China's clampdown on the private education sector - good or bad?

[mayfly13]

"In mid-July, China’s government issued new regulations that drastically limit for-profit tutoring services and prohibit foreign investment in Chinese private education companies, reports Reuters."
https://www.edsurge.com/news/2021-0...ing-then-came-a-dramatic-shift-in-regulations


I suspect that GB Republicans will answer "bad". And they are partly right, making things state-owned Will have side effects..
But overall I am with the GB Dems. on that:
First of all, education should be equally available to all, (and only rich Chinese parents can afford after-school tutoring). Plus Chinese kids and underpaid teachers have become cash-cows for US/British companies.

It's a sad day when a totalitarian regime like CCP makes us all look bad.

 

[mayfly13]

RELEVANT ARTICLES



Online Tutoring in China Was Booming. Then Came a Dramatic Shift in Regulations.

In mid-July, China’s government issued new regulations that drastically limit for-profit tutoring services and prohibit foreign investment in Chinese private education companies, reports Reuters.

Companies that offer private instruction in core subjects will have to register as nonprofits and will no longer be able to raise investment capital through IPOs or advertise their programs.

Repercussions are already being felt by China’s private tutoring industry, worth an estimated $120 billion, per Reuters. Hong Kong stocks have fallen as investors sell off edtech holdings, reports South China Morning Post, and Chinese stocks listed in the U.S. have also taken hits. The new government rules prohibit “overseas education courses” and also ban hiring foreign teachers who live overseas, reports JMDEDU, a Chinese education technology news outlet.

There seem to be multiple motivations for the policy shift. State-sponsored news sources describe the moves as a way to ease the pressures children feel and the financial burdens parents face in a society that prizes intense pursuit of academic achievement. That rationale fits with a suite of new policies the Chinese government has recently issued to encourage couples to have more children and therefore reverse the country’s declining birth rate.

But the crackdown on edtech also seems in line with another recent pattern in China—of a government seeking to “exert more direct influence over the private sector,” according to New York Times coverage from earlier this summer. This “clampdown on tech” has coincided with the resignation, detention and even disappearance of leaders of some leading Chinese internet companies.:

https://www.edsurge.com/news/2021-0...ing-then-came-a-dramatic-shift-in-regulations


China Bans For-Profit School Tutoring in Sweeping Overhaul

China unveiled a sweeping overhaul of its $100 billion education tech sector, banning companies that teach the school curriculum from making profits, raising capital or going public.
Companies that teach school subjects can no longer accept overseas investment.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...l-curriculum-tutoring-firms-from-going-public

 

[Champakian]

It's Communist China.

No one is surprised that they want to control
the indoctrination of the nation...

As Jacky Chan has put it,
Communism is good for the Chinese people.

It's been a top-down society for thousands of years.

 

[mayfly13]

First of all, education should be equally available to all, (and only rich Chinese parents can afford after-school tutoring). Plus Chinese kids and underpaid teachers have become cash-cows for US/British companies.

It's a sad day when a totalitarian regime like CCP makes us all look bad.

Essential services like Education AND health AND transport Fire/Police depts. etc. should be equally available to all.
90% of rest homes, hospitals and tutoring should be state-owned, and 10% - for the rich if they want it.

All non-essential services can be as % private as Reps. want them to be. .


ETA

The disaster in skyrocketing tuition for education in UK & US (apparently many Harvard students aren't that bright, just rich).

People going bankrupt in US if they have cancer...

And the way the quality of Transport services in UK went downhill, while prices went up after they privatized them....

 

[Champakian]

 

[ishtat]

I will make a modest wager that within weeks rather than months, these same schools will be required to include "The thoughts of Emperor Xi" in their curricula.

 

[bellisarius]

I will make a modest wager that within weeks rather than months, these same schools will be required to include "The thoughts of Emperor Xi" in their curricula.

What color is his little book?

 

[mayfly13]

It's Communist China.

No one is surprised that they want to control
the indoctrination of the nation...

As Jacky Chan has put it,
Communism is good for the Chinese people.

It's been a top-down society for thousands of years.

Good point, actually.

The CCP isn't driven just by wanting economic control.(control over the private sector AND limitting the influence of it's rivals -US and UK- in China --- most Chinese parents prefer English native teachers, even for Math, and the US/UK investors are making billions)

They also want to be to control the kids' indoctrination, as you said.

In saying that, there IS a % (30%, 70% being totalitariab) of CCP's motivation that is caring/ well-intended/patriotic:
You don't want foreign US/UK agencies to be so deeply imbeded in China (profit economically from investments And indoctrinate kids towards pro-Western, nevermind spying). And you want all kids to have equal opportunities to education.


=============

There will be good and bad consequences, but for me the good trumps the bad.
Because what's happening now globally is no longer pure capitalism(which was great prior to the 80-90's)
It's neofeudalism blended with as capitalism.

It's Communist China.


It's been a top-down society for thousands of years.

It's just as top-down as Europe and the Commonwealth/US are starting to be.

Only that one is economically/ideologically oppressing communism, the other ones are ideologically free but economically for the rich.