Lomloe: Bad education | Aqueduct2

Opinion article by José Muñoz Domínguez. drawing teacher

If I don’t say it, I’ll bust. Like so many fellow teachers, I find myself in the process of preparing the didactic program for this fateful course, dealing with the legal imperative of the LOMBLOEAnd I swear I can’t take it anymore

I put the readers in the background so that no one is misled: do not look for any partisan intention in these opinions, because I consider myself a person with progressive ideas who, supposedly, should agree with this law (but it will be that I don’t) ; neither am I a novice nor do I speak without knowledge of the facts: after almost 35 years of experience as a teacher in Secondary Education, I have had to swallow all the educational reforms that have taken place since the LOG INeach one worse than the last until you get to this thing called LOMBLOE, a pseudo-pedagogical monstrosity, disruptive, out of whack, which already seems to me to be pure lysergic delirium; I do not consider myself an idiot nor do I think I am less brainy than the editors of the law, and despite this I don’t understand anything, not a jot, of the gibberish that floods its pages, written in that twisted and tricky jargon, almost Orwellian newspeak, so fashionable among the enlightened who call themselves pedagogues; and I still say more, like activist In defense of Heritage and the Environment, I have had to handle numerous complex legal and regulatory texts, urban planning plans, environmental impact assessments and files of all kinds that, however, I have been able to understand and answer with arguments: How Could it be that an educational law, the one that affects the performance of my profession, is completely incomprehensible to me? How is it that after 35 years of teaching I find myself incapable of writing a program and, even worse, of being able to apply it? Don’t you think something stinks in all this? It hardly serves me the consolation of sharing this frustrating feeling with other fellow professors, but the truth is that I don’t know of any colleague who really knows what this law is about, and those who admit to understanding something fall apart like a sugar cube as soon as you ask them a minimally compromising question, also the so-called “experts”, delivered immediately to the hollow verbiage of the norm like someone repeating the slogans of a sect.

If you don’t believe me, pluck up your courage and try reading the legal text. I warn you that you have to have a stomach. they will find pearl such as ʺKey Competencesʺ, ʺSpecific Competencesʺ, ʺOperational Descriptorsʺ, ʺBasic Knowledgeʺ, ʺLearning Situationsʺ, ʺInterdisciplinary Projectsʺ, ʺAchievement Indicatorsʺ, ʺDiagnostic Assessmentsʺ or ʺExit Profilesʺ, arcana of pompous signifier and abstruse signified with very short legs: do you understand anything about all this? Neither do I. But it is not just about a substitution of ʺwordsʺ on the rubble of previous laws, although it is still curious that those ʺEvaluable learning standardsʺ, those ʺRubricsʺ, those ʺWeightsʺ and other neoliberal occurrences of the repealed law (the ridiculous LOMCE or Ley value), which until very recently were the limonera repera and were defended by their acolytes as the most in educational innovationwhether they are the remains of a shipwreck, conceptual junk, the grass of oblivion.

No, the LOMLOE is much worse than changing names or sects, it is a perverse web of concepts imbricated, related, intertwined, branched, twisted to the point of sickness, a tidal wave perpetrated by bad technocrats and worse pedagogues that the teacher will be forced to follow blindly when it comes to qualifying his students and that will lead him to drive thousands of data about dozens and dozens of aspects, each more picturesque and varied, far from true education. As an example, the estimate made by a colleague, a Technology teacher, in which she demonstrates what awaits someone who submits to the dictates of the law: in that same subject, such a teacher will end up handling up to 81,600 ratings per quarter (You have read correctly: eighty-one thousand six hundred partial notes), at a rate of 680 each student, as a result of multiplying the 34 operational descriptors by 20 evaluation criteria and by 120 students. Not even the most convinced and scoundrel Stakhanovite would dare to demand such stupidity, so they will understand that, for this reason alone, the LOMLOE is already as ineffective as inapplicable, no matter how hard the luminary ideologues who have elaborated it insist. By the way, it wouldn’t hurt if we all knew who they are and what they do, apart from giving birth to impossible laws like this, since it would be crucial information for when it is necessary to gather a good (and decent) teaching team capable of drafting a comprehensive educational law. and lasting: anyone but them in such a team, of course.

Until now I have only referred to nominal and quantitative issues, but as far as the qualitative is concerned, that social longing for the quality of teaching, I am afraid that the LOMLOE is also leaking: knowledge is underestimated and replaced by that intangible mantra of ʺcompetencesʺ without paying attention to what is important. Spoiler: another shipwreck is coming like that of the previous laws, or even worse. In a recent interview in The confidential, the teacher irene Murcia explained this nonsense in colloquial terms (without using the baleful newspeak of pedagogues!) to say that, thanks to the new law, our ʺcompetentʺ students may be able to make the ʺOʺ with a joint, but ignoring what the ʺOʺ is and not knowing what a joint is. Take it as a simile of what is to come in the training of our kids, because that is how the future will be, friends: And for this trip to nowhere will we have to handle so many thousands of data and considerations? For such a meager result, do we have to do without what really matters? Are we going to spend your taxes and mine on this educational misery?

