In July 2021, the Chinese government implemented the “Double Reduction” policy (双减, Shuāng Jiǎn), a radical educational reform aimed at alleviating the excessive academic burden on students and curbing the massive, profit-driven private tutoring industry. Born from noble intentions to safeguard student well-being, promote educational equity, and redirect family resources, the policy represents a profound structural shift in compulsory education (K-9). While research confirms early successes in significantly reducing the commercial tutoring market and improving student mental health metrics, the policy faces critical challenges rooted in China’s persistent, high-stakes examination culture. This paper examines the policy’s aims, its positive impacts, and the various struggles and forms of circumvention it has encountered, drawing upon influential academic literature.

1. Introduction: The Crisis Preceding Reform
   China’s education system has long been characterized by intense competition culminating in the Gaokao (National College Entrance Examination), which largely dictates a student’s life trajectory. This high-stakes environment fueled the rapid, often chaotic, growth of a vast “shadow education” market—the private tutoring industry. Before the “Double Reduction” (DR) policy, this market was a multi-billion dollar sector, exerting immense pressure on students and parents.
   The Policy’s Noble Intentions
   The government’s motivation for the DR policy was multi-faceted, addressing both educational and social concerns:

• Alleviating Academic Burden: To reduce the excessive volume of homework and the time spent in off-campus academic tutoring, promoting student physical and mental health (Wang, D., 2022).
• Promoting Educational Equity: To reduce the financial burden on middle and lower-income families, whose children were often priced out of private tutoring, thereby leveling the academic playing field (Liu, Z. et al., 2024).
• Curbing Capital Expansion: To prevent the disorder and perceived negative influence of private capital in the compulsory education sector by banning all for-profit academic tutoring for K-9 students (Wang, Q. et al., 2022).
• Strengthening Public Education: To reinforce the central role of public schools by requiring them to provide robust, free after-school services that encompass homework support and holistic development activities.
  The policy essentially targeted two burdens: the burden of excessive homework (in-school) and the burden of off-campus training (out-of-school).

1. Positive Impacts and Early Successes
   Research across academic, economic, and psychological fields confirms that the DR policy has successfully achieved several of its immediate and visible goals.
   2.1. Collapse of the Commercial Tutoring Industry
   The most undeniable success is the near-total dismantling of the commercial, for-profit K-9 academic tutoring sector.

• Massive Contraction: Sources estimate that the number of offline tutoring institutions decreased by over 80%, with online institutions experiencing similar declines (Source 1.1).
• Market De-Capitalization: The largest publicly-traded education companies, such as TAL Education and New Oriental, saw their business models decimated and were forced to pivot to non-academic subjects (Shi, Y. & Yung, K. W. H., 2025). This fulfilled the goal of curbing the capitalist expansion in compulsory education.
  2.2. Improvement in Student Well-being
  Quantitative studies using survey data show a measurable positive impact on student mental and physical health.
• Reduced Stress and Anxiety: Research has repeatedly shown a significant decrease in overall levels of depression and anxiety among primary and middle school students post-policy implementation (Wang, D., 2022; Source 2.5).
• Increased Sleep and Activity: A significant majority of students reported an increase in sleep duration and more time available for physical exercise and play, moving closer to recommended health guidelines (Source 2.2, 3.1). This outcome directly addresses the policy’s core intention to prioritize child development over relentless academic drilling.
  2.3. Strengthening of Public School Services
  The policy mandated that public schools offer high-quality, comprehensive after-school services to cover the time previously taken by tutoring.
• Expanded Offerings: Schools now provide a wealth of learning resources, with over 75% of urban schools providing after-school services that include homework guidance, arts, and sports (Source 1.7). This reasserts the school as the primary hub for both academic and holistic development, shifting resources and responsibility back to the state (Source 1.5).

1. The Struggle and Persistent Challenges
   Despite the policy’s successes in regulating the supply side of tutoring, the underlying demand for academic advantage remains fiercely competitive, leading to significant implementation struggles and circumvention tactics.
   3.1. The Underground Tutoring Market and Equity Concerns
   The most critical challenge is the transformation of tutoring into a hidden, exclusive service, which directly undermines the goal of educational equity.

• Circumvention: Academic tutoring did not disappear; it was driven underground. Wealthier families are now engaging in highly expensive, unregulated, one-on-one private tutoring often disguised as “nannies,” “home care,” or “family assistants” (Source 3.4).
• Exacerbated Gap: The loss of affordable, large-scale tutoring centers means that middle and low-income urban and rural students—who relied on these formal centers for supplementary learning—have lost their primary resource. This unintended consequence risks exacerbating the educational achievement gap based on socio-economic status, contradicting the policy’s core equity objective (Source 1.3, 3.3). Researchers often highlight that the policy is insufficient without addressing the urban-rural education gap and resource allocation issues (Source 1.6).
  3.2. Increased Burden on Teachers and Schools
  The successful transition of responsibility to public schools has resulted in a new form of burden—on the educators themselves.
• Increased Workload: Studies, such as one examining teachers in Beijing, found that over 90% of teachers reported prolonged working hours and increased workload due to the mandatory, diverse after-school services. Many teachers report heightened stress and burnout (Source 1.7, 3.5).
• Resource Disparity: While large urban schools can pivot easily, rural and disadvantaged schools struggle to provide diverse, high-quality after-school activities due to persistent resource gaps and a lack of qualified staff, further complicating the equity issue (Source 3.5).
  3.3. The Persistence of the Gaokao Pressure
  The ultimate struggle facing the DR policy is its failure to address the systemic root of academic pressure: the high-stakes evaluation system.
• Evaluation System Inflexibility: As long as university admission remains overwhelmingly dependent on the results of the Gaokao, parental and student anxiety will persist (Source 3.1). The pressure is simply displaced, not eliminated.
• Focus Shift to Non-Academic: An unintended side effect is the potential for an “arms race” in non-academic extracurriculars (e.g., high-end sports, music, coding) as parents seek alternative advantages for school entry and holistic development portfolios. This new form of competition still disproportionately benefits the wealthy.

