Demand for private coaching: Stakeholder's perspective and consequences

Abstract

Increased demand for private coaching for students is a global scenario irrespective of the student's achievement level, level of education, parental socio-economic status, and residential locality. But in research literature, there is no such comprehensive framework for scientific conceptualization about the causes and consequences of this high demand for private coaching. The primary target of this paper is to explore the reasons for high demand for private coaching from stakeholders' perspectives and its consequences on mainstream education and society. It is found that though each stakeholder has their own perspective or context for private coaching, their perspectives and contexts are mutually inclusive and come under broad causes of academic, personal, social, cultural and competitive ecology. Though private coaching has both positive and negative socio-educational consequences, these consequences should be considered by policymakers in light of multiple contexts of prevalence.

Full text

DEMAND FOR PRIVATE COACHING: STAKEHOLDER'S
PERSPECTIVE AND CONSEQUENCES
By
ABSTRACT
Increased demand for private coaching for students is a global scenario irrespective of the student's achievement level,
level of education, parental socio-economic status, and residential locality. But in research literature, there is no such
comprehensive framework for scientific conceptualization about the causes and consequences of this high demand for
private coaching. The primary target of this paper is to explore the reasons for high demand for private coaching from
stakeholders' perspectives and its consequences on mainstream education and society. It is found that though each
stakeholder has their own perspective or context for private coaching, their perspectives and contexts are mutually
inclusive and come under broad causes of academic, personal, social, cultural and competitive ecology. Though
private coaching has both positive and negative socio -educational consequences, these consequences should be
considered by policymakers in light of multiple contexts of prevalence.
Keywords: Private Coaching, Growing Demand, Stakeholder's Perspective, Socio-Educational Consequences,
Education, Society.
*-** Gangadhar Meher University, Sambalpur, Odisha, India.
PARTHA SARATHI MALLIK * RANJIT KUMAR BEHERA **
Date Received: 23/8/2023 Date Revised: 14/09/2023 Date Accepted: 18/10/2023
INTRODUCTION
The demand for private coaching among students has
become a global phenomenon, spanning boundaries of
academic achievement, educational levels, parental
socio-economic status, and residential locations. This
paper aims to explore the multifaceted reasons behind
the heightened demand for private coaching and its
consequential impact on mainstream education and
society.
The primar y focus of this paper is to synthesize and offer an
exploration of the factors contributing to the demand for
private coaching. It is crucial to recognize that the
stakeholders involved in the private coaching ecosystem
bring their own unique perspectives and considerations,
and these perspectives are interconnected. The
explora t i o n ex te n d s to the s o ci o - e du c a ti o n a l
consequences of private coaching, acknowledging that
these outcomes are not unidimensional. They include
both positive and negative aspects, including the need
for policy considerations.
Though a good number of studies have been conducted
globally regarding reasons for private coaching, the
findings have been reported in a segregated manner. The
primar y reasons for private coaching are academic,
personal, and social (Sujata, 2014). But no studies have
been conducted to explore the demand for private
coaching from educational stakeholders' perspectives. In
this study, based on the digitally available empirical and
thematic paper, an attempt has been made to explore
the causes of private coaching from students, parents,
and teachers' points of view and to discuss its effect on
both mainstream education and society.
1. Private Coaching: Prevalence, Form, and Socio-
Cultural Context
There is a rush for private coaching among school
ARTICLES
10 l
i-manager’s Journal on 19 No. School Educational Technology, Vol. l
2 October - December 2023

and modes, i.e., individual-centric, group-centric,
television, and web or online-based. In individual-centric
tutoring mode, the student goes to the tutor's residence or
vice versa for coaching. Affluent families employ single or
multiple tutors for their children by home visit. In the
institutionalized form of coaching, both students and
tutors, or multiple tutors, meet in a common place like a
lecture hall, and coaching is provided either in a small or
large group just like in school-based teaching. This group
or institutionalized-based private coaching is generally
organized in a structured way, i.e., with a fixed timetable
and multiple subject tutors to deliver the lesson. Web or
online-based coaching is a recent form of tutoring where
tuition or coaching is provided virtually in either a
synchronous or asynchronous way. This form of tutoring
provides opportunities for students to join outside of the
countr y and subcontinent (Ventura, 2008). From a cost-
effectiveness point of view, institutionalized and web-
based tutoring modes are found to be less expensive and
more commonly practiced globally. In Korea, 47.2% of
school students attain institutionalized private coaching
whereas only 25.2% attend home-based, 11.8% attend
small groups, 9.6% attend one-on-one, and 3.2% attend
Internet or online private coaching (Lee et al., 2012). A
similar type of trend is found in Greece, i.e., 80% of
secondary school students receive institutionalized-
based private coaching, whereas 50% receive one-to-
one or individualized private coaching (Lee et al., 2012).
Whatever the mode of coaching, the reality is that huge
numbers of students join private coaching globally. This
rush has a direct connection with the quality teaching and
learning of mainstream education and the high demand
for examination-oriented success in competitive
ecology. But demand and value for private coaching
have socio-cultural contexts. In the ancient times of the
Indian subcontinent, before schools turned into a formal
institutionalized system of education, children used to
learn education from private tutors (Guru) by attending
their residence, though money was not a concern
(Kashalkar-Karve & Damodar, 2013; Shelly, 2015). This high
value for private tuition is also deeply rooted in South and
East Asian cultures like Japan, Hong Kong, Korea, and
students throughout the world (Bray, 2020, 2021). 88% of
primar y, 74% of middle school and 50% of high school
students from Korea, 37.7% of primar y and 75.5% of
middle school students from Japan, 81.2% of secondar y
school students from Taiwan, 35.1% of lower primary,
46.6% of upper primar y and 70.3% of secondar y
students from Hong Kong attend private tuition. Similarly,
49% of primary and 30% of secondary school students
are from Singapore, 35% of senior high school students
are from Turkey and 31.1% of primar y, 55.9% of lower
secondary and 76.7% of upper secondary students are
from Vietnam. This trend is also similar in the western world.
14.1% lower secondar y and 15.3% higher secondary
students from Canada, 11% high school and 7% higher
secondary school students from the USA, 21% primary
and secondar y school students from Germany, 80%
secondary school students from Greece, 33% primary
school students from the UK and 71% students from
standard 6th to 15th from Egypt attend private coaching
(Lee et al., 2012). In India, 44.7% of secondary school
students receive private coaching either for a single
subject or more subjects (Sujata, 2014). But the rate of
students' joining private coaching centers varies state,
grade, nature of school management, gender, and
locality wise.
Due to its high connection and resemblance with
mainstream education, academicians claim it as the
shadow of formal education (Bray, 1999). The reason is
that "educational activities such as tutoring and extra
classes occur outside the formal channels of the
educational system designed to improve students
chances of successfully moving through all the allocation
processes, which are the same as mainstream
education” (Buchman et al., 2010). Due to the similarity of
function, quality, and importance with the formal system
of education, academicians claim that private coaching
is the surrogate mother of formal education which plays its
role when the formal school system fails (Sujatha, 2014).
From the tutor's perspective,it is a means of earning extra
money and from the student's perspective, it is a means of
receiving extra academic support or assistance.
Private coaching is practiced globally in multiple forms
ARTICLES
11
l l
i-manager’s Journal on School Educational Technology, Vol. 19 No. 2 October - December 2023

