The evaluation of teaching can not be accomplished by objective parameters. It should measure a qualitative relationship, the learning effect produced by the action of the teacher on the students. The multi-factorial of the report, plus the principal character of the two poles of the report, both of which are subject prevents a unique teaching-learning process. Its outcome depends upon the concurrent use of independent factors, not always measurable, unpredictable plot which is itself difficult to measure. Preparation, competence, skills, commitment of the teacher are just some of those factors, in addition to: cognitive pupil, offer to discuss educational, cultural level of the family of origin, value attributed to the school in the family, commitment to study, feeling with the teacher, etc.. You can not separate the effect of each factor, analyze and evaluate it in isolation from each other.
addition, the school is a complex organism, which interact in a structured way with the rest of society that produced it, in which they exist and must be made of analysis and practice emerge covalutazione already active: each school, as a social organism articulated, produces and processes of active self-regulation, which must be made visible and possibly amended according to contexts and actual practice of teaching.
Assuming that an evaluation of teaching is generally possible, therefore, two problems arise: who evaluates and under what criteria? The problem of the evaluator to its impartiality and objectivity. He can not therefore be either a teacher or a student or a parent or a school administrator, or a combination of all these subjects. But if an outside body, which could claim title to assess the outcome of a report-planning education? More generally, it is possible that a person objectively evaluate the work of another person, where it is not immediately translated into a given number of goods, spare? The problem of the evaluator is then transformed into the problem of evaluation criteria. Here it comes to choosing objective assessment criteria to ensure the objectivity of the assessment, no matter who you make. So we come to the key question of the assessment accordingly, the definition of objective evaluation tests. The Italian school in the last ten years, has launched the mad pursuit of objective measurability of learning, which has resulted in the proliferation of structured tests which are tests INVALSI The most famous example. The spread of these assessment tools, however, is not an argument in support of their validity. However, in the U.S., where they were originally introduced, were subsequently abandoned, and their validity is challenged by psychologists and pedagogues of the most diverse theoretical addresses. In general, there is no evidence that can be measured, or translate quantitatively, an activity qualitative, elusive and indefinable as the teaching.
INVALSI administration of the tests will almost certainly be a new feature this year: the measures of merit. The test results may in fact be used for the purposes of the Act Brunetta, as a tool for assessing individual performance of each teacher, based on which awards the productivity. That's why INVALSI refuse to do the exams, which also are not made by any regulations obbigatorie - as of 30/12/2010 Note MIUR, not being a source of law, can not change the rules governing the powers of the College of Teachers on the operation planning - and whose fulfillment is not one of their obligations under the Negotiable, could prove a valuable tool in the fight against the proposed division and hierarchy of public school teachers.
recall once again, on this occasion, as required by law Brunetta:
- 25% of staff is placed in band on top, which corresponds to the allocation of 50% of resources allocated to the additional payment related to individual performance;
- 50% is located in the middle band on, to which the allocation of 50 % of resources allocated to the treatment accessory related to individual performance;
- the remaining 25% is located in the band on low, with no corresponding allocation of any treatment related to individual performance enhancement.
MOTION MOTION
The College of Teachers .................................. ......... met the day ...............................
WHEREAS
- there is no rule requiring the mandatory administration of the tests commonly used in Italian schools;
- Note Muir December 30, 2010 ("the assessment must cover all the students of those classes of educational institutions, state and equal ") is not a source of law and therefore can not in any way change the rules governing the powers College of Teachers;
- art. 7 c. 2 of the Consolidated Law on the school gives "general competence" to the college teachers in teaching, in particular the college has "the power of decision on the operation of the club or educational institution," which "... shall exercise in respect of freedom of education guaranteed each teacher "(lit. a)," regularly assesses the overall teaching activity to verify its performance against the goals and objectives to the program and, where necessary, appropriate measures for the improvement of school " (lett.d)
- art. 4 c. 4 of Presidential Decree No. 275/99 (Regulation Autonomy) provides that "the exercise of autonomy in teaching educational institutions ... also identify the procedures and criteria for assessment of pupils in respect of national rules and criteria for periodic evaluation of the results achieved by schools against set targets;
- the Court of Cassation No 23 031 of 2 November 2007 as set out in a definitive way, which has a circular nature to be a purely internal government, which expresses only an opinion and not binding on even the same authority that issued and reiterates that any move for its nature and its contents (the mere interpretation of a rule of law), can not be recognized as being outside any legal effect, can not be numbered among the general acts of charge because they can neither contain derogation provisions of the law, nor be deemed to be true of regulations, in addition, the decision provides that the circular is binding even hierarchically subordinate offices, which is not forbidden to disown it, but that this practice be adopted by the measure could be considered unlawful "for violating the circular" In fact, if the interpretation contained in the circular is wrong , the measure adopted will be legitimate because it complies with the law, if, instead, the (interpretation contained in) circular is correct, the document will be issued for unlawful violation of the law;
- the national labor contract with no obligation to this or the obligations of service or in the teaching function;
- the school manager has no right / power to adhere to the tests Invalsi since the decision is in the exclusive competence of the teaching staff and the availability / individual class teachers, who may decide to join or not;
- The Headmaster should, however, exercise its powers (including membership in activities not covered by the assessment without a vote by the Board) in accordance with the jurisdiction of College (paragraph 2 of Article 25 of Legislative Decree No. 165/2001);
- on the merits, the evidence Invalsi meet a goal of standardization of the teachings are a tool for the evaluation and differentiation of teachers and schools do not assess appropriate analytical skills, critical synthesis and processing;
acting non-adherence to the learning of INVALSI for the school year 2010/2011.
0 comments:
Post a Comment