Abstract
This article is a condensed translation from Chinese of the original PhD thesis by Dr Mo Jingqi and illustrates how international accreditation was introduced in China during a time of rapid government structural change. The article is valuable from three perspectives: first, it provides a rare insight into the means for introducing change in the education system in China; secondly, it describes the evolution of the role of the National Center for Curriculum and Textbook Development, a non-governmental organization, and how it became authorized by the Ministry of Education to implement education policy in China; and thirdly, the idea of transplanting into China a joint accreditation system for international schools is by itself a major historical change, the model of which may one day expand to other types of schools in China. It should be noted that the titles of Chinese references have not been translated as they can be found only in Chinese language. In addition, during those years of rapid change, the titles and roles of many government organizations also changed, including that of the National Center for School Curriculum and Textbook Development (NCCT). It is important to appreciate the challenges of language translation as many of the concepts have different meanings in Chinese and have changed during that time period. This includes the meanings of ‘international school’ and ‘accreditation’.
Keywords
Introduction
Since 2000, the National Center for Curriculum and Textbook Development (NCCT) has worked to transplant the international school accreditation concept into China by establishing an effective cooperative mechanism with the Council of International Schools (CIS), New England Association of Schools and Colleges (NEASC) and Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC). It took ten years of collaboration and hard work for the NCCT international school accreditation institution to take shape. During that time the first author, who was also the initiator of the project, created an organizational field for introducing accreditation based on the theories of Friedland and Alford, taking into account individuals in competition and negotiation; organizations in conflict and coordination; and organizations in contradiction and interdependency (Friedland and Alford, 1991).
Vladimir Polterovich defines institutional transplantation as “the adoption of institutions that have developed in another institutional environment” (Polterovich, 2001). This article describes the details of the internal mechanisms of the first social institutional transplant in China at the beginning of this century. Cultural and historical circumstances shape the particular tradition and societal environment of a country in transition and the ‘reaction rate’ of implementing new, informal institutions depends on their compatibility with imported formal institutions (Zweynert and Goldschmidt, 2006).
As is often the case within the historical and political context of rapidly developing countries, in China there are many problems in the practice of transplanting foreign institutions. The two major issues are: 1) great sensitivity and worry about transplanting a foreign institution; 2) fear of foreign culture being assimilated into and pervading national culture. Often when transplanting foreign institutions, many countries see their own culture as the core, and try to keep a distance from foreign culture or even exclude it. In addition, import and implementation of foreign institutions in China is often accompanied by a reflecting ideology that is contrary to China’s political institution, either at the economic developmental level or cultural tradition level, and that will result in a transplantation that is inappropriate or even completely failed. These problems suggest that, though the institutional transplanting process is quite common, there is still a lack of understanding and effectiveness in transplanting practice. The resources upon which this study has drawn include the project’s documents, case record, interviews with relevant persons, participant observations and tangible evidence.
The institutions that were interested in participating in the transplant of the international school accreditation institution into China comprise a wide organizational field. These include NCCT, the Department of International Cooperation and Exchanges in China’s Ministry of Education, international schools in China, CIS, NEASC and WASC. Each has an institutional logic in the way it functions. The relative institutional logics that affected and shaped the behavioral patterns of these interest-related institutions are institution system logic, government system logic, professional system logic and international school system logic. These four kinds of institutional logic can be described according to their impact on organizational and individual survival and development as follows (Friedland and Alford, 1991).
The process of introducing the NCCT international school accreditation institution was impacted by each of these four system logics as follows: (1) Urging the relative institutions to encounter each other. The encounter needed to satisfy the following conditions : relatively independent institutions in different fields had potential interest appeal to one another; the external environment provided a system model that could satisfy the interest appeal of relatively independent institutions in different fields; individual institutions were activated in proper time and place. The institution would transplant this kind of system model under the application of the relative system logic to realize interest appeal. (2) Urging the formation of an organization with the introducer as the core. The formation of an organization is signified by the structuring of the organization; the further structuring of the function of relative institutions to realize a common goal; and forming a power relationship to become an interest-related institution. (3) Urging the relative institutions to reach common understanding on the form and functions of the newly transplanted system in the new environment through interaction. Institutional transformations are therefore associated with the creation of both new social relationships and new symbolic orders (Friedland and Alford, 1991).
