MNIEJSZOŚCIOWE EGZAMINY NA STUDIA PO CHIŃSKU - WALKA Z NIERÓWNOŚCIAMI CZY WALKA IDEOLOGICZNA?
MINORITY UNIVERSITY EXAMINATIONS IN CHINESE - A BATTLE AGAINST INEQUALITY OR AN IDEOLOGICAL STRUGGLE?

Summary/Abstract: In the process of the transformation of education in the People's Republic of China (PRC), 2024 has gone down as one of the milestones in relation to the closure of Mongolian-language education. Indeed, the last Mongolian-language university entrance examination, or gaokao, was held on 7-8 June 2024, while education in this language ended earlier that year in April. The Chinese education system was systemically subordinated to strategies to combat inequality and to the scientific, technical, and economic progress of the state. Functionally, secondary education has been structured around the gaokao exam. During the period from the Deng reform and opening-up era (i.e. from 1978) to the Xi Jinping era (i.e. from 2012), some non-Chinese peoples had the option to pass it in their own languages, which was gradually restricted. The Mongols (and Koreans) were the last remaining minorities to retain this privilege until 2024. The reform of minority education in favour of bilingual education in earlier years had previously affected other minorities. Its inclusion of Mongolians provokes an in-depth analysis of the actual causes and potential consequences of its implementation. It will also help to create a holistic picture of the Xi Jinping-era China's shift from a policy of multiculturalism towards Sinicisation, using educational policy tools. A number of studies have been written on the gaokao exam itself, particularly in the context of its extreme competitiveness. However, the literature tends not to reflect much on the recent abolition of language versions dedicated to certain national minorities. If the gaokao was supposed to be a tool to reduce educational inequalities, how can one interpret the abolition of the possibility to pass the gaokao in non-Chinese languages? Could it be conducive to the fight against inequality - or vice versa? How is this reform evaluated in the context of international pedagogical knowledge?

• Details
• Contents