Regulating Supplementary Education in East Asia: Lessons from Shifting Paradigms

• In Event: Shadow education in Asia: comparative perspectives on private supplementary tutoring (panel 2)

Proposal

Private tutoring has expanded over the decades and an increasing number of governments are seeking to regulate the industry. The shape, nature and functions of tutoring vary in different cultural contexts. Such variations demand different government strategies. Research has shed light on various government responses to tutoring. Findings about failures of many government efforts have called attention to the gap between the complexity of tutoring and the simplicity of policy formulation and enactment. As more governments are trying to learn (in some cases, copy) from other societies for regulations, this paper presents lessons from existing regulations and their development.

This paper compares three approaches to regulating supplementary education in Japan, South Korea and China. Tutoring has a long history in Japan and South Korea. Tutoring in China became evident at a later stage, but has scaled up rapidly with the largest market size for over US$ 110 billion. The study is framed under theories related to policy formulation and enactment. Key contextual factors for the comparison include: 1) stages of socio-economic development that have (re)defined the functions of education (including tutoring), 2) structures of education governance (specially on levels of [de]centralisation), and 3) shadow education in policy and practice. Shadow education in policy refers to policy copying, while shadow education in practice refers to the shapes and powers of the tutoring industry.

Based on document analysis and mixed-methods empirical studies (2014-2018) in the three societies, the study begins with a historical overview of (un)changing paradigms for regulating tutoring. The overview ends with the current approaches that are evidenced in the official policy discourse. South Korea features the extreme of supressing tutoring with strong government intervention. By contrast, Japan features another extreme of market-driven approach that is moving towards public-private partnerships. China is a mixture of a strong market gaming with a strong government. It has led to a much more complicated picture where both South Korean and Japanese characteristics are evident in addition to many China-specific patterns. Comparison of the three paradigms is followed by discussion of the enactment of government policies, with special emphasis on responses by the industry, schools and families.

The paper identifies problems associated with each approach as well as their contributions. It does not conclude with an evaluation of which paradigm is more effective. Yet, it provides conceptual considerations for defining the role of tutoring in education and social development, and for policy making in regulating supplemental education.

Author

• Wei Zhang, East China Normal University