> Italy, Japan, South Korea and Turkey are examples. These are also countries with high prevalence of private, after school tutoring (i.e. so-called shadow edu

> Italy, Japan, South Korea and Turkey are examples. These are also countries with high prevalence of private, after school tutoring (i.e. so-called shadow education). For example, as of 2013 more than 40% of Italian secondary students attend private lessons. See Table 1 at https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2096531119890142 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/20965311198901... And in Turkey this figure was nearly 60% in 2003, which may very well be even higher today (or at least # of hours is probably higher). See Figure 4.1 at https://etd.ohiolink.edu/apexprod/rws_etd/send_file/send?accession=osu1259703574&disposition=inline https://etd.ohiolink.edu/apexprod/rws_etd/send_file/send?acc... Not going to bother posting figures for Japan and South Korea as I don't think anybody disputes the prevalence of tutoring in those or other East Asian countries. If you want to prevent richer (either financially or in parental involvement) kids from getting ahead, you literally need to suppress their ability to capitalize on those assets. Such as China is doing by regulating tutoring companies, or woke school boards are doing in various U.S. cities and universities. Of course, arguably you're merely hiding the underlying inequalities. But I guess this is just Goodhart's law in action, combined with pursuing the path of least resistance. That is, far easier to pursue a metric reflecting a consequence of economic inequality rather than metrics more directly measuring that inequality (e.g. Gini coefficient), let alone addressing the underlying causes themselves.