Absolutely FASCINATING EU report about shadow education (private tutoring)

[Bonsoir]

I cannot recommend this report more highly to anyone interested in the shadow education industry, from whatever perspective:

www.nesse.fr/nesse/activities/reports/activities/reports/the-challenge-of-shadow-education-1

Happy half-term reading [hsmile]

There is your problem - education should not be reduced to a market.

The report asks:

• 1) How significant are these private education "markets" in the EU, and how and why do they exist?
• 2) What are the economic, social and educational implications of the phenomenon?
• 3) What are the effects on mainstream education systems?
• 4) What can we learn from the shadow system to improve mainstream schools?
• 5) How do national administrations deal with the tutoring phenomenon?

Q1 is valid: it is fact-finding.
I find it strange that Q2 lists economic and social implications above educational implications. Similarly, Q3 seems more worried about education systems than pupils. They seem to have their priorities in the wrong place.

Q4 is the proper question. If mainstream was good enough and had the confidence of pupils and parents alike then tutoring would wither away.

Q5: see the answer to Q4 above. I'm not sure why national administrations need to "deal" with tutoring. As a matter of interest, have the European Commission ordered a similar report on shadow health or is that a no-go area because it is run by big business.

The report at a first glance seems to be that something is happening that >the EU hasn't regulated, so they don't like it. They also want to see what >fiscal advantage they can gain from it (interestingly HMRC have just >announced that private tutors are next in their sights).

Quite right scaryteacher. On the face of it education is one of the few areas where our national govermnet retains a degree of sovereignty. However for some time education has been the target of EU propaganda, with various EU grants, Monnet Charis in universities etc etc all with the end of pushing a pro-EU line:

www.politics.co.uk/news/2011/09/28/pro-eu-propaganda-proposed-for-uk-schools

PS They will be coming after the home schoolers next.

Could some of the principles behind the IB not be seen as 'how to be a good European'? Good summing up Senua.

Education is a market place, and increasingly so in the globalised world. The report highlights the fact that clued-up parents are not satisfied with socialist provision of instruction and are looking to the free market to teach their children the skills that they deem essential for full adult participation in the modern world that state-provided instruction fails to do.

It is quite right that the EU be preoccupied by the social implications of this. What are we going to end up with? Part of the population semi-educated by the state which enables them to do little with their lives, and another part of the population with a huge variety of skills and experiences that enable them to participate fully in the globalised economy? My children are going to be in the second category but that doesn't make me think that this is a good situation for society.

Someone mentioned the relative lack of tutoring in Scandinavia. I think there may be a couple of reasons:

There is relatively little social division, so most people do not have the same interests in stealing a march on other people. My own experience from Sweden suggests that most people are fairly confident that their child will get a job that makes them happy and they have relatively little interest in the idea of their child getting a job that is better than next doors child. It's a far less competitive society.

Even working-class parents tend to be fairly well educated so there is not the same parental humility as that expressed in the report (I have to hire a tutor because I don't know a lot). The state schools experience means that a father who is a builder will have gone through the same system as his son who aims to be a brain surgeon- so there's not the same feeling of entering an alien world as you may find in the Far East.

There is a very strong assumption that non-academic learning is as important and that any parent will have valuable skills to teach their child- the idea of the child who is bored because his parents have nothing to teach him would seem ludicrous to most Swedes.

One thing that strikes me about this report is that there is very little mention of informal tuition, which may have just as many implications for the educational system. I can see why they might worry about the education system coming to rely on paid tutors- because it will hold back the pupils whose parents can't pay. But then it has always been known that some parents are better able to coach their children and that is also unfair, though unavoidable.

cory I'd agree entirely re why Scandinavia doesn't go in for tutoring. I am irritated how often 'The Swedish Model' in schooling is held up as a shining example of what the British Way should aspire to- but it overlooks a very basic fact: The British are a different, more diverse society with different roots to Sweden (by diverse, I don't mean 'lots more Bengalis', though that might be a factor in our 'difference', what I mean is the fact that even today, the societal divides that occurred a thousand years ago as a result of the Norman conquest still resonates down the years, The 'money' and influence is still in the hands of the Norman lords' offspring, the grunt work and unemployment is still the lot of the 'native' peasantry). And whilst we might be shocked to admit it, there is a strong reality that we don't actually want a 'good' education for our DCs, we want one that's not only good but better than the neighbour's child.

Bonsoir sorry to quote chunks of your post here! But:

"The report highlights the fact that clued-up parents are not satisfied with socialist provision of instruction and are looking to the free market to teach their children the skills that they deem essential for full adult participation in the modern world that state-provided instruction fails to do.

