Based on the policy enactment perspective (Ball et al., 2011), this study investigates how primary citizenship teachers do assessment policies in their practice and discusses its influencing factors. While the citizenship programme remains non-statutory at the primary level in many countries, such as England (Richardson, 2010), the programme is mandatory in China due to the emphasis on fostering socialist identity and moral cultivation. The programme standards mandate an assessment approach that focuses on students' 'values' and 'process performance' (Ministry of Education, 2022, p.49) rather than test scores. Advocating 'assessment for learning' (ibid., p. 50), the standards call for a greater emphasis on formative assessments. To ensure the full implementation of national education policies (Lu et al., 2018, p.113), China has established an internal agency system - the System of Pedagogical Research Officer. Primary citizenship programme pedagogical research officers are appointed by the district education authorities and have administrative powers. As intermediaries, they hold the authority and responsibility to interpret, translate, and organise citizenship assessment policies in practice.
Contrasting with the popular perception in China that relegates teachers to the role of policy implementers, scholars (Braun, et al., 2011; Ball, 2011) acknowledge teachers as policy enactors. As Ball (1994, p. 19) asserts, policies do not typically provide a set course of action, but rather create situations where the choices for what to do are limited or altered, or specific aims or outcomes are established. The majority of educational policies depend on their realisation through teaching, positioning teachers not merely as implementers, but as interpreters and 'translators' of policy (Perryman et al., 2017, p.745). This act of 'translation' suggests that while teachers adhere to policy, they also make adaptive modifications.
The study reveals that all schools employ standardised tests—developed by the district's education authorities—as summative assessments for students from Year 3 onwards, despite the absence of such tests for Year 1 and 2. Notwithstanding the stipulation in assessment policies that 'assessment results should be graded rather than scored' (Ministry of Education, 2022, p. 52), test results are ultimately rendered in the form of scores. Formative assessment post Year 3 is notably sparse, predominantly consisting of verbal feedback within classes. This is the case despite a unanimous acknowledgment that the curriculum standards advocate against basing judgments of students’ learning performance solely on test results.
Teachers perceive this disjunction—being aware of but not adhering to the assessment policies—as an outcome of the 'internal disintegration of the policies', a consequence of intermediary influences. In a manner akin to the role of medieval bishops interpreting the Bible, the pedagogical research officer wields unassailable authority within their community to interpret and translate official assessment policies. Their instructions and guidelines are considered the truly applicable policies, while the national assessment policies are often disregarded as overly 'idealistic' and 'abstract'. Furthermore, formative assessment is decried as a privilege available only to economically developed regions, which have the financial means to engage national and international experts for knowledge dissemination and practical guidance. Teachers also face considerable pressure from parents. As primary schools increasingly serve as childcare providers, teachers interact more directly and frequently with parents, many of whom express scepticism towards formative assessment due to its absence of tangible scores and rankings. The teachers identify the prevailing culture of competition or the 'rat race' endemic in nowadays China as the root of these challenges. As the country’s economy slows, societal pressure to compete escalates, underscoring the view that ‘excellence is not the sole goal, but more importantly, to be better than others'. 

One district has been chosen as a case in this study, located in the capital of a border province - a city which, despite being officially defined as a regional centre, has significantly less economic and cultural impact compared to Beijing and Shanghai. The collected data comprised both interview and documentary sources. Primary school citizenship educators within this district, invited via purposive sampling, contributed to the interview data. This method ensured that participants freely expressed their authentic opinions. 13 teachers, covering all primary schools in this district, were interviewed across two rounds. Each participant possessed over five years of experience teaching the citizenship programme and was actively involved in student assessment practices. Due to pandemic-induced international mobility restrictions, the interviews were conducted online. The interview Data were gathered in two rounds using semi-structured interviews. In the initial phase during 2019-2020, educators were interviewed for approximately 60 minutes to comprehend their perspectives on formative and summative assessment. Following the introduction of the new citizenship standards in 2022, the same teachers were invited for a second round of interviews, with each session extending close to 120 minutes. The objective was to gauge their views on assessment policies and particular practices. Initially conducted in Chinese, the interviews were later translated into English. Subsequently, the interview data were subject to thematic coding and analysis. Although this research is patently theory-driven — underpinned by the policy enactment perspective (Ball et al., 2011) — the attempt was to suspend any pre-existing theoretical expectations or biases during the coding phase as far as practicable. This was not only because the study aimed to present 'open' results, displaying authentic teacher viewpoints and practices, but also because it anticipated the emergence of themes beyond existing frameworks. Thematic data were continually compared throughout the coding process until saturation was achieved. The documentary evidence encompassed the latest Primary Citizenship Programme Standards (2022 edition), 17 examination papers pertaining to the Year 3-6 citizenship programme (September 2016 to September 2022), and the topic outlines and associated documentation for the in-service citizenship teacher training over the past four years (September 2018 to September 2022). This data was contributed by participants who believed these documents played a policy role and exerted a structural impact on their assessment practice.

