In this era of rapid change, there are voices for education reform one after another, and the proposal to break the "iron rice bowl" of teachers and implement a contract employment system is particularly noteworthy. Public opinion generally believes that this will stimulate the enthusiasm of teachers to work, so that they will no longer "lie flat". However, can such a reform really come to fruition?
Imagine if teachers no longer have a stable staffing and will they work harder to educate as they would expect, or may this lead to a series of unforeseen problems?
First of all, we must face up to the fact that the abolition of the establishment may further exacerbate the short-sighted and utilitarian tendencies of education. Under the current educational evaluation system, schools and teachers tend to be more inclined to pursue results that can be seen in the short term. After all, under the pressure of the contract system, who doesn't want to show their teaching results in a short period of time to ensure the renewal of the contract? In this way, will the educational work that requires a long period of time but is difficult to achieve immediate results, such as in-depth student psychological counseling and comprehensive moral education, be neglected? Will teachers be more inclined to "test-oriented education" and ignore the all-round development and individual needs of students?
Furthermore, we cannot ignore the potential risk of teacher burnout. The existence of the establishment gives the profession of teachers relative stability and provides them with a certain degree of security. However, if the establishment is abolished, the career prospects of teachers will become more uncertain. This uncertainty can lead to anxiety and uneasiness among teachers, which can lead to burnout. When teachers feel lost and worried about their future, how can they devote themselves to education?
More importantly, we must recognize the scarcity of good teachers. If the establishment is abolished, will these valuable teacher resources be attracted to more financially powerful private schools? After all, under the laws of the market economy, good teachers will also flow to places that can provide better pay and more stable career prospects. At that time, will high-quality educational resources become the exclusive property of wealthy families? Will the children of ordinary families lose the opportunity to receive high-quality education because of this?
The answers to these questions are not clear-cut, but they do deserve to be pondered. Education is a long-term and complex project that requires enthusiasm, patience and dedication from teachers. And these are precisely built on the basis of stability and security.
Of course, we are not saying that the teacher establishment system is perfect, and there are many areas for improvement. For example, how to establish a more scientific teacher evaluation system, how to improve teachers' salaries to attract more outstanding talents, and how to ensure the vitality and innovation of teachers? These are all issues that we must face when discussing educational reform.
To sum up, the reform of breaking the "iron rice bowl" of teachers and implementing the contract employment system is not a one-time solution. It can bring a series of ripple effects and problems. Therefore, in promoting this reform, we must be extremely cautious and fully consider all aspects of factors and potential risks. Only in this way can we ensure that education reform is truly moving in a direction that is conducive to the development of education.
Finally, we would like to ask: can such a reform really motivate teachers, or should we seek a more comprehensive and scientific reform program? There are no standard answers to these questions, but they are worth thinking about and exploring by each of us. Because the future of education is about each and every one of us, about the future and direction of this society. #取消教师编制可行吗?#