Teacher Policy Selection in China’s Higher Vocational Education: Evidence from 124 Central and Provincial Policy Documents

Abstract

This study examined the policies governing the teaching workforce in China’s higher vocational education system. We developed a two-dimensional analytical framework (“policy content elements–policy tools”) to conduct an in-depth analysis of 124 central and provincial policy texts. The key findings are as follows: (1) Imbalance in policy tools: Authoritative and capacity-building tools dominate, while symbolic and exhortative tools are underutilized. Disparities exist between the central and provincial policies regarding the deployment of specific tools. (2) Prioritization of content elements: The strongest emphasis is placed on teacher cultivation, followed by teacher evaluation and safeguarding. Policies concerning teacher recruitment (access) have received little attention. (3) Policy misalignment: Poor coordination between policy tools and content elements undermines overall policy effectiveness. To address these issues, we propose the following: (1) Optimizing the policy tool portfolios: Reduce overreliance on authoritative tools for teacher recruitment and strengthen the use of incentive-based and capacity-building tools for evaluation and safeguards. (2) Strengthening recruitment policies: Formalize qualification standards, rigorously enforce teaching certifications, and standardize hiring procedures. (3) Enhancing policy coordination: Incorporating regional variations to improve the evidence-based integration of policy tools. These recommendations aim to refine the teaching workforce policies and advance the high-quality development in higher vocational education.

1. Introduction

As the central pillar driving the development of higher vocational education, teaching staff represent the primary force behind the high-quality development of national higher vocational education in the new era. They hold a fundamental and strategic position within the higher vocational education system. The development of higher vocational teachers emphasizes the synergistic and equal importance of practical skills and theoretical abilities and is closely linked to the evolving needs of the market (Mu and Yang 2017).

Higher vocational education faculty development refers to a group of professionals in upper-level vocational colleges and universities responsible for education and teaching, talent cultivation, scientific research, social services, and other related duties (He et al. 2018). In January 2018, the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China and the State Council issued the Opinions on Comprehensively Deepening the Reform of Teacher Team Construction in the New Era (hereafter referred to as Opinions), which called for a comprehensive enhancement of teacher quality in vocational colleges and universities and to establish a high-caliber team of dual-professional teachers (CPC Central Committee State Council 2018). Following the promulgation of Opinions, the provinces introduced and improved local policies to support the development of reaching staff in higher vocational education. At present, China is actively advancing the Double High Plan for vocational education, deepening reforms in key teaching elements, and promoting the development of industry-education integration internship and training bases. Consequently, the role of teachers has become increasingly irreplaceable.

Currently, there are few studies on policies concerning higher vocational education teaching staff from the perspective of policy tools. The research object mainly focuses on dual-professional title teachers (S. F. Li 2014; Xu and Yuan 2024), while the research problem focuses on the micro level (Hao 2024; Ma et al. 2023). In recent years, central and local governments have increasingly prioritized the development of higher vocational education teacher teams and have introduced a series of policy measures. The effective implementation of these policies to build strong teaching teams in higher vocational education depends heavily on the strategic application of appropriate policy tools. The combination of policy tools and the level at which policy content is presented directly reflects the preferences of different levels of government in selecting policies to build higher vocational teacher teams, thus affecting policy implementation (Hu et al. 2024). Currently, teachers in higher vocational colleges and universities exhibit limited understanding and awareness of teacher ethics, experience structural imbalances within the teaching staff, have a low proportion of dual-professional teachers, and operate under underdeveloped training systems (Yang and Song 2021).

For this reason, this study aims to develop a two-dimensional analytical framework based on “policy content elements–policy tools” to analyze the development of higher vocational education teacher team policy and to provide an empirical foundation for constructive recommendations to formulate and improve future teacher team policies.

2. Literature Review

In the context of China’s rapid economic development and ongoing industrial restructuring, the role of higher vocational education in cultivating highly skilled, application-oriented, and innovative talent is becoming increasingly prominent. Building a team of higher vocational education teachers is essential to achieving this objective. In recent years, scholars have conducted extensive research on policies regarding teacher teams in higher vocational education. This study focuses on the following three aspects:

First, from the viewpoint of policy evolution and the current landscape, Xu and Yuan (2024) noted that China’s vocational education “dual-professional teachers” recognition policy has undergone three distinct phases: initial exploration, connotative development, and comprehensive improvement. W. J. Nie (2022) analyzed policies related to the development of “dual-professional teachers” in higher vocational colleges and universities between 2010 and 2020, concluding that they were characterized by steady progression with periodic fluctuations, policy diversity, and low ranking. However, most existing studies merely combine policy texts without conducting comparative analysis across regions and time periods, limiting the ability to reveal contextual similarities and differences in the underlying drivers of policy evolution have not been sufficiently explored.

