Penn Undergraduate Law Journal
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission
    • Masthead
    • Faculty Advisory Board
    • Partner Journals
    • Sponsors
  • Submissions
  • Full Issues
  • The Roundtable
    • Pre-Law Corner
  • Events
  • Contact
    • Contact
    • Apply
    • FAQs
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission
    • Masthead
    • Faculty Advisory Board
    • Partner Journals
    • Sponsors
  • Submissions
  • Full Issues
  • The Roundtable
    • Pre-Law Corner
  • Events
  • Contact
    • Contact
    • Apply
    • FAQs

The Roundtable


Welcome to the Roundtable, a forum for incisive commentary and analysis
on cases and developments in law and the legal system.


INTERESTED IN wRITING FOR tHE rOUNDTABLE?

Double Reduction: China’s Flawed Attempt at Mitigating its Academic Competition and Costs

3/24/2022

0 Comments

 
Picture
Image source: “Chinese Class-Flickr.” Wikimedia Commons, January 29, 2007. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a7/Chinese_class_-_Flickr_-_%28cleverCl%40i®ê%29.jpg.

By Oulai "Audrey" Pan 

Oulai "Audrey" Pan is a first-year student at the University of Pennsylvania's College of Arts and Sciences who plans to study political science and economics.


For a nation that is notorious for academic competition, China’s announcement of its “Double Reduction” policies came as a surprise for many.
​

In July of 2021, China announced resolutions imposing numerous restrictions on its test preparation industry, estimated to be worth over $100 billion, as well as the amount of schoolwork students can receive in a given week [1]. These new regulations were collectively dubbed the “Double Reduction.” More specifically, it entails the following:
  1. Restricting private tutoring companies by banning or severely limiting foreign investment, IPOs, offering classes during holiday breaks, and the subjects in which tutoring can be offered.
  2. Forcing private tutoring companies to transition to a nonprofit model.
  3. Time limits for homework by grade level.
  4. Reducing the number of in-school exams.
  5. Abolishing formal student rankings [2].
The complete policy document,“Opinions on Further Reducing the Burden of Homework and Off-Campus Training for Compulsory Education Students,” also claims that public schools will now be mandated to provide after school childcare services and classes to make up for the time students would’ve spent in private extracurricular tutoring. Teachers from competitive school districts will also be rotated to less competitive ones in order to mitigate the emergence of magnet-esque schools, and homework will be redesigned to be more diagnostic [3]. Though these changes may be beneficial, the feasibility of implementing such services is still in question.

The Chinese government claimed that “Double Reduction” was proposed to improve the mental and physical health of school children by alleviating the high competitive pressure they face while also reducing their parents’ financial burden [4].

That said, the actual motivation behind such a policy is likely China’s falling birthrate and the government’s distrust of large corporations. Despite revisions to its One-Child Policy, China has not seen a rise in birth rate, fueling concerns over an aging workforce [5]. In fact, when China moved to allow families to have three children instead of two, the policy was not welcomed but instead met with anger due to the high costs of raising children [6]. The Chinese government has also moved to regulate large private corporations in recent years, and the crackdown on tutoring companies follows that trend [7].

Nonetheless, to understand the implications of “Double Reduction,” one needs to first be acquainted with the Chinese education system, defined by the gaokao—the standard college entrance exam taken by all high school seniors who wish to matriculate into university. In fact, for the vast majority of Chinese universities, students’ scores on the gaokao is the sole factor considered for admission [8].
This test-based system has driven middle class families to spend a substantial amount of their income on extracurricular academic tutoring. In an effort not to “lose at the starting line” families have increasingly pushed their children into rigorous academic courses before they have even entered elementary school [9]. It would be extremely rare to find students not in such afterschool programs, assuming that their families can afford them. Thus, unlike in the United States, attending tutoring was not a way to get ahead but instead the only way to keep up with one’s peers. As a result, a large tutoring industry emerged in China—estimated to be worth $100 billion before “Double Reduction” was unveiled [10].

Therefore, the Chinese government is right in identifying that the pressure to enroll one’s children into extracurricular courses is a significant financial burden on parents, and is likely discouraging them to have larger families. However, “Double Reduction” is not the solution.

On the surface, it may appear that “Double Reduction” would alleviate the financial stress of middle class Chinese families while promoting equality, since affording after school classes would not be a problem if they ceased to exist. However, “Double Reduction” does not alter the inherently competitive nature of the Chinese college-entrance system, nor does it diminish the importance of attending high-ranking universities in the job-search process. A large number of students will still be vying for a very limited number of spots at select universities, and attempts at closing test prep centers or limiting homework can not change that [11].

Thus, instead of alleviating financial stress, “Double Reduction” will only add to it, since families will now be scrambling to find private tutors who are far more costly [12]. Though many parents do spend much of their income on after school tutoring programs offered by test prep corporations, they are still considered affordable for middle and even lower-middle class families. This then offers a pathway to social mobility if their children perform well on the gaokao. 

“Double Reduction” takes away those relatively affordable preparatory programs and leaves families with two options: hoping that the government follows through with promises to establish free programs at the school their child attends, or paying for private tutors, which most families may not be able to afford. Thus, such policies will only solidify the upper class’s status and influence in Chinese society; they would become the only people who can afford private tutors for their children, who can then go on to achieve high scores on the gaokao and attend the most prestigious institutions. On top of that, the countless jobs provided by tutoring companies will vanish as they face government scrutiny and are forced to move away from academic subjects [13]. Despite these consequences, “Double Reduction” has not faced any notable legal challenges, and likely will not in the foreseeable future due to China’s authoritarianism and censorship.

In sum, the unreasonably high pressures faced by Chinese students and their parents is undoubtedly a problem that requires further examination. However, proposed solutions such as the “Double Reduction” may achieve the opposite of their intended effect and instead serve to stratify inequality and lower educational accessibility.

The opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions of the designated authors and do not reflect the opinions or views of the Penn Undergraduate Law Journal, our staff, or our clients.
[1] Stevenson, Alexandra. “China Moves against Private Tutoring Companies, Causing Shares to Plunge.” The New York Times, July 26, 2021. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/26/business/china-private-education.html. 
[2] Yu, Shan. “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》” 中华人民共和国中央人民政府, July 24, 2021. http://www.gov.cn/zhengce/2021-07/24/content_5627132.htm. 
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] “Chinese Birth Rate Falls to Lowest in Seven Decades.” BBC News, January 17, 2020. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-51145251. 
[6] Wang, Vivian. “Have Three Children? No Way, Many Chinese Say.” The New York Times, June 1, 2021. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/01/world/asia/china-three-child.html. 
[7] Stevenson, Alexandra, and Cao Li. “China Targets Costly Tutoring Classes. Parents Want to Save Them.” The New York Times, July 30, 2021. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/30/business/economy/china-education-tutors.html. 
[8] Zhou, Viola, and Qin Chen. “Chinese Colleges Tried Admitting Students the US Way. It Didn't Work.” Inkstone, March 15, 2019. https://www.inkstonenews.com/education/us-college-admissions-scandal-prompts-discussion-chinas-own-meritocratic-system/article/3001859. 
[9] Stevenson and Li, “China Targets Costly Tutoring Classes. Parents Want to Save Them.”
[10] Ibid.
[11] Li, Xiaoyang. “New Policy Relieves Student Burden and Changes the Landscape of the Tutoring Industry.” Beijing Review, September 10, 2021. http://www.bjreview.com/China/202109/t20210910_800258050.html. 
[12] “China’s Education Crackdown Pushes Costly Tutors Underground.” Bloomberg, August 12, 2021. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-08-12/china-s-education-crackdown-pushes-costly-tutors-underground. 
[13] Ye, Wendy. “China's Harsh Education Crackdown Sends Parents and Businesses Scrambling.” CNBC, August 5, 2021. https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/05/chinas-harsh-education-crackdown-sends-parents-businesses-scrambling.html.

0 Comments

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.


    Categories

    All
    Akshita Tiwary
    Alana Bess
    Alana Mattei
    Albert Manfredi
    Alexander Saeedy
    Alexandra Aaron
    Alexandra Kanan
    Alice Giannini
    Alicia Augustin
    Alicia Kysar
    Ally Kalishman
    Ally Margolis
    Alya Abbassian
    Anika Prakash
    Anna Schwartz
    Ashley Kim
    Astha Pandey
    Audrey Pan
    Benjamin Ng'aru
    Brónach Rafferty
    Bryce Klehm
    Cary Holley
    Christina Gunzenhauser
    Christine Mitchell
    Christopher Brown
    Clarissa Alvarez
    Cole Borlee
    Connor Gallagher
    Dan Spinelli
    Dan Zhang
    David Katz
    Davis Berlind
    Derek Willie
    Dhilan Lavu
    Edgar Palomino
    Edna Simbi
    Emma Davies
    Esther Lee
    Evelyn Bond
    Filzah Belal
    Frank Geng
    Gabriel Maliha
    Georgia Ray
    Graham Reynolds
    Habib Olapade
    Hailie Goldsmith
    Haley Son
    Harshit Rai
    Henry Lininger
    Hetal Doshi
    Iris Zhang
    Irtaza Ali
    Isabela Baghdady
    Ishita Chakrabarty
    Jack Burgess
    Jessica "Lulu" Lipman
    Joe Anderson
    Jonathan Lahdo
    Jonathan Stahl
    Joseph Squillaro
    Justin Yang
    Kaitlyn Rentala
    Kanishka Bhukya
    Katie Kaufman
    Kelly Liang
    Keshav Sharma
    Ketaki Gujar
    Lauren Pak
    Lavi Ben Dor
    Libby Rozbruch
    Lindsey Li
    Luis Bravo
    Lyndsey Reeve
    Madeline Decker
    Maja Cvjetanovic
    Maliha Farrooz
    Marco DiLeonardo
    Margaret Lu
    Matthew Caulfield
    Michael Keshmiri
    Mina Nur Basmaci
    Muskan Mumtaz
    Natalie Peelish
    Natasha Darlington
    Natasha Kang
    Nayeon Kim
    Nicholas Parsons
    Nicholas Williams
    Nicole Greenstein
    Nihal Sahu
    Omar Khoury
    Owen Voutsinas Klose
    Owen Voutsinas-Klose
    Pheby Liu
    Rachel Bina
    Rachel Gu
    Rachel Pomerantz
    Rebecca Heilweil
    Regina Salmons
    Sajan Srivastava
    Sandeep Suresh
    Sanjay Dureseti
    Sarah Simon
    Saranya Das Sharma
    Saranya Sharma
    Sasha Bryski
    Saxon Bryant
    Sean Foley
    Sebastian Bates
    Serena Camici
    Shahana Banerjee
    Shannon Alvino
    Shiven Sharma
    Siddarth Sethi
    Sneha Parthasarathy
    Sneha Sharma
    Sophie Lovering
    Steven Jacobson
    Suaida Firoze
    Suprateek Neogi
    Takane Shoji
    Tanner Bowen
    Taryn MacKinney
    Thomas Cribbins
    Todd Costa
    Tyler Larkworthy
    Vatsal Patel
    Vikram Balasubramanian
    Vishwajeet Deshmukh
    Wajeeha Ahmad
    Yeonhwa Lee

    Archives

    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    September 2022
    June 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    November 2014
    October 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013

Picture
Picture
​