A growing number of teachers are expanding their presence from the classroom to the smartphone. From subject tutoring to comedy skits set on campus, teacher-vloggers have become a popular, yet increasingly contentious, fixture on China's shortvideo platforms.

While some use their online influence to share genuine teaching tips and educational resources, a gray area is emerging where the line between dedicated educator and profit-seeking influencer begins to blur.

Reports of teachers filming classroom skits with students as extras, livestreaming during school hours, and even hawking products online have sparked a public debate: Can teachers truly focus on their primary job while managing a separate career as an internet celebrity?

A simple search for the keyword "teacher" on major short-video platforms reveals a large number of users claiming to be educators. These accounts, often describing themselves as "experienced teachers", post short videos of lectures, problem-solving sessions, and classroom life, while simultaneously livestreaming and promoting products in their merchandise windows. Many of these videos feature students prominently, using them to attract followers and boost engagement.

For instance, one account on short-video platform Douyin under the handle "little English teacher Liu" identifies the user as a "post-1995 middle school English head teacher". The account features short clips set in office settings and classrooms, with students' faces clearly visible. This particular account has amassed over 108,000 followers and lists 53 items in its merchandise showcase on the platform, ranging from educational books to snacks.

Another popular account, "Chinese teacher Li", boasts 860,000 followers. The videos predominantly feature students in classroom settings, and the merchandise contains 46 items, mostly educational supplements.

"If their mind is entirely on livestreaming, can they really do their day job well?" read one comment, reflecting a wider societal unease.

A Ministry of Education guideline on schoolteachers' professional code of conduct explicitly prohibits them from "engaging in part-time work for payment that affects the performance of their primary duties". Furthermore, the Civil Code protects individuals' right to one's own image, meaning teachers cannot use images of students without their consent or that of their guardians, especially for profit.

Experts are now calling for clearer regulations to ensure that the core mission of education does not lose focus.

Cai Zhenhua, an associate professor from Xiangtan University's School of Public Administration, said that livestreaming by teachers represents a form of self-innovation in the digital age. It can be a powerful tool, particularly in the context of uneven educational resources, he said.

However, Cai stressed the importance of defining a "reasonable boundary". He suggested that the line should be drawn based on three criteria: whether it interferes with their primary job, whether it infringes on students' rights, and whether it undermines educational equity.

"The fundamental difference between knowledge sharing and professional profiteering lies in the purpose and value orientation," Cai explained.

Knowledge sharing is rooted in educational public welfare. Professional profiteering, on the other hand, aims for monetization, attempting to turn teaching scenes and campus life into traffic-generating content, he said.

If a teacher shares knowledge outside of work hours without exploiting their position for profit, it could be seen as a legitimate professional extension. Conversely, livestreaming during teaching hours or using students as "traffic tools" for tips violates professional ethics.

Gao Hang, vice-dean of the School of Education at Renmin University of China, highlights the severe implications of this trend. He points out that filming students, even during breaks, can infringe upon their right to rest and their right to their image.

"Some videos feature close-ups of students, exposing their biological information to the public, which could be misused with AI tools for illegal activities like blackmail," Gao warned. He also expressed concern over videos that focus on disciplining students or, conversely, feature young female students in a way that attracts inappropriate and salacious comments online, severely impacting their psychological development.

Gao further noted that the act of filming and editing short videos is time-consuming and mentally demanding. Frequent content creation inevitably diverts a teacher's energy away from refining their teaching methods and improving educational quality. When teachers endorse commercial partnerships and engage in livestream sales, they may be suspected of unauthorized paid part-time work that interferes with their primary duties, he added.

Both experts agree that a multipronged approach is required to adequately address the issue, moving beyond simple prohibition towards positive guidance.

Cai advocated for a closed-loop management system by education authorities. This includes preemptive measures like filing and content review mechanisms, in-process monitoring through routine inspections of certified teacher accounts, and post-event actions that link online misconduct to professional evaluations like title reviews and awards.

He also stressed the need for a clear division between "teaching scenes" and "private scenes".

While teachers deserve the same freedom of expression as any citizen in their private time, content posted in a professional capacity, even outside school grounds, should be subject to stricter ethical standards.

"Teachers have a strong public demonstration effect," Cai noted. "When students see their teachers disregarding rules or chasing commercial gain online, they may internalize that misconduct."