The Specific Provisions of Education Code: Concepts, Systems and Content

  • Haitao Ren
Expand
  • Law School, East China Normal University, Shanghai 200241, China

Accepted date: 2022-02-25

  Online published: 2022-04-27

Abstract

From the perspective of the connotation and historical evolution of the basic concepts of Chinese education law, the protection and realization of the right to be educated constitute the basic concepts of the specific provisions of the education code, which can be proved from the two aspects of justifiability and feasibility. The unifying effect of the basic concept on the compilation of the education code is not only reflected in the value and function of the basic concept, but also in that the protection of the right to be educated is the core purpose of the general provisions of the educational code. In terms of methodology, it is advisable to adopt the “entry into the code” standard of “horizontal educational legal relations + vertical educational legal system” for the compilation of sub-items, making full use of the legislative technique of “citing”, choosing the style design of “total score structure”, absorbing and extracting common factor legislative technology, and establishing the value rank of “subject first and then object”. On this basis, the sub-sections of the education code are composed of sub-departmental laws such as education subject, school education, education and family, social and special matters. The part of educational subject of the specific provisions includes school legal system, teacher legal system and student legal system. In the specific provisions of the education code, the part of school education includes preschool education system, compulsory education system, high school education system, higher education system, vocational education system, special education system, degree system, and examination system. The part of education and family, and the part of the society mainly include family education system and lifelong education system. The special matters part mainly stipulates the education system for ethnic minorities, the national standard spoken and written language system, and the Sino-foreign cooperative education system, etc.

Cite this article

Haitao Ren . The Specific Provisions of Education Code: Concepts, Systems and Content[J]. Journal of East China Normal University(Educational Sciences), 2022 , 40(5) : 63 -76 . DOI: 10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5560.2022.05.007

References

1 陈天昊. (2021). 法国行政法的法典化: 起源、探索与借鉴. 比较法研究, (5), 152- 171.
2 高家伟. (2017). 教育行政法. 北京: 北京大学出版社.
3 顾明远. (2018). 再论教育本质和教育价值观—纪念改革开放四十周年. 教育研究, (5), 4- 8.
4 韩延明. (2003). 理念、教育理念及大学理念探析. 教育研究, (9), 50- 56.
5 金丹. (2018). 民族教育法地位问题新论—民族地区传统法律部门理论研究的超越与反思. 贵州民族研究, (11), 25- 28.
6 刘旭东. (2021). 教育法法典化: 规范意涵、时代诉求及编纂路径. 湖南师范大学教育科学学报, (5), 1- 9.
7 马雷军. (2020). 论我国教育法的法典化. 教育研究, (6), 145- 152.
8 梅文娟, 董善满. (2020). 从地方到国家: 家庭教育立法之思考. 青少年犯罪问题, (2), 37- 45.
9 秦惠民, 谷昆鹏. (2016). 对完善我国教育法律体系的思考. 北京师范大学学报(社会科学版), (2), 5- 12.
10 任海涛, 孙冠豪. (2017). 完善高校学生权益保障机制研究—基于新修订的《普通高等学校学生管理规定》. 思想理论教育, (5), 95- 101.
11 任海涛, 徐涛. (2018). 营利性民办学校终止的法律适用研究—以《民促法》与《公司法》《破产法》的比较为进路. 教育学报, (4), 39- 46.
12 任海涛. (2019). 教育法学者关于《教师法》修改的争鸣. 湖南师范大学教育科学学报, (5), 9- 20.
13 任海涛. (2021a). 论中小学学校的法律地位. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), (1), 40- 48.
14 任海涛. (2021b). 教育法典总则编的体系构造. 东方法学, (6), 1- 18.
15 任海涛. (2021c). 论教育法法典化的实践需求与实现路径. 政治与法律, (11), 17- 29.
16 申素平. (2021a). 建设高质量教育体系 更好保障公民受教育权. 中国高教研究, (4), 4- 8.
17 申素平. (2021b). 教育立法与受教育权的体系化保障. 教育研究, (8), 35- 47.
18 石佳友. (2017). 民法典的立法技术: 关于《民法总则》的批判性解读. 比较法研究, (4), 122- 138.
19 孙宪忠. (2019). 当前我国民法典分则编纂的几点思考. 华东政法大学学报, (5), 96- 105.
20 孙宪忠. (2020). 中国民法典总则与分则之间的统辖遵从关系. 法学研究, (3), 20- 21.
21 王灿发, 陈世寅. (2019). 中国环境法法典化的证成与构想. 中国人民大学学报, (02), 2- 14.
22 王晨. (2020). 进一步贯彻实施国家通用语言文字法 铸牢中华民族共同体意识—写在《中华人民共和国国家通用语言文字法》颁布20周年之际. 中国人大, (24), 18- 20.
23 王大泉. (2020). 中国学位法律制度修订完善的历史回顾与现实展望. 复旦教育论坛, (2), 24- 31.
24 王利明. (2019). 总分结构理论与我国民法典的编纂. 交大法学, (3), 43- 55.
25 王利明. (2017). 法治具有目的性. 北京: 北京大学出版社.
26 徐国栋. (2019). 中国民法典分则诸编的排序问题—民法典贯彻“人前物后”逻辑的最后一里路. 法学杂志, (12), 1- 11.
27 严平. (2019). 日本教育法规译文精选. 北京: 科学出版社.
28 尹晗. (2020). 论教育惩戒的理论基础和有效运用. 青少年犯罪问题, (6), 5- 12.
29 张鸣起. (2020). 民法典分编的编纂. 中国法学, (3), 5- 28.
30 周林彬. (2019). 商法入典标准与民法典的立法选择——以三类商法规范如何配置为视角. 现代法学, (06), 55- 76.
31 Bergeal, C. (2009). Rédiger un texte normatif: Loi, décret, arrêté, circulaire. . . . Paris: Berger-Levrault, 135.
32 Cornu, G. (2005). Linguistique juridique. 3e edition, Montchrestien.
33 Low, G.. (2005). Will Firms Consider a European Optional Instrument in Contract. Law?. European Journal of Law and Economics, 19 (2), 1- 20.
34 Warsmann, Jean-Luc. (2009). Rapport sur la qualité et la simplification du droit. La documentation franaise, 102.
35 Wencelas,W. J.. (1953). Codification of Law in Europe and the Codification Movement in the Middle of the Nineteenth Century in the United States. Maurer Faculty, 337- 339.
Outlines

/