Examining Private Tutoring Phenomenon in Georgia
Report
Tbilisi, Georgia 2011
George Machabeli [email protected]
Tamar Bregvadze - [email protected]
Revaz Apkhazava - [email protected]
განათლების პოლიტიკის, დაგეგმვისა და
მართვის საერთაშორისო ინსტიტუტი
The International Institute for Education
Policy, Planning and Management
Content 1. Foreword ............................................................................................................................................... 3
1.1. Private Tutoring and Education System ........................................................................................ 3
1.2. Private Tutoring: International Perspective .................................................................................. 3
1.3. Private Tutoring: Georgian Context .............................................................................................. 5
1.4. Current study................................................................................................................................. 7
2. Research Goals and Objectives ............................................................................................................. 7
3. Research Methodology ......................................................................................................................... 8
3.1. Sampling Design ............................................................................................................................ 8
3.2. Questionnaire ................................................................................................................................ 9
Piloting of the tool ................................................................................................................................. 9
3.3. Field Work ................................................................................................................................... 10
Training of interviewers ...................................................................................................................... 10
Revision of questionnaires .................................................................................................................. 10
Control of fieldworks ........................................................................................................................... 11
4. Results of the study ............................................................................................................................. 12
4.1. Assessment of the quality of g4eneral education ....................................................................... 12
Quality of general education in schools and in the country ............................................................... 12
Reform components and education quality ....................................................................................... 12
Quality of teaching of subjects and teachers ...................................................................................... 13
4.2. Scale of private tutoring .............................................................................................................. 13
Perceptions about the prevalence and importance of tutoring ......................................................... 13
Scope of private tutoring according to location, family income and general education steps .......... 13
Subjects in which students take tutoring ............................................................................................ 14
Types of tutoring and service providers .............................................................................................. 14
4.3. Reasons for private tutoring ....................................................................................................... 14
4.4. Private tutoring and education expenditures ............................................................................. 15
5. Findings and recommendations .......................................................................................................... 16
5.1. Findings ....................................................................................................................................... 16
5.2. Recommendations ...................................................................................................................... 17
6. References ........................................................................................................................................... 19
1. Foreword
The given document attempts to describe and analyze private tutoring in Georgia. The report has
been prepared by the International Institute for Education Policy, Planning and Management.
The study was conducted in autumn 2011 with the financial support of the East-West Management
Institute grant program - Development of Public Policy, Advocacy and Civil Society in Georgia.
1.1. Private Tutoring and Education System
Private tutoring (PT) is a well-documented and growing phenomenon throughout the world. Defined
as “tutoring in an academic school subject … taught in addition to mainstream schooling for financial
gain”, PT can take many forms, including individual private lessons or larger group preparatory
courses (Silova, Budiene, & Bray, 2006). In some regions, private tutoring has long been a widespread
aspect of educational cultures, while in others the practice began to expand only recently. Long
unacknowledged in most settings, PT has attracted increasing attention from researchers in the last
decade. Much of the available literature about PT has attempted to define its effects on formal
education systems and ascertain appropriate policy responses to it. However, this task has proved
difficult due to the highly contextualized nature of PT and the difficulty in conducting research about
it. Still enigmatic and somewhat ill-defined in most places, PT is commonly characterized as “shadow
education,” because it depends upon and responds to the formal education systems to which it is
inextricably connected (Bray, 2009).
1.2. Private Tutoring: International Perspective
Private tutoring is a complex and context-dependent activity that can have both positive and negative
effects. On the positive side, private tutoring can supplement the incomes of teachers with
inadequate salaries, increase student learning, provide a constructive extracurricular activity for
youth, and improve human capital for societies. Unfortunately, PT can also add the pressure many
children face when preparing for national tests and entrance examinations, and it can be a heavy
financial burden for families. PT can also increase social inequalities, given that families with more
money are most able to afford it. Since tutoring activities are not generally regulated, governments
may also be deprived of potentially substantial tax revenue. (Silova, Budiene, & Bray, 2006; Dang &
Rogers, 2008).
Most damaging for education as an institution, PT can also contribute to corruption and thus
adversely affect the quality of formal schooling. A common form of PT-related corruption occurs
when teachers deliver only a portion of the required curriculum during school hours, and provide the
full curriculum only to students who pay to receive private tutoring from them. Corrupt practices
also occur frequently in higher education, when professors and lecturers provide answers to
university entrance exams or ensure admission for their private students. Such corruption not only
adversely affects educational quality, but also degrades the reputation of teachers and perverts the
ethics of the teaching profession (Silova, Budiene, & Bray, 2006, Bray, 2009).
