Contextualizing China’s Education System

And Analyzing the New National Curriculum Reform

Introduction

Long before even the founding of the People’s Republic in 1949, China has been

traversing the long path toward educational equality. Although the country carries an extensive

history which outruns many other nations, it still requires further progress on the education front.

Recently, the world’s gaze has come to rest on Mainland China in response to its rise in power

and economic stature. Despite the many implications and obstacles this country encounters, the

government’s main goal has been to develop an educational system that encourages China’s

economic growth while establishing an equitable society (Hannum 1999). With approximately

fifty percent of Mainland China’s overall population living in rural areas (Mu 2013),

experiencing great educational disparity, perfecting the national education system plays a large

role in determining China’s future, and thus greatly affecting the overall outcome of the

country’s continued development. However, observing educational inequalities, rural citizens

possess significantly lower educational qualifications and a lower socioeconomic status on

average than urban residents (Mu 2013), placing them at an obvious disadvantage. The existence

of this disparity, along with other issues instigated approaches from the Chinese government. In

recent years China has issued reforms within the educational system so as to strengthen

educational equality, as well as quality.

Within this writing, my research orients itself around the context of China’s educational

infrastructure. Researching the history behind China’s education system and its major influences

reveals major factors which are involved in the current status of China’s education. Through this

research, I intend to achieve a more complete perspective of China’s modern education system,

understanding a multitude of factors which come into play during education reforms, such as

China’s New National Curriculum Reform.

Once I have set the stage by contextualizing China’s education system within its national

history, I will to transition into a case study which investigates different aspects of China’s New

National Curriculum Reform (CNNCR) issued in 2001. Observing China’s most extensive

attempt to reform its education system will offer an analysis of how influences translate within

today’s setting. Furthermore, by researching the strengths and pitfalls of this education reform, I

hope to offer deeper insight into solving the challenges China currently faces. It is my belief and

hope that reestablishing a foundational understanding of historical influences in China’s

education system and their interlocking nature with reform approaches will open up

opportunities for progress in the field China’s education.

Literature Review:

China’s Education Contextualized in History

First, to fully understand China’s contemporary education system, we must delve into

main periods within the country’s history, obtaining a contextual perspective of educational

development. Within China’s history, both positive and negative influences have been present on

the development of education throughout these different periods. The next few moments, I plan

to observe Confucianism in Ancient China, Mao Zedong’s influence, and leadership in the

Reform and Opening Period.

Early China

When observing the country’s education system, Confucius and Confucian Thought

cannot be ignored as the first great factor influencing education in China. As a leader of

education and political thought, Confucius embodied the earliest socialist, egalitarian values of

the country (Hannum). An article headed by Guanglu Mu, a leading scholar in analyzing the

implications of Confucianism on education in China, partnered with scholars and professors

from both Beijing Normal University and Queensland University to craft a paper offering insight

into China’s educational path. Confucianism’s societal focus carried positive implications within

the early development of education (Mu 2013).

Existing almost three thousand years ago, this famous Chinese philosopher and educator

encouraged the idea of equal education opportunities for all citizens to influence the level

development of society. Dr. Guanglun along with his team compare this grassroots concept to the

definition of quality education mentioned in UNESCO Education for All, published in 2000.

Most notably, Confucianism agrees with contemporary ideas regarding educational equity. This

source also clearly depicts similarities in both conceptualizations of educational quality. Suzhi,

(素质) a term which translates as ‘quality’, refers to the ability, skill, or quality of a person

(Dello-Iacovo). This term has returned within the implementation of the Suzhi Jiaoyu (素质教育) education reform, which opened the door for new teaching techniques and a focus on the

well-rounded development of students (Murphy).

Pushing for the betterment of each individual as the main purpose of education,

Confucian Thought led to a society-oriented educational foundation (Mu). China’s citizens

believed that society could be strengthened by extensive study and learning. This mindset reveals

the existence of a socialist, egalitarian model of education, simply implying that the main goal of

education early in China’s history was high equity and spurring on contributions to society.

It was also during this time that China’s meritocratic trends become more established.

Examinations were adopted as the fairest opportunity for social mobility upward through the

class system. Excelling in China’s exam system meant a stable career within the country’s

government sector. Much of the influence of this meritocracy still transfers into today’s structure

of education in the form of high school and college entrance exams. Although there was the

individual incentive for citizens to achieve an increased quality of life through excelling in

examinations, the overall foundation behind education in early China was equality and the

betterment of society.

