Category Archives: Country-Specific Posts

AERA 2012: Parents’ Perspectives on Privatizing Trends in Education

American Educational Research Association

Apr 15, 14:15-15:45h

Patricia Burch and Rudolfo Acosta (Univ of Southern California)

“Where Do I Go? Parents’ Perspectives on Privatizing Trends in Education”

Introduction and Rationale: There are dramatic changes underway in the Federal role in increasing access and opportunity for students living in poverty. On the one hand, the federal government has become increasingly proactive in directing instruction at the Federal, state and local levels. For example, the No Child Left Behind Act (the 2001 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act) tied federal funding for economically disadvantaged communities to test score performance and introduced progressive sanctions for schools. Standing partially in tension with this centralization, private engagement in the governance and administration of public education is expanding and evolving.

Central Arguments: In this paper, the authors make six central arguments about the ways in which the role and influence of for profit firms in k-12 public education is changing.

  1. Large corporations—and the laws that protect them—increasingly drive how and what the public learns about education.
  2. With government programs being slashed, companies are turning to new money sources in order to expand.
  3. Education companies are using relationships with school districts to get teachers, students and parents hooked on their products.
  4. For profits are pushing legal boundaries by using not for profits as marketing arms.
  5. When it comes to private sector involvement in public education, there is no accountability
  6. The changes described follow a general pattern. However, whether and how government agencies and private industry trade places varies depending on the setting and what is being sold.

Methods: This research is part of an ongoing multisite mixed methods study on the implementation and impact of supplementary education services. Data were collected from five urban school districts representing a variety of student demographics in: Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Minneapolis, Minnesota; Chicago, Illinois; and Austin and Dallas, Texas. This paper draws on findings from the qualitative portion of the study specifically aimed at analyzing which factors influence parent or student choices in selecting supplemental education providers. Data collected consists of focus groups with parents (n=174) of students eligible to receive and/or currently receiving supplementary services. Two focus groups, approximately 1.5 hours each took place at each of the sites with translation offered in Spanish, Hmong, and Somali. The racial and ethnic demographics of parents consisted of the following: White, Latino, African American, African, Asian, Biracial, Native American, Multiracial, or other. Parents in the sample had children eligible for services in elementary, middle, or high school. To delineate the social construction of parents as the targets of policy, a textual analysis of the federal NCLB policy concerning the implementation of supplementary services was used.

Contributions: The paper provides voice for perspective of those at the receiving line of privatization, in particular students with disabilities and English language learners. Based on these voices, we identify the core issues that policymakers must wrestle with if current forms of privatization are to strengthen ties between parents and schools. We also show how Federal education policy has helped to legitimize these changes.

AERA 2012: Preliminary Findings of a Multisite Study of the Implementation and Effects of Supplemental Educational Services

American Educational Research Association

Apr 16, 14:15-15:45h

Patricia Burch (Univ of Southern California) and Carolyn Heinrich (Univ of Texas – Austin)

“Preliminary Findings of a Multisite Study of the Implementation and Effects of Supplemental Educational Services”

Under No Child Left Behind (NCLB), schools that have not made adequate yearly progress in increasing student academic achievement for two years or more are required to offer parents of children in low-income families the opportunity to receive extra academic assistance, or supplemental educational services (SES). This paper works with ideas from the field of policy sociology to develop an understanding of SES as shaped by a complex interplay of forces; this field is particularly useful in analyzing a complex policy such as SES because it seeks to understand the intersection of macro and micro systems. This multilayered policy requires these various systems and actors to interact in new ways and in relatively uncharted policy territory. Research Setting and Design Findings are based on data from an ongoing multi-site study of the implementation and impact of supplemental educational services. The central purpose of this study is to understand whether and how providing students with academically focused out-of-school tutoring in reading and mathematics contributes to improvements in their academic performance, specifically in reading and mathematics. It involves three linked phases of research. Phase 1 is an in-depth qualitative study designed to define key elements of SES program models and the policy and practice variables that mediate implementation of these models and to also inform the construction of the measures of SES treatment for quantitative analysis. Phase 2 is a quantitative study investigating selection into SES (i.e., who registers and participates) and SES program impacts, using propensity score matching and fixed-effect methods with nonequivalent (internal) comparison groups. Phase 3 is a follow-up qualitative study to examine whether program features identified in Phase 1 continue over time and to further inform our interpretation of the quantitative findings of program impact from Phase 2. We are conducting this research in five urban school districts located in four states and representing different student demographics. Findings Our analysis reveals three primary themes. First, in order to understand and address the policy problems in SES, we need to see the policy as driven by a particular theory of action – the idea that public policy needs to be modeled around and accommodate the market place. Second, while NCLB employs the common rhetoric to equalize educational opportunities for the poor, the design of SES contributes to power asymmetries that sometimes privilege the financial interests of individual private firms and frustrate collective access to information. Thus, expanding the ability of SES to serve the goal of equal opportunity requires addressing the ways in which design and discourse of the policy denies equal access to knowledge for eligible participants and stakeholders. The other key to improving SES lies in the quality of instruction inside the SES classroom and the relationships between teachers, parents, students and tutors. In short, any effort to improve SES must address the perverse or inadequate incentives written into the design of current policy while solutions for improving policy should be anchored in deep understanding of actual classroom/tutoring conditions and the quality of relationships built there.

