Enacting Fairly or Fearfully? Unpacking the Enactment of Critical Thinking Policies in Chinese Senior High Schools

Abstract

This study explores the enactment of critical thinking policies in Chinese senior high schools through the lens of Ball et al.’s policy enactment theory and within the broader context of Chinese education reform aimed at enhancing students’ thinking abilities. Employing a case study methodology with diverse data types, the research assessed current school-level practices and the effectiveness of Ball et al.’s framework in capturing interactions among objective contexts, policy actors, and cultural artefacts. Findings indicate that the framework captures these complexities when the policy is actively enacted. In one school, a systematic enactment mechanism facilitated diverse policy roles and external connections, thereby promoting schoolwide critical thinking development; however, another school exhibited fragmented practices due to the lack of key policy roles, despite students’ interest in deeper engagement. Challenges were also identified, including deficiencies in the mid-level education bureau and conflicts between a collective-oriented educational paradigm and the promotion of independent thinking. The study unravelled the nuances of the enactment of critical thinking policies in Chinese senior high schools. Future research could test the framework’s applicability for guiding the construction of policy mechanisms across different settings.

1. Introduction

Policy implementation has been a key focus in public policy since Pressman and Wildavsky’s publication in 1973, which highlighted the complexity of the implementation process and the importance of understanding the local context for effective outcomes [1]. Ball recognised that the notion of policy being “implemented” carries an idealised view, which assumes that policy is executed by rational policy agents with abundant resources in the best possible contexts [2]. However, policy in education settings demonstrates a more sophisticated process of “becoming” in complex and sometimes incoherent social assemblages—schools [1] (p. 2). Drawing on sociological theories proposed by Foucault, Taylor, Ozga, Spillane, and others, Ball and colleagues developed a grounded theory—policy enactment—to interpret how schools engage in the process of policy work [1]. This model was considered groundbreaking because it captures the complexities within schools, where a dynamic, non-linear process involves policies being “interpreted, translated, reconstructed, and reformulated” in localised environments [1] (p. 19). Policies manifest as “discursive processes that are complexly configured, contextually mediated, and institutionally rendered” through policy actors’ interpretation and translation [1] (p. 3). These school policy actors engage in a creative process of sense-making, rationalisation, negotiation, and compromise to adapt and reshape policies within their routine practices; this process results in policies that contain possibilities for how they could be “done” by schools and their policy actors.

Some scholars in the education field have utilised Ball et al.’s theory of policy enactment to analyse the interpretation and translation of policy processes in various contexts, including Western and Latino contexts [3,4,5,6,7]. For instance, Skerritt et al. examined the self-evaluation policy in Irish schools [4]. They found that the heterogeneous characteristics of policy actors, including their differing levels of effort towards policy work, posed challenges to the policy’s enactment. Furthermore, they emphasised that leadership roles and the motivation levels of key policy actors were crucial to the policy’s success. In another study incorporating Ball et al.’s theory of policy enactment, Wilkinson et al. conducted research in three English secondary schools and highlighted the proactive role of students [7]. By interviewing students through focus groups and semi-structured interviews, this study assessed their perceptions and awareness of the new initiative. Nevertheless, the application of Ball et al.’s policy enactment theory within the context of Chinese education remains unexplored.

1.1. Scoping Critical Thinking in China

The notion that policy is an unstable and continuous process, rather than a detailed, refined guideline waiting to be implemented, has raised the authors’ concern about the enactment of the critical thinking (CT) policy initiative in the Chinese education context. Despite having been a policy initiative in mainland China for decades, the integration of CT has not yet flourished broadly across secondary schools [8,9,10]. At the national policymaking level, the Chinese government has incorporated CT into its basic education policy documents since 1999 as part of its quality education reform [11]. This reform aimed to move away from rote learning and exam-oriented education in order to achieve the holistic growth of students and enable them to acquire comprehensive abilities, including creativity, CT, practical skills, and entrepreneurship [12]. These initiatives echoed the nation’s need at the time to enhance economic growth and global competitiveness through developing a workforce capable of CT, problem solving, and innovation [11].

As China has transitioned from a manufacturing-based economy to one increasingly driven by knowledge-intensive industries, CT has been intermittently described and restated in national education policy documents [13,14,15] and curriculum documents [16,17,18]. Among these policies, the 2016 initiative—21st Core Competencies and Values for Chinese Students—positioned CT as one of the key abilities that Chinese students should master in the basic education stage [19]. In the following year, the national general senior secondary education curriculum programme was revised to systematically include CT across curricula; this revision was in response to the 2016 policy [16].

An extensive body of literature has explored CT education in China over the past two decades from the perspectives of philosophy and pedagogy. Issues addressed have included teachers’ and students’ understanding of CT, teachers’ abilities and techniques, students’ degree of CT knowledge and skills, and challenges of CT education in schooling [8,9,10,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28]. However, relatively little research has explored the complex interactions among CT initiatives, policy actors, and institutional dynamics within unique school contexts from a policy perspective.

The Chinese governance style has been characterised as strong, centralised, and standardised, thus conveying the impression that national education policies are “done” to schools in a top-down manner [29]. However, this does not mean that policies are more prone to be “implemented” rather than “enacted” by school policy actors, as a certain degree of discretion in policy and practice exists in China at the school level, as any other school outside of China and will reflect how CT plays out [30]. School policy actors tend to adapt and reinterpret these policies based on their specific contexts. For instance, CT could be considered a low-stakes initiative by policy actors when high-stakes exams remain the major assessment measurement [9]. This has implications for CT because low-stakes policies face a higher possibility of being marginalised in practice when teachers are already burdened with many other expectations [31]. Tan’s research on CT initiatives in Singapore secondary schools showed how teachers balance the demands of multiple stakeholders by navigating their roles between expected changes in CT practices and students’ need for academic excellence [32]. This finding echoes concerns about China’s high-stakes assessment system, which often subjects teachers to various external pressures [28]. Moreover, existing literature on CT education in China often, consciously or unconsciously, portrays students as passive “consumers” of education services who await to be “taught” [33]. However, students’ subjectivity shapes how they engage with and are affected by educational practices and reforms [34]. They can also provide first-hand accounts of how CT impacts their academic and mundane experiences, or the lack thereof.

