Is Successful Implementation Possible? Unraveling the Implementation of English Language Education Policy in China

Language Education Policy

Language education policy constitutes a critical branch of the language policy and planning field, characterized by its distinctly interdisciplinary nature that integrates perspectives from applied linguistics, anthropology, sociology, economics, and political science (Johnson, 2013; Ricento, 2006). At its core, language education policy represents a dynamic, multi-layered process (Spolsky, 2017; Wiley & García, 2016), whose formulation and implementation are shaped by diverse stakeholders operating across various levels and contexts. As the primary policymaker, the government typically specifies in official language education policies the linguistic competencies required for younger generations to ensure their full societal participation (Cooper, 1989; Kaplan & Baldauf, 1997). Simultaneously, language education policy exhibits a dual nature: it serves both as an authoritative framework regulating linguistic practices in education and as a reflection of the ongoing negotiation between state-mandated policies and grassroots implementation (Shohamy, 2006). Due to the heightened globalization, English has been assumed as the second or official language in a multitude of countries, leading to a widespread equation of foreign language education policy with the teaching and learning of English (Liddicoat, 2022).

Research Developments in Western Language Education Policies

The exploration of language education policies has a long history, with scholars from countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada leading the way to conduct relevant studies since the 1960s (Shan & Yin, 2022). Over the decades, research has expanded to address diverse aspects of language education policy, including policy design, implementation challenges, and socio-political implications (Teigland & Gazzola, 2025; Vanbuel, 2022).

As for the policy design, researchers have explored analytical frameworks that incorporate distinct socio-political and educational contexts (Cardiff et al., 2024; Harklau et al., 2022; Teigland & Gazzola, 2025). Harklau et al. (2022) employed an interpretive policy analysis framework to examine U.S. English language education policies for English learners and instructors across macro-, meso-, and micro-level contexts. Through document analysis, Teigland and Gazzola (2025) evaluated the design of official language policies in Norwegian higher education. Cardiff et al. (2024) utilized a case study methodology to explicate sustainable development in English language education within tertiary institutions. Existing studies have also investigated the implementation processes and challenges of language education policies at various levels (Mahoney et al., 2022; Simoes Loureiro & Hadjar, 2025; Vanbuel, 2022). A Q-methodology study revealed that all stakeholders involved in policy implementation (both within and outside educational institutions) compete to reinterpret and adapt official policies according to their understandings (Vanbuel, 2022). A mixed-methods study by Simoes Loureiro and Hadjar (2025) identified facilitating and constraining factors in implementing multilingual policies in Luxembourg’s early childhood education. Additionally, a cross-sectional study assessed the efficacy of Arizona’s English Learner program twelve years post-implementation of Proposition 203, determining its compliance with the “third prong” criterion of Castaneda v. Pickard (1981), which mandates empirical validation of program effectiveness (Mahoney et al., 2022).

Teachers, as central actors in language education policy, have been examined by a limited number of researchers regarding their pivotal role in policy implementation. Johnson et al. (2024) analyzed how Spanish teachers in U.S. high schools interpret and appropriate Iowa’s language education policies, alongside their perspectives on traditional language instruction. Their findings suggest that language teachers are not mere cogs in the machinery—instead, they serve as crucial policy arbiters who shape educational opportunities for students. Through the case study, Her (2024) demonstrated that teachers’ varying ideological stances lead to divergent interpretations and implementations of language policies, thereby creating distinct power dynamics for their students. However, Chang-Bacon (2022) questions teachers’ capacity as policy interpreters, noting that while some prioritize policy compliance, others engage in complex discursive practices to circumvent policy discussions. Further studies have identified multiple challenges teachers face in policy implementation. Firstly, their linguistic proficiency and pedagogical skills may prove inadequate to meet policy demands, particularly among rural educators (Izquierdo et al., 2021). Secondly, insufficient resources and institutional support, including teaching materials, professional development opportunities, and time constraints, often hinder effective classroom implementation (Bier & Lasagabaster, 2025). Finally, teachers must frequently negotiate between policy requirements and students’ cultural backgrounds, especially in multilingual classrooms where strategies like translanguaging become essential for supporting learning (Lima Becker et al., 2022).

