Is “Happy Education” Wrong?

Is “Happy Education” Wrong?

In recent days, an article titled “Behind Western ‘Happy Education’ Lie Two Huge Conspiracies” has spread widely across various media platforms. Even the Youth League’s official public account reposted it. The article argues that the widely promoted Western idea of “happy education” is in fact a conspiracy: under the guise of ease and freedom, it quietly completes social stratification. According to the article, this seemingly pleasant form of education offers ordinary people only the most basic access to schooling, while subtly locking them into their current social class. Meanwhile, children from the managerial and elite classes attend private schools from an early age and work hard to stay competitive, thereby preserving their place among the elite.

At first glance, this argument does feel satisfying. It is tempting to say: “You keep preaching individuality and happy education, but in the end it is all just a conspiracy. Aren’t the children of the real elite studying just as hard as Chinese children, striving for advancement in exactly the same way?” From another angle, this narrative seems to suggest that our own education system is actually more advanced, which naturally gives many people a sense of pride. But is that really the case?

I do not think so. Even judging only from the article itself, it is deeply unconvincing. It cites just one questionable individual example and then extrapolates from it into a grand conspiracy theory. On a serious issue like education, something that shapes the future across generations, reaching such sweeping conclusions on the basis of hearsay plus imagination is irresponsible to begin with. And whether Western “happy education” is really just a tool of class stratification cannot be concluded simply because children from elite families attend private schools. Social contexts differ. In China, talent has not flowed en masse into private universities because private institutions generally do not match public ones in resource allocation. In the West, however, the distribution of resources is often the reverse. And when it comes to primary school, secondary school, or even preschool, do not the children of the managerial class in China also occupy the best educational resources? This has little to do with East or West. It is common sense that the economic base shapes the superstructure.

To argue that education itself creates class divisions is to confuse cause and effect. Unequal distribution of resources is indeed a fact, but that fact is determined by unequal class structures, not the other way around. As for the gradual solidification of class, that too is a reality, but it should not be interpreted as an educational conspiracy. To borrow the argument of the author of Capital in the Twenty-First Century, this is a result of the current state of economic development. Reducing all of these complex causes to a conspiracy in education is neither scientific nor responsible. It is pure fantasy and empty nonsense.

Let us return to education itself. More than a hundred years ago, our predecessors already declared that “If the youth are strong, China will be strong.” Yet how young people become strong depends to a great extent on our education system. Today, however, it is hard to see in students a sense of wonder and hunger for knowledge. We do not often see the satisfaction and joy that come from learning; what we see instead is endless academic pressure. Is that really normal?

Confucius said, “Those who know it are not equal to those who love it, and those who love it are not equal to those who delight in it.” How true those words are. Our education system certainly has its strengths: students often build a solid foundation in the basic disciplines. But our schools, first, do not teach students how to survive in society, and second, do not teach them how to conduct themselves as human beings.

If one insists on saying that Western education contributes to class solidification, then I would argue that a large part of the reason is that Western education has, from the very beginning, taken human diversity into account. Not everyone has the opportunity—or the need—to receive higher education, but everyone must find a place in society. As a result, their systems make more effort in differentiated educational approaches and in vocational education. The booming popularity of many vocational training institutions in China, I think, reflects an attempt to make up for shortcomings in our own system.

On the other hand, learning how to conduct oneself as a person can never be solved merely by shouting slogans. Western education fundamentally emphasizes the expression of individuality, cooperation between people, and honesty. These are all indispensable to the formation and development of a person’s character. And as for the “happiness” criticized by the original author, I believe it is something that should be indispensable in everyone’s growth.

Education is the foundation of a nation’s long-term future. Faced with the next generation, we bear an inescapable responsibility. One individual may not be able to change the entire education system, but each of us has a duty to contribute, however modestly, to its improvement. And when it comes to ideas imported from abroad, we should take what is best in them rather than dismissing them with a conspiracy theory in order to deny others and flatter ourselves.