Of course, not all of these positive and negative outcomes are present in every national context, and
the purpose, intensity, and scope of PT varies from country to country. In Japan, for example,
tutoring primarily takes place in groups at tutoring schools called juku. According to a 2007 survey,
although only 15.9% of first grade students attend juku, by secondary school this rate jumps to 65.2%
(Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, and Sport, 2008, quoted in Bray, 2009). Throughout East
Asia generally, high-achieving students tend to pursue tutoring more often than low achievers, so
tutoring does not carry a stigma for learners as it often does elsewhere. The nature of PT is different
in Kenya, where a 1997 national sample of 3233 students in sixth grade revealed that 68.6% received
individual PT, and that PT was much more common in urban areas and for boys. As in most of the
countries of the former Soviet Union, tutoring provision in Africa is driven in part by teachers with
low salaries and low supervision. In Canada, by contrast, a phone survey of 501 households with
school-aged children showed that only 9.4% of the households currently paid for PT, and 8.4% had
in the past. This fits a general pattern for North America, where tutoring is generally less common
than in Asia and the former Soviet Union, but is on the rise (Bray, 2009).
Governments have typically responded to PT in one of four ways: ignoring the problem through a
lack of policy, attempting to ban PT activities, regulating PT, and actively encouraging PT (Bray,
2009; Dang & Rogers, 2008).
Ignoring PT is a common reaction, and governments may choose to do so because they lack
the resources or political will to act upon it, are embarrassed by it, or because PT is judged not
to have adverse effects on the formal education sector.
Every attempt to ban tutoring has failed to date, though the reasons for this failure differ. In
Cambodia and Myanmar, for example, a ban on tutoring failed because the government did
not have the capacity to enforce the ban, while bans in Korea and Mauritius failed due to
vehement resistance from teachers, parents, and students (Bray, 2003; Silova, Budiene, &
Bray, 2006).
Governments that regulate PT most commonly do so by prohibiting teachers from tutoring
their own students, or by creating a registration system for PT providers to better monitor PT
and collect taxes.
Those that actively encourage tutoring tend to do so through subsidies and training courses
for tutors, or by promoting tutoring for certain students. In the United States, for example,
one provision of the national No Child Left Behind policy provides for tutoring to students
with low standardized test scores (Bray, 2003; Silova, Budiene, & Bray, 2006; Dang & Rogers,
2008).
While ignoring and banning tend to be ineffective and inefficient ways of dealing with PT,
encouraging and regulating PT generally are more successful approaches (Bray, 2009). Exactly how to
regulate or encourage PT, however, is a difficult question, and the answer depends upon the
circumstances of the individual educational context.
Understanding the effects of private tutoring on a given education system is often difficult, not only
because the specifics of each individual context vary, but because PT research is generally scarce.
Also, conducting research can be difficult, as parents, students, and teachers all tend to be reluctant to
discuss PT. Nonetheless, the demand for a framework to interpret PT and its effects in a given
context has grown as researchers and policymakers have searched for appropriate responses to it.
Given that the scope, effects, and causes of PT vary so extensively, the most important ingredient in
determining a response to PT is accurate and representative information about it (Dang & Rogers,
2008).
1.3. Private Tutoring: Georgian Context
In Georgia, PT has a history dating back to the Soviet era, when PT was most commonly utilized for
university entrance examination preparation. Although statistics are not available on PT from that
time, it is thought that the practice was not widespread because the Soviets implicitly discouraged it
as inequitable and only the elite could afford it (Silova, Budiene, & Bray, 2006).
After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Georgia was wracked by social and economic turmoil from
which its education system has never fully recovered. Due to the wars in Abkhazia and South Ossetia
in the early 1990s and the resulting economic crisis, education spending plummeted during this
period. Between 1990 and 1994, GDP fell by 75%, greatly reducing the funds available to the
government. While in 1991, Georgia spent approximately 7% of its GDP on education, this figure fell
to below 1% in 1994. This is an astonishing drop “unique in the history of education systems
worldwide” (Silova, Budiene, & Bray, 2006). Although the economy slowly recovered, by 1998
education spending had only climbed back to 2.4% (World Bank, 2001), and spending by 2005 was
still only 2.2% (Silova, Budiene, & Bray, 2006). The world average is approximately 5% (UIS, 2011).
More important than this drop in spending itself have been the effects on teachers and the teaching
profession. Since teacher salaries constitute the majority of education spending, severe spending cuts
inevitably lead to much lower salaries. In 2005, teachers made only 80 GEL per month, which is
108% of a minimum subsistence wage, while the average Georgian salary was 150 GEL. These low
salaries were an incentive for teachers to find other professions if they could, and a major
disincentive for those entering the workforce to become teachers (Silova, Budiene, & Bray, 2006).
