Journal of Guangxi Teachers Education University (Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition) ›› 2022, Vol. 58 ›› Issue (1): 113-122.doi: 10.16088/j.issn.1001-6597.2022.01.010

Previous Articles     Next Articles

An Interpretation of the National Action Logic of Governance on After-school Training

ZHANG Wen-wen, JIA Hai-wei   

  1. School of Public Administration, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, China
  • Received:2021-12-16 Online:2022-01-25 Published:2022-05-30

Abstract: “double reduction” is the hot issue of recent educational governance, and the policy mainly targets to after-school training institutions. On the premise that the state is still the political representative and shoulders the responsibility for both the country and its citizens, the people need an enabling government to regulate the disordered after-school training market. An effective market thus reconstructed under the guidance of the enabling government focuses on supply side reform, and bear the following principles: first, non-profit nature we should stick to, that is, the new market should never just pursue profit; second, a transformation of education service units from families to schools we should explore, that is, a redistribution of educational resources through purchasing services through schools (bridges) we should carry out, to alleviate the competitive pressure and ensure the high-quality and balanced development of basic education; third, a participation in the supply by classification and stages we should adopt, to change the situation of the existing market’s being dominated by family oriented discipline training, and encourage the transformation of these training institutions towards the later stage of basic education, and vigorously cultivate parent schools, quality education, after-school trusteeship, vocational education and lifelong education. Under the guidance of the government, after-school training will eventually form a market with subdivided fields, subdivided objects, subdivided stages and orderly access, so as to meet the people’s growing demand for high-quality education.

Key words: double reduction, after-school training, education policy, educational goverhance, the enabling government, an effective market

CLC Number: 

