Review Reports - The Impact of Family Background and Educational Investment on Students’ Cognitive and Logical Thinking Abilities: Evidence from the China Education Panel Survey

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear author(s),

The paper reviewed debates on the important topic and is a solid structured, empirically grounded analysis of the family influence on children educational performance in China.

The study would benefit from wider theoretical embeddedness (especially in relation to previous studies from China as well as critical debate on differences in cross-cultural studies presented – as not all worldwide results can generalize and apply ross-culturally). Notion on the novelty insights, and deeper interconnection to the theoretical bases are also needed (especially in the discussion part). If cross-cultural comparative analysis would be prepared wider generalization of the results obtained could be developed.

It is additionally important to strengthen empirical validation with wider (and newer) data panel considered enabling longitudinal analysis. Discussion part needs to be widened in relation to the theoretical part inserted. Hypothesis should also be developed and debated.

Finally, it is also advised to recheck the technical performance (proofreading, graphical design for clearer presentation). The abstract should be also rewritten accordingly to clearly state aim, purpose, clear methodology and results.

Detailed instructions please find attached.

Kind regards,

The Reviewer

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript offers an empirically rich and policy-relevant analysis of the influence of family background and educational investment on cognitive and non-cognitive outcomes in contemporary China. While the study’s topic is timely and the data source robust, there are weaknesses that require attention before the paper can be considered for publication.

The introduction is overly long and not well focused. It blends background, literature review and research objectives into a single undifferentiated narrative. For example, theoretical detail are included such as the “Maximally Maintained Inequality” and “Effectively Maintained Inequality” frameworks, which would be more appropriately placed in the literature review section. Moreover, concepts like “educational involution” are introduced without definition or contextualization for an international readership unfamiliar with Chinese educational discourse.

The writing style is often dense and unclear, with long sentences that pack in multiple subordinate clauses. This reduces readability and makes it harder for readers to follow the argument. In addition, some terms ( such as “shadow education” in lines 153–157) are used without prior explanation,

The literature review is quite descriptive rather than critical. For example, the section on MMI and EMI explains these theories but does not discuss how their predictions may align or conflict with empirical patterns in China. Moreover, the discussion would benefit from the inclusion of a broader range of recent international literature addressing the debate on social mobility and inequalities. The description of the Chinese social context should be expanded and supported with additional, up-to-date bibliographical references in order to provide a more comprehensive and internationally accessible framing of the study

The methodological description lacks clarity in some points. The regression equations given at lines 193–195 are poorly formatted, with symbols (ijtti, ββ, K) that are not clearly defined in the immediate text. The rationale for the logarithmic transformation of cognitive and non-cognitive scores is not explained. Moreover, the authors state that robust standard errors are used but do not indicate the clustering level (e.g., by school, region, or individual), which is essential for assessing the appropriateness of the inference.

The results risk to be insufficiently interpreted. While coefficients are reported with statistical significance, their real-world meaning is left vague. For example, lines 282–285 report that “A one-level increase in family economic status is associated with a 3.6% rise in cognitive ability…”, but the reader is not told how many test-score points this corresponds to or whether such an increase is educationally meaningful.

Moreover, there is no explicit section discussing the study’s limitations. Important issues are left unacknowledged, such as the fact that the sample includes only urban students (limiting generalizability), the use of observational data (limiting causal claims), and reliance on self-reported variables like income or reading hours (introducing measurement error).

The discussion section repeats results instead of synthesizing them theoretically. The “Further Discussion” subsections (7.1 and 7.2) re-state findings already presented in the results without deepening the theoretical implications. There is little explicit connection back to Bourdieu’s theory of capital or to more recent refinements. Likewise, there is no comparative perspective with international studies, which would help determine whether these patterns are uniquely Chinese or consistent with global trends.

The reference list needs to be ordered and revised (for example, it contains duplicates (e.g., Schneider et al., 2018 is listed twice) and the in-text citations do not consistently follow the Author–Date format.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Research Topic and Significance
This study utilizes data from the China Education Panel Survey (CEPS) to analyze the effects of family background on Chinese adolescents’ cognitive and non-cognitive abilities, examining the direct and indirect effects of economic and cultural capital. The topic is closely connected to important social issues such as educational inequality and intergenerational gaps, and the use of a large-scale nationally representative dataset enhances the reliability of the data. However, the academic contribution of the study is somewhat limited, as the analytical framework appears to be overly driven by the availability of data, and the connection to existing theories and prior research is insufficient.

2. Limited Scope and Depth of Literature Review
The literature review is restricted to certain studies conducted in China and cases that have used CEPS, lacking broader discussion that incorporates international comparisons or the East Asian context. The scope should be expanded to include international literature, and sufficient theoretical and empirical evidence should be cited to support the causal pathways between each mediating variable and the dependent variables.

3. Weak Theoretical Foundation
Although Bourdieu’s theory of capital is briefly mentioned, the study does not clearly present a theoretical model that explains the specific pathway from family background to educational investment to academic achievement.

4. Lack of Prior Research by Variable
The study does not systematically present domestic and international empirical research on the effects of specific mediating variables—such as school choice, participation in private tutoring, and parents’ reading habits—on academic achievement. A review of prior studies and the influence of each variable should be added.

5. Conceptual Issue in Defining Non-Cognitive Ability
The classification of “logical and problem-solving skills” as non-cognitive ability lacks a clear rationale, and there is little discussion of the conceptual and measurement validity in the academic literature. The definition and measurement of non-cognitive ability should be supplemented with conceptual discussions. In this study, the operationalization of “non-cognitive ability” does not fully align with the international or psychological definition of non-cognitive skills; strictly speaking, it may be more accurate to describe it as “non-academic cognitive skills” or “reasoning/problem-solving test scores.” Using the term “non-cognitive ability” without clarification in policy recommendations or comparative studies could lead to conceptual confusion.

6. Limitation in the Use of Panel Data
Although CEPS is a panel dataset, this study only conducts cross-sectional analysis. This substantially limits the ability to capture temporal changes and draw causal inferences. Analytical methods that take advantage of the panel structure—such as fixed-effects or growth modeling—should be considered.

7. Questionable Measurement Validity of Variables
Household economic status is measured solely based on the household head’s (or parent’s) subjective self-assessment, without cross-verification against objective income or asset data. Was objective income data unavailable? Similarly, the definitions of “wealthiest” and “poorest” groups rely entirely on respondents’ perceptions, which may bias the interpretation of class-comparison results.

8. Model Design
The study combines multiple regression and mediation analysis; however, a structural equation modeling (SEM) approach would be more appropriate, as it would allow for the simultaneous estimation of pathways and the control of measurement error.

9. Interpretation of Results
The study finds that both economic and cultural capital have positive effects on cognitive and non-cognitive abilities, with cultural capital—particularly parental reading and educational involvement—having more long-term and sustained effects. It also reports that the wealthiest group does not necessarily show the highest achievement, and that the poorest group demonstrates strong educational aspirations. However, such interpretations may be overly generalized given the limitations of measurement validity and study design (cross-sectional analysis, class classification based on self-reported perceptions). The strength of such claims should be moderated.

10. Overall Assessment
This study addresses an important topic; however, the lack of theoretical grounding, issues in measurement validity, and the failure to leverage the panel nature of the dataset weaken its academic contribution. Revisions to address the “insufficient literature review” and “methodological limitations” are essential.

Author Response

Comments 1:[ Research Topic and Significance

This study utilizes data from the China Education Panel Survey (CEPS) to analyze the effects of family background on Chinese adolescents cognitive and non-cognitive abilities, examining the direct and indirect effects of economic and cultural capital. The topic is closely connected to important social issues such as educational inequality and intergenerational gaps, and the use of a large-scale nationally representative dataset enhances the reliability of the data. However, the academic contribution of the study is somewhat limited, as the analytical framework appears to be overly driven by the availability of data, and the connection to existing theories and prior research is insufficient.]