In the process of the system transplant, the role of each system is realized by interacting with each other’s system logic. That is, the role of each system logic will be affected by the other system logic. In the complexity of multiple system logic, the importance of each system logic will change according to the time and place. As time goes by, depending on the pace of change, the relationship between different system logics will also change, and will affect the result of mutual interaction. In addition, the system transplant continues to develop through influences in other locations which ensures that NCCT international school accreditation will continue to transition as time goes on.
The Origin of the Root Causes: The Relevant Institution’s Main Potential Interest Demands
Before the relevant institutions participated in an international school accreditation system, they all had their own potential interest demands in their respective areas. Their interest demands became the reason for future cooperation to participate in an international school accreditation system (Ammerman, 1998). In this section, we will analyze the potential benefits of each of the interested groups.
Interests of the International Schools in China
Along with China’s reform and opening up, international schools in China first appeared in the mid-1980s. In 1995, the State Education Commission of China released the "Provisional Management Approach on Opening Schools for the Children of Expatriates” (hereinafter referred to as the "management approach"). At that time, only eight international schools obtained approval from the government departments (3 Beijing, 1 Tianjin, 2 Shanghai, 2 Guangzhou), and an additional eight international schools were under preparation for establishment (Ministry of Education files, 98-1995-Y-394.0004). In 1995, the State Education Commission of China released the "management approach", which greatly promoted the development of international schools in China, and consequently the number of international schools in China grew rapidly. In 1995, the State Education Commission of China approved the establishment of three international schools according to the "management approach", and increased the total to 19 in 1996; 24 in 1997; 33 in 1998; 38 in 1999; and 49 in 2000 (Ministry of Education and Foreign Regulatory Information Network, 2012).
With their rapid development, the international schools in China faced many new challenges, and the current “management approach” did not completely meet their development needs. For example, the "management approach" had not specifically regulated that the international schools in China implement an academic curriculum that could be recognized as meeting student needs. The legal nature of such schools was far from uniform as some had registered as non-profit entities (a category which at that time did not legally exist in China), some registered as business enterprises, some registered as privately run, and some schools registered as "other institutions". The definition of an international school in China was not clear, so these schools lacked a category and identity in the education system in China. Therefore, they encountered difficulties and problems in school operation but did not know to whom they should report. In addition, international schools in China encountered some difficulties and problems in the development process. For example, in April 2002, in order to revise the 1995 Management Approach, the Chinese Ministry of International Cooperation and Exchanges management authorized NCCT to investigate the status of international schools of Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, Qingdao and Dalian.
Through these three research reports (by Tang Changsheng, Mo Jingqi, Tian Lixin, 2002), many problems were identified with the development of international schools in China. These related to the type of school, range of years of education, the legal representatives, who they planned to admit, payment of taxes, acquisition of school site, the employment of Chinese citizens, and the importing of books, equipment and office supplies. The international schools in China also wanted to communicate with the Chinese government departments to inform them of the status of their school in relation to policies and to seek help in overcoming the practical difficulties they were experiencing.
Interests of the Government Departments
With the growing number of international schools, as well as the problems they were encountering, China’s Administrative Department of Education had not fully adapted to the schools’ developmental needs, in the following main respects. First, the management of the Administrative Department of Education of such schools was relatively weak. In accordance with the "management approach" of 1995, China’s State Council Administrative Department of Education was responsible for the review and approval of the international schools while the provincial education administrative departments were responsible for schools’ review and verification. In terms of daily management, the provincial education administrative departments were responsible for: the admissibility of the application and approval of schools to employ Chinese citizens; accepting the annual school roster of staff and students; ordering textbooks and recording textbook purchases; supervision and inspection of textbooks in accordance with the law; handling the recording of change of school Principals and members of the Board; and handling cases which violated the 1995 "Management Measures". But in terms of practicalities, the Administrative Department of Education and the international schools in China were lacking communication. In some parts of China, the international schools were in a state of relative isolation from communities and government departments.
Secondly, in government departments (especially the Administrative Department of Education) the management did not fully understand the unique characteristics of international schools in China and dealt with them in the same way that they handled local primary and secondary schools. For example, for the management of teaching materials, some provincial administrative departments of education required schools to submit the textbooks for review every semester. But unlike teaching materials in state schools in China, the international schools’ textbooks are non-uniform textbooks written in English and selected by teachers. Many additional resources online were not reviewable. To review such a large and diverse collection of materials required not only the organization of a high-quality team, but also the investment of a considerable amount of time, energy and money by both the administrative department and the schools. From a practical point of view, this management approach was clearly not suitable for the actual situation of the international schools in China.
