Narrowing or widening the gap? Differentiation in after-school services between schools under China's “Double Reduction” policies

• In Event: Policy, Governance of Education Systems

Proposal

"Double Reduction" Policy and Educational Equality in China
Since China's Competence Education Reform, reducing academic burden has been crucial. Recently, a particularly impactful measure — the "Double Reduction" Policy (hereafter DR) — was introduced (Ministry of Education of the People's Republic of China, 2021a). DR aims to decrease both the volume and time required for school homework, while also reducing the load of off-campus or after-school training programs.
In response, on the out-of-school side, the training behavior of out-of-school training institutions were fully regulated. A significant movement against off-campus institutions began, leading to 413 closures and 2,977 flagged as "problematic" (Ministry of Education of the People's Republic of China, 2021b). Concurrently, substantial transformations took place within schools, with After-School Programs (hereafter ASP) being offered as potential substitutes for off-campus training. Reportedly, over 90% of all students have participated in ASP (China Education News, 2022).
However, DR seems to have widened the gap among schools, particularly between urban and rural areas. For instance, Luo reveals that student and parent satisfaction with ASP corresponds directly to the regional economic development level and tends to favor urban areas over rural ones (Luo, 2022).
As ASP quality have become part of the school evaluation, it become the most important for schools seeking governmental attention under DR policy. Drawing on the work of Ball and his colleagues on "how schools 'do' policy" (Ball, Maguire, & Braun, 2011), this study looks into DR policy production processes at a more micro, complex, contextual, and interactive level. Schools are not simply policy implementers; they actively "do" or "enact" policy, including interpreting and recontextualizing it. Specifically, this study taking ASP as an important window, aims to exploring how rural/urban schools “do”DR (Ball, Maguire, & Braun, 2011) and whether education inequality is widen or narrowed.

Methodology
N city, one of the initial nine pilot regions for the DR Policy in China, was selected as the study site. Multi-sited ethnography was conducted in four schools — two urban and two rural schools. Fieldwork involved analyzing DR Policy, observation, and conducting semi-structured and open-ended interviews with policymakers, principals, teachers, parents, and community workers.

Findings
Two strikingly different models of DR policy response were observed in the course of this research, representing two distinct stances: Proactive Adaptation by Urban Schools and Passive Compliance by Rural Schools.
Proactive Adaptation: Urban Schools
Urban schools approached the DR policy with enthusiasm and initiative, viewing it as an opportunity to improve their educational services and diversify their offerings. They actively sought to transform their ASPs into platforms that not only ensured the safety and care of students after regular school hours but also enriched their learning experiences. The schools offered a broad curriculum for ASPs, ranging from arts, sports, and languages to STEM subjects, leveraging their resources, connections, and societal privileges to do so.
The urban schools' proactive stance was further supported by the local government and parents' community, which provided additional resources and support. Local businesses and organizations were often engaged as partners, contributing to ASPs, bringing in external expertise, and further diversifying the programs. This symbiotic relationship between schools, parents, and local businesses created a thriving, supportive ecosystem for the implementation of the DR policy.
Passive Compliance: Rural Schools
Contrasting starkly with urban schools, rural schools exhibited a more passive approach to the DR policy. Driven by a "test-centric" meritocratic mindset prevalent among rural educators, rural schools view the DR policy as a compulsory task, additional to their daily responsibilities. The ASPs in these schools primarily serve as a "depositing" instrument — their main function being to extend teachers' working hours and students' school hours, without offering additional educational value. Concurrently, due to a lack of governmental support and social capital, the delivery of rural ASPs typically falls upon teachers who volunteer, leading to variance in content and quality based on the teachers' professional backgrounds and personal interests. Furthermore, restricted by the limited resources in rural areas, rural schools' ASPs often struggle to provide a diverse set of courses or attract high-quality teachers and coaches. This results in a significant disparity between the educational value of ASPs in rural schools and those in urban schools.
In summary, these two starkly different models of responding to the DR policy reflect that although the DR policy initially aimed to reduce students' academic burden, its execution might unintentionally widen the educational gap between urban and rural schools. This divergence underscores the importance of context in policy implementation and the need to consider the varying capacities of schools in different regions when designing and implementing educational policies.


Implications and Limitations
This research contributes to the existing literature in three significant ways. Firstly, it uncovers how the DR policy may inadvertently widen the educational gap between urban and rural schools. This adds to our micro-level understanding of the mechanisms through which DR impacts educational equity.
Secondly, our findings suggest that the DR policy is not neutral or equally fair to all. The requirements of DR seem to overlook the realities of rural schools, including their educational objectives and lack of social resources. This raises critical questions about the assumptions underlying the DR policy and calls for a more nuanced understanding of its impacts across different contexts.
Lastly, the insights from the study have practical implications for policymakers and researchers. They should consider the differential impacts of policies like DR on various educational settings and strive to create more equitable educational opportunities for all students.
However, our study has its limitations. As it is based on a case study of a single city in China, the findings may not be generalizable to other contexts. Future research should explore the effects of the DR policy in other regions and contexts to provide a more comprehensive understanding of its impacts.

Authors

• Danlei Zhu, East China Normal University

• Keyi Lyu

• Cheng Zhong, Nanjing Normal University