During the 2026 Two Sessions, Professor Yu Miaojie—Deputy to the National People’s Congress and President of Liaoning University—submitted a heavyweight proposal for China’s educational reform. Yu officially proposed the “abolition of vocational-general streaming after the High School Entrance Exam (Zhongkao),” advocating for a ten-year compulsory education system. This plan would integrate the entire senior high school stage into the compulsory system, ensuring all students have the opportunity to attend general high schools.
The suggestion sent shockwaves through educational circles, academia, and parent groups alike. Against the backdrop of global industrial chains moving upscale and the urgent need for “New Quality Productive Forces,” this proposal—affecting hundreds of millions of families—is not just a challenge to basic education screening but a profound reshaping of China’s future higher education landscape and labor structure.
At the Crossroads of Institutional Transition: From “Premature Streaming” to “Universal High School”
In his proposal, Professor Yu explicitly pointed out that the current “Zhongkao streaming” policy carves out life trajectories for adolescents as young as 15. This not only fuels “involution” (hyper-competition) in basic education but also fails to meet the demands of modern technological advancement for versatile talent. As China enters a stage of high-quality economic development, traditional low-end manufacturing roles are vanishing. Fields like smart manufacturing and the digital economy require generalists with solid foundations in both STEM and the humanities. By abolishing streaming and shortening the schooling cycle to ten years (e.g., a 5-5 model or maintaining the status quo while universalizing high school), the “Zhongkao anxiety” of parents could be effectively mitigated, allowing youth to make career choices at a more mature stage.
From an academic perspective, this reflects a shift from “Human Resource Screening” to “Human Capital Accumulation.” Supporters argue that current streaming has turned vocational high schools into a synonym for “low-end education,” plagued by uneven quality and social stigma. Universal high school education would provide a larger, more balanced talent pool for higher education and offer “late bloomers” more room for error. This model has proven successful in developed nations; as the world’s second-largest economy, China now possesses the fiscal and infrastructural foundation to support such a transition.
Reshaping Higher Education: Expansion and the Pressure on Applied Universities
If streaming is abolished, the impact will immediately surge into the higher education sector. Universal high school access implies an explosion in the number of Gaokao (College Entrance Exam) candidates, testing the capacity of Chinese universities. Yu’s proposal implies a systemic chain reaction: higher education must transition from “elite” to “universal.” To absorb the influx of graduates, existing vocational colleges may need to undergo large-scale reforms or transform into applied undergraduate universities. This would represent the most significant structural adjustment since the 1999 enrollment expansion, shifting the focus toward a tripartite system of “research-oriented, applied, and technical” institutions.
This is not merely about scale; it requires a complete overhaul of disciplinary layouts and evaluation systems. Experts note that if everyone attends high school, university admission criteria must become more diverse. Applied universities would take over the skill-building functions previously held by vocational schools but at a Bachelor’s degree level. This demands a massive increase in educational budgets and curricula that align tightly with industrial needs. As the head of a comprehensive university, Yu’s proposal reflects a strategic anticipation of future student quality and social demand: tomorrow’s graduates must not only be “hands-on” but also possess deep theoretical grounding.
Labor Market Echoes: Skill Dividends vs. Concerns of Employment Mismatch
However, grand institutional reforms always face friction. While the proposal was cheered by parents online, it sparked concern among economists regarding a “skilled talent gap.” Critics argue that abolishing streaming might lead to a workforce that is “overqualified but under-skilled,” with students flocking to universities and exacerbating the structural shortage of blue-collar workers. As Chinese manufacturing leaps toward “Intelligent Manufacturing,” it relies heavily on high-level “Great Country Craftsmen.” Some fear that a purely general education might cause students to miss the optimal window for practical skill training.
In response, Yu and his supporters argue that this is precisely the catalyst for reform. By elevating the educational level, the “blue-collar” workers of the future will be “New Blue-Collar”—holders of undergraduate degrees capable of complex programming and equipment maintenance. Elevating professional status is the ultimate solution to manufacturing labor shortages. Current streaming, to some extent, reinforces social stratification; universal high school education grants underprivileged students a second chance to change their fate. The labor market mismatch should be solved through market-driven wage adjustments and optimized university majors, rather than administrative force.
From Proposal to Reality: Fiscal Support and the Urban-Rural Equity Challenge
Despite the grand vision, moving from paper to practice faces significant bottlenecks, primarily fiscal investment and urban-rural equity. Universalizing high school requires the state to shoulder immense additional costs, including new facilities, faculty hiring, and student subsidies. While China’s economic volume can cover this, ensuring balanced resource distribution is critical amid local fiscal pressures. If streaming is abolished without addressing the concentration of elite resources in provincial capitals, the reform could widen the “credential gap” between urban and rural areas.
Furthermore, the evaluation system must evolve. Without moving away from the Gaokao score as the sole metric, universal high school may simply delay “Zhongkao involution” by three years, turning it into a more intense “Gaokao involution.” Professor Yu’s suggestion is, in effect, a “stress test” for China’s entire selective education system. It requires policymakers to consider not just if a student can go to school, but what kind of school they attend and what they do after graduation. This debate transcends school years; it touches the core of how Chinese society defines fairness, plans national strength, and maximizes the value of every precious laborer in a future aging society.