When talking about the quality of education, we usually discuss new buildings, smart classrooms, digital tools, or the curriculum. But if asked where the real strength of a good education system lies, my answer is only one—in a good teacher. No matter how beautiful the school building is, what changes a student’s life is the teacher’s personality, their commitment, and the relationship of trust they build with the students. That is why teacher stability is of paramount importance in education.

For the past several decades, teacher transfers have been a major topic of discussion in our education system. Transfers taking place every year, teachers changing schools mid-term, and new teachers taking time again to adapt to the children—all of these impact students’ learning. Especially in rural areas, by the time a teacher adjusts to the school, another transfer occurs, thereby reducing the school’s continuity. Education is not just about delivering lessons; it is a process of building trust.

Against this background, a discussion has begun regarding a system where teachers serve in the same school for a long duration. The purpose of the policy allowing teachers to work in the same school for up to ten years is not to tie them down, but to provide an opportunity to build a permanent relationship with the school, students, and the community. When a child studies in the same school from the first standard to high school, the teachers closely observing their growth becomes a great strength of education.

When a teacher enters a new school, the first few months are spent merely understanding the students’ backgrounds, parents’ situations, local culture, and the needs of the school. Only after that can they utilize their full potential. If another transfer happens during this very time, the school itself loses the benefit of that experience. Stability does not mean just providing convenience to teachers; rather, it is a system that provides continuity to students.

However, we must honestly accept the other side of this matter as well. There is also a concern that staying in the same school for a long time may cause inertia in some situations. Some question that new ideas might diminish, the enthusiasm for change might fade, or unnecessary influences might grow at the local level. These questions are natural. While formulation of any policy, both its benefits and challenges must be considered equally.

In my opinion, the problem is not stability, but the lack of accountability. If a teacher serves in the same school for ten years, their performance evaluation, training, learning outcomes, and community feedback must also be continuously reviewed in equal measure. Stability and accountability must go hand in hand. Only then will this policy achieve its true purpose.

Looking at the best education systems in the world, one thing becomes clear. Teacher stability plays a key role in determining the quality of the school. Students trust their teachers. Parents build close relationships with them. The local community also participates in the development of the school. This trust cannot be built in a single year; it requires time.

Many children studying in our government schools are growing up amidst social and economic challenges. To them, a teacher is not just a person who delivers lessons. Many times, they become mentors, motivators, and sometimes even like family members. Weakening such relationships through frequent transfers can go against the purpose of education.

But at the same time, the government also bears the responsibility of ensuring equal opportunities in all schools. If there is a shortage of teachers in certain areas, it must be adequately filled. Care must be taken to ensure that schools in difficult conditions do not end up empty. Therefore, the transfer policy should not be completely rigid; it must be fair, transparent, and student-centric.

My belief is simple. The focal point of every decision in education must be the student. The welfare of the teacher is important, and the necessity of administration is also important. But ultimately, the only question to be asked is—”Does this policy improve the student’s learning?” If the answer is yes, then that policy must move in the right direction.

I do not view the ten-year service rule merely as an administrative rule. It is an opportunity to build a bridge of trust between a school, a teacher, a family, and a community. Strengthening that bridge is our responsibility. At the same time, the movement of new ideas, new learning, and better performance on that bridge must be continuous. True transformation in education is possible only when stability and dynamism go hand in hand.