The current leadership system in China's education field is an excellent administrative management system. In this system, education is managed as an administrative institution. The reason for this phenomenon is that in the minds of decision makers, they don't realize that education is a specialized undertaking with unique values and cultural goals, unique principles and rules of activities, and it needs to follow its special rules of activities.
The common result of this system is that teachers either give up their educational beliefs and voluntarily become the tools of administrative needs, or stick to their educational beliefs and express their dissatisfaction with a negative attitude. This system lacks authority in people's minds because many mistakes have been made in previous decisions. The development of this consciousness is that people generally ignore the essence of education, are irresponsible for education, and breed a sense of employment and helplessness.
Because the administrative agencies of social management education are used to imposing their own self-interest demands on education, it seriously distorts the essence and purpose of education, making education lose its proud character and spirit and become petty and vulgar. For example, the key school system implemented by educational administrative institutions in general education has encouraged exam-oriented education, caused unfair educational opportunities and rights, and made the abnormal development of education more and more serious. The college entrance examination was organized by the government and was obviously offside. It not only makes the government take care of things that should not be taken care of, but also narrows the functions of primary and secondary schools and institutions of higher learning and cannot fully perform their duties. Moreover, some universities are designated as deputy ministerial level, which makes people feel that universities are similar to officialdom. The prominent administrative characteristics of this kind of behavior and the administrative principle of being mainly responsible to superiors strengthened by educational institutions at all levels have caused the phenomenon of generally ignoring teachers' voices. The main source of many deep-seated contradictions in education can be said to be the administrative leadership system. Although many university presidents now claim to be thinking about university reform, the reforms they are thinking about are often reforms within the existing system or reforms based on the existing system. The university system they want to strengthen or improve is what Mr. Dong Yunchuan said, not the "modern university system" we expect to pursue.
The simplification and administration of the internal management system of education has caused all kinds of chaos in the field of education. The crisis at the level of educational management system is mainly manifested in two aspects: one is simplified digital management, and the other is obvious administrative tendency. Simplified digital management has induced many utilitarian phenomena. The executive-led system not only deprives teachers of many rights, but also relieves them of many educational responsibilities, making many people, especially those with low level, feel that universities are really "easy to get along with", and many things that should be extremely strict are ignored in the current universities. For example, the evaluation of teachers' professional titles, which plays an extremely important guiding role in university activities, often has no serious professional discussion. Some expert evaluations in this industry are also a mere formality because of factors such as "relationship", but the real criteria are the number of papers, the number of projects, the number of awards and other mechanical figures. Therefore, some people say that the current professional title evaluation does not need any experts. Just find a few careful undergraduates and compare the professional title standard with the applicant's materials carefully. This simplified standard has induced many corruption phenomena, including publishing page fee, periodical public relations fee, judge public relations fee and so on. Therefore, although there are hundreds of professors and doctors in some universities now, if we cross the river, the main achievements will be few and far between, and the atmosphere will gradually decline, and the significance of the university will be less and less.
As we all know, the education system, like any other system in society, is based on the values of justice, civilization, rationality and openness. Without these characteristics, the rationality of the system will be questioned and its role will be weakened invisibly. However, the administrative management system in China's education field has changed the cooperative relationship between managers, teachers and students into a "superior-subordinate" relationship between managers and managed people. Managers can give orders to teachers in many ways, and even ask teachers to show awe of their authority, but teachers have little room for questioning and opposition. It can be said that it is the administrative system that we have been upholding for a long time that suppresses and covers up the academic system, resulting in the supremacy of administrative power. As a result of the supremacy of administrative principles, teachers' sense of responsibility has been largely dispelled.
According to the Provisional Regulations on State Civil Servants (1promulgated by the State Council in August, 1993), the administrative level of civil servants in China is divided into fifteen levels.
The following information is quoted:
Chapter III Classification of Work
Article 8 State administrative organs shall implement the post classification system. State administrative organs at all levels set up posts in accordance with relevant state regulations on the basis of determining functions, institutions and staffing; Formulate job descriptions and determine the responsibilities and qualifications of each position as the basis for the recruitment, assessment, training and promotion of national civil servants. The state administrative organs set up the post and rank sequence of state civil servants according to the job classification.
Article 9 The positions of state civil servants are divided into leadership positions and non-leadership positions.
Non-leadership positions refer to clerks, clerks, deputy chief clerks, chief clerks, assistant researchers, researchers, assistant inspectors and inspectors.
Article 10 The ranks of state civil servants are divided into fifteen grades.
The corresponding relationship between job and level is:
(1) Premier the State Council: level 1;
(2) Vice Premier and State Councilor of the State Council: Level 2-3;
(3) Ministerial level and provincial level: three to four levels;
(4) Ministerial deputies and provincial deputies: four to five;
(5) Division chief, division chief and inspector: five to seven levels;
(6) Deputies at department level, deputies at department level and assistant inspectors: Grade 6-8;
(7) Division chief, county chief and researcher: 7- 10;
(8) Division level deputy, county level deputy and assistant researcher: 8- 1 1 level;
(9) Division-level chief, township-level chief and chief clerk: grades 9 to 12;
(10) Department-level deputy, township-level deputy and deputy director: 9- 13;
(1 1) Clerk: Grade 9 to 14;
(12) Clerk: 10 to 15.