EqualityorInequality：EnteringJuniorSecondarySchoolinChinabyWaysofSchoolChoiceorN

【Abstract】This essay discusses the equality involved in school enrollment with respect to two phenomena – the school choice by money and the nearby enrollment policy in China. Special attention of discussion will be put on the entry of junior secondary school in China.

【Key words】Equality； Nearby Enrollment； equality； school choice

【作者簡介】吴敬之（1992- ），女，安徽芜湖人，助教，理学硕士，安徽师范大学经济管理学院，研究方向：教育学。

School choice

First， the stratification of schools within a district， within a city， between urban and rural areas might trigger parents or guardians pursuit of better schooling. Unbalanced development of education in eastern and western part of China even made the disparity noticeable. Also， there is great discrepancy between state key schools and common schools within a district. State key schools enjoy prestigious reputation and privileged educational resources whereas non-state schools and common schools receive little support year by year； thereby it is reasonable to see that the gap between schools contributed to inevitable demand of choices of best school. Second， since the economic reform in 1978， peoples living standards have raised， and some families have much more disposable income to invest in their childrens education as parents believe that a good education paves way for a better employment and better life （Qin 2002）. Besides， severe competition of employment in China has intensified parents or guardians demands in state key schools so as to provide an advantaged condition for their children. Third， the single child family has a strengthened impact on school choice because parents would surly put all their efforts and prospects on this single child with the best school and education they can offer. Fourth， the traditional cultural reason lies in peoples values in believing that elite schools could provide a prestigious social status. In addition， exam oriented education system have reinforced the phenomenon of school choice in China （Lewin et al. 1996）.

Nearby enrollment

The initial task of this policy is to offer convenience and to unburden childrens pressure in taking entrance examinations. In line with this， the basic objective of nearby enrollment policy is reflected in guaranteeing the equal access to junior secondary schools for children in China. For the advocacy of this policy， the absolute majority of Chinas cities developed ways of “enrollment by district” and “enrollment at the nearest school” （Wei & Hou 2010， p. 88）. Yet the exact school of enrollment is， in effect， decided by the catchment area which determined by the household registration system rather than where the family actually lives. This seems to be contrary to the original goal of neighborhood admission as the special situation of household registration system in China. There are cases that， for example， the household registration system shows a child belongs to the school in catchment area A （i.e. rural area）， but s/he actually lives in catchment area B which is far from area B （i.e. urban area）. This is one possible defect of the nearby enrollment policy since the neighborhood admission principle is simply interpreted as nearby enrollment policy which can cause much more inconveniences and inequalities in schooling.

Real equality or not

Equality or equity

In the Oxford English Dictionary， we can see that equality focus on the sameness of quantity， however equity on the quality （Herrera 2007， p. 322）. In a sense， equality in education is hard to achieve but it is what we strive to do since it would imply that all children would have the same opportunity or access to gain the same education in anywhere. According to Brighouse and Swift， the principle of educational equality is that every child shall have access to receive an equally good education （2008）. Nevertheless， equity indicates fairness and imparity in considering certain circumstances where differentiation and appropriateness are emphasized. And this fairness in equity that I would like to concentrate in this essay is connected to Brighouse and Swifts idea on radical conception of educational equality：

An individuals prospects for educational achievement should be a function neither of that individuals level of natural talent or social class background but only of the effort she applies to education （Brighouse， Howe & Tooley 2010， p. 29）.

The primary principle of educational equity reflects that personal or social factors such as birth， nature talents， gender， socio-economic status of family should not be barriers for children to achieve educational potentials. As personal or social factors are inborn that cannot be controlled by the child. It is unfair to treat a child by determinants like nature talents， social class background or ethnicity， etc. since these are determinants out of his/her control （Calvert 2014， p.74）. And according to Tan （2008）， this is more or less a luck egalitarian conception of educational equality – that education provision should not be related to facets of inner-personal and social circumstances which shall be regarded as a thing of luck， but related to free choices s/he make for which s/he can be responsible， i.e. how much effort or will one puts on education.

Evaluation of school choice and nearby enrollment in China

First， nearby enrollment policy seems to guarantee the equal access to junior secondary schools for children in China as its initial aim； however， its equal access is superficial， not real equality. The inequality manifests in particular Chinese characteristics such as the household registration system， the state key schools that I have mentioned in the second part of the essay. The household registration system manipulates peoples life in many respects including schools they shall attend， which is a hidden factor leading inequality. With reference to luck egalitarian conception of educational equality， the goal of which is “to ensure that practices are not arranged so as to convert a personal trait （a matter of luck） into actual social advantages or disadvantages for persons” （Tan 2008， p.671）， it is injustice to suffer any disadvantage or to enjoy any advantage due to this luck （Calvert 2014， p.75）. What kind of household registration one child hold is a type of such luck that cannot be chosen by him， but it has been appropriated to determine that some children with household registration privileges will attend better schools in China. Thirdly， the nearby enrollment policy neglects children needing special concern， like incapabilities， talents， and migrants. Especially， the children of migrant workers， their situation is in a dilemma. They cannot legitimately attend urban schools due to their household registration assigns to rural area. Thus ignoring special circumstances in China， sometimes policies or strategies that are seemingly favoring equality only result to greater inequity （Tourón 2011， p.103）.

Second， school choice has trigger much dissatisfactory in society since some parents whose children remained in assigned schools complain that school choice is an evident inequality. In contrast， proponents of it claim that parents should be endued with rights of choice. However this kind of right is based on money and social relationships of some parents， in this sense， whether a child can attend state key schools or not extensively relies on economic capital and social capital which parents possess （Bourdieu 1986； Wu 2011， p.99）. And according to Bourdieu， this also reproduces inequality in education because it permits the choice of education by means of wealth or social relations rather than childrens effort and ability， thereby social privilege might be bought through such （1986）.

References：

[1]Bourdieu，P 1986，The forms of capital In Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education，ed.John G.Richardson， Greenwood Press，New York.

[2]Brighouse，H&Swift;，A 2008，Putting Educational Equality in its Place，Education Finance and Policy，vol.3，no.4，pp.444-466.

[3]Brighouse，H，Howe，KR&Tooley;，J 2010，Educational Equality：Key Debates in Educational Policy，Editedby Graham Haydon，Continuum International Publishing，London，NY.

[4]Calvert，J 2014，‘Educational Equality：Luck Egalitarian，Pluralist and Complex，Journal Of Philosophy Of Education，vol.1，pp.69.

[5]Herrera，LM 2007，‘Equity，equality and equivalence：a contribution in search for conceptual definitions and a comparative methodology，Revista espa?ola de educación comparada，vol.13，pp. 319-340.

[6]Lewin，K，Xu，H，Zhang，J&Little;，A 1996，‘Educational Innovation in China：Tracing the Impact of the 1985 Reforms，British Journal Of Educational Studies，vol.44，no.1，pp.133-134.

[7]Tan，KC 2008，‘A Defense of Luck Egalitarianism，The Journal of Philosophy，vol.1

[8]Tourón，J 2011，‘Equality and Equity in Educational Systems：A Universal Problem，Talent Development&Excellence;，vol.3，no.1，pp.103-105.

[9]Wei，JW&Hou;，JW 2010，‘The Household Registration System，Education System，and Inequalities in Education for Migrant Children，Chinese Education And Society，vol.43，no.5，pp.77-89..

[10]Wu，X 2011，‘The power of positional competition and market mechanism：an empirical study of parental choice of junior middle school in Nanning，P.R.China，Research Papers In Education，vol.26，no.1，pp.79-104.