







































 

 

 

 

 

Differences in Educational Expectations 

between Urban and Rural Junior High 

School Students: Individual, Family, and 

Social Structures

Yuna Hou,
 
Fuli Li 

 
Southwest University, Chongqing 400715, China 

Abstract. This paper studies the current differences in educational 

expectations between urban and rural students and explores the 

mechanism from the individual/family and school/society perspectives. 

The results show significant differences in expectations between rural 

and urban junior high school students for going on to higher education. 
In addition, urban students’ educational expectations are higher than 

that of rural and migrant students. These differences are caused by the 

students’ cognitive ability, family background, and school environment, 
among which the influence of family background is larger than that of 

cognitive ability, while the effect of the school’s hukou structure is the 
most important influencing factor. The results suggest that building a 

desirable school education atmosphere, alleviating hukou segregation in 

schools, and strengthening the integration of widely diverse school 

populations are important approaches to promoting educational and 

social equity in China. 

Best Evidence in Chinese Education 2022; 10(1):1315-1335. 

Doi: 10.15354/bece.22.ar003. 

How to Cite: Hou, Y., & Li, F. (2022). Differences in educational expectations 

between urban and rural junior high school students: Individual, family, and social 

structures. Best Evidence in Chinese Education, 10(1):1315-1335. 

Keywords: Educational Expectations, Rural–Urban Differences, Individual And 

Family Factors, Socio-structural Factors

 

 

 



Hou & Li. Educational Expectation between Urban and Rural Junior High School Students. 

BECE, Vol.10, No.1, 2022 1316 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

About Authors: Fuli Li, Faculty of Education, Southwest University, Chongqing 400715, China, E-mail: 
lifuli0630@163.com  

Correspondence to: Yuna Hou, Research Institute for Education and Psychology of Southwestern Ethnic Groups & 

Faculty of Education, Southwest University, Chongqing 400715, China. E-mail: nana860611@swu.edu.cn  

Conflict of Interests: None. 
 

© 2022 Insights Publisher. All rights reserved. 

Creative Commons Non Commercial CC BY-NC: This article is distributed under the terms of the 

Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License 

(http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of 

the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed by the Insights Publisher. 

mailto:lifuli0630@163.com
mailto:nana860611@swu.edu.cn


Hou & Li. Educational Expectation between Urban and Rural Junior High School Students. 

BECE, Vol.10, No. 1, 2022 1317 

Introduction 

DUCATION is the main channel for social mobility in modern society due to its 

important role in alleviating social stratification and promoting social fairness 

and justice. Following the promulgation of China’s reform and opening-up poli-

cy, many advances have been made in the Chinese education system, and the overall 

education level in China has improved significantly. Simultaneously, the imbalance in 

education development has become increasingly prominent, including the gaps in edu-

cational attainment between urban and rural residents, which has attracted much schol-

arly attention. When measured by objective indicators, such as access to education and 

total schooling years, rural residents in China have always lagged behind urban resi-

dents in their educational achievements (Li, 2014a; Wu, 2011; Wu, 2013). Influenced 

by the increasingly popular ideological trend of “education is useless” in rural society, 

some rural young people subjectively deny the value of education. Their reluctance to 

pursue higher education may further widen the educational gap between urban and rural 

areas (Li & Wu, 2015). 

The low expectations for education of young people in rural China may have 

long-term consequences for their individual development. In recent years, the far-

reaching significance of educational expectations for social equity and justice in China 

has received little scholarly attention. Chinese society has always been more concerned 

about “who receives education,” than about “who expects to receive education” and 

“how much education they expect” (Ding & Wang, 2016). Chinese academia has long 

focused on indicators such as education acquisition and attainment, which measure eq-

uity in educational outcomes, but few studies have discussed the indicator of education-

al expectations, which measures equity in the educational process. Fewer studies have 

explored the differences in educational expectations between different household regis-

tration groups from a micro level. As an important indicator, educational expectations 

can effectively and stably predict educational and status attainment. If we can under-

stand the generation of individuals’ educational expectations, it will be easier for us to 

explain their educational attainment (Sewell & Hauser, 1972). Therefore, exploring the 

differences in educational expectations between urban and rural residents provides an 

ideal breakthrough point to understand the current educational development gap be-

tween urban and rural areas, which has important practical significance for Chinese so-

ciety. 

The report of the 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China un-

derlined the importance of compulsory education in rural areas and proposed strategies 

to ensure that every child can equally enjoy high-quality education. Important modern 

social goals include supplying suitable education for all talented people, maximizing the 

development and use of social human capitals, supporting the welfare of the whole so-

ciety, giving free rein to individual expertise, and satisfying individual pursuits. Indi-

viduals and their families must make wise educational choices to achieve these goals, 

but society must also provide sufficient educational opportunities to facilitate personal 

educational decisions. 

E 



Hou & Li. Educational Expectation between Urban and Rural Junior High School Students. 

BECE, Vol.10, No. 1, 2022 1318 

We used baseline data from the 2013–2014 China Education Panel Survey 

(CEPS) to discuss the current urban–rural differences in the educational expectations of 

junior high school students in China. This study explored the influence of students’ per-

sonal cognitive ability, family background, and socio-structural factors (mainly school 

segregation caused by the household registration policy [hukou]) on the educational 

expectations of young people with household permanent residence in rural areas. In 

addition, we examined the role of these factors in narrowing the rural–urban gap in edu-

cational expectations. Hopefully, our findings will trigger an extensive discussion of the 

severe problem of low educational expectations among young rural residents in China 

and the potential consequences. 

Theoretical Framework and Literature Review 

Over the past 50 years, Western scholars have explored educational expectations from 

micro and macro perspectives. The micro perspective at the individual and family levels 

mainly originated from the Wisconsin model, while the Coleman report initiated a mac-

ro-level perspective of social structure. 

Personal and Family Factors Leading to Educational 

Expectations 

Since the 1950s, the body of research based on the Wisconsin school has accumulated 

several empirical studies modeling the formation and influencing factors of personal 

educational and occupational expectations. Early studies have mainly focused on the 

influence of individual and family factors on the formation of students’ individual edu-

cational expectations. Gender, cognitive ability, and family socioeconomic status (SES) 

have been shown to be key factors affecting teenagers’ educational expectations (Sewell, 

Haller, & Straus, 1957). Later studies have tried to control for these three variables in 

the model when exploring individual educational expectations and status acquisition. In 

1967, the Wisconsin school set up a linear regression model to study the influence of 

gender, cognitive ability, and family SES on individual educational expectations. The 

school then explored the influence of these four explanatory variables on individual 

educational attainment (Sewell & Shah, 1967). As a mediating path, educational expec-

tations have been shown to explain a large part of the impact of cognitive ability and 

family SES on individual educational attainment. Even after controlling for individual 

cognitive ability and family SES, educational expectations still have an independent and 

significant effect on educational attainment. 

