Research on Supporting Educational Policies for Inclusive Assessment System Balancing Educational Equity
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54097/91470h38Keywords:
Educational Equity, Inclusive Evaluation, Educational Evaluation Reform, Supporting Policies, High-quality and Balanced Compulsory EducationAbstract
The "Overall Plan for Deepening the Reform of Education Evaluation in the New Era" has put forward the direction of reform to strengthen the improvement of outcome evaluation, reinforce process evaluation, explore value-added evaluation, and construct an all-encompassing evaluation system. Supportive policies that ensure fairness in assessment cover resource allocation, support and incentives for teachers, compensation for disadvantaged groups, etc. At present, there are still educational disparities in urban and rural areas, between schools, and among different groups. Modifying the evaluation indicators will not address the problem of unfairness at its source. The framework of inclusive evaluation will be used in this paper to study the actual problems of the current evaluation system in terms of fairness, and cooperation among supporting policies and evaluation reform will also be examined. The five parts of the all-encompassing evaluation system are: the direction of evaluation, allocation of resources, teacher placement, compensation mechanism and quality supervision. Through evaluation reform, resources should be allocated to weak links, resources need to be balanced for the fairness of evaluation, compensation policies should address the problem of different starting points, and a governance model that promotes the synergy of evaluation and policies should be established. Based on the above, it is proposed that supervision and assessment of high-quality and balanced education be strengthened; financial support be optimised; teacher rotation and exchange be increased; guarantees for the enrollment of special groups be enhanced; and the application of value-added evaluation in quality monitoring be explored.
Downloads
References
[1] Xiang, L., & Stillwell, J. (2023). Rural–urban educational inequalities and their spatial variations in China. Applied Spatial Analysis and Policy, 16(2), 873–896. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12061-023-09506-1
[2] Guo, L., Huang, J., & Zhang, Y. (2019). Education development in China: Education return, quality, and equity. Sustainability, 11(13), 3750. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su11133750
[3] Ross, H., & Wang, Y. (2010). The college entrance examination in China: An overview of its social-cultural foundations, existing problems, and consequences: Guest editors' introduction. Chinese Education & Society, 43(4), 3–10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2753/CED1061-1932430400
[4] Levinson, M., Geron, T., & Brighouse, H. (2022). Conceptions of educational equity. AERA Open, 8. https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584221121344 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584221121344
[5] Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China. (2017, May 12). Notice on issuing the Measures for Supervision and Evaluation of High-Quality Balanced Development of Compulsory Education in Counties. http://www.moe.gov.cn/srcsite/A11/moe_1789/201705/t20170512_304462.html
[6] Ministry of Finance of the People’s Republic of China, & Xinzheng Municipal Bureau of Education. (2025, September 26). Notice on issuing the 2024 budget of subsidies for urban and rural compulsory education. https://public.xinzheng.gov.cn/D49Y/9637539.jhtml
[7] Zheng, L., Qi, X., & Zhang, C. (2023). Can improvements in teacher quality reduce the cognitive gap between urban and rural students in China? International Journal of Educational Development, 100, 102781. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2023.102781
[8] Li, Y. (2024, August 9). A total of 15,952 teachers planned to be dispatched to support education in the three regions. China Education News. http://www.chinanews.com.cn/edu/2024/08-09/10266058.shtml
[9] Morina, F., Fütterer, T., Hübner, N., Zitzmann, S., & Fischer, C. (2023). Effects of online teacher professional development on the teacher, classroom, and student level: a meta-analysis. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/3yaef DOI: https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/3yaef
[10] Kolbe, T., Dhuey, E., & Doutre, S. M. (2023). Unequal and increasingly unfair: How federal policy creates disparities in special education funding. Exceptional Children, 90(1), 57–75. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00144029221148784
[11] Ministry of Finance of the People’s Republic of China. (2025, August 13). The Ministry of Finance increases support to improve the capacity of special education schools. https://www.gov.cn/lianbo/bumen/202508/content_7036286.htm
[12] Tai, J. H. M., Dollinger, M., Ajjawi, R., Jorre de St Jorre, T., Krattli, S., McCarthy, D., & Prezioso, D. (2023). Designing assessment for inclusion: An exploration of diverse students’ assessment experiences. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 48(3), 403–417. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2022.2082373
[13] Nachbauer, M., & Kyriakides, L. (2020). A review and evaluation of approaches to measure equity in educational outcomes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 31(2), 306–331. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2019.1672757
[14] Yeh, S. S. (2020). Educational accountability, value-added modeling, and the origin of the achievement gap. Education and Urban Society, 52(8), 1181–1203. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124519896823
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 International Journal of Education and Humanities

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.