Mao’s Leadership (1949-1976)

Second, Chairman Mao, from 1949 to 1976, also greatly impacted China’s educational

infrastructure. Under his leadership, China experienced a transition in educational goals. The

new hope for rural education was found in manufacturing informed laborers. With Mao’s Great

Leap Forward in 1958 and the Cultural Revolution in 1966, China lost many intellectuals due to

criticisms and hostility toward right winged ideology, while turning its eye to economic

development through adopting the Soviet Model. Mao’s influences owed to a sense of “hyper-

egalitarianism” (Murphy 2009). Throughout Mao’s political movements, the percentage of

China’s population attending school experienced rapid increase, especially within rural areas

(Hannum 1999).

The Cultural Revolution marks the main point at which China’s government strengthened

its attempts at politicizing education. During the Cultural Revolution and under Mao’s leadership

in general, political agendas were combined with the country’s education policies, as a means of

strengthening government power and citizen support. Mao made sure that his revolutionary

agenda was still implemented into the education system, radically revolutionizing students’

ideologies in the classroom (Dello-Iacovo).

From this point onward, the country’s main agenda in educational development was to

spur on economic development. This depicts side-effects from the entrance of the soviet

education model, which also involved the spread of political agendas within China’s curriculum.

Leftist ideological goals leapt their way into the realm of educational policy-making, while

political recommendation and class background became the primary means of determining

opportunity for pressing on toward further education (Hannum), instead of the previous exam

system.

An abundance of scholars note how the Great Cultural Revolution created numerous

problems that plagued the society for years after it was completed. Due to the delegitimizing

effect which the revolutionary period had on the leadership of the Communist Party of China,

after its attempts to build a utopia failed, this political movement was removed from national

history for quite some time (Jones). Interestingly enough, and in contrast to most assumptions,

the revolutionary period under Mao lowered some forms of educational stratification and its

uneven transmission. Rural schools were less politicized during the Cultural Revolution, and

gave farmers an adequate educational foundation for maintaining production (Murphy).

Throughout her writing, renowned China Studies scholar, Hannum exquisitely meshes

her field study research methods with understandings of history in order to tie the Cultural

Revolution into trends within the country’s education system. Placing emphasis on the

revolutionary period as the main point where political roots began taking advantage of

educational policies, Hannum brings up a very interesting perspective. While there were a

plethora of negative aspects in this period of China’s history, rural education experienced great

progress during the revolution. A much larger population in China’s rural society attended school

throughout Mao’s leadership, owing to the government’s powerful emphasis on education as

main means of boosting transmission of political agendas and national strength (Hannum 1999).

However, unfortunately even this simple positive effect of the revolutionary period was

short-lived. After many viewed the Great Leap Forward as a failure to achieve an utopian

society, most investors in education chose to capitalize on the higher and much speedier returns

from funding education within urban areas (Murphy). The borderline extremist political

movements under Mao’s leadership had unique effects on education, which may be further

observed by looking at the following period.

Reform and Opening Period

Third, China’s Reform and Opening Period exists as another transitional period in the

development of national education. Again, with the failure of China’s Great Leap Forward and

Cultural Revolution, China’s government all but abandoned attempts at developing rural

education, switching toward a focus on urban schools and producing experts in academic fields

as its main goal in education(Murphy). This period meant drastic changes for China’s education,

as well as the whole country. It still meant maintaining ties between education and promoting

economic success, but the path was paved much differently than under Mao’s leadership.

Both leaders met a strong desire to compete with the progress of Western countries by

transitioning into a market economy system. Deng Xiaoping’s and Liu Shaoqi’s arrivals in

China’s leadership after 1976 marked a turn to the adoption of a more liberal and competitive

educational model (Hannum 1999), defined by the inception of Western practices and increased

competition in the examination system which restricted the advancement of a great deal of

students hoping to pursue further education. Sadly, Deng Xiaoping’s mode of educational

progress for China meant bad things for rural-urban disparity (Murphy). Much of the educational

focus was placed on urban areas, which were believed to offer the timeliest returns for

government investment. The failure of the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution

caused the government to abandon earlier attempts within rural areas to develop curriculum and

preparing students for work beyond agriculture.

Furthermore, structural changes regarding the norms within society, such as the

dismantlement of communes, the implementation of the household contract system, and

transitions toward a market economy all paved the way for abandoning rural schools for a focus

on urban education (Murphy). The important role of colleges for producing more specialized

experts in varying fields, and the natural concentration of these institutions in urbanized regions

increased the importance of educational investments in urban areas (Hannum). Simplistic

methods from the revolutionary period were condemned and abandoned, replaced with a

diversity of complex, hierarchical education programs (Hannum).