(Alotaibi, 2014; Bray & Lykins, 2012).
Along with the academic perspective, it is found that
students join private coaching due to the high reputation
of the private tutor, i.e., those students who have attended
his or her coaching have been found to be successful in
terms of getting good marks in difficult subjects
(Ömeroğulları et al., 2020). Many students believe that
private tutors have specialized training to teach specific
subjects, have more in-depth knowledge and are experts
to help them secure good marks in the examination
(Alotaibi, 2014; Duong & Silova, 2021). In this context, peer
group influence has a significant role. Lee et al. (2012)
have used Prison Dilemma theory to explain how students
are motivated to join private coaching by the influence of
their peer group who are attending. This context can be
better explained by the social learning theory of Bandura
where it has been proposed that people learn and do
some behaviors by observation and imitation of others in
society (Bandura, 1972; Bandura & Walters, 1977b). Non-
joining by them but by their school friends in the private
coaching centers causes stress and fear among them
about examination success (Lee et al., 2012).
Board examination results have implications for
admission to a good-quality college or university and
getting a government job in a competitive context, which
is a reason for students' demand for private coaching
(Prakhov & Yudkevich, 2019). Parental pressure on their
children to secure good marks in the board examination
multiplies their demand for private coaching (Bray, 2013;
Subedi, 2018). In this situation, both children and their
parents believe that private coaching will help them
secure good marks in the board examination by
enhancing study habits, unique stress management
strategies, mock tests, and tips for getting good marks in
the examination (Zhang, 2013).
Along with socio-environmental reasons, students join
private coaching due to their own psychological
attributes. It is found that students with high self-
confidence to solve their own academic problems have
less desire to take the help of private tutors, whereas
students with low self-confidence to manage study-
related matters or solve academic problems join private
Taiwan (Bray & Kwok, 2003). Due to the higher socio-
cultural value of private coaching in these countries,
children, parents and teachers believe that extra or
additional academic assistance in the form of tutoring
has a significant role in a student's academic success
(Bray & Lykins, 2012). Secondly, feeling superior to
children's examination success by comparing and
competing with the academic success of peer groups,
relatives and friends is a common feature of middle-class
families in south Asian countries like India, which is another
reason for the high demand for private coaching
(Sujatha, 2014). Thirdly, sending children to private
coaching is a family tradition in these societies and a
significant amount of money is allocated within the family
budget for private tutoring of children (Dang, 2007). In
India, it is a matter of prestige for parents to attach their
children to some reputed tutor or reputed private
coaching institutes (Sujatha, 2014).
2. Why Do Students Require Private Coaching?
Students are the primary stakeholders in formal
education. Their joining in private coaching has multiple
reasons. From a cognitive development point of view, it
has been found that private coaching increases or boosts
the cognitive and academic performance of both high
and low achievers. Low achievers join private coaching
as they face problems understanding the subjects taught
in the school and feel that private coaching will help them
pass the examination, especially in difficult subjects like
mathematics, science, and English (Bray & Kwok, 2003).
On the other hand, high-achieving or bright students join
private coaching to excel in classroom competition or
secure a good position. Though the reason for the low
achievers is remedial, for bright students, it is academic
excellence but both types of students perceive that the
quality and pace of teaching at the school are not
appropriate for them. Slow learners believe that they face
problems understanding subject matter as the teaching
is very fast but bright students believe that their high
inquisitiveness is not met in classroom teaching. So they
believe that private coaching is the appropriate place
where specialized instruction and additional academic
support are provided as per their individual needs
ARTICLES
12 l
i-manager’s Journal on 19 No. School Educational Technology, Vol. l
2 October - December 2023

