Safety, school postponed until September

Collective.it

Stefano Iucci

The vast majority of Italians find it appropriate to continue adopting practical-sanitary preventive measures from infection also during the next school year. This is perhaps one of the most important pieces of evidence that can be obtained from the in-depth study of the school contained in the public opinion survey carried out byFutura Observatory on a sample of 2,000 people and aimed to examine the country’s economic, social and employment situation. The most important goal – suggested by 1 out of 3 interviewees – is sanitation in school environments, followed by the division of classes (17% of the sample, but every third teacher), lessons in larger and even external locations (17%) and respect for the safety distance. Only 15% of the sample would not take action.

Read the report

“These results are not surprising – he comments Francesco Sinopoli, general secretary of Flc CGIL -. Those who work in schools would be asking for the same things, starting with school principals who rightfully claim the covid staff. The reality is that there was no government no idea how to approach the next school year. The problems that emerge from the answers are the same as in these years of pandemic, to which, however, an effective answer has not been given with the latest budget law”. For the trade unionist, all this clearly shows the attitude the government has had towards the school: “Already last year, in connection with the debate on the NRP, we said that it was also necessary to bind the current expenses, but the truth is that they fear that when is allocated an additional staff, then there is a request to confirm it”.

Sheep? So much discomfort. Well, the pros
Continuing with questions related to the pandemic, the survey shows a rather negative attitude towards dad. One in three respondents assesses it very negatively, and only one in four has a very or rather positive attitude towards it. The assessment is better among the teachers and more positive among the students. The interviewees believe that distance education has had several negative consequences:emotional disturbances in young people (30%), reduced ability to concentrate and learn (27%), negative effects on academic performance (22%) and access problems and negative impact for the poorest students (21%).

In this case too, it is a confirmation for Sinopoli: “The decline in the level of learning is certainly serious, but it is not the most worrying thing: in fact, you can work on it. More complex to intervene against the discomfort and on emotional disturbances. I would add that father has also had devastating consequences for the school as a place for social gathering, for collective growth and for the development of one’s personality in relation to others. Recovering from aspects of this type is not easy”.

Comfort in this situation of uncertainty, the role recognized in the teacher survey, is considered to be decisive for the growth and education of children and young people, especially in primary school (score 4.15 on a scale from 1 to 5), but in reality also at all school levels (score never below 4). “This is a very important aspect – comments the head of Flc CGIL -. It is inevitable to note that these flattering judgments do not correspond to a recognition of their social value and, consequently, an appropriate remuneration “.

Tender notes
Distance from working life, inadequate school programs, lack of funds and resources for education. These, for the sample interviewed by the Futura Observatory, are the first three critical questions of the Italian school. “On the first aspect – notes Sinopoli – it certainly weighs the concern everyone has about employment. But I believe that the question is complex”.

On this alarm for the general secretary of Flc CGIL weighs, and a lot, “a discussion about the relationship between school and work numbed by the vast majority of the media, always focused on the mismatch between supply and demand. As if the task of the education system was only to adapt the school to the labor market , while there is no rethinking of increasingly precarious and unqualified work”.

In short, it would be useful a great public debate not focused on ideological simplifications (you can’t find certain professions, etc., etc.), but on what work people are offered. Because, concludes Sinopoli, “the school must certainly provide tools to stay in the labor market, but it is not designed to train workers”. On the other hand, even professional and technical education, which, although it need never be pure training, comes closest to this purpose, has been cut down by cuts, above all, paradoxically, in its laboratory dimension.”

Leave a Comment