Gorard (2012) found that students believe teachers create unfair situations, but these conclusions may be disputed by teachers. According to teachers’ accounts, they think they do their best to make students feel fairness (Owens & de St Croix, 2020). Sasse et al. (2022) found that differing views on justice contribute to perceptions of unfairness. Organizational justice theory suggests three dimensions constitute an individual’s perception of justice in the organizational setting: distributive, procedural, and interactional (Greenberg & Colquitt, 2013). Similarly, the allocation of educational resources supports learning, and unwelcome punishments affect students’ perception of justice (Husak, 2019; Resh, 2009). Students’ procedural views often arise through experiences of communication with their teachers, as these interactions make up a substantial portion of daily school life (Holmgren & Bolkan, 2014).

 

Equity is the dominant norm in distribution settings, although researchers have suggested that equality and need can be alternative norms (Rubinstein, 1988). Sabbagh et al. (2006) argued that schools are a typical distribution environment because they involve the allocation of learning resources that affect students’ academic performance. Meritocracy, the ideal that ability and effort should be rewarded as the focus of investment, is quite common in schools (Lei & Yu, 2021). Studies have shown that a considerable amount of unfairness can be explained by invoking the criterion of justice (Prewett et al., 2019). For example, the principles of merit and need imply different allocation practices, which may lead to conflicting expectations and contribute to feelings of unfairness. Researchers have pointed out that the distribution field is not confined to favorable rewards or resources but also includes unwelcome punishments (Husak, 2019). Bear and Fink (1991) analyzed the unfairness arising from differences in preferences for punishment approaches among teachers and students.

 

In interactions with teachers, students seek equal respect, understanding, and care (Chory et al., 2017). They may experience disappointment when teachers believe that it is reasonable to give more positive responses to the most gifted or able students. In contrast, students’ need for emotional support may be met when teachers equally distribute their attention and concern or pay more attention to disadvantaged students. Recent research has shown that teacher–student relationship perceptions vary on the basis of students’ socioeconomic background (Ren, 2017), with students from different family backgrounds having varied criteria when evaluating their interpersonal experiences. Lower-class students are more likely to feel that their teacher looks down on or ignores them, creating communication barriers (Li et al., 2020).

 

In general, teachers and students assess situations on the basis of their own justice preferences and respond accordingly. They may share the same views or hold views that are very different, which shape their schooling experiences. However, the norms of justice that guide teachers’ and students’ views of situations in the Chinese context remain unclear. In what situations do they find common ground, and under what circumstances do they disagree? How do teachers address students’ feelings of unfairness? Our study sought to answer these questions by exploring how unfairness occurs in Chinese schools. Rawls (2001) argued that justice is related to the ideal principles of society’s structure and system, whereas fairness is more concerned with the attribution of counternormative events. Therefore, our study used fairness to describe students’ views of their school experiences.

Approval for the study was received from the Research Ethics Committee of Guangzhou University. The participants were 19 students and 22 teachers from three high schools in Shanghai City, Zhejiang Province, and Henan Province. The students were 10 boys and 12 girls aged between 16 and 18 years. The teachers, comprising nine men and 10 women, had between 5 and 33 years of teaching experience (M = 14.41, SD = 7.17), with 13 being head teachers and the rest being subject teachers.

 

Teachers were recruited through the WeChat social media application. The first author posted an online questionnaire link via WeChat on June 15, 2023, and publicized the project with the help of assistants. By the end of July 2, 2023, 168 potential participants were willing to take part in the study. Studies have suggested that teachers from schools with different socioeconomic statuses vary in terms of their teaching practices (Harvey, 2023). To increase the diversity of perspectives, we recruited participants from schools with both high and low socioeconomic statuses. We also examined the effects of personal characteristics, such as gender, length of teaching experience, and job position, on teachers’ views. We combined these criteria while considering availability for interviews and ultimately sampled 36 teachers from the potential participants. Quota sampling was used to ensure an equal number of participants across categories.

 

Teachers were also asked to recommend students from their classes who were interested in taking part in our study. To control for bias in recommendations, we considered differences in students’ gender, family background, academic performance, household registration, and student cadre. We obtained written consent from the parents of 31 students along with 25 teachers. Three parents refused to sign consent forms, so we did not interview their children. Following the framework proposed by Fugard and Potts (2020), we ultimately conducted interviews with 19 teachers and 22 students until no opposing views emerged.

Teachers and parents of students were provided with an information sheet about the study, along with a written consent form. At the beginning of the interviews, participants were informed that they could withdraw anytime, and confidentiality was guaranteed. Students were also reminded that the interview was not an examination, there were no right or wrong answers, and they were encouraged to share their experiences of school life related to the topic. The interviews were conducted through video conference by three experienced qualitative researchers, each lasting approximately 60 minutes and taking place between July 10 and October 25, 2023. Every participant received an RMB 100 (USD 13.73) red envelope of digital payments or equivalent gifts as compensation.