Additionally, the special social status teachers enjoyed under a Soviet system that prized education
and subsidized it heavily slowly eroded, and the prestige of the profession faded (Silova, 2009).
Teachers began to turn to PT as a way to subsidize their incomes, and the profession became
increasingly unattractive for the most talented and qualified candidates (Silova, Budiene, & Bray,
2006).
The effects of the educational crisis in Georgia hit higher education hard as well. Professors and
lecturers, just as teachers in general education, experienced deep pay cuts and began to look for ways
to supplement their incomes. At the same time, higher education institutions began to proliferate in
response to the demand for university degrees in post-Soviet Georgia. These two factors combined to
create an atmosphere rife with corruption, in which parents often sought tutoring for their children
from professors who sat on admissions committees, with the expectation that answers to entrance
examinations would be provided or that favorable consideration would result (Janashia, 2004).
Corruption permeated the higher education system so that, according to a 2004 Transparency
International report, “A student (could) practically buy his or her way through the institution, paying
for every exam and, ultimately, a diploma” (Meier, 2004).
Although the Higher Education Law of 2004 instituted a national entrance examination and other
reforms that cleaned up corruption in higher education, PT has retained a formidable presence in
general education in Georgia. Although data about PT in Georgia is nearly non-existent, there was
one high-quality study conducted by the Open Society Institute in 2004 that examined PT in nine
former Soviet countries including Georgia. The study surveyed 839 first-year university students
attending universities in Tbilisi, Batumi, and Telavi, and 500 secondary students in Tbilisi. Notably,
over 80% of students received some form of PT during the last year of secondary school in Georgia,
and 75% of those receiving tutoring studied with a tutor for three or more hours per week. Despite
the fact that most PT is exam-related, 65% of students reported received regular tutoring throughout
the year. These figures place PT in Georgia higher in scope and intensity than any other country in
the study except for Azerbaijan (Silova, Budiene, & Bray, 2006).
The study also found that most PT is examination-related and tends to align with the subjects
required for the national university entrance examination: math, Georgian, and foreign languages.
61.5% of the university sample identified university entrance exam preparation as the main reason to
pursue PT (Silova, Budiene, & Bray, 2006).
PT statistics from the study also raise serious concerns about the role of PT in perpetuating
educational and social inequality in Georgia. While 70.1% of those who took PT had parents with
university degrees, only 2.7% of those who took PT had parents with an elementary or lower
education (Silova, Budiene, & Bray, 2006). Although PT helps individual students, it is potentially
exacerbating existing educational inequalities.
In 2009-2010 EPPM carried out the second stage of the study of private tutoring. Unlike the first
stage of the study main focus was placed on identifying the opinions of different stakeholders about
private tutoring and the development of specific recommendations for regulating the phenomenon.
No attempt of establishing a precise scope of private tutoring in Georgia has taken place following
2004; although, in the opinion of educational experts, representatives of various structures of the
Ministry of Education and Science, principals, teachers and parents private tutoring was still
prevalent. In their opinion although the overall scope of the private tutoring has remained almost
unaltered the structure of providers and beneficiaries of private tutoring has changed.
According to the study: the share of academic staff of higher educational institutions among tutors
has decreased, and the share of school teachers has increased considerably; demand for tutors has
remained almost unchanged at the final step of general education although the demand has increased
at primary and basic steps.
Important changes took place in the education system of Georgia following 2004: unified national
exams were introduced, new general normative documents regulating teaching and learning under
the general education were developed – national objectives of general education and the national
curriculum, new textbooks were prepared and school management model was changed.
According to the results of the study conducted by Transparency International (2005) as a result of
the introduction of unified national exams in Georgia the level of corruption in the process of
enrollment in higher educational institutions has decreased significantly.
The study confirmed that despite reduction of main factor conditioning the scope of private tutoring
the scale of the phenomenon is still large. Therefore, there was a presumption that the demand for
private tutoring is driven by new, different factors that, in turn, are related to the changes in the
educational system and in the general context.
1.4. Current study
Despite some evidence of very high rates of PT in Georgia and potentially serious negative impacts on
the education system, the decision-makers have not officially responded to the issue to offset these
challenges. The government does not recognize the existence of PT in any formal framework or
document, including its general education strategies for 2007-2011 and 2010-2015, which do not
even mention the phenomenon (MoES, 2007; MoES, 2010). Respectively, we can assume that
government response to PT is generally not effective.
