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

Abstract

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.

A bibliometric mapping of shadow education research: achievements, limitations, and the future

“…Recently, shadow education has witnessed growing recognition from researchers, educators, and policymakers owing to its influential implications for social equality, economic growth, and the operation of formal education systems (Entrich, 2021 ). This is evidenced by its increasing presence not only in books (e.g., Bray & Lykins, 2012 ; Bray et al, 2020a , 2020b ; Bray, 2021a ; Entrich, 2018a , 2018b ; Kim & Jung, 2019 ) but also in special issues in scholarly journals, such as Asia Pacific Education Review (Bray & Lee, 2010 ), East China Normal University Review of Education (Zhang & Bray, 2019 ), European Journal of Education (Gordon Györi, 2020 ), and Orbis Scholae (Šťastný & Kobakhidze, 2020 ).…”

Supplementary education and the coronavirus pandemic: Economic vitality, business spatiality and societal value in the private tuition industry during the first wave of Covid-19 in England

“…Geographers can no longer afford to ignore an industry that is spreading its tentacles around the globe and could usefully trace the role of diverse mechanisms that prompt growth in different global regions. This uneven geography matters because the industry is largely socially regressive, favouring those already best placed to succeed, especially in countries whose education systems are amenable to such interventions ( Entrich, 2021 , Zwier et al, 2021 ). Moreover, the industry cannot be ignored as it is intimately linked to state education, a subject long an object of geographic concern.…”

“…In contrast, the most addressed ethical question asked about private tuition focuses on who gets access to it. As a commercial service, access to supplementary education tends to favour higher socio-economic groups, especially in nations where performance is incentivised by academically-selective school systems and high-stake testing ( Entrich, 2021 , Zwier et al, 2021 ), as tuition is “much less about support to those who are in real need…and a lot more about maintaining competitive advantages within schools for students who are already successful ( Bray, 2020: 11 ). During the pandemic, need was differentiated as support from schools varied: “some are getting lots of support, some are getting virtually none” (Margaret-NT-M-NW).…”

Modelling and analysis for higher education shadow institutions in Indian context: an ISM approach

“…Hence, a consensus on the critical success factors of quality management does not exist (Asif et al 2013 ). Studies on higher education (Asif et al 2013 ; Bayraktar et al 2008 ) and shadow education highlight common elements like curriculum design, student guidance and support and customer satisfaction (Entrich 2018 , 2020 ; Entrich and Lauterbach 2019 , Entrich and Bae 2021 ).…”