First of all, the prohibition of "paid tutoring" lacks the broad understanding and recognition of teachers and the public. If the administrative organ wants to implement a "decision" and succeed, the premise is to get the public's understanding and recognition of the "decision". Whether the public can understand and recognize the Decision depends on its fairness. In other words, the prohibition of "paid tutoring" must only be for success. If teachers sincerely feel that "paid tutoring" is a "good thing" that benefits the country and the people, I am afraid there is nothing they can do; If teachers generally think that "paid tutoring" is a "bad thing" that harms the country and the people, or a "scandal" similar to stealing chickens and dogs, it will naturally disappear without strong prohibition. At present, teachers and the public have not fully realized the seriousness of the problem of "paid tutoring", and even teachers and parents do not know where they are "wrong". Therefore, if we want to prohibit "paid tutoring", we must give reasonable and legal reasons to improve people's ideological consciousness. Secondly, it is necessary for those who forbid it to reflect on the rationality of their behavior and realize "justice" in three aspects: the motive of prohibiting "paid tutoring" must be just; The norm of prohibiting "paid tutoring" must be fair; The procedure of prohibiting "paid tutoring" must be fair. The author suggests holding a "hearing" attended by many representatives for this purpose.
Second, the indiscriminate and blind "one size fits all" prohibition of "paid tutoring" is itself an important reason why "paid tutoring" is getting worse and worse. Due to the indiscriminate and blind "one size fits all" prohibition, the number of teachers engaged in "paid tutoring" can be reduced in a short time, and at the same time, "paid tutoring" has also entered an underground state, making teachers afraid to openly teach, so that rural teachers secretly go to the city to teach, and urban teachers secretly teach in different places to escape the jurisdiction of local education authorities. This kind of "escape" itself increases the risk and cost of engaging in "tutoring". The high "price" of tutoring makes some teachers want to stop, and it also stimulates some teachers' desire to engage in tutoring again. The reason why they finally dare to take risks is naturally economic interests. As far as the economically underdeveloped northern Jiangsu Province is concerned, the statement that a high school math teacher and an English teacher earn more than 100,000 yuan in a summer vacation is even more hearsay. The author suggests that relevant departments should be organized to conduct a special investigation to distinguish the specific situation of family education, and on this basis, countermeasures should be studied and specific problems should be treated. Whether norms should be introduced or guided, restricted or prohibited should be coordinated with social morality, market economy and legal norms.
Third, the education authorities mistakenly put "rule by virtue" into the track of "rule by law", while prohibiting in-service teachers from engaging in "paid tutoring" is still in a legally unfounded state. What is the legal definition of "paid tutoring"? Nobody knows. This is because the rectification of "paid tutoring" has not really entered the track of rule of law. The author believes that this should not enter the track of the rule of law. If it is prohibited by the rule of law, then "paid tutoring" should have a clear "prohibitive norm" in law, which is as illegal as "drunk driving". Those who have repeatedly engaged in "paid tutoring" or engaged in "paid tutoring" to obtain illegal income should be punished as "paid tutoring crime". But at present, there is no charge of "paid tutor crime" in our criminal law. If the problem of "paid tutoring" is handled in a "legal" way, should parents who hire teachers also constitute criminals of "paid tutoring"? Obviously, the problem of "paid tutoring" itself belongs to "rule by virtue" management. What the education department should do is to strengthen moral education and establish a moral evaluation mechanism, rather than the administrative organs implementing administrative management in the form of "law enforcement", let alone the headmaster doing it at will. Anyone who knows a little about labor law should know that dismissal requires legal conditions, and "dismissal" is even more illegal, which is not conducive to solving the problem.
The phenomenon of "paid tutoring" has a long history, and the long-standing problems often have their profound background and roots. In solving these problems, we should not act rashly. General Secretary Hu Jintao recently put forward four requirements for correctly handling contradictions among the people in the new era, which provides us with more space to calmly think about solving the problem of "paid tutoring": Do we pay attention to solving the problem from the source? Have we paid attention to safeguarding the rights and interests of the masses? Do we "attach importance to mass work"? Do we "focus on strengthening and innovating social management"?
(edit off)