Labhart, C. (2013). Emotion work in time-out schools. Ethnography and Education. doi:10.1080/17457823.2013.792674 Dang, H.-A., & Halsey-Rogers, F. (2008). How to interpret the growing phenomenon of private tutoring: Human capital deepening, inequality increasing, or waste of resources? Policy Research Working Paper No. 4530. The World Bank Development Research Group. Davies, S., & Aurini, J. (2008). School choice as concerted cultivation: The case of Canada. In M. Forsey, S. Davies, & G. Walford (Eds.), The globalization of school choice? Oxford, UK: Symposium Books. Forsey, M. G. (2008). Ethnographic interviewing: From conversation to published text. In G. Walford (Ed.), How to do educational ethnography. London, UK: Tufnell Press. Forsey, M. G. (2010). Publicly minded, privately focused: Western Australian teachers and school choice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(1), 53
60. Forsey, M. G. (2011). Living on edges: supplementing education in an Australian mining town. Special focus
supplementary education in Asia. The International Institute of Asian Studies Newsletter, 56(Spring), 21
23. Forsey, M. G. (2012). The Karratha Education Initiative: A case study for school
industry partnership. School of Social and Cultural Studies, The University of Western Australia. Ireson, J. (2004). Private tutoring: How prevalent and effective is it? London Review of Education, 2(2), 109
122. Ireson, J., & Rushforth, K. (2005). Mapping and evaluating shadow education: ESRC research project RES-000-23-0117, End of Award Report. Retrieved from www.dorsetmathsdoctor. co.uk/ireson%20report.pdf Kenny, D., & Faunce, G. (2004). Effects of academic coaching on elementary and secondary school students. Journal of Educational Research, 98(2), 115
124. Lareau, A. (2003). Unequal childhoods. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Miller, D. (2008). The comfort of things. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Pate, A. (2008). Learning support programs
‘A chance to experience success’: An evaluation of four Melbourne City mission learning support programs for children and young people, Melbourne City Mission, Melbourne. Russell, J. (2002). The secret lessons. New Statesman, April 8, pp. 10
12. Silova, I., Budiene, V., & Bray, M. (Eds.). (2006). Education in a hidden marketplace: Monitoring of private tutoring. Budapest: Open Society Institute. Tansel, A., & Bircan, F. (2005). Demand for education in Turkey: A Tobit analysis of private tutoring expenditures. Economics of Education Review, 25, 303
313. Watson, L. (2008). Private expectations and public schooling: The growth of private tutoring in Australia. Peer referenced paper presented to the Australian Association for Research in Education National Conference, 30 November
4 December, Brisbane.

SUPPLEMENTARY EDUCATION IN THE UNITED STATES: POLICY CONTEXT, CHARACTERISTICS, AND CHALLENGES Izumi Mori ABSTRACT Purpose
This chapter examines the policy context, characteristics, and challenges of supplementary tutoring in the United States, with a specific focus on the supplemental educational services (SES) mandate of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). This government-sponsored tutoring is particularly an interesting case of the United States, where privately funded tutoring is increasingly integrated into a public policy. Approach
After introducing the details of SES program and examining major forces that influenced the introduction of this program, the chapter provides a summary on the scale of SES with a particular focus on a historical period when this program was most pervasive. It also discusses challenges of this policy and notes some recent policy changes due to NCLB reauthorization. The main sources of data for this study include two major federal reports on SES as well as the empirical studies on the effectiveness of supplementary tutoring in the United States.

Out of the Shadows: The Global Intensification of Supplementary Education International Perspectives on Education and Society, Volume 22, 191
207 Copyright r 2013 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3679/doi:10.1108/S1479-3679(2013)0000022009

191

192

IZUMI MORI

Findings
An examination of policy contexts reveals that both federal and market forces contributed to the development of supplementary tutoring in the United States. While the number of tutoring providers and eligible students increased, evaluation studies have found either a small or insignificant effect of publicly funded tutoring. Communications among schools, families, and tutoring providers need to be more effective. Originality
Although SES of the NCLB have exclusively been examined in the American context in the previous studies, this study suggests that other countries may learn from its policy context, practices, and challenges to reflect on supplementary tutoring in their own school systems. Keywords: Supplemental educational services; publicly funded tutoring; No Child Left Behind; United States

INTRODUCTION In the last 20 years, the use of supplementary tutoring in the United States has increased alongside greater emphasis on academic achievement (Anderson, 2011; Stotsky et al., 2010; Sullivan, 2010). Cross-nationally, supplementary tutoring involves two main bodies of literature. One is studies on shadow education and private tutoring which usually examine supplementary tutoring that is market-driven and paid for by families. These types of tutoring often take place in private institutions or private homes of tutors and tutees, and are largely free from governmental control. As these lessons often require substantial fees that are outside poor families’ available resources, inequality tends to emerge between those who can afford such lessons and those who cannot. In the American context, preparation for SAT, a standardized test for most college admissions, falls under this type of tutoring (Buchmann, Condron, & Roscigno, 2010; Byun & Park, 2012; Domingue & Briggs, 2009; Park, 2012). Another major body of research on supplementary tutoring is called outof-school-time lessons or after-school tutoring (e.g., Lauer et al., 2006; Weiss, Little, Bouffard, Deschenes, & Malone, 2009), which is recognized across the world but is most commonly studied in the United States. Unlike privately funded supplementary tutoring, this type of tutoring is publicly funded by the government and often provided by schools or communities. Therefore, it tends to serve low-achieving students (sometimes described as “at-risk” students) in families with fewer resources so as to

Supplementary Education in the United States

193

allocate equal educational opportunities for all students. A recent example in the United States includes a policy effort to provide quality after-school programs for school-aged children under federal initiatives of the 21st Century Community Learning Centers (21st CCLC) program. This study focuses on a particular subset of the second type of literature, studies on the supplemental educational services (SES) program of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act in the United States. Due to this legislation, more students have received after-school or weekend lessons in subjects such as maths and reading in order to achieve better test scores. This government-sponsored tutoring is particularly an interesting case in which privately funded tutoring is increasingly integrated into a public policy. As a result, private tutoring once used by wealthy students becomes available to poor students through a public subsidy. The U.S. case is worth attention because of its similarities and differences from the worldwide pattern of supplementary tutoring. On one hand, SES of the NCLB shares the basic features of supplementary tutoring, especially that of private nature, in a sense that it (1) includes private forprofit sector, (2) is used for raising academic achievement, and (3) is run outside of conventional schools’ classes. On the other hand, the U.S. SES differ in a sense that SES are publicly funded by the government and is geared toward lower-income students. Therefore, the United States may be interpreted as a special case in which tutoring is publicly funded and available to lower-income students.1 In this chapter, I suggest that supplementary tutoring in the United States is better understood when situated in the global context. Although SES of the NCLB have exclusively been examined in the American context, I will examine how U.S. supplementary tutoring is similar or different from worldwide patterns of tutoring by focusing on its policy context, characteristics, and challenges. I first introduce the details of SES program and examine the two major forces
federalism and market-based education reform
that influenced the introduction of this program. I then provide a summary on the scale of SES based on existing literature. Although the SES program has experienced some changes since 2011 due to NCLB reauthorization, I focus on a particular historical period (2002
2009) when this program was most pervasive. I will also examine the challenges of U.S. supplementary tutoring policy, which include program evaluation, active student participation, and communications among schools, parents, and tutoring providers. The main sources of data for this study include two major federal reports on SES (U.S. Department of Education, 2007, 2009) as well as the empirical studies on the effectiveness of supplementary tutoring in the United States.

194

IZUMI MORI

STRUCTURE OF THE U.S. EDUCATION SYSTEM In the United States, public and private education is generally divided into three levels. Typical stages are elementary school (K
5th), middle school (6
8th), and high school (9
12th), although the exact age range of students in these grade levels varies. Public education refers to the system by which federal, state, and local governments provide the funding and oversight of free and compulsory public schools for all children from the ages of 5 or 6 to 16 or 18, depending on the state. Publicly funded education ends when a student graduates from high school or finishes grade 12 (Keene, 2008). While most U.S. children are educated in public schools to satisfy compulsory education requirements, other students are educated in private schools which comprise a sizeable segment of U.S. schools. These private schools include state-certified for-profit and non-profit private schools, religious schools, and approved home school programs. Postsecondary education in the United Schools includes public and private universities, liberal arts colleges, community colleges, trade schools, and vocationally oriented institutions. Though postsecondary education is not free, federal grants and student loan programs exist for students to apply for assistance. Public universities and colleges are funded by state governments. Control and funding of U.S. education are shared by the three levels of government: federal, state, and local. Public elementary and secondary education are primarily the responsibility of state and local governments, as the large proportion of public school revenues come from state funds and local property taxes. School curricula, funding, teacher employment, and other policies are also determined at the local level. States are responsible for the distribution of federal and state funding, implementation of federal and state programs, and oversight of student assessments for accountability. At the federal level, the U.S. Department of Education collects data on all aspects of the U.S. education system and monitors the system at the national level.

SUPPLEMENTAL EDUCATIONAL SERVICES PROGRAM The purpose of the SES mandate, one of the major pillars of the NCLB Act, is to raise academic achievement of low-achieving students in Title I schools. Title I schools are identified by the federal government and receive

Supplementary Education in the United States

195

funding to ensure that “all children have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high-quality education” (U.S. Department of Education, 2010b). These schools aim to improve the educational needs of at-risk and low-income children. While the bulk of Title I funds goes to public schools, private schools are also eligible to receive Title I funds if the schools are identified as at risk of failing (U.S. Department of Education, 2010b). In that case, private schools may also provide supplementary education under the NCLB policy. The following excerpt from the U.S. Department of Education’s Web site states the mission of the supplementary educational services mandate as follows: Low-income families can enroll their child in SES if their child attends a Title I school that has been designated by the state to be in need of improvement for more than one year. The term “supplemental educational services” refers to free extra academic help, such as tutoring or remedial help, that is provided to students in subjects such as reading, language arts, and maths. This extra help can be provided before or after school, on weekends, or in the summer. (U.S. Department of Education, 2010a)

Eligible SES providers may include public schools, public charter schools, local educational agencies, for-profit educational agencies, and faith-based organizations. These providers, whether public or private, must be approved by the state. School districts develop a list of approved providers for parents to select from. According to policymakers, SES of the NCLB not only help enhance student achievement but also provide an incentive for low-performing schools to improve their instruction. If schools fail to achieve adequate yearly progress for 3 years in a row, they are required to set aside 20% of their Title I budget for supplementary education. Consequently, this mandate acts as a “punishment” for low-performing schools. Sunderman (2006, p. 117) notes that “[u]nderlying supplemental services is the assumption that academic instruction provided outside the regular school day by public and private organizations will be able to do what schools cannot
raise the achievement of the students in consistently poorly performing schools.” As this remark suggests, supplementary tutoring plays a complementary role in supporting the role of formal schooling. In order to assure the successful implementation of the SES mandate, several mechanisms are at work. Key stakeholders include state education departments, school districts, and school principals or teachers. For example, states must approve providers, set the criteria for approval, and disseminate relevant information on their Web sites. School districts with underperforming schools must set aside at least 20% of their Title I budget for the supplementary tutoring provision, and schools must notify parents

196

IZUMI MORI

in a clear and timely manner when their children are eligible for free tutoring to ensure parents understand the available options and make informed decisions (U.S. Department of Education, 2008). When a school is identified as underperforming and in need of improvement, teachers may refer students to take additional lessons from one of the state-approved SES providers. As the reform encompasses all levels of educational actors, ranging from the local to the federal level, all actors must be coordinated to achieve the intended goal of the policy.

FEDERAL SUPPORT FOR LOW-INCOME STUDENTS Two major factors have contributed to the development of SES under NCLB in the United States. The first major factor is the federal support for low-income students. This emphasis dates back to the 1960s when the U.S. government started to promote federal involvement in education. During this time, the government attempted to reduce poverty by allocating federal funds to improve education for disadvantaged children (Jefferey, 1978). This idea is also evident in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 which emphasized equality of educational opportunity and closing achievement gaps. The relevant movement through which supplementary tutoring was promoted during the 1960s includes the emphasis on compensatory education that aimed to support disadvantaged students based on the belief that all children are inherently equal in their intelligence and that their poor performance is due to a poor environment. Among several recommendations in the book Compensatory Education for the Disadvantaged, Gordon (1966) proposed “extensions of the school” as a means to promote compensatory education, suggesting that learning is significantly influenced by factors outside of school. The book also recommended programs such as the all-day neighborhood school, weekend activities, and summer programs to compensate for the limited support for disadvantaged pupils (Gordon, 1966, p. 86). The basic idea behind such welfare-related educational policies, namely the federal support for disadvantaged students, paved the way for the current NCLB SES mandate.

MARKET-BASED EDUCATION REFORM Market-based education reform is the second major force that contributed to the current SES policy. Despite historical controversies, various

Supplementary Education in the United States

197

privatized educational endeavors in the form of vouchers, charter schools, and home schooling are socially accepted in the United States. The underlying logic of the NCLB is that choice and competition produce better educational outcomes. Researchers agree that the SES tenet of NCLB was a political compromise between supporters and opponents of vouchers (Ascher, 2006; Sunderman, 2006). The policy was originally on the conservative agenda, as it was introduced by Republican Congressman Buck McKeon and supported by the Education Industry Association.2 Democrats were strongly opposed to the school voucher plan proposed by Republicans, which transfers federal funds away from disadvantaged schools to private schools. However, a New Democrat Coalition in Congress agreed that market forces, competition, and parental choice were the keys in public education (Vergari, 2007, p. 312). The bipartisan nature of the NCLB led Senator Edward Kennedy, one of the key members in NCLB reauthorization, to suggest “the possibility that he might support a program that allowed the would-be ‘exitvoucher’ money to go instead toward tutoring”. Tutoring was eventually “supplemental services,” a term that was considered more politically neutral (Gorman, 2004, p. 39). Although supplementary education is an “extra” rather than an “alternative” to formal schools, the general idea is embedded in the broader context of privatization similar to other private education. Adding to the idea of federal support for disadvantaged students, which I discussed above, the NCLB’s SES policy was influenced by the market-based idea on educational reform. Vergari (2007, p. 315) noted that “the SES [supplemental educational services] policy is part of a contemporary pattern of increasing federal activity in public education that challenges traditional school district power and growing policy-maker acceptance of proposals for marketbased reforms aimed at producing greater choice, competition, and accountability in public education.”

SCALE OF SUPPLEMENTAL EDUCATIONAL SERVICES Two previous reports by the U.S. Department of Education (2007, 2009) have revealed that several individual characteristics are associated with students’ participation in SES. First, participation in supplementary tutoring depends on students’ grade levels. For example, in 2004
2005 school year, 24
28% of eligible students in grades 2 through 5 participated in

198

IZUMI MORI

supplementary tutoring. This was followed by 16% of eligible grade 1 students, 12
16% of eligible grade 6
8 students, and only 2
4% of eligible high school students. Second, students from low-income families are more likely to participate in tutoring. This finding is not surprising since Title I schools are more likely to receive SES provisions. In 2006
2007, 29% of high-poverty Title I schools had students who were eligible for SES, compared to 3% of low-poverty Title I schools. Third, participation in tutoring varies by race/ethnicity. More African-American students participate in supplementary tutoring under the NCLB, followed by Hispanic students (Asian students are not included in the report). White students are least likely to participate in SES when compared with other race/ethnic groups. Fourth, more limited English proficiency (LEP) students tend to participate in SES than non-LEP students. Fifth, in terms of location, more urban students receive tutoring, followed by suburban and rural students. As for student eligibility and participation, in 2006
2007, 3.3 million students were eligible for Title I SES, a sixfold increase from 2002 to 2003. This is equivalent to 13% of all students in Title I schools. Among the eligible students, 17% participated in supplementary tutoring.3 According to Fig. 1, from 2003 to 2008, the number of state-approved Title I SES providers almost tripled from 1,024 to 3,050. Among different types of providers, private providers experienced the largest increase. During this period, the percentage of providers operated by school districts and public schools

3500 3000 2500 2000 84%

86%

76%

1500

Private 88%

School Districts

70%

Other

1000 60%

500 0

32% 8%

25%

17%

6%

6%

14% 2%

11% 2%

10% 2%

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Fig. 1.

Number and Distribution of State-Approved Providers, 2003
2008. Source: U.S. Department of Education (2009, p. 8).

Supplementary Education in the United States

199

has decreased from 32% to 10%, which may show an evidence of increased privatization. The average size of providers has increased during this period, suggesting that large corporate franchise has become more common compared to small neighborhood tutoring centers. More centers have newly opened since the implementation of NCLB in 2002. Similarly, teaching staff with longer years of experience have decreased, while those with teaching certificate or current school teachers have decreased. Full-time employees decreased while part-time employees increased. The main place of tutoring includes students’ school, followed by community centers, private tutoring centers, students’ homes, and the Internet. Regarding the types of tutoring, one-on-one tutoring is the most common, followed by small groups and large groups. For average hours of tutoring, 2 hours a week was the norm among many school districts.

