On march 24, the Hanoi People's Court is scheduled to try a case involving abuse of power and position in the performance of official duties, related to irregularities in extra tuition at Ba Dinh Secondary School during the 2013-2014 school year.

The case began with a complaint from a former teacher. The two defendants are Nguyen Thi Binh, 53, who served as principal from 2012-2023, and Pham Thi Nguyet, 50, the accountant.

Authorities determined that in june 2013, Hanoi issued regulations on extra tuition, stipulating an agreed fee with parents ranging from 6,000 to 26,000 dong per student per lesson. The fewer students in a class, the higher the fee, and vice versa. Of the collected money, 70% was for teacher remuneration, 15% for management, and 15% for utilities and facilities.

The indictment states that during the 2013-2014 school year, Ba Dinh Secondary School organized extra classes for literature, math, English, physics, and chemistry, with 12-48 lessons per month depending on the grade level. Classes with 20-40 students had corresponding fees of 7,000-9,000 dong. However, Principal Binh instructed accountant Nguyet, cashier Ha, and teachers to collect 15,000 dong per lesson per student.

Principal Binh is accused of instructing accountant Nguyet to create two accounting systems: one ledger for official financial reports and another for external use, which was not subject to control by the Treasury and the district finance department. Documents were also divided into two groups corresponding to two extra classes. On paper, each group had an enrollment of 10 to 20 students.

The People's Procuracy determined that the school collected a total of over 2.1 billion dong from extra tuition, with over one billion dong collected in excess of regulations. This amount is identified as the money parents were defrauded of.

Of the 30% submitted to the school (327 million dong), half was spent on facilities, and the other half was distributed for management. Specifically, the principal received 72 million dong, the accountant and two vice principals each received 28 million dong, and the cashier received 11 million dong.

The remaining 70% of the collected money, totaling 766 million dong, was directly paid to extra tuition teachers and homeroom teachers.

Former principal: Dividing classes was not to raise tuition fees

At the investigative agency, Ms. Binh stated that during the faculty council meeting at the beginning of the school year, she disseminated the city's regulations on extra tuition and agreed upon a fee of 15,000 dong, with accountant Nguyet present. According to her, this amount was based on the average of the maximum and minimum fees, rounded to 15,000 dong. The division of extra classes into two groups was based on students' academic performance, with a written agreement from parents.

In the year-end financial report, due to an oversight, the accountant did not consolidate both accounting systems, so the school retained this amount. The school later reported to the district People's Committee Finance Department as required.

When accountant Nguyet transferred, the new accountant took over the ledgers and discovered the off-the-books amount, which was 263 million dong at that time, but could not make a supplementary report. Therefore, the finance department continued to manage and spend it on school activities.

Accountant Nguyet stated that the principal instructed her and cashier Ha to maintain two systems of revenue and expenditure ledgers. Ms. Binh directed the separation of one extra class into two classes on the ledger documents to reduce the class size, thereby increasing the collected money.

Cashier Ha confirmed this, but stated she followed accountant Nguyet's instructions and did not know the purpose of creating two ledgers. The final accounting was handled by the accountant and the school, and the cashier was unaware of it.

During multiple confrontations organized by the prosecuting agency, the statements of the three individuals remained unchanged.

The investigative agency took statements from 12 homeroom teachers and 13 subject teachers for extra classes. Some teachers stated they divided groups based on student ability, some stated they did not divide, and the rest said they did not remember.

After the indictment, the case file was returned for additional investigation three times. The charges remain unchanged.

Based on the documents collected in the case file, such as class schedules, club activities, facilities, and classroom layouts, it was determined that in the 2013-2014 school year, the school had a total of 24 classrooms to serve 32 classes across grades 6, 7, 8, and 9.

In the morning, the school used all 24 classrooms for 24 main classes of grades 6, 8, and 9. In the afternoon, 16 classrooms were used for 16 main classes of grades 6 and 7, leaving eight empty classrooms.

Thus, if classes were divided into groups, the total number of lessons would double to 320 lessons per week, requiring at least 14 empty classrooms per afternoon to accommodate them. Dividing classes was therefore not feasible with only eight empty classrooms.

Additionally, the investigative agency collected 24 applications from teachers to participate in extra tuition at the school, all indicating no division of extra classes based on academic performance.

Principal Binh's statement was therefore deemed inconsistent by the investigative agency.

Parents' committee: Tuition fees appropriate, lower than general average

The investigative agency sent invitations to parents, but most did not respond. Those who gave statements said they did not propose or clearly remember the division of classes by ability for extra tuition. Parents signed agreements for tuition fees, but according to the school's instructions. They did not raise any concerns about illegal collection or request action against individuals who violated regulations.

In march 2024, the parents' committee for the 2013-2014 school year sent a letter to the prosecuting agency, stating that the fee level was discussed with parents at the beginning of the school year. Parents, referencing the city's maximum fee of 26,000 dong per lesson and minimum of 6,000 dong, proposed a range of 15,000-18,000 dong. According to parents' wishes, the school set the tuition at 15,000 dong, which was deemed appropriate for the actual situation and not too low compared to surrounding schools.

Stating that ten years had passed, their children had grown up, and no parents questioned the matter, the parents' committee recommended that the investigative and prosecuting agencies consider Ms. Binh as a capable and dedicated person who cared for students.

Hai Thu