The formation and sustaining of a school democracy: Shenzhen Middle School and its reform in 2009-2011.

Yichao Lei, leiyc@uchicago.edu

“The process of education to cultivate a well-rounded individual depends on the richness of the school community’s spiritual life.” Knowledge, life experience, a person’s various relationships with the natural and social environment, and the formation of the collective as the basis for personal activity – all these aspects must be closely interconnected, mutually dependent, contributing to a sphere of spiritual exploration. This insight of Soviet iconic figure of education, V.A. Sukhomlinsky, emphasized the significance of constructing an ideology well-recognized amongst the institute. This essay gives the attention to a specific case of “the vanguard of education reform” in Shenzhen, China, the Shenzhen Middle School (abbr. SMS,) and the attempts to establish and preserve its students’ democracy. As valuable records of this endeavor, the student journal Nirvana Weekly from 2009 to 2011 were retrieved and would be applied to this essay and analyses. Presenting this case as reflection to the struggling Chinese students, their parents, teachers and administrators, against the institutionalized pressure of national competitive and selective education system, also the conflicts within, can and should be considered as a display of leviathan complex in early-21c China.

It would be necessary to emphasize that, the concept and practice of SMS’s “school democracy” or “students’ democracy” would be no where near a statement of ideology and should never be understood as any specific kind of ideological pursuit no matter orientation. All the reforms and practices took place under the structure of contemporary Chinese public education administration and, as I would unfold, shall be viewed within a perspective of effectiveness and pragmatism. That is, the general focus and objective of raising “democracy” in public school activities, whether from the principals or students, is to reach solidarity, consensus and progress under sufficient conversation. It is despicable to wind SMS “democracy” construction with any of the “liberty against authoritarianism” propaganda in any cases.

Roughly phased, the first period of this reform is from 2002 to 2010, during which principal Wang Zheng王峥 was at the helm, and most of the reform and construction of the school democracy took place. The second period is considered 2010-16 often as the struggling era of democracy, when the school was steered by principal Wang Zhanbao王占宝. After a short governance of Zhao Li赵立 from 2016-17, the last period would be 2017-20, with several events marked the perish of Wang Zheng’s reform, conducted by principal Zhu Huawei朱华伟. This essay would take its narrative only to the first two periods alongside related material, roughly around the topic of establishment and sustaining of a tradition and culture of SMS school life.

The best summary to Wang Zheng’s educational philosophy is his own manifesto, thus became “the aim” of SMS,

To cultivate thoughtful, leading, and creative citizen of fine qualities, with distinctive personality, sufficient confidence, and daring to take responsibility. Wherever they may be in the future, they would serve the society with passion, express respect to the nature and care for the others.

Often considered an attempt of “comprehensive” education, this aim didn’t stop on the wall. Under the support expressed as “kind neglect” of supervising bureau of education, Wang Zheng take action to change the entire structure to an extend that made SMS almost as a college of arts and sciences. Tutorship, colleges and divisions established, courses designed for students to choose, process evaluation applied paralleled to finals, and so much more, if not more progressive. all these reform methods significantly increased the demand for students’ subjectivity and individuality, also the burden of teaching and administrative faculty. To promote “the identity of fine citizen,” multiple circles and societies enhancing students’ connection were constructed, such as the “senior group” aside the Center for Student Counseling, for designating volunteer second-years trained and organized to assist and lead the first-years to adapt SMS lives. This tradition lived on until today. The school discipline is extremely lenient compared to typical Chinese public high schools. Students possessed large amount of spare time due to the course system, joining or founding a circle or just taking part in any public activities were easy and seldomly encumbered by administration, personal phones and computers were allowed in campus. It might be that students spend more time on each other than on actually studying to prepare for exams. After years and generations, it is fair to consider that the distinguished sphere of students’ determination was rooted and nourished. However, Wang Zheng’s leaning towards students “taking care for themselves” effectively caused an unsatisfying performance on test results, which is quite a core concern of parents and supervising departments, not to mention a bulked Student Committee and other institutional problems. He instructed the Committee to take up a reform in his last year in office, but obliviously he had few things can do about the test scores. In 2010 Wang Zheng was appointed to another public high school in Beijing, where he would carry on his reform endeavor until retired in 2023. Roughly narrated the basis of democracy Wang Zheng had left, I would attach a summary shortly the above, pointing out aspects that worth noting: 1) misalignment between education aim (and practice,) and Chinese Gaokao [College Entrance Exam] as critical and competitive evaluation, 2) the flourish of circles and student organizations with rather loosened management, 3) the environment of public connection and discussion regarding school matters.