Thirdly, for specific complex problems in international schools in China, there was lack of an effective management mechanism. International schools in China and the Chinese government departments were in a state of relative isolation, and with so many new international schools starting up there was also inadequate understanding of China’s relevant laws and regulations. To complicate matters, in China’s race to modernize, regulations were also rapidly changing or applied in different ways in different provinces. Often international school operations inadvertently touched upon sensitive political issues such as, for example, the situations with respect to Taiwan and Tibet. Some international schools would also be operated as though they existed in their home country without considering the laws and regulations of the host country. For example, in some cases there were problems of religion in the school’s educational philosophy; difficulties with importing curriculum materials; problems obtaining work permits; inadequate up-front funding; or adjusting to and meeting the state’s financial regulations. The government departments also lacked an effective mechanism for the supervision of the international schools in China. To solve the problems which occurred in the context of the rapidly increasing numbers and development of international schools, the government departments urgently needed to innovate the management mechanism and improve management efficiency; in some ways to enhance communication and in others to recognize and accommodate the significantly different types of international schools that were, after all, meant to be a vital part of the economic development infrastructure of China.
Interests of CIS, NEASC and WASC
Observing the development history of CIS, NEASC and WASC, it is clear that the range and number of schools registered with these three international school accreditation organizations has continuously expanded. The European Council of International Schools (ECIS) began to offer international school accreditation from 1970 before, in 2003, ECIS Accreditation Services became part of CIS. By August 2010, they had 312 accredited schools (CIS / NEASC / the IBO / NCCT, 2008). NEASC began to offer accreditation in 1974 and had 176 accredited schools by 2009 (NEASC, 2010). WASC introduced accreditation in 1969 and had 202 accredited schools in East Asia by 2010 (WASC Words, 2010). Since 2002, when CIS, NEASC and WASC introduced their international schools’ accreditation, the accreditation scope (determining goals, areas of cooperation and procedures and the number of schools) were the important elements. Therefore, the scope of international school accreditation and the expansion of the number of schools became the central task of CIS, NEASC and WASC. If a country had an international school, these accreditation agencies were entering or preparing to enter that country to provide the accreditation services. Given the emergence of international schools in China, these accreditation agencies therefore began to enter China. For example, before NCCT started to carry out the accreditation of international schools in China in 2002, ECIS (at that time), NEASC and WASC had entered China on the same basis as in other countries, although without approval in China, and had already accredited eight international schools in China. With the deepening of China’s reform and opening up, as well as the rapid increase in number of international schools in China, ECIS, NEASC and WASC showed even more interest in meeting the international school accreditation needs in China.
Interests of NCCT
NCCT was renamed from “Basic Education Curriculum Materials Research Center” in 1998. But there were serious design and system faults in NCCT’s identity and establishment:
In the establishment of the agency, its functions were not clear. NCCT historical documents indicate only that the organization was renamed from “The State Board of Education Basic Education Curriculum and Textbook Research Center” to the “Ministry of Education Basic Education Curriculum and Textbook Development Center”. The means of funding changed from full allocation to difference subsidy, which implied that NCCT would require additional sources of funding. However, documents did not clearly indicate the specific functions for NCCT, a situation which lasted from October 1998 to February 2002.
While functions were clearly defined, they were not fully implemented. In February 2002, the Ministry of Education made explicit the NCCT functions (Ministry of Education, 2002), but because some of the functions in the relevant administrative departments of the Ministry of Education met great resistance to the implementation, NCCT lacked routine tasks. Against this backdrop, defining and expanding the functions became the main task of NCCT.
With 40 years of experience and development, international school accreditation became recognized worldwide as an important mechanism for promoting school development. This could have a highly positive impact on the development of international schools in China. Accreditation then became the potential institutional resource to overcome the difficulties faced by international schools in China, as well as other potential areas in the future.
The major parties involved in the transplant of international schools into China were the Chinese Ministry of Education Department of International Cooperation and Exchanges, NCCT, CIS, NEASC and WASC, and the schools themselves. Each of these parties had its own independent function and its own purposes and development needs, but they also had some common aims and potential interests:
international schools in China hoped that the government could resolve the difficulties and problems being experienced during their development;
the Ministry of Education wanted to innovate the management mechanisms to strengthen the management of international schools in China;
CIS, NEASC and WASC were being asked by international schools to provide accreditation services to a growing number of schools; and
NCCT wanted to expand its functions and improve its own development.