Secondly, Zhu and Shi’s (2023) research on the integrated education teacher-team building policies reveals that authoritative and capacity-building policy tools are overutilized, whereas systematic reform tools, symbols and exhortation tools are underused. Similarly, Z. C. Xu’s (2022) analysis of special education teacher policies found that the structural suitability of policy tools requires optimization and that there is an insufficient supply of tailored policies for teacher subtypes. The analytical framework developed by these studies is relatively narrow, as it primarily focuses on a two-dimensional analysis of policy tool types and policy elements, while failing to account for essential factors such as the main body of policy implementation and context. Wang et al. (2024) examined publicly funded education policies for local educators and found that the application of policy tools presents a command-and-control bias. The use of incentives and capacity-building mechanisms requires further reinforcement, and the scientific basis and the appropriateness of aligning policy tools with their content needs improvement (Wang et al. 2024).

Finally, Liu et al. (2021) argue that policies to identify “dual-professional teachers” in vocational education face several challenges, including an unclear scope of identification and insufficiently refined criteria. Therefore, they emphasize strengthening top-level policy design and improving the overall policy framework. Similarly, Li and He (2022) highlighted the absence of key elements in the policy framework for the development of “dual-professional teachers” in higher vocational colleges and universities. They proposed that such policies should be incorporated into legal governance and that inter-departmental coordination should be strengthened. The proposed countermeasures lack both contextual relevance and practical feasibility, and they fail to reflect the characteristics and real-world applications of policy tools. Furthermore, the countermeasures do not incorporate an analysis of the potential challenges or institutional resistance that might arise during policy implementation, nor do they consider the impacts of policy adjustments on different stakeholders.

3. Research Methodology

3.1. Data Sources

This study uses the official websites of central and provincial government departments to gather data. Specifically, the keywords “teaching staff” and “teachers of higher vocational education” were used to collect a wide range of policy texts from these websites. To ensure that the policy texts collected are both accurate and representative, this study employed the following selection criteria: the topics focused explicitly on the construction of higher vocational education teachers workforce; the policy texts exerted substantial influence on this construction—in terms of guiding ideology, development goals, construction tasks, and safeguard measures; and policy texts directly reflected the central and local provincial governments’ developmental ideas on constructing the higher vocational education teaching staff. The criteria yielded a sample of 124 texts published as of 31 December 2024, including 40 central and 84 provincial policy texts.

3.2. Analytical Framework

This study develops a two-dimensional analytical framework to analyze the central and local governments’ preferred combinations of policy instruments and policy content related to the development of vocational education teaching staff. The framework consists of two primary dimensions: policy tools (the X dimension) and policy content elements (the Y dimension). The X dimension represents the number of occurrences and proportion of policy instruments, whereas the Y dimension provides insight into the content elements of policies. This framework is used to examine how frequently various content elements and policy tools appear, and how they are combined in practice.

Policy tools (X dimension) refer to various methods, techniques, and means adopted by governments to achieve certain goals. They represent the tangible expression of the government’s operational model and its external regulation mechanisms (Hughes 2007). Additionally, they encompass the methods adopted by the public sector that can be identified and used to address public issues in an organized manner (Salamon 2016). As a link connecting policy objectives and policy effectiveness, policy tools play a policy role in achieving the government’s established goals (D. Huang 2006), serve as a vital guide in shaping the framework of higher vocational education, and provide strategic insights for selecting and refining policy tools for future teacher exchanges (Tang and Shi 2020). Consequently, they have become the central focus of policy research.

Considering the complexity and variability of both subjective and objective environments, a wide range of criteria and approaches has been employed in the academic literature to categorize and classify policy instruments. International scholarship typically recognizes three main classification frameworks. First, policy instruments are classified into voluntary, mixed, or coercive based on the degree of coercion (Howlett and Ramesh 2006). Second, they are classified as commanding, incentive-type, capacity-building, or systemic-changing instruments according to the type of impact on the target population (McDonnell and Elmore 1987). In addition, Schneider and Ingram (1990) developed five classes of policy tools: authoritative, motivational, empowerment, symbolic and exhortative, and learning tools. Third, policy tools are categorized as supply-side, demand-side, and environmental types based on the relationship between policymakers and implementers (Rothwell and Zegveld 1984). Domestic scholars have adopted these classifications. For instance, Chen (2003) categorized policy tools into market-oriented tools, business management techniques, and socialization means, based on the resources and techniques used by the government. Wei et al. (2024) built on the classifications proposed by Xue Eryong and Lorraine M. McDonnell to divide policy tools into mandatory, guiding, capacity-building, and organization-constructive categories.

Categorizing policy tools requires a comprehensive consideration of their scientific basis and effectiveness, with particular attention to policy context and feasibility. Therefore, to thoroughly analyze the value logic and strategic implementation of higher vocational teachers’ team-building policies, it is necessary to consider the government’s behavioral patterns as the primary agent of policy implementation, the developmental factors influencing higher vocational education teachers’ teams as the target of policy intervention, and to employ a diverse set of policy tools to optimize policy outcomes (Francis 2007). This approach aligns with the logic outlined by McDonnell and Elmore (1987) and by Schneider and Ingram (1990), in their categorization of policy tools. Therefore, this study primarily draws on the policy tool classification frameworks developed by these two groups of scholars to construct a comprehensive typology suitable for analyzing policies related to faculty development in higher vocational education.

