Why I would not even sign any motion in defense of the public school
not enough for me the belief that public school is better and more democratic than other religious schools and / or targeted at wealthy families. I am not convinced that enough in our school, among our colleagues, we are, individually, the best experience and professionalism of a specific type of education available on the "market". I will not settle the belief that only in our school and resist being deeply rooted and culturally, against all abuses "materialistic" and "morality" so dominant among young people and their families, the highest value of knowledge. I miss that in order to transform this potential in a school really better to have the "numbers" in order to defend the public school, you must have a clear and shared vision of what problems there are places not by disparaging statement of those who govern us, not by private schools, but from the evidence of social change, the more widespread awareness, even outside of school, what it means today to be "competent" and if we, the European Union which in reality does nothing but reflect these needs and encourage us to look ahead.
Making the school more competitive "public" now means "giving" more powers. It is unclear what the responsibilities, from college I had the distinct impression that this was clear and that is a major step forward in the past. Knowing how to deal with new situations involving individual choices, decisions, awareness in recovering appropriate and meaningful and useful knowledge, for this, not inert. In short, solving real problems, not standardized. We know that this kind of ability is typical of someone who has experience in a field, which our students can not be expected. And we also know that having good experience in a given field does not help even the adult agents to resolve problems in a different sector and for them again. These two obvious tell us that a school-based problem solving, the interpretation of texts, the search for meaning, it is not feasible with normal students. Because of this ambiguity we are easy to teach formal systems and content before they do so, before real-life contexts before it can be a reasonable hope that a pupil "concrete" can understand their meaning. We have personally experienced the same educational experience and we believe that reversal it is the best thing, "first learn, then you will know to apply, then you'll understand." Even our students tend to prefer that the task consists only in the first part and the second fear. I am not referring to practical applications, but being competent in a general sense, which is different from "well trained". Even professionally speaking, the task of teaching contents is in principle easier: studies today, tomorrow proves to own content. Tomorrow you do not have the content: Grab a votaccio. It depended on the study, the next time I'll just study and take the votaccio. Everything is very simple. I will not investigate because Confronted with such simplicity, we will include a minority of our students. What is now important to clarify is that to learn to solve problems, acquire skills, to learn how to interpret texts critically and to argue, the study, especially the individual does not work. The only way to learn to solve problems is to have problems and implement their nature and try to solve them to learn how to argue you need to have opportunities to write and express their thoughts and see how this is read, interpreted by others and readjustment. For various reasons, some obvious I have mentioned, you can not do everything alone. Then there are classes, teachers, communities learning ... the public schools of the future that is neither the current one that we want to defend without changing anything, let alone that of the past that some of us would like to restore.
The hardest part is to recognize the nature of a problem and the teacher could facilitate this task. This is to gain the perception of the variables, figure out where you are, where you have to get there, then see the obstacle, to understand the problem. If we learn what can be done without a great experience. Helping in the best way to ask me is closest to the student level, without fear of looking incompetent. It is natural that this happens when in class or lab is facing real problems, and new for us - I can assure you - the kids do not consider me incompetent when I do. What matters is that kids receive our curiosity and it is therefore clear that we should have. Once you understand the principle that even the inexperienced can in this way, with this kind of guide, learn discipline, to construct meaning and solve problems by using the framework, there remains the problem of evaluation. We can not use the threat of voting to ensure that our students overcome the fear of not being up, to fail, accept the challenge of knowledge and engage in it. The threat of voting may serve to "spoil" half an hour of your time to learn a certain thing, that will be required with any certainty occurs in the next day rather than staying half an hour on Facebook, or do another activity of interest. For most of the boys self-study is not sufficient to acquire the skills. Autonomous and collaborative activities that are also the continuation of the lessons focused on problems, this is a qualitatively different strategy because it is collaborative. The method of evaluation and penalizing failure is linked to the studio-teaching model designed to hold content. The more comfortable to teach and study. But the less important for many students. And the less useful to society, to humanity, requiring more and more individuals capable of thinking and understanding. Our sub-problem-is to find a way to assess the human involvement, learning and finally the performance in terms of skills acquired, without penalizing failure, but eventually, after careful consideration of situations, including after real causes of failure, after the student's self and penalize the lack of commitment. These are the boundary conditions so that we can address and resolve the primary issue: the recovery of curiosity, the value of knowledge , The employment of all the problems, without altering the disciplines we teach, without filling in the education of unnecessary projects.
If there is among us willing to defend an idea of \u200b\u200bthe kind of school that is not afraid future competitors, stupid attacks, then I am willing to sign motions of defense that speak of our dignity. Alfredo
Tifi
0 comments:
Post a Comment