The above relevant institutions’ potential interest demands thus became the root opportunity for an NCCT International School Accreditation System.
The Origin of the Process: The Interactions of the Main Relevant Institutions
This section will analyze how relevant institutions with a wide range of social and cultural backgrounds came together through common interest and how they chose the joint international school accreditation system as the direction and strategy for Chinese transplant.
Mobilization in Western Academy of Beijing
Before and after the year 2000, as noted above, international schools in China encountered some difficulties in the development process. In the face of these difficulties, different schools took very different approaches. Some international schools wanted top-down pressure, for example, from a letter to government officials requesting a change of certain policies or through an Embassy or Consulate. But Western Academy of Beijing took another approach; they hoped to establish the international schools’ accreditation system in China in order to strengthen communication and understanding between international schools and the Chinese education system, and to enhance the status of international schools within China’s education system through mutually acceptable standards.
The management of Western Academy of Beijing chose this approach as they were both familiar with the international schools’ accreditation system and sought to have the best possible relationship with the Chinese government. At the end of October 1998, Western Academy of Beijing successfully completed the first trial ECIS and NEASC joint accreditation. The outcomes from this first joint effort were enormous: school quality improved steadily through the standards, and the school also maintained good relations with the Chinese government; the management team showed their trust and respect for Chinese government as well as understanding of Chinese culture and traditions. They believed that instead of putting pressure on the government, they should have an open mind and find appropriate ways of encouraging government to know more about the international schools. Such an approach would be more conducive to problem resolving. Mr John McBryde, Director of Western Academy of Beijing, came up with the idea of seeking accreditation from China’s education authority departments. After much discussion, the school management concluded this would be a good channel for both sides. Therefore Ms Wang Yan, Head of Human Resources at Western Academy of Beijing, was sent to the Ministry of Education for consultation. Ms. Wang was a good choice not only because government relations were part of her job, but also because she had background from her earlier work in the Ministry of Education in the 1990s and therefore was familiar with the people and the functions of the department. In June 2000, Ms Wang Yan talked to then Director of the Elementary Education Department, Mr Li Lian Ning, asking which department was responsible for the conduct of accreditation. The answer was that there was no such department as yet. However, Mr Li introduced her to then Vice-Managing Director of NCCT, Mr Xu Yan. Ms Wang spent a day with Mr Xu, explaining the NEASC and ECIS accreditation system, and then recommended that NCCT cooperate with NEASC and ECIS to accredit the international schools in China. Mr. Xu expressed interest in this concept. Thus Western Academy of Beijing, as an accreditation user and advocate, was instrumental in helping NCCT to develop the accreditation system for use with international schools in China (known originally as Schools for Children of Foreign Personnel).
Western Academy of Beijing played another very important role at the beginning of the NCCT international schools accreditation process. In the process of NCCT seeking cooperation with NEASC & WASC, the school was also a consultant, assistant and coordinator, with John McBryde as Director, Ms. Wang Yan and the others at Western Academy of Beijing all having played their part in the work. The role of Western Academy of Beijing from the NCCT perspective was vital and much needed for communication and cooperation between NCCT and ECIS, NEASC and WASC. In the process of seeking cooperation for NCCT with ECIS, NEASC and WASC, Mr. John McBryde and Ms. Wang Yan developed the strategies and made arrangements for the specific activities. John McBryde became the NCCT consultant, and Wang Yan became the NCCT overseas coordinator.
In seeking international cooperation, NCCT also received strong support from other areas of the Western Academy of Beijing. In the meantime, to meet the recommendation of the establishment of the international schools in China accreditation system within NCCT, it was necessary to translate the NEASC/ECIS international school accreditation documents. This led to exchange between NCCT and ECIS, NEASC and WASC of letters and e-mails as well as relevant files and agendas to document the needs and issues and to make plans. During October 13-19, 2001, the Western Academy of Beijing was able to include Mo Jingqi as an observer on the joint NEASC/ECIS accreditation team visit at Bangkok Patana School in Thailand. Between June 22 and 29, 2002, Mo Jingqi by invitation of NEASC and WASC, accompanied by John McBryde and Wang Yan, travelled to the United States to visit WASC in San Francisco, and then visited Boston to participate in the NEASC/ECIS joint Annual meeting. Wang Yan provided all the simultaneous and written translation work during the visit.
