Double Reduction Policy

The Double Reduction Policy (Chinese: 双减政策; pinyin: shuāng jiǎn zhèng cè) Chinese education policy intended to reduce homework and after-school tutoring pressure on primary and secondary school students, reduce families' spending on tutoring, and improve compulsory education.[1]

The policy, formally titled Opinions on Further Reducing the Homework Burden and Off-Campus Training Burden of Students in Compulsory Education, was issued on 24 July 2021 by the General Office of the Chinese Communist Party and the State Council of the People's Republic of China.[2] The policy was prompted by problems with high-stakes exam-oriented education, including the physical and mental health of students (e.g., lack of sleep, obesity, anxiety, and suicide).[3]

Background

[edit]

Student stressors

[edit]

The amount of time Chinese adolescents invest in their studies is among the highest in the world. Students in Shanghai aged twelve to fourteen spend 9.8 hours a day on campus studying.[4] Chinese students' average study time commitment is fifty-five hours per week, far above the international average of forty-four.[5] Many students have even more study time through tutoring programs. Due to the competitive pressure of the Senior High School Entrance Examination, junior high students in China's first-tier cities improve their academic performance through extracurricular tutoring. In Shanghai, more than 45 percent of students attend math tutoring classes at least four hours a week, and more than 20 percent spend more than four hours being tutored.[4] Chinese adolescents' tutoring hours during weekends increased from 0.7 hours to 2.1 hours from 2005 to 2015.[6] Students from rural areas attend four-hour evening sessions offered by boarding schools,[4] which can last until 11 pm.[7]

Lack of sleep has become a common trend among Chinese adolescents,[4][7] as time-consuming homework must be completed after cram school.[8] Research conducted by the Chinese education platform Afanti has shown that 45 percent of students have difficulties finishing homework.[9] 87.6 percent of interviewed junior or high school students (aged 13 to 18) finish homework after 10 pm and sleep for under 8 hours on average.[8] 13.3 percent of primary school students (aged 6 to 12) suffered from insufficient sleep during weekdays.[10]

More homework given during weekdays is positively correlated with a higher proportion of overweight Chinese adolescents.[3] The obesity rate among Chinese children aged five to nineteen exceeded 18 percent in 2016, almost five times the obesity rate of four percent in 1975.[11] Primary school students aged seven to nine have the most significant obesity problem, with rates of 5.7% for boys and 8% for girls.[3] 19.6 percent of Grade 1 students are overweight, and the obesity rate of primary school students in grades 1-3 is increasing faster than that of students in grades 4–6.[3]

Suicide is the highest cause of death among Chinese teenagers.[12] Seventy-nine primary and secondary school suicides in 2013 were linked to the pressure of exam-oriented education in China and fierce competition in schools.[13] 63 percent of the suicides occurred in the second semester, as the Senior High School Entrance Examination and the National College Entrance Examination (高考, abbreviated gaokao) approached. Depression caused by stress is a leading factor in suicide, and more than 10 percent of Chinese adolescents have depression. While 33 percent of suicides among Chinese adolescents are related to family conflicts, 22 percent are directly attributed to study stress.[14] Moreover, China lacks adequate psychological resources for students with psychological problems, which can be difficult for students with mental health problems.[13]

Parental stressors

[edit]

Chinese families, influenced by Confucianism and high income gaps between education levels, consider their children's academic performance to be an effective means of achieving upward social mobility.[14][15] Parents' high expectations can also be linked to the one-child policy implemented in 1979: with fewer children to look to for success and increasingly-competitive Chinese workplaces, parents place extreme demands on their children to succeed academically.[15] These pressures, combined with class envy and lower-class fears, lead families to increase their educational expenditures, especially on expensive after-school tutoring.[16]

