|本期目录/Table of Contents|

[1]涂端午.深化教育改革中的决策风险防控[J].清华大学教育研究,2018,(02):32-37.[doi:10.14138/j.1001-4519.2018.02.003206]
 TU Duan-wu.Prevention?and?Control?of?Decision-making?Risk?in?Deepening?Education?Reform[J].TSINGHUA JOURNAL OF EDUCATION,2018,(02):32-37.[doi:10.14138/j.1001-4519.2018.02.003206]
点击复制

深化教育改革中的决策风险防控
分享到:

清华大学教育研究[ISSN:1001-4519/CN:11-1610/G4]

卷:
期数:
2018年02期
页码:
32-37
栏目:
教育改革与发展
出版日期:
2018-04-20

文章信息/Info

Title:
Prevention?and?Control?of?Decision-making?Risk?in?Deepening?Education?Reform
作者:
涂端午
国家教育发展研究中心
Author(s):
TU Duan-wu
National?Center?for?Education?Development?Research
关键词:
教育改革教育决策风险防控
Keywords:
education reform education decision-making risk prevention and control
分类号:
G649.21
DOI:
10.14138/j.1001-4519.2018.02.003206
文献标志码:
A
摘要:
中国社会转型和国家改革发展已进入高风险阶段。风险决策正成为教育改革决策的新常态。事业在“进步”中倒退,“顾此失彼、扩大差距”,社会不稳定,改革试点失败,塔西陀陷阱等是当前教育改革需要防范的五类风险。对风险的无知、无畏和无能构成风险决策的“三无困境”。技术性风险源、制度性风险源和系统性风险源是决策风险的三个重要来源。“三无困境”的产生,除受决策风险源影响外,也与决策者在决策中对自身与社会的成本、收益、风险的比较分析和价值选择相关。建议从四个方面建立健全教育决策风险防控体系:从法规上完善国家和地方教育行政决策风险防控机制;培育积极的风险文化,推进风险清单管理;促进教育决策模式转型;以防控三个风险源为重点,推进教育治理体系和治理能力的现代化。
Abstract:
China’s social transformation and national reform and development have entered a high-risk stage. Education reform is facing series of risks such as retrogressing "progress", widened gaps in education, social instability, failure of pilot reforms, and Tacitus trap. Risk-based decision making is becoming the new norms of educational reform decisions. The ignorance and fearlessness of risks and incompetence to deal with risks are the “three difficulties” in risk-based decision making. The main sources of risks in decision making are technical risks, institutional risks, and systematic risks. In addition, the “three-difficulties” is also related to decision-makers’ judgment on the costs, benefits, and risks to the society and themselves. This paper proposes four ways to strengthen the system of risk prevention and control in educational decision-making process: (1) enacting rules and regulations of risk prevention at national and local level; (2) establishing a culture towards positive risk management; (3) promoting the transformation of educational decision-making process; and (4) promoting the modernization of the education governance system and capacity with a focus on preventing the “three-difficulties”.

相似文献/References:

[1]李福华 黄庆丽.教育研究、教育决策、教育实践的界面管理与协同效应?[J].清华大学教育研究,2017,(06):98.
 LI Fu-hua,HUANG Qing-li.The Interface Management and Synergy Effect of Education Research, Education Policy-making and Education Practice[J].TSINGHUA JOURNAL OF EDUCATION,2017,(02):98.
[2]高 原.公共知识分子与教育改革的公共领域 ——戴安·拉维奇批判标准化教育改革的斗争实践[J].清华大学教育研究,2018,(03):43.[doi:10.14138/j.1001-4519.2018.03.004308]
 GAO Yuan.Public Intellectual and the Public Sphere of Education Reform——the Practiceof Diane Ravitch’s Critiquing the Standardized Education Reform in America[J].TSINGHUA JOURNAL OF EDUCATION,2018,(02):43.[doi:10.14138/j.1001-4519.2018.03.004308]
[3]石中英.回到教育的本体 ——顾明远先生对于教育本质和教育价值的论述[J].清华大学教育研究,2018,(05):4.[doi:10.14138/j.1001-4519.2018.05.000408]
 SHI Zhong-ying.Back to the Ontology of Education:GuMing-yuan’s Argument on the Essence an dValues of Education[J].TSINGHUA JOURNAL OF EDUCATION,2018,(02):4.[doi:10.14138/j.1001-4519.2018.05.000408]

更新日期/Last Update: 2018-04-20