Professor Schettini, alias The Physics We Like, has been the subject of criticism for some time for carrying out his activity as an influencer in parallel with that of a public school teacher. Recently, however, some of his statements have caused particular outcry, finally putting the topic of influencer teachers, also known as ‘teachtokers’ (i.e. TikTokers who are teachers), of which he is one of the best-known representatives, at the center of public discussion. These are problematic figures for several reasons; one of which is certainly that private work must be carried out outside public space and outside working hours. The influencer teacher therefore first raises the problem of the confusion of the two levels, as some of the material that is distributed on the internet is created during curricular time.

Online teaching instead of real teaching

Precisely this theme emerged quite clearly from the recent statement made by the teacher during his participation in the BSMT podcast. When questioned about the possible future of education, amidst the many changes we are witnessing – demographic, technological, cultural – he stated that schools will necessarily have to evolve, in his opinion in the direction of the digitalisation of knowledge: teachers, in the future, will work part time at school, and will move part of teaching online, in short, making video lessons and other contents of this type.

There are already some observations to make on this, especially considering that a public school teacher is making such a statement. Teaching is not something that is done online; we already knew this before Covid, but we certainly had definitive confirmation of it afterwards. If it is true that the video or the scheme can be an added value, it is indisputably true that they cannot replace the actual teaching, the one made up of the relationship between teacher and student.

In fact, teaching does not mean the mere transmission of knowledge, otherwise anyone could do it; it means being able to establish an educational relationship, which can only be created through interaction, from which the student draws much more than the notions he could easily find in a book. Listening to a video is a passive activity, although it trains important skills; attendance at school is instead active, the student in class does not undergo the lesson, but participates in it: he is consulted, invited to intervene, to ask questions, to raise questions. The teacher learns to know him and to follow him in his personal growth path, which is evaluated in relation to that of the class group, but also individually, taking into account all the variables.

Should culture be for sale?

But the worst part comes later: Schettini actually goes so far as to say that this content that would be produced by teachers would be paid for, because, rightly, you pay for a good product. Why shouldn’t good culture be for sale? Understandably, teachers and intellectuals from all over Italy felt their skin crawl at this question. Anyone who is even remotely involved in it should know that culture is not something that can be ‘sold’: he who produces culture, be he a writer, a painter, a historian, etc., certainly must be paid for the work he does, but he is not ‘selling’ culture. He is putting his expertise at the service of others, not unlike what a doctor does.

A teacher should also be well aware of the difference between culture and education. Education in Italy is public (or almost) and free, even compulsory up to the age of 16. It is not something that can be bought, because it is a citizen’s right. A teacher who works at school deals with education, and for this reason he should not sell anything at all, but, in fact, put his skills at the service of the community, for a fee, like all workers. Paying to visit the Vatican Museums is one thing; paying for access to education is a totally different thing, inconceivable to be honest, in our democracy. And if we outline a future in which actual school, the one that corresponds to a right, is only ‘part time’, and for the rest you have to buy what the teacher offers you, we are saying that education is expendable. But how can a teacher – who works, I stress again, in public schools – say something like that?

If you teach school, you’re not an influencer

It is clear that here the conflict between being a teacher and being an influencer arises; two clearly incompatible things, as embodied by the professor in question. If you are a teacher in a school, your thoughts cannot be aimed at selling, competing with others, creating more engaging content to sell better: it must be aimed at teaching, the good of the students, the quality of teaching, which is done in the classroom, not on the internet.

There is nothing wrong with doing another job, and therefore selling your courses; I, the undersigned, also do this, working in the private sector. But mine is an activity that in no way can replace school, or be considered equivalent to it: it is an addition, a luxury, if you like, in short it has nothing to do with the right to education. Mixing the two floors is very dangerous. This is why it is impossible to think that the influencer’s activity does not have repercussions on teaching: it is quite another thing, and the fact that a teacher is not aware of it is very serious. Above all because, as an ‘influencer’, he has the power to convince people of the reasonableness of what he says, passing as an expert and indeed more well-versed and avant-garde than the poor ordinary teachers, those who continue to do their job without the spotlight on them; putting students first, not views.