In July 2021, the Chinese government dropped an educational bombshell: the “Double Reduction” policy (双减, Shuāng Jiǎn). Overnight, a multi-billion dollar private tutoring industry was dismantled, and schools were tasked with taking on a colossal new burden. While seemingly a straightforward attempt to ease student pressure, this policy is a fascinating, complex beast, ripe for deep academic scrutiny through two powerful theoretical lenses: John Kingdon’s Multiple Streams Framework (MSF) to understand how such a radical policy could emerge so swiftly, and Critical Policy Analysis (CPA) to peel back the layers of power, ideology, and unintended consequences. Let’s explore.
The Pre-Policy Landscape: A System Under Strain
Before we dissect the policy, imagine the pressure cooker that was Chinese education. The Gaokao (National College Entrance Examination) loomed large, a single exam often determining a student’s entire future. This created an intense “arms race” – a phenomenon often termed “educational involution” (教育内卷, neijuan) – where students and parents felt compelled to engage in ever-increasing homework and private tutoring to gain an edge.
The private tutoring industry flourished, growing into a behemoth. While offering supplementary learning, it also brought immense financial strain on families, exacerbated social inequality (only the wealthy could afford the best tutors), and was seen by the government as a chaotic, capital-driven force eroding the public education system’s primary role. This was the simmering crisis that set the stage for radical change.
Kingdon’s Multiple Streams: How the Policy Window Opened
John Kingdon’s Multiple Streams Framework (MSF) is a brilliant tool for understanding why certain policies, especially radical ones, gain traction when they do. Kingdon suggests that policy change occurs when three independent “streams” – Problem, Policy, and Politics – converge, creating a “policy window” that a “policy entrepreneur” (in this case, the central government) can seize.

• The Problem Stream: Acknowledging the Crisis
  For years, the problems of excessive academic burden, student stress, and the exorbitant cost of tutoring were widely acknowledged. Surveys consistently showed parents’ anxiety and children’s lack of sleep. Critically, these educational problems began to intersect with broader national concerns:
• Demographic Crisis: Skyrocketing childcare and education costs were cited as a major factor contributing to China’s plummeting birth rate. This became a national security and economic stability issue.
• Social Inequality: The vast spending on private tutoring was creating an increasingly stark divide between rich and poor, fueling social discontent.
• Mental Health: The intense pressure was taking a toll on student mental health, leading to rising rates of anxiety and depression.
  The problem wasn’t just individual student stress; it was framed as a systemic failure threatening national development and social harmony.
• The Policy Stream: Solutions Ready for Deployment
  The “solution” to student burden (减负, jianfu) wasn’t new. Previous, more incremental attempts to reduce pressure had largely failed, often circumvented by the very forces they sought to control. However, within policy circles, the radical idea of de-capitalizing and eliminating the for-profit private tutoring sector was a “solution” floating around. It was a comprehensive, top-down, and decisive intervention that would remove the supply of the perceived problem at its root. This policy idea was “cooked” and ready, just waiting for the right political climate.
• The Politics Stream: The Ideological Catalyst
  This is where the “Double Reduction” truly found its moment. The mid-2021 period saw a significant shift in China’s political discourse under President Xi Jinping.
• “Common Prosperity”: The central leadership emphasized “Common Prosperity,” a new push to address wealth inequality and regulate powerful private capital. The education sector, with its profit-driven tutoring giants, became a prime target.
• Reassertion of State Control: There was a clear ideological drive to reassert the state’s central role in key sectors, particularly education, which is seen as fundamental to shaping future citizens and upholding national values. The growth of independent, profit-seeking educational entities was viewed as a challenge to this.
  The Policy Window Opened: The summer of 2021 saw a powerful convergence: the widely recognized problem of burden and inequality, a radical policy solution (dismantling commercial tutoring), and a strong political will (Common Prosperity, state control) to implement it. The “Double Reduction” policy was the swift, decisive outcome.
  Critical Policy Analysis: Power, Paradoxes, and Unintended Consequences
  While Kingdon’s MSF explains the how and when, Critical Policy Analysis (CPA) helps us dig deeper into the why (beyond stated intentions) and the who benefits/who loses. CPA views policy not as a neutral technical fix, but as a reflection of power dynamics, ideology, and a tool that can inadvertently create new forms of social stratification.
• Reassertion of State Hegemony: The Ideological Win
  From a CPA perspective, the “Double Reduction” is a profound ideological victory for the state. By outlawing for-profit academic tutoring for K-9 students, the government effectively reasserted its monopoly over formal compulsory education. This wasn’t just about reducing homework; it was about:
• De-commodification of Education: Removing the profit motive aligns with a socialist vision of education as a public good, not a commodity to be bought and sold.
• Curriculum Control: Eliminating external tutoring reduces external influences on curriculum and teaching methods, ensuring greater control over ideological transmission and national narratives.
  The policy sends a clear message: education, especially for young children, is too strategically important to be left to the whims of the market.
• The Equity Paradox: Widen the Gap?
  The stated aim of promoting equity by reducing the financial burden on families is noble. However, CPA forces us to ask: does it actually achieve this? Here’s where the paradox emerges:
• Dismantling Formal Tutoring: Yes, the commercial market that many middle-class families accessed has largely vanished. This ostensibly levels the playing field.
• Rise of the “Underground Market”: But demand for academic advantage hasn’t disappeared. Instead, it has been driven underground. Wealthier families can now afford highly exclusive, expensive, and unregulated private tutors (often disguised as nannies or “family assistants”). This creates a new, less visible, but potentially more severe form of inequality. The middle class, who relied on the structured, relatively affordable tutoring centers, are now left without options, while the elite simply shift their resources. This risks exacerbating social stratification rather than alleviating it (Liu, Z. et al., 2024).
• Displacement of Burden: The Unaddressed Root Cause
  CPA highlights that policies often address symptoms rather than root causes. The “Double Reduction” successfully suppressed the supply of tutoring, but it failed to tackle the underlying demand: the relentless pressure of the Gaokao.
• New Burdens on Schools and Teachers: Public schools are now mandated to provide comprehensive after-school services (homework guidance, extracurriculars). This has dramatically increased teacher workload, extended working hours, and created new stresses within the public system (Wang, L. & Fan, R., 2023). The “burden” has shifted from student to teacher.
• Parental Pressure: Without formal tutoring, many parents feel compelled to become “coach parents,” taking on the tutoring role at home, increasing their own anxiety and potentially straining family relationships.
• “Non-Academic” Arms Race: Pressure has also been displaced into other areas. Wealthy parents are now investing heavily in high-end, non-academic extracurriculars (elite sports, advanced music, coding) as new ways to build competitive profiles for their children’s future applications.
  The policy created a new landscape, but the fundamental competitive anxiety fueled by the Gaokao remains, simply manifesting in different ways.
  Conclusion: A Bold Policy, Complex Realities
  China’s “Double Reduction” policy is a fascinating study of radical state intervention. Through Kingdon’s MSF, we understand how a confluence of social crisis, a ready-made radical solution, and a powerful political mandate converged to enable its swift implementation. From a Critical Policy Analysis perspective, we see the policy as a strategic reassertion of state ideological control over education, effectively dismantling a market that challenged its vision.
  While it has undeniably succeeded in reducing student stress and homework load for many, and reasserted the public school’s role, CPA illuminates the paradoxes: the potential for exacerbated inequality through underground markets, and the mere displacement of academic pressure onto teachers, parents, and new forms of non-academic competition.
  The “Double Reduction” is a powerful reminder that even policies with noble intentions, driven by strong political will, can have complex, multifaceted, and often unintended consequences. For policymakers globally, it offers a stark lesson: truly transforming an education system requires not just changing the rules, but addressing the deep-seated cultural and systemic drivers that shape educational demand.