 

We used semistructured interviews to explore teachers’ and students’ perspectives on school life. On the basis of a literature search and the experiential knowledge of collaborators, the first author drafted an outline for the student interviews. To identify any questions that needed to be made clearer or more accessible, field interviews were conducted with five students and adjustments were made accordingly. Two weeks later, we conducted a second wave of interviews with the remaining 17 students. We drew on interviews with 24 students to analyze fairness-related subjects that were frequently mentioned. Using the themes that the students shared, the first author then drafted faculty interview outlines, which were reviewed by three other teachers, and the questions were adjusted on the basis of their suggestions. Teachers and students were asked a series of questions about school life, including how they judge the fairness of resource distribution, punishments, rewards, and teacher–student interactions, as well as what changes students expect from the school or teachers. We integrated the types of fairness perceived by teachers and students into a two-dimensional comparative framework that manifests compatible and incompatible standards of fairness judgment.

The analysis was conducted via NVivo version 12. When the interviews were complete, both authors listened to all the recordings and transcribed them into Chinese. We followed a typological analysis approach (Saldana, 2021), thematically coding the data in line with distributive, procedural, and interactional fairness themes derived from organizational justice theory, which is a general framework for understanding how individuals define situations and give meaning to experiences as well as understanding feelings of fairness or unfairness. Further analysis of the data found that punishment was frequently mentioned, and students’ evaluations of procedural fairness were based on teacher–student relationships. The secondary coding refined the following themes: the distribution of educational resources, punishments, and teacher–student interactions. Subsequently, we applied narrative analysis to explore teachers’ and students’ responses in the same context and judgments of fairness. Differing opinions during coding were resolved through continuous discussion until a consensus was reached.

Our respondents generally recognized merit-based criteria as the fairest way of allocating educational resources, such as expert teachers, high-quality curriculum opportunities, teachers’ attention, and good educational materials. The participants indicated that merit, which is usually demonstrated through examination performance, should be rewarded accordingly. Research has suggested that students with poor academic performance and lower status in the classroom tend to have lower perceptions of meritocracy than do their higher performing peers (Warikoo & Fuhr, 2014). However, in this study low achievers also internalized meritocratic principles, attributing unfairness in allocation of access to educational resources to their not trying hard enough or being too playful.

 

Their grades are better than ours, their learning ability is better than ours, and their understanding is quicker than ours. That is why they have the ability to be assigned to highly selective classes and the chance to be taught by highly qualified teachers. It is also acceptable that the school favors them because they have earned it through their own efforts. (G, 20200728)

 

Belief in the merit-based allocation of educational resources led most teachers and students to (a) view the school as a static organization that requires students to adapt and (b) attribute academic success or failure to effort, merit, and learning attitude. Teachers and students agreed on the application of merit-based criteria that not only perpetuate existing distribution patterns but also influence how they respond to unfairness. A teacher in a key middle school suggested that students should turn inward and examine themselves when they encounter unfairness.

 

For the students, they have to accept the fact that they think it is unfair, and that means [in their opinion] you are not doing a good job. You can only adapt to the rules of society and the exam; you cannot let the rules adapt to you. (T, 20200723)

There was considerable disagreement between teachers and students regarding the distribution of punishment. Teachers often focused on punishment as a deterrent, justifying its permissibility by arguing that such actions would have positive effects in the future (Mooijman & Graham, 2018), which aligns with what Boonin (2008) called a consequentialist solution. The problem is that a forward-looking approach may increase punishment to prevent potential offenders.

 

For the student, there may be a reason for their mistake, and they may feel that the teacher does not need to take it too seriously. However, from the teacher’s viewpoint, what they manage is not just one student but a class of many individuals. If we make an exception for someone, what about the other students? It is usual for students to feel that it is not fair, but what I have done is to manage the whole class. (T, 20200811)

 

Students justified punishment due to their desire for those who deviate from behavioral norms to face consequences, rather than their desire for future benefits. Differing perceptions of the purpose of punishment made it challenging for teachers and students to reach a consensus on fair punishment and its approach. Moreover, teachers’ punishment approach did not always achieve the expected outcome and was instead seen as a sign of distrust by students, who thus complained about being unfairly punished and developed a negative attitude toward their teacher.