Following this was the reinstatement of the exam system and the return of twelve years of

schooling (Jones). Regarding the content of history curriculum specifically, this reorientation

still highlighted communism and patriotism within the textbooks as invincible forces which

could continue uniting the country (Jones). Believing to hold the potential to delegitimize party

leadership, the blows from the Cultural Revolution were softened in writing. Growing economic

competition under Liu Shaoqi and Deng Xiaoping’s leadership led China to another educational

goal, which was to produce a newer, economically competitive generation of experts to elevate

China’s capabilities. Sadly, Deng and Shaoqi’s more competitive mode of educational progress

for China has carried negative impacts for its rural-urban disparity as well as the positive

implementation of the earlier egalitarian model of education.

Combating Influences

When researching the important transitional periods of educational development in

China, it is necessary to observe the influence of ideas. Since the beginning of China’s existence

ideology has supported and molded the transition of knowledge. The most important forms of

thought in China are Confucianism, both conservative and normative socialism, egalitarianism,

and nationalism. Touching upon each of these terms and their definitions will continue to paint

an accurate canvas for understanding China’s modern education system.

Confucianism, Equity, and Quality

Early in history, China possessed a much more philosophical approach to education,

viewing it as a step toward the larger goal of creating a more dependable society (Mu 2013).

Confucian Thought catalyzed the egalitarian mode of education and promoted equality. At this

time, the main goal of educating each class included perfecting the quality of all citizens to

create a more honest, collective society. An approach such as this kept educational equity in the

mix and avoided discrimination between aristocrats and ordinary citizens. In addition, an

emphasis placed on individual academic merits further encouraged the spread of education to all

levels of society. Narratives were written about citizens from lower classes gaining renown

through succeeding in examinations. As an early meritocratic society, examinations were

adopted as a means of developing a higher standard of academic levels, evaluating progress, and

discovering talent for future leadership (Wen 2007)(Hannum 1999).

Confucianism most likely still exists as the leading influence on China’s education

system. Existing over two thousand years ago, Confucius was a largely influential philosopher

and teacher in Chinese history. At the root of his teaching, Confucius stressed the importance of

educational equity and quality, making Confucianism very attractive to other societies around the

world (Mu). Throughout his life, Confucius’ perspective was that education existed solely for the

betterment and benefit of societal development. Viewing well-rounded individuals that can give

back to society as the end product of education, this famous Chinese teacher commonly utilized

the word suzhi (素质) in education, which refers the overall quality of an individual person,

based upon their knowledge and abilities (Murphy). Although the implications of this ideology

dominated the educational scene early in China’s history, however, there recent curriculum

reforms have marked the return to emphasizing individual development.

While mentioning individual development of attributes with a societal focus, one must

also recognize the meritocratic forces in China’s education, as well. Meritocracy refers to a

system in which people possessing higher achievements advance on to higher statuses, but its

main existence in China comes through the form of yingshi jiaoyu (应试教育), or exam-oriented

education (Dello-Iacovo). China famously possesses a strict exam system, which constricts the

progression of students in their pursuit for higher education. Looking at the incredible resiliency

of the examination system, earliest traces are found before the transmission of Confucianism,

and even the Cultural Revolution could not completely wipe it out (Dello-Iacovo). Mao removed

the regular system during his reign, but it was later welcomed back with the end of the

revolutionary period.

Socialism and Egalitarianism

Socialism strongly influenced China’s educational environment. At its root, the

Communist Party of China possesses the socialist ideal of establishing and maintaining an

equitable society (Hannum). This form of socialism compliments egalitarian ideals laid down

during China’s earliest years. Commitment to egalitarianism denotes the removal of inequalities

between all people, attempting to remove lines between all societal stratifications. All of China’s

earlier educational policies, especially during the political movements, took these ideological

factors of socialism and egalitarianism into account.

Although normative socialism has been present all throughout the country’s history,

socialism became extremely concentrated during the Cultural Revolution. An overpowering

emphasis on socialism and egalitarianism led to the basic literacy and numeracy of large

populations within rural areas (Hannum). Urban areas were adversely affected by the

revolutionary forces, but rural education experienced large increases in numbers (Murphy).

Thoughts competing against socialist influences were targeted by the persecution of scholars

under the party’s directives throughout the revolution. Now, however, the inception of market

economy tendencies has contested how deep these drive into the country’s educational structure.

Since the Chinese government was founded in 1949, it has heavily guarded these values as a

communist country, but more recent adoptions of Western methodologies challenge the existence

of these influences, thus leading to cultural dilemmas within the education system (Feng).

