Change of Shadow Education

Abstract

This chapter analyzes the Change dimension outlined in the Shadow-Education-Inequality-Impact (SEII) Frame, specifically addressing the question how Japanese shadow education managed to maintain strong despite unfavorable changes which were believed to make this industry superfluous until 2009 and how this affects educational opportunities for disadvantaged educational strata. Since the implications of a high dependence on shadow education for a national system of education regarding educational opportunities and social inequality issues are hardly overestimated, following a neo-institutionalist approach, the ongoing success of the juku-industry is explored. Applying a mixed-method approach basing my calculations on data of the 2013 Juku Student and Teacher Survey (JSTS), the following main findings are presented:

• (1) Due to decreasing student populations, the reformation of the mainstream schooling system, and changed educational demands of families, the originally highly specialized juku have expanded their range of supply. Juku increasingly take on functions outside their original purview such as care, counseling, and guidance and thus achieve many of the yutori education goals that regular schools struggle to accomplish.

• (2) Due to continuous changes, new types of juku have evolved particularly focusing on individual tutoring.

• (3) This industry shows continuous efforts to increase opportunities for socioeconomically disadvantaged students to participate in various types of lessons in the shadow and thus gain benefits from juku-lessons also.

• (4) Families increasingly rely on juku as their primary contact in educational matters, wherefore these schools gain further importance as educational gap-closer and authority in educational and social matters.

“For more than 30 years studentscome to our juku - and I think that thesituation has gotten even worse. Thereis more pressure on them in spite of allthe educational reforms…”(Interview with a principal of a small juku,Nov. 2012).

Appendix

In the following, the basis for the classification of the JSTS juku sample as shown in Table 8.2 is outlined, separately describing the results for each of the strong empirical indicators.

• 1. Scope of Supply

To measure what kind of lessons students actually attend, the JSTS data included the following item: “Within one week, how much time do you spend at this juku? Please report all subject areas (e.g. Japanese, Mathematics, Science, English) in which you are taking lessons” (Q19, Student Survey). Where no data was provided by the students due to a missing sample (JukuC and JukuG), object characteristics and interviews delivered the needed information leading to the categorization shown in Table 8.4. Accordingly, at all juku, at least the five main subject areas are provided.

Table 8.4 Scope of supply (JSTS 2013, Student Survey; object characteristics; interview data)

• 2. Focus of Courses

The focus of courses represents the strongest indicator to measure the specialization of a juku. The actual range of supply of the sample’s juku was calculated based on students’ responses to the following item: “What kind of course do you attend at this juku? Multiple answers are possible” (Q18, Student Survey). Students could choose between five general study goals, as stressed in an earlier work (see Entrich 2014: 94): (1) enrichment (focus on contents beyond school curriculum), (2) remedial (focus on catching up in school), (3) study skills (focus on basic and advanced study methods and learning strategies), (4) entrance exams (focus on high school or university entrance exam preparation), and (5) school exams (focus on school test/exam preparation). Table 8.5 displays the final distribution of students according their responses.

Table 8.5 Focus of courses, in % (JSTS 2013, Student Survey)

Most students attend not only one but several courses at the same juku. As explained in Chap. 8, a strong focus on one or two of the five main study purposes would result in a classification as ideal juku-type (see Table 8.1). To be classified as shingaku juku, for example, students should generally attend entrance exam preparation lessons and additional enrichment lessons. However, the distribution of students according to courses also shows that all juku of our sample actually provide far more than the original classification according to the respective operator implies. In particular, smaller juku (JukuA to JukuE) show no clear main focus of courses.

Whereas almost all jukusei at these juku take classes where study skills are nurtured (a domain of doriru juku), differences are especially visible in the distribution of students to enrichment and remedial courses. Only at JukuA more students attend enrichment compared to remedial courses, even though preparation courses as the decisive feature of shingaku juku are attended by only 49% of the jukusei. In contrast, at ōte juku, a stronger specialization is found. At JukuF most students prepare for entrance exams and receive additional enrichment lessons, showing a strong focus on school transition preparation. Still, to classify this juku as shingaku juku would mean to overlook the high percentage of students who are actually receiving remedial and study skill lessons. The same applies for JukuH. According to this analysis, all juku of the sample show signs of a comprehensive approach and should be classified as sōgō juku.

• 3. Target Group

Whether juku generally target a certain group of students was indirectly measured by asking students the following question: “Which school do you currently attend? Please check only one box and fill in your current grade as well” (Q12, Student Survey). In addition, object characteristics served to gather data on the targeted student population, resulting in the overview shown in Table 8.6.

Table 8.6 Target group (JSTS 2013, Teacher Survey)

• 4. Teaching Approach

What kind of teaching approach juku actually provide was measured in the Teacher Survey by asking juku teacher and principals the following item: “Per month, how much does one class period cost at this institution? Please write the cost for one class period for every of the three options in the boxes below. If this institution does not offer any of the three options, please make a cross in column 2: ‘We do not offer this’” (Q08a/b/c, Teacher Survey). Table 8.7 shows which kinds of instruction the juku of the sample provide. According to these data, most juku already provide individual tutoring (kobetsu shidō); JukuF and JukuG have even specialized on this instruction style. Only JukuA, JukuB, and JukuD continue to primarily rely on class instruction (shūdan shidō).

Table 8.7 Teaching approach (JSTS 2013, Teacher Survey)

• 5. Relation to School

To find out whether there is a strong or weak connection to school curricular contents, on the one hand, the above described focus of courses proves meaningful, since students preparing for school tests and exams or with remedial needs generally need to receive instruction based on school curricula contents. In addition, personal observations, object characteristics, and interviews delivered the needed information leading to the categorization shown in Table 8.8. Accordingly, no juku of the sample has no relation to regular school.

Table 8.8 Relation to school (JSTS 2013, Teacher Survey)

• 6. Tuition Fees

One of the most interesting variables to measure the access to juku and their status is the level of tuition these schools charge. To measure this variable, the following item was included in the Teacher Survey: “Per month, how much does one class period cost at this institution? How much do you charge for one lesson (from … to …)” (Q08a/b/c, Teacher Survey).

According to these data, tuition fees vary considerably between the sampled schools. As shown in Fig. 8.2, the range of tuition fees for one course per month varies significantly between the different juku. The lowest tuition fees are charged by JukuC and JukuD, whereas JukuA and JukuB charge generally fees at a mediocre level. JukuE to JukuG offer courses from low to high tuition fees. In comparison, JukuH is highly expensive.

• 7. Advertising

Fig. 8.2

Range of tuition fees for one course per month, per juku, in Yen (JSTS 2013, Teacher Survey)

Data on the juku’s strategy to acquire students through advertisement is based on object characteristics, such as flyers, website information, etc., and interviews, leading to the categorization shown in Table 8.9. Based on this evaluation, there are general differences of the strategies used to acquire new students between by the kojin/chūshō juku and ōte juku of the sample. Whereas kojin/chūshō juku generally rely on word of mouth and a pedagogical approach, ōte juku rely primarily on commercial advertisement. Juku which understand themselves as shingaku juku or yobikō (JukuA, JukuE, JukuF, and JukuH) also place great importance on their success rate (gōkakuritsu), i.e., the percentage of their students which successfully enter prestigious schools.

Table 8.9 Advertisement strategies (JSTS 2013, Teacher Survey)