EVALUATING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF SUPPLEMENTARY TUTORING In order to ensure the effectiveness of tutoring, certain roles are imposed on tutoring providers and states. NCLB requires state-approved tutoring providers to satisfy conditions that include (1) providing evidence-based instruction, (2) submitting records of students’ academic improvement, (3) following district and state standards, and (4) being financially stable. Providers that do not meet these requirements may lose their status as an approved provider or may have to reapply. Besides meeting these requirements, providers must also submit regular reports to districts on their students’ progress and have regular communication with parents and teachers. States, on the other hand, are required to monitor and evaluate providers including observing tutoring lessons and discussing lesson improvements with owners of tutoring providers. States are also required to check if districts are running tutoring in an appropriate way. Despite these mechanisms, there is a lack of strong evidence that these services positively affect students’ academic achievement. Even with the current studies that use rigorous quantitative methods to estimate the effect of tutoring on academic achievement, these studies have found either no significant effect or only marginal effect of tutoring on students’ academic achievement. In some of these studies, researchers have noted that selection bias is a major problem in examining the effect of supplementary tutoring

200

IZUMI MORI

on academic achievement. Since the decision to receive supplementary tutoring is hardly randomized across students and their families, use of a quasi-experimental design is necessary to avoid estimation bias. Students may be selected for tutoring due to unobserved characteristics, such as motivation and test-taking skills. Studies that attempt to address the selection issue tackled the problem by including an instrumental variable or adding a large number of relevant covariates into the model, including a proxy measure for unobservable characteristics. Using the National Longitudinal Study of NCLB (NLS-NCLB) and a difference-in-differences approach, researchers revealed small statistically significant achievement gains among participants in supplementary tutoring in reading and maths in the United States (U.S. Department of Education, 2007). The report was based on longitudinal student-level data on nine large, urban school districts across the country. The NLS-NCLB survey originally sampled 300 school districts that included about 1,500 schools across the nation in 2004
2005 and 2006
2007. These researchers noted that use of a conventional regression model to examine achievement effect cross-sectionally may produce biased estimates of program effects. To avoid this issue, they implemented a quasi-experimental difference-indifferences approach that uses within-subject pre-post comparisons and comparisons between participating and nonparticipating students. The method is also referred to as a student fixed-effect approach in econometric terms. By using this method and controlling for student characteristics, they found positive achievement gains among participants in supplementary tutoring in reading and maths. The study also revealed that those who participated in these programs for several years had twice the gains of students who participated for one year, and that African-American, Hispanic, and students with disabilities experienced greater achievement gains from participation in tutoring activities. Contrary to the above findings, some studies have shown a non-significant effect of tutoring. Using data from Jefferson County Public Schools in Kentucky, Munoz and Ross (2008) compared students who received tutoring with students who were eligible for tutoring but did not receive it, and who had similar characteristics based on the following five variables: previous diagnostic test scores in reading, gender, race, participation in the free or reduced-price lunch program, and single-parent homes. The Jefferson Country Public Schools are the 26th largest school district in the nation and located in a large metropolitan area. Of 150 schools in the district, 30 were required to offer the NCLB-mandated SES during the 2005
2006 school year when the survey took place. Although students, parents, teachers, and administrators were generally in favor of the

Supplementary Education in the United States

201

program, Munoz and Ross found overall non-significant effects of tutoring for those who received tutoring, both in reading and maths, compared to the matched control students. The study recognized the need to isolate confounding factors in measuring the impact of supplementary tutoring. It also referred to a range of uncontrollable factors, including “characteristics of the tutoring setting, contamination from core academic and other support programs, student interest and motivation, and limitations of standardized achievement tests for sensitively measuring tutoring impacts” (Munoz & Ross, 2008, p. 3), all of which may bias the treatment effect. The study raised three possible explanations for the absence of tutoring effects. One is the limited duration of the tutoring activity relative to regular school programs and other educational experiences. Another is the failure of standardized tests to assess higher-order learning or specific knowledge skills that may be taught during tutoring sessions. The third is communication problems among parents, schools, and tutoring providers in implementing the program, including the lack of effort on the part of the provider to respond to parents’ concerns. Using survey data from Milwaukee Public Schools and the propensity score matching method, Heinrich, Meyer, and Whitten (2010) found no statistically significant effect of supplementary tutoring on students’ reading and maths achievement gains at any grade level. They included a range of socio-demographic variables and prior achievement measures considered to affect current achievement. However, no effect was found. Heinrich and her colleagues supplemented this analysis with findings from a qualitative study and found that the lack of an effect may be due to several factors: insufficient hours attending supplementary tutoring, lack of continuity in students’ daytime and after-school learning environments, quality of instruction, and student motivation to learn from tutoring. Above all, these evaluation studies found only small or insignificant effects of supplementary tutoring, using the state-of-the-art quantitative methods to deal with selection bias. As have been repeatedly mentioned by these researchers, one reason that may explain this lack of significant effect is the insufficient time spent on tutoring, where most tutored students only spend around 20
50 hours of tutoring per year (Heinrich & Burch, 2011). Another reason may be small sample sizes in the study. As statistical significance is strongly determined by sample size, results tend to be “significant” where there are large samples. Some researchers also argue that a program’s lack of demonstrated effectiveness may be due to the aggregation of intervention outcomes that fail to differentiate heterogeneous effects by student subgroups (Lauer et al., 2006). Such subgroup differences may include students’ grade levels, students’ prior achievement, parental education

202

IZUMI MORI

(Kuan, 2011), and race/ethnicity (Buchmann et al., 2010; Byun & Park, 2012; U.S. Department of Education, 2007).

ISSUE OF LOW PARTICIPATION AMONG STUDENTS Another challenge to NCLB’s supplementary tutoring provision is the lack of active participation by students. While the total number of students who are eligible for supplementary tutoring has steadily increased in the first few years of NCLB Act’s implementation, the actual proportion of students who received NCLB supplementary tutoring has remained low. Why has student participation remained low, even when supplementary tutoring is provided for free? One major reason may be the school
parent communication. In 2006
2007, only 60% of parents with children who were eligible for NCLB supplementary tutoring reported that they were notified of the availability of free tutoring (U.S. Department of Education, 2009). Even when parents were notified, some were unsure how to apply for the program and where to find out information about the program. Another reason for low participation is the unwillingness of parents to send their children to tutoring. According to a survey by the U.S. Department of Education (2009, pp. 46, 47), the main reasons that parents of eligible students decided not to participate in the program include the following: My child doesn’t need help (46%); Tutoring is given at times that are not good for my family (35%); Tutoring is given at a place that is not easy to get to (15%); My child did not want to get this extra help (13%), and There is no tutoring in the subject areas in which my child needs extra help (11%).4 These results suggest that some parents do not strongly feel that their children need to receive supplementary tutoring. They may let their children receive tutoring when tutoring is free or when teachers recommend their children to receive tutoring; however, fewer parents send their children to tutoring because of their child’s lower test scores or grades. This rather passive tendency among the U.S. parents may show the particular norm on the use of supplementary tutoring in the United States.

ISSUE OF COMMUNICATION BETWEEN SCHOOLS AND TUTORING PROVIDERS The third challenge to NCLB SES provision is weak relationships between schools and tutoring providers. As mentioned earlier, providers are required

Supplementary Education in the United States

203

to report details on students’ participation, teaching contents, and teaching progress to schools on a regular basis. However, schools are not always amenable to this partnership. Koyama’s (2010) three years of fieldwork on SES found that some principals expressed confusion toward the sudden implementation of the SES mandate. Others expressed resistance toward the provision. A principal who has worked at a local school for 20 years, for example, opposed the idea of “outsourcing” by introducing a private provider from outside school. This principal’s school had provided SES to students for some time by contracting with local state-approved providers. However, because the schools’ academic achievement levels had not improved, the school had to go through another stage of corrective action under the NCLB. The policy requires that the public subsidy, which could have been spent for their own schools’ improvement, had to be spent for a private sector that does not have any direct responsibility for improving schools.

RECENT CHANGES TO THE NCLB SUPPLEMENTAL EDUCATIONAL SERVICES MANDATE The U.S. Department of Education announced in September 2011 that states could apply for waivers on SES, provided they agree to various reforms advocated by the Obama administration (U.S. Department of Education, 2012). As of 2013, 34 states plus the District of Columbia had been approved to waive the SES provision. To receive such waiver status, each state provided a detailed alternative plan to raise students’ academic achievement other than by using third-party tutoring. This means that districts of schools that fail to achieve adequate yearly progress are no longer required to set aside a 20% of their Title I budget for supplementary tutoring. This waiver policy, presented among a series of flexibility measures of the NCLB reauthorization, allows districts to shift funding for other kinds of school-improvement and after-school programs besides tutoring. However, it remains to be seen whether these sweeping changes will greatly reduce supplementary education services in the United States. Even when districts prefer to end the use of tutoring, states may require districts to continue to reserve funding for tutoring providers.

CONCLUSIONS Supplementary tutoring in the United States represents an interesting case study. By reviewing this development, one may conclude that the NCLB’s

204

IZUMI MORI

tutoring mandate seems to have encouraged U.S. tutoring to become more institutionalized. Some predict that even though tutoring providers may be negatively impacted by the federal waiver in 2011, overall demand for tutoring would remain strong. Koyama (2010, p. 4) presents the following quote from a manager of a large corporate tutoring provider whom she interviewed: [A]s students’ test scores increase and schools emerge from their failing status, in part because of the tutoring, SES [supplemental educational services] will become a legitimate and necessary part of public schooling, even if NCLB loses support …. SES will be institutionalized and its value will go unquestioned just as private tutoring has become commonplace for children in middle- and upper-class families, aiming to get into top colleges.

This means that the promotion of publicly funded tutoring for poor families as a policy measure may encourage the development of privately funded tutoring sector and may influence people’s norms about the use of tutoring. If such view is true, the development of supplementary tutoring in the United States corresponds to the general trend toward a more structured system of supplementary tutoring around the world (Aurini, 2006; Baker, Akiba, LeTendre, & Wiseman, 2001; Mori & Baker, 2010). On the other hand, due to the recent de-emphasis of SES under NCLB reauthorization, it is conceivable that we may witness more district control of expanded learning programs. In reality, districts and school principals tend to resist using for-profit companies to “turn their schools around,” and prefer to use other additional funds to improve their own schools. It is also true that a majority of commercial tutoring providers do not usually accept disabled students or students with limited English proficiency
the very students who tend to have lower test scores. Indeed, public
private partnerships between schools and the tutoring sector in the United States are tenuous at best. As the regular customers of for-profit tutoring providers are usually students from relatively wealthy families, it is also questionable whether such tutoring providers can effectively deal with specific needs of disadvantaged students who need the most help. While the future of supplementary education in the United States remains uncertain, the SES mandate in the United States is a notable policy attempt to close the achievement gap by bringing outside services into the public domain. This policy also suggests the need for educational planning that involves both within and outside of the mainstream school system. Among similar initiatives across the world, in Singapore, for example, there exists a model that promotes tutoring for lower-income students with public funding (Tan, 1995). Similarly, in South Korea, a range of after-school

Supplementary Education in the United States

205

academic support is available, which was made possible with the government’s aim to decrease household burden on educational expenditures (Lee, 2005). More recently in Japan, there have been attempts to use public money for after-school tutoring, including the ones run by for-profit institutes in some local authorities (Tokyo Metropolitan Government, 2008). Although this chapter has examined SES only in the United States, other countries may learn from its policy context, practices, and challenges to reflect on supplementary tutoring in their own school systems.

NOTES 1. Outside of the United States, supplementary education is common in many East Asian nations including Japan and South Korea (Lee, 2005; Mori & Baker, 2010). These countries tend to emphasize students’ ability measured by examinations. Many of these students have received out-of-school tutoring in order to perform better at these tests. Recent studies suggest that supplementary education is growing elsewhere in the world, including North America, Eastern Europe, Africa, and other parts of Asia (Bray, 2009; Bray & Krok, 2003; Lee, 2007; Silova, 2010). 2. Education Industry Association (EIA) is a major industry organization for education entrepreneurs founded in 1990, with over 800 corporate and individual members (http://www.educationindustry.org/). According to their mission, EIA seeks to “expand educational opportunities and improve educational achievement for learners of all ages by infusing American education with market-based drivers of high-quality service, innovation, and accountability.” One of their goals is to promote public policies that ensure equitable and fair access to the education marketplace. 3. However, while the number of eligible students has increased over this period, the actual percentage of students [among those who are eligible] who participate in SES is said to have decreased after a few years of the NCLB implementation (Koyama, 2010, p. 110). 4. On the other hand, the main reasons for participating include the following: Tutoring is free (53%); There is tutoring in the subject area in which my child needs extra help (51%); My child’s teacher thought he/she should get this extra help (48%); My child wanted to get this extra help (35%); Tutoring is given at a place that is easy to get to (30%), and My child got a low score on a yearly achievement test (29%).

REFERENCES Anderson, J. (2011). Push for A’s at private school is keeping costly tutors busy. New York Times, June 7. Ascher, C. (2006). NCLB’s supplemental educational services: Is this what our students need? Phi Delta Kappan, 88(2), 136
141. October 2006.

206

IZUMI MORI

Aurini, J. (2006). Crafting legitimation projects: An institutional analysis of private education businesses. Sociological Forum, 21(1), 83
111. Baker, D. P., Akiba, M., LeTendre, G. K., & Wiseman, A. W. (2001). Worldwide shadow education: Outside-school learning, institutional quality of schooling, and cross-national mathematics achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(1), 1
17. Bray, M. (2009). Confronting the shadow education system: What government policies for what private tutoring? Paris: International Institute for Educational Planning, UNESCO. Buchmann, C., Condron, D. J., & Roscigno, V. J. (2010). Shadow education, American style: Test preparation, the SAT, and college enrollment. Social Forces, 89(2), 435
461. Byun, S., & Park, H. (2012). The academic success of East Asian American youth. Sociology of Education, 85(1), 40
60. Domingue, B. W., & Briggs, D. C. (2009) Using linear regression and propensity score matching to estimate the effect of coaching on the SAT. Multiple Linear Regression Viewpoints, 35(1), 12–29. Gordon, E. W. (1966). Compensatory education for the disadvantaged: Programs and practices, preschool through college. New York, NY: College Entrance Examination Board. Gorman, S. (2004). The invisible hand of NCLB. In F. M. Hess & C. E. Finn (Eds.), Leaving no child behind: Options for kids in failing schools. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Heinrich, C. J., & Burch, P. (2011). The implementation and effectiveness of Supplemental Educational Services: A review and recommendations for program improvement. Presented at the Tightening Up Title I conference sponsored jointly by the Center for American Progress and the American Enterprise Institute. Heinrich, C. J., Meyer, R. H., & Whitten, G. (2010). Supplemental education services under No Child Left Behind: Who signs up, and what do they gain? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 32, 273
298. Jefferey, J. R. (1978). Education for children of the poor. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press. Keene, L. (2008). United States. In I. V. S. Mullis, M. O. Martin, J. F. Olson, D. R. Berger, D. Milne, & G. M. Stanco (Eds.), TIMSS 2007 encyclopedia: A guide to mathematics and science education around the world (Vol. 2, pp. 621
634). Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Lynch School of Education, Boston College. Koyama, J. P. (2010). Making failure pay: For-profit tutoring, high-stakes testing, and public schools. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Kuan, P. Y. (2011). Effects of cram schooling on mathematics performance: Evidence from junior high students in Taiwan. Comparative Education Review, 55(3), 342
368. Lauer, P. A., Akiba, M., Wilkerson, S. B., Apthorp, H. S., Snow, D., & Martin-Glenn, M. L. (2006). Out-of-school-time programs: A meta-analysis of effects for at-risk students. Review of Educational Research, 76(2), 275
313. Lee, C. (2005). Korean education fever and private tutoring. KEDI Journal of Educational Policy, 2(1), 99
107. Lee, J. (2007). Two worlds of private tutoring: The prevalence and causes of after-school mathematics tutoring in Korea and the United States. Teachers College Record, 109(5), 1207. Mori, I., & Baker, D. (2010). The origin of universal shadow education: What the supplemental education phenomenon tells us about the postmodern institution of education. Asia Pacific Education Review, 11(1), 36
48.

Supplementary Education in the United States

207

Munoz, M. A., Potter, A. P., & Ross, S. M. (2008). Supplemental educational services as a consequence of the NCLB legislation: Evaluating its impact on student achievement in a large urban district. Journal of Education for Students Placed At Risk, 13(1), 1–25. Park, J. J. (2012). It takes a village (or an ethnic economy): The varying roles of socioeconomic status, religion, and social capital in SAT preparation for Chinese and Korean American students. American Educational Research Journal, 49(4), 624
650. Silova, I. (2010). Private tutoring in Eastern Europe and Central Asia: Policy choices and implications. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 40(3), 327
344. Stotsky, S., Hassard, J., Judson, T., Salls, J., Siemens, P., Hatch, T., & Ormsby, C. (2010). Why more students rely on tutors. New York Times, September 26. Sullivan, P. (2010). As private tutoring booms, parents look at the returns. New York Times, August 21. Sunderman, G. L. (2006). Do supplemental educational services increase opportunities for minority students? Phi Delta Kappan, 88(2), 117
123. Tan, J. (1995). Joint government-Malay community efforts to improve malay educational achievement in Singapore. Comparative Education, 31(3). Tokyo Metropolitan Government. (2008). Charenji shien tokubetsu kashituke jigyou nit suite [Regarding the ‘challenge support’ special loan policy]. Retrieved from http://www.metro. tokyo.jp/INET/OSHIRASE/2008/06/20i6qf03.htm U.S. Department of Education. (2007). State and local implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act: Vol. I
Title I school choice, supplemental educational services, and student achievement. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports. html#title U.S. Department of Education. (2008). Strengthening choice and free tutoring: How the final regulations for Title I improve public school choice and supplemental educational services (SES) in the No Child Left Behind Act. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/reg/ proposal/strengthening-choice.html U.S. Department of Education. (2009). State and local implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act: Vol. VII
Title I school choice and supplemental educational services Final report. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html#title U.S. Department of Education. (2010a). Title I: Improving the academic achievement of the disadvantaged. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg1.html U.S. Department of Education. (2010b). Choices for parents: Supplemental educational services. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/nclb/choice/help/ses/index.html U.S. Department of Education. (2012). ESEA flexibility. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/ esea/flexibility Vergari, S. (2007). Federalism and market-based education policy: The supplemental education services mandate. American Journal of Education, 113(2), 311
339. Weiss, H. B., Little, P. M. D., Bouffard, S. M., Deschenes, S. N., & Malone, H. J. (2009). The federal role in out-of-school learning: After-school, summer learning, and family involvement as critical learning supports. Cambridge: Harvard Family Research Project.

