







































 

 

 

 

 

 

An Empirical Study on the Influence of 

School Choice on Junior Middle School 

Students’ Academic Performance 

Chenchen Fang 

Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China 

Abstract. Using data from 17,424 junior middle school student responses 

in the Chinese Education Panel Survey 2014 (CEPS 2014), this study 

analyzes the influence of school choice on the academic performance of 

primary to junior students. The results show that students whose families 

have a higher socioeconomic status and urban students are more likely 

to choose their school, and that the student’s choice of school does not 

make an impact on their Chinese, mathematics, foreign language or total 

academic scores. This indicates that choosing schools does not improve 

students’ academic performance. School choice increases the unequal 

distribution of high-quality education opportunities and reduces the effi-

ciency of educational resources. Therefore, the government should take 

measures to allocate quality resources more equitably, to increase the 

supply of quality education resources and to guide parents and students 

to choose schools rationally. 

Best Evid Chin Edu 2019; 1(1):29-40. 

Doi: 10.15354/bece.19.ar1010 

Keywords: Primary-to-junior; School Choice on Junior Middle School; Students’ 

Academic Performance; Education Equity 

 

 
 

Correspondence to: Chenchen Fang, Doctoral Candidate, Institute of Educational Economics, Faculty of Educa-

tion, Beijing Normal University, China, E-mail: fcc1121@163.com. 

Conflict of Interests: None. 



Vol.1, No. 1, 2019 30 

 

Research Background and Problem 

SCHOOL choice” has always been a factor contributing to unfair educational 

starts and opportunities in China. According to China's compulsory education 

law, children and teenagers within the compulsory education age range should 

attend the school nearby their domicile seat. If parents and children are working or 

residing in a place other than the domicile, the children’s compulsory education 

should be received in the vicinity of their parents or other legal guardians. However, 

the development of compulsory education in China has been historically unbal-

anced and insufficient. High-quality education resources are limited, and families in 

higher social strata tend to acquire better education resources for their child through 

school choice, a behavior that increases the stratification perpetuated by education. 

In China, the government has clearly stated that multiple measures are necessary to 

resolve the inequities brought about by school choice. Although local governments 

have introduced various policies and measures to limit school choice, school choice 

is hardly prohibited. School choice not only brings an economic burden to the fami-

ly, but also has an impact on the efficiency and fairness of compulsory education 

(Hu et al., 2008). The fundamental goal of parents and students when choosing a 

school is to gain a competitive advantage in college entrance examinations by at-

tending a school that provides high quality educational resources and thereby signif-

icantly improves the students’ academic achievement. 

This leads to two questions: What factors affect students' school choice behavior? 

Can students improve their academic achievement through school choice? Using data 

from the 2014 China Education Panel Survey, this study analyzes the differences in the 

likelihood of making a school choice for students with different family backgrounds in 

China, and then estimates the effect of school choice on the academic achievement of 

junior high school students. 

Data Sources and Variable Descriptions 

All data used in this study are from the China Education Panel Survey (CEPS) con-

ducted by the China Survey and data Center (NSRC) in 2014. The survey project 

selected 112 schools, 438 classes and approximately 20,000 junior middle-school 

students nationwide as a sample, and respondents in this study. Variables used in 

this study are described in Table 1. 

Who is Choosing a School? 

School choice is examined by asking parents the multiple choice question: "Has 

your family done the following things in order to let children go to this school?" 

Figure 1 shows that 13.8% of parents seek help from friends, 1.9% give gifts to the 

leaders concerned, 2.9% pay extra fees, 5.5% buy houses in the school area, 3.1% 

“ 



Vol.1, No. 1, 2019 31 

 

Table 1. Description of Variables. 

Variable Type Variable Name Variable Description 

School Choice School Choice or not 0=No, 1=Yes 

Student Academic 
Achievement 

Total Grades 
The total grades of Language, Mathematics and 
Foreign language in the mid-term exam of 2013 

Language Grades 
Students' Language Grades in the mid-term exami-
nation of 2013 

Mathematics Grades 
Students' Mathematics Grades in the mid-term ex-
amination of 2013 

