Xin Su’s Effects of Inland Boarding School Education on Xinjiang Students and their Parents addresses China’s policy of sending high school students from Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR) to inner China for boarding school in a dominant Han Chinese environment. According to China’s Ministry of Education, the policy, implemented in 2000, was designed “to train a large number of ethnic minority talents who adhere to national unity, keep close contact with the masses, have strong enterprise revolutionary quality, and certain professional ability” (p. 8). To this end, a select number of high school aged children from XUAR are sent inland to boarding schools 4,000 km away from their homes as part of a Xinjiangban. The policy states that 80 per cent of the selected students should come from an ethnic minority background, with a significant number being Uyghur. During the time students reside at the school, they have limited contact with their home communities.

This book is an addition to growing research on the impact of inland boarding schools, including two full-length books published on this topic: Chen Yangbin’s Muslim Uyghur Students in a Chinese Boarding School: Social Recapitalization as a Response to Ethnic Integration (Lexington Books, 2008) and Timothy Grose’s Negotiating Inseparability in China: The Xinjiang Class and the Dynamics of Uyghur Identity (Hong Kong University Press, 2019). Unlike those two books, however, Su’s does not focus specifically on the experience of one ethnic group, the Uyghurs, but rather on students of any ethnicity attending inland boarding schools from Xinjiang, and their families. In addition to Uyghurs, her participants include members of the Hui ethnic group, as well as Kazakhs, Kirghiz, Mongolian and Yi. To some extent she teases out differences in the way these individuals from diverse ethnic groups are impacted by a policy that does not account for these differences. For example, most Hui speak Mandarin natively and therefore do not benefit from the extra year of language training required for all inland boarding school students from Xinjiang, prior to their enrolling in the school.

The main focus of the book is the families of these inland boarding school students. Su describes the family view of the inland boarding school policy through her interviews with parents and siblings of the students and explores how it impacts the family relationship. Su finds that parents are very proud of their children for being selected for the boarding school programme. However, they are also unsure of how to be involved in their children’s lives once they have left for boarding school. Su recognizes this as a policy gap that could be addressed by the government or the boarding schools through explicitly building relationships with families.

Su also reveals that parents do not understand much about the education choices available to their children, nor about the boarding school programme. Perhaps parents might not have chosen to send their child so far away had they known what other schooling options were available. In fact, little information is provided in the book about the broader education environment in Xinjiang and why parents might prefer the boarding school option to other choices, although Su does indicate parents believe it will give their children better social mobility. It would be helpful as a reader to understand why other school options in Xinjiang do not.

The research for the book evolved from Su’s doctoral dissertation, and the book itself closely follows the structure of a dissertation. Additionally, as she explains, her dissertation was written as a series of published articles. In the book, the content of these articles has been reproduced in whole or in part, which has led to some repetition. For example, several chapters repeat an explanation of the methods used to generate the data, although there is also one full chapter dedicated to describing the methodology in detail.

Su acknowledges some limitations in her work. These include a small sample size, limited time in the field, and her identity as a Han Chinese scholar. Furthermore, her interviews were conducted in Mandarin, which she recognizes may have presented obstacles in getting a clear picture from her participants, particularly in her interactions with parents, who may not have been Chinese educated. It would be helpful to readers unfamiliar with China to have had more context about the inland boarding school option. For example, why did the policy emerge? Why isn’t education in Xinjiang improved, instead of sending students far away? Readers with more knowledge about China’s preferential policies might be disappointed to find limited critique.

However, the strength of the book is in trying to highlight the impact of the inland boarding school policy not just on the students who participate, but also on their families. Su points out in the conclusion that the policy of sending students far away to inland boarding schools may threaten China’s “ancient concept of family affection” (p. 123) and create major social change in China. This is an interesting insight and likely an unintended consequence of the policy that could inspire further research.