Examining Private Tutoring Phenomenon in Georgia

Report

Tbilisi, Georgia 2011

George Machabeli -machabeli@eppm.org.ge

Tamar Bregvadze - tambregvadze@hotmail.com

Revaz Apkhazava - revaz@eppm.org.ge

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.