New Developments in Chinese Educational Research. 2003

Author: Qu Baoquan Zheng Jinzhou
Publisher:
Publish Date: 2005-03-01
Features: Innovation in investment systems should be approached from two aspects:
① Emphasize investment in basic education. Some argue that China's current investment in basic education funding is severely insufficient. According to UNESCO's statistics in 1997, 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 with limited education funding, its allocation is unreasonable: excessive emphasis on higher education and insufficient investment in compulsory education. Based on budgeted education funds, higher education accounts for about 20%, while secondary and primary education accounts for 80%. Of higher education funds, 80% come from the government, whereas in compulsory education, only 60% of the total is allocated by the government. In terms of average education funding (budgeted), primary school students receive 35 yuan, junior high school students 602 yuan, high school students 1,200 yuan, and university students 6,600 yuan. University students receive 20 times more funding per capita than primary school students. All these conditions demand 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 educational resources and strong educational demand. The shortage of educational 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 such education starting as early as 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, 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 and unified 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, and 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 systemically. 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.