Very little is known quantitatively and qualitatively about PT in Georgia, so it is difficult to weigh
potential policy responses without further information. This study seeks to expand upon what is
known about PT in Georgia in an effort to make recommendations and initiate a national policy
debate about PT.
2. Research Goals and Objectives
The goal of the study was to describe PT practice in Georgia and analyze its impact on the general
educational system.
Main points of the study were to ascertain/determine the status of the following as of 2011:
determine the scope of PT in Georgia;
determine the intensity of PT at different levels of general education;
identification of the providers and beneficiaries of PT service;
study of main reasons conditioning the demand for the service (social, economic,
educational);
analysis of expenditures incurred by parents on PT relative to state funding of general
education.
analysis of effect/impact of PT on the education system.
3. Research Methodology
Quantitative method – face-to-face interview method was used in the study. In spring and autumn of
2011 parents of the students of various steps and graduates of general schools were interviewed.
For analyzing PT we also used the results of the quantitative study conducted by EPPM on the same
topic in 2004 as well as those of the qualitative study of 2010– the transcripts of in-depth interviews
with the employees of the MES and centers, representatives of teachers’ and principals’ trade union,
NGO’s, school teachers and parents.
3.1. Sampling Design
The basis for sampling strategy for the quantitative survey was the hypothesis that the prevalence and
intensity of private tutoring would be different according to the location (Tbilisi, cities, villages) and
the levels of general education.
Respectively, in addition to Tbilisi, towns and villages of all regions of Georgia -- Adjara, Guria,
Imereti, Kakheti, Mtskheta-Mtianeti, Samegrelo, Samtskhe-Javakheti, Kvemo Kartli and Shida Kartli
were selected for the study.
Data from the Census was used as a sampling frame. A total of 1,200 interviews were conducted, with
the following breakdown:
Region
Number of interviews
to be conducted in
towns/cities
Number of interviews
to be conducted in
village
Total number of
interviews to be
conducted
Tbilisi 400 0 400
Adjara 50 30 80
Guria 20 20 40
Imereti 110 80 190
Kakheti 30 70 100
Mtskheta-Mtianeti 10 20 30
Samegrelo 60 50 110
Samtskhe-
Javakheti
20 30 50
Kvemo Kartli 60 60 120
Shida Kartli 40 40 80
Total number of
interviews 800 400 1200
Another important angle for sampling was the levels of general education. Four segments were
determined that envisaged the sampling of families with children of the following grades:
1. segment 1 – 2nd-6th graders;
2. segment 2 – 7th -9th graders;
3. segment 3 – 10th -11th graders;
4. segment 4 – graduates of current year (2011).
The number of the interviews to be conducted by segments was determined for all regions,
considering towns/cities and villages that is provided in the following table:
Region
Town Village
Segm
ent
1
Segm
ent
2
Segm
ent
3
Segm
ent
4
Segm
ent
1
Segm
ent
2
Segm
ent
3
Se3
gmen
t 4
Tbilisi 100 100 100 100 0 0 0 0
Adjara 12 12 13 13 7 8 7 8
Guria 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
Imereti 28 28 28 26 21 19 20 20
Kakheti 7 8 7 8 17 18 18 17
Mtskheta-
Mtianeti
3 2 2 3 6 5 5 4
Samegrelo 15 15 15 15 12 12 13 13
Samstskhe-
Javakheti
5 5 5 5 7 8 7 8
Kvemo Kartli 15 15 15 15 14 15 15 16
Shida Kartli 10 10 10 10 11 10 10 9
Total 200 200 200 200 100 100 100 100
As a result, the study was conducted by adhering to the number of interviews envisaged under the
sampling and in full compliance with all sampling criteria.
Respondents for the interviews were identified according to the steps, in compliance with selection
criteria. When conducting interviews interviewers controlled the number of the segments provided
to them preliminarily (four segments according to the students of various grades) and selected the
families according to the step respectively. Interviewers were instructed to select as a respondent the
member of the family that is mainly in charge of taking decisions about education of children.
3.2. Questionnaire
Piloting of the tool
10 pilot interviews were conducted for finalizing the format of the questionnaire. To ensure that as a
result of pilot interviews complexity of the study was identified as much as possible respondents were
selected from different categories. Respondents for pilot interviews were selected on the basis of main
study sample that has to be representative of Georgia, to enable to characterize the following types of
sub-groups:
2nd -6th graders
7th -9th graders
10th -12th graders
current year graduates (entrants)
Respondents were questioned according to the above-mentioned categories as follows:
3.3. Field Work
Face-to-face interviews in Tbilisi and in all regions under the study was launched according to the
pre-determined timeframes – started on September 13 and ended on September 19. Research
Company ACT Research partnered with the EPPM in the performance of field works. Field staff
comprised field manager, nine regional coordinators and 62 interviewers.
