[ad_1]
Posted by Gianni Mereghetti (Professor) – Dear Minister, I am a professor at the Commission for these state exams that his predecessor decided to change by removing the third test and deleting what we call the term paper. The exams increase doubts about the choices of those who preceded it, especially with regard to the test for the interview.
I hope that before executing what has already been decided, take a space for reflection, because it is enough to remove something that does not make the examination better. In fact, what is missing from the choices already made, it is a reflection on the kind of examination that it should be at the end of higher education. It is there that lies the problem, which has never opened a comparison on the meaning of this review for which they see all the colors on the way it is driven and reach a minister who withdraws him a test and eliminate the term without I understand why.
Minister, I hope you have the courage to block these decisions and to open a debate on the meaning of this review.
For this reason, I suggest to you first of all that should be, not a reverification of what students and students have already been interviewed or written about, but an opportunity to test their critical and creative abilities. This is the function of the state exam, but during those twenty years that has never been the case, perhaps even because of us teachers who l? have lived as a moment to see if students and students are able to answer our questions
If we want to certify what students know, there is no need for a review of 39 State, we can take it from the work done in five years! The only reason for a state exam is that you check the summary skills and critical and creative skills. Keeping all the current test of the notionality weighs and nothing more.
In this sense, I would like to make two observations about the exam as it is currently configured
The first is that it is just to eliminate the third test, but because we are it was us teachers who made it a conceptist. Originally, it had to be a multidisciplinary test and had to check the ability to create links between what is being studied in different disciplines, another essential feature of a true maturity. The fact that the third test is replaced by the Invalsi evidence is not convincing, even on them a debate should be open because it is unclear what they will do. This implies the great risk that the last year is conditioned by the Invalsi tests, that is to say that the preparation is in function of overcoming them and well. Everything to discuss!
The second observation concerns the term paper. Minister, you come back because the term is best suited to an examination that verifies the ability to critically re-develop knowledge and turn it into knowledge. Deleting the term is a crime, it is very absurd and borders the irrationality of a procedure without head or tail. Put back the paper and redo the interview center, it would be good for students who are measured with their interests and their reality, in the same way that it would be good for teachers who could learn to learn something new . Instead of removing the paper, you should remove the bombing on all disciplines to which students and students are subjected, who should know everything, impossible!
These are just a few observations of a reflection that would now be made to change this review but in a reasonable way.
[ad_2]
Source link