AERA 2012: Black Women’s Community Othermothering and Supplementary Education

American Educational Research Association

April 15, 8:15-9:45h

Amira Millicent Davis

“‘Educate a Woman and You Educate a Nation’: Black Women’s Community Othermothering and Supplementary Education”

This paper is of a yearlong qualitative ethnographic study of women of African descent in the U.S. and UK who provide supplementary education programs in their communities. Data was collected through interviews, primary and secondary sources and social media. The cultural work of these women is interpreted through the lens of maternal activism articulated in Hill-Collins community and othermothering in which Black women’s epistemologies are privileged. The women presented have created sustainable community education spaces that simultaneously enhance academic performance, wage resistance, perpetuate traditions and rituals and preserve cultural knowledge. The goal of this work is to share their experiences as models for community-based literacy programs, educational advocacy and individual and community empowerment with activists, practitioners, scholars, funders and policymakers.

Another Academic Job Focused on Supplementary Education?

Perhaps I’ve found a second job that is advertised with a focus on supplementary education, though I have the strong suspicion that Marburg University in Germany has something else in mind when they are looking for a professor who works on “extramural education of youth” (außerschulische Jugendbildung). I suspect that this has more to do with community centres that offer specific programs for youth or perhaps programs that focus on youths who are not attending school…

First Academic Job Ad to Specify Supplementary Education

As a sign of the growing institutionalization of research on supplementary education and the leadership of Prof. Mark Bray (Hong Kong Univ) in this field, the Comparative Education Research Centre at the University of Hong Kong is advertising a position as Full-time Research Assistant Professor in Comparative Education with a particular focus on Shadow Education at the University of Hong Kong:

Applicants are invited for appointment as Research Assistant Professor in Comparative Education in the Faculty of Education, as soon as possible for a period of three years.

Applicants should possess a Ph.D. degree with relevant research background and demonstrate ability to produce published work. The appointee will work under the supervision of Professor Mark Bray within the framework of the UNESCO Chair in Comparative Education which has been established at the Faculty level. This Chair focuses on social inequalities and access to educational opportunities, especially the nature and implications of Shadow Education (private supplementary tutoring). The appointee will join a team and take responsibility for either a global emphasis or a focus on a particular region or country in comparative perspective. He/She will work with colleagues in the Faculty including the Comparative Education Research Centre (CERC) on other dimensions in the field of Comparative Education, and will develop research proposals for future projects. Teaching responsibilities will be within the broad domain of education and international development at undergraduate and/or postgraduate levels.

Information about the Faculty and CERC can be obtained at http://www.hku.hk/education and http://www.hku.hk/cerc. Enquiries about the post should be sent to Professor Mark Bray, Faculty of Education (e-mail: mbray@hku.hk).

A highly competitive salary commensurate with qualifications and experience will be offered, in addition to annual leave and medical benefits. The appointment will attract a contract-end gratuity and University contribution to a retirement benefits scheme, totalling up to 15% of basic salary.

Applicants should send a completed application form and an up-to-date C.V. to edufacn@hku.hk. Application forms (341/1111) can be obtained at http://www.hku.hk/apptunit/form-ext.doc/. Further particulars can be obtained at http://jobs.hku.hk/. Closes May 10, 2012.

The University thanks applicants for their interest, but advises that only shortlisted applicants will be notified of the application result.

This is a fantastic opportunity for a younger scholar, but also for our emerging field!

Obsessing about Finland

Does the (success of) the Finnish education system have any relevance for Japan?

The degree to which some of my interlocutors in Japan obsess about Finland and see Finnish education as a panacea for all that is wrong (presumably, but see my argument for the central importance of perceptions) with Japanese education has puzzled me for some time. The somewhat less urgent interest in Singapore falls in the same category, I think.

Now, Keita Takayama who has been doing some terrific work on the place of Japanese education in a comparative and global context, makes the case that the reference nation status of Finland (and the lack of such status for E Asian education systems that perform equally well in PISA and similar comparisons) is due a) to the proximity of Finnish policies to OECD precepts, and b) to Finnish pre-PISA status as a “tabula rasa” among education systems that is not burdened by any of the preconceptions about E Asian education systems. Takayama makes this case in an Asia Pacific Memo on February 16, 2012.

