On the figure of the “Expert Teacher” comes also the rejection without appeal of the Movement of education cooperation.
The movement directly emphasizes an issue which – until now – has remained a bit on the side of the debate, but which, on the contrary, seems to be central, that of professional profile of the expert teacher.
And underline: “He will be a teacher who is trained in solitude, who has not experienced in his team, boarding school; that it is implemented in ways that are not related to the specific needs of the school in which it operates; that will not take into account the experience in the field: the class, the school, the team, the college, those are the places where professionalism expresses itself, presents itself, reflects to give answers to daily work ; who have not learned to use the group of colleagues as a working tool, to plan and train together through situated learning in the dynamics that characterizes the profession and collegiality; who most likely followed organized ways with the personal use of lectures and unidirectional interventions by trainers, and when he tried forms of theory-practice integration, he did so without an intersubjective look with his colleagues”.
“To think that a teacher becomes such an expert – read the document from the National Secretariat of the MCE – it does not take into account that professional knowledge (to be understood as a unified whole in which personal knowledge, reference theories, operational skills, ways of witnessing and skills collaboration) develops especially when reflection on practices is mobilized and from a need. The questions that the teacher asks are certainly about his personal professional experience, but they must be contextualized in a work group, and belong to a community of practice.
“Fundamentals – supports the movement – then I am the dimension and collegial choice of trainingbecause the cultural, didactic and organizational commitment is an integral part of a profession that expresses itself in collegiality, in widespread responsibility, in collaboration, also at the level of disciplines and disciplines.
“The school – says the National Secretary Anna D’Auria – it needs training places capable of transforming every school into a center for professional development and every college into a learning group.
“Furthermore— added – the content of the training courses provided for by Law 79/2022 and which qualify the expert teacher (updating of pedagogical skills, methodological and teaching technologies; contribution to the improvement of the training offer; school inclusion; continuity in training and work orientation strategies; improvement of the Skills related to the evaluation of students) cannot be thought of as the heritage of a few, but must be able to become the expression of every college of teachers “.
“More than assigning ad personam – Anna D’Auria continued – for a school for all, more qualified salary and work organization conditions must be built to facilitate participation in training, because commitment to continuing education and duty must be part of the teacher’s professional profile and are not intended as a supplement. , left to free choice (among other things in view of a fee)”.
The movement concludes with an observation which, however does not at all exclude the possibility that the legal status of teachers provides for some form of professional development: “What advantage does a school derive from having a teacher so to speak as an expert, if the rest of the teaching staff is not involved in continuing education processes, research; if for all teachers the contractual institutions remain inadequate and the salary mortifying; if you do not imagine a career progression linked to new figures who competently supervise some strategic nodes of the school’s complexity (training planning, didactic planning and evaluation, interculturality, documentation of experiences, relations with the territory, to name a few) ? “