Direct consequences of educational industrialization
First, it has obviously slowed down the increase of investment in education and seriously restricted the healthy development of education. 1993 The Outline of Education Reform and Development in China, promulgated and implemented by China, puts forward the working goal that the proportion of national fiscal education expenditure in GDP will reach 4% by the end of last century. This 4% is not a very high standard, but the average level of developing countries in the world at that time. From 65438 to 0986, the proportion in China has reached 3.43%. Regrettably, however, on the one hand, an exciting development strategy of "rejuvenating the country through science and education" has been put forward, on the other hand, the proportion of financial investment in education has been hovering at the lowest level in the world for many years. Just after the goal of 4% was put forward, the proportion declined instead of rising, reaching the lowest point of 2.4 1% at 1995. After that, it rose slowly, reaching 2.79% in 1999, 3.32% in 2002 and 3.28% in 2003. After the adjustment of national GDP in 2004, this proportion returned to the level of 1999: 2.79%. This ratio is roughly equivalent to the level of the least developed countries in the world. This problem has not been solved for a long time, and the fundamental reason lies in the bad influence of educational industrialization.
In fact, the theoretical banner of educational industrialization has become the best theoretical weapon for many places to get rid of the so-called educational financial burden. Under such a big banner, the increase in education in many places is mainly supported by collecting students' tuition fees. 1at the end of 990, since the expansion of higher education, the financial allocation standard for each college student in many provinces and regions has actually dropped to two or three thousand yuan or three or four thousand yuan per year, which is proof! In the view of these officials, they can achieve "political achievements" in increasing the gross enrollment rate of higher education without financial input. Why not? According to a preliminary calculation, if the goal of 4% is achieved within the time specified in the above outline, the investment in education will be less than several hundred billion yuan so far. If the education department has invested hundreds of billions in recent years, what a great benefit it will be for the people of the whole country!
Second, there have been various educational chaos, which partially offset the achievements of educational development. * * *1* * Some people hold high the banner of "education industrialization" and openly turn education into a commodity for high profits. * * * 2 * * Some local officials, under the banner of educational industrialization, not only sell the state-owned educational resources in non-compulsory education stages such as high schools and technical schools within their power to private capital, but also spare no efforts in primary schools and junior high schools that undertake compulsory education. They also proposed that "pretty girls marry first" and sold high-quality high schools, junior high schools and primary schools in the name of "restructuring". * * * 3 * * In the absence of financial allocation, the industrialization of education has also become the "theoretical basis" for some schools to collect fees at random and charge high fees, and even become a shield for rent-seeking activities of a very small number of people in the education field. The so-called "school lieutenant colonel", "one school, two systems", "state-owned, private" and "school selection fever" and huge "school selection fees" are just fancy decoration with high fees and unreasonable charges. * * * 4 * * Educational industrialization theorists also unilaterally exaggerate the so-called economic function of education to stimulate consumption and * * * economic growth. Here, the sacred educational function disappears, leaving only the so-called "contribution rate" of enrollment expansion to immediate economic growth. According to experts' calculations, the role of education in stimulating consumption in all walks of life should actually be ranked after 100. The educational chaos listed above not only distorts and alienates the function and essence of education, but also hurts the general public and school staff, and becomes a factor that causes social contradictions and social instability. We should be wary that once economic strength and social status are allowed to be the conditions that determine the quality and degree of education students receive, high-quality education may become the privilege of the wealthy class, which not only violates the principle of educational fairness, but will eventually affect the benign development of the country and society and the long-term interests of the nation.
Third, the social image and credibility of education are damaged. Some places and schools seriously affected by the trend of educational industrialization have unbalanced educational value, panic in educational behavior, variation of school functions and decline of academic spirit. This is a fundamental harm to education. In such a place, people's excitement often revolves around economic discourses such as income generation, profit, return and restructuring, while personnel training, teaching methods, teaching quality, scientific research level and academic pursuit are left behind. Although the above consequences caused by educational industrialization are not the mainstream of educational reform and development, if they are allowed to spread, they will seriously affect the implementation of the strategy of "rejuvenating the country through science and education" and "strengthening the country through talents", the construction of a harmonious society and an innovative country, and the realization of the fundamental purpose of education serving the people.
Then, why can the "educational industrialization" that brings all kinds of harm spread in China? On the one hand, this is caused by one-sidedness in understanding. The first is the one-sided understanding of the market economic system. Under the vague slogans such as "integration" and beautiful banners such as "deepening reform", people consciously or unconsciously expand the coverage of "market" indefinitely, thinking that "surpassing the market means surpassing the reform" and do not understand that there is a public domain outside the market domain. Secondly, there is misunderstanding about the social attribute of education, only seeing its commodity attribute, but ignoring or not seeing its public welfare. Thirdly, there is a lack of correct understanding of the functions and financial functions of * * * under the conditions of market economy, and it is not realized that with the establishment of socialist market economy, * * * will change from economic construction to public service, and finance will change from investment finance to public finance. Finally, there is a lack of a correct understanding of China's diversified education fund-raising system at this stage, forgetting that * * * investment is the protagonist in diversification * * * In fact, Article 53 of the Education Law determines this policy: the state establishes a system that focuses on financial allocation, supplemented by raising education funds through other channels, and gradually increases investment in education to ensure a stable source of education funds organized by the state.