Takayama makes his case very succinctly, but Finland’s status as a reference nation has come up in N American debates as well.

See for example:

If I were to start from the premise that there are things about Japanese education that could use reform, what countries would I look to? Or, what countries might I not look to?

I do think that education systems vary significantly by scale. According to Eurostat, the total number of primary and secondary students in Finland is about 1.2 mio. Japan’s comparable figure is 18 mio. This reflects the ratio of the two populations with about 5.3 mio Finns in 2010 and 127 mio Japanese. Clearly, an education system that is fifteen times as large in terms of the number of students enrolled involves different complexities than a smaller counterpart. That is not to say that there aren’t aspects of Finnish education that are worth examining in considering reforms for Japan, I’m just not convinced that Finland is the most relevant example in this regard.

Why not pick more proximate comparators? While South Korea is not even half as populous as Japan its education system operates on a scale that is much closer to Japan. Likewise France which would be an example of an education system that has some structural similarities (high degree of centralization, for example) and operates on a similar scale, though a comparison between Japan and France on comparative educational achievement would likely lead to a large-scale visitation movement from France to Japan, not the other way around.

What about Canada? Again, not quite on the population scale of Japan, but similar success to Japan…

I see the interest in Finland as primarily a faddish one will raise some questions that are wonderful raise about education elsewhere (including in all the countries mentioned in the above), but will not provide panacea.

 

Asia Pacific Memo on Supplementary Education in Malaysia

Today, on January 26, 2012, we published an Asia Pacific Memo on supplementary education in Malaysia by Husaina Kenayathulla who has recently completed her PhD at Indiana University.

For her PhD Husaina has analyzed extensive data on the participation in supplementary education in Malaysia (extensive), including on ethnic and regional differences in that participation. In the Memo she focuses on the regulation of supplementary education. While Korea is known to be the case of the strictest regulation of supplementary education in the context of hypereducation, the Korean government has been battling hagwon mainly out of a concern with inequality. This is a concern that is also frequently raised in other jurisdiction, i.e. access to supplementary education may lead to class reproduction. Another concern, more prevalent in developing countries generally, is with corruption. This corruption is rooted in low teacher salaries and often involves the withholding of class materials during school hours to use these as the basis of tutoring after hours.

Neither inequality nor corruption are driving regulation in Malaysia, Husaina argues, instead it is a concern with the quality of education.

 

Further Life of Economist Article

Some of the arguments in the article “Japan’s cramming schools – A controversial institution has some surprising merits” in The Economist are being picked up elsewhere.

Liz Dwyer, education editor for GOOD, in her post asks, “Could ‘Cram Schools’ Be on Their Way to America?” and refers directly back to the article in The Economist.

I posted a reply:

Yes, juku-style “cram schools” are appearing in the U.S. Never mind SAT prep outfits like Kaplan, etc., but NCLB provides funding for tutoring services for students in schools that consistently underperform. It’s too early to tell whether these tutoring services will emerge as large juku corporations (local and state-specific registration seems to prevent this).

Note that supplementary education is not just booming in places where it is long-established (like Japan, but also Brazil, Egypt, Greece, Turkey for non-Asian examples), but in settings like France and Germany where it may be less associated with “cramming”. For now, this boom is focused on remedial tutoring, rather than accelerated instruction.

Note also that reliance on supplementary education is migrating with families.

[Note that I’ve added small parts of my reply that I had to cut to comply with the <1,000 chars req on their website]

I would add that I’ve previously posted about the curious fascination with juku-like institutions in Manhattan and elsewhere in the U.S.

Another place that the article is being commented on is by Roger Soder (apparently) on the “Education and Community” blog. This post takes the original article to task for its – supposedly – too rosy outlook on aspects of juku. While I would generally share the view that The Economist takes too positive a view of for-profit initiatives and the market (no surprise at this assessment and my agreement, I presume), in this case, I believe that this rosiness is due to the brevity of the article not necessarily an editorial stance.

I do always like to stress that juku should not be rejected as mere “cram schools”, but that there are many aspects of teaching in juku that are very attractive (some of the charismatic educators that run some of the smaller juku, for example), while other aspects are much less attractive.

The Economist on Supplementary Education

The week, The Economist’s Kenneth Cukier published an article entitled “Japan’s cramming schools – Testing times: A controversial institution has some surprising merits”. I was thrilled, of course, that he quoted me in the article as a “rare expert on juku”.

Great to see the 塾 character in the accompanying cartoon as well.