See also  Joint sector review, Government, TFPs and CSOs for the year 2020 - The Sahel

impossible descriptors

So that you can see the level of nonsense that the new norm reaches, I show you a minimal example of what has been planned for those who have managed to make the ʺOʺ with the joint after the devalued IT’S passing from course to course as if they had really learned something. According to our legal luminaries, at the end of the Baccalaureate and only in relation to one of the eight key competences (specifically the ʺCompetence in cultural awareness and expressionsʺ), one of the six associated operational descriptors establishes that the student should demonstrate that ʺPlans, adapts and organizes their knowledge, skills and attitudes to respond creatively and effectively to the performance derived from a cultural or artistic production, individual or collective, using different languages, codes, techniques, tools and plastic, visual, audiovisual, musical, physical or scenic resources, valuing both the process and the final product and understanding the personal, social, inclusive and economic opportunities they offerʺ.

So with a pair. It is seen that the editors came up and, as my sister usually says, they farted louder than their ass, drunk on their own to infinity and beyond. look you, I am teacher Drawing with training in Fine arts (bachelor’s degree), studies Design (one course), of Geography and History (four years of the old degree) and doctorate in Architecture in its last phase (someday I will finish my thesis), I have worked as illustrator and participated as actor and set designer in various theater formations; Well, with that vital backpack on your back, I assure you that I would not even be able to demonstrate my competence in such an ʺOperative Descriptorʺ, and it is no more than one of the six required for only one of the eight established key competencies. Well, so with everything: multiply and solve the amount of nonsense that we will be forced to evaluate if we comply with the current legislation, not to mention the time that such questions will consume: stupor in the writing of the didactic programs, bewilderment in practice day-to-day teacher and many extra hours at home to not move from here to the corner. Long live ʺmodernʺ education.

See also  The best management practices in the field of inclusive education will be studied during an internship in the Lipetsk region

Meddling

On the other hand, the new law is a true insult to the intelligence and capacity of teachers, as it constitutes an unacceptable interference in the methodological freedom of the teacher: why should it be better to follow the dictates of these self-absorbed pedagogues and their theoretical occurrences, oblivious to the complex dynamics of the classroom, than the good work of those of us who have been teaching for decades, that is, verifying the effectiveness of our work ?, where was that of the booklet of the maestrillo and the academic freedom? We only ask that they let us work honestly, without the tyranny of the bureaucracy, without interference stemming from the supposed moral and intellectual superiority of (bad) educators, without the corset of an ill-conceived, senseless, excessive and sectarian law.

The new educational law is impossible to apply and everyone knows it (everyone except the luminaries of the sect, I suppose), but hardly anyone dares to say it within the herd. I belong to two progressive unions and no one says a word, another docile herd in the face of an absurd and crazy law (if this continues like this, I will have to unsubscribe and donate the amount of my union dues to some oenege less accommodating).

In my opinion, the only decent thing to do with this collection of legislative bullshit called LOMLOE is to remove it as soon as possible and take the paper it was printed on for recycling. I am not very clear that teachers need any law to do their job well; What’s more, our students have been learning what they had to learn thanks to the fact that their teachers fulfilled that responsibility, even against the nefarious laws that have happened for decades, but if we finally roll up our sleeves to develop a coherent and useful educational framework for society (exactly the opposite of what LOMLOE offers and its bad, very bad education), let’s leave the pedagogues entertained with their things, absorbed in their little ivory towers warbling Newspeak, and let us count on those who really know how to educate: well-wrapped teachers, with many courses behind them and enormous human experience far from linguistic excrescences such as ʺKey Competencesʺ, ʺSpecific Competencesʺ, ʺOperative Descriptorsʺ , the ʺBasic Knowledgeʺ, the ʺLearning Situationsʺ, the ʺInterdisciplinary Projectsʺ, the ʺIndicators of Achievementʺ, the ʺDiagnostic Assessmentsʺ, the ʺExit Profilesʺ and other inscrutable nonsense.

And then it will be shown that to guarantee an excellent education to our younger generations, only four things are needed: a good relationship of socially agreed content, divided into subjects (the agenda of a lifetime: acquiring knowledge is not a sin, hey!), although without forgetting skills, attitudes and values; evaluation and qualification criteria precise and simple to apply (never this atrocious labyrinth of the LOMLOE); a ratio reasonable to attend to diversity (well below thirty students per group: fifteen, for example) and sufficient budget allocation to provide teachers with means (you cannot expect Finnish or Korean results with budgets from the failed Senegambia, you know what I mean). And little more: I swear it by the most sacred – for the sacred good education – with the perspective that 35 years of struggling in this trade give.

See also  SEP and SNTE agree on salary increase for education workers

So, are we back on the barricades to defuse this absurd law, or are we still in the fold honing the various skills of the bleat?

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.