Social Structures and Educational Expectations 

Early Wisconsin studies discussed the factors influencing educational expectations, fo-

cusing on the process of individual self-selection at the micro level with the assumption 

that individuals’ educational achievements are determined by what they choose to do 

and how they do it. However, the reality is that individual educational choices are per-

formed within a changing social structure; therefore, individuals’ educational achieve-

ments are mainly influenced by what society allows them to do (Kerckhoff, 1976). The 



Hou & Li. Educational Expectation between Urban and Rural Junior High School Students. 

BECE, Vol.10, No. 1, 2022 1319 

main criticism of the early Wisconsin body of research is that the models used are too 

sociopsychological and ignore the impact of macro-level socio-structural factors on 

individual educational expectations. 

In 1959, Wilson launched a discussion of the influence of social class segrega-

tion on students’ educational expectations. Wilson showed that even when personal and 

family backgrounds were controlled for, the social class composition within schools 

still had a significant impact on individual educational expectations. For example, stu-

dents who attended schools with a majority of students from the dominant social class 

usually had higher educational expectations than students in schools with a majority of 

students from lower social classes (Wilson, 1959). In 1964, the Coleman report dis-

cussed ethnic segregation in American schools and found that social class segregation 

based on the ethnic composition of the school was the most important factor affecting 

students’ academic development besides their family SES. The report found that Amer-

ican schools were ethnically segregated. For example, schools attended by White and 

ethnic minority groups (mainly Black students) had completely different ethnic compo-

sition ratios, and that minority students clustered in schools where students of the same 

ethnicity were concentrated. This kind of school segregation was detrimental to the aca-

demic achievements of minority students (Coleman, 1966). 

Socio-structural factors affecting individual educational expectations include 

the students’ living environment, school district and environment, and the institutions 

and policies in the labor market, which influence the distribution of different social 

groups in the social stratification system (Sewell, 1963). An important socio-structural 

factor leading to educational inequality is school segregation based on social groups’ 

residence clusters. Students with different social characteristics gather in different 

school districts or schools, instead of being evenly distributed within the same school 

district or among schools. This informal school segregation (also known as school isola-

tion) leads to significant differences in student composition between school dis-

tricts/schools (Blau, 1977). On the one hand, this social structure will cause disparities 

in formal institutional arrangements, such as differences in community library facilities, 

teacher allocation, curricula, and school teaching arrangements. On the other hand, the 

social structure may also cause differences in informal social mechanisms, such as the 

local community’s normative values, levels of aspiration, school value system, majority 

behavioral norms, and the school atmosphere created by peer groups. All of these dif-

ferences affect individual educational expectations, especially for young people. These 

results are independent of individual abilities and family SES (Rogoff, 1953). 

In the late 1960s, the Wisconsin body of research began to consider the impact 

of socio-structural factors, such as residence segregation, on educational expectations. 

The community, neighborhood, and school district environments (usually measured by 

urban–rural division, population size, and SES composition) where individuals live and 

studies have been found to have a significant effect on their educational and career ex-

pectations (Sewell, 1964; Sewell & Armer, 1966). However, when factors such as stu-

dents’ gender, cognitive ability, and family SES are controlled for, the influence of the-

se socio-structural variables decreases greatly, or even disappears. Based on this finding, 

Sewell, Hauser, Springer, and Hauser (2003) suggested that studies on educational ex-

pectations and attainment should focus on common process factors within school dis-

tricts and schools, rather than background factors between school district and schools. 



Hou & Li. Educational Expectation between Urban and Rural Junior High School Students. 

BECE, Vol.10, No. 1, 2022 1320 

School segregation is the result of residence division and the underlying phenomenon is 

the local competition of social groups for the resources and social status represented by 

schools (Fiel, 2015). 

School segregation in the basic education system in China has become a com-

mon social phenomenon. The historic policy of “key schools” in China has led to quali-

ty differentiation in the public school system, while the “entering school nearby” policy 

has capitalized on the differentiated educational resources linked to house prices in the 

school district. Local residents select schools for their children by purchasing houses in 

high-quality school districts, which lead to the social segregation of school districts. As 

a result, the wealthy social class helps their children to enter high-quality schools by 

buying “school district housing,” while children from the disadvantaged social class 

who cannot afford school district housing are forced to enter lower-quality schools. This 

leads to school segregation based on residence and school district (Feng & Lu, 2010; 

Zheng & Wang, 2014). This segregation based on household permanent residence 

(hukou) is one of the main forms of school segregation in China. On the one hand, the 

allocation of students with different hukou status is unbalanced among rural and urban 

regions. The distribution of students’ hukou status among different regions largely de-

cides the social class composition of these regions. The heterogeneity of social class 

composition in urban schools is higher than that in rural schools (Liang & Wu, 2016). 

On the other hand, with the large-scale migration of China’s rural population to cities 

and the continuous adjustment of educational policies for the children of migrant work-

ers, the government allows migrant students in compulsory education to study in places 

of residence other than their registered household permanent residence. However, Chi-

na’s current educational policy still sets a large threshold for admission and further edu-

cation for non-local students because of limited urban educational resources. The chil-

dren of rural migrant workers are often segregated from specific living areas, schools, 

and school districts because of the high cost of school selection in cities; therefore, they 

are often concentrated in private schools for migrant children with poor teaching facili-

ties and low-quality teachers. At present, the social classes in China’s rural and urban 

schools are highly segregated. As a result, rural or urban school students with disadvan-

taged family backgrounds tend to prematurely lose interest in education because of neg-

ative peer group influences caused by school segregation. 

Summary 

Rich empirical data have been accumulated in the mature Western research literature on 

students’ educational expectations and their influencing factors. Personal characteristics, 

family backgrounds, and school structure have been found to be the main factors that 

jointly determine students’ educational expectations and decisions. The educational 

stratification literature in China has mainly focused on result-directed indicators, such 

as educational attainment. The predictive role of educational expectations in educational 

attainment has not been explored, which ignores its importance as a breakthrough point 

for understanding the current differences in educational attainment among different 

groups in China. Most studies of educational expectations have not considered rural–

urban differences, and those that have compared the educational expectations of social 

groups with different hukou status at the micro level are even rarer (Ding & Wang, 



Hou & Li. Educational Expectation between Urban and Rural Junior High School Students. 

BECE, Vol.10, No. 1, 2022 1321 

2016). In exploring the factors influencing educational expectations, such as the early 

Wisconsin body of research, most studies have focused on the process of individual 

self-selection and only examined the effects of individual and family backgrounds at the 

micro level (Liu, Zhang, & Li, 2015; Wang & Shi, 2014; Yang, Yao, & Zhang, 2016). 

Few studies have explored the effects of macro-level social factors (Liang & Wu, 2016; 

Wu, Hang & Liu, 2017) and even fewer studies have measured macro and micro factors 

in addition to their interactions simultaneously (Huang, 2017). Some studies have tend-

ed to attribute the differences in educational expectations between urban and rural areas 

to the uneven distribution of educational resources influenced by educational policies 

and have not considered the effects of socio-structural factors (e.g., residence and 

school segregation), which are common concerns in Western studies of educational ex-

pectations. 