 

It does not matter if it is one person or many people who make a mistake; the head teacher scolds us, along with the whole class. I feel that the teacher should just call out the offender, and why should I suffer from an undeserved rebuke? Honestly, I was pretty angry and sad, so I ran away. (G, 20200815)

However, addressing students’ social and emotional needs is necessary for their learning and the development of high-quality student–teacher relationships (Haynes et al., 2002). Social-emotional support involves teacher behaviors that make students feel supported and cared for, as well as offering additional assistance when needed (Prewett et al., 2019). Students have reported that their emotional needs are often overlooked by teachers. One teacher we interviewed provided the following explanation:

 

(School) is sometimes like a company, while students are like our customers. They receive education to get into college, so what is good for them is to help them be admitted to a high-quality university. Emotional support is also considered, but our purpose is to get students into college. (T, 20200723)

 

It was difficult for teachers to provide equal service to all students, especially when under pressure to ensure a specific college enrollment rate and when faced with insufficient support and resources. Teachers thus employed a subtle triage approach to classroom management (Corwin et al., 2004), focusing their attention on students who showed potential for entering high-quality universities and providing them with more care, guidance, and emotional support. Other students were expected by teachers to take all the responsibility in nurturing a relationship. According to the accounts of seven teachers, students who invest energy in the teacher–student relationship in hopes of gaining benefits are often those who are already well-resourced.

 

Students with outstanding levels of achievement or a higher socioeconomic status usually benefited more from interactions with teachers. They actively built teacher–student relationships, hoping to gain benefits. In contrast, disadvantaged or underrepresented students often detected subtle signs of impatience in teachers’ body language and tone of voice, leading them to avoid unnecessary interactions and refrain from seeking assistance. One underachieving student shared the following comment:

 

You are the type of person who the teacher thinks is bad, so you better stop throwing yourself at them. Things are already like that; it would be better to keep a low profile and stay away from teachers. (X, 20200809)

 

Compared with others, disadvantaged students favored emphasizing the importance of caring for, encouraging, and guiding students in a fair manner. However, teachers failed to respond to these demands, leaving students who were at the bottom of the hierarchy unable to gain what Collins (2002) called emotional energy, referring to a positive emotional state or drive that people acquire through social interactions, which further marginalized them in their teacher–student relationships. Successful interactions generate emotional energy that increases confidence, enthusiasm, and a sense of social connection (Collins, 2002).

This paper examined teacher–student interactions to reveal the dynamic process of perceptions of school unfairness. Our findings regarding teachers’ and students’ cognitive differences and feelings about fairness suggest that enhancing students’ academic performance or meeting their emotional needs through interventions, such as opportunities to answer questions, the equitable distribution of teachers’ attention, and the building of positive interpersonal relationships, is insufficient to promote fairness in education. Identifying and discussing the different standpoints of teachers and students regarding fairness, along with the dilemmas these criteria pose, will help to foster mutual recognition and alleviate feelings of unfairness in classroom practices. Furthermore, it is critical to examine the social grounding of teachers’ and students’ attitudes toward unfairness; only then can unfairness situations be dissected through profound analysis and observation.

 

The above discussion concerning resource distribution and relationship building indicates that teachers show a clear meritocracy belief. The assumption of the merit criterion is that unfairness stems from individual factors. In fact, schools play a crucial role in encouraging meritocracy by emphasizing a culture of competition, achievement centered on examinations, and a grade-tracking system (Darnon et al., 2018). Meritocracy provides teachers with an effortless explanatory framework and is acknowledged in the pursuit of academic achievement among students. In this process, most students enjoy feelings of fairness. However, these results are not reassuring. As Goffman (1974) argued, individuals do not have the power to define the situation; the community always comes first. Students’ sense of fairness comes mainly from the fact that they are willing to fulfill the expectations of the school organization, thus reaching a broad agreement between the self and teachers. However, once harmony is disrupted, as shown in teacher–student interactions, students’ perceived sense of fairness transforms into feelings of dissatisfaction and anger. Consistent with Gorard’s (2012) research, Chinese students expressed more diverse opinions regarding discriminatory aspects of teacher–student interactions, such as respect and care. In contrast to Resh’s (2009) findings, the students we interviewed rarely questioned grading and reward distribution. This may be due to China’s long tradition of meritocracy (Hannum et al., 2019), where merit is believed to make one deserving of success and honor.

 

Our findings have practical implications, suggesting that students have their own opinions of fairness and that their sense of fairness may be shaped by teacher–student interactions. Schools and teachers should pay more attention to students’ voices and focus less on educational outcomes. By nurturing students’ sense of fairness, schools can become social pioneers the public aspires to emulate, rather than merely reflecting society.

 

Our study has several limitations. The data collection, coding, and analysis may have been influenced by our subjective assessment, although, through a careful review of materials and discussions with the sampled teachers, we sought to maintain objectivity in our analysis. Furthermore, student–teacher interactions are complex and changeable. While a qualitative approach can highlight particular features, using such a method may make it challenging to capture details. Nonetheless, our study adds value to the field and should be viewed as a starting point for more thorough research on perceptions of fairness in education.

