Foreword

Tsinghua University just celebrated its 100th anniversary in 2011. During the 100 years, China has grown from a traditional, feudal society into an open, modern society. In these 100 years, China has experienced intense conflicts between the Chinese and the Western and dramatic transformations from the traditional to the modern. 100 yeas ago, Tsinghua University was founded to help drive China into modernity. And in the 100 years since, Tsinghua University has unfalteringly fought for China’s modernization. In serving the Chinese race, state, and people, Tsinghua University has grown from a school dedicated only to preparing students for study in the United States into a world-famous research university and the pride of China. For 100 years, Tsinghua University has shouldered its academic and cultural inheritance and mission of exchange. It has striven for the new, forcing transformations in China’s traditional academics and culture, making them glow anew for modern society. And it has combined Chinese and Western approaches. To contribute to China’s academic independence, Tsinghua University has scrutinized and absorbed Western academics and culture, integrated China’s native academics and culture, and infused them with innovation.

For 100 years, Tsinghua University has produced remarkable accomplishments and made great contributions to Chinese-Western academic and cultural exchange and fusion, thereby earning an important place among international universities. Today, as Tsinghua celebrates its 100th anniversary, we must take on an even more important historical mission: to contribute to exchange and understanding among all the nations’ cultures, global harmony and great unity among men. We need not only to bring the world to China but to send China out to the world. To these ends, Tsinghua University is vigorously pursuing internationalism by increasing international academic exchange and collaborations on all fronts. This international strategy was the basis for Tsinghua’s deciding to establish an English-language, international academic journal in the field of education. Brill Publishing Company responded positively to the idea, and Tsinghua University and Brill have since collaborated to edit and release this International Journal of Chinese Education.

The mission of the International Journal of Chinese Education is to improve educational research in China and promote the development of education in China through international academic exchange and collaboration. Our goal is to build the International Journal of Chinese Education into a platform where Chinese and international scholars can exchange and influence ideas. We hope that by doing so, we may increase collaborations between scholars of education internationally, improve the quality of educational research in China, use academic research to recognize and solve China’s educational problems, influence China’s education policies and decisions, and advance China’s educational reforms and development.

In education, whether in developing nations like China or in advanced nations like the United States, whether for policy-makers or researchers, justice is the most basic and central value, a perpetual proposition. Tsinghua University is China’s top research university; still, Tsinghua has sought, from the beginning and by various means, to promote educational equity (教育公平) in primary, secondary, and higher education. Among Tsinghua University’s research institutions, my colleagues here and I have devoted our constant attention and research to the question of educational equity. And I myself have some special experience in researching questions of educational equity.

Some time ago, in the 1990s, with the help and support of friends and related departments of education, I conducted a study of justice in higher education based on survey data from more than 30 institutions of higher learning. By analyzing the social backgrounds of students enrolled at different types and levels of higher educational institutions, we were able reveal certain effects of social background on higher educational opportunity.

In the final years of the last century and the first years of this one, education in China has undergone tremendous change. Nine-year compulsory education has now been implemented nationwide. Higher education, once the dominion of the elites, is in the process of opening to all. At the same time, new educational forms and phenomena have been subject to examination and questioning. Amidst these changes, educational equity faces new demands and challenges; even among supporters, it faces divergence and conflict. Just how to describe the characteristics and the problem of educational equity in China is in itself an important topic and a new challenge for the traditional theories and practices surrounding educational fairness. For my part, I distinguished between two phenomena related to educational equity: baseline educational equality and educational disparities. I then described the intersections and areas of overlap between the two kinds of justice in modern Chinese society, explored the complexity of educational equity in this new era of Chinese society, identified structural inequalities in educational equality today, and discussed the different orientations of certain education policies.

Upon these research foundations, starting in 2005, I once again endeavored with colleagues and students to open a new investigation into justice in Chinese education and its properties. In a book entitled China’s Educational Equity and Educational Development—A New Hypothesis and Preliminary Evidence On Educational Equity (中国的教育公平与教育发展——关于教育公平的一个新假设及其初步证明), we discovered aspects of educational equity phenomena in China that could not completely be explained by traditional theories. In response, we introduced a new theory and hypotheses and offered a unique perspective on the development of educational equity in China.

Students ask me why I am so enthusiastic and interested in questions of educational equity. Really, not I alone, but scholars here and beyond, professionals and many public officials all find themselves taken with the problem of educational equity. What kind of force is this, one so capable of making countless people research and dream of realization? It just might be the categorical imperative of which Kant spoke!

