Evolution or regression? Where is the school policy of the Draghi government going?

According to Councilor Bianchi, the Summer Plan is “the place where new forms of teaching, new ways of being together, new forms of expression are experienced”. The Minister has repeatedly expressed his view on how it should be taught. He even spoke of “reforming” those who teach.

Is it normal for democracy in the executive branch (in the figure of the Minister of Education) to enter into the merits of teaching methodologies, continuously expressing its opinion (as questionable as all opinions) on teaching and teaching methods? The executive branch, in a parliamentary democracy like ours, gives political direction to the nation; but no political direction can go beyond the Constitution, which in Article 33 solemnly protects the freedom of teaching of the Scuola institution (previously defined as a “constitutional body” by Piero Calamandrei, one of the most distinguished constituent fathers). Now, teaching methods are not the responsibility of the minister, but of the teachers, who have the experience and qualification to do so. What if the Justice Minister started criticizing magistrates and lawyers, saying how they should work? Or if the Minister of Health pontificated about the work of doctors? Or if the Department of the Interior issued decrees and ordinances for dictate to journalists what and how to write?

Icotea

School that entertains or liberates?

In any case, a credible government should relaunch the school institution – in difficult times like this – by providing it with economic and regulatory tools to educate, educate, instruct young people. Not just to prepare them for executive workbut to make them genuinely free to know reality in depth, eliminating the cultural barriers which would prevent them from freely choosing what to do with their lives. Is it not the task of the Republic “to eliminate obstacles of an economic and social nature which, by limiting the freedom and equality of citizens, impede the full development of the human person and the effective participation of all workers in the political, economic organization? ? and social issues of the country ”(Constitution, Article 3)?

The ideology of 30 students per class

So for the School to work, the first didactic rule (today also health, in the face of the pandemic) is the reduction of students per class. However, Bianchi, last June 1, stated: “We are living one demographic winter: between ’31 and ’32 we will have more than a million fewer children, but having smaller and smaller classes does not make sense, children in too small classes are not found. “As if to say: forget that the government takes thereason for the demographic decline to eliminate classes of 30 students: will be considered an opportunity to save billions (perhaps to devote – why not? – to the already heavy military spending).

Once again, the School is discredited as an institution aimed at the individual growth of the student, and is theorized as a place of entertainment and entertainment. kangaroowhere the child only has to “meet” (see also the “Summer Plan” discussed above).

There is an urgent need for a national debate about the School, free of elite interests

For decades the School is a “no man’s land”, of which to say the opposite. It would not be legitimate to expect a debate consistent with the rules of logic, coherence and direct knowledge of what we are talking about? It would not be right for the School, a public institution, to be treated by Parliament, based on serious research, carried out by teachers. school? Wouldn’t it be time to take the School out of the oligarchies – ideological, economic, political and trade union – to rethink its future, with the sole aim of the common welfare of the nation?

Dancing aboard the Titanic

Instead, on the sinking ship, we continue to cover the leaks with makeshift patches, inspired by interests outside the School: hasty valuation reforms; introduction of the “coding“And” computational thinking “: a four-year baccalaureate (rejected by the Higher Council of Public Education – whose technical opinion is mandatory but not binding on the counselor – but accepted by INVALSI, which should deal with assessment), summary and fideistic “experiments” of oxymoronic “non-cognitive skills”.

Forcing, introduced without debate from passwords dropped from above and repeated countless times from television screens – with the excuse of the PNRR – to a country distracted, disoriented, uninterested in the School, and therefore unable of recognizing the difference between the true ones. innovation e Found harmful (if not harmful), driven by the strong wind of private interests in the ocean of neoliberalism that now uncritically overwhelms Italy.

Defeated private and public victories

Private will be the advantages of the market CFU (University Training Credits), assigned by “training bodies”, including private ones – therefore no longer only by public universities – that take risks transform the hiring of future teachers into a cumbersome “collection of points”. With what advantage for the effective skills of those you teach?

And what will be the advantage for the School institution of the considerable emoluments (six figures) provided for the future heads of the “Scuola di Alta Formazione” for teachers? Are we perhaps in the umpteenth chapter of the series “Employ, bureaucratize and centralize the School” (despite the self-proclaimed “school autonomy” in force for more than twenty years)?

Leave a Comment