Nationalism and National Identity

Nationalism and national identity also carries powerful influence on the education scene

in China. During the Cultural Revolution, this was most transparent, seeing as how curriculum

development centered on spreading party initiatives and legitimizing leadership. Political ends of

the Proletariat were dominating the educational policymaking up to 1976, focusing in on

collectivization, the mobilization of labor, and (Hannum). Furthermore, China’s nationalism

most commonly presents itself through the form of pursuing economic success. The China

Communist Party emphasizes this as a core goal within the curriculum, especially through the

foundational history curriculum. Political legitimacy, nationalism, praise, and blame are all

transmitted down to students through a party constructed ‘official history’ (Jones). Legitimizing

the political system has led to communicating and transmitting stable nationalist ideals to all

students. This is also often times referred to as moral-ideological education, a means of molding

students into ideal citizens.

As previously mentioned, a transition in policy planning for education within China and

economic changes has led to contention between these influential ideologies. Much of my

research drives these influences into two sides of opposition. Confucian values, egalitarianism,

and socialism all place the educational emphasis on eliminating inequalities and pursuing

educational equity. Meanwhile, nationalism and economic tensions place a spotlight on pursuing

more competitive educational means, and producing experts that can give leverage to the

country’s abilities in international competition. These two oppositions consisting of different

philosophies remain at odds with one another. They are referred to as the socialistic egalitarian

and competitive liberal views of education (Dello-Iacovo). China’s socialist egalitarian model of

education has been in the works since the transmission of Confucianism, which placed more

emphasis on societal gains of education (Mu). Existing as opposites, though China’s early

approach to education focused on societal benefits, the more competitive approach in many ways

perpetuates the rural-urban disparity. When China adopted the Soviet Model for education,

which emphasized rapid industrialization and the accumulation of capital, it was sent down long,

winding path toward a competitive liberal model of education (Murphy). It is my firm belief that

the collective contention formed by these two opposing philosophies will in many ways

determine the future of China’s educational infrastructure, the successful implementation of the

curriculum reform, and most likely the future leadership of the country.

Competing Models

Considering how we have covered the different influences, it is time to view the three

education models these construct within China. Initially, the socialistic egalitarian model

dominated the education scene in China, denoting a focus on educational equity and eliminating

social inequalities affecting outcomes within the education system. Then, this was met by the

entry of the Soviet education model and the politicization of education. After the Cultural

Revolution, China transitioned to a more competitive, liberal education model. The conflict

surrounding these different philosophies within China’s education system warrants further

investigation in order to better understand the mechanics of educational reform and structure.

The combination of multiple philosophies in the country’s education system reveals a combined

focus on education’s relationship with society, politics, and economic progress.

The Socialist Egalitarian Model

Early in history, China possessed a much more philosophical approach to education,

viewing it as a step toward the larger goal of creating a more dependable society (Mu 2013).

Confucian Thought catalyzed the egalitarian mode of education and promoted equality. At this

time, the main goal of educating each class included perfecting the quality of all citizens to

create a more honest, collective society.

An approach such as this kept educational equity in the mix and avoided discrimination

between aristocrats and ordinary citizens. In addition, an emphasis placed on individual

academic merits further encouraged the spread of education to all levels of society. Narratives

were written about citizens from lower classes gaining renown through succeeding in

examinations. As an early meritocratic society, examinations were adopted as a means of

developing a higher standard of academic levels, evaluating progress, and discovering talent for

future leadership (Wen 2007)(Hannum 1999).

The Soviet Model

Later on, China adopted the Soviet Model of education, which was devised to

attain speedy development and industrialization, as well as, increase the amount of capital

accumulated (Murphy 2009). After the perceived failure of Mao’s political movements such as

the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution mentioned before, rural literacy rate

decreased once again. Policymakers, dealing with a lack of resources in rural areas, turned their

sights to urban education reforms, where they could quickly capitalize on gains from investments

(Hannum 1999). Progress slowed in rural education due to static goals. Better educational

infrastructure was established in urban areas, while the rural population was given mass

education programs decided upon by cost-effectiveness. Given the country’s hopes of raising

national strength at the quickest possible speed, the government spoon-fed urban education

institutions. Progressing into an educational system which orients itself around economic

development has led to the creation and perpetuation of educational inequalities. A lack of

funding in rural areas automatically determines that students attending schools in urban areas

will receive a better education.

Another aspect of the Soviet education model is the high level of politicization. Today,

this is most noticeable in how curriculum developers, specifically those in charge of history

curriculum are influenced by “contemporary political imperatives” (Jones 2002). This does the

opposite of lessen their load of responsibilities, considering how their decisions are also

influenced by “professional academic and pedagogical concerns, and “efforts to justify the status

of History in an increasingly crowded curriculum” (Jones 2002). As with all countries,

curriculum development can be formulated in such a way as to compliment the landscape of

national identity, and China is no different. The most important takeaway from researching the

Soviet education model is recognizing how deeply embedded curriculum, especially history

curriculum is in China’s national identity, and we may further apply this concept to explain the

resistance met in the further implementation of curriculum reform.