The high cost of education leads to significant economic pressure on Chinese families. The China Institute for Educational Finance Research (CIEFR)'s household survey showed that Chinese families spent $296 billion on preschool and primary education from 2016 to 2017,[17] even though compulsory education is tuition-free and government-funded. Families in first-tier cities spend an average of 16,800 yuan on education for students during the compulsory education stage.[17] Middle-class parents spent the most in their children's education out of all groups.[18] Middle-class parents want to build 'child capital' through this financial investment in tutoring.[19]

Teachers' requirements can place extra burdens on Chinese parents. In China, some teachers require parents to check and supervise their children's homework.[20] 91.2% of Chinese parents do so.[21] Students and families that fail can be reprimanded by teachers and accused of irresponsibility, increasing stress within the family and familial relationships.[20]

Policy measures

[edit]

The double reduction policy emphasizes the student-oriented learning mode, which recommends teaching students according to their aptitude and embracing a "cultural approach."[15][clarification needed] Schools now offer courses across a broader range of interests and respect every student’s differentiated learning needs, personal strengths, and individuality so that students can achieve well-rounded development, including through after-school services.[1]

The Double Reduction Policy also aims to alleviate the financial burden on families by strictly regulating the tutoring industry and reducing pressure on families. It calls for the development of "home-school cooperative education," which guides parents toward reasonable expectations for their children. At the same time, the school provides after-school supervision to reduce parents' anxiety about tutoring classes and home supervision.[22]

Opinions on Further Reducing the Homework Burden and Off-Campus Training Burden of Students in Compulsory Education specifies the following policy measures to ease students' learning burden:[2][23]

  1. Reduce time spent on homework. The policy sets limits on total homework given: no written homework for 1st and 2nd grades; up to 60 minutes of average homework for 3rd through 6th grades; no more than 90 minutes of written homework for middle school. This piece also contains improvements to homework design, homework support from teachers, and guidance to balance time at home spent on classwork with other activities.
  2. Improve after-school services. The policy requests that schools make more time for after-school services, expand channels for separate faculty to carry out these services, and improve the diversity of social and academic activities. It requires that after-school services not be used as additional class time. The policy also strengthens and improves free online study services by region.
  3. Regulate extracurricular training and private tutoring. The new policy creates oversight and filing systems for extracurricular training and tutoring institutions, bans the approval of new institutions, and limits and regulates fee collection. On 23 July, The State Council of the People's Republic of China announced that they would no longer issue new for-profit licenses for tutoring institutions and required existing ones to stop tutoring “core curriculum courses” for students having compulsory education. All after-school tutoring institutions became non-profits.[24] The Chinese government also stated this heavy regulation on the tutoring industry aimed to eliminate the unequal educational resource allocation phenomenon.[25]
  4. Increase quality of education, enrollment and appraisal: Education departments promote balanced development of compulsory education across regions, hoping to reduce the educational gap between urban and rural students. Primary and junior high schools in China are also explicitly forbidden from ranking students' academic performance or using such rankings for promotion to higher levels of school. The Ministry of Education has emphasized students' personality rights to avoid the negative psychological pressure caused by the public examination ranking. Banning rankings protects students' psychological self-esteem, especially for adolescents still in a fragile growth stage. The abolition of rankings and “frequent formal exams” has improved students' enthusiasm for learning and changed China's long grade-centered and test-oriented education system.[26][27]
  5. Government support, pilots and implementation. The policy sets standards for regional and provincial governments to allocate funds and staff to support its improved procedures. It also details the requirements for pilot work, designates specific cities and regions to carry out pilots, and clarifies departmental responsibilities and procedures.

