Global Learning Fever Beyond Schooling: Calling It as Shadow Education Enough?
The feld of curriculum studies is devoted to understanding the role of curriculum in education. Yet, traditionally it has emphasized ways to improve school curricula (Pinar, 2011). This preoccupation has left the feld with an excessive focus on the structure of school curricula, both internally (school subjects, assessment, and curriculum reforms) and externally (economic expectations of the society and individual job preparation). Following scholarly critiques of the feld for its narrow focus, in the 1970s curriculum studies began to be reconceptualized. Since then, it has expanded to incorporate a ‘cacophony of voices’ (Pinar, Reynolds, Slattery, & Taubman, 1995). As a result, ‘curriculum’ can now be defned in many ways.
As ‘the term curriculum [emphasis original] is many things to many people’ (Aoki, 2005a, p. 94), some have bemoaned the conceptual complexity brought about by the resulting variety in how people defne and conceptualize curriculum. Yet Jung and Pinar (2016) wrote that ‘we do not see this as a terrible problem to be immediately fxed, but as the character of curriculum to be acknowledged, and celebrated’ (p. 33). Vague concepts can be highly problematic in the so-called hard sciences such as physics—but in social sciences, including curriculum studies, they may signal the ‘aliveness of the feld’ (Jung & Pinar, 2016) and even be considered ‘inevitable’ in order for the feld to develop (Pinar et al., 1995). In this sense, our intellectual efforts to understand curriculum are ‘unruly’—what Pinar (2015) referred to as a ‘complicated conversation.’
© The Author(s) 2019
Y. C. Kim and J.-H. Jung, Shadow Education as Worldwide Curriculum Studies, Curriculum Studies Worldwide, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03982-0_1
This book celebrates the unruliness of curriculum by focusing on a new type of curriculum: shadow curriculum, which is an individually based supplementary or enrichment curriculum provided to encourage academic success. Importantly, we consider shadow education not as a mere product of the ‘education fever’ affecting schooling in many countries, which drives parents and students to seek any means to improve achievement. But rather, we consider shadow education to be an important educational space where students—as independent agents, rather than passive individuals who merely consume existing culture of education— participate in, understand, and co-produce their learning culture. From this perspective, we endeavor to contribute new concepts and perspectives to understand shadow education without resorting to a defnitive and prescriptive conceptualization of shadow education.
Curriculum studies are a complicated feld: It takes a ‘deterritorialized approach’ not only to ‘challenge the secular dominant curriculum canon, but simultaneously to address in a timely manner some of the sinkholes with the very counter-dominant perspectives’ (Paraskeva & Steinberg, 2016, p. 18). The American Association for the Advancement of Curriculum Studies Canon Project Committee referred to the hope that ‘curriculum canon of the future that will represent a plurality of diverse voices, experiences, and ideas’ (Whitlock, 2012). How can we, as curriculum scholars from the Far East, contribute to a deterritorialized approach that incorporates a plurality of diverse voices? We believe that by bringing shadow education into curriculum scholarship, we can provide a counter-narrative to dominant perspectives.
By suggesting that shadow curriculum should be incorporated into our understanding of curriculum, this book contributes to the development of curriculum studies, which has continually incorporated diverse ideas, cultures, and the phenomenon of education in different places, and is informed by various disciplines (Gough, 2003; Malewski, 2010; Slattery, 2012). Over the last few decades, the proliferation of theories and defnitions of curriculum has contributed to the development of the feld. The reconceptualization movement of the 1970s challenged the traditional idea of curriculum and ushered in a multi-discursive academic effort to understand curriculum (Pinar et al., 1995).
For the sake of brevity, this introduction discusses only a few of the more infuential defnitions of curriculum. Ellis (2004) categorized curriculum as prescriptive, descriptive, or both, while Jackson (1992) defned curriculum as ‘all experiences planned and unplanned, that occur
under the auspices of the school’ including ‘unwanted outcomes of schooling’ (p. 8) that might be associated with the hidden curriculum (Apple, 1990; Jackson, 1968; McLaren, 1994), the unstudied curriculum (Overly, 1970), the unwritten curriculum (Dreeben, 1976), the null curriculum (i.e., what is not offered, or what is sacrifced in favor of what is offered; Eisner, 1979; Flinders, Noddings, & Thornton, 1986), and the out-of-school curriculum (Schubert, 1981).
Beginning in the USA in the 1970s, various conceptualizations of curriculum became associated with political aspects of society, especially the concept of the hidden curriculum (Apple, 1979a, 1979b, 1990; Giroux, 1981a, 1981b; Liston, 1986). This began with neo-Marxist theories associated with class, hegemony, and ideology. By the 1980s, conceptualizations began to incorporate race (especially in the USA), culture (especially in Canada), gender (Grumet, 1988), and sexuality (Pinar, 1994); by the 1990s, theories began to focus on identity politics and continue to do so (Jung & Pinar, 2016). This diversity of interpretations illustrates that curriculum cannot be understood in isolation: Curriculum involves multiple elements and contexts. It is political, cultural, and gendered (Grumet, 1988; Hendry, 2011), and incorporates psychological (Britzman, 2011; Taubman, 2011) and historical elements (Simon, 2005).
Aoki (2005b), a renowned Canadian curriculum theorist, divided curriculum into two main components: curriculum-as-plan and curriculum-as-lived-experience. The former refers to the bureaucratic and institutional structure of curriculum content and the structures of schooling; the latter refers to the unique experiences in the daily lives of individual teachers and students. He noted that when curriculum is defned in abstract terms, the distinctiveness of individuals ‘disappears into the shadow’ (Aoki, 2005b, p. 160). He also stressed the need to focus on the bridge between the two components of curriculum and referred to this as dwelling in the ‘creative tensionality’ (Aoki, 2005b, p. 232), i.e., being attuned to the aliveness and immediacy of each unique situation.
Starting in the 2000s, curriculum theories began to incorporate postcolonial (Kim, Lee, & Joo, 2014; Takayama, 2017) and transnational perspectives (Gough, 2003; Pinar, 2007, 2014). Gough (2003) wrote that curriculum studies ‘might best be understood as a process of creating transnational spaces in which scholars from different localities collaborate in reframing and decentering their own knowledge traditions and negotiate trust in each other’s contributions to their collective works’ (p. 68).
This kind of internationalization is in stark contrast to globalization, which Pinar defned as economic and educational standardization that can erode the uniqueness of different contexts; to Pinar, internationalization is an ‘ethical engagement with difference’ (Pinar, 2015, p. 50; also see Pinar, 2014).
Curriculum scholars in various countries have also tried to incorporate historical and cultural elements. Zhang and Zhenyu (2014), for example, have revived the Chinese term ke-cheng, historically associated with Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism, to highlight the importance of keeping a pure and tranquil mind with the goal of ‘purifying’ today’s curriculum. Autio (2006, 2014) recontextualized the concept of curriculum using German-Scandinavian concepts such as bildung, which can be understood as ‘what remains if we forget everything that we ever learned in school’ (Tenorth, 2011, cited in Tröhler, 2014, p. 61). As the concept of curriculum expands and changes depending on ‘cultural’ contexts (including historical, geographical, economic, and political realities; Macedo, 2011), twenty-frst-century conceptions are emerging from the ‘playful’ (Slattery, 2012) postmodern scholarship (Jung & Pinar, 2016).
Metaphorically, this proliferation of the conceptions of curriculum could be considered a palimpsest characteristic with lenticular images: It carries present, past, and future ideas that are informed by multi-layered elements related to what we see, experience, and imagine. Framing curriculum as a palimpsest helps us understand it in historical, political, cultural, gendered, racial, phenomenological, existential, and institutional terms. At the same time, each layer of a palimpsest may be read differently depending on the angle from which it is viewed. This metaphor can help broaden our understanding and reveal aspects that we, perhaps habitually, have ignored or have not been able to see. In a similar vein, the concept of shadow curriculum can also broaden our understanding of curriculum.
understAnding students’ leArning beyond schooling
Shadow curriculum is a new concept of curriculum that focuses attention to student learning outside schooling. Educators know that the better they understand students, the better they can teach them. The need to study students’ experiences outside school has long been emphasized. Bronfenbrenner (1976) referred to the ‘ecological structure’ of the educational environment, arguing that education involves micro-, meso-,
exo-, macro-, and chronosystemic forces. Building on his work, we argue that curriculum research cannot be restricted to schools, but must be carried out in informal, real-world educational settings. By real world, we mean both public education and shadow education practices.
