Extreme Education

Le Lin's new book is a comprehensive treatment of one of the most vibrant and turbulent aspects of Chinese education. It traces the roots and explains the rise of China's demolished Supplementary Education Industry (SEI) over the past four decades. The empirical puzzle is as follows: As a latecomer in terms of educational modernization, the SEI has risen at lightning speed. Adding to this rise is the ambiguous status of the industry: Supplementary Education Organizations (SEOs) are not “schools” in any legal sense. Thus, the question must be asked, how did they engage in the teaching business? For a long time, there was no legal status regarding whether these organizations were allowed to operate at all. Therefore, in the post-2010 period, growth is all but affirming. How can these seemingly extralegal entities become darlings of the capital market?

Lin has spent the past decade focusing on these questions. The book dates back to Lin's own experience as a tutor after college and his doctoral thesis, completed six years ago. While Lin's thesis uses a “double ambiguity” theory (marketability vis-à-vis ownership) to explain various changes in the SEI, the book version continues this path with a more precise two-dimensional version (p. 22) and adds a new layer of institutional sociology: a theory of opportunism (p. 27ff). The interplay between the two forces leads to a dynamic process of competition, selection, and adaptation of marginal entrepreneurs.

In addition to Chapter 1, Lin's account is largely divided into two parts. Chapters 2 through 4 document how opportunists produce institutional change, while the second part, Chapters 5 through 7, focuses on how opportunism persisted in a broader institutional climate.

This is a well-polished study. Lin explains the entire unfolding process at multiple levels. At the outset, the SEI attracts global financial interest as it builds on the image of a “high-end service industry.” The SEI has also labeled itself a technology industry, although its effectiveness is still unclear. At the middle level, the SEI connects the after-school time of millions of elementary and secondary school students. At the microlevel, it fulfills the desires of parents who are looking for quick patches to improve school performance or provides an edge to college students who wish to pursue an advanced learning opportunity overseas. These conditions all clicked at the right time to generate a powerful momentum for the industry. However, although these opportunists broke new ground because SEOs are not defined by existing institutional norms, their wild growth did not help them adapt to a newly institutionalized playing field. Taking everything into account, this book provides the most convincing explanation for the seemingly strange rise (and fall) of the SEI.

This book appeals to many people; sociologists interested in institutional change and China's social transformation will certainly benefit from it. As an educational reader, I approached Lin's study differently. This book could have led to important issues that were previously ignored. His study offers a glimpse into what might be the future of the teaching profession. Up until Lin's work, many studies on teaching practices had been carried out. Conceptual model educators are accustomed to what Lee Shulman calls “knowledge growth in teaching” (Shulman, 1986). The normative and idealistic argument is that a teaching professional grows through the acquisition of more technical knowledge, obtaining a certain level of education, and infusing strong practices inside the school, which is anchored by continued improvement over time (Hargreaves & Fullan, 2014). However, this internalist view typically ignores the environment in which teachers work. The SEI is a drastically different environment in which the expertise of teaching can take very unfamiliar forms (pp. 82ff, 92ff).

Moreover, the technology of teaching is augmented by practitioner–client relationships. This issue is not specifically posed in the book, since Lin's interest is not in the profession. As clients seek tutoring proactively, they are not prone to the issue of “client cooperation,” which is a pervasive issue in public schools. What tutors can promise is a narrow end with good performance. Unlike schoolteachers, who care about students’ growth, the SEI is single-minded and sharp-focused. The SEI does not have to care for the long-term “human improvement” (Cohen, 2011) and can instead simply offer expertise promising short-term fixes. The SEI's relationship with parents, or its entire approach to education, is therefore instrumental. Thus, we can imagine a version of teaching and education that focuses on technical efficiency, while eradicating much of everything else.

Like many other excellent studies, this book provides something new, while at the same time allowing readers to revisit the old. Lin's work is one to be remembered.