Response 1: [ line 74-91: "A series of empirical studies across various national contexts, including European countries, have demonstrated that family socioeconomic status significantly shapes childrens access to education and attainment levels, exerting a consistently positive influence on academic performance (Kenny & Sirin, 2014). However, the applicability and interaction of these mechanisms within non-Western contexts, such as China, require critical examination. The Maximally Maintained Inequality (MMI) theory posits that educational expansion reduces inequality only after saturation of privileged groups enrollment is achieved (Raftery & Hout, 1993). In China, despite rapid expansion of higher education, inequality persists as advantaged families continuously adapt to maintain relative advantages, supporting MMIs core premise but also highlighting its limitations in capturing localized stratification mechanisms, such as the role of the Gaokao examination system and urban-rural disparities. The theory of Effectively Maintained Inequality (EMI) further emphasizes that inequality is sustained not only through quantitative access but also through qualitative differences in school type, curriculum, and academic tracks (Lucas, 2001). Recent studies in China illustrate that EMI manifests via competition for elite urban schools, shadow education (private supplementary tutoring), and tracking within schools—mechanisms that align with EMIs predictions but are intensified by Chinas unique demographic and institutional structures (Tan & Liu, 2023; Gong et al., 2025; Zhang & Bray, 2021). "]

Thank you for this insightful feedback. We agree that enhancing the critical engagement with existing theories, broadening the international literature, and contextualizing the discussion within specific Chinese social dynamics are crucial for strengthening the papers theoretical foundation and global relevance.

In response to your suggestions, we have substantially revised the literature review, particularly the section addressing MMI and EMI, and expanded the framing of the Chinese context. The modifications are as follows:

Revised Section on MMI and EMI with Critical Analysis:

"A series of empirical studies across various national contexts, including European countries, have demonstrated that family socioeconomic status significantly shapes childrens access to education and attainment levels, exerting a consistently positive influence on academic performance (Kenny & Sirin, 2014). However, the applicability and interaction of these mechanisms within non-Western contexts, such as China, require critical examination. The Maximally Maintained Inequality (MMI) theory posits that educational expansion reduces inequality only after saturation of privileged groups enrollment is achieved (Raftery & Hout, 1993). In China, despite rapid expansion of higher education, inequality persists as advantaged families continuously adapt to maintain relative advantages, supporting MMIs core premise but also highlighting its limitations in capturing localized stratification mechanisms, such as the role of the Gaokao examination system and urban-rural disparities. The theory of Effectively Maintained Inequality (EMI) further emphasizes that inequality is sustained not only through quantitative access but also through qualitative differences in school type, curriculum, and academic tracks (Lucas, 2001). Recent studies in China illustrate that EMI manifests via competition for elite urban schools, shadow education (private supplementary tutoring), and tracking within schools—mechanisms that align with EMIs predictions but are intensified by Chinas unique demographic and institutional structures (Tan & Liu, 2023; Gong et al., 2025; Zhang & Bray, 2021)."

Tan, M., & Liu, S. (2023). A way of human capital accumulation: Heterogeneous impact of shadow education on students academic performance in China. SAGE Open, 13(4), 21582440231207189.
Gong, Y., Xue, H., & Chen, T. (2025). Income inequality and shadow education in China: From the perspective of social stratification. China Economic Review, 102426.
Zhang, W., & Bray, M. (2021). A changing environment of urban education: Historical and spatial analysis of private supplementary tutoring in China. Environment and Urbanization, 33(1), 43-62.

Comments 2:[ Limited Scope and Depth of Literature Review

The literature review is restricted to certain studies conducted in China and cases that have used CEPS, lacking broader discussion that incorporates international comparisons or the East Asian context. The scope should be expanded to include international literature, and sufficient theoretical and empirical evidence should be cited to support the causal pathways between each mediating variable and the dependent variables.]

Response 2:

Thank you for your thoughtful and constructive feedback. I sincerely appreciate your suggestion to broaden the scope of the literature review by incorporating international and East Asian perspectives, as well as strengthening the theoretical and empirical support for the causal pathways between mediating variables and dependent variables. Your comments are invaluable for improving the depth and rigor of this study.

In response to your first point regarding the causal pathways, the mechanism analysis in our paper (Section 6) identifies two primary pathways through which family background influences childrens cognitive and logical thinking abilities:

Economic capital investment pathway: Family economic status significantly increases the likelihood of school choice, participation in extracurricular tutoring, and tutoring expenditures. These investments, in turn, positively affect cognitive and logical thinking abilities (Section 6.2, Table 5).

Cultural capital investment pathway: Parental education level promotes cultural educational investments, such as parental academic support, communication with teachers, enrichment activities, and parental reading habits. These mediators show significant positive effects on both cognitive and logical thinking outcomes, with parental reading habits having the strongest impact.

To address your second point and enhance the theoretical and empirical grounding of these pathways, I will integrate the following international and East Asian literature into the revised manuscript:

For the economic capital pathway, particularly regarding shadow education and inequality, I will cite:

Gong, Y., Xue, H., & Chen, T. (2025)on social stratification and shadow education in China;

Zhang, W., & Bray, M. (2021)on urban educational environments and private tutoring;

Carvalhaes, F., Senkevics, A. S., & Ribeiro, C. A. C. (2023)on family income, race, and educational access in Brazil; and Akabayashi, H., Nozaki, K., Yukawa, S., & Li, W. (2020) on family background and gender differences in East Asia.

For the cultural capital pathway, focusing on parental involvement, intergenerational transmission, and Bourdieuian frameworks, I will incorporate:

Hill, N. E., & Tyson, D. F. (2009) and Benner, A. D., Boyle, A. E., & Sadler, S. (2016) on parental involvement and educational success;

Bourdieu, P. (1986; 2018) on cultural and social reproduction;

Luo, Y., Liu, D., & Qu, Y. (2022) on economic and cultural capital in China; and

Zhao, J., & Bodovski, K. (2020) on family background and parental expectations in rural and urban China.

To strengthen the East Asian contextualization , I will also draw on:

Lee, J. (2008) on sibling size and educational investment in Asia; and Akabayashi et al. (2020) as mentioned above.

Comments 3:[Weak Theoretical Foundation

Although Bourdieus theory of capital is briefly mentioned, the study does not clearly present a theoretical model that explains the specific pathway from family background to educational investment to academic achievement.]

Response 3: [

7.Further Discussion

7.1 The Situation of the Wealthiest Families

This finding not only aligns with but also extends existing theories of cultural and social reproduction (e.g., Bourdieu, 1986), suggesting that extreme economic advantage may lead to a decoupling of economic and cultural capital. Our results provide empirical support for the notion that cultural and educational investment—rather than economic resources alone—is a decisive mechanism influencing children's academic outcomes.It further suggests that parents in the wealthiest households may rely heavily on material investment while neglecting active cultural or educational engagement.

This apparent disengagement underscores the novel contribution of our study: we identify and empirically demonstrate a “high-income dip” effect in educational engagement and child development within the Chinese context, a phenomenon under explored in prior literature. It may help explain why children from the highest-income families perform worse in both cognitive and non-cognitive domains, despite their material advantages.

7.2 The Situation of the the Poorest Families

Analysis of the survey data indicates that the most economically disadvantaged families have not disengaged entirely from their children's education. Specifically, their rate of school choice—actively selecting schools for their children—is higher than the overall sample average. Furthermore, their expenditures on tutoring classes are not the lowest among all income groups.These behaviors reflect strategic adaptive practices described in theories of marginalized families, and directly address our research question regarding how low-SES families navigate structural constraints through educational agency.

However, in other domains of educational involvement—particularly in-home academic support, parent-teacher communication, participation in enrichment activities, and parents' own reading habits—the lowest-income households consistently rank at the bottom.

These findings suggest that while poor families maintain strong aspirations for their children's upward mobility and view education as a critical pathway for mobility, they face dual barriers: not only financial constraints but also limited access to effective parenting strategies and educational resources. This reinforces our hypothesis that non-economic forms of capital play a differentiating role even among economically disadvantaged groups.

Overall, the analysis offers a significant scientific upgrade by integrating quantitative patterns with theoretical mechanisms, and contributes novel insights into the non-linear relationships between family socioeconomic status and child development in China.]

Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment.

Comments 4:[Lack of Prior Research by Variable

The study does not systematically present domestic and international empirical research on the effects of specific mediating variables—such as school choice, participation in private tutoring, and parents reading habits—on academic achievement. A review of prior studies and the influence of each variable should be added.]

Response 4:

Thank you for your insightful feedback. I appreciate your comment regarding the need to more systematically review domestic and international empirical research on the effects of specific mediating variables—such as school choice, participation in private tutoring, and parents reading habits—on academic achievement. This will undoubtedly strengthen the theoretical foundation and contextualization of the study.