In The Politics of American Education, Spring (2010) wrote that ‘human capital’ education policies motivate ‘parents to use the shadow education systems to aid their children to achieve academic and economic success’ (p. 241). In the South Korean context, private tutoring is becoming increasingly common. Seth (2002) observed that ‘by the early 1990s private tutoring and after-school lessons were the fastest growing of South Korea’s many booming industries’ (p. 186) which he conceives it as ‘education fever.’ Kyung-Nyun Kim (2017) defnes education fever in Korea as ‘a projection of parents’ educational solicitude’ that makes considerable investment on shadow education for children’s learning and academic success. The prevalence of shadow education has even forced the South Korean Ministry of Education to incorporate after-school programs provided by private tutoring institutes (Choi & Cho, 2016), and in Japan, the Ministry of Education provides funds for high-school students who need private tutoring (Entrich, 2014). Extending on Bronfenbrenner’s (1976) ecological systems theory of child development, Bray and Kobakhidze (2015) argued that ‘the rise of tutoring in Hong Kong has signifcantly changed the ecosystem’ (p. 477). Shadow education is a real part of students’ lives and education: It is a microsystem of education that interacts with other constituents of the ecology of education such as family, schools, communities, and larger social structures (Lao, 2014; Lee, J. Y., 2013; Lee, S. K., 2014; Lee & Zhou, 2015; Zhou & Wang, 2015). Understanding shadow education is crucial for grasping the whole picture of education and more importantly student development. This is especially so as shadow education becomes increasingly ‘school-like’ (Aurini & Davis, 2004) in that it has its own classrooms, buildings, curriculum contents, instruction, evaluation, and class organization, which are similar to those of public schools (Bray, 2011; Kim, 2016) and is indispensable to many students.
Although shadow education has not received attention from curriculum theorists, it has been the focus of much attention in the felds of comparative education (Mori & Baker, 2010; Ventura & Jang, 2010), education and policy (Bray & Kwo, 2014; de Castro & de Guzman, 2014; Ireson, 2004; Park, Buchmann, Choi, & Merry, 2016), sociology
of education (Byun, 2010; Yamamoto & Brinton, 2010), education and economics (Entrich, 2014; Zhang, 2013), and lifelong education (Ozaki, 2015). Findings have been mixed about its effects at various levels, but the dominant discourse about shadow education is negative. The assertion and reassertion of a negative ‘fxed identity’ (Said, 1993) have relied on descriptions about the ‘evils of private tuition’ (Foondun, 2002, p. 509), accusations that shadow education exacerbates ‘educational fever’ (Seth, 2002), and images of it as an ‘invasive species’ (Bray & Kobakhidze, 2015). Such discourse is perpetuated by mainstream teachers, administrators, educational researchers, the public, and even mass media (Bray, 1999; de Silva et al., 1991; Kim, 2016; Marimuthu et al., 1991; Park, Lim, & Choi, 2015; Park et al., 2016; Yamamoto & Brinton, 2010). Some scholars have also accused shadow education of having ‘backwash’ effects (Bray, 2011), such as increasing the workloads of students (Yamamoto & Brinton, 2010) or increasing the fnancial burden of families (Park, Buchmann, et al., 2016; Park, Lim, et al., 2015) and thereby reproducing existing educational inequalities (Bray & Kwo, 2014; Burch, 2009; Stevenson & Baker, 1992). Even the term ‘shadow education’ was politically constructed, negatively framing it as subordinate or inferior to public education (Bray, 1999; de Silva et al., 1991; Marimuthu et al., 1991).
While this negative framing may seem almost ‘natural’ given the long-standing prioritization of public schooling in curriculum studies, counter-narratives have shown that shadow education can be helpful and can have positive effects on student learning and society (Entrich, 2014; Kim, 2016; Yamamoto & Brinton, 2010). For example, research has shown that it plays a crucial role in preserving ethnicity and culture in some diasporic communities (Sun & Braeye, 2012; Zhou, 2008; Zhou & Kim, 2006) and can reduce inequality in educational opportunities (Kim, 2016; Mori, 2012). Scholars who focus exclusively on the ‘backwash’ effects cannot understand why many students now ‘follow the private tutors not the teachers’ (Paramita, 2015, p. 819), why and how shadow education is becoming ‘school-like’ (Aurini & Davies, 2004), and why and how the ‘phenomenon of inverted roles’ (Yang & Kim, 2010) has emerged between schools and shadow education institutes. It is also not clear how students study in the shadow education spaces; what characteristics of shadow education curricula attract students and parents; what forms of shadow education emerge in different contexts; and how shadow education affects student identity formation and
development. We submit that a balanced and critical approach is needed to understand the relationship between children’s academic development and other elements of development such as intellectual, psychological, and social.
shAdow educAtion As A VAlid topic of curriculum studies
Many curriculum scholars have focused on elements outside school curriculum. Even the traditionalists accept this. For example, Tyler (1949) directed attention beyond curricular elements to the study of individual learners when he referred to ‘studies of the learners themselves as a source of educational objectives’ (p. 5), although he did not put much value on the individuality of students. Schubert (1981) argued that complex industrial societies involve many educative forces that greatly infuence the education of students. Consistent with the ecology of education, he argued that ‘the character of the students’ homes, families, communities and peers play profound roles in their evolving conception of the world, how it works, and their relation to it’ (Schubert, 1981, p. 185). Later, he advocated for ‘detailed exploration of diverse venues in which teaching and learning transpire’ (Schubert, 2010, p. 14), including spaces such as home, family, culture, community, language, and media. Melnick (1992) also invited researchers, teachers, and learners to inquire more fully into the ‘life-scapes’ of others. Curiously, Schubert, Melnick, and others have not shown any interest in shadow education. Shouldn’t the ‘diverse venues in which teaching and learning transpire’ referred to by Schubert (1981) include shadow education? The following discussion explores why shadow education should not be disregarded as a valid research topic of curriculum studies.
First, shadow education is a global educational phenomenon. It is now an unavoidable learning space for many students, so it should not be ignored by curriculum studies researchers who work to understand where, how, what, and with whom students learn. We suggest that curriculum cannot be understood without rigorous study of shadow education given how many students worldwide engage in it regularly or even daily (Bray, 1999; Kim, 2016; Mori & Baker, 2010). Over the last few decades, shadow education has become a major activity (Aurini & Davies, 2004; Bray, 2017; Bray, Kwo, & Jokić, 2016; Lee J., 2007;
Mori & Baker, 2010; Ventura & Jang, 2010), and the ‘massive growth in shadow education meant to supplement formal schooling can be found in worldwide countries and will be increasingly incorporated into broader culture of education’ (Mori & Baker, 2010, p. 36).
Historically, this form of education has been most prevalent in East Asian countries including South Korea, Japan, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Singapore (Dawson, 2010; Kim, 2016; Mori & Baker, 2010). Since the 1980s, South Korea has had one of the highest rates of participation in shadow education (Kim, 2016). According to Statistics Korea (2016), 70% of Korean students take various forms of shadow education classes. In South Korea, shadow education is closely associated with the educational culture that emphasizes hakbeol, which can be defned as the value of being admitted into prestigious schools and universities (Jung, 2016). Shadow education has also been used and rigorously studied in Hong Kong. In 2010, 73.5% of secondary students received private tutoring (Bray & Kwo, 2014). Kwok (2001) reported that participation in private tutoring increased with the level of schooling: 35% for grade 1 to grade 3 students, 47% for grade 4 to grade 5 students, and 70% for grade 6 to grade 7 students. He also reported that individual tutoring involving home visits is more common among junior secondary students, while examination-oriented mass tutoring is more common among senior secondary students. Tutors in Hong Kong were found to take on various supportive roles with their students beyond normative educational relationships including: knowledge disseminator, motivator, role model, preacher, adviser, elder sibling, cousin, friend, mediator, listener, parent, and babysitter (Ho, 2010).
In Japan, shadow education is referred to as juku. Dawson (2010) reported that in 2007, 25.9 and 53.5% of elementary and lower secondary students, respectively, engaged in juku. In 2007, Japan had approximately 50,000 juku—more than all traditional schools combined (39,000) (Benesee, 2007). The Japanese juku industry generates USD$12 billion annually, and the monthly cost to families has steadily increased. A world-famous franchise tutoring company, Kumon, originated in Japan in the 1950s. It is now widespread in East Asia and beyond: As of 2004, it operated in 49 countries including North America (Aurini & Davies, 2004). Once described as an ‘exotic’ or ‘secret’ ingredient (Leestma & Bennett, 1987) in the educational cultures of some countries (Cummings, 1997; Mori & Baker, 2010), shadow education is quickly becoming a basic part of the educational landscape worldwide.
