Routledge Studies in Education and Society in Asia, no. 7. Abingdon, Oxon; New York: Routledge, 2017. xii, 395 pp. (Tables, graphs.) US$149.95, cloth. ISBN 978-0-415-59739-5.
In Edward Vickers and Zeng Xiaodong’s meticulously documented study of the trends, changes, and oddities found in China’s efforts to change its educational institutions, the authors provide a comprehensive overview of China’s educational system. Education and Society in Post-Mao China is chock full of insightful details and astute commentary on earlier and current educational policies that give the book a pleasing historical feel.
In spite of the government’s repeated efforts to lessen educational inequality, the authors find that the latest educational policies that are designed to encourage more rural students to enter into higher education programs have instead served to reinforce deeper social division between urban and rural residents. The study finds that, much like the 1980s, family ties, political connections, and work unit privileges continue to give advantages in the race for educational credentials. It is a race that urbanities are winning in a cake walk. The authors are in agreement with other studies that have found there has been a reduction of inequality within urban China but not between rural and urban settings where inequality has increased. One factor arises from rural migrants’ continued preference for working in tier-one cities; and, in spite of government urging, continue to bypass tier-two and tier-three cities for what they hope are greater economic opportunities.
Throughout 2000 to 2008, the government increased rural teachers’ salaries, but still could not attract sufficiently qualified teachers. By contrast, in urban settings, key or better schools continued to attract more qualified teachers, the best students, and a higher level of (as much as three times more) educational funding. The authors note that once educational inequality has taken root in society, it tends to prove stubbornly tenacious. In effect, the wealthy members of society are always reluctant to surrender their educational privileges.
There is a very good discussion of minban, or community-run schools. Although boarding schools provide more equitable access to education for rural migrant children, they cannot compensate entirely for the inadequacy of weak state provisions. The educational gap is being filled with a newer form of public-private hybridization schooling that operates more like a private management business. These newly formed schools tend to be more equivalent to elite private schools, while their rural counterparts are poorer and of less quality. Yet government remains concerned with the poor educational quality of rural migrants living and working in Chinese cities. In Beijing, in 2001, there were 200 migrant private schools with 40,000 students. Given migrants’ pressing need to educate their children, this educational gap remains one of China’s most pressing concerns.
The restructuring of higher education from the mid-1990s onwards is part and parcel of the broader reforms to China’s socio-economic structure. Coinciding with economic reform has been a tacit repositioning of the value of university education. In the past, higher education was seen as a public good; whereas today, as in the US, it is seen as a private good, and, thus, it is the individual who has the responsibility to pay for his or her education. In the process, students are supporting China’s educational expansion through the payment of ever-increasing fees. They are driven to do so due to China, much like US and elsewhere, using credentials, or, evidence of a university degree, as a precondition for employment. The widespread use of a university degree as a qualification for employment enhances the value given to “credentialism,” which will influence and shape how youth plan and pursue their respective careers. The historic shift away from perceiving students as an “elite in waiting,” toward viewing them as competitive individuals who are more interested in their own advancement, is revolutionary in its social implications.
The authors point out that contemporary China has had a history of allowing local innovation, especially within the education domain. But the return to a more orthodox, or top-down politics, has resulted in local officials’ reluctance to experiment with educational reform or anything else. The tension between ideological correctness and local initiatives continues to stifle educational innovation. This tension, or, lack of it, is readily found in state-mandated curricula and textbooks, which remain more concerned with transmitting state ideology via rote learning than exploring new ways to enhance quality education. In this way, education, as an institution, continues to prioritize skilled personnel in order to maximize the efficiency of the conventional economic order rather than have individual’s questioning many of society’s underlying assumptions.
Although many Chinese teachers realize that society has rapidly changed and want to prepare their students for the competitive arena found in a market economy, they are reluctant to do so. They fear government and parental disapproval in being seen as deviating from educational orthodox. Parents’ conservative position toward educational change is not unfounded: they want their child to obtain a high score on the national exam. Given this reality, parents are disinterested in substantive educational reform that dilutes time away from studying for the national exam.
Parents have accepted, however, some educational innovation when it is confined to primary school where art and music classes are seen as a more positive addition. Once a child moves into middle and secondary school, however, the entire focus will be on the national exam. To this end, Chinese students spent three hours a day on homework, twice the global average. Moreover, China, unlike Japan, does not encourage joining extracurricular sports clubs, as they take away from time studying for the national exam.
In sum, the authors have provided a richly detailed account that will be of interest to other researchers looking for a guide as to how China’s educational system has changed over the last fifty-odd years. I suspect their fine study will be used as a valuable reference for years to come.
William Jankowiak
University of Nevada, Las Vegas, USA