Specifically, the tools are categorized into five categories: authoritative, capacity-building, system-changing, motivational, and symbolic or exhortative. Authoritative tools, also referred to as command-and-control tools, are implemented by the government through regulations, directives, and mandates. These tools impose binding rules and obligations on both the policy target groups and implementers, with specific manifestations including commands, regulations, licenses, and prohibitions (Wu 2011).

Capacity-building tools aim to enhance the capabilities of individuals and institutions by providing information, education, resources, and training. These tools emphasize long-term investment and management effects, including training and education, appropriate equipment or tools, effective information, and assessment (Bao and Hu 2023). Incentive tools are designed to motivate policy targets and implementers to take actions aligned with policymakers’ goals by using positive or negative stimuli, such as agreements, rewards, penalties, authorizations, and lowered standards. Specific forms include rewards, recognition, priority, funding, subsidies, reductions, penalties, and revocations (Tian 2024).

Systemic transformation tools, in contrast, are closely associated with changes in authority. When policymakers determine that an organization cannot achieve the desired policy outcomes under the existing incentive structure and resource allocation, they must change the organizational framework to redistribute authority and better support policy goals. This typically involves redefining functions and reallocating resources (Z. J. Huang 2008). Symbolic and exhortative tools assume that individual motivations and policy-related decisions are shaped by their beliefs and values. These tools encourage compliance with policies, such as raising public acceptance and support for education policies through advocacy and education, in the form of “labeling” and “symbolizing and appealing to intangible values (fairness, freedom, efficiency, etc.)” (S. T. Liu 2022).

Table 1. Operational summary of the classification of policy instruments.

Tool Type	Operational Definitions	Iconic Words in the Policy Literature
Authoritative	Authoritative government that, by virtue of its political authority, issues mandatory provisions and requirements to both policy targets and implementers, typically in the form of orders, regulations, permits, prohibitions, etc.	Must, shall, implement, enforce, prescribe, develop, establish, perfect, implement, allow, approve, consent, authorize, prohibit, shall not, restrict, strictly prohibit, compel, ensure, safeguard, require, standard, necessary conditions
Motivational	Policy instruments that influence target audiences and implementers to take actions desired by policy makers through positive or negative incentives and feedback, typically in the form of agreements, rewards, penalties, authorizations, lowering of standards, etc.	Reward, recognition, priority, funding, subsidy, remission, penalty, revocation, prohibition, recourse, authorization, autonomy, qualification, lowering of standards, relaxation of requirements, incentives, pay for performance, appraisal, tilt
Symbolic and exhortative	A tool that motivates target audiences and policy implementers to act by guiding, inspiring, and interacting with people’s values and beliefs, often through techniques such as “labeling” and “symbolizing and appealing to intangible values (equity, freedom, efficiency, etc.)”.	Equity, freedom, efficiency, innovation, quality, sustainability, ideals, ethics, social responsibility, lifelong learning, teamwork, communication, consultation, cooperation, participation, feedback, exemplary, recognition, branding, culture, logo, appeal, exhortation, guidance, motivation, education
Capacity-building	Capacity-building tools support policy targets and implementers in various ways, including by providing training, education resources, appropriate equipment, and access to relevant information and evaluation methods.	Training, development, training, practical training, further training, education, study, degree, equipment, tools, resources, information, data, assessment, support, services, counseling, guidance, evaluation, certification, appraisal, standards, incentives, development, promotion, rewards
Systemic-changing	When policymakers determine that an organization cannot achieve desired policy outcomes under the current incentive mechanism and resource allocation model, they must modify the organizational structure to redistribute authority and facilitate goal attainment, often by redefining functions and reallocating resources.	Joint training, mechanism, commissioning, guidance, national regulations, training and training bases, open recruitment, first standard, part-time teachers, mobile positions, optimizing team building, groundwork, education power, high level

illustrates how different types of policy tools and their interpretations vary across central and local levels for vocational education teachers.

Policy content (Y dimension) provides a general overview of the characteristics of higher vocational education teaching staff through policy tools, but lacks a specific, targeted analysis. To explore the content and internal logic of these policies, this study conducts an in-depth analysis of their content elements.

There are two perspectives in academic research on teacher policy. One is the teacher policy orientation perspective. Based on hierarchical coding from grounded theory, Yan and Shang (2024) analyzed the content of China’s teacher team construction and identified four core categories that form the basis for high-quality teaching team development: teacher personality and morality, teachers’ business capacity, management software systems, and technological infrastructure. Li and Xiang (2024) categorized construction elements into seven dimensions: teacher ethics, institutional management, teacher staffing, status and treatment, teacher training, career development, and organizational leadership. (Tong and Li 2024) divided policy content dimension into four aspects: teacher ethics, professional development, management reform, and welfare assurance.