Beyond developing international cooperation, Western Academy of Beijing was also the coordinator for the NCCT. Introduced by John McBryde, Jacob Ludes, President of NEASC, sent Dr Eva Kampits to visit NCCT in May and November 2001. Dr. Marilyn George from WASC visited NCCT in March 2002. It must be emphasized that the coordination work of John McBryde and Wang Yan were of immense assistance to NCCT and ECIS, NEASC and WASC in overcoming language and cultural differences.
Seeking Administrative Recognition
The Office of International Cooperation and Exchanges of the Chinese Ministry of Education was the administrative department in charge of international schools in China. If NCCT was going to be able to begin the accreditation system for international schools in China, it was necessary to obtain the consent or authorization from the Office of International Cooperation and Exchanges. Therefore, from late December 2000 to May 31, 2001, NCCT undertook full communication with the Office of International Cooperation and Exchanges and obtained preliminary consent.
In late December 2000, Wang Xiao Wu was the Deputy Director of NCCT. Mo Jingqi had the first official meeting with Guan Jian, Secretary of the Director from the office of International Cooperation and Exchanges of the Chinese Ministry of Education, who was also in charge of the management of international schools relations. Guan Jian was very positive about establishing the accreditation system and actively supported the need to carry out this work. At the same time, he put forward suggestions on the next steps of the work.
On January 2, 2001 NCCT submitted the first application report to the office of International Cooperation and Exchanges of the Chinese Ministry of Education regarding undertaking a primary education qualifications assessment for international schools in China. The report stemmed from real needs, including international practice; discipline; teaching content monitoring and international exchange. These issues highlighted the necessity to perform these functions and NCCT was eligible and qualified to undertake this work. Tian Lixin, Deputy Director of the Policy Planning Office, was specifically responsible for the accreditation of international schools and soon gave NCCT feedback. Research was recommended to carry out this work and NCCT was asked to submit a report on the feasibility of performing it. To prepare a feasibility report and research work, in February and March 2001 Mo Jingqi and Chen Xu Fen from the evaluation division visited three institutions: Beijing Municipal Education Commission of International Cooperation and Exchange, Western Academy of Beijing, and Beijing Yew Chung International School. They studied NEASC’s and ECIS’s institutions and their accreditation standards and procedures. Ding Hong Yu (then Director of International Cooperation and Exchanges of Beijing Education Commission) believed it would be necessary to carry out this work in view of the conditions and needs of the international schools in Beijing. Beijing Yew Chung International School, through the deep interest and efforts of their Superintendent, Mr. Tom Ulmet, stressed in the NCCT research outline of the report that the school was willing to accept the authority evaluation and accreditation of educational institutions in China, but expressed hope that NCCT refer to the assessment approach of other international organizations in carrying out the evaluation and accreditation in accordance with the international schools evaluation criteria.
On March 20, 2001, NCCT submitted a second report to the International Cooperation and Exchanges office of the Chinese Ministry of Education regarding instructions for primary education qualifications assessment for international schools in China, and attached along with it a feasibility report on the evaluation and accreditation of Schools for Children of Expatriates (thus inadvertently changing the name from Schools for Children of Foreign Personnel) as well as documents of the international accreditation organizations and research reports. On May 21, Tian Li Xin (Deputy Director of the Policy Planning Office) called Mo Jingqi (NCCT Evaluation Department) to give the following feedback: (i) The Policy Planning Office was very supportive of this work and had already passed all the documents to the Director. (ii) NCCT was encouraged to initiate preparatory work, such as inviting some experts to formulate files on an approach to international school assessment, an evaluation index system, and assessment procedures. (iii) Two international schools should be selected as pilot projects to verify the feasibility of the evaluation criteria and gain some experience. (iv) An additional report about NCCT’s legal position, evaluation function and the results of the assessment should be filed for the international organizations to gain recognition.
