Educational Entrepreneurialism in the Private Tutoring Industry: Balancing Profitability with the Humanistic Face of Schooling*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
S'appuyant sur une étude de deux ans sur les entrepreneurs en tutorat privé en Ontario, cet article se penche sur la légitimité croissante de l'entrepreneurialisme éducatif. Cette légitimité transforme la nature de l'éducation en préconisant des solutions commerciales aux « problèmes »éducatifs et la croyance que la compétition et la débureaucratisation encouragent la responsabilité, l'efficacité et la réceptivité du client. L'industrie du tutorat privé fournit une étude de cas exemplaire. Non plus simplement moyen de produire des revenus supplémentaires, cette industrie promet désormais des occasions d'affaires à plein temps aux investisseurs cultivés ayant des formations éducatives et professionnelles diverses. Dépourvu de la prétention des professeurs à l'autorité professionnelle, l'entrepreneurialisme éducationnel est soutenu par la culture émergente de l'éducation intensive des enfants et par la personnalisation en éducation. Étonnamment, la franchise tutorielle s'avère constituer un véhicule particulièrement efficace pour équilibrer les buts financiers et l'aspect humaniste de l'éducation. Based on a two‐year study of private tutoring entrepreneurs in Ontario, Canada, this paper examines the increased legitimacy of educational entrepreneurialism. This legitimacy is changing the nature of schooling by supporting market solutions to education “problems” and the belief that competition and de‐bureaucratization encourages accountability, efficiency and consumer responsiveness. The private tutoring industry provides an exemplary case study. No longer simply a means to generate additional income, the private tutoring industry now promises full‐time business opportunities for well‐educated investors from a variety of educational and occupational backgrounds. Lacking teachers' claims to professional authority, educational entrepreneurialism is further bolstered by the emerging culture of intensive parenting and educational customization. Surprisingly, the tutoring franchise proves to be a particularly effective vehicle for balancing profit goals with the more humanistic face of schooling.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".