In addition to the above-mentioned staff logical control and coding specialist and field quality control
specialist participated in fieldworks.
Training of interviewers
Prior to the fieldwork training of the staff involved in field works was conducted in two stages: at the first stage training was delivered to 20 participating interviewers in Tbilisi. The mentioned training
was attended also by the logical control and coding specialist; at the second stage training of regional
coordinators, i.e., the training of trainers was planned. Later (on the following day) regional
coordinators delivered training to selected interviewers in their region (a total of 42 interviewers).
At both stages trainings were delivered by an analyst and were attended by the field manager.
At each training the matters related to the questionnaire and the field in general were covered:
rules of filling out a questionnaire;
rules for completion of the survey form;
timeframes of fieldworks and logistical issues.
Timeframes of fieldworks and logistical planning was reviewed by the field manager at the training.
Revision of questionnaires
Logical control of questionnaires was performed by the revision specialist that implied the control of
conformity of the completion of each questionnaire with instructions, discovery of logical
imprecision and fixing those. Logical control of questionnaires was performed in all regions to be
studied, including in Tbilisi, a total of 1200 filled out questionnaires were controlled that means a
100% control.
No significant impropriety was identified according to the results of logical control of questionnaire
Category Number
Entrants (school graduates) 3
2nd grader 1
3rd grader 2
5th grader 1
6th grader 1
9th grader 1
12th grader 1
Total 10
in fieldworks.
Control of fieldworks
Data quality control was performed using a telephone control method that envisages checking
information via a telephone call to a relevant respondent. Quality control was performed in all survey
regions, including Tbilisi. A total of 340 interviews were checked using a telephone control method.
Monitoring was conducted for 6 days according to the monitoring form prepared preliminarily. 2
specialists were involved in the monitoring process. No impropriety was discovered in fieldworks
according to the quality control results.
4. Results of the study
4.1. Assessment of the quality of general education
Quality of general education in schools and in the country
Majority of surveyed respondents think that over the past two years the quality of general education
in Georgia has improved. Mainly the following reasons were listed as the ones causing the
improvement of education quality: making discipline more stringent, stricter requirements towards
students, introduction of teacher certification and school exit exams, as well as infrastructure
development. Although, the attitudes of respondents towards this issue in Tbilisi, big towns and
villages are different.
According to the survey results the trend of the improvement of the quality of general education is
more obvious in villages, while the attitude of Tbilisi population is relatively skeptical – almost half of
the surveyed respondents think that education quality over the past two years has not changed or has
worsened.
According to interviewers respondents, in general, found it difficult to answer this question for many
conceptual changes in the system were effected only recently and talking about results is premature.
By this stage respondents, in general, value the quality of general education as average. According to
the steps there is no significant difference in general opinion about quality of education although
results in regions are different, in villages assessment in higher and decrease as we move towards
Tbilisi.
We asked the respondents to assess education quality in their own school as well. In regional context
the trend is the same – assessments are higher in regions and become lower as we move towards
Tbilisi although it is interesting that significant differences by levels were identified in the
assessments of own schools - in a final grade assessment is lower than in other grades.
Notably in the capital and in regional towns the assessment of own school quality is higher than
general assessment of school education quality. We can presume that in villages the situation of
specific schools is more in conformity with the reform context as compared to the capital.
Respectively, general assessments of quality in villages is a generalization of the example of a specific
school while Tbilisi respondents view the general situation of education quality in the country and a
specific example of their own schools separately.
Reform components and education quality
In the opinion of the surveyed respondents teacher certification and assessment exams had the most
positive impact on education quality.
Respondents mainly assess various components of the reform positively. There are no significant
differences between the region and Tbilisi in this direction other than the school guard (school
police) issue because the practice of school officers is still less spread in regions. Teacher certification
and assessment exams were assessed most positively.
In the opinion of respondents school attendance indicators improved that was one of the objectives of
the latest interventions implemented in the education field.
In general in the opinion of the majority of surveyed parents children do not miss school without
cause and the attendance rate in schools is high. There are no significant differences between Tbilisi
and region in general indicators of attendance although differences can be observed according to the
grades. Attendance component is rated higher at the primary grades as compared to the basic grades.
