The completion of the first five-year stage in the teacher certification process brings back to the agenda innovations that can be applied in the next period.
The question arises whether the evaluation rules and requirements for teachers will be updated in the second five-year period.
It is interesting, what main changes are expected to be implemented in the teacher certification process in the second five-year period?
Member of the Science and Education Committee of the Milli Majlis, deputy Mehriban Valiyeva, commenting on the topic to AzEdu.az, noted that teacher certification is one of the important mechanisms serving to increase quality in the general education system, evaluate the professional level of pedagogical staff, and promote the continuous development of teachers:
"The completion of the first five-year stage creates new opportunities for analyzing the results of this process and determining priorities for the next period. In the next stage, covering the years 2027–2032, it would be appropriate to focus on improving existing practices, increasing the efficiency of evaluation mechanisms, and ensuring that certification contributes more to the real professional development of teachers.
I believe that the main goal of the next stage should not only be to determine the knowledge level of teachers, but also to develop their pedagogical skills, their ability to use modern teaching methods, and their contributions to students' learning outcomes. Because in the modern education system, a teacher's professionalism is measured not only by subject knowledge, but also by how they convey that knowledge to students. However, it would not be correct to make a definitive statement about the implementation of specific changes for 2027–2032 without official decisions from the relevant state bodies. It is important to distinguish between discussed possibilities and confirmed decisions.
In any evaluation system, changing criteria, updating requirements, or determining results based on broader indicators can cause some concern among participants. It is natural for teachers to approach this issue sensitively. Because the results of certification affect their work activities, professional reputation, and financial security:
Stricter evaluation criteria or increased passing scores can be considered as possible topics for discussion:
"However, there is currently no basis to say that these will definitely be applied. The main issue is not formally raising requirements, but ensuring the objectivity, transparency, and relevance of the evaluation to the real needs of education.
If any changes are planned in the future, these changes must be based on scientific and pedagogical principles, accompanied by an analysis of the results of the previous stage, and clearly explained to teachers in advance. If higher results are expected from teachers, appropriate preparation opportunities must also be created for them to achieve these results. We must not forget that improving the quality of education is not possible only by imposing new demands on teachers. This also means respect for the teacher's work, support for their professional development, trust, and fair evaluation.
The purpose of certification should not only be to check teachers' knowledge and skills, but also to stimulate their professional development. In this regard, the approach to teachers who cannot achieve the expected results in the evaluation is of particular importance. I believe that in the future stage, mechanisms such as developing individual development programs for teachers according to their results, involving them in additional training, strengthening methodological support, and expanding opportunities for preparation for re-evaluation can be further improved. Such an approach would allow identifying the teacher's existing difficulties and eliminating those difficulties."
At the same time, it would not be correct to accept the results of certification as a final evaluation of the teacher's entire professional activity:
"A teacher's theoretical knowledge, pedagogical experience, communication skills with students, and the results achieved in the learning process are components of a broader understanding of professionalism. Of course, the professional requirements determined by the evaluation must be maintained. However, it is also important to create real opportunities for the teacher to develop themselves in the process of meeting these requirements. The implementation of specific new mechanisms depends on the relevant normative decisions.
The impact of certification on teachers' salaries is one of the most sensitive and important aspects of this process. The additions applied to teachers' salaries in accordance with the results they show in the evaluation are among the mechanisms that stimulate professional development. It also means the application of differential salaries. The importance of these additions is not limited to financial security. They also encourage teachers to update their knowledge and skills, increase their professional responsibility, and achieve higher results in the field of education.
As for the issue of changing the conditions for 10 and 35 percent additions in the next stage, it would not be correct to say that such a change is expected without an official decision from the relevant state bodies. However, a percentage change in the application of differential salaries is desirable. Wouldn't an increase of 10 percent for above 30 percent, 20 percent for above 40 percent, and 35 percent for above 50 percent be fairer? In general, it is advisable to review the criteria.
In addition, if the improvement of incentive mechanisms is discussed in the future, the main principle here should be the fair evaluation of teacher's work, the promotion of professional development, and the preservation of predictability in salary policy. The teacher must clearly know in advance by what criteria they will be evaluated and how the result they achieve will affect their salary. I believe that in education policy, the effectiveness of financial incentives should be ensured in parallel with the protection of teachers' social welfare and the development of their professional potential.
Preparation for certification should not be limited to solving test tasks only on the eve of the exam. This process should become an integral part of the teacher's daily professional activity, updating their knowledge, and mastering modern pedagogical approaches. In this regard, it would be appropriate to develop several directions in the next stage. First of all, it is important to organize accessible and systematic training programs for teachers, update methodological materials for subjects, conduct trial evaluations, and expand individual learning opportunities.
At the same time, wider use of digital learning platforms can give teachers the opportunity to independently improve their knowledge. Another important issue is strengthening methodological support in schools. Experienced teachers supporting their younger colleagues, expanding mentoring programs, and more effective functioning of subject methodological associations and professional discussion platforms can positively affect the quality of preparation for certification."
In addition, providing teachers with comprehensive information about the evaluation criteria and the content of the exam in advance is of particular importance:
"The teacher must clearly understand what they need to learn, what skills will be evaluated, and how they can improve their results. In my opinion, a strong education system is a system that not only demands high results from the teacher but also creates the necessary conditions for them to achieve those results. Since certification directly affects pedagogical activity and salary, every potential change related to this process naturally becomes the focus of attention. Especially in discussions related to the second five-year period, it is important to consider the expectations and questions of teachers.
However, it is not possible to present the conclusion that certification will definitely be more difficult in the next stage as a substantiated opinion at this time. The difficulty of evaluation is not measured only by increasing the passing score or complicating the questions. Here, the content of the criteria, the relevance of the tasks to the teachers' real professional activity, the objectivity of the evaluation, and the accessibility of preparation opportunities also play an important role. The experience of the first five-year stage should be important analytical material for the next period. This experience should show in which directions positive results have been achieved, which issues require additional attention, and what difficulties arise in the teachers' preparation process.
The main principle should be that certification becomes a means of stimulating professional development for teachers, not a source of fear and uncertainty. For this, decisions must be transparent, changes must be announced in advance, and teachers must be given sufficient opportunities to adapt to new requirements. The teacher is the main pillar of education.
Increasing their professionalism serves the strategic interests of the state, the future of society, and the quality education of the growing generation. Therefore, the future development of certification must be carried out on the basis of maintaining a correct balance between increasing demands on the teacher and strengthening their professional potential."