It is quite right that the EU be preoccupied by the social implications of this. What are we going to end up with? Part of the population semi-educated by the state which enables them to do little with their lives, and another part of the population with a huge variety of skills and experiences that enable them to participate fully in the globalised economy?"

You may be over-thinking this a bit. The vast majority of tutoring isn't introducing DCs to Classical Thought and Debate; teaching Latin in the absence of school availability; Philosophy, even 'Entrepreneurship 101' - ie mind-expanding, education-widening stuff, it's ensuring an 'A' in a given curriculum subject where the DC might otherwise get a B. OK, this will open doors (get that Russell Group uni place) but let's not pretend that we're buying our DCs a 'huge variety of skills and experiences ' when we send them along to their tutors!

'It is quite right that the EU be preoccupied by the social implications of this. What are we going to end up with? Part of the population semi-educated by the state which enables them to do little with their lives, and another part of the population with a huge variety of skills and experiences that enable them to participate fully in the globalised economy?'

The EU has this anyway with allowing certain of the Eastern European states in, and having others on the list to accede, or do you think that is deliberate policy to make sure that our well educated children still live in a society where the semi educated do the unpleasant jobs?

Education is not a market Bonsoir - in some areas it is a closed shop. Whilst I have no beef with private education, I use it after all, I also believe that state education should be good enough to equip those who can't afford private to get good GCSEs, A levels and a degree. It used to achieve this - I'm state educated from the ground up - without the aid of tutoring, so what's changed?

I think the 'problem' is that we are now in a meritocracy. In the good old / bad old days, only the toffs went to Oxbridge (sweeping generalisation for the sake of argument). Now anyone can have a go. Which means that having connections or inside knowledge no longer clinch the deal. You only get in if you are the best of the best. Therefore we all have to aim to be A A A*, or AAA for a 'mere' RG. Also, everything has become so codified (to the extent that we get Certificates in hand washing) that instead of education opening doors, it has become that lack-of-education has become a barrier to entry.
We are all desparate not to be left behind, hence tutoring.

The 'connections and insider knowledge' didn't just apply to Oxbridge BTW. I have heard countless tales of people getting jobs down the pit or at a garage etc because someone 'put a word in'.

The other problem being of course that the EU lives in it's own little world in Brussels, and has no connection with the proletariat.

The report I linked to in the OP was very much trying, among other perspectives, to highlight the issues arising from tutoring from the perspective of the "proletariat" (sic), scaryteacher.

Agree with Senua that excess codification is a key barrier to entry, and one of the issues that the EU has tackled quite successfully with the Bologna process, among others, in order to liberalise education markets.

Actually it's quite a long time since "only toffs went to Oxbridge" (and I appreciate you were making a generalisation not a literal comment). Back in the 1960s I believe just over a half of Oxbridge students came from the maintained sector whereas now it's less than a half.

One thing that happened was the abolition of grammar and direct grant schools. There are of course all sorts of arguments to be had there but they did enable many bright children from poor families to get an education with which they could complete with private school pupils.

Secondly there's there's the issue of grade inflation. I remember a quote from the High Master of Manchester Grammar School to the effect that although the intake of his school had not changed much in the past 20 years, previously they would have a celebration if as many as 30% of their A level students got all As whereas now they would go into mourning if fewer that 70% did.

With so many people getting As, these grades are no longer discriiminating among the best candidates so that extracurricular stuff may increasingly be a deciding factor in getting into an elite university. This might in many circumstances benefit more well-to-do and well-connected families (e.g. sought after work experience, music tuition, sports club membership etc).

Although private tutoring is of course more affordable to the well-off, it is nonetheless not inaccessible to families who would struggle to afford a private education.

Incidentally I don't think the EU has any business interfering in education at all though there have obviously been sticking there oar in for some time. They are on a mission to create a country called Europe, which flies in the face of history and culture and which has never been an issue which has been presented honestly to the electorate. It has no democratic legitimacy.

Somebloke do you think going over to the IB would solve grade inflation? I am not an expert but it seems the points system means it's easier to differentiate between the merely 'good' and the stellar. Was also reading that the public schools are increasingly scrapping A'levels, I believe Westminster is now an IB school?

Cortina, Westminster has stuck with A Levels with Pre-U in a very small number of subjects where the Head of Department prefers it to the A level syllabus. IB, while a great qualification, is not the answer.

