Khalid Al-Batli

Academics Have Hijacked Public Education... Who Will Restore It to Its Rightful Owners?

July 8, 2026 - 00:16 | Last update July 8, 2026 - 00:16

Follow Okaz channel on WhatsApp

One of the most painful questions in Saudi education is one that no one has dared to ask with sufficient clarity: What has public education gained from the dominance of some academics over its most important decisions over the past decades? A question that seems harsh, but it is legitimate.

After more than three decades of plans, initiatives, strategies, and projects that have succeeded one another in public education, we have the right to ask about the real outcome.

Names have changed more than results, and academic administrations and leaderships have succeeded one another more than achievements, while the teacher remained in his classroom, the school principal in his office, and the overlooked supervisor in his field, watching a scene repeated in an almost tedious manner!

If educational success were made by theories alone, our schools today would be among the best globally. But what happened is that theories changed, names changed, projects succeeded one another, while the same question remained unanswered: Why do all these efforts not reflect on the reality of the school to the expected extent?

No one objects to science, and no one underestimates the value of scientific research. But public education is not a research paper, not an academic conference, and not an experimental project that can be abandoned upon failure. Public education is a daily life lived by millions of students, teachers, and families. Any mistake in its decision does not remain ink on paper but turns into wasted years paid for by an entire generation.

Reality does not change by decisions alone, and schools do not turn into world models simply by issuing regulatory guides, launching platforms, changing names, or setting indicators. Education is a living organism that grows on the ground, not on meeting papers. Any project that is asked to be implemented by the field without being built gradually is like asking a child to run before learning to stand.

The problem is not the presence of some academics, but the dominance of the theoretical academic mindset over field decisions. Many who led the paths of public education over the past decades did not live the real life of the school as the teacher, supervisor, and school principal did. They did not stand for years in front of classrooms, nor did they face the daily realities that make the difference between a decision's success and failure. Yet, they were often the ones determining the direction, while the field was asked to implement without its consultation sometimes!

Thus, public education turned, in many periods, into an arena where initiatives compete more than achievements accumulate. A new team arrives loaded with new ideas, new platforms, and new terminology, and begins reshaping the scene according to what they read in books, saw at conferences, or was applied in some countries. Then they soon leave before the real results are measured, only for another team to come and start anew as if the previous years never happened!

In every instance, energies are drained, budgets are consumed, and schools are asked to adapt to the new direction, while the student and teacher remain the link that bears the cost of constant change. The painful paradox here is that those most absent from decision-making are those most attached to real education.

A teacher who has spent ten years in a crowded classroom knows about education what dozens of theoretical studies cannot provide. A school principal who deals daily with students, families, and teachers understands details that do not appear in any report. A field supervisor who used to tour schools sees truths that the air-conditioned ministry offices cannot reach.

Therefore, field experience is not less important than higher degrees; in public education, it may be more valuable when making decisions.

A successful teacher in a public school, or a school principal managing hundreds of students, may understand the needs of public education better than a graduate of the world's top universities, if the latter has never lived a single day inside the real school reality.

If we add up the cost of this repeated administrative and intellectual chaos over the decades, we would find that we have paid a heavy price in money, time, effort, and human energy, while the big question remains unanswered: Why don't we start from the field people themselves?

What is even stranger is that all this happens while the education system is teeming with highly qualified field competencies. In schools and education departments, there are thousands of teachers, supervisors, and school principals holding master's and doctoral degrees, who combine academic qualification with practical experience. They knew the school before they wrote about it, lived the classroom before they studied its theories, and faced real challenges before they discussed them in their scientific theses.

So why is a university professor seen as the natural choice for educational decisions, while a teacher, supervisor, or school principal who holds the same degree and has twenty years of field experience is marginalized?

Who is more capable of understanding public education: a researcher who reads about school, or a teacher who lived through school?

And who gives a truer diagnosis of the problem: an academic who studies the phenomenon through questionnaires, or an educational supervisor who saw it every day in dozens of schools?

Unintentionally, an administrative culture has taken root that gives greater weight to an academic resume than field experience, as if years of standing in front of students are less valuable than years of writing about them. As if true knowledge of education is gained from papers more than from reality. This is the paradox.

In most major professions, leading the field is allowed only to those who have experienced its details. But in public education, it has become normal sometimes for decisions to be led by those who studied school more than they lived it, and for the role of those who spent their lives among its students, teachers, and daily issues to recede.

Public education does not need more theorists; it needs those who combine knowledge and experience, degree and practice, understanding and reality. It needs someone who knows the smell of the classroom, the pressure of the first period, the challenges of the school, the complexities of the family, and the gap between what is written in reports and what actually happens on the ground.

I am not calling for the exclusion of academics as field people have been excluded for long, but I am calling for restoring the lost balance. The natural place for an academic is to lead scientific research, develop universities, and elevate their outputs, while the voice of field people should be present at the heart of public education decisions, not on the sidelines.

Just as the state is keen on spending efficiency, maximizing impact, and achieving national targets, we have the right to ask: Has the time not come to restore the importance of field experience? Has the time not come for a PhD holder who came out of the classroom to be more deserving of decision-making than a PhD holder who only knew the classroom through the window of scientific research?

Public education has been hijacked for too long in the name of development, and it is time to return it to its rightful owners.

When the decision is in the hands of those who lived the school, not those who visited it in their reports, we will discover that many of the solutions we sought in committees, consultations, and conferences were standing every morning in front of the blackboard, but they found no one to listen.