One of the consequences of the lack of teachers is that, if those who were professional in good numbers around 15 years ago went to other professional destinations, it is necessary to train new ones, to replace those who leave at an accelerated pace, as La Palisse would say.
With each new version of any study carried out at the request of a Ministry of Education that seems incapable of processing the data it collects, the number of teachers needed seems to increase, meaning that the urgency of this training becomes imperative. Initial training, vocational training for those who are teaching only with their own or sufficient qualifications and ongoing training for those who are already in their career. Therefore, it is not surprising that a kind of business is being set up around these varied “trainings”, suddenly attractive to a growing number of “trainers”, especially those recruited in academic environments that present themselves as “specialized” in subjects related to Education.
It is curious to find some “experts” who in recent times have emerged associated with such studies on the state of Education, but who have practically never entered a Basic or Secondary School other than as students, announcing “trainings” in which they explain how classes they have never taught should be planned and taught. But they studied how it’s done, read studies on the subject and know the almost magical formula for captivating students and promoting the most meaningful learning ever. And they are ready to teach the teachers we have and those we hope to have. They are ready to “teach how to teach”, as there was once the cliché of “learning how to learn”.
I do not dispute the need for new perspectives, for external contributions to the world of niches installed in teacher training or even from the generations of political decision-makers who have misgoverned Education in recent decades or from certain specialists with a notable patina of mold and patchouly that have withstood all seasons. I heard people with decades of responsibilities, at the highest level, in teacher training making bitter criticisms of teacher training. It’s like permanent background noise. To paraphrase a saying they sometimes use, we have schools and students in the 21st century, with teachers trained in the 20th century with theories from the 19th century.
Therefore, the arrival of a new perspective in teacher training is useful. But it should not be “aviary” training, given by those who have a very vague connection to the practice of teaching in the real world of public schools in most of the country. There are no VIP visits or lectures from platforms that replace a few months of concrete experience.
It has already been realized that new generations of students will have to grow up with teachers trained in accelerated mode. It’s even worse if part of this training is merely cosmetic.
Basic Education Teacher.
Write without applying the new Spelling Agreement