Foreign language 
Grades 

Students' Foreign language Grades in the mid-term 
examination of 2013 

Individual Factors 

Gender 0= Female, 1=Male 

Only Child or Not 0=No, 1=Yes 

Migrant Child or Not 0=No, 1=Yes 

Household Registration 
Type 

0= Non-agricultural, 1= Agricultural 

Family Factors 

Parental Education 
Level * 

1.Illiterate/Semi-literate, 2.Elementary School, 
3.Junior High School, 4.High School, 
5. Junior College, 6. undergraduate,   
7. Postgraduate and above 

Parental Occupation 
Classification

 
† 

1. Lower, 2. Middle, 3. Upper 

Family Economic Sta-
tus 

1. Poor, 2. Medium, 3. wealthy 

School Factors 

School Region 1 = Eastern, 2 = Central,  3 = Western  

School Location 
1= Central urban area，2= Urban-rural Junction，3= 

Rural Area (Including Townships) 

School Ranking 
1=Blow the Middle level，2=Middle and above，
3=Best 

*. Compare the educational level of father and mother and choose the higher one. 
†. According to the study of Li Chunling (2010), divide the career of students’ parents into upper, middle and 
lower levels. 

 

 

relocate their household registration, 1.2% attach their household registration to 

relatives or friends, 6.6% of parents let their children take all kinds of academic ex-

aminations/specialty examinations. In addition, 1.8% of parents choose schools by 

other methods. Overall, 26.8% of junior high school students enter their school 

through at least one way of choosing a school, indicating that more than a quarter of 

junior high school students in China are school-choice students.  

In addition, school choice behavior among junior high school students in China 

differs significantly based on the students’ individual, family and school backgrounds. 

Table 2 shows that, at the individual level, gender significantly affects school choice 

behavior. The proportion of males that choose their school is 28.8%, significantly high-

er than that of females at 24.7%. The proportion of only-children making a school 

choice is 27.6%, significantly higher than that of non-only children at 26.1%. Signifi-

cantly more migrant children choose their school than non-migrant children (38.8% 

compared to 24.1%, respectively). The proportion of non-agricultural household stu-



Vol.1, No. 1, 2019 32 

 

 

Figure 1. The Behavior of School Choice in “Primary-to-Junior”. 

 

 

 

dents choosing their school is significantly higher at 28.5% compared to 25.3% of agri-

cultural household students. 

At the family level, the proportion of students choosing their school differs de-

pending on parental educational level. Generally speaking, the higher the educational 

level of the parents, the greater the proportion of students that choose their school. The 

proportion of students making a school choice whose parental occupation classification 

is at the upper level is 31.7%, significantly higher than students whose parental occupa-

tion classification is at the middle level (27.3%) and students whose parental occupation 

classification is at the lower level (20.4%). The proportion of students choosing schools 

is also significantly affected by family economic status. In students with a wealthy fam-

ily economic status, 33.9% choose their school, significantly higher than for students 

with a medium family economic status (26.8%) and students with a poor family eco-

nomic status (24.5%). In other words, the higher the family economic status is, the 

greater the proportion of students choosing their school.  

At the school level, the proportion of students in schools of their own choosing oc-

curs in the western region, at 31.8%, followed by the eastern region at 27.6%, and the 

central region has the lowest proportion at 18.9%. There are significant differences in 

the proportion of students choosing schools in different regions. The highest proportion 

of students choosing their school is 31.8% in central urban areas, followed by 28.3% in 

the urban-rural junctions, and 20.3% in rural areas (including townships). The propor-

tion of students who ranked below the middle level (25.3%) or in the middle and above 



Vol.1, No. 1, 2019 33 

 

 

Table 2. Differences in School Choice Scale of Students. 

Variable 
School Choice 
Ratio 

Chi-Square 
Test 

Gender 
Female 24.7% x

2
=39.315 

p<0.001 Male 28.8% 

Only Child or Not 
No 26.1% x

 2
= 4.836 

p=0.028 Yes 27.6% 

Migrant Child or Not 
No 24.1% x

 2
= 291.668 

p<0.001 Yes 38.8% 

Household Registration 
Type 

Non-agricultural 28.5% x
 2
= 23.467 

p<0.001 Agricultural 25.3% 

Parental Education 
Level 

Illiterate/semi-illiterate 30.4% 

x
 2
=42.856 

p<0.001 

Elementary School 25.4% 

Junior High School 25.5% 

High School 26.5% 

Junior College 31.1% 

Undergraduate 31.1% 

Postgraduate and above 31.0% 

Parental Occupation Clas-
sification 

Lower 20.4% 
x

 2
= 142.519 

p<0.001 
Middle 27.3% 

Upper 31.7% 

Family Economic Status 

Poor 24.5% 
x

 2
= 38.440 

p<0.001 
Medium 26.8% 

Wealthy 33.9% 

School Region 

Eastern  27.6% 
x

 2
=186.044 

p<0.001 
Central  18.9% 

Western  31.8% 

School area 

Central Urban Area 31.8% 

x
 2
=242.029 

p<0.001 
Urban-rural Junction 28.3% 

Rural Area (Including Town-
ships) 

