Should seniority determine teaching teams?
Education today is a system as complex as it is crucial for our collective future. Classrooms are a melting pot of inequalities, shifting expectations, and decisions that will shape life trajectories. But complexity isn't just what comes through the door: it's also how the system organizes itself to respond.
A school can only function if it offers coherence. If, in the face of conflict or a distrustful family, the message is shared. If there are common criteria. If there is a shared vision. Without alignment, each situation is resolved in isolation. Messages contradict each other, trust weakens, and complexity becomes unmanageable. Coherence in the face of complexity doesn't depend solely on individual talent: it depends on the ability to build stable teams with shared leadership. And there's one element that is rarely questioned: the teacher assignment system.
Today, teachers are assigned primarily based on seniority within the administrative pool. More years equate to more points, regardless of their fit with the school's vision or their actual contribution to the team. Just a few days ago, in these same pages, Clam Educatiu spoke of "The taboo of public schools: choosing teachersThe debate is often framed in terms of individual rights versus the risk of arbitrariness. But the underlying question is deeper: how do we build teams capable of sustaining an educational project in a highly complex environment? Isn't it about pitting labor rights against school autonomy, but rather about asking whether the current model allows for effective school governance?
The current system protects against potential arbitrariness. And that protection is necessary. The risk of poor judgment or an unfair decision exists and must be controlled. But the way we do it today, by practically ignoring any information about how well teachers fit into schools, is too drastic a response. By trying to completely eliminate that risk, the system also forgoes using information that could help build strong educational teams and projects. The challenge is not choosing between job security and institutional quality, but designing mechanisms that allow us to protect the former while strengthening the latter.
In this context, recent decisions The limitations on creating new teaching profiles and the reduction in interviews during the assignment process demonstrate the extent to which the system continues to prioritize centralization and homogeneity over schools' ability to build teams that are coherent with their educational project. Beyond the administrative reasons behind these decisions, they raise a fundamental question once again: what real scope do schools have to build the teams they need?
A school can invest years in training teachers, integrating them into a coherent strategy, and creating a shared professional culture. And it can lose them the following year because others accumulate more seniority points within the system. The result is not just turnover: it's structural fragility. Over time, this erodes talent. Dedicated individuals who need environments with genuine project capacity become frustrated by the lack of stability and coordination. And the system weakens. Without consolidated teams, there is no leadership. Without leadership, there is no capacity to address complexity.
It is clear that the allocation of teachers to schools is not the only problem in education. But it is a complex and crucial element, affecting much more than the individual career paths of teachers. The way we design these mechanisms influences the stability of teams, the ability of schools to develop coherent educational projects, and ultimately, the effectiveness of the education system as a whole.
That's why it's worthwhile to carefully analyze how certain institutional details can affect these balances. There's an entire line of research dedicated to studying allocation systems and understanding how small variations in design can improve efficiency and equity without jeopardizing job security. Some of us are dedicated precisely to studying these systems. What's often lacking is the space to calmly consider alternatives. In complex systems, small institutional adjustments can have very significant effects. But for these adjustments to emerge, it's necessary to dedicate time to analyzing the problem and imagining different options.
And this is where civil society can make an impact. We're not talking about grand theoretical debates, but about dedicating collective energy to thinking about how we want our education system to function. Policymakers inevitably respond to those who exert pressure. Without civil participation, the debate is captured by the most organized voices or those with the most immediate interests.
In this context, it is relevant that spaces emerge that focus on the governance of the system and not just on the defense of partial interests. Clam Educatiu has begun to occupy this space, bringing together professionals, families, and citizens around a central idea: placing the child at the center and providing schools with the tools to build coherent and sustainable projects. It is not a corporate demand, but a commitment to strengthening the institutional capacity of the education system. That is why I wanted to join.
Complexity will not disappear. But we can decide how we govern it. If we want schools with aligned teams, solid projects, and strong institutions, we must dedicate time to thinking about and building them collectively.