Đừng "siết" dạy thêm, học thêm ở "phần ngọn"
When a policy is enacted but fails to bring about significant changes in practice, it's necessary to question its direction. Perhaps the problem lies not in the strictness of the regulations, but in the approach: We are addressing the symptoms instead of the root cause.
.png)
Nguyen Vuong Linh -Principal of Dang Chanh Ky Secondary School /
Present:Hong ToaiMarch 27, 2026
*****
When a policy is enacted but fails to bring about significant changes in practice, it's necessary to question its direction. Perhaps the problem lies not in the strictness of the regulations, but in the approach: We are addressing the symptoms instead of the root cause.
Tutoring and extra classes have been discussed numerous times over the years, and even subjected to stricter regulations, but the reality is that significant change has yet to materialize. Extra classes continue to exist and are quite widespread, reflecting a real need that is difficult to replace in the current context. This shows that the issue is not simply about strict or lax regulations, but also about how we approach and perceive the nature of this phenomenon.
Currently, the Ministry of Education and Training is seeking feedback on a draft amendment to Circular 29/2024/TT-BGDĐT, which aims to remove the ban on legitimate tutoring and supplementary classes.
First and foremost, it must be affirmed that the amendments are necessary, reasonable, and should be implemented soon.
Circular 29 was issued with the goal of bringing extracurricular tutoring into a structured framework, aiming to curb the widespread practice of tutoring within schools, thereby reducing academic pressure on students. However, after more than a year of implementation, reality shows that the demand for extracurricular tutoring among students has not only not decreased but remains widespread. This partly indicates that the Circular has not achieved its initial goals. Therefore, the issue is not just about amendment, but more importantly, about clearly defining: What needs to be changed, where to start, and how to implement it so that extracurricular tutoring returns to its true nature.
It's time to honestly examine the root causes: Is the curriculum flawed? Is the quality of teaching problematic, or both? Or has exam pressure become the "compass" driving students to extra classes? Only by thoroughly answering these questions can we develop appropriate and effective solutions.
Undeniably, the current demand for extra tutoring largely stems from the mindset of parents and students themselves. In the context of increasingly competitive exams, many have implicitly viewed tutoring as a form of "academic insurance"—studying to mitigate risks rather than for genuine necessity. The fear of their children falling behind their peers leads many parents to push their children into a grueling tutoring schedule, regardless of the pressure and overload.
More importantly, a lack of trust in formal schooling remains quite prevalent. Many parents believe that classroom learning alone is insufficient for high academic achievement, and therefore proactively seek out extra tutoring as a "surefire" solution. This mindset has inadvertently made tutoring widespread and gradually come to be seen as almost mandatory for students.
However, looking only from the parents' perspective is insufficient. In reality, many educational institutions still have large class sizes, making it difficult to fully implement differentiated instruction, despite the emphasis placed on it. When a teacher has to simultaneously handle students of varying abilities, closely monitoring each student is challenging. The consequence is uneven learning outcomes, with some students falling behind during regular class time. When knowledge gaps appear, supplementary tutoring becomes an almost inevitable option to compensate. In other words, in many cases, supplementary tutoring is no longer an option for improvement, but rather a solution to address shortcomings in the teaching process.
We also need to objectively acknowledge that not all tutoring and supplementary classes are negative. In many cases, supplementary classes stem from the legitimate needs of students and parents, aiming to reinforce knowledge, compensate for weaknesses, develop abilities, or nurture gifted students. While negative aspects do exist, they are not widespread, mainly in distorted forms, and should not be equated with or considered the inherent nature of tutoring and supplementary classes. Therefore, when organized correctly, for the right target audience, and in the right way, supplementary classes can contribute to supporting the learning process and improving the quality of education.
Tightening restrictions on extracurricular tutoring is only a temporary solution; reducing the curriculum load, easing exam pressure, and improving the quality of regular teaching are the fundamental solutions. Only when students learn to understand, apply, and create, instead of just to pass exams, can extracurricular tutoring naturally return to its original purpose.
Từ thực tiễn đó, việc sửa đổi Thông tư 29 không chỉ dừng lại ở việc cho phép hay không cho phép dạy thêm, học thêm, mà quan trọng hơn là cần xác định rõ các tiêu chí thế nào là dạy thêm, học thêm chính đáng, làm cơ sở cho công tác quản lý và định hướng thực hiện.
Bên cạnh đó, cần nhìn nhận rằng việc quản lý hoạt động dạy thêm, học thêm sẽ rất khó đạt hiệu quả nếu chỉ dựa vào một văn bản quy phạm như Thông tư. Đây là vấn đề có tính hệ thống, đòi hỏi phải có những giải pháp đồng bộ, từ đổi mới chương trình, nội dung dạy học, nâng cao chất lượng dạy học chính khóa, đến cải tiến cách thức kiểm tra, đánh giá và thi cử. Khi những yếu tố nền tảng này chưa được điều chỉnh phù hợp, thì dù quy định có chặt chẽ đến đâu, hoạt động dạy thêm, học thêm vẫn có thể phát sinh và khó kiểm soát triệt để.
Do đó, việc sửa đổi Thông tư 29 cần được đặt trong một cách tiếp cận toàn diện: Từ đổi mới nội dung, phương pháp dạy học, điều chỉnh cách thức kiểm tra, đánh giá, đến việc quản lý hoạt động dạy thêm theo hướng minh bạch, phù hợp và nhân văn hơn. Chỉ khi giải quyết được những vấn đề mang tính nền tảng này, chúng ta mới có thể xây dựng được một môi trường giáo dục lành mạnh và bền vững.
Thiết nghĩ, dù có thay đổi như thế nào, thì việc quản lý dạy thêm cũng cần đảm bảo nguyên tắc không làm triệt tiêu nhu cầu học thêm, mà là định hướng để nhu cầu đó trở nên đúng đắn, lành mạnh và phục vụ thực chất cho sự phát triển của người học.
