“voluntary” is not a fig leaf for coercion
2024-09-04
한어Русский языкEnglishFrançaisIndonesianSanskrit日本語DeutschPortuguêsΕλληνικάespañolItalianoSuomalainenLatina
fu chenhuan
according to the paper, on september 1, some parents reported that xiangyang 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.
hearing this, i was really confused. since it is "voluntary" and "not mandatory", why "no admission without purchase record"? when was it stipulated that students can only go to school after buying school uniforms, milk, and insurance? could it be that the school is not engaged in education but business, and buying these three items will give you free education? the statement of "there are benefits" is not only unconvincing but also makes people wonder who will benefit from buying it, and whether there will be disadvantages waiting for students if they don't buy it?
on september 3, after a reporter from jingshi live contacted the school, its staff said that after investigation, it was found that some teachers made mistakes in publicity and used inappropriate language when the school was handling the admission procedures for seventh-grade freshmen. at present, the school has been asked to make corrections on the ordering issue.
it seems that the matter has come to an end, but the author still wants to talk about the issue of "voluntary participation" in schools. over the years, ordering milk, buying school uniforms for each season, raising money in the name of the parent committee to organize activities, etc. have become the "standard configuration" of many classes. when all these notifications are sent to the parents of students, they basically have to mention "voluntary participation as needed." and in implementation, it is basically "voluntary", no one is left behind! even if some parents are reluctant, their actions are "voluntary", and few parents will stand up like the "thorny" parents in this incident. the reason is very simple-for the children. in order for the children not to be "outliers" in the class, they are worried that the children will be treated differently by the school. and the more submissive the parents are, the more they will indulge the school in making various "voluntary" requirements.
take the milk subscription issue, for example. many schools have this "voluntary" program. when some parents privately approached teachers to express their unwillingness, they were told that they "must participate." what is this? if it really becomes a big deal and attracts attention, the response may be the same as in this incident: "some teachers made mistakes in the promotion and used inappropriate language."
"voluntary" is not a fig leaf for "forced buying and selling". it is not difficult to ensure the authenticity of "voluntary" through rectification and improvement. for example, schools can conduct regular self-examination and self-inspection, education departments can form a sound supervision mechanism, and anonymous supervision and reporting channels can be opened to the public. these are all ways to solve the problem. it all depends on whether there is determination.
in a word, the relationship between schools and parents should be equal, and education should be pure. if schools hold the wrong idea that "holding students means holding parents", and take the pseudo-voluntary but actually compulsory things as the "hidden rules" that should be taken for granted, then how can we talk about educational fairness and the meaning of education?