On the other hand, the ideological trend of educational industrialization also has extensive social roots. This is mainly due to the social problems such as value distortion, lack of honesty, materialistic desire and money worship under the impact of the tide of market economy. The mercenary outlook on life, quick success and instant benefit, one-sided development view that attaches importance to economic development and ignores social progress, lack of political discrimination and low theoretical level all provide excellent soil and conditions for the wide spread of educational industrialization.
Liquidate the adverse effects of educational industrialization.
However, opposing the industrialization of education does not mean that education does not adapt to the socialist market economy, nor does it mean going back to the past. On the contrary, on the basis of previous reform achievements, we should continue to deepen reform, vigorously innovate mechanisms, improve systems, and achieve new development. To achieve this, it is urgent to eliminate the theoretical influence of "educational industrialization" in the field of education.
To liquidate the adverse effects of educational industrialization, it is necessary to further improve the educational investment system with * * * as the main input and raising funds for running schools through multiple channels. As mentioned above, in 2004, China's fiscal education expenditure only accounted for 2.79% of GDP, which was far from the stipulated target of 4%, and was out of proportion to our grand goal of building an innovative country, building a harmonious society and realizing the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation. To fundamentally solve the problem of educational industrialization, increasing investment is one of the fundamental measures. Therefore, it is imperative to continuously and substantially increase the financial investment in education. We hope that by 20 10, the above-mentioned 4% target put forward and reiterated by the Central Committee of the State Council from the perspective of overall interests can be achieved. This should be regarded as one of the important quantitative indicators for the full implementation of Scientific Outlook on Development. Education is one of the biggest public welfare undertakings that directly benefit hundreds of millions of people, and it is closely related to the daily life of ordinary people. Therefore, at present, we must first ensure the real realization of compulsory education in urban and rural areas, and at the same time increase the financial investment in non-compulsory education to ensure the normal implementation of schools and the steady improvement of education quality.
In order to ensure the realization of the above objectives, in the process of transforming investment-oriented finance into public finance, the institutional innovation of financial investment in education should be completed simultaneously-the most important thing is to bring the whole process of this investment, including allocation quantity, allocation procedure, use supervision and effect evaluation, into the legal track. The budget and final accounts of financial investment in education should be included in the deliberation agenda of the National People's Congress, and supporting measures such as the establishment of an education funding review committee should be taken.
At the same time, according to the dual nature of education as a quasi-public product, the education cost sharing policy in China's non-compulsory education stage is correct and should be continued and further improved. It should be pointed out that compared with the income level of urban and rural residents, the amount of tuition fees collected in China is already at a high level, even in the world, and it is not appropriate to increase it. It is really unwise and undesirable to keep a close eye on the "pockets" of ordinary people and even create a theoretical basis for how many savings deposits ordinary people have to pay high tuition fees for students. We should not turn a deaf ear to the report that ordinary people return to poverty because of education and curb consumption because of education.
In addition to charging tuition fees as school funds according to regulations, schools should also be good at carrying out active income-generating and fund-raising activities through market operation according to law to make up for the shortage of school funds, such as transforming school technological inventions into productive forces, carrying out professional consultation and training, and benign operation of school foundations. As mentioned above, this is different from the industrialization of education.
Opposing the industrialization of education does not mean discouraging private schools.
What needs to be clear is that opposing the industrialization of education does not mean discouraging private schools. On the contrary, we should continue to actively encourage and strongly support the healthy development of private education. Private education and educational industrialization are two unrelated categories, and it will be a long-term policy for the development of education in China to develop both public and private education.
However, it needs to be clear: first, private schools, like public schools, are social public welfare educational institutions with the same educational functions, and they should all implement the "education should not be for profit" stipulated in China's education law. In fact, there are many well-run private schools in China.
Second, private schools are private schools. Private schools are not "private" schools, that is, they are not any private industry, but non-profit legal institutions, and their assets are actually a special social public assets. In foreign countries, * * * and old China, private schools in the usual sense are all like this. Therefore, it seems more appropriate to call our country "private" rather than "private".
Third, there are very few countries in the world, such as the United States, and there are few commercial investment schools for profit, but they have become veritable "learning shops". They can only enjoy commercial land instead of educational land, and they must pay various taxes according to law like other enterprises.
Fourth, the main difference between public and private schools lies in different sources of funds, different internal power structures and governance structures, rather than whether to charge tuition fees. Charging fees is not the privilege of private schools, and funding is not the patent of public schools. Therefore, public schools can charge tuition fees, and private schools can also get financial support. From this perspective, state-owned means state-owned and private means private. There is no need to create such confusing "fish in troubled waters" as "state-owned and private".
How to adapt the school management system and implementation mechanism to the socialist market economy while maintaining the sanctity, nobility and dignity of education and academics is still a big article. Therefore, it will still be a challenging and important task for us to actively carry out reasonable institutional innovation in the exploration of deepening reform. To expand and realize corporate education, we must introduce and form a limited and effective competition mechanism between schools and within schools, raise school-running funds through multiple channels in the market, pay attention to input and output, and strive to improve school-running efficiency, which includes not only more talents and more achievements, but also the rational use of educational resources and the benign operation of school-running funds, while preventing the abuse of school-running funds. Preventing the disorderly vicious competition between schools and the disorderly vicious flow of talents, preventing the transformation and alienation of scientific spirit and academic character, preventing arbitrary charges and high fees, etc., are all the proper meanings in this topic. All these work should be based on the implementation of Scientific Outlook on Development, not on the industrialization of education, in order to really run a satisfactory education for the people. Consequences of educational industrialization