20.3% 

School Ranking 

Below the middle level 25.3% 

x
 2
=104.559 

p<0.001 
Middle and Above 24.9% 

Best 32.9% 

 

 

level (24.9%), are similar but are significantly smaller than the proportion of students 

choosing their school who ranked best (32.9%). 

What Factors Affect Students’ School Choice? 

To explore the factors affecting students’ school choice, we analyzed the factors 

that influence a student’s decision to choose a school at the level of the individual, 

family and school: 

Y1  = ƒ (I,F,S)  (1) 

In model (1), Y1 represents whether students choose their school, a dichotomous 

variable. If students have at least one school choice behavior at the beginning of ele-



Vol.1, No. 1, 2019 34 

 

mentary school, they are assigned a value of 1; otherwise they are assigned a value of 0. 

I represents the individual factors of students, including student gender, whether they 

are an only child, whether they are migrant children and the type of household registra-

tion. F represents student family factors, including parental educational level, parental 

occupation classification and family economic status. S represents school factors, in-

cluding school region, school location and school ranking.  

In the specific analysis, a logistic regression model is used to explore the factors 

affecting whether students choose a school. Table 3 shows that after controlling for 

other factors, the probability of school choice is significantly lower in females than in 

males. Similarly, an only child is less likely to make a school choice than the non-only 

child. The probability of migrant children choosing their school is significantly higher 

than that of non-migrant children. Children with parents that had a higher occupation 

classification were more likely to make a school choice. In addition, controlling for oth-

er factors, the probability of choosing a school is significantly higher in the western 

compared to the eastern region, and in the eastern compared to the central region. The 

probability of students choosing their school in central urban areas and in urban-rural 

junction areas is significantly higher than that of students in rural area (including town-

ships) choosing their school. School ranking has a significant positive impact on stu-

dents’ school choice. In cases of agricultural household registration, parental education 

level and family economic status have no significant impact on students’ school choice. 

An Empirical Analysis of the Influence of School Choice on Students’ Academic 

Performance 

To analyze the influence of school choice on student achievement, the classical the-

oretical model of the educational production function established by Hanushek was 

used to analyze the factors influencing student achievement (Hanushek, 1986). The 

extended theoretical model is established as follows: 

Y2 = ƒ (Z,I,F,S)  (2) 

In model (2), Y2 represents student achievement, including language grades, 

mathematics grades, foreign language grades and total grades. Z represents whether 

students chose their school. I represents individual student factors, including gender, 

whether they are only children, whether they are migrant children and household regis-

tration type. F represents student family factors, including parental education level, pa-

rental occupational classification and family economic status. S represents school fac-

tors, including school region, school location and school ranking. 

Table 4 shows that when controlling for other factors, school choice has a signifi-

cant negative effect on students’ academic achievement, both for individual subject 

grades and for total grades; that is, school choice cannot improve students’ academic 

achievement. For both single subject grades and total grades, female students’ academic 

achievement is significantly higher than that of males. The only child’s academic 

 



Vol.1, No. 1, 2019 35 

 

Table 3. Analysis of Factors Affecting Students’ School Choice. 

Variable Coefficient 
Occurrence 
Ratio 
(Exp(B)) 

Female (referenced against male students) -0.224*** (0.035) 0.800 

Only Child (referenced against non-only child) -0.127** (0.041) 0.881 

Migrant Children (referenced against non-migrant children) 0.626*** (0.046) 1.871 

Agricultural Household Registration (referenced against  non-
agricultural) 

0.035 (0.043) 1.036 

Parental Education level -0.013 (0.019) 0.987 

Parental occupation Classification 0.156*** (0.033) 1.169 

Family Economic Status 0.045 (0.038) 1.046 

Central (referenced against Eastern region) -0.246*** (0.052) 0.782 

Western (referenced against Eastern region) 0.221*** (0.042) 1.247 

Urban-rural junction (referenced against  rural areas (Includ-
ing townships)) 

0.252*** (0.049) 1.287 

Central urban area (referenced against  rural areas (Including 
townships) ) 

0.361*** (0.052) 1.435 

School ranking 0.164*** (0.030) 1.178 

Nagelkerke R
2
 0.052 

Sample Size 17,424 

Notes: 1. Standard errors are in parentheses. 2. *p<0.05，**p<0.01，***p<0.001. 

