The right to education is guaranteed in Pakistan by Article 25-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. It states that “the state shall provide free and compulsory education to all children of the age of five to sixteen years in such manner as may be determined by law.” It was incorporated into Chapter 1, the list of fundamental rights, through the eighteenth amendment. It is important to note, however, that this is not how education was always protected in our country. Earlier, it was protected by Art. 37 as a principle of policy for the promotion of social justice and eradication of social evils. Against its obligations under Article 25-A, the Punjab government passed the Punjab Free and Compulsory Education Act 2014 (shorthand PFACEA). This Act has six chapters and twenty-six sections. Chapter 1 deals with preliminary topics such as short title and date of enforcement. Chapter 2 deals with the right to free and compulsory education. Chapter 3 deals with the duties of the government, local authority and parents. Chapter 4 deals with the responsibilities of schools and teachers. Chapter 5 deals with the protection of the rights of children. And lastly, Chapter 6 deals with miscellaneous such as inspection and directions etc. For our purposes, we will stick to sections 16 (4) and 17 (2) as these are primarily concerned with the duties of teachers. Under s. 16 (4), teachers have negative duties, which restrain them from using corporal punishment against students and harassing them. If they are found involved in the proscribed conduct, they are liable to disciplinary action. The next section, however, lays out five positive duties of teachers. Under this, they are mandated to maintain regularity and punctuality of students and hold regular meetings with parents. They are also required to complete the curriculum on time. Besides, they are required to maintain students’ all-round development, which includes building up their knowledge, potential and talent and ensuring they do not fear the expression of views. Also, it prescribes child-centred learning as the mode of teaching. With these limited duties of teachers, it is no surprise that the quality of education is not improving in Punjab. As M Saleem Ansari pointed out in his column for Dawn, titled, “Importance of Education,” one of the many reasons children dropped out from schools was a decline in educational standards. To this end, the Annual Status of Education Report 2018 is alarming as it tells that there is no symmetry between schooling and learning because students who had spent nine years at schools only improved their learning by 0.46 per cent per year. The precise factors contributing to poor education have naively been narrowed down either to traditional education (as suggested by Pervez Hoodbhoy in his column, “Why attempts to reform Pakistani education fail?”) or the absence of spiritual teaching in the school curriculum (as suggested by Amin Valliani in his column, “Goal of Education”). With these limited duties of teachers, it is no surprise that the quality of education is not improving in Punjab Contrary to popular belief, the fact of the matter is that the roles of the teachers have been narrowly defined in statues like PFACEA. This statute, with its focus on teachers as information providers and student assessors, robs them of the many positive duties that play a part in the learning and development of pupils. There are five other duties of teachers that the statute is silent on. One such duty is being a facilitator. In this capacity, a teacher is a mentor who helps students learn within a supportive environment. The second duty is being a role model. A teacher is an on-job and teaching role model for students. As former, the teacher needs to have enthusiasm for their subject and communicate with students in a fashion that the threshold of misunderstandings is low and there is a safe environment of expression and discussion. In their latter role, they are required to kindle curiosity in students. It is here that the Socratic teachings come into play. As an Athenian, Socrates was against the Sophists’ way of teaching, which gave students ready-made answers and did not enquire their deeper knowledge or understanding of things by questioning their knowledge with counterexamples. His revolt against depriving people of the quest of truth made him a man of critical questions, who lurked around the Greek streets, to find if people were curious enough to know the limits of their knowledge. Keeping this, teachers should never make discouraging statements about their subject such as “I teach Public International Law but it has no practical value in the courts of Pakistan.” Rather, they should keep their students curious by updating their knowledge and stimulating students by asking them about views on an area. With regards to their third duty, he/she is a resource provider. As such, they prepare their lessons from a variety of resources to make sure that the student has enough information to take home. Fourthly, they are planners of their weekly or monthly tests. And fifthly, they are assessors of their teaching. To this end, they are willing to take feedback from students and open to peer evaluation. With the statutory confinement of teachers’ duties to maintaining the punctuality of students, our education model is mainly about schooling rather than learning. And if we want children between the age of five and 16 years to experience their constitutional right to education based on quality learning, we have to broaden the positive duties of teachers to include facilitation, role-modelling, resource-providing, planning and self-assessment. At the same time, one should not lose sight of the fact that an increase in their duties alone will not be a motivator for teachers. Therefore, to encourage them to do real justice to Art.25, a performance-based monetary incentive will also have to be infused. This is because additional duties, without a right to performance-based salary, will make teachers feel discouraged. Discouraged workers are globally known for reducing the labour force participation rate. It is, therefore, suggested that the narrowness of PFACEA be bridged with an expansive interpretation of sections 16 (4) and 17 (2) to change free and compulsory education through quality learning. The writer is a law graduate of the University of London and teaches Jurisprudence & Legal Theory