Shadow education has expanded dramatically worldwide since the beginning of the twenty-frst century (Bray, 2017; Kim, 2016; Park et al., 2016). Currently, shadow education is prevalent in South Asia, Southern Europe, and parts of North Africa; it is also growing in other regions such as sub-Saharan Africa, North America, South America, and Western Europe (see Bray & Kwo, 2014). Private tutoring is a large and growing industry in India, estimated by the Asian Development Bank to be worth USD$6.4 billion per year and growing at an annual rate of 15%. India is also leading the way in online tutoring by offering professional linguistic and academic coaching at an affordable cost. Approximately one-ffth of rural Indian children in grades one to eight receive private tutoring (ASER, 2013). Almost three-quarters of children at the elementary level in rural West Bengal and Tripura, and close to half of the children in rural Bihar and Odisha, receive private tutoring. On average, these children receive nine hours per week of private tutoring, which is equivalent to one and a half school days. On average, their families pay Rs. 170 per month or slightly more than Rs. 2000 per year (ASER, 2013).
There has also been rapid growth of shadow education in other regions such as Europe and North America (Dang & Rogers, 2008; Tansel & Bircan, 2006). Southern, Central, and Eastern Europe have particularly high rates of shadow education, and rates are increasing in Western Europe (Bray, 2011). In Germany, shadow education has greatly increased since the 1990s (Entrich, 2014; Guill & Bonsen, 2011). Entrich (2014) reported an increase of about 5% for 12–21-yearolds in Germany over a four-year period (18% in 2002:23% in 2006) and argued that ‘the German shadow education system thus became an infuential factor educationally as well as economically’ (p. 77). Every year, approximately 1.1 million German students engage in shadow education or Nachhilfe. The industry already has a proft of nearly 1.5 billion euros (approximately USD$1.96 billion) per year. Although most research on shadow education in Germany has been conducted in single cities or individual Nachhilfe companies, studies have reported predominantly positive effects based on changes in school grades (e.g., Haag, 2001; Hosenfeld, 2011). Schneider (2006) conducted a nationwide analysis and found that students living in the former West Germany were more likely to engage in shadow education and also that participation rates did not differ signifcantly between urban and rural areas. However, Entrich (2014) argued that due to the limitations of available data,
‘no statements about the effect on academic achievement could be made. Until now, it is not clear if out-of-school lessons in Germany contribute to students’ performance on a national level in international comparison’ (p. 77).
Shadow education is still less prevalent in the USA compared with East Asia, but it is growing (Park et al., 2016). According to some researchers, the growing emphasis on standardized testing in American education under the rhetoric of accountability (Dworkin, 2005; Grodsky, Warren, & Felts, 2008) is leading to more pressure and competition among students and is therefore increasing demand for shadow education (Buchmann, Condron, & Roscigno, 2010). Commercial SAT test preparation companies, such as the Princeton Review, Kaplan, Daekyo Co., JEI Corporation, Kumon, and Woongjin Thinkbig Co., have increasingly expanded in the USA (Buchmann et al., 2010). These share key features of private educational institutes in East Asia (Buchmann et al., 2010; Kuan, 2008). Buchmann et al. (2010) referred to a variety of SAT test preparation activities as ‘American-style shadow education.’ In Canada, shadow education is also in great demand and becoming increasingly formalized, providing ‘a fuller alternative to regular public schooling’ (Aurini & Davies, 2004, p. 419). Chapter 2 will provide more information about shadow education worldwide, but clearly, student learning is expanding beyond the boundaries of traditional schooling.
The second reason why shadow education qualifes as a research topic of curriculum studies is that what students learn in shadow education is not exclusive to what they learn at public schools: Students supplement their learning through taking private education (Bray, 1999; Kim, 2016; Ozaki, 2015). In other words, the content and subjects taught in shadow education are mostly related to what is taught at public schools, but go beyond in terms of the depth of subject contents, and exam and admission preparations.
While the primary purpose of shadow education is to remedy or enrich students’ academic success at schools (Bray, 1999; Bray & Kwo, 2014; Kim, 2016; Ozaki, 2015; Park et al., 2016), there are some exceptions: For example, as noted above, shadow education plays a crucial role in preserving ethnic identity among various diasporic communities, e.g., preserving Korean and Chinese languages and cultures in the USA and Canada (Sun & Braeye, 2012; Zhou, 2008; Zhou & Kim, 2006).
Shadow education provides various curricula and materials to enrich or supplement schooling (Kim, 2008, 2016; Ozaki, 2015). While most public education provides single-level curriculum and learning materials with limited usefulness for supplemental and accelerated learning, shadow education has developed materials such as workbooks, reference books, textbooks, and other teaching and learning materials that are welcomed by many students (Aurini & Davies, 2004; Kim, 2016). Major franchised companies such as Kumon and Sylvan offer much more systematic and subdivided programs than those used in public education, e.g., reading comprehension, speed reading, study skills, note-taking, test-taking strategies, and public speaking, with the goal of promoting self-esteem among students and helping them develop talents and sometimes even fnd their career path (Kim & Kim, 2012). These materials are not designed merely for rote learning based on repetition; they are systematically and meticulously designed to guide learning (Aurini & Davies, 2004; Kim, 2008; Kim & Kim, 2012). Sylvan’s programs related to reading, writing, and studying were developed with the goal of helping students acquire basic skills, rather than simply helping them improve their grades. Yang and Kim (2010) observed that in South Korea, students study using materials from private tutoring institutes even within public schools: This illustrates the usefulness of the materials. Chapter 5 will provide concrete examples of shadow education mathematics curricula, and Chapter 6 will focus on curricula for gifted and highly motivated learners.
The third reason why shadow education qualifes as a research topic of curriculum studies is that it has direct and indirect effects on academic achievement. Some researchers have explored the effects of shadow education on learning, especially academic achievement, in countries including South Korea (Lee J., 2007; Park, 2008), Japan (Mori & Baker, 2010), Bangladesh (Nath, 2008), Sri Lanka (Pallegedara, 2011), and Canada (Davies & Guppy, 2010; also see Ireson, 2004; OECD, 2012; Park et al., 2016). In the USA, Bloom (1984) observed that students who received private tutoring outperformed 98% of the students in a control group. Carr and Wang (2015) found that after-school programs in South Korea have a positive effect by ‘improving students’ academic outcomes, promoting a more equitable school system without sacrifcing the mental wellbeing of students’ (p. 1). Bray and Lykins (2012) also observed the benefts of shadow education among students in Hong Kong.
Some researchers have focused on the effectiveness of shadow education in specifc subjects; for example, Askew et al. (2010) found that shadow education contributes to high levels of achievement in mathematics. A Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) report acknowledged the contributions of shadow education to student achievement in countries including Japan, Singapore, and Canada, stating that ‘private education plays an important role in mobilizing resources from a wider range of funding sources and is sometimes also considered a way of making education more cost-effective’ (OECD, 2012, p. 70). Student achievement is not limited to what schools do for them, and it would be misleading to attribute academic success solely to school teachers or school systems. Curriculum scholars need to investigate learning and academic success by focusing on both public schooling and shadow education practices.
Equally important to further explore are the fndings from research focusing specifcally on how shadow education infuences child development, which is largely negative. Scholars have reported that extended studying time and excessive involvement in private tutoring have negative consequences on student development (Mori & Baker, 2010) because students sacrifce sleep for study (Gillen-O’Neel, Huynh, & Fuligni, 2013). Some have even argued that it functions as a form of child abuse (Patton, 2014). However, these interpretations do not consider students’ desire to learn more or their willingness to sacrifce sleep for their future (Carr & Wang, 2015; Kim 2016). These are important areas for consideration by curriculum scholars so that a nuanced perspective can be developed that considers student agency, performance, and the evolving nature of education.
The fourth reason why shadow education qualifes as a research topic of curriculum studies is that rigorous study on shadow education in East Asia can provide another perspective in understanding why student performance in these countries is ‘on the rise again’ (Takayama, 2017, p. 262). East Asian regions such as Singapore, Japan, South Korea, Shanghai, Hong Kong, and Taiwan dominated the top rankings in the recent three rounds of PISA, which attracted considerable scholarly and media attention (Sellar & Lingard, 2013; Waldow, Takayama, & Sung, 2014). In analyzing the reaction to the test results, Takayama (2017) correctly argued that the dominant discourse framing the educational systems of these countries as a ‘magic bullet’ (Kamens, 2013, p. 137) can be misleading or stereotyped. The danger, he argued, is that
‘the particular policy discourse of PISA where education is subordinated to the needs for national competitiveness and where a set of policies and programmes are abstracted out of the complex interplays of sociocultural and institutional contexts’ (Takayama, 2017, p. 263). We should not assume that one country’s schools are better than those of another (LeTendre, 1999), but it is also important not to overlook shadow education in measures of academic performance so that decisions are not made based on limited or biased information.
