Studies of parental involvement and children’s education in a variety of contexts can provide valuable insights into how the relationships between parental involvement and student outcomes depend upon specific local contexts of family and education. Korean education is distinctive with its high prevalence of private tutoring, which not only imposes an economic burden on parents but also requires parents’ time and efforts to select the best kind of private tutoring for their children and to keep track of their academic progress by interacting with private tutors. Here, data from a longitudinal survey in Korea that has traced 7th-graders for two years were used to investigate the determinants and the effects of parents’ private tutoring–related activities in comparison to other types of home-based and school-based parental involvement. Multivariate analysis shows that parents’ efforts in selecting and monitoring private tutoring are significantly associated with increased math and English test scores. Features of Korean education in which private tutoring becomes an important strategy for parents to enhance children’s education are described, and the broader implications of the findings, beyond the local context, are discussed.
AhnHyeon-HoRieuDong-Min. 2004. “Why Do Economists Disagree with the High School Equalization Policy?” Korea Journal44:174–8.
2.
AstonNan M.McLanahanSara S.1991. “Family Structure, Parental Practices and High School Completion.” American Sociological Review56:309–20.
3.
BakerDavid P.LeTendreGerald K.2005. National Differences, Global Similarities: World Culture and the Future of Schooling. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
4.
BakerDavid P.StevensonDavid L.1986. “Mothers’ Strategies for School Achievement: Managing the Transition to High School.” Sociology of Education59:156–67.
5.
BakerDavid P.AkibaMotokoLeTendreGerald K.WisemanAlexander W.2001. “Worldwide Shadow Education: Outside-school Learning, Institutional Quality of Schooling, and Cross-national Mathematics Achievement.” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis23:1–17.
6.
BrayMark. 1999. The Shadow Education System: Private Tutoring and Its Implications for Planners. Paris: IIEP-UNESCO.
7.
BrayMark. 2009. Confronting the Shadow Education System: What Government Policies for What Private Tutoring?Paris: IIEP-UNESCO.
8.
ByunSoo-yongKimKyung-keun. 2008. “Parental Involvement and Student Achievement in South Korea: Focusing on Differential Effects by Family Background” (in Korean). Korean Journal of Sociology of Education18:39–66.
9.
ByunSoo-yongKimKyung-keun. 2010. “Educational Inequality in South Korea: The Widening Socioeconomic Gap in Student Achievement.” Research in the Sociology of Education17:155–82.
ChoeSang-Hun. 2009b. “Tech Company Helps South Korean Students Ace Entrance Tests.” The New York Times, June2. p. B4 (the New York edition).
12.
DaviesScott. 2004. “School Choice by Default? Understanding the Demand for Private Tutoring in Canada.” American Journal of Education110:233–55.
13.
DawsonWalter. 2010. “Private Tutoring and Mass Schooling in East Asia: Reflections in Inequality in Japan, South Korea and Cambodia.” Asia Pacific Education Review11:14–24.
14.
DesimoneLaura. 1999. “Linking Parental Involvement with Student Achievement: Do Race and Income Matter?” Journal of Educational Research93:11–30.
15.
DominaThurston. 2005. “Leveling the Home Advantage: Assessing the Effectiveness of Parental Involvement in Elementary School.” Sociology of Education78:233–49.
16.
DowneyDouglas B.1995. “When Bigger Is Not Better: Family Size, Parental Resources, and Children’s Educational Performance.” American Sociological Review60:746–61.
17.
DowneyDouglas B.2002. “Parental and Family Involvement in Education.” Pp. 113–34 in School Reform Proposals: The Research Evidence, edited by AlexMolnar. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Pub.
18.
EpsteinJoyce. 2001. School, Family, and Community Partnerships: Preparing Educators and Improving Schools. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
19.
FanXitao. 2001. “Parental Involvement and Students’ Academic Achievement: A Growth Modeling Analysis.” The Journal of Experimental Education70:27–61.
20.
HernandezJavier C.2009. “The Big Cram for Hunter High School.” The New York Times, January3. p. A13 (the New York edition).
21.
HoSui-Chu. 2006. “Social Disparity of Family Involvement in Hong Kong: Effect of Family Resources and Family Network.” School Community Journal16:7–26.
22.
HoSui-ChuWillmsJ. Douglas. 1996. “Effects of Parental Involvement on Eighth-Grade Achievement.” Sociology of Education69:126–41.
23.
HungChih-Lun. 2005. “Family Background, Parental Involvement and Environmental Influences on Taiwanese Children.” Alberta Journal of Educational Research51:261–76.
24.
KeithTimothy Z.1991. “Parental Involvement and Achievement in High School.” Advances in Reading/Language Research5:125–41.
25.
KimKyung-keun. 2003. “Modification of the Equalization Policy and Suggested Policy.” Korea Journal43:200–14.
26.
KimKyung-keun. 2008. “Rapid Increase of Educational Attainment” (in Korean). Pp. 82–90 in Korean Social Trends 2008, edited by Statistical Research Institute. Seoul: SRI.
27.
KimMi-SookKangYoung-HaeParkSo-YoungHwangYeo-JungLeeHee-Sook. 2006. Scales of the Entrance Examination Industry and Its Development: A Study of the Entrance Examination Industry and College Admission Policy (in Korean). Seoul, Korea: Korean Educational Development Institute.