In summary, the Western research on language education policies has yielded substantial findings regarding policy formulation, implementation, and evaluation. These studies have not only examined the alignment between policy design and local contextual needs but have also provided in-depth analyses of implementation challenges and teachers’ central role in policy implementation. However, given China’s distinct sociocultural, economic, and educational contexts (B. Liu et al., 2014), coupled with the limited comprehensive research examining language policy implementation across the national, local, school, and teacher levels, investigating the design, implementation, and outcomes of recent English language education policy in China holds significant theoretical and practical implications.

Research Progress on English Language Education Policies in China

China’s English language education policies have undergone successive refinements since the Reform and Opening-up era to align with global trends and enhance national competitiveness (T. Zhang, 2021a). The policy evolution comprises four distinct phases: the exploratory phase (1949-1977), developmental phase (1978–1998), accelerated phase (1999–2011), and contemporary phase (2012–present) (Wen, 2019).

The contemporary phase is characterized by proactive integration with national strategic objectives and systematic standardization of English education frameworks (T. Zhang, 2021a). The promulgation of the new curriculum standards inaugurated a core competencies era, shifting the policy focus from discrete knowledge transmission to cultivating students’ integrated language proficiency, cultural awareness, thinking qualities, and autonomous learning abilities (Ministry of Education, 2022a). This paradigm shift reflects a synthesis of instrumental and humanistic educational philosophies, while simultaneously elevating pedagogical emphasis on listening and speaking competencies to meet growing demands for intercultural communication in globalized contexts.

Current research on English language education policies in China primarily focuses on comparative analyses of domestic and Western policies (Chang, 2025; T. Zhang, 2021b). T. Zhang (2021b) conducted case studies of foreign language education policies in countries such as the United States and Germany, elucidating their distinctive features and disparities, while offering policy recommendations based on China’s current English education framework. Chang (2025) systematically examined fundamental concepts and terminology related to foreign language curriculum and pedagogy, addressing theoretical inheritance and development issues in international foreign language education theories. Then, several studies have undertaken interpretive and evaluative analyses of China’s English language education policies (L. Li, 2022; M. Li, 2025; Q. Li & Yang, 2024). M. Li (2025) employed textual analysis to investigate the alignment of talent cultivation objectives across different educational stages in English curriculum standards and teaching guidelines, providing insights for policy revision and pedagogical practice. Q. Li and Yang (2024) analyzed the design logic of English curriculum content in basic education, exploring its structural characteristics, organizational principles, and developmental trajectories. L. Li (2022) examined the objectives, content, and methodologies of teaching, learning, and assessment as outlined in the new curriculum standards from a tripartite perspective. Furthermore, scholars have investigated the challenges and dilemmas in implementing China’s English language education policies, proposing corresponding recommendations (H. Zhang & Shi, 2023; T. Zhang, 2021a; W. Zhang & Zou, 2023). Within the framework of foreign language education studies, T. Zhang (2021a) identified key issues in policy implementation, including governance structures and strategic planning. W. Zhang and Zou (2023) further analyzed critical implementation challenges, such as insufficient and unevenly distributed English education resources, and weak policy enforcement, suggesting targeted countermeasures. H. Zhang and Shi (2023) utilized the corpus-based research method and Cooper’s (1989) analytical framework to trace the evolution of China’s official English education policies from 2000 to 2021, offering new recommendations for policy development. Scholars generally concur that while China’s English language education policies are well-directed, their implementation still faces significant challenges and shortcomings.

In conclusion, current research on China’s English language education policies primarily focuses on the comparative analyses of domestic and international policies, policy interpretation and implementation evaluation, as well as challenges and countermeasures. However, few studies have conducted empirical investigations to explore the concrete effects, problems, and underlying causes of English language education policy implementation at the county level. Moreover, in terms of the target groups examined in the existing research, most studies concentrate on preschool children (X. Li & J. Li, 2024), high school students (L. Li & Wang, 2023), and university students (Sang, 2023). Yet, middle school students, as a crucial cohort in China’s compulsory education system, remain under-researched regarding the implementation and effectiveness of English language education policies. Therefore, it is imperative to investigate the implementation status and practical effectiveness of the new curriculum standards at the secondary school level in the new era.

