000 04270nam a22004815i 4500
999 _c101569
_d101569
001 978-3-662-59515-2
003 DE-He213
005 20210116091742.0
007 cr nn 008mamaa
008 191016s2019 gw | s |||| 0|eng d
020 _a9783662595152
024 7 _a10.1007/978-3-662-59515-2
_2doi
040 _cМУБИС
050 4 _aLC8-6691
072 7 _aJNF
_2bicssc
072 7 _aEDU034000
_2bisacsh
072 7 _aJNF
_2thema
082 0 4 _a379
_223
100 1 _aWang, Yan.
_eauthor.
_4aut
_4http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/relators/aut
245 1 0 _aParadigm Shift of Education Governance in China
_h[electronic resource] :
_bTwo Compulsory Education Legislation Episodes: 1986 vs 2006 /
_cby Yan Wang.
250 _a1st ed. 2019.
264 1 _aBerlin, Heidelberg :
_bSpringer Berlin Heidelberg :
_bImprint: Springer,
_c2019.
300 _aXVII, 159 p. 18 illus.
_bonline resource.
336 _atext
_btxt
_2rdacontent
337 _acomputer
_bc
_2rdamedia
338 _aonline resource
_bcr
_2rdacarrier
347 _atext file
_bPDF
_2rda
505 0 _aIntroduction -- Chapter 1 Evoluaiton of Basic Education in China -- Chapter 2 Collecting and Tackling Data -- Chapter 3 Reflecting on Theoretical Context -- Chapter 4 Episode I: The 1986 Legislation -- Chapter 5 Episode II: The 2006 Legislation -- Chapter 6 Analysing The Two Legislation Episodes -- Chapter 7 Paradigm Shif of Education Governance.
520 _aThe book addresses the paradigm shift in education governance in China through a study of two legislation episodes in China: the 1986 Compulsory Education Law and the 2006 Compulsory Education Law Amendment. The research began with two broad questions: how was the Compulsory Education Law made and amended? Why was it made and amended? Using ethnographic interviews and documentary analysis as the main research methods, more specific questions on both legislative processes were delved into as the research evolved: What were the driving forces behind the 1986 and 2006 legislation? What values of compulsory education were assumed in their central decisions? What was the institutional rationale underpinning them? Data was collected through ethnographic interviews with key informants involved in the policymaking process. The research findings were analyzed and presented on the basis of narration analysis. The policymaking process of the legislation was then analyzed from three paradigms: agenda-setting, decision-making and organizational behavior. Finally, by examining the results of the previous stages of analysis, and further comparing the two cases, the research arrived at a theoretical framework for education governance that embraces three essential elements: political ideology, perceived value of education, and institutional rationale. A thorough analysis of the two legislative processes identified that the political ideology ‒ which shifted from efficiency-oriented economic well-being to equity-oriented social cohesion ‒ steered the agenda-setting of the compulsory education legislation. The perceived value of education reflects the role that education plays in development, changing from economic value to social value. The institutional rationale essentially determines strategies by which compulsory education materializes, with a variance from governing by goal and mobilization to governing by accountability and regulation. In conclusion, education governance in China witnessed a paradigm shift from “economic instrumentalism” to “social rationalism” between mid-1980s and 2006.
650 0 _aEducational policy.
650 0 _aEducation and state.
650 0 _aPolitical science.
650 1 4 _aEducational Policy and Politics.
_0https://scigraph.springernature.com/ontologies/product-market-codes/O19000
650 2 4 _aPolitical Science.
_0https://scigraph.springernature.com/ontologies/product-market-codes/911000
710 2 _aSpringerLink (Online service)
773 0 _tSpringer Nature eBook
776 0 8 _iPrinted edition:
_z9783662595138
776 0 8 _iPrinted edition:
_z9783662595145
856 4 0 _uhttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-59515-2
942 _2ddc
_cEBOOK