The Competitive Liberal Model

Lastly, the Soviet model has morphed in China’s more recent history into a competitive

liberal model, placing emphasis on China’s desire to have a globally competitive education

system. Competitive influences introduced into China’s education system have arguably created

and perpetuated already existing inequalities. I have previously touched on the uneven

distribution of investments in education owing to and further perpetuating the rural-urban

disparity, but it is still important to note that the transition into a market economy further

encouraged funding urban regions (Hannum). Organizations and individuals were further

incentivized by the system of quicker returns. Moreover, this new liberal competitive approach

led to the adoption of Western educational tactics, which in turn, invited cultural conflicts into

China’s educational structure (Feng 2006). Educational practices differ greatly between Eastern

and Western educational institutions.

For example, inviting comments and discussion from students, or solely lecturing may be

encouraged in one system but not the other. At first glance, adopting new teaching techniques

may appear simple, but they can have adverse effects on leadership approaches that have been in

effect long before. China, attempting to gain a competitive edge through diversifying it teaching

curriculum, is experiencing difficulties in translating Western practices into its own domestic

culture.

Case Study: China’s New National Curriculum Reform

Goals of Curriculum Reform

Over recent years, there has been an outcry from China’s public, demanding a drastic

change in the educational infrastructure. Fierce international competition, technological

advancements, and a focus on all-round development have been the main symptoms encouraging

waves of educational reform (Guan). Hoping to answer the many aspects of this need, the

Chinese government put forth a curriculum reform to develop high quality education (Feng).

Suzhi Jiaoyu(素质教育), or Quality Education acts as one of the guiding principles behind

China’s education policies, but some see it simply as an umbrella term covering many different

points within educational reform and leading to unwanted ambiguity (Jones). However, as

mentioned before, there are assumed historical meanings for the term suzhi which dates back to

the Confucian period (Dello-Iacovo) (Mu).

Therefore, we can at least be certain that this latest curriculum reform focuses mainly

upon students’ development. This reform’s six main goals are as follows, shifting learning

formats within the classroom, developing a balanced curriculum setup, establishing foundational

and practical learning, encouraging active and student-oriented learning models, revitalizing the

country’s examination system, and decentralizing authority over curriculum (Feng).

Problems Affecting Implementation of the CNNCR

So far, my research has revealed several important points of contention within the New

Curriculum Reform. Some of these include: inflexibility, increased levels of stress and burdens

placed on both students and teachers, a lack of acknowledgment toward the wants and needs of

parents and students, supposed cultural dilemmas, and uncertainty with regards to proposed

methods for continuing implementation of the reform (Feng). While these factors were no doubt

present, within my case study, I focused mainly upon other issues, such as the diverse effects of

the decentralization in curriculum authority, resource scarcity and mismanagement, teacher

training and effects from traditional learning methods.

Decentralization of Responsibilities

First, the content of the CNNCR reveals a transition into three part leadership between

national, local, and school (Guan 2007). Although the decentralization of curriculum control was

meant to spread the responsibility between three levels, it has actually had adverse effects in the

overall implementation of the reform. Under this restructuring, the Ministry of Education

maintains its role of leader and coordinator (Feng 2006). Local governments and the schools are

tasked with funding and also adapting the curriculum to their perspective needs. Placing this

burden of funding on the shoulders of local governments many times proves too heavy a

responsibility. The issue of uneven funding relates closely to the problematic points of

decentralization. Along with the trend of decreased funding in rural areas (Hannum) (Murphy),

an Evaluative Report on the Ten Year Layout Revision of Rural Education reveals the dramatic

decrease of schools from the year 2000 to 2010. It depicts how the country lost an average of

sixty-three schools each day (Li, 2014).

Moreover, investigations show not only the incredible lack of investments, but also how

the amount currently received is continually decreasing. From 2001 to 2005, the amount of funds

spent on schools in the Shandong province relative to the country’s GDP decreased from 1.89%

to 1.56% (Li, 2014). Without the necessary funding, the future of many schools outside urban

areas looks bleak. If this current trend is continued, many more schools will remain unable to

meet the state’s requirements, not have a positive effect on students’ learning, and will most

likely have to close. As long as this new curriculum reform is not meant as an excuse for the

central government of China to ignore funding needs, it could still achieve its desired effects.

Lack of Resources

Second, the lack of resources definitely carries a heavy weight on schools’ ability to

implement new curriculum reforms, especially in rural areas. An incredibly large difference in

size of government investment between rural and urban schooling systems still exists (Zhai

2014). China’s government has poured funding into a few schools in order to promote them as

leaders in educational research and role models for quality education (Dello-Iacovo), but other

schools must watch as the resources they require are funneled into a few select schools. Uneven

resource management further perpetuates educational disparity between renowned schools and

lesser known institutions.

