1. Izumi Mori Ph.D. Candidate in Education Policy Studies Pennsylvania State University 2010/6/5 Supplemental Education in the United States

2.  Typical stages: Elementary (1-5 th ), middle (6- 8 th ), high (9-12 th )  The ages for compulsory education vary by state. It begins from ages 5-8 and ends from ages 14-18.  Compulsory requirements can generally be satisfied by educating children in public schools, state-certified private schools, or an approved home school program.

3. ◦.3 - 4 years old: 52.8 ◦.5 - 6 years old: 93.8 ◦.7 - 9 years old: 98.3 ◦.10 - 13 years old: 98.9 ◦.14 - 15 years old: 98.6 ◦.16 - 17 years old: 95.2 ◦.18 - 19 years old: 66.0 ◦.20 - 21 years old: 50.1 ◦.22 - 24 years old: 28.2  Source: Current Population Survey 2008

7.  1960s: ESEA and compensatory ed  Late 70s: Earlier private providers started business  90-00s: Continued expansion and increasing organization

8.  2002-: Districts provide free tutoring for failing schools under the NCLB ◦ Federalism + Market-based education (Vergari 2007) ◦ Parental choice of state-approved providers ◦ Services include tutoring, after-school services and summer school ◦ Services may be provided by: for-profit and nonprofit organizations, school districts, and faith- based organizations ◦ Districts should spend 20% of their Title I budget ◦ Publicly funded, not “ private ” tutoring?

9.  More African-American and Hispanic students  Urban > suburban > rural  Students in high poverty > low poverty  Elementary > middle & high school ◦ 24-28% of eligible students in gr. 2-5 participate ◦ Fewer than 5% of eligible high school students participated Source: U.S. Department of Education (2007 & 2009) Cf. Buchmann et al. (forthcoming) – focus on SAT & college prep

10. Thanks to John Bailey’s presentation on “EIA’s campaign for ESEA reauthorization,” October 29, 2009.

11.  Limited effect found  Research design need to address causality  Farkas (1996) ◦ Focus on teacher quality and one-on-one instruction  U.S. Department of Ed (2007) ◦ Sample: 9 school districts ◦ Using quasi-experimental difference-in-differences approach ◦ Positive effect on achievement  Munoz, Potter and Ross (2008) ◦ Sample: one school district ◦ Demographical matching between participants vs. non- participants (both eligible for tutoring) ◦ Non-significant and small effects for those who received tutoring, both in reading and math

12.  Still lower participation rates  Insufficient communication with parents  Some principals are against the idea of “outsourcing” (Koyama 2009)

13.  Relatively a new phenomenon  Not problematic but rather encouraged  Market-based policy emphasizing choice  Context of raising achievement in schooling  Mostly for remedial purpose  Parental interest in education?

14. Supplemental ed Schools/Ts Providers Parents

16.  To examine the characteristics and logics of supplemental education providers in urban U.S.  To obtain information on: ◦ Services they provide ◦ Student and teacher characteristics ◦ Motivation to start tutoring ◦ Relation with NCLB free tutoring

17.  Philadelphia  July 5-8, 2009  Interviews with 5 providers (3 site visits, 2 phone interviews), 15-30 min each  Document collection (instructional and advertizing materials, pictures)

24.  Mostly remedial, 5% enrichment  At least one tutor for every three students  Original textbook  80% part-time vs. 20% full time teachers  50% of instructors are current school teachers  Schoolteachers teach children because they 1) want extra income and 2) feel it rewarding to help children  When hiring, they look for certified teachers. All 4yr college graduates, some with M.A.

25.  Variation in years of operation, fees, and NCLB status  Focus on personalized & remedial instruction  Some school teachers work as tutors  Emphasis on “ qualified” teachers  Teacher referrals  Some connections with schools

27.  Examine tutoring in the U.S. from a perspective of parenting  RQ: What are the family characteristics associated with child ’ s use of tutoring? ◦ Does the mechanism differ by race?

28.  SES/ family background  Academic achievement  Parenting patterns ◦ Concerted cultivation (Lareau 2003): encompasses various dimensions of parenting, with sets of activities

29.  H1: Tutoring is more common among lower income students  H2: Tutoring is more common among lower- achieving students  H3: Tutoring is a part of concerted cultivation

30.  Early Childhood Longitudinal Study Kindergarten Cohort (ECLS-K)  National survey, N =11347  Third grade wave of 2002  Parent questionnaire and child ’ s test scores

31.  Is {CHILD} tutored on a regular basis, by someone other than you or a family member, in a specific subject, such as reading, math, science, or a foreign language?  Question for parents in the “home environment” section  13.5% (n=1808) answered “ Yes. ” ◦ 9.9% in reading ◦ 7.1% in math

32.  Gender  Location  Family types  Race/ ethnicity  SES  Educational expectation  Concerted cultivation  Child ’ s test scores

33.  Parental perceptions of their responsibility (e.g. read, help homework)  Child ’ s leisure time (e.g. music, sports, library, museum)  School involvement (e.g. P-T conference, event, volunteer)  Number of children ’ s books at home

34.  Logistic regression

40.  The effect of lower test scores wipes out the effect of lower SES  Some positive effects of parenting  Possible difference by race/ ethnicity  Tutoring is not necessarily a middle-class activity when publicly funded

41.  Not a perfect measure of “shadow education”  Fee-based or not is unclear  Location is unclear  Duration is unclear  However, it should include some “private” nature as the results differ for the following teacher questionnaire item:  “Does this child receive instruction and/ or related services in individual tutoring program in reading/ mathematics?”

42.  Is {CHILD} tutored on a regular basis, by someone other than you or a family member, in a specific subject, such as reading, math, science, or a foreign language?

43. izm105@psu.edu