Children's joining rate in private coaching depends upon
parental income and educational status. It has been
found that high-income parents send their children to
private coaching (Pallegedara & Mottaleb, 2018; Subedi,
2018). On the other hand, poor parents face problems
affording private coaching fees or struggle hard to
arrange for them, which results in the non-sending of their
children to coaching centers (Subedi, 2018). But this
positive association between parental income and a
student's private coaching joining rate may not be
applicable universally. When the high cultural value of
children's education is transmitted to parents, despite
their income level, they send their children to private
coaching. In that situation, parents struggle hard and
compromise with their own household amenities to
provide the best quality education to their children. They
feel that arranging good-quality education in the form of
spending money on private coaching can help their
wards stay longer in educational institutions, secure good
marks, get good employment, and lead a happy life.
The interlink between parental income status and
children's joining rate in private coaching has an
economic explanation. Parental financial investment in
private coaching has an economic return through the
development of Human Capital (Becker, 1967; Blau &
Duncan, 1967). Human capital theory assumes that high
earnings or income will come through the development
of a human's capacity with comparatively less investment
in private coaching (Bray, 2009). Secondly, parental
investment in the private coaching of their children
happens through their expectations about their children's
academic success. Expectancy theory assumes that
individuals make decisions in their lives according to their
expected future outcomes. Parental expectation for
children's bright career through school-level academic
success is positively related to children's joining rate in
private coaching (Lee et al., 2012). It has been found that
parents believe that joining private coaching by their
wards will help them get a good employment opportunity,
which will ultimately increase their family social status or
financial betterment (Foondun, 2002; Bray, 2006). A
better employment opportunity can be accessed by
coaching centers (Bray & Kwok, 2003).
3. How Do Parents Influence Children's Joining in Private
Coaching?
Parental role for children's joining in private coaching is
rooted in a socio-cultural framework, which not only
shapes their attitude but also pressurizes them to send
their children to private coaching. Similarly, parents own
socio-economic status plays a significant role in sending
children to private coaching. In Asian culture, the
arrangement of more and quality private tutors for
educating children along with school teaching is highly
valued and treated as a duty of a responsible parent. This
value system acts as both a motivator and a stressor for
parents to send their children to private coaching. In
India, children's attendance in private coaching is highly
valued from both a cultural and competitive perspective
(Kashalkar-Karve & Damodar, 2013). A similar type of high
value placed on private tuition is deeply rooted in other
Asian cultures like Japan, Hong Kong, Korea, and Taiwan
(Bray & Kwok, 2003). As per Kim (2007), Korean parents
believe that if the child is not good at studying but does
not attend private coaching, society believes that their
parents are either crazy or poor.
It has been found that some parents see the benefits of
sending their children to private coaching from a family
dynamics perspective. Due to changes in the family
structure, i.e., from extended to nuclear, children have
less opportunity to get emotional and academic support
from their grandparents. On the other hand, the
increased school pressure on children affects family
dynamism by increasing conflict between parents and
teenagers. In this context, a good section of parents in
France think that a private tutor as a third party can help
their children reduce their school-related tension,
ultimately fostering a healthy interpersonal relationship
within the family (Glassman, 2007). Glassman is of the
view that due to parental lack of time or academic
capacity to help the children complete school
homework, creating family-level tension, parents who
can afford for that send their children to tutors. He is of the
view that private coaching is a "peace-making" way
between parents and their children.
ARTICLES
13
l l
i-manager’s Journal on School Educational Technology, Vol. 19 No. 2 October - December 2023

4. How Do Teachers and Schools Influence Students'
Joining Private Coaching?
Both classroom teachers and the school have a
significant role in students' high rates of joining private
coaching centers. It has been found that the teaching
quality of schools is negatively related to students' joining
rates in private coaching. When the quality of teaching in
the school decreases due to any reason, students'
demand for private coaching increases (Baker et al.,
2001; Song et al., 2013; Sujatha, 2014). Baker et al. (2001),
in their cross-national studies on 41 countries, found that
school students' joining rate in private coaching increases
when there is less access to quality education in school
due to poor funding by the government. Low funding for
educational institutions degrades the educational quality
of schools in multiple ways, like the insufficiency of
teachers and teaching materials and the unavailability of
modern teaching and learning equipment. Though poor-
quality teaching in schools is a cause for students' high
rates of joining private coaching in countries like the
Philippines and Romania, it has been reported that there
is also a high demand for private coaching in countries
like Korea and Taiwan where the teaching quality of
schools is good (Song et al., 2013). So, other institution-
related causes are increasing examination success rates
and maintaining the school's reputation (Song et al.,
2013). So, both the low and high teaching quality of
schools contribute to the demand for private coaching.
Teachers have a significant role in students' joining private
coaching. Low salary and extra-income mentality are two
teachers' related causes for students joining private
coaching (Subedi, 2018). A teacher's low salary is related
to the type of school management. It has been found that
the majority of teachers in privately managed schools get
less salary, which is why they are more attached to private
coaching (Sujata, 2014). On the other hand, teachers in
public-funded schools whose salaries are good also
provide private coaching for extra earnings, which are
tax-free. Either due to a lower salar y or an extra income
mentality, or for both, school teachers pressurize students
to join private coaching. They provide low-quality
instruction in the classroom, not clarifying students'
securing good marks in the examination with the help of
private coaching, which will help their wards earn lifetime
earnings (Pallegedara & Mottaleb, 2018).
Children's joining rate in private coaching is positively
related to their parental educational status (Sujatha,
2014). Empirical findings support that more educated
parents send their children to private coaching than less
educated parents (Bray & Kwok, 2003; Bray, 2006;
Sujatha, 2014). This happens due to their high value for
education, financial capacity to afford it, and lack of time
for personal-level educational involvement. A contrary
view also exists in this connection. Educated parents do
not send their children to private coaching due to their
perceived high academic self-efficacy, desire for
personal level involvement, and monitoring of study-
related matters. On the other hand, uneducated parents
send their children to private coaching due to their low
level of academic self-efficacy for personal involvement
in study-related matters (Ireson & Rushforth, 2014).
It can be argued that though parental influence on
children's joining in private coaching is influenced by
cultural values, income and education status, the
mediating processes are expectation and competency.
Related to all these determinants and processes, it was
found that parents from developing countries have a
gender-based discriminatory attitude toward private
coaching for sons and daughters. It has been
documented that girls' private coaching rates are lower
than boys in developing countries like Turkey, Kenya,
Bangladesh, and India (Tansel & Bircan, 2007;
Buchmann, 2002; Nath, 2008; Sujatha, 2014; Buchmann
et al. 2010). With specific reference to India, it is found that
in three states of India (Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, and
Uttar Pradesh), the boys' joining rate in private coaching is
far higher than that of girls (Sujatha, 2014). Though the
primar y reason is the parental gender discriminatory
attitude to invest more money in the education of their
sons as they believe that their son will provide them
support during old age (Tansel & Bircan, 2007) this
culturally transmitted gender discriminatory attitude
becomes acute through interaction with poverty (Sujatha,
2014).
ARTICLES
14 l
i-manager’s Journal on 19 No. School Educational Technology, Vol. l
2 October - December 2023

