Education outside of the regular curriculum is getting increasingly popular. Supplementary education can be defined as all forms of education that are additional to the regular educational curriculum, while shadow education is the often-used term for private supplementary education (e.g., Byun et al., 2018). In the Netherlands, the use of shadow education has become relatively normalized in secondary education, with about one third of families with children using at least one form of shadow education (Elffers & Jansen, 2019). During the past decade, shadow education has become increasingly intertwined with the educational programmes of Dutch publicly funded schools, e.g., in terms of funding, learning goals, and ownership. An increasing number of secondary education schools have structural collaborations with providers of shadow education (Elffers & Jansen, 2019; Education Council, 2021). The Education Council (2021) recently recommended the Dutch government and educational institutions to better protect the ‘publicness’ of education. However, at the moment, the Dutch government lacks a clear and coherent view on the publicness of education and what the impact of shadow education on the public character means (Waslander, 2021). This raises the question: To what extent is supplementary education reshaping the publicness of Dutch secondary education? This study investigates the impact of supplementary education on the publicness of education through the perspective of educational professionals. We used (group)interviews with educational professionals in Dutch secondary schools (n=29). Characteristics of publicness as set out by the Dutch Education Council (2021) were used as a framework for thematic analysis. These characteristics are: democratic goals, economic goals, relatability, open/accessible education, equality of opportunity, quality and involvement of educational professionals. Results indicate that several schools used shadow education during covid, but stopped using shadow education after being disappointed with the results. Many of these schools then started organizing these activities internally instead. Some schools freed up space in their regular curriculum for structural supplementary educational activities such as tutoring and talent development. While supplementary education may enable schools to increase publicness in some aspects (e.g., relatability), supplementary, and specifically shadow education, infringes on publicness in other aspects (e.g., quality, involvement of teachers). This study identifies several aspects of publicness according to the Education Council framework that are being reshaped by supplementary education and infringed on by shadow education. Future research should evaluate the practical impact of supplementary and shadow education. Insights should inform policy on regulating supplementary education.

Byun, S. Y., Chung, H. J., & Baker, D. P. (2018). Global patterns of the use of shadow education: Student, family, and national influences. In Research in the Sociology of Education (pp. 71–105). Emerald Group Publishing Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1479- 353920180000020004 Elffers, L., & Jansen, D. (2019). De opkomst van schaduwonderwijs in Nederland: Wat weten we en welke vragen liggen nog open? [The rise of shadow education in the Netherlands: What do we know and what questions remain?]. Universiteit van Amsterdam. Onderwijsraad [Dutch Education Council]. (2021). Publiek karakter voorop [Public Character first]. https://www.onderwijsraad.nl/publicaties/adviezen/2021/12/07/publiek-karakter-voorop Waslander, S. (2021). Het publieke karakter van onderwijs [The public character of education]. TIAS School for Business and Society.