SUPPLEMENTARY EDUCATION IN GERMANY: HISTORY AND PRESENT DEVELOPMENTS Thomas Koinzer ABSTRACT Purpose
The chapter examines the attendance, cost, structure and nature of demand for supplementary education in Germany. Design/methodology/approach
This chapter reviews a variety of secondary sources. Findings
Between 20 and 30 percent of German students use “Nachhilfe” (supplementary education). This chapter argues that a complex combination of perceptions of poor school quality and parents’ fears push German students and their parents into the supplementary education sector. It also finds that Nachhilfe providers have very effectively altered the nature of their services in light of these demands. Originality/value
This chapter articulates the underlying “push” and “pull” factors that shape the nature and popularity of supplementary education in Germany. Keywords: Germany; nachhilfe; supplementary education; history; school system

Out of the Shadows: The Global Intensification of Supplementary Education International Perspectives on Education and Society, Volume 22, 209
220 Copyright r 2013 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3679/doi:10.1108/S1479-3679(2013)0000022010

209

210

THOMAS KOINZER

INTRODUCTION Almost three years ago an influential German think tank in the field of education
the Bertelsmann Foundation
published a short paper on the nature and extent of “Nachhilfe” (supplementary education) in Germany and described it as a “dark field” of German educational policy (Klemm & Klemm, 2010, p. 6). Although the survey echoed and extended a survey published two years before (Dohmen, Erbes, Fuchs, & Gu¨nzel, 2008), there was extensive discussion about the report in the media. Such discussions generally characterized Nachhilfe as a growing “black market” in education and a scandalous and shameful result of overstrained public schooling. Supplementary education in Germany as a research field is relatively and virtually a “dark field” too. Over the past five decades there have been only a handful of books and articles in respective journals
with a notable increase since the mid-1990s (e.g., Adam, 1960; Kru¨ger, 1977; Weegen, 1986; Behr, 1990; Abele & Liebau, 1998; Rudolph, 2002, 2009; Schneider, 2005; Ju¨rgens & Diekmann, 2007; Wittwer, 2008; Haag, 2008; Goerge, 2011; Haag & Ja¨ger, 2011; Guill, 2012). This chapter examines the history and present developments of supplementary education in Germany. After a short history of Nachhilfe and a short introduction into the German school system, it describes the dimensions of supplementary education in pervasiveness depending on the school stages and the structure of suppliers. Finally it discusses supplementary education as a criticism of the (public) school system with effects on school achievement and social justice. It argues that supplementary education relieves the school system from introducing more individualized educational plans and providing additional learning supports. Additionally, supplementary education has expanded from remedial education to a form of accelerated education for those seeking advantages in the process of transition to higher levels of education.

HISTORY Nachhilfe evolved alongside institutionalization of secondary schooling
the Gymnasium
in Germany in the middle of the 19th century. Private schools and private teachers for the better-off vanished as graduation from the (public) Gymnasium qualified students for entrance into higher education and into positions in state and society. Private teachers, older students at the Gymnasium, and university students established private

Supplementary Education in Germany: History and Present Developments

211

tutoring to support students cope with the standards of the Gymnasium and its exit examination (Abitur) that were required to enter university (Weegen, 1986). Until the 1920s Nachhilfe at the Gymnasium (attended by only about 5 percent of an age cohort) was common and accepted. At the beginning of the 20th century up to 90 percent of all students at Prussian Gymnasia received such supplementary education, most of them offered by their own teachers. These additional out-of-school lessons were regulated by the schools and the state. Teachers who gave private lessons needed the approval of the school’s principal and a state permit. The parents also had to approve these private lessons (ibid.). Since the practice of Nachhilfe restricted to a single school form, it was arguably common but limited because of financial capacities of many families during war and after it. Only when the Gymnasium in the Federal Republic of Germany expanded in the middle of the 1960s did supplementary education spread to other forms of secondary education. Between 1960 and 1975 the overall number of students rose from 6.7 million to over 10 million due to the postwar baby boom. By 1975 one-fourth of 8-graders attended a Gymnasium. The same number of students attended a Realschule and less than 50 percent the Hauptschule, a school form that three quarter of all students attended only 20 years earlier.1 The baby boom of the 1950s, the expansion of the educational system in the 1960s and 1970s, and the change of educational aspirations became the driving force in the extension of supplementary education in several forms. At the same time, the number of university students in teacher training doubled from 1965 to 1971 from 83,000 to 164,000 largely because of promising job prospects. These “good times” ended at some point in the 1970s. The decline in birth rate since the middle of the 1960s, the lack of replacement of retiring teachers and fewer positions at newly opened schools led to more and more teacher training graduates facing unemployment (Bo¨lling, 1987). Supplementary education offered alternative employment opportunities while at the same time Nachhilfe spread to all forms of secondary education. It is no accident that during this time supplementary education offered by private individuals and companies began to rise and now enjoys a 30 percent market share (Dohmen et al., 2008, p. 54, Dohmen, 2012, pp. 85
88).2

THE GERMAN SCHOOL SYSTEM There is no German school system. Each of Germany’s 16 states has its own independent set of schooling guidelines, policies, and structured school

212

THOMAS KOINZER

system. They are however similar in a variety of ways. As a rule there is a primary sector that covers the first four years between the age of 6 and 10. Two states (Berlin and Brandenburg) have 6-year schools in this sector until the age of 12, but offer 4-year schools as well. In the secondary sector, traditionally three different school types are found: Gymnasium, Realschule, and Hauptschule. In addition there are comprehensive school types as well in some states: Gesamtschule
as a reform project of the late 1960s in West Germany
and several forms of secondary schools beside the Gymnasium mainly in the Eastern states (Saxony, Thuringia, SaxonyAnhalt, later Mecklenburg-West Pomerania). But in some Western states as well new forms of “comprehensive” schools are growing (e.g., Berlin, Hamburg, North Rhine-Westphalia, Rhineland-Palatinate). All these school types have different education goals and certificates at the end of the course of education that qualify to enter either vocational education or higher education at universities or colleges. About 8.8 million students attend general education schools in Germany; about 2.8 million students are enrolled in the elementary sector and 6 million in several school forms of the secondary sector.3 Compulsory education lasts for 9 or 10 years, depending on the state. To get the Abitur, the certificate to enter higher education, requires 12 or 13 years of schooling. About 553,000 young persons (62 percent of an age group) finish their compulsory education with certificates (Haupt- or Realschul certificate) that allow them to enter vocational schools or vocational training
the so called “dual system”
to qualify for a profession in a combined system of state-financed vocational schools and practical training in businesses. About 280,000 students (31.5 percent of an age group) finish their formal education with a certificate to enter higher education
the Abitur. These figures differ significantly depending on the state. There are graduation rates between about 20 percent in the southern German states and approximately 50 percent in Berlin, Hamburg, or Hesse. About 58,000 young persons (6.5 percent of an age group) leave school without any certificate (all figures for 2009, Statistisches Bundesamt, 2011, p. 260). Furthermore there is in all German states a substantial state organized and financed system of additional formal education
for instance schools that qualify to enter vocational schools or evening classes
that allows to get a formal school certificate or to upgrade it, mostly to reach the Abitur. But especially concerning the Hauptschul certificate that was devaluated during the last decade on the labor market, such further schooling is eminent. Therefore, students with the Hauptschul certificate will be supervised in a system of further education with the emphasis on vocational training and integration into the labor market.

Supplementary Education in Germany: History and Present Developments

213

THE INTENSITY OF SUPPLEMENTARY EDUCATION Nachhilfe Attendance According to Guill, between approximately 20 and 30 percent of secondary school students attend Nachhilfe (Guill, 2012, pp. 63, 64). By subject mainly mathematics (one third), but also languages, e.g., English (about 25 percent), German (10 percent), French, or Latin, are attended (Dohmen, 2012, pp. 89, 90; Guill, 2012, pp. 61
64). To place these figures into context, of the 8.8 million students in Germany from the 1st to the 12th grade approximately 1.1 million attend supplementary education. The majority of supplementary education users are in secondary schools (880,000 students) (Klemm & Klemm, 2010, p. 7). At the age of 15, more than 19.1 percent of the German students have attended or currently attend Nachhillfe (Dohmen et al., 2008, p. 50, Klemm & Klemm, 2010, pp. 13
17; Dohmen, 2012, pp. 89, 90). Using SOEP 2000
2003 data, an annual representative census of German households, Schneider (2005) found that 27 percent of 17-year-olds participated in Nachhilfe in general (Schneider, 2005, p. 372). In the 4th grade in primary school 14.8 percent of all students attend supplementary education in German, 12.9 percent of which attend for mathematics support (Klemm & Klemm, 2010, p. 16). In the 4th grade about 6 percent of the students use supplementary education over a short period while others attend private lessons over a whole school year or more. More boys (13.8 percent) in the 4th grade take supplementary lessons than girls (11.5 percent). At the age of 15 the percentage is balanced (27.9 to 27.6 percent) (Autorengruppe Bildungsbericht, 2010, p. 264 f.; Shell Deutschland Holding, 2010, pp. 80, 81). There is also much state variation in supplementary education use. In Hamburg and Baden-Wuerttemberg for instance more than 24 percent of the 15-year-olds attend supplementary education in mathematics. In Eastern German regions about 15 percent do so. Some states clearly fall below this average of 19.1 percent (e.g., Mecklenburg-West Pomerania and Saxony-Anhalt) (Klemm & Klemm, 2010, p. 14). More than 50 percent attending supplementary education
as a rule 90 minutes per subject and week
take one subject only, 40 percent take two and only 6 percent three or more (Dohmen et al., 2008, pp. 38
41).

The Financial Cost of Nachhilfe German parents spend approximately between h1.0 and h1.3 billion (or US $1.3 and 1.7 billion) on supplementary education a year. Approximately

214

THOMAS KOINZER

h143 million (or US$200 million) is spent during primary schooling, the remainder once children enter secondary schooling. Depending on an anticipated weekly attendance of 2
3 hours at 45 minutes of private lessons, the annual cost might be estimated at between h900 and h1,500 (US $1,260 and 2,100) per subject and student (Dohmen, 2012, pp. 87
88; Dohmen et al., 2008, pp. 27
28; Klemm & Klemm, 2010, pp. 17
19). There is no tax deduction in Germany to cover the cost of Nachhilfe. Despite the cost, all income groups are attending supplementary education in significant numbers. According to the Education Report (Bildungsbericht)
using data from the PISA 2006 survey of the 15-year-olds
23 percent of lower SES students participate in Nachhilfe, compared with 30 percent of higher SES students (Autorengruppe Bildungsbericht, 2010, p. 265). To compensate for widespread demand, in spring 2011 the federal government launched a law that offers families receiving social benefits the opportunity to apply for supplementary education paid by the state. The need for that has to be certified by the student’s class teacher (also subject and recommended period). The parents apply for it and the municipalities meet the costs. This financial support is part of the Bildungspaket (education package) that enables about 2.5 million children in need to participate in additional educational, cultural, or sportive activities within and outside the schools.4

Suppliers of Nachhilfe While most data on the demand side of supplementary education is generated from student and parent questionnaires, capturing the supplier side is much more complicated. Nachhilfe is offered by university students, older students at the Gymnasium, (retired) teachers, and freelance teachers who look after students’ homework or support their studies. It is also offered by a wildly diverse (and expanding) commercial sector that offers Nachhilfe nationwide at dedicated locations. The first sector is significantly larger covering an estimated extent of 70 percent of all private lessons. The remaining 30 percent are divided between about 300 commercial suppliers with more than 3,000 contractors all over Germany (Dohmen, 2012, p. 85). The two biggest suppliers with a combined market share of 50 percent and about 2,000 contractors are Studienkreis and Schu¨lerhilfe. Both were founded in the 1970s and have at least one office or operate with a contractor in almost every German town. Their annual sales total h150 million (or US$195 million). Studienkreis was

Supplementary Education in Germany: History and Present Developments

215

a subsidiary of the Cornelsen Publishing Holding, one of the biggest German textbook publishers, but has been taken over by the investment company Aurelius at the end of 2012. It has contractors in Luxembourg, Austria, and Switzerland as well and employs about 10,000 teachers. The second big player Schu¨lerhilfe has more than 750 franchises with over 1,100 offices in Germany and Austria. Schu¨lerhilfe merged with Sylvan Learning Systems (Educate, Inc.) in 1998. Sylvan has 900 learning centers in Northern America, Hong Kong, and the Middle East and serves 2 million students (Dohmen et al., 2008, pp. 54, 55). Since 2009 Schu¨lerhilfe is part of the portfolio of the investment company Paragon and is the third largest franchiser in Germany after TUI travel agencies and McDonalds.5 With 200 branches in Germany, Austria, and Luxembourg the Lehrinstitut fu¨r Orthographie und Sprachkompetenz (LOS) is specialized in compensating dyslexia of 20,000 students annually.6 Kumon Germany, the German affiliate of the Japanese supplementary education group, has 180 learning centers all over Germany and serves 9,000 students in mathematics and English.7 There are other, smaller suppliers active in the market like ABACUS Nachhilfeinstitut, Lernstudio Barbarossa, or Nachhilfe- und Unterrichtsdienst. These firms are generally organized as franchises or agents for freelance teachers and specialize in private lessons delivered at the student’s home. In the past few years, an increasing number of international suppliers have become active in the German market. ACADOMIA, founded 1989 in France, has offices in Baden-Wuerttemberg, Berlin, Frankfurt, and Duesseldorf. KeepSchool, also a French franchise enterprise, has opened about 160 branch offices in Germany since 2004. Other (international) firms like Berlitz Germany, one of the biggest language schools in Germany, are pushing their way onto the market of supplementary education in mathematics and German (Dohmen et al., 2008, p. 54 f.). Beyond these companies, Internet and platforms like Nachhilfnet.de and Tutoria.de list students and freelance teachers of all subjects.8 To incorporate a Nachhilfe institute as a company with limited liability there are no limitations by law or by the school administration. Only the permission of the local factory and health control and the factory inspectorate is necessary (Langer, 2012). There are no requirements for the qualification of teachers. As a rule they have to be over 18 years old and have some experience in the field, and preference is given to those with an academic degree (Streber, Haag, & Go¨tz, 2011). As Dohmen et al. (2008) emphasized there are “no formally determined criteria” to give lessons (ibid., p. 60). Some (e.g., Schu¨lerhilfe) access a teacher’s quality by

216

THOMAS KOINZER

reputation, that he/she has no membership in a religious sect or unconstitutional organization, and maintains a proper appearance and has good hygiene. Ill-defined “special and pedagogical qualifications,” “basic qualification in diagnostics,” and “methods of advancing how to learn” are also mentioned by some companies (Checklist of the TU¨V Rheinland Industrie Service GmbH 2009). A few years ago Studienkreis and Schu¨lerhilfe introduced a kind of quality management to secure these standards among all its branches and
in the end
as a way to differentiate itself from others in this “black market” (Dohmen et al., 2008, pp. 54, 55). Recently, supplementary education providers have broadened their focus significantly. Several Nachhilfe institutions advertise that they offer “More than Nachhilfe.” They promise “individual promotion,” and “competent learning assistance” that advance children’s curiosity, the pleasure to learn, and motivation. Child-oriented learning materials support the understanding and the use of subject matters, and learning games that claim to train perceptual skills and the ability to concentrate. To “learn how to learn” and self-subsistent learning are the goals
and promises
of supplementary education providers. In theory, the permanent competitive edge in school will induce learning success, self-confidence, good marks and a lifelong joy in challenge.9

The Motivation to Participate in Nachhilfe Why do German students (and their parents) participate in supplementary education? There are several theorized motives that have been advanced. The first reason is to overcome poor school marks if students (and their parents) are confronted with the possibility of being held back in school due to failing grades in mathematics, English, or German. Supplementary education is seen to help overcome poor school achievement to compensate cognitive and motivational problems or to bridge a gap, sometimes because of a longer absence or illness (Dohmen et al., 2008, pp. 27, 28). But in recent years more and more high achieving students attend supplementary education to push their school marks even higher. This ties to the second reason, supplementary education is used as a way to accelerate instruction, to fulfill the educational aspiration of parents and to advance the social and economic chances of their children. This reason applies to approximately one third of all students taking Nachhilfe (Koinzer, 2011). The third reason can be located within the teaching methodology and culture of the German formal education. German schools, especially the

Supplementary Education in Germany: History and Present Developments

217

Gymnasium, do not see themselves as agents of change. Poor school achievement is rarely compensated for, teachers do not actively assist and advance students, and teachers are seen to teach subjects, not children. Supplementary education acts in loco scholae and offers additional learning time, learning techniques, and motivational instruction (e.g., Dohmen et al., 2008, p. 29; Klemm & Klemm, 2010, pp. 10, 11; Rackwitz, 2005, p. 40; Schneider, 2005, pp. 365, 364). Supplementary education in Germany is not only driven by a desire to enter the Gymnasium. It is widespread across the German school system(s). Every third student at a Gymnasium or a Realschule participates in supplementary education (27 and 33 percent). In primary education more than 12 percent of the 4th graders participate in supplementary education merely to realize the successful transition into the Gymnasium. But even at the less prestigious and increasingly marginalized Hauptschule, 27 percent of students use supplementary education.

