Shadow Education and Social Inequalities in Japan

Entrich, Steve R.

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-69119-0

Cited by 78 publications

(49 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…At least since the 1970s, SE became an integral part of mass education in this region. Today, joint stock companies operating on a regional, national, or even international level dominate the shadow market in East Asia, founding the core of its “second schooling systems” (Entrich, 2018). For a long time, researchers attributed the phenomenon to cultural peculiarities of these societies, especially Confucianism and its legacy in the form of high appreciation of education in general and for access to the labor market, but also its underlying meritocratic principle, which builds the basis of high-stakes testing (Bray, 2009; Byun et al, 2018; Entrich, 2018; Stevenson and Baker, 1992; Taki and Entrich, 2018; Zeng, 1999).…”

Section: Theoretical Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The relationship between educational attainment, social inequality, and rising parental investments in the non-formal education of children has received increasing attention in recent decades (Bae and Stecher, 2019; Dang and Rogers, 2008; Entrich, 2018; Kornrich and Furstenberg, 2013; Park et al, 2016; Schaub et al, 2020; Schneider et al, 2018; Stevenson and Baker, 1992). As a result, concerns about inequality in educational opportunities and growing class divides sparked debates and led to the introduction of counter-measures such as state-sponsored supplementary education services in several countries (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although SE was long viewed as an exotic East Asian “cultural oddity” (Baker, 2020), it is now a substantial topic in comparative sociology and education (Zhang and Bray, 2020). With good reason, SE has become a major global phenomenon, a part of mass schooling in many societies and probably the most significant international trend in education in the 21st century (Bray, 2017; Byun et al, 2018; Entrich, 2018; Gordon Győri, 2020; Kim and Jung, 2019; Kobakhidze and Suter, 2020; Mori and Baker, 2010; Šťastný and Kobakhidze, 2020; Wiseman, 2013). Against the background of the observed worldwide increase in the participation in both major forms of SE in recent decades (Bray, 2017; Park et al, 2016), the often-reported tight linkage between socioeconomic status (SES), SE investment, and academic outcomes of students indicates major implications for educational opportunities and inequalities in educational attainment.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The second line of argument focuses on theories of social reproduction. From this perspective, investment in SE is a cost-benefit-based educational decision of forward-looking, middle, and high SES families, who use SE as an instrument of social exclusion to maintain their own status (Byun et al, 2018; Entrich, 2015, 2018; Entrich and Lauterbach, 2019). Under the condition that SE actually yields significant benefits for educational attainment, 1 investment in SE may occupy a central role in the reported persistence of inequalities in most societies (Lucas and Byrne, 2017; Shavit and Park, 2016)—even those where massive educational expansion led to more equality in access to all levels of formal education (Meyer et al, 1992).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…higher ranked/advantaged school type or study program/curriculum). A competitive advantage in one or both of these educational dimensions through SE would help high SES strata to secure their advantaged status (Dang and Rogers, 2008; Entrich, 2018; Entrich and Lauterbach, 2019; Park et al, 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Worldwide shadow education and social inequality: Explaining differences in the socioeconomic gap in access to shadow education across 63 societies

Entrich

2020

International Journal of Comparative Sociology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article examines the cross-national differences in socioeconomic accessibility to shadow education (SE) across 63 societies. Drawing on arguments from two competing theoretical models either emphasizing cross-national cultural, economic, and institutional differences (e.g. model of secondary schooling, scale of SE) or universally working social reproduction mechanisms (e.g. enrichment features of SE), this study provides a novel approach to understanding the role of SE for social inequality. More specifically, while the first model explicitly allows equality in access to SE, the latter suggests that SE fosters inequality under all circumstances. Using data from the 2012 Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) and official sources, first, the difference in the probability of top in comparison to bottom socioeconomic strata to use SE is predicted separately for all societies, before analyzing what causes the found considerable cross-national variation in the socioeconomic gap in access to SE at the country level. Results indicate that differences in SE access are linked to incentives for high-performing students to use SE. These incentives are especially common in societies with higher educational institutional differentiation (e.g. early or mixed tracking schooling models). In societies with less stratified education systems, access to SE is more equal, wherefore the potential effect of SE to social inequality is dampened. Overall, findings suggest that simple generalizations based on existing theoretical models provide no comprehensive explanation for the connection between SE and inequality. Instead, prominent beliefs about the relationship between SE and inequality are questioned.

show abstract