The current school education system in China has become deeply intertwined with competition, which not only become a key mechanism driving student development but also regarded as a crucial benchmark for measuring the effectiveness of school education. Drawing on theories of educational justice and through a systematic review and analysis of the literature, this study examines the legitimacy of competition within Chinese schools and the paradoxes it engenders, while exploring pathways to transcend these contradictions.

The Theoretical Foundation of This Study: Educational Justice Theory

Current discussions on the core issue of educational justice, both domestically and internationally, primarily follow three paradigms: the distributive paradigm focuses on the equitable distribution of educational resources and rights; the recognition paradigm emphasises equal acknowledgement of personal dignity; while the relational paradigm prioritises non-oppressive educational relationships.

The distributive justice paradigm, exemplified by John Rawls's theory, emphasises fairness in fundamental social structures, advocating for equitable distribution of educational resources and rights among all members of society. Rawls proposed two principles of justice: the principle of liberty and equality, and the difference principle. The latter requires compensating those most disadvantaged in society, aiming to correct social inequalities through institutional arrangements and ensure equal access to educational opportunities and resources for all, particularly vulnerable groups. Educational distributive justice, meanwhile, focuses on the distribution of educational goods such as rights, opportunities, support, and academic assessment. It requires governments and schools to achieve rational resource allocation through policies and systems, thereby preventing educational inequity arising from external factors.

Recognition is deemed more crucial than the redistribution of material resources, constituting ‘a more fundamental issue.’ The acknowledgement of human dignity stands as the central principle of social justice. The paradigm of recognition justice, proposed by Axel Honneth and others, emphasises that the equal recognition of individual dignity is justice's core. It posits that justice concerns not merely resource distribution but also mutual recognition and respect among subjects. Honneth categorises recognition into three forms: emotional care (love), legal recognition (legal rights), and social respect (solidarity), corresponding respectively to individuals' psychological needs for self-confidence, self-esteem, and pride. Within education, recognition justice demands mutual respect between teachers and students, acknowledging each pupil's unique value and equal personhood, while avoiding negative forms of recognition such as humiliation or contempt.

Relational justice theory emphasises the quality of interpersonal interactions and the legitimacy of power structures within educational settings. It advocates achieving the common welfare of all members through public participation, mutual recognition, and relationships free from domination and oppression.

The research methodology comprises three principal components: literature analysis, experiential observation, and direct observation. Firstly, within the literature review section, the study systematically retrieved and analysed journal articles, monographs, and reports from authoritative academic databases both domestically and internationally. Focusing on research outcomes from the past decade, this enabled the establishment of a robust theoretical framework whilst grasping the knowledge lineage and developmental dynamics within the relevant field. Secondly, the researcher drew extensively upon long-term, first-hand campus experience and observation. This provided an intuitive grasp of the institution's daily operations, cultural atmosphere, and interpersonal interaction patterns, thereby yielding concrete and contextualised insights.

Finding:The Paradox of Justice in School Competition (1) Competition Exacerbates Inequitable Distribution, Undermining Compensatory Justice Efficiency-driven school competition channels resources towards high achievers through rankings and scholarships, reinforcing existing advantages. This approach fails to compensate disadvantaged students, violating Rawls's difference principle and concentrating resources among a minority. Concurrently, competition reduces education to a numbers game, extending this logic to everyday allocations (such as seating arrangements). This creates an illusion of equal opportunity while deepening inequality. (2) Competition distorts recognition systems, reinforcing meritocracy Competitive mechanisms readily foster differentiated recognition based on academic performance: high achievers receive disproportionate attention and resources, while struggling students face neglect or stigmatisation, damaging their self-esteem and equal rights. Competitive evaluation reinforces labels like ‘top/bottom performers,’ transforming recognition into conditional bestowal. This deviates from education's inherent humanistic care and recognition justice, undermining students' right to be seen and respected as whole individuals. (3) Competition Eroding Collaborative Relationships and Hindering Community Building Competition transforms student relationships from cooperative to adversarial, viewing peers as rivals rather than partners, thereby diminishing collaborative willingness and collective responsibility. Concurrently, competitive pressures steer teaching towards control and authority, compressing space for democratic student participation and impeding the development of critical thinking and civic competence. The logic of competition further obstructs the formation of educational communities, prioritising individual success over collective welfare and hindering the cultivation of civic virtues such as solidarity and inclusivity. Conclusions: Criticism of competitive school education does not seek to negate its value, but rather to expose its unjust consequences and explore pathways beyond it. We must adopt a composite, pluralistic justice framework. Specifically, this entails: establishing a compensatory distribution structure to curb the Matthew effect of competition; implementing a multi-faceted recognition system to dismantle meritocracy's value monopoly; and cultivating symbiotic educational relationships to build collaborative educational communities.

Wu, S., & Gao, D. (2023). Reflection on the justice of educational meritocracy: Progressive significance, moral risks, and avoidance. Global Education, 52(12), 36–49. Li, S., & Long, B. (2023). Justice inspection and path exploration of the governance of off-campus training institutions. Educational Science Research, (10), 28–35. Zhong, C. (2021). Research on classroom seat arrangement from the perspective of complex justice: Based on an investigation of students’ seat experience. Contemporary Education Sciences, (7), 81–89. Wu, H. (2017). Educational justice: Towards a pluralistic and comprehensive paradigm. Journal of Educational Science of Hunan Normal University, 16(2), 83–88. Feng, J. (2016). Educational justice in the post-equalization era: From “distribution” to “recognition”. Educational Research, 37(4), 41–47. Zhong, J., & Zeng, R. (2009). From distributive justice to relational justice: A new perspective on educational equity in the West. Tsinghua Journal of Education, 30(5), 14–21. Xu, L. (2010). On the construction of an educational compensation mechanism: Exploring the path to balanced allocation of compulsory education resources. Research in Educational Development, 30(19), 31–35. Cheng, L. (2015). What kind of justice? Whose responsibility? Exploring the legitimacy of modern school processes. Research in Educational Development, 33(2), 6–13. Ge, X., Dai, S., & Deng, L. (2025). Digital-intelligent panoramic profiling empowers developmental student evaluation: Mechanisms, challenges, and pathways. Journal of Southwest University (Social Sciences Edition), 51(1), 216–226, 306. Jin, Y., Piao, X., Zhao, T., et al. (2021). Written discussion: Reform and institutional innovation of educational evaluation in the new era. University Education Science, (1), 13–25. Wang, Y., & He, S. (2025). Reflection and transcendence of educational meritocracy: Based on Biesta’s “weakness of education”. University Education Science, (3), 73–80. Wang, F. (2008). On Honneth’s theory of the structure of recognition relations. Philosophical Research, (3), 41–50. Jin, S. (2012). Education and justice: A philosophical imagination of educational justice. Fujian Education Press. Feng, J. (2019). Returning to authenticity: A philosophical exploration of “education and human”. China Renmin University Press. Honneth, A. (2005). The struggle for recognition. Shanghai People’s Publishing House. Howe, K. (2013). Equality of educational opportunity. In D. Philips (Ed.), The encyclopedia of educational philosophy and theory. Sage.