Category Archives: Academic Publication

Interviews about “Out of the Shadows”

Vertical Banner: Out of the Shadows - The Global Intensification of Supplementary EducationIn November the volume I co-edited with Janice Aurini and Scott Davies was published by Emerald.

I was recently interviewed by Ee-Seul Yoon (UBC Faculty of Education) about various aspects of the genesis of this book.

This interview led to an Asia Pacific Memo. (“The Global Intensification of Supplementary Education“, APM 271, Feb 18, 2014)

Two additional segments didn’t make it into the Asia Pacific Memo.

In the first, I spoke about what motivated us as an editorial team to put this volume together.

In the second, segment I talk about how ubiquitous supplementary education has become.

Thanks again to Ee-Seul for conducting the interview and to Paul Weston for filming and editing.

New Book on Supplementary Education Around the World

Janice Aurini, Scott Davies & Julian Dierkes (eds.)

Out of the Shadows: The Global Intensification of Supplementary Education

(International Perspectives on Education and Society, Vol. 22)

Emerald Publishing, Bingley UK: 2013.

Vertical Banner: Out of the Shadows - The Global Intensification of Supplementary EducationTable of Contents

“Out of the shadows? An introduction to worldwide supplementary education”
Janice Aurini, Scott Davies, Julian Dierkes (pp. xv – xxiv)

Part 1: Countries With High Intensity Forms of Supplementary Education

“The Insecurity Industry: Supplementary Education in Japan”
Julian Dierkes (pp. 3 – 21)

“Supplementary Education in Turkey: Recent Developments and Future Prospects”
Aysit Tansel (pp. 23 – 66)

“Researching Supplementary Education: Plans, Realities, and Lessons from Fieldwork in China”
Wei Zhang, Mark Bray (pp. 67 – 94)

“Private Tutoring in Vietnam: A Review of Current Issues and its Major Correlates”
Hai-Anh Dang (pp. 95 – 127)

“Supplementary Education in Brazil: Diversity and Paradoxes”
Alexandre Ventura, Candido Gomes (pp. 129 – 151)

Part 2: Countries With Low Intensity Forms of Supplementary Education

“Supplementary Education in a Changing Organizational Field: The Canadian Case”
Janice Aurini, Scott Davies (pp. 155 – 170)

“But did it Help you get to University? A Qualitative Study of Supplementary Education in Western Australia”
Martin Forsey (pp. 171 – 189)

“Supplementary Education in the United States: Policy Context, Characteristics, and Challenges”
Izumi Mori (pp. 191 – 207)

“Supplementary Education in Germany: History and Present Developments”
Thomas Koinzer (pp. 209 – 220)

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, Jin Lee (pp. 223 – 244)

“Family Capital: a Determinant of Supplementary Education in 17 Nations”
Darby E. Southgate (pp. 245 – 258)

Husaina Banu Kenayathulla: Household Budgeting for Education, including Tutors in Mayalsia

Husaina Banu Kenayathulla. 2012. An Economic Analysis of Household Educational Decisions in Malaysia. PhD Dissertation: Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies, Faculty of Education, Indiana University.

Abstract

Through econometric and economic analyses, this dissertation addresses three key issues in the household educational decisions in Malaysia. First, by addressing selectivity bias, it provides new and more accurate information about the private rates of return to education in Malaysia. Second, using the Engel curve framework and the Hurdle model, this study examines whether there are significant gender differentials in intra-household educational expenditures in Malaysia and whether gender differences vary by ethnicity or geographical region. Third, this dissertation investigates the determinants of private tutoring expenditures in Malaysia using the Hurdle model.

The findings suggest that for both males and females, the average private returns to education are highest at the secondary (16.5 percent and 27.2 percent, respectively) and university (15.5 percent and 16.1 percent, respectively) education levels. The results also suggest that even after controlling for kind of work, there are substantial returns to education for both men and women at different levels of education. Additionally, the findings suggest that while there are no significant gender differences in intra-household educational expenditures nationally, these do exist in some regions, for the 5 to 9 and 10 to 14 age groups. However, such differences typically occur once children are enrolled in school. In terms of ethnicity, there is evidence of a pro-male gap in non-Bumiputera households’ decisions to enroll children ages 10 to 14 in school. Further, the results indicate that total household expenditures, household head’s level of education, household head’s gender, number of school-age children, home ownership, ethnicity and regional characteristics are important determinants of private tutoring expenditures in Malaysia.

