It would be unfair to reduce the issue of PhD holders working in Morocco’s National Education sector to material demands, salary increases, or career advancement. Equally, it would be unwise to disregard the financial and organizational constraints facing the government as it manages the various social and professional issues before it.
Between these two considerations lies considerable room for reflection, where we may raise a fundamental question that could provide a starting point for understanding this long-standing issue: What value does the state attach to the doctoral degree, the highest academic qualification awarded by a university, if so many of its holders see no tangible recognition of it in their professional careers?
Earning a doctorate is no small achievement, nor is it merely another document added to its holder’s administrative file. It is the culmination of many years of research and academic pursuit, accompanied by considerable effort, hardship, sleepless nights, travel, and financial sacrifice. Scientific research also demands patience, perseverance, analytical and critical thinking, and the ability to produce knowledge.
These challenges are perhaps even greater for employees who combine their professional responsibilities with university studies. They spend their days teaching or performing administrative duties, then devote their remaining time to reading, researching, and writing until they attain the academic distinction they have long aspired to.
There is no doubt that earning a doctorate represents a remarkable intellectual and academic achievement that should never be reduced to a job title or financial compensation. Knowledge has intrinsic value, and the understanding and capacity for thought and research that individuals acquire are among the greatest benefits they can enjoy in their academic and professional lives. A doctorate also carries symbolic significance and personal prestige, representing the culmination of years of dedication and perseverance.
Yet acknowledging these intellectual and personal rewards does not exempt us from asking another question: Is it not the right of someone who has attained such an academic distinction to work within a professional system that recognizes their qualifications and allows them to put those qualifications to use for the benefit of society? Is it enough for a university to award its highest academic degree, only for its recipient to spend years waiting for that degree to find its rightful place in their career?
At its heart, this is not merely an issue of salaries and positions. It is a question of recognizing knowledge, valuing expertise, and ensuring justice for those who possess it.
A longstanding demand for professional recognition
The demands of PhD holders in the National Education sector are not new. Their struggle dates back many years and has been marked by protests, negotiations, and successive agreements. Many placed their hopes in announced solutions, yet the years passed without a settlement covering everyone concerned.
We do not intend to deny the measures taken by the state or diminish what has already been achieved for some doctorate holders. Nevertheless, one question must remain central: What will become of the majority who are still waiting?
If widely circulated estimates suggest that the sector employs 6,000PhD holders or more, can allocating only a few hundred positions through limited recruitment rounds adequately address an issue of this magnitude? What about those who remain excluded, or those who earn their doctorates in subsequent years? Are we not adopting a partial solution that may prolong the problem for many more years without achieving a comprehensive settlement?
One of the first requirements of fairness would be for the Ministry to publish an updated official census of PhD holders working in the sector and establish a clear timetable for resolving their professional status. Otherwise, the introduction of the title of Lecturer (Professeur Maître de Conférences) in the statutory framework may remain welcome news in principle while access to that position becomes almost impossible in practice. Their professional futures would then remain dependent on an indefinite period of waiting. And when waiting becomes prolonged, it ceases to be a mere administrative delay. It may turn into genuine human and professional suffering, particularly as the years go by and some of those concerned approach retirement without ever having had a meaningful opportunity to make full use of their academic qualifications.
This issue also raises another paradox worth examining: the position of PhD holders in National Education compared with their counterparts in other government ministries.
In principle, academic expertise deserves recognition and appreciation regardless of the sector in which it is found. If some ministries offer employees with doctoral degrees broader career opportunities or implement procedures to recognize and make use of their qualifications, PhD holders in National Education are fully justified in questioning why their own situation remains unresolved.
The large number of doctorate holders should not become an argument against them. On the contrary, perhaps we should view this abundance of qualifications from a different perspective.
Should we not take pride in the fact that thousands of employees in the National Education sector have refused to stop at their initial qualifications and have continued their studies until they reached the highest academic level?
