14 1 Introduction to the Development of Basic Education in China
conceals large differences. It is estimated that the cost of a place in a rural second-
ary school around Beijing can be in excess of 10,000 yuan. In the Western prov-
inces it may be less than 2000 yuan. Similar differences exist between the costs of
primary school places between regions (Zhu 2011 ).
China has tried to adopt a balanced system of decentralization with shared
responsibilities and costs across levels of government (Niu 2011 ). This is linked
to accountability measured against targets for implementation. The 1985 Decision
and the 1986 Law decentralized educational finance and management. Local
authorities became responsible for financing and implementing compulsory
education.
From 1986 to 2000 most of the responsibility for basic education fell on the
town and village level authorities who had to raise funds to cover both infrastruc-
ture and running costs with support from county level. User charges and other fees
were charged to support the costs of running schools, and local educational sur-
charges were levied from farmers. Where feasible schools, were also encouraged
to generate revenue themselves e.g. by renting their assets and facilities and shar-
ing in the profits of associated enterprises, and by mobilising contributions from
the community.
In retrospect it is apparent that the system failed to anticipate the problems that
would arise in rural areas with weak economic development and limited capacity
to raise revenues. From about 1994 it became clear that reforms were needed to
ensure better central monitoring and control of implementation, and more equi-
table distribution of resources towards poorer locations. Changes to the general
revenue raising system had succeeded in expanding total revenue but were not
accompanied by changes in the patterns of allocation of funds that could enhance
implementation of basic education in the poorest counties. Though decentraliza-
tion and cost-sharing were supposed to have a variety of advantages including
more local ownership of resources, better local decision making, and more rev-
enue, this did not always happen. Town and village authorities sometimes simply
transferred rising financial pressure to peasants in the form of additional educa-
tional charges and fund-raising requests for education in circumstances where
peasants’ incomes were insufficient to meet the demands. Defaults on paying
teachers’ salaries in the countryside became common in the least developed areas.
Revenue raised was not always distributed equitably or in relation to need.
As a result over the last ten years administrative responsibility for basic educa-
tion has been shifted upward from towns to counties, and there have been efforts
made to strengthen the central monitoring of progress. Under the current system
provinces, autonomous regions, and municipalities directly under the Central gov-
ernment make overall plans for basic education and county level administrations
implement programmes. Compulsory education is now included in the central
state financing allocations. The overall shift in emphasis is summarised as being
from ‘the People’s education should be provided by people’ to ‘the People’s edu-
cation should be provided by the state’. Rural tax reform has removed rural educa-
tional surcharges and tuition fees. Other charges remain however.