The ffth reason why shadow education qualifes as a research topic of curriculum studies is that the emergence and development of shadow education in many countries have changed learning cultures (see Kim, 2016; Park et al., 2016) and students’ ideas of where and how to learn (Kim, 2016). Chapter 7 will address this highly understudied research topic in more detail. Many studies have acknowledged that shadow education is an important space in which students actively participate, but few have explored how shadow education changes learning cultures and how students experience it.
Traditionally, education has been based solely on formal schooling or has been conceived as being so. Student learning is now crossing the boundary of school walls and being shaped and infuenced by the shadow curriculum. In contrast to the common perception that shadow education is a societal ‘evil’ (Foondun, 2002) and ‘harmful’ (Bray, 2017) to student education and society, students are now combining two curricula—those of schooling and shadow education—for their personal educational purposes. Students and parents are actively searching for educational opportunities that best meet their needs and goals. In many situations, public school is no longer the most preferred place.
The various types of shadow education (private tutoring institutes, home-visit private tutoring, Internet-based private tutoring, subscribed learning programs, after-school programs discussed in detail in Chapter 3) allow students and parents to make choices about learning space, time, methods, and even teachers; Chapter 8 will discuss this in detail. For example, Internet-based private tutoring combines the advantages of private tutoring institutes and technologies to overcome barriers such as geographical and temporal confnes to meet the learning needs and paces of individual students. While it mainly provides online lectures in subject areas that students can choose based on their needs and academic levels, it also offers sample lectures for students to test out possible curricula and sometimes includes downloadable lessons. It can also allow instant
online communication between students and instructors (Dierkes, 2010; Ventura & Jang, 2010). Some private institutes hire top instructors, who sometimes gain icon status, referred to as ‘God Tutors’ in Hong Kong (Cheng, 2007). One of these is the $4 million-dollar instructor who surprised Amanda Ripley (2013), the author of Smartest Kids in the World. Some hire a team of junior instructors to support the iconic instructor in monitoring lectures, answering students’ questions, and responding to other inquiries. With its relatively low tuition and its ubiquity, this type of shadow education is growing exponentially around the world in countries such as India, the USA, Japan, Singapore, and many others (Cairncross, 1997; Cheng, 2007).
Traditionally, public schooling was regarded as the ideal, but with the growth of shadow education and curricula, students and parents are exposed to numerous possibilities. Within this context, many parents are desperate to fnd the very best curriculum and teachers for their children, as evidenced by ‘helicopter moms’ in the USA (Hunt, 2008), ‘tiger moms’ in Chinese communities in the USA (Chua, 2011), and ‘gangnam moms’ in South Korea (Park, Byun, & Kim, 2011; Park et al., 2015).
Our sixth and fnal reason why shadow education qualifes as a research topic of curriculum studies is that the phenomenon can help us critically question the historically ‘sacred’ status of public schooling. Research about shadow education is increasingly raising questions about public schooling. Why do more and more students prefer shadow education over public schools? Why do many students today follow private tutors not the school teachers? Why and how has shadow education become school-like? Why and how is the phenomenon of inverted roles occurring between schools and shadow education institutes? Why are parents willingly sacrifcing their fnancial security for the education of their children? One way to address such questions is to question or even challenge the traditional notion of factory-like one-size-fts-all education, which Freire (1970) criticized as ‘banking education.’ Many parents and students are moving away from this model, often to obtain more personalized learning which will be discussed in more detail throughout the chapters.
decAnonizing the curriculum
The previous discussion may appear to advocate for shadow education over public education. This is not the case: What we are simply suggesting that shadow education practices require rigorous study by curriculum
scholars. It is an emerging educational space that requires our intellectual attention. Boundaries are blurring between schooling and private education, and by theorizing shadow education as a new curriculum, we can expand our understanding of curriculum.
Paraskeva and Steinberg (2016) argued that ‘one cannot live in any type of society without the expectation of adaptation to a series of canons’ (p. 720). They challenge the concept of canon, noting that ‘all texts are apocryphal, and all text are canonical’ (p. 720; emphasis original). All canon was apocrypha when it emerged. Any apocrypha that becomes a canon needs to be challenged by other apocrypha. The concept of curriculum is fuid and tentative at best, and to be lively, it needs to be continuously changing and becoming more complicated. Hopefully, the discussion in this book will spur conversations and add to the diversity of curriculum studies.
r eferences
Aoki, T. T. (2005a). Curriculum implementation as instrumental action and as situational praxis. In W. F. Pinar & R. L. Irwin (Eds.), Curriculum in a new key: The collected works of Ted T. Aoki (pp. 111–124). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Aoki, T. T. (2005b). Teaching as in-dwelling between two curriculum worlds. In W. F. Pinar & R. L. Irwin (Eds.), Curriculum in a new key: The collected works of Ted T. Aoki (pp. 159–166). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Apple, M. W. (1979a). Curriculum and reproduction. Curriculum Inquiry, 9(3), 231–252.
Apple, M. W. (1979b). On analyzing hegemony. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 1(1), 10–27.
Apple, M. W. (1990). Ideology and curriculum (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
ASER Centre. (2013). Annual status of education report. New Delhi: Pratham.
Askew, M., Hodgen, J., Hossain, S., & Bretscher, N. (2010). Values and variables: Mathematics education in high-performing countries. London: Nuffeld Foundation.
Aurini, J., & Davies, S. (2004). The transformation of private tutoring: Education in a franchise form. Canadian Journal of Sociology, 29(3), 419–438.
Autio, T. (2006). Subjectivity, schooling, society: Between and beyond German didaktik and Anglo-American curriculum studies. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Autio, T. (2014). The internationalization of curriculum research. In W. F. Pinar (Ed.), International handbook of curriculum research (2nd ed., pp. 17–31). New York, NY: Routledge.
Benesse. (2007). Chōsa dēta kurippu! Kodomo to kyōiku: Juku, naraigoto – dai 1 kai [Survey data clip about children and education: Juku and other learning activities, part 1]. Retrieved February 2, 2018 from http://benesse.jp/berd/ data/dataclip/clip0006/clip0006a.pdf.
Bloom, B. S. (1984). The 2 sigma problem: The search for methods of group instruction as effective as one-to-one tutoring. Educational Researcher, 13(6), 4–16.
Bray, M. (1999). The shadow education system: Private tutoring and its implications for planners. Paris: UNESCO International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP).
Bray, M. (2011). The challenge of shadow education: Private tutoring and its implications for policy makers in the European Union. Brussels: European Commission.
Bray, M. (2017). Schooling and its supplements: Changing global patterns and implications for comparative education. Comparative Education Review, 61(3), 469–491.
Bray, M., & Kobakhidze, M. N. (2015). Evolving ecosystems in education: The nature and implications of private supplementary tutoring in Hong Kong. Prospects, 45(4), 465–481.
Bray, M., & Kwo, O. (2014). Regulating private tutoring for public good: Policy options for supplementary education in Asia. Bangkok: UNESCO.
Bray, M., & Lykins, C. (2012). Shadow education private supplementary tutoring and its implications for policy makers in Asia. Thailand: Asian Development Bank.
Bray, M., Kwo, O., & Jokić, B. (Eds.). (2016). Researching private supplementary tutoring: Methodological lessons from diverse cultures (Vol. 32). Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Center.
Britzman, D. P. (2011). Freud and education. New York, NY: Routledge.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1976). The experimental ecology of education. Educational Researcher, 5(9), 5–15.
Buchmann, C., Condron, D. J., & Roscigno, V. J. (2010). Shadow education, American style: Test preparation, the SAT and college enrollment. Social Forces, 89, 435–462.
Burch, P. (2009). Hidden markets: The new education privatization. New York, NY: Routledge.
Byun, S. (2010). Does policy matter in shadow education spending? Revisiting the effects of the high school equalization policy in South Korea. Asia Pacifc Education Review, 11, 83–96.
Cairncross, F. (1997, October 1). The death of distance: How the communications revolution is changing our lives. Retrieved from http://www.citeulike.org/ group/346/article/206967.
Carr, D., & Wang, L. C. (2015). The effect of after-school classes on private tuition, mental health and academic outcomes: Evidence from Korea. Available at http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0038038516677219?journal Code=soca.
Cheng, J. (2007). In Hong Kong, fashy test tutors gain icon status; with faces on billboards, ‘Gods’ promise top scores; Mr. Ng’s two Ferraris. The Wall Street Journal (Occidental Edition). Accessed September 2, 2017. Retrieved from https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB118704217688396420.
Choi, J., & Cho, R. M. (2016). Evaluating the effects of governmental regulations on South Korean private cram schools. Asia Pacifc Journal of Education, 36(4), 599–621.
