This study investigates the cognitive attitudes of primary and secondary school teachers in Sichuan Province, China, toward the implementation of the “Double Reduction” education policy (DREP), guided by policy diffusion theory. A descriptive survey design was employed, utilizing stratified random sampling to collect data from 12,524 teachers across four regions of varying socioeconomic development levels. A self-developed questionnaire (DREP Implementation Survey; Cronbach’s α = 0.757, KMO = 0.811, p < 0.001) was used to assess teachers’ evaluations of policy effectiveness, perceived impacts, and improvement intentions. Data analysis revealed three key findings: (1) Teachers generally held negative evaluations of policy implementation effectiveness; (2) exhibited dual attitudes toward policy impacts—acknowledging its role in promoting student development while expressing concerns about increased workload burdens; and (3) actively supported policy refinement, particularly advocating for differentiated strategies. Linear regression models demonstrated that effectiveness evaluations ( β = 0.081), impact perceptions ( β = 0.873), improvement intentions ( β = −0.077), teaching experience ( β = −0.138), and regional disparities ( β = −0.019) collectively explained 73.4% of the variance in teachers’ policy attitudes ( R ² = 0.734, p < 0.001). These findings are interpreted through the lens of policy diffusion theory, highlighting the critical role of implementers’ perceptions in shaping the adoption and diffusion of educational reforms. The study emphasizes the need for policymakers to implement tiered interventions, such as fully considering teachers’ workload, competency alignment, incentive mechanisms, subject-specific differences, and regional educational development levels, to reduce implementation disparities and enhance policy sustainability. By revealing the critical role of grassroots stakeholders in educational reform, this study deepens the application of policy diffusion theory in equity-oriented educational governance.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wanbin et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: