With the coming of Teachers' Day every year, the problem of teachers accepting red envelopes has become the focus of social attention. It should be admitted that it is against teachers' morality for teachers to take advantage of their positions to accept red envelopes, especially to hint or even ask for red envelopes, which not only corrupts the industry atmosphere, but also has a negative impact on the growth of minors. In this regard, the attitude of the Ministry of Education is very clear. From 20 10 to 20 14, the relevant ban is one year, and this year is a heavy blow. On July 8th, the Ministry of Education issued "Regulations on Prohibiting Teachers from Accepting Gifts and Gifts from Students and Parents in Violation of Regulations" Jiao Jian [2065438+04] No.4, which explicitly prohibited teachers from accepting gifts and gifts from students and parents, accepting banquets and participating in entertainment activities paid by students and parents. On August 29th, the Ministry of Education issued a notice to reiterate the "six prohibitions" on teachers' gift-giving behavior in view of the possible "gift-giving style" during the Mid-Autumn Festival, Teacher's Day, before and after the start of school and during the National Day. Less than two months later, two notices were issued on the same incident, which shows the determination of the Ministry of Education in related governance. Will this determination have a substantial deterrent effect on teachers' receiving red envelopes?

Therefore, it is necessary to explore the deep-seated reasons why teachers receive red envelopes. Whether through investigation or empirical observation, it is not difficult for us to understand the motivation of parents to give gifts. In short, we hope teachers can care more about their children. Including: 1) Pay more attention to children and ask more questions in class; 2) Correcting homework can be more detailed; 3) Pay more attention to children's behavior and psychological problems, and pay more attention to communication; 4) Give children more opportunities to exercise; Wait a minute. After parents give gifts, the teacher's expected "return gift" behavior makes parents feel that the gift is worthwhile, so even without the teacher's hint, some parents will find opportunities to do something. There are also some parents who send it out of conformity: others send it, but I don't send it, which is not good for children. If the previous situation is looking forward to special care, then the delivery here is to avoid unfair treatment, which is also commonly known as "hard shoes." For example, when a child quarrels, the teacher is partial to the classmate who gave him a gift, thus unfairly handling the dispute; For example, long-term row of marginal seats for children and so on. Looking back, the so-called special care is actually within the scope of teachers' duties and the basic requirement of teachers' practice. Why do you have to take money to get it? In the process of education, it is the bottom line of teachers' professional ethics to treat every student fairly and without all kinds of discrimination. Why are parents so worried that they have to spend money to buy peace of mind?

As we all know, in the school-running system, the mainstream of education in China is organized by the government, and the public education system covers the whole country. All the resources necessary for the operation of education, including teachers, are allocated by the government in the form of mandatory plans. Teachers are often trained by public normal universities. After graduation, I passed the teacher qualification examination organized by the state and obtained the establishment of public institutions. The government gives full financial allocation according to the establishment. At this point, the deep roots of teachers accepting red envelopes surfaced. Although the government has repeatedly stressed and tried to "run a satisfactory education for the people" through various measures, the final result is not ideal. Because of the government's monopoly in running schools, teachers are identified as national public officials to educate minors on behalf of the government's public power. Although people have educational needs and there are people in society who can rely on their own knowledge and ability to meet these needs, there is no exchange relationship between demanders and capable suppliers in the free market, that is to say, the survival of public schools does not depend on the market. Since the survival is borne by the state, it is unlikely to be responsible for the educated and parents, that is to say, teachers must be responsible for education and lack the awareness of educational service.

As far as the educated are concerned, under the public education system, education is distributed to the public as a social welfare. The emphasis of academic circles and media on the "public welfare" of education has increasingly strengthened people's understanding of education as a "public good", and it is reasonable to think that children should enjoy free compulsory education. However, as the saying goes, "There is no such thing as a free lunch", not only because the money for compulsory education actually comes from sheep, but also because people are deprived of the right to choose freely while enjoying educational benefits, which is logically consistent. This deprivation of free choice appears in the name of "educational equity", which is not only the value basis of the government's educational rationing, but also the promise that the government's educational monopoly must fulfill in order to last. But the fairness here can only be superficial. True fairness means that different people receive different education. The premise of realizing this is to fully grasp the educational needs of the people, which the government cannot achieve. Moreover, due to the cultural influence of long-term egalitarianism, people also have some resistance to "difference", and it is easier to believe that "the same" is fair. Therefore, restricting school choice is considered to be in line with the principle of educational equity, and everyone receives education in their home location. The policy discourse to turn the concept of educational equity into reality is four words. There are advantages to enrolling in schools nearby, but the educated can only passively accept the government's compulsory education arrangements, which means that they also lose the possibility of substantive evaluation of school education.