Yes, educational equity is the “categorical imperative” of education. This “categorical imperative” requires no explanation. Neither does it require an adverb, a modifier nor a definition. Without condition, it is a kind of spiritual imperative lying deep in people’s hearts. We have no reason not to use our intelligence and our brains to recognize and understand educational equity. Further, we should use our lives and practice to feel and experience educational equity. Perhaps this is the “categorical imperative” in the field of education research.

Our reverence for education is evident in several ways, including the primary treatment education receives in state budgetary appropriations, the holy place that education and classrooms hold in people’s hearts, the honor attached to teaching, and the tenderness with which students are treated in society. As to the reasons for education’s special status, however, few ask why. Some might say that education is the work of cultivating the next generation. It represents and symbolizes the future of a nation and a people and, as such, deserves any social respect it receives. Still others feel that education’s special status owes to its role as the location where dissemination and production of knowledge takes place. Knowledge and theory are the embodiment of a society’s values and powers and tend, therefore, to win people’s respect. And still others might hold the view that education, as an activity bestowing intelligence and smarts, is a reflection of people’s spiritual lives and values. Certainly, education has some of these crucially important functions. For a nation and its people, neither cultivation of the next generation, nor dissemination of knowledge, nor the edification of people can be separated from education. However, even with these functions and value, it is still not clear why education enjoys such a degree of reverence. I’d venture that education must have some value even more awesome which allows it such sacred status.

That most awesome value is educational equity. If cultivation of our young proceeds without justice, it becomes a tool for serving the few and even a mechanism for preserving inequality. This kind of education cannot and must not receive society’s respect and “worship”. Rather, it is education that must spare youths of different classes the effects of their backgrounds, allowing them to grow and progress together as equals, improving the social status of underprivileged youths and allowing them to participate in society on equal footing and live fully human lives. Is it not obvious that where creation and dissemination of knowledge fail to incorporate and respect different cultural and ethnic traditions, that knowledge creation and dissemination will necessarily be unjust and unreasonable? That they may then even become a device for cultural oppression and prejudice? Among the goals of educational equity is the creation of a reasonable platform upon which different cultures can be exchanged and promulgated thereby advancing culture, knowledge, and mutual prosperity. We can see how, should attainment of knowledge and wisdom proceed without justice and judgment, they will be stunted and may even bring harm to man. The quest for educational equality is thus one for fair and reasonable environments and mechanisms that will allow for a kind of harmony in the transfer and allocation of wisdom and intelligence. It is one of seeking sustained progress against social injustice, one of gradually moving toward a more just and equal place. Throughout history, in China and abroad, to various degrees and in different forms, the role and effects of educational equity are very distinct. Furthermore, educational equity is among the most important forces behind social mobility. It is justice which compels all of society and the whole nation to love education. It is this justice that gives education its everlasting value. Think, if education weren’t just, could it be endowed with such sacredness? If justice was not education’s aim and mission, would it enjoy such generous social and national investment? Would schools and teachers be afforded the same generosity and respect from the people and society? It is difficult even to imagine what education would become if it were stripped of all justice. How would people and society view it? Without the goal of justice, then what, if any, would the significance and value of education be?

The “categorical imperative” of education, justice is in reality also a manifestation of people’s dignity. This kind of dignity requires neither explanation nor definition; it is a kind of fundamental belief and conviction. It transcends the realm of logic and therefore defies the use of logic to prove it or rationality to demonstrate it. This is because, you will find, in real life, no matter how you may define the substance of educational equity, you will find something missing. No matter how one might try to prove the necessity of educational equity, words are powerless. Moreover, even as society and education make significant strides forward, people will still offer criticisms of justice in education and make more, newer, more ambitious demands of it. To borrow a concept from philosophy, this phenomenon perfectly illustrates how educational equity exists as a noumenon in a sense. It exists “as a thing in itself”, out of place, and has thus transcended the categories of reality and logic. It is precisely for this reason that every time we ascend to a new level in education in our society, we often find that educational equity is still beyond us, appearing as a vision in a new form. Justice is both a reality and a belief. Thus, rationality alone is insufficient to grasp educational equity. It can only be felt and experienced through life itself. And this is the magic of educational equity.

