Study On School Distribution Adjustment In Popularizing Compulsory Education In Rural Areas

Popularizing compulsory education in rural areas is the emphasis and difficulty of China’s compulsory education. How to place and distribute primary and secondary schools is taken as an important part of the policy for rural compulsory education. The policy of rural school distribution adjustment was enacted in May 2001, which indicated that scattered school running had begun to be replaced by centralizing school distribution. And then, in September 2012, one policy document was issued by General Office of the State Council to stop excessive merging rural schools. However, in the context of urbanization, centralizing school distribution and moving rural schools to cities and towns still have strong ―policy inertia‖. In the new era, as one of urgent policy issues, the rational distribution of rural schools is of the essence for popularizing and consolidating rural compulsory education.The dissertation studies on rural school distribution adjustment in the perspective of popularizing rural compulsory education, dissects the relevant policies and the change of policy values, and pinpoints the policy for the rational distribution of rural schools. Three methods of literature research, empirical research and comparative research are used, and the research way is ―basing on realities-policy tracing-responding to realities‖. It dissects the implementation process and performance of the policy of rural school distribution adjustment from 2001 to 2012, reveals the immediate cause and forming process of the fore policy from 1980 to 2000, conducts value analysis on the policy change of rural school distribution over recent 30 years, as well as reflects rural education development nowadays in the perspective of realistic, theoretic and international concern, and finally makes policy suggestions for the rational distribution of rural schools. Conclusions are as follows,①The policy of rural school distribution adjustment was carried out by both central and local governments. Under the forcing and fiscal policy of central government, some provinces merged rural schools with objective quantification, which indicated sweeping approach of the policy implementation, as well as the intention of improving school scale efficiency and reducing education budget. Since 2008, many local governments even took merging rural schools as one way of promoting urbanization. Mainly the policy effect on junior high schools was moderate, while the effect on primary schools was some violent and rural pupils were the primary stakeholders. It made some positive influence, but also led to traveling a long distance to school, farmers’ heavier educational burden, increasing number of drop-outs and withered rural culture.②In the context of decreasing school age population and rural-urban transformation, there was an ongoing forming process with educational immediate cause. In 1980 s, for popularizing primary education the rural school distribution was characterized by widespread and dispersed schools. In the early 1990 s, the rash advance of progress of popularizing compulsory education and the anabatic shortage of educational fund were the immediate cause of centralizing school distribution. From the late 1980 s to the end of 1990 s, the policy of rural school distribution adjustment was brewing in the central-local interactions and ultimately enacted. The process was especially implied in popularizing compulsory education in the central and western regions, in which Ministry of Finance influenced powerfully the policy decision.③The policy change of rural school distribution over 30 years implied the change of equity, efficiency and quality value. Scattered school running made famers participate in rural education, which took rural areas as its center and embodied low efficiency, poor quality but relatively fair value. Since the middle of 1990 s, especially since 2000, the marketization of education resources, the strong influence of Ministry of Finance on compulsory education, as well as the utilitarianism of local government generated intensifying efficiency value and centralizing school distribution. Rural education had a tendency of centralization, excluded famers’ participation, unilaterally pursued urban and industrial model, which reflected the alienation of quality value. However, educational equity and quality were damaged.④ Nowadays rural education development should cover realistic, theoretic and international concerns. The legitimacy of rural education should be established, while ―urbanization of rural education‖ has logical loophole and merging rural schools strongly should be objected. Equity and quality are original value of education, while efficiency is in essence referred as a tool, so equity and quality have priority over efficiency. Rural education should restrain efficiency value, pursue unification of expanding equity and promoting quality, refer to the international experience, and make sensible policy for rural school distribution.⑤The sensible policy for rural school distribution should adhere to be practical and realistic, enhance the function and power of education sector and the autonomy in running schools of local community, as well as reaffirm nearby enrollment and permit running school in various forms. Measures should be taken to allocate more educational resources to rural areas so that rural school distribution could be stable. As the view of rural educational quality should be comprehensive and diverse, it’s necessary to define the merit and legitimacy of ―small class, small school‖, and to reestablish the close relation between rural school and local community which would be of benefit to community and life education. In addition, the effective mechanism for the addition of rural teachers needs to be established.