This study used the Wisconsin educational attainment model based on the ur-

ban–rural education gap in China in an attempt to close the empirical research gap in 

Chinese educational expectations and explore the differences in educational expecta-

tions between rural and urban junior high school students from macro and micro per-

spectives. 

Research Design 

Data 

This paper used baseline data from the 2013–2014 CEPS designed and implemented by 

the National Survey Research Center (NSRC) at Renmin University of China. The pro-

ject took junior high school students in Grades 7 and 9 as the survey objects and applied 

a stratified multistage sampling design with probability proportional to size (PPS), in 

which four sampling units were selected in turn: i.e., county (school district); school; 

class; and students, parents, head teachers, main subject teachers, and school adminis-

trators. In total, 19,487 junior high school students in 438 classrooms from 112 schools 

in 28 counties (districts) in mainland China were selected in the baseline survey. This 

study used the data from student, parent, and school questionnaires, which were 

matched with student and school IDs. 

Research Questions and Hypotheses 

This study sought to answer the following questions: Are there any significant differ-

ences in educational expectations between rural and urban junior high school students? 

Can the students’ personal characteristics, family environment, or socio-structural fac-

tors (such as school district/school segregation) explain these differences? Based on 

these research questions, this study proposed the following research hypotheses: 

 

Hypothesis 1: The educational expectations of rural hukou students are signifi-

cantly lower than those of urban hukou students. 

Hypothesis 2: Individual (such as gender and cognitive ability) and family fac-

tors (such as SES) limit the educational expectations of rural hukou students. 



Hou & Li. Educational Expectation between Urban and Rural Junior High School Students. 

BECE, Vol.10, No. 1, 2022 1322 

Hypothesis 3: Socio-structural factors (such as the school district’s environ-

ment or school atmosphere) mean that the educational expectations of rural 

hukou students lag behind those of urban hukou students, even if the students’ 

individual and family factors are controlled for in the model. 

Research Model and Variables 

We established the following linear regression model to answer these research questions 

and verify the research hypotheses: 

 

EDU_EXPijp = β0 + β1STU_TYPEi + β2βi + β3SCHj + β4CTYp + εijp 

 

 Dependent Variable 

In this study, the dependent variable was the educational expectations of junior high 

school students (EDU_EXPijp)
1
. The CEPS student questionnaire asked junior high 

school students about their highest expected level of education using the question: 

“What is the highest degree of education you expect to receive?” Responses to this 

question had nine options: i.e., drop out, junior high school, technical/vocational senior 

high school, ordinary senior high school, college degree, Bachelor’s degree, Master’s 

degree, and doctoral degree. We recoded this categorical variable to form a dichoto-

mous variable of “whether students expect a Bachelor’s degree or higher,” where yes = 

1 and no = 0. 

 Independent Variables 

I. Student Type by Urban or Rural Hukou (STU_TYPEi) 

The core explanatory variable of this study was the urban or rural category of students, 

which was used to examine the effect of registered household permanent residence 

(hukou) as a socio-structural factor. Due to the large population of migrant workers in 

China, the registered household permanent residence (Hukou)
2
 of some students differs 

from their current place of residence. Therefore, two dimensions could be observed 

among the students in this study: i.e., their household permanent residence (rural vs. 

urban hukou) and their place of residence during the survey. The latter dimension in-

cluded information about individuals’ rural–urban mobility. Based on our research 

needs, we recoded the original student category variable from the CEPS dataset to form 

a student category variable with three categories: (a) rural students, those with agricul-

tural hukou (registered household permanent residence) from the local county (district); 

(b) migrant students, those with agricultural hukou from other counties (districts); and 

(c) urban students, those with nonagricultural hukou in local (district) or other counties 

(districts). We added dummy variables for the urban and rural student categories to the 

regression model and used urban students as the reference group to examine the differ-

ences in educational expectations between the two types of students. 

II. Personal and Family Background Factors (βi) 

Based on the Wisconsin educational attainment model, we first examined the impact of 

students’ personal and family factors on their educational expectations, including gen-

der (male = 1; female = 0) and cognitive ability (the CEPS designed a set of cognitive 



Hou & Li. Educational Expectation between Urban and Rural Junior High School Students. 

BECE, Vol.10, No. 1, 2022 1323 

ability test questions for junior high school students). The test questions did not involve 

specific memorization of knowledge related to school curricula, but focused on measur-

ing the students’ logical thinking and problem-solving abilities, including three lan-

guage dimensions (graphics, calculation, and logic) with 11 constructs in total. The 

original cognitive ability test scores were transformed into standardized scores using 

item response theory with three parameters, leading to internationally comparable and 

nationally standardized results. Based on the high-to-low value ranking of this variable, 

we divided the students into three roughly equal groups to form a cognitive ability vari-

able with three categories: low cognitive ability group = 1; medium cognitive ability 

group = 2; and high cognitive ability group = 3. Finally, considering family SES, we 

used factor analysis to transform the variables of both parents’ education and occupa-

tions, in addition to each family’s economic conditions, into common factors to meas-

ure family SES. We divided the students into three roughly equal groups based on their 

high-to-low family SES scores to form a three-category variable to measure family SES: 

low-SES group = 1; medium-SES group = 2; and high-SES group = 3. 

III. Socio-Structural Factors (SCHj) 

To more deeply explore the sources of the differences in educational expectations be-

tween urban and rural junior high school students, we chose the following three socio-

structural variables at the school district/school level: (a) school location: township and 

rural areas = 1, marginal urban areas and urban–rural fringe = 2; and cities/counties’ 

central urban areas = 3; (b) proportion of students in schools with agricultural hukou; 

and (c) proportion of students in schools with local county (district) hukou. There was a 

high degree of consistency between residence and school segregation; therefore, the 

school location variable could be used to examine the influence of the school district 

environment on students’ educational expectations. The proportion of students in 

schools with agricultural hukou and the proportion of students in schools with local 

county (district) hukou measured the influence of peer groups on the students’ educa-

tional expectations. 

 Control Variables 

To improve the quality of our model, we also controlled for other factors that may af-

fect students’ educational expectations at different levels: age, ethnicity (1 = ethnic mi-

nority, 0 = Han nationality), number of siblings at the individual/family level; school 

properties (1 = public school, 2 = private school), school quality ranking (1 = poor to 

medium, 2 = upper middle, 3 = the best) at the school level, and district/county fixed 

effects (CTYp) at the district/county level. 

The distribution of the main variables used in the study for the urban or rural 

student category variable is shown in Table 1. 

The proportion of students with low cognitive ability or low family SES was 

much higher among rural and migrant student groups than among urban students. In 

contrast, students with high cognitive ability or high SES were clustered in the urban 

student group. Rural junior high school students were mostly clustered in rural schools, 

while urban junior high school students were mostly clustered in central city schools 

and migrant junior high school students were distributed among schools in both urban 

and rural areas. 

 



Hou & Li. Educational Expectation between Urban and Rural Junior High School Students. 

BECE, Vol.10, No. 1, 2022 1324 

Table 1. Distribution of the Main Variables for Rural and Urban Students. 