The second perspective focuses on teacher development law. Combining the teacher policy analysis dimensions proposed by the World Bank and UNESCO with six initiatives outlined in the Opinions, (Zhu and Shi 2023) identify six core elements of integrated education teacher policy: pre-service training, appointment systems, continuing education, position management, compensation mechanisms, and defined job duties. Xu and Wang (2022) argue that among various professional training system designs, teacher training systems are particularly unique, as their foundation should be based not only on teacher training itself but also on the entire process of “enrollment, training, and employment.” In response to existing challenges, Cui and Shi (2020) propose a practical approach to building a “dual-professional teachers” team through three aspects: recruitment, cultivation, and management. The recommendations include strengthening entry mechanism to ensure quality intake, promoting school-enterprise cooperation for in-depth cultivation, and enhancing the management system to improve overall efficiency.

In summary, this study concludes that the policy system for higher vocational teachers’ teams begins with an access policy, emphasizes guarantee and evaluation policies as its core components, and aims to achieve the high-quality development of these teams through teacher cultivation. Together, these four elements constitute a complete, developmental, and coordinated policy system. See

Table 2. Elements of the policy content for building the higher vocational teaching workforce and their meanings.

Elements of Policy Content	Meaning
teacher admission	It is the gateway and entry point to the teaching profession, involving a series of criteria and procedures designed to ensure that only individuals who meet certain qualifications and competencies can become teachers (Li and Duan 2022).
teacher training	It refers to the entire process of developing and preparing teachers for educational and instructional responsibilities, encompassing all aspects of a teacher’s career—from their initial training to ongoing professional development. The primary goal of teacher formation is to equip teachers with the knowledge, skills, and attitudes necessary educate students effectively and facilitate their learning and development (Song et al. 2018).
teacher evaluation	Teacher evaluation is a value judgment activity, focusing on “human needs.” It involves the systematic assessment and analysis of teachers’ performance, competence, and effectiveness in teaching and education. In evaluating teaching performance, it is essential to reject the undesirable tendencies of “only papers” and “only hats,” and instead prioritize teachers’ morals and ethical behavior, teaching achievements, and the actual level of focusing on teaching and educating people (Cheng et al. 2021).
teacher protection	Protection is provided in areas such as teacher status, posting, title evaluation, and rights and remedies, covering a wide range of measures aimed at safeguarding teachers’ legitimate rights and interests, upgrading their social status, and improving their working and living conditions (Jin and Sun 2024).

for details.

This study develops a two-dimensional framework by combining X and Y dimensions of higher vocational education teacher policy analysis to examine the transformation policies of local colleges and universities in China. The results are presented in Figure 1.

3.3. Coding Methods

The policy text serves as the primary object of analysis in this study, with each article treated as a unit. The 124 screened policy texts were coded using the format: “policy text serial number—policy name—policy chapter—policy entry.” They were then coded according to the format of “policy text serial number—policy name—policy chapter—policy entry.” For instance, “1-1-1-1” refers to “the first policy text, the first policy title (Opinions on Comprehensively Deepening the Reform of the Teaching Staff Construction in the New Era), the first chapter (Section 1) (Adhere to the principle that the development of the country must first strengthen teachers, and deeply understand the significance of the construction of the teaching staff and general requirements), the first entry (Article 1 Strategic significance)”. To ensure coding accuracy, this study first had two researchers code back-to-back. After coding was complete, their results were compared to check for agreement. If the codes matched, they were accepted; if not, discrepancies were resolved through discussion. The process obtained 420 units of policy text analysis (see

Table 3. Textual content analysis codes for higher vocational education teacher policy (example).

Serial Number	Name of Policy	Chapters	Entry (Policy Text Analysis Module)	Serial Number
1	Opinions of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China and the State Council on Comprehensively Deepening the Reform of the teaching staff in the New Era	The first chapter emphasizes that national development must be preceded by strengthening of teachers and thoroughly understanding the significance and overall requirements of building the teaching staff.	Article I. Strategic significance. Teachers carry the historical mission of imparting knowledge, transmitting ideas, and promoting truth. They also bear the responsibility of shaping character, nurturing lives, and cultivating talents for new era. They are the primary resource for educational development and key pillar of national prosperity, national revitalization, and people’s happiness.	1-1-1-1
…	…	…	…	…
124	Development Plan for Higher Education in Henan Province	(iii) Objectives and tasks	(c) Create an innovative and highly educated teaching staff. The proportion of dual-professional teachers in higher vocational colleges and universities should reach approximately 30%. Simultaneously, teachers’ professional ethics and support for constructing teaching staff should be improved to build an open and flexible teacher education system. By 2020, both the academic level and overall quality of teachers will have been further improved.	124-3-1-1

for an example).

3.4. Data Analysis

Analysis Based on the Policy Instrument Dimension

Policy instruments from the 420 policy text analysis units were categorized and counted to determine their distribution across central and local provincial-level texts (see

Table 4. Frequency and share of use of policy instruments at the provincial and central levels.

