Over the years I have been blogging, I have rarely let what I think you would like to read guide me. The past few weeks have also taught me that I really can’t predict this. For instance, I would never have expected the number of readers for my post about Gert Biesta. The choice always comes down to one thing: does it fascinate me?

This new study probably won’t appeal to a large audience. But I have been following discussions, examples and insights about the tutoring industry in Asia for years. This study by Yu Zhu and Vít Šťastný addresses this topic directly. But it adds something. It also addresses pressure on children and parents, though it draws on a limited body of literature.

Let me first say a few words about the background. One policy the Chinese government introduced to mitigate educational pressure is the Double Reduction Policy of 2021. Some of its measures included strict limits on commercial tutoring in academic subjects. I clearly remember this news. Shadow education was widespread across China, mostly in cities, and this issue was often discussed alongside the strong results of Chinese students in international assessments such as PISA. Then this policy, almost like a ban, came almost as a surprise. This systematic review examines 34 English-language papers that discuss different stakeholders’ opinions on shadow education before and after the change.

Before the reform, one thing kept coming back: the importance of competition. More specifically, the strong competition to achieve good results. All this to gain access to good schools at the next stage of education. Parents might have found tutoring expensive or burdensome. But at the same time, they saw other parents sending their children to tutoring. This made them fear that their own child would fall behind. Children experienced similar pressure. Some described tutoring as something they had little choice but to accept. In effect, any steps schools took to reduce students’ academic burden could, in this respect, end up putting more pressure on parents. This is an important first insight, by the way. It is not only the school that determines how students and parents experience pressure.

But Chinese parents and students now live in the post-Double Reduction Policy era. Even then, the basic conflict does not appear to have vanished. While most parents approved of the goal of relieving pressure on their kids, they also feared their kids would be at a disadvantage in a highly competitive environment. Some families, meanwhile, shifted towards more expensive one-to-one tutoring. The children also sought more practice when they had less homework. Some readers may now be wiping their eyes in shock and disbelief.

Meanwhile, teachers took on additional responsibilities, and some questioned whether pressure could really be reduced as long as the strongly exam-oriented education system remained largely the same. The competitive exams had not been abolished!

This review study doesn’t prove that this Chinese reform has “failed”. The reviewed studies mainly draw on qualitative measured perceptions and do not offer a causal evaluation of the policy. We do end up with a very recognisable policy paradox. You can try to limit the visible excesses of educational competition, but as long as underlying incentives and selection remain important, parents and students may look for other ways to protect their position in that competition.