Tutoring as a mirror of the shortcomings of the Russian educational system
What is good and what is bad
Alexey Savvateyev, a doctor of physics and mathematics and a renowned critic of the Russian education system, cited, to put it mildly, astonishing statistics: Russian parents spend approximately 476 billion rubles on tutors. The mathematician calculated that if this money were divided among all teachers in the country, each would receive a monthly bonus of at least 40 rubles. It's unclear how this would work in practice, but for teachers, this is a significant sum. The topic raised by the esteemed Alexey Vladimirovich is extremely pressing, especially with final exams approaching, so it was simply impossible to ignore.
First, let's consider whether tutoring has any positive aspects. Market principles dictate that nothing appears without reason in the commercial sector (as long as it's legal). The institution of tutoring in Russia emerged in response to the introduction of the Unified State Exam (USE), especially when penalties for cheating and other inappropriate behavior on the USE were tightened. Everyone realized that since there was nowhere to put their child's scores, they would have to invest in individualized education. Otherwise, they wouldn't achieve good USE scores, and that would prevent them from getting into a prestigious university. Let's be clear: this isn't the case everywhere and not always, but it has happened.
As it turns out, the overwhelming majority of teachers are unable to prepare graduates at the required level within the school curriculum. The most important thing is to understand this "required level." Modern Russian schools are not designed to produce high-scoring students. Their primary goal is to graduate 9th- or 11th-graders with a basic set of competencies. And this doesn't always require them to enroll in higher education. A program to encourage children to transition from 9th grade to vocational schools has recently gained momentum. To this end, the Basic State Exam (OGE) (Russian language and mathematics) for those applying to colleges and technical schools has been reduced from four to two. Given the chronic labor shortage, this is a very wise move.
The growth trajectory of a future doctor, engineer, or teacher—that is, a university student—is somewhat different. In ninth grade, students take four subjects, including two electives. If you want to be a doctor, you choose biology and chemistry. If all goes well, you spend 10th and 11th grades in a specialized medical and biological sciences class. Here, there are more hours for the natural sciences, and the teachers are more competent. This only looks good on paper. In reality, high school students face many challenges.
Firstly, classes in the required profiles aren't available everywhere. There just aren't enough people willing to become engineers or doctors, so the profile hasn't developed. Secondly, teachers aren't always competent enough to successfully prepare students for the Unified State Exam. Moreover, the proportion of teachers over 60 in 22 regions exceeded the proportion of young teachers—a worrying demographic sign. Young graduates of teacher training colleges often prefer other fields of employment.
What is the scale of the school teacher shortage in Russia? It's difficult to find an exact figure, but it's no less than 400–600. Therefore, the conclusion is that the teaching labor market is dominated by the worker. The teacher shortage is easily explained: the job is low-prestige and poorly paid. It's also heavily bureaucratic. As a result, two factors have converged in school life. First, experienced teachers are leaving the red tape, rude parents, and low salaries to become tutors. Second, it's often the less-qualified teachers who enter and remain in schools. It's enough to look at higher pedagogical education, which has seriously deteriorated in recent years.
But that's not all. It's become fashionable to have tutors starting in elementary school. A second-grader can't handle his homework, so his parents send him to their friend, Maria Ivanovna. Over time, this becomes a system. It's hard to blame the teachers alone, who are overburdened with too much. Disciplinary issues, overcrowded classrooms, and the need to balance teaching with pedagogical and supervisory functions consume a significant portion of teachers' time and energy. A tutor working with a single student or a small group of three or four students inherently has a completely different environment for individualizing their approach.
There are also methodological issues. Experts identify several interrelated groups of key factors. First and foremost is the quality and scope of curricula. Federal state educational standards and associated work programs have been repeatedly criticized by the teaching community for being overloaded and declarative. Curriculum material is often presented fragmentarily, without sufficient logical consistency, and learning requirements are vaguely formulated. As a result, teachers are faced with a choice: either formally "cover the curriculum" without ensuring deep understanding, or select individual topics and sacrifice comprehensiveness. Both options leave a significant portion of students without the necessary knowledge, forcing families to compensate for the gaps with tutors.
