When the Ministry of Education announces 8,703 transfer decisions involving teachers and holders of supervisory positions with the aim of addressing disparities in staffing levels between schools, this represents a step toward correcting administrative conditions that have persisted for years. Yet the more important question is not how many decisions were issued, but what caused the problem to accumulate in the first place, and which entities were responsible for identifying it before it became so extensive.

In my previous Al-Qabas article, “Redistributing Teachers: A Sound Objective, but the Implementation Mechanism Needs Review,” I stressed that addressing staffing surpluses and filling shortages is an essential reform measure. However, the success of reform cannot be measured merely by correcting numbers. It must also be judged by its ability to address the causes of the imbalance and prevent it from recurring.

Actual staffing lists, subject staffing allocations, numbers of classes, and teaching loads are not new information to the Ministry of Education. Schools submit such data periodically to the relevant authorities. In January 2026, it was reported that the Ministry had requested an inventory of actual staffing levels, and that technical supervision divisions and educational affairs departments had begun preparing detailed lists of teacher numbers, specialisations, and teaching loads. This was followed by a ministerial decision issued in May concerning preparations for the 2026/2027 academic year, which defined the responsibilities of the relevant authorities in estimating staffing requirements, analysing data, and following up with schools.

If the inventory process began months ago and the entities responsible for follow-up were already in place, what prevented the disparities from being addressed before the start of the school year? Was the problem related to the accuracy of the data, the way it was analysed, or previous recruitment and distribution decisions? Describing the problem as inherited may explain how it originated, but it does not explain why it continued for so long.

School administrative procedures reveal another aspect that deserves review. Schools submit actual staffing lists and mark an employee who has not reported for duty as “absent from duty.” They also report such cases every four days until the approved procedures are completed. Nevertheless, the employee's name may remain visible in the system even though the person is no longer actively reporting for work.

This is where a distinction must be made between an employee's official employment record and actual staffing. If the school has documented the absence and reported it, do the central systems exclude that employee from calculations of actual staffing requirements? And are retirement, resignation, and termination decisions reflected simultaneously across all relevant systems?

In April 2026, it was reported that the Ministry had revisited the possibility of integrating the Teacher Registry system with the Civil Service Commission's integrated systems, amid problems related to duplicate data entry and differences in update timing. This reinforces the need for a centralised solution that ensures records are aligned and employment statuses are clearly distinguished, without placing responsibility on school administrations for procedures they do not have the authority to complete.

What is needed is not more reports and lists, but genuine electronic integration that identifies an employee's status, updates it across the relevant authorities, and detects discrepancies in the data as soon as they occur. The accuracy of staffing and distribution decisions begins with the accuracy of the figures on which they are based.

In terms of administrative responsibility, the Ministry includes stage supervisors, directors of educational affairs, technical supervision bodies, and departments responsible for planning, measurement and evaluation, and human resources. Each has responsibilities connected to estimating needs and monitoring implementation. It is therefore legitimate to ask which entity approved the data, which body developed the distribution methodology, what professional and administrative expertise contributed to it, and to what extent technical supervisors and school leaders were involved in reviewing its outcomes.

Technical supervision bodies understand subject requirements, teaching loads, laboratories, and instructional groups, while school administrations understand the reality of day-to-day operations. Numerical balance alone is not enough if staffing does not correspond to actual educational needs.

If some schools have staffing numbers above their needs, transferring the surplus addresses the present situation, but it does not explain how those numbers accumulated in the first place, who approved the earlier distribution, or why the matter was not addressed sooner. The same applies to supervisory positions, which should also be subject to regular needs assessments and review of the approved organisational structure.

Some specialisations also require solutions that go beyond transfers. One example is the decoration specialisation in religious education. A distinction should be made between the absence of an independent academic subject and the existence of artistic activities and functions performed by teachers in that specialisation. Even if a surplus is confirmed, transferring teachers elsewhere without examining the future of the specialisation may simply move the problem rather than solve it.

Why not examine ways to benefit from qualified teachers in areas such as interior design and practical artistic skills, or consider introducing an elective course in design and decoration within the secondary-school “Pathways” system, after assessing educational needs and approving the necessary requirements? The purpose is not to create courses merely to absorb a staffing surplus, but to make productive use of qualified professionals in valuable educational skills and to connect workforce planning with curriculum and programme development.

As for performance indicators, the Ministry announced that the rate of addressing staffing disparities had risen from 34 per cent to 82 per cent, with an average transfer distance of 11.2 kilometres. These figures require clarification of the methodology used to calculate them. Does the percentage represent schools that achieved staffing balance, or individual cases of disparity that were addressed? And how can the actual impact be evaluated when the reported rate was announced before the completion of release procedures and before transferred employees had reported to their new schools?

There is a difference between addressing disparities in the data and achieving actual stability after implementation. Likewise, an average transfer distance does not reveal the circumstances of individual cases and, by itself, is not sufficient to assess whether humanitarian and family circumstances were adequately taken into consideration.

The administration has the right to organise work in accordance with approved regulations, and employees have the right to appeal decisions. The legitimacy of redistribution does not mean that every individual case is necessarily correct, just as objecting to some decisions does not amount to rejecting the reform as a whole. Objections should remain within a professional framework, without insult or personal attack, and legitimate concerns and humanitarian circumstances should not be dismissed as merely negative reactions.

This is also where professional institutions concerned with teachers have a role to play: listening to those affected, verifying their complaints, and following up on the outcomes of proposed solutions. Trust is not built through statements alone, but through fair remedies that protect rights while serving the wider educational interest.

The timing of implementation also remains open to question. The inventory process began months earlier, yet large-scale transfer decisions were issued after the school year had already begun. It would have been preferable to complete the process before the academic year was fully under way, or at least to explain the reasons that prevented this from happening.

The objective is not to place the mistakes of past years on one entity or to hold individuals accountable before any negligence has been established. Rather, what is needed is a review of the entire chain of responsibility—from data collection, to approval of staffing needs, to the issuance of decisions and the monitoring of their outcomes—while identifying areas of deficiency and taking the necessary action where responsibility is proven.

If the Ministry has succeeded in correcting a significant part of the disparity, completing the reform will require unified databases, a review of recruitment and distribution policies, improved monitoring mechanisms, and a stronger link between administrative responsibility and measurable, verifiable outcomes.

It is not fair for the consequences of the problem to fall solely on transferred teachers while the causes of its emergence and persistence remain without review or accountability.

You have addressed part of the staffing surplus. But who will ensure that the imbalance does not recur, and who will be held accountable where shortcomings are proven?