Teacher Reassignment: A Correct Goal, But Implementation Needs Review
The distribution of teaching staff in government schools has long suffered from accumulated imbalances. The Ministry itself revealed that the number of assistant principals for educational affairs in some schools reached four, and that there were two or even three department heads for the same specialization in certain schools. It later disclosed disparities in Arabic language teacher workloads between two schools, where a teacher in one school was assigned only one class, while a teacher in the other was assigned three classes. From this perspective, the issuance of 8,703 decisions to redistribute teachers and holders of supervisory positions stems from a legitimate reform objective. Addressing surpluses, filling shortages, and achieving equity in workloads are necessities for school stability and efficient use of human resources. However, the quality of a decision is not measured solely by the soundness of its objective, but by the execution mechanism’s ability to achieve the goal for which it was issued.
The Ministry announced that the redistribution is based on the actual needs of schools, the number of classrooms and students, teaching workloads, and the approved organizational structure. It also clarified that priority in transferring teachers is given to the most recently appointed staff in schools where the number of teachers exceeds their needs, and that the handling of supervisory positions is carried out according to the organizational structure and actual requirements. Here, the discussion begins. A movement of this magnitude, encompassing 8,310 decisions for teachers and 393 decisions for holders of supervisory positions, requires a high degree of accuracy in assessing the reality of schools. The Ministry emphasized that the procedure is based on data regarding needs, workloads, classroom numbers, and organizational structures. Consequently, it is legitimate to question the extent to which this data was updated and aligned with actual conditions before the decisions were issued. Regardless of how sound the objectives of an administrative decision may be, its accuracy remains tied to the accuracy of the information on which it is based.
Timing is also a factor. Most students in various educational stages began their academic year on September 14, while the actual implementation of the redistribution decisions began on October 6. It is natural that such a large-scale movement, initiated after the start of the academic year, raises questions about its impact on the stability of schedules, workloads, and assignments within schools, particularly in a year witnessing the implementation of new curricula for the tenth grade and the launch of the tracks system in secondary education. At the same time, the Ministry had previously announced that the supervisory positions project and the outputs of the fourth phase contribute to filling supervisory vacancies and supporting stability in the educational field, making the completion of this path an important part of the broader picture of staff distribution and school stability.
The Ministry set the appeal period from October 7 to 9. These three days seem short given the scale of the movement, which exceeded eight thousand decisions, especially since appeals represent an important opportunity to verify cases that may require review or correction. The Ministry stated that the redistribution procedures increased the rate of disparity resolution from 34% to 82%. This is a notable result, but it raises a legitimate question regarding the measurement methodology. What is meant by “disparity” in this indicator? Is it measured by the number of teachers, workloads, vacancies, or the degree of completion of the organizational structure? Publishing the methodology for calculating this percentage would enhance the value of the achievement, as an interpretable and verifiable indicator provides the educational field with a clearer picture of the problem’s magnitude and the progress made in addressing it.
Therefore, I believe the current stage requires a careful review of appeals, field verification of cases needing correction, completion of the placement of supervisory vacancies, and the publication of the methodology for measuring the disparity resolution rate. Administrative reform is a necessity, and the Ministry is commended for approaching a file that its own data confirms suffered from clear disparities in staff distribution. Criticisms of the implementation should not be seen as a call to return to previous imbalances, but rather as an opportunity to develop the mechanism and enhance its accuracy. Perhaps the best criterion for judging this experience is what the Ministry itself emphasized: that the success of the reorganization is not measured solely by the number of decisions implemented, but by their ability to create a sustainable balance between school needs and available staff. This is what we await to see in practice.
Dr. Khaled Mubarak Al-Dalk, Educational Consultant
