The original intention of the "double reduction in education and training" policy is definitely good. From my personal point of view, the pros and cons are directly proportional. The introduction of this policy was not fully considered. As a public relations person, my starting point is to look at this policy based on the pros and cons, so this is also my personal point of view. I hope you understand! Benefits
1. The purpose of the "double reduction in education and training" is to relieve children's learning pressure and parents' financial anxiety. It prohibits off-campus educational institutions from organizing subject training during national statutory holidays, rest days, winter and summer vacations. To a large extent, it is understandable to give students more spare time to relax and unwind. 2. Moreover, the introduction of the double reduction policy can also promote the development of art education. In addition to the main subjects, it can cultivate students who are interested in art. The development prospects of art education itself are also good. Students can also develop in an all-round way morally, intellectually, physically and aesthetically. In this way, the introduction of the double reduction policy is indeed beneficial. Disadvantages
1. However, off-campus training institutions and organizations will also face losses and may not be able to operate. Most of the teachers in many training institutions rely on this for a living. Their existence itself is to help. Children have high academic performance, and the double reduction policy will not benefit them at all! 2. "One test determines life" has been an eternal truth since ancient times. Policies can help children relieve stress, but they always fail to improve their studies. Examination is inevitable, and the final result can affect a child's life. If it is really implemented, will children's performance only depend on school learning? Then this will test the teacher's teaching ability and the child's adaptability.
The most basic professional ethics of public relations people is to learn to distinguish, to distinguish between good and bad things, and to distinguish what benefits and impacts the final result will bring. So regarding this policy, I knew immediately that it was launched with a good intention, but its shortcomings were also exposed. Educational involution has always existed, and there is a heated discussion on the Internet about whether "double reduction of education and training" can alleviate educational involution. Some people say it is good and some say it is bad. To a certain extent, the policy will alleviate the involution pressure on children from wealthy and powerful families, because they can tutor at home through videos and teachers. However, children from ordinary families may not even have the opportunity to participate in involution. Without money and power, the double reduction policy has been introduced, and they cannot even attend cram schools.
The way to alleviate involution is not to simply ask children to use scores to measure good or bad. Parents should focus on quality education instead of just focusing on scores. Only then can children's pressure be truly relieved. The requirement of "strict admissions and easy exits" for children is limited to scores. If the two were changed, the system would be different, and the focus of children and parents would not only be on scores.