Reforms Without Respect: The Hidden Cost of Re-Testing Teachers

Firdous Amad Najar

“The responsibility of the state is not to repeatedly test its teachers, but to continuously empower and support them. Reform must uplift rather than demoralize, for when teachers feel respected and secure, the entire education system grows stronger.”

The recent circular issued by Jammu and Kashmir School Education Department (JK SED), directing in-service teachers to qualify the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) and assigning Jammu and Kashmir Board of School Education (JKBOSE) to conduct the examination, has triggered deep anxiety and resentment within the teaching community. While improving educational standards is a legitimate goal, the timing, intent, and implications of this decision raise serious concerns about fairness, practicality, and respect for the teaching profession.

What is particularly troubling is the haste with which the Union Territory government appears to be pushing this measure. Across the country, several states are deliberating alternative mechanisms to address this burning issue and strengthen teacher quality. Yet here, an unprecedented step is being introduced without adequate consultation or consensus.

The circular has been issued at the very beginning of the academic year: a period that, as outlined in the academic planner, is meant for emotional bonding, orientation, and joyful engagement with students. These initial days are crucial for helping children feel secure, welcomed, and motivated after the academic break.

Ironically, at the same time, these very teachers are being pushed into a high-stakes examination environment, one that threatens not only their professional dignity but also their emotional stability. Such a contradiction raises serious questions about the intent and timing of the policy, and whether it truly aligns with the broader goals of nurturing a healthy and humane learning environment.

The Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) is a highly competitive examination. In most states, the average pass percentage hovers around a mere 3.5 per cent, and that too by fresh candidates who are free from the daily realities of school life. Unlike in-service teachers, they are not required to teach eight to ten classes a day, shoulder non-academic duties such as election work, BLO responsibilities, census assignments, and other administrative tasks, or simultaneously manage family responsibilities.

Expecting mid-service teachers, many of whom have been serving for decades, to compete under the same conditions is not only unrealistic but deeply unjust. A teacher is not merely an employee; he is also a son, a father, a husband, a brother, and a responsible member of society. Subjecting him to such pressure directly undermines his emotional well-being, and when a teacher’s emotional stability is compromised, students inevitably suffer.

The decision also places the dignity of lakhs of teachers at stake, particularly those who are midway through their service or nearing retirement. Globally, there is no precedent where professionals are asked to re-prove their eligibility after having served with distinction for years or even decades. If such a standard were to be applied uniformly across professions, judges, doctors, engineers, and administrators would all be compelled to undergo re-certification, a prospect that would rightly be seen as humiliating and demoralising.

It is also worth recalling that many of today’s most respected professionals—occupying high-profile positions and entrusted with shaping critical policy decisions—were themselves taught by teachers who entered the profession without the Teacher Eligibility Test. Their competence, integrity, and achievements stand as living proof that a single examination cannot be the sole or definitive measure of a teacher’s worth and capability. Teaching must not be singled out for such treatment, nor should it be accorded any less respect than other professions upon which society fundamentally depends.

The responsibility of the state is not to repeatedly test its teachers, but to continuously empower them. Teachers must indeed be assessed at the time of recruitment, and later evaluated through transparent performance appraisals linked to promotions. The TET, at best, can test theoretical knowledge. However, teaching is far more than theory. Pedagogy, empathy, classroom management, innovation, mentorship, and commitment are cultivated over years of practice. These qualities cannot be measured through a paper-based test conducted under exam pressure.

In the specific context of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, the decision becomes even more problematic. Unlike many other states, the departmental structure here does not clearly follow the conventional PGT and TGT nomenclatures. This structural peculiarity makes it difficult to clearly identify which category of middle-school teachers is to be subjected to the examination. Such ambiguity inevitably gives rise to confusion, selective implementation, and the possibility of arbitrariness, thereby further weakening the credibility and fairness of the policy.

Moreover, in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, almost every teacher possesses a Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) degree: a professional qualification specifically designed to ensure pedagogical competence, classroom management skills, and an understanding of child psychology. This itself establishes teachers as trained and competent professionals in the field of education. Subjecting such qualified and experienced educators to an additional high-stakes test, without clarity or justification, not only undermines their professional standing but also raises serious questions about the intent and coherence of the policy.

There is also a serious social dimension to this issue. Many in-service teachers are dealing with health challenges, family responsibilities, and financial obligations. Failure to qualify in such an exam, regardless of years of dedicated service, could lead to stigma, insecurity, and psychological distress, not just for the teacher but for his entire family. The consequences of such a policy could therefore be devastating at a personal and societal level.

Ironically, the decision may also harm students. While newly recruited teachers may enter with fresh academic knowledge, the deeper impact on students’ lives comes from experienced teachers who understand classroom dynamics, student psychology, and community realities. If in-service teachers are forced to divert their energy toward exam preparation, their focus on teaching, mentoring, and nurturing students will inevitably decline.

In conclusion, while the stated objective of improving educational standards is commendable, the chosen path is punitive rather than constructive. Instead of strengthening the system, it risks destabilizing the teaching community, lowering morale, and undermining the very foundation of schooling. A more balanced and humane approach, centered on regular training workshops, refresher courses, pedagogical upskilling, and supportive performance evaluations;  would preserve the dignity of teachers while genuinely enhancing learning outcomes. Education reforms must uplift teachers, not humiliate them, for a demoralized teacher can never build a confident and compassionate generation.

The writer is a teacher based in Arin, Bandipora. He can be reached at njfirdous090@gmail.com.