The Hengshui Model: Educational Alienation in the Context of Involution

Written By: Bowen Qi

Introduction of the Hengshui Model

The Hengshui Model, originally from Hengshui High School in Hebei Province, China, refers to an exam-oriented education system designed specifically for China’s college entrance examination (gaokao). The gaokao is one of China’s most critical selection examinations, largely determining whether students can enter university and shaping their future path, thus having enormous influence on individual destinies.

Within this system, schools function essentially as “examination factories,” while students become machines constantly operating to produce good scores, losing creativity amid drill-and-kill methods and examination preparation environments. This education model gradually became popular nationwide due to its ability to significantly improve students’ exam scores and university admission rates, especially in economically underdeveloped and heavily populated provinces and regions. According to China Newsweek, as of 2021, at least 21 branch schools across the country had been named “Hengshui High School”, spread across more than ten provinces in central and western China, demonstrating the rapid replication and dissemination of this model nationwide (Xu, 2021).

The most notable features of the Hengshui Model are its military-style management, indoctrination-like propaganda, and mechanical repetitive training. For instance, Hengshui-style schools schedule students’ days precisely to the minute, from rising at 5:30 a.m. to lights-out at 10:30 p.m., leaving virtually no time for free activities. Even mealtimes are compressed to merely fifteen minutes outside of lessons and homework. Additionally, teaching buildings are typically adorned with numerous motivational slogans, and during extracurricular periods, students are required to participate in collective mobilisation and oath-taking ceremonies to reinforce their sense of obedience (Song, 2012). The direct purpose of these two approaches is to control students’ time and energy entirely for repetitive practice of examination questions, thus achieving the core objective of producing good scores through standardised examination preparation.

 

Nature of the Hengshui model: Educational Alienation in the Context of Involution

The concept of “involution” originates from anthropologist Clifford Geertz, who initially used it to describe the process in Indonesian agriculture where, under external expansion constraints, production was maintained through increased  labour input, pointing to a form of “growth without development”—a stagnant complexification (Geertz, 1963, p70). The Hengshui Model represents precisely such an educational involution mechanism: developed to cope with population pressure in a context where social evaluation standards, educational resource distribution, and socioeconomic structures resist short-term change, it employs highly concentrated study time and standardised training to enhance students’ examination performance.

Although the number of newborns in China fluctuated between 2000 and 2010, it remained relatively high and later peaked in 2016 following the introduction of the universal two-child policy, bringing about a dramatic increase in student numbers from the generation known as the “demographic dividend” (National Bureau of Statistics of China, 2017). However, this ‘demographic dividend’ has not conferred advantages on the generation itself but rather caused a sharp increase in peer pressure and competitive stress. In the subsequent decade, this population trend significantly elevated the number of students in China’s basic and higher education, intensifying competition for university admission and employment. Against this backdrop, gaokao scores and undergraduate qualifications became critical thresholds measuring opportunities for individual social mobility, and the Hengshui Model—capable of achieving score improvements through extreme management methods in a short period—emerged in response.

Despite its effectiveness in raising test scores, the Hengshui Model embodies another crucial aspect of involution: the absence of increased output relative to input. While students invest substantially more time and energy in academic preparation, this intensification rarely brings proportional gains in innovative thinking, practical problem-solving abilities, or diverse talent development—qualities essential for broader social progress. Instead, the system primarily optimizes for narrow examination metrics, creating what might be termed ‘educational involution’: an increasingly complex and demanding learning environment that produces diminishing returns in terms of genuine educational outcomes and societal advancement.

The Hengshui model’s harm to education

In addition to the extremely low incremental output resulting from high investment mentioned above, another serious harm of the Hengshui model is the negative impact on the physical and mental health development of adolescents. In 2021, China’s Ministry of Education clearly pointed out in the “Double Reduction” policy that in compulsory education, “excessive academic burden and emphasis on exam-oriented education seriously affect students’ physical and mental health development and overall development (Zhao, 2022). This statement reflects the national-level concern about the negative consequences brought by high-pressure learning environments like the Hengshui model.