Theoretical Framework

The onion model theory of language policy, proposed by Ricento and Hornberger (1996), is utilized to explicate the implementation process of language policy. The model, through its concentric circles, illustrates the multiple layers involved in the implementation of language policy, ranging from the macro to the micro levels, as depicted in Figure 1. Taking English language education as an example, Ricento and Hornberger (1996) divided the implementation levels of language policy into international organizations, countries or governments, administrative agencies, schools and teachers. Each level is not closely connected, but has a certain adjustable gap, namely language policy implementational space (Hornberger & Johnson, 2007). In other words, policy participants at each level do not strictly abide by the implementation of the policy, instead, they have a certain degree of initiative. Additionally, it is worth noting that the policy will be interpreted and modified differently when it penetrates from one level to the next level (Ricento & Hornberger, 1996).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

The Onion Model Theory of Language Policy by Ricento and Hornberger (1996).

Several studies have developed and applied the onion model theory of language policy to various contexts to analyze the complexities of language policy implementation (Johnson, 2011; Pulinx et al., 2017; Van Oss et al., 2023). Hornberger and Johnson (2007) integrated this framework with an ethnographic approach to advocate a more multi-layered perspective on language policy and planning research. Johnson (2011) explored how to combine the onion model theory with critical discourse analysis (CDA) for better revealing connections among multiple levels of policy implementation activities. Pulinx et al. (2017) also focused on the connections among three layers of the onion model theory of language policy, and examined the interactions between Belgium’s strict monolingual education policy (macro level), school characteristics (meso level), and teachers’ beliefs about monolingualism (micro level). Furthermore, Van Oss et al. (2023) adopted the structure of the onion model theory to investigate the factors that shape how childhood professionals provide multilingual parenting advice to families.

The aforementioned studies demonstrate that the onion model theory provides a comprehensive framework for analyzing language education policy implementation. Nonetheless, empirical research employing the framework remains relatively limited internationally and is almost absent in the Chinese context. Additionally, most existing studies predominantly rely on singular qualitative methods, with insufficient integration of diverse approaches such as field investigations, CDA, and interviews to holistically examine the multi-layered processes of English language education policy implementation. Therefore, this study seeks to apply Ricento and Hornberger’s (1996) onion model theory of language policy with multiple qualitative methods to investigate the implementation of the new curriculum standards in county-level regions in China.

Research Context and Site

This study was conducted in Dancheng County, Henan Province, China. It is located in the eastern Henan plain with relatively underdeveloped economic conditions and uneven distribution of educational resources (Dancheng County People’s Government, 2022). Dancheng County faces multiple challenges in improving English teaching quality, optimizing classroom instruction structures, and promoting balanced student development. There are 550 compulsory education schools in Dancheng County with a total enrollment of 193,000 students, including 45 middle schools, 494 primary schools, 10 nine-year consistent schools, and one special education school, with 66,000 middle school students and 127,000 primary school students (Dancheng County Local History Office, 2020). As a representative county-level administrative unit in central China, Dancheng County can effectively reflect the implementation status of the new curriculum standards in county-level areas across the country.

The study employed purposive sampling (Campbel et al., 2020) to select five representative schools from the 45 middle schools in Dancheng County as research samples, including three public schools (School A, B, C) and two private schools (School D, E). The sample selection was primarily based on three criteria: firstly, to ensure coverage of different school types (public and private) reflecting the typical structure of county-level secondary education; secondly, all selected schools maintain complete grade levels (7th to 9th grades) to guarantee research data applicability; thirdly, all participating schools’ administrations demonstrated openness to the research and willingness to provide necessary support. Among these, School A, the largest public school in the sample with 53 English teachers (accounting for 30% of the total English faculty across all five schools), serves as an ideal observation window for local English education quality due to its long-established history (founded in 1958) and comprehensive teaching facilities. The school operates 47 teaching classes (17 seventh-grade, 15 eighth-grade, and 15 ninth-grade classes), each staffed with dedicated English teachers. This scale and organizational structure enable its teaching practices to substantially reflect the overall level and features of English education in Dancheng County’s middle schools (Figure 2).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

Campus Layout of School A.