SUPPLEMENTARY EDUCATION
EVIDENCE OF DEFICIENT PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND RISING INSECURITY At the core, Nachhilfe is rooted in the deficiencies of the (public) school on the one hand and a rising insecurity (“Bildungsdruck”) among parents on the other. The public
and in part the academic
discourse in recent years promotes the idea that supplementary education is better at “effective learning” (e.g., improving grades) than schools, where there is “less time for the individual student, for attention and instruction.” By design, supplementary education initiates individualized and child-centered learning support. Moreover, the instructors are seen to have the time to care for the individual child, both cognitively and emotionally (Goerge, 2011; Haag & Ja¨ger, 2011; Ja¨ger, Ja¨ger-Flor, & Hass, 2011, p. 291; Ju¨rgens & Diekmann, 2007, pp. 107
111; Kiper, 1998, p. 48). According to parents and students, teachers at schools exhibit methodological and academic deficits in teaching and instructing (e.g., Adam, 1960, p. 266; Eigler & Krumm, 1979, p. 101; Gießing, 2002, pp. 98, 99). This perception is fueled by the lack of institutionalized individual support in schools and the lack of a pedagogical ethos of acceptance and promotion. Reports by the Berlin School inspection, for example, revealed that many public schools do not have a system of individual support

218

THOMAS KOINZER

despite the fact that every school should have appropriate plans and specifically trained teachers (Senatsverwaltung fu¨r Bildung, Wissenschaft, & Forschung, 2009, p. 9). These conditions stand in stark contrast to parents’ educational aspiration and desire for a pedagogical ethos and school climate that support individual, child-centered support and promotion. Nachhilfe fills this gap. It acts in loco scholae and undermines the public school system and its societal functions. In so doing, it takes responsibility for the academic qualification of students, corrupts the function of formal schooling to select and to allocate according to students achievement, and destabilizes the integrative function of public schooling. In the German case with its structured school system supplementary education creates even more difference and with it
probably
more social inequality. In summary, since the publication of the Bertelsmann study on the extent and costs of supplementary education in Germany that branded private lessons as an “expensive and unfair compensation for lacking individual support” in schools (Klemm & Klemm, 2010), it seems that the public discourse has followed suit. The tenor: it is a “shame” for the public school system that such a private education marketplace exists and prospers. But German parents are still confronted with “Bildungsdruck” (HenryHutmacher, 2008)
the pressure to provide their children with additional support and fears about future labor market competitions. These “ghosts” are part of a general discourse on the quality of German public schooling and all the reforms after the publication of the first PISA results in 2001. This chapter argues that a complex combination of parents’ fears and perceptions of poor school quality push German students and their parents into the supplementary education sector.

NOTES 1. http://gus.his.de/daten-portal/Tabelle-2.3.34.html (accessed on May 24, 2013). For a short overview of the German school system see the section “The German School System.” 2. In general, there was no system of supplementary education in East Germany. Notwithstanding individual private help by other (older) students or retired teachers, supplementary education was mainly organized by the schools. 3. Some German students also attend private schools. The number of students in private schools has risen in the last 15 years from about 4.8 percent in 1992 to 8.2 percent in 2010; today 702,000 students attend private schools in the general education sector (Statistisches Bundesamt, 2012, pp. 19
38; Koinzer & Leschinsky, 2009; Koinzer & Gruehn, 2013).

Supplementary Education in Germany: History and Present Developments

219

4. http://www.bildungspaket.bmas.de/ (accessed on May 25, 2013). 5. http://www.rp-online.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/die-groessten-franchise-unter nehmen-in-deutschland-1.569916 (accessed on May 15, 2013). 6. www.losdirekt.de (accessed on May 25, 2013). 7. www.kumon.de (accessed on May 25, 2013). 8. www.nachhilfenet.de, www.tutoria.de (accessed on August 25, 2011). 9. See www.kinderlernwelt.de; www.kumon.de; www.c-college.de (accessed on May 25, 2013).

REFERENCES Abele, A., & Liebau, E. (1998). Nachhilfeunterricht. Eine empirische Studie an bayerischen Gymnasien. Die Deutsche Schule, 90, 37
49. Adam, H. (1960). Nachhilfeunterricht als pa¨dagogischer und soziologischer Index. Ergebnisse einer empirischen Untersuchung u¨ber Umfang und Bedeutung des Nachhilfeunterrichts an einer Ho¨heren Schule. Die Sammlung, 15, 266
272. Autorengruppe Bildungsberichterstattung. (2010). Bildung in Deutschland. Ein indikatorengestu¨tzter Bericht mit einer Analyse zu Perspektiven des Bildungswesens im demographischen Wandel. Bielefeld: W. Bertelsmann Verlag. Behr, M. (1990). Nachhilfeunterricht. Erhebungen in einer Grauzone pa¨dagogischer Alltagsrealita¨t. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Bo¨lling, R. (1987). Lehrerarbeitslosigkeit. Historische Erfahrungen, gegenwa¨rtige Situation und Zukunftsperspektiven. Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte, 27, 3
14. Dohmen, D. (2012). Der Nachhilfemarkt in Deutschland
ein aktualisierter U¨berblick u¨ber den Forschungsstand. Recht der Jugend und des Bildungswesens, 60(1), 85
98. Dohmen, D., Erbes, A., Fuchs, K., & Gu¨nzel, J. (2008). Was wissen wir u¨ber Nachhilfe? Sachstand und Auswertung der Forschungsliteratur zu Angebot, Nachfrage und Wirkungen. Erstellt im Auftrag des Bundesministeriums fu¨r Bildung und Forschung. Berlin: Bundesministerium fu¨r Bildung and Forschung and Forschungsinstitut fu¨r Bildungs
and Sozialo¨konomie. Eigler, G., & Krumm, V. (1979). Zur Problematik der Hausaufgaben. U¨ber die Mitarbeit der Eltern bei Hausaufgaben. Ergebnisse einer Befragung von Eltern von Gymnasiasten der Klasse 5 bis 8 und einer Befragung von Gymnasialdirektoren. Weinheim/Basel: Beltz. Gießing, J. (2002). Lehrer als Nachhilfelehrer. U¨ber die Hintergru¨nde einer hitzigen Debatte. Pa¨dagogische Rundschau, 56(1), 93
101. Goerge, C. (2011). Staatliches Bildungssystem und privatwirtschaftliche Nachhilfe in Deutschland. Mu¨nster: Litt. Guill, K. (2012). Nachhilfeunterricht. Individuelle, familia¨re und schulische Pra¨diktoren. Mu¨nster: Waxmann. Haag, L. (2008). Fo¨rderung in Nachhilfeeinrichtungen oder durch Einzelpersonen. In K.-H. Arnold, O. Graumann, & A. Rakhkochkine (Eds.), Handbuch Fo¨rderung. Grundlagen, Bereiche und Methoden der individuellen Fo¨rderung von Schu¨lern (pp. 400
409). Weinheim/Basel: Beltz. Haag, L. & Ja¨ger, R. S. (Ed.) (2011). Nachhilfe
empirische Befunde, Desiderata und Entwicklungen. Empirische Pa¨dagogik, 25, 3), 259
265.

220

THOMAS KOINZER

Henry-Hutmacher, C. (2008). Eltern unter Druck. Zusammenfassung der wichtigsten Ergebnisse der Studie. Retrieved from www.kas.de/upload/dokument/2008/02/080227_henry.pdf Ja¨ger, S. J., Ja¨ger-Flor, D., & Hass, C. (2011). Eltern und Lehrkra¨fte: Ihre Sicht der Nachhilfe. Empirische Pa¨dagogik, 25 (3), 280
306. Ju¨rgens, E., & Diekmann, M. (2007). Wirksamkeit und Nachhaltigkeit von Nachhilfeunterricht. Dargestellt am Beispiel des Studienkreises. Frankfurt am Main: Lang. Kiper, H. (1998). Sind Nachhilfe-Institute die besseren Schulen? Grundschule, 30(3), 48
50. Klemm, K., & Klemm, A. (2010). Ausgaben fu¨r Nachhilfe
teurer und unfairer Ausgleich fu¨r fehlende individuelle Fo¨rderung. Studie im Auftrag der Bertelsmann-Stiftung. Gu¨tersloh: Bertelsmann-Stiftung. Koinzer, T. (2011). O¨ffentliche Schule und private Nachhilfe. Pa¨dagogische Rundschau, 65(1), 33
48. Koinzer, T., & Gruehn, S. (2013). Allgemeinbildende Privatschulen in Deutschland im Spannungsfeld von pa¨dagogischer Innovation und wirtschaftlichen sowie rechtlichen Bedingungen
wo “die pa¨dagogischen Wu¨nsche auf das wirtschaftlich Machbare treffen.” In A. Gu¨rlevik, C. Palentien, & R. Heyer (Eds.), Privatschulen vs. staatliche Schulen (pp. 21
38). Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Koinzer, T., & Leschinsky, A. (2009). Privatschulen in Deutschland. Zeitschrift fu¨r Pa¨dagogik, 55(5), 669
687. Kru¨ger, R. (1977). Nachhilfe
Chance oder Skandal? 17 Antworten auf Fragen zu einem vernachla¨ssigten Problem. Die Deutsche Schule, 69, 545
558. Langer, T. (2012). Nachhilfe
gefa¨hrlich oder hilfreich? Recht der Jugend und des Bildungswesens, 60(1), 99
115. Rackwitz, R.-P. (2005). Bildungsfaktor Nachhilfe. Pa¨dagogik, 12, 35
42. Rudolph, M. (2002). Nachhilfe – Gekaufte Bildung? Empirische Untersuchung zur Kritik der außerschulischen Lernbegleitung. Eine Erhebung bei Eltern, LehrerInnen und Nachhilfeinstituten, Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt. Rudolph, M. (2009). Nachhilfe
Einrichtungen und Lehrende. In S. Blo¨meke, T. Bohl, L. Haag, G. Lang-Wojtasik, & W. Sacher (Eds.), Handbuch Schule (pp. 542
546). Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt. Schneider, T. (2005). Nachhilfe als Strategie zur Verwirklichung von Bildungszielen. Eine empirische Untersuchung mit Daten des Sozio-oekonomischen Panels (SOEP). Zeitschrift fu¨r Pa¨dagogik, 51(3), 361
379. Senatsverwaltung fu¨r Bildung, Wissenschaft, & Forschung. (2009). Schulinspektionen im Schuljahr 2007/2008. Berlin: Senatsverwaltung fu¨r Bildung, Wissenschaft and Forschung. Shell Deutschland Holding. (2010). Jugend 2010. Eine pragmatische Generation behauptet sich. Frankfurt: Fischer. Statistisches Bundesamt. (2012). Private Schulen. Fachserie 11. Reihe 1.1. Wiesbaden: Statistisches Bundesamt. Statistisches Bundesamt. (2011). Bildung und Kultur. Allgemeinbildende Schulen. Schuljahr 2009/10. Fachserie 11, Reihe 1. Wiesbaden: Statistisches Bundesamt. Streber, D., Haag, L., & Go¨tz, T. (2011). Erfolgreiche Nachhilfe. Kann das jeder oder bedarf es besonderer Qualifikationen? Empirische Pa¨dagogik, 25(3), 342
357. Weegen, M. (1986). Das Gescha¨ft mit der organisierten Nachhilfe. Jahrbuch der Schulentwicklung, 4, 236
250. Wittwer, J. (2008). Warum wirkt Nachhilfe? Hinweise aus der Forschung zum Einzelunterricht. Zeitschrift fu¨r Pa¨dagogik, 54(3), 416
432.

PART 3 COMPARING HIGH AND LOW INTENSITY FORMS OF SUPPLEMENTARY EDUCATION

MAKING MARKETS: POLICY CONSTRUCTION OF SUPPLEMENTARY EDUCATION IN THE UNITED STATES AND KOREA Christopher Lubienski and Jin Lee ABSTRACT Purpose
This analysis addresses the question of how the goals motivating policies around markets for supplementary education are supported and reflected (or not) in the subsequent structures for those markets. Design/methodology/approach
Drawing on policy documents and empirical research on these policies, we examine the policy contexts and market structures the low-intensity form of supplementary education (SE) seen in the United States relative to the high-intensity case of Korea
specifically, the supplementary educational services (SESs) of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 and the After School Programs (ASPs) in Korea, respectively. Findings
The analysis finds that Korea is using school-based SE programs as an alternative to existing SE markets in order to mediate

Out of the Shadows: The Global Intensification of Supplementary Education International Perspectives on Education and Society, Volume 22, 223
244 Copyright r 2013 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3679/doi:10.1108/S1479-3679(2013)0000022011

223

224

CHRISTOPHER LUBIENSKI AND JIN LEE

perceived free-market excesses, while the United States is subsidizing SE markets to address the negative consequences of inequitable schooling. Yet, even in different contexts and purposes, policymakers in both countries see a value to supplementary education as part of their overall education strategy, despite a lack of evidence on the effectiveness of these approaches. This commonality is reflective of the larger neoliberal approach, evident around the globe, of using market forces such as competitive incentives and parental choice to drive policy toward social objectives. Originality/value
The significance of this analysis is the insight that these policy approaches, while different in context and policy specifics, represent an overall blurring of traditional distinctions between public and private organizations. Keywords: Korea; United States; supplementary educational services; tutoring; markets

INTRODUCTION Markets are often portrayed as an organic outcome of social interactions, the natural end-point of human development uncontaminated by perverse government intervention (e.g., Soto, 2000). However, markets can also be manufactured and managed by policymakers, either because they are seen as a superior form of social organizations, or as the most effective vehicles for attaining a particular policy goal. While the former purpose is largely normative, the latter use of markets is an empirical issue. The degree to which market mechanisms enabled by public policy achieve their goals is something that can be measured and assessed on numerous dimensions. In recent years, so-called “neoliberal” approaches to public policy have used markets to address social needs, not simply seeing them as a goal in themselves (as do, say, libertarians), but as more effective and efficient ways for governments to serve public purposes
by getting out of the way. This has been particularly evident in some mixed-model sectors such as education, where states have traditionally dominated service provision in many countries, but have also allowed multiple and substantial opportunities for participation from private providers as well. As government action has come to be more associated with ineffectiveness, bureaucratic

Making Markets

225

bloat, corruption, and waste, policies that promote private sector provision of a public good such as education
efforts such as vouchers, contracting, deregulation, and decentralization
have become more popular with policymakers seeking to address significant and often intractable social problems such as inequality of educational access and outcomes. In the United States, a number of major reform initiatives have embraced these approaches in recent years, adopted by both Republican and Democratic policymakers, although to varying degrees. While programs like vouchers and charter schools have garnered much attention for their use of market-style mechanisms, the federal government’s No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 introduced markets for supplementary educational services (SESs) in districts across the country. The government requires local districts to notify families of these services, and then pay for the private services selected by families, thereby both cultivating a consumer demand and supporting private providers. This was enacted to serve a number of functions, such as an equity goal of meeting a presumed demand for additional educational services from communities underserved by failing school systems, and injecting a measure of competition with public school districts for funds they traditionally monopolized. While only a “second-best” alternative for market advocates seeking a fuller-scale voucher program for core educational services, this policy nonetheless represented a significant effort on the part of federal policymakers to leverage markets to meet social goals. On the other hand, more developed markets for supplementary services such as in Korea
often held up as a nation with one of the highest levels of intensity around these private markets for such services
have indeed emerged organically in response to consumer demand. In fact, in contrast to the US case, demand for private services in Korea has been so intense, and the supply side so responsive, that the state has at times attempted to suppress the market for the sake of more equitable distribution of educational opportunities. However, the decision of the Korean Supreme Court forced a change in the state’s approach when it ruled that the direct regulation of parents’ decision on private supplementary services was unconstitutional. In turn, the creation of the After School Programs (ASPs) policy in 2004 attempted to meet the demand for supplementary services in schools while putting a damper on market excesses. Policymakers expected that if schools provided high quality supplementary education at competitive prices, parents would choose school-based services instead of private providers, thereby lessening the rampant inequality associated with the unregulated private market. Despite the concerns regarding schools participating

226

CHRISTOPHER LUBIENSKI AND JIN LEE

in markets for supplementary services, and that markets forces would then permeate the public school system, the ASPs policy is being utilized as the key strategy in the effort to shape markets for supplementary services in Korea. In this chapter we consider how policymakers’ treatment of markets is driven by policy goals. More particularly, we examine the question of how the goals motivating policies with regard to markets for supplementary education are supported and reflected (or not) in the subsequent structures for those markets. We begin by focusing on the creation of a new market for supplementary educational services in the United States, examining the policy context and motivations of this aspect of NCLB, as well as the empirical evidence on the subsequent structure and outcomes of that SES market. Yet, our interest is not simply in SES markets in the United States, but in how markets can be created to support policy goals. Therefore, we turn to Korea as a comparison case, since it has the most open and vibrant market for supplementary services in the world, and holds important lessons for US policymakers regarding policy goals for equity and competition. While still a low-intensity county in terms of participation in and impact of supplementary education, the United States is using policies to create such markets. Meanwhile, Korean policymakers are responding to the implications of their nation’s status as a high-intensity case, using policies designed to dampen the most egregious effects of run-away market forces. Still, despite the efforts of Korean policymakers, the continued concern about rampant inequality through markets holds some potential implications for the United States. In the concluding discussion we highlight some of the key issues
and contradictions
of SE markets, showing how they often fail to support, and in fact undercut, some of the policy goals for which they were advanced.

CREATING MARKETS FOR SUPPLEMENTARY EDUCATIONAL SERVICES IN THE UNITED STATES In 2001, the US Congress passed President George W. Bush’s signature piece of social legislation, the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), which represented a major shift in American educational policy and politics. Previously, Democrats had tended to push for greater central government intervention in education, while Republicans generally embraced the traditional value of local control of education, along with marketization and

Making Markets

227

privatization of schooling. In many ways, NCLB represented a grand political compromise. Bush was able to convince most of his fellow Republicans to set aside their contempt for the federal role in education, and promoted an activist agenda whereby Washington would play a substantial part in mandating state-level standards and regulations in return for federal dollars. On the other hand, Democrats agreed to severe sanctions for failing (and usually more impoverished) schools that were not making academic gains at a pace dictated by the federal government. As one element of the legislation, Republican attempts to implement a publicly funded voucher scheme for students to pay for private schools was opposed by Democrats, who receive much support from vociferously antivoucher teachers unions. Instead of privatizing core educational services through vouchers, lawmakers agreed to require districts to pay for “supplementary” educational services, including those provided by private vendors, for students in persistently failing schools
what some have called “mini-vouchers.” While this legislation depended on the cooperation of apparently ideologically polarized parties, in fact there was much area for agreement between Republicans and Democrats on the marketizing aspects of NCLB. Both market and equity advocates in both parties have been embracing market mechanisms to pursue their goals in areas such as education. For instance, the Democratic Clinton and Obama administrations have championed charter schools at least as much as the Republican Bush administration as a means of expanding choice, innovation and competition, and these allegiances were echoed in other parts of both parties (Lubienski & Weitzel, 2010). Consequently, creating a market to harness competitive incentives for schools to improve, reflected shared values
what has been called “incentivism” by some of its proponents (e.g., Greene et al., 2008; Lubienski, Scott, & DeBray, 2011; Stern, 2008). Yet the distinctions between the different ideological impulses are important to consider as we assess the policy implementation and goals. For many market advocates, creating markets for SES represents a way of injecting competition into a monopolistic, state-run education system. Concerned about high costs and low performance, these reformers argued that public schools are ineffective because they are legally entitled to public funds but are shielded from competitive forces that would drive improvements in other sectors. Thus, by making under-performing schools surrender funds to non- and for-profit providers that could do a better job of educating children, schools would have to become more effective in order to satisfy and keep consumers and funding. Furthermore, the addition of a variety of new providers (and types of providers) would lead to a generally

228

CHRISTOPHER LUBIENSKI AND JIN LEE

more dynamic educational sector, and has thus enjoyed the political support of the private educational services sector. Other reformers, however, were less interested in the introduction of markets as an end in itself, and more attracted to the idea of using markets to achieve certain social purposes. In particular, many focused on the ideal of equitable educational opportunities now argue that market mechanisms can be leveraged to better address many public policy issues
in this case, chronically underperforming schools for disadvantaged communities
than can government programs. This neoliberal perspective sees not only efficiencies and effectiveness, but also equitable access, as likely market outcomes, especially when markets are fashioned and regulated to meet specific ends by aiming incentives at desired organizational (or individual) behaviors. If expanded access to additional educational services for disadvantaged youth is a goal, then policies can be configured to produce that outcome through markets (Moe, 2008). This view has gained ground in some established liberal circles, including some civil rights organizations, that had traditionally looked to direct government intervention to promote equitable opportunities. Still other advocates see markets as the most obvious way of developing a sector that the government has neglected.