Effects

[edit]

Tutoring

[edit]

About 15 million people in China were employed in off-campus education and training before the policy was published.[22] After the double reduction policy was implemented, 10 million people experienced unemployment.[22] Overall, the tutoring industry shrunk considerably. The number of offline tutoring institutions decreased by 83.8 percent, while online tutoring institutions decreased by 84.1 percent.[28] The tutoring industry became highly fungible because schools offered a wealth of learning resources in school, and 91% of students attended those activities.[28] New Oriental Education Technology Group Co., Ltd., a prominent player in the Chinese tutoring industry, saw its stock price hit a record low of 1.68 in August 2021. To cut costs and minimize economic losses, New Oriental Education also cut staff and stopped shifting its business focus from K-12 education consulting to quality-oriented education.[22][clarification needed]

Mental health

[edit]

Sleep deprivation and mental health problems have been slightly relieved after reducing the amount of homework.[29] The rate of students with depression dropped from 9.9 percent to 9.4 percent, and the rate of anxiety dropped from 7.4 percent to 7.1 percent.[29] The proportion of primary and secondary school students able to complete their homework at school rose from 46 percent to more than 90 percent, showing that adolescents now have more time to achieve work-life balance.[28][29]

Teachers

[edit]

Under the incentive of the double reduction policy, Chinese teachers were encouraged to modify their educational methods. To enable students to complete their homework with a smaller workload and shorter class times, Chinese teachers consciously started to improve classroom teaching efficiency.[30] The double reduction policy also provided a more “favorable ideological environment” and career development space for ambitious teachers with better teaching abilities. Middle-aged teachers born in the 1970s and 1980s were inspired to participate in research projects and take the lead for younger teachers. Young teachers gained career development opportunities, and their awareness of innovation and advantages in information technology helped them stand out easily.[30]

Still, from 2018 to 2020, many teachers were concerned about the potential increased workload and a lack of protections for their rights and felt occupational anxiety. While teachers still expected parents to take responsibility for supervising their children and actively communicate with teachers, some parents thought that the policy meant that children's education should be solely the school's responsibility.[30] There was also a role conflict: many teachers who are also parents felt that they were unable to take care of their own families because they were busy providing after-school services and designing homework as required by the policy.[31]

Teachers also had several concerns about academic performance under the policy. Some discovered that the quality of teaching decreases in the short term after reducing the amount of homework. In addition, some schools kept exams and rankings, only changing final exams' names and keeping rankings private, still requiring teachers to improve students' scores. Some worried that reduced homework would harm students' academic performance in the long term as education remained exam-oriented. Especially when dealing with large class sizes, teachers also had difficulties designing flexible homework suitable for different students. Many teachers began to doubt their teaching ability and showed low self-efficacy. Moreover, some teachers believed personalized homework would make it harder to understand the differences between their students' academic levels.[30][31]

Reception

[edit]

A review of posts on Weibo showed a mix of positive and negative responses. Among the positive topics of public concern, 45.9% discussed educational equity. The public believed the double reduction policy could effectively solve the long-standing unequal distribution of educational resources. The prominent negative topics the public mentioned were policy influence and "industry impact," mainly discussing problems such as the bankruptcies of tutoring institutions.[28][32]

The subjects participating in the Weibo discussion were mainly students, parents, tutoring institutions, and teachers. Teachers discussed their frustration with the increased workload without a change in income. Some teachers expressed sadness, confusion, and fear about their future personal development and the breaking of their teaching habits.[33] Many “self-media accounts” and "education opinion leaders" expressed negative and skeptical opinions towards the double-reduction policy, influencing public understanding.[33]