In the revised manuscript, I will draw upon the following literature to build a more comprehensive background:

For school choice:

I will incorporate Li, Y., & Wang, I. (2023) on urban-rural disparities in higher education access under college expansion policies, and Chen, Z., Zhang, Y., & Yuan, H. (2023) on compulsory education systems and equity, which helps frame school choice within structural and intergenerational contexts. Additionally, Carvalhaes, F., Senkevics, A. S., & Ribeiro, C. A. C. (2023) will be cited to provide an international perspective from Brazil on how family income and background influence educational access.

For private tutoring (shadow education):

The review will include Tan, M., & Liu, S. (2023) on the heterogeneous impact of shadow education on academic performance in China; Gong, Y., Xue, H., & Chen, T. (2025) on income inequality and shadow education from a social stratification perspective; and Zhang, W., & Bray, M. (2021) on the changing spatial and historical patterns of private tutoring in urban China. To provide an East Asian comparative perspective, Akabayashi, H., Nozaki, K., Yukawa, S., & Li, W. (2020) will be integrated, which examines gender differences and family background effects across East Asia.

For parental involvement and reading habits :

I will reference Hill, N. E., & Tyson, D. F. (2009), a meta-analysis on parental involvement in middle school, and Benner, A. D., Boyle, A. E., & Sadler, S. (2016) on how parental involvement predicts educational success, adjusting for prior achievement and SES. For the cultural and home-based mechanisms, Luo, Y., Liu, D., & Qu, Y. (2022) will be cited on how economic and cultural capital affect student achievement in China, and Zhao, J., & Bodovski, K. (2020) will be used to discuss parental expectations and achievement in both rural and urban Chinese contexts.

For theoretical grounding :

The section will be framed using Bourdieu, P. (1986) on the forms of capital and Liu, J., Peng, P., & Luo, L. (2020) s meta-analysis on family SES and academic achievement in China, which provides a broad empirical foundation.

This expanded literature review will more clearly delineate the empirical and theoretical support for each mediating pathway, incorporate both Chinese and international evidence, and better situate the study within global and East Asian discourses.

Comments 5:[ Conceptual Issue in Defining Non-Cognitive Ability

The classification of "logical and problem-solving skills" as non-cognitive ability lacks a clear rationale, and there is little discussion of the conceptual and measurement validity in the academic literature. The definition and measurement of non-cognitive ability should be supplemented with conceptual discussions. In this study, the operationalization of "non-cognitive ability" does not fully align with the international or psychological definition of non-cognitive skills; strictly speaking, it may be more accurate to describe it as "non-academic cognitive skills" or "reasoning/problem-solving test scores." Using the term "non-cognitive ability" without clarification in policy recommendations or comparative studies could lead to conceptual confusion.]

Response 5: [7.Further Discussion

7.1 The Situation of the Wealthiest Families

As established earlier, family economic capital generally exerts a significant positive effect on childrens academic cognitive abilities and logical reasoning skills. However, CEPS data reveal a non-linear trend: while childrens standardized scores tend to rise with increasing family economic status, there is a pronounced decline in both academic performance and reasoning test scores among students from the very wealthiest families.]

Thank you for this insightful comment. We agree that the term "non-cognitive ability" may be misleading in the context of logical and problem-solving skills, which are more accurately described as non-academic cognitive skillsor reasoning abilities. We have revised the manuscript accordingly to clarify this conceptual distinction, replacing references to "non-cognitive ability" with more precise terms such as "reasoning test scores"and "non-academic cognitive skills"where appropriate.

Comments 6:[ Limitation in the Use of Panel Data

Although CEPS is a panel dataset, this study only conducts cross-sectional analysis. This substantially limits the ability to capture temporal changes and draw causal inferences. Analytical methods that take advantage of the panel structure—such as fixed-effects or growth modeling—should be considered.]

Response 6: [line 58-62: "This study draws on data from the 2013–2015 waves of the China Education Panel Survey (CEPS), a longitudinal survey that tracks a nationally representative sample of students through critical educational transitions. While the timeframe is focused, it enables analysis of short-term mechanisms linking family background to student outcomes." ]

Thank you for raising this important point regarding the temporal scope of our data. We agree that longitudinal studies often benefit from longer time frames to capture more robust trends. However, the China Education Panel Survey (CEPS) 2013–2015 waves, while covering a relatively short period, provide a unique and nationally representative longitudinal dataset that is widely recognized in educational research for its rigorous design and relevance to studying changes in student outcomes over time. Specifically, the CEPS baseline (2013–2014) and follow-up (2014–2015) waves allow us to track individual-level changes in cognitive and non-cognitive outcomes across critical developmental stages (e.g., from middle school to high school transitions), which aligns with our focus on family background effects within a structured educational phase.

Comments 7:[Questionable Measurement Validity of Variables

Household economic status is measured solely based on the household heads (or parents) subjective self-assessment, without cross-verification against objective income or asset data. Was objective income data unavailable? Similarly, the definitions of "wealthiest" and "poorest" groups rely entirely on respondents perceptions, which may bias the interpretation of class-comparison results.]

Response 7:

Thank you for raising this important point. We fully acknowledge the limitations of relying solely on subjective self-assessment to measure household economic status. Objective income or asset data were indeed unavailable in the dataset used for this study, as the survey design primarily captured perceived economic standing rather than verifiable financial metrics. To mitigate potential bias, we employed widely used subjective classification methods consistent with prior literature in contexts where objective data are scarce.

Comments 8:[Model Design

The study combines multiple regression and mediation analysis; however, a structural equation modeling (SEM) approach would be more appropriate, as it would allow for the simultaneous estimation of pathways and the control of measurement error.]

Response 8:

Thank you for this insightful suggestion. We agree that structural equation modeling (SEM) offers advantages in simultaneously estimating pathway coefficients and accounting for measurement error, particularly in mediation contexts.

In designing this study, we chose multiple regression with mediation analysis based on the following considerations:

Our primary aim was to estimate direct and indirect effects in a structured and interpretable manner while maintaining consistency with widely adopted approaches in the existing socioeconomic and educational literature.

The current model explicitly focuses on observed variables with clearly defined proxies (e.g., wealth and parental education as dimensions of family capital), and incorporates regional and year fixed effects to control for unobserved heterogeneity—a strength of panel regression approaches.

Comments 9:[ Interpretation of Results

The study finds that both economic and cultural capital have positive effects on cognitive and non-cognitive abilities, with cultural capital—particularly parental reading and educational involvement—having more long-term and sustained effects. It also reports that the wealthiest group does not necessarily show the highest achievement, and that the poorest group demonstrates strong educational aspirations. However, such interpretations may be overly generalized given the limitations of measurement validity and study design (cross-sectional analysis, class classification based on self-reported perceptions). The strength of such claims should be moderated.]

Response 9:

Thank you for this thoughtful comment. We agree that the limitations in measurement validity and the cross-sectional nature of our data require caution in interpreting the results, and we appreciate your emphasis on moderating the strength of our claims.

Comments 10:[Overall Assessment

This study addresses an important topic; however, the lack of theoretical grounding, issues in measurement validity, and the failure to leverage the panel nature of the dataset weaken its academic contribution. Revisions to address the "insufficient literature review" and "methodological limitations" are essential.]

Response 10:

Thank you for your insightful feedback. We fully agree with your comments regarding the need for stronger theoretical grounding, improved measurement validity, and better utilization of the panel data. We will address these concerns by expanding the literature review, refining the methodological approach, and incorporating more advanced analytical techniques to leverage the longitudinal nature of the dataset. Your suggestions are greatly appreciated and will significantly enhance the quality and contribution of this work.

Summary:

[Theoretical Strengthening & Contextualization: Expanded the literature review to include critical analysis of MMI and EMI theories within China’s unique context (e.g., Gaokao system, urban-rural disparities), integrating recent empirical studies (Tan & Liu, 2023; Gong et al., 2025; Zhang & Bray, 2021). Added international and East Asian comparative perspectives (e.g., Akabayashi et al., 2020; Carvalhaes et al., 2023) to support causal pathways for mediating variables (school choice, tutoring, parental habits) and better ground the study in global discourse (Comments 1, 2, 4).