 

 

achievement is also significantly higher than that of the non-only child. In contrast, mi-

grant children and non-migrant children did not differ significantly in achievement. Be-

sides foreign language, the grades of agricultural household registration students are 

significantly higher than that of non-agricultural students. The higher the parental edu-

cation level, the higher the parental occupation classification is and thus the better the 

financial status of the family is; this results in better student academic achievement. The 

language and foreign language grades of students in urban-rural junctions are signifi-

cantly higher than those in rural areas (including townships), but do not differ signifi-

cantly for other subject grades. Achievements of students in central urban areas are sig-

nificantly higher than those in rural areas (including townships). The higher the ranking 

of schools, the better the students’ academic achievements are. 

Conclusions 

Based on data from China Education Panel Survey done in 2014, this study analyzes 

differences in the proportion of students making a school choice at the primary-to-

junior levels and its influence on subsequent academic achievement. The main conclu-

sions are as follows. 

 



Vol.1, No. 1, 2019 36 

 

Table 4. The Results of Analysis on The Influence of School Choice on Junior 
Middle School Students’ Academic Performance. 

Variable 
Model 1:  
language 
grades 

Model 2:  
mathematics 
grades 

Model 3:  
foreign lan-
guage grades  

Model 4:  
Total 
grades 

School choice 
-1.738*** 
(0.333) 

-2.318*** 
(0.526) 

-1.794*** 
(0.479) 

-5.858*** 
(1.185) 

Female (referenced against male stu-
dents) 

7.986*** 
(0.290) 

3.483*** 
(0.459) 

13.042*** 
(0.417) 

24.229*** 
(1.033) 

Only Child (referenced against non-
only child) 

2.589*** 
(0.339) 

3.807*** 
(0.536) 

4.589*** 
(0.487) 

10.849*** 
(1.207) 

Migrant Children (referenced against 
non-migrant children) 

1.091** 
(0.410) 

0.270 
(0.648) 

1.074 
(0.590) 

2.401 
(1.461) 

Agricultural Household Registration 
(referenced against  non-agricultural) 

1.627*** 
(0.351) 

1.949*** 
(0.554) 

0.723 
(0.504) 

4.193*** 
(1.250) 

Parental Education level 
1.831*** 
(0.157) 

3.643*** 
(0.248) 

3.650*** 
(0.226) 

9.134*** 
(0.560) 

Parental occupation Classification 
1.252*** 
(0.270) 

1.651*** 
(0.427) 

2.427*** 
(0.388) 

5.337*** 
(0.962) 

Family economic status 
1.708*** 
(0.378) 

1.008* 
(0.493) 

1.613*** 
(0.448) 

4.310*** 
(1.110) 

Central (referenced against Eastern 
region) 

-0.981* 
(0.312) 

-7.848*** 
(0.634) 

-1.336* 
(0.577) 

-
10.130*** 
(1.429) 

Western (referenced against Eastern 
region) 

3.419*** 
(0.364) 

-1.416* 
(0.575) 

8.251*** 
(0.523) 

10.340*** 
(1.296) 

Urban-rural junction (referenced 
against  rural areas (Including town-
ships) ) 

0.858* 
(0.402) 

-0.458 
(0.636) 

2.269*** 
(0.578) 

2.553 
(1.432) 

Central urban area (referenced against  
rural areas (Including townships) ) 

4.438*** 
(0.430) 

4.069*** 
(0.679) 

7.106*** 
(0.618) 

15.711*** 
(1.530) 

School Ranking 
2.072*** 
(0.507) 

5.317*** 
(0.402) 

4.465*** 
(0.365) 

11.759*** 
(0.905) 

 Adjusted R
2
 0.121 0.098 0.184 0.155 

Sample Size 17,020 17,012 17,013 16,975 

Notes：1. Standard errors are in parentheses. 2. *p<0.05，**p<0.01，***p<0.001. 

