我国高等教育评估法律制度:核心规范、问题审视与转向调整

The Legal System of China’s Higher Education Evaluation:Core Norms, Examination of the problems, and Adjustment of its Orientation

我国高等教育评估法律制度由不同位阶的规范性文件组成。高等教育评估确立了法律地位,评估行为实现了法制化,评估实践活动具备了法治保障,但也存在着评估法律规范调整滞后、评估法律制度缺乏统筹考量等问题。进入全面深化综合改革的新时代,高等教育评估法律发展面临着管办评分离、“放管服”改革以及深化新时代教育督导体制机制改革等制度变革宏观环境。新时代高等教育评估法在总体审视评估制度全面深化改革、评估立法可行性和联动性等方面基础上,进而从基本定位和关键性规范探讨其转向调整。高等教育评估法的基本定位要考虑评估法律关系多元化、评估法律位阶提升、政府评估权限规制等方面;关键性规范包括解决第三方评估机构的权力来源、建立评估认可制度和创设评估救济制度等。

The legal system of higher education evaluation in China comprises normative documents of different levels, including the basic law, the common law, administrative regulations, departmental regulations and policies. The legal status of higher education evaluation has been established, the implementation legalized, and the practice of evaluation guaranteed. However, some problems still exist. For instance, the amendment of evaluation laws lags behind, and the fragmentation of the legal system of evaluation makes it difficult to act in concert. In the new era of deepening comprehensive reform, the development of the legal system of higher education evaluation is in a macro environment of institutional changes, which is characterized by “the separation of administration, university-running and evaluation”, “reform in delegating powers, enhancing regulation and strengthening public services”, and deepening the institutional mechanism of educational supervision in the new era. This paper argues that the legal system of higher education evaluation in the new era should first take into consideration the overall examination of the evaluation system and the deepening reform of the higher education evaluation system, the feasibility of evaluation legislation and its linkage in general, and then make a shift of adjustments in the basic orientation and key norms. The basic orientation of the higher education evaluation system should consider the diversified legal relationships between evaluation laws, promotion of the legal status of evaluation, and restriction of government authority in evaluation. The key norms include addressing the source of authority of third-party evaluation institutions, establishing an evaluation recognition system, and creating an evaluation remedy system.