Highlights: Recently, the new education policy has been frequently introduced, and the education pattern has undergone drastic changes, which have produced strong repercussions in society and aroused the concern of the academic community. On July 23, more than a dozen people from the fields of education, law, economics and lawyer practice attended the seminar on "Private Schools under the New Education Policy" in Beijing, and conducted in-depth discussions on issues of social concern. Yang Dongping, chairman of the 21st Century Education Research Institute and member of the National Education Advisory Committee, pointed out that the problems in private education at present are, first of all, the problem of excessive volume; second, private education has a strong for-profit nature; third, private education has not appeared in the diversification and innovation of education that we expect; fourth, the development of private education is basically an entrepreneur-run school, a capitalist-run school, and no educator-run school.
He suggested that to fundamentally solve the institutional dilemma of private schools, there must be a future-oriented system design. The ownership nature of schools should be gradually diluted under the framework of a learning society, and public schools and private schools should be regulated within the framework of "non-profit organizations". It is necessary to go beyond the narrow concept of "private schools" and private schools, and establish the concept of "large private education", the essence of which is to return power to the people, open up various social forces to run schools, including educators, parents and communities to run schools independently, so that education truly becomes a cause in which the whole society participates.
I think that holding such a seminar now is a timely response to the grim situation facing private education. I agree with everyone just now that private education is facing a holistic problem of national governance.
At present, the most important items of the new education policy are to standardize and adjust the development of private education, one is to vigorously suppress extracurricular training institutions, and the other is the general job diversion at the high school level. These policies are earth-shattering, and there seems to be no discussion, solicitation of opinions, and no plan. From the perspective of administration according to law, it is difficult to say. So, why has the country's private education policy undergone such a huge change in the past two years, and what is its basis or reason?
It must be noted that in the past one or two decades, the entire pattern of basic education has undergone very profound changes, which can be said to be unexpected. This new pattern is that in addition to public education, private education has formed a huge volume; in addition to public and private schools, a third type - extracurricular training education has emerged, which is even larger. This has caused great disorder in the function of education, the most prominent is the national education anxiety, the cost of education has increased, the academic burden has increased, reaching the level of "anger and resentment", and finally triggered the highest decision-making. Another background is that China has popularized nine-year compulsory education, popularized high school education, and higher education has also entered the ranks of "popularization", and the gross enrollment rate of higher education has reached 54.5%. Basic education has gone from being in a state of extreme shortage and scarcity in the past to a state of overall lack of money.
This is the background for understanding the adjustment of private education policies. The contribution of private education has just been said, which is very significant, very huge, and undeniable. However, the problem of private education, or the other side of it, also needs to be understood as to why policy adjustments have occurred.
The first is the problem of oversized volume. Although the proportion of private primary and junior high school students in the country is about 10%, it is more reasonable; but in many large cities, including rural counties, the proportion of private education students can reach 30%-60%, which is a phenomenon that does not exist in all countries in the world. It must be noted that compulsory education in all countries is organized by the government with taxpayers' money, and public education is the mainstay, which is a basic public service based on social equity. Despite the problems of public schools, they are still the main body, and in European countries, the proportion of private education is usually 3%-7%, and in Japan it is 2%. Because it's a state responsibility, a government responsibility. It is never about the educational structure of a region, with public schools taking a back seat and private education as the mainstay.
In an incident reported by the Ministry of Education two years ago, In Leiyang County, Hunan Province, its private education accounted for 60%, and it was necessary to divert students from some public schools to private schools, which triggered a mass incident, which is a typical example. The excessive volume of private education is definitely a real problem.
Behind this is a change in government behavior. 20 years ago, when discussing the law on the promotion of private education, it was mainly necessary to overcome ideological obstacles, just like the development of the private economy, and to give support and encouragement to private education. After 20 years, in the districts and counties where the volume of private education is very large, it contains two kinds of behaviors: one is that the government relies on responsibility and pushes the responsibility for the development of education to the market, and the government can save a lot of financial funds; second, there is a lot of interest collusion. For example, some education bureau chiefs arrange a back road for themselves, and after retiring, they go to private schools to become the chairman of the board. A popular online article, "How to Strangle Public Schools," provides a vivid example.
Second, private education is very profitable, and I think it is also a real problem. From the perspective of macro statistics and macro data, after averaging, this does not seem to be a problem. But in a region, in schools, this problem is still very obvious, that is, the increase in the cost of education.
Twenty years ago, when the Private Education Promotion Law was enacted, the focus of discussion was on the issue of reasonable returns. At that time, it was considered a necessary stage, and it was only after the wealth of society was greatly enriched that non-profit could be discussed. Today, it is very different from the situation of the original bankruptcy of the school, and has formed a mature large-scale business model, through collusion with local governments, combined with the capital market and real estate market to make profits. By introducing listed private schools and raising the price of school district housing, the ultimate goal of the school is to go public.
We have held several private education seminars in Shanghai, and there are always Deloitte people next to us lobbying for investment on the spot, asking if you want to go public, and we provide services. If a private school pursues listing, then its behavior is to run a business, not to run an education, which is very clear. Not long ago, the listing of the "First High School Group" of the Hengshui System was a typical example. Branches around Hengshui have received financial support from local governments, and local governments have approved land, invested in the construction of school buildings, and stimulated real estate, and schools have been collectively packaged and listed in an "asset-light" model.