  • D601
[1] 曾荣光. 教育政策行动:解释与分析框架[J]. 北京大学教育评论, 2014(1):68-89.
[2] [英]安迪·格林.教育、全球化与民族国家[M]. 朱旭东, 徐卫红, 译. 北京: 教育科学出版社, 2004.
[3] Usher R, Edwards R. Postmodernism and education:different voices, different worlds[M]. London: Routledge, 1994.
[4] 谢爱磊,李家新,黄咏欣.全球药方还是特洛伊木马?PISA的教育政策效应批判——一份基于教育政策社会学视角的文献报告[J].全球教育展望,2021,50(2):55-79.
[5] 李晓乐.新中国国家治理模式嬗变的历史逻辑[J].广西师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2018(1):43-48.
[6] Buchmann C, Hannum E. Education and stratification in developing countries: A review of theories and research[J]. Annual Review of Sociology, 2001, 27:77-102.
[7] Zhang W, Bray M. Micro-neoliberalism in China: public-private interactions at the confluence of mainstream and shadow education[J]. Journal of Education Policy, 2017:1-19.
[8] 王捷, Katz L,岳经纶.素质教育政策、新自由主义与影子教育在中国的兴起[J].中国青年研究,2021(7):110-119.
[9] 邓宇晨. 小作坊到万亿大产业,校外培训野蛮生长44年!新东方等市值跌3700亿[N]. 时代周报, 2021-06-17.
[10] 马健生,刘云华.教育中的资本扩张:危害与治理[J].清华大学教育研究,2021,42(4):50-61.
[11] 陈先哲. 剧场效应、标配思维下的教育内卷[N]. 光明日报, 2021-04-27.
[12] 渠敬东. 只想“赢”的教育,会让年轻人过早“夭折”[EB/OL]. (2019-07-01)[2021-08-21].https://www.sohu.com/a/331635134_412025.
[13] 公钦正,李若冰.校外培训机构的问题现状及其社会学阐释[J].教学与管理,2020(24):22-25.
[14] 刘云杉. 今天的教育已经变成了赌场[EB/OL].(2019-07-23)[2021-08-21].https://www.sohu.com/a/328688903_99897611.
[15] 中共中央马克思恩格斯列宁斯大林著作编译局. 马克思恩格斯选集:第一卷 [M]. 北京:人民出版社, 2012.
[16] 邓小平. 邓小平文选[M]. 北京: 人民出版社, 1993.
[17] 张雅勤.中国特色社会主义制度公共性本质及其价值功能[J].当代世界社会主义问题,2020(4):59-69.
[18] 吕普生.制度优势转化为减贫效能——中国解决绝对贫困问题的制度逻辑[J].政治学研究,2021(3):54-64+161.
[19] Erikson R, Goldthorpe J. H. The Constant Flux: A study of class mobility in industrial societies[M]. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.
[20] Banerjee A V, Duflo E. Poor Economics: A radical rethinking of the way to fight global poverty[M]. New York: Public Affairs, 2011.
[21] [印]阿玛蒂亚·森. 以自由看待发展[M]. 北京: 中国人民大学出版社, 2013.
[22] 张薇,马克·贝磊,李红兰.影子教育的影响因素及其政策意义——以重庆市为例[J].教育科学研究,2017(6):56-62.
[23] Reich R. The work of nations: A blueprint for the future[M]. New York: Vintage, 1991.
[24] 马素伟,孙艳.香港“青年危机”:表征、影响及策略[J].当代青年研究,2016(3):105-109.
[25] 郑永年. 拜登时期的中美关系何去何从?——郑永年等学者谈当前中美关系[EB/OL].(2021-04-25)[2021-08-21].https://www.thepaper.cn/newsDetail_forward_12395454.
[26] 徐坚.逆全球化风潮与全球化的转型发展[J].社会科学文摘,2017(8):46-48.
[27] 代蕊华,郭志慜.什么样的学校教师流失率更高?[J].教师教育研究,2020,32(5):46-53.
[28] 张薇.中国校外培训规范治理:统一的政策,多样的回应[J].全球教育展望,2020,49(2):62-82.
[29] 李井奎.20世纪30年代凯恩斯与哈耶克之争:同袍抑或敌手[J].学术月刊,2018,50(12):41-51.
[30] 雷万鹏, 钟宇平. 教育发展中的政府作用:财政学的思考[J]. 教育学报, 2002, 30(1):41-61.
[31] 黄宗智.国家-市场-社会:中西国力现代化路径的不同[J].探索与争鸣,2019(11):42-56.
[32] 柯政.课程改革中的囚徒困境:存在与消解[J].全球教育展望,2005,34(10):53-55.
[33] 霍秉坤,许颂声.中国学生学习增负减负的博弈:囚徒困局的视角[J].全球教育展望,2013(4):17-26.
[34] 周序.家庭资本与学业焦虑——试论“双减”政策引发的家长焦虑问题[J].广西师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2021(6):96-106.
[35] Levin H M. Educational opportunity and social inequality in Western Europe[J]. Social Problems, 1976, 24(2):148-172.
[36] 王峥. 构建校外艺术教育新格局[N]. 人民日报, 2021-10-20.
[1] QI Wu-nian, LI Hang-zhang. Exploration of China First Round of Academic “Burden Reduction” Reform (1950—1977) [J]. Journal of Guangxi Teachers Education University (Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition), 2022, 58(1): 97-112.
[2] ZHOU Xu. Family Capital and Academic Anxiety: A Study on Parents' Anxiety Caused by “Double Reduction” Policy [J]. Journal of Guangxi Teachers Education University (Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition), 2021, 57(6): 96-106.
[3] LI Xiao-ya. “Double Reduction”: A New Opportunity for the Cultivation of Innovative Talents in the Stage of Basic Education [J]. Journal of Guangxi Teachers Education University (Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition), 2021, 57(6): 107-115.
[4] RAO Pei. The Dilemma and Solution of Burden Reduction from the Perspective of Educational Time [J]. Journal of Guangxi Teachers Education University (Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition), 2021, 57(6): 116-126.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited

  Shared   
  Discussed   
No Suggested Reading articles found!