The positive effect of private coaching on mainstream
education is its contribution to increasing examination
success rates, which is an attribute of competitive
ecology. In the present competitive world, securing good
marks in the examination has instrumental implications for
further academic careers, employment opportunities,
and, in some situations, social prestige. Private tuition
prepares students with specialized instruction to secure
good marks in the examination, which mainstream
education does not prepare for (Ireson, 2004). In the
process of transforming the existing talents of students into
human resources, private coaching has a contributing
role like mainstream education, especially helping slow
learners develop their academic capabilities. Private
coaching helps for fruitful utilization of the after-school
time of students, especially for under-supervised youths,
which h as positive impl ica tions for mai nstream
education. It has been seen that some private coaching
centers develop study or examination preparation
materials for students that are beneficial for practice and
securing good marks in examinations (Poission, 2007).
But the high growth of private coaching has multiple
negative effects on mainstream education and students'
learning, i.e., decrease in the value of mainstream
education, use of inappropriate pedagogy, emphasizing
on rote learning, limited subject coverage, and less focus
on addressing diversity. When students, parents, and
mainstream teachers consider private coaching as either
a substitute for mainstream education or better than that,
it results in a decreasing value for mainstream education.
It is found that when students give more value to private
coaching than mainstream education, they skip or miss
the classroom teaching to attend the private coaching at
the same time (Kazimzade, 2007; Yasmeen, 1999).
Sometime, they also arrange a false medical certificate
for officially validating their absence period in the school
and give bribes to school staff (Tansel & Bircan, 2007). Due
to more value on coaching classes and spending much
time there, students may not be able to participate in co-
curricular activities organized by the school, which
hampers their all-round development of personality
(Manzoor, 2013). The excessive importance of private
doubts, and don't provide individual attention to students
(Popa & Acedo, 2006). It has been found that these
teachers do not complete the syllabus before the
examination intentionally which causes problems for
students to appear in the examination (Choi & Choi,
2016; Jayachandran, 2014). Similarly, they show harsh
behavior towards the students in the class who have not
joined in their private coaching (Subedi, 2018). They
directly or indirectly give the message that non-joining in
their private coaching will result in securing less marks in
the examination papers checked by them or practical
papers (Bray, 2006). These situations create pressure on
both students and their parents which results in them
joining private coaching.
From a teacher's perspective, private coaching is a
source of extra income, which they do by neglecting their
primar y duty in the school and creating pressure on
students to join private coaching.
5. Socio-Educational Consequences of Private
Coaching
This growth of private coaching has both positive and
negative consequences for both the mainstream
education system and society. Its positive effect on
mainstream education has been primarily drawn from a
corrective and contextual perspective, but its negative
effect has been drawn from a pedagogical, behavioral,
and economic perspective. Academicians have
claimed that private coaching is the shadow or surrogate
mother of mainstream education, which helps bridge
students' learning gaps (Bray, 2006). It supplements
mainstream education to realize its goal, i.e., optimizing
students' learning. The deficit or shortcomings of
mainstream education, which hamper teaching-
learning quality and ultimately students' learning, can be
overcome by private coaching (Manzoor, 2013). The
deficits or weaknesses of mainstream education, like a
shortage of teachers and teaching-learning materials,
leads to students' academic problems like school
absenteeism, dropout, stagnation, low motivation,
depression, and anxiety, could be overcome or resolved
by their joining in private coaching (Bray, 1999).
ARTICLES
15
l l
i-manager’s Journal on School Educational Technology, Vol. 19 No. 2 October - December 2023

coaching, which is a signal for social equality. From an
employment opportunity perspective, it is found that
private coaching provides employment for unemployed
youths, teachers whose salaries are very low, and retired
teachers (Sujata, 2014). It is found that the monthly salary
of a graduate teacher in Sri Lanka is 108 to 135 $ as per
reporting in the year 2007, which is ver y low to maintain
their family expenditure, but one-hour private coaching
results in earning equivalent to 3 to 4 days for a
government employee (Samath, 2007). A similar situation
exists in Tajikistan (Kodirov & Amonov, 2009).
From an economic perspective, private tutoring has
turned into a big business in a large part of the world. In a
countr y like Korea, total household expenditure for private
coaching in a year is equivalent to 2.8% of the GDP of the
countr y (Kim & Lee, 2010). In France, income generated
by private coaching institutes in 2006 was 2.21 billion
dollars (Melot, 2007), in Greece, it was 1.1 billion dollars in
2000 (Psacharopoulos & Tassoulas, 2004) and in Turkey, it
was 2.9 billion dollars in 2004, which is equivalent to 0.96%
of the GDP (Tansel & Bircan, 2007). These coaching
industries not only give good employment opportunities,
but the expenditure patterns of these employees have a
wider economic ripple effect. From a social status
perspective, it has been found that private tutors in some
places gain relatively more respectable social status,
economic rewards, and political influence than
professionals (Popa & Acedo, 2006).
Along with the income or employment generation
perspective, the importance of private coaching can be
assumed from human capital theory. This theory assumes
that mathematical and language skill acquisition is a
form of human capital that helps for economic growth,
and these subjects are highly focused on in private
coaching (Bray, 2009). Comparatively, less invested
money in private coaching has a high economic return
through human capital development in the long run.
From a healthy family dynamic perspective, private
coaching has a positive role in resolving family-level
conflict between parents and their teenagers. Parental
household and workplace-related pressure and children's
academic pressure cause stress, which leads to conflict
coaching has negative effects on students' physical and
mental health. It has been found that excessive cognitive
pressure on students by attending classes in both school
and private coaching results in fatigue, and students
sleep during class (Kim, 2007). Sometimes students go to
private coaching without taking food or rest due to the
tight schedule of school and tuition, which affects their
physical and mental health (De Silva, 1994a).
Similarly, the teaching and learning of mainstream
education decreases when mainstream education
teachers are attached to private coaching. They do not
teach well in the class, do not give individual attention to
students' needs, neglect their primary duty of teaching in
school, and remain long-time absent from the school,
which creates pressure on students to join private
coaching (Hartmann, 2008). They do not complete
curriculum intentionally before examinations and provide
less quality instruction in the classroom, which causes
academic pressure on students to join private coaching
(Poisson, 2007). This situation is not only a waste of public
money but also, in the long run, develops a negative
social attitude towards mainstream education quality. As
the primar y purpose of tutoring is to help students secure
good marks in the examination, especially in subjects like
mathematics, English, and science, other subjects are
not given equal importance. As a result, the complete
scholastic development of students is hampered. From a
pedagogical perspective, the teaching approach
followed by private coaching centers is primarily rote
learning, memorization, and practice, which in the long
run have a negative effect on students' learning
processes and achievement (Jheng, 2015).
Along with its effect on mainstream education, private
coaching has both positive and negative consequences
for society. Regarding its positive social effect, it has been
found that private coaching, in the long run, contributes
to social development. It helps students get admission to
a good-quality higher education institution and ultimately
get a job, which generates maximum human resources.
Academically slow learners gain self-confidence and
become intrinsically motivated to compete with
advanced learners with the assistance of private
ARTICLES
16 l
i-manager’s Journal on 19 No. School Educational Technology, Vol. l
2 October - December 2023

