The letter from a professor of Latin at Courier (see here) futility of the matter, raises the question: why the Italian school has many problems? The first thing that comes to mind are the cuts to public funds for the school. But the cuts may explain why the school does not prepare adequately and perhaps offers subjects like Latin and greek that students seem to love less and less?
I think not. There is something paradoxical in the Italian school . Indeed the two paradoxes. The first talks with the Bank of Italy in a study on the quality of public services Italian (see here) . Where students get the best grades, the actual skills, as measured by testing the same for all, are lower and vice versa in areas where students receive lower ratings, the actual skills are superior.
The paradox is explained by the different working environment : the power where it counts most real, the teachers are more severe and less likely to give gifts to students. The school would lose credibility if we give high marks to those who do not deserve.
But where count less than private companies and the actual skills and hopefully more in the competition, the opposite happens: the vote count and the teacher gives up something, knowing that in doing so provides a benefit to their students.
If the vote count, the student has an interest in make choices that increase the votes, even at the expense of actual skills. If the vote count, there is no interest in making better, more serious and severe the school: it is easier to get a good grade in Latin and chemistry, students prefer the Latin and does not want a school that devotes more attention to chemistry.
The second paradox is flour instead of my bag. Imagine a school where you teach a very simple two subjects, Latin and chemistry. At graduation, you can graduate in chemistry or Latin literature (Latin, to simplify).
If companies need more than chemical that of Latin, what will happen to the Latins and chemicals released by the university?
Who is more likely to find well-paid job in a short time in a private company and develop your career? The chemist, of course. And those who knock on the door of the school in search of a chair, perhaps temporary? Latin.
But if the best chemists find a good job in private companies, while much of the best Latinists aspires to become a teacher, students will have excellent professors and Latin teachers less skilled, and motivated in chemistry. Indeed, it is possible that the chemistry teacher and a chemist a little bit frustrated, not being able to find a good job as chemical in a private company. Or maybe-in-fact is not even a chemist. And 'maybe one or more who also teaches physical chemistry.
E 'clear the paradox: the best teachers are experts in matters less in demand by private firms. But precisely because they are the best, most experienced, those who have studied more and more enthusiasm to their subject (Latin) prepare students better in Latin.
companies require more chemicals and Latin, but the school offers classes in Latin better. And maybe also offers more hours of Latin and chemistry, because if there are many Latin and a few chemicals that aspire to a chair, the minister of education can come in mind the solution: extend the hours of Latin, so busy that Latinos do not find another job.
The two paradoxes explain why the school is falling apart regardless of the availability of money. And maybe explains the teacher alone also precarious, which naively seems to believe that Latin is a good material to learn to think. As if it was not possible to reason by studying another subject.
0 comments:
Post a Comment