With the emergence of China as an economic and political superpower, experts are increasingly asking if there is a unique “China model” that helps to explain its successes. The Chinese educational system has long attracted international interest, with some suggesting it is the secret engine room of the “Chinese miracle.” Chinese schools, it is suggested, forge highly disciplined, hard-working students who outperform most of their international peers in reading, numeracy and science skills as measured by the OECD's triennial PISA standardized test. The coordinator of the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), Andreas Schleicher, claims “a philosophical difference” is behind these high test results, one that expects “all pupils to make the grade, rather than a ‘sorting mechanism’ to find a chosen few” (“China: The world's cleverest country?,” BBC online, 9 May 2012).

In their important new book, Education and Society in Post-Mao China, Edward Vickers and Zeng Xiaodong offer a probing and erudite critique of the Chinese educational system, seeking to shatter the “Oriental mystique” that they believe clouds and distorts the West's view of education in China. In its place, Vickers and Zeng offer the first comprehensive and critically minded monograph in English on the development of the education sector in post-Mao China, and despite its at times circumlocutory structure and proses, there is a wealth of new information and fresh thinking in this excellent new book.

Comprising 12 chapters, plus an introduction and a wide-ranging conclusion, the book provides a “macroscopic narrative” of the educational trajectory of Chinese society since 1978, while exploring its ethical and socio-political implications for China's future. The book adroitly combines comparative social theory with rich historical and political context, and international comparisons with a close reading of educational policy and institutional design in post-Mao China.

In the opening chapter, Vickers and Zeng compare the educational models of post-war East Asian societies like Japan, Korea and Taiwan with post-Mao China, and argue that (despite some similarities) the Chinese Communist Party has turned its back on the “growth with equity” approach that proved successful for the “East Asian tigers,” because it fell out of favour following the radical Maoist experiment with universal, basic education.

The result was the creation of an instrumental, elitist educational system, as carefully documented in the subsequent chapters. These chapters zero in on various thematic issues in great detail, such as early childhood education, educational funding and administration, school curriculum, ideology and disciplining, the teaching profession, the gaokao (university entrance exam) system, vocation and higher education, as well as other issues. Regardless if one agrees with the author's assessment of the nature and impact of the system, the comprehensive treatment of the topic makes this book a tremendous resource for scholars and policymakers alike.

In sharp contrast to Schleicher's assessment, Vickers and Zeng demonstrate (convincingly in this reviewer's mind) how the Chinese educational system privileges the urban elite, through the hukou (household registration) system, funding arrangements, university entrance quotas and the commodification of education, and thus undermines the egalitarian principles at the heart of the system's purported “socialist values.” With the aid of statistics from Stanford's “Rural Education Action Project” (REAP), the authors reveal how migrant and rural students (especially those who are female and/or ethnic minorities) receive only limited access to educational resources in China today. In sharp contrast to China's “meritocratic” ideal, the current system sorts children into different educational and social pathways based on their assumed innate “quality” (suzhi), which allows those with prior access to superior resources (money, guanxi, urban residency, etc.) to “compete” and ultimately monopolize educational resources and credentials in the new market economy.

Vickers and Zeng also highlight the instrumentalist logic that drives education policy-making in the People's Republic of China. Rather than free, independent thinkers, the system aims to create political conformity and economic innovation. As the authors rightfully point out, these two goals are inherently contradictory. In the post-Mao era, ideological acquiescence – through a sophisticated system of moral and group disciplining and patriotic, ideological inculcation – has come at the expense of individualism, creativity and a society that is “licensed to think,” in Bertrand Russell's words.

In sum, Education and Society in Post-Mao China is essential reading for anyone interested in understanding contemporary Chinese society. The current education system is a microcosm of the resilience and vulnerabilities at the heart of the “Chinese miracle,” and, in the authors’ words, the creation of “a more unified and more equitable nationwide system for providing education and other public goods is possibly the central challenge confronting China's leadership today” (p. 78). While some might disagree with the authors’ overly gloomy assessment of the current system, the weight and detail of its argument cannot be ignored, and is sure to generate further debate and international discussion.