Policy and Market Structure There has, in fact, been a traditional market for supplementary services in the United States, primarily at the senior secondary level as students prepare for the university admissions process. This “test prep” industry is funded primarily by individual consumers, and has been most associated with more affluent students applying to more prestigious and competitive universities, although there have been substantial marketing efforts to make inroads into services for remedial tutoring at the K-12 level. However, efforts have had limited success for the for-profit sector, so the SES provisions of NCLB
requiring districts to pay for those private services for disadvantaged students
represented a potential boon to the tutoring industry. Nonprofit organizations
including religious organizations favored under Bush and Obama policies for funding “faith-based” programs
can also benefit substantially by developing this new stream of revenue. Still, the fact that participation has been relatively limited to a small segment of the population means that the United States ranks rather low on the intensity scale for supplementary education markets.

Making Markets

229

The federal government has been funding supplementary services for disadvantaged students through districts at least since the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, which provided funds for districts to run summer programs, for instance. However, frustration with the lack of academic progress in American public education has encouraged policymakers to look to the private sector. Under NCLB, schools that fail to make adequate yearly progress (AYP) toward universal student proficiency in reading and mathematics are subject to progressively severe sanctions, including providing other school options for their students after two years, and later re-organization and conversion to charter schools. Students (especially but not always) from disadvantaged families who attend a school that has failed to make AYP for three consecutive years may choose to enroll in an approved after-school tutoring service at the district’s expense. Up to one-fifth of the federal compensatory funds provided to districts must be used for school and SES choices. Private vendors can apply for authorization to serve as SES providers, and are then paid by the district for the services they provide to the students who choose that option. Districts are required to inform parents of their tutoring options for these services, and vendors supplement these efforts with their own marketing. A number of guiding assumptions are evident under the SES provisions of NCLB. First, perhaps taking a cue from the private test-prep industry, policymakers assumed that a substantial demand for additional and alternative educational services exists in disadvantaged communities that were traditionally underserved by low-performing schools. Substantial demand would feed into the market that was being created, with multiple providers then finding critical masses of students that they could assist. Second, in contrast to efforts by preceding administrations to give local educational authorities (LEAs) more autonomy in spending their Title 1 federal dollars for compensatory efforts for disadvantaged children, the highly prescriptive approach of NCLB on this point reflects a frustration with districts and schools in failing to boost achievement, or even blocking substantive reforms. Finally, there is a clear preference for nongovernment organizational models to meet objectives that the public sector is apparently failing to achieve. As with previous efforts at compensatory programs, such as Head Start, designed to boost disadvantaged students, policymakers moved the service outside the realm of “school.” Although public school districts can also apply to provide supplementary services, the legislation specifically allows religious, nonprofit and for-profit providers to become SES vendors. Unlike other elements of NCLB, which mandate stringent evaluation

230

CHRISTOPHER LUBIENSKI AND JIN LEE

procedures for interventions, there is no funding or mandate to test the presumption that handing public money over to private organizations will lead to greater outcomes. Private providers may hire the classroom teachers who work with the children during the school day to tutor them after school
illustrating the assumption that simply changing the organization and not the personnel can lead to better outcomes. Programs are supposed to be “research based,” and vendors must demonstrate achievement gains, but no comparison group is identified, and there is no real oversight established to monitor or enforce these ideals (Ascher, 2006; Sunderman, 2006). Instead, policymakers apparently assume that competition between providers, disciplined by discriminating consumer choices, will lead to better outcomes. While this is the SES market as it was designed, the research on its actual shape paints a somewhat different picture than what was expected. Uptake of families opting to use the services, even if it is increasing, has certainly been much lower than policymakers had expected. Although participation rates vary dramatically across cities, overall, SES participation started at very low levels, and has still reached less than one of five students eligible for services
as is expected for a low-intensity case such as this (U.S. Department of Education, 2009). Yet, studies show that parents who do select these services are satisfied with them (Ross et al., 2008). The market is dominated by private providers, comprising 88 percent of state-approved providers, and serving 76 percent of students participating in SES (U.S. Department of Education, 2009). Larger vendors are gaining increasing market shares, largely because they tend to have larger classes, and may be avoiding some of the more difficult-to-educate students
for example, no SES providers serve special-needs students in about half the districts (Ascher, 2006)
raising questions about the equity of access in market environments (Burch, Steinberg, & Donovan, 2007). Furthermore, contrary to the market logic posited by reformers, SES programs run by districts are more cost-effective than those run by private organizations (Fusarelli, 2007). Despite the relatively low uptake and general satisfaction with services that are already available, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of SES vendors (Center on Education Policy, 2006). Still, coverage is spotty. As would be predicted by simple market logic, providers will not lay out resources to start a program in a given locality unless they see a critical mass of potential enrollees
in contrast to blanket geographic coverage provided by traditional district services, even when this would represent a “loss” on a business balance sheet. As SES providers seek out areas

Making Markets

231

with the greatest likelihood of profit maximization, in a fifth of all districts (usually rural ones) that must offer the services, no students had enrolled with any service provider (Ascher, 2006). Attendance among those enrolled is also spotty, at about 50 percent (Ascher, 2006; Center on Education Policy, 2006). Since tuition payments to vendors depend on attendance, they recognize the incentive to encourage turnout through efforts such as prizes and rewards. On the other hand, under the law, districts are allowed to spend funds set aside for SES on other areas when demand for services fails to justify the 20 percent of Title 1 funds earmarked for tutoring, so district may recognize an incentive to channel children away from SES, or to use the cheaper district-run programs offered in some places (Education Industry Associates, 2009). Of course, in addition to expanding services, a second goal of the SES provisions of NCLB was to increase achievement, under the assumption that private providers would be more effective than public entities. Here too the picture is mixed and likely less compelling than was expected. Some studies have found intriguing gains from SES programs. For instance, Zimmer, Christina, Hamilton, and Prine (2006) found that students using SES showed significant gains in mathematics, although not in reading (similar to Springer, Pepper, & Ghosh-Dastidar, 2009). A study by the Chicago school district found small but statistically significant benefits for SES students in reading, particularly in the lower grades; impact varied considerably between vendors, with the district’s program being very effective and quite cost-efficient (Office of Research, Evaluation, and Accountability & Office of Extended Learning Opportunity, 2007). Other studies have found little or no gains in achievement (e.g., Deke, Dragoset, Bogen, & Gill, 2012; Heinrich, Meyer, & Whitten, 2009; Ross et al., 2008). For instance, examining a SES program in an urban Kentucky school district, Mun˜oz, Potter, and Ross (2008) found no significant gains in reading and mathematics scores for students enrolled in the services, although parents reported that they were satisfied with the program found that any academic improvement that is evident is more likely from student transfer threats than from tutoring (Primont & Domazlicky, 2006). In summary, then, US policymakers explicitly sought to create a market to meet a presumed demand for supplementary services under the argument that increased competition for public funds would provide additional educational opportunities for disadvantaged children. Thus, creating competitive local markets for these services was seen as a more effective and efficient way of meeting this demand than relying solely on district efforts. In fact, however, demand has proven to be notably underwhelming.

232

CHRISTOPHER LUBIENSKI AND JIN LEE

Moreover, the evidence that nongovernment providers are any more efficient or effective than districts is less than compelling. But, perhaps most importantly, the goal of equitable access has been hampered by the rise of larger vendors and competitive incentives that lead to uneven coverage for disadvantaged students in different communities.

EVOLVING MARKETS FOR SUPPLEMENTARY EDUCATIONAL SERVICES IN SOUTH KOREA As opposed to the US experience of using policy to catalyze markets, the Korean experience offers an intriguing contrast where markets largely preceded policy, which is then used to reign in market forces. Following the Korean War, an exploding demand for supplementary education, while associated with rapid economic development, also became associated with a variety of social problems. The Korean government has been engaged in a chronic struggle to contain the burgeoning social costs of the high-intensity use of supplementary education. In order to temper the dependence on these services, the government went so far as to prohibit students from participating in supplementary education for test preparation. However, this move was roundly condemned by the public, and, instead of destroying demand, forced the markets for such services out of the open and into the shadows. Thus, despite the Korean government’s efforts, concerns about the excessive dependence on supplementary education remained, and by the 1990s the service came to be seen as a right. The Supreme Court of South Korea eventually ruled in 2000 that the prohibition of supplementary education services for test prep was unconstitutional in that it violated individual freedom, thus situating supplementary education squarely in the realm of individual choice. While opening up the market for supplementary services, the Supreme Court’s actions further exacerbated concerns about the growth of supplementary education and the resultant issues such as inequality of educational opportunity. Yet the decision also reflects some of the deeper societal changes in Korea, as it embraced individual conceptions of freedom, consumer orientations, and a remarkable enthusiasm for education as a means of individual social and economic advantage. By the mid-1990s, the country had been free from military dictatorship for about three decades, and the newly elected government embarked on a “neoliberal” policy agenda. The so-called 5.31 School Reform, declared on May 31 of 1995,

Making Markets

233

recast students and parents as consumers, and a number of school policies have subsequently followed market principles. School choice programs, school evaluation, and individualized curriculum were introduced at that time in the name of diversification of education in order to satisfy consumers’ varied needs. Even with a change of government in 1998 to the National Congress for New Politics, now the Democratic Party, the neoliberal policy approach to education remained largely the same. Since the Supreme Court ruling no longer allows the Korean government to directly control markets for supplementary educational services, the government supports public schools in offering flexible and varied curriculum, and introduces school choice programs which are appropriately revised for Korea. Yet the impetus is still there: some Korean parents are working two jobs to pay for their children’s supplementary educational services. And the difference in family expenditures for supplementary education by income level is sharply increasing. So the Korean government faces a dilemma. Though the government’s power and authority on supplementary educational services was weakened by the Supreme Court, the government is still expected to play a major role in pursuing equitable educational opportunities for all. The subsequent strategy toward supplementary education had various objectives: to decrease the burden on supplementary educational services, to realize equal opportunity of education, and to strengthen the role of schools. In this context, the ASPs policy, a reform effort around after-school activities by Ministry of Education, Science and Technology in 2004, was introduced with the purpose of satisfying some of the demand on supplementary educational services in schools. The ASPs have basically two different objectives. First, the ASPs policy is aimed at providing more diverse educational opportunities for every student who needs supplementary educational services but is dissuaded by the financial burden. While this policy is similar to the purpose of SES provisions in the United States, there are some differences in that the ASP in Korea are not restricted to disadvantaged students and charge a small of tuition from participants. At the same time, as in the United States, the policy puts schools in competition with private providers. Although many parents and students’ distrust public education and assume that private supplementary service providers are better, the government seeks to demonstrate that schools can provide students with diverse, individualized and competitive learning opportunities as much as supplementary education does. For example, most schools do a survey targeting parents and students to respond to their needs, and the government examines the programs and awards excellent programs every year. Moreover, ASPs run by schools have

234

CHRISTOPHER LUBIENSKI AND JIN LEE

more competitive prices. Yet, was not designed to oppose contract with supplementary government is attempting to compete in those markets.

it is important to note that the ASPs policy education markets. In allowing schools to educational service providers, the Korean both temper markets and allow schools to

Market Structure In Korea, the growth of supplementary educational services has been closely related to entrance exams that are thought to lead to better educational opportunity and social success. Before in the 1970s, the number of student per class was between 60 and 80, and the annual expenditure per student in public education was estimated at only US$10
30 (Korean Educational Development Institute, 2005). In such a situation, it was impossible for schools to provide high-quality education for every student, despite increasing demand for just that. Parents and students who were not satisfied with the education provided by their school began to pursue supplementary educational services in order to remedy teaching and learning deficiencies and prepare for entrance exams. Initially, using supplementary educational services had been regarded as the exclusive domain of the more affluent. However, with the remarkable growth of the Korean economy, the number of supplementary educational institutions increased from 1,421 in 1970 to 67,649 in 2007, and almost 80 percent of these organizations are geared toward university entrance exams and curriculum related content (Statistics Korea, 2012; Yun et al., 2008). Now, supplementary education has become popular and more widely available. The intensification of markets for supplementary educational services in South Korea has simply responded to this voracious consumer demand. For newly emerging and developing nations, education is closely associated in the popular imagination with social mobility. In systems such as Korea’s, with more meritocratic characteristics, a person’s position and responsibility are thought to depend on his or her intelligence and ability, thereby putting much weight on the advantages to be had from schooling. Simply stated, when schooling is seen as the sole route to success, there will be much interest in and competition for advantages. In order to mediate conflict for limited advantages, observable (and quantifiable) measures can be used to distribute desired spaces, leading to increased focus on tests as the sole determinant of future academic and economic opportunities. Korea exemplifies these patterns. While Korea typically performs very well on international

Making Markets

235

measures of academic achievement, a more detailed examination suggests that this success is due to overwhelming parental interest in education, sometimes called education “fever” or “zeal.” Consequently, parents’ interest and investment in education have been largely responsible for creating and developing markets for supplementary educational services. But the immense and increasing burden for parents of pursuing supplementary education has provided the impetus for the Korean government to intercede in these markets. The government has endeavored to reduce the burden of the exam regime, which was widely believed to be the main culprit in the furthering dependence on supplementary education. In addition to banning the entrance exams at the secondary school level in the 1970s, the government changed the timing and procedure of the entrance exam, reduced the number of core subjects to be tested, and increased the opportunities to take elective courses. Nevertheless, markets are positioned to respond whenever education policies change. As the government’s oversight of SE markets has weakened since the decision of the Supreme Court, the officially reported average monthly costs for these services has approached US$217 (Statistics Korea, 2012). About 70 percent of primary and secondary school students have used supplementary educational services, and total expenditures for supplementary education services were estimated at US$19 billion (Statistics Korea, 2012). The average monthly expenditure per student varied widely from US$30 to US$250 (Kang, 2008). Notably, while the public sector expenditure on education from government sources was 5 percent of GDP in 2009, the size of markets for supplementary education was estimated at 3 percent of GDP in 2008 (Kang, 2008; Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2012). The participation rate is higher in primary school than in high school, but the average monthly expenditures are higher at the high school level (Kang, 2008; Statistics Korea, 2012). High school students use supplementary education to prepare for entrance exams, while primary school student see supplementary education as an opportunity to support learning. Though reasons for using supplementary services varies by family, the overarching objective is to improve academic achievement. In many cases, organizations providing supplementary education
hagwon
are run for profit, and at a small scale. Yet, several of these outfits have recently started franchising to expand to a larger scale. Notwithstanding Supreme Court decision, the public is still largely critical of the overall trend toward increased supplementary education (Kang, 2008). For this reason, only few large corporations take part in this business (Shin, 2010). Since online supplementary education services were

236

CHRISTOPHER LUBIENSKI AND JIN LEE

established nationwide in 2000, these distance-learning outfits have been expanding their markets to many localized outlets. In addition, some supplementary education providers with established track records have started to expand their business into the printing and broadcasting industries. Several suppliers also provide room and board along with supplementary education services.