Based on the researchers’ understanding of practical and theoretical contexts, this study aims to explore the enactment of CT policy initiatives in Chinese senior secondary schools using Ball et al.’s heuristic framework of policy enactment [1]. It introduces a new layer to the framework by incorporating students’ voices in order to illuminate the interactive process between CT and policy actors within individual school contexts and to highlight students’ views and experiences of the policy.

1.2. The Theory of Policy Enactment

Ball et al.’s framework posits that policies create situations where the range of alternatives for action is restricted or altered and specific goals or outcomes are outlined rather than a list of precise instructions [35]. As the process of putting policies into practice is inherently creative and sophisticated, policy actors consequently take on the roles of interpreters, translators, and re-creators of policy [1]. This study focuses on the three dimensions highlighted in this framework but places greater emphasis on policy actors, noting their subjective roles in bridging and compensating for the other two aspects.

1.2.1. Contextual Dimensions

Policies enter different resource environments with schools’ particular histories, buildings and infrastructures, staffing profiles, leadership experiences, budgetary situations, teaching and learning challenges, and the demands of context interact. These material conditions are grouped into four dimensions: situated contexts, material contexts, professional cultures, and external contexts (see

Table 1. Contextual dimensions.

Contextual Dimensions	Features and Elements
Situated contexts	Historically and locally relevant to a school, such as a school’s setting, its history and intake
Material contexts	“Physical” perspectives of a school, such as buildings, budgets, staff levels, information technology (IT), and other infrastructure
Professional cultures	A broader, more stable institutional culture within a school that influences the values with which teachers view policy reform and their level of commitment to the policy
External contexts	A wider range of pressures and expectations from outside the school; primarily generated by local and national policy frameworks, such as local authority, ongoing comparisons with other schools, and high-stakes exams

).

1.2.2. Policy Actors and Their Policy Positions

Policy actors actively work through the complexities of understanding (interpreting) and implementing (translating) policies in ways that align with their contexts and practices [1].

Interpretation involves “initial reading” [1] (p. 43) of policy to make sense of its requirements and implications. This process is both “subjective” (i.e., influenced by policy actors’ backgrounds) and “political” (i.e., it shapes policy actors’ involvement through institutional activities and discourses). As part of the interpretative process, policy actors engage in these discourses to connect with new policy ideas. Translation, on the other hand, serves as a “third space” [1] (p. 45) that iteratively bridges policy ideas and practice. It involves a creative process of adapting policy through material, temporal, and conceptual adjustments, which are influenced by specific contexts and classroom practices. Interpretation and translation are interrelated, often overlapping to integrate policy effectively into practice. Stronger policy imperatives minimise the “leakage” in the enactment process.

By making sense of and constructing responses to a policy through the process of interpretation and translation, policy actors may take up eight genres of policy positions, including narrators, entrepreneurs, outsiders, transactors, enthusiasts, translators, critics, and receivers [1] (p. 49). These positions, or policy works, are not necessarily held by particular people, nor are they universal, fixed, or mutually exclusive. The policy positions and policy work used in this study’s data analysis are detailed in

Table 2. Policy actors and policy work.

Policy Actors	Policy Work
Narrators	Interpretation, selection, and enforcement of meanings; mainly performed by head teachers and senior leaders
Entrepreneurs	Advocacy, creativity, and integration
Outsiders	Entrepreneurship, partnership, and monitoring
Transactors	Accounting, reporting, monitoring/supporting, and facilitating
Enthusiasts	Investment, creativity, satisfaction, and career
Translators	Production of texts, artefacts, and events
Critics	Monitoring of management and maintaining counter-discourses
Receivers	Coping, defending, and being dependent; mainly performed by junior teachers and teaching assistants

below.

1.2.3. Policy Artefacts

Policy artefacts are cultural materials and resources that document or illustrate desirable conduct as part of the “creation of order” or “governmentality” [1] (p. 73). They indicate policy direction by circulating and reinforcing expectations, thereby shaping specific rationalities and making certain ideas appear obvious and true [36]. These artefacts reflect key policy discourses in schools.

Given the current research gap about CT enactment within the context of Chinese basic education, the theory of policy enactment offers a valuable framework to explore further how and to what extent CT has been incorporated into schools to shape institutional activities and policy discourses. This study seeks to answer the following question: How can Ball et al.’s policy enactment theory help explain the experiences of school leaders, teachers, and students regarding their adoption of CT in the Chinese education context?

2. Methods

This exploratory case study used purposive sampling to ensure that the schools chosen for data collection were able to demonstrate a certain level of CT practices and would thus allow us to answer the above research question. After contacting several schools with a reputation for CT education and innovation-oriented pedagogic styles, principals from two public schools in different regions of mainland China expressed interest in participating in the study. Teachers and students (aged over 16) in these two schools were sent emails and mailed letters to solicit their willingness to participate in the research. Ultimately, this study recruited three school leaders (one principal and two middle leaders), four teachers from each school, and 15 students across both schools.

The primary researcher visited both schools a total of 16 times during August and September 2023, and gathered rich data by attending staff meetings, classes, and students’ debate sessions, as well as participating in students’ activities at interval breaks. The data collected included school documents (e.g., meeting minutes, enactment plans); publicity materials that reflected dimensions of objective contexts; photos of school activities and artefacts; individual interviews with school leaders and teachers; focus groups with students; and classroom observations in the participants’ classes that reflected policy actors’ work. Field notes were recorded throughout these two months.

Interviews were conducted in Chinese and recorded in audio with participants’ permission. The recordings were transcribed using Xunfei Tingjian (an intelligent website for transcribing Chinese audio into manuscripts) and verified by the primary researcher with original recordings, who then translated them into English using Copilot for business (<removed by peer review> approved version for data security). All translated texts were compared with the Chinese version, and necessary corrections were made while maintaining the original meanings of the participants. Translated manuscripts, school documents, field notes, and photos were then imported into NVivo 12 for data analysis.

