Several aspects of this call for debate are obvious, although one should not exaggerate their significance.
- The moratorium, in particular, is an absolutely unanimous required by everyone working around the competition, and would obviously be essential to the existence of serious reflection. That said, I remember the start of 1991, when nobody understood anything to the test on file and that Dominique Borne person should call in an emergency to the leaders of preparations in the provinces (including myself) to try to dispel misunderstandings. The conditions were either not very good, this has not led to disaster.
- Accept the criticism of even common sense about removing the liability stage, which is the real problem with this reform: Again, everyone agrees as to require large landfills in the first year of practice, this transition for entering the trade is absolutely necessary. Relativize, but also the "tragedy" that it represents. This measure will be improvised easy to fix, just by giving a little more landfills, the finding will be made when the vital nature of this transition. And also, contrary to what your text, nothing prevents the Teacher Training College, when they agree with the education authority on this point, to organize an internship responsibility for three or four months. The legal barrier is imaginary (and also translated a French culture to the public) if it were real, a president could not recruit non-contractual employees and give them a class ... Proof maybe a little knowledge of public law, contained in the third round of oral, may be useful for the debate on education. Of course this will require a bit more complicated forms that put an internship office (it will go through contracts and agreements), and this will perhaps reducing the training managers who do not want to there wasting their energy, but if we want to do, we can, it is the autonomy of universities and teams who will be responsible for organizing and supporting these internships. Better we shall perhaps be obliged: how, for example, are we going to give a master candidates and winners at the internal aggregation if we do not liberate a portion of their schedule? There will be no means: the idea of replacing them by masters students is absurd.
I am much more critical of your objections to the tests of writing. First, by misuse, throughout this debate, the term "discipline", a subject on which I work now. A minimum intake of historical perspective to avoid confusing a university with a specialty school discipline. A school discipline is by no means a fixed cutting knowledge from eternity, it is a teaching tool invented by and for secondary education in order to discipline the minds of teenagers that educated. The curriculum and, indeed, work in preparatory classes, very well embody this tool: state of knowledge a little offset from the research so it has time to be didactic. A contest over the entire programs is from this point of view much more "discipline" that the current competition that asks students to work on Germany in the 10th century (there is not in the discipline, we are in the specialty), a subject that they will never have to teach: if the jury had decided to commit suicide CAPES issues on competition program Specifically, it it would not have made otherwise.
The invocation of "specific problems" is a literary classic disciplinary lobbies, who usually keep well to justify the "specificity" copiously invoked to ensure that their territory (see for example the reform of education requirements whose physical "characteristics "Require, of course, five or six events, not four). "Specificity" is our way of saying "not in my backyard" issues in their letters CAPES topics on "any" literature, but they are concerned, what is possible at home (or math) is impossible here. In addition, as I know, nobody has petitioned to explain that the test called "non-program" of the aggregation led to "a very low level of demand." Should we assume that for a noble contest, the vast historical and geographical knowledge reflect a genuine elite culture, while for a competition like the commoner CAPES, this necessarily translate textbooks superficial and vulgar?
Finally, on how to incorporate a reflexive dimension (history and epistemology of our discipline), I want to say: let's get to work. The test on record was a brilliant innovation at the time of its creation. She made us do with our students an exciting work in the final term of study, opened fundamental questions which were very often for them a fascinating revelation. This is probably one of reasons for our strong commitment to this event. But she had aged and had been overtaken by the popularity of historiography. The EU licensing spending was multiplied, and there is more work to master that begins with a historiographical problematization. The test is much less original and it fills a gap more gaping studied history and geography. Suddenly, she was a little rigid and académisée, questions of epistemology to outweigh the problem of transmission: more ritualistic, less useful, it deserves to be revisited. The idea of integrating content tests, so request a concrete implementation of historiographical and epistemological knowledge does not seem stupid.
How do you ask? Try the exercise: an issue of first year program, the wars of the early twentieth century, 1914-1945. It does not seem difficult at first to ask a first year of historiographical about two pages, based on three to four texts (say: Droz, Mosse, Prost, Audoin-Rouzeau) and implementation issues identified in the first part through a story and carrying periodized direction of the main stages of the climb to the extreme that the school curriculum called the "Rewilding societies." How did this exercise a "very low level of demand? How is it "superficial"? And I do not doubt that you will easily improve this little makeshift DIY.
The second oral examination on the education system seems, however, particularly welcome. It is good that a teacher has considered the organization of the educational system in which they work. The shape of the case study, found for example in the CAPES 'documentation "Or CPE in the contest, avoids the pitfalls just cramming formalistic" and one is led to consider these materials as "boring" when it refused, for lack of intellectual curiosity, interested in law and sociology of education (and perhaps the history of education), which are specialties and much more exciting "useful" the baggage of future teachers that Germany in the 10th century: it leaves me not "puzzled". That in the jury-there, sitting mayor, councilor, judge for child or an inspector of schools do not seem to me outrageous is indeed common in various oral recruiting officials.
I'm more hesitant about the oral lesson, which actually makes me a bit uncomfortable by his side shadow play of a lesson before an absent audience, an abstraction of education that may take many ways a bit ridiculous. But the intention is not bad and the "framing" is very vague on the form to us to be creative to build a serious test and leading to a real reflection on the craft. I have no answer on this hot, I think we need to work together effectively: the debate to which you invite us is certainly one of the best places to do it.
