Zhou Ji, minister of education, told a recent media conference that profit-making is by no means the main goal of China's education, nor had the government adopted any policies to commercialize education. His words have aroused widespread concern in the media.

People's Daily: Despite the minister's claim of non-commercialization of education, some locals, driven by the desire for economic gain, have run education like they were selling commodities and services. Such practices have the potential to hinder the sound development of education.

The key question is whether or not education can be operated in a completely market-oriented fashion.

On the one hand, the education industry should be worked in line with market rules, such as introducing competition for pursuing utmost interests.

On the other hand, one of the main functions of the education industry is ideological education. The introduction of market mechanism is only a means to the end and cannot be overused.

In addition, it is known that the market, as the invisible hand, has inherent defects. A complete economic system needs both the market and the government to regulate it. The size of the market's role depends on characters of the industry. Education has a bearing on the orientation of a country's development and the construction of its social framework, so the supply and demand of education should not simply be decided by the market.

The government should control market access to the education industry. Otherwise, great uncertainty might be brought to the social development.

Although the government controls the education industry, competition is also needed for better development. Statistics show China uses 1.4 percent of the world's public educational funds to support 22.9 percent of the world's students. The government's financial strength is far from enough. Thus market competition is needed for not only increasing educational inputs, but also enhancing consumption of education by supplying versatile products of education.

Meanwhile, laws and regulations should be worked out for better supervising competition.

Yanzhao Metropolis Daily: Correction of misunderstandings on educational industrialization by the Education Minister is expected to usher in improved policies and alleviate the burdens of poor students.

As part of human beings' social development, education should abide by its special rules. However, in China, calls for the industrialization of education prevailed even before the definition and goal of the phrase have been made clear.

It is regrettable the issue has long been misunderstood and misused.

The most mistaken behaviors based on faulty understanding of educational industrialization are random tuition fees for elementary education and high charges on college students. They have even caused some social problems.

After the reform of higher education in 1997, tuition fees rose by 30-50 percent, much faster than the growth of citizens' income.

Cost of education has been excessively stressed, but the quality of teachers and teaching facilities has not improved much in many schools.

The number of poor college students is rising steadily.

Although higher education is not free, it is still a reason for public interest. College students should make up some of education cost by paying tuition fees. However, the standard of fees should be set up in line with China's conditions, the government's financial supports, economic development and students' family economic capability. It is expected that tuition fees for higher education will be more practical and reasonable.

This adjustment might be of more help to students than providing loans.

China Youth Daily: Currently the calls for educational industrialization can be heard from some local officials. But according to Zhou Ji, the minister of education, China has never established a policy of education industrialization.

It could be discussed in academic research, but it could not be used as a guideline for developing education. And it is forbidden to use it as a way of making money for local governments.

Then how did the concept of education industrialization become so prevailing? It can be attributed to some economists and local officials.

Economists, from the perspective of academic research, have expressed their prudent agreement on education industrialization, saying it might alleviate burdens on educational funds. Although up to now society has not reached a consensus on this issue, some local officials could not resist putting theory into practice.

Before the recent news conference, there was no explicit attitude about industrialization of education from the Education Ministry. A lack of clear-cut policy on this issue left loopholes for some local officials and some schools. Under the excuse of education industrialization, some locals enhanced the school construction blindly; some schools charged students willfully. They interpreted education industrialization as the equivalent of education commercialization. In these cases, it is a bit late for the Education Ministry to clarify its policy.

Take world-famous institutions for example. When they push industrialization of education forwards, they never forget their basic function of spreading knowledge. And pursuing the public interest is the education industry's basic character.

(China Daily January 15, 2004)