For the purpose of this study, all data were analysed based on the theoretical framework of policy enactment, including objective contexts, policy actors’ positions, cultural artefacts, and performance activities. Dimensions of the situated contexts and material contexts of the two schools are briefly described in the following section to reflect the research background. The findings section emphasises a wide range of school policy actors’ positions and work, as evidenced in the interview data. Students’ perspectives on CT within and beyond school settings are also illustrated alongside the positions of policy actors when relevant. For instance, two groups of students discussed their points of view on how CT helps them manage situations such as internet bullying. In addition, the reciprocal influence between the professional culture of schools and the positions of policy actors, as well as the impact of policy artefacts on the formation of institutional policy discourses, are identified through data from photos, interviews, and field notes. These data are simultaneously reflected alongside the positions and work of policy actors. Finally, external contexts affecting schools’ CT enactment in China are presented as a separate section, as data analysis revealed four categories of external factors warranting attention.

To maintain participant anonymity, any materials that could reveal the identity of the schools or participants have not been included in the following sections.

3. Findings

3.1. Situated and Material Contexts of Two Schools

Both schools selected for this case study are public high schools that were chosen because of their publicity and advertising, which showcased the schools as being highly innovative. School A, in particular, publicises CT education as one of its distinctive features. The two schools are located in different geographical regions—School A is situated in the southeastern region of China, while School B is located in the northwest. Both schools initially operated as private institutions before transitioning to public schools at different times. Both schools rank among the top five high schools in their respective cities, and they enjoy considerable influence and an impressive reputation locally.

School A is located in Nanjing, Jiangsu province. It was originally founded by American Christian missionaries before World War II. During the Second Sino-Japanese War (1937–1945), the school relocated due to the fall of Nanjing. After the war, the school returned to Nanjing. Following the establishment of the People’s Republic of China in 1949, it was designated one of the 14 provincial key high schools in Jiangsu and has developed steadily ever since. In the 1990s, the school adopted a multimedia network teaching model based on information technology. The school currently features an electronic reading room, network laboratory, artificial intelligence robot laboratory, biological museum, and a CT exhibition hall. It also developed a school-level course for its CT curriculum and published a course textbook. In 2023, the school employed approximately 290 teaching staff and enrolled around 2700 students, yielding a student-to-teacher ratio of less than 11:1, with municipal funding totalling about CNY 19,133.21 (NZD 4429). That same year, School A achieved a university admission rate of 91.3%.

School B is located in Xi’an, Shanxi province. Established in the 1990s, it is one of the first model high schools in Shaanxi province and is a national model school for implementing the 2017 new curriculum standards and teaching materials at the secondary education level. The school has received numerous honours, including being named a provincial model campus in 2001 and an advanced unit in educational research in 2004. It was also ranked as the eighth top high school in mainland China in 2017. The campus currently features an electronic reading room, a physics laboratory, a sterile culture laboratory for biology, and a robotics laboratory. In 2023, the school had approximately 300 teaching staff and around 3300 students, resulting in a student-to-teacher ratio of about 11:1. The school’s funding totalled approximately CNY 17,280 (NZD 4000) in 2023, and its university admission rate was 92.1% in the same year.

3.2. Policy Actors and Their Policy Work

School policy documents and interviews with school leaders and teachers revealed a diverse range of policy positions, some of which were formally and/or informally held by policy actors in the two schools, particularly in School A (see

Table 3. Policy actors’ positions in both schools.

Policy Actors/Schools	Narrators	Translators	Transactors	Enthusiasts	Outsiders	Receivers	Entrepreneurs		Critics
School A	√	√	√	√	√	√	√
School B		√		√		√			√

). The findings also indicate that these positions were flexible and non-mutually exclusive, as suggested by Ball et al.’s policy enactment framework. For instance, in School A, the principal simultaneously assumed the roles of policy narrator, translator, enthusiast, and entrepreneur. Similarly, middle leaders and project leaders took on the roles of transactor, translator, and enthusiast. Teachers in both schools predominantly functioned as translators and receivers, but their roles could shift to that of transactors who supported and facilitated policy translation, depending on whether they were leading a project related to CT. Receivers were not limited to new teachers in School B; the finding revealed that two experienced teachers (with over seven years of experience) exhibited characteristics of receivers. Moreover, policy critics in School B did not oppose the CT initiative per se but rather objected to the term “critical/criticise” or to the burden that CT might impose on them when they “have had enough in their pockets” (quoting School B teacher 3). Lastly, School A also included policy outsiders—a group of CT education experts who provided guidance and shared materials. These aspects of the findings will be illustrated further in the following sections.

3.2.1. Narrators

According to the typology, narrators are often school principals or senior leaders. These actors interpret the policy, select meanings, and draw a blueprint for what needs to be happen and how to accomplish it. Narrators’ continuing and consistent narratives can create links among and between policy actors and policy ideas. In the case of School A, the principal started CT education around 2013 after he was transferred to the school (i.e., before the 2016 national policy and 2017 curriculum reform), and he appears to have performed the policy role of narrator. A strong presence of CT narratives was identified from the school’s data, as the participants demonstrated a trend towards CT that was highly homogenous—they claimed that the ethical values of CT, such as “tolerance,” “justice,” “open-mindedness,” and “human care” were the most valuable features of CT education:

Expanding on this, there are several qualities, such as rationality and openness, including what we call human care. I think all of these are things that CT can bring or inherently possess. We emphasise these qualities in our teaching. (School A teacher 1)

CT is not criticising; it should be a more harmonious and open-minded approach that makes our minds more generous and capable of accepting diverse perspectives. (School A teacher 2)

In addition to initiating dominant narratives on CT, the principal also performed the narrator’s roles of selecting and crafting policy meanings and transmitting them schoolwide. In the beginning, teachers were unfamiliar with CT and felt confused about the differences between CT and the subject philosophy, which they had already been teaching. So, the principal organised multiple school-wide sessions on CT where teachers could discuss it further and learn more about the research carried out on different subjects. These continuous activities prompted by the principal (acting as narrator) affected teachers’ understanding and improved their motivation for CT:

