First of all, the investigation results of the investigation team show that the procedure of "job title declaration" is legal, and no violations of discipline and discipline have been found during the evaluation process, but there are minor flaws. First, the work is not detailed enough and there are missing words, and there is no report phone number during the publicity period; Second, the list of six people who have been recommended has not been publicized separately. If only from the public investigation report, the whole procedure is indeed legal and compliant, but according to the requirements of the procedure, the publicist fails to publicize as required, and there is no public report phone number during the publicity period, then the whole publicity is illegal and non-compliant. After all, the publicity process belongs to the part of mass supervision. In the publicity without a report phone number, even if the masses find that someone has a problem, they can't report it. So the whole propaganda is meaningless, thus losing the effectiveness of mass supervision.
Secondly, although the review is legal and compliant in procedure, the investigation team did not answer the core of the question, but avoided the important and ignored it. First, before the democratic evaluation, the comprehensive scores of teachers were obviously within the top six (the video said that they were the second), but after the democratic evaluation, who were the seventh and the top six? During the publicity period, it was not disclosed separately. In the whole democratic evaluation, 12 people voted in the "democratic evaluation link of the evaluation team", and the teacher only got 1 vote. There must be a reason not to vote. This is not reflected in the investigation report (personal grievances must not be put on the table). In the "evaluation link between office director (grade leader) and school leaders", a total of 15 people voted, and the teacher won three votes. Why didn't the rest vote? We should also investigate the reasons and give the public a clear understanding.
The second is how the teacher's teaching performance and honorary qualifications have a huge contrast. The teacher's teaching performance score is 42.25, ranking second from the bottom among 17 teachers who participated in the evaluation, while the comprehensive score of honorary qualification is 43.8, ranking second among 17 teachers who participated in the evaluation. The penultimate performance is in sharp contrast to the second positive honor. How to explain this phenomenon, can it be said that the school's teaching performance has nothing to do with personal honor? Whether the teaching achievement is decided by some people or the personal honor is given by others needs a positive answer (how the achievement is reflected in the evaluation scheme or how the scheme is formulated, the weight of honor is the same for all).
Finally, whether the incident ends here or the investigation team continues to investigate deeply, the evaluation of teachers' professional titles will eventually return to teaching quality (different from teaching performance) and personal honor. Teaching quality is the embodiment of current teaching ability, while personal honor is the affirmation of past achievements, and the final decision should not be put on the vote of leaders. If it's not just interpersonal relationships, why should teachers bow their heads to teach and educate people? I guess no one will concentrate on teaching and educating people.