Abstract
Via the so-called homework assistance deduction, Swedish parents had the right to deduct from taxes half the cost of their children’s private homework assistance—that is, those who had any tax to deduct. In addition to this formally excluding factor, there was a much larger group of parents who did not have real opportunities to utilize the tax break since the private cost was significant even with the state subsidy. The chapter discusses the implications of state-subsidized private homework assistance and so-called shadow education at large. The chapter also elaborates on the school voucher system which seemingly allows for a publicly funded school system but gradually put pressure on tuition fees in the school sector, something which was the whole purpose of the invention.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Aurini, J., & Davies, S. (2004). The transformation of private tutoring: Education in a franchise form. Canadian Journal of Sociology/Cahiers canadiens de sociologie, 29, 419–438.
Baker, D. P., Akiba, M., LeTendre, G. K., & Wiseman, A. W. (2001). Worldwide shadow education: Outside-school learning, institutional quality of schooling, and cross-national mathematics achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,23(1), 1–17.
Barr, N. (2004). The economics of the welfare state. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bray, T. M. (2009). Confronting the shadow education system: What government policies for what private tutoring? United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization; International Institute for Educational Planning.
Bray, T. M. (2011). The challenge of shadow education: Private tutoring and its implications for policy makers in the European Union. Brussels: European Commission.
Buchmann, C., Condron, D. J., & Roscigno, V. J. (2010). Shadow education, American style: Test preparation, the SAT and college enrollment. Social Forces,89(2), 435–461.
Carnoy, M. (1998). National voucher plans in Chile and Sweden: Did privatization reforms make for better education? Comparative Education Review,42(3), 309–337.
Entrich, S. R. (2017). Shadow education and social inequalities in Japan: Evolving patterns and conceptual implications. Amsterdam: Springer.
Friedman, M. (1962). Capitalism and freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Friedman, M., & Friedman, R. (1980). Free to choose: A personal statement. New York: HBJ.
Ireson, J., & Rushforth, K. (2005). Mapping and evaluating shadow education. ESRC Research Project RES-000-23-0117. London: Institute of Education, University of London.
Jencks, C. (1970). Giving parents money for schooling: Education vouchers. The Phi Delta Kappan,52(1), 49–52.
Kim, Y. C., & Jung, J. H. (2019). Worldwide shadow education epidemic: From East Asia to Western Hemisphere. In Shadow education as worldwide curriculum studies (pp. 25–60). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
Levin, H. (2018). Privatizing education: Can the school marketplace deliver freedom of choice, efficiency, equity, and social cohesion? New York: Routledge.
Mawer, K. (2015). Casting new light on shadow education: Snapshots of juku variety. Contemporary Japan,27(2), 131–148.
SOU 2013:56. Friskolorna i samhället: betänkande av Friskolekommittén. Stockholm: Fritze.
Welner, K. G. (2008). NeoVouchers: The emergence of tuition tax credits for private schooling. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Lapidus, J. (2019). Half-Private Education. In: The Quest for a Divided Welfare State. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-24784-3_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-24784-3_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-24783-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-24784-3
eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)