Pnrr, on the distribution of funds to the FLC schools Cgil warns MI: In some areas, money goes to classical high schools and not to professional institutes, paradoxically

The clash between the association of Francesco Sinopoli, Flc CgilAnd Ministry of Educationalready ferocious on the subject mobility, of which Flc Cgil together with Uil accuses MI of anti-union behavior, for having only agreed with the CISL school the provision on the three-year bond; during these hours it comes back to light up questions about the distribution of funds from the NRP to the schools.

The union actually warned the Ministry of Education and asked for an immediate convening of the professional parties with a view to a revision of Ministerial Decree No 170 compared to definition of resource allocation criteria to “measures to prevent and combat early school leaving in connection with the implementation of the investment line 1.4. “Extraordinary intervention aimed at reducing territorial gaps in the first and second cycles of upper secondary school and combating early school leaving” as part of Mission 4 – Component 1 – of the National Recovery and Resilience Plan, funded by the European Union – Next Generation EU “.


The causes of the conflict

The matter is clearly explained by our Deputy Director Reginaldo Palermo in an article of 7 July last year: The element of conflict arises, it seems, from the document provided by the working group on early school leaving to Minister Bianchi, which contains a large number of observations and proposals for the best possible use of the huge resources available within PNRR to combat school dropout. According to the group, it went so differently, and the first piece of 500 million of the total allocation of one and a half billion would have been distributed in a very dubious way.

“The Indicators – reports Deputy Director Palermo, citing articles and interviews by the sociologist Chiara Saracenomember of the working group – should be diversified and not just refer to learning levels discovered by Invalsibut also ai education and unemployment among the local populationby percentage of foreign students or pupils with special educational needs present at the individual schools and much more. In the end, however, the ministry used very simplified criteria that largely reduced them to learning outcomes and school dropouts, with the result that the money went to schools that would not have a small need; on the contrary, in a situation of objective difficulties, schools did not receive support ”.

The warning of Flc Cgil

Now, a few days after Minister Bianchi’s letter to the schools benefiting from the funding, Flc CGIL is challenging the Minister for the distribution of funds to the 3,000 “lucky” schools.

The minister’s responsibility and guilt would once again consist in the non-involvement of the unions and the schools themselves: we find no “no involvement of those who work in the school every day, no dialogue with the subject”. unions and no consideration of the same indications from the working group that worked in this administration, ”we read in the announcement.

The resources therefore appear to have been entrusted “without prior analysis of the schools’ context and discovery of needs”, resulting in “exclusion of whole school communities for years committed to combating the proliferation phenomenon in particularly vulnerable neighborhoods and geographical areas”.

“On the basis of the Ministerial Decree, there appears to be an incorrect assessment of the results of INVALSI, of the context, including the pandemic, and therefore of the data on early school leaving,” the document continues in violation of it. MI. In short, only 39% of Italian schools would be recipients of the funds “with blatantly unequal treatment in regional and provincial areas and with the blatant paradox that classical colleges will be funded, but comprehensive and / or professional institutions belonging to areas where the percentage of explicit proliferation is high will not receive the aforementioned contributions“.

Finally, a final argument from the union concerns the fact that PNRR resources should be accompanied by investment in ongoing expenditure to “increase staff and school time, to reduce the number of pupils per class and to improve the teaching laboratory”.

Leave a Comment