The Impact of Reduction in Disciplinary Off-campus Tutoring Institutions on Students’ Time in School: An Evaluation Study Based on the “Double Reduction” Policy

doi:10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5560.2025.01.003

Abstract

Abstract:

The rectification of off-campus tutoring institutions is one of the important aspects of the “Double Reduction” reform. This article empirically examines the impact of the reduction in disciplinary off-campus tutoring institutions on students’ time spent in school. Using data from the shop information of disciplinary tutoring institutions on Dianping.com, combined with geographic coding and search POI application interface from Gaode Map, as well as a nationwide survey on the usage of information technology in primary and secondary education, the study empirically tests the effects. The research findings are as follows. (1) During the “Double Reduction” period, the nationwide reduction rate of disciplinary off-campus tutoring institutions was approximately 88%. (2) The higher the reduction level of disciplinary off-campus tutoring institutions around schools, the more time students spend in school daily, indicating a certain degree of substitution between in-school and off-campus education. This substitution effect is more pronounced among disadvantaged groups. While this phenomenon is not significant in the first-tier cities of Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, and Shenzhen, it can be observed in many other second and third-tier cities. (3) The higher the reduction level of disciplinary off-campus tutoring institutions around schools, the higher the probability of students completing homework in school, while the probability of completing homework in off-campus tutoring institutions is lower. However, the reduction of tutoring institutions does not affect the total time students spend on homework.

Key words: “Double Reduction”, disciplinary, tutoring institutions, off-campus tutoring, time spent in school

Wei Lu, Yi Wei. The Impact of Reduction in Disciplinary Off-campus Tutoring Institutions on Students’ Time in School: An Evaluation Study Based on the “Double Reduction” Policy[J]. Journal of East China Normal University(Educational Sciences), 2025, 43(1): 37-48.

Figures/Tables 9

References

	丁亚东, 孟敬尧, 马鹏跃. (2022). “双减”政策能缓解家长教育焦虑吗. 教育发展研究, (22), 30- 39.
	国务院办公厅. (2018). 国务院办公厅关于规范校外培训机构发展的意见. https://www.gov.cn/zhengce/content/2018-08/22/content_5315668.htm.
	胡洁人, 李柳醒. (2022). “治理型监管”视角下我国校外培训机构监管问题分析. 广西师范大学学报 (哲学社会科学版), 58 (2), 83- 93.
	教育部. (2013). 教育部办公厅关于开展义务教育阶段学校“减负万里行”活动的通知. http://www.moe.gov.cn/srcsite/A06/s3321/201303/t20130320_149943.html.
	梁凯丽, 辛涛, 张琼元, 赵茜, 李刚, 张生. (2022). 落实“双减”与校外培训机构治理. 中国远程教育, (4), 27- 35.
	刘钧燕. (2023). “双减”能消除学科类校外培训需求吗?——基于有限理性视角的实证研究. 华东师范大学学报 (教育科学版), 41 (9), 71- 84.
	陆伟. (2019). 公共政策选择与影子教育参与. 比较教育研究, (8), 77- 85.
	宁本涛, 陈祥梅, 袁芳, 张耀贞. (2022). “减轻校外培训负担”实施成效及生态复合治理机制透析——基于我国152个地级市“校外培训负担”现状的调查. 中国电化教育, (7), 50- 57.
	魏易. (2020). 校内还是校外: 中国基础教育阶段家庭教育支出现状研究. 华东师范大学学报 (教育科学版), 38 (5), 103- 116.
	薛海平. (2015). 从学校教育到影子教育: 教育竞争与社会再生产. 北京大学教育评论, 13 (3), 47- 69.
	杨燕. (2022). “双减”政策执行的理论逻辑、现实问题与进路——基于利益原则和对 X 省的大样本调查. 中国电化教育, (5), 26- 34.
	叶雨婷. (2022). 教育部: “双减”以来, 线下学科类培训机构已压减95.6%. 中国青年报. https://news.youth.cn/gn/202209/t20220909_13988908.htm.
	钟程, 谢均才. (2022). 长效落实“双减”政策的困境与对策——以政策执行网络视角分析. 中国电化教育, (7), 64- 72.
	中共中央办公厅、国务院办公厅. (2021). 关于进一步减轻义务教育阶段学生作业负担和校外培训负担的意见. https://www.gov.cn/zhengce/2021-07/24/content_5627132.htm.
	Anderson, T., & Kohler, H. P. (2013). Education fever and the East Asian fertility puzzle: A case study of low fertility in South Korea. Asian Population Studies, 9 (2), 196- 215.
	Bae, S. H. , & Choi, K. H. (2023). The cause of institutionalized private tutoring in Korea: Defective public schooling or a universal desire for family reproduction? ECNU Review of Education, 7(1), 12—41.
	Bray, T. M. (1999). The shadow education system: Private tutoring and its implications for planners. UNESCO: International Institute for Educational Planning, Paris.
	Bray, T. M. , & Kwo, O. W. Y. (2014). Regulating private tutoring for public good: Policy options for supplementary education in Asia. HKU, Hongkong: UNESCO and Comparative Education Research Centre.
	Choi, H., & Choi, Á. (2016). Regulating private tutoring consumption in Korea: Lessons from another failure. International Journal of Educational Development, 49, 144- 156.
	Choi, J., & Cho, R. M. (2016). Evaluating the effects of governmental regulations on South Korean private cram schools. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 36 (4), 599- 621.
	Exley, S. (2021). Locked in: Understanding the “irreversibility” of powerful private supplementary tutoring markets. Oxford Review of Education, 48 (1), 78- 94.
	Ha, Y., & Park, H. J. (2017). Can after-school programs and private tutoring help improve students’ achievement? Revisiting the effects in Korean secondary schools. Asia Pacific Education Review, 18, 65- 79.
	Kim, S., & Lee, J. H. (2010). Private tutoring and demand for education in South Korea. Economic development and cultural change, 58 (2), 259- 296.
	Kim, S. , Tertilt, M. , & Yum, M. (2023). Status externalities in education and low birth rates in Korea. Available at SSRN 3866660.
	Lu, W., Zhou, S., & Wei, Y. (2022). Government policies and unintended consequences: Rising demand for private supplementary tutoring in China. International Journal of Educational Development, 94, 102653.
	Pierson, P. (1994). Dismantling the welfare state?: Reagan, Thatcher and the politics of retrenchment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
	Pierson, P. (2000). Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics. American Political Science Review, 94 (2), 251- 267.
	Robusto, C. C. (1957). The cosine-haversine formula. The American Mathematical Monthly, 64 (1), 38- 40.

