Walter Hutchens’ Blog

The PRC Ministry of Education (MOE) has issued an Opinion that supplements existing regulations on Chinese-foreign educational ventures.

I’ve translated the Opinion here. It’s an Adobe PDF file, with the Chinese and English text side-by-side.

Comments on the translation are welcome. I tried to be faithful to the meaning and the spirit of the Chinese, but I didn’t try to render it word-for-word or “literally.” I’ll write separately about some translation issues I encountered.

The document is short but not a model of pithy legal drafting.

Much of the text is aspirational. There are exhortations for officials to strictly enforce existing rules. This seem redundant. It’s like a reminder, not a regulation.

Indeed, the Opinion is addressed to officials, not to the public (the people and institutions affected by the regulation). Chinese law in the dynastic era, I understand, was also addressed to officials, not “citizens.”

But it’s not only a reminder to officials to enforce existing rules. The Opinion also includes some new substantive matters.

It announces for instance that a special approval is required if an educational joint venture uses a “dual campus model.”

This is the first explicit notice that 1) a “dual campus model” is possible and 2) that a special approval is needed to use that approach.

However, the Opinion does not define a “dual campus” approach. The context suggests it means one foreign and one Chinese campus (as opposed to multiple PRC campuses), with students attending them sequentially. The animating concern of this section of the Opinion seems to be that in such dual campus arrangements it will be hard for the PRC party to “absorb” the curriculum of the foreign partner (and such absorption is explicitly part of what educational joint ventures are supposed to accomplish). Thus the Opinion says that teaching should mainly be done on the PRC partner’s campus (without defining “mainly”). When a dual campus approach is used (with approval), the PRC partner is reminded to be vigilant about absorbing the foreign curriculum.

Another substantive part of the Opinion is the creation of a list of factors to be considered by government agents when approving tuition rates (the notion that tuition is subject to approval is not new—that’s in existing rules).

I’ve been following China’s enactments in this area for a while. I’ve compiled a basic guide to the regulatory structure at chinaeducationlaw.com.

There’s a lot of educational “FDI” coming to China now. I’m currently working in one such venture. Overall, I think Chinese-foreign educational cooperation is a splendid thing. However, I sense a lot of institutions are coming to China, like waves of investors before them, enthralled with some kind of “China dream” that makes them drop their guard.

I suspect what often happens is that a foreign educator falls in love with China, becoming excited about the enormous potential here (a familiar story in other sectors, of course). Then, after a few rounds of friendly visits and talks, a deal is signed between the foreign intuition and a PRC university—without the foreign party ever having actually read (or being advised by somebody who has read) the relevant regulations.

If they did read the rules, it might give them pause. China’s rules governing this sector codify the government’s role in setting tuition, reviewing teaching materials and making sure the PRC party has mechanisms to control the venture. Probably no toasts are made to any of that at the banquets celebrating these deals.