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.
[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).
[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.
[13] 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.
[15] These pressures, combined with class envy and lower-class fears, lead families to increase their educational expenditures, especially on expensive after-school tutoring.
[20] The double reduction policy emphasizes the student-oriented learning mode, which recommends teaching students according to their aptitude and embracing a "cultural approach.
[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.
[22][clarification needed] Sleep deprivation and mental health problems have been slightly relieved after reducing the amount of homework.
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.
Young teachers gained career development opportunities, and their awareness of innovation and advantages in information technology helped them stand out easily.
[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.
Especially when dealing with large class sizes, teachers also had difficulties designing flexible homework suitable for different students.
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.
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.