形似而神异：再议家庭背景与学校教育之间的关系逻辑

郑雅君

摘要：当前关于中国及东亚社会的量化研究暗示了不同阶层在教育态度上的 “扁平化” 趋势，本文通过对来自精英高校与县中两类教育场域的深度访谈与实地观察，揭示出不同社会阶层与学校教育系统之间关系逻辑的深层差异。研究发现，城市中产家庭往往以 “消费者式 / 企业家式学习者” 姿态，选择性地调动教育资源，以高度理性的自主策略服务于自身目标；而对非优势阶层而言，学校教育更像是一个 “他者” 的系统 —— 它是外在的、稀缺的，一种通过层层竞争才有资格进入的陌生领域。由于选择的缺乏、流动能力弱，他们牢牢依附于教育体制，其姿态更像是 “程门立雪” 的学徒之于强势的师傅，自主性和个性被压抑和放弃。洞悉这种主体性的差异，不仅有助于深化对教育公平问题的讨论，也有助于理解一些教育公共政策（ 如 “双减”、“新高考” ）在执行中之所以陷入目标偏差的深层社会心理机制。研究呼吁，应超越将受教育者视为均一整体的前见，将不同社会群体“异质化的教育主体性”纳入学术研究、政策制定与评估的考量。

关键词：家庭背景  县域  精英高校  教育主体性  学校教育  社会阶层

https://doi.org/10.64053/QZAM3553

“尽管人们至今仍普遍否认阶级的存在，但它实则深植于个体与教育关系的核心之中。社会学的关键任务正是揭示并理解阶级千变万化的表现形式 —— 唯有如此，阶级所造成的严重教育不平等问题方能开始得到解决。”

——Diane Reay (2009, p. 402)

一、问题的提出

正如 Diane Reay 所言，探讨教育系统与社会阶级之间的关系是教育社会学的一个经典议题，吸引代代学人在不同社会背景下发起追问：学校教育究竟是促进社会流动的 “均衡器”（ the “great equalizer” ），还是施加社会控制、维持社会结构再生产的隐蔽机制？( Bernardi and Plavgo 2019 ) 如果说西方世界的学者基于对资本主义秩序的批判感到更有理由认同后者 ( Bourdieu 1967; Bowles and Gintis 1976; Coleman et al. 1966; Willis 1977 )，那么在当代中国的背景下，这一问题的争议可能更大。中国的枢纽性教育制度 —— 高考 —— 及其上下游的考试制度，被认为是一种对各阶层相对公平的筛选制度 ( Hu, Kao and Wu 2020; Hu and Wu 2021 )，因而被广泛视为 “最不坏的” 阶层流动通道。社会媒体对于教育话题的狂热关注，各阶层普遍感知到的教育焦虑，以及街头巷尾随处可见的教育机构，使得任何人都能轻易感受到社会成员对学校教育的普遍重视 —— 仿佛这部 “社会电梯” 就在这里向所有人敞开机会，每个家庭和孩子要做的就是尽力投入，为参加这个公正的锦标赛做好准备。

一些研究者的发现也在某种程度上支持了这种想象 —— 中国民众对于教育的重视程度和投入力度普遍较高，阶层差距比西方社会更弱。Li 和 Xie (2020) 在一项比较研究中指出，教育期望在东亚社会显著地不太依赖于家庭背景，即便在较低社会经济地位的家庭中，对教育的认同和期望依然相当强烈。而从教育支出来看，Hu 等人 (2023) 利用中国家庭追踪调查（CFPS）数据发现，中国家庭的教育支出占总收入的比重远高于其他国家，而农村家庭的教育支出比例比城市家庭更大。即便是低收入家庭，其教育支出占收入比例也显著高于西方国家同类家庭。对于这种广泛存在的 “教育狂热”，一些学者将其归因于东亚文化传统的濡化作用 (Hawkins 2012; Stevenson and Stigler 1994)。Li 和 Xie (2020) 认为，东亚文化传统赋予教育高度正面意义，使得城乡和各阶层家庭普遍认同教育的价值。Hawkins (2012)指出，儒家思想与科举制度的历史遗产塑造了 “教育改变命运” 的全民共识，高学业成就在东亚具有着深远的社会意涵，往往被视为实现个人成功、家庭荣耀和践行孝道的重要路径，被所有阶层普遍认可。Andrew Kipnis (2019) 也在中国山东的田野调查里窥见了这种集体性的教育欲望，并指出这是由儒家伦理、公共政策与市场力量共同创造出的、一种超越个体理性的文化共识。对此相对应的，实证研究也发现，中国学生的学业成就受家庭社会经济背景的影响相对比西方国家更小 (Lyu, Li and Xie 2019)，甚至发现与家庭财富不显著相关 (Liu and Xie 2015)。

由此观之，上述研究似乎共同暗示着，中国社会民众中存在着一种对待教育的相对普遍的、匀质化的态度，呈现出一种 “去阶层化” 的同质关系。换句话说，研究者传递出一种印象，即不同阶层理解和对待教育的方式似乎有着形式上的趋同性 —— 无论出身，均高度重视教育。由此推论，东亚社会中教育期望的普遍性和扁平性可能对底层家庭的教育成就形成保护性缓冲，从而减轻社会经济地位（SES）劣势对教育结果的不利影响 (Li and Xie 2020)。

然而，各阶层与学校教育的这种相对 “扁平化” 的关系往往是基于大样本的问卷调查法，通过比较的方法而发现的。由于方法上的局限，现有研究大多囿于对主观态度或外在行为的量化评估，很少深入到阶层的主观世界（subjectivities）去了解各自背后不同的动机、期望、感受和实践。在研究者将普罗大众对教育的态度或行为简化为一项数值或态度指标的同时，存在着一种不易察觉的风险：研究者仅仅获得了片段性的数值，而这些数值背后的语境 —— 各阶层在教育实践中所处的结构位置、经验逻辑与情感结构却被悄然遮蔽了。换言之，问卷数据呈现出的 “去阶层化” 的家庭教育期望与投入，或许只是由于无法捕捉到那些难以量化测量的深层心态、行动路径与情感体验上的差异，而使得研究者只能得出 “去阶层化” 的浅表结论。

文化再生产理论为此提供了更深刻的解释框架。Bourdieu与Passeron (1977)认为，学校教育系统并非如主流教育政策话语所宣称的那样，是一个公平且基于择优原则的中立场域。在中立的表象之下，教育系统实际上隐性地实施着对精英文化的合法化，从而系统性地维护着精英阶层的文化优势和社会地位（Bourdieu & Passeron, 1990）。这种 “象征暴力” （symbolic violence）通过课程设计、教学方法、考试评估标准等具体教育实践，悄然将精英阶层的偏好与规范转化为对所有人的期待和要求，从而排斥或边缘化底层阶级的文化经验与实践 (Bourdieu 1977; Lareau 2011; Reay 2017)。基于观察和访谈方法的研究发现，中产阶级更可能主动调动制度资源、与教师互动并塑造有利局势，而工人阶级家庭往往保持顺从与距离，缺乏文化资本所带来的制度行动能力 (Calarco 2011; Calarco 2014; Lareau 2015)。这种差异并非源自个体态度或意识形态，而是嵌入于社会位置与文化经验之中。Reay & Lucey (2003)也指出，教育市场的 “平等表象” 往往掩盖了深层的阶层化体验，学生在看似相同的教育轨道中（ 比如进入同一所低声誉学校 ）展现出完全不同的主观理解和自我感受：中产阶级儿童倾向于将低声誉学校视为 “他者”，并试图通过转学或心理疏离来避免身份的污名化；而工人阶级儿童却需要直面 “病理化的他者（demonized other）” 与 “像我这样的人” 只能相等同而产生的身份冲突。

因此，表面上的教育期望或高投入并不能等同于阶层之间对教育的认同或参与是平等的。要理解其背后隐藏的社会机制与差异性逻辑，需要从各阶层的主观世界或主体性（subjectivity）出发，深入分析他们在教育过程中的感受、理解、判断与应对方式。换句说话，我们要问：“上学” 这件事对不同阶层的国人来说，究竟意味着什么？本文基于过去十年来持续进行的名校大学生访谈和一项正在进行的西部县中民族志所收集的数据，对比分析了非优势阶层与城市中产在参与学校教育时展现出的系统性差异，并指出这些差异在精英高等教育和县域中等教育两个教育场域中具有的通性，及其跨时间的延续性。

二、阶级、教育系统与人的主观世界

阶级与主体性的互动关系深刻揭示了教育系统作为社会分层机制的核心作用。主体性（subjectivity）指个体在社会结构中形成的自我认知、情感体验和行动逻辑，既受结构性因素制约，又蕴涵着个体的能动性 (Reay 2001; Sayer 2005)。在西方世界的教育社会学研究中，主体性的阶层差异常常被描绘为 “中产阶级作为 ‘规划者’ -工人阶级作为 ‘幸存者’” 的二元框架：在教育市场中，中产阶级凭借其丰富的经济资本、文化资本和社会网络资源，能够采取积极主动的 “规划者” 策略，通过精细的教育投资（ 如学区房购置、课外辅导班选择、国际学校申请等 ）为子女建构竞争优势 (Ball et al. 2002)。这种主体性表现为对 “学校教育系统如何运转” 的 “文化性知识” (cultural knowledge) 的深度理解和娴熟运用，从而有助于获取教育优势和机会（Lareau, 2015）。而通过获得教育系统的制度性认可（ 如学历文凭和表彰奖励 ），中产阶级强化了自信心和自我价值。相比之下，工人阶级家庭由于资源受限，其教育参与往往呈现出以短期生存为导向的“幸存者”逻辑。父母更倾向于采用粗放的方式养育孩子，孩子也自然更容易在学校里遭遇 “游戏规则” 的贬低和排斥 (Lareau 2011)。他们或是被迫接受低质量教育并内化 “能力不足” 的标签 (Sayer 2005)，或是索性发展出亚文化来反抗学校的权威(Willis 1977)。他们倾向于选择 “社区感强” 的非精英大学，而其教育成功则常常以失去阶级身份认同为代价 (Reay 2001; Reay, Crozier and Clayton 2009)。这种分化被教育市场化浪潮进一步放大，中产阶级通过购房择校、课外补习等策略巩固优势，而工人阶级则被挤压到教育资源链的末端（Ball, 2003）。

这种阶级化的主体性不仅体现在行为策略层面，更深刻地反映在情感结构和道德认知维度。Sayer（2005）认为，主体性并非抽象的 “自我意识”，而是阶级位置在情感和道德层面的具身化（embodiment）：当中产阶级受益于自身的一系列资本、规划和策略，对自身的成功感到理所当然，偶尔或许也伴随着对自身特权的某种道德焦虑；而工人阶级的教育体验则常伴随着尊严与羞辱的张力，对系统性排斥的愤怒与对自我价值的怀疑 (Reay 2001; 2015)。特别对于进入精英大学的工人阶级学生而言，这种阶层流动杂糅着包括骄傲、自卑、羞耻、恐惧等情绪的复杂情感体验，还伴随着担忧自己资质不佳的 “冒名顶替综合症” (imposter syndrome)，更面临着阶级背叛焦虑和身份认同的分裂 (Lehmann 2007; 2009; Reay, Crozier and Clayton 2010; 程猛 2018; 廖青 2019)。

在中国语境下，这一框架需结合城乡差异、应试文化等本土现实进行重新审视。毕竟，我国坚持走中国特色社会主义道路，建立起了以公立学校为主导的学费低廉的教育系统。我国的地位分配制度也具有鲜明的自身特征 —— 体制内的编制岗位几乎 “逢进必考”，至少实现了形式上的公平性。在这样一个以共同富裕为目标、公立学校为基石的社会中，不同阶层成员与学校教育系统之间的关系又如何呢？

三、数据与方法

本文援引了笔者在过去十年来在国内三所 “双一流” 高校收集的 95 个毕业班学生的深度访谈资料，以及目前正在两所西部县域普通高中进行的民族志观察资料。访谈资料收集的时间跨度和地域跨度较大：首先于 2015-2016 年在位于北京和上海的两所高校（以下简称 “北方大学” 和 “南方大学” ）访谈了 38 位毕业班学生，后于 2017 年在南方大学追加访谈了 25 人，又于疫情期间（2020-2022年）在南方大学追加访谈了 13 人，并将数据搜集范围扩展至位于西部某省会城市的一所 “双一流” 高校（以下简称 “西部大学” ）访谈了 19 人。访谈对象多通过 “滚雪球” 方法收集，并注意平衡学业成绩、学科、和家庭社会经济背景的多样性。在 95 个被访者当中：42 人为农村籍学生，均为家庭第一代大学生，父母职业以务工务农人员、个体户和服务业员工为主；43 人为城市学生，其中 28 人为非一代大学生，父母职业以专业技术人员、政府公职人员和企业管理人员为主。访谈的目的是为了了解不同家庭背景的学生就读精英大学的经历，以及其毕业去向获得的来龙去脉。之所以在不同的高校收集数据，是因为考虑到我国幅员辽阔而地域特征明显、发展水平差异巨大，跨高校的对比可以帮助研究者在地域差异中把握家庭背景对学生影响之通性。访谈均由本人主持，大多数为一对一面对面访谈（疫情期间有 5 人为线上访谈）。访谈平均持续 3 小时左右，采用 “渐进式聚焦法” 逐步深入话题 ( 杨善华、孙飞宇 2005)。通常以被访者的家庭环境与童年回忆开始，继而邀请他 / 她回溯整个学校教育经历，然后深入讨论高等教育阶段的经历及其毕业选择的决策情况。在访谈过程中，我力求使被访者感到倾听者的诚意，尽力达到对被访者的共情，以及对其思想感受和行动逻辑的理解。在获得受访者同意后，访谈均进行了录音，并转录为文稿。