On May 24, 2001, NCCT submitted a third report to the International Cooperation and Exchanges office of the Chinese Ministry of Education, the additional report to assess the academic qualifications such as type and quality of curriculum implementation, teaching credentials, and terms and conditions of employment of teachers in Schools for Children of Expatriates in China. This report provided supplementary explanations about the NCCT legal position to undertake this task along with constructive suggestions about how the results of the assessment align with international standards and how to arrange international recognition. On May 30, 2001, the Policy Planning Department reported to the Director that NCCT was indeed qualified to take on this role from the legal position and within its functions, and it had already become international practice for non-governmental organizations to undertake such assessments. After it was approved by a Deputy Director, on May 31, 2001 Li Dongxiang, then Director of International Cooperation and Exchange, also agreed that NCCT should undertake this role through serious research with the chosen experimental schools and write a summary report. At this point, NCCT was given preliminary approval by the International Cooperation and Exchanges office of the Chinese Ministry of Education to proceed with the accreditation of international schools in China.
The Ministry of Education knew that approving NCCT to take on the role of overseeing the international accreditation system would help with their management both of international schools in China and of NCCT as the introducer. Meanwhile, research on the feasibility of this role had already been completed by NCCT, as had the review of NCCT’s eligibility and qualification for carrying out the role. NCCT now also knew how to achieve international recognition of the qualification assessment results. The International Cooperation and Exchanges office of the Chinese Ministry of Education was satisfied with all the results of the assignments they gave NCCT.
In particular, the preliminary approval by the International Cooperation and Exchanges office laid the foundation for the future to make this role an NCCT official function. In late 2001, NCCT began to draft the program with three general topics: Tasks; Responsibilities; Organization, which Mo Jingqi, Head of the Accreditation Department, added into the department’s working responsibility. Then the “Tasks; Responsibilities; Organization” program was sent back to the International Cooperation and Exchanges office of the Chinese Ministry of Education for final proof reading by the Head of the Policy Planning Department. It then received final approval by the Head of International Cooperation and Exchanges at the Chinese Ministry of Education.
On February 10, 2002, based on the NCCT’s “Tasks; Responsibilities; Organization” program, the Ministry of Education authorized “Responsibilities and Tasks”, the Management System, and the official establishment and staffing program of the NCCT, Ministry of Education, China. This clearly stated, with the approval of government, that NCCT would undertake the evaluation and accreditation of Schools for Children of Expatriates in China. Thus, NCCT’s legal status was confirmed.
Seeking International Cooperation
ECIS, NEASC and WASC are globally prominent accreditation organizations. They have been in the field of international school accreditation for decades and have earned a high reputation. To NCCT, international school accreditation was path-breaking work with great challenges. In order to provide a high standard of international school accreditation in China that was acceptable to international schools in China, it was important that NCCT should not only be accepted by the Chinese Ministry of Education, but should also to cooperate with ECIS, NEASC and WASC. The cooperation of NCCT with ECIS, NEASC and WASC was not achieved in one move. Instead, it could be traced back to the extensive work done over two years (see Table 1).
Sequence of Events of NCCT’s Efforts to Cooperate with ECIS, NEASC and WASC.
The process of NCCT’s seeking cooperation with ECIS, NEASC and WASC can be divided into three stages: The first stage was the communication and learning stage during the period from May 30th to August 14th, 2001. In this stage, the four organizations visited each other, exchanged information and licensed accreditation materials among each other. They had extensively and effectively promoted communication and understanding while investigating the possibility and probability of cooperation. The second stage was the formative stage of partnership which took place from October 13th, 2001 to January 8th, 2002. During this period of time, NCCT sent people to conduct a field survey, NEASC hosted visits by the representatives, the responsible persons of NCCT and NEASC carried on correspondence and so on. NCCT had basically formed the cooperation intention and established cooperation and partnership. The third stage was the actual creation of partnership which extended from March 25th, 2002 to August 2003. During this stage, after WASC’s visit to China, the NCCT representatives’ visit to WASC and NEASC in the USA, and the follow-on participation in a Four-Party senior conference, the Four Parties signed the Cooperation Framework Suggested Protocol. In this process, NCCT had much interaction with ECIS, NEASC and WASC about the partnership and the direction and strategy of cooperation. The Final Cooperation Framework Agreement was the harvest from Four-Party interaction. (合作框架协议,“Cooperative Framework Agreement”, August 2003). It was the symbol of both the establishment of cooperation between NCCT and CIS, NEASC and WASC, and the formation of accepted cooperation direction and strategy.
