A half-rejection of the measures on recruitment and training that am Legislative Decree 36 also comes from Giuseppe Cosentino, expert in training system policy, former Director General of Personnel and then Head of the Education Department of MIUR.
Cosentino collected his observations in a large document published in these hours by Cisl Scuola; the criticisms are twofold and concern both method and merit.
Decree without Debate
The former director general points out first of all that such an important decree has not happened “An adequate preventive debate, to say the least, the involvement of the social partners, even if these are matters which, at least in part, concern the discipline of the employment relationship, wages, training, professional development.”
It is true, Cosentino admits, that the government also had to hurry because of the timing of the implementation of the PNRR, “But – observed – the damage caused by a false reform, for external reasons, are in any case no less strenuous, as evidenced by various proceedings ”.
The same commitments that the current government has with the “Pact for the Innovation of Public Works and Social Cohesion” of 10 March 2021 – Cosentino recalls – were ignored, subject to the provisions contained in the decree, subject to review of the risk or even repealed by future contractual provisions.
The consideration, however, is not merely legal-formal; there is a more general political and cultural question: The experience of many innovation processes, in fact, especially in the school system – characterized by a strong and “constitutionalized” role in the autonomy of schools – makes it clear that ‘reform’ does not just mean ‘reform laws’, but for long and start complex implementation processes, based on the experiences and real needs of the schools and see in the legal provisions the stimulation and at the same time the expansion of the effective didactic models that are practiced in the concrete development of the school experience. “.
The new rules on recruitment
As far as recruitment is concerned, the decree – according to Cosentino – presents quite critical elements.
On the one hand, actually the decree “Limit the number of places that can be activated annually in the initial training system in order to obtain the qualification to the required number of staff by law” and on the other “Explicitly denies the possibility, without competition, of hiring qualified teachers.”
In short, the idea is to be able to “To block the renewal of precarious work, on the one hand to prevent the creation of new qualified staff without legal posts, on the other hand, the expectation of teachers who have been qualified for several years and are in service to receive a channel to enable them to play the role associated with professional experience, as well as, of course, with the verification, through qualification, of the required skills “.
“It’s a goal – concludes the former head of department in that sense – repeatedly forced by the past policies, which of course provided for transitional rules, such as those for the creation of ‘rankings to exhaustion’ (gae) to replace the ‘permanent’, the exact ‘last’ amnesty ‘before finally the precariat is eliminated. We know how it ended. “
The solution could be that of “A structured system of recruitment, based on a percentage of vacancies, through competitions ‘based on qualifications’ for qualified teachers who have been in service for several years, would instead provide a real prospect for those who have qualified. “School for years without disadvantages”
According to Cosentino “The mechanism of competition on the remaining percentage of places would instead provide faster access to young people and some of the more motivated precarious workers. In this way, we would emerge from the emergency logic of ‘amnesties’ and a balanced system of’ double Channels’ start, more in reality and also respectful of the dictatorships of the Constitution, through competitions for the qualifications of qualified teachers with a certain seniority “.
As far as training is concerned, on the other hand, “It seems obvious – Cosentino writes – that the regulation of the law, and without comparison, of the content and methods of training and even more of the methods of remuneration, as far as possible, of additional activity, is a vulgarity for trade union pragmatists in the matter of the negotiations and appear. determined to be the experience, the subject of later abrogative and amending interventions in the forthcoming national contracts ”.
Equally critical is Giuseppe Cosentino’s position on the question of Career development; in that sense it is remembered As early as June 2004, the Ministry and the unions set up a commission, which Art. 22 of the contract then in force, to draw up a hypothesis of agreement on the matter “.
In the final document of that commission, a professional development of the teacher was identified, with the introduction of a dynamic with pay (not one-time), to which every teacher can come voluntarily; the development would have been linked not only to the indicator of the duration of the service, but also to others such as experience, credit system, training, performed professional tasks “.
“Because of – Cosentino concludes – not reconsider, this proposal, as a point of possible reboot for a profitable path of common innovation?