Meng Mu Hall is a full-time private school, which was established in 2005. It is a modern family education model composed of parents voluntarily, and parents' representatives invite teachers to teach. On July 17, 2006, Shanghai Songjiang District Education Bureau issued a notice (Husongjiao [2006] No.94), pointing out that the Meng Mu Church is an illegal educational institution and engaged in illegal educational activities, and its illegal behavior should be stopped immediately. On July 24th, 2006, the spokesman of Shanghai Education Commission made a speech and sent a message to the media, listing the so-called "mistakes" of Meng Mu Hall:

1, violating the relevant provisions of the school license;

2. Violating the relevant provisions of Articles 2, 4 and 35 of the Compulsory Education Law;

3, in violation of the provisions of the relevant education fees.

The person in charge of the Meng Mu Office claimed that the Meng Mu Office did not violate the relevant provisions of Articles 2, 4 and 35 of the Compulsory Education Law, and the notices and public statements of the education department had no legal basis. It was planned to sue Songjiang District Education Bureau and education bureau of shanghai in administrative litigation and civil litigation respectively, so as to safeguard their legitimate rights and interests through legal means.

Extended data:

In this vigorous Meng Mu Hall incident, the focus of the dispute between the two sides lies in their different understandings of the relevant provisions of Articles 2, 4 and 35 of the Compulsory Education Law. In the "Meng Mu Guild Hall Incident", a core issue is whether the closure notice of the Shanghai education administrative organ violated the right to education of Meng Mu Guild Hall.

From the ownership of the right to education, it can be seen that both the national education administrative organs and the parents of students enjoy the right to education. The key problem is how to accurately divide the right boundary between the national education administrative organs and the parents of students. As a negative right, parents and teachers have the natural right to resist the excessive intervention of state power, which is reflected in the choice of parents. If parents' right to education and the right of choice derived from it are recognized, then the parents in the Meng Mu Hall incident chose to replace the natural exercise of parents' right to education by private family education, so there is no problem of depriving and restricting their children's right to education.

As for whether the education level of Meng Mu Hall can reach the level specified by national education, we can ask relevant experts to make an assessment. As long as it does not deviate too much from national education as a whole, we should recognize its educational achievements. Because the right to education is essentially a basic right, since it is a right, the subject and owner of the right should have the freedom to dispose of and exercise the right.

References:

China Constitution Network —— "Meng Mu Hall Incident" and "Education Clause" in Constitution Text