Variable 
Rural 
Students 

Migrant 
Students 

Urban 
Students 

Male 51.57% 53.57% 50.98% 

Cognitive ability: Low 39.68% 35.29% 26.73% 

Cognitive ability: Medium 34.46% 34.04% 32.07% 

Cognitive ability: High 25.86% 30.67% 41.20% 

SES: Low 49.85% 37.40% 16.38% 

SES: Medium 31.75% 37.22% 33.95% 

SES: High 18.40% 25.37% 49.67% 

School location: Township/rural area 56.57% 28.33% 19.07% 

School location: Urban–rural fringe 25.06% 35.88% 22.64% 

School location: Central urban area 18.37% 35.79% 58.30% 

Proportion of students in schools with agricultural hukou 
0.729 
(0.173) 

0.538 
(0.237) 

0.377 
(0.259) 

Proportion of students in schools with local county (district) 
hukou 

0.901 
(0.132) 

0.605 
(0.243) 

0.798 
(0.172) 

Note: The standard deviation of the mean is presented in brackets. SES, socioeconomic status. 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 2. Descriptive Statistics for the Educational Expectations of Urban and 
Rural Junior High School Students. 

Category 

Male Female Overall 

Mean 
(SD) 

% 
Sample 
Size 

Mean 
(SD) 

% 
Sample 
Size 

Mean 
(SD) 

% 
Sample 
Size 

Rural 
15.746 
(3.709) 

53.62% 4,129 
16.326 
(3.260) 

64.93% 3,972 
16.041 
(3.507) 

59.17% 8,101 

Migrant 
15.767 
(3.678) 

55.14% 1,119 
16.443 
(3.173) 

68.45% 1,008 
16.077 
(3.465) 

61.45% 2,127 

Urban 
16.725 
(3.523) 

68.58% 4,224 
17.179 
(3.067) 

78.78% 4,184 
16.951 
(3.311) 

73.66% 8,408 

Overall 
16.192 
(3.654) 

60.47% 9,742 
16.729 
(3.190) 

71.64% 9,164 
16.456 
(3.444) 

65.96% 18,636 

Note: The mean and standard deviation (SD) describe the average level and difference in educational expecta-
tions of junior high school students, respectively. The percentage describes junior high school students who 
expected to obtain a Bachelor’s degree or higher. 

 

 

 

 

In the schools attended by the rural student group in our study, more than 70% 

of the students came from rural areas and about 90% were registered in the local county. 

More than half of the students in the schools attended by the migrant student group in 

our study had rural household registration. About 60% of these students were registered 

in the local county/district, while in the schools attended by the urban student group in 



Hou & Li. Educational Expectation between Urban and Rural Junior High School Students. 

BECE, Vol.10, No. 1, 2022 1325 

our study, only one third of the students were from rural areas and nearly 80% were 

registered in the local county/district. 

Results 

Descriptive Statistical Analysis 

Without adding any control variables to our model, the proportion of junior high school 

students who expected to obtain a Bachelor’s degree or higher showed a monotonically 

increasing trend among rural and urban students (Table 2). That is, rural junior high 

school students were less likely than migrant junior high school students to expect to 

obtain a bachelor’s degree, while migrant junior high school students had lower expec-

tations than urban junior high school students. Comparable results were obtained from 

the male and female samples, which is consistent with Hypothesis 1. 

Difference Test: Individual and Family Factors 

To verify the influence of individual and family factors on the differences in education-

al expectations between urban and rural junior high school students, we tested the sig-

nificance of the differences in the mean values of their educational expectations. The 

results are reported by the students’ cognitive ability and family SES. 

 Cognitive Ability 

Table 3 presents the pretest (difference-test) results, which took urban junior high 

school students as the reference group and reported the difference in the proportions of 

rural and migrant junior high school students and urban junior high school students ex-

pecting to obtain a bachelor’s degree or higher. The z-test results showed the level of 

significance. 

The results for the differences in educational expectations between urban and 

rural junior high school students without cognitive ability are shown in the bottom row 

of Table 3 for the full sample. The proportion of rural and migrant junior high school 

students who expected to obtain a bachelor’s degree or higher were significantly lower 

than that of urban junior high school students. After grouping the students by cognitive 

ability, although the differences in educational expectations between urban and rural 

junior high school students were somewhat smaller, they did not disappear completely. 

There were still significant differences in educational expectations between urban and 

rural areas within each cognitive ability group. Specifically, for male students, the dif-

ferences in educational expectations between urban and rural areas in the low cognitive 

ability group were reduced greatly, while obvious differences were observed in the edu-

cational expectations between urban and rural areas in the medium cognitive ability 

group. Interestingly, the differences in educational expectations between migrant and 

urban junior high school students in the high cognitive ability group were reduced sig-

nificantly. These results showed that the experience of urban life and the school envi-

ronment had a positive effect on the educational expectations of rural young people 

with high cognitive ability. The results for the female sample showed that the differ-

ences in educational expectations between urban and rural students in the medium and 



Hou & Li. Educational Expectation between Urban and Rural Junior High School Students. 

BECE, Vol.10, No. 1, 2022 1326 

Table 3. Effects of Individual and Family Factors on the Educational Expecta-
tions of Obtaining a Bachelor’s Degree or Higher among Urban and Rural 
Junior High School Students. 

Variable 

Male Female 

Rural Migrant Rural Migrant 

Cognitive 
Ability 

Low 
Percentage 0.407 (0.012) 0.394 (0.024) 0.524 (0.013) 0.543 (0.028) 

Pretest 
diff. = −0.084 diff. = −0.098 diff. = −0.092 diff. = −0.073 

z = −4.436*** z = −3.455*** z = −4.597*** z = −2.333*** 

Sample size 1,591 419 1,572 328 

Medium 
Percentage 0.546 (0.013) 0.544 (0.026) 0.686 (0.012) 0.712 (0.024) 

Pretest 
diff. = −0.140 diff. = −0.141 diff. = −0.087 diff. = −0.061 

z = −7.478*** z = −5.015*** z = −5.174*** z = −2.396*** 

Sample size 1,422 364 1,391 358 

High 
Percentage 0.708 (0.014) 0.756 (0.023) 0.795 (0.013) 0.798 (0.022) 

Pretest 
diff. = −0.114 diff. = −0.065 diff. = −0.104 diff. = −0.101 

z = −7.091*** z = −2.801*** z = −7.644*** z = −5.197*** 

Sample size 1,116 336 1,009 322 

SES Low Percentage 0.512 (0.011) 0.547 (0.025) 0.627 (0.011) 0.669 (0.024) 

Pretest 
diff. = 0.006 diff. = 0.041 diff. = −0.003 diff. = 0.039 

z = 0.250 z = 1.299 z = −0.122 z = 1.303 

Sample size 1,944 411 2,104 393 

Medium Percentage 0.574 (0.013) 0.550 (0.025) 0.691 (0.013) 0.706 (0.023) 

Pretest 
diff. = −0.057 diff. = −0.082 diff. = −0.071 diff. = −0.056 

z = −3.113*** z = −3.000*** z = −4.096*** z = −2.259** 

Sample size 1,396 404 1,201 388 

High 
Percentage 0.527 (0.018) 0.559 (0.028) 0.643 (0.019) 0.674 (0.031) 

Pretest 
diff. = −0.251 diff. = −0.219 diff. = −0.218 diff. = −0.187 

z = −13.266*** z = −8.251*** z = −12.376*** z = −7.334*** 

Sample size 789 304 667 227 

Full sample 
Percentage 0.536 (0.008) 0.551 (0.015) 0.649 (0.008) 0.685 (0.015) 

Pretest 
diff. = −0.150 diff. = −0.134 diff. = −0.138 diff. = −0.103 

z = −14.031*** z = −8.428*** z = −13.926*** z = −6.968*** 

Sample size 4,129 1,119 3,972 1,008 

Note: 1. The reference group for the mean difference test in the table includes all urban students; 2. * p < 0.1, ** 
p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01. 