These concerns are not unfounded. In 2014 and 2015, two consecutive incidents of student suicide by jumping occurred at one of the high schools in Hengshui. Both students were in their senior year of high school and died despite rescue effort (Sina Education, 2015). The two tragedies happened less than six months apart, triggering widespread public questioning about whether the “Hengshui-style education” was overwhelming students’ psychological resilience. Afterward, the school installed iron railings in the corridors of teaching buildings to prevent further jumping incidents, a measure that also sparked heated discussion online. Many believed this further deepened the impression of a “prison-like school.” These real cases profoundly reveal the potential cost when an education system places “scores” above the physical and mental well-being of individual students.

This highly institutionalized design reflects a deeper mechanism of psychological control: the systematic suppression of the need for “recognition.” Under the educational framework of the Hengshui model, students are cut off from pathways to gain validation through interpersonal relationships, individual expression, or even self-reflection. The school strictly restricts normal emotional interactions such as friendships and romantic relationships, while uniform dress codes and  behavioural requirements further compress the space for individuals to demonstrate differences and independence. In this environment, learning performance becomes almost the only value source that students are allowed to pursue—they can only obtain affirmation from teachers, parents, and the system itself through high scores. Over time, scores are no longer just tools for advancement to higher education but become the sole pillar supporting students’ self-esteem and emotional legitimacy. Once this single pillar is shaken or collapses, extreme  behaviours such as suicide may become an emotional outlet, reflecting the deep erosion of adolescents’ psychological resilience in an extreme exam-oriented environment.

Prospects for change

Despite the heavy criticism of the Hengshui model’s exam-oriented approach and highly disciplined management, its existence is not accidental but rather a product of structural factors in contemporary Chinese society. Against a backdrop of increasingly fierce competition for academic credentials, highly unequal distribution of educational resources, and gradually solidifying social stratification, “high producing” systems like Hengshui Middle School provide many families with a limited yet realistic channel for upward mobility (Wang Ji & Wang Yue, 2021). Therefore, simply restricting or criticizing this type of school model may not fundamentally resolve the distortion in the educational ecosystem.

Truly effective transformation requires institutional-level changes. This includes building a more equitable educational resource distribution system, promoting diversification of educational evaluation standards, establishing ability-oriented rather than credential-oriented employment mechanisms in society, and providing diversified development paths for different types of students. Only in this way can the educational alienation embodied by the Hengshui model possibly be redirected back to “nurturing people” itself, opening new possibilities for the future of basic education in China.

 

Reference：

Geertz, C. (1963). Agricultural involution: The processes of ecological change in Indonesia. University of California Press.

National Bureau of Statistics of China. (2017). China Statistical Yearbook 2017. China Statistics Press. Retrieved from China Statistical Yearbook-2017

Song, S. (2012, June 9). Hengshui High School: “Prison-style education” and “Gaokao factory.” Beijing News. Retrieved from https://www.bjnews.com.cn/news/2012/06/09/203697.html

Sina Education. (2015, April 4). Alarm bells: Two student suicides at Hengshui No. 2 High School within six months. Retrieved from https://top.sina.cn/edu/2015-04-04/tnews-iawzuney2430511.d.html

Wang, J., & Wang, Y. (2021). Reflections on the Hengshui High School education model. Chinese Journal of Education, (5), 36–40.

Wikipedia contributors. (n.d.). Hengshui model. In *Wikipedia*. Retrieved April 20, 2025, fromhttps://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E8%A1%A1%E6%B0%B4%E6%A8%A1%E5%BC%8F

Xu, T. (2021, September 6). The Capitalization Path of the Hengshui Model. China Newsweek, Issue No. 1011. 20多所分校，谁在从衡水中学的资本版图获利？ -中新网

Zhao, B. (2022, January 12). Data interpretation: Achievements in the implementation of the “Double Reduction” policy in 2021. Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China. Retrieved from http://www.moe.gov.cn/jyb_xwfb/moe_2082/2021/2021_zl53/tsj/202201/t20220112_593913.html