分类变量	变量取值	百分比	N	分类变量	变量取值	百分比	N
学科类培训机构缩减程度	处理组（>=均值）	62.31	430,533	是否独生子女	否	63.59	430,525
学科类培训机构缩减程度	对照组（<均值）	37.69	430,533	是否独生子女	是	36.41	430,525
性别	男生	52.7	430,533	是否住校	否	90.68	430,533
性别	女生	47.3	430,533	是否住校	是	9.32	430,533
年级	四年级	56.15	430,533	父母最高受教育程度	大学以下	60.5	430,533
年级	八年级	43.85	430,533	父母最高受教育程度	大学及以上	39.5	430,533
民族	汉族	90.96	430,533	家庭年总收入水平	10万元以下	80.24	401,471
民族	其他	9.04	430,533	家庭年总收入水平	10万元及以上	19.76	401,471
学校类型	公办	89.99	430,533	所处区域	城区	76.99	430,533
学校类型	民办	10.01	430,533	所处区域	乡镇	23.01	430,533
课后作业完成场景偏好	在学校	31.76	430,533	完成课后作业的时间	1小时以内	34.82	430,533
	在校外辅导班	2.47			1-2小时	43.72
	在家	29.90			2-4小时	17.97
	其他	35.85			4小时以上	3.48
连续变量	均值	标准差	N	连续变量	均值	标准差	N
在校时间（单位：小时）	9.82	4.10	416,943	学校信息化水平	15.53	1.58	430,533

	(1)	(2)	(3)
	机构缩减的处理组划分标准
	>= 缩减率均值	>= 缩减率中位数	= 100%
变量	因变量：学生在校时长
学校周边（<=800 m）	0.261***	0.343***	0.395***
学科类培训机构缩减程度	(0.081)	(0.098)	(0.113)
性别（男生=1）	−0.043***	−0.037***	−0.038***
	(0.010)	(0.011)	(0.012)
民族（少数民族=1）	0.045	0.011	0.008
	(0.033)	(0.025)	(0.027)
年级（八年级=1）	2.057***	2.071***	2.089***
	(0.056)	(0.062)	(0.068)
是否独生子女（是=1）	−0.026**	−0.027*	−0.021
	(0.013)	(0.014)	(0.015)
父母最高受教育水平	−0.170***	−0.162***	−0.150***
（大学及以上=1）	(0.022)	(0.024)	(0.026)
家庭年总收入水平	0.031	0.031	0.035
（10万及以上=1）	(0.020)	(0.022)	(0.023)
是否住校（是=1）	9.062***	9.058***	9.046***
	(0.240)	(0.249)	(0.254)
学校类型（民办=1）	0.717***	0.733***	0.758***
	(0.198)	(0.229)	(0.250)
城乡区域（乡镇=1）	0.646***	0.610***	0.622***
	(0.165)	(0.173)	(0.179)
学校信息化水平	−0.016	−0.016	−0.032
	(0.034)	(0.038)	(0.044)
区县固定效应	Yes	Yes	Yes
样本量	388,929	333,114	302,514
R-squared	0.659	0.663	0.666

	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)
	小学四年级		初中二年级
	质量较好	质量较差	质量较好	质量较差
变量	因变量：学生在校时长
学校周边（<=800 m）	0.192**	−0.041	0.632***	0.579*
学科类培训机构缩减度	(0.090)	(0.059)	(0.201)	(0.295)
样本量	88,285	133,020	82,800	84,824
R-squared	0.535	0.423	0.661	0.655

	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)
	父母最高受教育程度		家庭年总收入水平
	大学以下	大学及以上	10万元以下	10万元及以上
变量	因变量：学生在校时长
学校周边（<=800 m）	0.329***	0.162**	0.292***	0.167**
学科类培训机构缩减度	(0.103)	(0.066)	(0.086)	(0.081)
样本量	231,888	157,041	311,851	77,078
R-squared	0.658	0.631	0.658	0.667

	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)
	城乡		城市等级
	城区	乡镇	北上广深	其他城市
变量	因变量：学生在校时长
学校周边（<=800 m）	0.235***	0.381**	0.019	0.305***
学科类培训机构缩减度	(0.085)	(0.167)	(0.077)	(0.091)
样本量	300,541	88,388	40,803	348,126
R-squared	0.645	0.687	0.650	0.659