 

 

 

 

low cognitive ability groups were smaller, but the differences in educational expecta-

tions between urban and rural students in the high cognitive ability group showed little 

change compared with the full sample results. 

The above results indicated that the observed differences in educational expec-

tations between urban and rural junior high school students were not entirely due to 



Hou & Li. Educational Expectation between Urban and Rural Junior High School Students. 

BECE, Vol.10, No. 1, 2022 1327 

their differing cognitive abilities. After controlling for cognitive ability, significant dif-

ferences in educational expectations were still observed among rural and urban junior 

high school students with high cognitive ability. A possible reason for this finding is 

that some rural hukou students hope to live and work in rural areas in the future and the 

educational requirements for positions in the rural labor market are lower than those of 

the urban labor market, which may affect these students’ judgment of the value and role 

of education. Therefore, we further tested the difference in educational expectations 

between rural junior high school students in the high cognitive ability group who want 

to stay in rural areas or small towns and those who want to stay in big cities or abroad to 

verify our findings. The results showed that the educational expectations of rural stu-

dents who plan to live in big cities were significantly higher than those of their counter-

parts who plan to live in rural areas or small towns (diff. = −0.209, z = −9.394), alt-

hough both student groups were in the high cognitive ability group. Another possible 

reason is that even if they work in cities, most rural hukou residents can only enter the 

secondary labor market, in which education qualifications have a very limited effect on 

their social mobility opportunities. This may also affect rural students’ judgment of the 

value and role of education, and subsequently their educational expectations (Li & Wu, 

2015). 

 Family Background 

The bottom row of Table 3 for the full sample presents the results for the test of the dif-

ferences in educational expectations between urban and rural junior high school stu-

dents without grouping the students by family SES. The proportion of rural and migrant 

junior high school students who expected to obtain a bachelor’s degree or higher were 

significantly lower than that of urban junior high school students. After grouping the 

students according to their family background, the differences in educational expecta-

tions between rural and migrant junior high school students and urban junior high 

school students with low SES were no longer significant regardless of gender. In other 

words, family SES explained the lower educational expectations of rural and migrant 

junior high school students from disadvantaged families. Although the differences in 

educational expectations between rural and migrant junior high school students and ur-

ban junior high school students with medium family SES were still significant, they 

were smaller than for the low SES group. Compared with the above results for cognitive 

ability, family background factors explained the differences in educational expectations 

between urban and rural junior high school students better than cognitive ability factors. 

However, it should be noted that the differences in educational expectations between 

rural and migrant junior high school students and urban junior high school students 

from advantaged family backgrounds increased compared with the results for the full 

sample. This result showed that the overall differences in educational expectations be-

tween urban and rural junior high school students were mainly reflected in the advan-

taged social class, reflecting the heterogeneity of the influence of family SES on the 

educational expectations of these students. That is, the positive influence of family 

background on urban students was greater than on rural and migrant students. A possi-

ble reason is that as the rural economy in China develops and parents of rural students 

increase their income and professional status gradually, they may still not know how to 

use their family capital to create a good educational atmosphere within the family. Such 



Hou & Li. Educational Expectation between Urban and Rural Junior High School Students. 

BECE, Vol.10, No. 1, 2022 1328 

an atmosphere would help their children to form higher educational expectations com-

pared with children of urban parents. Compared with rural families, Liu, Zhang, and Li 

(2015) found that urban parents’ participation in their children’s education is more help-

ful in increasing young people’s educational expectations. To verify this result, we se-

lected the “parental involvement” variable to measure the degree of activation of family 

capital and tested the difference in the degree of parental involvement between urban 

and rural junior high school students with advantaged family backgrounds. The results 

showed that the involvement of parents of rural junior high school students was signifi-

cantly lower than that of parents of urban junior high school students (diff. = −0.521, t = 

−18.191), despite their similar family SES, while the differences in the degree of paren-

tal involvement between urban and rural students with poor family backgrounds were 

not significant. 

  Linear Regression Analysis: Socio-structural Factors 

The results of the previous difference test showed that students’ personal and family 

factors, including gender, cognitive ability, and family SES, could explain only part of 

the differences in educational expectations between urban and rural junior high school 

students. Therefore, we established a linear regression model to further explore the in-

fluence of socio-structural factors, including the type of school district (urban vs. rural) 

and the household registration structure of school populations, on the level of and dif-

ferences in educational expectations between urban and rural junior high school stu-

dents. 

Model 1 in Table 4 was a baseline model containing the control variables, 

which was used to test the differences in educational expectations between urban and 

rural junior high school students. The results showed that the proportion of rural and 

migrant junior high school students who expected to obtain a Bachelor’s degree or 

higher was significantly lower than that of urban students. Specifically, rural and mi-

grant junior high school students respectively had 4.6% and 5.3% lower educational 

expectations than did urban junior high school students. Models 2–5 controlled for the 

students’ gender, gender and cognitive ability, gender and family background, and the 

three variables simultaneously, respectively. After controlling for individual and family 

factors, the difference in the proportion of students who expected to obtain a Bachelor’s 

degree or higher between rural and migrant junior high students decreased, but did not 

disappear completely, which further verified the results of the previous difference test.  

In the next step, we explored the socio-structural factors that influence the difference in 

educational expectations between urban and rural junior high school students. Based on 

Model 5, Model 6 added the first socio-structural factor, that is, the urban/rural proper-

ties of the school districts. The proportion of junior high school students who expected 

to obtain a bachelor’s degree or higher in the urban–rural fringe and the central urban 

areas was 5.4% and 6.8% higher than that in villages and towns, respectively. However, 

the addition of this variable to the model did not significantly change the significance of 

the differences in educational expectations between urban and rural junior high school 

students. This indicated that the school district environment had little influence on the 

differences in educational expectations between urban and rural junior high school stu-

dents. This result is similar to early Wisconsin studies of the influence of residential 

segmentation on educational expectations. Based on Model 5, Model 7 added the se- 



Hou & Li. Educational Expectation between Urban and Rural Junior High School Students. 