This study diverges from the former studies emphasis on teachers’ personal factors and the Confucian testing tradition (Herman et al., 2015; Poole, 2016; Yan et al., 2021), instead investigating the manner in which teachers do official assessment policies by utilising the policy enactment perspective (Ball et al., 2011).Contrary to findings from England (Braun et al., 2011) and Ireland (Skerritt et al., 2021), the agency system in China does not invariably act as a catalyst and facilitator. On the contrary, it tends to fragment national assessment policies. This study therefore disputes the widespread belief in China that inadequate policy execution is due to teachers’ incompetence. Teachers often rely on intermediaries for policy interpretation, with these interpretations significantly influencing their behaviours. Additionally, most prior assessment studies in East Asia were centred in metropolitan regions, such as Hong Kong (Yan et al., 2021) and Beijing (Lu et al., 2018). However, this study revealed that teachers in non-metropolitan areas perceive formative assessment as a cultural benefit deriving from economic development, due to easier access to pertinent resources and support for metropolitan teachers. The child-care role that China’s primary schools play exerts greater assessment pressure on teachers from parents, compared to English secondary schools (Richardson, 2010). Encouragingly, however, change is already underway. During the second round of interviews conducted in 2022, many teachers indicated efforts being made to enhance the status of formative assessment. They expressed gratitude towards this study, as it illuminated the utility of formative strategies in advancing student progress through practical experience, despite a lack of adequate support and training.

Ball, S.J. (1994). Education reform: A critical and post-structural approach, Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Ball, S. J., Maguire, M., & Braun, A. (2011). How schools do policy: Policy enactments in secondary schools. Routledge. Braun, A., Ball, S. J., Maguire, M., & Hoskins, K. (2011). Taking context seriously: Towards explaining policy enactments in the secondary school. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 32(4), 585-596. Herman, J., Osmundson, E., Dai, Y., Ringstaff, C., & Timms, M. (2015). Investigating the dynamics of formative assessment: Relationships between teacher knowledge, assessment practice and learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 22(3), 344-367. Lu, L. T., Shen, X., Liang, W. (2018). The composition and characteristics of practical knowledge of district and prefectural level pedagogical research officer: An example of district and prefectural level pedagogical research officer in Beijing, Teacher Education Research (教师教育研究),30(06),112-118. Ministry of Education, (2022). Curriculum standards for morality and the rule of law in compulsory education. Beijing: Beijing Normal University Press. Perryman, J., Ball, S. J., Braun, A., & Maguire, M. (2017). Translating policy: Governmentality and the reflective teacher. Journal of Education Policy, 32(6), 745-756. Poole, A. (2016). ‘Complex teaching realities’ and ‘deep rooted cultural traditions’: Barriers to the implementation and internalisation of formative assessment in China. Cogent Education, 3(1),1-14. Richardson, M. (2010). Assessing the assessment of citizenship. Research Papers in Education, 25(4), 457-478. Skerritt, C., McNamara, G., Quinn, I., O’Hara, J., & Brown, M. (2021). Middle leaders as policy translators: Prime actors in the enactment of policy. Journal of Education Policy, 1-19. Yan, Z., & Brown, G. T. (2021). Assessment for learning in the Hong Kong assessment reform: A case of policy borrowing. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 68, 100985.