Parentokrasinin Gölgesinde Özel Ders Olgusu: İlkokul Velilerinin Görüşleri

Öz

Özel ders ebeveynlerin eğitim sitemine dahil olmalarının bir yoludur. Özellikle ilkokul kademesindeki ebeveynler özel ders sürecinde aktif rol oynarlar. Bu araştırma ilkokul velilerinin özel dersle ilgili karar verme süreçlerini parentokrasi çerçevesinde incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Bu amaç doğrultusunda çoğunluğu orta ve yüksek gelir düzeyine sahip 51 devlet okulu velisinden görüşme yoluyla veri toplanmıştır. Veriler tematik analiz aşamaları izlenerek analiz edilmiştir. Veri analizi sonucunda ebeveynler çocuklarının okuldaki eğitimini desteklemek ve ortaokulda girecekleri ulusal sınavlarda çocuklarına rekabet avantajı sağlamak için çocuklarının özel derse ihtiyacı olduğunu düşünmektedirler. Ebeveynler çocukları için faydalı bir şey yapıyormuş hissi uyandırdığı için ve çocuklarının öğrenme sürecine hâkim hissettirdiği için özel ders sürecinde karar alıcı olmaktan dolayı kendilerini iyi hissederken özel ders sürecini takip etmenin getirdiği sorumluluktan dolayı da kötü hissettiklerini ifade etmişlerdir. Son olarak örgün eğitimde sınıf mevcutlarının azaltılması, okullarda birebir etüt desteği, sınıf öğretmeni değişikliği yapılabilmesi ve ulusal sınavların kaldırılması gibi koşulların oluşması halinde özel derse ihtiyaçlarının kalmayacağını belirtmişlerdir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Ebeveyn
• İlkokul
• Özel Ders
• Parentokrasi

The Phenomenon of Private Tutoring in the Shadow of Parentocracy: Primary School Parents' Perspectives

Öz

Private tutoring is a way for parents to become involved. Parents of elementary school students play an active role in the private tutoring process. This study aims to examine the decision-making processes of elementary school parents regarding private tutoring within the framework of parentocracy. Data was collected through interviews with 51 parents of public-school students, most of whom had middle to high income levels. The data were analyzed following thematic analysis stages. The data analysis revealed that parents believe their children need private tutoring to support their education at school and to give them a competitive advantage in the national exams they will take in middle school. Parents stated that they feel good about being decision-makers in the private tutoring process because it makes them feel like they are doing something beneficial for their children and that they are in control of their children's learning process, but they also feel bad because of the responsibility that comes with monitoring the private tutoring process. They stated that if conditions such as reducing class sizes in formal education, providing one-on-one tutoring support in schools, allowing changes in classroom teachers, and eliminating national exams were met, they would no longer need private tutoring.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Parent
• Primary School
• Private Tutoring
• Parentocracy

Destekleyen Kurum

Bu araştırmada herhangi bir kurum, kuruluş ya da kişiden destek alınmamıştır

Etik Beyan

Bu araştırma, İstanbul Okan Üniversitesi Eğitim Araştırmaları Etik Kurulunun 03.04.2024 tarih, 176 sayılı kararıyla onay verilmiştir.

Kaynakça

1. Abu‐Shawish, R. (2023). Students’ perspectives on the factors that influence the use of private tutoring usage in Qatar. Sage Open, 13(4), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440231210374
2. Apple, M. (2001). Comparing neo-liberal projects and inequality in education. Comparative Education, 37(4), 409–423. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050060120091229
3. Apple, M. (2004). Ideology and curriculum. New York: Routledge Falmer.
4. Atalmış, E., Yılmaz, M., & Saatcioglu, A. (2016). How does private tutoring mediate the effects of socio-economic status on mathematics performance? Evidence from Turkey. Policy Futures in Education, 14(8), 1135–1152. https://doi.org/10.1177/1478210316674159
5. Azan, A. & Arnott, S. (2024). From the peripheral to the transboundary: Documenting the lived experiences of students and parents with online math tutoring services. Canadian Journal of Family and Youth/Le Journal Canadien De Famille Et De La Jeunesse, 16(2), 67–90. https://doi.org/10.29173/cjfy30029
6. Bae (배상훈), S. H., & Choi (최기호), K. H. (2023). The cause of institutionalized private tutoring in Korea: Defective public schooling or a universal desire for family reproduction? ECNU Review of Education, 7(1), 12–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/20965311231182722
7. Baker, D., Akiba, M., LeTendre, G., & Wiseman, A. (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. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737023001001
8. Barrett DeWiele, C. E., & J. D. Edgerton. (2016). Parentocracy revisited: Still a relevant concept for understanding middle-class educational advantages? Interchange, 47(2), 189–210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10780-015-9261-7