 

 

1. In China, the phenomenon of school choice remains widespread. Among all stu-

dents surveyed, 26.8% made a school choice. Among these, the proportion choosing a 

school by power, such as seeking help from friends, was the highest, accounting for 

13.8% of students surveyed. Other methods of making a school choice were: choosing a 

school by score, such as relying on study and expertise, accounts for 6.6%; choosing a 

school by house, such as buying a house in a school district, accounts for 5.5%; choos-

ing school by household, such as relocating household registration, relocating to rela-

tives or friends’ home accounts for 4.3%; choosing school by money, such as paying 

additional expenses, accounts for 2.9%; choosing school by power and money such as 

giving gifts to leaders accounts for 1.9%; and 1.8% of parents choose schools by other 

means. 



Vol.1, No. 1, 2019 37 

 

2. The proportion of students choosing their school varies depending on individual, 

family and school backgrounds. The proportion of males choosing their school is higher 

than that of females. The proportion of only children choosing their school is higher 

than that of non-only children. The proportion of migrant children choosing their school 

is higher than that of non-migrant children. The proportion of agricultural children in a 

school of their choice is significantly higher than that of non-agricultural children. The 

better the family’s socio-economic status is (parental education level, parental occupa-

tion classification, and family economic status), the greater the proportion of students 

that make a school choice. The proportion of students choosing schools in urban areas is 

significantly higher than that in rural areas. The proportion of students’ choosing 

schools in the best-ranked schools is higher than the students in the middle and lower 

schools. 

3. Whether students choose their school is mainly influenced by three levels of fac-

tors: individual, family and school. When controlling other factors, the probability of 

school choice for an only child is significantly lower than that of a non-only child. The 

probability of school choice among migrant children is significantly higher than among 

non-migrant children. Among family factors, parental occupation classification has a 

significant positive impact on the likelihood of school choice. Parental education level 

and family economic status have no significant effects. Among school factors, the prob-

ability of school choice of students in urban areas is significantly higher than that of 

students in rural areas. School ranking has a significant positive impact on the possibil-

ity of students choosing school. The higher the school ranks, the higher the probability 

of students will choose school. 

4. Based on the classic theoretical model of educational production function estab-

lished by Hanushek, the regression model was used to explore the influence of school 

choice behavior of “primary-to-junior” on students' academic achievement. It was found 

that after controlling for individual, family, school and other influencing factors, stu-

dents' choice of school has a significant negative impact on academic achievement. 

School choice does not improve students' academic achievement. 

Discussion 

School choice in China is a common phenomenon, and there are profound cultural, 

educational, economic and political reasons behind it. From the perspective of cul-

tural reasons, China has been deeply influenced by Confucian culture. The concepts 

of Confucian culture that promote paying more attention to education clearly have 

an important influence on school choice behavior. From the perspective of educa-

tion, students decide to choose their school in order to obtain better quality educa-

tional resources. At present, China’s education system remains dominated by exam-

inations. Students can obtain high-quality educational resources by choosing 

schools, and then gain advantages in entrance examinations. From an economic 

standpoint, parents wanting to invest more in their children’s education choose a 

school to gain higher returns. If school choice enables students to receive higher 



Vol.1, No. 1, 2019 38 

 

levels of education in the future and increases the rate of return on education, then it 

is wise for students to choose their school. Raftery’s Maximally Maintained Ine-

quality Hypothesis (MMI) (Raftery & Hout, 1993) and Lucas's Effectively Main-

tained Inequality (EMI) (Lucas & Samuel, 2001) model provide good explanations 

of political reasons for school choice. According to MMI theory, when compulsory 

education is not fully universal, educational opportunities for children from differ-

ent family strata are different. Parents with higher socio-economic status are always 

looking for ways to maximize their children's educational opportunities. Only when 

the demand for education reaches saturation, can the difference in enrollment op-

portunities between upper and lower status families be reduced. According to EMI 

theory, when compulsory education is popularized, there is a gap in the quality of 

education between regions, between urban and rural areas, and between schools. 

The current unbalanced development of compulsory education in China puts the 

core of competition not for the opportunity to receive education, but for the quality 

of education, and school choice is the specific manifestation of this competition. 