The direct consequence of this commercialization and capitalization development is that it has greatly intensified the competition for school choice in large cities and aggravated parental anxiety. In many central cities, the competition for school selection in kindergartens and primary schools is mainly around the competition of private schools. Because private schools enjoy the right to enroll independently and the right to enroll by examination as stipulated in the "Civil Promotion Law", it recruits all high-scoring students in a region, so its middle school examination results are much higher than those of public schools. In the past few years, the statistics of several districts in Shanghai have averaged 40 points higher than that of public schools. That parent is certainly not calm, and will do everything possible to compete for private schools. However, this kind of performance of private schools is mainly due to early enrollment and examination enrollment, which is what we call pinching behavior. Therefore, after 2018, Shanghai first carried out a pilot project to implement the same recruitment of citizens, that is, the enrollment of the two on the same day, and it is not allowed to enroll in advance, nor is it allowed to enroll in private school examinations. As soon as the enrollment advantage of private schools disappears, the competition between public schools and private schools will immediately subside, and the distribution of students will be more balanced. Therefore, the impact of private education on educational equity is multifaceted.
Another important fact is that private education has not appeared in the educational diversification and innovation we expect, and all private schools are competing with public schools on a single track of competition in the promotion rate. We once had a discussion, asked the principal of a private school, he said that the most intense schools in test-taking education, are the schools that were converted from public schools in the late 90s, and its predecessor was a public school, which is what we call "fake private school". A large part of the problems of private schools are caused by "fake private schools". This has caused the "marginal walking" state of private education, which is in a very embarrassing situation and cannot really develop according to its own wishes.
I think there is another reason for this phenomenon: the development of private education over the years has basically been run by entrepreneurs and capitalists, and they have not embarked on the road of educators running schools. Why is it that when private education develops to this day, only entrepreneurs can run schools? Because the government has set the threshold for private schools very high, such as the scale of construction, land area, number of students, etc., including the standards of kindergartens, the requirements are very high. Even if the conditions were later relaxed, the standard of Beijing's "small-scale park" would be one or two hundred people. Therefore, with today's policy, neither Confucius nor Tao Xingzhi can learn.
As a comparison, in Denmark, it is a citizen's right to run schools and kindergartens, any parent can run kindergartens, and its inclusive kindergartens are based on families and communities, not on large enterprises and capital. As long as 18 students are recruited and the school continues to run for more than one year, it can be legalized, apply to become a formal kindergarten, and receive financial support from the government, accounting for more than 70% of the cost of running the school. Its right to run schools is open. Although this is still very far from China's reality, we can see the concept of different institutional designs.
Therefore, today we need to look at private education from a larger perspective. What is important are private schools for most people, most families, most communities. We must see that there are a large number of private schools for left-behind children in rural areas, and in the Pearl River Delta region, there are a large number of private schools that mainly recruit migrant children. They are usually outside our field of vision, and we are mainly talking about schools run by capitalists.
What other private schools do we not see? There are also innovative small-scale schools on the edge of the city that are emerging in Beijing, Chengdu, Shenzhen, Dali and other places, organized by middle-class parents and returnees, many of whom have no school qualifications and often have dozens of students; but China's educational innovation is mainly in such schools. There is also a category of self-run schools for parents with different cultural or religious orientations, including Traditional Chinese education, Christian schools, etc., which are all "black schools". There is also a type of private or self-run education, which is "homeschooling". In the United States and France, the most basic function of private schools is to meet the needs of cultural and religious diversity, indians have Indian schools, Islam has Islamic schools, and it is entirely non-profit.
Our new education policy must first administer and administer education according to law, protect private property, and protect the legitimate rights and interests of private schools. Even if some policy adjustments are to be made, we should respect history, take care of reality, and under the premise of protecting private property, be reasonable and reasonable, and compensate for compensation and redemption, and cannot adopt the rough method of confiscation and confiscation, which is unimaginable in a legal society.
To fundamentally solve the institutional dilemma of private schools, we must have a future-oriented system design. The ownership nature of schools should be gradually diluted under the framework of a learning society, and public schools and private schools should be regulated within the framework of "non-profit organizations". Otherwise, some problems do not make sense. For example, why are some public schools so profitable that they can hold branch schools throughout the country and charge for OEM fees? In addition, according to the concept of equal treatment and common development, why can't public schools have the same autonomy as private schools? Is it true that the autonomy of running a school is determined by the nature of funding rather than the logic of school development and the laws of education?
We see the basic facts of the reform of basic education abroad: mainly through the reform of the public school system, the implementation of educators to run schools, to solve the problem of mediocrity of public schools, to increase the selectivity and diversity of education; rather than let public and private schools compete with each other, or become a reform that turns public into private. In terms of promoting the diversification and high quality of education, reforming the public school system is an equally important or even more important path for the development of private education. We need to go beyond the narrow concept of "private schools" and private schools, and establish the concept of "large private education", the essence of which is to return power to the people, open up various social forces to run schools, including educators, parents and communities to run schools independently, so that education truly becomes a cause in which the whole society participates, which is also the proper meaning of the learning society.
This article is Yang Dongping's speech at the Boao Education Forum seminar on "Private Schools under the New Education Policy".