So, at first, I was a bit resistant. I thought, why do we have to create a name for what we have been doing in philosophy … but after absorbing it and discussing it with other teachers, I realised we need to integrate it with our teaching practices. (School A teacher 3)

In the beginning, it was a tool that evolved into a skill…but over time of exploring it in our discussion forums, I understood this thinking pattern could become a way of thinking that influences a person’s temperament; we are talking about a spiritual aspect, such as tolerance. (School A middle leader 1)

There have been significant changes. In the past, relatively speaking, I might not have been willing to change … now, I think more about organising my ideas to incorporate CT into my teaching. (School A teacher 4)

Narrators also tell stories focusing on institutional commitment and cohesion for the consumption of stakeholders. This was demonstrated by School A’s principal, who referred to the school’s online platform that he created with other teachers called “Climbing to the Peak of Thinking Together” (paraphrased to maintain anonymity). The platform was presented in the form of a story-telling podcast and was accessible to all students for the purposes of both easing their stress during examination time and cultivating CT. Another example of the principal adopting the role of narrator was that his image was used to recreate the popular “thinker” emoji as a way to highlight the value placed on CT in the school. This narrative contributed to the school’s vision for CT development, with evidence that two middle leaders positioned the school as being more advanced and experienced than other schools in terms of CT:

Our school was actually the first school in the country to offer a CT course … we aim to cultivate top innovative talents in this aspect. (School A middle leader 1)

We have already had school-wide lectures and forums within subject groups and formed a certain pattern. It is challenging for others to catch up. (School A middle leader 2)

A profound professional culture of CT has been constructed at School A through collaborative practices that were started by the principal and continued by other motivated policy actors who firmly believed in CT. Transcripts showed that middle leaders and teachers who took the roles of translators and transactors were still passionate about continuing CT education, designing CT evaluation scales, and improving their practices, even though the principal had transferred to another school just before the data collection. As a teacher explained,

We have a vision. Even though the principal is no longer in the office, we are still working on this (CT), still enthusiastic. We submitted three sub-plans on CT for our next three-year development goal. (School A teacher 4)

3.2.2. Enthusiasts and Translators

In both schools, we found many characteristics related to the role of enthusiasts in terms of CT. School leaders and teachers spoke of CT in positive terms and emphasised that CT was an essential part of their teaching. There were two trends among school leaders and teachers who took this role. First, some enthusiasts collaborated with translators or worked with translators to speak directly to policy practice, accept accountability, and turn enactment into a collective work. In these cases, the enthusiasts had administrative titles, such as “project leader” or “middle leader”. They often spoke highly about their schools’ encouragement of and devotion to CT:

I think we are doing quite well in this aspect [CT]. While it might not be as noticeable for individual teachers, there are indeed meticulous efforts made in implementing specific content. Teachers are actively seeking and learning from other pioneers, which I believe has a significant impact. (School B teacher 2)

At least, the awareness of critical thinking has penetrated deeply. Through various forms of promotion, everyone knows that one of the characteristics of our school is critical thinking education. The participation is also quite high … We’ve received awards at the provincial and national levels for our critical thinking projects. It has deep implications. I believe in it and continue to work on it, as I believe it is crucial to everyone. (School A teacher 4)

This type of enthusiast not only had enthusiasm for CT—but often, they also carried responsibilities to enact it. In these instances, we observed these policy actors performing various roles, including detailing what they had done for CT with other teachers, producing materials for teaching and learning CT, and demonstrating CT in classes. They therefore acted in the role of enthusiasts, translators, and transactors at the same time:

I helped create the content, and he [the principal] selected the materials. I assisted in turning them into audio courses. (School A teacher 1)

Every Thursday, we invite a teacher to share their outstanding work within our group, and we evaluate it and extend the best ones to the whole school, letting everyone hear how they apply these methods to assist in their respective subjects. (School A teacher 3)

The other type of enthusiasts were the teachers who were simply “enthusiastic” about CT in and of itself. These enthusiasts did not perform any monitoring, reporting, or accounting, but they were not to be underestimated, particularly given their influence on students. In School B’s case, a dominant narrative about CT was largely missing schoolwide, but there was a group of teachers, including the vice-principal, who attended after-school lectures on CT and organised discussion forums on CT in their workshops. They spontaneously put in time and energy to promote CT to students in their classes:

I realise the difficulty is that people think differently, sometimes it is hard to judge …to solve the problem, in our workshop or teacher training sessions, we emphasise thinking education. (School B vice-principal)

I personally am interested and believe in CT. I buy books, read articles on it. I also attended several online lectures to better understand it … students love it, when they realise there are different ways to think about one problem, they get excited! (School B teacher 4)

These teachers did not interact with any specific guidelines in the school relating to CT; nor did they accept accountability or enforce their interpretation schoolwide. Nevertheless, they had a great influence on students. During focus groups, students shared their experiences of engaging with CT in their classes. Five students taught by the same teacher in School B indicated that CT had been a vague concept for them until the teacher (School B teacher 4) introduced strategies of using CT to solve problems in biology:

You should talk with our bio teacher, he is the one who talks about CT very often during classes. We get to know this concept better because of him. One time he even guided us to find a wrong question in our test paper, that was unbelievable! (School B student 7)

These “genuine enthusiasts” and non-official policy actors interpreted CT from their subject-oriented perspectives and translated it through direct interactions with students, thereby heightening students’ enthusiasm and curiosity towards CT. Later on in the interview, the students also discussed the applications of CT beyond their academic experience:

It’s about forming independent thoughts and pulling clear things out of chaos. It leans more towards reflection rather than outright criticism! I think we should bravely speak out about it. (School B student 9)

CT is actually important in today’s society, but it may not be very widespread among ordinary people. Look at [a controversial issue online]—so many people left harsh comments, do they even think about caring? Respecting? Looking for more evidence? What if she commits suicide because of this cyberbullying? (School B student 3)

