China’s Elite-Focused Schools Are Failing Most Students, Top Educators Say

A group of leading Chinese academics has publicly called for systemic reform of China’s highly competitive education system, claiming it is failing most students and contributing significantly to a youth mental health crisis. They argue that the existing system overwhelmingly prioritizes top academic achievers—roughly 20% of the student body—while neglecting the needs, interests, and talents of the remaining 80%. This “80%-for-20%” dynamic, according to Gu Mingyuan, honorary president of the Chinese Society of Education, undermines students' intrinsic interests and well-being, focusing more on grades than personal development. This approach has led to heightened academic pressure, which many experts link to a growing crisis of emptiness, “hollow-heart disease,” academic burnout, and rising depression among young people. The issues and potential solutions were the central focus of the 12th annual China Education 30 Forum, where experts urged for policy and classroom-level reforms to ameliorate these trends. 3

Speakers at the forum criticized the long-standing emphasis on guiding all students toward admission to elite universities such as Tsinghua and Peking University, an opportunity realistically available only to a small fraction of students. This has resulted in an academic “training partner” system where the majority strive to keep pace with the elite minority, often at the expense of their own interests and talents. 3

To address this, Gu Mingyuan and several others proposed a transformation along three core axes: replacing teacher-centered teaching with student-centered learning, shifting the focus from test scores to holistic personal growth, and moving from passive to active learning. Scholars agreed that stimulating student interest is vital since genuine learning cannot happen without it. Many echoed Zhang Zhiyong, a professor at Beijing Normal University, in calling for a return to education’s original purpose: fostering character and virtue rather than solely cognitive skills. Reformers advocate for education to be tailored to individual aptitudes, enabling students to pursue paths better matched to their strengths—such as the arts or hands-on vocations—rather than forcing all to aim for academic research universities. 3

At the policy level, significant change is seen to hinge on reforming the notorious college entrance exam, the gaokao. Xiang Xianming, a professor at Nanjing Normal University, suggested universities create differentiated admission standards based on their specializations, with varied subject test weighting. This would potentially break the dominance of a few core subjects and promote fairer opportunities for students with diverse talents, encouraging diversity in schools and evaluation methods. 3

Implementation at the school level is also essential. Gu Mingyuan emphasized the need for instructional innovation—such as inquiry-based and project-based learning—and the use of time freed from reduced homework demands to introduce modular and personalized courses. The ultimate goal is personalized learning, where each student has a unique schedule that recognizes their individual strengths. 3

Innovative examples were highlighted at the forum. Beijing First Experimental School, for example, divides its semester into three six-week periods, each focusing on specific skill targets; mastery allows for additional enrichment and movement between grade levels based on ability. Fu Yanjun of Beijing Dongfanghong School introduced “happiness education” and a “Conscience Class” as supportive measures to help students dealing with burnout and to restore their sense of self-worth, emphasizing that education should prioritize individual well-being and inner passions over relentless pursuit of test scores. 3

Ultimately, the future of Chinese education, according to these reformers, depends on shifting toward the holistic development of students—prioritizing physical and mental health, meaningful relationships, and personal fulfillment over standardized achievement metrics. 3