Vietnam, the private coaching reception rate of primary
students from ethnic minority communities was 7.1%, but
from ethnic majority communities, it was 37% (Dang,
2007). Though the primar y reason for this differential rate
of private coaching between ethnic majority and minority
is financial capacity, cultural value for education has a
more significant effect. For example, as per the findings of
Ireson and Rushforth (2014) in England, a higher number
of children of South Asian and Chinese origin attend
private coaching than white children. A similar trend is
seen in America, and the reason is the high value placed
on education for children in Asian cultures (Mori, 2009).
It has been found that expenditure on private coaching
by poor households is perceived as a financial burden.
Sending the children to private coaching is a social
pressure in some cultures, like Korea (Kim, 2007). The
household expenditure on private coaching in Korea was
24 billion US dollars in 2006 (Kim & Lee, 2010). The inability
to send adolescent school-going children to private
tuition causes family-level conflict between parents and
children.
From an ideal perspective, mainstream education has a
significant role in reducing the gender gap in society by
providing equal education opportunities for boys and
girls. But with respect to the reception rate of private
coaching on the basis of gender, it is found that a higher
percentage of boys attend private coaching than girls in
developing countries like Turkey, Kenya, Bangladesh, and
India (Buchmann, 2002; Nath, 2008; Sujatha, 2014; Tansel
& Bircan, 2007). Though the primary reason is the parental
attitude to invest more money for the better education
and income of the son as they will provide their parents
support during old age, these culturally transmitted values
have a more adverse effect on gender discriminatory
parental attitudes when they interact with poverty (Sujata,
2014; Tansel & Bircan, 2007). Private coaching causes
further gender gaps in achievement and causes social
inequality (Buchman, 2002; Stevenson & Barker, 1992).
Another form of social inequality is spatial discrimination. It
is found that not only do more students from urban
localities attend private coaching than those from rural
areas globally, but the number of coaching centers in
between them, and it has been found that private
coaching is an intermediate place between family and
the school where children's academic pressures can be
resolved (Glasman, 2007). Glassman has viewed this as a
way to purchase peace for families who can afford it.
From a different perspective, it has been reported that
private coaching provides a wider social space for pupils.
Though it is specific to Egypt, it has been seen that the
majority of secondar y schools in the country are gender-
segregated, and students join private coaching centers
because they provide a wider social space to meet with
friends of the other sex (Hartmann, 2008).
But private coaching has multiple negative social effects,
starting with exacerbating social inequalities, increasing
financial burden on families, aggravating existing social
inequalities via gender, space, and ethnicity, etc. The
existing economic inequality in society has been
worsened by the high growth of private coaching
because high-income people can easily afford more
quantity and better-quality private coaching for their
children, which is not possible for the poor (Valerio, 2013).
This differential rate of investment in private coaching
between the rich and poor causes different rates of
human and financial capital in society. On the other
hand, the goal of mainstream education is to reduce
social inequality, which is hampered by the high growth of
private coaching. Based on this trajectory of financial
inequality and unequal access to quality private
coaching, Majumdar (2014) is of the view that private
coaching is a symbol of social segregation in India.
Coaching centers are also socio-economically stratified
and segregated as mainstream education. High
financial capacity means access to high-quality
education offered by both formal and informal private
institutes, and the reverse is true. This creates further social
inequality, i.e., those who can afford it will join in good-
quality private coaching and get success, but those who
cannot afford it lag behind (Dang & Roger, 2008).
It has been found that the groups of students who do not
join private coaching are primarily from disadvantaged
social backgrounds (Choi & Park, 2016). Empirical
research findings suggest that in the year 1997–98 in
ARTICLES
17
l l
i-manager’s Journal on School Educational Technology, Vol. 19 No. 2 October - December 2023

