China’s Private High School Teachers Bear Brunt of Enrollment Slump

Across China, private high schools are experiencing significant disruptions as a result of low student enrollment, leading to widespread layoffs, job reassignments, and salary reductions for educators. Teachers like Ge Jing in Henan province have found themselves with no classes to teach and facing uncertain transfers, while others such as Ellie in Zhejiang report institutional pay cuts and layoffs. These problems are part of a nationwide trend, with private high schools struggling to fill classes as the academic year begins, which adversely impacts both school operations and job security for teachers [para. 1][para. 2].

The root causes of these problems are economic and policy-related shifts impacting private education. During the most recent admissions cycle, many private high schools failed to reach their enrollment targets, with some facing such low demand that their minimum admission scores dropped below those required by vocational colleges. This decline in perceived value is becoming common throughout the country [para. 3].

China’s demographic changes, especially the declining birthrate, have already reduced enrollment at kindergartens and primary schools, forcing districts to reassign or lay off teachers. While the high-school-age population continues to grow — regular high schools enrolled 10.36 million students in 2024, a 7.07% increase from the previous year — this has not translated into success for private schools. Despite more students overall, private high schools face what has been termed an enrollment “cold current,” leading to dramatic tuition revenue drops. In some instances, private schools have seen as few as a single applicant or even zero new enrollments [para. 4][para. 5][para. 6].

Data from Guangzhou city illustrates the problem’s scale: although the number of students taking the high school entrance exam grew by 10,000 to 139,000, more than 10,000 spots at 140 high schools remained unfilled after supplementary admissions rounds. Nearly 80% of these vacancies were at private high schools. Even after these additional admissions periods, demand for private education and cooperative Sino-foreign programs remains low, with some private schools’ entrance scores falling below those of public and even vocational schools [para. 7][para. 8][para. 9]. For example, in Shenzhen, private high school cutoff scores remain well beneath those for both public high schools and top vocational schools, which in some cases demand entrance scores 160 points higher than their private counterparts [para. 10].

These challenges are compounded by multiple factors: public school expansion, educational reforms that limit selective admissions, parents’ growing preference for economical schooling, and the growth of vocational pathways. The Ministry of Education’s reforms have increased public school enrollment opportunities and diminished the allure of private institutions. Simultaneously, public and vocational schools offer cheaper alternatives, prompting parents to reconsider the value proposition of paying higher private-school tuition, especially if the outcomes are uncertain [para. 12][para. 13][para. 14][para. 15].

The expansion of modern vocational education now allows students to begin in secondary vocational schools and subsequently attend partner universities, sometimes at a higher cutoff score than public high schools. This mobility is making vocational programs more attractive — even for high-achieving students — and further eroding the competitive advantage of private high schools as a pathway to higher education or employment [para. 16][para. 17][para. 18][para. 19].

Private high schools lacking distinctive programs or strong results are especially vulnerable. Some are resorting to requiring teachers to aggressively recruit students, imposing quotas and fines. Meanwhile, young educators, like Tang in Hainan, are reconsidering career paths and turning to public school jobs or civil service as more reliable alternatives [para. 21][para. 22]. The article’s accounts use pseudonyms for teachers and parents [para. 23].