Among the various media fashions lately there is increasingly that of ferocious criticisms of the school world, or rather, in particular, to teachers. We tend to attribute to the school every distortion and problem of society, and to describe it as a stale place, always the same as itself, with austere teachers, without empathy and stopped to old methods of one hundred years. This type of criticism, if we want to call them that, are common practices often with citizens (or I would say internet users) who have not set foot at school for twenty years: the school works like this, this is done at school and not that other, we are based on ancient memories, or on commonplaces, or even on a personal experience that as such cannot represent the complete situation.

Boy Boy Bookmade

The media, as usual, exploit this easy hatred to make the usual hatchappaclick, like the recent news of a rejected autistic boy: the message has been passed that the school does not respect neurodicjects and is lacking in the care of pupils with special educational needs, without deign to explain how things went and what are the rules that schools must respect when there are pupils with personalized or individualized plans. It is immediately taken for granted that the professors have been negligent and that they are ignorant.

A struggle between teachers who are not good for anyone

The most depressing thing, however, is that this type of attacks – explicit or adcommitted – can come from those who are teaching in turn. Obviously I do not speak of criticisms of educational methodologies or attitudes, which are legitimate like all criticisms, but of speeches that discredit the entire category, painting it notes as rigid and cruel.

In this way, as a dint of reading messages from masters and professors who as a home task give the walk in the mountains, a contrast has been created between an idea of ​​a teacher, in fact, set and not open to the differences, and that instead empathic, sweet and kind, which instead of giving the votes puts flowers on the notebooks and things of the genre. As usual, these are mostly false and deleterious contrasts.

Meanwhile, it must be said that this idea of ​​a professor stopped in Gentile’s time is less and less adherent to today’s reality. It is obvious that many teachers are still so, because in every profession there are not very competent, not very willing, little capable people; But we cannot ignore all the enormous change that the school has invested since the awareness of the special educational needs, neurodicjects and in general of the possible fragility of the students and their needs, often indeed too supported.

Many teachers now make use of varied didactic techniques, adapted to the times: they periodically participate in refresher courses in which these things are taught and recommended, while in the current training courses of the new teachers they are really mandatory. It is not true that only the rigid frontal lesson is done without involving the students. Less than it is true that they are harassed to the sound of checks.

Petalous teaching

But let’s get to the image of the Petalous Professor: he must necessarily present himself as totally opposite to the bad teacher that everyone has in mind, even at the cost of reaching somewhat ridiculous extremes. If the insensitive teachers make the frontal lesson (which is necessary and allows you to develop some specific skills), then he will take lessons in the garden, in the circle, stopping to listen to the birds. If the insensitive teachers give homework, they give evaluations even severe and possibly rejoice (and now rarely), then he will be understanding, indulgent, sweet. Not only that: he will be a friend of the students, which a teacher cannot be, because he has an educational role and authority with respect to the student, not a equal role.

But of course, the authority is inevitably associated with cruelty and harassment, while the ‘volemose’ is associated with the well -being of students. The rhetoric is that of the school as a cheerful, happy and fairy place, where students must not work hard, they must always be happy, they must find listening by the teacher for any discomfort. And possibly be satisfied. All this ends up strengthening the idea that education consists in satisfying the whims (because they are often such) of the children, support every moment of their despair or difficulties, as if to remove any element of disturbance, of potential suffering.

The ruinous consequences

At the didactic and educational level, this is all this is a nonsense: the effort is inevitable and moments of despair are necessary to understand that they are overcome and do not constitute a failure, in short, to grow. The tasks, when they give, do not aim to punish students, but to avoid they lose contact with what they have learned. Teaching seriousness and respect for the rules, despite human understanding of emotions and needs, is one of the tasks of the school.

But above all: those who advertise themselves as a friendly professor are implicitly suggesting that he is better than the other teachers (all!), Which quite squalid and incorrect, as well as dangerous, because if the trust in the educational institution has been lost we have lost everyone at the start. And to paint as the best it will often end by mystifying what happens in the school, in order to emerge as a revolutionary: the other professors therefore require the summer closed at home on the books, make 150 relationships per week write, and maybe they also put pupils on their knees on the chickpeas.

A profession is therefore more difficult for teachers who want to seriously do their job rather than showing off a job that has long since become more logorating and even humiliating. And admitting this state of affairs does not mean denying all the critical issues of the school and also of many teachers.