Data Collection

This study adopted a field investigation with a triangulation design to ensure the reliability and validity of the research (Xu & Li, 2020). The investigation was conducted during the critical period from April to August 2023, when Henan Province was fully rolling out the new curriculum standards, providing a unique window to observe the policy implementation process. The researcher constructed a multi-dimensional data collection system by first serving as a teaching intern at School A to participate in daily teaching activities, obtaining first-hand information about the implementation of the new curriculum standards through school meetings and classroom observations. Simultaneously, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 English teachers (4 from each school A-E). This method maintained the core questions while allowing sufficient expression for respondents (Shen, 2012). Each interview lasted at least 30 minutes, focusing on teachers’ understanding of the new curriculum standards’ core content and implementation challenges. Additionally, the study collected multi-source materials related to the new curriculum standards, including the national policy text, local implementation plan, and school document. Through continuous analysis of data from different sources, the study achieved methodological triangulation (participant observation, interviews, and textual analysis) and data triangulation (policy texts, meeting records, and interview data), which not only provided an in-depth understanding of case characteristics but also revealed commonalities in the implementation process of the new curriculum standards.

Data Analysis

This study employed systematic qualitative data analysis methods, utilizing multiple analytical techniques to ensure the credibility and consistency of the findings (Patton, 1999). The interview recordings from 20 English teachers were professionally transcribed, resulting in approximately 40,000 words of textual data. Thematic analysis was conducted using Nvivo 14.0 software, following Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six-phase analytical framework: (a) familiarizing with data; (b) generating initial codes; (c) searching for themes; (d) reviewing themes; (e) defining and naming themes; and (f) producing the report. This approach effectively identifies core themes and underlying patterns in qualitative data, particularly suited for understanding the complex implementation process of the new curriculum standards. To ensure analytical rigor, the study adopted member checking (Lincoln & Guba, 1985), inviting three experts with qualitative research experience to independently review and provide feedback on 20% of the interview transcripts and preliminary thematic analysis. The inter-coder reliability reached 0.82, indicating high reliability of the analytical results.

Building upon thematic analysis, this study further utilized critical discourse analysis (CDA; Fairclough, 1993, 1995) to conduct multi-level discourse deconstruction of the national policy text, local implementation plan, and school document. The analysis focused on four key aspects: (a) lexical selection and classification systems; (b) transitivity analysis; (c) modality expressions; and (d) intertextuality features. CDA of language policy can be particularly useful for “finding connections between language policy texts and the discourses within and surrounding the texts” (Johnson, 2009, p.151). Furthermore, through Fairclough’s (1992a) three-dimensional analytical framework (text—discursive practice—social practice), the study systematically examined the discursive representations and power operation mechanisms of the new curriculum standards at different implementation levels.

Discourse Power Construction at the National Level

The new curriculum standards document is an English language education policy primarily targeting compulsory education schools, teachers, and local education administrative departments. Through a binary complementary terminology system, the new curriculum standards policy establishes the fundamental orientation of English curriculum: “English serves as both an important tool for international communication and a crucial vehicle for humanistic education” (Ministry of Education, 2022a, p. 1). This dual positioning reflects both the instrumental value of English and its educational function. The policy further proposes the English core competencies comprising four dimensions: “language ability, cultural awareness, thinking quality, and learning ability” (p. 2). Through specialized terms like essential character and key competencies, it constructs a scientific educational system. Authoritative positioning is achieved through modal verbs like “shall” and definitive expressions like “centrally embody,” establishing the policy’s authoritative status (Fairclough, 2001), as exemplified by: “Core competencies centrally embody the educational value of the curriculum … students shall achieve the following objectives through this curriculum” (pp. 4–5).

The policy text frequently employs subjectless constructions to obscure policy-makers’ agency (Fairclough, 2001), as seen in phrases like “following foreign language learning principles, drawing on international experience, and basing on China’s realities” (p. 2). Transitivity analysis reveals hierarchical power relations: teachers are positioned with verbs like “guide,” while students with “develop”; policy subjects wield strong transitive verbs like “establish” and “deepen.” A stratified modality system governs teacher roles: high-obligation modals like “must implement moral education as English teaching’s fundamental task” (p. 47) and “shall adhere to the principle of unifying form, meaning and use” (p. 36) coexist with consultative expressions like “recommend” and “encourage.” This dual regulatory mechanism delineates teachers’ core responsibilities while preserving pedagogical autonomy.

