Yesterday, the government announced that I was going to shield by law The reduction of school schedule in the classroom of children’s, primary, ESO and high school teachers. The idea is that the recommendations of the current educational law (the Lomloe, an impaished in 2020) become mandatory norms for autonomies. Thus, teachers would have a maximum of 23 hours per week and institute professors one of 18.
In this context, “shielding for Lay” means gathering support in a greatly polarized congress and, of course, that has created a huge public debate. Not only about the government’s ability to realize the measure, but also about the measure itself.
And skepticism is understandable. For years, many of the work improvements for teachers have not been exactly aligned with the well -being of students. The best example is continuous day in schools: although the available evidence says that The game is better, More and more Spanish schools implement it. And the pressure of the unions in this regard has been key.
However, little by we start looking at the data, everything seems to indicate that the reduction of teaching hours is a good measure for students.
The situation in Spain is not good. Especially in primary school, teachers They dedicate 20% more to direct teaching of time that the average European Union: 854 hours throughout the course against 703.
This, in part, is an inheritance of the crisis. At that time, Rajoy’s government expanded the hours of direct teaching to 25 in primary school already 20 in the institutes. Over time, some communities have reduced those limits (in Galicia the teachers teach 23 hours and in Castilla La Mancha the teachers, 19), but the reality is that the Lomle recommendations have generally been ignored.
And the evidence indicates that downloading to teachers is a good idea. To start because it has no negative effects on students. Almost all workload reduction initiatives report the same results: An improvement in the welfare of workers and no significant negative consequence.
To continue, because it is a much more cost-effective measure than reducing the rat of the classes. In the background, although reducing the number of students per class is a good measure, there is a point where the cost of continuing to lower it (the facilities that need to be created for it) do not compensate. Reduce school load for teachers has a similar effect.
And, to end, because this type of measure They help to resize The non -school work carried out by teachers. The school bureaucracy is getting bigger and so? Erosion quality of teaching. Classing is the most ‘intrinsically attractive’ task for teachers, but it is also the one that wears the most. Being able to balance the impact of each task on the final workload is key in the best teaching innovation programs.
Is it enough? Beyond real viability of the proposal, It is inevitable to ask if it’s enough. Education is “a powerful tool to intervene in the problems of segregation, opportunities, performance and conflict.” But We continue giving bandages Without having any plan on the table.
Image | Taylor Flowe
In Xataka | Opening schools during non -school hours is a good idea. The problem is that we need much more
GIPHY App Key not set. Please check settings