within that culture, i.e., parent, child, and teacher. For
example, on the Asian continent, private coaching has a
higher value than in Europe, which is reflected in terms of
students' high rates of joining private coaching and
parents high desire to send their children to private tutors
from Asian countries. Similarly, the competitive ecology in
a particular area directly causes high competition for
securing good marks in examinations in comparison to
classmates, and in this context, not only demand for
private coaching increases but also the number of
private coaching centers increases. In urban areas, the
competition is high, and the availability of coaching
centers is also high in comparison to rural areas. This
competition for securing high marks is due to
competitions to get admission to the best-quality
educational institution and get a job where examination
results have instrumental implications.
Though existing literature consistently supports the
negative association between the teaching quality of
mainstream education and students' joining rates in
private coaching, it has a debating stance, i.e., high-
quality teaching in mainstream education also creates
high demand for private coaching. The negative
associations between teaching quality in school and
private coaching joining rate happen due to the
corrective or remedial role of private coaching (Bray,
2009), but the positive association is found in countries like
Korea and Taiwan, where both quality of teaching and
demand for private coaching are high. It may happen
due to the non-fulfillment of examination requirements by
schools and the competitive context. Reputed schools
encourage students to join private coaching due to
competitions among schools to maintain their school
reputation (Song et al., 2013).
The positive or negative socio-educational effect of
private coaching is a concern for academicians due to its
implications in both social and educational policy
contexts. But it is not possible to quantify the exact effect
due to a lack of reporting by the stakeholders (students,
teachers, and parents), as it happens informally. Each
stakeholder avoids their attachment to private coaching.
Teachers avoid it as it is a non-taxable source of income,
urban localities is also higher (Silova, 2010). In India, only
29% of lower secondary students from rural areas attend
private coaching, compared to 29% of their urban
counterparts (Sujatha, 2014). This discrimination in access
to private coaching between rural and urban areas
causes further achievement and development gaps.
Bray (2009) has mentioned three reasons for this
differential rate of private coaching on the basis of
locality. Firstly, people in urban areas have comparatively
more income to afford private coaching than in rural
areas. Secondly, there is more competition for wage-
earning labor markets and demand for educational
qualifications in urban areas than in rural areas. Thirdly, the
high population density in urban areas provides scope for
the setup of a more private coaching industr y.
6. Discussion
As observed from the literature, each educational
stakeholder has their own perspective, condition, and
context for the demand for private coaching, but their
perspectives have interconnections with each other. The
primary reasons for students demand for private
coaching are academic and psychological (non-
fulfillment of individualized learning requirements at
school, securing good marks in examinations, and
gaining confidence for board examinations), which are
directly linked with the school or teacher's perspective
(non-completion of courses in time, not providing
individual attention at school, pressure on students to join
in their private coaching, and extra income mentality). In
between the direct link between student and teacher's
perspectives, parental high expectations on their
children's examination success, financial and academic
self-efficacy, and sense of good parenting to send their
children to a good-quality private tutor, etc. increase their
positive connections.
The existing literature claims that the primary causes of
demand for private coaching are academic, personal,
and social, but wants to state that along with these
causes, the cultural and competitive ecology should be
considered (Sujata, 2014). Each culture has its own way of
valuing private coaching, which influences all the
educational stakeholder's values for private coaching
ARTICLES
18 l
i-manager’s Journal on 19 No. School Educational Technology, Vol. l
2 October - December 2023

and their parents. Studies in Literature and Language 8(3),
79–83.
[2]. Baker, D. P., Motoko Akiba, LeTendre, G. K., &
Wiseman, A. W. (2001). Worldwide Shadow Education:
Outsid e-School Learn ing, Ins titutiona l Qua lity of
Sc h oo l in g , an d C ros s -N a ti o na l M a th e ma t ic s
Achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,
23(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3102/016237370230010
01
[3]. Bandura, A. (1972). Modeling theory: Some traditions,
trends, and disputes. In Recent Trends in Social Learning
Theory (pp. 35–61). Elsevier.
[4]. Bandura, A., & Walters, R. H. (1977b). Social Learning
Theory (Vol. 1). Englewood Cliffs Prentice Hall.
[5]. Becker, G. S. (1967). Human Capital and the Personal
Distribution of Income: An Analytical Approach. Institute
of Public Administration, Ann Arbor.
[6]. Blau, P. M., & Duncan, O. D. (1967). The American
Occupational Structure. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
[7]. Bray, M. (2006). Private supplementar y tutoring:
Comparative perspectives on patterns and implications.
Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International
Education, 36(4), 515–530. https://doi.org/10.1080/
03057920601024974
[8]. Bray, M. (2009). Confronting the Shadow Education
System: What Government Policies for What Private
Tutoring? United Nations Educational, Scientific and
Cu ltural Organ izatio n: Int e rnati o nal In stitu t e for
Educational Planning.
[9]. Bray, M. (2013). Shadow education: Comparative
perspectives on the expansion and implications of private
supplementar y tutoring. Procedia-Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 77, 412–420.
[10]. Bray, M. (2020). Shadow education: Scale, drivers
and future directions in the global spread of private
supplementar y tutoring. Humanistic Futures of Learning,
100-104.
[11]. Bray, M. (2021). Shadow Education in Europe:
Growing prevalence, underlying forces, and policy
implications. ECNU Review of Education, 4(3), 442–475.
and students feel that their attachment may be regarded
as an unfair means of receiving advantages over peers,
lack of trust in mainstream teachers, or stupid people who
face problems understanding subject matter in class
(Bray, 2009). From the digitally available thematic papers,
it has been explored that private coaching has both
positive and negative socio-educational effects. The
maximum positive perspectives of private coaching may
be remedial, financial, or psychological, but these are
directly related to individual-level benefits. On the other
hand, the negative effects happen at the societal level,
i.e., exacerbating the existing inequality (gender, space,
ethnicity, income). But reality is that private coaching is
not good or bad itself, it depends upon lots of aspects of
considerations like who is providing (mainstream tutors or
external tutors or coaching centers), to whom they are
providing (students of their own school or other schools),
how much fee is charged to tutees (high, moderate or
low), whether it complements or hinders the quality of
mainstream education, etc.
Conclusion
Private coaching as an additional support for the
examination success of students is good and desirable
from an academic point of view. But its high prevalence
rate and stakeholder's excessive value on it and lower
va l ue on ma instream is a m ajor c o ncern of
academicians and policy framers. Its growth rate
indicates the low quality of instruction offered by
mainstream education. When a high amount of money is
spent at the policy level to provide quality education to all
children universally, private education requires growing
competition, which is one of the major reasons, but its
exce ssi ve growth has adver se effects on both
mainstream education and society. Proper monitoring of
school teachers' engagement in private coaching,
increasing teaching-learning quality in the school, and
increasing the salaries of mainstream teachers can help
regulate the growth of private coaching in society.
References
[1]. Alotaibi, G. N. (2014). Causes of private tutoring in
English: Perspective of Saudi secondary school students
ARTICLES
19
l l
i-manager’s Journal on School Educational Technology, Vol. 19 No. 2 October - December 2023

