A Multi-Perspective Analysis (original) (raw)
Related papers
US-China Education Review 2016(1B)
Submission guidelines and Web submission system are available at From a neo-institutional perspective, this paper investigates the function and interaction of globalization and decentralization in China's higher education administrative reform. Both the internal and external environments have shaped educational forms and functions. It is not increasingly difficult to understand the impact of globalization of higher education in the Chinese historical context of higher education changes. But it has become more controversial to discuss the decentralization and globalization of higher education administration in terms of the coexistence of Soviet model and the Western model, which provide the scope of transitions from centralization to decentralization in China's higher education system. This research suggests that by coordinating the relationship between central and local dual administrative powers, enlarging provincial autonomy, enhancing the decision-making power of higher education administration, and expanding the autonomy of universities and institutions, China's central government can rationally deal with the globalization and decentralization forces in higher education administrative and management reforms.
International Status Anxiety and Higher Education: The Soviet Legacy in China and Russia, 2018
Since the 1990s, China's higher education (HE) system has set ambitious goals to simultaneously push for rapid enrollment growth, create new governance structures, and build world-class universities. The aggregate enrollment in the HE sector grew from 3.4 million in 1998 4 to 36.5 million in 2015. The number of institutions increased from 1,022 to 2,852 in the same time span, or by 2.8 times. Now China's HE stands out as the world's largest system, and a large proportion of high school leavers in the country are able to continue their education at the tertiary level, formerly a privilege for the very few. In the meantime, the Chinese government has been making large investments in elite universities (e.g., Projects 211 and 985) to raise some universities and programs to a world-class level. China's HE has exhibited systemic transformations since the early 1990s, and this chapter aims to shed new light on the dynamics and drivers behind these changes. Specifically, we address two research questions: (1) What caused these changes in Chinese higher education -given their breadth and depth? And (2) Were these changes driven by internal motives or external forces -given their efficiency and impacts? Moreover, at the institutional level, the transformation and development of specific Chinese HE institutions (HEIs) in the past two decades tends to reflect the
Since the 1990s, China's higher education (HE) system has set ambitious goals to simultaneously push for rapid enrollment growth, create new governance structures, and build world-class universities. The aggregate enrollment in the HE sector grew from 3.4 million in 1998 4 to 36.5 million in 2015. The number of institutions increased from 1,022 to 2,852 in the same time span, or by 2.8 times. Now China's HE stands out as the world's largest system, and a large proportion of high school leavers in the country are able to continue their education at the tertiary level, formerly a privilege for the very few. In the meantime, the Chinese government has been making large investments in elite universities (e.g., Projects 211 and 985) to raise some universities and programs to a world-class level. China's HE has exhibited systemic transformations since the early 1990s, and this chapter aims to shed new light on the dynamics and drivers behind these changes. Specifically, we address two research questions: (1) What caused these changes in Chinese higher education -given their breadth and depth? And (2) Were these changes driven by internal motives or external forces -given their efficiency and impacts? Moreover, at the institutional level, the transformation and development of specific Chinese HE institutions (HEIs) in the past two decades tends to reflect the
Paradigm Shifts in China’s Education Policy: 1950s-2000s
Italian Journal of Sociology of Education, 2012
During the past 60 years of China’s socialist construction, its higher education policy has experienced dramatic paradigm shifts in line with the nation’s transformation from a planned to a market economy. During the 1950s-1970s, the paramount principle of education policy was political in nature and effect. While the fundamental values of education equity were based on the Chinese communist political ideology and education was treated as a public good, equal opportunities were not necessarily guaranteed. Since 1978, contribution to economic growth was prioritised on China’s education policy agenda. The political function of education was downgraded to favour a strategy that would accelerate China’s march toward economic modernisation. Priority has been shifted from equity to efficiency that is measured almost exclusively in financial terms. Within this process, new winners and losers have been created, with the former far outnumbered by the latter. By tracing current practices to t...
China's Education System: Loved and Hated
The SAGE Handbook of Contemporary China
China has the largest education system in the world, and a population who values formal education highly and is ready to invest heavily in children's schooling. As much research has shown, this reverence for education is only partly due to rational considerations of offspring's' work opportunities. It also has its roots in a long historical trajectory of highly esteemed Confucian education and civil service exams. Since the time of the PRC, the education system has undergone a number of radical structural reforms and adaptations of content of education. Nevertheless, methods of teaching and means of socialization have proven remarkably persistent, causing intense debates about the pros and cons of the Chinese education system. The article first provides a brief overview of the structure of the education system as it has developed during the PRC, with an emphasis on the 21. century. This is followed by three sections focusing on "Knowledge and exams", "Socialization and discipline" and "Alternative paths" that places the Chinese current education system in the broader global web of educational institutions and ideologies. The article analyses and discusses why and with which consequence the Chinese population and its government have cultivated a love-hate relationship with their own education system, and it concludes with some suggestions for future research.
Preface (from book 'Educational Policy Borrowing in China')
For over a decade, Mainland China has been embarking on an ambitious nationwide education reform (‘New Curriculum Reform’) for its basic education. The reform reflects China’s propensity to borrow selected educational policies from elsewhere, particularly North America and Europe. Chinese scholars have used a local proverb ‘the West wind has overpowered the East wind’ to describe this phenomenon of ‘looking West’ But what do we mean by educational policy borrowing from the West? • What are the educational policies in China’s new curriculum reform that are perceived to be borrowed from the West? • To what extent have the borrowed educational policies in China’s new curriculum reform been accepted, modified and rejected by the various educational stakeholders? • How does culture influence the various educational stakeholders in China in interpreting and mediating educational policy borrowing from the West? • How do the findings of this study on China’s education reform inform and add to the existing theories on and approaches to cross-cultural educational policy borrowing? This book answers the above questions by critically discussing China’s policy borrowing from the West through its current reform for primary and secondary education. It presents the latest in-depth research findings from a three-year empirical study (2013–2015) with school principals, teachers, students and other educational stakeholders across China. This study offers new insights into China’s educational policy borrowing from the West and international implications on cross-cultural educational transfer for academics, policymakers and educators.