BECE, Vol.10, No. 1, 2022 1329 

Table 4. Regression Analysis of the Factors Influencing Whether Urban and 
Rural junior High School Students Expected to Obtain a Bachelor’s Degree or 
Higher. 

Explanatory Variable Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7 Model 8 

Rural Students 
−0.046 
***  
(0.009) 

−0.045 
***  
(0.009) 

−0.039 
***  
(0.008) 

−0.034 
***  
(0.009) 

−0.029 
***  
(0.008) 

−0.022 
***  
(0.008) 

−0.008  
(0.009) 

−0.032 
***  
(0.008) 

Migrant Students 
−0.053 
***  
0.012) 

−0.048 
***  
(0.012) 

−0.039 
***  
(0.012) 

−0.038 
***  
(0.012) 

−0.030 
**  
(0.012) 

−0.029 
**  
(0.012) 

−0.017*  
(0.012) 

−0.019  
(0.012) 

Male  
−0.112 
***  
(0.007) 

−0.110 
***  
(0.006) 

−0.113 
***  
(0.007) 

−0.111 
***  
(0.006) 

−0.111 
***  
(0.006) 

−0.111 
***  
(0.006) 

−0.111 
***  
(0.006) 

Cognitive Ability: Medium   
0.117 
***  
(0.008) 

 
0.118 
***  
(0.008) 

0.115 
***  
(0.008) 

0.115 
***  
(0.008) 

0.117 
***  
(0.008) 

Cognitive Ability: High   
0.249 
***  
(0.008) 

 
0.248 
***  
(0.008) 

0.245 
***  
(0.008) 

0.243 
***  
(0.008) 

0.246 
***  
(0.008) 

Ses: Medium    
0.022 
***  
(0.009) 

0.017 
** 
(0.008) 

0.013 
 (0.008) 

0.012  
(0.008) 

0.017 
**  
(0.008) 

Ses: High    
0.064 
***  
(0.009) 

0.060 
***  
(0.009) 

0.056 
***  
(0.009) 

0.052 
*** 
 (0.009) 

0.059 
***  
(0.009) 

School Location:  
Urban–Rural Fringe 

     
0.054 
***  
(0.011) 

  

School Location:  
Central Urban Area 

     
0.068 
***  
(0.012) 

  

Proportion of Students in  
School with Agricultural 
Hukou 

      
−0.216 
***  
(0.025) 

 

Proportion of Students in 
 Schools with Local County  
(District) Hukou 

       
0.116 
***  
(0.030) 

Control variables Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

District/County  
Fixed Effects 

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

R2 0.064 0.076 0.111 0.078 0.113 0.115 0.117 0.114 

Sample Size 18,636 18,636 18,636 18,636 18,636 18,636 18,636 18,636 

Note: 1. Robust standard errors are presented in brackets; 2. * p < 0.1, ** p < 0.05, *** p < 0.01; 3. The refer-
ence group for the cognitive ability dummy variable is the low ability sample and the reference group for the 
SES dummy variable is the low-SES sample. The reference group for the school location type dummy variable 
is township and rural areas. 

 

 

 

 

cond socio-structural factor used in this study, i.e., the proportion of students with agri-

cultural household registration in schools. Compared with the urban/rural residence cat-

egory variable, this school structural factor better explained the educational expecta-

tions of junior high school students. Specifically, for every 1% increase in the propor-

tion of students with agricultural household registration in schools, the proportion of 

junior high school students who expected to obtain a Bachelor’s degree or higher de-

creased by 21.6%. Moreover, the addition of this variable made the originally signifi-

cant differences in educational expectations between rural and urban junior high school 

students completely disappear and greatly reduced the differences in educational expec-

tations between migrant and urban junior high school students. After controlling for the 



Hou & Li. Educational Expectation between Urban and Rural Junior High School Students. 

BECE, Vol.10, No. 1, 2022 1330 

students’ individual and family factors, the proportion of peers with similar experiences 

of rural life within the schools attended by rural junior high school students largely ex-

plained the observed disadvantages in the educational expectations of rural junior high 

school students. If rural students with similar demographic characteristics and family 

background to urban students enter schools with a high proportion of urban students, 

their initial disadvantages in educational expectations will be reduced greatly. Based on 

Model 5, Model 8 added the third socio-structural factor of this study, i.e., the propor-

tion of students in schools with residence registration in the local county/district. This 

variable had a strong and significant impact on the educational expectations of junior 

high school students. Specifically, for every 1% increase in the proportion of students in 

school with local registered household permanent residence, the proportion of students 

expecting to obtain a bachelor’s degree or higher increased by 11.6%. The addition of 

this school structural variable in the model eliminated the originally significant differ-

ences in educational expectations between migrant and urban junior high school stu-

dents. After controlling for individual and family factors, the proportion of peers with 

similar experiences of rural–urban migration in the schools attended by migrant junior 

high school students largely explained the observed disadvantages in their educational 

expectations. If migrant students with similar demographic characteristics and family 

background to urban students enter schools with a high proportion of local students, 

their initial disadvantages in educational expectations will be greatly reduced. 

Discussion, Conclusion, and Policy Implications 

Based on baseline data from the 2013–2014 CEPS, this study explored the current dif-

ferences in educational expectations between urban and rural high school students and 

their influencing factors in China. Micro-level individual/family factors and macro-

level socio-structural factors jointly determined the educational expectations of junior 

high school students and the different educational expectations between urban and rural 

areas. 

First, the significant differences in educational expectations between rural and 

migrant junior high school students and their expectations for receiving higher educa-

tion were significantly lower than those of urban junior high school students. Cognitive 

ability and family background only explained a small part of the differences in educa-

tional expectations between urban and rural junior high school students, with family 

background being more important than cognitive ability. The household registration 

structure (hukou composition) of the schools explained most of the differences in edu-

cational expectations between urban and rural junior high school students. 

The government and all sectors of society should be concerned about the low 

educational expectations of young people in rural Chinese society identified in this 

study. First, with the rapid development of urbanization in China, young people will 

increasingly leave the countryside to find jobs in cities. When these young people com-

pete with urban residents for work, their low educational expectations may hinder their 

career development. Opportunities for people with rural household registration status to 

become urban citizens are extremely limited. Indeed, this factor has been shown to have 

a significantly positive correlation with individuals’ education level (Li, 2014b). Rural 

young people with low academic qualifications may become migrant workers in labor-



Hou & Li. Educational Expectation between Urban and Rural Junior High School Students. 

BECE, Vol.10, No. 1, 2022 1331 

intensive industries in the future, such as the manufacturing, construction, and service 

industries, where they have to take jobs with poor working conditions, low salaries, and 

low social status. Therefore, they may struggle to truly integrate into urban society 

(China Population and Family Planning Commission, 2010). In their future careers, 

most rural young people with low educational expectations will have to face this obsta-

cle, which is difficult to overcome. Second, China is vigorously implementing a nation-

al rural revitalization strategy, in which economic developments and infrastructure con-

struction in rural areas lead to increasingly higher requirements for experts in agricul-

tural scientific knowledge and technology. However, the Chinese education system 

must be developed to cultivate the necessary expertise. Young people with hukou who 

do not go to work in cities but continue to live and work in rural areas may also be hin-

dered in their rural career development because of their lower educational expectations. 

