大通回族土族自治县义务教育条例
青海省人大常委会
大通回族土族自治县义务教育条例
青海省人大常委会
（1996年5月8日大通回族土族自治县第十二届人民代表大会第四次会议通过 1997年7月25日青海省第八届人民代表大会常务委员会第三十一次会议批准 1997年9月1日起施行）
条例
第一条 为了促进本县九年义务教育，根据《中华人民共和国义务教育法》、《青海省实施〈中华人民共和国义务教育法〉办法》、《大通回族土族自治县自治条例》等法律、法规，结合本县实际，制定本条例。
第二条 九年义务教育必须贯彻国家的教育方针，努力提高教育质量，使儿童、少年在品德、智力、体质等方面全面发展，为提高全民族的素质，培养有理想、有道德、有文化、有纪律的社会主义建设人才奠定基础。
第三条 九年义务教育实行目标管理责任制。县人民政府负责制定全县九年义务教育的规划并组织实施。
乡（镇）人民政府根据本县九年义务教育规划，制定本乡（镇）的实施方案，并负责实施。
驻县企业的九年义务教育工作，由当地人民政府统筹负责。设有中、小学的企业要办好自己的学校，积极普及九年义务教育。
第四条 九年义务教育实行评估验收制度。评估验收按县人民政府制定的规划进行。县教育督导室负责全县九年义务教育的督导、评估。
第五条 凡年满七周岁的儿童，应入学接受九年义务教育。县城所在地和有条件的乡（镇），儿童可以六周岁入学。居住分散的边远地区，儿童入学年龄可推迟到八周岁。
儿童、少年接受义务教育的权利受国家法律保护。父母或其他监护人必须保证子女或被监护人按规定年龄入学，受完九年义务教育。
适龄儿童、少年因疾病或特殊情况，需要延缓或免于就学的，须由儿童、少年的父母或其他监护人提出申请并出具县以上人民医院或有关单位证明，分别由乡（镇）人民政府或县教育行政部门批准。
第六条 禁止任何单位和个人招收未受完九年义务教育的儿童、少年就业。
第七条 县、乡（镇）人民政府要合理设置小学、初级中学，方便儿童、少年入学。要积极创造条件，发展学前教育和特殊教育。
鼓励集体经济组织、企业事业单位和其他社会力量开办学校。办学要经县人民政府批准。
第八条 县、乡（镇）人民政府加强民族教育，办好回族女子中学和其他民族学校，提高少数民族学生、特别是少数民族女童的入学率。在居住分散的少数民族地方，可设立寄宿学校。对特贫户的学生，减收或免收杂费。
第九条 学校有协助当地人民政府组织动员适龄儿童、少年按时入学的义务。
学校要严格学籍管理制度，不得强迫学生退学或转学。学校应接受曾有过失足行为的学生继续就学，不得歧视。学校应接受不妨碍正常学习的残疾儿童、少年入学。
学校不得向学生或家长单位摊派，滥收费用。
第十条 学校必须对学生加强爱祖国、爱人民、爱劳动、爱科学、爱社会主义的教育。
学校要严格执行教学大纲，加强教学研究，改进教学方法，提高教学质量。
第十一条 任何单位和个人不得破坏、侵占学校场地、房舍、设备及其它财产，不准向学校乱摊派，不得污染学校环境，不得干扰学校正常教学秩序。
未经教育行政部门批准，学校不得随意停课，不得将校舍、场地出租、转让作非教学使用。
第十二条 不准在学校传播淫秽读物和音像制品，不准向学生灌输封建迷信思想。
禁止在校园内和学校门口摆摊叫卖。
第十三条 禁止利用宗教妨碍、干预义务教育。
禁止寺院招收未受完九年义务教育的儿童、少年入寺。
第十四条 县人民政府有计划地吸收、培养、培训师资，加强教师队伍建设，稳定教师队伍，提高教师素质，逐步达到国家规定的教师学历标准。
任何单位未经县教育行政部门批准，不得随意抽调和借调教师做其它工作。
第十五条 教师应遵守和维护职业道德。禁止辱骂、体罚或变相体罚学生。
第十六条 实行教师职称评聘分离，年度考核。
第十七条 全社会要尊师重教，保护教师的合法权益。县、乡（镇）人民政府要采取有效措施，改善教师的工作条件和生活条件，在边远山区工作的教师享受适当的补贴。
各级人民政府要切实保证和逐步提高民办教师待遇。民办教师的报酬应略高于当年全县农民人均纯收入，其报酬除国家补助部分外，由乡（镇）人民政府统筹解决，不得拖欠。
第十八条 实施义务教育的经费，由县、乡（镇）人民政府负责筹措。用于义务教育的财政拨款的增长比例，要高于当年财经经常性收入的增长比例，并使生均教育费用逐步增长，切实保护教师工资和生均公用经费逐步增长。
农村、城镇的教育费附加，由税务部门和乡（镇）人民政府依法足额征收，并按期如数拨付给教育行政部门。农村教育费附加按上年农民人均纯收入的1．5－2％的比例与农业税一并征收，并实行乡征县管乡用。教育费附加主要用于九年义务教育。
鼓励各种社会力量和个人自愿捐资助学。
任何单位和个人不得克扣或挪用教育经费。
第十九条 县人民政府把学校的基本建设纳入城乡建设规划，统筹安排学校的基本建设用地，按照国家有关规定实行优惠政策。
学校的基本建设资金，以财政拨款为主，多渠道筹集。乡（镇）人民政府按有关规定经过批准之后，根据自愿量力的原则，可以在本行政区域内集资，用于改造学校危房。
第二十条 县、乡（镇）人民政府逐步建立人民教育基金，用于奖励和表彰在义务教育工作中成绩显著的单位和个人。
县人民政府按照国家规定设立助学金，帮助贫困学生就学。有条件的学校，可设立奖学金。
第二十一条 县人民政府重视和发展电化教育，计划、财政、广播电视等部门应予扶持。
第二十二条 县人民政府制定优惠政策，鼓励和扶持学校开展勤工俭学，兴办校办产业。
第二十三条 对符合下列条件的单位和个人，由县、乡（镇）人民政府给予表彰和奖励：
（一）认真执行本条例，成绩显著的；
（二）积极办学或捐资助学，做出突出贡献的；
（三）长期从事义务教育事业，忠于职守，取得优异成绩的。
第二十四条 对违反本条例，有下列行为之一的单位和个人，由有关部门分别给予批评教育、行政处分或依法进行行政处罚；构成犯罪的，由司法机关追究刑事责任：