28.
KimMi-SookLeeHeehyunCheongGyungran. 2008. A Study on the Expansion of Ability Grouping between Classes for Promoting Excellence (in Korean). Seoul, Korea: Korean Educational Development Institute.
29.
KimSunwoongLeeJu-Ho. 2001. “Demand for Education and Developmental Stats: Private Tutoring in South Korea.” Social Science Research Network Electronic Paper Collection. Retrieved July 1, 2008 (http://papers.ssrn.com/paper.taf?abstract_id=268284).
30.
KimYang-boonKimSung-sikKangSang-jinKimHyun-chulShinJong-hoParkSung-ho. 2006. Korean Educational Longitudinal Study 2005 (II) (in Korean). Seoul, Korea: Korean Educational Development Institute.
31.
KimYoungchun. 2008. Sending Your Child to a Hakwon (in Korean). Seoul: Brenz.
32.
KimYong Hee. 2002. “A Study of Adolescents’ School Adjustment in Poor Families–With the Mediating Role of Maternal Involvement” (in Korean). Korean Journal of Community Living Science13:1–14.
33.
KohlO.G.LenguaL.J.McMahonR.J.2007. “Parent Involvement in School Conceptualizing Multiple Dimensions and Their Relations with Family and Demographic Risk Factors.” Journal of School Psychology38:501–23.
34.
Korea National Statistical Office (KNSO). 2008. Results from the 2007 National Survey of Private Tutoring Expenditures. Daejeon, Korea: KNSO.
35.
Korean Educational Development Institute (KEDI). 2009. Annual Report of Educational Statistics (in Korean). Seoul: KEDI.
36.
LareauAnnette. 1989. Home Advantage: Social Class and Parental Intervention in Elementary Education. New York: Falmer Press.
37.
LeeDoo-hyoo. 2008. “A Study on Parental Culture: Focused on Parents’ Educational Support Activities for Children” (in Korean). Korean Journal of Sociology of Education18:135–65.
38.
LeeChong JaeLeeHeesookJangHyo-Min. 2010. “The History of Policy Responses to Shadow Education in South Korea: Implications for the Next Cycle of Policy Reponses.” Asia Pacific Education Review11:97–108.
39.
LeeJung-woo. 2002. “The Financial Crisis and Economic Inequality in Korea.” Korea Journal42:178–203.
40.
LeeJu-ho. 2004. “The School Equalization Policy of Korea: Past Failures and Proposed Measure for Reform.” Korea Journal44:221–34.
41.
LeeSeyong. 1998. “Family Involvement in Korean Secondary Schooling” (in Korean). Journal of Korean Education25:114–42.
McNealRalph B.Jr.1999. “Parental Involvement as Social Capital: Differential Effectiveness on Science Achievement, Truancy, and Dropping Out.” Social Forces78:117–44.
44.
MullerChandra. 1993. “Parent Involvement and Academic Achievement: An Analysis of Family Resources Available to the Child.” Pp. 77–113 in Parents, Their Children, and Schools, edited by SchneiderBarbaraColemanJames S.Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
45.
MullerChandra. 1995. “Maternal Employment, Parental Involvement, and Mathematics Achievement.” Journal of Marriage and the Family57:85–100.
46.
NamKyung Hee. 2004. A Study on the Relationship between the Class Culture of Parents and the Screening Policy (in Korean). EdD dissertation. Department of Education, Dongguk University, Seoul, Korea.
47.
OswaldHansBakerDavid P.StevensonDavid L.1988. “School Charter and Parental Management in West Germany.” Sociology of Education61:255–65.
48.
PaikSusan J.2001. “Introduction, Background, and International Perspectives: Korean History, Culture, and Education.” International Journal of Educational Research35:535–607.
49.
ParkHyunjoon. 2007. “Inequality of Educational Opportunity in Korea: Gender, Socioeconomic Background, and Family Structure.” International Journal of Human Right11:179–97.
50.
ParkHyunjoon. 2008. “The Varied Educational Effects of Parent-Child Communication: A Comparative Study of Fourteen Countries.” Comparative Education Review52:219–43.
51.
Seoul Metropolitan Government. 2009. 2008 Seoul Survey (in Korean). Seoul: Seoul Metropolitan Government.
52.
SethMichael J.2002. Education Fever: Society, Politics, and the Pursuit of Schooling in South Korea. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press.
53.
SorensenClark W.1994. “Success and Education in South Korea.” Comparative Education Review38:10–35.
54.
UNICEF. 2002. A League Table of Educational Disadvantage in Rich Nations. Innocenti Report Card No. 4. UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre, Florence.
55.
YimIlyoung. 2010. “Monthly Payment for Private Tutoring per Household in Seoul, 580,000 Won” (in Korean) Seoul Daily, March9, p. 5.
56.
YimMi-JinKimEun-Ha. 2008. “Working Moms Also Need Basic Network” (in Korean). JoongAng Daily, September19, p. 5.
57.
ZhouMinKimSusan S.2006. “Community Forces, Social Capital, and Educational Achievement: The Case of Supplementary Education in the Chinese and Korean Immigrant Communities.” Harvard Educational Review76:1–29.
