Research article Open Access Logo

The teachers law of China – Lessons for the policy development regarding teachers in Vietnam

Thai Thi Tuyet Dung 1, *
Nguyen Van Lam 1
  1. Department of Legal Affairs, Vietnam National University Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
Correspondence to: Thai Thi Tuyet Dung, Department of Legal Affairs, Vietnam National University Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. Email: Tttdung@vnuhcm.edu.vn.
Volume & Issue: Vol. 10 No. 2 (2026) | Page No.: 6796-6805 | DOI: 10.32508/vnuhcmj-ebl.v10i2.1598
Published: 2026-06-28

Online metrics


Statistics from the website

  • Abstract Views: 0
  • Galley Views: 0

Statistics from Dimensions

This article is published with open access by Viet Nam National University Ho Chi Minh City, Viet Nam. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY 4.0) which permits any use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited. 

Abstract

This article provides an in-depth analysis of the Teachers Law of China, encompassing both its operative provisions and proposed revisions in the most recent draft amendment. The primary objective of the study is to identify and analyze the fundamental legal elements shaping China’s policy framework for the teaching profession. These include the statutory definition and scope of the term “teacher”; the enumeration of rights and duties; qualification and certification requirements; as well as legal guarantees concerning remuneration, social welfare, housing, medical care, recognition and rewards, and decentralized governance mechanisms. The Teachers Law of China adopts a holistic and integrated legal approach, recognizing teaching as a distinct and highly valued profession, with codified legal status, aligned with the country’s educational development strategy and its broader goals of building a socialist learning society.

Adopting a comparative legal methodology, the article juxtaposes China’s legislative framework with Vietnam’s existing regulatory landscape. The analysis reveals substantial differences, including the lack of unified legislation specific to teachers in Vietnam and the absence of an integrated approach to rights, obligations, and professional standards across education levels. In response, the authors propose targeted policy recommendations to support the development and implementation of Teachers Law in Vietnam. These include: formally recognizing the legal status of teachers; restructuring the system of qualification and accreditation; enhancing salary and benefits; expanding local government autonomy in teacher governance; and establishing appropriate legal mechanisms for the employment of foreign teachers. The Chinese experience, together with comparative insights from other jurisdictions, offers a valuable reference base for building a modern, coherent, and context-responsive legal framework that will strengthen Vietnam’s teaching workforce and foster the overall quality of education.

Comments