考虑到进入 “双一流” 高校的学生实际上在人口中占比极低，在顶尖学府的高墙外，笔者还将目光投向了西部欠发达地区的县域高中。从 2025 年 3 月中旬以来，笔者开始在西部两所县级高中进行田野观察。两所高中均属于区县高中，同属一市管辖，均系该省认定的 “省级示范性高中”，办学质量位于全市前列。不同的是，其中一所位于农业为支柱的县城，是该县唯一一所普通高级中学，在校生规模超过 7000 人，而其中农村籍学生多达八成 （以下简称 “县一中” ）；而另一所位于市府所在县区，为辖区的四所普通高中之一，在校生规模维持在 3800 人左右，其中农村籍约占三成，学生的家庭经济条件整体略优于县一中（ 以下简称 “区一中” ）。我在两所学校的身份是班主任助理，在高一年级某个班级进行参与式观察，保持着每周平均2天的观察频率，在年级组办公室和班级里观察班级教师的日常工作，并不时和学生与校领导保持交流。我在现场用手写方式记录所见所闻，并在有感时撰写扎记。

对涉世未深的我而言，收集数据的过程也是一个对阶层差异产生实感的过程。在目睹了县中的日常现实之后，回想在精英大学做过的访谈，我越发领悟到不同群体与学校教育的关系有着深刻的差异，这种差异超越了学段、地域和学校层级对人的分化，稳定地存在于阶层地位相似的群体当中。在下文中，我论述了我所感悟到的这种系统性的差异。鉴于数据的庞杂，我重点援引了那些相当具有群体内普遍性和典型性的案例。

四、“掌控者” 与 “依附者”

在我访谈的家庭条件较好的学生中，并没有极富阶层或顶级权贵的孩子。这些孩子与姜以琳在《 学神 》一书 (Chiang 2022) 中跟踪的精英孩子们有所不同，她观察的群体往往以国际名校为本科阶段的目标，通过海外夏校、国际竞赛和私人定制化辅导来培养 “全球公民” 身份，为参与全球精英竞争做好准备。相比之下，我在国内名校访谈到的家境优越者更像是普通的城市中产和新富阶层。他们的父母大多接受过良好的高等教育，从事企业管理、机关干部、私营企业主、教师、医生或大学教师等工作，他们从小就读的学校多是被优选过的当地优质资源。这些学生有一个共同点：他们从小就被教师和父母给予了空间，习惯于自主安排自己的学习和生活，并倾向于有清晰的目标意识。他们积极投入竞争，动员经济、文化与社会资本为自己获取优势，从好成绩中获得了自信心与配得感，并自然而然地形成了一种掌控性的自我 —— 将自己理解为 “教育服务购买者” 或 “人力资本投资者”，致力于通过教育进行自我价值的提升，并将为自己做出最优选择视为对自己负有的道德责任。这与 Stephen Ball 近年对全球新自由主义教育政策所培养出的 “企业家式的学习者” ( “entrepreneurial learners” ) 的观察异曲同工 (Ball 2021)。Ball认为，对教育的新自由主义治理将教育成功的责任从国家转移到个人，同时掩盖结构性不平等 —— “企业家式学习者” 正是这一 “责任个体化” 过程的产物。

从被访者叙述的亲子关系和父母角色来看，会更明白这种 “掌控性自我” 是如何形成的。他们的父母往往对孩子的教育相当上心，但这种 “上心” 却是通过一种对孩子不露痕迹的方式。他们会确保孩子去了好学校，必要时给他们报补习班，却很少直接操刀管理孩子的学习，而是将自我管理权和一定程度的决策自由下放给孩子。西部大学的浩文生长于西部省会城市，父亲和不少亲属都在银行系统担任要职。在他的认知中，许多家长都会给孩子做选择的自由：

我爸爸比较支持我所喜欢做的事，他觉得这样我会开心。他属于是这种比较在乎我喜不喜欢一件事情的家长。他不会添加很多的他的意志在我的身上，但是具体执行的过程中，他会要求我认真做好。而且，其实他会把控一个 “大方向”。但是在一些具体选择上，他会让我自己选择。现如今的很多家长都是这样，特别是很多受过好的教育的家长会这样。

但实际上，他的 “大方向” 总有人帮忙掌舵。他从小上的中小学校都是当地名列前茅的。他的父母所起的作用，是确保孩子在独自面对竞争和决策的时候已经做好了准备。南方大学的宁轩来自东部一线城市，父母都是硕士学历，在民企和外企做管理工作。在他的印象中，父母工作忙，不怎么过问他的学习，但他每个阶段都其实已经有了 “内置优势”：

宁轩：我爸妈他们很忙，不怎么管我。不过我也挺自觉的。

雅君：是从小就成绩特好吗？

宁轩：不能这么说，我是基本上待了两三年之后才晋升到才越到头部梯队。因为需要一段时间来熟悉新的环境。但毕竟我父母也给我在小学，哦不，从幼儿园开始给我上课外补习班。

雅君：还记得在补习班学的啥吗？

宁轩：有印象的是学乘法两位数。幼儿园主要学数学。小学的时候学学英语，补学科英语。我的小学还是素质教育试点，作业偏少、娱乐偏多的。所以说我在上外面上了一些补习班，就可以考到很好的成绩。

雅君：你对你的高中有啥印象？周围都是什么样的同学？

宁轩：留意一下不少人也成了大学同学（ 笑 ）。初中上去都是平行班，初中考进去的，到了高中会分比较优秀的 “科创班” 和平行班。然后我是进科创班的，我在高一和高二做了两个 “课题”，这个课题就是做研究，我做的是两个生物相关的，其实感觉和大学里的课程比较接近。去查文献，然后去做实验，写报告。

当他在高中就熟悉了科研人的基本培养模式，到了大学他自然很容易就完成了转换，用他的话说就是 “预期之内的满意，只是寄宿生活需要适应一下”。这种满意其实是父母多年培养的结果。对宁轩来说，上大学从来不是一种 “追求”，而是将会发生的必然，问题只在于选择哪所罢了。当年他需要做选择的时候，父母也通过分享自己的见识，将对未来市场的判断解释给他：

他们有自己的人生经验，告诉我这个时代，学理工科的话就业肯定不会是有什么问题的。他们也稍微预见到了一点，就是经济金融的风头可能要告一段落了，学经济和金融管理这方面的本科生可能在就业上竞争力会有一定的下降，这个市场可能有一定的饱和，所以说他们是推荐我学理工科。当时我觉得南方大学计算机比较有优势，我也有兴趣去做，所以就报了。

当父母多年来通过 “抓大放小、给足空间” 的方式来操练孩子的自主性，逐渐培养起了自我管理的能力和信心，孩子自然更容易在学校和职场的竞争中脱颖而出 —— 因为自主选择和主动准备正是当前的大学与就业市场暗中要求的 ( 郑雅君 2023 )。这种对生活和学习的自主控制和规划，正是顺应了教育市场化潮流中应运而生的一种 “新自由主义自我”：自信、自主、独立、主动，目标明确，善于自我管理和规划 (Vassallo 2020)。许多人在讨论到自己的好成绩的时候，都带着一种淡泊的口吻，因为好成绩本身是没有意义的，除非能服务于一个什么 “用处”：

我小时候就并没有觉得成绩好有多厉害。只是觉得考得不好的话，会在和那些小伙伴玩的过程中感觉特别没有话语权。如果考得好的话，皆大欢喜，麻烦少一点。但实际上我一直觉得，生活要有意义是更重要的。不能一直过一种过于工具理性的生活，就是说你一直干这个事情，但是你不知道干他有什么用。成绩最终成为你干这个事情的目的，那就特别诡异了。（守志，北方大学，非一代大学生，父亲为高校教授）

相比之下，以农村学生为代表的非优势阶层与学校教育则完全是另一种关系模式。如果说城市中产家庭在教育面前是 “消费者” 和 “掌控者”，农民和劳工家庭则更多扮演着 “追求者” 和 “依附者” 的角色。我所访谈的名校农村学生，实际上是同龄人当中的凤毛麟角，仔细了解他们的基础教育经历就会发现，他们的成功是在一系列外在于家庭的小概率事件下被托举起来的，譬如幼年早慧而获得老师有意栽培、成绩一骑绝尘被校长发现是 “读书的料” 而获得额外关照，被任课老师赏识而享受免费补课、辍学打工之后又被亲戚力挺回来读书，又或是被省里的重点中学额外录取等等。

对他们的社区来说，好学校站在上位，是外在的、需要去追求的对象。“上大学” 寄托着他们对改善生活的渴盼，而 “考上大学” 则意味着 “被选中” 的狂喜和进一步被 “组织” 选中的期待。那些天赋异常、考入名校的孩子固然稀少，但十里八乡但凡出现一个，其事迹就广为流传，作为那些后继的 “读书的料” 效法的榜样，也刺激着人们都期待自己祖荫庇佑，也生出这样的好孩子。不少我的被访者，在当地都是有名的 “人物”，成绩带来的已经远不止升学机会，而是蕴涵着光宗耀祖、为家门 “争气” 甚至为学校和家乡争荣誉等深远的社会意义。

对 “读书改变命运” 的期盼的确是普遍存在的。但与城市中产对学校的工具化态度不同，对农村家庭来说，学校教育是彰显自我价值的平台，成绩则是自我价值的明证。而更重要的是，只要被顺利选中，进入了一个优秀的平台，自我发展的责任也就一并交付给了学校 —— 或者说只能交给学校。尖子生的成绩之上，负载着全家、全校甚至全县的期望，因而成绩本身自然成了学习的目的。许多被访者在被大学录取的时候就觉得自己已经成功了—— 赢得了高考，成功地被选中了，却未曾察觉到名校如今其实并不会自动为自己的前途铺路。他们将自己对未来的指望紧紧地依附在庞大的教育系统中，放弃了对人生的掌控 —— 或者说从未获得过，而将希望寄托在学校和专业上。这样的案例俯拾即是，例如出身于中部农村地区的淼清，父母常年务工，自幼留守，但从学龄前就展现出了鹤立鸡群的天赋，提前进入小学就读，并在小升初考试中名列全镇第一，这个成绩为她的家庭换来了不菲的经济收益和巨大的心理满足：

我当时很开心，然后我父母很骄傲，我爷爷奶奶我全家人都很开心。然后后面我也得到了一个私立学校非常好的入学条件，就是我整个初中三年免除一切费用，我家里也得到了一笔经济上的补偿，多少钱我不记得了。整个初中三年我都过着一个比较舒适的生活，老师、校长、同学都对你另眼相看。这个也是我最早对于 “读书可以为我带来一些好处” 有概念的时候。小学以前我可能从来都是漫无目的的那种正常读书学习考试，然后经过小升初这一次，我可能会觉得读书可以为我带来什么，给我家里人带来什么。

到了初升高的关头，她又作为 “尖子生” 被一个待遇优厚的私立重点高中招走了。学校不仅不收任何费用，还给了她家三万元的 “奖金”，并提供了免费的住房可供她妈妈进城陪读。她笑称：“可能从我读书的阶段是没怎么花过家里的钱的，还挣了一点。” 但她后来回忆，高中极大的竞争强度和压力，很快让她意识到自己担负的是怎样的重任 —— 直击清北。这是一个校领导、老师和学生 “齐抓共管” 的工程，给她带来了沉重的心理负担，以至于开始厌学：

我们考试特别多，月月每个礼拜都要考试。有一次我印象特别深刻，当时月考我考了二三十名的样子，我们校长在考后要开成绩分析会。校长会把我们高一（13）班的任课老师、几个比较重点的学生，然后还有学生家长，请到一起吃顿饭。然后就是在饭桌上来分析这个成绩。比如说某某某这次考得比较好，前进了多少名；某某某这次考得不好，后退了多少。然后我当时考的不是很好，吃饭的时候我就一直哭。因为我觉得很内疚，不仅是我不好意思，我还让我妈妈丢脸那种感觉。……从高中我就厌学情绪特别严重，就是我感觉我不是自己要去学习的，我是被别人逼着去学习，去做这样一件事情。我已经完全没有自由了那种，我必须要考上清北，有时候是会被感觉被压迫的喘不过气来那种情绪。