Some parents complained about how hard it was to get tuition fees back after the double reduction policy's crackdown on tutoring institutions.[28][32] On Zhihu, parents' comments opposed the double reduction policy. They argued that the policy did not decrease parents' demand for tutoring classes, and they only increased prices and created a larger educational resource gap. Some worried that the closure of private institutes would increase the pressure on parents to supervise academic performance. Some felt that the double reduction policy was just a product of the Chinese government to encourage fertility. Others believed that competition among students still existed.[34]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ a b Eryong; Xue; Li, Jian (17 February 2022). "What is the value essence of "double reduction" (Shuang Jian) policy in China? A policy narrative perspective". Educational Philosophy and Theory. 55 (7): 787–796. doi:10.1080/00131857.2022.2040481. ISSN 0013-1857. S2CID 246985777.
  2. ^ a b "中共中央办公厅 国务院办公厅印发《关于进一步减轻义务教育阶段学生作业负担和校外培训负担的意见》_中央有关文件_中国政府网". www.gov.cn. Retrieved 3 March 2023.
  3. ^ a b c d Ren, Hong; Zhou, Zhixiong; Liu, Wenxi Kevin; Wang, Xiujiang; Yin, Zenong (January 2017). "Excessive homework, inadequate sleep, physical inactivity, and screen viewing time are significant contributors to high pediatric obesity". Acta Paediatrica. 106 (1): 120–127. doi:10.1111/apa.13640. PMC 6680318. PMID 27759894.
  4. ^ a b c d Wei, Kan (24 February 2014). "Copying the long Chinese school day could have unintended consequences". The Conversation. Retrieved 26 February 2023.
  5. ^ Ma, Yingyi (17 December 2019). "China's education system produces stellar test scores. So why do 600,000 students go abroad each year to study?". The Washington Post. Retrieved 27 February 2023.
  6. ^ ""双减"之下 教育还要迎接哪些挑战". www.scjc.gov.cn. Retrieved 28 February 2023.
  7. ^ a b "A day in the life of Chinese students | HechingerEd Blog". Retrieved 28 February 2023.
  8. ^ a b "'Burden' of homework leaves Chinese pupils sleep-deprived, study finds". South China Morning Post. 13 April 2019. Retrieved 12 April 2023.
  9. ^ "《中国中小学写作业压力报告》结果发布，你怎么看？". www.sohu.com. Retrieved 12 April 2023.
  10. ^ Zhang, Yushu; Huang, Zhengjing; Zhang, Mei; Li, Chun; Zhao, Zhenping; Zhang, Xiao; Guan, Yunqi; Mudoti, Nyasha Grace; Wang, Limin (6 January 2023). "Sleep Status Among Children and Adolescents Aged 6–17 Years — China, 2016–2017". China CDC Weekly. 5 (1): 11–16. doi:10.46234/ccdcw2023.003. ISSN 2096-7071. PMC 9902748. PMID 36777469.
  11. ^ Zhang, Na; Ma, Guansheng (1 March 2018). "Childhood obesity in China: trends, risk factors, policies, and actions". Global Health Journal. 2 (1): 1–13. doi:10.1016/S2414-6447(19)30115-0. ISSN 2414-6447.
  12. ^ "The rise of youth suicide in China". The Week. November 2013. Retrieved 28 February 2023.
  13. ^ a b "China's Cutthroat School System Leads to Teen Suicides". Wall Street Journal. 15 May 2014. Retrieved 28 February 2023.
  14. ^ a b Jiang, Shan; Ren, Qiang; Jiang, Chaoxin; Wang, Lin (1 December 2021). "Academic stress and depression of Chinese adolescents in junior high schools: Moderated mediation model of school burnout and self-esteem". Journal of Affective Disorders. 295: 384–389. doi:10.1016/j.jad.2021.08.085. ISSN 0165-0327. PMID 34492431. S2CID 237442845.
  15. ^ a b c Zhao, Xu; Selman, Robert L.; Haste, Helen (31 December 2015). Cheng, May (ed.). "Academic stress in Chinese schools and a proposed preventive intervention program". Cogent Education. 2 (1): 1000477. doi:10.1080/2331186X.2014.1000477. S2CID 154372408.
