news

한어Русский языкEnglishFrançaisIndonesianSanskrit日本語DeutschPortuguêsΕλληνικάespañolItalianoSuomalainenLatina

education is not a business, so how can we kidnap the “voluntary” consent of parents and students?

according to the paper, on september 1, some parents reported that xiangzhou no. 9 middle school required seventh-grade freshmen to buy school uniforms, milk, and insurance. it was not mandatory, but if there was no purchase record, they would not be admitted. the school responded that it was all voluntary, but they had to wear school uniforms during activities. parents who had bought insurance and milk said it was beneficial.

it is not a problem to uniformly purchase school uniforms and let students wear uniform clothes during campus activities. after all, this is also part of the school spirit construction, and to a certain extent it can guide and control the clothing comparison among students; uniformly purchase insurance to provide children with a safety guarantee during school. as long as it is not higher than the market price, i believe parents can accept it. the most incomprehensible thing is to require students to buy milk. if the parents' feedback that "no purchase record will not be admitted" is true, it is obviously a deviation to link the admission process with the purchase of milk. education is not a business. even if the campus economy is pursued, it should be legal and compliant. how can the purchase of items be a hard condition for students to enroll?

it is undoubtedly inappropriate for the school to sell specific items to parents and students. if it is forced to be a necessary condition for students to enroll, it is illegal and unreasonable, and it is suspected of violating the principle of educational fairness. as for the principle of voluntariness, the school said it is "voluntary", that is, it does not force parents to buy, but why does it insist on what the parents said, "no purchase record, no enrollment"? if there is such a limit, it is not difficult to imagine that for the sake of their children, many parents can only choose to swallow their anger even if they are reluctant. in the video, the parents who reflect this problem are typical of reluctance.

the school said "voluntary", seemingly respecting the wishes of parents and students, but in fact it used "non-compulsion" as a shield. from the reports, the school not only hinted but also made it clear, turning the so-called "voluntary" into an unwilling transaction. this not only violates the principle of educational fairness, but also involves disguised "forced buying and selling".

education is not a business, how can we hijack the "voluntary" of parents and students? in reality, this kind of "voluntary" is not an isolated case. some parents choose to swallow their anger, even if they are unwilling, they will choose to "follow the crowd" for their children. many parents dare not report the problem, simply because they are worried that their children will be treated differently. this mentality is probably one of the reasons for being manipulated. little do they know that the more parents obey and compromise, the more they indulge the school's "voluntary" requirements.

it is worth noting that in the video, the school staff explained that "parents who bought insurance and milk said that they have benefits". this is obviously not convincing. what are the benefits? who benefits from collective purchase? if parents do not buy, whose interests are damaged? this is also the focus of controversy. i hope that after the public opinion ferments, the school can conduct self-examination and self-inspection, stand from the perspective of students, and build a truly fair compulsory education environment. i also hope that the education department can form a benign supervision mechanism to put an end to such behavior that disgusts parents.

of course, whether those parents who dare to expose the incident will be retaliated against and whether their children will be treated differently should also be taken seriously and be of concern.

peng zhiqiang, red star news commentator