Policy Structure The Korean government’s direct power and control on markets for supplementary education has decreased to a significant degree, but the markets are not fully free from the government. In one instance, due to the growing concern about students’ development and rights as human beings, the government and some local educational agencies recently decided to prohibit supplementary institutions from remaining open after 10 p.m. The restriction is expected to temper parents’ demand on SE institutions. However, families with strong desire for supplementary education either choose private tutoring or enroll their children in supplementary education institutions illegally operating after 10 p.m. (Oh, 2009). The high-intensity dependence on supplementary education corrupts such regulatory policies, and produces such unanticipated side effects. In light of the Supreme Court’s decision that supplementary education is entirely a matter of parents’ and students’ individual choice, families’ commitments to supplementary education are closely associated with how much they can afford in purchasing supplementary educational services. For example, while annual earnings for high-income families were 1.7 times higher than low-income families in Korea, families with income over US $50,000 spent 2.5 times more on supplementary education than families with incomes below US$30,000 (Lee, 2010). The higher the degree of dependence on supplementary education services, the stronger has been the concerns about their inequitable effects (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2011). Due to the relationship between supplementary educational services and inequality, the ASPs policy focuses on displacing demand for supplementary education services to the school site. Basically, a school designs the ASP, and hires instructors from either inside or outside of the school. The school’s teachers can be instructors of supplementary education, and at the same time, other individuals can be hired by a principal of the school. Unlike the supplementary educational

Making Markets

237

service provision in the United States, the ASPs in Korea are supported by students’ fees. In order to promote equal opportunity through and in supplementary education, the government emphasizes three key strategies: vouchers for the disadvantaged students, supports for students in rural areas, and daycare services at the primary school level. As the ASPs are based on users’ fees as well as some government funding, students are cast in the “consumer” role. This structure is expected to decrease the cost of supplementary educational services by satiating demand for supplementary services with ASP. For many Korean students, school tends to be viewed as a place of mandatory attendance, while supplementary education services are seen as an effective way of learning (Kim, Shim, & Ahn, 2010). Hence, policymakers in Korea believe that schools must compete with markets for supplementary educational services, if necessary. They assume that, instead of regulating or prohibiting markets for supplementary education, ASPs would be more effective in enhancing the competitiveness of public education. In view of policymakers’ expectation, 53 percent of students used the ASP in 2008 by paying an average of US$24 a month (Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology, 2008). Sixty-seven percent of these participants were satisfied with the quality and content of the ASP and 60 percent of students perceived that these programs helped decrease the dependence on markets for supplementary educational services (Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology, 2008). But little information is currently available as to whether the ASPs decrease the burden from supplementary educational services and promote more equitable educational opportunity. According to an official survey, students and parents believe in the effectiveness of the ASP (Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology, 2008). However, other evidence questions the role of ASP in meeting these goals. Lee (2010) found that parents regarded ASP as another type of supplementary education rather than an alternative to supplementary educational services. When controlling for socioeconomic characteristics at the student level, the participation in the ASP caused a negative effect on student achievement (Byeon, Hwang, & Kim, 2011). Regardless of the policies on supplementary educational services, those markets appear to be thriving. Furthermore, in contrast to the past when the government had not allowed schools to contract with for-profit and nonprofit institutions, the policy now opens doors to providers of supplementary education services through the ASPs. This policy change is ironically promoting the further expansion of the SE market, as more than 10 percent of schools contracted with for-profit providers of supplementary education (Byeon, Jo, Choi, Park, & Kim, 2009).

238

CHRISTOPHER LUBIENSKI AND JIN LEE

DISCUSSION: EVIDENCE, CONSOLIDATION, AND EQUITABLE ACCESS Together, these two countries present an interesting juxtaposition on the use of markets to address policy goals for supplementary education services. Despite different contexts, policymakers in both of countries see a value to supplementary education as part of their overall education strategy. And though they share some goals for SE, their purposes in making policy around these services, and their overall strategies, are quite distinct from each other. In short, Korea is using school-based SE programs to mediate the more egregious effects of SE markets, while the United States is subsidizing SE markets to address the negative consequences of inequitable schooling. In Korea, policy follows the market, while in the United States, it largely precedes it. The US approach has been to fund supplementary educational services for disadvantaged students in failing schools, not only to provide extra educational opportunities for individuals participating in the programs, but to spur the school system in to providing enhanced education for all. Presumably, under this logic, the public sector is itself incapable of producing needed improvements on its own, and markets
funded by money that would have gone to failing schools
are then used to produce more equitable opportunities. On the other hand, while Korean parents pursue extra education for their children (and at the same time lament this trend), policymakers see the preexisting markets for supplementary educational services as sources of
not remedy for
increased inequity. The ASPs policy can be seen as an admission of the importance of SE in individual and national achievement, and a reflection of the concern that rampant market forces may damage the school system, as well as an attempt to co-opt some of the power of markets in addressing the inequity they produce. But in both these cases, the market appears to be advancing more from popular and/or elite anxiety and ideology, rather than evidence. Such trends in education reflect a wider, global infatuation with the idea of markets on the part of policymakers, even when the actual market dynamics they embrace consistently fail to effect
and often, in fact, undercut
the policy goals being pursued. While markets can be a major force for collective benefits and positive change in many areas of life, as the assumptions of SES policy in the United States suggest, aspects of markets can also preclude more positive outcomes in many instances, sectors, and circumstances. Market failure is a well-known phenomenon where the aggregate of individuals’ self-interested actions lead to less-than-optimal outcomes.

Making Markets

239

But even when markets are the most appropriate or advantageous model for organizing individual and collective interests, certain considerations can corrupt the intended impact of markets
considerations such as: the type of good or service being produced and distributed in the market; the structure of a market; the distribution of demand for quality options; or the widespread availability of good information for consumers (Lubienski, 2006, 2007). Under certain conditions, markets can thus have damaging effects. Rather than simply matching supply with demand, markets can also serve as vehicles for powerful interests, bad products, and irrational consumer preferences. The question is whether policy is capable of harnessing the beneficial power of markets, promoting their effective operation while reining in their more damaging effects, on any given policy issue. For instance, in Korea, it is widely assumed that supplementary education is a prerequisite for future academic and economic prospects. Yet these types of markets thrive largely on parents’ anxieties, rather than evidence of program effectiveness. In Korea, where parental choice on supplementary education performs a role as a kind of rite of passage and a mark of good parenting, more affluent families would send their children off to brighter social and economic opportunities regardless of their use of SE programs. Any evidence of the effectiveness of the ASPs in meeting the intended objectives is at this point largely a matter of parental perceptions rather than empirical evidence, especially at the national level. Indeed, parental anxiety over social advantage is rampant in Korea (Choe, 2009), and these services are well positioned to respond to that anxiety. Without understanding how or why Korean families drive markets for supplementary education, relevant policies remain simply symbolic, political actions to temporarily dispel their concerns. The US case is, of course, somewhat different in terms of the forces driving supplementary educational services, although the evidentiary basis for this move toward markets is also tenuous, at best. The US policy approach is also couched in equity concerns, but, instead of seeking to curtail markets, focuses on creating competitive markets to address these concerns. This approach follows a wider policy trend in the United States and elsewhere of using markets
or market mechanisms such as consumer choice and competition between multiple providers
to address social problems like inequality. For instance, the traditional reliance on nonprofit institutions (from both state and nongovernment providers) has been apparent in sectors such as health care in the United States. Yet, as policymakers move to address concerns in those sectors, including high costs and incomplete coverage, reformers are using policy to create markets for health insurance.

240

CHRISTOPHER LUBIENSKI AND JIN LEE

Likewise, whereas markets for privately funded tutoring have been associated with the extra advantages that affluent families sought for their children, as in Korea, expanding and publicly funding these markets through NCLB was seen as a way of extending those opportunities to disadvantaged children, and thereby addressing the gap in achievement between rich and poor. But unlike Korea, demand is not nearly as intense in the United States, despite some evidence of high levels of parental anxiety in a few areas such as Manhattan. Furthermore, although the expansion of SES through NCLB is modeled on the tutoring industry that provides test preparation for more affluent families, that test prep industry centers on higher-stakes college entrance exams, while NCLB focuses on exams that
again, unlike Korea
have virtually no immediate consequences for students using supplementary services. In fact, the “market” dynamics in the United States are rather perverse. While districts may compete with private providers in offering supplementary services, districts also benefit when students access better services, since schools, and not students, are held accountable for the standardized test results under NCLB. Likewise, while families may choose and “consume” supplementary education, districts are forced to fund it under NCLB, thereby introducing a moral hazard into the dynamic, since parents have less incentive to shop around for price or quality. Consequently, given these perverse market dynamics, it should not be at all surprising that the results of NCLB’s foray into supplementary services has not produced the results that reformers had anticipated. While growing, uptake is still underwhelming, coverage is spotty, and academic impact has been mixed, at best (Sunderman, 2006). Although NCLB requires that SES programs be “research based” in improving achievement, the extant evidence is less than compelling. Perhaps more importantly, the SES initiative itself was never piloted or tested, and is based more in a blunt understanding of markets than any evidence of the role of these market forces in education. Still, in view of the contrasts between these two cases, there are some parallels that are notable in understanding the role of policy in SE markets. Certainly, policymakers in both countries were concerned about existing inequities, even if they took divergent approaches to markets to address those concerns. In both cases, though, there is a recognition of the power of market forces, although Korean policymakers appear to be much more wary of the destructive effects of unbridled competition. But attempts to harness markets for social ends
whether spurring them on or reigning in their most excessive impulses
fits into the neoliberal approach of using market forces to drive social advances. Interestingly, neither nation is

Making Markets

241

pursuing other popular policy approaches that would violate neoliberal dogma on this issue. Despite the concerns about inequity in local areas, they are not promoting greater government centralization of SE. Nor are they encouraging full-fledged privatization of these services, at least in the classic sense, since policymakers in both cases still recognize an important role for the public sector in terms of funding, guaranteeing access, and regulation (albeit to varying degrees). In fact, what we are seeing might be better described as governments working to create more optimal market conditions, with ease of entry for multiple providers, competition, and choice. But there is reason to be concerned that
unwittingly or not
policymakers, in doing so, are in fact setting the stage for increased consolidation of SE markets by corporate interests. This trend has serious implications for policy goals such as equitable access, comprehensive coverage, and competitive incentives to create diverse program options. In both countries, the use of public funds to subsidize provision will naturally attract for-profit interests. In Korea, for instance, the pressure of entrance exams had brought repeated changes to education policies every year and with every election. This leads to uncertainty and confusion on the part of parents and students. Consequently, rather than small-scale institutions based in their local communities, parents and students often prefer supplementary educational providers that can offer instructional programs with consistent quality and easily accessible information about their services. Corporate and franchised providers also have an advantage in assuring the quality of tutors and programs. And compared to small, localized outfits, consolidated organizations may quickly and efficiently cope with frequent policy changes. Larger supplementary educational service providers are more likely to have the political power to access information and even change policy to their advantage. In the United States, rather than “mom and pop” providers, specialized and franchised institutions with greater resources and experience can be in an advantageous position in the official approval system. Just as in Korea, a brand can guarantee more integrated services by replicable curriculum and then, can bring economies of scale. So, supplementary educational service mirrors the same pattern of corporatization that we are seeing in much of the charter school market, where policymakers spoke of independent “mom and pop” providers, but we are seeing substantial market penetration by large organizations instead (Lubienski, 2000). According to advocates of market-oriented policies in education, any government driven system is unable to respond to diverse public preferences

242

CHRISTOPHER LUBIENSKI AND JIN LEE

and needs. For the past two decades, neoliberalism has been pervasive in many different sectors, from economic policies through public welfare programs, under the assumption that markets can enhance the quality of public services that had been initiated by governments. As education is not an exception, the United States and Korea have made efforts for improving failing or failed schools through market mechanism such as choice and competitive incentives. Similar to school choice programs which induce competition between schools, current educational policies focus on how to create and support more flexible public education systems. In order to enhance school quality, policymakers are blurring older distinctions between public and private organizations (Lubienski, 2000). However, it may be that these policy goals for supplementary educational services are undercut by the very markets that are used to deliver the services.

REFERENCES Ascher, C. (2006). NCLB’s supplemental educational services: Is this what our students need? Phi Delta Kappan, 88(2), 136
141. Burch, P., Steinberg, M., & Donovan, J. (2007). Supplemental educational services and NCLB: Policy assumptions, market practices, emerging issues. Educational Evaluation & Policy Analysis, 29(2), 115
133. Byeon, J. L., Hwang, Y. J., & Kim, K. K. (2011). 방과후학교 참여가 학업성취에 미치는 영향 [Effects of after school program participation on academic achievement]. Korean Journal of Sociology of Education, 21(2), 57
85. Byeon, J. L., Jo, S. O., Choi, J. C., Park, H. J., & Kim, I. S. (2009). 년 방과후학교 운영 실태 조사 및 성과 분석 연구 [2009 Study on the investigation of after-school program operation and performance analysis] (RR 2009-13). Seoul, Korea: Korean Educational Development Institute. Retrieved from http://www.kedi.re.kr Center on Education Policy. (2006). From the capital to the classroom: 4 year of the No Child Left Behind Act. Center on Education Policy website. Retrieved from http://www.cep-dc. org Choe, S. H. (2009, December 23). South Korea stretches standards for success. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/23/world/asia/23seoul.html Deke, J., Dragoset, L., Bogen, K., & Gill, B. (2012). Impacts of title I supplemental educational services on student achievement (NCEE 2012-4053). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Education Industry Associates. (2009). EIA welcomes U.S. Secretary of Education’s Support for Supplemental Educational Services, Cautions on Widespread Granting of Waivers to School Districts for ARRA funding [Press release]. Retrieved from http://www.education industry.org/assets/2009%20arra%20waivers.doc Fusarelli, L. D. (2007). Restricted choices, limited options: Implementing choice and supplemental educational services in no child left behind. Educational Policy, 21, 132
154.

Making Markets

243

Greene, J. P., Carroll, T. W., Coulson, A. J., Enlow, R., Hirsch, E. D., Ladner, M., et al. (2008, January 24). Is school choice enough? City Journal. Retrieved from http://www.cityjournal.org/2008/forum0124.html Heinrich, C. J., Meyer, R. H., & Whitten, G. W. (2009, August). Supplemental education services under No Child Left Behind: Who signs up, and what do they gain? Paper presented at the NCLB: Emerging Findings Research Conference of the Urban Institute, Washington, DC. Kang, Y. H. (2008). 사교육의 실태와 대처 방안 [The condition and strategic implication of private education]. Position Paper, 5(16). Retrieved from www.kedi.re.kr Kim, S. M., Shim, H. J., & Ahn, J. Y. (2010, September 6). 우등생도잔다 [Top students also sleep in schools], Chosun Ilbo, Retrieved from http://news.chosun.com/inside/track/4river/ old_index/201009/06/index.html Korean Educational Development Institute. (2005). 한국, 미국, 일본 시계열 자료집 [Time series analysis on public education in Korea, United States and Japan]. Retrieved from http:// cesi.kedi.re.kr/index.jsp Lee, C. S. (2010). 사교육 시장의 현황과 대책: ‘방과후학교’에 대한 국민의식 조사를 중심으 로 [The condition and solution of markets for private education: Based on a survey of ‘the After School Program’]. VIP Report, 10(14). Retrieved from www.hri.co.kr Lubienski, C. (2000). Redefining “public” education: Charter schools, common schools, and the rhetoric of reform. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. Lubienski, C. (2006). School diversification in second-best education markets: International evidence and conflicting theories of change. Educational Policy, 20(2), 323
344. Lubienski, C. (2007). Marketing schools: Consumer goods and competitive incentives for consumer information. Education and Urban Society, 40(1), 118
141. Lubienski, C., Scott, J., & DeBray, E. (2011). The rise of intermediary organizations in knowledge production, advocacy, and educational policy. Teachers College Record, Retrieved from http://www.tcrecord.org ID Number: 16487. Lubienski, C., & Weitzel, P. (2010). Two decades of charter schools: Shifting expectations, partners, and policies. In C. Lubienski & P. Weitzel (Eds.), The charter school experiment: Expectations, evidence, and implications (pp. 1
14). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology. (2008). 년 방과후학교 현황 분석 [The condition of the After School programs 2008]. Retrieved from http://www.mest.go.kr Moe, T. M. (2008). Beyond the free market: The structure of school choice. Brigham Young University Law Review, 2008(1), 557
592. Mun˜oz, M. A., Potter, A. P., & Ross, S. M. (2008). Supplemental educational services as a consequence of the NCLB legislation: Evaluating its impact on student achievement in a large urban district. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 13, 1
25. Office of Research, Evaluation, and Accountability, & Office of Extended Learning Opportunity. (2007, February). SES tutoring programs: An evaluation of year 4 in the Chicago Public Schools. Retrieved from http://research.cps.k12.il.us/cps/accountweb/ Oh, H. S. (2009, July 24). 심야학원 막는다고? 우리는 오피스텔 과외방 간다 [Regulating latenight supplemental education institutions? We are now going to private tutoring]. Chosun Ilbo, p. A12. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2011). A framework for growth and social cohesion in Korea. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/korea/4822 5033.pdf

244

CHRISTOPHER LUBIENSKI AND JIN LEE

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2012). Education at a glance 2012: OECD indicators. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/edu/EAG%202012_e-book_ EN_200912.pdf Primont, D. F., & Domazlicky, B. (2006). Student achievement and efficiency in Missouri schools and the no child left behind act. Economics of Education Review, 25, 77
90. Ross, S. M., Potter, A., Paek, J., McKay, D., Sanders, W., & Ashton, J. (2008). Implementation and outcomes of supplemental educational services: The Tennessee statewide evaluation study. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 13, 26
58. Shin, M. K. (2010, October 23). 사교육 시장 넘보는 대기업들 학원 인수 러시 [Large enterprises interested in markets for supplemental education start the takeover bid for supplemental educational institutions]. Donga Ilbo, p. A13. Soto, H. D. (2000). The mystery of capital: Why captitalism triumphs in the West and fails everywhere else. New York, NY: Basic Books. Springer, M. G., Pepper, M. J., & Ghosh-Dastidar, B. (2009, August). Supplemental educational services and student test score gains: Evidence from a large, urban school district. Paper presented at the NCLB: Emerging Findings Research Conference of the Urban Institute, Washington, DC. Statistics Korea. (2012). Private education expenditures survey 2012. Retrieved from http:// kosis.kr Stern, S. (2008, Winter). School Choice Isn’t Enough. City Journal, 18. Retrieved from http:// www.city-journal.org/2008/2018_2001_instructional_reform.html. Sunderman, G. L. (2006). Do supplemental education services increase opportunities for minority students? Phi Delta Kappan, 88(22), 117–122. U.S. Department of Education. (2009). State and local implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act, Volume VII-Title I school choice and Supplemental Educational Services: Final report. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov Yun, C. I., Hong, D. S., Ahn, T. S., Lim, C. I., Baek, S. G., Kim, B. J., & Nah, M. J. (2008). 학원수강료 조정기준 및 시스템 개발에 관한 연구 [The standard and system of tuition for supplemental educational institutions]. (서울교육 2008-32). Seoul, Korea: Seoul Metropolitan Office of Education. Zimmer, R., Christina, R., Hamilton, L. S., & Prine, D. W. (2006). Evaluation of two out-of-school programs in Pittsburgh public schools: No Child Left Behind’s supplemental educational services and state of Pennsylvania’s educational assistance program (RAND WR-451-PPS). Retrieved from http://www.rand.org

FAMILY CAPITAL: A DETERMINANT OF SUPPLEMENTARY EDUCATION IN 17 NATIONS Darby E. Southgate ABSTRACT Purpose
The purpose of this study is to measure the impact of family capital on the use of supplementary education. Design/methodology/approach
Using logistic regression, it examines family-level determinants
SES, family structure, culture, educational aspirations, language, parental level of education and occupational prestige, and gender
among 17 nations, grouped by level of intensity. Findings
Families with high levels of cultural capital are most likely to purchase supplementary education. This finding is interpreted as supporting the notion that family choice of supplementary education is a social reproduction mechanism in education. Originality/value
This research helps us understand how and why families choose additional education, and how supplementary education

Out of the Shadows: The Global Intensification of Supplementary Education International Perspectives on Education and Society, Volume 22, 245
258 Copyright r 2013 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3679/doi:10.1108/S1479-3679(2013)0000022012

245

246

DARBY E. SOUTHGATE

can be an “unequalizer.” It will also inform future studies on national variations in supplementary education. Keywords: Family capital; cultural capital; educational stratification; supplementary education

INTRODUCTION A debate over the use of supplementary education has been ignited. Some view the rising use of supplementary education as a move toward privatization, one that is aligned with recent market-based reforms in education. Those reforms are based on the notion that government-run schools are inefficient and suffer from “agency problems.” Others view supplementary education as a potentially dangerous threat to goals of using mass education to lessen inequality and provide universal access to all students. From this vantage point, any trend in which families purchase extra schooling serves to reproduce inequality by advantaging youth from more affluent origins (Baker & LeTendre, 2005; Bray, 1999; Bray & Silova, 2006). Recent studies of supplementary education reveal several trends: that it is growing, that it takes various forms, ranging from informal tutoring to highly formalized classes, and that it is taught by professional as well as amateur teachers (Bray, 1999; Buchmann, 2002; Buchmann, Condron, & Roscigno, 2010; Ireson, 2004; Tansel & Bircan, 2004). But fewer studies have determined what drives it’s use and why some countries have lower or higher levels of intensity (Aurini & Davies, 2004; Bray, 1999; Buchmann, 2002; Davies & Quirke, 2002; Hua, 1996; Stevenson & Baker, 1987). Some research shows that more affluent families purchase more supplementary education (Bray & Kwok, 2003; Tansel & Bircana, 2004) but have not examined other forms of capital that might affect parents’ decisions, and how such decisions vary cross-nationally. This chapter addresses the following questions: How do variations in family capital affect the use of supplementary education? And, do these effects of family capital vary cross-nationally? To answer these questions, this study focuses on participation in supplementary education by 15-yearold students in 17 nations which vary by intensity, and examines how economic, social, and cultural capital affects participation. Examining the magnitude and direction of family-level capital on the use of supplementary education may help explain why some countries experience lower and higher levels of supplementary education use.