  16. ^ Yu, Shuo; Zheng, Jiansong; Xu, Zhibin; Zhang, Tao (19 May 2022). "The Transformation of Parents' Perception of Education Involution Under the Background of "Double Reduction" Policy: The Mediating Role of Education Anxiety and Perception of Education Equity". Frontiers in Psychology. 13: 800039. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.800039. ISSN 1664-1078. PMC 9161288. PMID 35664177.
  17. ^ a b Liu, Yi-Ling (13 August 2019). "China's AI Dreams Aren't for Everyone". Foreign Policy. Retrieved 12 April 2023.
  18. ^ "Middle class spend less as they scrimp and save for children's education". South China Morning Post. 16 October 2018. Retrieved 2 March 2023.
  19. ^ Lin, Xiaoshan (18 June 2019). ""Purchasing hope": the consumption of children's education in urban China". The Journal of Chinese Sociology. 6 (1): 8. doi:10.1186/s40711-019-0099-8. ISSN 2198-2635. S2CID 256428266.
  20. ^ a b Matamoros, Cristina Abellan (10 December 2017). "Chinese parents protest against 'stress caused by children's homework'". euronews. Retrieved 2 March 2023.
  21. ^ "Chinese students spend almost 3 hours on homework daily, three times the world average - People's Daily Online". en.people.cn. Retrieved 2 March 2023.
  22. ^ a b c d Wang, Qichao; Luo, Xiaotong; Yang, Jie (2022). "Understanding China's Double Reduction Policy on Educational Economy". Global Economic Observer; Bucharest. 10 (1): 63–69. ProQuest 2678525598.
  23. ^ China Law Translate (3 November 2021). "Opinions on Further Reducing the Burden on Students in the Compulsory Education State from Homework and Extracurricular Training". China Law Translate. Retrieved 3 March 2023.
  24. ^ Davidson, Helen (3 August 2021). "China's crackdown on tutoring leaves parents with new problems". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 12 April 2023.
  25. ^ "What's the end game for China's crackdown on private tutoring?". South China Morning Post. 28 August 2021. Retrieved 14 April 2023.
  26. ^ Hatch, T. (3 November 2021). "Surprise, Controversy, and the "Double Reduction Policy" in China". International Education News. Retrieved 3 March 2023.
  27. ^ 陶幸. "Is it good to abolish test rankings?-- Beijing Review". www.bj review.com. Retrieved 3 March 2023.
  28. ^ a b c d e "'Double reduction' policy adds strength to China's education reform | english.scio.gov.cn". english.Scio.gov.cn. Retrieved 3 March 2023.
  29. ^ a b c Wang, Dongfang; Chen, Xiao-Yan; Ma, Zijuan; Liu, Xianchen; Fan, Fang (28 November 2022). "Has the "Double Reduction" policy relieved stress? A follow-up study on Chinese adolescents". Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health. 16 (1): 91. doi:10.1186/s13034-022-00530-6. ISSN 1753-2000. PMC 9707210. PMID 36443852.
  30. ^ a b c d "Dilemmas, Challenges and Opportunities under Double Reduction Policy Faced by Teachers in Urban Primary School of China". Frontiers in Educational Research. 5 (9). 2022. doi:10.25236/FER.2022.050904. S2CID 252328774.
  31. ^ a b Yue, Wei; Yu, Le; Yang, Yanru (22 March 2023). "The occupational anxiety of teachers caused by China's 'double reduction' policy—a study based on the grounded theory". Frontiers in Psychology. 14. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1144565. ISSN 1664-1078. PMC 10074598. PMID 37034957.
  32. ^ a b 徐, 佳铭. ""双减"政策背景下的教育舆情探究——基于微博数据". 艺术科技.
  33. ^ a b Jia, Weichen; Peng, Jun (8 September 2022). Zhang, Dalin (ed.). "The Public Sentiment Analysis of Double Reduction Policy on Weibo Platform". Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience. 2022: 1–9. doi:10.1155/2022/3212681. ISSN 1687-5273. PMC 9477569. PMID 36120674.
  34. ^ "China's Crackdown on Pricey Tutoring Schools Upsets Parents". VOA. 11 July 2021. Retrieved 3 March 2023.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Double_Reduction_Policy&oldid=1234240338"