[21]. De Silva, W. A. (1994a). Extra-school tutoring in the
Asian context with special reference to Sri Lanka.
Maharagama: Department of Educational Research,
National Institute of Education.
[22]. Duong, B.-H., & Silova, I. (2021). Portraits of teachers
in neoliberal times: Projections and reflections generated
by shadow education research. Globalisation, Societies
and Education, 19(5), 696–710. https://doi.org/10.1080/
14767724.2021.1878013
[23]. Foondun, A. R. (2002). The issue of private tuition: An
analysis of the practice in Mauritius and selected South-
East Asian countries. International Review of Education,
48(6), 485–515.
[24]. Glasman, D. (2007). Tutoring for the rich, tutoring for
the poor? Short notes from France. In IIEP Policy Forum on
Confronting the Shadow Education System: What
Government Policies for What Private Tutoring.
[25]. Hartmann, S. (2008). The Informal Market of
Education in Egypt: Private Tutoring and its Implications.
Mainz: Institut für Ethnologie und Afrikastudien, Johannes
Gutenberg-Universität, (pp. 1-107).
[26]. Ireson, J. (2004). Private tutoring: How prevalent and
effective is it? London Review of Education, 2(2), 109-122.
IOE Press. https://doi.org/10.1080/14748460420002
29458
[27]. Ireson, J., & Rushforth, K. (2014). Why do parents
employ private tutors for their children? Exploring
psychological factors that influence demand in England.
Journal for Educational Research Online, 6(1), 12-33.
https://doi.org/10.25656/01:8839
[28]. Jayachandran, S. (2014). Incentives to teach badly:
After-school tutoring in developing countries. Journal of
Development Economics, 108, 190–205. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jdeveco.2014.02.008
[29]. Jheng, Y. J. (2015). The influence of private tutoring
on middle-class students' use of in-class time in formal
schools in Taiwan. International Journal of Educational
Development, 40, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedu
dev.2014.11.019
[30]. Kashalkar-Karve, S., & Damodar, S. N. (2013).
Comparative study of ancient gurukul system and the
https://doi.org/10.1177/2096531119890142
[12]. Bray, M., & Kwok, P. (2003). Demand for private
supplementar y tutoring: Conceptual considerations, and
socio-economic patterns in Hong Kong. Economics of
Education Review, 22(6), 611–620. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0272-7757(03)00032-3
[13]. Bray, M., & Lykins, C. (2012). Shadow Education:
Private Supplementar y Tutoring and its Implications for
Policy Makers in Asia. Asian Development Bank.
[14]. Bray, T. M. (1999). The Shadow Education System:
Private Tutoring and its Implications for Planners.
International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP).
[15]. Buchmann, C. (2002). Getting ahead in Kenya:
Social capital, shadow education, and achievement. In
B. Fuller & E. Hannum (Eds.), Research in the Sociology of
Education (Vol. 13, pp. 133–159). Emerald Group
Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479-3539
(2002)0000013008
[16]. Buchmann, C., Condron, D. J., & Roscigno, V. J.
(2010). Rejoinder: Shadow Education: Theory, analysis
and future directions: A rejoinder. Social Forces, 89(2),
483–490. https://doi.org/10.1353/sof.2010.0073
[17]. Choi, H., & Choi, Á. (2016). Regulating private
tutoring consumption in Korea: Lessons from another
fa i l ure. In te rna t io nal Jo urn a l o f Edu c ati o n al
Development, 49, 144–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijedudev.2016.03.002
[18]. Choi, Y., & Park, H. (2016). Shadow education and
educational inequality in South Korea: Examining effect
heterogeneity of shadow education on middle school
seniors' achievement test scores. Research in Social
Stratification and Mobility, 44, 22–32.
[19]. Dang, H.-A. (2007). The determinants and impact of
private tutoring classes in Vietnam. Economics of
Education Review, 26(6), 683–698.
[20]. Dang, H.-A., & Rogers, F. H. (2008). The growing
phenomenon of private tutoring: Does it deepen human
capital, widen inequalities, or waste resources? The World
Bank Research Observer, 23(2), 161–200. https://doi.org/
10.1093/wbro/lkn004
ARTICLES
20 l
i-manager’s Journal on 19 No. School Educational Technology, Vol. l
2 October - December 2023

