In the deafening silence of the opposition (and of the media that look like a regime) the obscurantist government strikes a cornerstone of Renzi's reforms: the direct call of teachers, introduced by the "good school" law. The unions, Together with new Minister of Education Marco Bussetti, have in fact signed a transitional agreement which provides for the criteria that will be followed in the assignment of professorships.
It is truly a wicked act and a leap backwards for the country, the symbol of the populist ugliness and democratic dangers we are running. Why? First: with an agreement between a minister and the unions of a category, a law of parliament is cancelled. It is huge. It's a throwback to 30 years ago. To the union corporatism that imposes itself on Parliament. This is how the Italian school was progressively destroyed. This is how it became a place for unskilled personnel, a place of waste and a job machine instead of training.
According to: the direct call is the basic principle of school autonomy. It is right that each school should be more responsible for the educational offer. And part of this is the ability to choose teachers. Seeing them imposed by law is reactionary: it is the leap to a nineteenth-century, peasant, archaic, bureaucratic and centralist Italy. Plus the corporate despotism of a trade union that has reduced the school to a sponge that absorbs personnel unhooked from any criterion of merit and productivity.
Third: there is no longer, in any sector of the economy and society, a job market based on the "numeric call". Even in the ancient PA, the managerial staff (and the teachers in the school "are" the managers) are chosen on the basis of merit criteria. Not only in the backward Italian school: the staff is imposed by the trade union and administrative bureaucracy.
Fourth: the direct call, choosing the teaching staff, allowed the educational institutions to start functioning as a business. It is the word that particularly disgusts corporate and bureaucratic trade unionists. For which the school public service must disregard the criterion of efficiency and remain the place of corporatvo privilege. The ideology of bureaucratic trade unionism is a safe (and even close to home) workplace, due to seniority and without merit selection. Which now finds its natural ally in anti-modern, anti-industrial and reactionary populism. And together they bring us back to the centralist bureaucratism of the fascist and Gentile school.
It is another counter-reform attack on the fragile foundations of the Italian system. Best wishes to all of us: yellow-green Italy smells of mold and ancient vices. Other than new advancing. And the left, also an ancient mould, applauds the minister-union agreement or, sadly, is silent and looks the other way.
What is written in this article is all wrong, and makes it clear that its author is completely unaware of what school is after the very unfortunate law on autonomy. Does the columnist know that the salary of the principals also depends on the number of students enrolled in the institution they direct? Did he know that the "evaluation" of principals and teachers also depends on the number of "educational successes" (read: promotions) obtained by the students? The interest of the principals is to have the highest possible number of members, the highest possible number of promotions and the highest possible average grade. With these premises, which teachers would have "directly called" the principals? Obviously those with an extra-large sleeve, those for whom grades lower than 6 don't even exist, for whom 6 is the vote of those who don't know, 7 that of those who are floundering and 8 that of those who are just above decency. The abolition of the direct call is the first step in restoring dignity to education: the teacher is a professional, and his dignity as a professional cannot be at the mercy of the likes or dislikes of a principal. The next step must be the abolition of school/work alternation in high schools, therefore the revocation of autonomy. Crowning all the abolition of the unified middle school and the limitation of access to university only to high school graduates.
So you believe that to access Degree Courses such as Economics and Commerce, Law, Agriculture, Oenology, Pedagogy, Computer Science, high school diploma is absolutely necessary? Devp assume that you are a teacher and, in my opinion, not even a good teacher. The best teachers I've had, and I've had many excellent ones, were those who knew very well that for many of us school would only be a passage, an important one, but not an end in itself, a passage to the world of work ( which apparently in his opinion is a mob thing of technical and professional institutes). I deduce this from the fact that you wish for the abolition of school-work alternation for high schools. But do her students really think like her? I suggest you try to make sure. But be careful, if you are capable, ask neutrally, because the boys are smart and give the answers they intuit are "right"
What I wrote is not my opinion (which would count for nothing) but pre-1968 Italian legislation. The one that allowed industrialization, the economic boom and widespread well-being. The post-68 school instead produced only decadence: from 1970 onwards Italy was practically in a chronic crisis: double-digit inflation in the 70s, illusory well-being created by getting into debt in the 80s, from 92 (infamous Amato government) to today an uninterrupted crisis. I'm 47 years old and since I've been in the world I've seen nothing but a slow but inexorable decline. Of rhetoric sixty-eight I've had enough. In my speech I simplified for the sake of brevity, but the pre-1968 legislation was very rational (in power was reason, not imagination), so it allowed, for example, accountants to enroll in economics, teachers to enroll in teaching. But they were exceptions. The rule was that anyone who aspired to graduate had to be first of all a well-rounded person: an engineer who was completely ignorant of philosophy was simply inconceivable. And rightly so because, and herein lies the misunderstanding into which you too fall, school is not a "passageway to work", because the individual is a person, not a worker (so much so that at a certain moment you stop working but you remain a person, otherwise for consistency it would be necessary to remove the right to vote from pensioners). The aspect of preparation for work is important in technical institutes and even more so in professional institutes (now distorted with the inclusion of many theoretical hours), but not in high schools, which prepare not for work but for further studies. And this is why the school/work alternation in high schools not only makes no sense, but actually does damage. You have no objective element for not considering me a good teacher; I, on the other hand, have one for considering you a presumptuous person, because you venture judgments on those you don't know on the sole basis of a statement that has nothing to do with my concrete and daily activity.
Nor does the thought of my students on this subject matter in the discourse, just as I am not interested in knowing what their thought on the matter is. As for the last observation on the alleged "cleverness" of the boys, I am certainly not the type of teacher (moreover well represented in Italy) who uses the school as a means to indoctrinate the pupils, who therefore for "cleverness" would compete in the agree. No. I teach my subjects. Their opinions do not interest me.