Based on an understanding of household schooling decisions from econometric and economic analyses, this dissertation outlines some policy recommendations targeting children from low income families, children from middle income families with multiple school-age children, children with less-educated parents, and children from rural areas.

See also Dr. Kenayathulla’s Asia Pacific Memo: “Private Tutoring in Malaysia: Regulating for Quality” (January 2012)

Where to Meet Nice Supplementary Education Researchers

For the most part, supplementary education research is relatively underdeveloped as an academic specialty.

Supplementary Education on academia.edu

A quick example: on academia.edu, six researchers have joined me in stating their interest as “supplementary education“. I don’t know any of them and six of them list their status as “independent researcher” which doesn’t bode well for someone setting out in an academic career. Is it on-going squabbles about terminology? No, it doesn’t seem to be as neither “shadow education”, “hypereducation” nor “supplemental education” have an entry. There are a ton of entries with “tutoring” as a word, but they are relatively unfocused.

Why No Subdiscipline of Supplementary Education Research

So why has research on supplementary education not established itself? Another way of asking that question is, why are there not more researchers interested in this topic?

For the years that my previous SSHRC grant ran, I was able to recruit a single MA student as an RA. I sent feelers out towards sociology as we as Ed Studies, but found no interest.

One reason for the sparsity of research is the relatively recent recognition of supplementary education as a phenomenon worth of academic study. In places like Japan, pundits and commentators have written about juku since the 1970s, but this has not led to a research literature. In most OECD countries, the current tutoring/supplementary education boom is a relatively new phenomenon and thus hasn’t attracted a lot of attention yet.

Also, supplementary education sort of sits between all disciplinary chairs. The good thing is that this means it is establishing itself as a genuinely interdisciplinary enterprise which is terrific. This interdisciplinarity not only means a variety of perspectives on the phenomenon (most prominently, perhaps, sociological, but a significant presence of ed studies and pedagogy, coupled with a smaller presence of anthropologists, geographers, economists, etc.), but also means a relatively greater proximity to policy.

Take the example of most education schools: If you look at traditional divisions within the study of education, you will find divisions such as primary, secondary, higher education, or life-long learning, but these examples already suggest that supplementary education doesn’t “fit”. For people focused on schools, juku seem to informal, for life-long learning types 塾生 are too young. That may be why research in this area seems to be coming from neigbouring disciplines rather than education itself in many cases.

CEIS as a Place to Meet

For some time then, the emerging community of supplementary education researchers has been struggling with setting up a centre to its activities or a regular place to meet. Following some discussions last year at the CIES meetings in Montreal, CIES seems to be emerging as a strong contender. Why? It is interdisciplinary, and highlights cross-regional and cross-national comparisons. While CIES is U.S.-based, it has regional and national equivalents throughout the world and a regular global meeting. It meets annually. It is of a nice size, i.e. big enough that participation always seems to yield new insights, but small enough that some lasting links can be built. And finally, it is a pretty friendly conference.

I am aware of several efforts to propose panels that will be focused on supplementary education in Puerto Rico next Spring. One proposal is anchored by Mark Bray of the Univ of HK who generally functions as the godfather to the emerging network of researchers, partly based on his long-standing work in this field, but also partly on his past role as past director of UNESCO’s International Institute for Educational Planning which has given him a wonderful network of researchers around the world.

Hopefully I will be joining with Janice Aurini and Scott Davies – with whom I have collaborated in the past – on a panel proposal as well.

Further Institutionalization

Hopefully, regular meetings of some of the people in this emerging field at CIES will lead to further institutionalization in the form of a community of scholars to whom one can circulate work in progress and with whom one can collaborate on grant proposals and publications.

There is – as of yet – no journal or newsletter that focusses on supplementary education. Yet, there is a growing – albeit informal – network of researchers who focus at least some of their energy on research in this area.

