The SIDFE Board of Directors of the Education Training Teachers Union (SIDFE) issued a statement through which it rejects the curricular transformation that is intended to be installed in the Education Training Council (CFD) due to its form and content.
He calls to denounce the “irresponsible and illegal” way in which he wants to carry out the reform.
The teacher training union calls for the creation of real discussion spaces for both teachers and students, where reflection on technical-pedagogical aspects prevails and not the urgency of political times.
At the same time, they demand the annulment of the document “Proposals for the Curriculum Design of the undergraduate training of Educators” for plagiarism and the resignation of the political authorities of the CFE.
Proposals
On the other hand, SIDFE makes a series of observations that can help the discussion of the “document under construction”. They are the following:
“The lack of prestige of the teaching career and the low graduation rate of our students are argued, in the face of which, as in the National Curriculum Framework, the competency approach is presented as the panacea. At various times, it is highlighted that the content will play a secondary role compared to the skills to be developed. The selection will depend on the skills, which will lead to determining that some content is ‘indispensable’ and others ‘peripheral’.
Multimodality appears as a solution to accessibility and is framed within the provisions of the MEC in resolution 0355/22. The lack of resources provided by the CFE so that teachers could carry out synchronous meetings during the pandemic period is not questioned; Nothing is questioned about Plan Ceibal and Codicen’s refusal to deliver devices to 1st and 2nd CFE students. Nor has an analysis of the results been carried out during the years 2020 and 2021, and whether virtuality really implied quality teaching-learning that achieved better results.
Localist fragmentation is advocated, supported by multimodality among other aspects, given that the document states that it will be the communities, that is, the directorates, who will decide how the different modalities will complement each other, and in some centers there may be many more virtual hours than in others. .
Semesterization is proposed, incorporating the new languages to the detriment of the didactic, NFPC and specific knowledge spaces. A distribution of credits is presented that is intended to be filled in each center and with these fragmentary “contributions” the facilitators will synthesize in a single proposal. The promoters who were politically appointed will define the final grid according to criteria that are not clear and under conditions that are not specified. There will be no instance of national exchange, where all the teachers of the country of each room have the opportunity to analyze, discuss and reflect.
There will be modifications to the working conditions when the courses are biannual without creating position-teachers. What the system does today is to annualize the salary of those who have a semester course, so a teacher who teaches a 4-hour subject will be paid 2 hours per month. Chapter 14, where work was being done to reorder the position structure, was suspended by the current administration. The project that was presented to the union after more than a year of claiming it is a draft that lacks fundamental elements such as transitional provisions or the grade ordinance. In other words, it is not clear whether in the new structure we will be paid based on seniority or the degree we assume, what type of teaching position there will be (20, 30 or 40 hours), etc.
The hours of coordination and department are not mentioned. It is appropriate to be alert to the experience in other subsystems such as the DGES, where these types of hours were cut.
