Teacher shortage: what do Belgium's parties propose?

What do Belgium's parties propose on the teacher shortage in 2026?

In 2026, every Belgian party acknowledges the teacher shortage, but they do not pull the same lever to fix it. On one side, the PS, Ecolo, Groen and the PTB·PVDA want more funding first and refuse the savings imposed on school, which they see as part of the problem. On the other, the N-VA, MR, Open VLD and Vlaams Belang bet on reorganising the profession, reforming training and controlling spending. The CD&V, Les Engagés and Vooruit, closer to the centre, try to combine the two without letting budgets spiral.

This dividing line does not pit a "good" manifesto against a "bad" one. It pits two diagnoses of the same shortage. For some, the job lacks staff because it lacks money, replacements and recognition: the answer is to invest. For others, the system wastes already-trained teachers in secondments, admin tasks and rigid organisation: the answer is to employ them better. Both camps want a teacher in front of every class; they agree neither on the cause nor on the bill.

By the numbers, the year is marked by tension. In the French Community, primary teaching is in shortage in every zone, and secondary lacks teachers of Dutch, English, mathematics, science, geography and music. It is on this already-fragile ground that the general strike of 9 April 2026 and the savings programme decree passed in early June took hold, at the heart of the year's debate.

Why is the teacher shortage not a single debate in Belgium?

Because school does not depend on the federal government, but on the Communities. The French Community runs French-language education, the Flemish Community runs Dutch-language education and the German-speaking Community runs education in the east of the country. The federal level keeps only a few levers: compulsory schooling, diploma conditions, part of the funding and teachers' pensions.

This architecture changes how the file reads. The same party can steer the fight against the shortage on one side of the language border and criticise it on the other, or not exist at all in the other Community. In the French Community, Valérie Glatigny (MR) holds Education, within an MR·Les Engagés government. In Flanders, Zuhal Demir (N-VA) carries schooling policy. Comparing "the parties on the shortage" therefore means reading two governments in parallel, with different ministers, timelines and measures.

In practice, this explains why the remedies do not look alike from one Community to the other. In the French Community, the debate revolves around secondments, teaching load and savings; in Flanders, around support staff, notice periods and the training overhaul. The ideological families remain comparable, but the concrete files differ, and a Flemish shortage figure does not mechanically compare to a French-speaking one.

How do you read these positions without taking sides?

Each party gets a sign per lever here: a green + when it clearly backs that approach, an amber ~ for an intermediate or conditional position, a red − when it opposes it. This system replaces stars or marks out of 5, which would suggest a moral ranking.

The key point: no column designates a "good" party. A party marked with a + on "more funding" is often marked with a − on "reorganise at constant budget", and vice versa. The two levers answer different priorities — retaining teachers through investment for one, better using what exists without spending more for the other — backed by different voters. Reading the table means spotting the lever each party favours, not handing out a prize for virtue.

For example, the PS gets a + on "more funding" and a − on the 2026 savings. The N-VA has the opposite profile: it accepts reorganisation on a tight budget and more demanding training. Neither is "in the lead": they are not playing on the same field, and often not in the same Community.

How does the French Community want to bring teachers back to class?

The French Community bets in 2026 on organisational measures rather than mass hiring. Minister Valérie Glatigny (MR) backs easing teaching qualification requirements, which lets a teacher with a sufficient qualification be hired without waiting where a post stayed vacant for lack of a candidate with the strictly required qualification. She also wants to bring back to class teachers currently seconded to various bodies, to lighten beginners' first year by two periods with a mentoring system, and to simplify replacement procedures.

The underlying idea is that part of the shortage is not an absolute lack of trained people, but an allocation problem: teachers exist but are not in front of pupils. Cutting secondments, smoothing replacements and opening posts to slightly different profiles aims to put these resources back into classes without raising the bill. It is a "constrained-budget" answer, owned as such by the MR·Les Engagés majority.

The secondment example shows the logic and the controversy. Bringing seconded teachers back to direct teaching mechanically raises the number of teachers in class, but removes support functions (coordination, mentoring, projects) that these people performed. For the minister, this is a refocusing on the core of the job; for the unions, who demonstrated in spring and again in July 2026 with the slogan "Glatigny resign", it is robbing Peter to pay Paul. The same move is read as a return to work or as a loss of support depending on the viewpoint.

Should teachers' teaching load be increased?

This is the most disputed point of the French-speaking file in 2026. The programme decree passed on 5 June 2026, after a fourteen-hour debate, raises the teaching load of upper-secondary teachers by about 10%, aligning their hours with those of their lower-secondary colleagues. The MR·Les Engagés majority carried it against the PS, Ecolo and PTB opposition, which then tabled a proposal to cancel it, rejected in the chamber.

For supporters of the measure, having each upper-secondary teacher give slightly more lessons covers more hours with the available staff, thus reducing uncovered hours without hiring in a deficit budget. They present it as a shared effort, temporary and compatible with quality, and recall that the goal remains a qualified adult in front of every class.