This discussion of the online topics continued for some time, during which students expressed concerns about internet bullying. They linked these issues to the skills and cognitive dispositions fostered by CT, which they developed through a weekly 5 min debate activity in their Chinese class. The students, forming a third group of enthusiasts with aspirations, also expressed a forward-thinking mentality about the benefits of cultivating CT:

If we cultivate CT now, it can help us filter the information we receive or the things we encounter. This can be considered nurturing the future generation with a solid foundation. If we don’t cultivate this kind of thinking, given the diverse things we encounter now, it might affect our future life paths and growth processes, possibly resulting in negative impacts after entering society. (School B student 1)

3.2.3. Transactors

One of the current features of education policy in China is evidence-based accountability. Schooling tasks are assigned and accounted for based on reports of performances that include numbers of promotion rates, successful projects, major achievements, and many other works which reflect the impact and effectiveness of the policy. In the data, enthusiasts with administrative titles as well as translators also adopted the role of transactors. They took responsibility for monitoring, facilitating, and reporting the policy work of other teachers and themselves. Nevertheless, sometimes, these responsibilities brought about by policy positions were unevenly distributed among policy actors:

Well, to be honest, it’s a bit uneven. It involves taking on responsibilities. Those who do more need to do even more … for those of us who undertake certain research projects or need to take the lead internally, we need to write, explain, assign the tasks, and collect data. It seems that you are driving them. (School A teacher 4)

As you go up, the pressure increases … if you arrange it (activity), you handle it, some people push responsibilities. So now people generally require shared responsibility without a 100% guarantee. In the case of uncertainty, generally, others are slow to respond while busy blaming others. (School B vice-principal)

The data revealed that School A had established specific positions for different subjects responsible for CT, with subject group directors overseeing their groups’ CT efforts. One member’s name was mentioned as the designated reporting individual for math:

Our group mainly reports to [ School A middle leader 1], such as updating him on our project progress or asking him questions when we have any issues. We have quite a bit of autonomy, and generally, we can resolve issues within the group. If we really can’t solve something, we report to our head of academic affairs, who has more experience. (School A teacher 4)

From the transcripts, it is evident that School A had a systematic accountability mechanism. However, the data from School B did not clearly indicate the presence of transactors specifically for CT. Instead, it revealed transactors who were more reactive, addressing other urgent demands:

It [CT] has indeed been proposed, but it is more for you to deal with in the teaching materials … I feel that it is somewhat distant from the real implementation. We still have exams to handle at the school, whether it’s about the process or the results, they are both important. (School B teacher 1)

3.2.4. An Entrepreneur and a Group of Outsiders

Entrepreneurs promote policy initiatives within schools, and they act as the originators or advocates for specific policies or integration principles. Their strong personal investment and deep identification with these policy concepts fuel their dedication to enacting the policies. While the data revealed many instances of motivated and committed staff, only the principal of School A exhibited strong characteristics in this policy position. Teachers and middle leaders of this school explained how the principal initially introduced CT, established a CT research team, held multiple discussion sessions to promote this concept among staff, and created links between school policy actors and CT experts in the education field outside the school:

Look at us now—we have a wealth of resources, which wasn’t easy to achieve. We organised around 30 CT forum sessions before, we have a CT research group, and each teacher has a sub-project in the group. Our many CT projects won awards at the national, provincial, and city levels. We are leading this. (School A teacher 3)

While contexts lay the foundation for policy enactment, policy can also drive positive changes in these contexts. At School A, a supportive and enduring professional culture had been established, where teachers were committed to their chosen path and valued the outcomes that affirmed their efforts. Notably, their efforts garnered attention, recognition, and, furthermore, resources from outside of the school, which in turn were positively transforming their educational environment. As the principal and two middle leaders explained, they formed a series of collaborations on CT with local universities and a group of CT experts from all levels of the educational field inside and outside mainland China. These universities and experts constituted the outsiders for School A:

In our efforts to develop critical thinking education, we’ve really gotten a lot of help. For instance, they [the CT expert group] have been incredibly helpful. Their research and detailed diagrams for teaching critical thinking are ready to use. They also provided great training for our teachers. The conference we held at their suggestion turned out to be a big success… Working with these universities has given our students chances to expand their horizons and explore new opportunities. (School A principal)

The impact of outsiders should not be overlooked because of their influence on schools’ CT enactment, especially when teachers are in need of specialised knowledge. The data in School B also revealed that some members (genuine enthusiasts) actively engaged with outside support in the form of workshops with teachers from other schools:

I personally emphasise thinking education; I feel it’s like a root determining a person’s greatness. Therefore, we sometimes organise sessions on CT in our workshop; I think it is helpful after we have discussions on the topic. It is a good chance to share and learn from each other. All of us are quite experienced teachers locally. (School B vice-principal)

The teacher [referring to the expert] is very representative in CT. Sometimes I consult him directly on WeChat version 8.0.53(A Chinese social platform) or share some public lectures. I was particularly impressed by his course on [course name]. He is a leading figure in CT research … We have a distinguished teacher workshop that focuses on some hot topics in the country. Each time, one person is responsible for writing, and I feel that the writing process helps to deepen your understanding of the concept [CT]. (School B teacher 4)

Data from both schools indicated the existence of outsiders who offered consultancies, resources, and/or teacher training in the process of initiating and interpreting CT or supporting translation work. Outsiders in School A built official connections with the school and facilitated their CT enactment. In contrast, outsiders in School B worked directly with teachers who were self-motivated towards CT. Despite the different forms of cooperation, both types of outside support highlight the role of these policy actors in advancing CT in China.