There is a problem that needs to be clarified here, that is, the relationship between the government's educational evaluation and the educated's educational evaluation. Evaluate according to whether the demand is met. If the government's education evaluation and the educated's education evaluation can be equivalent and can replace each other, then the public school's responsibility to the government is equivalent to the educated. But this is not the case, because it is impossible to understand the educational needs of every family. The government's evaluation pays more attention to the enrollment rate, dropout rate, ranking in various competitions, teachers' academic qualifications, and the implementation of an education law. , and focus on a variety of clearly quantifiable matters, emphasizing data and materials. As for how teachers treat students in the process of micro-teaching, the government's evaluation can't take into account, so the government can't replace the education quality evaluation of the educated. Teachers are government education agents, and schools only need to be responsible to their superiors. At the same time, the educational distribution of welfare mode also makes it impossible for the educated to make actual achievements in educational evaluation. In this case, the practice of truly thinking for students and taking care of each student's development needs will inevitably be marginalized because of the lack of necessary incentives. In other words, teachers are actually engaged in agent opportunism. Since the evaluation is mainly based on the above, who wants to do something that is laborious and does not bring benefits to themselves? Even if parents' goal is to pursue scores, there is no need to pay too much individual attention to students when high-pressure teaching management and sea tactics can ensure the overall performance of the class. Therefore, if parents want to get satisfactory education and treatment for their children, they must pay extra, that is, gifts in the form of informal rules. Red envelopes are the cost that parents pay for obtaining high-quality educational resources. For teachers, it has an incentive function that is excluded by the welfare public education system, which stimulates teachers' enthusiasm for their children's mental input to a certain extent.

There is another situation that needs to be distinguished. Some teachers do have educational feelings. They love their jobs and try their best to take care of every student. However, the government's monopoly on education supply makes it difficult to implement this in reality. Education is a scarce resource, and the so-called scarcity means that people's demand for it is greater than the disposable amount. On the one hand, people have a wide demand for education, on the other hand, all the resources that support the operation of education are beyond people's infinite control. The existence of this scarce quantity relationship is the starting point of economic activities. If the demand for something is less than the disposable amount, people can get whatever they need without trading. Education is a scarce commodity, which means that the operation of education actually follows economic laws and needs to be configured according to the scarcity of commodities. That is, the demand side and the supply side exchange freely in the education market, and the educated do what they can according to their own conditions. At the same time, the existence of the education buyer will greatly stimulate the prosperity of the seller's market, folk education capital will flood into the education field, and the education supply will be more sufficient and diverse. Now it is the government that distributes education in a unified way, which violates the law that scarce goods must be distributed in a market-oriented way. If it violates the law, it will have bad consequences, that is, although it is free, it is in short supply. A remarkable performance is the ubiquitous large class size. Although the Ministry of Education has clear regulations on class size, it is impossible to implement such regulations. In reality, classes with more than 50 or 60 students abound, and classes with 60 or 70 students are not new. The class size is large, even if the teacher wants to take care of every student, it is beyond his power. If parents want their children to be noticed by teachers among many students, the most feasible way is to give them red envelopes. This does not mean that teachers are greedy people, but that the existence of red envelopes objectively and naturally plays a role in attracting teachers' attention.

The above has analyzed the obstacles that prevent teachers from loving students from both subjective and objective aspects. It should be pointed out that the red envelope is an improper stimulus after all, and there is a paradox in it. In a class, when giving red envelopes is the behavior of individuals and some parents, it is easy to encourage teachers to treat students unfairly, that is, paying extra attention to students who give gifts, not paying enough attention to students who don't send them, or leaving them in a forgotten corner. But if most of them are sent, the amount is almost the same, and they will return to the initial state of "no one sent them". At this time, the incentive function of red envelopes to mobilize teachers' enthusiasm and the function of naturally extracting teachers' attention from many students will decline. When parents catch the signal that red envelopes are not so useful, there are only two choices: 1) none; 2) Increase chip sending. Because of vicious academic competition, parents are also secretive about giving red envelopes, and are in a prisoner's game state, so it is unlikely to reach a balance on "not giving". Therefore, the choice can only be the latter case, depending on who sends more, and the unhealthy trend is getting worse. If the teacher's moral character is at least controllable, then this situation is even worse for a few students who don't give gifts, because the teacher will leave them with the opposite impression, and these children may be in a very unfavorable position in the class.

