dear, as you know
all the required verification of February innovative initiative is taking place with the usual methods Carbonari to which the Councillor has been used: two leaders are doing the rounds of the PAT our schools to have discussions (individual) with the principals and staff members with leadership, to ask how they're going the innovative application of the initiative.
Again we teachers, we were not consulted.
We must find a way to know what you think, before the Government and trade unions by signing it easy sbrodolino again their "satisfaction with the success of the initiative and the quality and future and the student center and some initial difficulties, but we are on track ....".
Already something is happening:
- Al Russell Cles, last week the board voted to send Alderman and School Director of the document indicated below.
- A similar document will be submitted to the board of Baptist March 13
- The Da Vinci are organizing to do the same. At Maffei
- the college has prepared a questionnaire to seek the views of teachers.
- Al Pilati teachers will send the Alderman Minutes of the college in which the initiative and discuss its verification.
Let's get, let our voices be heard: it is right that you know what produced the innovative initiative. And if you attend union meetings referred to in those days, communicate to them what kind of crap they have signed.
keep us informed,
hello, and ag
nz
here is the document voted in Cles: be inspired!
The Teaching Committee of the Russell School of Cles, took note that are underway at the high schools in the province, the meetings of "monitoring" among officials PAT and Managers, considered very negatively by the fact that we have not planned in any way the involvement of teachers to the verification of the 'innovative initiative. " This was particularly serious given that the schools had already assessed the entire path of reform rather weak in terms of involvement and democratic participation, the teachers had expected that at least in verification is the way to receive the their views.
In particular, this Board believes that the procedure for recovery of 66 hours barking led to a paradoxical situation, which sees some teachers have to use the their time in activities often unprofessional and minor teaching and other activities to give to the implementation of proven, guaranteed student until last year.
The innovative initiative has also created a state of uncertainty, confusion and unequal treatment of the same teachers . Some examples: no one currently knows what will happen later this year if the recovery is completed, some professors are obliged to recover while others do not, teachers in some schools have 10 hours to recover more than their colleagues from other institutions (depending on whether the recovery is calculated in units of 50 or 60 minutes per hour)