3.2.5. Receivers and Critics

According to Ball et al.’s theory, the work of both receivers and critics can be marginalised in an active policy enactment process. Receivers are usually junior teachers or newly joined teachers who passively meet the school’s needs or follow other senior teachers’ lead. They are looking for guidance and direction rather than attempting any creativity or taking responsibility for enacting the policy. In both schools’ data, we identified the existence of policy receivers, but their situations were different. In School A, the receivers were teachers who were accused by project leaders/middle leaders of not actively participating in the school’s enacting activities. These leaders claimed the teachers needed a “push”:

Our understanding is to initiate it [CT] actively. If your thinking is not active, you cannot achieve better. You need to have flexibility in your knowledge. However, some teachers are just simply not interested. They may be more passive. For example, when researching certain issues, some might just take a look, understand what the problem is, and guide students with it. (School A middle leader 2)

Being the head of a group, you take the initiative, but for those who are below, they may follow a bit passively … You have to push them. (School A teacher 4)

The transcripts and school documents did not indicate whether these teachers acting as recipients were new to School A, but they did show that recipients were not in any leadership positions, such as project leaders or head teachers. Given that these certain leadership positions were designated for prestigious teachers who initiated CT and who had a higher ranking in terms of teaching experience, many other teachers referred to as “those who are below,” likely assumed the role of receivers, that is, awaiting guidelines and adhering to higher-ranking teachers’ directives.

From the transcripts in School B, we identified that two teachers who took the role of receivers were also critics. These two roles in School B reflected a sign of burnout. These teachers tended to avoid additional tasks that CT or other new policies imposed on them when they were burdened with academic demands and consistent pressure, particularly from the Nationwide Unified Examination for Admissions to General Universities and Colleges (known as Gaokao). This was evidenced by a teacher and headmaster who had seven years of experience in the school:

The importance? Even though there are changes and efforts to make students more entrepreneurial in this era, the short-term goal has not changed; it’s the college entrance examination [Gaokao]. While CT might be more apparent in terms of subjects, I think it’s relatively low in priority in actual teaching … I feel that those things are in the clouds, and what I am living now is far away … I am someone who is constantly confused, and there are many confusing issues that are difficult to resolve. I am currently in a somewhat chaotic period … I lack methods, even though I am not young. (School A teacher 2)

This teacher was aware of the ongoing changes in the educational field, including the evolving goals for student holistic development. However, she also acknowledged the reality that meeting the requirements of the Gaokao remains the priority for senior high school teaching. The teacher expressed uncertainty and self-doubt regarding her responsibilities and expectations due to the various and frequently changing trends in educational reform. Another teacher in School B also voiced similar uncertainties in her interview:

It’s still not enough now. The time hasn’t settled. I don’t have a good mindset. I feel that if I had just started working … this [CT] may be more difficult. Sometimes it may be a problem with ourselves. (School B teacher 3)

Critics who sustain counter-discourse within their context often draw upon memories linked to past failures. In this scenario, the aforementioned two teachers tended to engage in self-criticism about their inadequate preparation for the change rather than targeting CT itself. Additionally, another critic in School B, the principal, shared her perspective during our informal conversation. She expressed reservations about the term “critical/criticise” and recommended the alternative term “reflective thinking,” which is frequently used interchangeably with CT in the Chinese context:

I personally use reflective thinking more often because critical thinking always seems a bit negative. It’s like pointing out others’ faults and being somewhat provocative. It doesn’t fit with our culture where we value not embarrassing people in public. This could make people afraid to speak up. (School B principal)

Even though the principal had her own views on CT, she did not take on the role of narrator in the school to interpret and transmit her perspectives on CT to other policy actors. As evidenced by the other four teachers, they did not share the view that CT should be rephrased as “reflective thinking,” with one teacher suggesting that this was more of a “Chinese language comfortable habit” (quoting School B teacher 2).

3.3. The Influence of External Contexts on CT in Chinese Schools

External contexts include a broad spectrum of pressures and expectations from outside the school, which are primarily generated by local and national policy frameworks. In this case study, participants discussed various influences and pressures experienced at different times of the school year. Through the analysis of interviews, focus groups, and school documents, we identified four categories of external factors affecting the policy actors’ practices with CT in both schools—collective-oriented education concepts, misunderstanding of CT within higher administrative departments, the high-stakes examination assessment system, and evaluations of prestigious schooling and teaching awards.

First, in terms of collective-oriented education concepts, three teachers and two middle leaders shared how they balanced the diverse perspectives brought about by CT. They discussed navigating issues such as individual expression tendencies, students’ personalised needs, and students’ demand that their social interactions ought to be based on mutual respect rather than compulsory etiquette. One example is given below:

When you introduce the viewpoint of CT, they [students] may find some contradictions in their daily lives, such as students can’t enter after the school gate is closed at a specific time. From a moral perspective, how should we guide students on these small matters? I find it quite interesting, and [it] requires wisdom to handle. I probably focus more on teaching methods, but for character development and moral education, I think this is an area we might explore. (School A teacher 1)

From the perspectives of participants, this was an aspect of CT that they avoided encountering during their teaching practices. Teachers strategically chose teaching materials and their linguistic styles to leverage potential contradictions and ease tensions that these aspects of CT may have caused in students’ routine lives. More examples were given by these participants, including school regulations about boys’ hair length having to be shorter than a finger’s inch, girls not having fluffy hair, and CCTV operating across schools and sometimes during classes.

Second, misconceptions about CT still exist in the educational field, which hinders the consistent and coherent transmission of a comprehensive concept of CT. Participants from School A expressed that they encountered obstacles from the higher-level education bureau when submitting projects on CT for evaluation:

There is a somewhat contradictory aspect here. The Core Competency published in 2016, the New Curriculum Reform in 2017, and the revised edition in 2020 all have explicitly mentioned CT. Why would the evaluation department still have concerns about it? (School A middle leader 2)

Currently, there is some misunderstanding about it. People think it’s all about criticism and may find it sharp. Even in some topic evaluations or the process of evaluating critical thinking projects, it’s not a particularly hot direction right now because people are still cautious. (School A teacher 1)

The vice-principal of School B also mentioned similar issues, which led him to adopt a more “appropriate” terminology for CT:

Because CT requires breaking conventions, the cost is high. It takes real courage to change… Using the term directly as a research project is a bit offensive to some people in the higher-level department. (School B vice-principal)

Although national policies explicitly advocate for CT, and schools, as street-level policy agencies, are enacting CT instruction, there was still resistance from local educational administrative bodies in both regions during the project evaluation process due to the use of the term “critical thinking.” Participants frequently discussed their views on this term during informal conversations and interviews. While we previously mentioned that the principal of School B had reservations about the term “critical,” other respondents considered this a “great misunderstanding” of CT (School B teacher 3). When the primary researcher asked during the interview whether this misunderstanding might be related to traditional cultural influences, participants did not offer a direct comment. One participant stated that they “do not believe Chinese traditional culture is antagonistic to CT, as the culture itself is inclusive and accommodating” (School A teacher 1).

