Update 1: So what does the test paper system stand for in China and Hongkong? Is it a plan to subsidize kindergarten students?
Voucher Scheme provides tuition
Update 1: So what does the test paper system stand for in China and Hongkong? Is it a plan to subsidize kindergarten students?
Voucher Scheme provides tuition assistance for preschool education directly to parents/legal guardians/registered trustees in the form of vouchers, so that eligible students can get tuition assistance for preschool education. Kindergartens and kindergarten-cum-child care centers (hereinafter referred to as "kindergartens") eligible to participate in the voucher scheme may redeem the vouchers of students studying in the kindergarten under the voucher scheme. Eligibility (2007/08) Eligibility to participate in the Voucher Scheme in the 2007/08 academic year 2. 1 Applicants must (a) be residents of China and Hong Kong, have the right of abode in China and Hong Kong, or hold valid residence permits in China and Hong Kong, without any conditions of stay; And (b) 65438+was born on or before February 3, 2004, and will enter kindergarten in the 2007/08 school year. Students born on or after June 65438+ 10/2005 are not eligible to apply for the 2007/08 Scholarship Scheme. 2.2 The voucher scheme is not applicable to children who come to Hong Kong with tourist visas, two-way permits, student visas, student visas of their parents or tourist visas. Please refer to the website of the Student Financial Assistance Office for details!
Reference: sfaa/TC/schemes/pev
To talk about the voucher system, we must first understand the voucher system. It has been fifty years since the great economist Milton Friedman put forward the voucher system. The voucher system can be divided into two modes: one is Friedman mode, and the other is Jencks mode. There are many differences between them. Generally speaking, Friedman holds high the free market model and thinks that the voucher system should be: (1) applicable to everyone; (2) issue school vouchers to all parents; (3) It can be used in any public or private school that meets the minimum standards; (4) The value of education vouchers should be enough to pay for high-quality education; (5) Allow schools to charge "subsidized" tuition fees other than school vouchers; (6) Students can choose their favorite schools at will, and vice versa. As for the Jencks style, social policy elements have been added. For example, if there are educational vacancies in schools, they have the responsibility to accept students and give low-income families a voucher to avoid obstacles caused by economic, religious and racial factors. There are five main places in the world that implement the voucher system, including Chile, Britain (adopting Freeman model), Columbia, Milwaukee and Cleveland (adopting Jencks model). The result is very clear. Take Chile, where the voucher system was first introduced in 1980, as an example. After eight years of practice, students from public schools continue to transfer to private schools. The former students decreased by 19%, while the latter's enrollment rate increased by 33%, with better results. However, under political pressure, * * * continues to allocate funds to public schools, which makes the operating expenses of public schools higher and higher. As for the United States, the results of implementing the voucher system are not far from Chile. The disadvantage is that some financially unstable schools may benefit from participating in the program, and some senior students have not benefited from the implementation of the system since childhood. These disadvantages can be easily improved, and the advantages of the voucher system are really obvious. I often say that some people practice hard for 30 years, and once they really fight, they can't fight at all. They can only use human instinct tricks such as biting their hair and pulling their hair. Many economists in China and Hong Kong usually talk about Kan Kan, but when they really want to assess the real problems, they completely forget the basic economic skills, which is tantamount to playing blind boxing. The demand curve is the golden rule of economics and cannot be shaken, otherwise the whole set of economics can be declared dead. The demand curve means that the higher the price, the lower the demand. Conversely, the lower the price, the greater the demand. The birth rates in China Mainland and Hongkong have been declining year after year, so the demand for schools will only decrease, not increase (otherwise, there will be no incidents such as killing schools). According to the law of demand curve, tuition fees will definitely fall (now the increase in education costs is the result of bureaucratic intervention in market operation). What's more, if the voucher system is implemented, it will definitely promote open supply, or at least open for-profit organizations to run schools. For example, a large number of profit-making organizations run schools in Chile, breaking the academic monopoly. Mainland or non-federal teachers can be invited to compete with each other for quality. In this way, the cost of the same school will definitely be more efficient than the current "big pot" system (that is, regardless of teachers' performance, the salary is the same, only depending on qualifications). All along, any business, such as restaurants, is determined by food quality, service level, hygiene and price. The best line up, and the worst sadly closed down. How can they ration students like schools in China and Hongkong? No matter the quality of teaching, students' grades and school environment, there is no need to suffer from closure. Teachers are paid the same, and there are no rewards or punishments. How can we encourage them to work hard? This is the real key to the decline of China Hong Kong Education Day. At present, more than 5,000 bureaucrats in the Education and Manpower Bureau are constantly increasing new supervision and reform to prove their survival value. Therefore, teachers have to spend a lot of time dealing with the Education and Manpower Bureau. How can their productivity not be low? When can we save the next generation without implementing the voucher system? Report/talk/watch advertisements? TID =17 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ In view of this, the Legislative Council Panel on Education considered it necessary to fully understand the voucher system, so it entrusted the Research Department of the Legislative Council to conduct a study on the voucher system for Members' reference. This report was completed in