9. Berberoğlu, G., & Tansel, A. (2014). Does private tutoring increase students’ academic performance? Evidence from Turkey. International Review of Education, 60(5), 683–701. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11159-014-9436-y
10. Bingölbalı, A., & Yavuz, C. (2021). Examination of the opinions of physical education and sports teachers working in private schools on the approach of education, teaching and management. Journal of Educational Issues, 7(2), 355-374. https://doi.org/10.5296/jei.v7i2.19128
11. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
12. Bray, M. (1999). The shadow education system: Private tutoring and its implications for planners. Paris: UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000118486
13. Byrne, B., & Tona, C. (2019). All in the mix. Manchester University Press. https://doi.org/10.7765/9781526139306
14. Brown, P. (1990). The “third wave”: Education and the ideology of parentocracy. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 11, 65–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142569900110105
15. Brown, P. (2000). The globalisation of positional competition? Sociology, 34(4), 633–653. https://doi.org/10.1177/S0038038500000390
16. Cambridge, J. (2005). Book review: Education and social change. Journal of Research in International Education, 4(1), 117–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/147524090500400109
17. Chan, C., & Bray, M. (2014). Marketized private tutoring as a supplement to regular schooling: liberal studies and the shadow sector in Hong Kong secondary education. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 46(3), 361–388. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2014.883553
18. Dale, R. (2000). Globalization and education: Demonstrating a “common world educational culture” or locating a “globally structured educational agenda”? Educational Theory, 50(4), 427–448. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-5446.2000.00427.x
19. Dang, H., & Rogers, F. 2008. The growing phenomenon of private tutoring: Does it deepen human capital, widen inequalities or waste resources? World Bank Research Observer, 23, 161–200. https://dx.doi.org/lkn004
20. Doherty, C., & Dooley, K. (2018). Responsibilising parents: The nudge towards shadow tutoring. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 39, 551–566. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2017.1377600
21. Entrich S. R., & Lauterbach W. (2021). Fearful future: Worldwide shadow education epidemic and the reproduction of inequality outside public schooling. In Kim Y. C., & Jung J. H. (Eds.), Theorizing shadow education and academic success in East Asia: Understanding the meaning, value, and use of shadow education by East Asian students (pp. 234–255). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003097860
22. Green, A. (1990). Education and state formation: The rise of education systems in England, France and the USA. Macmillan. Giroux, H. (2004). Public pedagogy and the politics of neo-liberalism: making the political more pedagogical. Policy Futures in Education, 2(3-4), 494–503. https://doi.org/10.2304/pfie.2004.2.3.5
23. Giroux, H. (2010). Rethinking education as the practice of freedom: Paulo Freire and the promise of critical pedagogy. Policy Futures in Education, 8(6), 715–721. https://doi.org/10.2304/pfie.2010.8.6.715
24. Guill, K., Lüdtke, O., & Köller, O. (2019). Assessing the instructional quality of private tutoring and its effects on student outcomes: Analyses from the German national educational panel study. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(2), 282–300. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12281.
25. Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed (30th anniversary ed.). Bloomsbury.
26. Hirsch, E. D. (1996). The schools we need and why we don’t have them. Doubleday.
27. Hultberg, P., Calonge, D., & Choi, T. (2021). Costs and benefits of private tutoring programs: the south korean case. International Journal of Social Economics, 48(6), 862–877. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijse-12-2019-0722
28. Kang, L., Jing, M., Tao, X., & Duan, Y. (2021). Research on online management system of network ideological and political education of college students. International Journal of Electrical Engineering Education, 60(2_suppl), 377-388. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020720920983704
29. Kim, S., & Lee, J.-H. (2010). Private tutoring and demand for education in South Korea. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 58(2), 259–296. https://doi.org/10.1086/648186.
30. Kobakhidze, M., & Šťastný, V. (2023). Theoretical perspectives on the role of parents in shadow education. Studia Paedagogica, 28(2), 73–95. https://doi.org/10.5817/sp2023-2-4
31. Kok, J., & Ang, S. (2013). Liquid modernity and choice of university degree programmes: Malaysian university students’ perception. Journal of Sociology, 51(4), 984–1002. https://doi.org/10.1177/1440783313492236
32. Kumar, S., Pandita, P., & Singh, K. (2024). To be on the seventh sky’: Exploring the nature and push of key factors in Indian parents’ choice for shadow education. Education, 3-13, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2024.2412993
33. Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310
34. Liu, J. (2019). A structural equation modelling analysis of parental factors underlying the demand for private supplementary tutoring in China. ECNU Review of Education, 2(1), 7–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/2096531119840856.