I agree that the tutoring mentioned in the report is of the "grade-boosting" variety not the more classical/philosopical kind. The question of the content of the curriculum is a huge political one and way beyond the title of the report. The suggestion is that in most decent schools, the tutoring is not achieving what we think it does. Any very useful comment on tutoring is hard to make as the sheer range of curricula present in the EU is pretty vast. It does point to a very anxious parent body though.

Cortina: I don't really know enough about the IB to say, but I think in general the more removed the exams can be from political interference the more reliable they are likely to be. And perhaps the fact that many high-flying schools are going over to the IB must be telling us something.

There's also the International GCSE as well (if I've got the name right)which some schools are going for and which also I believe is somewhat removed from politics.

If I understand correctly the IB requires the student to follow quite a broad curriculum, including humanities, languages, science and community work. This is great for some students ,whose abilities range across the board but maybe less so for others whose rates of development are more uneven and might react better to a more specialised curriculum. For example my DD would thrive on the IB but my DS less so I think, being much more maths/science/engineering oriented. He may have some latent foreign language gifts which will emerge later but they are not apparent as yet. And even the brightest children are I think entitled to be a bit academically "lop sided" in their teenage years.

Also I think it's a pity that university admissions have become so politicised, with pressure to show that the institution is admitting its quota of less well off students. Sometimes I think they are being required to correct for the shortcomings of the state education system. Whan I was a lad, many years ago, there were people called admissions tutors, who had a good deal of discretion, and were quite capable (or the better ones among them anyway) of sensing when an applicant had been crammed and hothoused, or when he or she had real potential not yet academically realised.

Thanks, Volumnia. I'd confused Westminster with St Paul's. Read an article recently written by the ex head Martin Stephen:

Thank heavens, then, that one of education?s worst-kept secrets is officially out of the bag. We have all known for a long time that it is becoming easier to gain the top grades at A-level. Twenty-four years ago, when I first became head of a selective boys? independent school, the champagne corks would pop and the bunting was hung out if 30 per cent of our A-level grades were As. Two decades later and heads of leading schools know they would be hung from the nearest lamppost and their entrails scattered on unhallowed ground if that figure wasn?t at least 60 per cent.

Proletariat seems to be spelled correctly to me Bonsoir - why the 'sic' afterwards?

I don't think the report gives a toss about ordinary people, but is looking for ways for the EU to interfere yet again with something that is nothing to do with the EU.

I went to a sixth form open evening in the UK a couple of weeks ago, and the Principal gave the stats for A level versus IB. There were only about 10% of sixth form students in the UK taking IB (even less doing pre U), and so A levels are where it's at for this highly successful (always in the top 10) state sixth form.

I don't think IB will work as we allow choice at 16. I would have dismally failed IB as I can't cope with maths and sciences. Equally a scientist might not want to have to study a language or a humanity beyond GCSE. We need to get back to the old gold standard of A levels over 2 years, allowing the time for growth and development, rather than chopping it into modules and AS exams in the January.

Incidentally Bonsoir - the Bologna process isn't EU led, but Council of Europe led; it came out of the Sorbonne declaration, and has 47 participating nations - many of which are outside the EU.

Agree with much of what you say somebloke but had assumed, perhaps naively, that admissions tutors (and I remember them as you do) still worked in that way? Certainly I know apparently exceptionally able pupils who have been turned down at interview for Oxbridge etc. STEP papers also have produced surprising results in some cases. Perhaps university entrance exams might help? Agree also that academic development can be 'lop sided' in the young but part of me wonders if the truly brilliant/well rounded/most academic are those who'd do best in IB & therefore most deserve to go on to specialise at 18.

Scaryteacher IMO IB will never really work unless it's rolled out through the school at an earlier stage.

Ooof. Just read the document.

My background: state educated in 70s-80s, so did O-levels and non-modular A-levels. Went to Russell Group Uni then Master's then PhD. All were 100% state or charity funded. (Master's was Medical Research Council, PhD was the MRC plus Cancer Research Campaign, now Cancer Research UK)

I wish that today's children had the same opportunities I had. I came from a family unable to pay for extra tutoring, let alone private education.

One paragraph in particular has me very concerned; I'll split it up a bit.

"Shadow education is a contested issue. Its proponents claim that it can help low achievers to keep up with their peers, can further stretch the learning of high achievers, and can increase society?s stock of human capital, thereby contributing to wider economic and social objectives."

And this is bad why? Stretching high achievers means keeping society as a whole 'up there', meaning they fulfil their individual potential. 'Society's stock' sounds like we're mere cattle, though if we can raise the overall standard of education, that surely is for society's benefit as a whole - after all, society needs medics and dentists and vets and nurses and ... So this para seems to be about individual benefit. And if a parent chooses to educate their children via a tutor, isn't that their right in a free society?