The Academy of Educational Research within China performed an investigation into the

state of rural schools, revealing the poor conditions which students have to experience. This

investigation revealed that out of all the targeted schools, at least 32.9% were deemed “unsafe”

and “lacking in quality” (Li, 2014). In addition to observing the condition of school buildings,

this research also looked at dorms. Many of the students in rural areas must live in dorms at their

schools, however, research revealed that at 75% of these schools, there were ten or more students

living in a room. Overcrowding has become a common issue in many schools.

The more recent phenomenon known as ‘left behind children’ also increases the burden

on educational institutions in rural areas. This term refers to children of migrant workers, who

must stay at home without supervision for long periods of time, owing to the fact that their

parents must often times travel to urban areas to find adequate work (Yao). An abundance of

institutions must now house students in their facilities, owing to the unhealthy living situations

within their homes.

Teaching

Third, general teacher training to implement the new curriculum has become an

obstacle for implementing the education policies. The instructional paradigm shift encouraged

within the new policy reform has been painful to apply to Chinese classrooms. Untrained

teachers, misappropriations in teaching methods, unsuccessful teaching conferences all

combined inhibit China’s curriculum reform (Zhong 2006). Teaching methods inspired by the

New Curriculum regards student-centered learning, but can often end up in a complete loss of

control over curriculum, thus adding more stress to both students and teachers instead of

relieving them from the unbearable burden of an impassable examination system.

Classroom control has been a major problem for teachers. A large majority of teachers

are above the age of fifty. Considering how many years have passed since their last time in

education classes, there is a large divide in materials and methodology. The implementation of

curriculum development has created the need for reeducating teachers, further hindering its

application in the classroom (Li, 2014).

In addition to the lack of effective means to teach and prepare teachers leaving

“indoctrination-centered teaching” for “inquiry-centered teaching” has met much resistance in

China (Zhong). China’s spoon-feeding teaching techniques, similar to lecturing methods, have

not been challenged for centuries. Dating back to the times of Confucius, for well over a

thousand years, the main mode of learning has been rote-memorization and countless hours of

force feeding material to students in the classroom or teacher-centered education (Dello-Iacovo).

With such a close tie with culture and history, there is bound to be some bumps along the way.

Some scholars have mentioned the trouble in applying curriculum reform is first teaching

students to learn in these new ways, then beginning to teach them required curriculum through

these new modes.

An additional aspect of resource management remains teachers’ revenue. This too is

unevenly distributed. Looking at the amount of pay teachers receive also reveals the lack of

resources for rural schools in China. The average teacher in a rural school makes approximately

two hundred dollars a month (Li, 2014), compared to a much higher amount received by teachers

of urban schools. This lack of adequate compensation has meant fewer teachers pursue careers

at rural schools, in turn, leading to an incredible lack in teaching resources.

Cultural Conflicts

Another interesting difficulty with this problem remains the belief that the process of

implementing the CNNCR needs to carry a more democratic structure, but this holds heavy

implications within a communist society such as China. Logic is confused within the optimism

of Feng’s, and Guan and Meng’s writings. Both sources do well to explain issues that would

arise were China to continue adopting Western techniques in education, but at the same time,

they call for more democratic modes of management at the base level.

Examination System

When mentioning issues and the remaining effects of the old educational infrastructure

on new curriculum development, it is crucial to mention that possibly the greatest obstacle for

the new curriculum reform is the old exam-based education system (Feng). Literature regarding

the problematic situation of China’s incredibly reselient exam system reveals how what progress

has been made with curriculum reform is in danger of being choked out(Zhong 2006). Even the

Cultural Revolution could not completely destroy the traditional exam-based system within

Chinese educational culture. An education system based too strongly upon exams has lead to a

disconnect between schooling and practical application in real life situations, returns to rote

memorization, teacher-centered learning, cramming, reduction of mental wellbeing of students,

and a lack of initiative and responsibility for students (Dello-Iacovo). After the Reform and

Opening period, new criticisms arose claiming that the exam system perpetuates social inequality

and leads to unequal funding opportunities for schools. Deep -seated educational culture and its

ties with heritage mean that while the public recognizes problems with the exam system, they are

not fully prepared to abandon it and accept completely new modes. Currently, the exam system

continues to hold meritocratic implications, focusing on achievements instead of diagnosing

issues within the education system. The exam system’s misplaced focus reveals its

ineffectiveness as a system of evaluation and accountability for the curriculum (Guan). In the

end, the largest obstacle for the further implementation of the curriculum reform in China

remains the education system’s most prized cultural heritage. If the country does not correct the

examination system, it will be unable to progress in fortifying its educational infrastructure. The

truth remains that the exam system acts as the trend setter for education, and combining this

stress with meeting requirements from the body of the central government, it becomes too much

for individual schools to bear.