那时她还不明白，她和学校已经成了绑定的利益共同体。清北是学校交给她的任务，而讽刺的是，她自己却从未（ 有机会 ）去为她自己选择目标。她的高考分数排全校 12 名，然而只有前 5 才能稳妥进清北。但学校想出清北的愿望实在太强烈，于是她还是填报了提前批的贫困县专项，第一志愿报了北大护理系，最终被南方大学的护理系录取。她告诉我，那时候对报志愿其实根本不了解，基本上就是听老师的，而老师的意见却夹杂着利益的考量：

老师他们更看重的是你的学校好不好。因为他们可能打横幅的时候会说，某某同学考上了某某大学，不会说你的专业。因为可能你比如说考进北大、清华，学校会给这些老师多少奖金，考进 10 大名牌学校会给他多少奖金这种，是这么算的。所以其实我觉得志愿可能报的不是很好。我当时就随便填了一下提前批，结果就进去了……我家人还是很开心的，毕竟在我们整个镇上我都是第一个考上这种名牌大学的。但进去之后就发现，很多人都不想来护理学院，想转专业的同学太多，后来学校干脆不让转了……

被考试绑架的她，总算在进入大学后拥有了自己做主的自由。然而久居牢笼之后，她却不愿意再燃起求知的欲望，也没有意愿去掌控自己的人生。对大学的适应也很不容易，她很难找到一种归属感。她也不像身边很多想拼命逃离护理学院的同学，她随遇而安，按部就班的应付学业，绩点排在中游。她确定自己对医学没有任何兴趣，毕业时选择了加入 “西部计划”，在贫困地区支教一年后接着读研。她设想未来也许能通过选调生的途径进入政府部门工作，但体验之后又觉得无聊：

淼清：我从来没有做过人生规划或者是给自己定过什么人生目标。我也没想着转专业，来都来了，我就按照学校和专业的要求来学习呗。我可能每天想的最多的，比如说现在已经下午了，我可能想的最远的事情就是我晚上要吃什么。我可能不会太在意第二天甚至很长远以后的事情，我觉得人生的不确定性实在是太大了，而且我对物质也没有很高的要求啊。反正无论是你过得有钱还是没钱，每个人最后最终的终点都是一抔黄土嘛！

雅君：那你会向往什么样的生活呢？

淼清：我从小到大只有一个愿望，我是说一直想要去过的一种生活，就是一个米虫的生活。那种在大米里面，你会经常看到一种虫子，它每天生活在很多米的包围之中，他们想吃的时候就醒过来啃几口，不吃的时候就在那睡觉，就这种。我希望我未来生活可能没有很多去让我思考、让我烦恼的事情，可以不用很费力，让我自由自在的，不要逼我去做什么事情。所以其实对体制内的工作我还是很满意的，就是太无聊了。

从对 “米虫” 的向往里，我感受到高中升学指标对淼清人生目标的绑架所孳生出的反叛情绪犹存。她在最需要为自己做主的关头全然没有自我掌控的能力和权力，而当行路已远，能掌控的东西渐渐变少、选择的成本却越来越大了。从依附成绩到依附学校，再到依附体制内的单位，是许多背景相似的被访者的共同路径。

四、县中里的阶层

如果说名校生的范围内只能折射出一小部分 “被选中者” 的阶层差异，尚不能代表多数人，那么县域高中则是能显示出大多数普通人阶层差异的空间。在还未走进现场的时候，考虑到欠发达地区县域的经济发展水平较低，我曾狐疑这样小的地方恐怕观察不到明显的阶层差异。但观察到的事实证明，我的想象是错误的，阶层在县中是如此鲜明的主题，以至于老师们聊起学生和学校根本三句话绕不开家庭背景。

比如，校领导、年级主任以及两个学校老师都在与我交流的不同场合提到了一个他们的 “常识”：学校的办学质量很大程度上取决于高学业水平的生源，学生的学业能力主要取决于学生的 “脑子” （ 聪明程度 ），而 “聪明程度” 却和家庭背景密切相关，也与班主任的工作难度密切相关。一个背景信息是，在两所学校中，这些学校普遍存在根据学习能力分层设班的情况，而从上年起，全省普通高中录取比率从之前的 50% 提高到了 85%，导致两所学校的门槛分数线大幅度下降 —— 很多原本考不上高中的学生因为此次扩招而进来了。特别是县一中，因为是全县唯一的普通高中，只能照单全收。学校自从去年得知这一扩招的信息就开始严阵以待，担忧这些 “多收” 的差生会拖累学校的教学和管理，一直在讨论究竟要将他们独立分层还是 “打散稀释”。最终，考虑到独立分层的 “差班” 管理难度太大，教师考核也难，两个学校都采取了 “打散稀释”：将绩优的学生选拔出去组成六个重点班，其余的若干个平行班平均吸纳这些尾部的学生，平行班和重点班隔离开来，不在同个楼上上课。这就意味着，此次扩招对重点班毫无影响，而底层的平行班生源的平均 “聪明程度” 大幅降低了。教数学的年级主任有天坐在工位上感慨：“唉，愁的不是上课，愁的是上课你讲了半天但是他还是不会啊！”另一个老师应声答道：“你也不想想你教的是些什么玩意儿？以前招上 30%，我们全部给送到大学里了；后来招上 50%，我们也全部给送到大学里了；现在招上 85%，明年还要招 95%，还叫我们都往大学里送去吗？”

在县一中，我所观察的正是这样的平行班，整个教师办公室的老师们都是平行班的授课老师。办公室烟雾缭绕，是许多男老师吸烟所致，其他老师们似乎也对此习以为常。在课间和自习时间等非上课时段，总有不少学生被老师 “召唤” 进来，耳提面命，而学生被 “传唤” 的缘由则大部分是由于违反了纪律，被值日老师查到扣了分，比如头发过长、午休时段聊天说话、看课外书、抽烟等等。遇到班主任认为情节恶劣的，则将家长一并请来，当面让家长知晓孩子在校的劣迹，以引起家长足够多的重视，也对孩子产生一定的惩戒作用。坐在我隔壁桌的班主任是一位严厉的男老师，从早到晚 “传唤” 学生几乎不停，间隙间常能听到他叹气，猛吸一口烟之后感慨道：“这些怂现在越来越收拾不住了！” 然后继续接着忙下一轮 “传唤”。维持班级纪律、加强管理以保证不 “出事” 似乎是这些班主任老师最花时间和精力的事情。

说起平行班的学生为啥会这么差，老师们最常提及的因素就是家庭背景。老师们经过常年观察总结道，能够进入重点班的，往往是县政府、老师、医生等机关事业单位职工的孩子；而家庭条件差的农村孩子则集中在在平行班。“城上的娃子首先小学初中里的基本功就比乡里的娃子好，再一个城上有正式工作的家长观念上就更重视，从幼儿园里就知道巴结老师叫老师多关注，咋能一样哩？” —— 这是老师们的 “常识”。另外一个老师们经常归因的要素在于家庭关系和家庭结构：平行班里特殊家庭（ 父母残疾、离异、孤儿、父母常年外出打工 ）的孩子比例远高于重点班的学生，“这些学生就是直接没人管，而且更容易出事（ 出现心理危机和自伤行为 ）”。老师们普遍对此感到无能为力，不觉得这是靠自己努力教学就能改观的。区一中高一年级主任的话也再次印证了这一点：

我们年级分为三个层次，依次是科创班，英才班，培优班。基本上科创班的学生不存在纪律问题，他们需要的是提高自主学习的能力。但是（ 班级层次 ）越往下走，学生的问题越来越多，情况越来越复杂。后头的班不消说经济上变差，更重要的是家庭结构也变得复杂。组合家庭、单亲家庭、留守儿童、由爷爷奶奶抚养的，各种情况都有，好多娃儿根本没办法从家里得到需要的支持。有些娃你要找他的父母你都找不着，好像娃就包给你老师了，你不要给我添乱。实际上对后面的这些班里的娃子，学校就是 “救火队长”，社会和家庭所有的复杂性最后都凝聚到这个娃子的身上，学校最后就是担惊受怕，疲于应付。

在这里，家庭背景成了一个更为复杂的概念，包含了家庭结构是否完整、家庭关系是否融洽、是否有能力提供心理支持、是否有亲属犯罪等等。不仅限于社会经济地位，但又与社会经济地位紧密相连。老师们明显更愿意和受过教育的、明事理、容易沟通的家长打交道，因为这些家长会更容易和老师达成一种配合的关系，不仅不给老师添乱，还会帮老师分担一些责任（ 例如组织家委会、给孩子提供所需要的条件而不依靠老师 ）。而没文化的家长则相反：他们往往全然将培养的责任推卸给学校，指望着老师把自己孩子送进大学，同时又不十分信任学校，但实际上又只能将孩子托付给学校。底层家庭对学校的强烈依附性在家长和学校的博弈关系当中彰显的淋漓尽致。

根据我的观察，没文化的家长在这样纠结的博弈心态下通常表现出两类做法，其根源却都在于依附性：一类是对老师唯唯诺诺，巴结讨好，表示孩子的事全由老师做主，并借此完全把教育孩子的责任交待给老师。这类家长多年来一直存在，他们有一句烂熟的话常被老师们拿出来吐槽：“老师，你就放心给我（ 把孩子 ）往死里打！” 老师们却对此往往持一种轻蔑的态度，“我给你往死里打，我头吃大了（ 闲的 ）吗？” 在老师们看来，这句话表面上看是将管教的权利完全交给了老师，实则是推卸责任，仿佛意思是说：“我可把孩子交给你了，教不好是你的事”。县一中的老师们以勤恳负责任著称，有时为了管教打骂几下也属家常便饭，但对于这些家长的孩子，老师们却留着心眼儿。教历史的班主任张老师论及此事说道：“我要打你的娃儿，我把力气花上，我还得担责任，我闲的很吗？” 也因此，老师们把责打学生看作是老师用心、负责的一种表现，这个责不是对什么样的人都愿意负的。与老师的强势形成鲜明对比的是家长的服帖，在我观察到的老师处理违纪学生的案例里，老师常常会以 “停学反省” 为杀手锏来震慑学生和家长 —— “再这样下去我的班上你就别来了，送回家反省去”。家长听了后往往慨然变色，表示万万不能，“娃娃撒到家里没人管咋行呢？” 接着请求老师网开一面，再给一次改过的机会。梅老师的班里就有一个男生因为顶撞辱骂老师被班主任勒令停学在家，家长按耐不住来校求情，先是母亲来上演了一出校门口下跪求情的戏码，第二天父亲又来找梅老师求情。梅老师表示，这个学生原本就是怕了上一个班主任才转来他班上的，他当时勉强答应，哪知是个如此不服管教的浑球。他对学生的认错态度不满意，对家长也很不客气：“上课不能吃东西连幼儿园的娃都知道，你的儿子坐在课堂上吃东西，老师一批评还用脏话骂老师，叫你写个检讨书就写这么几个字？这是啥娃子？哪有这样的学生？” 僵持了一上午，最后以一封任课老师签字见证的保证书做结：“我XXX如果再触犯校纪校规，就自行回到原班级，特此保证。” 我听说，有的学生犯了错，老师不仅送回家，甚至连考试资格都一并取消，这样还能少拖累平均分。

另一类家长则是被老师们称之为 “刁民” 的。他们会找各种老师的 “碴” （ 比如以体罚、辱骂、歧视为由 ），利用官方渠道投诉学校，或者以孩子自身的人身安全为筹码威胁学校，迫使学校满足他们的诉求，而这些诉求无非是孩子严重违纪之后不要被开除，或者是被停学反省之后要求重返学校。这类家长在区一中更常见，因为区一中被监管的强度比在县里更大。区一中的一位年级主任告诉我：

家长嘴上说 ‘你就放心打’，实际上你打一个试试？别说老师打了，现在就算是学校没有任何不合规的行为，学生确凿违反了校纪校规，学校在给处分之前还得前后做大量工作，确保人家能接受，不然人家就可能用生命威胁你，你说学校咋办？一般我们就先给上处分吓唬一下，到毕业之前就把记录给拿掉了。

家长为了确保能依附成功，不惜采取威胁甚至构陷的手段逼迫学校。在县一中，“刁民” 投诉也时有发生，但因为全县仅有这一所高中，刁民告状的代价是巨大的 —— 惹恼了学校和老师之后，孩子由谁来负责呢？所以 “刁民” 不像区一中那样猖獗。有一次，我和老师们交流：“你们打了学生之后，会不会担心被告？” 老师们自有说法。一位说，“我用的这个白纸卷卷打，打到身上留不下印子。” 另一位说：“他的娃子要是不想念了他就告去，我就以后再不管你的娃。” 可见，老师之所以敢打，也是因为家长别无选择的依附。