When teachers are distributed by the government with power, those who have the ability to provide them with iron rice bowls will also hurt their interests. Teachers' salaries set by the government can't reflect the real education price. If we put high-level teachers in a market-oriented environment, they are likely to earn much more than they do now, but now they can only accept the established salary and realize the increase of income through the promotion of professional titles step by step. In this case, as a rational egoist, it is inevitable to use the existing system defects to seek ways to make up for losses, and it is also inevitable to accept red envelopes. For those teachers with poor ability, the government's monopoly on education actually protects them. Some people try to understand the teacher's behavior of accepting red envelopes more sympathetically, and think that red envelopes have played a certain soothing role. For example, there is a saying that "the salaries of teachers in public schools are not high, and kindergartens are even worse." It is also appropriate for parents to contribute a little on Teachers' Day. After all, public tuition is not the market price, and there are many municipal subsidies. "This view can explain the former situation, but it cannot cover the latter situation. Because if you really compete in the market, poor teachers may not even be qualified to teach. Even if they do, the demand for purchase may not be high, because the quality of education services they can provide is not high, and their income in the education market may not be higher than it is now. This reminds us that the sympathetic understanding of the phenomenon of teachers receiving red envelopes cannot lose its boundaries. These teachers should have been eliminated, but under the protection of the system, they are holding iron rice bowls, not only hanging out in the teaching staff, but also looking for rent! Obviously, the immorality of teachers accepting red envelopes here is very prominent.

From the above analysis, we can see that the problem of teachers receiving red envelopes has deep institutional roots. Although the sages put great emphasis on the restraint of morality on human behavior, this restraint is not always effective. Everyone is selfish. Under the established institutional framework, they always look for loopholes in the system and try their best to achieve satisfactory results in obtaining benefits. The same is true for teachers to receive red envelopes. Under the public education system, both teachers and parents follow the informal sending and receiving rules, which is immoral, but it is in their own interests. However, for a long time, teachers' acceptance of red envelopes has been regarded as a simple topic of teachers' morality, an idea of official governance and a perspective of folk evaluation, that is, a simple moral evaluation of teachers' acceptance of red envelopes, and the solution is also the construction of teachers' morality and style. On the one hand, teachers are required to strengthen their moral cultivation and consciously carry out the transformation of "three views", on the other hand, higher authorities are emphasized to strengthen the supervision of teachers. This kind of supervision cannot be said to be ineffective. This goes back to the question raised at the beginning of this article. It can be said with certainty that this year's supervision is effective in curbing the phenomenon of receiving red envelopes. Because of the intensified crackdown by the Ministry of Education and the impact of anti-corruption actions in the general environment, many schools have applied for teachers' day many times this year, and publicly refused to accept gifts and gifts from parents by signing letters of commitment and sending text messages in groups. In some schools, principals and security guards will fight to enforce the relevant regulations. According to the photo report of Qilu Evening News in September 1 1, on Teacher's Day, the task of security guards and principals is to intercept gifts, including simple small gifts such as a few flowers, which cannot be brought into the school.

It is also reported that the sales volume of flower shops has dropped by 30% compared with the same period of this year. The reporter visited some flower markets and found that this year's flower market is a bit deserted, which is different from the fiery atmosphere every year.

It cannot be said that the sword-wielding action of the Ministry of Education is indeed effective, and it seems correct for many people to strengthen government supervision as a solution. However, what we need to think about is, even if the red envelope atmosphere stops, can the problem of insufficient motivation of teachers under the public education system be solved? Can the shortage of quality education caused by the lack of competition under the monopoly of government education supply be solved? In fact, the containment of receiving red envelopes will cover up these problems, and the situation of low quality education will continue. That's the point. Moreover, because the supervision cost is too high, once the supervision is relaxed, the phenomenon of red envelopes will come back, because the hotbed that breeds it always exists.

Some people say that China has a tradition of respecting teachers and valuing education, and giving red envelopes is actually out of respect and recognition for teachers. It is undeniable that some parents give red envelopes to teachers out of respect, and their motives may not be single. However, when the wind of red envelopes is at its peak, we can resort to intuition to deny it, from charging phone bills to sending shopping cards to sending money directly. From the above analysis, we can see that when teachers' profession is protected by privilege, the educated and teachers are in an unequal state. Parents give teachers red envelopes not out of respect, but because they are profitable. A good system fully respects people's self-interest nature, but at the same time prevents people from hurting others in the pursuit of profits. A good system guides people in society to perform their duties and achieve mutual benefit and win-win through reasonable resource allocation. The solution to the problem of teachers accepting red envelopes is inseparable from the reasonable system construction. Break the government monopoly, respect the rights of private education, and let the educated and education providers communicate freely in the market according to their respective needs. On the one hand, we can solve the problem of insufficient educational incentives through parents' substantive educational evaluation. On the other hand, through the injection of more private capital, the shortage of educational resources can be solved, and through healthy competition, more high-quality educational resources can be born and cultivated, thus fundamentally solving the problem of excessive class size. This idea is to treat both the symptoms and the root causes.