Have these very teachers, who encourage their students every day to pursue knowledge, work hard, and persevere, not demonstrated in their own lives the values they seek to instill in their classrooms?
A teacher who encourages students to continue their education while pursuing further studies despite professional demands and family responsibilities offers them a practical lesson in the value of knowledge and determination.
How, then, can such an achievement become a burden on the person who embodies it? How can the abundance of highly qualified professionals within a public sector become an obstacle to their fair treatment rather than an asset worthy of support and investment?
This does not mean that every PhD holder should immediately be transferred to university teaching, nor that a doctorate alone is sufficient proof of competence for every research or academic responsibility. It does mean, however, that they deserve clear and fair professional pathways appropriate to their qualifications, based on objective criteria of merit and competence.
Another striking contradiction can be observed when two teachers work in the same educational institution, teaching the same subject, while one holds a bachelor’s degree and the other has continued studying until earning a doctorate, yet the latter’s additional qualification has no visible impact on their professional status.
This observation is in no way intended to diminish the standing of teachers with bachelor’s degrees. They fulfill a noble educational mission and may excel through their competence, experience, and professional dedication. Teaching quality cannot be measured by academic qualifications alone.
Yet fairness also requires that additional academic effort should not be treated as though it had never taken place, and that the highest academic qualification should not remain merely a title with no meaningful professional or scientific opportunities attached to it.
Just as professional experience deserves recognition, and just as seniority and career progression have their rightful place, continued academic achievement and the attainment of the highest levels of education should also be valued.
This brings us to a question no less important than those already raised: With what state of mind can a teacher holding a doctorate continue fulfilling their educational mission while watching the years pass without any resolution to their professional situation?
People may endure the hardships of work and the difficulties of life, but they also need to feel appreciated and treated fairly. They need to see that their efforts have borne fruit beyond symbolic recognition.
There is little doubt that prolonged waiting may leave some PhD holders feeling frustrated or believing that their qualifications are being disregarded, particularly when promises are repeated, solutions are delayed, and their professional prospects remain uncertain as they grow older.
However, discussing this psychological hardship must never be interpreted as an invitation to neglect professional duties or as a justification for compromising students’ rights. Students bear no responsibility for this situation, and teachers have a duty to carry out their educational mission with honesty and dedication, whatever difficulties they face.
But should the administration, in the broader institutional sense, not also strive to create a professional environment in which teachers feel valued and their qualifications are recognized? Does sound human resource management not require attention to professional satisfaction and moral recognition, alongside material rights?
When we call for justice for PhD holders, we are not defending an isolated individual interest. We are speaking about a group of highly qualified professionals who could contribute significantly to the development of Moroccan schools and the advancement of scientific and educational research.
Indeed, the consequences of this issue may extend beyond teachers themselves to the students they educate. Some students may wonder why their teacher, despite holding a doctorate, continues to wait for an opportunity to undertake research or university-level responsibilities, and what prospects academic dedication can truly open up in society.
There is nothing about a PhD holder teaching in secondary education that diminishes their standing. Schools themselves need highly qualified academics, whose presence in classrooms can provide immense educational value. The problem arises when these teachers lack a clear professional pathway that allows them to develop their scientific and research contributions.
This reveals an educational paradox worthy of reflection: How can we instill in younger generations the importance of perseverance in the pursuit of knowledge when we have not yet succeeded in providing clear career prospects for some of those who have reached its highest levels?
Investing in knowledge and expertise
Some may invoke financial constraints and the additional burden that a comprehensive settlement could place on the state budget. These concerns are undoubtedly legitimate, and managing public finances requires prudence and a careful balance between competing social needs.
Yet we must remember that the PhD holders concerned are already public employees receiving salaries. The cost of regularizing their professional status is not necessarily equivalent to recruiting thousands of new employees. Rather, it primarily involves the financial and organizational differences associated with changes in their professional grades and responsibilities, together with any additional measures these changes may require.
If a comprehensive settlement requires budgetary allocations and careful assessment, this should not mean postponing it indefinitely.