247

Family Capital: A Determinant of Supplementary Education

DATA AND METHODS This study uses data from the Program for International Student Assessment. PISA surveys a large number of students, over 250,000, from a variety of countries. PISA 2003 allows for a comparison of usage of supplementary education in many different types of countries, including those with economies in transition (Gerber & Schaefer, 2004). This chapter samples 17 nations, 10 of which are “low intensity” and 7 “high intensity.” Nations with less than 20 percent of students engaged in supplemental education are categorized as low-intensity while those with more than 40 percent are high-intensity. I treat nations as a unit of analysis while acknowledging that nations may contain various micro societies by which key patterns vary significantly. Table 1 reports for each nation the percentage of students participating in supplementary education, and the average amount of hours per week they spend in supplementary education. While PISA 2003 aims to measure student competencies, my analysis focuses on links between student backgrounds and the use of supplementary schooling. Previous international comparisons of supplementary education have used data from TIMSS, a mathematics survey. PISA 2003 also focuses on mathematics, but has the advantage of being designed to compare highly diverse nations while offering individual level proxy measures of cultural capital and socioeconomic status, including home language, parental education, occupation status, and cultural possessions. PISA utilizes Table 1.

Percent Participating and Average Weekly Hours Spent in Supplemental Education. Low Intensity

High Intensity

Percentage

Average usage (hours/week)

Austria Belgium Canada Denmark Finland France New Zealand Norway Sweden

16.56 15.34 18.16 10.68 14.86 18.16 16.91 8.30 13.52

.46 .41 .68 .37 .41 .47 .47 .27 .39

United States

17.01

.59

Brazil Greece Korea Latvia Poland Spain Turkey

Percentage

Average usage (hours/week)

48.88 73.88 54.02 48.67 42.26 49.00 56.55

2.33 6.9 4.7 2.4 1.49 2.32 4.48

248

DARBY E. SOUTHGATE

a two-stage, stratified clustered random sample survey of 15-year-old public and private school students, numbering 4,500 to 10,000 students per country. This complex sampling frame is designed to even the probability of choosing students from any school within each participating nation and region. My analysis uses binary logistic regression to predict multivariate effects of student background on use of supplementary education.

FINDINGS: FAMILY CAPITAL, GENDER, AND SUPPLEMENTARY EDUCATION Tables 2 and 3 report logistic regressions of how family resources
economic, social, and cultural capital
affect the use of supplementary education, controlling for a range of other student and family characteristics, and how those effects compare to those for family structure and home language. Table 2 contains results for low-intensity nations, while Table 3 contains results for high-intensity nations. I reason that mechanisms that affect participation in supplementary education probably differ among nations in which fewer than 20 percent of 15 year olds participate versus those in which a majority participate.

FAMILY STRUCTURE How does family structure affect the use of supplementary education? Resource dilution theory (Downey, 1995, 2001) helps explain why large, single-parent, or mixed families produce children with lower academic outcomes than do smaller nuclear families. Comparative research, however, provides a caveat
in some societies children in large families have more opportunities for academic support if they disperse responsibility for childrearing among other family members. Tables 2 and 3 show that family structure is not a consistently strong predictor of participation in supplementary education, net of other variables, in either low- or high-intensity nations. However, in a few nations, children from single-parent and mixedfamily homes are significantly less likely to use supplementary education. This effect is similar in both high- and low-intensity nations. These results provide some support for dilution theory yet highlight variations by national context.

249

Family Capital: A Determinant of Supplementary Education

Table 2. Logistic Regression Coefficients and Standard Errors of Family Capital on Supplementary Education in Low-Intensity Nations. Austria (I) Female

Belgium (II)

.288* * (.093)

.245* * (.094)

(I)

Canada (II)

.290* * (.076)

.257** (.076)

Single parent

−.038 (.131)

−.011 (.132)

.169 (.104)

.208* (.104)

Mixed

−.253 (.211)

−.222 (.212)

−.131 (.150)

−.084 (.151)

(I)

Denmark (II)

.386** (.041)

.345** (.042)

−.051 (.055)

−.032 (.056)

−.258** (.079)

−.240** (.079)

−.116 (.132)

−.119 (.133)

(I)

(II)

.097 (.127)

.085 (.128)

.172 (.148)

.180 (.149)

−.201 (.274)

−.196 (.274)

.630 (.374)

.624 (.374)

Other

.933* * (.303)

.931* * (.304)

.242 (.273)

.248 (.274)

Parent education

.178* * (.044)

.141* * (.045)

.101* * (.037)

.065 (.037)

.151** (.023)

.121** (.023)

−.040 (.057)

−.047 (.058)

Parent occupation

.013* * (.003)

.010* * (.003)

.007* * (.003)

.003 (.003)

.005** (.001)

.004** (.001)

−.002 (.005)

−.002 (.005)

−.909** (.281)

−.927** (.283)

−.013 (.055)

−.023 (.056)

Language Student ed. expectation

−.005 (.188)

−.100 (.191)

−.517* * (.176)

−.517** (.177)

−.795** (.073)

−.789** (.074)

.030 (.041)

−.012 (.043)

.096* * (.037)

.044 (.037)

.135** (.024)

.103** (.025)

Books at home

.105* *

.092**

(.043) Cultural possessions

.101

B

−3.314* * (.263)

−3.151* * (.285)

−2.668* * (.240)

Female

.519* * (.082)

−2.635** (.155)

.458* * (.083)

−2.291** (.162)

(.077) −1.122** (.393)

21894

France (II)

.082

(.023)

7433

Finland (I)

−2.332** (.260)

(.056)

.194**

(.044)

3938

N

(.017)

.216**

(.057)

−.017

.011

(.031)

−.943* (.430)

3399

New Zealand

Norway

(I)

(II)

(I)

(II)

(I)

(II)

.239* (.111)

.204 (.112)

−.022 (.125)

−.072 (.126)

−.169 (.159)

−.180 (.160)

Single parent

−.067 (.105)

−.018 (.106)

.106 (.139)

.110 (.140)

.213 (.164)

.245 (.166)

.060 (.179)

.072 (.179)

Mixed

−.075 (.148)

−.033 (.148)

−.353 (.243)

−.371 (.244)

−.001 (.214)

.048 (.216)

.026 (.329)

.049 (.329)

Other

.307 (.402)

.289 (.402)

.282 (.389)

.302 (.390)

.653* * (.269)

.720* * (.271)

.564 (.419)

.598 (.420)

Parent education

.063 (.037)

.036 (.038)

.088* (.046)

.081 (.046)

.079 (.050)

.044 (.051)

.115 (.090)

.098 (.091)

Parent occupation

.003 (.003)

.000 (.003)

.021* * (.004)

.019** (.004)

−.004 (.004)

−.006 (.004)

−.002 (.006)

−.004 (.006)

250

DARBY E. SOUTHGATE

Table 2. Finland

Language Student ed. expectation

(Continued ) France

(II)

(I)

(II)

(I)

(II)

(I)

(II)

−.564* (.283)

−.647* (.286)

−.858* * (.240)

−.849** (.241)

−1.158* * (.192)

−1.240* * (.196)

−.536 (.334)

−.576 (.337)

−.027

−.044

.053

.014

.001

−.027

(.060)

(.061)

(.073)

.128* *

.096* *

(.038)

(.039)

(.050)

(.051) −.040

.075* (.037)

Cultural possessions

−2.470* * (.359)

−2.252* * (.373)

5530

(.053)

.168**

−1.996** (.338)

3459

(.069)

.220* *

(.070) −2.298* * (.312)

(.076) −.009

.028

(.050)

.183* * (.046)

N

Norway

(I)

Books at home

B

New Zealand

.136

(.074) −1.096* * (.355)

−.711 (.396)

3275

(.089) −2.441* * (.534)

−2.143** (.576)

2972

Sweden

United States

(I)

(II)

.104 (.114)

.095 (.115)

.314* * (.095)

.264** (.096)

Single parent

−.031 (.140)

.030 (.141)

.146 (.109)

.202 (.112)

Mixed

−.141 (.248)

−.119 (.249)

−.016 (.159)

.026 (.160)

Other

.218 (.309)

.301 (.312)

.509* (.225)

.550** (.226)

Parent education

.013 (.047)

−.018 (.047)

.162* * (.047)

.121** (.048)

Parent occupation

.001 (.004)

−.003 (.004)

.000 (.003)

Female

Language Student ed. expectation

−.639* * (.217)

−.759** (.224)

.113* (.053)

.075 (.054)

Books at home

(I)

Cultural possessions

−.002 (.003)

−.648* * (.166)

−.691** (.168)

−.019 (.058)

−.062 (.059)

.032 (.052)

(II)

.039 (.040)

.236**

.188**

(.070) B

−1.907* * (.344)

−1.526** (.373)

N

3379

4415

(.053) −2.024* * (.328)

* Significant at p < .05, two-tailed; * * Significant at p < .01, two-tailed. Standard errors are in parentheses.

−1.624** (.348)

.004 (.004) −1.095 (1.208) .030 (.058)

.007 (.004)

−1.225 (1.198) .068 (.057)

Parent occupation

2008

.103* * (.038)

.150* * (.031)

.174* * (.031)

Parent education

N

B

Cultural possessions

Books at home

Student ed. expectation

Language

−.237 (1.224)

−.486* (.230)

−.052 (.236)

−.077 (.234)

Other

Mixed

3243

4028

−3.569** (1.386)

−3.542* * (1.360)

−1.966* * (.364)

−2.303* * (.344)

.169* * (.066)

.348* * (.064) .106 (1.236)

.073 (.044)

(.046)

.205** (.036)

−.098*

−1.137 (1.355) .593** (.068)

.017** (.003)

.165** (.026)

−.263 (.169)

(.054)

−1.097 (1.329) .668* * (.067)

.020* * (.003)

.010* * (.004) .030 (.266) .507* * (.056)

.213* * (.025)

.099* * (.039)

−.318* (.168)

−.463* (.232)

−1.882** (.583)

−.546 (.540) .276** (.036)

.012** (.002)

.128** (.043)

.084 (.208)

−.182* (.088) −.144 (.123)

−.177* (.093) −.319 (.337)

−.228* * (.092) −.450 (.333)

.267** (.074)

−.231** (.075)

−.215* * (.075)

(I)

(II)

4066

(.045)

.113**

(.032)

.029

−.558 (.543) .252** (.037)

.011** (.002)

.107** (.043)

.088 (.208)

−.185* (.088) −.127 (.123)

.244** (.074)

(II)

−1.800** (.594)

Latvia

(I)

−.146 (.119) 1.076 (.667)

.354* * (.103)

(II)

Korea

−.005

.019 (.265) .516* * (.054)

.010* * (.004)

−.129 (.119) 1.039 (.665)

−.003 (.125) −.035 (.213)

−.049 (.123) −.073 (.211)

Single parent

.365* * (.102)

(I)

.021 (.107)

(II)

Greece

.092 (.105)

(I)

Brazil

Logistics Regression Coefficients and Standard Errors of Family Capital on Supplementary Education in High-Use Nations.

Female

Table 3.

Family Capital: A Determinant of Supplementary Education 251

−.966 (1.118)

.224* * (.028)

−1.364 (1.107)

4314

8672

1358

−1.702 (.995)

−2.097* (.979)

−2.064** (.283) −2.009* * (.277)

.197** (.083)

.014 (.029)

.256* * (.044) −.690 (1.120)

(.063)

.116

.278* (.124)

−.219 (.788)

.044*

.314** (.123)

−.003 (.785)

(.023)

.202** (.020)

.441 (.263)

−.003 (.005)

.094* (.049)

−.012 (.297)

−.062 (.149) −.479 (.787)

.317* (.147)

(II)

.046

.212* * (.019)

.459 (.262)

.000 (.005)

Turkey

(.030)

.169* * (.030)

−1.383 (1.106)

.005** (.002)

* Significant at p < .05, two-tailed; ** Significant at p < .01, two-tailed. Standard errors are in parentheses.

N

B

Cultural possessions

Books at home

Student ed. expectation

Language

.006* * (.002)

.161** (.045)

.004 (.003)

.007* * (.003)

Parent occupation

.075** (.016)

.081* * (.015)

.195* * (.043)

.231* * (.042)

Parent education

.014 (.295)

−.447* (.196)

−.453* * (.196)

.140 (.311)

.147 (.309)

Other

Mixed

−.075 (.147) −.459 (.780)

−.180** (.074) −.800** (.173)

(I)

−.190* * (.074) −.811* * (.173)

−.042 (.106) −.007 (.235)

−.045 (.106) .037 (.235)

Single parent

.123* * (.049)

(II) .348** (.145)

−.046 (.067)

−.003 (.066)

Female

(I)

Spain

.124** (.050)

(II)

(I)

Poland

Table 3. (Continued ) 252 DARBY E. SOUTHGATE

Family Capital: A Determinant of Supplementary Education

253

PARENTAL SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS Parental education is a strong predictor of supplementary education participation in all of the high-intensity nations but is less strong in low-intensity nations. Similarly, parental occupation level predicts participation in both groups of nations. These parental resources tend to heighten the odds of using supplementary education. The introduction of cultural capital in the models shows that families with higher levels of cultural capital are significantly likelier to engage in supplementary education. However, in some nations, the introduction of cultural capital serves to reduce the effects of both parental education and occupational status to nonsignificance. This pattern of results highlights the reciprocal relationship between cultural capital and socioeconomic status and suggests that cultural capital shapes family decisions about supplementary education more than economic capital. The strong effects of cultural capital on supplementary education are pronounced in the second panel. In all countries, cultural items and the number of books in the home have a robust and positive effect on the use of supplementary education. More cultural possessions in the home lead to statistical increases in the use of supplementary education in both groupings. The odds of participating in supplementary education increase as much as one and one-half times with each corresponding increase in the number of cultural possessions. Families with high levels of cultural capital, therefore, are much more likely to participate in supplementary education.

LANGUAGE Research on language and education tends to assume that language is related to migration status and thereby mediates processes of assimilation. From this perspective, students whose home language differs from the language of school instruction may fare worse than average on standardized tests (Kao & Tienda, 1998). However, some immigrant groups and linguistic minorities perform very well in education. The PISA data shows language has a strong statistically significant association to supplementary education in only low-intensity nations, with the exception of two: Austria and Norway. In each of the eight low-intensity nations, speaking a minority language in the host nation decreases the probability of purchasing supplementary education.

254

DARBY E. SOUTHGATE

In sum, family decisions regarding supplementary education are formed in part by social class stratification. My analysis suggests that the use of supplementary education is primarily driven by cultural capital. Families with more cultural capital purchase more education for their children and make more educational investments. Comparisons across the 17 nations in the sample reveal that, in nearly every nation, cultural items bettered the odds of purchasing supplementary education. Coming from a home with high levels of cultural capital in nearly all the sampled nations greatly increases the likelihood of participating in supplementary education net of gender, socioeconomic status, educational expectations, and family structure. It is not necessarily the case that parents who can pay for extra-schooling do so, but that families decide to purchase supplementary education when they see such extracurricular education as the path to educational success. Those who buy into this ideology are generally those who have themselves benefitted from education. Supplementary education thus serves as a form of social reproduction. Individual and family level decision making is deeply tied to national contexts, yet cultural capital stands out as a strong determinant in both high-use and lowuse nations.