Chua, A. (2011). Battle hymn of the tiger mother. New York, NY: Penguin Press. Cummings, W. K. (1997). Private education in Eastern Asia. In W. K. Cummings & P. G. Altbach (Eds.), The challenge of Eastern Asian education: Implications for America (pp. 135–152). Albany: State University of New York Press.
Dang, H. A., & Rogers, F. H. (2008). The growing phenomenon of private tutoring: Does it deepen human capital, widen inequalities, or waste resources? The World Bank Research Observer, 23(2), 161–200.
Davies, S., & Guppy, N. (2010). The schooled society: An introduction to the sociology of education (2nd ed.). Toronto: Oxford University Press.
Dawson, W. (2010). Private tutoring and mass schooling in East Asia: Refections of inequality in Japan, South Korea, and Cambodia. Asia Pacifc Education Review, 11(1), 14–24.
de Castro, B. V., & de Guzman, A. B. (2014). A structural equation model of the factors affecting Filipino university students’ shadow education satisfaction and behavioural intentions. Asia Pacifc Journal of Education, 34(4), 417–435.
de Silva, W. A., Gunawardena, C., Jayaweera, S., Perera, L., Rupasinghe, S., & Wijetunge, S. (1991). Extra-school instruction, social equity and educational quality (Sri Lanka). Report prepared for the International Development Research Centre, Singapore.
Dierkes, J. (2010). Teaching in the shadow: Operators of small shadow education institutions in Japan. Asian Pacifc Educational Review, 11, 25–35.
Dreeben, R. (1976). The unwritten curriculum and its relation to values. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 8(2), 111–124.
Dworkin, A. G. (2005). The No Child Left Behind Act: Accountability, highstakes testing, and roles for sociologists. Sociology of Education, 78, 170–174.
Eisner, E. (1979). The educational imagination. New York, NY: Macmillan.
Ellis, A. K. (2004). Exemplars of curriculum theory. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.
Entrich, S. R. (2014). German and Japanese education in the shadow—Do outof-school lessons really contribute to class reproduction? IAFOR Journal of Education, 2(2), 17–53.
Flinders, D. J., Noddings, N., & Thornton, S. J. (1986). Null curriculum: Its theoretical basis and practical implications. Curriculum Inquiry, 16(1), 33–42.
Foondun, A. R. (2002). The issues of private tuition: An analysis of the practice in Mauritius and selected South-East Asian countries. International Review of Education, 48(6), 485–515.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed (p. 186). New York: The Seabury Press.
Gillen-O’Neel, C., Huynh, V. W., & Fuligni, A. J. (2013). To study or to sleep? The academic costs of extra studying at the expense of sleep. Child Development, 84(1), 133–142.
Giroux, H. A. (1981a). Hegemony, resistance, and the paradox of educational reform. Interchange, 12(2), 3–26.
Giroux, H. A. (1981b). Ideology, culture, and the process of schooling. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
Gough, N. (2003). Thinking globally in environmental education: Implications for internationalizing curriculum inquiry. In W. Pinar (Ed.), International handbook of curriculum research (pp. 53–72). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Grodsky, E., Warren, J. R., & Felts, E. (2008). Testing and social stratifcation in American education. Annual Review of Sociology, 34, 385–404.
Grumet, M. (1988). Bitter milk: Women and teaching. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press.
Guill, K., & Bonsen, M. (2011). Pradiktoren der Inanspruchnahme von Nachhilfe—unterricht am Beginn der Sekundarstufe I. Empirische Padagogik, 25(3), 307–330.
Haag, L. (2001). Halt bezahlter Nachhilfeunterricht, was er verspricht? Eine Evaluationsstudie. Zeitschrift für Padagogische Psychologie, 15(1), 38–44.
Hendry, P. M. (2011). Engendering curriculum history. New York, NY: Routledge.
Ho, N. H. (2010). Hong Kong’s shadow education: Private tutoring in Hong Kong. The Hong Kong Anthropologist, 4(10), 62–85.
Hosenfeld, I. (2011). Wirkungen von Mathematiknachhilfe bei rheinland-pfalzischen Schülern fünfter Klassen-Eine langsschnittliche Analyse. Empirische Padagogik, 25(3), 331–341.
Another random document with no related content on Scribd:
of punishment, the hope of heaven, and the fear of hell, &c. ” page 11th.
I thought, that one who carries perfection to such an exalted pitch as dear Mr. Wesley does, would know, that a true lover of the L J C would strive to be holy for the sake of being holy, and work for C out of love and gratitude, without any regard to the rewards of heaven, or fear of hell. You remember, dear Sir, what Scougal says, “Love’s a more powerful motive that does them move.” But passing by this, and granting that rewards and punishments (as they certainly are) may be motives from which a christian may be honestly stirred up to act for G , how does the doctrine of election destroy these motives? Do not the elect know that the more good works they do, the greater will be their reward? And is not that encouragement enough to set them upon, and cause them to persevere in working for J C ? And how does the doctrine of election destroy holiness? Whoever preached any other election, than what the Apostle preached, when he said, “Chosen through sanctification of the Spirit?” Nay, is not holiness made a mark of our election by all that preach it? And how then can the doctrine of election destroy holiness?
The instance which you bring to illustrate your assertion, indeed, dear Sir, is quite impertinent. For you say, “If a sick man knows, that he must unavoidably die or unavoidably recover, though he knows not which, it is not reasonable for take any physic at all,” page 11. Dear Sir, what absurd reasoning is here? Was you ever sick in your life? if so, did not the bare probability or possibility of your recovering, though you knew it was unalterably fixed, that you must live or die, encourage you to take physic? For how did you know, but that very physic might be the means G intended to recover you by? Just thus it is as to the doctrine of election. I know that it is unalterably fixed, may one say, that I must be damned or saved; but since I know not which, for a certainty, why should I not strive, though at present in a state of nature, since I know not but this striving may be the means G has intended to bless, in order to bring me into a state of grace? Dear Sir, consider these things. Make
an impartial application, and then judge what little reason you had to conclude the 10th paragraph, page 12, in these words: “So directly does this doctrine tend to shut the very gate of holiness in general, to hinder unholy men from ever approaching thereto, or striving to enter in thereat.”
“As directly,” say you paragraph 11, “does the doctrine tend to destroy several particular branches of holiness, such as meekness, love, &c.” I shall say little, dear Sir, in answer to this paragraph. Dear Mr. Wesley perhaps has been disputing with some warm narrow spirited men that held election, and then infers, that their warmth and narrowness of spirit, was owing to their principles? But does not dear Mr. Wesley know many dear children of G , who are predestinarians, and yet are meek, lowly, pitiful, courteous, tenderhearted, kind, of a catholic spirit, and hope to see the most vile and profligate of men converted? And why? because they know G saved themselves by an act of his electing love, and they know not but he may have elected those who now seem to be the most abandoned. But, dear Sir, we must not judge of the truth of principles in general, nor of this of election in particular, entirely from the practice of some that profess to hold them. If so, I am sure much might be said against your own. For I appeal to your own heart, whether or not you have not felt in yourself, or observed in others, a narrow-spiritedness, and some disunion of soul respecting those that hold particular redemption. If so, then according to your own rule, universal redemption is wrong, because it destroys several branches of holiness, such as meekness, love, &c. But not to insist upon this, I beg you would observe, that your inference is entirely set aside by the force of the Apostle’s argument, and the language which he expresly uses, Colossians iii. 12, 13. “Put on, therefore, (as the elect of G , holy and beloved) bowels of mercy, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, long-suffering, forbearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any, even as C forgave you, so also do ye.” Here we see that the Apostle exhorts them to put on bowels of mercy, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, long-suffering, &c. upon this consideration, namely, because they were elect of G . And all who have experimentally
felt this doctrine in their hearts, feel that these graces are the genuine effects of their being elected of G .
But, perhaps dear Mr. Wesley may be mistaken in this point, and call that passion, which is only zeal for G ’s truths. You know, dear Sir, the Apostle exhorts us to “contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints,” and therefore you must not condemn all that appear zealous for the doctrine of election, as narrow-spirited, or persecutors, because they think it their duty to oppose you. I am sure, I love you in the bowels of J C , and think I could lay down my life for your sake; but yet, dear Sir, I cannot help strenuously opposing your errors upon this important subject, because I think you warmly, though not designedly, oppose the truth, as it is in J . May the L remove the scales of prejudice from off the eyes of your mind, and give you a zeal according to true christian knowledge!
Thirdly, says your sermon, page 13, paragraph 12, “This doctrine tends to destroy the comforts of religion, the happiness of christianity, &c.”
But how does Mr. Wesley know this, who never believed election? I believe they who have experienced it, will agree with our 17th article, “That the godly consideration of predestination, and election in C , is full of sweet, pleasant, unspeakable comfort to godly persons, and such as feel in themselves the working of the Spirit of C , mortifying the works of the flesh, and their earthly members, and drawing their minds to high and heavenly things, as well because it does greatly establish and confirm their faith of eternal salvation, to be enjoyed through C , as because it doth fervently kindle their love towards G , &c.” This plainly shews, that our godly reformers did not think election destroyed holiness, or the comforts of religion. As for my own part, this doctrine is my daily support: I should utterly sink under a dread of my impending trials, was I not firmly persuaded that G has chosen me in C from before the foundation of the world, and that now being effectually called, he will suffer none to pluck me out of his almighty hand.
You proceed thus: “This is evident as to all those who believe themselves to be reprobate, or only suspect or fear it; all the great and precious promises are lost to them; they afford them no ray of comfort.”
In answer to this, let me observe, that none living, especially none who are desirous of salvation, can know that they are not of the number of G ’s elect. None, but the unconverted, can have any just reason, so much as to fear it. And would dear Mr. Wesley give comfort, or dare you apply the precious promises of the gospel, being children’s bread, to men in a natural state, while they continue so? G forbid! What if the doctrine of election and reprobation does put some upon doubting? So does that of regeneration. But, is not this doubting, a good means to put them upon searching and striving; and that striving, a good means to make their calling and their election sure. This is one reason among many others, why I admire the doctrine of election, and am convinced that it should have a place in gospel ministrations, and should be insisted on with faithfulness and care. It has a natural tendency to rouze the soul out of its carnal security And therefore many carnal men cry out against it. Whereas universal redemption is a notion sadly adapted to keep the soul in its lethargic sleepy condition, and therefore so many natural men admire and applaud it.
Your 13th, 14th, and 15th paragraphs come next to be considered. “The witness of the Spirit, (you say, paragraph 14, page 14.) experience shews to be much obstructed by this doctrine.” But, dear Sir, whose experience? Not your own; for in your Journal, from your embarking for Georgia, to your return to London, page the last, you seem to acknowledge that you have it not, and therefore you are no competent judge in this matter. You must mean then the experience of others. For you say in the same paragraph, “Even in those who have tasted of that good gift, who yet have soon lost it again, (I suppose you mean lost the sense of it again) and fallen back into doubts and fears and darkness, even horrible darkness that might be felt, &c.” Now, as to the darkness of desertion, was not this the case of J C himself, after he had received an
unmeasurable unction of the Holy Ghost? Was not his soul exceeding sorrowful, even unto death, in the garden? And was he not surrounded with an horrible darkness, even a darkness that might be felt, when on the cross he ♦cried out, “My G ! My G ! why hast thou forsaken me?” And that all his followers are liable to the same, is it not evident from scripture? For, says the Apostle, “He was tempted in all things like unto his brethren, that he might be able to succour those that are tempted.” And is not their liableness thereunto, consistent with that conformity to him in suffering, which his members are to bear? Why then should persons falling into darkness, after they have received the witness of the Spirit, be any argument against the doctrine of election? “Yes, you say, many, very many of those that hold it not, in all parts of the earth, have enjoyed the uninterrupted witness of the Spirit, the continual light of G ’s countenance, from the moment wherein they first believed, for many months or years to this very day.” But how does dear Mr. Wesley know this? Has he consulted the experience of many, very many in all parts of the earth? Or could he be sure of what he hath advanced without sufficient grounds, would it follow, that their being kept in this light, is owing to their not believing the doctrine of election? No, this, according to the sentiments of our church, “greatly confirms and establishes a true christian’s faith of eternal salvation through C ,” and is an anchor of hope, both sure and stedfast, when he walks in darkness and sees no light; as certainly he may, even after he hath received the witness of the Spirit, whatever you or others may unadvisedly assert to the contrary. Then, to have respect to G ’s everlasting covenant, and to throw himself upon the free distinguishing love of that G , who changeth not, will make him lift up the hands that hang down, and strengthen the feeble knees. But, without the belief of the doctrine of election, and the immutability of the free love of G , I cannot see how it is possible that any should have a comfortable assurance of eternal salvation. What could it signify to a man, whose conscience is thoroughly awakened, and who is warned in good earnest to seek deliverance from the wrath to come, though he should be assured that all his past sins are forgiven, and that he is now a child of G ; if notwithstanding this, he may hereafter become a child of the devil, and be cast into hell at
last? Could such an assurance yield any solid lasting comfort to a person convinced of the corruption and treachery of his own heart, and of the malice, subtilty, and power of Satan? No! that which alone deserves the name of a full assurance of faith, is such an assurance, as emboldens the believer, under the sense of his interest in distinguishing love, to give the challenge to all his adversaries, whether men or devils, and that with regard to all their future, as well as present attempts to destroy; saying with the Apostle, “Who shall lay any thing to the charge of G ’s elect? It is G that justifies; who is he that condemns me? It is C that died: yea rather that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of G , who also maketh intercession for me. Who shall separate me from the love of C ? shall tribulation or distress, or persecution or famine, or nakedness, or peril or sword! Nay, in all these things I am more than conqueror, through him that loved me. For I am persuaded, that neither death nor life, nor angels, nor principalities nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor heighth nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate me from the love of G which is in C J my L .”
♦ “cryed” replaced with “cried”
This, dear Sir, is the triumphant language of every soul that has attained a full assurance of faith. And this assurance can only arise from a belief of G ’s electing everlasting love. That many have an assurance they are in C to-day, but take no thought for, or are not assured they shall be in him to-morrow, nay to all eternity, is rather their imperfection and unhappiness, than their privilege. I pray G to bring all such to a sense of his eternal love, that they may no longer build upon their own faithfulness, but on the unchangeableness of that G , whose gifts and callings are without repentance. For those whom G has once justified, he also will glorify. I observed before, dear Sir, it is not always a safe rule to judge of the truth of principles from people’s practice. And therefore, supposing that all who hold universal redemption in your way of explaining it, after they received faith, enjoyed the continual
uninterrupted sight of G ’s countenance, it does not follow, that this is a fruit of their principle: for that I am sure has a natural tendency to keep the soul in darkness for ever; because the creature thereby is taught, that his being kept in a state of salvation, is owing to his own free will. And what a sandy foundation is that for a poor creature to build his hopes of perseverance upon? Every relapse into sin, every surprize by temptation, must throw him “into doubts and fears, into horrible darkness, even darkness that may be felt.” Hence it is, that the letters which have been lately sent me by those who hold universal redemption, are dead and lifeless, dry and inconsistent, in comparison of those I receive from persons on the contrary side. Those who settle in the universal scheme, though they might begin in the Spirit, (whatever they may say to the contrary) are ending in the flesh, and building up a righteousness founded on their own free will: whilst the others triumph in hopes of the glory of G , and build upon G ’s never-failing promise, and unchangeable love, even when his sensible presence is withdrawn from them. But I would not judge of the truth of election, by the experience of any particular persons: if I did (O bear with me in this foolishness of boasting) I think I myself might glory in election. For these five or six years I have received the witness of G ’s Spirit; since that, blessed be G , I have not doubted a quarter of an hour of a saving interest in J C : but with grief and humble shame I do acknowledge, I have fallen into sin often since that. Though I do not, dare not allow of any one transgression, yet hitherto I have not been (nor do I expect that while I am in this present world I ever shall be) able to live one day perfectly free from all deficits and sin. And since the scriptures declare, “That there is not a just man upon earth,” no, not among those of the highest attainments in grace, “that doeth good and sinneth not;” we are sure that this will be the case of all the children of G . The universal experience and acknowledgment of this among the godly in every age, is abundantly sufficient to confute the error of those who hold in an absolute sense, that after a man is born again he cannot commit sin; especially, since the Holy Ghost condemns the persons who say they have no sin, as deceiving themselves, as being destitute of the truth, and making G a liar, 1 John i. 8, 10. I have been also in heaviness through manifold
temptations, and expect to be often so before I die. Thus were the Apostles and primitive christians themselves. Thus was Luther, that man of G , who, as far as I can find, did not peremptorily, at least, hold election; and the great John Arndt was in the utmost perplexity but a quarter of an hour before he died, and yet he was no predestinarian. And if I must speak freely, I believe your fighting so strenuously against the doctrine of election, and pleading so vehemently for a sinless perfection, are among the reasons or culpable causes, why you are kept out of the liberties of the gospel, and from that full assurance of faith which they enjoy, who have experimentally tasted, and daily feed upon G ’s electing, everlasting love.
