Looking for an easy guilty

Mention of another good article by prof. R. Maragliano (in italian)
A little of utopia…
Più che di tragedia della DaD parlerei di tragedia della cultura nazionale in fatto di scuola.
I primi studi nazionale sulla determinazione sociali degli studi risalgono a sessant’anni fa. Questa predisposizione economico-sociale al successo o non successo scolastici non è mai stata negata né lo è mai stata la sua articolazione geografica nord/sud – est/ovest, elemento che incide pesantemente a livello di scuola secondaria e al di sotto del quale sta, pesantemente confermato dentro la cultura formativa nazionale, una disposizione gerarchica degli indirizzi scolastici. Sono fattori residuali dell’impianto ottocentesco, aristocratico, centralistico, autoritario, e che spiegano anche perché c’era già un’inaccettabile disparità nei risultati, prima della pandemia.

Leggi tutto “Looking for an easy guilty”

Can we come back to the “normality”?

Mention for this article by prof. Franco De Anna (in italian).
This is his website.

Premessa doverosa
Sono da sempre convinto della importanza delle rilevazioni annuali che INVALSI compie sui livelli di apprendimento nella nostra scuola, del valore essenziale di questo aspetto della Ricerca Educativa, delle modalità di restituzione all’intero sistema, e con articolazioni che nel tempo si sono andate via via approfondendo, dei risultati di tale ricerca in termini di strumenti preziosi di elaborazione diagnostica su diversi livelli.
In primo luogo, come strumenti utili a supportare la “razionalità decisoria” relativa al sistema stesso innanzitutto in termini strategie di politiche dell’istruzione e di conseguenza della congruenza e dei risultati delle scelte operative ad esse legate.

Leggi tutto “Can we come back to the “normality”?”

How moving on after COVID and DAD experience?

No recent event make us talk about school more than COVID.

“DAD” (didactic on distance) was probably one of the keywords of the pandemic era. However, the most widespread opinions, supported by statistics, speaks about that as an educational failure, actually.

Technology, hailed as the best and only solution (and financed on the same way), is now a convenient scapegoat: the useless debate between “apocalyptics” and “integrated” has regained strength. But technology favors or allows only some of the processes involved in educational dynamics, and, though powerful, a “medium” remain just a “medium”.

At the end of the day, the quality of work depends on the quality of people; and the quality of teachers is an even more complicated subject than COVID. And it is so for a thousand reasons, first of all the fact that the outcome of “good teaching” is difficult to recognize and certify, which is why for years we have been floating between the “coldness” of INVALSI data, the more or less plausible comparisons with foreign systems and a system that has transfigured this difficulty into a taboo, a category that does not accept evaluations of any kind or even structural changes (by “structural” change I mean, for example, the request for approaches that do without the textbook and improve using of technology).

However, as I said, at least it has been talked about, because the truth is that the covid era has highlighted mostly pre-existing difficulties.

The “educational success” depends by many reasons and it would be important to analyze them all. There are responsibilities of families, of politics, of the students themselves.
But now I must talk about school.
While the people feels (or like to feel) that everything has been done “in parentheses”, and wants to come back to the good old days, as if nothing had happened, we find ourselves in the embarrassing situation in which some schools did a lot of things and want to be thanked for, and some did nothing or should have better done nothing. Some teachers were absolutely good and some absolutely wrong.
We don’t speculate on percentages of good and bad ones but I have to notice that just 6% of Italian teachers were involved in training course in the past two years. If the situation was so difficult, I would have expected, along with the decree mandating the implementation of the Plan on Integrated Digital Teaching, at least the temporary training obligation.
Looking forward to another similar school year, managers and teachers should have spent the second half of June and the first half of September NOT teaching to the students, but studying and discussing, to understand what to propose this year. I’m talking about goals and methods, but also about tools, of course.
I think it was worthwhile even at this time.
I, too, maintain that the Support Decree was made with good intentions and good objectives. Moreover, schools have already had a lot of money to implement these activities. But in practice, what are the prevailing activities? Have they really been selected based on the criteria of the decree? Who will control them? How understand if activities were working?
In conclusion the problem of student recovery is less urgent than quality of teaching.

Report on DAD during the lockdown

The supplementary report relating to the survey on teaching practices during the lockdown is online.
The Report, based on the study of the answers given to the online questionnaire by over 3,700 Italian teachers, is configured as a snapshot for a peculiar historical moment.

It’s not an exhaustive analysis but makes a constructive reflection.

Some of the data that emerged substantially reveal a transposition of traditional frontal teaching into the DDA, where two main practices emerge, such as video-conference lessons and the allocation of resources for study and exercises.

In general, the part of the teachers who took part in the survey split into two groups, one having a greater confidence with the ITC and face the distance as inspiring and professional challenge. The second a lower confidence with strong need to increase ITC skill for the didactics.