Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the ongoing debate surrounding the "double weekend" policy in education, highlighting the conflicting interests of various stakeholders while emphasizing the often-overlooked perspective of students [4][5][6]. Group 1: Stakeholder Perspectives - Parents are concerned about the implications of the double weekend policy on social mobility and class reproduction [4]. - Teachers face pressure to conform to existing educational norms, often prioritizing administrative expectations over their own rights and well-being [11][12]. - The education system is characterized by a lack of financial autonomy and a focus on maintaining high academic performance, which complicates the implementation of the double weekend policy [6][10]. Group 2: Student Voices - Students express a strong desire for the double weekend policy, viewing it as a necessary break from the intense academic pressure they face [5][16]. - The article argues that students are often treated as mere instruments in the educational system, with their needs and voices largely ignored [26][27]. - The desire for rest among students is framed as a legitimate aspiration for respect and equality, rather than a sign of laziness or immaturity [17][22]. Group 3: Educational Inequality - The current educational landscape perpetuates inequality, with the emphasis on supplementary tutoring creating a cycle of dependency and financial strain for families [21][22]. - The article critiques the notion that additional tutoring is beneficial, suggesting it primarily serves to reinforce existing social hierarchies rather than improve educational outcomes [21][22]. - The debate around the double weekend policy is seen as a reflection of deeper structural inequalities within the education system, where the privileged continue to benefit at the expense of the less fortunate [21][22].