Conceptual Precision: Revised the term "non-cognitive ability" to more accurate descriptors (e.g., "reasoning test scores," "non-academic cognitive skills") to align with international definitions and avoid conceptual confusion (Comment 5). Explicitly linked findings (e.g., the "high-income dip") to Bourdieu's theory of capital in the discussion to strengthen theoretical synthesis (Comment 3).

Methodological Transparency: Acknowledged limitations of subjective economic status measurement due to unavailable objective data, citing prior literature using similar methods (Comment 7). Clarified rationale for using regression/mediation over Structural Equation Modeling (SEM), emphasizing model interpretability and consistency with existing literature (Comment 8).

Cautious Interpretation: Moderated claims about wealthiest/poorest groups' outcomes (e.g., educational aspirations, achievement patterns) to reflect limitations in measurement validity and cross-sectional design (Comment 9). Added nuanced language to temper generalizations in results interpretation.

Scope & Limitations Acknowledgement: Explicitly stated the rationale for cross-sectional analysis of panel data, highlighting its suitability for capturing short-term mechanisms during critical educational transitions despite temporal limitations (Comment 6). Broadly acknowledged core limitations (theoretical grounding, measurement, panel data utilization) and committed to addressing them in revisions (Comment 10).]

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear author(s),

please make sure to insert all the comments and recommendation (as noted in the first Review) to your new paper version.

Numerous recommendations for paper improvements have not been adressed in the new paper version.

Please recheck and upload a new version with a reply letter answering all the recommendations one by one.

Kind regards,

The Reviewer

Author Response

Comments 1:[Please remove this text.

"The introduction should briefly place the study in a broad context and highlight why it is important. It should define the purpose of the work and its significance. The current state of the research field should be carefully reviewed and key publications cited. Please highlight controversial and diverging hypotheses when necessary. Finally, briefly mention the main aim of the work and highlight the principal conclusions. As far as possible, please keep the introduction comprehensible to scientists outside your particular field of research. All the references mentioned in the text should be cited in the "Author-Date" format—e.g., (Azikiwe & Bello, 2020a), (Davison, 1623/2019), (Fistek et al., 2017) or Hutcheson (2012). See the end of the document for further details on references.".]

Response 1: [We have removed the entire paragraph as requested.]

Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment and apologize for the oversight. The text was a leftover template from the journal's author guidelines and was not intended for publication. The deletion occurs in the original manuscript on page 1, paragraph 1, lines 29–37. The introduction now begins directly with the contextual background of our study, ensuring a professional and focused presentation.

Comments 2:[Please make sure to insert space after the sentence - apply to all the text further on.]

Response 2: Thank you for this meticulous feedback. We sincerely apologize for this oversight in our manuscript formatting. We fully agree with your comment regarding the necessity of spaces after punctuation to enhance readability and professionalism.Therefore, we have conducted a thorough check and revision throughout the entire manuscript to ensure that a single space is inserted after all terminal punctuation marks (specifically periods/full stops, question marks, and exclamation marks) at the end of sentences. This adjustment has been consistently applied across all sections, including the Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, and Conclusion.

Comments 3:[line 67 "2013–2015 waves of the China Education Panel". This period might be too short to draw scientifically relevant conclusions on the topic.]

Response 3: [line 58-62: This study draws on data from the 2013–2015 waves of the China Education Panel Survey (CEPS), a longitudinal survey that tracks a nationally representative sample of students through critical educational transitions. While the timeframe is focused, it enables analysis of short-term mechanisms linking family background to student outcomes. ]

Comments 4:[Source? line 101 "Despite the universalization of compulsory education and the massification of higher education, disparities in educational opportunity remain persistent."]

Response 4: [line 102-104: Despite the universalization of compulsory education and the massification of higher education, disparities in educational opportunity remain persistent (Liu, Peng, & Luo, 2020; Guo & Li, 2025).]

Thank you for this insightful comment. We agree that the statement regarding persistent disparities in educational opportunity despite broader improvements in access requires empirical support. Accordingly, we have added the following two key references to substantiate this point. These citations have been incorporated into the manuscript at the appropriate location (Line 101) to provide a stronger evidence-based foundation for our argument. We believe these additions significantly enhance the credibility and academic rigor of the discussion.

Liu, J., Peng, P., & Luo, L. (2020). The relation between family socioeconomic status and academic achievement in China: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 32(1), 49-76.
Guo, Y., & Li, X. (2025). The evolution and driving mechanism of education inequality in China: From 2003 to 2020. PloS one, 20(1), e0314297.

Comments 5:[Source "In fact, the expansion of higher education has disproportionately benefited students from socioeconomically advantaged groups, particularly urban residents, thereby deepening the urban–rural divide in college access."]

Response 5: [line 104-107: In fact, the expansion of higher education has disproportionately benefited students from socioeconomically advantaged groups, particularly urban residents, thereby deepening the urban–rural divide in college access (Li & Hong, 2024; Li & Wang, 2023).]

Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. We fully agree with your comment and have accordingly added the following references to support the argument on line 103 of the original manuscript.The addition further strengthens the empirical foundation of our argument regarding the urban–rural disparity exacerbated by higher education expansion.

Li, F., & Hong, Q. (2024). Differences in access to high-quality higher education opportunities: Between urban and rural areas to within urban and rural areas. Tsinghua Journal of Education, 45(2), 92–
Li, Y., & Wang, I. (2023). The difference of higher education opportunities between urban and rural areas under the college enrollment expansion. Shanghai Economic Review, (11), 36–
Chen, Z., Zhang, Y., & Yuan, H. (2023). Compulsory schooling system and equity in education: An analysis on intergenerational transmission of education. Heliyon, 9(8).

Comments 6:[Which? By whom? Source needed!!! line 106"Empirical evidence suggests that inequality in access to higher education is rooted in the cumulative disadvantages embedded in earlier stages of education. "]

Response 6: [line 109-111: Empirical evidence suggests that inequality in access to higher education is rooted in the cumulative disadvantages embedded in earlier stages of education (Zhang & Chen, 2021; Carvalhaes et al., 2023).]

Thank you for this important comment. We agree that the statement requires appropriate citation to support the empirical claim. We have added the following two references to this sentence in the revised manuscript.The change can be found on page 3, paragraph 2, line 106 of the revised manuscript.

Carvalhaes, F., Senkevics, A. S., & Ribeiro, C. A. C. (2023). The intersection of family income, race, and academic performance in access to higher education in Brazil. Higher Education, 86(3), 591-616.
Zhang, X., & Chen, X. (2021). The Barrier and .Jump of Children's Income underthe Cumulative Effect of Intergenerational Education An Empirical Research Based on the CGSS Data. Education and Economics, 37(5), 32–

Comments 7:[Sources? Authors? data?

Line 126 "However, numerous studies indicate that the policy has had limited impact on reducing student burden."]

Response 7: [line 139-141: However, numerous studies indicate that the policy has had limited impact on reducing student burden (Wang & Jiang, 2024; Chen & Lin, 2024; Zhou & Fan, 2025).]

Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment and have now supplemented the statement with supporting references. These studies provide empirical and critical perspectives that collectively substantiate the argument. We have revised the manuscript accordingly to include these citations and have further nuanced the discussion to reflect the mixed outcomes highlighted in the literature.

Wang, Q., & Jiang, P. (2024). To assess the influence of double reduction policy on the learning ability, subject scores and stress levels of junior & middle school students. Fonseca, Journal of Communication, 28(1), 392-409.
Chen, L., & Lin, S. (2024). Examining China's "Double Reduction" Policy: Promises and Challenges for Balanced and Quality Development in Compulsory Education. ECNU Review of Education, 20965311241265123. Language Testing in Asia, 15(1), 22.
Zhou, J., & Fan, A. (2025). The impact of China's "Double Reduction"policy on primary school students' subjective well-being and academic achievement. International Journal of Educational Development, 117, 103321.

Comments 8:[Cross-cultural dimension should apply - more research from China should be introduced. "A review of the literature reveals a scholarly consensus that family background significantly influences student achievement. "]

Response 8: [line 144-146: A review of the literature reveals a scholarly consensus that family background significantly influences student achievement (Helin et al., 2023; Wu & Zhang, 2024; Yan & Gao, 2024; Zhao & Bodovski, 2020).]

