The school emptied by decree

What is the government’s “PNRR” philosophy regarding school (let’s say philosophy of generosity)?

The basic thing is the replacement of the school’s cultural and educational wealth with an idea of ​​bureaucratic organization that grows by itself and only serves itself, which provides profits – for example, by providing work to educational institutions – whether or not what should be the basic purpose of public education: to educate literate, cultured and conscious citizens.


Just look at what areas, according to the draft government decree law on the employment and training of future teachers, “in-service training” of teachers should take place. There is only one area, the kindness of Miur, dedicated to knowledge of the subjects in the disciplines that teachers should teach (but beware, we know that the government is also working on a plan to overcome the disciplines of primary and secondary school); the others in which the courses necessary for the salary development of teachers will be chosen and perhaps in the near future the same opportunity to continue to carry out this work are:

– “tools and techniques for planning-participation in national and European tenders”;

– “school management: theory and practice”;

– “pedagogical management”;

– “staff and system numbers: technical, methodological, social-relational, strategic training”;

– “continuity and training and work orientation strategies”;

– “improving student evaluation skills”;

– “application profiles for the national evaluation system of educational establishments”;

“digital teaching techniques”.

Any comment would be superfluous: it is, in fact, a ridiculous para-corporate apparatus that has nothing to do with teaching; and it has nothing to do with serious training in developmental psychology and the deep needs of children and young people, unless one considers such crude motivating internship behavior (“pedagogical leadership”).

But the real drama, even more so than “continuing education,” will be it recruitment: Future teachers who are already at university, even before (and probably instead) deepen the basic knowledge of their disciplines before becoming freely passionate about them, will have to worry about “training” through the “cfu” system about bureau-pedagogical abstract, where we know well that standardized teaching “methodologies” imposed a priori, with a paradoxical inversion of means-goals, without taking into account the cultural content to be shared, the specificity of the individual disciplines, the specific educational and relational situation in the class, of the didactic purposes that you want to accomplish.

The risk is that future teachers will no longer want anything to teach their students if not four empty and bureaucratic formulas for didactic totalitarianism, the one about “learning units”, “of the inverted classroom”, about “cooperative learning”, about “certification” . of skills “, sonorous banalities – which teachers have always practiced – presented to a pompous pseudo-theoretical apparatus that serves to make them believe important, inevitable and completely new and to divert attention from what really matters something in the school, the value of cultural content proposed, and the human relationship in the classrooms (ie the teaching itself, which is the sharing of knowledge and essential cultural content through the relationship between teachers and students).

Not to mention the saving role that is always given to the “digital” – including after two years of disastrous “distance learning” – beyond any justification for the congruence between didactic and pedagogical means and purposes.

This “revolution” of recruitment takes care of that emptying of public competitions (we had an expectation of this with the system of multiple choice questions, a hypernotic modality introduced as a self-fulfilling prophecy and paradox precisely by those who want to make people believe that knowledge is equivalent to notionism and eliminate it as such from school) And the impoverishment of a serious university education of future teachers in favor of an unstoppable certification of nothingness, of a system of courses, courses and “certifications” of dubious origin and utility.

By introducing this “reform” (among other things through the modality of decree of lawwhich should only be adopted on issues of a particularly urgent nature, certainly not for the future of the new generations and our society), the Minister of Education avoids any real showdown with those who work in the school, just as he avoids the debate in the parliamentary committee and with trade unions: Those who work in the school would explain to him that the students will pay the price for this latest mess, which is no longer being educated – unless they have the opportunity to go to private schools elite – and will have less and less chance of approaching the richness of cultural content with the help of people who are truly able to master it. We are already seeing the effects of twenty years of meaningless “reforms”, with the spread among the very young of a dramatic illiteracy.

On the other hand, it would be extremely important to think about the authentic training of teachers, which is always and above all the result of serious research, of real cultural interests, of self-training, of learning from the experiences of others and not a business parody outside the needs and logic of the school. , imposed by those who do not know and understand nothing about the school.

Based on the psychoanalyst Alessandro Zammarelli, it can be said that a teacher who, even through a real cultural training and a meaningful professional experience, has been able to develop a full identity, and who puts his own personality and path into the teaching. being in the world indirectly stimulates students to seek their own identity and sets an example in this sense; on the contrary, a heterodirect teacher, called to use mechanically and bureaucratically depersonalized teaching methods, conveys to students the opposite message, of a weak or non-existent identity, which can only be supported through obedience and conformity, through renunciation of thought.

Group Our school

Leave a Comment