Last but not least, the influence of external expectations driven by performance standards on school policy enactment was evident in the data, specifically in relation to the high-stakes examination system and the evaluation of prestigious teaching awards. In terms of the examination system, standardised paper tests are a principal method of assessing educational outcomes at the senior high school level in mainland China. Most instructional focus in schooling, therefore, leans towards standardised exam performance metrics, such as university admission rates, with particular emphasis on top-tier institutions like Tsinghua University and Peking University. Participants frequently referred to their “Gaokao-centric” teaching approach. When asked about factors influencing CT education, all respondents from School B highlighted the Gaokao as a priority, which suggests that CT could be sidelined in high school education. In contrast, respondents from School A generally maintained that CT education did not conflict with the Gaokao but could instead act as a “boost” for it.

I think, if you truly see it as wearing two hats, it is indeed something extra. But, as I mentioned, it’s not about submitting an additional book or starting an extra-interest class. If it’s integrated into our subject teaching, it becomes a teaching aid when you explain topics to students. Even during class, if it is seamlessly integrated, it’s not something you waste time on; instead, it becomes a teaching boost. (School A teacher 3)

You cannot separate it into two different aspects. You shouldn’t treat exam-oriented education as one thing and critical thinking as something unrelated. People will reject it. If you make them feel that this work is integrated into our regular work and add a bit of extra activity, it will be necessary and helpful, and they won’t oppose it. (School A teacher 4)

Our years of teaching results show that CT helped with students’ scores… After they graduate, they still come back to talk to us and tell us how much they enjoyed it. (School A middle leader 1)

Respondents from School A exhibited more nuanced perspectives about the relationship between CT and the Gaokao than was apparent in the data from School B. While they acknowledged the importance of the Gaokao, they did not perceive it as an impediment to the instruction of CT. On the contrary, they considered CT to be beneficial for enhancing student academic performance and aiding teachers in their pedagogical practices. Furthermore, they identified their primary instructional strategy as the integration of CT into the existing curriculum. This approach ensured that CT was not an additional teaching burden but rather an integral component of their educational framework.

The other performance standard that affects CT enactment is the evaluation of prestigious teaching awards, which include awards for schools and teachers at local and national levels. The National Basic Education Teaching Achievement Award primarily assesses significant outcomes in the reform and practice of basic education teaching. This includes areas such as curriculum, teaching, assessment, resource development, and teacher development. Teachers can advance to various levels through these evaluations—from Level 3 Teacher, Level 2 Teacher, and Level 1 Teacher to Senior Teacher and Senior High Teacher—based on recommendations from their schools and the local education bureau.

The nomination period for these awards generally spans from the end of one academic year to the beginning of the next. The evaluation criteria include the teacher’s teaching proficiency and achievements, as well as their involvement in research projects and their publication of academic papers. The primary researcher’s visit to the schools coincided with this period, during which three teachers were in the process of applying for projects. Two of the participants discussed the impact of the award evaluation process on teaching activities, including CT, within the school:

Currently? There aren’t many activities on CT. Because the national teaching achievement awards have just been evaluated, things are temporarily quiet. (School A teacher 1)

During this time of the year, although the Gaokao has just concluded and most teachers can relax, some teachers remain relatively busy as many evaluations also commence around this period. Consequently, some tasks that are not urgently needed are postponed until most teachers are available to attend to them. (School B middle leader 2)

4. Discussion and Implications

Critical thinking education in Chinese contexts is often examined through theoretical and pedagogical (rather than policy) lenses [8,9,10,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28]. Moreover, existing literature on the application of policy enactment theory has predominantly focused on contexts in the Global North [3,4,5,6,7]. To fill these gaps in the literature, this article adopts a policy perspective on CT education within the Chinese context. It utilises policy enactment theory [1] as an explanatory framework to investigate the current enactment status of CT in Chinese senior high schools. It reveals the roles and responsibilities of a wide variety of policy agents within the schools, thereby highlighting the importance of diverse policy positions taken by policy actors in the CT enactment process. Overall, findings suggest that School A’s proactive CT initiative and systematic enactment mechanism provided policy actors with opportunities to assume various policy positions, including narrators, translators, transactors, enthusiasts, and entrepreneurs. These factors also allowed the school’s policy actors to build connections with outsiders that, in turn, constructed a profound professional culture of CT and positively reshaped the school’s objective contexts. On the other hand, School B lacked policy narrators, translators, and transactors to assume the primary roles in policy interpretation and translation work. This led to a fragmented distribution of existing resources, with “genuine enthusiasts” seeking external support but being unable to create a systematic policy impact within the school, despite their positive influence on students.

Both academic considerations and external influences shaped students’ attitudes towards CT. Data from students in both schools revealed their positive stance towards CT and their desire to deepen their understanding of it. However, due to the academic-focused instruction of CT within both schools and the overwhelming influx of online information in students’ daily lives, students often chose to turn to the internet for answers when faced with dilemmas. This indicates that intention within wider education context to keep students in an “untouched” safe site has not been successful, because students’ experience has extended beyond the official schooling discourses that treat them as mere “targets” of education and education reforms [35]. This turbulence in their daily experience has necessitated that they develop skills to discern the credibility and quality of online information. Moreover, students’ data in School B also identified that they required support in the use of CT both for academic achievement and for developing abilities grounded in moral guidance [11]. This finding raises a common world-wide concern about how policymakers can acknowledge and value students’ subjective needs in accordance with current political directives relating to education reforms, which are driven by performativity and competition [34].