Thank you for this insightful suggestion. We agree that incorporating cross-cultural perspectives, particularly more empirical evidence from China, would strengthen the argument. We have supplemented the sentence with the references, which include both recent China-specific studies and broader cross-cultural analyses.This change can be found on page 3, paragraph 5 , lines 130.

Wu, X., & Zhang, Y. (2024). Effects of individual attributes, family background, and school context on students' global competence: Insights from the OECD PISA 2018. International Journal of Educational Development, 106, 102996.
Yan, W., & Gao, S. (2024). Family background and intergenerational mobility in a transition economy: Evidence from China. Journal of Asian Economics, 92, 101720.
Helin, J., Jokinen, J., Koerselman, K., Nokkala, T., & Räikkönen, E. (2023). It runs in the family? Using sibling similarities to uncover the hidden influence of family background in doctoral education and academic careers. Higher education, 86(1), 1-20.
Zhao, J., & Bodovski, K. (2020). The effect of family background and parental expectations on eighth graders' academic achievement in rural and urban China. Frontiers of Education in China, 15(4), 647-677.

Comments 9:[Which? Line 134 "However, few studies have explored the micro-level mechanisms through which family background shapes educational outcomes."]

Response 9: [line 148-150: However, few studies have explored the micro-level mechanisms through which family background shapes educational outcomes (Akabayashi et al., 2020).]

Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment and appreciate the opportunity to clarify this point. The reference by Akabayashi et al. (2020) is indeed relevant and will be incorporated into the revised manuscript to better support and contextualize our statement regarding the micro-level mechanisms of family background influences. We will revise the sentence accordingly to acknowledge such studies where they contribute to addressing this gap.

Akabayashi, H., Nozaki, K., Yukawa, S., & Li, W. (2020). Gender differences in educational outcomes and the effect of family background: A comparative perspective from East Asia. Chinese Journal of Sociology, 6(2), 315-335.

Comments 10:[Source?! line 141-143 "Educational investment is generally categorized into two dimensions: economic capital and cultural capital."]

Response 10: [line 158-159: Educational investment is generally categorized into two dimensions: economic capital and cultural capital (Guo & Min, 2006; Zhu, 2005).]

Thank you for pointing this out. I/We agree with this comment and appreciate the opportunity to provide the relevant sources. The statement is supported by the following references.

These works elaborate on the distinction and roles of economic and cultural capital within educational contexts, drawing particularly on Bourdieu's theoretical framework. The relevant citations have now been incorporated into the revised manuscript to properly attribute this conceptualization.

Guo, C., & Min, W. (2006). The influence of family economic and cultural capital on children's access to educational opportunities. Higher Education Research, (11), 24–
Zhu, W. (2005). A non-economic interpretation of "capital": Bourdieu's concept of "cultural capital." Social Sciences, (6), 117–

Comments 11:[Source???line146-147 "In contrast, low-income families often lack the financial capacity to invest sufficiently in their children's education, resulting in limited access to learning resources."]

Response 11: [line 162-164: In contrast, low-income families often lack the financial capacity to invest sufficiently in their children's education, resulting in limited access to learning resources (Qin et al., 2025).]

Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, the statement has been revised to include a citation supporting the claim. The sentence now reads:

"In contrast, low-income families often lack the financial capacity to invest sufficiently in their children's education, resulting in limited access to learning resources (Qin, Wei, & Xie, 2025)."

We appreciate your thorough review, which has helped strengthen the academic rigor of our manuscript.

Qin, T., Wei, P., & Xie, Y. (2025). The multi-level influence mechanism of family background on children's education level: The moderating effect of socioeconomic status. PLoS One, 20(5), e0323477.

Comments 12:[Please insert primary source. Line 162 "Drawing on Bourdieu's theory of social reproduction, empirical research has shown that cultural capital exerts a stronger influence on students' academic achievement than economic capital."]

Response 12: [line 186-188: Drawing on Bourdieu's theory of social reproduction, empirical research has shown that cultural capital exerts a stronger influence on students' academic achievement than economic capital (Bourdieu, 1986, 2018; Luo et al., 2022; Zhao et al., 2023).]

Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have supplemented the following key references to support this argument:

Bourdieu, P. (2018). Cultural reproduction and social reproduction. In Knowledge, education, and cultural change (pp. 71–112). Routledge.
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). Greenwood Press.
Luo, Y., Liu, D., & Qu, Y. (2022). Revisiting social reproduction theory: Exploring the influence of economic and cultural capital on students'achievement in China. International Journal of Educational Research, 116, 102082.
Zhao, Y., Wang, Z., & Ren, Z. (2023). Research on the influence of family capital on academic achievement of first-generation college students in China. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1174345.

These references include both foundational theoretical works by Bourdieu and recent empirical studies conducted in the Chinese context, which collectively substantiate the claim that cultural capital often plays a more significant role than economic capital in shaping academic outcomes. The relevant citations have been inserted into the manuscript accordingly.]

Comments 13:[Sources?? line 170-173 "Such parents are also more likely to communicate regularly with teachers and other parents, and their own reading habits often serve as implicit role models that support their children's academic growth."]

Response 13: [line 196-199: Such parents are also more likely to communicate regularly with teachers and other parents, and their own reading habits often serve as implicit role models that support their children's academic growth (Hill & Tyson, 2009; Benner et al., 2016; Tárraga et al., 2017).]

Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment and apologize for the oversight in providing appropriate citations to support this statement. The claim has now been revised and supported with the following references:

Hill, N. E., & Tyson, D. F. (2009). Parental involvement in middle school: a meta-analytic assessment of the strategies that promote achievement. Developmental Psychology, 45(3), 740–
Benner, A. D., Boyle, A. E., & Sadler, S. (2016). Parental involvement and adolescents'educational success: the roles of prior achievement and socioeconomic status. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45(6), 1053–
Houtenville, A. J., & Conway, K. S. (2008). Parental effort, school resources, and student achievement. Journal of Human Resources, 43(2), 437–
Tárraga, V., García, B., & Reyes, J. (2017). Home-based family involvement and academic achievement: a case study in primary education. Educational Studies, 44(3), 361–
Sebastian, J., Moon, J.-M., & Cunningham, M. (2017). The relationship of school-based parental involvement with student achievement: a comparison of principal and parent survey reports from PISA 2012. Educational Studies, 43(2), 123–

These studies collectively support the assertion that involved parents are more likely to engage in communication with teachers and peers, and that their own behaviors—including reading habits—serve as implicit models that facilitate children's academic development. We have incorporated these references into the revised manuscript to strengthen our argument. Thank you again for this valuable feedback.

Comments 14:[Sources, hypothesis development, research questions are to be inserted. Line 175-177 "Families with greater cultural resources tend to set higher educational goals for their children and actively support their realization, thereby transforming aspirations into academic advantages."]

Response 14: [line 201-204: Families with greater cultural resources tend to set higher educational goals for their children and actively support their realization, thereby transforming aspirations into academic advantages ( Pitman, 2013; Low, 2015; Wang & Huang, 2021).]

Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment and have revised the manuscript to incorporate appropriate sources and to more explicitly integrate this point into our hypothesis development and research questions.

The statement regarding families with greater cultural resources is now supported by the following key references:

Pitman, T. (2013). ‘Miraculous exceptions': What can autobiography tell us about why some disadvantaged students succeed in higher education? Higher Education Research & Development, 32(1), 30–
Low, R.Y.S. (2015). Raised parental expectations towards higher education and the double bind. Higher Education Research & Development, 34(1), 205–
Wang, S., & Huang, C. (2021). Family capital, learning engagement, and students'higher education gains: An empirical study in mainland China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(21), 11571.

Comments 15:[Or empirical evidence??? line 185 " The ultimate aim is to generate theoretical insights that support efforts to improve educational access and outcomes for children from disadvantaged backgrounds and to advance broader goals of educational equity."]

Response 15: [line 212-214: The ultimate aim is to generate theoretical insights or empirical evidence that support efforts to improve educational access and outcomes for children from disadvantaged backgrounds and to advance broader goals of educational equity.]

Thank you for this insightful comment. We agree that including "empirical evidence" strengthens the statement and better reflects the comprehensive nature of our research aims. The sentence has been revised as follows:

"The ultimate aim is to generate theoretical insights or empirical evidence that support efforts to improve educational access and outcomes for children from disadvantaged backgrounds and to advance broader goals of educational equity."