Special Issue of “Administrative Sciences” on Innovations in Education Policy and Private Sector Initiatives in Pacific Rim Countries

Kathryn Ibata-Arens (with whom I have collaborated in the past, special issue on “embedded enterprise” of Enterprise & Society) will be editing a special issue of Administrative Sciences focused on “Innovations in Education Policy and Private Sector Initiatives in Pacific Rim Countries”.

Here’s the information on the special issue which serves as a call for papers as well:

Dear Colleagues,

How are national governments in Pacific Rim countries including East Asia, Brazil and the United States meeting 21st century challenges to improve the skill base of their citizens in seeking employment that contributes to rising standards of living and sustainable economic development, while strengthening national economies?

This special issue contributes to the cross-national and interdisciplinary dialog concerning innovative approaches in education policy and practice. Asian countries in particular are placing an emphasis on science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) education in the hopes of stimulating high technology entrepreneurship and the emergence of new high growth industries. “Cram” schools, which focus on rote memorization (e.g. math) are an integral part of the education system in a number of Asian countries, while inroads are also being made in gifted, enrichment (hands-on activities supplementing learning for high ability students) and online learning. How is success in these practices in Asia balanced against what can be seen as a neglect of traditional sectors? What are the societal implications of a decline in national funding for cultural and liberal arts education? Are these countries developing a national education system which supports a healthy national innovation system, and can (and should) these practices be modeled elsewhere?

The special issue shall be prefaced by a brief thematic and theoretical introduction by Gerald Hane, CEO of Battelle Japan and Kathryn Ibata-Arens, political economist and associate professor at De Paul University. The introduction situates innovations in education within human capital development as part of innovation policy (competitive national innovation systems), as well as within ideas of social policy (outreach to disadvantaged socio-economic groups) and immigration policy (how certain countries are attracting the best and brightest from elsewhere to fast-track domestic human capital development).

The special issue will conclude with a reflective commentary by E. Anthony Kelly, professor at George Mason University and expert in education policy. Of particular emphasis in the essay shall be policy lessons learned for the United States and other Pacific Rim countries including, but not limited to, Brazil, China, India, Japan, South Korea and Singapore.

Contributions welcomed from social scientists and others with expertise in the aforementioned issues. Research based on surveys and/or original fieldwork is particularly welcome. Single-country and/or comparative works in East Asia, Southeast and South Asia as well as Latin America and South America are encouraged.

Dr. Kathryn Ibata-Arens
Guest Editor

More information

Asia Pacific Memo on Hyper-Education as the Way of the Future

In an Asia Pacific Memo last year, I asked: “Is South Korea’s Hyper-Education System the Future?” (APM #2, July 13, 2010)

A recent workshop at the University of Waterloo concluded that hyper-education will spread globally in the future. Currently, South Korea’s education system seems to be the most extreme. It is increasingly structured around tutoring in “hagwon” (supplemental education institutions). Korea has taken on even more extreme forms of examination “hell” than Japan.

In Korea, there are reports of students sleeping less than 4 hours per night to prepare for entrance exams to special high schools. An education system embodied in high-stakes standardized exams resulted in this pressure-cooker environment. In a rigidly hierarchal higher education sector, knowledge is emphasized over understanding. The government’s ongoing efforts to combat supplementary education and its excesses are not effective.

The Japanese supplementary education system originated in the early 1970s during the “juku-boom” (when many small supplementary education institutions, or ‘jukus’, were founded). In Japan, a hierarchal education system caused examination “hell” in the context of expanding household income and declining birth rates.

Japan now appears to be following in Korea’s footsteps. In Korea, ‘mom n’ pop’ “hagwon” have been replaced by corporate behemoths of 50,000 students or more. Similarly in Japan, this development began in the 1990s and continues as operators of small, independent “juku” retire without successors. In Japan’s future, declining birth rates may lead to a decline in competition for higher education. However, in the immediate coming years, there will be further economic concentration of businesses active in the supplementary education industry.

On the other hand, China presents the “perfect storm” of conditions for an education system even more extreme than Korea. Single children are far removed from their extended families and are raised by ambitious and increasingly affluent parents. It is becoming a capitalist pressure-cooker as competition for entry into an expanding higher education system increases.

Links: