In Japan, a teacher is compared to a minister, while in Tajikistan — to a migrant worker.

It is sometimes claimed that we pay more attention to the humanities, especially literature and poetry, than to the exact sciences. However, I have witnessed chemistry, physics, mathematics, and other science teachers, alongside language and literature teachers, leaving for Russia to engage in manual labor just to make ends meet. In other words, I want to emphasize that merely portraying teachers or distinguishing between humanities and exact sciences does not address the problems within Tajikistan’s educational system. The lack of knowledge or low literacy levels among the generation raised during the era of independence is not the fault of teachers but of an educational system that requires review and reform. Most of the teachers in schools and universities are either those who taught during the

Soviet era or their students. They had already proven their effectiveness during the era of the powerful Soviet empire. In other words, the teachers remain the same, the schools remain the same, and the teaching methods have hardly changed. So why is it that a teacher, who was considered the best guide for the younger generation during the Soviet era, now seems unable to meet the needs of society? What do we observe? Those in charge often try to blame their predecessors for everything, shifting all the “sins” onto “Lenin” and thus avoiding responsibility themselves. However, in reality, we’ve taken certain elements from the Soviet educational legacy while forgetting many others, and now all the faults are being attributed to “Lenin.” Today, the question arises: how does the educational system of independent Tajikistan differ from the Soviet system? Why do graduates of pedagogical universities, even if they are “chained to their desks,” leave the profession after just a few years in schools, with most preferring to migrate to Russia rather than continue teaching in Tajikistan? And what about graduates of other universities, who don’t even consider teaching as a career option? This is in stark contrast to the Soviet era when graduates of all universities sought teaching positions first and foremost. There are several reasons why the educational system of the independence era differs from the Soviet system and why a teacher, who was a respected mentor in the USSR, has been reduced to a laborer or migrant worker during independence. Or, as it is officially phrased, teachers have left the profession “due to a transition to another job.” Firstly, the foundation of our educational system is borrowed from the Soviet system and has not undergone significant changes, except for the introduction of the bachelor’s degree or the Western-style four-year education system and the replacement of oral exams with testing, which has not yielded positive results. Recently, it has been decided to return to the previous exam system, as testing is seen to lower the knowledge level of the youth. To put it simply, we took the structure of Soviet education but discarded its content, leading to a situation where today teachers regard manual labor as a more respectable and honorable occupation than teaching. Secondly, we inherited the educational system (of course, this refers to the Soviet education system and not the legacy of our ancestors), but its management has been inefficient. To explain this simply, it’s like placing someone with no expertise in communications and technology in charge of the Ministry of Communications, or appointing someone who, instead of developing and producing industrial products and nanotechnology, makes dairy products as the head of the Ministry of Industry. Expecting them to meet the standards of a company like “Nestle” would be naive. Naturally, this mismanagement has led many teachers to feel humiliated, and they either left the profession or, if they stayed, were forced to work under conditions where their superiors viewed them as “cash cows,” demanding output without providing the necessary resources for their work. The educational system fell into the hands of individuals who saw it as a source of personal profit and used it for commercial purposes, rather than following the Soviet model of paying attention to the teacher, their salary, and privileges. Today, teachers have become migrant workers, and students have turned into street vendors or carwash attendants. Of course, those who manage the educational system are responsible for this, but they are not the only ones to blame. The community also bears some responsibility for what is happening. And let’s not forget those leaders who, whether consciously, under the influence of alcohol, or in a daze, signed the necessary documents. Thirdly, the “freedom” or “democracy” granted to students and their parents during the independence era—whether justified in the education sector is debatable—was absent in the Soviet era. This led to a situation where students no longer listened to their teachers, and parents no longer wanted their children to study with effort. “Why study? Look at so-and-so, he studied, became a teacher, and what has it brought him? A shepherd earns more, sells a sheep, and that’s enough for a month. What’s the point of studying? Go, herd cattle; it’s more profitable…” We have heard these words from some parents many times during the independence era, and they reflect the peak of despair regarding education and the depth of the crisis in this sector. But if we turn to the traditions of our ancestors and our religion, we see that everywhere there was encouragement and emphasis on respecting the teacher and obeying them to acquire knowledge. From the hadith of the Prophet (PBUH) — “Seek knowledge from the cradle to the grave,” to the teachings of the great Rudaki — “No one was ever free from the path of knowledge,” and the wise words of Saadi — “The value of a teacher is greater than that of a father,” all these testify to the importance of the teacher. However, “democracy,” along with other “freedoms,” has given students the opportunity to argue with teachers and even, in some cases, resort to violence. But beyond the respect for teachers found in the heritage of our ancestors, we also have a modern example that serves as a model for all developed nations. This example is Japan’s educational system and the respect for teachers in that society. A teacher’s salary in Japan is higher than that of a minister, as is their prestige. And in Japanese schools, a conflict between a teacher and a student or a parent is considered a particular form of disrespect and the height of incivility. This is precisely why Japan’s education system is one of the most advanced in the world. However, in our context, such behavior—where a student argues with a teacher or parents clash with them—is called democracy and is gradually becoming a cultural norm in society. Isn’t it time to conduct a comprehensive review of the educational system, so that teachers are compared not with laborers or migrants but with ministers, and so that a culture of respect for teachers takes root, while avoiding the appointment of unqualified individuals to manage the education system?