Already, I know that I am a simple classroom teacher and, like my classmates, my opinions about what should be done in the educational field, will be considered between zero and no second by those responsible for the educative administration. I am very clear that, unfortunately, those who are never consulted or taken into account to improve or postulate proposals that can serve the classroom; we are the professionals that work in it. That is why, instead of being reunited with one of my colleagues, selected by a simple draw (yes, the mediation of a teacher is not related to the amount of ideas that can contribute), with the Minister of Education Or the counselors of the field, I will write in this blog some unrelated ideas, I hope that constructive, About some points that should incorporate the new articles. I know that no one who should do it will read it, but as a professional I am obliged to do so. Yes, it is not worth saying that they will ask me because, in the end, they will never do it.
In the first place, I am clear that the sense emanating from the new law of what education implies should be reformulated. There is an imperative need to raise needs of parents or business (yes, the typical label to prepare students for the world of work always comes, more or less explicitly, incorporated) and never to raise education as a future social change. That is why it is necessary that the preamble of the same incorporates the rights of our students and the need to isolate what happens in schools with powers outside it. This does not exclude the need to work in classrooms from the context, but the obligation to think exclusively about students regardless of the future employability they may have. To speak of employability in compulsory stages of learning is a perversion of the meaning of what training entails. And yes, when I refer to training I do not mean only the academic.
It should also be clearly defined which entities or persons can offer the educational service. It is worth mentioning homeschooling, cooperatives, investment funds that buy schools to speculate and other centers run by organizations that are very ideologically marked. We must speak clearly once and say what we will allow and what not at the level of educational management considering once who should issue the titles and under what conditions students who go to centers that do not directly manage the educational administration can obtain them. Yes, I am talking about the fact that it is only the State that offers these titles through external tests to those who have opted for a different kind of education than the one offered. Do not, I am not denying at any time that parents can choose where they take their children. Of course, delimiting very well what are private centers and what are public centers, the freedom of parents and, of course, the right of citizens to pay with their taxes exclusively public management centers. In addition, raising the above is much more in line with the Constitution than there is now. Of course, always with the obligation to the public administration to ensure the safety and rights of children who are enrolled in one or another system. The foregoing is much more in line with the Constitution than it is now. Of course, always with the obligation to the public administration to ensure the safety and rights of children who are enrolled in one or another system. The foregoing is much more in line with the Constitution than it is now. Of course, always with the obligation to the public administration to ensure the safety and rights of children who are enrolled in one or another system.
You may also like to read : FINANCE EDUCATION INVESTMENTS COMPUTERS HOW TO FIX COMPUTER ERRORS ON YOUR OWN IN MINUTES
Closely related to the above is the curriculum. If we allow the private offer of the service, it is logical that, beyond the existence of a final validation test (can be considered when and how it would be done) in those centers, it should be allowed to regulate their own operation. That is why it should allow total freedom of curricular structuring in these private management centers because, beyond the educational offer made in them, not being financed with public money should be allowed their full autonomy. Autonomy curricular that not pedagogic because the pedagogic should be decided in each one of the Cloisters. By the way,Related to the above is the need to consider the age groups , which subjects should incorporate the new law and with what time distribution and, of course, to see if the system of educational centers of CEIP and IES works or should consider another Typology of centers. And going further if we must reformulate the typology of teachers who give class in them or the need to change to twelve years of school. Why not also talk about whether compulsory schooling is necessary until 16, should we lower it to 14 or increase it to 18? Yes, you can talk about many things. And yes, surely now some will ask me what we do with religion and its lace in the curriculum. I have it clear … or abolish the agreement with the Holy See or, if you want to keep it, give back the status of it does not count for the average and raise its offer on Saturdays for those who choose it. Yes, we gain free hours for the student who does not want to attend because, honestly, the schedule of the kids is infumable.
And the electives? And that large number of subjects that appear because, unfortunately, we are still talking about science and letters in compulsory stages? Having raised the possibility of a student to study certain subjects (I prefer to call them modules, as in FP, because to be able to enroll in one or the other the model would be similar) at any time, leaving for more mature stages those that cost more, Why not eliminate the need to tax the student between sciences and letters at once establishing a curriculum, both for ESO and Bachillerato identical for all (but that can be taken at your pace). I think it is well to say that one should do Light Mathematics because he wants to be a Philologist and an Engineer must get rid of Literature. Do not,
Removing all traces of system evaluations from the system should also be a goal. No, the evaluation must be done in each of the modules by the professionals of the same and, when reaching stages that certify learning, consider a unique evaluation model that includes the skills and abilities that must have acquired. Am I talking about diagnostic tests or basic skills? No, I am proposing a model that allows, for each student who has assimilated the concepts, simply certify the same. And yes, having eliminated grouping by courses, the promotion between courses has also been eliminated, saving the money of the high repetition rate in our country and we can personalize the learning a lot more.
You may also like to read : WHAT IS YOUR PROFILE AT WORK?
Recall that, from the previous approach, the need for lower ratios is inferred (opening the possibility of shared teaching according to the choice of the center although, being working by modules is quite complicated) and a management of students in a very individualized way because we can To find students with the four module of Sciences that go by the two of Language and others that is the other way around. It is for that reason that the computer management of the same must be very well designed by computer scientists with the indispensable contribution of teachers who know what the previous ones must include in the program.