Financial constraints may explain why a solution is difficult, but they cannot, on their own, justify allowing the problem to persist without a clear prospect of resolution.
Should we not also consider another cost, one that may not appear in direct financial calculations? I refer to the cost of failing to make full use of highly qualified professionals who have devoted years to education and research and who could contribute to curriculum development, teacher training and supervision, educational studies, knowledge production, and scientific research.
Encouraging scientific research, innovation, and human resource development has long been among the priorities emphasized in royal speeches on various occasions, as essential foundations for building a knowledge-based society and achieving development. The latest government program has likewise addressed the quality of learning and its relationship with research, knowledge, and intelligence.
There is no doubt that ensuring fair treatment for PhD holders in National Education and enabling them to contribute to scientific and educational research is consistent with these priorities. It would transform recognition of the value of knowledge from a mere slogan into a tangible institutional practice.
Perhaps the question we should ask is not simply: How much would it cost to regularize the professional status of PhD holders? We should also ask: What could these highly qualified professionals contribute to the educational system if their academic abilities were properly utilized?
Fair treatment should not be regarded as a favor granted at the administration’s discretion, but as a legitimate demand for professional justice, requiring clear rights and regulatory pathways in accordance with the law and the principles of equality and merit.
We see no contradiction between this demand and the public interest. On the contrary, it may be central to serving that interest, because institutions that recognize, appreciate, and effectively utilize the abilities of their professionals are better equipped to improve their performance and achieve their objectives.
Moreover, recognizing a doctoral degree should not be reduced to merely changing an administrative title. It should be accompanied by real opportunities to engage in research, academic supervision, training, and the development of the educational system.
In this context, consideration could be given to a comprehensive and equitable settlement of the situation of PhD holders, while organizing their transition toward research and training responsibilities in accordance with the actual needs of educational institutions. Such an approach would recognize their rights while preserving the continuity of public education services.
A new opportunity for dialogue and a call for justice
One reason for cautious optimism at this stage is the willingness expressed by the new Minister of National Education, Mohamed Nabil Benabdallah, to listen to the various stakeholders in the sector and open channels of dialogue concerning outstanding professional issues.
This initiative deserves to be welcomed and encouraged, as serious dialogue is an essential starting point for addressing accumulated problems and rebuilding trust between the administration and those working in the sector.
We hope that the issue of PhD holders will be included among the priorities of this dialogue and receive the attention and consideration it deserves. The new minister is inheriting a problem that has persisted for years and passed through successive governments and administrations without reaching the comprehensive settlement that those concerned have long awaited.
We do not wish to prejudge the outcome of this dialogue or hold newly appointed officials solely responsible for problems accumulated over the years. Nevertheless, those affected have every right to hope for a different beginning, one in which the issue moves beyond managing an endless wait toward a serious pursuit of justice.
Ultimately, the question we should all consider, whether as officials, citizens, or people concerned with education, is not merely about a professional group demanding better conditions. It is about the place we want science and knowledge to occupy in our society.
If we wish to encourage our children to work hard, cultivate in them a love of learning and research, and build a school system capable of preparing future generations, we must also learn to value those who have persevered in the pursuit of knowledge until reaching its highest levels.
Either the doctoral degree possesses an academic and professional value that deserves recognition and fair treatment, or we must openly reconsider its place within the system of managing professional qualifications. To acknowledge its academic value while leaving thousands of its holders waiting for years without clear career prospects is a contradiction that is difficult to justify.
Ensuring justice for PhD holders in National Education is not simply a response to the demands of a particular professional group. It is also a recognition of knowledge, an appreciation of dedication, an investment in expertise, and a message to future generations: a society that encourages its children to seek knowledge should be the first to value their efforts when they reach its highest levels.
Perhaps the most meaningful way to conclude this discussion is with a question addressed to our collective conscience:
If we encourage our children to reach the highest levels of education, how can we reassure them that such dedication is worthwhile when we have yet to do justice to some of those who have already reached those heights?