（一）不执行义务教育的有关规定，工作失职的；
（二）父母或其他监护人无正当理由不送适龄儿童、少年入学接受九年义务教育的；
（三）招收应该接受九年义务教育的儿童、少年就业、入寺的；
（四）拒绝接受不妨碍正常学习的残疾儿童、少年入学或强迫学生退学、转学的；
（五）侵占、破坏、私自转让学校场地、房舍、设备和其他财产，干扰正常教学秩序的；
（六）利用宗教干预、妨碍义务教育的；
（七）在学校传播淫秽读物、音像制品或向学生灌输封建迷信思想的；
（八）侮辱、殴打教师或体罚学生的；
（九）不及时采取措施，致使校舍倒塌造成事故的；
（十）征收教育费附加不力的；
（十一）贪污、挪用、克扣教育经费和专项教育资金的。
第二十五条 本条例应用中的具体问题由县人民政府负责解释。
第二十六条 本条例自1997年9月1日起施行。
1997年7月25日
Expansion of Applicable Sphere: A way to Uniformity
——Compare and Contrast between UNIDROIT and UNCITRAL Conventions
By Dongsheng Lu, Chen Yan
I. Introduction
Financing is paramount for the promotion of commerce. It has been noted that “in developed countries the bulk of corporate wealth is locked up in receivables”. As the economy develops, this wealth increasing is “unlocked by transferring receivables across national borders”. With the prompt and great increases in international trade, receivables financing now plays a more and more important role. Yet under the law of many countries, certain forms of receivables financing are still not recognized. Even transactions are involved in countries where the form of receivables financing is permitted, determining which law governs will be difficult. The disparity among laws of different jurisdiction increases uncertainty in transactions, thus constitutes obstacles to the development of assignments of receivables. To remove such obstacles arising from the uncertainty existing in various legal systems and promote the development of receivables financing cross-boarder, a set of uniform rules in this field is required. The international community has made great efforts in adopting uniform laws. Among those efforts, the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) drafted, on 12 December, 2001, “United Nations Convention on the Assignment of Receivables in International Trade” (hereinafter referred to as the “UNCITRAL Convention”), with its aim to “establish principles and to adopt rules relating to the assignment of receivables that would create certainty and transparency and promote the modernization of the law relating to assignments of receivables”. UNCITRAL is not the first international organization attempting to resolve the problems associated with receivables. As early as in May 1988, the International Institute for the Unification of Private Law (UNIDROIT) has already adopted a convention known as the “UNIDROIT Convention on International Factoring” (hereinafter referred to as the “UNIDROIT Convention”).
