“The SIPeS and the FISH – they write from the Observatory of School Inclusion of the AIPD – hope that the Decrees of Execution of the Law 79/22 make up for the deficiencies in the matter of formation of the teaching staff in the matter of pedagogy and teaching special. We agree, but only an increase in ministerial and parliamentary attention for the much praised, in words, and in fact underestimated, quality of inclusion of students with disabilities can produce this “secular” miracle, demonstrating that optimism it will prevail against the pessimism of reason. of the political will of the associations “
In recent days we have already dealt with the recent conversion into Law (79/22), by the Chamber, of Decree Law 36/22 implementing the PNRR (National Recovery and Resilience Plan), a provision that also contains new rules for initial training and continues and for thehiring of teachers high school. In particular we have highlighted the critical issues highlighted by FISH (Italian Federation for Overcoming Disability) e SIPES (Italian Society of Special Pedagogy), in terms of training related to pedagogy and special education.
On the website of the Center for Legal Studies HandyLex an extensive fact sheet on the provision has now been published, edited byAIPD Observatory (Italian Association of Down People) on school inclusion, in collaboration with HandyLex itself. We resume below the part dedicated to Observationswith some readjustments to the different context.
The reform resulting from the conversion into Law of Decree Law 36/22 is certainly innovative with respect to the current legislation, which did not provide for the initial training of secondary school teachers. However, we make some observations on the concept of “inclusion”, which seems to coincide only with the problem of early school leaving, especially in the southern areas of the country and with the need for digital training. In fact, speaking several times in the inclusion text of pupils and students with disabilities, no suitable rules have been found to offer effective solutions.
Regarding the initial training of the future teachers of first and second of baccalaureate, there is the obligation to study 60 Credits of University Training, at the end of which realizes a proof of habilitation for the teaching. Unfortunately, of these Credits only 10 are intended generically for pedagogy and teaching, without therefore specifying how many of them will be allocated to pedagogy and special didactics.
In this sense, the FISH (Italian Federation for Overcoming Disability) has issued a Press release in which it is denounced that this in no way enhances the current delegation of curriculum faculty to faculty just for support with regard to the formulation, management and verification of individual IEPs (Individualized Educational Plans).
This deplorable practice was due – and will continue to be – due to the non-existent training of curricular teachers in special didactics. In fact, it must be assumed that the situation will get even worse with the absurd objection to our criticisms that at this time the initial training of teachers has finally been foreseen and therefore the denunciations of delegation will no longer have to make sense.
Not even for the initial training of current curriculum teachers things get better: in fact, the training is offered to them with only 30 training credits, swithout any reference to a minimum intended for pedagogy and special didactics. Nor does it seem to be expected self-proclaimed “mandatory” in-service trainingif it is true that the incentive for the salary increase linked to this training has been foreseen only for a minimum number of teachers who have shown that they have acquired it successfully, all this determined by the availability of funds allocated annually. Therefore, in the face of a real “lottery” many will not be induced to attend this training at all, as the incentive will not be a right of those who have successfully passed the course, but will be left to chance. , with all due respect to the “compulsory character.” And obviously also for the contents of these courses nothing special pedagogy and didactics is said.
On the institutional shortcomings of initial and continuing education, criticism of the journal seems to be pressing. “The whole school»In some articles published on July 4, which shows that initial training does not lead to a real professional career of teachers (as provided by the PNRR), while for continuing education was completely ignored.
Press release produced by SIPES (Italian Society of Special Pedagogy) and the one already mentioned by the FISH both expect the decrees implementing the new Act to fill the gaps reported, at least with regard to the inclusion of pupils and students with disabilities. We agree with this desire and yet only a wave of ministerial and parliamentary attention to the much praised, in words, and despised in factthe quality of school inclusion of pupils and students with disabilities can produce a “secular” miracle, demonstrating that the optimism of the political will of the Associations can prevail against the pessimism of reason.