Today, it was proposed in the Milli Majlis that teachers be exempted from the certification process after passing it 2 times instead of 3.
Is there a need to implement such an innovation?
Former Member of Parliament and Honored Teacher Sona Aliyeva gave a statement to AzEdu.az on the topic.
A teacher is a professional whose development never ends or should not end:
“When I first read this proposal, I involuntarily thought: well, 2 times instead of 3 - what changes? That is, do we evaluate the certification process simply by quantity, by how many times is more appropriate, or do we measure its pedagogical-academic benefit? The problem lies in the approach. Today, for many teachers, certification is perceived not as a tool for development, but more as an exam, bureaucratic pressure, and stress. Therefore, the idea of “I passed twice and I’m done” seems attractive at first glance. But let’s be honest: a teacher is a professional whose development never ends or should not end.
World experience also shows this. For example, in Finland, teachers are not frequently subjected to exams. But this does not mean that their knowledge is not measured or that they do not develop. The approach is simply different: teachers are evaluated based on their lessons, there is an environment for development within the school, and cooperation with colleagues is at a high level. In Singapore, teachers are not at all in a model of “taking an exam and relaxing”. They have a career path, and their development is continuously monitored. That is, the main focus is not on test and exam results, but on real results."
So, we examined the teacher twice, and then completely exempted them - how correct is this approach?
“In our country, certification currently carries more of a verification function. In this regard, having it 2 times instead of 3 can reduce the burden, or more precisely, the stress for the teacher. But we must admit that this is not a solution to the problem. If a teacher has successfully passed certification twice, it shows their basic level. However, it is not the right approach to completely "exempt" them after that. The teacher must either continue to develop, or the system will lose them.
What could be a healthier model? A teacher can be exempted from a test exam after a certain stage. However, their performance must be continuously monitored: how they conduct lessons, what changes occur in students, how much they develop themselves, what is their approach, how open they are to innovations and technologies, and how they apply them in their lessons, etc. So, how correct is it to examine a teacher twice and then completely exempt them? I think a balance should be struck between these two approaches.
In short, this proposal is understandable. Deputies want to reduce the pressure on teachers by considering their psychological state and the difficulties they face. But if the issue is only about reducing the number of exams, it will not yield significant results. Therefore, it is necessary to build a model that keeps teachers in continuous development, while also not tiring them and motivating them."
