Reflections on the right to equality in education

On the right to equality in educational content

Some scholars say that the classification of vocational middle schools and ordinary middle schools in China constitutes discrimination against vocational middle school students and fails to provide them with the same education as ordinary middle school students. Moreover, the premature placement of liberal arts and differential education in senior high schools, especially the method of dividing students into "taking the college entrance examination" and "not taking the college entrance examination", constitutes discrimination against students who do not take the college entrance examination.

Whether it constitutes discrimination depends on whether it has a legitimate purpose and is in line with substantive public interests, and should not simply look at whether it has negative effects. After all, everything has two sides. The proper purpose of distinguishing vocational middle schools from ordinary middle schools is to teach students in accordance with their aptitude and treat them differently according to their knowledge level and acceptance ability; Its purpose is not to make poor students worse, but to let them give full play to their potential and cultivate their professional ability. Otherwise, it is ineffective to let them learn deeper theoretical knowledge blindly. From the public interest, ordinary middle schools continue to provide students with opportunities for further study, while vocational middle schools have delivered a large number of practical talents to the society, which is more reasonable. As for the premature division of arts and sciences, the division of arts and sciences itself has its rationality. After all, everyone's interests and development ideas are different. But the problem lies in the word "premature" and how solid and comprehensive the basic knowledge should be. I'm afraid this aspect is related to the mainstream consciousness of society and the national education policy, so it's difficult to decide. Moreover, whether to take the college entrance examination as the standard to distinguish education violates the legitimate purpose and does not conform to the public interest, which really constitutes discrimination.

On the right to equal opportunities in education

The right of equal educational opportunity is related to the right of equal educational content in some aspects. For example, the different teaching contents between vocational middle schools and ordinary middle schools mean that different students have different opportunities to receive the same education. But this "difference" is not inequality, or just formal inequality of opportunity. Compared with formal inequality of opportunity, it is substantive inequality of opportunity. Without special and reasonable reasons, the practice of adding points or preferential scores in the college entrance examination constitutes discrimination against others. For example, the children of doctoral students get extra points in the college entrance examination, and the children of government officials get implicit preferential treatment in the college entrance examination. Some scholars say that the scores of college entrance examination should be unified everywhere, and there is some truth. In China, the score discrimination system is implemented: candidates from different regions with different grades can also enter Tsinghua Peking University. There is a big gap between the scores of Beijing candidates and those of foreign candidates. Similarly, local universities have many local students and low requirements. However, the current regulations constitute double discrimination: discrimination in enjoying equal educational conditions and discrimination in violation of equal opportunities. As a result, the problem of college entrance examination immigration has not been solved for many years: students from small places, relying on their parents' status and money, went to big cities to take the college entrance examination.

However, exceptions cannot be ruled out. Equality in front of scores is not absolute, but relative, that is, substantive equality. The so-called principle of substantive equality mainly refers to the premise of ensuring everyone's personality development in a substantive sense by adopting different ways according to everyone's different attributes in order to correct the de facto inequality caused by formal equality to a certain extent. As long as it is good for the weak, it is good for everyone. For example, preferential treatment for minority candidates is reasonable, because minority candidates have many disadvantages (geographical differences, cultural differences, etc.). If they are not given equal opportunities in fact, they will have little chance to learn advanced ideas from their classmates in other more developed places, which is very unfavorable to the development of ethnic minority areas. Therefore, it is reasonable to consider the equality in fact or substance on the basis of equal opportunities and give appropriate preferential treatment to minority candidates.

In addition to the college entrance examination, there are also the enrollment of migrant workers' children, the influence of their status on their further studies, and the equal education of men and women. Although the new Compulsory Education Law pays attention to these problems, some unfairness still exists. The children of migrant workers are troubled by the household registration problem and have to pay sponsorship fees to go to school, so that many children of migrant workers have to go to those so-called schools for children of migrant workers. As we all know, the establishment of schools for children of migrant workers is inherently discriminatory. Students' identity and family background are still affecting scholars with poor objective conditions. "In all parts of society, for everyone with similar motives and endowments, there should be roughly equal education and achievement prospects. The expectations of those with the same abilities and ambitions should not be influenced by their social background. " All kinds of States should not only be made public in the formal sense, but also be accessible to everyone on an equal footing. When filling in the relevant forms of college entrance examination, I vaguely saw the column of family background. Under the impact of market economy, more problems now lie in power, money or status. People with power and money are more likely to send their children to a good school, and students without this advantage will find it difficult to study even if their grades are excellent. Fortunately, now the society sees this problem more, the national student loan was born, and CCTV's dream-fulfilling action also began. The problem of equality between men and women has always existed, and so has the right to education. In ancient China, there was a wrong and extreme view that "a woman without talent is virtue" and that learning the Four Books and Five Classics is not as good as learning needlework at home. In modern times when the feminist movement is widely carried out, and today when women hold up half the sky, female students still encounter difficulties in receiving education. When Peking University enrolled minority language students in 2005, girls scored much higher than boys, because the proportion of girls was too high in the past. This obviously violates the formal equality of opportunity and the substantive equality of opportunity. Because the low proportion of boys does not mean that they have been treated unfairly, both boys and girls entered Peking University through the same selection methods and procedures, and the lack of boys only shows that the conditions are not enough. Unless some majors have gender requirements.

In terms of equal access to educational resources

There are many gaps between urban and rural areas, between the central and western regions and the eastern coastal areas, between mountainous areas and plain areas, between poor areas and rich areas, and even the educational facilities and even the entire educational resources of a place or even the same school. The titles of key schools, key classes, experimental schools and experimental classes have long been generally recognized in China. Parents are willing to pay more for their children to attend such schools, and the state is willing to allocate more money to such schools. So, is this recognized phenomenon reasonable? In my opinion, under the condition of formal equality of "no relationship between power and money, no specialization of hardware conditions", if students' personal ability is taken as the standard and "key points" are uniformly distinguished within a certain range, then substantive equality will be realized. This has a legitimate purpose and is in the public interest, so it will not constitute discrimination.

In order to realize the balanced allocation of educational resources, some places have made useful attempts. For example, in 2004, Xuzhou City took five measures to promote "non-discriminatory education", while Guangdong Province implemented the "balanced investment policy". The Guangdong Provincial Government also issued the Opinions on the Implementation of the Outline of Education Modernization in Guangdong Province (2004–2010), which stipulated that the government should invest in all schools in a balanced way. By 2007, the current "provincial and municipal level" and other school grading standards will be replaced by "standardized schools".