Regulating Private Supplementary Tutoring in China: Uniform Policies, Diverse Responses

Abstract: Policy enactment in the shadow education system of private supplementary tutoring is even more complex than that for schooling. Standardized regulations for shadow education do not necessarily achieve the aspired goals in part because of the greater diversity compared with schools of contexts, clients, families’ strategic objectives, and tutoring providers. This article examines responses from the tutoring sector to Chinese national and local government regulations on private supplementary tutoring. It draws on data collected from the first year of a qualitative study. Data from interviews with various key stakeholders were triangulated with observations, news reports, and ad hoc industrial analyses. The article highlights the importance of context in policy enactment unpacks the diversity and fluidity of tutoring， and proposes theoretical considerations for regulating shadow education.

Based on the discussion of the related policy implementation in the field of education, and the characteristics of private supplementary tutoring, Dr. Zhang stated the research design:

The analysis of this paper is based on a group of data on the implementation of private supplementary tutoring governance policies in China. The process of data collection and analysis have continued since February 2018. The research mainly focuses on how private supplementary tutoring providers interpret governance regulations, and how they adjust (or refuse to adjust) their school-running behavior. The research data used in this paper are mainly from tutoring institutions, supplemented by relevant data from schools, parents and government officials. The author conducted semi-structured and informal interviews with 11 private supplementary tutoring teachers, 15 managers of training institutions, 5 staff / managers of training industry organizations or associations, 5 government officials, 5 school administrators, 5 teachers and 20 parents. In order to ensure that the interview samples can reflect the multiple characteristics of the training suppliers, the author selected private supplementary tutoring teachers and managers by purposive sampling. The interviewees included 3 independent individual tutors and 2 tutors running personal studios. Tutors, leaders and managers of 3 small training centers, 2 medium-sized institutions, 3 large institutions, 2 “giant institutions” and 2 online training companies, and the manager of a “regional leader”.

Dr. Zhang selected four aspects of governance policy to start discussion: site conditions, faculty conditions, training courses / content and time allocation. She found that even if we share uniform policies, there are diverse responses from individuals and institutions, the differences embodied in the following aspects:

First, the time-space difference of governance policy.

Second, multiple responses of the industry.

Third, self-discipline and self-sufficient in the industry.

Finally, Dr. Zhang concluded that:

The landing and implementation of governance policies increase the operating risks and operating costs of off-campus training institutions. A large number of freelance individual training teachers and small institutional workshops have been missed by this governance action and turned underground, and some have been merged into large institutions or rented venues in the hands of emerging “training real estate developers” to continue their training. The intensity of implementation also varies from region to region. In areas with strong enforcement, some small institutional workshops in areas where training institutions are concentrated have been closed, while others have been transferred to other places to continue their business. Some medium-sized institutions have suffered heavy losses for compliance, while some have transferred the losses to consumers and increased training costs. Large institutions are the focus of government regulation, and the growth rate of offline training slows down in the process of governance. Large institutions with campuses across the country vary in compliance costs according to regional policy indicators. The impact of special governance on online institutions is generally small; in the sample of this study, only one large online institution plans to stop the one-on-one business that is difficult to monitor and less profitable, change the name of the course, and significantly reduce public advertising. Other institutions have increased their awareness of compliance and are also prepared for the online training norms and policies to be issued by the government. Large institutions are more standardized than small and medium-sized institutions, and it is easier for them to meet the requirements of school-running qualifications and teachers’ conditions.