Li Wang

Su zhi education has been adopted in schools in China to correct the overemphasis on test scores and to promote whole-person development. Although su zhi reform is not based on a capability approach, using such an approach helps to reveal the internal contradiction of the policy framework. A comprehensive analysis of the policy demonstrates that China's su zhi policy is Janus-faced, as it merely pays “lip-service” to capability development while establishing several road-blocks to prevent Chinese schools from embracing a holistic approach to education. In doing this the paper contributes to the literature on the capability approach by summarizing a tentative list of irreducible core capabilities in the Chinese context. Given the lack of research on China as a case, the discussion on the capabilities derived from su zhi education policy provides a reference point for future research.

This article investigates the global promotion of China's model in the area of education. An examination of China's internationalisation policy shows that there have been shifts in priorities in the last three decades. In accordance with China's wider socio-economic context, the focus of internationalisation of education was revised from awareness of internationalisation in the 1980s, improvement of the quality of education and the desire to be world class in the 1990s to the adoption of a high profile ‘going global’ strategy in the new millennium. This article focuses on the recent changes in internationalisation strategies to investigate the use of cultural power and promotion of the Chinese model globally. Two cases, including Confucius Institutions and educational aid to Africa, are analysed to map out the process of expanding China's international influence through education. Nevertheless, the Chinese model is a nebulous concept. This article concludes by discussing whether and how Chinese practices are different from the Western model in the process of internationalisation of education.

The aim of this paper is to build a capability-based framework, drawing upon the strengths of other approaches, which is applicable to the complexity of the urban–rural divide in education in China. It starts with a brief introduction to the capability approach. This is followed by a discussion of how the rights-based approach and resource-based approach can supplement the capability model; this framework is then employed to draw out new insights regarding the case of urban–rural inequality in China. It concludes by highlighting the contribution of this framework in terms of mapping out the interlocked processes that create the urban–rural divide in education by taking account of children growing up under the influence of a wider socio-economic context. In doing so, it sheds light on issues which tend to be otherwise overlooked.

The last three decades have witnessed great social, political and economic change in China since the market reforms in the late 1970s. A market economy was adopted as a replacement to the planned economy in order to allocate resources more efficiently. Consequently, higher education in China has undergone dramatic reforms to adapt to this socio-economic transition. This paper adopts a mixed-methods approach, combining fieldwork data with documentary analysis, to investigate the rationales of privatization in Chinese universities. It starts by examining the conceptualization of privatization. This is followed by an introduction of the public/private mix in the higher education sector in China. It then turns to explore drivers of the higher education reforms. A key contribution of this paper therefore is a systematic examination of the causes and the aims of privatization identified in Western literature set in the context of radical change as seen in the Chinese context. Drawing to fieldwork data, this paper presents findings that stand in conflict with prior studies. This investigation of the implementation of the Chinese privatization reveals both common features shared with Western practice but also a special uniqueness. It concludes by arguing that the neo-liberal reforms in higher education in China is likely to be used as a contingency strategy to encourage private spending, rather than suggesting a paradigm shift in university governance.