MOST people would agree that for a building to be strong, the foundations have to be strong. It is no different in education. Foundational literacy and numeracy, and foundational skills in learning, language and math have to be strong for a child to experience a good educational outcome. The foundation is set at the primary level of schooling. Should we not have our best teachers at the primary school level? This is where we make or break our students.

It is true that content-wise, primary education is not ‘difficult’. Subject content for classes 1-5, whether English, Urdu, math or something else, is not difficult as it focuses on the basics. However, primary-level children, aged around five to 10, have little prior learning. Many have little to no support in education or learning at home and are poorly prepared. Young children are easily distracted. Sitting down to learn does not come easily to them. While the knowledge requirement might not be high, the primary school teaching skills needed are exacting. Not every person can be a good teacher and not every good teacher can teach younger children well.

But the way we set career paths and incentives currently, in both the public and private sectors, we end up pushing the best teachers out of primary schools. Primary school teachers are usually paid the least amongst teachers; their entry grade in the public sector falls in the lowest tier, their promotions are the slowest, and they are usually not allowed to go beyond one or two grades even if they are promoted. The only way a primary school teacher can have a reasonable career path in terms of promotions and salary increases is by leaving teaching at the primary level and become a subject specialist, high school teacher or principal or move to an administrative role.

I met Shakila and Sana recently. Both joined as primary school teachers a few years ago. Even though both enjoyed teaching young children and were good at it, they moved out of primary school teaching. They became subject specialists. They now have higher grades and salaries, but they do miss their interaction with younger children.

Should we not have our best teachers at the primary school level?

All this is a result of assuming that early years’ teaching is easy or somehow less difficult than teaching at a higher level. But, as mentioned, the assumption is wrong. In fact, early years’ teaching might actually be more difficult and require more teaching skills and also a keen understanding of child psychology and child development. And it might call on personality traits that not all people may possess.

So, the question is, why can we not have a grade-22 primary school teacher? Why are primary school teachers inducted at grade 14 while high school teachers come in at grade 16 or even 17? Why do primary school teachers retire in grade 15 or 16 while others can go up to grade 20 or so?

Imagine a Class-2 teacher who does a great job of teaching children year after year. She shapes the lives and personalities of hundreds of children. Why should she not be rewarded for her service through higher grades and salaries while she continues to teach Class 2? Why does she have to leave off primary school teaching and become a subject specialist for middle school or a high school teacher to get a better salary or grade? Why does she have to move into administration for a higher salary? By setting things up this way we not only lose a good primary school teacher, we may also get a pretty ordinary subject specialist, high school teacher or administrator.

Though there are no grades for teachers in the private sector, the underlying dynamics are no different. If you want a path to higher salary and seniority, you have to eventually move out of teaching at the primary level or altogether. What a loss and what a waste. Talk about poorly designed career paths.

Recent policy changes in teacher career paths have exacerbated the issue further. Posts for primary school teachers are the ones most often advertised and recruited for within teaching cadres. People do not need an education professional degree to apply as a teacher; many are looking for jobs but have no wish to be a primary school teacher or even remain in the teaching profession. Nevertheless, they apply for teaching jobs so that they can ‘park’ themselves for the period where they can look for other, more desirable jobs. Even engineers and other professional degree holders now join as primary school teachers; their intention is to keep preparing for other opportunities like CSS, subject specialists, high school teachers, principals, administrative jobs or employment within their respective professions and to leave primary school teaching as soon as a ‘better’ job is secured. What a waste of resources in terms of recruitment, training and other administrative costs.

Javed completed a degree in engineering a few years ago. He was unemployed for six months or so. He became a primary school teacher to keep himself eligible for government jobs and not become ‘overage’, and to get at least some income. But as soon as relevant jobs opened up, he moved out of teaching.

How does it make sense to structure teacher career paths under these circumstances? Our best teachers are needed in the early years and yet we do everything to make sure they leave primary school teaching as soon as they can. Teaching higher-level classes does not involve higher-level teaching, even if bureaucracy assumes it does. Teaching early grades requires distinct competencies. To ensure effective career paths, we have to find ways of rewarding good primary school teachers. Otherwise, we will continue to lose good teachers. And it would be hard to expect good learning outcomes if we do not have good teachers teaching at the primary level.

The writer is a senior research fellow at the Institute of Development and Economic Alternatives and an associate professor of economics at Lums.

Published in Dawn, April 24th, 2026