April and discussed at the meeting of the Education Panel on April 15. This study collected information about the implementation of education voucher system in Chile, Milwaukee and Cleveland, Colombia and England, and discussed the implementation of education voucher system in Australian higher education. The following table is the basic information of these plans: country/city, Regional implementation year range Chile 1980 primary and secondary education USA/Milwaukee 1989 primary and secondary education Colombia 1992 secondary education USA/Cleveland 1996 preschool and junior high school education (to eighth grade) UK/England1996 (/kloc-0 Arguments advocating the education voucher system often say that the education voucher system can improve schools by exercising consumers' rights, thus improving the quality of education. However, according to the research of the Legislative Council, this statement is only the wishful thinking of theorists. The study found that there is no evidence that students in private schools perform better, and there is no evidence that the education voucher system has improved the quality of education. In the United States, apartheid has been in urgent need of improvement, but from Milwaukee and Cleveland, there is no evidence that the voucher system can improve apartheid. On the contrary, as we have always analyzed, the orientation of private school education will aggravate class differentiation. In Chile, it is found that the beneficiaries of the voucher system are upper-middle class families. Milwaukee will increase property taxes to meet expenses; Cleveland's plan is not good for students from low-income families. There is no doubt that parents' choices have increased, but this only applies to some upper-middle class parents. In Britain, it is even found that school vouchers are not enough to pay tuition fees, which leads to unfair choices for parents. The only positive thing is that in Colombia's plan, the opportunities for poor children to enter private schools are increased, but in that country's plan, "merit-based admission" is not allowed. If the number of applicants exceeds, it will be resolved by drawing lots. Australian research also points out that if the voucher system is implemented, the burden will be passed on to students. It is worth noting that the situation in Cleveland shows that the whole plan needs to pay a lot of administrative expenses. In Milwaukee, there are even schools that are short of funds, which leads to the closure of schools. In Chile, teachers' pay cuts are to maintain school funds. Generally speaking, the benefits of market competition and consumer choice theory have not been implemented in countries that implement the voucher system in the world. I think whether there is a reliable market to improve quality in the education system is the key. Is human education applicable to the theory of superstitious market competition? This is really worth thinking twice when we face the public opinion that constantly advocates private education. Zhang Wenguang/Legal Viewpoint/429 LEG _ _ _ _ _ _-All websites have a lecture voucher system. Lin: Voucher system: the way out for education between China and Hong Kong. Business.yahoo/060704/216/65438+.Finance College
Reference: .business.yahoo/060704/216/1pks1? cat=bs_in _finance
To talk about the relationship between education and market, we have to mention 1976 milton friedman, winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics. His idea of educational quantity has influenced the educational reform in the United States and even the whole world. There are three main documents about the economist's talk about the amount of education. The first paper was Economics and Public Interest from 65438 to 0955. Later, it was included in his masterpiece Capitalism and Freedom with the title of * * * in education, and sold 500,000 copies. The second chapter is the chapter "What happened to the school" in the famous book "Free Choice" published by 1979. The third article is "Public Schools: Privatization" published in February 1995 in * * *. These three articles were published about 15 years apart, but the desire to transform education by using the market is still the same. Although Friedman focuses on the American education system, his questions and suggestions are of universal reference value. First of all, he redefined the role of * * * in education, and thought that the only reason for * * * to intervene in education is that education has obvious positive externalities, that is, education can benefit all the people. However, it cannot be inferred that * * * will take over the whole education, and it is also necessary to avoid eventually becoming a manifestation of social centralization. The more bureaucratic intervention, the worse the quality of education, and the resources invested by the public will be wasted. In order to solve this obvious educational problem all over the world, Friedman put forward the idea of examination paper system. The idea behind it is to let * * separate the two roles of funding education and providing education, and * * * will no longer directly allocate funds to schools. Instead, the original education funds for each student will be distributed to parents in the form of test papers, so that parents can choose which schools their children will go to with the test papers. The examination paper system introduces the market competition mechanism into the field of education, and children are no longer citizens to be cultivated by the state. Parents can choose schools with different school ideas according to their needs, instead of professionals dominating their children's fate. With more schools, immeasurable power will be released from the previous bureaucratic control, and the competition between schools will be more obvious. More importantly, the amount of education makes it closer for poor families and rich families to choose schools for their children. In the past, private schools, which only wealthy families could attend, can also open their doors to ordinary families with learning capacity and provide quality education with different orientations. The Friedman couple devoted their lives to promoting the examination paper system, and the Friedman Foundation he promoted is still working hard for this ideal. However, under the pressure of huge vested interests, even Clinton changed her insistence on the 1992 educational freedom reform. In China and Hongkong, the discussion about examination paper is more like a raving. On the systematic study of papers in the wild night 2006-05-08 He Minjie