Quality of teaching of subjects and teachers
Respondents, overall, rate the quality of the teaching of specific subject matters in the school as
average as well. They rate primary education, teaching of Georgian and history relatively high, and
rate teaching of natural sciences (biology, physics, and chemistry) as relatively low. In region and
villages respondents rate the quality of teaching of all subjects higher than in the capital. The only
exception is geography where there is no difference in the assessments between regions and the
capital. According to the steps significant differences in the rating of the quality of teaching of
subjects were identified in math, chemistry, biology and physics, in these subjects rating of the
quality of teaching decreases with higher steps.
Rating of teacher quality in general is above average. Assessment of the teachers of natural sciences is
relatively low.
According to steps the difference in the quality of teachers was identified only in math. At higher
step respondents are more dissatisfied with math teachers than at lower steps. As for regional
perspective the rating of the quality of teachers according to all subjects is lower in Tbilisi than in
regional towns and villages.
4.2. Scale of private tutoring
Perceptions about the prevalence and importance of tutoring
More than 90% of respondents think that it is necessary to take tutoring in general skills as well as
school subjects. This indicator was higher In Tbilisi than in regions.
One in five respondents categorically thinks that it is necessary to take tutoring in skills. No
differences were identified according to steps in terms of the perception for the need to take tutoring.
Perception of respondents about the prevalence of tutoring is different between regions and the
center. In Tbilisi 59% of surveyed respondents think that the majority of school students take
tutoring and in villages only 27% share this opinion.
Scope of private tutoring according to location, family income and general education levels
According to survey results actual situation is different from the opinions of respondents. Last year
one from four school students was taking private tutoring in Georgia, although the scale of taking
tutoring is different in Tbilisi (35%) and villages (19%).
The study confirms that the scale of tutoring is related to family income. The share of private tutoring
(64%) in families with high income is considerably higher than the share of tutoring in families with
low income (24%). It is interesting that about half of those who do not take private tutoring list the
lack of funds as a reason. 60% of respondents in villages stated this reason.
With the exception of primary level we have statistically significant differences in the scale of
tutoring according to income everywhere.
Further, significant differences were identified in the scale of private tutoring according to levels of
general education – it increases with the increase of levels (primary, basic, secondary), in a final grade
57% of students use tutoring, and in primary grades – only 15%.
There are no differences in terms of private tutoring in private and state schools. In villages and
regional towns next year more respondents plan to use private tutoring for their children than this
year.
Subjects in which students take tutoring
Students that use private tutoring services are mostly taking tutoring in Georgian (23%), math (48%),
foreign language (78%), and skills (13%). According to the scale of the tutoring in subjects there are
differences according to the levels of general education.
Indicators of tutoring in foreign language are very high. About 4/5 of those who take tutoring in each
level has a private tutor in English.
Of those who use tutoring service at primary and basic levels they take tutoring at most in three
subjects, at middle grades in 4 subjects (8% take tutoring in 4 subjects), in final grades – at most in 9
subjects (47% of students take tutoring in more than 4 subjects).
Types of tutoring and service providers
Majority of students at the primary level take individual tutoring, and at the final steps –group
tutoring.
88% of students pay for services, and 5% reimburse in-kind. Majority of tutors (69%) are school
teachers. It is interesting that despite official prohibition according to information provided by 13%
of respondents class teachers provide private tutoring to their students.
4.3. Reasons for private tutoring
Majority of respondents list poor quality of school education as the main reason for the prevalence of
private tutoring (53%). At the same time, more than half of surveyed respondents think school is not
in a position to substitute tutoring service.
Further, in the opinion of 40% of respondents demand for tutoring is a result of inadequacy of the
content learned in school with the requirements at the exam.
According to the results of survey of school graduates about 82% of those who applied to the
universities last year was taking tutoring as well as more than half of the students that had not
applied to university took private tutoring in a final grade (54%). Presumably the group that did not
plan to continue study in higher education institution was preparing for high school exit exams.
The share of enrollment at universities from those entrants who took private tutoring is significantly
higher (82%) than of those who did not take tutoring (53%).
4.4. Private tutoring and education expenditures
State expenditures on general education from 2004 have been increasing in absolute indicators, but its
share in Gross Domestic Product has not changed significantly and ranges within 2% with minor
changes. Share of funding of general schools (350,865,700 GEL) in education (542,128,300GEL) is
64.7% as of 2010 actual data. (By National Bank rate 1USD- 1.67 GEL)
In addition to the government parents make significant contribution in funding of general education
as well. On the basis of the survey results the expenditure of parents on education ranges within
about GEL 300 million which is 85.5% in relation to state funding of general education schools.
Share of private tutoring in the expenditures borne by parents for general education is 40%, which
shows that in relation to state funding of general education schools the share of tutoring is about
35%.
In the budget of families that have school age children education expenditures rate second following
expenditures on food. On average tutoring and textbooks have equal share in education expenditures
and make up 80% overall.
