The problems in ideological and political education paradigms, as the priorities and difficult points of developing ideological and political education, have attracted attention from academia for years. By far, many influential research findings have been produced in this regard. But some studies misused or abused paradigm phenomena, offered distinctive opinions, or conducted low-level repetitions. The fundamental cause is the lack of depth study of fundamental issues in ideological and political education paradigms. Consequently, the research on other aspects of ideological and political education paradigms hasn’t been established on a uniform and stable foundation. Thus it is crucial to study the fundamental issues in ideological and political paradigms. On this basis, the paper discusses and studies six basic problems in ideological and political education paradigms, including problems in connotations and structures, problems in formation and development, problems in hierarchy types, problems in functions, problems in commensurability, and problems in transition and optimization. Hopefully, its study findings will provide intellectual support for the high-quality development of China’s ideological and political education paradigms.Eventually, six opinions are proposed based on the paper’s study findings. Firstly, ideological and political education paradigm refers to the structural models built and observed when researching, applying, and developing ideological and political education theories. The paradigm structure of political and ideological education consists of the scientific community, frameworks, methodology, and social institutions. Secondly, ideological and political education paradigms take shape in a long process. Under the leadership of the Communist Party of China and the joint efforts of theoretical and practical workers, China’s ideological and political education paradigms have taken initial shape. Thirdly, the hierarchical types of ideological and political education paradigms can be divided into four categories, including research, disciplinary, theoretical, and practical paradigms. Structurally, these four paradigms observe basic regulations on ideological and political education paradigms. Although they are connected and partially overlapped, each paradigm has a distinctive emphasis. Fourthly, the functions of current ideological and political education paradigms are mainly manifested in building a scientific community, dividing the boundaries & normalizing theoretical research and practice, grouping and integrating diverse resources and conditions, and inheriting and creating education wisdom. Fifthly, ideological and political education paradigms have commensurability in form. Generally speaking, these paradigms vary according to the country, class, and era. Nevertheless, mutual exchanges and references can be conducted between different paradigms. Currently, a commensurability exists between China’s ideological and political education paradigms. Sixthly, China needs to optimize rather than change its ideological and political education paradigms. The paths for optimization lie in creating a multi-paradigm development pattern dominated by the disciplinary paradigm and optimizing each part of the ideological and political education paradigm structure.