The situation + causes
The Chinese Guidelines for Further Easing the Burden of Excessive Homework and Off-campus Tutoring for Students at the Stage of Compulsory Education, released on July 24th, entails a series of educational reforms, among which includes a ban on for-profit tutoring (and several other tutoring-related policies), driving it into being non-profit.
The aim is to relieve the pressure of studying from students and to improve education quality. But perhaps the main motivator of this regulation is to relieve the financial strain on parents - this, in turn, encourages them to have more children as a remedy to the ageing population; in companionship, many other industries (e.g. gaming) which pose possible financial expenses have experienced drastic changes.
Pro - wealth disparity and equality
China’s GaoKao (college entrance exam) is notorious for its difficulty and merciless preparation process, and with the large number of students vying for higher education, competition is very steep. This has led to the rise of private off-campus tutoring, with over 3 out of 4 students having experienced these lessons in 2016 (according to the Chinese Society for Education), and with high demand, the price is driven up.
In essence, the policy removes the gap in education quality between wealthy and poor families, levelling the playing field, creating one which is clear of financial influences, and allowing students to be tested on an equal basis regardless of socio-economic class. Subsequently, there is greater social mobility as quality education and job opportunities are more widely offered.
Furthermore, the financial pressure put on parents to seek education for their children to remain competitive is relieved.
Pro - less pressure = more time?
The shift in focus away from purely academics and being confined to rigorous schedules encourage students to focus on other areas of personal development. They are encouraged to take up extra-curriculars with the time freed up, building a more rounded and attractive resume.
Placed in a situation almost akin to being stranded on an island with no escape, they are also compelled to find a solution; to adapt to self-studying and organizing one’s own work, which is beneficial to personal growth, even into the distant future.
Con - for the economy
The tutoring and cram-school industry is worth $100 billion, and the abolishment of this industry in China, a country where its consumption is highly normalized and supposedly crucial, will no doubt have far-reaching economic implications. Indeed, stock prices have plummeted, with the Chinese Tal Education Group dropping by 55%, and Hong Kong’s Koolearn Technology by 28%.
Unavoidably, this will result in a massive increase in unemployment rates. There are an estimated 1 million off-campus educators across the country. This policy is abrupt, its extent far harsher than anticipated, and many of these tutors are struggling to find purchase in a rapidly changing environment.
Con - potential flaws
In 1980, South Korea implemented a similar policy to relieve academic pressure from students; however, rather than solving the crisis, it created an underground tutoring system, albeit with poorer teaching quality and even larger price tags. Could this section of history translate into China’s present?
Moreover, the wealthy will likely seek one on one tutors instead, and with the lower class resorting to low-quality education providers, the problem would not only persist, but worsen in turn.
Instead of imposing hard bans, there are alternatives, as developed by South Korea and the US. Making informative and highly useful academic resources (e.g. Khan Academy) available for the perusal of all students encourages self-study, positively impacting their learning. College admissions use a more holistic approach; one that is beyond just test scores. This can alleviate one's intense worry over a particularly bad paper.
In Hong Kong
Previously, we have discussed some negative effects of tutoring and cram schools on students’ personal development and mental wellbeing in detail. Our academic system, particularly in terms of stress levels and prevalence of tutoring, is not so different from China’s previous situation, and much of the above can be applied to Hong Kong. Despite this risky maneuver, with this step away from private tutoring - not just in China, the merits of private tutoring are being questioned.
In the face of change, should Hong Kong reform its education system?
Sources
https://www.reuters.com/world/china/chinese-parents-fret-after-government-bans-for-profit-tutoring-firms-2021-07-26/
https://www.china-briefing.com/news/china-bans-for-profit-tutoring-in-core-education-an-explainer/
https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/tal-edu-gotu-stock-price-tutoring-companies-non-profit-baba-2021-7
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4445954-new-oriental-new-chapter-in-chinese-education
https://youtu.be/djsU9lM7V1E
Writing: Kristen Wong
Editing: Shen Tan
Thumbnail: Holly Liu & Ran Zhao
Comments