User:Susususushi/sandbox

Special:Permalink/1142676744

Special:Diff/1148058608/1142676744

User:Susususushi/reflection page

Contribution on Tutoring Policy page
On 24 July 2021, the Double reduction policy got promulgated jointly by the General Office of the Chinese Communist Party and the State Council of the People's Republic of China. The double reduction policy reclassified tutoring institutions in China as non-profit organizations, which solved the over-reliance of Chinese students on after-school tutoring classes, and reduced the additional financial burden on Chinese families. Chinese families spend 40 to 50 percent of their total domestic spending on tutoring. The double reduction policy's regulation of shadow education has improved the quality of school curriculum during the compulsory education period and relieved the inequality of educational resources caused by the economic gap.

Contribution on Education_inequality_in_China
The implementation of the double reduction policy in 2021 was a new attempt by Chinese regulator to reduce the inequality of educational resources allocation caused by regional inequality and economic differences during the compulsory education period. According to Opinions on Further Reducing the Homework Burden and Off-Campus Training Burden of Students in Compulsory Education, Schools should narrow the educational quality gap and reduce the need for students to rely on tutoring institutions by optimizing teaching methods, designing teaching materials based on students' different abilities and providing students with abundant educational resources. As schools provided "on-campus classes for both academic subjects and extra-curricular activities" and tutoring institutions no longer permitted to be for-profit institutions, the double reduction policy had relieved the inequality phenomenon that poor families did not have access to adequate educational resources while rich families can obtain better academic performance through tutoring institutions. And Ministry of Education of the People's Republic of China also pointed out that the higher level of educational equity could be realized through the student-oriented education method which satisfies students’ individual growth need.

Tutoring related resources
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/whats-end-game-chinas-crackdown-093000441.html

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1544612323000703

Positive effect
Under the incentive of the double reduction policy, Chinese teachers could break their own inherent educational methods. Teachers actively improved their personal teaching ability and the quality of teaching content. In order to enable students to complete their homework in less homework and shorter class time, Chinese teachers started to consciously "improve the teaching efficiency in the classroom".

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 again being inspired to participate research projects and to take the lead for younger teachers. And for young teachers, they could get more career development opportunities under the double reduction policy. Young teachers' awareness of innovation and advantages in information technology helped them stand out easily.

Negative effect
From 2018 to 2020, teachers were negatively concerned about the potential increase in workload and insufficient rights protection caused by the double reduction policy. The reasons evoking some teachers' resistance to the double reduction policy and occupational anxiety are as follows:


 * 1) Home-School conflict：After the implementation of the double reduction policy, parents believed that their children's education should be solely responsible for the school, so parents would reduce their attention to their children's education. However, teachers still expected parents to take responsibility for supervising their children and actively communicated with school about students' situation.  Besides the conflict within parents and teachers' understanding of double reduction policy. There was also a role conflict because many teachers are both parents and teachers. Teachers were unable to take care of their own families because the double reduction policy requires schools to provide "after-school services and homework design". Many teachers "feel sorry for their children" because of their conflicting identities.
 * 2) Worry students' academic performance: Some teachers discovered that the quality of teaching decreases in the short term after reducing the amount of homework. In addition, some schools only altered the name of the "final exam" or no longer publicly announced students' "ranking", but schools still required teachers to achieve a higher average score of students. Some teachers believe that the essence of exam-oriented education did not change. So, they worried that reducing the amount of homework would affect students' academic performance.  Teachers' responsibility for students' better future let them face severe anxiety.
 * 3) Difficult to assign homework: Teachers reflected that it was difficult to assign flexible and personalized homework tasks. Especially in the case of large class sizes in China, teachers had difficulties designing flexible homework suitable for different students. Because of the difficulty of assigning homework and designing teaching materials, many teachers(especially unauthorized teachers) began to doubt their teaching ability and show low self efficacy. Moreover, some teachers believed that personalized homework would lead to the failure to understand the actual academic level differences between students in the homework feedback and assessment stage.

Policy implementation in 9 pilot cities
The double reduction policy was not immediately implemented nationwide, but rather selected 9 pilot cities to prioritize testing its feasibility.

Public sentiment on social media
Chinese netizens have publicly shared their personal views on the double reduction policy, showing the following patterns:


 * 1) Among the positive topics of public concern on Weibo, 45.9% discussed educational equity. The public positively believed that the policy of double reduction could effectively solve the long-standing phenomenon of unequal distribution of educational resources.
 * 2) In relation to negative topics, the prominent topic the public mentioned is policy influence on Weibo. Some parents complained about hard to get tuition fees back phenomenon after the double reduction policy's crackdown on tutoring institutions.
 * 3) On Zhihu, parents' comments were highly opposed to the double reduction policy. They argued that the policy did not decrease parents' demand for tutoring classes but only caused higher prices and even created a larger educational resource gap. In addition, parents believed that competition among students still existed and the closure of private institutes could create more significant parental pressure in supervising children's academic performance. And some parents believed double reduction policy was just a product of the Chinese government to encourage fertility.