华东师范大学学报(教育科学版) ›› 2025, Vol. 43 ›› Issue (3): 1-11.doi: 10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5560.2025.03.001

• 改革与发展 •    

高等教育重点建设中的学校分层困局及其改革

朱军文1, 马银琦2, 邵玲芝1   

  1. 1. 华东师范大学教育学部,上海 200062
    2. 浙江师范大学高质量教育发展研究院,浙江金华 321004
  • 出版日期:2025-03-01 发布日期:2025-02-24
  • 基金资助:
    国家社科基金重大项目“新时代高等教育服务创新驱动发展的理论、路径与贡献评价研究”(23ZDA058)。

Challenges and Reforms in School Stratification Accompanying Key Higher Education Initiatives in China

Junwen Zhu1, Yinqi Ma2, Lingzhi Shao1   

  1. 1. Faculty of Education, East China Normal University, Shanghai 200062, China
    2. Institute for the Development of High-Quality Education Zhejiang Normal University, Zhejiang Jinhua 321004, China
  • Online:2025-03-01 Published:2025-02-24

摘要:

分类推进高校改革,实现从分层发展向分类发展转变,是进一步全面深化改革,加快建设教育强国的重要任务。如何优化我国高等教育重点建设政策对高校分层现象的伴生影响,破解其可能存在的消极效应,是亟待研究的问题。研究通过系统梳理高等教育重点建设的发展历程,结合资源支持、重点学科集聚、入学机会贡献等维度,刻画了重点建设政策对高校分层现象的影响,并据此分析了深层次的原因,提出了针对性建议。我国高等教育重点建设在集中力量支持一部分大学、一部分学科迈向世界一流目标的过程中,高等教育系统内学校之间分层现象有所加剧,学校层次结构从梯型演化为金字塔型;高水平学科的学校分布趋于集中;高等教育重点建设政策的身份固化现象可能设定了未入选学校发展的“天花板”,资源流动中的“马太效应”,高校评价中存在的以层次表征水平、以规模表征实力、以排名表征进步等现象是造成学校分层困局的多方面因素。建议推动“重点建设”向“共同发展”转变,大幅度增加高等教育重点建设学校范围、取消以学科为对象的重点建设支持方式,完善以学校类型为基础、以质量和贡献为标准的分类评价体系,是破解高等教育重点建设过程中学校分层困局的可选举措。

关键词: 高等教育, 重点建设, 分层, 分类发展

Abstract:

Promoting the classification-driven reform of higher education institutions to achieve a transition from stratified to classified development is a critical task for deepening reform and advancing China’s goal of becoming an educational powerhouse. Optimizing the impact of key higher education initiatives on school stratification and addressing their potential negative effects are pressing issues. This study systematically reviews the development history of China’s key higher education initiatives, analyzing their influence on school stratification from dimensions such as resource allocation, concentration of key disciplines, and contributions to enrollment opportunities. The findings reveal that these initiatives have intensified stratification within the higher education system, with institutional structures evolving from a pyramidal hierarchy to a more pronounced stratified model. Key disciplines are increasingly concentrated in a few institutions, and the institutional status conferred by these initiatives often creates a “ceiling effect” for non-selected universities. The stratification is further reinforced by the Matthew Effect in resource flows and evaluation practices that prioritize institutional rank, scale, and rankings over intrinsic quality and contributions. To address these challenges, this study proposes expanding the scope of institutions included in key initiatives, shifting support from discipline-focused to institution-based models, and improving classification evaluation systems centered on institutional types, quality, and societal contributions. These measures aim to alleviate the stratification challenges and promote more balanced development within the higher education system.

Key words: higher education, key initiatives, stratification, classified development