SCHOOL / Contract and compulsory education, who wants the teacher-board operators?

The unions that have called the strike on May 30 last yearand with them the teachers who joined it challenged the compulsory education mentioned in the law on state policy, preparation for the revision of the school contract. Compulsory education, which is worth discussing, is a crucial link between a contractual point of view on the teacher’s work and a professional point of view. The obligation was not born yesterday, but with Act 107 of 2015 (Good School), which established the staff with autonomy, that is, the teacher was somehow not so much dependent on Miur, but on the individual school institution .

Section 124 of the aforementioned Act stipulated for this purpose that “continuing education of permanent teachers is compulsory, permanent and structural. The educational activities are determined by the individual schools in accordance with the three-year plan of the educational offer, etc.”.

The terms “mandatory, permanent and structural” are heavy. However, they must be related, it seems to be understood, to the goal of improving the educational institutions of the national public system (state and non-state). The legislature reasoned roughly in this way: The teacher aims at the student’s growth, therefore he “must” keep up to date. But with regard to the ministry and entities attached to it, a rule applies: any liberal opening must be countered by a massive dose of centralist statism.

Having defined the objectives of compulsory education, Miur has therefore described in detail in the teacher education plan 2016-2019 the sectors in which this obligation is to be exercised: teaching based on skills, digital skills, foreign languages, prevention of young distress, etc. But was school autonomies not responsible for drawing up the aforementioned plan? The logic of the shrimp dominates everywhere.

So let’s go back to the teachers’ contracts (certainly three years between unions, schools and Aran), which delimit a set of rules within which the teacher is obliged to move, in some way contrary to the final logic that we saw victories in 107/2015. The school contract (the last is the contract for 2016-2018, signed on 19 April 2018; the next will be born by the still ongoing ministerial table) defines the teacher’s work (art.26) as “Teaching function (which) is based on the cultural and professional autonomy of the teachers; it is expressed in individual and collective activities and in participation in refresher and continuing education activities. “To use more or less the above, here the following philosophy seems to be prevalent (roughly): the teacher’s is a service built on itself, as the category is based on its own autonomy.The contractual logic has leveled the teaching work on a state “function”, since state functions are the post collector or switchboard of any ministry.If he answers, fine; if he does not respond, the user is in canvas pants.

We are not so naive as to attribute austerity solutions to the government that has started the game of revising the contract. Not at all. But it is clear that obligatory training is for the contract as the devil for the famous holy water. Perhaps it is the opposite, but the result does not change: coercive nature does not exist, where functions, competencies, rights (why not), duties (less and less) are negotiated at regular intervals.

As for the obligation by law, the defense of the (few) heirs of the good school, then it would be the case that a word was openly stated that if it is to be obligatory, it does not mean the same thing for everyone. But precisely diversified internally according to cultural opportunities and reference areas (state / non-state). We’ll see how it comes out. What remains is that the teachers who have been trained in the field in the last two years in acute pedagogical interventions are an example of workers who do not care so much about the contract, they like to live their calling in the presence of world. If they were also financially supported, it would not be bad!

– – –

We need your input to continue to provide you with quality and independent information.



Leave a Comment