📚 References f

I. Foundational Policy and Economic Analysis (MSF: Policy Stream)

• 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).
• (Cited as the core policy document defining the two burdens and the radical intervention.)
• Wang, Q., Luo, X., & Yang, J. (2022). Understanding China’s Double Reduction Policy on Educational Economy. Global Economic Observer, 10(1), 63-69.
• (Cited for quantifying the market size, the rapid de-capitalization, and the economic rationale behind the state’s decision.)
  II. Theoretical Frameworks (MSF and CPA)
  These sources provide the basis for using the specific policy analysis models.
• Kingdon, J. W. (2011). Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies (2nd ed.). Longman.
• (Cited as the foundational text for the Multiple Streams Framework [MSF], explaining the convergence of Problem, Policy, and Politics streams.)
• Sun, P. (2023). Double Reduction Policy in Chinese Education: Promises, Outcomes, Perspectives. Voprosy Obrazovaniia / Educational Studies Moscow, 4, 249-275.
• (Cited for providing a comprehensive academic overview, often used in CPA to discuss the political necessity, ideology, and the policy’s failure to address root causes.)
  III. Empirical Evidence: Well-being and Burden (Problem Stream & Positive Outcomes)
  These sources provide the data on the problem’s severity and the policy’s success in alleviating 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.
• (Cited for providing the empirical evidence on the reduction of student anxiety, depression, and the increase in sleep time.)
  IV. Critical Analysis: Unintended Consequences and Displacement (CPA)
  These sources are crucial for the CPA section, highlighting the policy’s struggles with equity and the shifting of burdens.
• 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.
• (Cited for discussing the equity paradox and the resulting widening of the education gap due to the underground market, particularly affecting urban/rural resource balance.)
• 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.
• (Cited for supporting the claim of displacement of burden onto public school teachers, highlighting increased workload and burnout from mandatory after-school services.)
• 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.
• (Cited for the nuanced finding that while well-being improved, the policy’s equity goal might be undermined, linking the loss of tutoring access to potential negative effects on low-SES students’ academic outcomes.)
  These references cover the ideological foundations, the policy mechanisms, the evidence of success, and the critical analysis of its struggles, providing a solid foundation for your EdD paper.