Nirvana: What if, out of pure assumption, your successor would not carry on any of your aim and methods of education?

Wang Zheng: Then this is the fate for Shenzhen Middle School.

Newly arrived, Wang Zhanbao delivered a speech “The Necessity and Course of Constructing Scholarly High Schools of China in the Time of Globalization” at the very first “SMS Forum” hosted by himself. He considered Wang Zheng’s legacy mostly as a “school culture” and would rather reform the institution more aiming a divergence of students depending on their “characteristics.” Divisions, alongside many other institutional arrangements Wang Zheng has made with years were renounced but still preserved as commonly recognized tradition or to say “heritage,” and widely used in all kinds of discourse of both students and the administration later on debating the school’s democracy. The CEE test courses such as Chinese, Maths and English, were back on track, but PE, liberal arts, and other comprehensive courses were still served for students to freely choose from, contributed almost 40% of a first-year’s class hours. Wang Zhanbao’s changes caused obvious reluctance of students and led to uprising debates. One significant incident is the renewal of dormitory restrictions in Oct. 2010 that banned students from staying at school dormitory at the weekends. Opinions on Nirvana Weekly considered administration took decision without informing students and set a rather short time for “settling issues” caused by new restrictions. Moreover, there were several specific reasons raised: a case mostly mentioned were students living far away from campus. It can take them more than 3 hours to get back home, they have safety concerns to carry their luggage across half a Shenzhen in Friday night, not to mention itself is such a suffering regardlessly. Originally, all of them can and would opt for an extra night and go back home in daytime Saturday. Another case would be more essential and emphasized in organized students’ propaganda. Many of the circles and societies had their activities to prepare continuously across certain periods, often includes weekends, same as SMS major student activities that also demand the members of student organizations and “cabinets” to the divisions to do so as well. As commentaries in Nirvana Weekly claimed, this unexpected ban, as it would be damaging both to students’ right to raise request for accommodation, and to the active atmosphere of running public activities on students’ own, will lead to an unreversed decline of school democracy. The upheaval had led to compromise, during the 3 months negotiations between administration and demanding student leaders, which is very much lengthened than the original 1-month leniency period of the restrictions, 2 gatherings of student representatives and a public hearing were organized, a new “agreement” on the dormitory managements was made replacing the restrictions. However, Wang Zhanbao was determined still to insist upon his grand design of a “scholarly” high school. He composed all kinds of slogans for the five different curriculums that, as claimed, would aim for diverging students with different potential and perspectives, but the whole proposal seemed a surface work. These slogans then drew the firepower of “cynical” students, which is practically most of them, to preform the art of sarcastic Chinese literacy. As growing reluctance might be leading to a slippery slope, an organization to institutionalize this tradition and sphere of discussing school matters on students’ own was proposed. The SMS Students Parliament was established and recognized by the administration at the end of 2011, alongside the Students Committee to become the two core institutions of school democracy for students. Summarizing the troubled 2009-11, institutionalization was not recognized as progress, rather as attempt and struggle to retrieve and reserve students’ right to take care of themselves, to decide upon their own. This insight re-emphasized itself as the conflicts later on went under the structure of the two institutions along with various platforms of public discussion. Many of the public activities that used to be organized need-based, were then called to more regulated form. What I would place after these is that, within the discourse and practice of students, the “democracy” was then a core consideration of (Wang Zheng’s) administration and needed no student organization to ensure, but now a right to fight for and gain from the (Wang Zhanbao’s) administration. It needs to sustain itself, if not to decline and fade away with students come and go.