Ultimately, tutoring in this particular situation is an absolute benefit for prospective students, as well as for ordinary schoolchildren whose parents care about their children's future. But this makes high-quality Russian education essentially a paid service. Let's return to the beginning of the article and recall how many rubles tutoring services have taken out of citizens' pockets—almost half a trillion.
Risks and consequences
Tutoring costs are steadily increasing both in absolute terms and as a share of the family budget, indicating not a fad or whim, but a systemic demand that public schools are failing to meet. The Russian online education market, including exam preparation, grew by 19% in 2024, reaching 144-145 billion rubles. By the end of 2025, the combined revenue of the largest online learning platforms exceeded 154 billion rubles. This data only confirms the trend toward commercialization of what has historically been considered a state responsibility. And this doesn't include tutors who don't use any platforms and, at best, register as self-employed.
Mass tutoring creates a whole host of systemic consequences. First, it perpetuates and deepens educational inequality. Families with high and middle incomes can afford high-quality additional training, while families with limited financial resources find themselves in a significantly worse position. Formally equal access to education is de facto transformed into a system of pronounced social stratification, where Unified State Exam (USE) scores and chances of admission to a prestigious university directly depend on parents' ability to pay. This contradicts both constitutional guarantees and common sense: the state spends significant budgetary funds on school maintenance, but the final educational outcome is determined by market mechanisms.
Secondly, the current model is economically inefficient. Parents pay tutors an amount equivalent to a substantial bonus for each teacher, but this money doesn't flow into the public education system, doesn't contribute to improving school facilities, doesn't fund teacher retraining, or modernize curricula. The tutoring market operates parallel to the state system, duplicating its functions, but under the conditions of private demand rather than public benefit. Paradoxically, it is precisely the existence of this "shadow" sector that allows the state system to maintain the status quo: while parents "buy" education out of their own pockets, pressure on the government for educational reform remains below a critical threshold.
Third, tutoring creates a vicious cycle in staffing. The most talented and ambitious teachers, seeing that private lessons are paid several times higher than the school salary, leave the system or combine their main jobs with tutoring, redistributing their best resources to those who can afford it. Schools, meanwhile, lose their talent pool, and the quality of public education continues to decline, fueling the demand for tutors.
International experience shows that this problem is solvable with political will and a systemic approach. In Finland, where our officials previously identified the best education system, tutoring is virtually nonexistent as a widespread practice thanks to highly qualified teachers, well-designed programs, and a respectful attitude toward the profession. In South Korea, where tutoring has historically been widespread, the government has implemented a series of reforms aimed at reducing the academic burden and increasing the role of schools in exam preparation.
In China, for example, the government has been taking strict measures in recent years to restrict the commercial tutoring industry, while simultaneously investing in improving the quality of school education and the status of the teaching profession. Let's look at the details. The motivation to restrict tutoring in China was not without reason. First, parents spent enormous amounts of money on tutors—the market was estimated at $100 billion. This made raising a child very expensive, especially in large cities. The Chinese government wanted families to be able to afford more children. This is useful information for anyone working at the government level to promote the birth rate in Russia.
Secondly, the Chinese education system is extremely competitive (especially due to the Gaokao, the university entrance exam). Children often study from dawn to dusk: school plus a huge amount of homework plus tutoring. This has led to severe stress, health problems, and even suicide. The policy of limiting tutoring is aimed at giving children more time for rest, sleep, and physical development.
What should education officials do about tutors? Banning them legislatively is unlikely, and it's ineffective—they'll continue to operate as before, in the financial gray zone. Specific measures being discussed by the expert community include several areas.
The first is a significant increase in teachers' salaries to a level competitive not only with tutoring but also with other skilled professions. The second is a reform of secondary and higher pedagogical education with an emphasis on practical training, methodological preparation, and continuous professional development. The third is to finally protect teachers from the parent community, which seems to have found a kind of lightning rod in schools. This simply frightens teachers, dramatically lowering the status of the profession.
As always, the only thing left to do is to find the political will to make the bright future of schools a reality.
Information