Families with higher socio-economic status choose schools to help their children 

obtain higher quality education, and thereby help their children to gain advantages 

in future education and employment. This effectively maintains educational ine-

quality and the family’s current social status, as well as the social status of future 

generations. This also explains why the proportion of students from families with 

higher socioeconomic status choosing their school is significantly higher than that 

of students from families with lower socioeconomic status. Compared with rural areas, 

the education level in urban areas is higher and the differences between schools are 

larger. As the quality of education has become the core of competition, the proportion 

of students in urban areas choosing their school is higher than that in rural areas.  

Families with higher socio-economic status and students from urban areas are 

more likely to choose their schools, which show that school choice has the function of 

social reproduction. To some extent, it also reflects educational inequality and social 

inequality. In addition, it is a concrete manifestation of the gap between the wealthy and 

the poor, and the urban and the rural areas. With the popularization of compulsory edu-

cation, although differences in access to education among children from different clas-

ses of families are gradually decreasing, there are still gaps in access to education quali-

ty. School choice may lead to differences in students’ academic achievement and job 

opportunities in the future, which consequently maintains society strata and hinders 

intergenerational mobility.  

The main reason students choose their school is to obtain high-quality educational 

resources and improve their academic performance. However, this study finds that 

school choice does not improve students’ academic achievement, regardless of whether 

considering a single subject or total grades. High-quality schools may gather excellent 

teachers and resources, which may affect students' learning attitude and behavior, but 

this does not have a direct and significant effect on students’ academic achievements. 



Vol.1, No. 1, 2019 39 

 

Recommendations 

1. The government should take active measures to control school choice behavior 

and allocate high-quality educational resources more equitably, so that children 

across all socioeconomic strata can have high-quality educational resources. If 

school choice behavior continues unchecked, higher quality educational resources 

will only be available to students from families of higher socioeconomic status. 

However, the use of high-quality educational resources is inefficient for the higher 

socio-economic families, which reduces the overall efficiency of the use of educa-

tional resources. Therefore, only by regulating school choice behavior can high-

quality educational resources play a greater role, thereby improving the overall effi-

ciency of the use of educational resources, the quality of education, and educational 

equity. 

2. The government should increase the supply of high-quality educational re-

sources, alleviate parents’ demand for school choice, promote the balanced develop-

ment of compulsory education effectively, and narrow the quality and condition gap 

among regions, between urban and rural areas, among schools. The current "school 

choice fever" is indicative of a shortage of high-quality educational resources, whereby 

people's demand for quality education is greater than the supply of quality schools. 

Therefore, the government should continue to increase the number of high-quality 

schools by means of precise support to reasonably solve the expectations and demands 

of parents and society for high-quality educational resources, should better integrate 

educational resources, and should increase support for economically backward areas 

and weak schools to promote the balanced development of compulsory education and 

reduce the demand for school choice. 

3. The government should guide parents and students from different socio-

economic strata in urban and rural areas to treat school choice rationally. In particular, 

families should be made aware that choosing a particular school does not lead to higher 

achievement benefits for students. Further, for those areas and families experiencing 

poor economic conditions, school choice creates a heavier financial burden. 

 

References

Hu, Y. M., Lu, K., & Xue, H.Y. (2008) An Em-

pirical Study on School Choice in Primary 

and Secondary Schools. J Edu Stud; 2:74-78. 

Hanushek, E. A. (1986) The economics of 

schooling: production and efficiency in pub-

lic schools. J Econ Lit; 24(3):1141-1177. 

Raftery, A. E., & Hout, M. (1993) Maximally 

maintained inequality: expansion, reform, 

and opportunity in irish education, 1921-75. 

Sociol Edu; 66(1):41-62. 

Lucas, & Samuel, R. (2001) Effectively main-

tained inequality: education transitions, track 

mobility, and social background effects. Am 

J Sociol; 106(6):1642-1690. 



Vol.1, No. 1, 2019 40 

 

Received: 10 November 2018 

Revised: 22 December 2018 

Accepted: 23 December 2018 

 

 

 

The Chinese version of this article has been published in the Journal of Inner Mongolia Normal 

University (Philosophical & Social Science) 2018; 47(3):96-102. The English version has been 

authorized for being publication in BECE by the author(s) and the Chinese journal. 

方晨晨. 小升初择校对学生成绩影响的实证研究. 内蒙古师范大学学报 (哲学社会科学版) 

2018; 47(3):96-102. 


	Article-Chenchen Fang_Title_20Jan2019
	Article-Chenchen Fang_Main Text_20Jan2019

