Returning overcharging money is in accordance with legal regulations, and needs to be seen as a common lesson for other educational institutions, in order to rectify the situation of collecting money under the guise of voluntariness, which is still persistent in the school environment.
According to the inspection results of Quy Nhon Nam Ward People's Committee, from September 2025 to January 16, 2026, the Student Representative Board of Nguyen Van Cu Elementary School mobilized more than 469 million VND to spend on items such as hiring sanitation workers, making roofs between two rows of classrooms.
It is worth noting that the Ward People's Committee affirmed that there is no policy at all, not allowing sponsorship mobilization for these contents as announced by the Head of the BDDPH on the parents' group.
In other words, the mobilization of money takes place outside the permissible framework, even if it is public, transparent and not motivated by self-interest.
Parents' representative boards are not allowed to stand out to collect compulsory fees, are not allowed to replace schools to organize sponsorship to invest in facilities, and are even less allowed to spend on contents under budgetary responsibility.
Therefore, even doing "good work for students", "sharing difficulties with the school" cannot be a reason to legitimize illegal collections.
It is necessary to frankly acknowledge that it is the "for the common good" approach but lack of legal understanding, lack of clear boundaries between goodwill and responsibility that has led to violations.
In the article "Parents' Representative Boards cannot mobilize money against regulations" published on January 18, 2026, Lao Dong Newspaper analyzed that Circular No. 16/2018/TT-BGDDT of the Ministry of Education and Training clearly stipulates sponsorship for educational institutions, ensuring absolute voluntariness, and not creating any form of coercion or pressure on parents.
These are fundamental principles, aimed at preventing the situation of "distorted socialization", turning voluntariness into disguised obligations.
Therefore, returning money is not denying the efforts or goodwill of parents, but restoring legal order, and at the same time affirming the principle that all fees in schools must be in accordance with regulations, authority and purpose.
This incident also places a significant responsibility on the school and management agencies. If not rectified in time, "village rules" in revenue and expenditure are very likely to recur, causing social outrage and eroding parents' trust in the educational environment.
More importantly, this is a reminder for other schools and BDDPHs across the country. It is not possible to ignore the legal framework because of the desire to improve learning conditions.
All initiatives and contributions to education need to be placed in a transparent legal corridor, permitted by competent authorities.
