Shadow Education in China: A Systematic Review of Empirical Studies on Stakeholders’ Perspectives

Research Question:
What are the main themes in the perspectives of various Chinese stakeholders on shadow education?

Sub-questions:

1. How do the major themes differ across different groups of stakeholders (e.g., parents, students, teachers, tutors, institutional managers, policymakers)?
2. How have the major themes in stakeholders' perspectives changed before and after the implementation of the Double Reduction Policy (DRP)?

Objective:
This study aims to systematically review and synthesize empirical research on stakeholders’ perspectives regarding shadow education in China. It explores the themes in attitudes and perceptions of various stakeholders, including parents, students, schoolteachers, private tutoring providers, and policymakers, with a particular focus on the changes influenced by the implementation of the Double Reduction Policy. By identifying commonalities and differences among stakeholder groups and comparing themes before and after the policy, this study seeks to uncover gaps in the existing research and provide actionable insights for understanding and addressing issues surrounding shadow education in China.

International Dimension:
Shadow education is a global phenomenon (Bray, 2009), with high participation rates in many countries across different socioeconomic and cultural contexts. China’s case, characterized by its large-scale private tutoring sector and strict government interventions, offers a unique perspective on how policy reforms can reshape the shadow education landscape. The findings of this study are expected to have broad relevance, offering lessons to countries grappling with similar challenges, such as reducing educational inequality, alleviating study burdens on students, and regulating the private tutoring industry. This research provides an opportunity to bridge international discussions on shadow education and policy reform by sharing insights from China’s experience.

Methodological Approach:
A systematic review method was employed to gather and synthesize data from 30 empirical studies published between 1983 and 2024. Following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, the process involved four key phases:

1. Defining Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria: Studies were included if they focused on Chinese stakeholders’ perceptions of shadow education and were empirical in nature. Both English and Chinese-language studies were considered.
2. Literature Search and Identification: A comprehensive search of academic databases was conducted to identify relevant studies.
3. Screening and Coding: Studies were screened for eligibility and coded for key themes, stakeholder groups, and temporal relevance (pre- and post-DRP implementation).
4. Thematic Analysis: The data was analyzed to identify and compare themes across different stakeholder groups and timeframes, providing a detailed understanding of shifts in perceptions and priorities.

Significance:
This study fills an important gap in the literature by systematically examining the subjective perspectives of diverse stakeholders involved in shadow education in China. Unlike previous reviews, which often focus on the academic effects or systemic impacts of shadow education, this review prioritizes the voices and experiences of stakeholders. The findings highlight how policy interventions, such as the DRP, influence attitudes and practices within the shadow education sector. By revealing underrepresented stakeholder groups and geographical areas, the study provides actionable recommendations for researchers and policymakers, offering a deeper understanding of shadow education's dynamics both in China and internationally.

The methodology of this study followed a systematic review approach to gather, synthesize, and analyze existing empirical research on stakeholders’ perspectives regarding shadow education in mainland China. The systematic review adhered to established guidelines, including those by Ridley (2012) and Galvan and Galvan (2017), and followed the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) framework (Page et al., 2021). Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria To ensure relevance and quality, the following inclusion criteria were established: 1. The study must focus on shadow education, defined as paid tutoring in academic school subjects provided outside regular school hours (Bray, 2023). 2. It must address perceptions, attitudes, or opinions of stakeholders in mainland China, such as parents, students, schoolteachers, or policymakers. 3. The study must be published in a journal indexed in either the SCOPUS or Web of Science databases to ensure peer-reviewed quality. 4. Articles must be written in English. 5. The publication timeframe was set between 1983 and January 2024. 6. The study must use primary or secondary empirical data as its main source, excluding theoretical, conceptual, or review papers. Search and Screening Process The literature search targeted articles indexed in SCOPUS and Web of Science databases. The final search was conducted on August 13, 2024, using defined search criteria. A total of 379 records were retrieved from SCOPUS and 200 from Web of Science. After exporting query results, duplicates (n=200) were identified and removed. The remaining unique records (n=379) were screened by reading abstracts to assess relevance against inclusion criteria. Full-text reviews of the retained abstracts (n=379) were conducted, leading to the exclusion of 349 studies that failed to meet the criteria. This rigorous process resulted in a final sample of 30 empirical studies. Analysis The final set of studies was coded and analyzed to identify key themes and stakeholder perspectives. Coding included stakeholder groups, thematic focus, research methodology, and temporal relevance (e.g., pre- or post-Double Reduction Policy). The results of this analysis allowed for the synthesis of patterns, gaps, and shifts in stakeholder perceptions over time, particularly in response to major policy changes like the Double Reduction Policy. This methodological approach ensures that the findings are rooted in a comprehensive and systematic analysis of high-quality empirical research, providing a robust foundation for addressing the research questions.

This systematic review reveals significant gaps and biases in existing research on stakeholders' perceptions of shadow education in mainland China. While China has been a leading region in shadow education research, most studies have disproportionately focused on economically developed areas such as Shanghai, Beijing, and Chongqing. This geographical bias limits understanding of how shadow education operates across diverse regions, particularly in rural or western areas, where socioeconomic and cultural factors differ significantly. Stakeholder representation in the reviewed studies also shows notable disparities. While mothers, students, tutors, and teachers have been widely studied, voices from fathers, school principals, tutoring institution owners, government officials, and the general public remain underrepresented. Barriers such as access limitations, cultural sensitivities, and the sensitive nature of the topic contribute to these gaps. Overcoming these obstacles is crucial for obtaining a more balanced and comprehensive understanding of stakeholder perspectives. The review also highlights that after the implementation of the Double Reduction Policy (DRP), research has predominantly focused on policy impacts, narrowing the scope of explored themes. The perspectives of key stakeholders such as students, school principals, and policymakers have been almost entirely overlooked in the post-DRP context. Similarly, research has primarily emphasized English and mathematics tutoring, with limited attention to other subjects. Findings suggest that future research should expand its focus to include underrepresented regions and stakeholder groups while adopting comparative approaches to examine divergent perceptions. Methodological innovations, such as using focus groups to facilitate interactive discussions among stakeholders, could enrich understanding and generate new insights. Additionally, incorporating quantitative methods alongside qualitative approaches could validate hypotheses and offer more robust findings. Overall, the review underscores the need for a more inclusive and comprehensive research agenda to advance understanding of shadow education in China. This includes addressing geographical and stakeholder diversity, broadening research themes, and exploring innovative methodologies.

1. Ridley, D. (2012). *The Literature Review: A Step-by-Step Guide for Students*. Sage. 2. Galvan, J. L., & Galvan, M. C. (2017). *Writing Literature Reviews: A Guide for Students of the Social and Behavioral Sciences* (7th ed.). Routledge. 3. Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., ... & Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. *BMJ*, 372, n71. 4. Bray, M. (2023). *Shadow Education: Private Supplementary Tutoring and Its Implications for Policy Makers in Asia*. Asian Development Bank. 5. Dierkes, J. (2010). [Review of Confronting the Shadow Education System—What Government Policies for What Private Tutoring?, by M. Bray]. Comparative Education Review, 54(4), 603–605. https://doi.org/10.1086/657567