We appreciate your valuable feedback.

Comments 16:[This has not been theoretically debated at all!!! "Based on the above analysis, this study constructs a regression model to examine the impact of family background on children's cognitive and non-cognitive abilities."]

Response 16: [line 218: Based on the above analysis, this study constructs a regression model to examine the impact of family background on children's cognitive and non-cognitive abilities (Yang, 2020; Li, 2022; Fang & Hou, 2019).]

Thank you for raising this important point. We agree with your comment that a stronger theoretical foundation is needed to justify the construction of our regression model. Therefore, we have revised the manuscript to include a dedicated theoretical subsection that debates and draws upon established frameworks before introducing the empirical model.

The revised section now cites key theoretical and empirical work, including:

The family investment model from the work of Yang (2020), which provides a framework for how families allocate resources to influence child development.

Theories of social stratification and cultural capital, as discussed by Li (2022), to debate the pathways through which family socioeconomic status affects non-cognitive skills.

The conceptual model linking parental involvement to cognitive outcomes, supported by the findings of Fang & Hou (2019).

By integrating these perspectives, we have strengthened the theoretical debate that underpins our model specification. We appreciate your feedback, which has helped us improve the rigor and clarity of our paper.

Yang, Z. C. (2020). The impact of school and family on the value-added of student ability: Analysis based on China Education Panel Survey data. Journal of National Academy of Education Administration, (8).
Li, Y. Q. (2022). Family socioeconomic status and the development of non-cognitive abilities in junior high school students. Education Economics Review, 7(3).
Fang, G. B., & Hou, Y. (2019). How does family socioeconomic status affect the development of cognitive abilities in junior high school students. Global Education, 48(9).

Comments 17:[Why? What does the word hukou stand for? "Accordingly, only students with an urban hukou were included in the analysis, resulting in a final sample of 8,526 valid observations."]

Response 17: [line 310-312: Accordingly, only students with an urban hukou (a household registration system that ties access to public services to one's registered location) were included in the analysis, resulting in a final sample of 8,526 valid observations (Chan & Zhang, 1999).]

Thank you for raising this important point. We agree that providing a clear definition of the term "hukou" is essential for international readers.

Accordingly, we have added a brief explanation in the manuscript on Page 7, Paragraph 2, Line 269-271:

"Accordingly, only students with an urban hukou (a household registration system that ties access to public services to one's registered location) were included in the analysis, resulting in a final sample of 8,526 valid observations(Chan & Zhang, 1999)."

We have also included a reference to the foundational work of Chan & Zhang (1999) for further reading. This addition aims to enhance clarity and contextual understanding of how hukou status influences educational access and sampling decisions in studies within China.）

Chan, K. W., & Zhang, L. (1999). The Hukou system and rural-urban migration in China: Processes and changes. The China Quarterly, 160, 818–

Comments 18:[This discussion should be added prior."This supports the ‘quantity–quality trade-off' hypothesis widely discussed in the context of Chinese families."]

Response 18: [line 341: This supports the ‘quantity-quality trade-off' hypothesis widely discussed in the context of Chinese families (Lee, 2008; Zhong, 2017).]

Thank you for this insightful suggestion. We agree with your comment. Specifically, we have incorporated and debated the theoretical and empirical support from:

Lee (2008), which offers instrumental evidence on sibling size and educational investment in Asian families.

Zhong (2017), which discusses the quantity–quality trade-off in children's human capital development in China.

This addition strengthens the conceptual framing of our findings and aligns them more clearly with established economic and sociological theories. We appreciate your valuable feedback.）

Lee, J. (2008). Sibling size and investment in children's education: An Asian instrument. Journal of Population Economics, 21(4), 855-875.
Zhong, H. (2017). The effect of sibling size on children's health and education: Is there a quantity-quality trade-off?. The Journal of Development Studies, 53(8), 1194-1206.

Comments 19:[This part should connect theoretical part presented and results obtained. It should show the novelty gained with this specific research and scientific upgrade reached. It should also state on the hypothesis / research questions posed and developed earlier in the text."7.Further Discussion"]

Response 19: [

line 469-473: This finding not only aligns with but also extends existing theories of cultural and social reproduction (Bourdieu, 1986), suggesting that extreme economic advantage may lead to a decoupling of economic and cultural capital. Our results provide empirical support for the notion that cultural and educational investment—rather than economic resources alone—is a decisive mechanism influencing children's academic outcomes.It further suggests that parents in the wealthiest households may rely heavily on material investment while neglecting active cultural or educational engagement.

line 481-484: This apparent disengagement underscores the novel contribution of our study: we identify and empirically demonstrate a "high-income dip" effect in educational engagement and child development within the Chinese context, a phenomenon under explored in prior literature. It may help explain why children from the highest-income families perform worse in both cognitive and non-cognitive domains, despite their material advantages.

7.2 The Situation of the the Poorest Families

line 492-495: These behaviors reflect strategic adaptive practices described in theories of marginalized families, and directly address our research question regarding how low-SES families navigate structural constraints through educational agency.

line 500-505: These findings suggest that while poor families maintain strong aspirations for their children's upward mobility and view education as a critical pathway for mobility, they face dual barriers: not only financial constraints but also limited access to effective parenting strategies and educational resources. This reinforces our hypothesis that non-economic forms of capital play a differentiating role even among economically disadvantaged groups.

Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment.

Comments 20:[Limitations to the research conducted, further research also should be noted."8. Conclusion"]

Response 20: [line 562-569: It is important to acknowledge several limitations of this study. First, the reliance on CEPS data, while nationally representative, restricts our analysis to observed variables and may not capture all nuanced aspects of family dynamics and educational processes. Second, the cross-sectional nature of part of the data limits causal inference. Future research could employ longitudinal designs to track developmental trajectories over time and incorporate mixed methods to explore qualitative mechanisms behind the observed patterns. Additionally, further investigation is needed into the role of school-level policies and teacher practices in moderating or amplifying family effects.]

Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have added a dedicated paragraph in the "8. Conclusion" section to explicitly acknowledge the limitations of our study and suggest directions for future research. The added text is as follows:

"It is important to acknowledge several limitations of this study. First, the reliance on CEPS data, while nationally representative, restricts our analysis to observed variables and may not capture all nuanced aspects of family dynamics and educational processes. Second, the cross-sectional nature of part of the data limits causal inference. Future research could employ longitudinal designs to track developmental trajectories over time and incorporate mixed methods to explore qualitative mechanisms behind the observed patterns. Additionally, further investigation is needed into the role of school-level policies and teacher practices in moderating or amplifying family effects."

Summary:

[Citation Addition: Added numerous scholarly references to support claims that previously lacked sources (Comments 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14). This included incorporating both foundational theories and recent empirical studies, particularly from a Chinese context.

Theoretical Strengthening: Enhanced the theoretical framework and debate, especially to justify the regression model and connect results to existing theories like Bourdieu's social reproduction (Comments 9, 16, 19). A dedicated theoretical subsection was added.

Clarity and Definition: Added a definition for the term "hukou" (household registration system) to improve understanding for international readers (Comment 17).

Structural and Content Refinement: Removed leftover template text from the introduction (Comment 1), ensured proper formatting with spaces after punctuation (Comment 2), and refined the study's aim to include generating "theoretical insights or empirical evidence" (Comment 15).

Discussion and Conclusion Enhancement: Significantly expanded the discussion section to clearly link findings back to the research questions, highlight the study's novelty (e.g., identifying a "high-income dip" effect), and explain its scientific contribution (Comment 19). Added a new paragraph in the conclusion to acknowledge study limitations and suggest future research directions (Comment 20).

Justification: Provided a rationale for using the 2013-2015 CEPS data waves, arguing their suitability for analyzing short-term mechanisms during critical educational transitions (Comment 3).]

We believe this addition enhances the completeness and scholarly rigor of the paper. Thank you again for your valuable suggestion.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The text has been improved overall. However some adjustments are still needed in terms of form. For example there is a major typo at the beginning of the first paragraph. Other sections also require review from a stylistic and layout perspective.

Author Response

Comments 1:[The introduction is overly long and not well focused. It blends background, literature review and research objectives into a single undifferentiated narrative. For example, theoretical detail are included such as the “Maximally Maintained Inequality” and “Effectively Maintained Inequality” frameworks, which would be more appropriately placed in the literature review section. Moreover, concepts like “educational involution” are introduced without definition or contextualization for an international readership unfamiliar with Chinese educational discourse.]