5. Findings and recommendations
5.1. Findings
Currently one in four students takes tutoring in Georgia. Indicators increase on upper levels
of general education and reach critical indicators in a final grade. Scope is different in the
center and the region, as well as in high and low income groups. Respectively, almost all of
final grade students from high income families that live in the capital use tutoring.
Demand for private tutoring is considerably higher than actual indicators of usage of the
service – the necessity of private tutoring is confirmed by 90% of the total number of
surveyed respondents. 60% of surveyed respondents that do not take tutoring state the lack of
funds as the only reason.
Respondents are of the opinion that taking tutoring has significant impact on vertical
mobility (grows the chances of entering university). Although to prove an opinion it is
necessary to conduct more in-depth. It is necessary to have credible data about what impact
private tutoring has on academic achievement of a student, indicators of learning outcomes
and the enrollment at universities. Since service is not affordable to all who are willing to use
it private tutoring in terms of access to education causes the problem of social inequality.
Although after the introduction of national exams corruption at entrance exams has been
eliminated in the final grade the scale of tutoring has not reduced as compared to 2004. Over
this period the number of subjects in which private tutoring service is used has increased. If
before just a quarter of students was taking tutoring in more than three subjects in the final
grade now this indicator has increased and almost doubled, which causes the increase of
general cost of tutoring for the beneficiaries of services and increases demand for service
providers.
As compared to 2004 the structure of service providers has changed significantly – university
professors were replaced by school teachers. Under the law school teachers are not allowed to
provide tutoring to their own students, although such facts can still be observed and this
practice has decreased only marginally as compared to 2004, which can partly be due to the
shortage of service providers.
According to study results two main factors are listed to cause demand for tutoring – poor
quality of school education and mismatch of knowledge gained at school with exam
requirements. If in the final grade the scale of tutoring can be explained by the preparation
for exams the prevalence of tutoring at basic and middle steps indicates to increased demand
of parents for higher quality. Especially that in Georgia end of year exams for transferring to
the following grade are not mandatory.
Despite the reform underway in general education field quality of education in Georgia by
this stage is not rated as high and it is significantly different between Tbilisi and villages.
Village population rates current quality of education higher and they see the trend of its
improvement more than in Tbilisi.
School attendance indicators at this stage are high; this, in the opinion of respondents,
indicates to the success of changes undertaken by the Ministry in this direction. Although the
growth of attendance indicators in school, especially in high grades, are probably conditioned
more by external motivators (making control mechanisms and sanctions more stringent) than
internal motivators (possibility to obtain quality education). This is partially confirmed by the
fact that in high grades teaching quality is still rated as poor and the indicators of tutoring are
high.
Assessment of teacher quality according to all subjects in Tbilisi is lower than in regional
towns and villages. According to steps significant differences in the assessment of quality of
teaching subjects was identified in math, chemistry, biology and physics, in these subjects
assessment of teaching quality decreases with higher grades.
Despite the intensive process of reforming education in the country the scale of private
tutoring is still large. Which can in part be explained by the increase of value of education
among society for finding employment and the difference between demand for and supply of
knowledge. I.e., by the fact that school education still does not fully respond to the demand of
the society.
5.2. Recommendations
It is important that the state does not ignore the practice of private tutoring; on the contrary, it is
necessary to factor it in strategies focused on the development of education system and to set correct
tasks. It is necessary in the first place to clearly determine state policy in relation to this phenomenon
although this should not be a mechanical involvement, banning and the creation of disproportionate
control mechanisms. Formation of definite vision related to the tutoring practice will facilitate the
development of orchestrated policy for responding to it. As a result, it will become possible to
develop a strategy related to tutoring practice oriented at long-term and short-term results, or
reflecting in segments in different education strategies.
In the long run it is necessary to maintain the trends of increasing the funding of the system.
Declaring education as one of the priorities by the state creates favorable conditions for ensuring
adequate funding of the system. It is necessary to gradually increase the share of education in GDP,
which, according to 2011 data is only 2.7% and at the first stage it to be made equal to the indicators
of neighboring countries (Armenia, Azerbaijan), and for the following stages to increase to reach
average indicators of Europe, i.e., 5%. The fact should also be taken into account that in Georgia low
share of education funding is significantly compensated by high indicator of private sector funding
which is 85.5% in relation to state funding of general education and 0.8% of GDP. (For comparison,
share of private sector in GDP in Baltic States as of 2008: Estonia – 0.3%; Lithuania – 0.52%; Latvia –
0.6%). Increase of funding can significantly ease the burden of private funding for parents and
contribute to the change of indicator within a regular range. Increase of funding cannot definitively
ensure the increase of learning and teaching quality, unless mechanisms for purposeful allocation and
rational spending of increased funds are formed. Further, unless the control over the spending of
funds is improved. Quality assurance segments (increase of teacher qualification, improvement of
quality of school management, improvement of textbooks, etc.) should be made a priority for
directing resources. Further, it is necessary that the state does not overlook the interest of the
disadvantaged groups (IDPs; national minorities; children from low income families; children with
disabilities and special education needs, etc.) and ensure to safeguard their basic rights and
integration in the society through the funding of relevant programs.