五、结论与讨论

本文试图对近年来研究者中盛行的东亚社会 “教育心态扁平化” 论点提出商榷，后者多源于量化研究对家庭教育态度的调查结果。这类研究通常发现不同社会阶层在对教育的重视程度上并无显著差异，因而得出 “教育观念趋同” 或 “教育态度去阶层化” 的结论 (Li and Xie 2020; Liu and Xie 2015; Lyu, Li and Xie 2019)。然而，本文通过对来自名校与县中、具有不同社会背景的学生进行深入访谈与现场观察，尝试从个体的主观感受与日常实践出发，重新考察社会阶级与学校教育系统之间的关系。研究发现：虽然形式上都表现为 “重视教育”，但在这共同的表象之下，不同阶层学生与教育系统之间的关系逻辑却呈现出本质性的差异，正所谓 “形似而神异”。测量指标或许无法捕捉这些态度的来龙去脉，却在被访者的口述和田野的现场里清晰可辨。因而，这种“扁平化”教育态度的量化分析可能掩盖了学校教育系统与不同社会阶层之间更深层、更微妙却颇具稳健性的差异。

本文主张，正如前文述及的西方研究所揭示的，社会阶层与学校教育系统并非保持着一种等距或匀质的结构性关系。不过，与这些研究所勾勒出的 “规划者 / 幸存者” 之差异有所不同的是，我国的社会阶层差异更表现为一种 “消费者 / 依附者” 的差别。尽管我国的考试升学制度决定了非优势阶层也在很大程度上是教育竞赛的 “幸存者”，但其更本质的特征在于对学校教育体制、乃至更广义的国家权力体制的深度依赖和交托。于中上阶层的学生而言，学校教育是可供调配的工具，是属于自己的、可供选择的服务商品。他们是善于自我掌控的学习者，以一种消费者式甚至企业家式的心态自主设定目标、调动资源，以实现对自己优势的再生产、兑现自身的教育需求。与此形成鲜明对比的是，对于工农阶层的学生而言，教育更像是一个 “他者” 的系统 —— 它是外在的、稀缺的，需要通过层层竞争脱颖而出才能换来的机会，获得好学校录取本身就被视作一种成就甚至恩惠。这种关系不产生配得感（sense of entitlement），反而激发出一种近乎 “程门立雪” 式的虔诚姿态，即对学校的依附与感恩，对 “被体制选中” 的深层渴望，以及对个人命运的深度交托。这种高度依赖所展现的 “臣属式能动性” （subordinate agency），与 “企业家式能动性” (entrepreneurial agency) 形成了鲜明的对照。下表总结了精英阶层与工农阶层学生在教育系统中的主体性的典型特征差异，可作为后续研究者理解不同社会群体教育经验差异的分析框架：

维度	维度	工农阶层学生
与教育系统的关系	内在化、亲近感强	外在化、距离感强
教育的属性认知	自己拥有的资源、可自由调配的商品	稀缺的机会、需用力争取的恩惠
学习者身份	“消费者式/企业家式学习者”，主动掌控	“虔诚学徒式学习者”，被动依附
能动性表现	主动选择和调配教育资源，强化自身优势，渴望 “我有选择”	高度依赖教育系统，较少自我主导，渴望 “我被选中”
教育的功能理解	优势的延续工具	阶层跃升通道
情感态度与心态	自信、掌控、策略性强	虔诚、感恩、自我牺牲

本研究的发现，深化了学界对非资本主义社会中学校教育与阶级关系的理论讨论。虽然中国教育制度表面上以 “共同富裕” 与 “机会平等” 为价值目标，但现实中学校所扮演的角色却体现出一种阶层化的象征互动结构。这种结构不仅存在于老师对不同阶层学生及其家长的态度中，更体现在学生对学校的感知、姿态与实践方式中 —— 即教育的阶层化主体性 （classed subjectivities）。这一视角与西方学者在不同国家教育场域中的发现形成对话（e.g., Reay et al., 2009; Lehmann, 2007; Archer, Hutchings, Ross, 2002），也回应了早期文化马克思主义理论家对教育系统象征性暴力功能的批判 (Bernstein 1962; Bourdieu and Passeron 1977)。一位县中老师掏心掏肺地对我感慨道：“城里的娃光看脸就能看出是城里的，他们的眼里是有光的。农村的学生眼里就没光。” 阶层实际上深刻地塑造了在学校里发生的社会互动，也塑造了学生对自己、对世界的情感态度。对那些只能请求依附于学校的孩子，老师们既无奈，又鄙夷。而对于孩子自身而言，他们感受到的，或许更多是一种自我尊严感的匮乏——当家庭与学校相互推卸责任，生命个体的真实需要却在这种别无选择的依附中无从伸张、被人遗忘。

通过对阶层差异性教育经验的深入描绘，本文不仅为理解中国教育场域中社会不平等的形成机制提供了一条建基于主体性的新路径，也有助于为政策实践提供更具现实感的社会心理基础。以 “双减” 政策为例，政策目标原意在于阻止补习产业扩张、减轻学生学业压力、缩小教育差距，然而在具体实践中却产生了 “政策漂移”：城市中产家庭迅速转向 “地下化” 或个性化私教服务，以维持其竞争优势，而普通工农家庭因缺乏可替代资源，反而失去了参与竞争的机会 (Ball 2021; Jin and Sun 2022; 潘云华 2024)。又如近年持续推行的 “新高考” 改革，政策的原意本是通过增加考试的灵活性和自由度来赋能学生，鼓励学生根据自身才能走上多元化发展路线。然而落地之后，新高考的目标在东部发达省市迅速被学生功利化的选科策略所架空 —— 学生为了取得优势，会趋易避难，选择相对容易的科目，而避开物理、化学等难度较大但对未来专业学习和国家产业发展重要的科目；而在中西部地区，新高考则因资源不足等原因流于形式化，选科走班实际上被简化为多个固定班级，应试策略也并无实质改观 (徐东波、庞颖2024)。正如本文所展示的，如果忽视教育主体性的阶层差异，任何政策都可能在 “普惠” 的表象下重现不平等的逻辑。倘若政策制定者对城市中产和非优势阶层的教育主体性特征有所把握，就会发现这些非预期的政策结果其实是可以预见的：自我掌控的城市中产不管政策如何改变，都会想法设法主动调动资源来维持自身优势，自由度的增加对他们是 “及时雨”；而强烈依附于学校系统的非优势群体则从一开始就习惯于依赖学校的统一安排，以至于当自由平等地分配到自己头上的时候，反而变成了一种驾驭不了的、多余的负担，加剧了他们获得优势的难度。

因此，理解并纳入阶层化主体性的视角，是任何以促进教育公平为目标的政策得以真正生效的前提。教育的平等，不仅是资源的再分配问题，更是主观世界的再理解问题。这不仅是对制度的挑战，更是对我们理解 “何为学习者” 的再提问。

Archer, Louise, Merryn Hutchings, and Alistair Ross. 2002. Higher education and social class: Routledge.

Ball, Stephen J. 2021. The education debate: Policy press.

Ball, Stephen J, Jackie Davies, Miriam David, and Diane Reay. 2002. “‘Classification’and’Judgement’: social class and the’cognitive structures’ of choice of Higher Education.” British Journal of Sociology of Education 23(1):51-72.

Bernardi, Fabrizio, and Ilze Plavgo. 2019. Education as an Equalizer for Human Development?: United Nations Development Programme.

Bernstein, Basil. 1962. “Social class, linguistic codes and grammatical elements.” Language and speech 5(4):221-40.

Bourdieu, Pierre. 1967. “Systems of Education and Systems of Thought  ” Social Science information 14:338-58.

—. 1977. “Cultural reproduction and social reproduction.” Pp. 487-511 in Power and Ideology in Education, edited by J. Karabel and A.H.  Halsey: Oxford University Press.

Bourdieu, Pierre, and Jean-Claude Passeron. 1977. Reproduction in society, education and culture. London: Sage.

Bowles, Samuel, and Herbert Gintis. 1976. Schooling in capitalist America: New York: Basic Books.

Calarco, Jessica McCrory. 2011. ““I need help!” Social class and children’s help-seeking in elementary school.” American sociological review 76(6):862-82.

—. 2014. “Coached for the classroom: Parents’ cultural transmission and children’s reproduction of educational inequalities.” American sociological review 79(5):1015-37.

Chiang, Yi-Lin. 2022. Study gods: How the new Chinese elite prepare for global competition: Princeton University Press.

Coleman, James S, Ernest Campbell, Carol Hobson, James McPartland, Alexander Mood, Frederick Weinfeld, and Robert York. 1966. “The coleman report.” Equality of Educational Opportunity.

Hawkins, John N. 2012. “Issues of motivation in Asian education.” Pp. 101-16 in Motivation: Theory and research: Routledge.

Hu, Anning, Grace Kao, and Xiaogang Wu. 2020. “Can greater reliance on test scores ameliorate the association between family background and access to post-collegiate education? Survey evidence from the Beijing College Students Panel survey.” Social Science Research 88:102425.

Hu, Anning, and Xiaogang Wu. 2021. “Cultural capital and elite university attendance in China.” British Journal of Sociology of Education 42(8):1265-93.

Hu, Dezhuang, Hongbin Li, Tang Li, Lingsheng Meng, and Binh Thai Nguyen. 2023. “The burden of education costs in China: a struggle for all, but heavier for lower-income families.” SSRN Working Paper No.4558282.

Jin, Xuepeng, and Yirong Sun. 2022. “Does double reduction policy decrease educational pressures on Chinese family?” Pp. 771-76 in 2021 International Conference on Education, Language and Art (ICELA 2021): Atlantis Press.

Kipnis, Andrew B. 2019. Governing educational desire: Culture, politics, and schooling in China: University of Chicago Press.

Lareau, Annette. 2011. Unequal childhoods: Class, race, and family life: Univ of California Press.

—. 2015. “Cultural knowledge and social inequality.” American sociological review 80(1):1-27.

Lehmann, Wolfgang. 2007. “”I just didn’t feel like I fit in”: The role of habitus in university dropout decisions.” Canadian Journal of Higher Education 37(2):89-110.

—. 2009. “Becoming middle class: How working-class university students draw and transgress moral class boundaries.” Sociology 43(4):631-47.

Li, Wangyang, and Yu Xie. 2020. “The influence of family background on educational expectations: A comparative study.” Chinese Sociological Review 52(3):269-94.

Liu, Airan, and Yu Xie. 2015. “Influences of monetary and non-monetary family resources on children’s development in verbal ability in China.” Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 40:59-70.

Lyu, Mengjie, Wangyang Li, and Yu Xie. 2019. “The influences of family background and structural factors on children’s academic performances: A cross-country comparative study.” Chinese Journal of Sociology 5(2):173-92.

Reay, Diane. 2001. “Finding or losing yourself?: working-class relationships to education.” Journal of Education Policy 16(4):333-46.

—. 2009. “Sociology, social class and education.” Pp. 396-404 in The Routledge international handbook of the sociology of education: Routledge.

—. 2015. “Habitus and the psychosocial: Bourdieu with feelings.” Cambridge Journal of Education 45(1):9-23.

—. 2017. Miseducation: Inequality, Education and the Working Classes: Policy Press.

Reay, Diane, Gill Crozier, and John Clayton. 2009. “‘Strangers in paradise’? Working-class students in elite universities.” Sociology 43(6):1103-21.

—. 2010. “‘Fitting in’or ‘standing out’: working‐class students in UK higher education.” British Educational Research Journal 36(1):107-24.

Reay, Diane, and Helen Lucey. 2003. “The Limits ofChoice’ Children and Inner City Schooling.” Sociology 37(1):121-42.

Sayer, Andrew. 2005. The moral significance of class: Cambridge University Press.

Stevenson, Harold, and James W Stigler. 1994. Learning gap: Why our schools are failing and what we can learn from Japanese and Chinese educ: Simon and Schuster.

Vassallo, Stephen. 2020. Neoliberal selfhood: Cambridge University Press.

Willis, Paul E. 1977. Learning to labor: How working class kids get working class jobs: Columbia University Press.

程猛. 2018. “读书的料” 及其文化生产. 北京: 中国社会科学出版社.

廖青. 2019. 逆流而上 转型期农村籍大学生的身份认同. 北京: 北京大学出版社.

潘云华. 2024. “”双减” 政策背景下家庭教育投资策略分化及其应对.” 高等学校文科学术文摘 41(1):159-59.

徐东波, and 庞颖. 2024. “变革与阻滞:新高考背景下县中育人方式的资源约束.” 复旦教育论坛 22(1):50-57.

杨善华, and 孙飞宇. 2005. “作为意义探究的深度访谈.” 社会学研究 (5):53-68.

