China County Apologizes for Publicly Shaming Teachers

A county government in southwestern China has apologized after teachers whose classes recorded low exam averages were reportedly called onto a stage for group photographs beneath a large display bearing the Chinese word for “shame.” The episode has prompted a wider argument about whether public humiliation can improve schools—or simply punish educators for problems that test scores cannot explain.

The incident took place during Leibo County’s autumn education administration meeting on August 26 in Liangshan Yi Autonomous Prefecture, Sichuan Province, according to Chinese-language reports. Images circulated online two days later. A report carried by China Jilin Network and attributed to Xinhuanghe said the screen identified groups associated with primary-school averages below 30 points and junior-middle-school averages below 15 points. Multiple teachers were shown standing onstage.

Liangshan’s education and sports bureau told the outlet that the images were authentic and that several local bodies had begun examining the incident. At that stage, officials said they still needed to establish precisely what the displayed figures represented and how the decision to use the humiliating label had been made.

An apology after the images spread

Later on August 28, the Leibo County government issued an apology, according to The Beijing News. The statement described the event as an improper practice that failed to respect teachers, caused serious psychological harm to those attending and produced a negative public impact.

The county said it had formed a special working group to conduct a full investigation and would handle the matter in accordance with the findings. The apology acknowledged wrongdoing, but the material available for this article did not include a completed investigation, the names of decision-makers or details of any disciplinary measures. Those questions therefore remain open.

The distinction matters. The circulating images and the official apology establish that an inappropriate event occurred, but they do not by themselves explain the meeting’s internal planning or show whether every teacher onstage taught a class that fell below the displayed thresholds. Early reporting also noted uncertainty over whether the figures referred to student averages or another form of evaluation. Treating those unresolved details as settled would go beyond the public record.

Why public ranking is a blunt instrument

Exam results can reveal important learning gaps. They can help schools identify where students need additional instruction, where curricula may be misaligned and where teachers need resources or training. But a single class average is not a clean measure of one teacher’s performance.

Students arrive with different levels of prior preparation. Rural and lower-income communities may face shortages of experienced teachers, limited access to tutoring, long travel times, unstable staffing and family pressures that affect attendance or study. Class size, subject difficulty and the design of the test also influence an average. None of these factors removes professional responsibility, but all of them complicate the claim that a low score can be assigned to one person as a moral failure.

Public shaming creates an additional problem: it converts a diagnostic measure into a spectacle. Instead of encouraging teachers to disclose weaknesses and ask for support, humiliation may give them reasons to conceal problems. It can also encourage teaching narrowly to the test, avoiding difficult students or concentrating attention on pupils most likely to lift an average.

Chinese online criticism cited in the reporting focused on this mismatch. Commenters argued that student background, staffing conditions and family circumstances shape rural education outcomes, and that humiliating frontline teachers does little to address those structural pressures. Those comments represent public reaction rather than a systematic survey, but they point to a basic policy question: whether accountability is designed to produce better information and support, or merely visible punishment.

Accountability without humiliation

Rejecting public humiliation does not mean rejecting accountability. School systems can review classroom results while using several measures rather than one threshold. Student progress over time, attendance, classroom observation, curriculum coverage and the level of support available can provide a more useful picture than raw averages alone.

A credible review would also separate questions that are often blurred together. Did students start the year far behind? Did their performance improve even if the final average remained low? Were teachers assigned outside their specialties? Did the school experience vacancies or unusually large classes? Were struggling teachers offered coaching before punitive measures were considered?

Those questions do not guarantee a comfortable outcome. A fair evaluation process may still identify weak teaching or poor management. The difference is that findings are based on evidence, educators can respond, and any corrective action is connected to improving learning rather than displaying blame.

Leibo County’s promise of an investigation now makes transparency important. A meaningful follow-up would explain who authorized the stage display, clarify what the score thresholds represented, describe how affected teachers were treated and state what procedural changes will prevent a repeat. Without that detail, the apology may close the immediate controversy without addressing the management culture that allowed it.

The lesson beyond one county

The episode resonates because performance pressure is not unique to Leibo. Education authorities everywhere face demands to raise results, and numerical rankings offer an apparently simple way to demonstrate action. Yet the simpler the metric, the greater the temptation to confuse measurement with explanation.

Schools need honest information about student performance. Teachers also need evaluations that recognize professional duty without reducing complex classrooms to a public label. The two goals are compatible when assessment is specific, evidence-based and linked to support. They become harder to reconcile when officials use humiliation as a management tool.

For Leibo County, the next test is not another exam score. It is whether the investigation turns an acknowledged mistake into clear accountability and a better way of helping students and teachers improve.