After the "double reduction" policy, how can legal risks be avoided in home-school collaboration given the blurred boundaries of responsibility between family education instructors and school teachers in Jinan?
After the implementation of the "Double Reduction" policy, the emerging profession of family education instructors has rapidly gained traction in Jinan and across the country. However, as instructors enter households and intervene in education, a practical issue has surfaced: where exactly lies the boundary of responsibility between family education instructors and school teachers? Role confusion may not only trigger conflicts in educational philosophy but also harbor legal risks. When an instructor's advice contradicts the school's teaching plan, or when parents over-rely on instructors while neglecting school responsibilities, who bears the consequences? This article, from a lawyer's perspective, analyzes the legal issues behind this hot topic in light of regulations such as the Family Education Promotion Law and the Law on the Protection of Minors, drawing clear lines of responsibility for parents, schools, and instructors.
The legal status and boundary of responsibilities of family education guidance counselors
Family education guidance specialists are not a statutory professional qualification, and the basis for their work primarily derives from the advocacy provisions of the Family Education Promotion Law. Article 41 of this Law encourages social workers and volunteers to participate in family education guidance services, but does not explicitly define their specific powers and functions. In practice, guidance specialists typically provide services such as educational planning, psychological counseling, and cultivation of study habits, and their role is closer to that of a consultant or auxiliary figure, rather than a "second classroom" that replaces school education.
However, the issue lies in the fact that the consultant's advice may directly affect parents' educational decisions. For example, if the consultant suggests that students reduce in-school homework practice and instead adopt the extracurricular expansion plan recommended by the consultant, and this conflicts with the school's teaching requirements, resulting in a decline in the student's academic performance, the allocation of responsibility becomes a point of dispute. From a legal perspective, the relationship between the consultant and the parents constitutes a service contract relationship, and the consultant's advice falls under professional consultation. However, if the parents' rights and interests are harmed due to the consultant's fault (such as providing incorrect information), the consultant may be liable for breach of contract. School teachers, on the other hand, perform their duties in accordance with the Teachers Law and the educational syllabus, and their teaching activities are subject to school management. Therefore, the roles of the consultant and the school teacher are essentially that of "support" versus "leadership," and the former has no right to interfere with the normal teaching order of the school.
Common Legal Risks of Home-School Collaboration under the Double Reduction Policy
The "Double Reduction" policy aims to alleviate students' academic burden, but after its implementation, legal risks in home-school collaboration have become more prominent. First, the risk of responsibility shifting: some parents entirely shift educational responsibility to tutors while neglecting their own guardianship obligations. Article 48 of the Family Education Promotion Law clearly stipulates that parents are the primary persons responsible for family education. If students' rights and interests are harmed due to parental negligence (such as prolonged truancy), parents bear corresponding legal liability. Second, the risk of information leakage: tutors may come into contact with students' family privacy during their services, such as family conflicts and psychological conditions. If such information is not properly safeguarded, it may violate relevant provisions of the Personal Information Protection Law and result in administrative penalties. Third, the risk of educational content non-compliance: if tutors recommend illegal publications or non-compliant training materials, this violates the "Double Reduction" ban on off-campus tutoring, and schools and parents may be implicated. For example, in 2023, there was a case in which a tutor recommended non-compliant supplementary materials, leading to a parental complaint. Ultimately, the tutor was ordered to make corrections, and the school received a notice of criticism for failing to provide timely reminders.
Responsibility Allocation: When problems arise with students, who should bear responsibility?
When students encounter academic or psychological problems, parents often first hold the school accountable, but with the introduction of guidance counselors, the chain of responsibility becomes more complex. According to Article 1165 of the Civil Code, the principle of fault liability is the basic standard. If a school teacher is negligent in teaching (such as failing to follow the syllabus), the school must bear liability; if a guidance counselor gives improper advice (such as incorrectly assessing a student's abilities and exacerbating anxiety), the guidance counselor may be liable for professional negligence. However, the key point is that if neither party is at fault and the student's problems stem from their own development or family environment, then the responsibility should be borne by the parents. In judicial practice, courts typically determine liability based on "causation." For example, in a case in Shanghai, where a student developed aversion to studying due to a guidance counselor's excessive recommendation of practice problems, the parents sued the guidance counselor, and the court determined that the counselor had failed to fulfill professional duty of care and ordered compensation for partial losses. This suggests that guidance counselors should keep records during their services, clearly define the scope of their recommendations, and avoid overstepping boundaries.
Lawyer's Advice: How to Build a Compliant Home-School Collaboration Mechanism?
When facing role ambiguity, all parties need to proactively avoid risks. For parents, they should clearly recognize that "guidance counselors serve as a supplement, while schools play the leading role," specify the service content, confidentiality clauses, and circumstances of liability exemption when signing service contracts, and communicate regularly with schools to avoid information asymmetry. For schools, it is recommended to establish a communication mechanism with guidance counselors, such as holding regular joint meetings to jointly formulate student development plans, while making clear that school teaching plans cannot be changed at will. For guidance counselors, they should adhere to professional boundaries, refrain from promising outcomes such as "score improvement," provide written notice of service limitations, and purchase professional liability insurance to spread risks. In addition, at the policy level, reference can be made to the *National Occupational Standards for Family Education Guidance Counselors (Draft for Comments)* to promote industry standardization. Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm has long been focused on legal services in the education sector and can provide contract review, compliance training, and dispute resolution support for parents, schools, and educational institutions, contributing to the law-based operation of home-school collaboration under the context of the "double reduction" policy.
Education is no trivial matter; when boundaries are set, responsibilities become clear. At a time when the "double reduction" policy is reshaping the educational landscape, clarifying roles is not merely a matter of efficiency—it is a legal baseline. Only by acting in accordance with the law can family education guidance instructors genuinely become a support to school education, rather than a source of disputes.