郑雅君. 2023. 金榜题名之后: 大学生出路分化之谜. 上海: 上海三联书店

<全文完>

Alike in Form, Different in Spirit: Revisiting the Logic of the Relationship between Familial Upbringing and Formal School Education

Zheng Yajun

Abstract: While current quantitative studies on China and East Asian societies suggest a “flattening” trend in educational attitudes across different social classes, this article, based on in-depth interviews and field observations in two distinct educational settings—elite universities and county-level high schools—reveals profound differences in the relational logic between different social classes and the school education system. The study finds that urban middle-class families often adopt the posture of a “consumer-style/entrepreneurial learner,” selectively mobilizing educational resources and employing highly rational, autonomous strategies to serve their own goals. In contrast, for non-advantaged classes, school education is more like an “other” system—external, scarce, and a foreign territory one is only qualified to enter after rounds of competition. Due to a lack of choice and weak mobility, they are firmly attached to the educational system, their posture more akin to that of a pious apprentice before a powerful master, where autonomy and individuality are suppressed and surrendered. Understanding this difference in subjectivity not only deepens the discussion on educational equity but also helps to understand the deep socio-psychological mechanisms behind why some public education policies (such as the “Double Reduction” and the “New Gaokao”) deviate from their intended goals during implementation. The study calls for moving beyond the preconception of students as a uniform whole and incorporating the “heterogeneous educational subjectivities” of different social groups into the considerations of academic research, policy-making, and evaluation.

https://doi.org/10.64053/QZAM3553

“Although class is still widely disavowed, it remains at the heart of the individual’s relationship to education. A key sociological task is to reveal and understand the changing manifestations of class—only then can the profound educational inequalities class generates begin to be addressed.”
—Diane Reay (2009, p. 402)

I Introduction

As Diane Reay states, exploring the relationship between the education system and social class is a classic theme in the sociology of education, attracting generations of scholars to ask in different social contexts: Is school education the “great equalizer” that promotes social mobility, or a hidden mechanism that imposes social control and maintains the reproduction of social structure? (Bernardi and Plavgo 2019). If scholars in the Western world, based on their critique of the capitalist order, feel more justified in agreeing with the latter (Bourdieu, 1967; Bowles & Gintis, 1976; Coleman et al., 1966; Willis, 1977), this issue is perhaps more contentious in the context of contemporary China. China’s pivotal educational institution—the gaokao (college entrance examination)—and its associated examination systems are considered a relatively fair screening system for all classes (Hu, Kao, and Wu 2020; Hu & Wu, 2021), and are thus widely regarded as the “least bad” channel for class mobility. The fervent attention of social media to educational topics, the educational anxiety felt by all classes, and the ubiquitous educational institutions on every street corner make it easy for anyone to sense the universal importance that members of society place on school education—as if this “social elevator” is open to all, and all each family and child has to do is to invest their best efforts to prepare for this fair tournament.

The findings of some researchers, to a certain extent, support this perception—the importance and investment that the Chinese public places on education are generally high, with class disparities being weaker than in Western societies. In a comparative study, Li and Xie (2020) pointed out that educational expectations in East Asian societies are significantly less dependent on family background; even in families with lower socioeconomic status, the recognition of and expectation for education remain pretty strong. In terms of educational expenditure, Hu et al. (2023), using data from the China Family Panel Studies (CFPS), found that the proportion of total income spent on education by Chinese families is much higher than in other countries, and the proportion for rural families is even larger than for urban families. Even low-income families’ educational expenditure as a proportion of their income is significantly higher than that of similar families in Western countries. Some scholars attribute this widespread “education fever” to the acculturation of East Asian cultural traditions (Hawkins, 2012; Stevenson & Stigler, 1994). Li and Xie (2020) argue that East Asian cultural tradition endows education with a highly positive meaning, leading to a universal recognition of its value among urban and rural families of all classes. Hawkins (2012) points out that the historical legacy of Confucianism and the imperial examination system has shaped a national consensus that “education changes one’s destiny.” High academic achievement has profound social meaning in East Asia, often seen as an important path to achieving personal success, family glory, and practicing filial piety, and is universally recognized by all classes. Andrew Kipnis (2019), in his fieldwork in Shandong, China, also glimpsed this collective educational desire, noting it as a cultural consensus transcending individual rationality, co-created by Confucian ethics, public policy, and market forces. Correspondingly, empirical research has also found that the influence of family socioeconomic background on Chinese students’ academic achievement is relatively more minor than in Western countries (Lyu, Li, and Xie 2019) and is even found to be not significantly correlated with family wealth (Liu & Xie, 2015).

From this perspective, the above studies seem to collectively suggest that there is a relatively universal, homogeneous attitude towards education among the Chinese public, presenting a “de-classed” or homogenized relationship. In other words, researchers convey an impression that the ways different classes understand and treat education seem to have a formal convergence—a high value is placed on education, regardless of origin. It can be inferred from this that the universality and flatness of educational expectations in East Asian societies may form a protective buffer for the educational achievements of lower-class families, thereby mitigating the adverse effects of socioeconomic status (SES) disadvantages on educational outcomes (Li & Xie, 2020).

However, this relatively “flattened” relationship between various classes and school education is often based on large-sample survey methods and discovered through comparative means. Due to methodological limitations, existing research is mostly confined to quantitative assessments of subjective attitudes or external behaviors, rarely delving into the subjectivities of different classes to understand their underlying motivations, expectations, feelings, and practices. As researchers simplify the attitudes or behaviors of the general populace towards education into a numerical value or an attitudinal indicator, there is a subtle risk: researchers only obtain fragmented numerical values, while the context behind these values—the structural positions, experiential logics, and emotional structures of each class in their educational practices—is quietly obscured. In other words, the “de-classed” family educational expectations and investments presented by survey data may only be a superficial conclusion of “de-classing” because of the inability to capture those differences in deep-seated mentalities, action pathways, and emotional experiences that are difficult to quantify.

Cultural reproduction theory offers a more profound explanatory framework for this. Bourdieu and Passeron (1977) argue that the school education system is not, as mainstream educational policy discourse claims, a fair and merit-based neutral ground. Beneath its neutral appearance, the education system actually implicitly legitimizes elite culture, thereby systematically maintaining the cultural advantages and social status of the elite class (Bourdieu & Passeron, 1990). This “symbolic violence,” through specific educational practices such as curriculum design, teaching methods, and examination standards, quietly transforms the preferences and norms of the elite class into expectations and requirements for everyone, thus excluding or marginalizing the cultural experiences and practices of the lower classes (Bourdieu, 1977; Lareau, 2011; Reay, 2017). Studies based on observation and interviews have found that the middle class is more likely to actively mobilize institutional resources, interact with teachers, and shape favorable situations, while working-class families tend to remain submissive and distant, lacking the institutional agency that cultural capital provides (Calarco, 2011; Calarco, 2014; Lareau, 2015). This difference does not stem from individual attitudes or ideologies but is embedded in social position and cultural experience. Reay & Lucey (2003) also point out that the “appearance of equality” in the education market often conceals profound class-based experiences. Students on seemingly identical educational tracks (such as attending the same low-reputation school) exhibit completely different subjective understandings and self-perceptions: middle-class children tend to view the low-reputation school as an “other” and try to avoid the stigma of association through transferring schools or psychological distancing; whereas working-class children have to confront the identity conflict that arises when the “demonized other” becomes equated with “people like me.”

Therefore, superficial educational expectations or high investment cannot be equated with an equal recognition of or participation in education among classes. To understand the hidden social mechanisms and differential logics behind them, it is necessary to start from the subjective world or subjectivity of each class, and deeply analyze their feelings, understandings, judgments, and coping strategies during the educational process. In other words, we must ask: What does “going to school” actually mean for Chinese people of different classes? Based on data collected from ongoing interviews with university students at elite institutions over the past decade and an ongoing ethnography in a western county-level high school, this article comparatively analyzes the systematic differences exhibited by non-advantaged classes and the urban middle class in their participation in school education. It points out that these differences are common to both elite higher education and county-level secondary education, and that they persist over time.

II. Class, the Education System, and Human Subjectivity

The interplay between class and subjectivity profoundly reveals the core role of the education system as a mechanism of social stratification. Subjectivity refers to the self-perception, emotional experience, and logic of action that an individual forms within a social structure, which is both constrained by structural factors and embodies individual agency (Reay, 2001; Sayer, 2005). In Western sociology of education research, class differences in subjectivity are often depicted within a binary framework of “middle class as ‘planners’ vs. working class as ‘survivors’.” In the education market, the middle class, with their abundant economic capital, cultural capital, and social network resources, can adopt proactive “planner” strategies. They construct competitive advantages for their children through meticulous educational investments (such as purchasing property in good school districts, selecting after-school tutoring, applying to international schools, etc.) (Ball et al., 2002). This subjectivity is manifested in a deep understanding and skillful application of “cultural knowledge” about “how the school system works,” which helps in obtaining educational advantages and opportunities (Lareau, 2015). By gaining institutional recognition from the education system (such as diplomas and awards), the middle class reinforces its self-confidence and self-worth.

In contrast, the educational participation of working-class families, due to resource constraints, often presents a “survivor” logic oriented towards short-term existence. Parents tend to raise their children less intensively, and children are naturally more likely to encounter devaluation and exclusion by the “rules of the game” at school (Lareau, 2011). They are either forced to accept low-quality education and internalize the label of “incompetence” (Sayer, 2005) or they develop subcultures to resist school authority (Willis, 1977). They tend to choose non-elite universities with a strong “sense of community,” and their educational success often comes at the cost of losing their class identity (Reay, 2001; Reay, Crozier, and Clayton, 2009). This differentiation is further amplified by the wave of educational marketization, where the middle class consolidates its advantages through strategies like choosing schools via property purchase and private tutoring. In contrast, the working class is squeezed to the bottom of the educational resource chain (Ball, 2003).

This classed subjectivity is not only reflected at the level of behavioral strategies but is more profoundly manifested in the dimensions of emotional structure and moral cognition. Sayer (2005) argues that subjectivity is not an abstract “self-awareness” but the embodiment of class position at the emotional and moral levels. The middle class, benefiting from their array of capital, planning, and strategies, feels entitled to their success, perhaps occasionally accompanied by a particular moral anxiety about their privileges. In contrast, the educational experience of the working class is often accompanied by a tension between dignity and humiliation, anger at systemic exclusion, and doubt about their self-worth (Reay, 2001; 2015). Especially for working-class students entering elite universities, this class mobility is intertwined with complex emotional experiences, including pride, inferiority, shame, and fear. It is also accompanied by an “imposter syndrome” stemming from worries about their own capabilities, and they face the anxiety of class betrayal and a fractured identity (Lehmann, 2007; 2009; Reay, Crozier, and Clayton, 2010; Cheng Meng, 2018; Liao Qing, 2019).

In the Chinese context, this framework needs to be re-examined in conjunction with local realities such as the urban-rural divide and the exam-oriented culture. After all, China adheres to a path of socialism with Chinese characteristics and has established an education system dominated by public schools with low tuition fees. China’s status allocation system also has its own distinct features—positions within the state system almost always require an examination for entry, achieving at least formal fairness. In such a society, which aims for shared prosperity and is built on the foundation of public schools, what is the relationship between members of different classes and the school education system?

III. Data and Methods

This article draws on in-depth interview data from 95 graduating students collected over the past decade at three “Double First-Class” universities in China, as well as ethnographic observation data from an ongoing study at two ordinary county-level high schools in western China. The interview data span a considerable period and geographical range: first, 38 graduating students were interviewed in 2015-2016 at two universities in Beijing and Shanghai (hereafter “Northern University” and “Southern University”). This was followed by an additional 25 interviews at Southern University in 2017. During the pandemic (2020-2022), 13 more students were interviewed at Southern University, and the data collection was expanded to a “Double First-Class” university in a western provincial capital (hereafter “Western University”), where 19 students were interviewed. The interviewees mainly were recruited through the “snowball” method, with care taken to balance diversity in academic achievement, discipline, and family socioeconomic background. Among the 95 interviewees, 42 were from rural backgrounds, all first-generation university students, with parents primarily engaged in farming, migrant work, self-employment, or service industries; 43 were from urban backgrounds, of whom 28 were not first-generation university students, with parents working as professionals, government officials, or business managers. The purpose of the interviews was to understand the experiences of students from different family backgrounds attending elite universities and the context of their post-graduation destinations. Data was collected from different universities to grasp the common effects of family background on students amidst China’s vast regional characteristics and developmental disparities. All interviews were conducted by me, mostly one-on-one and face-to-face (5 were conducted online during the pandemic). Interviews lasted an average of about 3 hours and used the “progressive focusing method” to gradually delve into topics (Yang Shanhua & Sun Feiyu, 2005). They typically began with the interviewee’s family environment and childhood memories, then moved to their entire school experience, followed by an in-depth discussion of their higher education journey and graduation choices. Throughout the interviews, I strove to convey my sincerity as a listener, to achieve empathy with the interviewees, and to understand their thoughts, feelings, and logic of action. With the consent of the interviewees, all interviews were recorded and transcribed.