0701785285
[41]. Ömeroğulları, M., Guill, K., & Köller, O. (2020).
Effectiveness of private tutoring during secondary
schooling in Germany: Do the duration of private tutoring
and tutor qualification affect school achievement?
Learning and Instruction, 66, 101306. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.learninstruc.2020.101306
[42]. Pallegedara, A., & Mottaleb, K. A. (2018). Patterns
and determinants of private tutoring: The case of
Bangladesh households. International Journal of
Educational Development, 59, 43–50. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijedudev.2017.10.004
[43]. Poisson, M. (2007). Private tutoring: Asset or threat for
mainstream education? Challenges and responses. In
IIEP Policy Forum on Confronting the Shadow Education
System: What Government Policies for What Private
Tutoring.
[44]. Popa, S., & Acedo, C. (2006). Redefining
professionalism: Romanian secondary educat ion
teachers and the private tutoring system. International
Journal of Educational Development, 26(1), 98–110.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2005.07.019
[45]. Prakhov, I., & Yudkevich, M. (2019). University
admission in Russia: Do the wealthier benefit from
standardized exa m s ? In t e r n a ti o n a l Jo u r n al of
Educational Development, 65, 98–105. https://doi.org/
10. 1016/j.ijedudev.2017.08.007
[46]. Psacharopoulos, G., & Tassoulas, S. (2004).
Achievement at the higher education entry examinations
in Greece: A Procrustean approach. Higher Education,
47(2), 241–252. Springer.https://doi.org/10.1023/B:HIGH.
0000016444.59253.a6
[47]. Samath, F. (2007). Sri Lanka: Primary Education in
Crisis. Inter Press Service News Agency.
[48]. Shelly, K. J. (2015). Relevance of Gurukul Education
System in Present Circumstance: A Philosophical
Perception. Journal of Philosophy, Culture and Religion,
12, 9-10
[49]. Silova, I. (2010). Private tutoring in Eastern Europe
and Central Asia: Policy choices and implications.
Compare, 40(3), 327-344. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305
new trends of guru-shishya parampara. American
International Journal of Research in Humanities, Arts and
Social Sciences, 2(1), 81–84.
[31]. Kazimzade, E. (2007). Remarks made during the IIEP
policy forum on confronting the shadow education
system: What government policies for what private
tutoring. Paris: IIEP-UNESCO.
[32]. Kim, M. (2007). School choice and private
supplementar y education in South Korea. Policy Forum
'Confronting the Shadow Education System: What
Government Policies for What Private Tutoring,'IIEP/SEM,
279(7).
[33]. Kim, S., & Lee, J. H. (2010). Private tutoring and
demand for education in South Korea. Economic
Development and Cultural Change, 58(2), 259–296.
https://doi.org/10.1086/648186
[34]. Kodirov, S., & Amonov, N. (2009). Private tutoring in
Tajikistan. Private Supplementary Tutoring in Central Asia:
New Opportunities and Burdens (pp. 143–165).
[35]. Lee, C. J., Park, H. J., & Lee, H. (2012). Shadow
education systems. In Handbook of Education Policy
Research (pp. 901–919). Routledge.
[36]. Majumdar, M. (2014). The Shadow School System
and New Class Divisions in India: Multitudes of Customers
Throng the Gates of the Education Bazaar. TRG Poverty
and Education Working Paper Series, Max Weber Stiftung,
2. https://doi.org/10.25360/01-2015-00016
[37]. Manzoor, S. (2013). Reasons And Necessity of Private
Tutoring in English for Bangla Medium Primary School
Students in Bangladesh (Doctoral dissertation, BRAC
University, Dhaka, Bangladesh).
[38]. Melot, L. (2007). Le Marché Du Soutienscolaire.
Precepta, Paris.
[39]. Mori, I. (2009, March). Backgrounds of private
rd
tutoring in the United States. In 53 Annual Conference of
the Comparative and International Education Society,
Charleston, South Carolina, USA.
[40]. Nath, S. R. (2008). Private supplementary tutoring
among primary students in Bangladesh. Educational
Studies, 34(1), 55–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305569
ARTICLES
21
l l
i-manager’s Journal on School Educational Technology, Vol. 19 No. 2 October - December 2023

International Institute for Educational Planning.
[55]. Valerio, A. (2013). Private Tutoring in Modern Times. Is
it Really Effective? Procedia - Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 70, 979–985. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.
2013.01.148
[56]. Ventura, A. (2008). Private supplementary tutoring in
Europe: An overview. In Ninth International Conference
on Educational Research, Seoul National University (pp.
27–28).
[57]. Yasmeen, S. (1999). The spreading private tuitions
epidemic. School: Journal of Educational Excellence,
21–25.
[58]. Zhang, Y. (2013). Does private tutoring improve
students' National College Entrance Exam performance?
-A case study from Jinan, China. Economics of Education
Review, 32, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.
2012.09.008
7920903361926
[50]. Song, K. O., Park, H. J., & Sang, K. A. (2013). A cross-
national analysis of the student-and school-level factors
affecting the demand for private tutoring. Asia Pacific
Education Review, 14, 125–139. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s12564-012-9236-7
[51]. Stevenson, D. L., & Baker, D. P. (1992). Shadow
education and allocation in formal schooling: Transition
to university in Japan. American Journal of Sociology,
97(6), 1639–1657. https://doi.org/10.1086/229942
[52]. Subedi, K. R. (2018). Shadow Education: A Role of
Private Tutoring in Learning. Online Submission, 1(2),
29–42.
[53]. Sujatha, K. (2014). Private tuition in India: Trends and
issues. Revue Internationale d'éducation de Sèvres, 12.
https://doi.org/10.4000/ries.3913
[54]. Tansel, A., & Bircan, F. (2007). Private Supplementary
Tutoring in Turkey: Recent Evidence on its Various Aspects.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Dr. Partha Sarathi Mallik is working as an Associate Professor and Head of the School of Education, Gangadhar Meher University,
Odisha, India. He has 19 years of teaching and research experience at different colleges and universities in India. He has
completed two research projects and is the author of three books and 29 research papers. His interest areas are Educational
Psychology, Examination Reformation and Cultural Psychology.
Ranjit Behera is a former student of Gangadhar Meher University, Sambalpur, Odisha, India. He has a qualified UGC-NET-JRF in
education. He has completed an M.A. in Education from Gangadhr Meher University in 2022. He has attended two national-
level seminars and presented a paper at one national seminar. He has published four research papers in International Journals.
His research interests are ICT in Education and Educational Psychology.
ARTICLES
22 l
i-manager’s Journal on 19 No. School Educational Technology, Vol. l
2 October - December 2023