– enrolled in all school types increased by 117% (from 18% to 40%) for the 6 10 age group, 74% (from 37% to 64%) for the 11-15 age group, and 36% (from 54% to 74%) for the 16-18 age group. This upward trend has happened in all sections of the population, with higher rates and greater magnitudes of increase among the rural and poor than the urban and wealthy, respectively. The equalizing trend coincides with that in private schooling discussed in the previous section, except that the poorest seem less at the margin here, perhaps because tutoring is less costly than private schooling and because the poorest households that choose to send their children to school are also willing to invest in other ways. This is also consistent with the finding by Cameron (2011) that even in slum areas in Dhaka, Bangladesh, almost half of school-going children take tutoring. Similarly, in Table 2, Nepal household survey data shows that students from urban and wealthier households take more tutoring, but the rates are relatively considerable for students from rural and poor households as well. (In both Bangladesh and Nepal, tutoring is virtually non-existent (0.3% or less) among out-of-school children.) Similar patterns are found for rural areas in India and Pakistan by Aslam and Atherton (2012) based on data from the 2007/08 SchoolTells survey for India and the 2010 Annual Status of Education Report (ASER) for Pakistan, and also for Sri Lanka by Glewwe and Jayachandran (2006), using data from the 2003 National Education Survey. Aslam and Atherton (2012) find that 22.6% of children of ages 3-16 in India take tutoring, and the rate is 15.7% in Pakistan. As for Sri Lanka, Glewwe and Jayachandran (2006) report that 78% of fifth-graders receive tutoring.

**Table 2.** Socio-economic patterns of outside-classroom tutoring among students in Bangladesh and Nepal

|Tutori|ng take-up|6-<br>|10year-ol<br>|ds<br>|11<br>|-15year-o<br>|lds<br>|16<br>|-18year-ol<br>|ds<br>|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|<br>rate o|<br>f students|All<br>schools|Private<br>schools|Govt<br>schools|All<br>schools|Private<br>schools|Govt<br>schools|All<br>schools|Private<br>schools|Govt<br>schools|
|h|All|39.6|52.4|49.6|63.8|75.1|60.0|73.8|75.5|72.5|
|des<br>0|Richest|57.6|63.1|63.8|82.4|85.7|83.6|78.8|79.3|81.6|
|gla<br>01|Poorest|24.1|22.5|34.0|38.1|53.1|39.1|50.4|57.2|43.7|
|an<br>2|Urban|54.1|57.0|61.4|76.4|83.6|73.3|72.4|74.7|69.7|
|B|Rural|35.0|48.3|46.0|59.6|71.8|55.6|74.4|75.9|75.5|
||Male|41.3|53.4|52.6|65.6|78.1|62.6|74.0|75.9|70.8|
||Female|38.0|51.2|46.7|62.2|72.3|57.6|73.6|75.1|74.7|
||All|16.1|30.5|10.1|26.1|38.9|23.1|43.2|44.4|43.1|
|al<br>0|Richest|31.6|36.7|18.5|44.5|46.1|42.4|51.6|44.7|57.6|
|ep<br>01|Poorest|5.3|13.8|4.5|9.8|12.3|9.4|23.4|11.6|24.1|
|N<br>2|Urban|24.5|29.4|15.2|33.4|38.7|27.3|42.7|40.8|46.3|
||Rural|14.6|31.0|9.7|24.5|39.0|22.6|43.3|48.2|42.6|
||Male|19.6|32.6|12.3|27.9|40.3|24.3|43.0|45.5|42.2|
||Female|12.9|27.3|8.4|24.2|36.7|21.9|43.4|42.9|43.9|

_Source_ : Authors, based on latest household survey data. _Notes_ : “All schools” refers to schools of all types - private, government and others.

17. Students in both government and private schools get tutored, with generally higher rates for older students (most probably due to high-stakes examinations), for boys, and for private school students. Aslam and Atherton (2012) find similar patterns for India and Pakistan. The gender divide here differs from that for the private share of total enrollment that we observed above. Given that boys get more tutoring even among those enrolled in private school, it is unclear this is due to a bias that favors boys, or due to weaker learning among boys, or both. Similarly, it is unclear if the high prevalence of tutoring among private school students is 14