Policy Tools	Centralized Policy		Provincial Policies
	Frequency/Times	Percentage/%	Frequency/Times	Percentage/%
Authoritative policy instruments	78	30.71	73	44.51
Incentive policy instruments	55	21.65	11	6.71
Symbolic and exhortative policy instruments	13	5.12	4	2.44
Capacity-building policy instruments	75	29.53	67	40.36
Systemic-changing policy instruments	33	12.99	11	6.71

).

As shown in Table 4, the use of the four policy tools exhibits both commonalities and imbalances. First, in both central and provincial policy documents, authoritative policy tools were the most frequently mentioned, with the highest usage rates of 30.71% and 44.51%, respectively. Second, regardless of central or provincial policies, capacity-building policy tools ranked second only to authoritative policy tools in terms of frequency of use, accounting for 29.53% and 40.36%, respectively. Third, the symbolic and exhortative policy tools were used least frequently, accounting for only 5.12% and 2.44% in central and provincial policies, respectively. Compared to provincial policies, central policies used these tools roughly twice as often. Fourth, incentive-based and systemic-changing policy tools were used at an intermediate level in both central and provincial policies. However, central policies employed these tools three to five times more frequently than provincial policies.

3.5. Analysis Based on the Dimension of Policy Content Elements

Based on the categorization of 420 policy text units and the dimensions of policy content elements,

Table 5. Frequency and percentage of use of content elements of transformation policies at the central and provincial levels.

Elements of Policy Content	Keyword Examples	Centralized Policies		Provincial Policies
		Frequency/Times	Percentage/%	Frequency/Times	Percentage/%
teacher admission	Teacher recruitment methods, teaching qualifications, two-way teacher mobility, work experience, practical experience, integration of industry-university-research, “dual-professional teachers” quality	33	13.10	30	18.29
teacher training	Teachers’ Professional Quality, School-Enterprise Cooperation, Teachers’ Ideological and Moral Education, Business Training, Dual-professional Teachers Team Construction, Teacher Team Construction for Industry-Teaching Integration, Dual-professional Teachers Cultivation and Training Bases, 1+X Certificate System, Vocational Skill Training, Informatization Construction, Teachers’ Subject Competence and Subject Literacy	100	39.68	90	54.88
teacher evaluation	Vocational education teacher qualification, regular registration, performance assessment, title evaluation, merit assessment and reward, employment management, reform of the teacher title system, assessment and evaluation standards, teacher ethics standards, teaching workload, teaching performance, teaching research, evaluation of representative achievements	56	22.22	21	12.80
teacher protection	Special education allowance, protection of relevant treatment, sound mechanism for the use of highly skilled personnel positions, sound teacher honor system, dual-professional teachers team tilt, financial security	65	25.79	25	15.06

presents the frequency and proportion of attention given to different content elements in central and provincial policies.

As shown in Table 5, there is minimal variation in the degree of focus across content elements in policies aimed at building higher vocational teaching staff. Teacher training is prioritized at both the central and provincial levels, while teacher evaluation and teacher protection receive greater attention, and teacher admission receives the least attention overall.

Teacher training is the most emphasized content element in policies on teacher-team building in higher vocational education. At both the central and provincial levels, it was mentioned 100 and 90 times, respectively, comprising over 39% of all policy content. This reflects a mismatch between policy design and practical needs, suggesting that teacher development policies may encounter implementation challenges, such as insufficient training funds and misalignment between training content and actual teaching, which prevent them from effectively supporting teachers’ professional growth (Guo and Chen 2019). From 2012 to 2022, China’s higher vocational education system expanded significantly. The number of teachers in higher vocational colleges and universities grew from 423,000 to 647,000—an increment of 224,000, or 53%. Meanwhile, student enrollment rose from 9.648 million to 16.938 million, an increase of 7.29 million, or 75%. This comparison reveals that the growth rate of teaching staff lagged student enrollment by 22 percentage points. Additionally, as of 2022, only 8.91% of secondary vocational schoolteachers held master’s degrees, and just 2.51% of full-time faculty in higher vocational colleges and universities held doctoral degrees (X. X. Liu 2024). Thus, it is evident that China’s higher vocational teachers face dual pressures of meeting both quantity and quality demands. The CPC Central Committee and State Council in their “carrying forward the spirit of educators to strengthen the construction of high-quality professional teachers in the new era of opinions” emphasize the need to embody the educator’s spirit to build a dedicated teaching force. By 2035, the spirit is expected to become a shared aspiration among most teachers, contributing to the modernization of the teaching staff governance system and their ability to govern (CPC Central Committee and State Council 2024). Therefore, the development of a higher vocational teachers’ team should be guided by the educator’s spirit, promoting comprehensive team building in line with the demands of the new era and advancing the goal of building a strong educational nation.

