The rise of the cram school phenomenon in the US: well intended test prep or an extension of the “banking model” of education? by Natasha Mansur

Searching for a job as an international student, I felt drawn to education services to work with children. An elementary school in Bronx, New York became the first site where I worked for a non-profit organization serving a resource-poor neighborhood. I remember the feeling of excitement, as we would gather with students in the school cafeteria before moving into classrooms for activities. Going on to work for similar programs across New York City, as well as a for-profit prep school that I term a ‘cram school’, I received exposure to great diversity both in student population and the cultural practices at each site. This exposure leads me to note the differences between for-profit cram school notions of learning, and the non-profit practices of enhancing student engagement for broader conceptual understanding. The most likely difference arises from the banking model of education to which cram schools ascribe; the “banking model,” a term coined by Paulo Freire in his theory of critical pedagogy, suggests that students are merely urns for the deposition of knowledge. Under the façade of promoting student achievement, cram schools are able to use questionable pedagogical means, especially attracting parents of students who are struggling in school—yet these schools’ ability to serve different levels of student needs because of a lack of differentiated instruction remains arguably elusive.

[A]n educational experience that does not allow for true reflection is dehumanizing.

Cram schools have long been a part of supplementary or shadow education in Japan, Korea, and other Asian countries. I argue that they are on the rise especially in large metropolitan areas of the US; this rise may be mirroring the institutionalized test-driven atmosphere that has permeated American education policies. A new breed of cram schools is emerging in big cities in United States, packaged to attract higher socio-economic status (SES) American parents; yet the latent conditions remain the same: the notion of test prep through workbooks and worksheets is a constant practice (Spencer, 2013). Historically a feature of neighborhoods that have housed large Asian immigrant populations (Dunn, 1995), cram schools are becoming popular among American parents of a myriad backgrounds, not limited to immigrants. The push for competitive seats in gifted and talented programs, placement in special admission high schools, and top high SAT scores convince parents from all societal groups to register their children for highly coveted seats in these schools.

Cram schools, a characteristic of shadow education, have received significant attention in education research (Byun, 2014; Stevenson & Baker, 1992). Shadow education is defined by Stevenson and Baker (1992) as a “set of educational activities outside formal schooling that are designed to improve a student’s chances of successfully moving through the allocation process” (p. 2). The cram school in Queens, New York was a site where I taught reading and writing in full day classes on Saturdays during the school year and full-time during the summer. This school was propelled by the administrators’ teaching methodology to push students’ exposure to a copious amount of material– sometimes far ahead of their grade level– in a fast paced environment. Parents acquiesced to this model because they thought it was integral to the children’s success. This was markedly different, for example, from the large elementary school in Harlem where literacy mentors like me, working for a non-profit, provided supplementary services in a close environment with a small mentor to student ratio, coupled with a child centered pedagogy.  When comparing two New York Times articles – one the 1995 article titled, “Cram School: Immigrants’ Tools for Success” (Dunn, 1995) and the other titled “Centers See New Faces Seeking Test Prep” (2015)—the emerging sociological phenomenon of the education trends that redefine how parents seek help for their children becomes clear. Testing culture is ruling.

My experience as a teacher has shown that a cram school, while challenging top performers, may further isolate a child who is struggling, creating frustration that may inhibit all love of learning. The rise of student attendance at cram schools in the United States is a concern for many reasons; primarily because such schools do not address the diverse ways children learn, further stratifying education by the ability to perform well on tests. Paulo Freire’s critical pedagogy, specifically his banking model of education, is an apt framework to analyze the demoralization that many children experience in such an environment. Freire notes that “Banking education resists dialogue; problem posing education regards dialogue as indispensable to the act of cognition which unveils reality” (1990, p. 71). Children in cram schools are often subjected to an imposition of knowledge that is not reflexive. I felt this imposition each time I entered the doors of the school. Teaching test prep is frustrating both for teachers and students; it limits meaningful and educative interactions between learners and instructors due to the harsh maladaptive cacophony of right and wrong answers, constrained by a lack of scaffolding in any given topic due to the fast-paced environment of covering as much content as possible in the shortest amount of time. If I were to keep the job, I needed to heed the school director’s words: “Push them!” Although I would often not comply with this order, I would hear other teachers screaming and distributing largely age inappropriate punishment, such as making kindergarten students stand outside the classroom in isolation. Though this example represents a stricter end of the spectrum, this cram school resembles many others, often dictated by a blatant disregard for fundamental child psychology: shaming in place of praise, and measuring achievement by high test performance on material they have been taught too quickly. According to Freire, “Banking education treats students as objects of assistance; problem posing education makes them critical thinkers […] Problem posing education bases itself on creativity and stimulates true reflection and action upon reality” (1990, p. 71). Thus, an educational experience that does not allow for true reflection is dehumanizing in Freire’s framework.

At the end of summer, I assigned an essay on the question: “What was most enjoyable about this summer and what were some experiences that you did not like?” I was dismayed but not surprised to find many children writing about the screaming teachers, the excessive amount of work, and hints of lack of true growth as an individual. Moreover, it was highly discouraging to ascertain through score comparison that students were impacted at different levels: those that had entered the summer school with a strong background continued performing well and may have thus increased their content knowledge. For the remaining students, the results were more varied. Those who had needed the most help had not had a significant academic improvement from their baseline performance in the beginning of summer school. Without doing a formal evaluation, it is difficult to estimate student learning gains across achievement levels. Yet, the hypothesis that students with greater need for conceptual understanding of content fare worse is a salient one. I hope, then, that the summer cram school experience does not stifle struggling children’s love of learning, and that at the very least, allows them to take part in “social participation and friendship,” from which derive key non-cognitive skills that support children’s healthy development (Corsaro, 2011).

References

Byun, S. (2014). Shadow education and academic success in Republic of Korea. In H. Park & K.

Kim (Eds.), Korean Education in Changing Economic and Demographic Contexts (pp. 39-58). Singapore: Springer.

Corsaro, W. A. (2011). The sociology of childhood. Los Angeles: Sage/Pine Forge Press.

Dunn, A. (1995, January 28). Cram Schools: Immigrants’ Tools for Success. New York Times. Retrieved September 14,
2015, from http://www.nytimes.com/1995/01/28/nyregion/cramschoolsimmigrantstoolsforsuccess.html

Freire, P. (1990). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum Press. Spencer, K. (2013, April 2). Centers see
New Faces Seeking Test Prep. New York Times. Retrieved September 15, 2015, From http://www.nytimes.com
/2013/04/03/nyregion/cramschoolsnolongerjustanasianpursuit.html.

Stevenson, D. L., & Baker, D. P. (1992). Shadow Education and Allocation in Formal Schooling: Transition to University in
Japan. American Journal of Sociology, 97(6), 1639-1657.