But perhaps you may say, that Luther and Arndt were no christians, at least very weak ones. I know you think meanly of Abraham, though he was eminently called the friend of G ; and, I believe, also of David, the man after G ’s own heart. No wonder, therefore, that in a letter you sent me not long since, you should tell me, “that no baptist or presbyterian writer whom you have read, knew any thing of the liberties of C .” What! neither Bunyan, Henry, Flavel, Halyburton, nor any of the New-England and Scots divines. See, dear Sir, what narrow spiritedness and want of charity arise from your principles, and then do not cry out against election any more on account of its being “destructive of meekness and love.”
Fourthly, I shall now proceed to another head. Says the dear Mr. Wesley, page 15, paragraph 16, “How uncomfortable a thought is this, that thousands and millions of men, without any preceding offence or fault of theirs, were unchangeably doomed to everlasting burnings?”
But who ever asserted, that thousands and millions of men, without any preceding offence or fault of theirs, were unchangeably doomed to everlasting burnings? Do not they who believe G ’s dooming men to everlasting burnings, also believe, that G looked upon them as men fallen in Adam? And that the decree which ordained the punishment, first regarded the crime by which it was
deserved? How then are they doomed without any preceding fault? Surely Mr. Wesley will own G ’s justice, in imputing Adam’s sin to his posterity; and also, that after Adam fell, and his posterity in him, G might justly have passed them by, without sending his own Son to be a saviour for any one. Unless you heartily agree to both these points, you do not believe original sin aright. If you do own them, then you must acknowledge the doctrine of election and reprobation to be highly just and reasonable. For if G might justly impute Adam’s sin to all, and afterwards have passed by all, then he might justly pass by Turn on the right hand, or on the left, you are reduced to an inextricable dilemma. And, if you would be consistent, you must either give up the doctrine of the imputation of Adam’s sin, or receive the amiable doctrine of election, with a holy and righteous reprobation as its consequent. For whether you can believe it or no, the word of G abides faithful. “The election has obtained it, and the rest were blinded.”
Your 17th paragraph, page 16, I pass over. What has been said on paragraph the 9th and 10th, with a little alteration will answer it. I shall only say, it is the doctrine of election that mostly presses me to abound in good works. I am made willing to suffer all things for the elect’s sake. This makes me to preach with comfort, because I know salvation does not depend on man’s free will, but the L makes willing in the day of his power, and can make use of me to bring some of his elect home, when and where he pleases. But,
Fifthly, You say, paragraph 18, page 17, “This doctrine has a direct manifest tendency to overthrow the whole christian religion. For, say you, supposing that eternal unchangeable decree, one part of mankind must be saved, though the christian revelation were not in being.”
But, dear Sir, how does that follow? Since it is only by the christian revelation that we are acquainted with G ’s design of saving his church by the death of his Son. Yea, it is settled in the everlasting covenant, that this salvation shall be applied to the elect through the knowledge and faith of him. As the prophet says, Isaiah
liii. 11. “By his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many.” How then has the doctrine of election a direct tendency to overthrow the whole christian revelation? Who ever thought, that G ’s declaration to Noah, that seed-time and harvest should never cease, could afford an argument for the neglect of plowing or sowing? Or that the unchangeable purpose of G , that harvest should not fail, rendered the heat of the sun, or the influence of the heavenly bodies unnecessary to produce it? No more does G ’s absolute purpose of saving his chosen, preclude the necessity of the gospel revelation, or the use of any of the means through which he has determined the decree shall take effect. Nor will the right understanding, or the reverent belief of G ’s decree, ever allow or suffer a christian in any case to separate the means from the end, or the end from the means. And since we are taught by the revelation itself, that this was intended and given by G as a means of bringing home his elect, we therefore receive it with joy, prize it highly, use it in faith, and endeavour to spread it through all the world, in the full assurance, that wherever G sends it, sooner or later, it shall be savingly useful to all the elect within its call. How then, in holding this doctrine, do we join with modern unbelievers, in making the christian revelation unnecessary? No, dear Sir, you mistake. Infidels of all kinds are on your side of the question. Deists, Arians, Socinians, arraign G ’s sovereignty, and stand up for universal redemption. I pray G , that dear Mr. Wesley’s sermon, as it has grieved the hearts of many of G ’s children, may not also strengthen the hands of many of his most avowed enemies! Here I could almost lie down and weep. “O tell it not in Gath! Publish it not in the streets of ♦ Ascalon, lest the daughters of the uncircumcised rejoice, lest the sons of unbelief should triumph!”
♦ “Askelon” replaced with “Ascalon”
Further, you say, page 18, paragraph 19, “This doctrine makes revelation contradict itself.” For instance, say you, “The assertors of this doctrine interpret that text of scripture, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated, as implying that G , in a literal sense, hated
Esau and all the reprobates from eternity!” And, when considered as fallen in Adam, were they not objects of his hatred? And might not G , of his own good pleasure, love or shew mercy to Jacob and the elect, and yet at the same time do the reprobate no wrong? But you say, “G is love.” And cannot G be love, unless he shews the same mercy to all?
Again, says dear Mr. Wesley, “They infer from that text, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, that G is mercy only to some men, viz. the elect; and that he has mercy for those only, flatly contrary to which is the whole tenor of the scripture, as is that express declaration in particular, The L is loving to every man, and his mercy is over all his works.” And so it is, but not his saving mercy. G is loving to every man: he sends his rain upon the evil and upon the good. But you say, “G is no respecter of persons.” No! For every one, whether Jew or Gentile, that believeth on J , and worketh righteousness, is accepted of him: “But he that believeth not shall be damned.” For G is no respecter of persons, upon the account of any outward condition or circumstance in life whatever; nor does the doctrine of election in the least suppose him to be so. But as the sovereign L of all, who is debtor to none, he has a right to do what he will with his own, and to dispense his favours to what objects he sees fit, merely at his pleasure. And his supreme right herein, is clearly and strongly asserted in those passages of scripture, where he says, “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and have compassion on whom I will have compassion,” Romans ix. 15. Exodus xxxiii. 19.
Further, in page 19, you represent us as inferring from the text, “The children not being yet born, neither having done good or evil, that the purpose of G , according to election, might stand: not of works, but of him that calleth. It was said unto her (unto Rebecca), The elder shall serve the younger; that our predestination to life no ways depends on the fore-knowledge of G .” But who infers this, dear Sir? For if fore-knowledge signifies approbation, as it does in several parts of scripture, then we confess that predestination and election do depend on G ’s fore-knowledge. But if by G ’s fore-
knowledge, you understand G ’s fore-seeing some good works done by his creatures as the foundation or reason of chusing them, and therefore electing them, then we say, that in this sense, predestination does not any way depend on G ’s fore-knowledge. But I referred you, at the beginning of this letter, to Dr. Edwards’s Veritas Redux, which I recommended to you also in a late letter, with Elisha Cole on God’s Sovereignty. Be pleased to read these, and also the excellent sermons of Mr. Cooper, of Boston in NewEngland, which I also sent you, and I doubt not but you will see all your objections answered. Though I would observe, that after all our reading on both sides the question, we shall never in this life be able to search out G ’s decrees to perfection. No, we must humbly adore what we cannot comprehend, and with the great Apostle at the end of our enquiries cry out, “O the depth, &c.” or with our L , when he was admiring G ’s sovereignty, “Even so Father, for so it seemeth good in thy sight.”
However, it may not be amiss to take notice, that if those texts, “G willeth that none should perish,” “I have no pleasure in him that dieth,” and such like, be taken in their strictest sense, then no one will be damned.
But here’s the distinction. G taketh no pleasure in the death of sinners, so as to delight simply in their death; but he delights to magnify his justice, by inflicting the punishment which their iniquities have deserved. As a righteous judge who takes no pleasure in condemning a criminal, may yet justly command him to be executed, that law and justice may be satisfied, even though it be in his power to procure him a reprieve.
I would hint farther, that you unjustly charge the doctrine of reprobation with blasphemy, whereas the doctrine of universal redemption, as you set it forth, is really the highest reproach upon the dignity of the Son of G , and the merit of his blood. Consider whether it be not rather blasphemy to say as you do, page 20, “C not only died for those that are saved, but also for those that perish.” The text you have misapplied to gloss over this, see
explained by Ridgely, Edwards, Henry; and I purposely omit answering your texts myself, that you may be brought to read such treatises, which, under G , would shew you your error. You cannot make good the assertion, “That C died for them that perish,” without holding (as Peter Boehler, one of the Moravian brethren, in order to make out universal redemption, lately frankly confessed in a letter) “That all the damned souls would hereafter be brought out of hell.” I cannot think Mr. Wesley is thus minded. And yet without this can be proved, universal redemption, taken in a literal sense, falls entirely to the ground. For how can all be universally redeemed, if all are not finally saved?