Other Unattended Needs

While a large number of parents and teachers feel strongly in support of the curriculum

reforms, they do little in means of backing and applying the material to the classroom (Murphy

2009). Their worries stem from the effects that curriculum reform could have on their students

test scores during examinations, considering that the Ministry of Education has done little to

change the exam system. Among these groups of issues remains the lack of recognition and

awareness in adopting measures to protect minorities. Instead of being taken care of, the needs of

many minorities are often overlooked, leaving them at a disadvantage in the realm of education

(Dello-Iacovo 2009).

Conclusion

Reviewing literature pertaining to the historical development of China’s education system

reveals how much of the ideology and cultural implications still present an obstacle for

developing the curriculum today. Confucianism, scars from the Cultural Revolution, and

influences from the Reform and Opening are still present today as forces molding the country’s

national educational infrastructure. Closely observing the path and transition of ideological

foundations within China’s education serves as a method to better understand the terrain in

which the Curriculum Reform must be implemented.

Researching what specific issues have arisen through the implementation of the reform

will strengthen future attempts at synthesizing solutions. There is an abundance of literature and

research pertaining to trends in education in China, especially with regards to rural China.

Curriculum reform remains one of the largest hurdles to further advancing China’s education

system. Currently, research points toward several necessary steps for solving the problems

halting further implementation of the New Curriculum Reform. First, China’s examination

system must be altered to make way for the complete application of the CNNCR. Second,

methods such as China’s Special Post Teacher Plan in rural areas and developing schools for

floating children would work to overcome educational inequalities (Mu 2013). These are each

great avenues for raising education equity in the China’s society. Establishing a better

relationship between rural schools and their communities has great potential in overcoming

difficulty with lack of resources (Zhai 2014). Third, a simple increase in government funding

would also alleviate much of the financial struggle surrounding the development of rural

education (Li 2014), causing more funding to trickle into local governments and eventually

schools. As of now, political and economic agendas are preventing the decrease of rural-urban

disparity and in many ways even perpetuating it. For the CNNCR to be successful in application,

each of these areas must be taken into account.

Overall, through this research project, we reviewed the difficulties and obstacles China

faces in the process of advancing implementation. The history of Chinese society also reveals

past successes in implementing new educational policies. All hope is not lost regarding the

effectiveness and timely implementation of this curriculum reform, however, the specific hurdles

to its implementation must be targeted in order to experience progress in both quality and equity

of China’s education.

Bibliography

Baohua You, Xia Gao, Wenjing Wang, and Li Zhao. Educational Reform and Curriculum Change in China: A Comparative Case Study. International Bureau for Education, 2007. 1-57.

Cui, Yunhuo, and Yan Zhu. "Curriculum Reforms in China: History and the Present Day." Revue Internationale D’éducation De Sèvres (International Review of Education), 2014. Accessed March 11, 2015. http://ries.revues.org/3846.

Davidson, Shannon and Jennifer Adams. (2013) “Adversity and internalizing problems among adolescents in rural China: the protective roles of parental and teacher support,” International Journal of Behavioral Development, 37(6): 530-541.

Dello-lacovo, Belinda. "Curriculum Reform and 'Quality Education' in China: An Overview."International Journal of Educational Development 29, no. 3 (2009): 241-49. Accessed February 1, 2015. doi:10.1016/j.ijedudev.2008.02.008.

Feng, Danming. "China's Recent Curriculum Reform: Progress and Problems." Planning and Changing 37 (2006): 131-44. Accessed February 1, 2015. http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ756220.

Guan, Qun, and Wangjin Meng. "China's New National Curriculum Reform: Innovation, Challenges and Strategies." Frontiers of Education in China 2, no. 4 (2007): 579-604. Accessed February 1, 2015. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11516-007-0043-6.

Hannum, Emily. "Political Change and Urban-Rural Gap in Basic Education in China, 1949-1990."Comparative Education Review 43, no. 2 (1999): 193-211. Accessed February 1, 2015. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1189018.

Jia, Lijie, “China: Poverty Reduction Program” (presentation, International Poverty Reduction Center in China (IPRCC) Kunming, Peoples Republic of China, October 23-25, 2012).

Jones, Alisa. (2002) Chapter 2“Politics and history curriculum reform in post-Mao China,” International Journal of Educational Research, 37: 544-566.

