Why this page has no statistics on it

This page used to show how many teachers reported police involvement, arbitration or mediation, and how cases ended. We removed those numbers. Here is exactly why.

What went wrong. We counted posts by searching for words like "police", "arbitration" and "mediation". Then we opened a sample of the matches and read them. Most of the "police" hits were not employment disputes at all — they were news articles about Chinese politics, crime reporting and travel stories. The keyword method was measuring the wrong thing.

What the test actually found

Reading the matches by hand, roughly a quarter were about the topic we claimed to be counting. That is not good enough to publish. A number like "48 teachers reported police involvement" would have been arithmetic on a word search, not a fact about teachers.

What we do instead

We only publish disputes we have actually read, one at a time, and linked to the post. That set is small, and we are not going to pad it with keyword counts to make the page look fuller.

The one dispute with a clear recorded outcome in our verified set:

Shenyang — arbitration against an international school

A teacher describes an international school in Shenyang that stopped paying staff. The case went to labour arbitration, and the teacher won.

Result: resolved in the teacher's favour · source: read the post

Why we are telling you this instead of quietly deleting it

Anyone can put a table on a page. The reason to trust a number is that someone checked it. We applied that standard to the salary records and the contract traps — and it caught a number on this page that did not meet it. If a site will not tell you how its figures were produced, assume they were produced the easy way.

See the traps we did verify →  See the salary records →

Built from public teacher discussions. Every figure shows its sample size.
Not legal advice · sourced from self-reported forum posts · contract check tool