In my view, this explanation is more than an abstract analysis or a thought exercise. Actually, there are foundations in reality for the “categorical imperative” in this sense. This is because the state of educational equity and the problems with it in today’s society stem not from insufficient recognition among people; rather they are related to the beliefs and determination that people carry into their practice. Everyone agrees on the importance of educational equity and can offer various compelling reasons for its importance. Differences among academics on the topic seem to have little effect on the general public consensus about educational equity. Still, it is exactly in the area of practice, where we strive to realize educational equity, that people discover the futility of mere words and recognition. As a result of various causes and reasons, including in no small measure excuses, consciousness of and theories about educational equity often take a back seat to real pressures. As such, realizing educational equity takes belief and determination; it demands this kind of “categorical imperative”. As we answer the call of the categorical imperative, our pangs of desire, the allure of gain, the weakness of our determination, these are no longer reasons or excuses. This is the “righteous will of heaven”; it cannot be refused. This is the true meaning and value of educational equity as categorical imperative.

It gratifies us to know that in real society and in real educational practice, China’s government is lending ever-increasing determination and will to advancing and realizing educational equity. In its Outline of a National Mid-to-Long-Term Educational Reform and Development Plan (国家中长期教育改革和发展规划纲要), the State has firmly established promotion of justice as central to its basic education policy: “Justice in education is the foundation for justice in society. The basic requirement of justice in education is guaranteeing citizens’ legal right to education; the key is fairness of opportunity . . . responsibility for educational equity lies mostly with the government. All of society must advance educational equity together”. In an All-China Education Work Meeting in 2010, Chairman Hu Jintao pointed out that “to advance the scientific development of our education work, we must advance educational equity. Educational equity is an important foundation of social justice.”

As a scholar of educational equity, nothing makes me happier than seeing progress in the realization of educational equity. Progress in real practice, in turn, pushes education researchers to elevate their study of educational equity to new heights and encourages scholars the world over to engage in joint explorations and exchanges. This is the fundamental consideration behind this International Journal of Chinese Education editorial board’s decision to make educational equity the focus of this inaugural issue. In this issue, scholars from the United States and China treat the issue of educational equity from various theoretical and empirical approaches, each sharing his or her own wisdom and results. Barry L. Bull of Indiana University in the US approaches educational equity from a philosophical angle, revealing the biases of two theories of justice: inherent-desert justification and social value justification. His analysis shows that in the university admissions process, the principle of equality is more value-appropriate in moral terms than the principle of justice. Liu Yunshan (刘云杉) of Peking University addresses the fairness of the university admissions system, examining characteristics of students admitted to Peking University from 1998-2005. In temporal, spatial and value-based terms, Liu illuminates the class struggles, self-interested maneuvering, and regional disparities that characterize the PKU admissions process. At the same time, Liu also considers what kind of role egalitarianism truly plays in the selection, by university admission, of China’s elites. Xin Tao (辛涛) and Ren Chunrong (任春荣) of Beijing Normal University turn their attention here to fairness in basic educational outcomes. Their multi-level analysis estimated effects of school resource variables and school process variables on mathematics study outcomes for fourth grade students. Using data from 42 schools in eastern China, they assess the significance of the correlation between distribution of school resources and educational outcomes. Zhong Yuping (钟宇平) and Zhou Jinyan (周金燕) of the Chinese University of Hong Kong examine the relationship between education and inter-generational mobility measured in economic terms. Their empirical research shows that schooling is most significantly a pathway for the intermediate effects of household economic resources and educational capital on mobility. Education’s effects on eliminating differences in socioeconomic background and promoting equality are negligible. Emily Hannum, Yilin Chiang, and their colleagues at the University of Pennsylvania analyze migration and education decisions of rural youth in China. Drawing on the survey of youth from 100 villages in Gansu Province, their study indicates there are disparities associated with gender, sibship structure, and academic performance in the migration and educational outcomes. Gerard Postiglione of the University of Hong Kong and his colleagues describe and analyze the selected aspects of educational development in the Tibetan Autonomous Region (TAR). They argue that educational development in the TAR should emphasize the instructional quality, innovative teaching and creative learning, community-based school development planning, and systematic assessment of the results so as to ensure rapid progress in school access, resources, and teacher qualifications.

We eagerly await evaluations and criticisms of these works from our colleagues around the world. Even more, we hope that scholars from around the world will take note, support and comment on this new journal. We look forward to exchanging ideas and collaborating with you as well as to your sharing your wisdom and results here.