- The moratorium, in particular, is an absolutely unanimous required by everyone working around the competition, and would obviously be essential to the existence of serious reflection. That said, I remember the start of 1991, when nobody understood anything to the test on file and that Dominique Borne person should call in an emergency to the leaders of preparations in the provinces (including myself) to try to dispel misunderstandings. The conditions were either not very good, this has not led to disaster.
- Accept the criticism of even common sense about removing the liability stage, which is the real problem with this reform: Again, everyone agrees as to require large landfills in the first year of practice, this transition for entering the trade is absolutely necessary. Relativize, but also the "tragedy" that it represents. This measure will be improvised easy to fix, just by giving a little more landfills, the finding will be made when the vital nature of this transition. And also, contrary to what your text, nothing prevents the Teacher Training College, when they agree with the education authority on this point, to organize an internship responsibility for three or four months. The legal barrier is imaginary (and also translated a French culture to the public) if it were real, a president could not recruit non-contractual employees and give them a class ... Proof maybe a little knowledge of public law, contained in the third round of oral, may be useful for the debate on education. Of course this will require a bit more complicated forms that put an internship office (it will go through contracts and agreements), and this will perhaps reducing the training managers who do not want to there wasting their energy, but if we want to do, we can, it is the autonomy of universities and teams who will be responsible for organizing and supporting these internships. Better we shall perhaps be obliged: how, for example, are we going to give a master candidates and winners at the internal aggregation if we do not liberate a portion of their schedule? There will be no means: the idea of replacing them by masters students is absurd.
I am much more critical of your objections to the tests of writing. First, by misuse, throughout this debate, the term "discipline", a subject on which I work now. A minimum intake of historical perspective to avoid confusing a university with a specialty school discipline. A school discipline is by no means a fixed cutting knowledge from eternity, it is a teaching tool invented by and for secondary education in order to discipline the minds of teenagers that educated. The curriculum and, indeed, work in preparatory classes, very well embody this tool: state of knowledge a little offset from the research so it has time to be didactic. A contest over the entire programs is from this point of view much more "discipline" that the current competition that asks students to work on Germany in the 10th century (there is not in the discipline, we are in the specialty), a subject that they will never have to teach: if the jury had decided to commit suicide CAPES issues on competition program Specifically, it it would not have made otherwise.
The invocation of "specific problems" is a literary classic disciplinary lobbies, who usually keep well to justify the "specificity" copiously invoked to ensure that their territory (see for example the reform of education requirements whose physical "characteristics "Require, of course, five or six events, not four). "Specificity" is our way of saying "not in my backyard" issues in their letters CAPES topics on "any" literature, but they are concerned, what is possible at home (or math) is impossible here. In addition, as I know, nobody has petitioned to explain that the test called "non-program" of the aggregation led to "a very low level of demand." Should we assume that for a noble contest, the vast historical and geographical knowledge reflect a genuine elite culture, while for a competition like the commoner CAPES, this necessarily translate textbooks superficial and vulgar?
Finally, on how to incorporate a reflexive dimension (history and epistemology of our discipline), I want to say: let's get to work. The test on record was a brilliant innovation at the time of its creation. She made us do with our students an exciting work in the final term of study, opened fundamental questions which were very often for them a fascinating revelation. This is probably one of reasons for our strong commitment to this event. But she had aged and had been overtaken by the popularity of historiography. The EU licensing spending was multiplied, and there is more work to master that begins with a historiographical problematization. The test is much less original and it fills a gap more gaping studied history and geography. Suddenly, she was a little rigid and académisée, questions of epistemology to outweigh the problem of transmission: more ritualistic, less useful, it deserves to be revisited. The idea of integrating content tests, so request a concrete implementation of historiographical and epistemological knowledge does not seem stupid.
How do you ask? Try the exercise: an issue of first year program, the wars of the early twentieth century, 1914-1945. It does not seem difficult at first to ask a first year of historiographical about two pages, based on three to four texts (say: Droz, Mosse, Prost, Audoin-Rouzeau) and implementation issues identified in the first part through a story and carrying periodized direction of the main stages of the climb to the extreme that the school curriculum called the "Rewilding societies." How did this exercise a "very low level of demand? How is it "superficial"? And I do not doubt that you will easily improve this little makeshift DIY.
The second oral examination on the education system seems, however, particularly welcome. It is good that a teacher has considered the organization of the educational system in which they work. The shape of the case study, found for example in the CAPES 'documentation "Or CPE in the contest, avoids the pitfalls just cramming formalistic" and one is led to consider these materials as "boring" when it refused, for lack of intellectual curiosity, interested in law and sociology of education (and perhaps the history of education), which are specialties and much more exciting "useful" the baggage of future teachers that Germany in the 10th century: it leaves me not "puzzled". That in the jury-there, sitting mayor, councilor, judge for child or an inspector of schools do not seem to me outrageous is indeed common in various oral recruiting officials.
I'm more hesitant about the oral lesson, which actually makes me a bit uncomfortable by his side shadow play of a lesson before an absent audience, an abstraction of education that may take many ways a bit ridiculous. But the intention is not bad and the "framing" is very vague on the form to us to be creative to build a serious test and leading to a real reflection on the craft. I have no answer on this hot, I think we need to work together effectively: the debate to which you invite us is certainly one of the best places to do it.
0 comments:
Post a Comment