TFA support, no pre-selection for teachers with three years of specific service. The other candidates protest: substitutions are fortuitous, there is no fair selection


Numerous emails arrive to the editorial staff, mostly unsigned, of teachers asking for the excerpt of the amendment of the School Decree according to which teachers with three years of specific service on the degree of support required directly access the written test in the selections for the TFA support V cycle.

The School Decree was approved in the Senate and will be in the Chamber in the Chamber from 3 June.

This is the text

“For the purpose of accessing the pathways to obtain the specialization for the support activities provided for by the regulation referred to in the decree of the Minister of Education, University and Research 10 September 2010, no. 249, in recognition of the specific experience gained, starting from the fifth cycle subjects who in the previous ten school years have carried out at least three years of service, even non-consecutive, assessable as such pursuant to article 11, paragraph 14, of the law of 3 May 1999, n. 124, on the specific support post the degree to which the procedure refers, have direct access to written tests

Candidates who do not meet the requirement believe that the text is illegitimate for the following reasons

1) The amendment arbitrarily replaces theoretical knowledge
fundamental – hitherto decisive in making a first selection, in order to avoid the entry to the course of candidates not in possession of these necessary theoretical rudiments, with a practical competence, acquired instead on the field and that alone is not able to demonstrate the candidate’s possession of theoretical knowledge, not necessarily including it, indeed quite the opposite.

At most, although not justifiable for a selection for a school in
specialization whose purpose is to train those who are motivated to learn – and not to stabilize those who have intentionally or unintentionally gained experience – a rebate to candidates with service, only for the part of the final oral exam, may be acceptable, limited to the motivational interview.

2) The amendment is illegitimate, as it changes the regulation of
selection after the completion of the registration within the deadlines, by the aforementioned candidates, unaware of this hypothesis – who signed the regulation currently in force and not at all any new regulations – precluding them from being able to make different choices in this regard participation in the selections.

3) The amendment is superfluous, since candidates with at least three years of experience are already recognized a suitable service score which can be assessed for the purpose of the test and which, added to the score of the pre-selection test awarded to them, would inevitably invalidate the mechanisms of correct competition, to the detriment of candidates without service certificates.

4) The amendment is unfair, as it recognizes a right that cannot be produced by a condition – such as that of the acceptance of a support assignment without the possession of a title – which alone does not guarantee the successful completion of the assignment in the full skills, being a measure of extraordinary “urgency” of schools, aimed at overcoming the temporary shortage of teachers with qualifications.

5) The amendment also invades the criteria, already ratified by members, of one
public selection made for the purpose of entering a training course aimed at any candidate who, in possession of the required cultural qualifications, is motivated and interested in the subject, regardless of any experience gained, instead favoring those who may be interested now, simply to take professional advantage.

6) In addition, the amendment infringes the right to fair competition of candidates who, in order to not be inadequate, have renounced to accept assignments on support before obtaining the specialization, for the benefit of the alternates who accepted the position without title, gaining a completely “fortuitous” experience in the field, as it is not necessarily dictated by an initial interest in the matter and it is not possible to indicate an explicit preference before

7) The amendment is disrespectful to candidates already enrolled in the selections, as it diminishes the punctual compliance of the same in having completed the registration and payment procedures within the registration deadlines, making it vain for the benefit of those who have been able to gain a more updated view of the situation.

8) Last but not least, the factual amendment only implements a
paradoxical mechanism according to which in the training path of specialized personnel – destined to avoid the continuation of the assignment of support assignments to personnel not in possession of the necessary skills – the entry of this category is favored, not initially intended to compete before the today’s professional opportunity, in the paths instead aimed at those who already wanted

It should also be added – the interesting ones communicate – that the candidates already enrolled today are still suffering a further disadvantage caused by the reopening of the enrollment deadlines by some universities, due to the postponement of the national selection dates.

Source link


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here