Every morning at 7:30, amidst the stream of vehicles dropping off children, a distinctive sight is invariably present outside primary and secondary schools: parents clad in fluorescent green vests, clutching small red flags. They share a collective title—the "Parent School Safety Patrol."

This was originally intended to be a heartwarming interlude of home-school collaboration—a joint effort to safeguard the "final hundred meters" of a child's journey to school. However, in recent years, the tension surrounding this "safety patrol" initiative has tightened to a breaking point, even taking on an unsavory tone. From "voluntary sign-ups" to "sequential scheduling," and from "show up if you have time" to "rotating shifts by student ID number," the safety patrol system has become embroiled in a massive controversy over whether it is truly voluntary or, in reality, mandatory.

I. The Distorted "Voluntary" Nature: From Escort to Burden

"Voluntary" is the oft-cited guiding principle of the school safety patrol system; yet, in reality, this claim rarely withstands scrutiny.

In many schools, parent committees or homeroom teachers circulate duty rosters—often via class chat groups—or initiate "sign-up chains." These efforts are euphemistically framed as "proposals" or "initiatives"; however, beneath the lingering anxiety that "refusal might lead teachers to view one's child unfavorably," participation often becomes a form of "soft coercion." For dual-income families unable to spare the time, the only recourse is to enlist retired parents to "stand in" for them. This has even given rise to distressing absurdities, such as parents "standing guard while carrying infants" or "paying couriers to take their shifts." A particularly tragic incident in Zhangjiajie, Hunan—where a parent collapsed and died suddenly while on safety patrol duty—thrust the ethical risks inherent in this system into the national spotlight.

Even more awkward is the actual efficacy of the program. Most parents have received no professional training in security protocols or traffic management; consequently, they often stand at the school gates doing little more than "standing mechanically" or "huddling together to chat." As one parent candidly remarked: "There are already traffic lights and police officers at the entrance; sometimes, holding our flags, we just give out random directions, which actually makes the congestion worse." When the imperative to "take photos for documentation" outweighs the actual task of "facilitating traffic flow," the school safety patrol risks degenerating into a mere exercise in formalism—a piece of "safety theater."

II. The Core Issue: Blurred Boundaries of Authority and Responsibility

Why is it that a system explicitly designated as "voluntary" is, in practice, implemented like a "mandatory quota"?

The root cause lies in the blurred boundaries of authority and responsibility between schools and parents. According to the *Norms for Security and Prevention Work in Primary and Secondary Schools and Kindergartens*, deploying full-time security guards and implementing the public security bureau’s "peak-hour duty" protocols are statutory responsibilities of schools and relevant government agencies. Fundamentally, parental school-guarding initiatives should serve as a "voluntary supplement" to professional forces, rather than acting as the "primary security force."

However, in actual practice, some schools face shortages in security personnel or police resources. Consequently, they naturally turn their gaze toward the most easily mobilized resource: parents. Furthermore, in certain regions, school-guarding efforts are linked to school performance evaluations; thus, in an effort to "pad the numbers" and "create a paper trail," schools tacitly condone—or even indirectly mandate—compulsory scheduling for parents. Given this asymmetrical power dynamic, parents find it difficult to muster the confidence to say "no."

III. Correction and Recalibration: Reflections Following the Suspension of Programs in Various Regions

Amidst the controversy, change is taking place. Since 2026, schools in numerous localities—including Hechi (Guangxi), Wuxi (Jiangsu), Zhuji (Zhejiang), and Shaoguan (Guangdong)—have successively abolished or suspended parental school-guarding posts, explicitly shifting the responsibility to a joint effort involving teaching staff, professional security personnel, and police officers. Education authorities in places such as Zhengzhou have also issued directives strictly prohibiting any form of mandatory—or indirectly mandatory—parental participation.

While these moves have been met with applause, they are also accompanied by some rational concerns: If parents are no longer standing guard, who will be responsible for safety? It is crucial to avoid simply shifting from "mandating parents" to "mandating teachers." If, following the abolition of parental school-guarding posts, the task is simply offloaded onto teachers, it would not only contravene the policy objective of "reducing the burden on teachers" but also divert their core energy away from their primary mission of teaching and nurturing students.

The true solution lies in ensuring that everyone fulfills their proper role:

**Entrust Professional Tasks to Professionals:** Statutory duty-bearers—such as the police and professional security agencies—must shoulder the primary responsibility, reinforcing the baseline for safety by increasing police deployment and upgrading security facilities.

**Ensure Voluntarism Remains Truly Voluntary:** If parents genuinely wish to participate, schools may offer training and clearly define their auxiliary duties (e.g., limited to maintaining order and offering guidance). Furthermore, these voluntary efforts must be completely delinked from school or class performance evaluations, ensuring that acts of goodwill are no longer "held hostage." Exploring Socialized Support: Drawing upon the experiences of various localities, communities can take the lead in organizing volunteer teams composed of individuals who are not—or are no longer—parents of current students. This approach not only supplements the available workforce but also prevents the relationship between schools and families from becoming overly transactional. The original intent behind "school safety posts" is rooted in love; however, this love must not be allowed to become a burden weighing heavily on parents' minds, nor should it be permitted to blur the boundaries of responsibility inherent in public governance. The reassuring splash of green at the school gates should not be a mere "facade" that parents are forced to uphold out of obligation; rather, it should be a safety net woven jointly by professional forces and the genuine, voluntary contributions of parents.