Bear, G. G., & Fink, A. (1991). Judgments of fairness and predicted effectiveness of classroom discipline: Influence of problem severity and reputation. School Psychology Quarterly, 6(2), 83–102. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0088810

 

Boonin, D. (2008). The problem of punishment. Cambridge University Press.

 

Chory, R. M., Horan, S. M., & Houser, M. L. (2017). Justice in the higher education classroom: Students’ perceptions of unfairness and responses to instructors. Innovative Higher Education, 42(4), 321–336.

 

Collins, R. (2002). Interaction ritual chains. Princeton University Press.

 

Corwin, Z. B., Venegas, K. M., Oliverez, P. M., & Colyar, J. E. (2004). School counsel: How appropriate guidance affects educational equity. Urban Education, 39(4), 442–457. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085904265107

 

Darnon, C., Smeding, A., & Redersdorff, S. (2018). Belief in school meritocracy as an ideological barrier to the promotion of equality. European Journal of Social Psychology, 48(4), 523–534. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2347

 

Fugard, A., & Potts, H. (2020). Thematic analysis. Sage Research Methods Foundations.

 

Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Harvard University Press.

 

Gorard, S. (2012). Experiencing fairness at school: An international study. International Journal of Educational Research, 53, 127–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2012.03.003

 

Greenberg, J., & Colquitt, J. A. (2013). Handbook of organizational justice. Psychology Press.

 

Hannum, E., Ishida, H., Park, H., & Tam, T. (2019). Education in East Asian societies: Postwar expansion and the evolution of inequality. Annual Review of Sociology, 45(1), 625–647.

 

Harvey, P. F. (2023). “Everyone thinks they’re special”: How schools teach children their social station. American Sociological Review, 88(3), 493–521. https://doi.org/10.1177/00031224231172785

 

Haynes, N. M. (2002). Addressing students’ social and emotional needs: The role of mental health teams in schools. Journal of Health and Social Policy, 16(1–2), 109–123. https://doi.org/10.1300/j045v16n01_10

 

Holmgren, J. L., & Bolkan, S. (2014). Instructor responses to rhetorical dissent: Student perceptions of justice and classroom outcomes. Communication Education, 63(1), 17–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2013.833644

 

Husak, D. N. (2019). Why punish the deserving? In T. Brooks (Ed.), Retribution (pp. 187–204). Routledge.

 

Lei, L., & Yu, W. H. (2021). What does it take to get ahead? Individual characteristics, community contexts, and stratification beliefs among youth in China. Social Forces, 100(2), 738–764. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/soaa143

 

Li, J., Wang, J., Li, J.-Y., Qian, S., Jia, R.-X., Wang, Y.-Q., Liang, J.-H., & Xu, Y. (2020). How do socioeconomic status relate to social relationships among adolescents: A school-based study in East China. BMC Pediatrics, 20(1), Article 271. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12887-020-02175-w

 

Mooijman, M., & Graham, J. (2018). Unjust punishment in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 38, 95–106.

 

Owens, J., & de St Croix, T. (2020). Engines of social mobility? Navigating meritocratic education discourse in an unequal society. British Journal of Educational Studies, 68(4), 403–424.

 

Prewett, S. L., Bergin, D. A., & Huang, F. L. (2019). Student and teacher perceptions on student–teacher relationship quality: A middle school perspective. School Psychology International, 40(1), 66–87.

 

Rawls, J. (2001). A theory of justice. In L. May (Ed.), Applied ethics (6th ed., pp. 1–9). Routledge.

 

Ren, C. Y. (2017). Teacher-student relationships from a social class perspective [In Chinese]. Journal of Education, 13(5), 79–85.

 

Resh, N. (2009). Justice in grades allocation: Teachers’ perspective. Social Psychology of Education, 12(3), 315–325. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-008-9073-z

 

Rubinstein, D. (1988). The concept of justice in sociology. Theory and Society, 17(4), 527–550.

 

Sabbagh, C., Resh, N., Mor, M., & Vanhuysse, P. (2006). Spheres of justice within schools: Reflections and evidence on the distribution of educational goods. Social Psychology of Education, 9, 97–118.

 

Saldana, J. (2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage Publications.

 

Sasse, J., Nazlic, T., Alrich, K., Frey, D., & Baumert, A. (2022). Mitigating intergroup conflict: Effectiveness of qualifying subjective justice views as an intervention technique in comparison to empathy induction. Social Justice Research, 35(2), 107–127. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-022-00387-2

 

Warikoo, N. K., & Fuhr, C. (2014). Legitimating status: Perceptions of meritocracy and inequality among undergraduates at an elite British university. British Educational Research Journal, 40(4), 699–717.