The policy document constructs a sophisticated power network through discursive design. Textually, the “core competencies-academic achievement-instructional assessment” terminology chain forms closed logic, decomposing abstract concepts like “cultural awareness” into measurable indicators: “Cultural awareness refers to understanding Chinese/foreign cultures and appreciating excellent cultures, manifesting as students’ cross-cultural cognition, attitudes and behavioral choices in the new era” (p. 5). This operationalization ensures policy clarity and evaluability (Fang & Zhang, 2021). At the discursive practice level, teacher training is constructed as a policy transmission instrument, requiring training programs to cultivate teachers’ “acute analytical skills for identifying key issues” (p. 76), while textbook compilation must “align with the new curriculum standards” (p. 71). This dual emphasis on enhancing English teachers’ professional competence while maintaining the policy consistency reflects the specialization and standardization characteristics of modern educational governance.

Discursive Practices of Policy Transmission at the Local Level

The policy notice issued by Henan Provincial Department of Education, titled Implementation Measures for Compulsory Education Curriculum in Henan Province (Trial), demonstrates distinct policy-oriented and lexical features. The document frequently employs policy terms such as “curriculum reform” and “competency orientation” to construct the framework for policy implementation. Simultaneously, it utilizes numerous action-oriented verbs including “implement,” “promote,” “strengthen,” and “execute” to emphasize the necessity of policy enforcement. Additionally, evaluative terms like “scientificity,” “systematicity,” and “comprehensiveness” appear throughout the text to enhance the legitimacy and rationality of the policy. Such lexical choices not only reflect the formality of the policy document but also establish the policy authority through technical discourse construction (Fairclough, 2004).

In terms of transitivity, the Henan provincial policy text predominantly employs material processes, highlighting the action-oriented nature of policy implementation. For instance, expressions like “promote effective curriculum implementation” and “optimize examination schemes” demonstrate proactive policy actions, while “improve teacher training mechanisms” underscores policy requirements for teaching professionals, and “deepen teaching reform” emphasizes ultimate policy objectives. The relative scarcity of mental processes in the text suggests a greater focus on “what to do” rather than “how to think,” revealing the directive characteristics of policy discourse. In addition, the Henan provincial policy text exhibits strong intertextuality, primarily manifested through its connection with the national policy discourse. Numerous expressions maintain consistency with the new curriculum standards, particularly through the recurrence of terminology chains like “core competencies” and “academic achievement”. This intertextual feature not only reinforces the legitimacy of local policy texts but also constrains autonomous local interpretation, thereby strengthening the central-local policy transmission relationship (Fairclough, 1992b).

It is noteworthy that Zhoukou City and Dancheng County Education Bureau adopted a strategy of directly forwarding the new curriculum standards, without formulating local English education policies. Taking Dancheng County as an example, the local education authorities achieved “verbatim reproduction” of policy transmission by republishing expert interpretations from Guangming Online and emphasizing policy significance through government social media platforms. This implementation mode positions local education departments as mere transmission nodes, narrowing their function to “accurate transmission” rather than “local adaptation.” In practice, local agency is limited to technical operations like organizing training sessions and convening meetings, while substantive areas such as curriculum localization and evaluation system innovation remain conspicuously absent. Consequently, the implementation chain from the national to local levels demonstrates characteristics of “rigid transmission-passive reception.” The design and implementation space for English language education policy has been compressed into pure executive processes, contrasting with Ricento and Hornberger’s (1996) onion model theory of language policy, which advocates for policy initiative at different administrative levels. In China, the implementation of the new curriculum standards primarily involves overlapping administrative layers that mechanically transmit the superior policy document without substantive adaptation.

Policy Implementation Disjuncture at the School Level

At School A’s mid-term summary meeting, the implementation logic of the new curriculum standards revealed complex, multi-dimensional fractures. The instructional director’s (L) speech demonstrated both the persistence of traditional teaching practices and limited attempts at innovation:

We always emphasize our school’s ‘Three-Link Six-Step’ teaching method…educational philosophy must highlight student-centeredness with teacher guidance, emphasizing student learning…If English teaching isn’t effective, we should focus on improving students’ grammar and vocabulary, ensuring daily vocabulary memorization…The evaluation method will function like a monthly exam, with classes ranked by performance and the top 60% participating in assessment.

