One night this September, a teacher from an off-campus training institution who taught me a few years ago posted a sad message on WeChat moments: "Goodbye, my dear students! Wish you continued progress! I'm sorry I can't be with you anymore." The picture showed an empty classroom with messy, scattered desks. The room was familiar. I had spent many weekends there when I was in elementary school. At that moment, I was surprised and didn't know what had happened.

After a few days, I learned from news reports that the Chinese government had announced a new policy: all training institution would be forbidden to provide any off-campus “subject-based” training on weekends and holidays.1 Additionally, these programs would be barred from conducting initial public offerings (IPOs) or otherwise raising funds from capital markets. They needed to register as “non-profit organizations” and abide by regulatory measures.2 More than a month later, many after-school training institutions in China closed down, and millions of after-school teachers lost their jobs.3 The news explained the scene I had seen on WeChat.

In the beginning, I was a little puzzled as to why the Chinese government introduced this policy. What was the reason? My mom and I hunted for information, trying to understand the Chinese government's intention. One explanation was that massive capital investment into the education and training industry intensified educational imbalances. With money to spend on tutoring resources, the children of high-income families could succeed more easily. This imbalanced placed heavier financial burden on parents, which affected the decision to have children. Some attributed low birth rates to the financial burden education placed on families. But was that really the case? Did students give up extracurricular training after this policy was introduced? I asked several friends of mine who were in domestic Chinese high schools and my two cousins who were in Chinese domestic primary school. I found that they were divided: students of low-income families relinquished extra-curricular training, whereas students from mid-to-high-income families found private tutors and continued one-on-one training in various hidden ways. But, because one-on-one lessons were more expensive than small classes, the cost of training rose.

I couldn’t help thinking that, if this trend continued, the unfairness of Chinese education would become more serious in the future. Children from rich families would receive one-on-one training surreptitiously, children from middle-class families who could have bought smaller classes at a lower price would be forced to pay more for one-on-one training, and children from low-income families who could not afford one-on-one training would give up completely. In recent five years, roughly 50% of middle school students in China are able to enter “senior high school,” which is mainly aimed at preparing students for entering college three years later. The other 50% enter “vocational and technical schools,” which are designed to produce a labor force for different industries. 4 What is more, in the past five years, admission rate in 4-year tertiary education is roughly 48% in China.5 The educational fate of students—namely, which of these two tracks they will follow, is decided by two unified exams, named “ZhongKao”( Senior High School Entrance Examination) and “GaoKao”(National College Entrance Examination ). Eventually, the following situation is likely to occur: children from rich and middle-class families will be accepted into senior high school and college at roughly equal rates, but middle-class families will be forced to spend higher percentage of their income on education. This economic reality will disincentivize people to raise more kids. Based on historical experience and data from other countries, the decline in fertility rates seems an inevitable result of social and economic development. Can we really increase fertility rates by banning extracurricular training?

This issue of educational equity recalls a similar case in the United States. This May, the University of California announced that, in order to achieve equity in college admissions, it would no longer require students to submit standardized test scores. If students choose to submit scores, the university will not consider them.6 This decision comes in response to the argument that standardized test scores unfairly penalize low-income students. Students of rich families can improve their standardized test scores through additional, targeted training, which low-income students lack. At the same time, standardized scores are not a necessary condition to measure a student's academic ability and comprehensive quality, so they should not be one of the conditions for university admissions. Although colleges have never publicly acknowledged it, there has long been a tacit consensus that African-American, Latino, and other minority students are more likely to be admitted than Asian students, given the same academic performance. The University of California has explicitly removed standardized scores as a reference factor for college admissions, further reducing the proportion of Asian students with relatively higher-than-average standardized scores, which seems to make the goal of "student diversity" easier to achieve. Although universities have never officially announced that they have mandatory percentages for racial diversity, the racial distribution of students posted on their websites is clearly a "politically correct" decision in today's American society.

On the other hand, if the University of California believes that standardized scores are not an adequate measure academic ability and comprehensive quality, then GPA and other extracurricular achievements will play a larger role in college admissions standards. Will this recalibration continue to favor rich students? Rich parents can also hire private tutors to help students improve their GPAs. Additionally, with added resources, rich parents can enable students to achieve extra-curricular success through accumulated sports, musical, and other training. Don't these programs cost more than a few months of standardized test training? Does this mean that families with average income could have obtained some standardized test training with low cost resources to improve students' standardized scores and gain college admission opportunities, but now it takes years of higher investment to get a comprehensive and perfect student resume and profile? Doesn't that create even greater unfairness?

Do the policy cases of China and the United States reveal that standardized examinations are really hindering educational equity? Is educational equity achieved by banning training or forcing diversity? In my opinion, examination is one of the fairest ways of establishing credentials. Everyone has to face various exams after entering society. If a candidate wants to join a big company, like FAANG, he or she must submit to a written test and rounds of interviews. If a young man wants to win his lover's heart, does he not have to be chosen and tested by his lover? Should the government assign each person's spouse? If someone needs to drive a car, he or she should pass the driving test, right? Should the Government issue the driver license by lottery? If the government refuses to allow students to undergo examinations at an early age, why should it expect these young people to handle the process of being tested by society when they grow up? How does shielding students from exams help society develop?

I argue that testing is not hindering educational equity. Testing is only a tool that could urge people to judge whether they fit the particular standard. As a solution, the government could provide education and training resources to low-income families by using taxation adjustment tools, which could make different income level families acquire training resources more fairly. These kinds of training could help different types of students adapt to the testing and compete in testing more equitably. The final goal is to help them conquer the challenge of different testing and find their own way to create value for the society.

In China, students who can afford to should be allowed to participate in extracurricular training. Through government regulation on the pricing at training institutions and through taxation derived from these payments, free public training service can be provided by government. These free or low-cost training services will be open to low-income students. In this way, students from different income levels can have relatively equal access to education and training resources, and then students can compete fairly in exams, based on their own efforts and talents.

In the United States, every standardized exam registration fee can be appropriately raised. A certain proportion of every enrollment fee could be extracted and used to finance educational opportunities for low-income students. Additionally, low-income students could apply for exemption from standardized test registration fees under family tax returns. Or, in the tuition charged by private universities, a certain proportion could be taken as part of the government's expenditure on free public training services. If diversity is correct and necessary, we should help the African American and Latino students through having more training resources. This will help them get higher test scores, so universities can cultivate more minority students with strong academic ability. Let students be more competitive in society. The goal should not simply be to get them into college by forcing diversity.

As the world continues to move forward, our society needs more young people with knowledge, innovative spirits, dreams, and beliefs to make the world a better place. I think educational equity does not mean "If I cannot get it, neither should you. " Education is about making everyone better.

Let's get better and better together.

1, China Releases "Double Reduction" Policy in Education Sector, jdsupra.com/legalnews/china-releases-double-reduction-policy-1019987/
2, China Releases "Double Reduction" Policy in Education Sector, jdsupra.com/legalnews/china-releases-double-reduction-policy-1019987/
3, China’s harsh education crackdown sends parents and businesses scrambling, cnbc.com/2021/08/05/chinas-harsh-education-crackdown-sends-parents-businesses-scrambling.html
4, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_China#Admissions_and_Zhongkao
5,statista.com/statistics/1113954/china-tertiary-education-college-university-enrollment-rate/
6, Exam Requirement, admission.universityofcalifornia.edu/admission-requirements/freshman-requirements/exam-requirement/