Considering that students who enter “Double First-Class” universities represent a tiny fraction of the population, I also turned my gaze beyond the walls of top institutions to county-level high schools in underdeveloped western regions. Since mid-March 2025 [Note: The original text states 2025, which is likely a typo for 2023 or 2024. The translation retains the original year. I began fieldwork at two county-level high schools in the west. Both schools are located in county-level districts under the same municipal jurisdiction and are designated “Provincial Model High Schools,” with their quality ranking at the forefront of the city. The difference is that one is in a county where agriculture is the pillar industry and is the only ordinary senior high school in the county, with over 7,000 students, 80% of whom are from rural backgrounds (hereafter “County No. 1 High School”). The other is in the county-level district where the municipal government is located and is one of four ordinary high schools in the jurisdiction, with a student body of around 3,800, about 30% of whom are from rural backgrounds, and whose families are on average slightly better off than those at County No. 1 High School (hereafter “District No. 1 High School”). My role in both schools was as an assistant to the head teacher (ban zhu ren), conducting participatory observation in a first-year high school class at an average frequency of 2 days per week. I observed the daily work of teachers in the grade-level office and classroom, and maintained communication with students and school leaders. I recorded my observations by hand and wrote field notes when inspired.

For me, still new to the world, the process of data collection was also a process of gaining a real sense of class differences. After witnessing the daily reality of the county high schools and reflecting on the interviews conducted at elite universities, I increasingly understood that the relationship between different groups and school education has profound differences. These differences transcend the divisions imposed by educational stages, regions, and school tiers, and exist stably among groups of similar class status. In the following, I elaborate on the systematic differences IN perceived. Given the vastness of the data, I focus on cases that are common and typical within their respective groups.

IV. “Controllers” and “Dependents”

Among the students I interviewed from well-off families, there were no children from the super-rich or top-level elite. These students are different from the elite children tracked by Yi-Lin Chiang in her book Study Gods (2022), whose cohort often aims for top international universities for their undergraduate studies, cultivating a “global citizen” identity through overseas summer schools, international competitions, and personalized tutoring to prepare for global elite competition. In contrast, the well-off students I interviewed at domestic elite universities were more like the ordinary urban middle and newly wealthy classes. Their parents mostly had a good higher education and worked in business management, government, private enterprise, or as teachers, doctors, or university professors. The schools they attended from a young age were often carefully selected, local, high-quality resources. These students share a common trait: from a young age, they were given space by teachers and parents, accustomed to arranging their own studies and lives, and tended to have a clear sense of purpose. They actively engaged in competition, mobilized economic, cultural, and social capital to gain advantages, derived confidence and a sense of entitlement from good grades, and naturally formed a controlling self—understanding themselves as “purchasers of educational services” or “investors in human capital,” dedicated to self-enhancement through education, and viewing making the best choices for themselves as a moral responsibility. This resonates with Stephen Ball’s recent observations of the “entrepreneurial learners” cultivated by global neoliberal education policies (Ball, 2021). Ball argues that the neoliberal governance of education shifts the responsibility for educational success from the state to the individual, while simultaneously masking structural inequalities—the “entrepreneurial learner” is the product of this “individualization of responsibility.”

Looking at the parent-child relationships and parental roles described by the interviewees, it becomes clearer how this “controlling self” is formed. Their parents are often very invested in their children’s education, but this investment is carried out in a way that is subtle to the child. They ensure their child attends a good school and enroll them in tutoring classes when necessary, but they rarely manage their child’s studies directly. Instead, they delegate self-management and a degree of decision-making freedom to the child. Hao Wen from Western University grew up in a western provincial capital; his father and many relatives hold senior positions in the banking system. In his view, many parents give their children the freedom to choose:

My dad is quite supportive of what I like to do; he feels it makes me happy. He is the type of parent who cares more about whether I like something. He does not impose much of his will on me, but in the actual execution, he requires me to do it seriously. Moreover, actually, he controls the “general direction.” However, in specific choices, he lets me choose for myself. Many parents today are like this, especially those who are well-educated.

However, in reality, his “general direction” was always guided by someone. The primary and secondary schools he attended were all top-ranked in the area. The role his parents played was to ensure that he was already prepared when he had to face competition and decisions alone. Ning Xuan from Southern University is from a first-tier city in the east. Both his parents have master’s degrees and work in management in private and foreign companies. In his memory, his parents were busy with work and did not ask much about his studies, but he actually had a “built-in advantage” at every stage:

Ning Xuan: My parents are very busy; they do not manage me much. However, I am also quite self-disciplined.

Yajun: Were your grades excellent from a young age?

Ning Xuan: Not exactly, it usually took me two or three years to get to the top tier. I needed some time to adjust to the new environment, but my parents had been sending me to after-school tutoring classes since kindergarten.

Yajun: Do you remember what you learned in tutoring?

Ning Xuan: I remember learning two-digit multiplication. In kindergarten, it was mainly math. In elementary school, I learned English, supplemented by subject-specific English. My elementary school was also a pilot for quality-oriented education, with less homework and more entertainment. By attending some tutoring classes outside, I could achieve excellent grades.

Yajun: What is your impression of your high school? What were your classmates like?

Ning Xuan: I have noticed many of them became my university classmates (laughs). In junior high, everyone was in parallel classes after entering, but in high school, we were divided into more outstanding “science and technology innovation classes” and parallel classes. I was in an innovation class. In my first and second years of high school, I did two “projects,” which were research projects. I did two related to biology, which felt quite similar to university courses. We reviewed the literature, conducted experiments, and wrote reports.

Having become familiar with the basic training model for researchers in high school, he naturally found the transition to university easy. In his words, it was “satisfaction as expected, just needed to adapt to residential life.” This satisfaction was actually the result of years of cultivation by his parents. For Ning Xuan, going to university was never a “pursuit” but an inevitable event; the only question was which one to choose. When he needed to make a choice, his parents also shared their insights, explaining their judgment of the future market to him:

They had their life experiences, telling me that in this era, studying science and engineering would definitely not be a problem for employment. They also foresaw that the boom in economics and finance might be coming to an end, and undergraduates in these fields might see a decline in their competitiveness in the job market, as the market might be saturated. So they recommended that I study science and engineering. At that time, I felt Southern University had an advantage in computer science, which interested me, so I applied.

When parents have trained their child’s autonomy for years by “grasping the big picture while letting go of the details and giving enough space,” gradually cultivating self-management skills and confidence, the child is naturally more likely to excel in the competition of school and the workplace—because autonomous choice and proactive preparation are what the current university and job markets implicitly demand (Zheng Yajun, 2023). This autonomous control and planning of life and study aligns with the “neoliberal self” that has emerged in the tide of educational marketization: confident, autonomous, independent, proactive, with clear goals, and good at self-management and planning (Vassallo, 2020). Many, when discussing their good grades, spoke with a tone of indifference, because good grades themselves are meaningless unless they serve some “use”:

When I was a child, I did not think having good grades was that amazing. If I did not do well, I would not have a say when playing with my friends. If I did well, everyone was happy, and there was less trouble. However, actually, I have always felt that it is more important for life to have meaning. You cannot live a life that is too instrumentally rational, meaning you keep doing something, but you do not know what it is for. When grades become the purpose of doing something, that is particularly strange. (Shouzhi, Northern University, not a first-generation student, father is a university professor)

In contrast, non-advantaged classes, represented by rural students, have a completely different relational model with school education. If urban middle-class families are “consumers” and “controllers” in the face of education, farming, and laboring families are more often “pursuers” and “dependents.” The rural students I interviewed at elite universities are actually the cream of the crop among their peers. A closer look at their basic education experience reveals that their success was propped up by a series of low-probability events external to their families, such as being precocious and receiving special cultivation from a teacher, having their exceptional grades discovered by a principal who deemed them “material for studying” and gave them extra attention, being appreciated by a teacher and receiving free tutoring, dropping out to work and then being strongly supported by relatives to return to school, or being exceptionally admitted to a provincial key high school.

For their communities, a good school stands in a superior position; it is an external object to be pursued. “Going to university” embodies their hope for a better life, and “getting into university” means the ecstasy of “being chosen” and the expectation of being further selected by “the organization.” Children with exceptional talent who get into elite universities are rare. However, when one emerges in the area, their story spreads far and wide, serving as a model for subsequent “material for studying” and stimulating others to hope for ancestral blessings to have such a good child. Many of my interviewees were famous “figures” in their local areas. Their academic achievements brought far more than just opportunities for further education; they were imbued with profound social meanings like bringing glory to their ancestors, “earning face” for their family, and even winning honor for their school and hometown.

The hope that “studying can change one’s destiny” is indeed widespread. However, unlike the instrumental attitude of the urban middle class towards schools, for rural families, school education is a platform to demonstrate self-worth, and grades are the proof of that self-worth. More importantly, as long as one is successfully selected and enters an excellent platform, the responsibility for self-development is also handed over to the school, or rather, can only be handed over to the school. The academic performance of top students carries the expectations of the entire family, school, and even the entire county, so grades naturally become the purpose of learning. Many interviewees felt they had already succeeded upon being admitted to university—they had won the gaokao, been successfully selected, yet they failed to realize that elite universities today do not automatically pave the way for their future. They tightly attached their hopes for the future to the vast education system, surrendering control over their lives—or rather, never having had it—and placing their hopes in the school and their major. Such cases are abundant. For example, Miao Qing, from a rural area in central China, whose parents were migrant workers and she was a left-behind child, showed outstanding talent from preschool. She entered primary school early and ranked first in her town in the junior high school entrance exam. This achievement brought her family significant financial benefits and immense psychological satisfaction:

I was thrilled then, and my parents, my grandparents, and my whole family were very proud. Later, I also received an excellent admission offer from a private school, which included waiving all three years of junior high expenses and providing my family with a sum of financial compensation; I do not remember the exact amount. For all three years of junior high, I lived a relatively comfortable life. Teachers, the principal, and classmates all looked at me differently. This was also the first time I realized that “studying can bring me some benefits.” Before primary school, I was probably studying and taking exams aimlessly like a normal person. After this junior high entrance exam, I began to consider what studying could bring me and my family.

When it was time to move from junior to senior high, she was again recruited by a private key high school with generous terms as a “top student.” The school not only waived all fees but also gave her family a “bonus” of 30,000 yuan and provided free housing for her mother to accompany her in the city. She joked, “I probably did not spend much of my family’s money during my studies; I even earned a little.” However, she later recalled that the intense competition and pressure in high school quickly made her realize what a heavy responsibility she was carrying—to aim for Tsinghua or Peking University. This was a project “jointly managed” by school leaders, teachers, and students, which brought her a heavy psychological burden to the point that she began to loathe studying:

We had so many exams, weekly and monthly. I remember one time very clearly, I ranked around 20th or 30th in a monthly exam. After the exam, our principal would hold a results analysis meeting. The principal would invite the teachers of our class (13) in the first year, a few key students, and their parents to have a meal together. Moreover, it was at the dinner table that the results were analyzed. For example, so-and-so did well this time, improved by so many ranks; so-and-so did poorly, fell back by so many. I did not do well that time, and I cried throughout the meal. Because I felt so guilty, not just embarrassed for myself, but I felt like I had made my mother lose face…. From high school, my aversion to studying became very severe. I felt like I was not studying for myself, but was being forced by others to do this. I had utterly lost my freedom; I had to get into Tsinghua or Peking, and sometimes I felt oppressed to the point of suffocation.

At that time, she did not realize that she and the school had formed a community of shared interests. Getting into Tsinghua or Peking was the task the school had given her, and ironically, she herself had never had the opportunity to choose a goal for herself. Her gaokao score ranked 12th in the school, but only the top 5 could secure a spot at Tsinghua or Peking. However, the school’s desire to produce Tsinghua/Peking students was so strong that she still applied for the special program for impoverished counties in the early admission round, with Peking University’s nursing department as her first choice. She was admitted to the nursing department at Southern University. She told me that she knew nothing about filling out applications back then and basically just listened to her teachers, whose advice was mixed with their own interests:

The teachers cared more about whether your university was good. When they hang banners, they will say, “So-and-so student got into such-and-such university,” without mentioning your major. For instance, if you are accepted into Peking or Tsinghua, the school rewards its teachers with a bonus. Similarly, if you are accepted into one of the top 10 universities, you will receive another bonus. That is how the calculation works. So my application might not have been filled out very well. I just casually filled in the early admission round, and then I got in… My family was still pleased, after all, in our entire town, I was the first to get into such a prestigious university. However, upon arrival, I discovered that many students were hesitant to join the nursing school. The high number of students seeking to transfer majors led the school to stop accepting transfers altogether.

Hijacked by exams, she finally had the freedom to make her own decisions after entering university. However, after being caged for so long, she was no longer willing to ignite her desire for knowledge, nor did she have the will to take control of her own life. Adapting to university was also not easy; she found it hard to find a sense of belonging. Unlike many of her classmates who desperately wanted to escape the nursing school, she was content to drift, dealing with her studies perfunctorily, with her GPA in the middle range. She was sure she had no interest in medicine and chose to join the “Go West” program upon graduation, teaching in an impoverished area for a year before pursuing a master’s degree. She imagined she might be able to enter a government department through the targeted recruitment program for graduates, but after experiencing it, she found it boring:

Miao Qing: I have never made a life plan or set any life goals for myself. I never thought about changing my major. Since I am here, I’ll study according to the school and major’s requirements. For instance, now that it is afternoon, the furthest I think ahead is what I am going to eat for dinner. I probably do not care much about tomorrow or even the distant future. I think life’s uncertainty is too great, and I do not have high material demands. Anyway, whether you live a rich or a poor life, everyone’s final destination is a pile of dust!

