諸多研究指出，「教育成就」作為一種人力資本，深刻的影響著個人在日後的職業取得與薪資，更甚者，華人社會中普遍存在「萬般皆下品，唯有讀書高」的觀念，因此，教育乃成為競爭的標的。而依據「不均等最大維持論（MMI）」與「不均等有效維持論（EMI）」，不同社經階層背景者，他們的教育成就並不相同，家庭社經背景越高，教育成就往往越高。 補習長期被視為一種增進學習成果的手段，人們競相把孩子送進補習班，期待能較佳的教育成就。過去相關研究大多分析補習時數對於學業成就的效果。然而關注於補習時數的階層間差異，並不能真正地解釋補習的階層化現象，因為階層化的情況可能並不單純只顯現在時數上。而孩子補習必須投入金錢，亦即，投入的金額多寡，才能適切地反映家庭的「財務資本」。因此，本研究將以「每小時的補習費用」作為依變項，估計家庭總收入、家長學歷、性別等學生家庭背景因素，以每小時平均補習費用的概念，來探討補習是否如正式教育那般具有階層化。 本研究採用台灣教育長期追蹤資料庫2001年的資料，以第一波問卷中的國中一年級學生及其家長作為分析對象，以線性迴歸、多元迴歸等方式進行分析，結果如下：一、家庭背景因素確實會對補習時數產生影響。二、家庭背景因素確實會對補習費用產生影響。三、補習時數會影響學生的綜合分析能力得分。因此教育階層化現象，確實會透過補習時數的階層化而被完成。四、補習費用也會影響學生的綜合分析能力得分，但主要差異是顯現在「有無付出補習費用」，表示補習費用有階層化現象，且有付費的補習比沒付費的補習獲得較高的分數回報，教育階層化能透過「有無付補習費」而產生。 Cram schooling has long been regarded as a means of improving learning outcomes. Parents send their children to cram schools, in hope of helping them gain higher academic achievements. According to the hypotheses of Maximally Maintained Inequality (MMI) and Effectively Maintained Inequality (EMI), people with different socioeconomic backgrounds have different achievements in education, and those from families with better socioeconomic status are more likely to achieve higher educational performance. Previous research has focused primarily on the effects of hours took in cram schools on academic achievements. However, results of such research could not explain the stratification in cram schooling. Therefore, this study used “the cram schooling expense per hour” as a dependent variable and considered family background factors, including household income, parents’ education degree, and gender, to investigate if stratification is present in supplementary education as it is in formal education. This study employed the 2001 data of Taiwan Education Panel Survey. The subjects were first-year junior high school students and their parents who participated in the first wave of the survey. Data were analyzed using linear regression and multiple logistic regression methods. The main findings were as follows: (1) The hours students took in cram schools per week varied by their family backgrounds; (2) The expense of attending cram schools varied by students’ family backgrounds; (3) The hours students took in cram schools per week affected their academic performance. In other words, stratification in attending cram schooling leads to educational stratification; (4) The expense of attending cram schools also had an effect on students’ academic performance, but the difference was more significant between students “with and without spending on cram schooling”. In other words, stratification also existed in the cost of attending cram schools, and students are more likely to gain higher returns from paid cram schooling.