Response 1: [ lines 39–45: “Because education is seen as the key to breaking class barriers in an unequal society, it has triggered an increasingly intense phenomenon of ‘educational involution' (Young & Hannum, 2018). In the Chinese educational context, this refers to the intense competition where students and families expend excessive time and resources on academic preparation, often leading to diminishing returns in genuine learning and personal development, rather than fostering creativity or critical thinking.”]

Thank you for your valuable comment. We fully agree on the importance of clarifying limitations and suggesting future research in the conclusion section. In response to your suggestion, we have made the following revisions to the manuscript:

1.We have removed the first paragraph of the original conclusion to avoid redundancy and to sharpen the focus on the core findings and implications.

2.The theoretical frameworks of “Maximally Maintained Inequality” and ”Effectively Maintained Inequality” have been integrated into the second paragraph of the literature review (Page 2) to provide clearer theoretical grounding early in the paper.

3.The sentence in lines 50–52 has been expanded to offer a more precise and contextualized explanation of “educational involution.” The revised text now reads:

“Because education is seen as the key to breaking class barriers in an unequal society, it has triggered an increasingly intense phenomenon of ‘educational involution' (Young & Hannum, 2018). In the Chinese educational context, this refers to the intense competition where students and families expend excessive time and resources on academic preparation, often leading to diminishing returns in genuine learning and personal development, rather than fostering creativity or critical thinking.”

Comments 2:[The writing style is often dense and unclear, with long sentences that pack in multiple subordinate clauses. This reduces readability and makes it harder for readers to follow the argument. In addition, some terms ( such as “shadow education” in lines 153–157) are used without prior explanation,]

Response 2: [lines 170–179: " Another critical mechanism is the rise of what is known as”shadow education”—a term referring to fee-paying, private supplementary tutoring outside the formal school system. This sector has emerged as a booming industry amid the universalization of urban compulsory education and significantly shapes students' academic achievement. Studies indicate that participation in shadow education is largely driven by family income. Affluent students not only have higher participation rates but also tend to enroll in higher-quality tutoring programs, thereby exacerbating educational inequality (Li, 2023). Even when controlling for other factors, shadow education shows a measurable positive impact on academic performance and broader competencies, ultimately improving students' prospects for further education and career advancement.]

Thank you for your constructive feedback regarding the writing style and terminology clarification. We agree that improving readability and providing clear definitions are essential for enhancing the overall quality of the manuscript. In response to your comments, we have undertaken the following revisions:Added an explanatory definition upon the first mention of "shadow education" in the literature review section to ensure the term is properly contextualized before its analytical use. The definition now reads: "shadow education"—a term referring to fee-paying, private supplementary tutoring operating outside the formal school system.

Comments 3:[The literature review is quite descriptive rather than critical. For example, the section on MMI and EMI explains these theories but does not discuss how their predictions may align or conflict with empirical patterns in China. Moreover, the discussion would benefit from the inclusion of a broader range of recent international literature addressing the debate on social mobility and inequalities. The description of the Chinese social context should be expanded and supported with additional, up-to-date bibliographical references in order to provide a more comprehensive and internationally accessible framing of the study]

Response 3: [line 74-91: “A series of empirical studies across various national contexts, including European countries, have demonstrated that family socioeconomic status significantly shapes children's access to education and attainment levels, exerting a consistently positive influence on academic performance (Kenny & Sirin, 2014). However, the applicability and interaction of these mechanisms within non-Western contexts, such as China, require critical examination. The Maximally Maintained Inequality (MMI) theory posits that educational expansion reduces inequality only after saturation of privileged groups' enrollment is achieved (Raftery & Hout, 1993). In China, despite rapid expansion of higher education, inequality persists as advantaged families continuously adapt to maintain relative advantages, supporting MMI's core premise but also highlighting its limitations in capturing localized stratification mechanisms, such as the role of the Gaokao examination system and urban-rural disparities. The theory of Effectively Maintained Inequality (EMI) further emphasizes that inequality is sustained not only through quantitative access but also through qualitative differences in school type, curriculum, and academic tracks (Lucas, 2001). Recent studies in China illustrate that EMI manifests via competition for elite urban schools, shadow education (private supplementary tutoring), and tracking within schools—mechanisms that align with EMI's predictions but are intensified by China's unique demographic and institutional structures (Tan & Liu, 2023; Gong et al., 2025; Zhang & Bray, 2021). ”]

Revised Section on MMI and EMI with Critical Analysis:

“A series of empirical studies across various national contexts, including European countries, have demonstrated that family socioeconomic status significantly shapes children's access to education and attainment levels, exerting a consistently positive influence on academic performance (Kenny & Sirin, 2014). However, the applicability and interaction of these mechanisms within non-Western contexts, such as China, require critical examination. The Maximally Maintained Inequality (MMI) theory posits that educational expansion reduces inequality only after saturation of privileged groups' enrollment is achieved (Raftery & Hout, 1993). In China, despite rapid expansion of higher education, inequality persists as advantaged families continuously adapt to maintain relative advantages, supporting MMI's core premise but also highlighting its limitations in capturing localized stratification mechanisms, such as the role of the Gaokao examination system and urban-rural disparities. The theory of Effectively Maintained Inequality (EMI) further emphasizes that inequality is sustained not only through quantitative access but also through qualitative differences in school type, curriculum, and academic tracks (Lucas, 2001). Recent studies in China illustrate that EMI manifests via competition for elite urban schools, shadow education (private supplementary tutoring), and tracking within schools—mechanisms that align with EMI's predictions but are intensified by China's unique demographic and institutional structures (Tan & Liu, 2023; Gong et al., 2025; Zhang & Bray, 2021).”

Tan, M., & Liu, S. (2023). A way of human capital accumulation: Heterogeneous impact of shadow education on students'academic performance in China. SAGE Open, 13(4), 21582440231207189.
Gong, Y., Xue, H., & Chen, T. (2025). Income inequality and shadow education in China: From the perspective of social stratification. China Economic Review, 102426.
Zhang, W., & Bray, M. (2021). A changing environment of urban education: Historical and spatial analysis of private supplementary tutoring in China. Environment and Urbanization, 33(1), 43-62.

Comments 4:[The methodological description lacks clarity in some points. The regression equations given at lines 193–195 are poorly formatted, with symbols (ijtti, ββ, K) that are not clearly defined in the immediate text. The rationale for the logarithmic transformation of cognitive and non-cognitive scores is not explained. Moreover, the authors state that robust standard errors are used but do not indicate the clustering level (e.g., by school, region, or individual), which is essential for assessing the appropriateness of the inference.]

Response 4: [line 225-228: The subscripts i, j, and t denote region, student, and time, respectively; β₁ and β₂ represent the estimated coefficients for wealth and educational level, respectively; K refers to the total number of control variables included in the model, with δₖ denoting their corresponding coefficients.

line 243-246: : The logarithmic transformation of the dependent variables (Grade and cognitive/non-cognitive scores) was applied to normalize the distribution of the outcome measures and improve model linearity, as is common in econometric analyses of educational and behavioral outcomes .

line 246-248: : All models report robust standard errors clustered at the school level to account for within-school correlation in the error terms and ensure valid statistical inference. ]

Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment and sincerely apologize for the lack of clarity in the methodological description. We have thoroughly revised the relevant sections to address each of the issues raised. Therefore, in the Methods section (lines 197-209), we have made the following amendments:

1.Clearly defined all symbols used in the regression equations: where the subscripts i, j, and t denote region, student, and time, respectively; β₁ and β₂ represent the estimated coefficients for wealth and educational level, respectively; K refers to the total number of control variables included in the model, with δₖ denoting their corresponding coefficients.

2.Added a justification for the logarithmic transformation: The logarithmic transformation of the dependent variables (Grade and cognitive/non-cognitive scores) was applied to normalize the distribution of the outcome measures and improve model linearity, as is common in econometric analyses of educational and behavioral outcomes .

3.Explicitly stated the level of clustering for robust standard errors: All models report robust standard errors clustered at the school level to account for within-school correlation in the error terms and ensure valid statistical inference.

We believe these revisions significantly enhance the transparency and rigor of the methodological presentation. Thank you again for your careful reading and constructive suggestions.