When compare and contrast between the UNIDROIT Convention and the UNCITRAL Convention, one might see a lot of inconsistency in detailed regulations, e.g. sphere of application, relations between parties, priorities, and choice of law, etc. Given the limited space available in this article, the author may only focus on the difference in “sphere of application” of these two conventions, as sphere of application is perhaps the most fundamental issue of a convention.
The purpose of an international convention is to create uniformity in its covered matter, thus the broader a convention’s sphere of application is, the higher could uniformity reach. This article will try to make compare and contrast the sphere of application between the UNIDROIT Convention and the UNCITRAL Convention, illustrate the differences exist between these two conventions, and demonstrate the expansion of sphere of application in the UNCITRAL Convention and its progress on the way to uniformity.
II. Sphere of Application: Subject Matter
As its title indicates, the subject matter of the UNIDROIT Convention is of course international factoring. Article 1(1) says, “this Convention governs factoring contracts and assignments of receivables as described in this Chapter.”
For “factoring contract”, the UNIDROIT Convention provides the following 4 characteristics:
(1) purpose of the contract is to assign receivables;
(2) receivables to be assigned arises from contracts of sale of goods made between the supplier and its customers (debtors), other than those of sale of goods bought primarily for personal, family or household use;
(3) the factor is to perform at least two of the four functions: (i) finance for the supplier; (ii) maintenance of accounts (ledgering) relating to the receivables; (iii) collection of receivables; and (iv) protection against default in payment by debtors;
(4) notice of the assignment of the receivables is to be given to debtors.
As about “assignments of receivables as described in this Chapter”, article 2 (1) describes assignments of receivables as assignment of receivables pursuant to a factoring contract.
Factoring is just a subset of the receivables financing, and perhaps the oldest and most basic one. Besides factoring, receivables financing still entail the following forms,
(1) Forfeiting, similar to factoring, involves the purchase or discounting of documentary receivables (promissory notes, for example) without recourse to the party from whom the receivables are purchased;
(2) Refinancing, also known as secondary financing, involves the subsequent assignment of receivables. In its basic form, one bank or financier will assign to another bank its interest, with the potential for further assignment;
(3) Securitization, in which both marketable (for example, trade receivables) and non-marketable (consumer credit card receivables) asset cash flows are repackaged by a lender and transferred to a lender-controlled company, which will issue securities, sell and then use the proceeds to purchase the receivables;
(4) Project Finance, in which repayment of loans made by banks or financiers to project contractors for the financing of projects are secured through the future revenues of the project.
The first draft of the UNCITRAL Convention has stated to cover factoring, forfeiting, refinancing, securitization and project finance. Somehow, the working group decides that rather than emphasize the form in which the receivables appear, it would instead concentrate on the way in which the receivables might be transferred (contractual or non-contractual) and the purpose of the transaction (for financing or non-financing purposes). It decides the contractual receivables and assignment made to secure financing and other related services would be covered. The non-contractual receivables such as insurance and tort receivables, deposit bank accounts, or claims arising by operation of law seems are not within the ambits of the UNCITRAL convention.
III. Sphere of Application: Special Requirements
Both of the conventions contain a series of requirements. Only when those requirements are satisfied, could the convention be applied. The higher and stricter the requirements are, the smaller the chance to apply the convention is.
a) Internationality requirement
Both the two conventions indicate their sphere of application is of internationality requirement, but the same word in these two conventions has different legal meaning. The internationality requirement of UNIDROIT Convention is exclusively based upon the parties to the underlying contract, i.e. the contract of sale of goods (the supplier and the debtor) having their place of business in different countries. In other words, where the receivables arise from a contract of sale of goods between a supplier and a debtor whose places of business are in the same State, the UNIDROIT Convention could not apply, no matter the following assignment of receivables is to assignee in the same or different State. Thus leaving the international assignment of domestic receivables untouched. The problem, at its simplest, is twofold: first, inconsistency. For instance, in the case where a bulk assignment is made and where part of the receivables are domestic (supplier and debtor are in the same State) and part are international (supplier and debtor are in different State), if the supplier assigns the receivables to a party which is located in another State, the bulk assignment between the same supplier and the same assignee will be governed by two sets of laws and regulations: the portion of international receivables may be governed by the UNIDROIT Convention while the domestic one will be left to the jurisdiction of certain domestic law.
Secondly, leaving the international assignment of domestic receivables to the jurisdiction of various law systems of different States can make “commercial practice uncertain, time-consuming and expensive”. The assignee of receivables from a foreign State may not know which State’s law governs the transaction, and, if the law of the assignor’s State applies, the assignee’s rights would be subject to the vagaries of that foreign law. This no doubt would greatly impede the development of such transaction.