Lam, Kevin. "Curriculum Reform in Chinese Secondary Education." World Education Services, 2011. Accessed March 11, 2015.

Li, Ling. "Suzhi Jiaoyu Diaocha: Liu Wenti Burong Hushi Si Su Zhiyue Fazhan (Survey on Quality Education: Six Problems Which Can’t Be Ignored, Four Factors Restricting Development)." Xinhua Wang, August 20, 2007. Accessed February 1, 2015. http://www.ah.xinhuanet.com/hfnews/2007-07/20/content_10635423.htm.

Li, Xinling. "Nongcun Xuexiao Hai Xuyao Shenme? (What Do Rural School Still Need?)." Jiaoyu Sixiang Wang. January 20, 2014. Accessed February 1, 2014.

Mu, Guanglun Michael, Xinrong Zheng, Ning Jia, Xiaohua Li, Shaoyi Wang, Yanchuan Chen, Ying He, Lyn May, Merilyn Carter, Karen Dooley, Adon Berwick, Angela Sobyra, Carmel Diezman. (2013) “Revisiting Educational Equity and Quality in China through Confucianism, Policy, research, and practice,” Australian Association for Research in Education, Inc., 40: 373-389.

Murphy, Rachel. "Turning Peasants into Modern Chinese Citizens: “Population Quality” Discourse, Demographic Transition and Primary Education." The China Quarterly 177 (2004): 1-20. Accessed February 1, 2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0305741004000025.

Murphy, Rachel, and David Johnson. (2009) “Editorial: Education and development in China-Institutions, curriculum, and society,” International Journal of Educational Development, 29: 447-453.

Pang, Lili. "Suzhi Jiaoyu Vs Yingshi Jiaoyu: Shu Sheng? Shu Fu? (Quality Education versus Examination-oriented Education: Which One Is Winning?)." Xinhua Wang Shang Dong Shi Dao, August 27, 2004. Accessed February 1, 2015. http://www.sd.xinhuanet.com/news/2004-11/27/content_3294815.htm.

Suzhi Jiaoyu Chronicle of Events, 2005Suzhi Jiaoyu Chronicle of Events, 2005. Suzhi jiaoyu dashiji. 18 October. http://www.edu.cn/20051018/3156152.shtml.

Tiedao, Zhang, and Zhao Minxia. Universalizing Nine-Year Compulsory Education for Poverty Reduction in Rural China.” The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. 2004.

“The 10th 5-Year Plan for China’s Educational Development and the Development Outline by 2010.” Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China. n.d.

“The Development-oriented Poverty Reduction Program for Rural China”. Information Office of the State Council of the People’s Republic of China. n.p. http://news.xinhuanet.com/zhengfu/2002-11/18/content_633166.html

Wen, Hongyan. "Suzhi Jiaoyu Weihe Bulu Panshan Zhaozhun Dakai Gaige Jiban De Guanjian (Why Quality Education Is Faltering—finding the Key to the Shackles to Reform)." People's Daily, March 1, 2007. Accessed February 1, 2015. http://news.xinhuanet.com/edu/2007-03/01/content_5786357_2.htm.

(Wen, Peng J., Elizabeth McNess, Sally Thomas, Rongwu Xiang, Zhang Chong, Zhongli Jian, and Shengtian Hui. "Emerging Perceptions of Teacher Quality and Teacher Development

in China." International Journal of Educational Development, no. 34 (2014): 77-89. Accessed March 11, 2015.

Yao Lu. Education of Children Left Behind in Rural China. Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 74, No. 2 (April 2012), pp. 328-341. National Council on Family Relations. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41507274.

Yiu, L. & Adams, J. (2013). Reforming rural education: Understanding teacher expectations for rural youth. The China Quarterly, 216, 993-1017. doi: 10.1017/S0305741013001136.

Yu, Jianfu. CERNET. October 25, 2005. Accessed February 1, 2015. http://www.edu.cn/li_lun_209/20060323/t20060323_145757.shtml.

Zhai, Jinyu. "Xiao Guimo Xuexiao Fuxing: Nongcun Jiaoyu de Weilai? (The Return of Small-Scale Schools: The Future of Rural Education?)." Jiaoyu Sixiang Wang. January 8, 2014. Accessed February 1, 2014.

Zhong, Qi-quan. "Curriculum Reform in China: Challenge & Reflection." Comparative Education Review, 2005. Accessed February 1, 2015. http://en.cnki.com.cn/Article_en/CJFDTotal-BJJY200512004.htm.

Zhou, Mary Huiquan. “What Should China’s NPOs Do to Promote Rural Education?” China Development Brief. 2013. http://chinadevelopmentbrief.cn/articles/what-should-chinas-npos-do-to-promote-rural-education/#rf1-1727.