Investing in children's education: A nationwide look at how Chinese families spend on learning

How much does it cost to educate a child in China—and how does that cost vary from one family to another? Government spending accounts for a large share of educational investment, but families also pay for school services, learning materials, private tutoring, and other educational activities. A nationwide study published in ECNU Review of Education (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/20965311241243389) on May 5, 2024, examines how much Chinese households spend on their children's education and how these costs differ across regions and income groups.

Conducted by Yi Wei of Peking University, the study draws on data from the 2019 China Institute for Educational Finance Research-Household Survey (CIEFR-HS). It examines household education expenditure and its financial burden, alongside differences in access to supplementary tutoring, private schools, and other educational opportunities. It also considers how public investment has shaped the distribution of educational resources.

The findings show that during the 2018–2019 academic year, households spent an average of RMB 11,297 on regular full-time education, equivalent to RMB 8,139 per child. The per-child amount represented 10.8% of total household expenditure. Looking across the educational journey from three-year preschool through undergraduate study, the study estimates that families spent approximately RMB 233,000 per child on average. But the total varied sharply by household spending level: families in the bottom 20% spent around RMB 180,000, while those in the top 20% spent approximately RMB 424,000.

The financial burden also differed by educational stage. Compulsory education placed the smallest burden on household budgets, while higher education accounted for the largest share, representing more than 30% of household expenditure per student. For rural families with a child in higher education, that figure rose to 35.9%.

The divide between rural and urban families was particularly evident in spending beyond the classroom. The largest rural–urban gap in education expenditure appeared at the elementary-school level, followed by preschool and junior high school. The study points to unequal access to out-of-school learning opportunities as an important factor, noting that urban middle- and high-income households devoted substantial portions of their education budgets to activities outside school. Subject-oriented tutoring offers a clear illustration. In the survey, 31.4% of urban primary and secondary school students participated in subject-oriented tutoring, compared with just 14.1% of rural students. In first-tier cities, the participation rate reached 46.2%, and participating households spent an average of RMB 20,881 a year.

The gap extended to interest-based tutoring, such as classes focused on particular skills or hobbies. Nationwide, 15.5% of elementary and high school students took part in these activities. The rate was 22.2% in urban areas but only 5.5% in rural areas, rising to 34.9% in first-tier cities. Families of participating students spent approximately RMB 5,340 annually.

The findings also point to the role of public funding in reducing some education inequalities. When government budgetary spending was included in estimates of total investment per student in public compulsory schools, funding disparities between children from different household income groups narrowed substantially. Between 2017 and 2019, increases in school funding in rural areas were also greater for children from lower-income households than for those from the highest-income group.

The author concludes that sustained public investment in compulsory education and rural schools has significantly reduced disparities in school funding across regions, between rural and urban areas, and among household income groups. Public funding, in other words, has helped make resources within compulsory schooling more evenly distributed, even as inequalities in families' ability to pay for additional educational opportunities persist.

Comparisons between the 2017 and 2019 surveys reveal both progress and continuing challenges. Household spending and the financial burden of compulsory education declined over this period, as did participation in out-of-school tutoring. Yet disparities in access to supplementary educational resources widened between rural and urban households and across income groups. Students from families with greater economic and sociocultural resources remained more likely to receive additional tutoring and higher levels of household investment.

Taken together, the findings highlight two sides of educational investment in China. Public funding has helped narrow school-funding gaps in compulsory education, but differences in household resources continue to shape children's access to learning opportunities beyond the classroom. The study provides evidence for policies aimed not only at ensuring more equitable school funding, but also at addressing persistent inequalities in access to supplementary education.