Yajun: Then what kind of life do you aspire to?

Miao Qing: I have only had one wish since I was a child, a kind of life I have always wanted to live, which is the life of a “rice worm” (mǐchóng). You often see these insects in rice; they live surrounded by much rice every day. They wake up and nibble a few bites when they want to eat, and sleep when they do not—that kind of life. I hope my future life will not be filled with many things that make me think or worry, that it will not require much effort, and that I can be free and not be forced to do anything. So I am actually quite satisfied with a job in the state system, it is just too dull.
From her longing for a “rice worm” life, I could feel the lingering rebellious sentiment bred by the high school’s college admission targets hijacking her life goals. At the most critical juncture when she needed to make her own decisions, she had neither the ability nor the power to control herself. Moreover, as the journey has gone on, the things she can control have gradually diminished, while the cost of making choices has grown ever larger. From depending on grades to depending on the school, and then to depending on a unit within the state system, this is a common path for many interviewees from similar backgrounds.

V. Class in the County High School

Suppose the scope of elite university students can only reflect the class differences of a small portion of “the chosen,” and may not represent the majority. In that case, the county-level high school is a space that can reveal the class differences of most ordinary people. Before I entered the field, considering the lower level of economic development in underdeveloped county areas, I had wondered if I would observe significant class differences in such a small place. However, the observed facts proved my assumptions wrong. Class is such a prominent theme in the county high school that teachers cannot talk about students and the school for three sentences without bringing up family background.

For instance, school leaders, grade-level directors, and teachers from both schools mentioned in different conversations with me a piece of their “common knowledge”: the quality of a school’s education depends largely on the supply of high-achieving students; students’ academic ability mainly depends on their “brains” (intelligence); and “intelligence” is closely related to family background, which is also closely related to the difficulty of a head teacher’s work. A piece of background information is that in both schools, it is common practice to group students into classes based on their academic ability. Starting from the previous year, the admission rate for ordinary senior high schools in the province was raised from the previous 50% to 85%, leading to a sharp drop in the admission scores for both schools. Many students who previously could not get into high school were admitted due to this expansion. This was especially true for County No. 1 High School, as it is the only ordinary high school in the county and had to accept all qualified students. The school had been on high alert since learning of this expansion last year, worried that these “extra” underperforming students would drag down the school’s teaching and management. They had been discussing whether to group them into separate classes or “disperse and dilute” them. In the end, considering that managing a separate “underperforming class” would be too tricky and teacher assessment would also be problematic, both schools adopted the “disperse and dilute” approach: the top-performing students were selected to form six key classes, and the remaining parallel classes absorbed these bottom-tier students evenly. The parallel and key classes were kept separate, not having classes in the same building. This meant that the expansion had no impact on the key classes, while the average “intelligence” of the students in the lower-tier parallel classes was significantly reduced. The grade-level director who taught math sighed one day at his desk: “Sigh, what worries me is not teaching, but that you teach for half a day and he still doesn’t get it!” Another teacher responded, “Don’t you know what kind of bunch you’re teaching? Previously, we admitted 30% and sent them all to university. Later, we increased this to 50%, and we continued to send them all to university. Now, we are admitting 85%, and next year, it will be 95%. Are we still supposed to send them all to university?”

At County No. 1 High School, the class I observed was one of these parallel classes, and all the teachers in the office taught parallel classes. The office was filled with smoke, caused by many male teachers smoking, and the other teachers seemed accustomed to it. During breaks and self-study periods, many students were “summoned” by teachers for reprimands. The reasons for being “summoned” were mostly for disciplinary violations caught by the teacher on duty, such as hair being too long, talking during the lunch break, reading non-textbook books, smoking, etc. If the head teacher considered the infraction serious, the parents would be called in to be informed of their child’s misbehavior at school, in order to get the parents’ attention and also to punish the child. The head teacher at the desk next to mine was a strict male teacher who “summoned” students almost non-stop from morning to night. In the pauses, I could often hear him sigh, take a deep drag from his cigarette, and lament, “These kids are getting harder and harder to manage!” Then he would continue with the next round of “summons.” Maintaining class discipline and strengthening management to ensure “no incidents” seemed to be what these head teachers spent the most time and energy on.

When discussing the reasons for the poor performance of students in the parallel classes, the teachers most frequently cited family background as the primary factor. Through years of observation, the teachers concluded that those who could enter the key classes were often the children of county government employees, teachers, doctors, and other public sector workers.

In contrast, rural children from low-income families were concentrated in the parallel classes. “The kids from the city have better foundational skills from primary and junior high than the kids from the countryside, for one. Moreover, for another, parents with official jobs in the city are more conscious of its importance. They know how to curry favor with teachers since kindergarten to get more attention. How can they be the same?”—this was the teachers’ “common knowledge.” Another factor the teachers often attributed it to was family relations and structure: the proportion of children from special families (parents with disabilities, divorced, orphans, or parents working away from home year-round) in the parallel classes was much higher than in the key classes. “These students are simply not managed by anyone, and are more likely to have problems (psychological crises and self-harm).” The teachers generally felt helpless about this, not believing it was something they could change through their own teaching efforts. The words of the first-year grade director at District No. 1 High School also confirmed this:

Our grade is divided into three levels: science and technology innovation classes, elite classes, and enrichment classes. Students in the innovation classes have no discipline problems; what they need is to improve their self-directed learning skills. However, the further down you go (in class level), the more problems the students have, and the more complex the situations become. The classes at the bottom, not to mention being economically worse off, more importantly, have more complex family structures—blended families, single-parent families, left-behind children, those raised by grandparents, all kinds of situations. Many kids cannot get the support they need from home. For some kids, you cannot even find their parents; it is like the kid has been handed over to you, the teacher, and you are just not supposed to cause them any trouble. In fact, for the kids in these bottom classes, the school is just a “fire brigade.” All the complexities of society and family are finally concentrated in this kid, leaving the school scared and exhausted as it tries to cope.

Here, family background becomes a more complex concept, encompassing factors such as the family structure’s integrity, the harmony of family relations, the ability to provide psychological support, and the presence of relatives with criminal records. It is not limited to socioeconomic status, but is closely linked to it. Teachers were clearly more willing to deal with educated, reasonable, and easy-to-communicate-with parents, because these parents were more likely to cooperate with the teachers, not only not causing trouble for the teachers, but also helping to share some responsibilities (such as organizing parent committees, providing the necessary conditions for their children without relying on the teachers). Uneducated parents were the opposite: they often completely shifted the responsibility of education to the school, expecting the teachers to send their children to university, while at the same time not fully trusting the school, yet in reality having no choice but to entrust their children to the school. The strong dependence of lower-class families on the school was vividly demonstrated in the game between parents and the school.

According to my observations, uneducated parents, under this tangled and conflicting mentality, usually exhibit two types of behavior, both rooted in dependence. One type involves being obsequious and fawning towards teachers, stating that the child’s affairs are entirely the teacher’s responsibility, thereby completely handing over the child’s education to the teacher. This type of parent has existed for many years, and they have a classic line that teachers often mock: “Teacher, you can just beat him to death for me!” Teachers, however, often hold a contemptuous attitude towards this. “Beat your kid to death for you? Am I crazy?” In the teachers’ view, this sentence, while on the surface handing over all disciplinary power to the teacher, is actually a shirking of responsibility, as if to say, “I’ve handed the child over to you; if he’s not taught well, it’s your fault.” The teachers at County No. 1 High School are known for their diligence and responsibility.

Sometimes, a few scoldings or beatings are commonplace, but for the children of these parents, the teachers are more cautious. Mr. Zhang, a history teacher and head teacher, said on this matter: “If I’m going to hit your kid, I have to spend my energy, and I also have to bear the responsibility. Do you think I have nothing better to do?” Therefore, teachers see hitting students as a sign of their dedication and responsibility, a responsibility they are not willing to take on for just anyone. In stark contrast to the teachers’ assertiveness is the parents’ submissiveness. In the cases I observed of teachers dealing with disciplined students, teachers would often use “suspension for reflection” as a trump card to intimidate students and parents—“If you keep this up, do not come to my class anymore, go home and reflect.” Parents, upon hearing this, would often turn pale and say that it is absolutely not an option: “What will happen if the kid is left at home with no one to watch him?” Then they would beg the teacher to be lenient and give them another chance.

In Mr. Mei’s class, a boy was ordered to be suspended for talking back and insulting a teacher. The parents, unable to bear it, came to the school to plead. First, the mother came and staged a scene of kneeling at the school gate, and the next day, the father came to plead with Mr. Mei. Mr. Mei said that this student had transferred initially to his class because he was afraid of his previous head teacher. He had reluctantly agreed at the time, but who knew he would be such an unruly brat. He was not satisfied with the student’s apology and was very impolite to the parent: “Even a kindergarten kid knows you cannot eat in class. Your son was eating in class, and when the teacher criticized him, he cursed the teacher with foul language. And when asked to write a self-criticism, he wrote only these few words? What kind of kid is this? Where do you find such a student?” After a stalemate for the whole morning, it ended with a written guarantee signed and witnessed by the subject teacher: “I, XXX, if I ever violate school rules and regulations again, will voluntarily return to my original class. I hereby guarantee.” I heard that for some students who made mistakes, the teacher would not only send them home but also cancel their eligibility to take exams, which would also help prevent the class average from being negatively impacted.

The other type of parent is what the teachers call “unruly parents” (diāomín). They would find all sorts of “faults” with the teachers (such as on the grounds of corporal punishment, verbal abuse, or discrimination), use official channels to complain about the school, or use the child’s own personal safety as a bargaining chip to threaten the school, forcing the school to meet their demands. These demands essentially meant not being expelled for serious disciplinary violations, or being allowed to return to school after suspension for reflection. This type of parent is more common in District No. 1 High School because it is more heavily regulated than the school in the county seat. A grade-level director at District No. 1 told me:
The parents say, ‘You can just go ahead and hit him,’ but in reality, would you try hitting one? Let alone the teacher hitting them, even now, if the school has done nothing non-compliant, and the student has clearly violated school rules, the school has to do much work beforehand to ensure the family can accept the punishment. Otherwise, they might threaten you with their life. What can the school do? Usually, we give them a demerit to scare them, and then remove the record before graduation.

In order to ensure their successful dependence, parents do not hesitate to use threats or even framing to coerce the school. At County No. 1 High School, complaints from “unruly parents” also happen from time to time, but because there is only one high school in the entire county, the cost of a parent complaining is huge—after angering the school and teachers, who will be responsible for the child? So the “unruly parents” are not as rampant as in District No. 1. Once, I asked the teachers: “After you hit a student, do you worry about being reported?” The teachers had their own logic. One said, “I use this roll of white paper to hit them, it does not leave marks on the body.” Another said, “If his kid doesn’t want to study anymore, let him go and report it. I will just never manage your kid again.” The reason teachers dare to hit students is also because of the parents’ dependence, as they have no other choice.

V. Conclusion and Discussion

This article attempts to challenge the prevailing argument among researchers in recent years about the “flattening of educational attitudes” in East Asian societies, which largely stems from the survey results of quantitative research on family educational attitudes. Such research typically finds no significant difference in the importance placed on education across different social classes, thus concluding a “convergence of educational concepts” or a “de-classing of educational attitudes” (Li & Xie, 2020; Liu & Xie, 2015; Lyu, Li, and Xie, 2019). However, through in-depth interviews and field observations of students from different social backgrounds at elite universities and county-level high schools, this paper re-examines the relationship between social class and the school education system from the starting point of individual subjective feelings and daily practices. The study finds that although there is a formal expression of “valuing education,” beneath this common appearance, the relational logic between students of different classes and the education system presents a fundamental difference—as the saying goes, “alike in form, but different in spirit.” Measurement indicators may not capture the origins and contexts of these attitudes, but they are clearly discernible in the interviewees’ narratives and in the field. Therefore, this quantitative analysis of “flattened” educational attitudes may obscure the deeper, more subtle, yet quite robust differences between the school education system and different social classes.
This article argues that, as revealed by the aforementioned Western research, social class and the school education system do not maintain an equidistant or homogeneous structural relationship.

