Worldwide, an increasing number of students seek private supplementary tutoring, known as ‘shadow education.’ Various studies report social class differences in the use of shadow education. High-SES families may invest in shadow education as a form of concerted cultivation, seeking to improve their children’s school achievement. In this study, we apply meta-analytic structural equation modeling to explore relationships between parental education, income, and the use of shadow education across nations and educational contexts. We find robust relationships between parental education, income and the use of shadow education. Moreover, we assess a mediating role of shadow education in the relationship between SES and achievement. Shadow education appears to fulfill a competitive function for privileged families who seek to secure advantage in educational competition. We conclude that educational research, particularly research concerned with inequality of opportunities, needs to take account of the progressively prominent position of shadow education in the educational landscape.
Families in the Netherlands consisting of individuals falling into a variety of racialized migrant categories, are often the focus of governmental scrutiny and scientific curiosity. These ‘migrant families’ are constructed in a variety of ways, all which make it possible to center them as the object of interventions aiming to address their assumed cultural distance and their ‘traditional’ way of life, often within the discourse of ‘integration’ and within government mandated civic integration programmes. The paradox arises when these migrant families, problematized in their traditionality, their ‘unmodernity’, are seen as a threat to the Dutch ‘modern’ families and what are seen as their own national Dutch ‘traditions’. Embracing ‘tradition’ is therefore simultaneously seen as a sign of a lack of progress when attributed to migrant families, while also seen as something which must be protected, as an inherent characteristic of national identity of the modern Dutch nation state. This paper aims to explore this paradox and the constructions of the modern and unmodern family by focusing on the everyday doing of these families, and how they are studied and described in a variety of knowledge production reports. The everyday, and the description and governance of it, is a site which contributes to the (re)production of the logics of modernity, yet it is often ignored or left unseen, perhaps because of its assumed mundanity. What hierarchical descriptions exist in these reports between migrant and Dutch families on how daily family life is organized, enacted in parent child interactions, in gender roles, in community involvement, in celebratory traditions, and in work/leisure activities? How do these everyday activities, act as signifiers of the extent to which the doing of modern values (such as equality, solidarity, participation, and freedom) are enacted in everyday life in migrant vs Dutch families. Understanding these constructions, and the role that scientific research publications play in (re)producing them, will be explored to better understand how the normalization of these logics set the stage for the further scrutiny and discipline of these migranticized families.
MULTIFILE
Family nursing conversations (FNC) are planned conversations between a care recipient, one or more family members, and a nurse. FNC, in the Netherlands, are intended to strengthen family functioning and family communication, improve collaboration between family and professional caregivers, and prevent overburden of family caregivers. This study aims to explore families’ experiences with FNC, and their perspectives on the benefits of FNC.Methods: A total of 26 participants (9 care recipients, 17 family members) from 11 families participated in a FNC and this qualitative study. Seven home health care nurses trained in FNC conducted these conversations as part of their daily practice. Four to six weeks after the FNC, care recipients and family members were interviewed about their experiences, and the perceived effects or benefits of the FNC. Interviews were semi-structured, face-to-face, and individual. Data collection continued until saturation had been reached. A grounded theory approach was used to analyze the data.Results: Participants experienced FNC as structured and open communication about the care situation. During the FNC, participants felt that they gained a clear overview of the care situation and that relationships among the FNC-participants improved. Participants reported that FNC decreased family members’ burden, and resulted in care that was more tailored to the care recipient’s needs.Conclusions: From the results of this study a model is proposed for families’ experiences with and perceived benefits of FNC. In a subsequent study, this model will be tested in a quantitative cost effectiveness study with a larger sample.
LINK
