Shadow education (an umbrella term for various forms of private supplementary tutoring) is a global phenomenon with serious implications for mainstream schooling as well as educational inequalities. Empirical evidence has pointed to a potential negative backwash on schooling when tutored students find school instruction boring or may even skip classes because of tutoring, it has uncovered unethical practices of schoolteachers who privately tutor their own students and analysed related social and educational inequalities, as more affluent parents may afford more quantities and qualities of tutoring for their children (Bray, 2009). It is a globally expanding phenomenon, and Europe is no exception. Furthermore, it is currently expanding even in countries where it was rare before, such as in Scandinavia (Bray, 2021).

Much of the scholarly literature so far has focused on macro or meso-level determinants of shadow education existence and has solicited data from tutors, students or teachers. However, parents are the main decision-makers in relation to the procurement of private tutoring for their children (Ireson & Rushforth, 2014), and yet their role remains under-researched. Various aspects of parental demand for shadow education for their children have been addressed only partially by previous shadow education research, and mostly in Asian contexts. Quantitative studies have focused on measurable determinants of parental demand and investigated, for example, psychological incentives (Ireson & Rushforth, 2014) or the role of socioeconomic status (e.g., Entrich, 2020). Only one study from China by Liu and Bray (2020) investigated how patterns of demand for private tutoring by individual parents emerged, expanded, decreased or terminated at different times, showing that the decision to arrange private tutoring is not a one-off process. They also identified various factors that influenced parental choices regarding private tutoring, such as choices of tutoring subjects, tutors, schedules, tutoring types or tutoring centres.

The present paper is part of a larger qualitative study that explores why and how Czech parents make decisions about private tutoring (i.e., before, during and after the termination of private tutoring) for their children. In the paper, we explore the initial parental decision to procure private tutoring for their child with the aim to answer the following research question: Why do parents decide to arrange private tutoring for their child and which factors influence their decision in which ways?

We frame our research findings in a wider theoretical model (Hoover-Dempsey & Sandler, 1997; Walker et al., 2005; Whitaker, 2019) that explains parental decision-making to become involved in their child’s education and how their involvement translates into student learning and achievements. The model stipulates that the decision for parent involvement is influenced by parental motivational beliefs (role construction and self-efficacy), their perceptions of invitations to involvement by others (school, child or teacher) and their perceived life context (e.g., time, energy, skills and knowledge, or family culture). In our study, we conceptualize shadow education as a specific form of parental involvement, and Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler’s modified model thus seems suitable as a conceptual lens to frame our findings from the qualitative study, which involved Czech parents who decided to buy private tutoring for their children.

Although the study reports on Czech parents and their motivations and decision-making processes regarding shadow education, its findings may also be pertinent to other European countries. The study shows, for example, how parents think about tutoring for entrance examinations in the context of early tracked systems, present also in Germany, the Netherlands or Slovakia, among others, but it also addresses more universal factors that are likely to be relevant to parents in most European countries, for example parental anxiety, educational competition or the role of school in forming parental decision-making.

Design The study is part of a larger project that employs grounded theory approach to bring a better understanding of parental rationales for buying shadow education, thus, it approaches the research problem qualitatively and is grounded in an interpretivist and constructivist paradigm. Sampling The main study informants were parents (mothers, fathers or legal guardians) of lower secondary schoolchildren (about 11- to 15-year-olds) who decided to procure private tutoring of any kind for their child in the recent past or who were currently considering doing so. The sampling strived to achieve theoretical saturation by keeping the principle of maximum variation in mind, thus it consisted of 37 informants from larger cities as well as smaller towns across the country, with tertiary education as well as with upper secondary education at most. It also covered various types of tutoring (remedial, enrichment or exam preparation). The recruitment of participants was done through social networks (especially Facebook), through advertisements in schools and also through personal contacts of the research team. Parents were also recruited through the snowball technique. Data collection The primary data collection method were semi-structured interviews. The interview protocol was developed and structured to cover the main areas of research interest (motivations to initiate private tutoring of the child, choice of tutoring, decisions while private tutoring was ongoing). The semi-structured interviews were conducted both in person and online and lasted on average 58 minutes. The data collection period started in February 2022. Eight participants received follow-up interviews to study the evolution of parental decision-making and reasoning vis-à-vis the evolving contexts of private tutoring. Two participants allowed for a deeper investigation by interviewing the tutored children and private tutors. This helped to secure a deeper understanding of the parental decision-making processes in a mid- and long-term perspective. Data analysis All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. The interview transcriptions were coded using open and axial coding, both deductive and inductive analytical approaches were used as researchers rely both on preliminary codes and also develop new codes in the analytical process. The constant comparison approach was used to analyse the collected data (Corbin & Strauss, 2014).

Parents in our sample perceived that caring for the educational needs of their children is a part of their parental role. This driver motivated not only their decision to buy private tutoring, but also other forms of involvement in their child’s education. Parents perceived limitations in their available time or in subject-related and pedagogical competencies as the main barrier for their own involvement in tutoring. In addition, parents expected that hiring an external tutor would increase their child’s motivation, willingness to learn and improve their attitudes towards the subject and studying in general. Invitations from the school or teachers were mostly implicit. Parents did not perceive the school as a partner, but rather an institution that was unable by definition to satisfy their child’s educational needs. They felt unable to change it in any way. Thus, private tutoring was perceived as a solution to poor schooling quality or to the setup of the education system (high-stake exams related to early tracking). Some parents even perceived private tutoring as more important for learning than the school itself. Explicit invitations from children were considered by parents as well, though the initial decision lied mainly with parents. Usually, the children only initiated demand for private tutoring if they had prior positive experience with it. Furthermore, parents were outsourcing a part of their parental duties to the tutors and involve themselves as proxies, rather than directly. After the private tutoring started, they remained actively involved (e.g., by monitoring the child’s progress, to check work that was done by the tutor) to make further informed decisions. The study adds to the existing scholarly literature on shadow education by providing a a thorough exploration of psychological factors that form parental decision-making for their proxy involvement in their children’s education in a form of procuring shadow education.

Bray, M. (2009). Confronting the shadow education system: What government policies for what private tutoring?. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization; International Institute for Educational Planning. Bray, M. (2021). Shadow education in Europe: Growing prevalence, underlying forces, and policy implications. ECNU Review of Education, 4(3), 442-475. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2014). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Sage Publications. Entrich, S. R. (2020). Worldwide shadow education and social inequality: Explaining differences in the socioeconomic gap in access to shadow education across 63 societies. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 61(6), 441-475. Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., & Sandler, H. M. (1997). Why do parents become involved in their children’s education? Review of educational research, 67(1), 3-42. Ireson, J., & Rushforth, K. (2014). Why do parents employ private tutors for their children? Exploring psychological factors that influence demand in England. Journal for educational research online, 6(1), 12-33. Liu, J., & Bray, M. (2020). Evolving micro-level processes of demand for private supplementary tutoring: Patterns and implications at primary and lower secondary levels in China. Educational Studies, 46(2), 170–187. Walker, J. M., Wilkins, A. S., Dallaire, J. R., Sandler, H. M., & Hoover-Dempsey, K. V. (2005). Parental involvement: Model revision through scale development. The elementary school journal, 106(2), 85-104. Whitaker, M. (2019). The Hoover‐Dempsey and Sandler Model of the Parent Involvement Process In book edited by Steven B. Sheldon and Tammy A. Turner-Vorbeck, The Wiley Handbook of Family, School, and Community Relationships in Education (pp. 421-443). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.