35. Luplow, N., & Schneider, T. (2014). Social selectivity and effectiveness of private tutoring among elementary school children in Germany. Zeitschrift Für Soziologie, 43(1), 31–49. https://doi.org/10.1515/zfsoz-2014-0104.
36. Mahmud, R. (2021). Family socioeconomic determinants and students’ demand for private supplementary tutoring in English in urban and rural Bangladesh. Education and Urban Society, 57(7), 831–851. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124520974332.
37. Majumdar, M. (2014). The Shadow School System and New Class Divisions in India: Multitudes of customers throng the gates of the education bazaar. Bonn: Max Weber Stiftung. TRG Poverty and Education: Working Paper Series. https://perspectivia.net/receive/ploneimport_mods_00011898.
38. Melo, B., Diogo, A., & Ferreira, M. (2016). O regresso dos exames do 4.º ano: Escola, crianças e dinâmicas familiares na blogosfera. Sociologia Problemas E Práticas, 2016(81), 141-161.https://doi.org/10.7458/spp2016817617
39. Mikkelsen, S. H., & Gravesen, D. T. 2021. “Shadow education in Denmark: In the light of the Danish history of pedagogy and the scepticism toward competition. ECNU Review of Education, 4(3), 546–565. https://doi.org/10.1177/2096531120983335.
40. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı. (2023). Ulusal formal eğitim istatistikleri 2022-2023. National Education Printing House. https://istatistik.meb.gov.tr/
41. Murgatroyd, S., & Sahlberg, P. (2016). The two solitudes of educational policy and the challenge of development. Journal of Learning for Development, 3(3), 9-21. https://doi.org/10.56059/jl4d.v3i3.147
42. Nath, S. R. (2008). Private supplementary tutoring among primary students in Bangladesh. Educational Studies, 34(1), 55–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055690701785285.
43. Oller, A. C., & Glasman, D. (2013). Education as a market in France. In Bray, M., Mazawi, A. E., & Sultana, R. G. (Eds.), Private tutoring across the mediterranean. Comparative and international education. Sense Publishers, 77-91. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6209-237-2_5.
44. Olssen, M., & Peters, M. A. (2005). Neoliberalism, higher education and the knowledge economy: From the free market to knowledge capitalism. Journal of Education Policy, 20(3), 313–345. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680930500108718
45. Özdere, M. (2021). The demand for private tutoring in Turkey: An analysis of private tutoring participation and spending. Journal of Education and Learning, 10(3), 96-111. https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v10n3p96
46. Pallegedara, A., & Mottaleb, K.A. (2018). Patterns and determinants of private tutoring: The case of Bangladesh households. International Journal of Educational Development, 59, 43–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2017.10.004.
47. Park, H., Byun, S., & Kim, K. (2010). Parental involvement and students’ cognitive outcomes in Korea. Sociology of Education, 84(1), 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038040710392719
48. Patton, M. Q. (2014). Nitel araştırma ve değerlendirme yöntemleri (M. Bütün, & S. B. Demirel, Çev.). Pegem Akademi Yayınevi.
49. Rahmouni, M., & Saidi, N. (2023). Household demand for private tutoring in tunisia. International Journal of Education Economics and Development, 14, 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijeed.2023.125451
50. Rodríguez, E. (2013). Child- centered pedagogies, curriculum reforms and neoliberalism. many causes for concern, some reasons for hope. Journal of Pedagogy/Pedagogický Casopis, 4(1), 59–78. https://doi.org/10.2478/jped-2013-0004
51. Salinas-Atausinchi, Y., & Huaman-Lucana, R. (2021). Critical pedagogy: An emancipatory alternative in the neoliberal context. Revista Innova Educación, 3(4), 146–161. https://doi.org/10.35622/j.rie.2021.04.011.en
52. Skourdoumbis, A., & Gale, T. (2013). Classroom teacher effectiveness research: A conceptual critique. British Educational Research Journal, 39(5), 892-906. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3008
53. Tan, P. (2017). Advancing inclusive mathematics education: strategies and resources for effective IEP practices. International Journal of Whole Schooling, 13(3), 28–38.
54. Türkan, A. (2019). Ortaöğretim 12. sınıf öğrencilerinin özel derse yönelik eğilim düzeyleri ve görüşlerinin tespit edilmesi [Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi]. Yıldız Teknik Üniversitesi.
55. Yin, X., Zhang, H., & Chen, M. (2024). The influence of parents’ education anxiety on children’s learning anxiety: The mediating role of parenting style and the moderating effect of extracurricular tutoring. Frontiers in Psychology, 15, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1380363
56. Yung, K., & Zeng, C. (2021). Parentocracy within meritocracy: Parental perspective on lecture-style English private tutoring in Hong Kong. Language and Education, 36(4), 378–394. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2021.1981924
57. Zhang, Y., & Xie, Y. (2015). Family background, private tutoring, and children’s educational performance in contemporary China. Chinese Sociological Review, 48(1), 64–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/21620555.2015.1096193
58. Zhang, W., & Bray, M. (2020). Comparative research on shadow education: Achievements, challenges, and the agenda ahead. European Journal of Education, 55(3), 322–341. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12413