Educational Change in the Global Context UNIVERZITA KARLOVA V PRAZE 30th August – 4th September 2010 The National Interpretation of a Private Sector’ Role in Education: Russia-China Nina Borevskaya Institute of Far Eastern Studies (Moscow) Institute of Far Eastern Studies (Moscow)

Background and rationale of private schools’ resurgence China Russia Period of restoration End of the 1980sBeginning of the 1990s Historical background Transition to market economy, decentralization. High level of illiteracy (23% in 1982), low level of school enrollment (compulsory basic education since 1986, enrollment ratio: senior middle 12%, tertiary institutions 2–3%). Transition to market economy, democratization*, decentralization. Low level of illiteracy and high level of school enrollment (compulsory high quality middle school, tertiary education enrollment ratio 35%) Rationale of resurgence Strong excess demand, Slight differentiated demand Slight excess demand Strong differentiated demand * Here and further yellow marks disparities.

Founders of NGIs China Russia Law 1990s – incl. national authority and local administration departments Since 2003 –social organizations or individual citizens beyond national sectors (using non- budgetary financing ) Social organizations, parties, private enterprises and companies, PRC or foreign citizens 1990s - incl. national authority and local administration departments Since state organizations’ right to set up NGIs was eliminated, in 2006 – resumed for free-running institutions. Social or religious organizations private organizations or foundations, Russian or foreign citizens. Practice: organizational forms “People with the state support”; ”the state with people’s support”; shareholding schools created by enterprises and companies; private capital alone; co-founded with foreign learning institutions (foreign schools could not receive the status of NGIs ) Founded by social organizations; co-founded with state free-running Institutions; denominational; private capital alone, including companies (93% of all NGIs); co-founded with foreign learning institutions; founded by foreign learning institutions or citizens

State approach to NGIs in China and Russia China Russia 1990s21 st cent.1990s21 st cent. Political support Actively stimulate, comprehensively support, guide in the right direction, strengthen the management. Actively stimulate, comprehensively support, guide in the right direction, manage on the legal foundation. Actively stimulate, comprehensively support. Passively support Economic support NonePotential subsidies from local governments. Tax benefits or preferences. Tuition fees to be refunded from a central budget. Tax benefits or preferences. Regional/ municipal responsibility for financing NGIs. Elimination of tax benefits (profit, property, land etc.)

Income resources of NGIs’ and its distribution China Russia Income resources Tuition fees (80-100%) Bank loans Sponsors’ donations Tuition fees (80-100%) Local governments’ funds Sponsors’ donations Income distribution Rental paymentRental payment (20%)

Place and Niche of NGIs in China and Russia ChinaRussia Place Component of a nationwide system of education Levels (ratio of all students (%) 2008:2004 year) Kindergartens 34,0: 28,0 Primary schools 4,6: 3,0 Junior middle schools 7,7: 5,0 Senior middle schools 9,7: 8,3 Regular tertiary institutions 20,0:12,3 (45% of them in 2-3 years colleges) Kindergartens 1,1: 2,0 Primary schools 1,1: 0,7 Junior middle schools 1,0: 0,7 Senior middle schools 0,5: 0,5 Tertiary institutions 17 :15 (70% of them take correspondence courses)

Growth of non-state tertiary education in Russia

CHINA Number of NGIs Number of students at NGIs ( ) Compare 2004 to 2008 Number of NGIs (thousands): kindergartens 62→83; schools: primary 6.0→5.7, middle 7.1→7.3 vocational 1.6→3.2 tertiary 1.4→1.5 Number of students ( ): kindergartens 584→596; schools: primary 328→480, middle 500→668, vocational 110→291, tertiary 245→401

Character and Quality of NGIs in China and Russia China Russia ConsumersMiddle and lower classesWealthy social groups CharacterNon alternative to governmental schools Partly alternative to government schools Quality of education Average. With some exceptions less prestigious than the state ones Highly qualitative. Schools: more prestigious than the state ones; universities: less prestigious than the state ones Type of schools & Its ratio (%) Focus on foreign languages - 20 Special education - n/a Focus on 1 or 2 subjects - 22 Gymnasium & Lyceum - 23 Special education - 1,5 Denominational - 15 Conditions & equipment Elite - 4 Average For poor people Prestigious – 10 Average For general use

Future tendencies ChinaRussia Role Active, but peripheralPassive and peripheral Current situation & tendencies Period of growth. Further improvements in legislative foundation. Strengthening the equal status & fair competition with state schools. Period of stagnation. Search for a new legislative foundation. Strengthening the equal status & fair competition with state schools Challenges Non-profit status. Merging of state-private boundaries Population decrease. Non-profit status. Merging of state-private boundaries

Resume 1/ Both in Russia and in China during the transition and modernization period in the last two decades the role of NGIs has been changing. 2/ The reforms, on one side, increased some disparities, and, on the other, entailed some commonalities. 3/ All changes in the area of private education were directly dependent on economic-demographic factors and the quality of the state educational system. They were also implicitly dependent on the degree of decentralization and democratization. 4/ The changes demonstrated some dimensions of global trends, but were evidently adapted to the indigenous situation.

THANK YOU! Děkuji vám!