While labeled as “student-centered,” the “Three-Link Six-Step” teaching method actually reconstructs the classroom as a teacher-dominated knowledge transmission space through standardized procedures. The director’s speech exposes conceptual drift in local practice, the “English core competencies” goal being reduced to “grammar and vocabulary drills,” and “formative assessment” distorted into quantified “monthly exam rankings.”

From a discourse-power perspective, the meeting followed a strict hierarchical sequence (instructional director → vice principal → principal), with ordinary teachers remaining silent, creating structural voicelessness. In this context, the identities and statuses of these participants determine their language order (Fairclough, 2001). Notably, the director’s proposed “teaching journal” and “cross-disciplinary exchange” attempted to create professional dialogue within teachers, but their effectiveness was constrained by the “thousand-point evaluation” performance (The teacher evaluation criteria at School A). Teacher development was simplified into accumulating symbolic capital like “ethics speech competitions” and “master teacher certifications,” reflecting how administrative logic erodes professional autonomy in the principal’s (M) speech:

Our subject research will be a joint exam with sister schools…All teachers should motivate their classes…The upcoming ‘Ethics Speech Competition’ and ‘Master Teacher Studio’ applications require active participation … Municipal honors earn evaluation bonus points.

This implementation mode reveals structural contradictions: textually, “student-centeredness” becomes surveillance techniques like “monitoring classroom engagement”; discursively, teaching innovation reduces to superficial tasks like “compiling teaching journals”; socially, county-wide exams prioritize language knowledge over cultural awareness and thinking quality assessment. Ultimately, school-level practice at the policy implementation chain’s end reflects deeper paradoxes in educational governance. When the new curriculum standards’ ideals encounter local realities, reform energy gets absorbed into the existing exam-oriented system, diverging from the original policy intentions (W. Zhang & Zou, 2023).

Policy Implementation Tensions at the Teacher Level

Through multiple rounds of observation and reflection, along with in-depth analysis of interviews with 20 English teachers, three major thematic categories were ultimately identified as shown in Table 1, with rigorous frequency statistics conducted for each open coding item.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Themes Coding.

Selective coding	Axis coding	Open coding
Emphasis on Policy	Policy Understanding	Understanding (14%); Not understanding (62%); Can’t Read (24%)
	Approaches to Learn	Proactive Learning (24%); Learning Required by Superiors (76%)
	Core Concepts Cognition	Profound (16%); Superficial (62%); Deviations (22%)
Policy Implementation in Teaching	Students’ Classroom Engagement	Positive (25%); Negative (50%); Average (25%)
	Classroom Teaching Effectiveness	High (15%); Moderate (40%); Low (45%)
	Pedagogical Change	Active and Positive (24%); Passive and Negative (76%)
	Core Competencies Cultivation	Comprehensive Coverage (7%); Partial Coverage (63%); Single Focus (30%)
Factors Influencing Policy Implementation	Policy Itself	Theoretical Focus (35%); Lack of Practical Teaching Examples (40%); Difficulty in Comprehension (25%)
	Education Bureau and Schools	High Pressure Imposed (42%); Limited Learning Opportunities to Offer (58%)
	Teachers	Professional Disqualifications (68%); Aging and Gender Imbalance (32%)
	Students	Mostly Rural (47%); Uneven English Level (53%)

The degree to which English teachers in Dancheng County value the new curriculum standards mainly depends on their understanding of it, their channels for learning about it, and their cognition of concepts related to English core competencies. Post-class interviews revealed that although most teachers show relatively high attention to the new curriculum standards, there are significant differences in their actual level of comprehension. A small number of English teachers can accurately grasp the essence of the policy, while most English teachers do not fully understand the intentions and objectives of the national English language education policy (W. Zhang & Zou, 2023). As Teacher A1 mentioned in the interview:

To be honest, I don’t completely understand the concept of English core competencies. Although I know the new policy proposes four dimensions, in daily teaching, I mainly focus on those operational language skills training … such as vocabulary memorization, grammar explanation, and reading comprehension—these tangible teaching contents.

