Abstract
Purpose
This study provides an overview of the “double reduction” policy promulgated in 2021, through which the Chinese government attempts to relieve the burden of excessive school homework and off-campus tutoring for students in compulsory education.
Design/Approach/Methods
This study draws on policy documents and relevant literature to interpret policy origins, core values, and major measures. The positive effects and challenges faced in implementing policies for the balanced and high-quality development of compulsory education were analyzed.
Findings
Students’ academic burden is deeply rooted in Chinese historical and sociocultural contexts. The “double reduction” policy shows the Chinese government's strong aspiration to promote holistic education for students and pursue the universal provision of balanced, high-quality school education. Despite some positive effects at the implementation level, challenges remain unaddressed. To achieve a policy vision, it calls for a deep reflection on the high-stakes examination system and collective efforts from stakeholders within or outside the education system.
Originality/value
This study helps elucidate the “double reduction” policy and compulsory education development in China.
Introduction
The General Offices of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party and the State Council jointly released the Opinions on Further Reducing the Burden of Homework and Off-Campus Training for Compulsory Education Students (the “double reduction” policy hereafter) on July 24, 2021, taking immediate effect. This policy shows the Chinese government's strong desire to significantly reduce students’ excessive school homework and off-school training burdens to pursue the universal provision of high-quality school education and achieve a balanced development of compulsory education. Although this policy is not the first to address a prominent problem in compulsory education (i.e., students’ academic burden) in China, it is the most extensive, influential, and comprehensive burden reduction policy in history (Xue & Li, 2023; Yu et al., 2021). Thus, it is timely to understand the latest policy updates and provide early reflections on policy implementation.
Based on the analysis of policy documents and relevant research literature on the “double reduction” at the policy and implementation levels, this study provides an overview of this policy in terms of its background, goals and values, and major measures. Additionally, it analyzes the effectiveness and challenges of policy effects in enhancing quality and equality in compulsory education.
Problematizing students’ academic burden: The policy origins
In the literature, researchers have usually used academic stress or anxiety to depict the influence of academic-related demands on students’ health and psychological well-being (Putwain, 2007). Generally, students’ academic stress or anxiety comes from excessive schoolwork, examinations, time pressure, and/or parental and teacher expectations (Leung et al., 2010). Some research suggests that moderate academic stress does not necessarily have harmful influences on students (Sang et al., 2017). However, owing to Confucian educational values, students in China and other Asian systems such as Singapore, South Korea, and Japan are often overloaded with academic demands, causing academic burden (fudan) (Jiang & Saito 2022; Leung et al., 2010). Therefore, reducing students’ academic burdens has become a key issue in these countries.
In Chinese society, educational achievement is strongly emphasized as a path toward upward social mobility, family pride, and respect (Leung et al., 2010; Tan, 2013). High demands for academic success place great pressure and study burdens on students, creating perplexing and ongoing educational concerns. However, relieving students’ schoolwork was not an overnight action by the Chinese government. Since the 1950s, several policy documents have been issued at the national level to address students’ excessive schoolwork (Table 1). Implementing these policies shifted from a focus on schoolwork reduction, either within the school or out-of-school training restrictions, to a double reduction of the schoolwork burden in and out of schools. However, the policies enacted have not been effective in solving the deep-rooted problem of excessive schoolwork.
Key policy documents for reducing students’ burden in China since 1949.
Note. The Ministry of Education of the People's Republic of China was named differently during different historical periods.
Many researchers attribute this issue to China's examination-based education, which is deeply embedded in Chinese culture and society, resulting in educational stakeholders pursuing academic excellence or educational attainment as their sole or main success metrics (Dello-Iacovo, 2009; Jiang & Saito, 2022; Tan, 2019). The singular pursuit of high test scores, particularly in the gaokao (i.e., college entrance exam), has aggravated the worries of parents, teachers, and school leaders (Liu & Bray, 2022). Within schools, teachers or school leaders tend to assign more homework or extend students’ study hours to enhance the rate at which they advance to higher education. Although high PISA test scores are widely celebrated, they come at the cost of prolonged study hours. According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), junior secondary students in China spent approximately 13.8 hr per week doing homework in 2014 (almost three times the OECD average of 4.9 hr; OECD, 2014). In 2018, Chinese students in Beijing, Shanghai, Jiangsu, and Zhejiang studied for as long as 57 hr a week, ranking second among the 79 participating countries or economies (OECD, 2019). Research also evidenced that out-of-school tutoring (also known as shadow education) improves students’ academic performance (Zhang & Bray, 2017). Outside school, many parents are anxious about competition among their children for prestigious educational institutions at every stage, following the saying, “Do not let your child lose out at the starting line.” Thus, as a strategy for managing a precarious environment, they choose to invest in off-campus tutoring to improve their children's competitiveness (Liu & Bray, 2022). Widespread shadow education has imposed heavy workloads on students, who must take extra classes at the cost of leisure time. Heavy workloads both in and out of school lead to insufficient sleep (Xu & Hu, 2020), enduring educational stress (Sun et al., 2013), or reduced well-being (Zhang, 2016). In addition, student participation in off-campus tutoring increases household expenses and exacerbates social inequality. According to a 2017 national survey, the shadow education participation rate of urban students was more than double that of rural students (Wei, 2018).
Against this backdrop, the pressure of excessive homework and off-campus tutoring on primary and secondary school students has escalated, highlighting the urgent need for a new and strong policy initiative.
“Double reduction” policy: Core values and major measures
Drawing on the official policy documents, Chinese official media reports, and newly published studies about the “double reduction” policy, this study adopted textual analysis to identify the core education values embedded in the policy. Generally, it responds to the fundamental questions of “Who to educate, how to educate, and for whom to educate” (Luo, 2021; Xue & Li, 2023).
Core values
First, reducing students’ homework and off-school training boosts their overall development. Since the initiation of new curriculum reforms in 2001, China has shifted its emphasis from examination-oriented to quality-based education (suzhi jiaoyu; Ministry of Education of the People's Republic of China [MOE], 2001). The advocacy of quality education focuses on cultivating not only students’ cognitive abilities or academic achievements but also their non-cognitive abilities, such as athletic or social skills. It requires the integration of moral, intellectual, physical, esthetic, and labor education (wuyuronghe; Xue & Li, 2023).
Second, it aims to provide high-quality school education. The policy mandates reducing school homework, not to reduce student learning or make it easier, but to ensure that it is effective and meaningful (MOE, 2021). This requires a profound change in school education and a significant improvement in teachers’ classroom teaching, particularly homework design, and the provision of educational resources and opportunities that cater to students’ needs to develop their talents and counter-teaching for examinations, such as memorization, mechanical learning, or excessive homework (Zhao, 2022).
Third, easing educational inequality is a core value pursued by the Chinese government. The policy clearly states that its aim is to adhere to the direction of socialist schooling and explicitly highlights the central role of school education in student learning, rather than off-campus training. The expansion of off-campus tutoring, born out of the dynamic market, has led to the further widening of educational inequality, which goes against the socialist collectivism principle (Yang et al., 2023). Thus, limiting off-campus training is an important measure to minimize the effects of the market and students’ socioeconomic backgrounds on their educational achievements (Qian et al., 2023; Zhao, 2022).
Major measures
Three major measures were adopted to achieve these goals: reducing students’ homework, providing after-school services, and restricting off-campus training.
Reducing students’ homework
The policy explicitly limits the amount of daily homework in primary and secondary schools as a source of schoolwork burden. Specifically, no written homework should be assigned to students in the first and second primary school grades; for those in the third to sixth primary school grades and in secondary schools, the average time to complete written homework each day should not exceed 60 and 90 min, respectively. In addition to controlling the quantity of homework, the quality of homework was also highlighted. This requires schools and teachers to improve homework design based on student characteristics and the vision of quality education, while avoiding assignments that are mechanical, punitive, too difficult, or beyond curriculum standards. Further, it assigns teachers—not parents or students—full responsibility for guiding, correcting, and providing feedback on students’ homework.
Providing after-school services
The provision of after-school services began in 2017 with the issuance of Guidance on After-School Services for Primary and Secondary School Students by the MOE. The Guidance required primary and secondary schools to provide comprehensive after-school educational activities in which students can participate in addressing the problem of students leaving school earlier than their parents leave work, resulting in parents having to outsource off-campus childcare. The “double reduction” policy emphasizes the need to improve after-school services and introduces new regulations regarding service time, contents, and resources. It requires after-school services to end no earlier than the usual local time that adults leave work and allows secondary schools to offer self-study sessions on weekday evenings. As for content, after-school services are prohibited from teaching new lessons; instead, they are encouraged to offer tutoring and homework guidance, answer questions, and conduct interest-based activities such as the arts, sports, and physical labor practice. Regarding resources, the policy encourages schools to diversify their channels and sources by seeking services from retired teachers, teachers from other schools, professionals, and/or community volunteers. Schools may also seek help from online educational resources or out-of-school organizations.
Restricting off-campus training
In 2018, several regulations stipulated the registration, licensing, and administration of off-campus training institutions. A significant change in the “double reduction” policy was the clear classification of off-campus training institutions as “subject-based” and “non-subject-based.” Subject-based training involves subjects that students study for high-stake examinations, such as Chinese, mathematics, English, and sciences, while non-subject-based training teaches sports, arts, science, and technology. As students’ academic pressure arises more from exam-related, subject-based training, it is far more tightly restricted than in non-subject-based training. The measures included (1) strictly approving and classifying off-campus training institutions and prohibiting non-subject-based training institutions from organizing subject-based training activities; (2) not approving any new subject-based off-campus training institutions for compulsory education students; (3) prohibiting subject-based training on weekends, national holidays, and summer and winter vacations; (4) forbidding subject-based training beyond or before the learning stages specified by the curriculum standards; and (5) requiring tutors providing subject-based training to have teaching qualifications and not be school teachers. According to this policy, existing subject-based training institutions should be uniformly registered as nonprofit institutions and should not seek financing from or be invested in by listed companies. Moreover, off-campus training institutions’ fee programs and standards must be disclosed to the public and false propaganda or discounts are prohibited. These initiatives were designed to curb the profit-seeking phenomenon of subject-based off-campus training and relieve parental anxiety and economic burden.
Implementing the policy: Promise and challenge
Although the “double reduction” policy has only been implemented for around two years, it has generated considerable research and discussion. This section draws on studies examining policy implementation to highlight its positive effects and potential challenges.
One significant change was that students’ overall depression and anxiety levels decreased significantly after the policy's introduction (Wang et al., 2022). Students, teachers, and parents reported that students had less homework and more time and space for extra-curricular activities, leisure, and all-around development (Ning & Yang, 2022). In 2022, the number of subject-based off-campus training institutions will shrink greatly, falling from 124,000 to 9,000. In a survey by Beijing Normal University, 83.5% of the over 1.6 million students surveyed reported not taking any subject-based off-campus tutoring (Chen, 2022). According to the MOE (2021), 75.8% of urban schools provided after-school service to their students in school days across the country; 97.3% of the more than 77 million parents surveyed were satisfied with their children's schoolwork after the “double reduction” policy.
Although this policy has had positive effects, new challenges have emerged that should not be undervalued. First, there has been a distinct increase in teachers’ workload since the “double reduction” policy. For example, Li et al. (2023) examined the impact of the policy on over 9,000 teachers’ involvement in after-school services in Beijing and found that 91.3% reported prolonged working time and increased workload, with almost 50% of teachers feeling overstressed. Similarly, in a large-scale survey covering over 10, 000 teachers in nine provinces or municipalities nationwide, Hou et al. (2022) showed that approximately 75% of the teachers experienced an increase in their workload after the introduction of the policy, echoing empirical studies in different regions (Lu et al., 2022; Ning et al., 2022). Teachers must not only shoulder the responsibility of after-school work but also work toward more efficient classroom teaching and homework design.
Second, interrelated with teacher workload, schools must improve their efficiency and ensure that easing students’ academic burdens does not lead to a decline in academic performance. Some researchers have also highlighted that this policy has made students rely more on school resources to improve their learning, as schools must introduce educational resources to provide them with richer development opportunities (interest groups, club activities, etc.; Shi et al., 2022; Xue & Li, 2023). However, the provision of educational resources for each school depends largely on management and quality (Peng & Dang, 2021). It may be difficult for those in weak, rural, or small schools to seek the rich resources needed to meet the general teaching requirements (Xue & Li, 2023). Shi et al. (2022), in a survey set in a city in Yunnan province, a disadvantaged area in Southwest China, found that 80.88% of teachers reported assisting students in their homework as after-school service rather than providing other forms of extra-curricular activities. This suggests that the learning gap between rural and urban schools or between advantaged and disadvantaged schools might not be narrowed if schools in need do not receive additional educational resources or financial assistance.
Third, although the government has taken measures by restricting or closing extra-curricular subject-based training institutions, this does not necessarily mean that off-campus training will completely disappear from educational life. Peng and Dang (2021) argued that parents’ investment in off-campus tutoring is not the major cause of students’ academic burden, but academic competition among students for high-stakes examinations. Given the pressure to pursue high exam scores, students’ and parents’ demands for shadow education will not diminish; therefore, other off-campus tutoring strategies may emerge. For example, some training services could be transferred from the “surface” to the “underground” market, making government regulation difficult. Alternatively, subject-based out-of-school training could take various “flexible” forms that are more expensive for parents (Zhou, 2021), further amplifying the educational gap between low-, middle-, and high-income families.
Concluding remarks
The urgent call for the “double reduction” policy reflects widespread anxiety about examination-oriented education and the tight link between educational achievement and social mobility in Chinese society. As the policy has been in force for only approximately two years, it is too early to conclude its long-term effectiveness or ineffectiveness. However, this study demonstrates that reducing students’ academic burden involves complex issues and educational values in Chinese society. On the one hand, reducing students’ study burden indicates a desire to promote holistic development without overburdening them. It recognizes the need to reform teaching and learning, improve the quality of school education, and develop balanced compulsory education. On the other hand, under the pressure of the current high-stakes exams, most parents are likely to choose to invest in education and enroll their children in prestigious universities rather than reduce their academic burden (Tan, 2019). This further suggests an inconsistency between the espoused values in social practices and policies (Jiang & Saito, 2022).
Given that policy is not only a product but also a process (Bowe et al., 1992), the policy outcome is dependent upon the process of policy enactment involving different stakeholders with different and even competing educational concerns. To achieve the vision of the “double reduction” policy, further research about different actors’ interpretations of and reactions to the policy is needed to understand the ongoing dynamics of students’ academic burden and engage stakeholders’ collective efforts (e.g., schools, families, the government, and the training institutions) within or external to the education system.
Footnotes
Contributorship
Licui Chen was responsible for initiating the project, writing the main body, revising the manuscript according to the reviewers’ comments, and finalizing the paper. Shuangmu Lin contributed by collecting some data and drafting major policy measures.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the National Office for Education Sciences Planning of China (grant number CHA220290).
