Is "teaching is education" a real judgment or a should-be judgment? Some educational works and textbooks in China are vague about this issue. Some textbooks put forward that "teaching is education" is a realistic judgment. For example, the textbook "Elementary Education Course" compiled by the National Normal School points out: "The individual changes caused by the projection of educational activities on the body and mind of the educated are holographic ... The so-called simple knowledge transfer and the so-called' teaching without teaching people' actually do not exist." (Note: Hu Yinsheng, editor-in-chief: A Course of Elementary Education, People's Education Press, 1995, p. 10. From this, we can draw the following conclusions: the educational nature of teaching is inevitable, and teaching is always educational regardless of the intentions of educators. This is a descriptive proposition that explains what the facts are. Some textbooks think that "teaching is education" is a natural judgment. For example, the textbook "Pedagogy" compiled by the National Normal University puts forward: "It is also conditional for students to master cultural and scientific knowledge and turn it into ideas and opinions to form the power to regulate behavior. It depends on whether the teaching content permeates the Marxist point of view, what kind of ideas teachers use to guide teaching, whether they can educate students in a targeted manner according to the characteristics of teaching materials and students' ideological characteristics, and whether they can convince and resonate with students emotionally, so that students can have the desire to improve socialist consciousness and produce moral behavior in action, cultivate their moral practice ability and form a good will and character. " (Note: Sui et al. ed.: Pedagogy, People's Education Press, 1988, p. 192. From this discussion, we can see that the educational nature of teaching is a possibility, and "teaching is education" is a normative proposition, which guides teachers to "how to do it". There are also works on teaching theory. On the one hand, it is pointed out that "pure teaching" that "only teaches but does not educate people" does not exist at all (note: Teaching Theory Course, edited by Guan Xia, Shaanxi Normal University Press, 1987 edition, the first 142, 144 ~), and "teaching is education". On the other hand, it emphasizes "not only opposing' teaching without teaching', but also preventing' mislabeling' ideological education" (Note: Teaching Theory Course, edited by Guan Xia, Shaanxi Normal University Press, 1987, 142, 144 ~ 65438)).

Is the meaning of "teaching is education" a practical judgment of "describing facts" or a proper judgment of "standardizing teachers"? Is it inevitable not to be transferred by the will of educators, or is it possible to achieve it through the efforts of educators' will? Does it mean that all teaching behaviors are educational, or does it mean that some teaching behaviors are educational under certain conditions? The author intends to make some analysis of the above two different judgments.