... I would be very happy of course. But the promise of such a phantasmagorical increase my motivation to work better? No. I do not work for the money. Work because I like teenagers, I like my subjects, and I like to teach. The salary simply allows me to work: but not the reason I work for, and certainly there is no proportionality between what they pay me and how I work.
Therefore, it is not intending few euro more you would get myself a better job. Who does it, offends me.
I do not know if it work good or bad ... probably the quality of my work is there in the middle somewhere, but certainly the best work I am capable of! And I do it because I enjoy it, or to show the kids something nice, or simply for love. Scegliete.Se a pinch I would pay more, or more, or disproportionately more ... I would work just as work now, because I can not do better! Clear: with experience and study, I hope to learn to work better in the future. But this has nothing to do with money. In this video
(there are also subtitles in Italian) Dan Pink explains why it is widely demonstrated (min 9:12 and following) that the proportionality between reward money offered and the expected job performance is obtained only for the most basic tasks and materials. As soon as you switch to tasks that require a minimal involvement of the intelligence, the relationship ceases, and the more demanding the relationship is sometimes reversed: a greater reward, worse results!
Are you thinking what I think? Already ... the proposal of the Ministry is not only unnecessary and irritating: could also be counterproductive!
But back to the research. If the material reward is not working, what is effective in motivating people to do a better job? Intrinsic motivation! (Minimum12: 12 and following) Yeah, we've all heard about, right? In general terms, Pink lists three aspects: autonomy, mastery (mastery: I would have translated as "competence") and purpose (purpose, I would translate "sense"), and pauses to comment on the first. To us to reflect on how these three factors can result in schools. This opens up a world. I could do fourteen other post on these three points ... but I will not, do not worry ... I'm happy for this time of pars destruens.
Money Mrs. Gelmini, even if arrived, would only produce paper stunts intended to show black-on-white (and there never will? Can think of only me, so out of hand, at least forty different ways to prove it. .. without any basis in reality?) that the pupils of the school X have improved their average performance of 34.87% last year. Huge bales of paper full of hot air: I can see the books, such as balloons, fly from salt teachers, claiming the right Pence.
school
Poor, poor us.
(photo RAWKU5 )
Update (19/11) : you point out the excellent discussion on the same subject published by Peterlin Mariaserena , dear friend, an expert in school lucid and passionate:
I declare and are among those who still regard the teaching mission.
But for this the logical extension of the best companies to a purely elective training and educational environment is unacceptable.
Just as above and its Gelmini have once again chosen the worst way.
E not only because they have implemented a blunt logic: Some teachers are not good? So castighiamoli, and since you do not select, input, teaching staff based on quality, ability and merit in admission and then frustriamoli umiliamoli ongoing.
The road is the worst choice because it is irrational and antipragmatica.
0 comments:
Post a Comment