Teacher security ranked second in importance after teacher training. In central and provincial transformation policies, it appeared 65 and 25 times, accounting for 25.79% and 15.06%, respectively. As a key factor in building the higher vocational education teacher team, teacher protection received focused attention in both central and provincial policies. These policies emphasize strengthening special education allowance, ensuring relevant treatment, improving mechanisms for utilizing high-skilled personnel, enhancing the honor system for teachers, and prioritizing the development of the “dual-professional teachers” model, all aimed at motivating the higher vocational education teacher team. The Ministry of Education and seven other departments have been working to stimulate endogenous momentum in the development of higher vocational education teaching staff. For instance, they issued the Notice on the Issuance of (Some Measures to Further Strengthen the Work of Respecting and Benefiting Teachers), which provides important guarantees for teachers’ medical health, cultural enhancement, life services, and housing. The Circular of the Shanghai Municipal Education Commission on the Issuance of the Guidelines for Promoting the Improvement of the Quality and Capability of Professional Teachers in Shanghai Vocational Schools (Ministry of Education 2024) states that a five-year cycle will be adopted to develop professional teachers in vocational schools—shifting from solely pre-service training to a combined pre-service and post-service model. It also aims to improve systems for teacher training and development, enterprise practice, vocational qualification certification, and the “dual-professional teachers” recognition system (Shanghai Education Commission 2024). Although the central government and local provinces have issued a series of policies to ensure teacher development, issues persist regarding equal opportunity, structural protections, and recognition of professional achievement. These gaps in the legislative safeguards for teachers’ professional development require further improvement (Nie and Huang 2024).

Teacher evaluations have received significant attention. In central and provincial transformation policies, teacher evaluations appeared 56 and 21 times, respectively—accounting for 22.22% and 12.80%, respectively. Unlike research universities, teachers at higher vocational colleges and universities require not only strong theoretical knowledge but also practical industry experience (J. H. Wang 2023). Therefore, both central and provincial policy texts emphasize classification and stratified evaluation. For instance, the Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security and the Ministry of Education jointly issued the “Guiding Opinions on Deepening the Reform of the Job Title System for Teachers in Colleges and Universities,” which states that, based on each institution’s characteristics and type of schooling, scientific and reasonable classification and stratification evaluation standards should be established for different disciplines. Vocational colleges and universities should emphasize technical skills and enhance the development of “dual-professional teachers” teams (Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security and Ministry of Education 2020). Furthermore, the hierarchical evaluation policies for teachers in higher vocational education align with the expressive evaluation method. Performance assessment has evolved beyond paper-and-pencil tests that only measured basic teaching skills and intellectual understanding. It has shifted toward authentic assessments and accountability based on performance results, which can enhance teachers’ professional reflection and reasoning ability and broaden the scope of their work (Kong and Wang 2022). Teacher quality refers to the professional qualities essential for effective educational practice; therefore, constructing an accountability mechanism for teacher quality with Chinese characteristics can strengthen the quality and effectiveness of teacher evaluation (Zhao 2019).

Teacher admission received low priority. In both central and provincial policies, the frequency of teacher admission elements remained below 20%. This suggests that policies for higher vocational education teacher teams emphasize cultivation, evaluation, and protection, while standards for teacher admission remain less stringent. Scholars have noted that in the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, and other Western countries, despite differences in requirements, terminology, and implementation, a strict teacher admission policy is consistently applied. Through specialized training and assessment, the assessment content is aligned with the teacher entry standards, ensuring consistency between teacher cultivation and teacher qualification certificates (Wang and Xie 2011). At present, China’s higher vocational colleges and universities lack a unified teacher standards and the teacher qualification system remains lenient, with low standards and weak alignment between teacher training and qualifications. Problems also persist in appointment criteria and procedural norms (Jiang 2007). The development of robust teacher admission standards and policy-level initiatives remains incomplete, posing a critical challenge in the ongoing effort to strengthen teacher teams in higher vocational institutions.

3.6. Cross-Analysis of the Policy Instrument Dimension and the Content Element Dimension

To capture the use of policy instruments across all policy content elements, this study quantified their crosscutting application with policy instruments (see Figure 1).

As demonstrated in Figure 2, the higher vocational education teacher team-building policy is based on connotation-based development, which refers to a shift from extensive teacher management policies (hiring large numbers, quantity-focused) to a more intensive teacher development policy, focusing on quality and internally driven reform. It has gradually established a logic for configuring policy tools with policy content elements. First, there was a clear preference for authoritative tools in regulating teacher admission. Authoritative tools are the most used government techniques for achieving policy goals and represent the legal authority of public agencies or policymakers to perform assigned tasks, issue licenses, or impose prohibitions and bans under specified circumstances (Wu 2011). Authoritative instruments define the thresholds and entry conditions for the teaching profession, involving a range of standards and procedures. They are characterized as a form of “order under authority” and are widely adopted due to their highly coercive and low implementation cost. However, overreliance on authoritative tools can lead to policy rigidity and conflicts between subjects and objects (Zhou and Zhang 2017). However, higher vocational colleges and universities face a dilemma in recruiting dual-professional teacher talent. On the one hand, master’s and doctoral degree holders often lack industry and practical skills, making them unable to meet dual-professional teacher standards; on the other hand, highly skilled professionals are limited to constraints, such as job titles and salary, which hinder the optimization of the structure of dual-professional teachers in higher vocational education (Cai 2024). Therefore, to maximize the utility of policy tools, central and provincial policies must be thoroughly analyzed, the “one-size-fits-all” policy model should be discarded, and more flexible and locally adapted policy tools should be selected. A strategic combination of policy tools should be employed to alleviate tensions between the subject and object and to align policy goals with the development of vocational education teaching staff. The development of vocational education teachers in colleges and universities should be coordinated.