Dear Sir, for J C ’s sake, consider how you dishonour G by denying election. You plainly make salvation depend not on G ’s free-grace, but on man’s free-will; and if thus, it is more than probable, J C would not have had the satisfaction of seeing the fruit of his death in the eternal salvation of one soul. Our preaching would then be vain, and all invitations for people to believe in him, would also be in vain.
But, blessed be G , our L knew for whom he died. There was an eternal compact between the Father and the Son. A certain number was then given him, as the purchase and reward of his obedience and death. For these he prayed, John xvii. and not for the world. For these, and these only, he is now interceding, and with their salvation he will be fully satisfied.
I purposely omit making any further particular remarks on the several last pages of your sermon. Indeed had not your name, dear Sir, been prefixed to the sermon, I could not have been so uncharitable as to think you were the author of such sophistry. You beg the question, in saying, “That G has declared, (notwithstanding you own, I suppose, some will be damned) that he will save all,” i. e. every individual person. You take it for granted (for solid proof you have none) that G is unjust, if he passes by any, and then you exclaim against the horrible decree: and yet, as I
before hinted, in holding the doctrine of original sin, you profess to believe that he might justly have passed by all.
Dear, dear Sir, O be not offended! For C ’s sake be not rash! Give yourself to reading. Study the covenant of grace. Down with your carnal reasoning. Be a little child; and then, instead of pawning your salvation, as you have done in a late hymn book, if the doctrine of universal redemption be not true; instead of talking of sinless perfection, as you have done in the preface to that hymn book, and making man’s salvation to depend on his own free-will, as you have in this sermon; you will compose an hymn in praise of sovereign distinguishing love. You will caution believers against striving to work a perfection out of their own hearts, and print another sermon the reverse of this, and entitle it free-grace indeed. Free, because not free to all; but free, because G may withhold or give it to whom and when he pleases.
Till you do this, I must doubt whether or not you know yourself. In the mean while, I cannot but blame you for censuring the clergy of our church for not keeping to their articles, when you yourself by your principles, positively deny the 9th, 10th, and 17th. Dear Sir, these things ought not so to be. G knows my heart, as I told you before, so I declare again, nothing but a single regard to the honour of C has forced this letter from me. I love and honour you for his sake; and when I come to judgment, will thank you before men and angels, for what you have, under G , done for my soul.
There, I am persuaded, I shall see dear Mr. Wesley convinced of election and everlasting love. And it often fills me with pleasure, to think how I shall behold you casting your crown down at the feet of the Lamb, and as it were filled with a holy blushing for opposing the divine sovereignty in the manner you have done.
But I hope the L will shew you this before you go hence. O how do I long for that day! If the L should be pleased to make use of this letter for that purpose, it would abundantly rejoice the heart of, dear and honoured Sir,
Your affectionate, though unworthy brother and servant in C ,
G W .
V
I N D I C
A T I O
N AND C O N F I R M A T I O N OF THE
Remarkable W of G O D IN N E W - E N G L A N D.
BEING
Some R on a late Pamphlet, entitled, “The State of Religion in New-England, since the Reverend Mr. George Whitefield’s Arrival there.”
In a L to a M of the C of S .
V I N D I C A T I O N, &c.
Cambuslang, August 31, 1742.
IReverend and dear Sir,
HAVE read the pamphlet entitled, “The State of Religion in NewEngland, since the Reverend Mr. George Whitefield’s arrival there, in a letter from a gentleman in New-England to his friend in Glasgow.” I think the contents no way answer the title page. It rather ought to be intitled, The State of Religion falsely stated. For I am persuaded, some things are therein asserted, without sufficient evidence to prove them, and many more things falsely represented, and set in a wrong light: the design of the pamphlet itself is base and wicked. It is intended, if possible, to eclipse the late great and glorious work, begun and carried on for some time in New-England; to invalidate the testimonies that have been given of it, and thereby of consequence to bring a reproach upon, and to hinder the spreading of a like glorious work, which G of his infinite mercy has for some time been carrying on in this land. Give me leave to send you a few observations upon this anonymous pamphlet. I call it anonymous, because the publisher has not thought proper to put down the name of the writer of the first letter Mr. A. M. at length, which I think he was bound in duty to do. The publisher indeed, in the advertisement prefixed to the letter, tells us, “The reader may depend upon it, that the following letter is genuine, from a gentleman who hath always had a good character for sound understanding, integrity, sobriety of manners, piety; and, notwithstanding his engagements in secular affairs, has never been an unconcerned spectator of any thing that might affect the state of religion.” But I must beg the publisher’s pardon, if I tell him, that I am one of those readers who cannot depend upon all this, merely upon his desiring me to do so. For really there is one thing in the letter which makes me shrewdly suspect that the letter itself is not genuine, at least that there has been some additions made to it since it came to Scotland. For the supposed writer of this letter, page 15, says, “In the preface to the sermon published by Mr. Edwards of Northampton, which I
see is reprinted among you.” Now how this gentleman could see at Boston, May 24, that Mr. Edwards’s sermon was reprinted in Scotland, which was not done till the June following, I know not. If it be said, that by the words among you he means in Britain, I see that the printed advertisement in the London Weekly History, of the publication of Mr. Edwards’s sermon in England, is dated May 1, and says, “This day is published.” I myself was one that was chiefly concerned in publishing of it. I sent the first copy to Scotland, and to my certain knowledge it was never published in Britain till May 1. Is it probable that people at Boston should know of this May 24? What a character this gentleman has always had for “sound understanding, integrity, sobriety of manners and piety,” I will not take upon me to determine, nor does the publisher give us opportunity to know what character the gentleman really has had, since he does not publish his name: but however that be, I fear he has forfeited his good character “for sound understanding, integrity and piety,” by writing this letter. And though he may not be altogether an “unconcerned spectator of any thing that might affect religion,” yet I fear he has been so taken up with “his engagements in secular affairs,” that he hath not given himself sufficient time to enquire into matters of fact, but has heard with others ears, and seen with others eyes, and has not himself attended as he ought, to the one thing needful.
He says in the beginning of his letter, page the 3d, “I am sorry you have had such accounts of persons, and things, transmitted you from this country, as you mention in your letter; they are far from being true, and must come from men of narrow minds, and great bigotry, or from such as basely affect popularity, or from wellmeaning weak christians, of little knowledge of human nature, or the history of mankind.” What accounts this gentleman refers to I know not. If he means the accounts in the Weekly History, as I suppose he does; I think this gentleman is sadly mistaken. Most of the accounts were transmitted by the honourable Mr. Williard, secretary of the province. The Rev. Dr. Colman, the Rev. Mr. Cooper, the Rev. Mr. Prince: persons I am intimately acquainted with, and who are by no means “Men of narrow minds, great bigotry, or little knowledge of human nature, or the history of mankind: but have deservedly had a
good character for sound understanding, integrity, sobriety of manners and piety:” Some of these were honoured several years ago with degrees, by the university of Glasgow, upon recommendation from the Honourable society at Edinburgh for Propagating Christian Knowledge; of which society several of the most intelligent gentlemen in the nation are members: such honours were done to Messrs. Colman, Prince, and Cooper.
Now whether they, or this anonymous writer, are to be most credited, I leave any reasonable man to judge. Indeed he boldly asserts, “That these accounts are not true:” but what proofs does he bring of the falsity of them? None at all. Let us but know who this writer is, I am persuaded my honoured friends at Boston, will soon bring him to the test of these assertions.
He goes on thus “Indeed some persons of very good sense were once inclined to think G was doing wonders in this place.” (Boston) And I am persuaded these very same persons have not altered their opinion yet, but actually believe that G has done wonders; if turning people from darkness to light, and making them new creatures, is doing wonders.
“But that was a time when a superstitious panic ran very high, and bore down every body that was not well fixed and established; either by a natural steadiness of temper, or by strong reasoning and reflections. But as soon as the passions of the people subsided, and men could coolly and calmly consider, almost every one of but tolerable sense and understanding in religious matters, in great measure changed their opinions of the spirit that prevailed here, and had been raised by Whitefield and Tennent.”
What had been raised by Mr. Whitefield and Tennent? G forbid! that either Mr. Tennent or I should ascribe any of that work to ourselves. No, it was raised by the Holy Spirit of G . It was no superstitious panic, but a plentiful effusion of the Holy Ghost. It’s true, it did run high; glory be to G for it! and did bear down every body, except those who would not submit to the Redeemer’s scepter, through self-righteousness and unbelief; which I am afraid this writer
