Information date: 21 October 2026 — On 5 June 2025 Vice Premier Ding Xuexiang inspected Shanxi and called for guarding the fairness of the college entrance examination and delivering a safe gaokao, with more than 13 million candidates registered for the 2025 sitting. The enforcement wave that follows touches exam-prep and education-consulting companies: market regulators and education authorities cross-check business licences, registered scope, teaching premises and advertising claims against the rules that bar for-profit tutoring in core academic subjects. Knowing that statement is not enough for an operating, research or compliance decision. The team must first establish who and what it applies to, how the effect reaches the real process, and which evidence would justify action.
Verified facts and scope
On 5 June 2025 Vice Premier Ding Xuexiang inspected Shanxi and called for guarding the fairness of the college entrance examination and delivering a safe gaokao, with more than 13 million candidates registered for the 2025 sitting. The enforcement wave that follows touches exam-prep and education-consulting companies: market regulators and education authorities cross-check business licences, registered scope, teaching premises and advertising claims against the rules that bar for-profit tutoring in core academic subjects.
Relevant to any entity whose registered business scope includes education consulting, education technology, training or exam preparation, and to foreign investors holding or acquiring such a company. Checks focus on whether the scope matches the actual activity, whether an academic-subject tutoring permit exists where required, whether the registered address is real and used, whether signage and adverts match the licensed name, and whether foreign ownership sits in a permitted category.
How the effect reaches operations
The business licence defines what a company may legally do, and tutoring in core academic subjects is a restricted activity requiring a separate permit that most consulting firms do not hold. When exam integrity becomes a national priority, enforcement shifts from complaint-driven to inspection-driven, and the gap between a broad consulting scope and actual teaching activity becomes the finding rather than a technicality.
The frequent errors are: registering as education consulting and running subject classes; using a name or brand that implies a school or an official affiliation; advertising guaranteed scores or exam outcomes; operating from a residential address not registered as a premises; and acquiring a company without noticing legacy scope items that are no longer permitted.
For “Gaokao Integrity Push: Business-Licence Scrutiny for Exam-Prep and Education-Consulting Firms”, official rules or published findings, direct evidence from the relevant product or process, and assumptions that remain untested should be recorded separately. A broad source defines the external boundary; it does not replace batch records, protocols, contracts, labels or direct observations.
Decision
If the entity only advises on study planning and does not teach academic subjects, keep the scope narrow, remove school-like branding and keep records proving no classes are delivered. If it does teach, obtain the correct permit and premises before the season. If you are acquiring, run a scope-and-premises audit and require the seller to clean legacy items as a closing condition.
Implementation checklist
- Pull the licence and compare the registered scope line by line against actual revenue activities.
- Audit signage, websites and adverts for school-like names and score guarantees.
- Confirm the registered address matches the operating premises before any inspection.
- Assign one decision owner, one implementation owner and a dated review point for “Gaokao Integrity Push: Business-Licence Scrutiny for Exam-Prep and Education-Consulting Firms”.
- For “Gaokao Integrity Push: Business-Licence Scrutiny for Exam-Prep and Education-Consulting Firms”, archive the source page, access date, applicable population or entity, and internal evidence both supporting and opposing the current decision.
- When a rule, formulation, supplier, protocol or observed result changes, reopen only the affected question in “Gaokao Integrity Push: Business-Licence Scrutiny for Exam-Prep and Education-Consulting Firms”.
Evidence and review
For “Gaokao Integrity Push: Business-Licence Scrutiny for Exam-Prep and Education-Consulting Firms”, start with one real case rather than an abstract checklist. Record the input version, responsible owner, start time, observed result and stop condition. If the team cannot complete “Pull the licence and compare the registered scope line by line against actual revenue activities.” with current evidence, it should not expand the process to more products, patients, suppliers or markets. The first review should focus only on facts capable of changing the decision.
The second control follows “Audit signage, websites and adverts for school-like names and score guarantees.”. Keep the source date, applicable population or entity, deadline, cost effect and owner in the same evidence file. A wording preference does not justify a new version. A repeated discrepancy, an unsupported health claim or a regulatory mismatch does: correct that point and hold release until the evidence is available.
After “Confirm the registered address matches the operating premises before any inspection.”, compare the intended outcome with what actually happened. Apply the same success criteria to each later expansion. If only one number, date or responsibility changes, update that field and the affected conclusion instead of recreating evidence that remains valid. This keeps the decision traceable without turning review into an open-ended rewrite cycle.
Limits of the conclusion
Background on an enforcement trend linked to the 5 June 2025 gaokao integrity campaign; it is not legal advice, and licence scope, permits and foreign-investment categories must be verified with local authorities.