Second, regarding the use of policy tools for teacher training, there was a clear preference for competency-based constructive policy tools, which accounted for over 50% of all policy tools used. These were most evident in initiatives, such as cultivation, training, advanced training, and internships. These examples include the formation of structured teaching innovation teams with a high number of teachers, the development of training programs centered on the 1+X certificate system, and the establishment of two-way exchanges and collaboration between schools and enterprise personnel. Teacher training in higher vocational education requires not only rich pedagogical knowledge but also strong professional competence. Implementing targeted short-term training, establishing a teacher training system focused on systematic teacher education, and integrating the training process with certificate acquisition will enhance teacher specialization (Wang and Xu 2023).

Third, regarding the use of policy tools for teacher evaluation and protection, authoritative policy tools were the most prevalent, comprising over 40% of all policy tools used. Incentive tools made up 20.78% and 25%, while capacity-building tools accounted for 14.29% and 20.45%, respectively—both modest. Systemic-changing tools represented just 5.68%, a low percentage. As demonstrated by policy tool preferences, the government primarily uses authoritative policy tools to promote teacher evaluation and protection in vocational education, which is prone to overreliance on such tools. In contrast, incentive and capacity-building tools represent a relatively small share, limiting stakeholder motivation and partially obstructing the achievement of policy goals. Additionally, the proportion of systematic-change policy tools is too low, hindering the transformation and development of deep-seated institutional mechanisms among higher vocational education teaching staff (Qi and Song 2022). Education evaluation shapes the direction of educational development and the success or failure of a country with a strong education system (Zhu et al. 2025). It aims to innovate educational practices by integrating the concept of “making people moral” into school, teacher, student, and employer evaluations. This deep-level transformation in how people are educated serves as the foundation for reforms across government, schools, teachers, students, and society, embodying the symbiotic characteristics of educational development. Therefore, as an evaluation tool closely linked to inertia, it should be selected and used based on demand-driven logic rather than supply-driven logic (Wang and Zhu 2024).

In short, the preference for specific policy tools across various content elements results from the interaction of multiple institutional logics (Huang and Zhang 2024). State logic dominates by employing authoritative policy tools to govern teacher admission, evaluation, and guarantees upholding public interest and quality standards in higher vocational education. Meanwhile, market logic encourages teacher enthusiasm and creativity, promoting optimal resource allocation through incentive policies for teacher cultivation, evaluation, and guarantees. Academic logic promotes teachers’ academic development and innovation by applying constructive and incentive policy tools, specifically within teacher cultivation and evaluation. In parallel, the management logic promotes teachers’ academic development and systematic efficiency across all stages, ensuring the effective operation of the higher vocational teacher employment system.

4. Conclusions and Implications

4.1. Conclusions and Discussion

The use of policy tools is biased toward authoritative and capacity-building tools, and their combined application requires optimization and improvement. Authoritative and capacity-building tools appear more frequently in central and provincial policy documents, whereas symbolic and exhortative tools appear least. Incentivizing and systemic-changing tools feature more prominently in central than in provincial policies, highlighting differences in tool selection across government levels. This variation stems from differences in functional positioning and policy priorities across levels of government. The central government focuses more on promoting reform and innovation at the macro level, whereas provincial governments tend to use authoritative tools to ensure policy enforcement during implementation.

The content elements of the policy primarily emphasize teacher development, followed by teacher evaluation and protection, while giving comparatively less focus to teacher entry. This suggests that the current policy prioritizes the development and management of teachers after they enter the profession but lacks sufficient regulation of teacher entry. Differences in regional economic development and industrial structure may also affect the degree of policy emphasis on each element (Peng and Xu 2010). Regions with developed economies and diverse industrial structures may emphasize the alignment between teacher cultivation and industrial demand, while placing less importance on teacher entry.

The suitability of policy tools and content elements must be optimized, and the scientific formulation of policies reinforced. The teacher admission policy favors authoritative tools, which regulate access standards but risk creating contradictions between subject and object. Teacher cultivation primarily uses capacity-building tools, which can enhance teachers’ professionalism. In contrast, authoritative tools dominate teacher evaluation and safeguarding, while motivational, capacity-building, and systemic-changing tools remain underutilized, hindering the full realization of policy objectives. This suggests that there is room to optimize how policy tools and content elements are combined, and a need to coordinate their roles across different segments better. For instance, in teacher evaluation, overreliance on authoritative tools for quantitative evaluation may overlook teachers’ individual development and innovative teaching practices, thereby undermining their motivation (J. L. Yang 2023).

In addition, we need to underline that there are trade-offs in the use of different policy instruments. This could also solve the dilemma of sometimes (unavoidable) contradicting recommendations, such as promoting simultaneously flexibility and decentralised solutions (“develop context-specific guidelines tailored to the actual needs”; “granting colleges and universities greater autonomy in recruitment”), on the one hand, and standardisation and uniformization, on the other (“the system of teacher access standards must be improved by establishing uniform and clearly defined criteria for teachers in higher vocational education”).

4.2. Implications for Policy

Based on the findings of the above study, the following recommendations are proposed to improve the policy regarding the development of higher vocational education teaching staff:

Optimizing the portfolio of policy instruments to enhance policy implementation efforts: A well-balanced combination of tools is essential to achieving policy objectives. Currently, the higher vocational education teacher development policy shows a clear bias in tool selection, with an overreliance on authoritative tools for teacher admission and insufficient use of motivational tools and systemic-changing tools in evaluation and protection. This imbalance reduces policy flexibility and can cause contradictions during implementation. First, reliance on a single authoritative tool in the teacher admission chain should be reduced by introducing motivational tools. Incentive-based tools target policy groups to respond to policy demands by providing material rewards or moral recognition. They are widely applicable, produce noticeable outcomes quickly, and can effectively motivate stakeholders. Compared with authoritative tools, incentive-based tools are less likely to provoke resistance. Additionally, although they have a short impact duration compared to capacity-building tools, they can partially offset the limitations of both authoritative and capacity-building mechanisms. The motivational tools that advance higher vocational teacher training in China should not be underestimated. Moreover, when using such tools, it is essential to avoid overreliance on material incentives. Excessive reliance on material incentives may distort the target group’s perception of the policy’s core values. Therefore, emphasis should be placed on the organic integration of both material and moral incentives (Zhang and Qi 2022). Second, during teacher training, the use of capacity-building tools should be strengthened. By establishing teacher training bases for school-enterprise cooperation, teachers are offered consistent opportunities to practice in enterprise environments, ensuring their professional skills remain aligned with industry demands. Finally, the use of motivational and systemic-changing tools should be expanded in teacher evaluations and assurance processes. For instance, teachers should receive differentiated incentives based on clearly defined, tiered evaluation criteria that reflect their performance in teaching, research, and social service. Simultaneously, teacher management systems and operational mechanisms must be restructured, educational resources must be more equitably distributed, and the systems for teacher evaluation and professional protection should be optimized to stimulate the vitality of the teaching staff.

Deepen the construction of teacher admission policies to strengthen the foundation of the teaching staff: teacher admission is the first gateway in forming a qualified teaching staff, and the scientific formulation of related policies directly affects the overall quality of educators. Currently, there are significant imperfections and inconsistencies in the standards for admitting teachers to higher vocational education, especially in the teacher certification system and recruitment process, which urgently require standardization. First, the system of teacher admission standards must be improved by establishing uniform and clearly defined criteria for teachers in higher vocational education. In addition to stipulating basic conditions such as academic qualifications and work experience, requirements for professional skills, practical abilities, and teaching ethics should be articulated in accordance with industry demands and the distinctive characteristics of vocational education. For instance, policymakers can draw on internationally recognized standards for teacher qualification and develop context-specific guidelines tailored to the actual needs of China’s higher vocational education. Second, the teacher qualification certificate system should be strictly enforced to enhance the value and credibility of certificates. Establishing a rigorous evaluation system ensures that earning a teacher qualification certificate accurately reflects an individual’s true teaching competence. Simultaneously, recruitment practices must be standardized, and the regulatory oversight of the hiring process should be intensified to maintain fairness and transparency. While granting colleges and universities greater autonomy in recruitment, a robust monitoring framework must be established to prevent irregularities in the recruitment process and safeguard the recruitment quality.

Enhance the scientific basis and coordination of policymaking to strengthen the overall effectiveness of policies: The scientific and well-coordinated nature of policies are crucial to their effective implementation. Currently, policy implementation for building the higher vocational education teaching workforce varies across regions and administrative levels, and some areas still adopt a “one-size-fits-all” policy model, resulting in limited policy impact. First, policymakers must carefully consider regional economic development, industrial structure, and the specific conditions of local institutions to avoid imposing the “one-size-fits-all” policy model. For instance, economically developed regions can prioritize internationalization and advanced teacher training, whereas less developed regions should focus on improving basic teaching abilities and practical skills. Simultaneously, it is essential to strengthen policy evaluation and feedback mechanisms, to make timely adjustments based on real-world outcomes. Second, promoting the synergy of policy tools is essential. An in-depth study of the interactions between different tools, aligned with policy objectives and content elements, should guide the strategic combination of these instruments. For instance, in teacher cultivation policies aimed at integrating industry and education, capacity-building tools (e.g., teachers’ practical training in enterprises) should be paired with incentive tools (e.g., tax incentives for enterprises to participate in teacher cultivation) to enhance policy effectiveness. Additionally, establishing a coordinated policy platform can facilitate collaboration among central and local governments, schools, and enterprises, fostering synergy and advancing the comprehensive development of higher vocational education teacher training.