This document summarizes and reviews a research article examining the existence of shadow education in South Korea. It provides background on shadow education and discusses how it has become a major policy issue in South Korea. While government policies have aimed to limit private tutoring, it continues to grow due to factors such as low-quality formal schooling, students' desire to improve grades and exam scores, and reaction to education reforms. The document also discusses criticisms of shadow education, including that it can reduce student engagement, place financial burdens on families, and exacerbate inequality.

1. REVIEW
Examining The Existence of Shadow Education in South Korea: Is It Really
Beneficial or Disadvantageous for Social Improvement and Economic
Quality?
Main reference: Kim, Sunwoong and Lee, Ju‐Ho. 2010. “Private Tutoring and Demand for
Education in South Korea”. Economic Development and Cultural Change. The University of
Chicago Press: Chicago, Illinois. Vol. 58. No. 2. Pp. 259-296.
Adam Chaesar (15/384125/SP/26837)
Shadow education is a term which refers to the private tutoring services or private
supplementary classes provided by individuals or companies for commercial purposes. Shadow
education in South Korea include a range of formal after-school academic activity, such as
individual or group tutoring, instruction from for-profit Hakwon (the so-called "cram schools"),
self-study or practice exam sheets, internet tutoring, and after-class lessons within regular
public schools. This private supplementary class or program has been traditionally prosperous
in some Asian countries, such as China, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, India,
Kazakhstan and Turkey, also keep expanding in many other countries.1
The situation of shadow education in South Korea has became a major education policy
issue in South Korea where many families of public school aged children made big expenditure
for extra academic activities and it is growing from year to year. In fact, continuing government
education policies such equalization policy and direct prohibitions on privat tutoring activities
have also failed to limit the development of tutoring companies. There are some causes of
korean students’ reliance on private tutoring under the perspective of functionalism or
competitive theories which focus on factors indicated family socioeconomic characteristics,
such as: Low-quality formal schooling; Students' desire to improve low school grades or score
high on entrance exams; Public reaction to education initiatives like the High School
Equalization Policy (HSEP) and the college entrance policy reform.2
1
Lee, Soojeong and Roger C. 2011. “The Impact of Prestige Orientation on Shadow Education in
South Korea. Sociology of Education. American Sociological Association: Washington, D.C. Vol. 84.
No. 3. Pp. 212-224.
2
Ibid.

2. Responses on education system issues in Korea and the existence of private tutor
companies will be explained below. First, formal schools are unable to address market needs
or many households, for providing high quality education. Likewise, the limitations for private
schools to operate more independently outside the government education control. With no
restrictions for private schools, some families with high demand for education can send their
children to high-quality private schools rather than relying on private lessons. Second, the real
or perceived advantage of elite universities in a very hierarchical higher education system has
been strong enough to create continuing demand for private tutoring. This kind of private
tutoring demand would be particularly acute for academically strong students who have a good
chance of being admitted to the prestigious universities because under the government
equalization policy of education, schools and classes are not allowed to sort students according
to their abilities. It also poses difficulties for teachers to provide learning methods because
students have varying academic grades in the same class. Third, the dilemma arising from the
equalization policy on economic expenditure. Students with high academic ability, high family
income, and highly educated parents make more expenditure on tutor services. Whereas,
students in some areas that are not covered by the government's equalization policy and
therefore can make choices in schools, spend less on private tutoring. The results of this article
suggest that the estimated income elasticity of private tutoring is about 0.5, which implies that
low-income households spend their income in higher percentages for private lessons compared
with high-income households.
The growth of private tutoring service has been criticized for causing students' low
engagement in school, placing a heavy financial burden on families, and contributing to overall
educational inequality. If more duplicate instructions are given through private lessons, the
desire and energy to learn and teach at school may be reduced. Students can find irrelevant
schools and teachers find students who are unmotivated and exhausted. The heavy financial
burden for private lessons, especially for low- and middle-income households, is certainly very
disturbing to many families. If private tutoring is a highly influential mechanism for the
improvement of social mobility which can encourage great opportunities for a prestigious
university, and if the students accepted at the elite university determines future work
performance and graduate social status. Thus, the presence and participation of middle and
high school will be inadequate to generate upward social mobility from low-income families.
In addition to equalization problems, high dependence on private lessons may also be
socially and economically inefficient. First, the provision of educational services through

3. formal schools may be far more cost-effective than private tutoring in terms of economies of
scale, but the main attention here is how to improve the quality of formal education by the
government. Second, the private tutoring industries can focus on strategies to pass higher
school entrance tests rather than to discuss the students' intellectual, emotional, and physical
development efforts that are certainly required for student academic achievement as a whole.
Third, inequality of investment in private lessons can lead to inefficient allocation of talents
because the marginal rate of substitution between education and other goods is not the same
across households with different income levels. Thus, high-ability children that were born from
poor families may be in a low-ranking university because parents can not pay bills for private
lessons.
Although one of the key policy objectives of the secondary school equalization policy
was reducing private tutoring, the goal has proven to be unattainable with the current
combination of heavy regulation with equalized school input in a highly hierarchical university
system. Equalization of the higher education system and elimination of competitive university
entrance examinations have been proposed. However, due to small amounts of government
financial support and the tradition of elite public universities, the proposal has not received
much political support. This is also related to the significance of providing education that
should be quite enjoyable rather than into something that is more like the idea of factory-
producing children. Until the government get away from that, the tutoring system will keep
expanding.3
3
Green, Ashley. 2016. Shadow Education's Impact On Student Achievement. 6 December. Diakses
February 12, 2018. http://transform.tamu.edu/news/shadow-educations-impact-student-
achievement?_ga=2.41089446.523737196.1518435820-1648746562.1518323092.