As is almost always the case with press and media accounts, the article is relatively short and thus has to gloss over some of the complexities of the phenomenon of supplementary education in Japan and elsewhere. I’ve been struggling with this myself all along in that there are some relatively simple (and thus short) messages I like to offer as conclusions from my research on 塾, but even these are necessarily simplifications (see the categories on the right to explore some of my research on hypereducation in Japan). The Economist’s Japan correspondent also picked up on some of these message, for example by referring to the variety of different juku that exist. While this is not the kind of variety that proponents of the privatization or liberalization often expect (i.e. a flowering of pedagogies and pedagogical innovations), some of the “immobilist politics” in Japanese educational policy (Len Shoppa of the Univ of Virginia used this term in a book on Nakasone educational reforms) is being unsettled by innovations in the supplementary education industry.

The scene Kenn recalls from Seiran Gakuin in his article is one that I have witnessed in many of the almost 50 juku that I’ve visited in Japan. Seiran Gakuin happens to be one of my favourites and is led by  林 政夫 who is one of the great examples of charismatic educators in the juku world.

When Kenn refers to surveys in Japan that attribute juku attendance to shortcomings in education systems (an element of the article that has been picked up by some Twitter reactions to it already), I would offer a qualification – an important qualification, I think – that it is perceptions of shortcomings in Japanese education that seem to be driving parents and students to juku. Whether such shortcomings exist in an empirically demonstrable way is much less clear, and it is always interesting to note that it is not only perceived shortcomings in public education, but in private schools as well. Private school students in Japan also attend juku in large numbers after all.

The Economist on hagwon

Note that The Economist ran an article about supplementary education in Korea in its Christmas special. I have previously written about South Korea as the paragon of hypereducation.

Much of what this article writes about Korea is also true of Japan, of course.

Japan is also a “one-shot” society in that there are few alternative educational or career transition tracks other than graduate from high school, sit entrance examinations, repeat with intensive preparatory study if necessary, graduate from university, apply for jobs during recruitment season, live happily ever after.

While the school-to-work transition is not as smooth as it was in high-flying economic times (I’m currently reading Mary Brinton’s “Lost in Transition” on just this topic), there still are very few re-entry students or alternative routes to higher education in Japan.

The discussion about the costs of the university entrance exam focus in Korea are mirrored more or less in Japan, though the concern with equity via for-profit supplementary education (hagwon) has historically been much greater in South Korea. Unlike the article on Japan (which ends with a note about broken government systems), the article on Korea ends on a more hopeful note focusing on young Koreans as a generation that might bring about/force change. There is little of such a dynamic visible in Japan…

Shanghai PISA Results

In today’s Globe and Mail Mark Mackinnon had a folio about primary and secondary education in Shanghai. This piece basically started with last year’s PISA results where Shanghai students scored highest among comparison “countries” to tell a story of a narrow focus on exams and test-taking. While the article describes the situation in Shanghai well and fills this description out with some interested quotes from officials, the situation in Shanghai as it is described will be quite familiar to readers from other hypereducation societies.

This also confirms my long-standing prediction that China is quickly headed to hypereducation on a national and thus massive scale.

One element in Mark’s article that I noticed was that he wrote that “In faraway North America, there was the usual handwringing that children there are falling further behind studious (and numerous) Asian kids.” I would contend that at least for Canada there was relatively little of that handwringing in part because participating Canadian provinces consistently do well on PISA and similar comparative standardized tests. This seems to have given the Canadian public a certain self-confidence that borders on the self-satisfied when it comes to the discussion of education elsewhere.

The other element I noticed in the article was that Mark didn’t mention the doubts about the results from Shanghai in last year’s PISA. PISA results have been subject to extensive methodological scrutiny in almost all participating jurisdictions. Some commentators suspect that some of the test-to-test improvements in students’ achievement are primarily the result of gaming the test system on the part of education authorities rather than of substantive improvements, especially when no policy changes have been implemented between test iterations.

One obvious methodological challenge with the Shanghai results is that these compare students in a single city (and one that can be assumed to be particularly resource-rich and filled with ambitious parents compared to the national Chinese average) to entire countries. This is also true of Hong Kong and Singapore results, of course, but brings with many fewer sources of variation in achievement through rural-urban inequalities, etc.

The Shanghai results in some ways seem so outlandish that it’s difficult not to doubt their veracity. 600 on math when the next closest score is 562 (Singapore) and other point differentials tend to be in the single digits between countries? Hm…

Finally, I couldn’t help but notice that Mark repeated the OECD’s claim that 80% of Shanghai students attend supplementary education. Little further information has emerged about this claim, though I suspect that most of it is in the form of private, one-on-one tutoring, but there have been numerous discussions about the pressure that this exerts on all Shanghai students. This, of course, will once again be familiar to parents and observers of many other hypereducation societies.