Using a natural experiment from South Korea’s high school equalisation policy area, we show that school-provided after-school classes reduce students’ time spent in private tuition and the associated household expenditure, as well as increase their likelihood of college attendance. Though high and low income groups use a different mix of unassisted study and private tuition to substitute for after-school class, both consume less private tuition as after-school class hours increase. Importantly, the likelihood of college attendance improves similarly for both high and low income groups. The findings suggest a role for after-school classes in improving the academic outcomes of students and reducing demand for private tuition, but their utility in reducing outcome inequality is less certain.
AuriniJDaviesS (2005) Choice without markets: Homeschooling in the context of private education. British Journal of Sociology of Education26(4): 461–474.
2.
BaeSOhHKimH. (2010) The impact of after-school programs on educational equality and private tutoring expenses. Asia Pacific Education Review11(3): 349–361.
3.
BallSJ (2003) The risks of social reproduction: The middle class and education markets. London Review of Education1(3): 163–175.
4.
BallSJBoweRGewirtzS (1995) Circuits of schooling: A sociological exploration of parental choice of school in social class contexts. The Sociological Review43(1): 52–78.
5.
BernsteinB (1970) Education cannot compensate for society. New Society15(387): 344–351.
6.
BourdieuPPasseronJC (1977) Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture. Sage Studies in Social and Educational Change. London: SAGE.
7.
BrayM (2013) Shadow education: Comparative perspectives on the expansion and implications of private supplementary tutoring. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences77: 412–420.
8.
ByunS (2010) Does policy matter in shadow education spending? Revisiting the effects of the high school equalization policy in South Korea. Asia Pacific Education Review11(1): 83–96.
9.
ByunSKimK (2010) Educational inequality in South Korea: The widening socioeconomic gap in student achievement. Research in the Sociology of Education17: 155–182.
10.
ClappJMNandaARossSL (2008) Which school attributes matter? The influence of school district performance and demographic composition on property values. Journal of Urban Economics63(2): 451–466.
11.
CollinsJ (2009) Social reproduction in classrooms and schools. Annual Review of Anthropology38: 33–48.
12.
DangHARogersFH (2008) The growing phenomenon of private tutoring: Does it deepen human capital, widen inequalities, or waste resources?The World Bank Research Observer23(2): 161–200.
13.
DaviesS (2004) School choice by default? Understanding the demand for private tutoring in Canada. American Journal of Education110(3): 233–255.
14.
DawsonW (2010) Private tutoring and mass schooling in East Asia: Reflections of inequality in Japan, South Korea, and Cambodia. Asia Pacific Education Review11(1): 14–24.
15.
FackGGrenetJ (2010) When do better schools raise housing prices? Evidence from Paris public and private schools. Journal of Public Economics94(1): 59–77.
16.
GewirtzSBallSBoweR (1994) Parents, privilege and the education market-place. Research Papers in Education9(1): 3–29.
17.
GrossmanJBPriceMLFellerathV. (2002) Multiple choices after school: Findings from the Extended-Service Schools Initiative. Education Resources Information Center [online].
18.
HahnYWangLCYangH (2014) Does greater school autonomy make a difference? Evidence from a randomized natural experiment in South Korea. Monash Economics Discussion Papers, Department of Economics, Monash University.
19.
HalpernR (2002) A different kind of child development institution: The history of after-school programs for low-income children. The Teachers College Record104(2): 178–211.
20.
IresonJ (2004) Private tutoring: How prevalent and effective is it?London Review of Education2(2): 109–122.
21.
JungJHLeeKH (2010) The determinants of private tutoring participation and attendant expenditures in Korea. Asia Pacific Education Review11(2): 159–168.
22.
KimSLeeJ (2002) The secondary school equalization policy in South Korea. Unpublished paper, KDI School of Public Policy and Management.
23.
KimSLeeJ (2010) Private tutoring and demand for education in South Korea. Economic Development and Cultural Change58(2): 259–296.
24.
KuHKwakDW (2013) Together or separate: Disentangling the effects of single-sex schooling from the effects of single-sex schools. School of Economics Discussion Paper No. 487, School of Economics, The University of Queensland.
25.
LauerPAAkibaMWilkersonSB. (2006) Out-of-school-time programs: A meta-analysis of effects for at-risk students. Review of Educational Research76(2): 275–313.
26.
LeeCJLeeHJangHM (2010) The history of policy responses to shadow education in South Korea: Implications for the next cycle of policy responses. Asia Pacific Education Review11(1): 97–108.
27.
LeeYS (2012) Educational tracking, residential sorting, and intergenerational mobility. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Department of Economics Williams College, Williamstown.
ParkHBehrmanJRChoiJ (2012) Causal effects of single-sex schools on college entrance exams and college attendance: Random assignment in Seoul high schools. Demography50: 447–469.
30.
ParkHByunSKimK (2011) Parental involvement and students’ cognitive outcomes in Korea: Focusing on private tutoring. Sociology of Education84(1): 3–22.
31.
PosnerJKVandellDL (1994) Low income children’s after school care: Are there beneficial effects of after school programs?Child Development65(2): 440–456.
32.
Scott-LittleCHamannMSJursSG (2002) Evaluations of after-school programs: A meta-evaluation of methodologies and narrative synthesis of findings. American Journal of Evaluation23(4): 387–419.
33.
WangLC (2015) All work and no play? The effects of ability sorting on students’ non-school inputs, time use, and grade anxiety. Economics of Education Review44: 29–41.
34.
WangLC (2016) The effect of high-stakes testing on suicidal ideation of teenagers with reference-dependent preferences. Journal of Population Economics29(2): 345–364.
35.
WhitehurstGJZevenbergenAACroneDA. (1999) Outcomes of an emergent literacy intervention from Head Start through second grade. Journal of Educational Psychology91(2): 261–272.
36.
Van ZantenA (2005) New modes of reproducing social inequality in education: The changing role of parents, teachers, schools and educational policies. European Educational Research Journal4(3): 155–169.
