Regulating private tutoring for public good

This IdeasLAB blog is part of a series leading up to the launch of a publication on the theme of “renewing the social contract for education.” The theme of the series is based on the call from the report Reimagining Our Futures Together: A new social contract for education. See the full article, and look for the full special issue in Prospects to be released in early 2024. 

By Mark Bray

Private supplementary tutoring outside school hours has grown significantly in recent decades. Initially gaining prominence in East Asia, it is now global. In the academic literature, the phenomenon is widely called shadow education because much private tutoring mimics schooling: as the curriculum changes in the schools, so too it changes in the shadow. Tutoring may be delivered face-to-face or online, and one-to-one, in small groups and/or in large classes.  

Private tutoring has far-reaching implications for social inequalities, especially because higher-income households can easily secure more and better-quality tutoring than lower-income counterparts. In this context, what approaches to regulation and governance might mitigate the potential inequalities arising from private tutoring? And what place should private tutoring have – if any – in a new social contract for education? 

UNESCO’s 2021 report of the International Commission on the Futures of Education stressed the need for "a new social contract for education to repair injustices while transforming the future" (p. iii). The International Commission was especially concerned with social inequalities in access to education, both quantitatively and qualitatively, recognising that access related not just to schooling but also to wider avenues for learning. Since higher-income families generally have greater access to shadow education than lower-income ones, shadow education maintains and exacerbates social inequalities.  

Shadow education is prominent across countries of all income groups. For example: 

• In Egypt, a 2013/14 national survey of Grade 12 general-secondary students indicated that 72% were receiving private one-to-one tutoring and 18% private group tutoring, and presumably some receiving both.
• In England, a 2022 survey of students aged 11-16 found that 11% were receiving private tutoring, and 30% (reaching 46% in London) reported that they had done so at some time.
• In India, 2017/18 survey data showed that in West Bengal 75% of children across all grades were receiving shadow education.
• In the Republic of Korea, 82% of elementary school students were receiving private tutoring of some kind (one-on-one, group, via the Internet, at home, and in private institutes) in 2021. The figures for lower-secondary and upper-secondary students were 73% and 65%.

In many countries, private tutoring is delivered by teachers as a way to supplement their incomes. Other tutoring is supplied by companies and by informal providers, such as university students.  Advocates argue that shadow education can support struggling learners and further strengthen high achievers. However, tutoring can also have a backwash effect on schooling. It exacerbates diversity in the classroom when some students learn in advance of others, and teachers who provide tutoring may have incentives to pay more attention to their private lessons than to their official duties. 

How has the regulatory landscape for shadow education looked like thus far, taking these issues into account? Global surveys show much diversity in this matter (Zhang, 2023). Two major categories of regulation focus on teachers and on companies.  

Regulating teachers 

Prohibitions on teachers providing tutoring may be found in many countries. Some authorities only prohibit teachers from tutoring their own students, aiming to reduce the danger of teachers deliberately cutting content during regular lessons in order to force students to pay for the full content in supplementary tutoring. Other authorities prohibit all serving teachers from offering private tutoring. The authorities do this to avoid teachers' neglect of public duties under pressure from competing private activities.  

In contrast, some governments merely discourage teachers from offering private tutoring, commonly relying on school authorities to monitor practices and handle excesses; and a few governments give formal permission in certain circumstances. However, perhaps the largest group of governments has laissez-faire approaches. Governments may have other priorities and/or feel a lack of capacity to enforce regulations.  

Regulating companies 

Regulations for tutoring companies fall into two main sub-categories. The first begins with basic business requirements, including official registration with the Ministry of Education and/or Ministry of Commerce or equivalent. Once registered, enterprises must commonly follow requirements on accounting, taxation and advertising. Regulations may also focus on physical facilities, such as toilets and fire escapes.  

The second sub-category focuses specifically on education. Details may include tutors' qualifications, class sizes, curricula, and hours of operation. Again, patterns vary around the world.  

Much of the discussion about social injustices and the need for a social contract is grounded in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which stated in article 26.1 that "everyone has the right to education" and that "education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages". The International Commission on the Futures of Education continued this line. It asserted that in a new social contract for education, a human rights lens "requires that education be for all, regardless of income … or any other characteristic that could be used to discriminate and exclude".

Shadow education was not a significant issue during the era of drafting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The subsequent global expansion of shadow education, and its implications for social inequalities, is now very evident. Just as governments have developed sophisticated regulations for schooling (both public and private), they arguably need to develop sophisticated regulations for shadow education. Much can be learned from experiences with regulating the sector in different countries. Structures work best when they have understanding and agreement by all stakeholders, based on which partnerships can emphasise the types of interconnectedness, interdependency and social contract that the International Commission on the Futures of Education had in mind.