A Comparison Between The Ruijin And The Zouping Educational Modes

In the year1920to1930, China society went through thetransition period and there were many problems, especially for thefarmer in rural area. At that time, they were in low social status andwent through deep and long time exploitation and oppression fromlandlord class. Besides, they suffered from bankrupt due to warlordswars. Therefore, few of them had opportunities to receive educationor had advanced cultural thoughts. Such problems led to the declineof the rural society and consequently triggered the rural crisis.So, thewhole society started to turn attention to the rural. In order to solvethe rural crisis, the way to save Chinese society and the rural hadbeen exploring.During that period, Mao Zedong clearly understood that the onlyway to releve the pressure of the three mountains on Chinese peoplewas revolution. So he put forward a way of rural revolution. While, inthe same period, Liang Shuming argues there was only cyclistgovernment and rebellion but not revolution in China. So he proposedthe path of rural construction which was a reformist road insubstance. On the basis of each proposals, they put them intopractice. Mao Zedong chose the arduous Jiangxi mountain area andfinally developed the Soviet Area with the core of Ruijin. While, LiangShuming chose the plainful Zouping in Shandong. Mao and Liang were two typical of saving rural crisis at that time. Both of them thoughthighly of education effect and they made full use of the relationsamong education, politician and economy to reform every aspects ofrural society. Therefore, two kinds of distinctive education practicehad formed and they were just Ruijin Education Mode and ZoupingEducation Mode in this paper.The two education modes developed under the same socialbackground and they were both carried on in rural area. For thesereasons, they certainly shared some similarities but reflected muchmore differences. There were many researches on Mao’s educationpractice in Central Soviet Area as well as Liang’s in Zouping. However,most of them were focused on a single layer or just concerned aboutanalysis on the typicalities and fewer had made comprehensive andsystematical comparison between them, which interested the authorto put the two modes together for contrast study. By studying the twoeducation modes, the true rural education of that period could getrecalled and the practice experiences could offer references forpresent rural education reform as well.