久久精品30_一本色道久久精品_激情综合视频_欧美日韩一区二区高清_好看的av在线不卡观看_国产自产精品_91久久黄色_午夜亚洲福利_欧美黄在线观看_国内自拍一区

At long last, we are close to a legislative response to one of the most glaring examples of State-sponsored inequality.

If the ongoing session of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress endorses a revised Law on Compulsory Education, which is more likely than not, the decades-old designation of "key schools" and "key classes" will become a legal taboo.

The revised law includes clauses prohibiting educational authorities from distinguishing schools or classes into "key" and "non-key" ones.

The practice dates back to the 1950s when the young People's Republic was in desperate need of professional talents to rebuild the nation. "Key schools" were set up to identify and prepare the most promising candidates for higher levels of education.

It was not bad as an efficient expedient to quench the nation's thirst for talent. But such efficiency comes at the price of equality, an essential value our basic education should have cultivated and held dear.

There has been a lot of talk about the so-called Matthew Effect in our compulsory education namely, the rich get richer and the poor poorer.

In cities and countryside alike, educational authorities designate some schools, and in schools some classes, as "key" units, to either boost performance at exams, showcase government achievements in promoting education, or both.

The natural course of evolution is that schools stronger in financial conditions, teaching staff, and academic reputations are designated "key" and become stronger with the backing of more official assistance. The "non-key" ones, which are badly in need of a helping hand from the government, get less attention and less support, and become less competitive and less attractive.

Such a mechanism has never lacked apologists. Educational authorities are fond of convenient image polishers. Parents who count on the next generation to achieve great things and have the money, covet a place at a "key" school or class for their children. For schools, a "key school" sticker means a lot more in addition to government funds, they can levy exorbitant fees on parents who are anxious to enrol their children. There are plenty of them willing to do whatever it takes to send their children to a school or class with a "key" label.

The Ministry of Education issued a ban on "key schools" in mid-1990s in order to address irrational distribution of public resources in compulsory education. But it was largely ignored, because it was toothless.

The designation of "key schools" and "key classes" is a major cause of a dangerously vicious cycle currently at work in our public school system.

It features outright discrimination.

The goal of compulsory education is to provide equal opportunities for all citizens of school age to receive the basic education needed for fine citizenship. The government's role in compulsory education is not to cultivate and identify the cream of the crop. Instead, it is obliged to guarantee all school-age children equal access to basic education.

The "key school" mechanism, however, subjects our children to differentiated treatment at a very early age. It mercilessly throws the majority of our youngsters into disadvantage based on questionable judgments.

Besides brewing a broad sense of deprivation, the arrangement has proved itself a hotbed for corruption.

It is a shameful mistake that such a morally defective formula has not only been sustained, but is taken for granted.

The amendments to the Law on Compulsory Education bring hope because it may correct a historic wrong. Its promise to tilt government financing in favour of rural schools and underprivileged urban schools is a prescription of fairness in our compulsory education system.

(China Daily February 27, 2006)