Second, the results of this study showed that the difference in cognitive ability 

based on innate inheritance was not the main reason for the differences in educational 

expectations between urban and rural junior high school students in China. Conversely, 

a nurturing home environment (such as parental involvement) based on family SES (in-

cluding parental education, occupation, and income) limited the expectations of rural 

students to receive higher education. Rural students’ family background constraints 

made it difficult for them to make rational educational choices based on their own abili-

ties. Today, science and technology are increasingly becoming decisive forces for soci-

oeconomic development in global market competition. To maintain an advantage in 

global science and technology competition, China greatly needs well-educated experts 

in professional fields such as engineering, physics, and biology. However, if talented 

young people with high cognitive abilities from rural areas do not have correspondingly 

high educational expectations, it will be difficult for them to obtain the necessary edu-

cation and training opportunities for desirable social occupations in the future. Thus, 

these young people will be unable to realize their full potential. This potential “talent 

loss” crisis will lead to wasted human resources in rural areas of China, which will af-

fect the maximization of social welfare (Sewell, 1963). 

Third, the environment of the school district where junior high school students 

live had little influence on their educational expectations. However, school segmenta-

tion based on registered household permanent residence, which is typically observed in 

the characteristics of peer groups within a school, had a major influence on the educa-

tional expectations of students with rural hukou. The total proportion of rural students 

with local registered household permanent residence greatly restricted their educational 

expectations, while the proportion of students with non-local registered household per-

manent residence in schools also greatly restricted migrant students’ educational expec-

tations. In China, segregation based on school institutions and policies is an intermedi-

ary mechanism in which macro-level socio-structural factors and micro-level family 

backgrounds work together on individuals’ educational decision-making. Students with 

similar disadvantaged backgrounds tend to cluster in similarly poor schools or even 

within the same class, which leads to a corresponding segregation in the allocation of 

teachers, curricula, and teaching arrangements in schools. In addition, the school at-

mosphere created by most peer groups will differ. These differences may have an im-

pact on the educational expectations of every young person in the school. It is difficult 

for Chinese schools to provide sufficient educational incentives for higher education to 



Hou & Li. Educational Expectation between Urban and Rural Junior High School Students. 

BECE, Vol.10, No. 1, 2022 1332 

rural and migrant students because of school segregation caused by household registra-

tion institutions, which greatly inhibits their educational expectations. 

The results of this study have the following implications for solving the prob-

lem of differences in educational expectations and attainment between Chinese urban 

and rural areas in the future. First, actively including educational guidance and career 

planning courses or programs in rural schools will effectively help to reduce the brain 

drain crisis in rural Chinese society. To bridge the gap in educational development be-

tween rural and urban areas, the Chinese government and policy makers must not only 

consider the problem of uneven distribution of educational resources (such as school 

facilities, materials, curricula, teachers, and management) but also pay attention to cre-

ating and improving the educational atmosphere of schools, so that schools can cultivate 

their students’ educational expectations. Schools must provide rural students with in-

formation about educational opportunities and the value and future returns of higher 

education. Schools must also help their students obtain the required knowledge for their 

future career development, such as understanding the types of jobs they are suitable for 

and the educational qualification requirements for these jobs. This would prevent rural 

students from misjudging the value of education, leading them to think that “education 

is useless.” 

Any educational and vocational guidance also requires the participation of par-

ents; therefore, rural parents should be helped to obtain more information and 

knowledge about educational and vocational opportunities to better help their children 

make rational educational decisions. Gradually alleviating and ending school segrega-

tion based on household registration will enhance the integration of widely diverse 

school populations, which will be an important channel for promoting educational and 

social equity in China. The government influences the educational decisions of individ-

uals and their families through its educational policies. The finding of this study regard-

ing the relationship between household registration segregation in junior high schools 

and the differences in educational expectations between urban and rural areas in China 

provides an empirical basis for the re-evaluation of current educational policies and 

their consequences. The composition and structure of the household registration system 

in urban schools are helpful to improve their students’ educational expectations, while 

the household registration structure and composition of schools attended by rural stu-

dents have a negative impact on their students’ educational expectations (Kahlenberg, 

2012). Therefore, it is important to promote the fairness of educational opportunities by 

reducing the degree of school segregation caused by the hukou household registration 

policy and increasing the diversity and heterogeneity of students’ identities and back-

grounds within schools to help vulnerable rural students obtain the same opportunities 

as urban students to enter urban schools with higher SES. In this respect, the reform of 

the existing household registration system in China must be deepened continually to 

weaken and gradually eliminate the restriction of household registration on the educa-

tion of rural and migrant children. However, various forms of school quality differentia-

tion must be eliminated to promote the balance of educational resources between re-

gions, between urban and rural areas, and between schools. 

 

 

 



Hou & Li. Educational Expectation between Urban and Rural Junior High School Students. 

BECE, Vol.10, No. 1, 2022 1333 

Notes: 

1. The subscripts i, j, and p in the model represent the individual/family, school, and district/county 

levels, respectively. 

2. The CEPS dataset divided the student sample into eight types based on information about their 

household permanent residence (hukou type, rural vs. urban), the province where they live, and 

whether they live with their parents. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References
Blau, P.M. (1977). Inequality and Heterogenei-

ty: A Primitive Theory of Social Structure. 

New York: Free Press.  DOI: 

https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/58.2.677. 

Coleman, J.S. (1966). Equality of educational 

opportunity. United States: US Department 

of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of 

Education. DOI: 

https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR06389.v3. 

China Population and Family Planning Commis-

sion.(2010). Report on China’s migrant pop-

ulation development.[Chinese]. Beijing: 

China Population Publishing House.   

Ding, B.R., & Wang, Y.J. (2016). Educational 

expectation differences in household regis-

tration-Based on a comparative study of four 

types of children. Education Science, 

32(5):1-10. [Chinese].  

Feng, H., & Lu, M. (2010). Choosing a school 

by buying a home: Empirical evidence and 

policy implications of education’s impact on 

housing prices. World Economy, 12:89-104. 

[Chinese]. 

http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTA

L-SJJJ201012007.htm. 

Fiel, J. (2015). Closing ranks: Closure, status 

competition, and school segrega-

tion. American Journal of Sociology, 

121(1):126-170. DOI:  

https://doi.org/10.1086/682027. 

Huang, C. (2017). The influences of family and 

school factors on urban–rural differences in 

educational aspirations. Sociological Review 

of China, 5(5):65-78. [Chinese].  

Kahlenberg, R.D. (2012). The future of school 

integration: Socioeconomic diversity as an 

education reform strategy. New York: Cen-

tury Foundation. 

https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED531911. 

