"The 60,000 jobs never existed" "The 60,000 jobs never existed." two examples of Tweets (anonymous by me) This is the assertion made repeatedly on Twitter that inspired me to write this text. This surprising and peremptory assertion came after exchanges (which I dare not call "debates") as a result of a reaction (a little provocative I agree) on my part to comment comparing the announcement of cuts in 1800 positions by the Minister of education to the logic at work during "College2016" and the previous five years. For many participants, it was the same … You can find all these exchanges, as well as invitations asking me to "shut up" along with some names of birds, on Twitter. "The 60,000 jobs never existed." Reading this, I was reminded of what psychologists call "cognitive dissonance" (Leon Festinger). According to the paradigm of "persistence refuted beliefs," "dissonance occurs when people are confronted with information that is not consistent with their beliefs. If the dissonance is not reduced by changing his own belief, it can have the effect of restoring consistency through a misperception that not consistent, the rejection or refutation of this information by searching support of others who share the same beliefs, and trying to persuade others "Here we are in a double dissonance. First, in relation to industrial action and protest. This one in the minds of many, and according to a "proletarian fantasy" can only be in opposition to a "villain boss" (by the state and by extension all its representatives inspectors, principals, etc.). In this perspective, the very idea that there might be people in favor of the spirit of reform while hoping to improve it, escapes this pattern of thinking except those considered it as "yellow" or "traitors" or morons who have not seen the hidden agenda. Then with respect to the analysis of policies. The "socialist" in power between 2012 and 2017 are considered neo-liberal ideals and denying their whole policy is to reject it. I am far, on a personal level, to approve all the measures taken and I am even very critical of the turn in economic policy and poor decisions ecologically. But I consider that the policy in the field of education was going in the right direction (even if there were criticisms). And so I think we can approve certain aspects of a policy while criticizing others. This is obviously impossible for others. And to make it back into a pattern of thought, we must then see education policy as a whole as a "liberal" political and destruction of the school. Left to deny such facts as the (re) creation of posts or recovery of initial training for this to be consistent and do not fit in "dissonance" … We could also add a third "dissonance", even if it here is not the most appropriate term and is much more legitimate. This is the gap between individual experience and global analysis. This is also what is present in the reproach that is often those who do not think like that, "not to be on the field." I’ve written many times, the (re) creation of posts (which I maintain that they existed, though it was not necessarily 60 000!) Are only very few views in classes and institutions and therefore in the lives of colleagues. How to believe in their reality and see an improvement if one sticks to his experience? The feeling is also in the fact that reforms, including that of the college were done in a deplorable timing (all at once) and a techno which reproduced his bad habits vertical injunctions. The brutality of the announcement of the promulgation of the project by Manuel Valls same evening a strike of some teachers was also sorely missed. Not least, these developments have been perceived and experienced by teachers of several disciplines (ACL, German, …) as a challenge to their professional identity and a deterioration in their working conditions. Again, it is difficult to perceive reforms as "going in the right direction" if we stick to this essential dimension and in a broader context of feeling decommissioning and deterioration of living standards. How personal experience and feel the reforms is important. Unfortunately, experience shows that this is rarely taken into account … There are also different pedagogical concepts … The reforms came up against a relatively individual design (or individualist) of the business and an approach essentially centered on disciplinary appearance. "Forcing" of yet officials teamwork was perceived as an intrusion into the private sphere and a questioning of "academic freedom." Make interdisciplinary work was seen as a subtraction disciplinary hours. All these criticisms are legitimate. Obviously we have the right (and the duty) to discuss pedagogy and question together on the best ways to learn and progress students. Ah, if we talked more teachers hall in pedagogy and if restored its place in the "fight"! What I regret is that often it has masked these educational issues behind political postures. the term I have used several times "gaucho-conservative" to describe those who combined a very radical discourse of social change with conservative positions in terms of pedagogy I was much criticized. Waiting for the "big night" is often (not always …) a form of procrastination to avoid to change its practices, here and now. Consider that the School is only the receptacle of inequality that formed elsewhere is often (not always …) a way to clear the educational institution of the need for change. Now, we may want to change both the School to change society and change society to change the school …. In reading this text, I realize what a bad reading intentioned could remember. So I provide against arguments … • First, one can reproach me a speech "overlooking". Personally, I think homework help
that any social actor must be able to think his profession and the evolution of the institution in which he works. This is why my activism in an educational movement and my shots made possible positions through collective reflection. • It is easy to pass the "overhang" in "contempt". It has almost become a rhetorical reflex. A point of "contempt" felt at every turn. And in the end it impossible to think. I usually answer this in two parts. First feels "despised" that wants to be. Personally I do not feel despised me when I hear criticism of the School (with a capital "E" to signify that this is the institution). The study and teaching of sociology taught me to distinguish individuals and the structure in which they operate. The school is not limited to teachers and they are doing their job in a system malfunction. Should be reached not to take "for itself" any critical analysis of the education system. • One can also say that this text "remade the game" of a bygone period. Why rehash these old debates? Why reopen scars while the emergency is to fight "all together, all together" against the government’s austerity policy and educational policy Jean-Michel Blanquer. First, because these debates are not that old. The best proof is that the trauma of "college2016" is still very present in arrests and other anathemas on social networks. For my part, I can not resign myself to be told that the previous education policy was generally harmful even if it is obviously necessary to make a critical analysis (I made in a series of 3 articles on my blog). Consider that Blanquer and Vallaud-Belkacem is "Tweedledum and Tweedledee" (Jacques Duclos, get out of this body!) Is a statement that seems to lack the most basic sense of nuance to any rigorous analysis. Just as is the case when says that "60 000 jobs never existed." It seems to be in what comes under a "truth alternative" to use a vocabulary used by the current occupants of the White House. The call for a "united front" against the policy Blanquer unfortunately seems illusory or in any case difficult as we stay with these debates outstanding … Beyond qualitative claims (positions, salaries, power to purchase) and denunciation of the double standard of the Minister, it would exceed the postures and build an alternative that sort of previous antagonisms and that clearly raises the question of the purpose you want to assign to the school, the values ??that so we want to promote and pedagogy … Philippe Watrelot ————- Chronicle education Philippe Watrelot is made available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution – Noncommercial – No Derivative Works 4.0 International. Posted by Watrelot on Wednesday, September 19, 2018