China's Janus-faced Approach to Su Zhi Education: A Capability Perspective

Abstract

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.

Keywords:

• Quality education
• Su zhi
• Capability approach
• China

Acknowledgements

This research is funded by Chinese Ministry of Education Humanities and Social Sciences Fund for Young Scholars (No. 11YJC880113), Zhejiang Province Qian Jiang Ren Cai Project (C) (No. QJC1202002) and Zhejiang Province Philosophy and Social Sciences Fund (No. 12JCJY11YB). The author thanks the anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments. She also thanks John Anthony Pella, Jr at Fudan University, China for his helpful suggestions.

About the Author

Dr Li Wang is Associate Professor at the Institute of Educational Leadership and Policy, Zhejiang University, China. She has published papers on education policy and inequality in China in journals such as International Journal of Educational Development, British Journal of Sociology of Education, Asia Pacific Journal of Education and Globalization, Societies and Education.

Notes

1. This does not mean that the term “Janus-faced” is used to exclusively suggest a duplicitous approach on the part of Chinese policy-makers, however. Indeed, it is not inconceivable that the restraining aspects of the su zhi policy are the product of policy-makers’ traditional ideology, although I would maintain it is equally plausible that these obstacles have been deliberately set up to confine freedom for overall development. The term “Janus-faced”, then, refers to the two sharply contrasting implications that su zhi education policy has upon overall development, namely a philosophical appeal to free capability development versus a restricting development model on the ground; in this sense, the policy is two-faced. These implications are illustrated in more detail below.