Rayees Masroor
A lively debate among the education circles has resurfaced as the J&K government is mulling to post the JKAS officers as the district heads or the Chief education officers.Should career bureaucrats be the chief education officers at the district level or should these posts remain within the School Education Department? It is a valid question, but the discussion gets clarity once we examine the philosophy of education, the psychology of educational leadership, and the basic logic of what makes education systems succeed.
The real challenge is not the officer or the individual occupying the CEO’s chair, but the system that produces educational leadership in J&K.
For decades, promotions in the school education have depended entirely on seniority. Without departmental examinations or clear merit-based benchmarks, officers often reach key positions at the very end of their service. Many assume charge as CEO or ZEO with barely a month or a year left of their service. At that stage, enthusiasm naturally declines, health issues become a factor, and the urgency to innovate diminishes or fades away. This is not a reflection of ability, but a structural flaw in career progression.
Philosophically, this runs counter to the essence of education itself. Education is inherently forward-looking process, intended to cultivate human potential rather than maintain mere routines. A system that awards leadership roles only in the final years of service sends an unintended message that leadership is a formality, not a responsibility. It undermines the principle that educational administration should be a space where energy, vision, and purposeful action matter.
It has been advocated before and its right time to reiterate that a logical solution is the introduction of departmental examinations for promotions from Teacher to Master, Master to Lecturer, and onward to ZEO,Principal and CEO. Such a system would foster a culture of preparation and effort. Teachers would be encouraged to grow professionally, rather than passively awaiting the slow passage of time to get promotios. Moreover, it would attract capable young professionals to the teaching vocation, making it a deliberate career choice rather than a career opted by chance. Advancement would become a reflection of competence, not merely seniority. Besides promotions, departmental examinations would help curb unnecessary distractions and reduce internal groupism among teachers. By focusing on merit and preparation, teachers would concentrate on their core responsibilities, professional development, and classroom effectiveness. They would be better prepared for teaching roles and benchmarks such as TET, leading to improved student outcomes. This approach would instill professionalism, accountability, and discipline within the teaching workforce, cultivating a sense of purpose that extends beyond administrative compliance.
Educational psychology strongly supports a merit based approach. Motivation theory indicates that people perform best when effort and reward are clearly linked. In a system where promotions are automatic and disconnected from performance, motivation naturally declines. Recognizing competence and preparation encourages continuous learning, skill development, and the serious pursuit of leadership roles.
Educational theory also offers a similar insight. John Dewey emphasized that education flourishes when those who understand learners and classrooms shape the system. Leadership in education should grow organically from experience with teaching and learning. A bureaucrat may efficiently manage files, but managing learning demands a different perspective ,the one that understands how children think, how teachers develop, and how schools function as living communities.
Globally, the most successful education systems reflect this principle. Finland, Singapore, and South Korea do not appoint generalist bureaucrats to lead district-level education. Instead, they elevate career educators who have undergone structured training, rigorous examinations, and leadership preparation. Bureaucratic machinery supports the system, but ideally it does not dictate the academic direction.
The debate in J&K regarding KAS officers as CEOs stems from frustration with inefficiency, stagnation, and delayed progress. Yet appointing non-educators addresses only the symptom, not the cause. Unless the promotion system is reformed, leadership will remain weak regardless of the occupant.
J&K does not need to replace educators with bureaucrats. The region needs a generation of educational leaders shaped through merit, professional development, and competition. A system that rewards potential early would naturally produce dynamic CEOs capable of decisive action, visionary leadership, and meaningful reform.
Ultimately, educational leadership belongs to those who understand education at its core. Reforming the pathway to leadership, introducing departmental examinations, and emphasizing professional development will strengthen the system far more effectively than changing the identity of its leaders. Education is about shaping minds and futures, the leaders guiding it must reflect that responsibility, bringing both expertise and vision to every decision which matters the most.
Rayees Masroor is an educationist and columnist based in north Kashmir.He writes extensively on educational,social and youth related issues.He can be reached at rayeesmasroor111@gmail.com