School accreditation organizations from abroad must also obtain administrative licensing from the Chinese government if they wish to start international school accreditation in China. Although NCCT had received official authorization from the Chinese Education Department to accredit international schools in China in February 2002, it had not received permission for collaborative accreditation with ECIS, NEASC and WASC. Therefore, NCCT chose the Four-Party accepted Cooperation Framework Agreement (version 4) that was sent on June 16th, 2003 to the Office of International Cooperation and Exchanges, Ministry of Education of China for examination and validation. It was reviewed from June 25th to June 30th by five responsible people from that Office and three responsible people from the Department, and then was validated. Thereafter, NCCT received final permission from the Administrative Responsible Institution of the Ministry of Education to cooperate with the other three school accreditation organizations from abroad – a first-time, major accomplishment.
The Accomplishment of Origin: The Direction was Authorized and the Strategy was Formed
Here the theory of organizational field of organization analysis will be applied to the origin of the NCCT International School Accreditation System.
Structuring of the Organizational Field
Hoffman proposed that the structured process of an organizational field consists of four parts:
the level of interaction among the organizational fields;
the clear dominative structure and arising of alliance mode among the organizations;
the increase of information quantity that must be achieved in the organizational field;
the understanding and consensus brought by the participants who jointly participate in the same task in the same organization. (Hoffman, 1999)
These four dimensions will now be used to analyze the completion of origin of the NCCT International School Accreditation System.
(http://www.moe.gov.cn/s78/A20/gjs_left/moe_861/tnull_8609.html)
They also granted approval for the research to be undertaken in Shanghai, Guangzhou, Shenzhen, Qingdao and Dalian. On February 10th, 2002, the Ministry of Education issued a notice regarding printing the scheme of tasks and responsibilities, management system, organization setting and staffing quotas of the Basic Education Curriculum and Textbook Development Center, Ministry of Education and the notice made it clear that after approval from government, NCCT was given the responsibilities of working on evaluation and accreditation for Schools for Children of Foreign Personnel. The key representatives from ECIS, NEASC and WASC visited NCCT three times. The key representatives from NCCT visited NEASC and WASC. NCCT representatives attended as observers the accreditation team visit that was organized by NEASC and ECIS in Thailand. NCCT investigated the operation of international school accreditation in Southeast Asia as observers. NEASC, ECIS, WASC and NCCT held the first four-party conference. During the conference, Mr Zhang XinSheng, Vice-Minister for International Exchange and Cooperation of the Ministry of Education, met with the four-party representatives. NCCT also undertook research twice concerning the development of international schools in China, and took advice from three international schools in China regarding the accreditation documents. NCCT did the accreditation’s pilot in Western Academy of Beijing and Tianjin MTI International School. Western Academy of Beijing, as consultant, assistant and coordinator, joined all of the activities programs organized by NCCT, NEASC, ECIS and WASC.
Therefore, if NCCT wished to develop at a high starting point with high-level international school accreditation and achieve the reorganization, NCCT needed to secure support from the above-mentioned professional institutions. On the other hand, legally, CIS, NEASC and WASC are subordinated to NCCT. If these institutions wished to engage in international school accreditation in China, they needed to be familiar with the Chinese national context and obtain permission of the Chinese government. (Permission follows when the Chinese government agrees that NCCT can cooperate with these institutions)
Structuring of the NCCT International Accreditation System
Direction and Strategy
The structuring process of the organization field made the future functions clear. The function of CIS, NEASC and WASC filled two aims: 1. prove to the community that a candidate school’s education meets recognized acceptable standards; 2. promote sustainable development of the institution of accreditation. When NCCT secured the approval of the Department of International Cooperation and Exchanges, Ministry of Education, “canonical management” had been added to the function. The reports that NCCT submitted to the Department of International Cooperation and Exchanges, Ministry of Education showed that it could strengthen the management of international schools in China through accreditation; the Department of International Cooperation and Exchanges agreed on this point. (The title of Schools for Children of Foreign Expatriates then reverted back to the original translation in the 1995 Interim Regulations for the Establishment of Schools for Children of Foreign Personnel) (MoE, 1995). The Schools for Children of Foreign Personnel Accreditation Method-trial that was set down in 2002 emphasized that the purpose of accreditation is to improve the management of Schools for Children of Foreign Personnel, rather than to inspect or hinder the quality and school development.
It also emphasized that Schools for Children of Foreign Personnel must:
understand and comply with Chinese laws and regulations during the process of accreditation;
ensure that international students learn more Chinese culture through a proper curriculum;
regularly evaluate teaching;
emphasize the relationship between school, family and community. (NCCT Accreditation Standards, 2002)
In 2003, the Cooperation Framework Agreement required that for Schools for Children of Foreign Personnel, NEASC, CIS and WASC understand, accept and support a) NCCT’s accreditation trial method; b) Accreditation Standards; and c) the Accreditation Participation Request Form.