Teacher A1’s understanding of the English core competencies in the new curriculum standards remains at the level of traditional knowledge input. In terms of learning channels, teachers’ study of the new curriculum standards shows clear administrative-driven characteristics. Only a few English teachers proactively read the policy document, while most English teachers’ learning behaviors stem from requirements by the county education bureau and schools. This passive learning mode directly affects the depth of policy understanding, particularly evident in county-level schools. Regarding the cognition of core competencies, the study found three prominent issues: firstly, the narrowing of concepts, such as Teacher B3 simplifying core competencies to “self-directed learning + patriotic education”; secondly, the omission of dimensions, where most English teachers neglect the important dimension of thinking quality cultivation; and thirdly, practical deviations, where although teachers like Teacher A1 recognize the interconnectedness of the four dimensions, they still emphasize language skills training in actual teaching. This disconnection between cognition and practice reflects the challenges of aligning policy ideals with teaching realities in the current English curriculum reform process (Hu & Zhao, 2024). Overall, although middle school English teachers in Dancheng County generally value the new curriculum standards, their understanding of English core competencies remains incomplete, and there are still some deviations from the requirements of the policy.

The implementation of the new curriculum standards in English teaching is primarily evaluated through four aspects: student classroom engagement, teaching effectiveness, pedagogical changes, and cultivation of English core competencies. Student classroom engagement significantly impacts learning outcomes and teaching quality, encompassing active involvement, critical thinking, and learning attitudes (Ye, 2002). Post-class interviews revealed a distinct passive tendency in student classroom engagement. Teacher B2 expressed frustration:

Don’t even ask … Every time I pose an open-ended question like ‘What do you think about the protagonist’s choice in this text?’- you know what happens? All the students immediately lower their heads. Some pretend to flip through their books, others stare blankly at their erasers-no one wants to speak. I think … they’ve become conditioned to expect standard answers.

This phenomenon is particularly pronounced among graduating classes, reflecting the profound influence of exam-oriented culture on students’ thinking patterns (C. Liu & Ma, 2025). Consequently, classroom teaching effectiveness is somewhat constrained. Furthermore, teaching method reforms exhibit superficial characteristics. While a minority of teachers actively promote pedagogical transformation, over half remain in passive compliance mode. Most teachers adopt “embedded” adjustment strategies, such as partially incorporating core competency elements into traditional teaching. Although this approach maintains teaching stability, it falls short of genuine pedagogical transformation. The deeper issue lies in most English teachers, pressured by exam requirements, reducing teaching method changes to technical adjustments rather than fundamental shifts in teaching philosophy, resulting in superficial core competencies cultivation. Teacher A2’s daily teaching arrangements clearly reflect this tendency:

I’ll incorporate some cultural background, such as holiday customs, during the text explanation, but the timing has to be very precise so it doesn’t affect the overall teaching progress … Sometimes, I try new approaches, but I hesitate … I’ve actually conducted some English activities like group discussions and role-plays. Students showed initial interest, but soon reverted to test practice mode. Everyone’s ultimately more concerned about scoring full marks than understanding cultural meanings.

It reveals a fundamental conflict between the long-term nature of English core competencies cultivation and the immediate demands of exam evaluation. While developing core competencies requires time and deep integration, exam evaluation emphasizes short-term academic performance, focusing on outcomes rather than process. Thus, the implementation effectiveness of the new curriculum standards remains suboptimal. Limited student engagement, unremarkable improvement in teaching effectiveness, and constrained teaching method adjustments collectively challenge core competencies cultivation while somewhat undermining teachers’ confidence in the English curriculum reform, as they struggle to balance the new curriculum standards requirements with exam expectations.

This study has identified multi-dimensional challenges in implementing the new curriculum standards, reflecting both universal issues in the educational reform and unique difficulties in the county-level education. Firstly, most English teachers reported that the content of the new curriculum standards is overly abstract, and lacks concrete implementation pathways. Teacher C1 expressed helplessness:

The concept of English core competencies sounds wonderful, at least in theory. We’re told to cultivate students’ language proficiency, thinking quality, learning ability, and cultural awareness—but how exactly are we supposed to do that in our daily teaching? The new policy doesn’t provide us with specific examples or teaching strategies. It feels like we’re being asked to build a house without blueprints.