However, unlike the “planner/survivor” difference outlined in those studies, the social class difference in our country is more manifested as a difference between “consumers/dependents.” However, our exam-based promotion system means that non-advantaged classes are also to a large extent “survivors” of the educational competition; their more essential characteristic lies in their deep dependence on and entrustment to the school education system, and even to the broader state power system. For students from the middle and upper classes, school education is a tool that can be deployed, a commodity of service that belongs to them and is available for their choice. They are learners adept at self-control, adopting a consumer-style or even entrepreneurial mentality to autonomously set goals and mobilize resources to reproduce their advantages and realize their educational needs. In stark contrast, for students from working and farming classes, education is more like an “other” system—it is external, scarce, and an opportunity that can only be obtained by excelling in layers of competition. Being admitted to a good school is itself seen as an achievement, even a favor. This relationship does not generate a sense of entitlement, but instead inspires an almost pious “standing in the snow at Cheng’s door” attitude, that is, a dependence on and gratitude towards the school, a deep desire to be “chosen by the system,” and a profound entrustment of one’s personal destiny. This high degree of dependence demonstrates a “subordinate agency,” which stands in sharp contrast to “entrepreneurial agency.” The following table summarizes the typical differences in the subjectivity of elite and working/farming class students within the education system, which can serve as an analytical framework for future researchers to understand the educational experience differences of different social groups:

Dimension	Middle/Upper-Class Students	Working/Farming-Class Students
Relationship with Education System	Internalized, strong sense of affinity	Externalized, strong sense of distance
Perception of Education’s Nature:	A resource one owns, a commodity to be freely deployed.	A scarce opportunity, a favor to be striven for
Learner Identity	“Consumer-style/Entrepreneurial learner,” active controller	“Pious apprentice-style learner,” passive dependent
Manifestation of Agency	Proactively chooses and deploys educational resources to strengthen advantages, desires “I have a choice	Highly dependent on the education system, less self-directed, desires “I am chosen”
Understanding of Education’s Function:	A tool for continuing advantage,	A channel for upward mobility
Emotional Attitude & Mentality	Confident, controlling, highly strategic	Pious, grateful, self-sacrificing

Fig. 1 – Differences in perceptions of education amongst Middle/Upper-class and Working/Framing-Class Students

The findings of this study deepen the theoretical discussion in academia about the relationship between school education and class in non-capitalist societies. Although the Chinese education system on the surface aims for “common prosperity” and “equal opportunity,” in reality, the role played by schools reflects a classed structure of symbolic interaction. This structure exists not only in teachers’ attitudes towards students and parents of different classes. However, it is more embodied in the students’ perceptions, postures, and practices towards the school—that is, the classed subjectivities of education. This perspective engages in a dialogue with the findings of Western scholars in different national educational fields (e.g., Reay et al., 2009; Lehmann, 2007; Archer, Hutchings, Ross, 2002), and also responds to the critiques of early cultural Marxist theorists on the symbolic violence function of the education system (Bernstein, 1962; Bourdieu & Passeron, 1977). A teacher at a county high school lamented to me with heartfelt emotion: “You can tell the city kids are from the city just by looking at their faces. There is a light in their eyes. The rural students do not have that light in their eyes.” Class, in fact, profoundly shapes the social interactions that occur in school and also shapes students’ emotional attitudes towards themselves and the world. For those children who can only plead for dependence on the school, the teachers are both helpless and contemptuous. Moreover, for the children themselves, what they feel is perhaps more of a lack of self-dignity. When the family and the school shirk responsibility from each other, the real needs of the individual life are left unarticulated and forgotten in this choiceless dependence.

By deeply depicting the class-differentiated educational experiences, this article not only provides a new path based on subjectivity for understanding the formation mechanism of social inequality in China’s educational field but also helps to provide a more realistic socio-psychological basis for policy practice. Taking the “Double Reduction” policy as an example, the original intention was to curb the expansion of the tutoring industry, reduce students’ academic pressure, and narrow the education gap. However, in practice, it has produced a “policy drift”: urban middle-class families quickly shifted to “underground” or personalized private tutoring services to maintain their competitive advantage, while ordinary working and farming families, due to a lack of alternative resources, lost their opportunity to participate in the competition (Ball, 2021; Jin & Sun, 2022; Pan Yunhua, 2024). Another example is the continuously promoted “New Gaokao” reform in recent years. The original intention of the policy was to empower students by increasing the flexibility and freedom of examinations, encouraging students to follow diversified development paths according to their own talents. However, after implementation, the goals of the New Gaokao were quickly subverted by students’ utilitarian subject selection strategies in developed eastern provinces—in order to gain an advantage, students would choose easier subjects and avoid more difficult ones like physics and chemistry, which are important for future professional studies and national industrial development. In the central and western regions, the New Gaokao has become a formality due to insufficient resources, with subject selection and course-based classes being simplified into several fixed classes, and exam-taking strategies have not substantially changed (Xu Dongbo & Pang Ying, 2024). As Xu &Pang show, if the class differences in educational subjectivity are ignored, any policy may reproduce the logic of inequality under the guise of “universal benefit.” If policymakers had a grasp of the educational subjectivity characteristics of the urban middle class and non-advantaged groups, they would find that these unintended policy outcomes were actually predictable: the self-controlling urban middle class will find ways to actively mobilize resources to maintain their advantages regardless of policy changes, and the increase in freedom is a “timely rain” for them; whereas the non-advantaged groups, who are strongly dependent on the school system, are accustomed to relying on the school’s unified arrangements from the beginning, so that when freedom is equally distributed to them, it becomes an unmanageable, superfluous burden, exacerbating the difficulty for them to gain an advantage.

Therefore, understanding and incorporating the perspective of classed subjectivity is a prerequisite for any policy aimed at promoting educational equity to be genuinely effective. Educational equality is not only a matter of resource redistribution but also a matter of re-understanding the subjective world. This is not only a challenge to the system but also a re-questioning of our understanding of “what it means to be a learner.”

References
• Archer, L., Merryn Hutchings, & Alistair Ross. (2002). Higher Education and Social Class. Routledge.
• Ball, S. J. (2021). The Education Debate. Policy Press.
• Ball, S. J, Jackie Davies, M. D., & Diane Reay. (2002). “‘Classification’ and ‘Judgement’: Social Class and the ‘Cognitive Structures’ of Choice of Higher Education.” British Journal of Sociology of Education 23(1):51–72.
• Bernardi, F., & Ilze Plavgo. (2019). Education as an Equalizer for Human Development? United Nations Development Programme.
• Bernstein, B. (1962). “Social Class, Linguistic Codes and Grammatical Elements.” Language and Speech 5(4):221–40.
• Bourdieu, Pierre. 1967. “Systems of Education and Systems of Thought.” Social Science Information 14:338-58.
• Bourdieu, Pierre. 1977. “Cultural Reproduction and Social Reproduction.” Pp. 487-511 in Power and Ideology in Education, edited by J. Karabel and A.H. Halsey. Oxford University Press.
• Bourdieu, Pierre, & Jean-Claude Passeron. (1977). Reproduction in Society, Education and Culture. London: Sage.
• Bowles, S., & Herbert Gintis. (1976). Schooling in Capitalist America. New York: Basic Books.
• Calarco, J. M. (2011). “I Need Help!” Social Class and Children’s Help-Seeking in Elementary School.” American Sociological Review 76(6):862–82.
• Calarco, J. M. (2014). “Coached for the Classroom: Parents’ Cultural Transmission and Children’s Reproduction of Educational Inequalities.” American Sociological Review 79(5):1015–37.
• Cheng, M. (2018). “Dúshū de Liào” jíqí Wénhuà Shēngchǎn [“The Right Stuff” for Studying and Its Cultural Production]. Beijing: China Social Sciences Press.
• Chiang, Y.-L. (2022). Study Gods: How the New Chinese Elite Prepare for Global Competition. Princeton University Press.
• Coleman, J.S., Ernest Campbell, C. H., James McPartland, A. M., Frederick Weinfeld, & Robert York. (1966). “The Coleman Report.” Equality of Educational Opportunity.
• Hawkins, J. N. (2012). “Issues of Motivation in Asian Education.” Pp. 101–16 in Motivation: Theory and Research. Routledge.
• Hu, Anning, Grace Kao, and Xiaogang Wu. 2020. “Can Greater Reliance on Test Scores Ameliorate the Association between Family Background and Access to Post-Collegiate Education? Survey Evidence from the Beijing College Students Panel Survey.” Social Science Research 88:102425.
• Hu, A., & Xiaogang Wu. (2021). “Cultural Capital and Elite University Attendance in China.” British Journal of Sociology of Education 42(8):1265–93.
• Hu, D., Hongbin Li, T. L., Lingsheng Meng, & Binh Thai Nguyen. (2023). “The Burden of Education Costs in China: A Struggle for All, but Heavier for Lower-Income Families.” SSRN Working Paper No. 4558282.
• Jin, X., & Yirong Sun. (2022). “Does Double Reduction Policy Decrease Educational Pressures on Chinese Families?” Pp. 771-76 in the 2021 International Conference on Education, Language and Art (ICELA 2021). Atlantis Press.
• Kipnis, Andrew B. 2019. Governing Educational Desire: Culture, Politics, and Schooling in China. University of Chicago Press.
• Lareau, A. (2011). Unequal Childhoods: Class, Race, and Family Life. University of California Press.
• Lareau, A. (2015). “Cultural Knowledge and Social Inequality.” American Sociological Review 80(1):1–27.
• Lehmann, W. (2007). “I Just Did not Feel Like I Fit In “: The Role of Habitus in University Dropout Decisions.” Canadian Journal of Higher Education 37(2):89–110.
• Lehmann, W. (2009). “Becoming Middle Class: How Working-Class University Students Draw and Transgress Moral Class Boundaries.” Sociology 43(4):631–47.
• Li, Wangyang, & Yu Xie. (2020). “The Influence of Family Background on Educational Expectations: A Comparative Study.” Chinese Sociological Review 52(3):269–94.
• Liao, Q. (2019). Nìliú ér Shàng: Zhuǎnxíngqī Nóngcūnjí Dàxuéshēng de Shēnfèn Rèntóng [Swimming Against the Current: The Identity of Rural University Students in a Transitional Period]. Beijing: Peking University Press.
• Liu, Airan, & Yu Xie. (2015). “Influences of Monetary and Non-Monetary Family Resources on Children’s Development in Verbal Ability in China.” Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 40:59-70.
• Lyu, Mengjie, Wangyang Li, & Yu Xie. (2019). “The Influences of Family Background and Structural Factors on Children’s Academic Performances: A Cross-Country Comparative Study.” Chinese Journal of Sociology 5(2):173–92.
• Pan, Y. (2024). “Jiātíng Jiàoyù Tóuzī Cèlüè Fēnhuà jíqí Yìngduì: ““Shuāng Jiǎn”” Zhèngcè Bèijǐng xià” [The Differentiation of Family Education Investment Strategies and Its Response under the “Double Reduction” Policy]. Liberal Arts Journals of China’s Higher Education Institutions 41(1):159–59.
• Reay, D. (2001). “Finding or Losing Yourself?: Working-Class Relationships to Education.” Journal of Education Policy 16(4):333–46.
• Reay, D. (2009). “Sociology, Social Class and Education.” Pp. 396–404 in The Routledge International Handbook of the Sociology of Education. Routledge.
• Reay, D. (2015). “Habitus and the Psychosocial: Bourdieu with Feelings.” Cambridge Journal of Education 45(1):9–23.
• Reay, D. (2017). Miseducation: Inequality, Education, and the Working Classes. Policy Press.
• Reay, D., Gill Crozier, & John Clayton. (2009). “‘Strangers in Paradise’? Working-Class Students in Elite Universities.” Sociology 43(6):1103–21.
• Reay, D., Gill Crozier, & John Clayton. (2010). “‘Fitting In’ or ‘Standing Out’: Working‐Class Students in UK Higher Education.” British Educational Research Journal 36(1):107–24.
• Reay, D., & Helen Lucey. (2003). “The Limits of ‘Choice’: Children and Inner City Schooling.” Sociology 37(1):121–42.
• Sayer, A. (2005). The Moral Significance of Class. Cambridge University Press.
• Stevenson, H., & James W. Stigler. (1994). The Learning Gap: Why Our Schools Are Failing and What We Can Learn from Japanese and Chinese Education. Simon and Schuster.
• Vassallo, S. (2020). Neoliberal Selfhood. Cambridge University Press.
• Willis, P. E. (1977). Learning to Labor: How Working Class Kids Get Working Class Jobs. Columbia University Press.
• Xu, Dongbo, & Ying Pang. (2024). “Biàngé yǔ Zǔzhì: Xīn Gāokǎo Bèijǐng xia Xiànzhōng Yu Ren Fāngshì de Zīyuán Yuēshù” [Change and Stagnation: Resource Constraints on the Educational Approaches of County High Schools under the New Gaokao]. Fudan Education Forum 22(1):50–57.
• Yang, Shanhua, and Feiyu Sun. 2005. “Zuò Wéi Yì Ì Tànjiū de Shēndù Fǎngtán” [In-Depth Interviewing as an Inquiry into Meaning]. Sociological Research (5):53-68.
• Zheng, Y. (2023). Jīnbǎng Tímíng zhīhòu: Dàxuéshēng Chūlù Fēnhuà zhī Mí [After the Gold List: The Puzzle of Diverging Paths for University Students]. Shanghai: Shanghai Sanlian Bookstore.