Lightening the Burdens of Education: The Results of the "Double Reduction" Policy (DRP) in China
Colleagues from the Centre of Sociology of Higher Education and the Academy of Future Education at the Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University analysed the interim results of implementing the Double Reduction Policy in the Chinese educational system, delving into a systematic literature review. The article has been published in a special issue of the ‘Educational Studies Moscow’ Journal.
‘Double Reduction Policy in Chinese Education: Promises, Outcomes, Perspectives’ at the special issue ‘Educational Mosaic: Understanding BRICS States’ is the article by Irina Shcheglova and colleagues, analysing the new government programme, the Double Reduction Policy (DRP), and the tensions in the implementation process.
Introduced in 2021, the Double Reduction Policy aimed to reduce the popularity of private tutoring in China by shifting the focus from an exam-oriented approach to enhancing students' comprehensive development. While the idea of lightening the academic burden seems promising, the short-term outcomes are contradictory, as the scholars revealed.
To gain a deeper understanding of the effects of this policy, Shcheglova and her colleagues analysed the DRP's promises, as well as the tensions in its implementation process, from the perspectives of major stakeholders: students, parents, teachers, schools, local authorities, and private tutoring institutions.
Traditional Chinese culture and its influence on education system
Researchers pointed out that, recently, there has been an increased demand for tutoring in China, given that the education system has long been exam-centred. China is the world’s most populous country. This creates a challenging academic environment and a struggle to find better employment, which imposes high levels of stress on students, their parents and teachers.
The authors believe that the current state of education can be traced back to Confucian traditions, in which discipline and hard work are highly valued. Chinese parents are confident that success can only be achieved through endless homework and extra study hours to keep up with their peers. This has led to China becoming one of the leading countries in East Asia with the largest markets for shadow education.
Gradually, the market of after-school training institutions has remarkably grown to about 87 billion yuan.
Shadow education in other Asian countries
Scholars also argue that the long-term existence of shadow education in countries such as Japan, South Korea, Singapore and Malaysia is contributed to by the pressure of high-stakes examinations. For example, in 1968, the South Korean government implemented the “High School Equalization Policy” to address educational issues. This exempted junior high school students from exams and allowed enrollment based on residential proximity. However, the program led to worsening the conditions of private tutoring, prompting the government to ban all forms of extracurricular tutoring and private academies in 2000.
The widespread growth of shadow education worldwide has sparked concerns about the fairness and quality of education, frequently questioning the dominance of the formal education sector.
Key findings of the outcomes of China’s “Double Reduction” Policy
The implementation of the new policy poses challenges that undermine the short-term success of most stakeholders.
While the DRP has had a positive impact on children by reducing academic stress and improving mental health, the extent of these benefits is influenced by family socioeconomic status, resource availability and students’ ability to manage their time effectively.
Among other things, the reduction in students’ workload has led to a significant increase in teachers’ workload. They now have to take responsibility for students’ mental health and parental concerns, as well as to be sure they cultivate a well-rounded learning environment that aligns with the DRP's broader goals.
Additionally, the deeply ingrained cultural emphasis on academic achievement among parents has raised questions about the value of the policy and its long-term implications for educational access and quality, emphasising the need for ongoing support and region-specific strategies.
Irina Shcheglova