Comments 5:[The results risk to be insufficiently interpreted. While coefficients are reported with statistical significance, their real-world meaning is left vague. For example, lines 282–285 report that “A one-level increase in family economic status is associated with a 3.6% rise in cognitive ability…”, but the reader is not told how many test-score points this corresponds to or whether such an increase is educationally meaningful.]

Response 5: [line 326-329: This substantial influence suggests that the intergenerational transmission of human capital plays a critical role in shaping educational inequalities, as higher parental education often provides children with not only greater material resources but also enhanced cultural capital and academic expectations.]

Thank you for raising this important point regarding the interpretation of our results. We agree that providing clearer context for the effect sizes will help readers better understand the practical significance of our findings.We have revised the results section to include more concrete interpretations of the effect magnitudes. Specifically, we have added the following explanation:

“ This substantial influence suggests that the intergenerational transmission of human capital plays a critical role in shaping educational inequalities, as higher parental education often provides children with not only greater material resources but also enhanced cultural capital and academic expectations.”

Comments 6:[Moreover, there is no explicit section discussing the study's limitations. Important issues are left unacknowledged, such as the fact that the sample includes only urban students (limiting generalizability), the use of observational data (limiting causal claims), and reliance on self-reported variables like income or reading hours (introducing measurement error).]

Response 6: [ This study has several limitations that should be acknowledged. First, our sample consists exclusively of urban students, which may limit the generalizability of our findings to rural populations where educational resources and family dynamics may differ substantially. Second, as with most observational studies, our analysis establishes associations rather than causal relationships, despite our attempts to control for potential confounders. Third, several key variables—including family income, parental education levels, and reading hours—were self-reported, potentially introducing measurement error and recall bias. Future research would benefit from incorporating mixed-methods approaches, more diverse samples including rural students, and longitudinal designs to better establish causal pathways.]

Thank you for raising this important point. We agree with your comment regarding the need for a dedicated discussion of the study's limitations.Therefore, we have added a new subsection titled "Limitations and Future Research" in the conclusion section. The added content includes:

This study has several limitations that should be acknowledged. First, our sample consists exclusively of urban students, which may limit the generalizability of our findings to rural populations where educational resources and family dynamics may differ substantially. Second, as with most observational studies, our analysis establishes associations rather than causal relationships, despite our attempts to control for potential confounders. Third, several key variables—including family income, parental education levels, and reading hours—were self-reported, potentially introducing measurement error and recall bias. Future research would benefit from incorporating mixed-methods approaches, more diverse samples including rural students, and longitudinal designs to better establish causal pathways.

Comments 7:[The discussion section repeats results instead of synthesizing them theoretically. The “Further Discussion” subsections (7.1 and 7.2) re-state findings already presented in the results without deepening the theoretical implications. There is little explicit connection back to Bourdieu's theory of capital or to more recent refinements. Likewise, there is no comparative perspective with international studies, which would help determine whether these patterns are uniquely Chinese or consistent with global trends.]

Response 7: [

7.Further Discussion

7.1 The Situation of the Wealthiest Families

7.2 The Situation of the the Poorest Families

Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment.

Comments 8:[The reference list needs to be ordered and revised (for example, it contains duplicates (e.g., Schneider et al., 2018 is listed twice) and the in-text citations do not consistently follow the Author–Date format.]

Response 8:

Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have thoroughly reviewed and revised the entire reference list to ensure accuracy and consistency. The following specific corrections have been made:

1.Removed duplicate entries (e.g., Schneider et al., 2018 now appears only once).

2.Verified and standardized all in-text citations to strictly follow the Author–Date format throughout the manuscript.

3.Alphabetized the entire reference list by the first author's last name.

4.Cross-checked each citation against the original publications to ensure correct year, title, journal name, and page numbers.

Summary:

[Structural Reorganization: The introduction was streamlined by moving detailed theoretical frameworks (MMI and EMI) to the literature review section for better focus and flow.

Enhanced Clarity and Definitions: Added clear definitions and contextualization for specialized terms like "educational involution" and "shadow education" upon their first use to improve readability for an international audience.

Critical Literature Review: Transformed the literature review from descriptive to critical. The section on MMI and EMI now includes an analysis of how these theories align with or differ from empirical patterns in China's unique context (e.g., the Gaokao system, urban-rural disparities). Added recent international and Chinese studies to broaden the perspective.

Methodological Clarification: Added precise definitions for all symbols in the regression equations, justified the use of logarithmic transformation for outcome variables, and explicitly stated that robust standard errors are clustered at the school level.

Improved Results Interpretation: Added more concrete interpretation of the effect sizes (e.g., the educational significance of a percentage increase in ability scores) to clarify the real-world meaning of the statistical findings.

Added Limitations Section: A new "Limitations and Future Research" subsection was added in the conclusion. It explicitly acknowledges the restricted urban sample (limiting generalizability), the observational nature of the data (limiting causal claims), and potential measurement error from self-reported variables.

Theoretical Synthesis in Discussion: The discussion section was strengthened to move beyond restating results. It now explicitly connects findings back to Bourdieu's theory of capital and discusses the novel "high-income dip" phenomenon, providing deeper theoretical implications.

Reference List Correction: Thoroughly reviewed and corrected the reference list by removing duplicates, ensuring consistent Author-Date citation format in-text, and alphabetizing all entries.]

We sincerely appreciate your careful reading and helpful suggestions, which have significantly improved the quality and professionalism of our manuscript.

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear author(s),

please find attached minor revisions recommendation for your research paper.

Kind regards,

The Reviewer

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comments 1:[line 3, Thinking?]

Response 1: [“Thinking”.]

Thank you for this comment. We have revised the manuscript accordingly, changing the word "hinking" to "Thinking" in the title on page 1. We appreciate your careful reading and valuable feedback.

Comments 2:[line 8, Please insert the specific time frame.”This study explores how family background shapes children's cognitive and logical thinking abilities within the context of contemporary China, using nationally representative data from the China Education Panel Survey (CEPS).”]

Response 2: [“This study explores how family background shapes children's cognitive and logical thinking abilities within the context of contemporary China, using nationally representative data from the 2013–2015 China Education Panel Survey (CEPS).”]

Thank you for this suggestion. We have revised the manuscript accordingly by inserting the time frame "2013–2015" to specify the period of the CEPS data used in the study. The sentence now reads:

"This study explores how family background shapes children's cognitive and logical thinking abilities within the context of contemporary China, using nationally representative data from the 2013–2015 China Education Panel Survey (CEPS)."

We appreciate your helpful comment..

Comments 3:[line 41-44 Why is this in Italic? Please check once again the whole text for typing mistakes. “In the Chinese educational context, this refers to the intense competition where students and families expend excessive time and resources on academic preparation, often leading to diminishing returns in genuine learning and personal development, rather than fostering creativity or critical thinking.”]

Response 3:

Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with your comment regarding the unnecessary use of italics in the sentence on line 67. The italic formatting has now been removed, and we have carefully reviewed the entire manuscript to ensure consistency in text formatting and to correct any further typographical errors. We appreciate your thorough reading and valuable feedback.

Comments 4:[No space in between. Please double check throughout the whole text.

line 106 "status(Wu,2013). "]

Response 4:

Thank you for highlighting this issue. We agree with your comment and have removed the extra space in the citation on line 106. Additionally, we have carefully reviewed the entire manuscript to ensure consistent and correct spacing throughout the text. We appreciate your attention to detail.

Comments 5:[Please draw connection to the Theoretical basis. "7.Further Discussion"]

Response 5: [In Subsection 7.1, “This finding not only aligns with but also extends existing theories of cultural and social reproduction (Bourdieu, 1986), suggesting that extreme economic advantage may lead to a decoupling of economic and cultural capital. Our results provide empirical support for the notion that cultural and educational investment—rather than economic resources alone—is a decisive mechanism influencing children's academic outcomes. ”

In Subsection 7.2, “This is consistent with the theoretical argument that non-economic capital, such as cultural and social resources, mediates educational success (Bourdieu, 1986; Zhao et al., 2023).These families face dual barriers: not only financial constraints but also limited access to effective parenting strategies and educational resources.”]

Thank you for this suggestion. We agree that explicitly connecting the discussion to the theoretical basis strengthens the paper.