For their opponents, increasing the load of an already short-staffed job is counterproductive: more fatigue, less attractiveness, more departures and sick leave, and therefore even more vacant posts the following year. Unions speak of "anti-teacher" measures and point to longer careers and the "hunt for the sick" as aggravating factors. The disagreement is less about the goal — covering lessons — than about the real effect of a heavier load on the very shortage it is meant to reduce.

How is Flanders reforming training and organisation?

On the Flemish side, the N-VA combines immediate organisational measures with a deeper training reform. Minister Zuhal Demir has extended until the 2029-2030 school year the schemes allowing schools to convert up to 20% of their vacant lesson hours to hire support staff: these people supervise or assist in class, so teachers can focus on teaching. Added to this are extra pay for teachers who take on additional hours and longer resignation notice periods, from one to thirteen weeks depending on seniority, to stabilise teams.

On substance, Flanders is reforming teacher training from the 2027-2028 academic year. The current, non-binding entry test gives way to a binding Dutch-language test for all future teachers; primary-teaching candidates will also sit basic knowledge tests in mathematics and French. The stated logic is twofold: better preparing for classroom practice and raising standards, in a context where the N-VA has made the "decline in standards" (niveaudaling) its flagship issue.

This approach has its defenders and its critics. For the Flemish majority, securing beginners, easing career changes and requiring a solid foundation on entry strengthen attractiveness and quality at the same time. For its opponents, on the left in particular, tightening access to training when teachers are already scarce risks shutting out useful profiles, and support staff do not replace a qualified teacher in front of a class. Here too, the same scheme is presented as a guarantee of quality or as a brake on recruitment.

What do the parties wanting more funding first propose?

Left-wing parties place investment before any reorganisation. The PS and Ecolo, now in opposition in the French Community, reject the 2026 savings, oppose the teaching-load increase and call for more replacements, supervision and recognition of the profession. On the Flemish side, Groen makes fighting the shortage the precondition for everything else, and the PTB·PVDA calls for smaller classes and a more attractive status.

For this camp, the right lever is not to press teachers already in place harder, but to make the job desirable enough to attract and retain. They recall that the shortage fuels a vicious circle: fewer teachers, heavier classes, harder work, and therefore even fewer candidates. Cutting budgets or lengthening hours would, in their view, speed up this circle rather than break it.

The opposing criticism is twofold. On one hand, spending more does not mechanically attract candidates if Community budgets are already in deficit and the pool of graduates stays limited in a given year. On the other, refusing any reorganisation can leave teachers out of classes while posts stay vacant. The left replies that reorganising without means mainly shifts the shortage around rather than solving it.

What do the parties betting on reorganisation and management propose?

Centre-right and right-wing parties want first to employ what exists better, then contain spending. In the French Community, the MR owns the easing of qualifications, the return of seconded teachers and the teaching-load alignment, presented not as abandoning school but as a more efficient use of counted resources. In Flanders, the N-VA combines support staff, incentives for extra hours and a demanding training reform. The Open VLD shares this priority on organisation and school autonomy.

For this camp, the right lever is management: since teachers exist but are not all in front of pupils, better to smooth allocation, open pathways into the job and reward those who do more, rather than wait for unlikely extra budgets. The Vlaams Belang, for its part, insists on standards and transmission, while being critical of savings that directly hit teachers — a stance that explains its nuanced signs in the table.

The opposing criticism is that reorganising at constant budget has a limit: you do not durably fill a shortage by asking the same people to do more, and tougher entry tests may push aside candidates the system needs. The management camp replies that spending without reforming has not stopped the shortage from setting in, and that a more flexible organisation is the only lever available in the short term.

Teacher shortage: what do the votes and actions say?

Beyond the manifestos, the 2026 actions confirm the dividing line. In the French Community, the MR·Les Engagés majority passed the savings programme decree and the teaching-load increase; the PS, Ecolo and PTB voted against, tabled a cancellation proposal and backed the mobilisations, from 9 April to July. In Flanders, the coalition led by the N-VA extended the support measures and launched the training reform, while Groen and the PVDA/PTB contest the idea that the shortage can be absorbed without new means.

Testing promises against actions is the best antidote to electoral marketing. A party can, in both camps, say it wants "a teacher in front of every class"; it is the votes, the Community policy declarations and the budgets that reveal the lever actually pulled. The case of Les Engagés is telling: partners in the French Community majority, they own savings and a heavier teaching load in the name of budget constraint, even as their discourse elsewhere insists on upgrading the profession.

To dig further, the comparator lets you put two parties side by side on education, the ranking sums up positions theme by theme, and the quiz starts from your priorities rather than a manifesto. The methodology details how these positions are gathered and remains open to challenge. For the broader picture of schooling, see also our education comparison.

What this comparison does not settle

This table does not say which approach "works" best: the real effect of a funding plan, a return of seconded teachers or a training reform depends on implementation, the pool of candidates, working conditions and social factors that go beyond any single measure. Nor does it factor in your situation — parent of a child in a short-staffed school, beginning or end-of-career teacher, French- or Dutch-speaking — which often weighs more than a Community average.

So the right reflex is not to remember a winning camp, but to link each position to the lever it pulls — invest or reorganise — then to test this overview against what you expect from a policy facing the teacher shortage.