"Its critics claim that it adds considerably to existing social and economic inequalities, that it is a mechanism for the already relatively privileged to extend their privilege, and that it may be a financial burden on low-income households.

The critics seem to not like it for communal reasons: one individual different/better than another (so unequal?). Privileged - intellectually or monetarily? Both? Do they not see that if society doesn't have inequalities then we wouldn't have the people to fit in all the necessary (and sometimes unpalatable) jobs to keep it going?

Shadow education may also have a negative backwash on mainstream schooling. The different pedagogic approaches of teachers and tutors can be confusing to pupils, and supplementary tutoring can exert undesirable pressure on young people by making the schooling day very long.

It can, but sometimes that different approach to teaching may be what's needed to get a pupil to 'click' on a subject. My own is notoriously tricky to teach: I advise students to get as many different viewpoints from texts and people as possible, and at some point they find an approach that works. I disagree that this is a bad thing.

Moreover, when teachers receive extra income from private tutoring of their own students, concerns arise about possible corrupting influences and perverse incentives.

This one I suspect is true!

I could go on but I have to go and pick up DS!

Moonbells - most teachers would not privately tutor their own students - I didn't. I'd give them time in lunch breaks or after school sessions to help, as that what I was paid for. If they didn't understand my point, then it was down to me to use my time to make sure they did understand. I wouldn't have taken more money to do what I should have done initially iyswim.

AS a tutor, I just want to say, that by far the majority of parents who cantact me for tutoring do so because they sense that there isa difficulty/problem with their child's schooling in one or more areas of the curriculum that they want to solve. They have often contacted the school on many occasions but appropriate support has not been forthcoming for whatever reason. These are unhappy children and therefore unhappy parents. When I work with these children they often fall into one of two categories.

a) Students with a mild to moderate learning disability. This may or may not have been already diagnosed. I get a lot of bright children who actually turn out to be dyslexic, but have not appeared on the school's radar because they have developed coping strategies. They are often discouraged and unhappy because they know that they understand and are able to do far more than they can ever get down on paper. Other problems might be ADHD or autistic spectrum traits ( some children end up with a diagnosis - others only have traits, not enough for full-blown syndrome). In most of these cases the children are not "behind" enough to trigger much in the way of specialist intervention, but are still unhappy.

b) Children who take slightly longer to process and take in information than the time the National Curriculum usually allows. This often happens particularly with maths. Most often the children are capable of being perfectly competent mathematicians but haven't been given enough time to consolidate learning. Thus by year 4 or 5 you have a child trying to learn higher maths concepts but who has great holes in their understanding of basic maths. Often this leads onto a serious anxiety about doing maths too. These children can learn and catch up with their peers given appropriate support (eg from 2a mid-year 5 to 5c at the end of year 7).

Both these issues are compounded by the publishing of league tables that can lead many schools to put most (if not all) focus on those just below a certain level in order to improve statistics. Those in the middle of levels often get less attention regardless of their actual aptitude and potential for progression!

League tables also lead to many secondary schools putting children in for GCSE's one or even more years early (to maximise the number of grade c and above passes). this is often disasterous for the child who processes work a little more slowly (but gets there in the end) as they can't cope with the accelerated curriculum ( but yes they do get entered early regardless!!)

There will be some schools that do not succumb so much to the pressures of National Curriculum statistics but I have seen the issues mentioned above, over and over!!

Obviously parents have to have some money to pay for private tutoring but not all my students come from middle-class homes. Some parents have working class trade backgrounds. In other families grandparents and otehr members of the extended families help with payments.

With respect to this comment "Shadow education may also have a negative backwash on mainstream schooling. The different pedagogic approaches of teachers and tutors can be confusing to pupils, and supplementary tutoring can exert undesirable pressure on young people by making the schooling day very long."

This really just shouldn't happen with a good tutor whose main aim is to support the child!!! They will be at pains to ensure that their teaching clarifies and helps rather than confuses and will be alert to ensure that what they do does not over-pressurise the child!

scaryteacher - FYI, (sic) is used to indicate doubt about fact, logic, grammar, meaning, punctuation etc, not merely orthography.

And the Bologna process is not Council of Europe led; it was, however, opened up to all members of the Council of Europe early in its proceedings, on excellent grounds.

I think the IB is a good examination for the very able child with lots of opportunities but much less successful outside highly elitist schools where it is hard for the institutions and the children to cover the required breadth and depth of curriculum. I am strongly in favour of all pupils keeping on with mother-tongue and mathematics until the age of 18.