CONCLUSION Education has traditionally been viewed as a path to equality. Many who study supplementary education wonder whether or not it functions to increase inequality. In high-intensity volume nations such as Korea, where 80 percent of 15-year-old students take extra schooling, the remaining 20 percent are excluded from both academic and social activities. Their disadvantage may be palpable for their social integration and cultural expectations (Bray, 1999). In high-intensity nations, the large size of the supplementary education industry has formed a culture. Students can listen to pre-recorded lectures that allow for particular lecturers to be viewed simultaneously at multiple locations. Some of these instructors rise to pop stardom; their students form virtual relationships with them, connecting students to the learning processes (Southgate, 2009). But those who do not attend or hear these lectures cannot experience these adolescent fads or share these experiences with their peers, and they thus miss out on an informal aspect of student culture.

Family Capital: A Determinant of Supplementary Education

255

How important are these informal interactions for academic success? Social reproduction theorists argue that these interactions can galvanize and maintain class divisions. The very culture of the dominant class is perpetuated through both formal and informal avenues. In education systems, many forms of knowledge and behaviors for which students are expected to demonstrate proficiency are not necessarily taught in school. Holding students to demonstrate competence in something which is not taught in the classroom can serve to reproduce class advantages. The supplementary education industry legitimates this practice. Its students come to school armed with knowledge learned elsewhere and are thus advantaged over other students. Engaging in supplementary education, then, is not only about raising test scores or passing college entrance examinations; it is also about creating a culture that is separate and above that of the students who do not take extra schooling outside of formal school. This is precisely what Bourdieu (1973, p. 72) meant when he articulated his theory of social reproduction. The fact that in most nations supplementary education is not monitored, or even noticed, speaks loudly to its social reproductive nature. Many families continue to pursue it even in nations that have banned it. Why? Simply put, families are willing to take the risk of legal prosecution to gain advantages for their children above others. But if families are motivated by the allure of gaining advantages, research is equivocal regarding the actual efficacy of supplementary education. Some researchers contend that participation in supplementary education does not necessarily increase students’ test scores (Smyth, 2008) or the averages of nations (Bray, 1999). Nonetheless, supplementary education is a practice by which families with greater amounts of economic, social, and cultural capital attempt to maintain their advantage (Keister & Southgate, 2012).

REFERENCES Aurini, J., & Davies, S. (2004). The transformation of private tutoring: Education in a Franchise form. Canadian Journal of Sociology, 29, 419
438. Baker, D., & LeTendre, G. (2005). National differences, global similarities: World culture and the future of schooling. Stanford, CA: Stanford Social Sciences. Bourdieu, P. (1973). Cultural reproduction and social reproduction. London: Tavistock. Bray, M. (1999). The shadow education system: Private tutoring and its implications for planners. Paris: UNESCO, International Institute for Educational Planning. Bray, M., & Kwok, P. (2003). Demand for private supplementary tutoring: Conceptual considerations, and socio-economic patterns in Hong Kong. Economics of Education Review 22, 611
620.

256

DARBY E. SOUTHGATE

Bray, M., & Silova, I. (2006). The private tutoring phenomenon: International patterns and perspectives. In Education in a hidden marketplace: Monitoring of private tutoring (pp. 27
41). Buchmann, C. (2002). Getting ahead in Kenya: Social capital, shadow education, and achievement. In Schooling and social capital in diverse cultures (pp. 133
159). Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd. Buchmann, C., Condron, D., & Roscigno, V. (2010). Shadow education, American style: Test preparation, the SAT and college enrollment. Social Forces 89, 435
461. Davies, S., & Quirke, L. (2002). New markets for private education in Canada. Education Canada 42, 36
41. Downey, D. (1995). When bigger is not better: Family size, parental resources, and children’s educational performance. American Sociological Review 60, 746
761. Downey, D. (2001). Number of siblings and intellectual development: The resource dilution explanation. American Psychologist 56, 497
504. Gerber, T., & Schaefer, D. (2004). Horizontal stratification of higher education in Russia: Trends, gender differences, and labor market outcomes. Sociology of Education 77, 32
59. Hua, H. (1996). Which students are likely to participate in private lessons or school tutoring in Egypt? (a multivariate discriminant analysis) Dissertation. Harvard University Press. Ireson, J. (2004). Private tutoring: How prevalent and effective is it? London Review of Education 2, 109
122. Kao, G., & Tienda, M. (1998). Educational aspirations of minority youth. American Journal of Education 106, 349
384. Keister, L., & Southgate, D. (2012). Inequality: A contemporary approach to race, class and gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Parsons, T., & Bales, R. ([1956] 1998). Family socialization and interaction process. London: Routledge. Smyth, E. (2008). The more, the better? Intensity of involvement in private tuition and examination performance. Educational Research and Evaluation 14, 465
476. Southgate, D. (2009). Determinants of shadow education: A cross-national analysis. Dissertation. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Sociology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH. Tansel, A., & Bircan, F. (2004). Private tutoring expenditures in Turkey. Institute for the Study of Labor, Bonn, Germany.

257

Family Capital: A Determinant of Supplementary Education

APPENDIX: CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS AND STANDARD ERRORS OF FAMILY STRUCTURE AND SUPPLEMENTARY EDUCATION Table A.1.

Correlation Coefficients and Standard Errors of Family Structure and Gender with Shadow Education.

Country

Nuclear

Austria

−.006 (.019)

−.007 (.015)

Belgium

.007 (.014)

Brazil

−.001 (.025)

Canada

.047** (.011) −.017 (.018)

Denmark

Single-Parent

Mixed

Other

Gender

−.014 (.018)

.063 (.019)

.006 (.016)

.004 (.016)

−.017 (.014)

.016 (.013)

.051* (.013)

.01 (.027)

.005 (.022)

−.020 (.029)

.018 (.029)

−.021** (.010) .016 (.017)

−.048** (.010) −.016 (.016)

−.005 (.011) .047 (.028)

.086* * (.014) .008 (.017)

Finland

.002 (.014)

−.014 (.013)

.012 (.014)

.016 (.021)

.088* * (.014)

France

−.003 (.017)

.022 (.013)

−.036* (.017)

.017 (.019)

.031* * (.020)

.031* (.014)

−.069 (.022)

.098* * (.022)

Greece

.048** (.020)

−.029 (.022)

Korea

.091** (.017) .034* (.020)

−.061** (.017) −.026 (.022)

−.022 (.014) −.017 (.017)

−.048 (.017) −.033 (.023)

−.065* * (.029) .085* * (.020)

Latvia New Zealand

−.013 (.019)

.009 (.018)

−.019 (.017)

−.007 (.016)

.004 (.020)

Norway

−.014 (.020)

.004 (.020)

−.004 (.018)

.043 (.023)

−.029* (.017)

Poland

.015 (.016)

−.018 (.017)

.009 (.016)

−.006 (.021)

.017 (.017)

Spain

.060** (.014) .005 (.023)

−.029** (.015) .00 (.020)

−.054** (.013) −.020 (.016)

−.023 (.013) −.037 (.015)

.015* * (.015) .017 (.019) .021 (.038)

Sweden Turkey

−.004 (.034)

−.004 (.035)

.024 (.024)

−.034 (.028)

United States

−.025 (.016)

.009 (.018)

−.004 (.018)

.005 (.022)

* Significant at p < .05, two-tailed; ** Significant at p < .01, two-tailed.

.046* * (.014)

258

DARBY E. SOUTHGATE

Table A.2.

Correlation Coefficients and Standard Errors of Family Capital with Shadow Education.

Country

Number of Books in the Home

Austria

.114* * (.019)

.118** (.019)

Belgium

.094* * (.013) .118* * (.026)

.105** (.013) .193** (.022)

.064* * (.011)

.116** (.012)

Brazil Canada Denmark

−.014 (.020)

Cultural Home Highest Parental Possessions Language Educational Level

−.005 (.007)

−.014 (.016)

Student’s Expected Educational Level

.123** (.020)

.087** (.017)

.019 (.013) .061** (.018)

.065** (.015) .185** (.026)

.074** (.013) .108** (.031)

.119** (.017)

.091** (.013)

.103** (.011)

.053* (.025)

−.019 (.027)

−.01 (.020)

.037** (.015)

.038 (.014)

.053** (.016)

Finland

.075* * (.013)

.096** (.014)

France

.057* * (.021) .076* * (.023)

.074** (.022) .148** (.020)

.039* (.021) −.027 (.023)

.095** (.026) .162** (.021)

.035 (.020) .283** (.026)

Japan

.101* * (.020)

.146** (.016)

−.008 (.012)

.150 (.022** )

.181** (.021)

Korea

.254* * (.020)

.183** (.019)

.008 (.016)

.262** (.022)

.25** (.015)

Latvia

.073* * (.022)

.112** (.019)

.002 (.015)

.098** (.023)

.18** (.023)

.050** (.018) .017 (.019)

.176** (.023) .046* (.025)

.045 (.019) .026 (.022)

Greece

New Zealand Norway

−.004 (.018) −.001 (.020)

.038 (.022) −.002 (.020)

Poland

.176* * (.016)

.193** (.016)

.023 (.015)

.200** (.013)

.200** (.015)

Spain

.129* * (.019)

.110** (.016)

−.010 (.015)

.128** (.014)

.185** (.018)

Sweden

.028 (.023)

.074** (.020)

.014 (.022)

.046 (.020)

Turkey

.133* * (.046)

.143** (.043)

−.062* (.030)

.131 (.047)

.113** (.030)

United States

.028 (.019)

.057** (.021)

.070 (.021)

.037 (.019)

.010 (.018)

.088** (.028)

* Significant at p < .05, two-tailed; ** Significant at p < .01, two-tailed.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS Janice Aurini is an assistant professor in the Department of Sociology and Legal Studies at the University of Waterloo. She received her PhD at McMaster University and was a post-doctoral fellow at Harvard University. Her research examines education policy, education inequality, private education and parenting. Her recent articles on these topics can be found in Sociology of Education, Canadian Public Policy and Sociological Forum. She is currently the primary investigator on a five-year SSHRC funded project on summer learning inequality and is co-authoring an advanced qualitative methods book. Mark Bray is UNESCO chair professor in comparative education and director of the Comparative Education Research Centre at the University of Hong Kong. He has taught at that university since 1986, prior to which he taught at the Universities of Edinburgh, Papua New Guinea and London and in secondary schools in Kenya and Nigeria. Between 2006 and 2010 he took leave from Hong Kong to work in Paris as the director of UNESCO’s International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP). He has written extensively in the field of comparative education, with particular focus on aspects of methodology and on the administration and financing of education. Hai-Anh Dang, PhD, is currently working as an economist in the Poverty and Inequality Unit, Development Research Group with the World Bank in Washington, DC, USA. His main research interest is development economics including poverty, education, labour and household survey design. He is currently working with his colleagues at the World Bank on a method that constructs synthetic (pseudo) panel data from cross-sectional data that can help provide estimates on welfare dynamics. He has also been working on various papers, completed and ongoing, related to education in Vietnam and other developing countries. He worked with several other colleagues to design one survey supported by the Hewlett Foundation and the World Bank on tutoring in Vietnam. He has published in different journals such as Economic Development and Cultural Change, Economics of Education Review, Research in Labor Economics, World Bank Economic Review and 259

260

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

World Bank Research Observer, as well as a book on private tutoring in Vietnam with VDM Verlag Dr Mueller Publishing House. Scott Davies is a professor of sociology and Ontario research chair in educational achievement and at-risk students, McMaster University, Canada. He has studied choice and organizational variety in education, and is currently examining correlates of student achievement and academic inequalities from pre-school to post-secondary levels. He has won awards from the American Education Research Association and the Canadian Education Research Association, and has been an editorial board member for several journals. With Neil Guppy, he has just published the third edition of The Schooled Society. Julian Dierkes is an associate professor and the Keidanren chair in Japanese research at the University of British Columbia where he teaches Asia Pacific Policy Studies in the Institute of Asian Research. Julian received his PhD in sociology from Princeton University. His past research on history education in Japan culminated in a book, Guilty Lessons? Postwar History Education in Japan and the Germanies (Routledge, 2010). He continues to focus his research on supplementary education in Japan as an example of the marketization of education and its impact on the organization and experience of schooling. Martin Forsey is an associate professor of anthropology & sociology, The University of Western Australia. He teaches units on Australian society and culture, and has been writing lately about his experiences with ‘flipping the sociology classroom’, moving away from formal lectures towards online delivery of content and more intensive tutorial/workshops. His research has considered neo-liberal reform of schooling, school choice, the internationalization of higher education and more recently he has been considering the role of schools in communities
their links to settlement and attachment to place. Candido Gomes, professor of sociology and education at Brası´ lia Catholic University, was an adviser for educational affairs to the Federal Senate and the National Constituent Assembly. He has over 250 academic publications in different continents, focusing particularly on public policies in education, education and work, educational costs and financing and sociology of school. Thomas Koinzer is a guest professor for educational studies at HumboldtUniversity Berlin. His main research fields are system-related school

About the Authors

261

research, history of education, comparative and international education and research on private schools and supplementary education within the Center for the Research on Private Schooling. Jin Lee is a doctoral student in the Department of Education Policy, Organization and Leadership at University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign. She has an MA in education administration from Seoul National University in South Korea, completing research on school choice programmes in the United States. Since then, she worked at the National Assembly in Korea to support legislative activities and perform several policy evaluation studies. She has made research presentations on market-driven reforms including the effects of supplemental education services and school choice programmes on equal opportunity at international conferences. She is currently completing her doctoral programme in education policy. Her most recent articles include a study of segregation in charter schools across the United States in the International Journal of Educational Reform, and a geo-spatial analysis of school enrollment policies in Auckland in the New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies. Christopher Lubienski is a professor of education policy, and the director of the Forum on the Future of Public Education at the University of Illinois, and a fellow with the National Education Policy Center. He is also convener and co-director of the International Research Network on ‘marketization and privatization in education’ with the World Education Research Association. His research focuses on education policy, reform and the political economy of education, with a particular concern for issues of equity and access. His current work examines organizational responses to competitive conditions in local education markets, including geo-spatial analyses of charter schools. He is lead-PI on a three-year project on intermediary organizations’ ability to influence the use of research evidence in the policymaking process. In addition to numerous scholarly articles, he has published School Choice Policies and Outcomes: Empirical and Philosophical Perspectives (with Walter Feinberg, SUNY Press), and The Charter School Experiment: Expectations, Evidence, and Implications (with Peter Weitzel, Harvard Education Press). His most recent book is The Public School Advantage (with Sarah Theule Lubienski, University of Chicago Press). Izumi Mori is an assistant professor of sociology at Rikkyo University, Japan. She received her MA in sociology of education from the University of Tokyo, and received her PhD in educational theory and policy from the Pennsylvania State University. Her interests include academic achievement,

262

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

educational inequality, education policy, quantitative methods and comparative education. In her article co-authored by David P. Baker, titled ‘The Origin of Universal Shadow Education: What the Supplemental Education Phenomenon Tells Us about the Post-Modern Institution of Education’ (Asia Pacific Education Review, 2010), they argued that shadow education follows the institutional logic of formal education and will be increasingly incorporated into the world culture of education. In her dissertation titled ‘The Effect of Supplementary Tutoring on Students’ Mathematics Achievement: A Comparative Study of Japan and the United States’, she used propensity score matching as an analytic strategy and compared between Japan and the United States, two countries with different patterns of dominant use of supplementary tutoring, using the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) data. Darby E. Southgate is an associate professor of sociology and ethnic studies at Los Angeles Valley College. She is from Toronto, Canada but grew up in Los Angeles, California where she attended public schools
earning her BA and MA from California State Schools then her doctorate from Ohio State University. She is a strong proponent of public education. Her research interest is stratification with an emphasis in education and culture. Her most recent publication, Inequality: A Contemporary Approach to Race, Class and Gender, looks at stratification trends and current attempts to mediate inequality through public policies. She is active in working towards a reduction in inequality through various avenues such as public education, reducing homelessness and preserving the arts and music in public schools. Aysit Tansel is a professor of economics at the Middle East Technical University, Ankara. She received her BS from Middle East Technical University with high honours, her MA from University of Minnesota and her PhD from the State University of New York. She was a post-doctoral fellow at the Yale University and a Fulbright fellow at Cornell University. She is a research fellow of the Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA) in Bonn and the Economic Research Forum (ERF) in Cairo. Her main area of interest is labour economics with a focus on economics of education, empirical modelling of economic growth and gender aspects of education and health. Her publications have appeared in journals such as Career Development International, Economics of Education Review, Economic Development and Cultural Change, Journal of Development Economics, Public Choice, Applied Economics and Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv. She is in the editorial board of the following journals: Economics of Education

About the Authors

263

Review, Equality Diversity and Inclusion, Turnalar Uluslarası Tu¨rk Dili Edebiyat ve C¸eviri Dergisi (International Journal of Turkish Literature in Translation), Iktisat, Isletme ¸ ve Finans (Economics, Management and Finance), International Journal of Education Economics and Development and Economy-Tek. Alexandre Ventura, former Portuguese deputy minister of education, is a professor, researcher and prolific writer, credited with a wide range of publications. He has strong international interests and connections. He is an international speaker and consultant on educational issues. Among his experience at scientific and professional levels it is possible to find positions as a professor at the Department of Education of the University of Aveiro; president of the Scientific Council for Teacher Evaluation, Portugal; co-ordinator of the research field evaluation of quality in education at the Research Center Didactics and Technology in Teacher Education, University of Aveiro, Portugal; deputy chief inspector at the Portuguese Inspectorate of Education; editor on SAGE Open; member of the International Scientific Board of the Iberoamerican Electronic Magazine on Quality, Effectiveness and Change in Education; Member of the International Editorial Advisory Board of the journal Evaluation and Public Policies in Education, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. His main topics of research are teacher performance evaluation; school self-evaluation and external evaluation; school bullying; private supplementary tutoring. Wei Zhang commenced her university studies at Peking University, Beijing, where she majored in Russian Language and Literature. She worked as a secretary in the Embassy of Georgia in China and a research assistant in the Chongqing Institute of Educational Research before proceeding to the University of Oslo, Norway, for MPhil studies in higher education. She subsequently undertook doctoral research on shadow education at the University of Hong Kong. She has also worked in UNESCO’s regional office for Asia and the Pacific in Bangkok, Thailand.