Implications for China of Developed Countries' Private Education Financial Input Policies
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54097/6j44xg38Keywords:
Private education; financial input policies; high-quality development.Abstract
Under the background of globalization and a knowledge-based economy, private education, as an important part of China's education system, plays a key role in expanding education supply and meeting diversified demands. Through comparative analysis, this study systematically analyzes the characteristics and operation mechanism of private education financial investment policies in developed countries and summarizes their successful experiences. The study finds that private education in China is currently facing challenges such as a shortage of funds and an imperfect financial investment mechanism, which constrain its high-quality development. In contrast, the United States, Japan, South Korea, and other developed countries have formed a more mature financial support system for private education, including legal protection, diversified input mechanisms, a performance evaluation system, and a social participation mode. Based on this, this paper proposes that China should improve the financial policy system of private education, including sound legal protection, optimizing the financial input model, establishing a performance evaluation mechanism, encouraging the participation of social capital, and granting private schools a moderate degree of autonomy to build a government-led, multifaceted and synergistic support pattern, and to promote the high-quality development of private education.
Downloads
References
[1] Baum S R. Financing Liberal Education in America: Public and Private Responsibilities. New Directions for Higher Education, 1994, 85: 101-106.
[2] None. Research and Markets: 2010 Consumer Spending on Education Analysed by U.S. County. M2 Presswire. 2010.
[3] Ortagus J C, Kelchen R, Rosinger K, et al. Performance-based funding in American higher education: A systematic synthesis of the intended and unintended consequences. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 2020, 42(4): 520-550.
[4] Yamada R. Impact of Higher Education Policy on Private Universities in Japan: Analysis of Governance and Educational Reform through Survey Responses. Higher Education Forum. Research Institute for Higher Education, Hiroshima University. 1-2-2 Kagamiyama, Higashi-hiroshima, Hiroshima City, Japan 739-8512, 2018, 15: 19-37.
[5] Hwang J. COVID-19 pandemic and mathematics achievement gap in Korea: the role of private education and parental support. Asia Pacific Education Review, 2024: 1-16.
[6] Pimlott-Wilson H, Holloway S L. Supplementary education and the coronavirus pandemic: Economic vitality, business spatiality and societal value in the private tuition industry during the first wave of Covid-19 in England. Geoforum, 2021, 127: 71-80.
[7] Park H, Lim Y. Student participation in private supplementary education: A comparative analysis of Japan, Korea, Shanghai, and the USA. Chinese Journal of Sociology, 2020, 6(2): 239-256.
[8] Wang X. A study on the financial aid policy of American private schools and its implementation. Nanjing Normal University, 2015.
[9] Huang W. Deepening Classification and Management Reform to Promote High-Quality Development of Private Education. Hunan Education, 2022, (03): 27-29.
[10] Xiang C. Private secondary schools: internationalisation + elitism. Sichuan Daily, 2011-01-26 (015).
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Journal of Education, Humanities and Social Sciences

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.







