Weibing Wang: The Industrialism of Education is a False Policy
王卫兵（Weibing Wang）
A nation wanting to fulfill civilization and wealth must firstly improve the quality of people in this whole nation. The work of improving people’s quality should start from the emphasis on primary education. There is an old saying in China: It takes ten years to grow a tree and a hundred years to grow a person, which means that it will take ten years for trees in a forest to grown into furniture materials and it will take over a hundred years for the quality of a nation’s people to improve significantly. We have seen that Chinese government is focusing on education. From its establishment in 1949, all leaders of CCP have said the same words: No matter how impoverished, education should never lack funds. In the six decades, this sentence has captured hearts of generations Chinese. Chinese people also have endless hopes on improving China’s education.
We have to say that Chinese government does pay much attention to education since its first generation leaders. The government also has done a lot of work. Because of the restrictions from the social system on the education system, these initiatives emphasizing education have many disadvantages. These initiatives not only fail in promoting progress of China’s education, but also bring difficulties such as teacher shortage, facility rags, and funds shortage to many schools in China. Therefore, Chinese government reforms the education system for many times, and even tries to industrialize education. Many colleges are designed as test points and are forced to do the famous education industrialism.
The central point of education industrialism is using education to raise education. Government is gradually alleviating fund investment on education and demands every school to collect fees from students, such as teachers’ salary, textbooks fees, education facility fees and education property maintenance fees. All these fees are concluded into students’ tuition which is unreasonably collected. Specifically say, those who are able to pay can go to schools. The initiatives are completely opposite to the essence of obligated education. We can have a look. Does China become rich? How many people are in poverty in contemporary China? How many students can afford the high tuition? Is it really the “nerve make education poor” slogan shouted by leaders of Chinese government? Isn’t it a lie?
Education takes the responsibility of transmitting culture and civilization. The healthy development of education is the key to improving a nation and ethnic’s competitiveness. The responsibility of developing education lays on the government. We hope Chinese government could abolish the false policy of industrializing education. Only then can the route of strengthening the nation by education not become a mere dream.
Weibing Wang
May 4, 2010
[/center] |
|
