Brian Jeffrey
Tutoring Regulations Under Scrutiny
A recent uproar has emerged surrounding the issue of additional tutoring practices. In Ho Chi Minh City, a venue masquerading as a “handwriting practice” session was shut down after reports surfaced that it was actually holding academic classes for primary school children.
Inspectors discovered teachers were using the space to conduct lessons contrary to the guidelines set forth in Circular 29.
In Hanoi, the Department of Education intervened to suspend a tutoring center in Dong Da District that was catering to 600 students, as it was found to be violating regulations on information security and fire safety.
The following day, the department instructed Ha Dong District to conduct a thorough investigation into reports of teachers providing tutoring to their regular students at school, again breaching Circular 29.
These findings highlight the prevalence of unregulated tutoring and the lax enforcement of Circular 29.
Before the Circular was enacted, Deputy Minister of Education Pham Ngoc Thuong clarified that while extra tutoring is not banned, a clear legal framework is being established, detailing what is allowed and what is prohibited, while enhancing oversight from authorities.
According to Circular 29, tutoring for primary school students is not permitted, except for those who are especially talented or those struggling academically. Any off-campus tutoring must be legally registered and transparent. Additionally, teachers are not permitted to charge fees for tutoring their regular students at their own schools.
The ministry has reinforced that any voluntary tutoring aimed at knowledge enhancement is acceptable, provided it adheres to legal standards.
Public Reactions to New Tutoring Rules
Readers expressing their views to VietNamNet argue that tutoring is a personal necessity, differing significantly among families and students, making it unreasonable to apply uniform regulations across the board. This disconnect may lead to teachers and parents finding ways to bypass the rules.
One parent, Nga Vu, expressed concern over her 11th-grade child’s desire to study math exclusively with their regular teacher. With schools not allowed to facilitate tutoring and teachers hesitant to engage, she worries about her child’s self-study efforts, especially with graduation exams approaching.
Another reader, Vu Thi Quyen from Hanoi, noted that her children ceased extra classes for three weeks following the implementation of Circular 29, but were soon attending classes at their teachers’ homes again. She shared that during their break from tutoring, her children were at home without productive activities, causing her concern.
Despite this, fees for these sessions have increased, and class durations have been reduced, indicating a shift in the tutoring landscape.
Beyond parents’ adjustments, many readers suggested that significant income from tutoring incentivizes teachers to overlook regulations.
Reader Trung commented that tutoring could yield far more income than official salaries, prompting teachers to circumvent the rules.
Calls for Stricter Enforcement and Root Cause Addressing
To address the issues surrounding tutoring, many advocate for stringent penalties on those who violate regulations, emphasizing accountability for both schools and individuals. Some readers urged a change in parental attitudes, favoring more robust enforcement of the rules.
Reader Phung Duy Hai suggested that families should refrain from sending children to tutoring and instead focus on self-study, asserting that mere administrative bans would be ineffective as non-educators can still tutor legally.
Conversely, others argue tightening regulations tackles only the symptoms of a deeper issue. Reader Pham Duy Nhat, with four decades of education experience, argued for a complete ban on tutoring, stating that the standard curriculum should suffice to reduce pressure and maintain the integrity of education.
Similarly, Pham Tuan Anh echoed the need for quality in general education so that students will not feel compelled to seek out tutoring services.
Challenges in Enforcing Circular 29
The rapid growth of tutoring centers—with 15,000 new ones emerging just in Hanoi—along with violations such as tutoring primary school students and regular students indicates that Circular 29 faces considerable enforcement challenges. Factors like undefined penalties, a lack of personnel on local inspection teams, and parents’ preference for familiar teachers exacerbate the situation.
While Circular 29 aims to address legitimate needs for extra tutoring, its stringent rules often conflict with real-world demands, such as competitive examinations and parental pressure. The underlying issue remains the education system’s dependence on high-stakes testing, which fuels the demand for tutoring. Unless educational practices prioritize self-directed learning and lessen exam pressures, mere enforcement may only drive tutoring further underground rather than eradicated.