The data also showed that the policy role of receivers varied between the two schools. Given the specific and limited policy positions, such as project leaders, which were established by the CT policy mechanism in School A, higher-level teachers were prioritised for major policy positions, which often come with opportunities for further promotion and rewards [31]. This power dynamic is pronounced within the wider Chinese institutional system, where limited resources are concentrated among dominant policy actors who have attained leadership roles or have a prestigious track record in previous positions. In contrast, those outside these power centres are often marginalised when policies create certain opportunities. But those who take on the role of receivers do not necessarily lack motivation for policy; rather, they are passive practitioners with relatively limited autonomy with which to creatively enact the policy. To navigate the complexities of institutional power mechanisms, choosing to wait for directives from higher-level policy actors may be considered their best option in such contexts. In School B’s case, due to the lack of a systematic enactment mechanism, ambiguous policy positions existed among its policy actors, which made it more likely that the role of receivers would be reflected in the data. These receivers exhibited avoidance characteristics and demonstrated a tendency to withdraw from any new policies that could potentially increase their existing teaching and administrative burdens. This was especially the case when teachers were left on their own to interpret and translate (or not) CT in the school.

The policy role of critics was not prominent in the data from School A. In School B, critics did not specifically target CT initiatives but instead expressed scepticism about the term “critical.” The data did not reveal whether this scepticism stemmed from a lack of understanding of CT among policy actors. But it could suggest that, despite national policies and curriculum documents explicitly promoting CT and its various dimensions across subjects, frontline policy actors may still hold beliefs that are more aligned with their personal experiences rather than the policy’s intentions; this in turn could lead them to opt for a more “pragmatic” approach [31].

Furthermore, the data from School A revealed the interactions among various roles of policy actors and how these interactions influenced and reshaped the school’s objective contexts. Particularly, the school’s active engagement in CT education has earned them an influential reputation, external resources, and growth opportunities for both teachers and students. These factors have collectively contributed to a stable and enduring professional culture within the school, with students’ experiences and feedback also playing a role in constructing this culture. The interplay between these objective factors and the subjective positions and work of policy actors has occurred within a broader integrated context, where sub-contexts within this institutional framework balance and coordinate their effects to create a cohesive enactment setting. However, data from School B failed to reflect a comprehensive view of its enactment contexts, such as professional culture and cultural artefacts regarding CT; nor did it capture the nuanced interactions among policy actors, including the explicit policy positions of narrators, translators, and transactors. This is likely because of the fragmented practices among policy actors and the lack of systematic enactment mechanisms.

Lastly, the data suggested that external contextual factors present challenges to school policy actors within the Chinese education context. These factors include external expectations and pressures imposed by mandatory activities like the Gaokao and prestigious teaching awards, local educational authorities’ misunderstandings of CT, and conflicts between a collective-oriented educational paradigm and the independent thinking promoted by CT. Together, such external factors have imposed a unique influence on CT initiatives in the Chinese education context. Particularly, teachers in both regions spoke of encountering obstacles when they submitted CT-related projects to local administrative authorities due to these authorities’ concerns about the term “critical thinking.” One of the middle leaders in School B referred to the local education bureau as the “mother-in-law” and their school as the “daughter-in-law” to portray the power dynamic between higher-level education institutions and street-level policy agencies. From a policy perspective, local educational authorities’ misunderstandings of CT may be due to the weakening of policy messages when they are transmitted through multiple agency levels; but in this case, the local education bureau’s impact on schools’ policy enactment appears to have been neglected during policy advocacy for CT. This might be because local education bureaus are often designated to deal with administrative duties, and they are not directly involved in either national policy formulation or frontline enactment; this in turn may have led to administrative fragmentation and a deficit in engagement with policy mechanisms.

Teachers are strategically positioned in dealing with the ideological conflict between CT and the collectivist educational paradigm [9]. Their decisions, such as selecting teaching materials and avoiding controversial topics, highlight the unsettling policy positions arising from this conflict. This further emphasises that school policy enactment is a creative process, particularly in low-stakes policy areas where there is more room for imaginative approaches to alternative policy enactments [37].

Based on the findings presented, this study has two implications. First, advocacy for CT initiatives should not be confined to top-level policy formulation and frontline policy enactment. Given the influence of mid-level government administrative agencies on the power dynamics affecting policy actors at the school level, the local education bureau must be actively engaged in this policy framework. Establishing a consensus on CT across all three levels—top, mid, and frontline—can alleviate frontline teachers’ ideological concerns and reduce inconsistencies in enacting CT initiatives across these levels.

Second, regardless of the political directive regarding education and the schooling curriculum, students’ needs should not be ignored [34]. At a micro-level, School A offers an example of how CT can potentially be fostered in schools through a systematic policy enactment framework, which engages various policy actors in diverse roles (e.g., narrators, translators, transactors). Even within existing objective constraints, a consistent professional culture and collaboration between leadership and policy actors can create opportunities to leverage available resources creatively, attract external support, and work towards positively reshaping the contextual environment. However, as CT is a low-stakes policy, it does not have strict assessment standards, nor are there mandatory policy instruments for enacting CT on site. This policy leans more towards being “advocative” and “contains more voluntary components” [1] (pp. 70–79). In this situation, the commitment of leadership and the willingness and motivation of other school policy actors are pivotal to its success [3,4].

From a theoretical perspective, we recognise that Ball et al.’s policy enactment theory can effectively capture the dynamics of practice within institutions where policies are actively enacted, including in the Chinese education context. Professional culture, cultural artefacts, and the positioning of policy actors in relation to their policy work complement each other. Policy actors play an essential role in balancing and coordinating these elements to collaboratively construct schools’ policy discourses. To fully understand the potential challenges faced by school policy actors, it is important to pay close attention to the external contexts within individual policy enactment settings.

Further research could apply policy enactment theory in contexts where policy has not yet been systematically implemented. This would enable researchers to test whether the theory can guide the development of an effective institutional policy enactment framework across different contexts.