Yingsheng Observation

The new Private Education Promotion Law, which was recently deliberated and passed, defines the legal framework for classified management of for-profit and non-profit private schools, in which the clause "No for-profit private schools that implement compulsory education shall be established" has become the focus of discussion. Some people object mainly because for-profit schools can also provide qualified or even high-quality compulsory education; The existing private schools are rarely purely for non-profit purposes, and the ban may cause them to withdraw on a large scale, affecting the diversification of educational services and the public's right to choose education. Others equate for-profit education with private education and worry that the government will "squeeze private education".

according to the compulsory education law, compulsory education is "the education that all school-age children and adolescents must receive, and it is a public welfare undertaking that the state must guarantee". The practice in various countries shows that the national responsibility of compulsory education lies in compulsory enrollment and providing free education at the level of basic public services. However, "provided by the state" does not mean that all compulsory education services are provided by public schools. On the basis of providing basic public services, some compulsory education services can be provided by private schools through government purchase subsidies. In theory, the government only needs to ensure the quality of compulsory education services, and does not have to limit its providers.

There are a few for-profit compulsory education schools in some developing countries in South America and Southeast Asia, mainly to attract education investment and make up for the lack of government finance. Looking at the western developed countries, there is no definite law on whether to allow for-profit compulsory education schools. The research shows that for-profit private schools have not developed in developed countries, largely because of market choice rather than government intervention. The investment in compulsory education brings high benefits to society and small personal benefits, and school organizers and students' parents will "lose money".

why should we ban for-profit private schools in compulsory education in China?

First of all, the distorted "market" is not enough to adjust the supply and demand of education. If there is a market for compulsory education in China, it is a seriously distorted market: the quality standard of education points to taking exams and entering prestigious schools, the urgent expectation of changing the fate of education in society, and the family's psychology of following suit and comparing with their children's education lead to irrational competition for admission, which raises the price of so-called "quality education". In such a market, the profit-seeking nature of capital will in turn strengthen this distortion. The market mechanism can be used for reference, but even if a part of compulsory education is completely handed over to the market, it will be harmful to fairness and will not bring the "efficiency" that really belongs to education.

Secondly, there is no fully competitive market for the provision of compulsory education. Fully competitive market can reduce the price of products and services and improve the quality, but in the field of public products, it will fail under the condition of asymmetric information or monopoly. The teaching process of compulsory education is aimed at minors, who can't distinguish the quality of the services they receive, and even parents may be vague about this concept, which leads to information asymmetry. The experience of many countries also shows that the establishment of for-profit schools needs government approval and cannot be freely entered. In addition, any country or government has clear regulations on the curriculum and teaching of compulsory education, and there are rules and regulations on the qualifications of principals and teachers and school management, so fair and free competition is out of the question. It is too idealistic to believe that tuition fees can be reduced and quality can be improved through market competition.

finally, it is necessary to maintain the barrier between big capital and even "hot money" and academic education. At present, some large enterprises, funds and private hot money are eager for academic education, in order to accumulate or transfer assets, seize cash flow and obtain short-term profits. These purposes are incompatible with the stability of school development and the environment of students' growth. In reality, the contradiction between the organizer and the principal is very telling. If there is something wrong with the school, it needs the government to come out and cover the bottom, and perhaps it needs taxpayers' money. Liberalizing academic education, especially compulsory education for profit, is actually equivalent to removing the barrier between education and these capitals.

according to the new law on the promotion of private education, social forces will be able to organize non-academic training, higher education, high school education, preschool education and other private schools other than compulsory education, which will bring long-term benefits to the development of private education. However, it is absolutely necessary to be cautious about the liberalization of academic education, especially compulsory education.