Kerckhoff, A.C. (1976). The status attainment 

process: Socialization or allocation? Social 

Forces, 55(2):368-381.DOI: 

https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/55.2.368 

Li, C.L. (2014a). The changing trend of educa-

tional inequality in China (1940–2010), 

Reexamining the urban–rural gap on educa-

tional opportunity. Sociologic Studies, 

2014(2):65-89. [Chinese]. DOI: 

https://doi.org/10.19934/j.cnki.shxyj.2014.02

.004  

Li, D. (2014b). Equal distribution of limited 

chances: A study of the citizenship shifts of 

Chinese peasants’ children. Chinese Journal 

of Sociology, 34(4):91-118. [Chinese]. DOI: 

https://doi.org/10.15992/j.cnki.31-

1123/c.2014.04.009  

Li, T., & Wu, Z.H. (2015). The new “theory of 

the uselessness of reading” in “rural China.” 

Exploration and Free Views, 2015(5):11-12. 

[Chinese]. 

Liang, Y.C., & Wu, X.Y. (2016). Education 

segregation and educational aspiration under 

China’s Household registration system: A 

study based on CEPS 2014. Journal of So-

cial Development, 2016(1):22-47, 242-243. 

[Chinese].  

Liu, B.Z., Zhang, Y.Y., & Li, J.X. (2015). Fami-

ly SES and adolescent educational expecta-

tion: Mediating role of parental involvement. 

Peking University Education Review, 

13(3):158-176, 192. [Chinese]. DOI: 

https://doi.org/10.19355/j.cnki.1671-

9468.2015.03.011  

https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/58.2.677
https://doi.org/10.1086/682027
https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/55.2.368
https://doi.org/10.19934/j.cnki.shxyj.2014.02.004
https://doi.org/10.19934/j.cnki.shxyj.2014.02.004
https://doi.org/10.15992/j.cnki.31-1123/c.2014.04.009
https://doi.org/10.15992/j.cnki.31-1123/c.2014.04.009
https://doi.org/10.19355/j.cnki.1671-9468.2015.03.011
https://doi.org/10.19355/j.cnki.1671-9468.2015.03.011


Hou & Li. Educational Expectation between Urban and Rural Junior High School Students. 

BECE, Vol.10, No. 1, 2022 1334 

Rogoff, N. (1953). Social stratification in France 

and in the United States. American Journal 

of Sociology, 58(4):347-357. DOI:  

https://doi.org/10.1086/221171  

Sewell, W.H. (1963). The educational and occu-

pational perspectives of rural youth. Wash-

ington, DC: National Committee for Chil-

dren and Youth, Department of Health, Edu-

cation and Welfare. 

https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED019169. 

Sewell, W.H. (1964). Community of residence 

and college plans. American Sociological 

Review, 29(1):24-38. DOI: 

https://doi.org/10.2307/2094638. 

Sewell, W.H., & Armer, J. M. (1966). Neigh-

borhood context and college plans. American 

Sociological Review, 31(2):159-168. DOI: 

https://doi.org/10.2307/2090901. 

Sewell, W.H., Haller, A.O., & Straus, M.A. 

(1957). Social status and educational and oc-

cupational aspiration. American Sociological 

Review, 22(1):67-73. 

https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.2307/2088767  

Sewell, W.H., & Hauser, R.M. (1972). Causes 

and consequences of higher education: Mod-

els of the status attainment process. Ameri-

can Journal of Agricultural Economics, 

54(5):851-861. DOI: 

https://doi.org/10.2307/1239228  

Sewell, W.H., Hauser, R.M., Springer, K.W., & 

Hauser, T.S. (2003). As we age: A review of 

the Wisconsin Longitudinal Study, 1957–

2001. Research in Social Stratification and 

Mobility, 20:3-111. DOI: 

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0276-

5624(03)20001-9  

Sewell, W.H., & Shah, V.P. (1967). Socioeco-

nomic status, intelligence, and the attainment 

of higher education. Sociology of Education, 

40(1):1-23. DOI: 

https://doi.org/10.2307/2112184  

Wang, F.Q., & Shi, Y.W. (2014). Family back-

ground, educational expectation, and college 

degree attainment: An empirical study based 

on Shanghai survey. Chinese Journal of So-

ciology, 34(1):175-195. [Chinese]. DOI: 

10.15992/j.cnki.31-1123/c.2014.01.011 

Wilson, A.B. (1959). Residential segregation of 

social classes and aspirations of high school 

boys. American Sociological Review, 

24(6):836-845. DOI: 

https://doi.org/10.2307/2088572  

Wu, X.G. (2011). The household registration 

system and rural–urban educational inequali-

ty in contemporary China. Chinese Sociolog-

ical Review, 44(2):31-51. DOI: 

https://doi.org/10.2753/CSA2162−05554 

40202  

Wu, Y.X. (2013). Educational opportunities for 

rural and urban residents in China, 1978–

2008: Inequality and evolution. Social Sci-

ences in China, 34(3):58-75. DOI: 

https://doi.org/10.1080/02529203.2013.8205

55  

Wu, Y.X., Huang, C., & Liu, H. (2017). School 

socioeconomic segregation and educational 

expectations of students in China’s junior 

high schools. Social Sciences in China, 

38(3):112-126.  

Yang, X.C., Yao, Y., & Zhang, S. (2016). A 

study on the influence of family social status 

on adolescents’ educational expectation: An 

empirical analysis based on CEPS 2014 sur-

vey data. China Youth Study, 13(3):67-73. 

[Chinese] DOI: 

https://doi.org/10.19633/j.cnki.11-2579/d. 

2016.07.011  

Zheng, L., & Wang, S. (2014). School choice, 

capitalization of educational services, and 

residential segmentation: A reflection on the 

policy of neighborhood schooling. Education 

& Economy, (6):25-32. [Chinese]. 

http://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTA

L-JYJI201406004.htm 

 

 

 

 

 

The Chinese version of this article has been published in Global Education View, 2020, 49(3):90-

105. The English version has been authorized for being publication in BECE by the author(s) and 

the Chinese journal. 

侯玉娜, 李馥丽. (2020).城乡初中生教育期望的差异研究:个人、家庭与社会结构的影响. 全

球教育展望, 49(3):90-105 

 

https://doi.org/10.1086/221171
https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.2307/2088767
https://doi.org/10.2307/1239228
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0276-5624(03)20001-9
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0276-5624(03)20001-9
https://doi.org/10.2307/2112184
https://doi.org/10.2307/2088572
https://doi.org/10.1080/02529203.2013.820555
https://doi.org/10.1080/02529203.2013.820555
https://doi.org/10.19633/j.cnki.11-2579/d.%202016.07.011
https://doi.org/10.19633/j.cnki.11-2579/d.%202016.07.011


Hou & Li. Educational Expectation between Urban and Rural Junior High School Students. 

BECE, Vol.10, No. 1, 2022 1335 

 

Received: 29 November 2021 

Revised: 08 December 2021 

Accepted: 06 January 2022 

 

 

 

 

 


	Article-YunaHou-BECE_title_Jan2022
	Article-YunaHou--BECE_MaintextJan2022