1. Conclusion and Future Outlook
   The “Double Reduction” policy is a historic, top-down intervention that achieved a rapid and decisive victory in dismantling the profitable academic tutoring industry and demonstrably improving student mental and physical well-being. This success in reducing the external burden is well-documented in influential research (Wang, D., 2022; Zhou, J. & Fan, A., 2025).
   However, the policy’s struggle is profound. Without fundamental reform to the Gaokao-centric evaluation system and addressing the deep-seated resource inequities between schools, the immense parental demand for educational advantage remains. The emergence of the high-cost underground market represents the most significant form of circumvention and threatens to transform an affordable social problem into an exclusive problem of social stratification (Source 3.2, 3.7).
   For the DR policy to achieve its noble intentions of lasting equity and holistic development, future efforts must focus on:

• Teacher Support: Reducing teacher workload and providing adequate resources and compensation for their extended responsibilities.
• Addressing the Demand Side: Gradually reforming high-stakes evaluation systems to reduce pressure on compulsory education.
• Vigilant Enforcement: Developing sophisticated methods to monitor and address the rise of illegal, underground tutoring, ensuring that the reduction of one burden does not create a new, less visible form of social inequality

📚 References
I. Official Policy Documents and Policy Analysis
These sources establish the policy context, its aims, and the economic necessity of the reform.

• Bloomberg News. (2021, July 25). China to overhaul education sector ‘hijacked by capital’. Bloomberg. (Used to support the rationale for curbing capital expansion).
• Huo, J. (2023). How Will the Double Reduction Policy Affect China’s Education Industry? Proceedings of the 2023 8th International Conference on Financial Innovation and Economic Development. (Used to discuss policy implementation and market disruption).
• Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China. (2021, July). Opinions on Further Reducing the Burden of Homework and Off-campus Training for Students in Compulsory Education (the “Double Reduction” Policy). (This is the foundational document for the entire policy).
• Wang, Q., Luo, X., & Yang, J. (2022). Understanding China’s Double Reduction Policy on Educational Economy. Global Economic Observer, 10(1), 63-69. (Highly cited for its early economic analysis of the policy’s impact on the market and job sectors).
  II. Empirical Studies on Student Well-being and Mental Health
  These studies provide the core evidence for the policy’s success in alleviating academic burden and stress.
• Wang, D., Chen, X. Y., Ma, Z., Liu, X., & Fan, F. (2022). Has the “Double Reduction” policy relieved stress? A follow-up study on Chinese adolescents. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health, 16(1), 102. (A key large-scale survey showing a statistically significant decrease in overall depression and anxiety levels after the policy’s implementation).
• Zhou, J., & Fan, A. (2025). The impact of China’s “Double Reduction” policy on primary school students’ subjective well-being and academic achievement. International Journal of Educational Development, 117(C), 103321. (A crucial longitudinal study cited for its nuanced finding that regulating private tutoring increased well-being but potentially decreased academic achievement among low-SES students).
  III. Studies on Equity, Circumvention, and Unintended Consequences
  These works address the policy’s struggles, the rise of the underground market, and the issue of social stratification.
• Liu, Z., Zhou, J., & Zhou, B. (2024). Research on the Impact of China’s ‘Double-Reduction’ Policy on Urban and Rural Education. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Education Innovation and Philosophical Inquiries. (Used to discuss the urban-rural education gap and the policy’s varying impact across regions).
• Shi, Y., & Yung, K. W. H. (2025). Effects of the “double reduction” policy on the commercial tutoring sector in China. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Economic Development and Business Administration. (Cited for quantitative analysis on the market contraction and the subsequent transformation and shift to non-academic education).
• Sun, P. (2023). Double Reduction Policy in Chinese Education: Promises, Outcomes, Perspectives. Voprosy Obrazovaniia / Educational Studies Moscow, 4, 249-275. (Used for its systematic literature review and analysis of the complex interplay of benefits and challenges across all major stakeholders, including the increased teacher workload and the persistence of parental anxiety).
  IV. Related Contextual and Thematic Research
  These studies provide broader context on the resulting pressures on schools and teachers.
• Wang, L., & Fan, R. (2023). Research on the Impact and Countermeasures of the “Double Reduction” Policy from the Perspective of Teachers. Road to Success, 24, 57-60. (Used to support the discussion regarding increased workload and stress on public school teachers due to expanded after-school services).