New Developments in Chinese Education Research · 2003

Author: Qu Baoquan Zheng Jinzhou
Publisher:
Publish Date: 2005-03-01
Features: Investment system innovation should be approached from two aspects:
① Emphasize investment in basic education. Some argue that China's current investment in basic education is severely insufficient. According to UNESCO's 1997 statistics, in 1995, the world's average public education expenditure accounted for 4.9% of GDP, with developed countries at 5.1%, transition and developing countries at 5.2%, underdeveloped regions at 4.1%, least developed countries at 2.5%, and China only accounted for 2.3% that year. As early as 1993, the "Outline for the Reform and Development of China's Education" stipulated that by 2000, fiscal education expenditure should account for 4% of GDP. However, by 1999, China's education expenditure only accounted for 2.8% of GDP, and by 2001, it still did not reach 4%. Even the limited education funds were not distributed reasonably: excessive emphasis was placed on higher education, while investment in compulsory education was insufficient. Based on budgeted education funds, higher education accounted for about 20%, while secondary and primary education accounted for 80%. However, 80% of higher education funds came from the government, while only 60% of compulsory education funds were allocated by the government. On average (budgeted), primary school students received 35 yuan, junior high school students 602 yuan, high school students 1,200 yuan, and university students 6,600 yuan. University students' per capita funding was 20 times that of primary school students. All these conditions require innovation in the existing education investment system, emphasizing the investment in basic education [Qiu Youxin, 2003(3)].
② Save costs and expand sources. Another argument suggests that the main contradiction in the development of China's education sector is the mismatch between insufficient education resources and strong educational demand. The shortage of education resources is reflected quantitatively in insufficient university enrollment, failing to meet the learning needs of the vast number of young people; and qualitatively in the severe shortage of high-quality education, leading to competition for quality education starting from primary school, which seriously hinders the advancement of quality-oriented education. To change this situation, in addition to the government continuing to increase investment in education, it is also necessary to save costs and expand sources. Saving costs means improving the efficiency of educational operations, while expanding sources means raising funds through multiple channels [Gu Mingyuan: "On the Innovation of Educational Thought and Educational Systems," in the Journal of Beijing Normal University (Humanities and Social Sciences Edition), 2002].
Innovation in management systems requires a combination of centralization and decentralization. For a long time, the main feature of China's education management system has been a highly centralized, government-led management model, with schools having very limited autonomy in decision-making and management. After nearly a decade of reform, the relationship between the government and schools has undergone significant changes. However, the government-led management model has not fundamentally changed from a systemic perspective, especially the inertia generated by the system still has a profound impact on concepts and behavior. The government is accustomed to directly directing schools, while schools are accustomed to following government instructions. The combination of this behavioral habit and systemic influence has formed a unique sticky state during institutional transformation, often leading to role misalignment between schools and the government. Therefore, the primary issue in management system innovation is the role definition between schools and the government. The government should be defined as an administrative institution, and schools as academic and teaching institutions, with their functions differentiated from a systemic perspective. Especially in talent cultivation, the government's role should be strictly limited to macro-level management, while in capacity building, the focus should be on formulating national capacity.