The Cooperation Framework Agreement recognizes that NCCT’s function, canonical management and quality guarantee have been understood, accepted and supported. The structured process of the organization field also created the strategy for transplanting the international schools’ system into China. The Cooperation Framework Agreement also validated that the consensus achieved among the respective interrelated institutions was legalized. Finally, the Cooperation Framework Agreement established the cooperation strategy in general and also clarified the specific proposals which included: 1. Recognition and learning from each other; 2. communication; 3. staff exchange; 4. training; 5. development of the cooperation procedure of accreditation. Thus, Direction and Strategy were the keys to transplanting the international school accreditation system into China. The themes became “Simplify the Accreditation Process” and “Unite the Accreditation Process”.
Progress Achieved by 2012
As of March 2012, twenty international schools accredited by NCCT in China and twelve candidate schools had begun the NCCT accreditation procedures. These thirty-two international schools accounted for 31% of the total Schools for Children of Foreign Personnel in China which numbered 102 in the year 2000. (Ministry of Education and Foreign Education Supervision, 2012) At that time other types of international school did not yet exist, and therefore NCCT Accreditation applied only to the renamed category of “Schools for Children of Foreign Nationals.”
NCCT international school accreditation in China has since exerted influence both in China and abroad. The origin of the NCCT international school accreditation process is distinctive compared with most of the institution transplants led by the Chinese government within the same period. It was carried out neither in the usual top-down way under the charge of government nor by the institution provider or introducer independently. Instead it was accomplished through bottom-up interaction between independent, interested and relevant institutions with a common aim of school improvement.
Conclusion
In his research, the first author of this article found that in creating the process of the origin of NCCT Accreditation of International Schools in China (Schools for Children of Foreign Personnel), the theory of systematic logic was relevant and he therefore later included it in the explanation. For this article, reference to the system logic portion of the research has been limited to place more emphasis on the evolution of the transplant itself. It is noticeable that the Chinese term guo ji xue xiao used in the joint international accreditation system has been translated in several different ways since 1995, from the original “Schools for Children of Foreign Personnel” to “Schools for Children of Expatriates”, back to “Schools for Children of Foreign Personnel” and then to the present “Schools for Children of Foreign Nationals”. The definition of guo ji xue xiao or international school continues to be problematic. NCCT joint accreditation applies only to this category of international schools. In recent years other types of schools have opened in China that use the term international school and regulations are therefore still evolving. This study shows that the origin of the NCCT international school accreditation as a transplanted system is unique in China.
Previously, under the centralized management system in China, when systems were transplanted this was done solely by government. Therefore, that the origin of the NCCT international accreditation system was completed by the respective institutions in a different, inclusive and interactive manner illustrates that the role of government had changed in this instance from conductor to a step-by-step participant during a period of social transformation in China. This led to the following major advancements: (a) NCCT international school accreditation in China gained legal status and was entitled to receive substantial support from China’s Ministry of Education departments and local education administrative departments; (b) a set of institutional and distinctive accreditation management documents were formed that include regulations, standards, procedures, school self-assessment, and investigation and working norms of the accreditation office; (c) permanent and non-permanent accreditation organizations were established including an overseeing accreditation committee of prominent educators, an accreditation consultative committee and an accreditation office; (d) a professional team was created with continued training opportunities and practical experience in accreditation; (e) a cooperative and ongoing communicative mechanism was established with CIS, NEASC and WASC that allowed those agencies to operate legally in China; (f) NCCT international school joint accreditation has gained increasing acceptance from international schools in China.
This successful process illustrates that, when transplanting an external system, an interactive mechanism is important for the success of the transplant in China. Yet China is ever-changing and evolving, and many aspects of oversight of schools in China has now devolved to provincial governments. In rapidly changing China, no doubt the institution of international accreditation will continue to evolve. As an indication of that evolution, at the end of November 2018 NCCT sent an official notice to the international accreditation partners in the Four Parties Agreement and to the second author of this article that NCCT’s role in Joint Accreditation was terminated, a decision taken by NCCT. This points again to the success of the international accreditation transplant, as the international accreditation agencies can still continue their important work in accrediting international schools, with certain limitations by type of international school that are still under review.
Footnotes
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Author biographies
At the time of writing,