This sentiment was echoed by several other teachers, who emphasized that while the goals of the new curriculum standards are ambitious and progressive, the lack of practical guidance leaves them uncertain about how to align their classroom practices with the policy directives. The management approaches of the county education bureau and schools impose a dual burden on frontline teachers. Interviews revealed that the imbalance between administrative supervision and professional support significantly dampens teachers’ enthusiasm for reform. Specifically, frequent formalistic inspections consume substantial teaching energy. Teachers reported handling 4–6 special inspections per semester, with preparatory work occupying nearly 30% of their workload. Teacher D1 lamented:

Pulling all-nighters to prepare inspection materials has become routine, leaving little time for actual lesson preparation … I feel like I’m teaching for the inspectors, not for the students. We spend hours beautifying lesson plans, printing neatly formatted teaching reflections, and organizing folders just to meet some checklist requirements. It’s exhausting and, honestly, demoralizing.

Meanwhile, professional support remains inadequate. Although 2–3 centralized training sessions are organized each semester, 58% of teachers consider the content disconnected from actual teaching contexts. The teaching resources provided by higher-level authorities are often outdated or misaligned with the new curriculum standards’ pedagogical focus, placing additional pressure on English teachers to implement the new curriculum standards effectively. Additionally, female teachers (85% of respondents) face particularly acute role conflicts. Teacher D2 (female, 38) described a typical routine:

To meet both the rigid curriculum schedule, I have to sacrifice all personal time. My day begins at 6:30 a.m. when I prepare breakfast for my children before rushing to school. Leave home at 7 a.m. when my children are still asleep, and return after 10 p.m. from lesson preparation to find them asleep again. I have to prepare all the teaching materials myself, as the ones provided by the school are long-outdated.

As Teacher D2 described, female teachers must simultaneously confront traditional societal expectations of motherhood and domestic roles while grappling with the dual pressures of classroom teaching and implementing the new curriculum standards. The aging composition and limited renewal of English teaching teams in county-level schools present another implementation barrier. English teaching staff in the county-level middle schools, are predominantly aged between 40 and 50, with a relatively small proportion of young teachers. A multitude of teachers feel their professional competence falls short of the new curriculum standards’ demands. Teacher D1 (aged 25) and Teacher B3 (aged 51) shared contrasting yet mutually reflective perspectives:

As a new teacher, I feel isolated. On one hand, I know I don’t have enough experience to confidently lead changes in teaching practice. On the other hand, while I work alongside veteran teachers, they tend to stick to more traditional methods and are often skeptical of the new approaches. It makes collaboration difficult.

It’s not that I reject the new curriculum standards’ call for pedagogical reform, and I understand the importance of adapting to new educational demands. But I’ve been teaching for decades, and I can’t help but wonder: do these new methods really help students more than the tried-and-true ways? Group activities, projects, cultural tasks … they sound good in theory, but our students still face high-stakes exams.

Young teachers feel they lack sufficient experience yet have limited opportunities to learn from veteran colleagues, while senior teachers remain constrained by the traditional exam-oriented assessment system and their professional competency gaps. Both voices reflect a deeper issue: the absence of effective professional dialogue, mentorship, and mutual trust across generations in English teaching teams, which hinder sustained pedagogical innovation, exposing challenges in the county-level teacher development (Qin, 2015). Furthermore, disparities in student foundations create unique challenges. With most students coming from rural areas with significantly lower English proficiency than urban peers, Teacher E1 remarked: “Balancing core competencies cultivation with pass rate requirements is extremely difficult.” This reflects the maladaptation of uniform reform models in county schools (W. Zhang & Zou, 2023). These intertwined challenges form a complex web of dilemmas: the disconnect between high-standard requirements and inadequate foundational conditions, the clash between reform ideals and entrenched institutional inertia, and the tension between professional development needs and practical constraints (T. Zhang, 2021a). As one teacher analogized: “We’re walking a tightrope-pursuing ideals while grounded in reality, where any misstep means losing balance.” This dilemma not only exacerbates the implementation disjunctures of the new curriculum standards but profoundly impacts the teachers’ professional motivation.