2. The disparity of social and economic development in different regions of China, the disparity of income between different classes and groups, the differentiation of social status between the dominant groups and ordinary people, and so on, these objective factors have affected the unfairness of education, which in turn led to the disparity of school buildings, equipment and teachers' conditions for running schools. The rational allocation of public education resources depends on "money" for hardware (material conditions) and "people" for software (human resources). On the issue of money, the state must solve three problems: whether it has money, whether it is willing to give it when it has money, and how to spend the limited money.
3. China's fiscal revenue ranges from 1950 to 1978, less than10 billion in 28 years to more than 1000 billion, 1999 to trillions, 201. The budget of fiscal expenditure exceeds 15.4 trillion, and the national per capita fiscal expenditure is 1 1320 yuan, of which how much is spent on children's schooling? From the comparison between 2002 and 20 12 national statistical bulletins on the implementation of education funds, it is concluded that when the education funds reached 4%, the gap of compulsory education funds in China was still very huge.
Compared with the past ten years, the province with the highest per capita expenditure in China has moved from Shanghai to Beijing, and the lowest provinces are still Henan and Guizhou. The gap between provinces has narrowed from seven times or even dozens of times to five to seven times. However, comparing the public funds per student in Beijing and Shanghai with the public funds for teachers and students in Henan and Guizhou, the gap has not narrowed but increased after ten years, from less than 2 times to more than 2 times. In other words, the public funds of one student in Beijing are more than those shared by more than two teachers and students in Henan and Guizhou. It is conceivable how big the Gini coefficient of teachers' income gap between the two places will be!
Since the implementation of the tax-sharing system in 1994, the proportion of central fiscal revenue in the national fiscal revenue has risen rapidly, from 22% in 1993 to 55.7% in 1994, and has remained above half since then. However, the basic pattern of basic education investment has not changed. It only determines and stipulates the financial power and scope of the central and local governments, without considering the rights and obligations of the four levels of government. Intergovernmental powers are not clearly divided, and expenditure responsibilities overlap. The central and provincial governments at higher levels have concentrated the main financial resources of the country, but basically got rid of the burden of basic education.
Junior high school education and provincial higher education should naturally be managed by the jurisdiction, and it is also reasonable to say that "whose children are raised". The problems are as follows: there are hundreds of universities directly under the central government, more than 1000 provincial undergraduate universities, and 1297 majors belong to provincial, city (prefecture) levels, and the number of city (prefecture) middle schools is small, so the most important expenditure of basic education in China belongs to financial capacity. The central government subsidizes from the transfer payment every year, but the share is not proportional to the financial education burden at all levels below the provincial level.
During the six years from 2008 to 20 13, half of the total national fiscal expenditure came from the central government (about 70% of which was tax refund and transfer payment to local governments), but the education expenditure of the central government accounted for less than 6% of the total central government expenditure, and both the education expenditure at this level and the transfer payment to local governments accounted for less than 20% of the national education expenditure. The pattern of "county-oriented" basic education makes the central education expenditure lower than the national average by about 10 percentage point.