In the short run several complex measures need to be pursued in order to offset partially, or in some
cases, fully, the risks caused by private tutoring:
First of all it is necessary to minimize the significant difference that exists between the
demand of parents for quality education and provision of service. This requires systemic focus on the improvement of the education quality under the reforms underway in the system. It is
necessary to further stimulate and develop the decentralization of management at the school
level. It is necessary to increase the role of parents in the determination of school priorities,
budgeting, planning of the learning process, control and evaluation. It is important to develop
capacity of school community – development of knowledge and skills in assuring the quality
of education process and development. A school should be able to itself proactively identify
deficiencies in educational process; ensure the availability of this information to all
stakeholders and the involvement of these parties in the determination and implementation
of gap elimination strategy. In this direction schools require development and consultations.
The MES should ensure the involvement of qualified providers – higher education
institutions and other private providers in the planning and implementation of training
programs.
The reduction of importance of a compensatory component of tutoring can be regarded as
one of the means for the reduction of the scale of private tutoring. Respectively, school curriculum and the requirements of national exams should be synchronized as much as possible. At this stage shifting focus to the exams by the state and the weakness of education
quality control mechanisms is a strong incentive for the use of private tutoring services. It is
necessary to develop education quality management mechanisms in schools throughout the
entire period of teaching and for continuing education at the following stage to move to the
system of using the results of unified assessment exams instead of unified national entrance
exams. In turn, assessment exams should be diversified and they should be held upon
finishing the subject course that will contribute to the elimination of the function of the
tutors of refreshing the forgotten content and that will also serve a incentive for adding new
content to develop more knowledge and skills of students of secondary level (10th-12th
grades), instead of refreshing the content covered at previous levels and the preparation for
school exit exams.
By this stage it is necessary to continue and expand teacher incentive programs and to make
them more diverse. In addition to financial incentives to use other forms as well, such as
certain tax breaks, health insurance and other social packages, additional vouchers for
professional development, etc.
It is important to make a teacher’s profession attractive and prestigious for the society that
will certainly promote attraction of new professionals to the field from other related fields
(for example, hiring various subject teachers from among academia representatives).
It is important to continue supporting surveys related to private tutoring for a more detailed
study and analysis of the phenomenon. It is also important that the Ministry of Education and
Sciences to be a main initiator for policy study in this direction, given the interests of the
country.
6. References
Bray, M. (2003). Adverse effects of private supplementary tutoring: Dimensions, implication, and
government responses. UNESCO International Institute for Educational Planning, Paris. Retrieved from
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001330/133039e.pdf
Bray, M. (2009). Confronting the shadow education system: What government policies for what
private tutoring? UNESCO International Institute for Educational Planning, Paris.
Dang, H.A., & Rogers, F. H. (2008). How to interpret the growing phenomenon of private tutoring:
Human capital deepening, inequality increasing, or waste of resources? The World Bank
Development Research Group. Retrieved from http://econ.worldbank.org.
Janashia, N. (2004). Fighting corruption in Georgia’s universities. Academe, September/October.
Retrieved from http://www.aaup.org.
Meier, B. (2004). Corruption in the education sector: An introduction. Transparency International and
the Christian Michelsen Institute.
Ministry of Education and Science of Georgia (MoES). (2007). Consolidated education strategy
and action plan. Author, Tbilisi.
Ministry of Education and Science of Georgia (MoES). (2010). General education reform strategy.
Author, Tbilisi.
Silova, I. (2009). The crisis of the post-Soviet teaching profession in the Causasus and Central Asia.
Research in Comparative and International Education, 4(4). 366 – 383.
Silova, I., Budiene, V., & Bray, M. (2006). Education in a hidden marketplace: Monitoring of private
tutoring. Open Society Institute, New York.
UNESCO Institute of Statistics (UIS). (2011). UIS data tables. www.uis.unesco.org.
World Bank. (2001). Project appraisal document: Georgia education system realignment and
strengthening program. Author, Washington, D.C.
Top Related