The real data of the Agnelli Foundation and the real data of the militant school

There Agnelli Foundation in recent days has published an agile publication with a very significant title “Resources for the school: clichés and real data“. The theses expressed by the drafters are clear: overall the resources dedicated to schools in Italy are in line with those of the main countries of the European Union, the organic endowment of the staff has been on an upward trend since 2011, salaries are a bit lower than those of other countries but this basically depends on an economic progression based only on seniority rather than on merit-based criteria, teachers work little.

The first thought immediately turns to Tremonti-Gelmini and the 8 billion staff cuts (about 130 thousand fewer places) carried out during the Berlusconi IV government, whose application rules are continually recalled as a mantra in all the provisions on staff to date. They didn’t know, but the cuts weren’t real at all. All propaganda of lazy and liar unions.

Naturally the facts are not like that. The data chosen and the information obtained are never neutral but clearly reflect an orientation on the school model to be supported.

For the FLC CGIL more investments are needed to give the tools to schools to train citizens who will have to face epochal challenges, in line with the provisions of the Republican Constitution: raise the compulsory schooling up to at least 18 years, make kindergarten compulsory, increase school time especially where it is it is particularly lacking, a relentless fight against territorial and social inequalities which have their most painful scourge in school drop-out, a total stop to any attempt at differentiated autonomy, salaries adequate to the complexity and responsibility of the work performed, large multi-year investments in the construction of schools safe. To do all this, resources are needed. This is why we ask for the commitment of political forces to increase resources for schools by 1% of the country’s GDP.

Deepening

In the introduction, one of the aspects to report is the accordion use in the FGA publication of the time frames on which to calculate the data and derive the arguments supported.

First of all, the decline in resources on GDP is evident starting from 2010 following the regressive policies of Tremonti-Gelmini. Recall that reductions of 0.4 / 0.5 per cent of GDP mean 7 to 9 billion less. The increase in 2020 and 2021 was determined by resources for combating COVID-19. But a reduction of 0.5 is expected by 2025 (DEF 2022 – Stability Program Table IV.3) with resources that remain constant until 2070! Moreover, the forecast of education expenditure in relation to GDP includes current and capital account measures financed through the NextGenerationEU program. On this issue, the FGA uses the period 2008-2020 as a time frame.

On personnel, the Foundation starts downstream of the Tremonti-Gelmini cuts, ie from 2011. The time frame used is therefore the period 2011-2020. This choice is very significant because 2011 (apart from 2012) is the lowest point of the organic endowment of the last 20 years. In any case, the subsequent increase does not take into due account the expansion of support posts, of which a large part is represented by the derogation posts and the explosion in the number of temporary workers (but it is also necessary to keep in mind the stabilization of the former LSU) . These are the data published at the end of August 2022 by ARAN:

Busy school in ti

2001: 975.456
2011: 882,033
2020: 907.817

Busy school in td:

2001: 159.389
2011: 133,556
2020: 270,049.

The FGA it does not take into account the expenditure for support teachers. Italy is the only country that has made integration the point of reference in educational policies on disability, resisting the attempt to medicalise or, worse, segregate the disabled. For the data, those provided monthly by NOIPA help us (confirmed by the 2021 State Report). For example, in the financial year 2021 the expenses for support teachers were almost 6.5 billion with a number of workers (a ti and td) equal to almost 190 thousand. It is clear that not taking this aspect into account makes the arguments made rather weak. Add to this the fact that the FGA avoids hypothesizing a simulation of how much staff would be needed by applying, for example, the pre-Tremonti-Gelmini staffing regulations. Finally, we recall that the Tremonti-Gelmini cuts started precisely with the increase of one point in the pupil / teacher ratio (Law 133/09 art. 64 paragraph 1).

Regarding salaries, the FGA continues to ignore a starting point: the salaries of teachers compared to Italian civil servants with the same access qualification are still seriously lower today.

The idea that the teacher’s career is fundamentally linked to individual performance to be rewarded with salary increases, clearly re-proposes an idea of ​​a school that loses the connotations of a place for democratic confrontation and an educational community that operates as a collective subject aimed at forming autonomous citizens. and with critical ability. It is a cultural and educational horizon that the FLC CGIL rejects in its entirety.

Finally, with reference to the number of weekly working hours, comparing the data of the lower secondary school of 2018 with those of the European average appears to be very questionable.

The real data of the Agnelli Foundation and the real data of the militant school