Meet Mark Sherringham,
Friday, December 12, 11h-11h30
After thanking him for the invitation to meet us, we have first of all reminded Sherringham Mark (DM) "history" of Call October 17 by emphasizing the concern in universities the measures provided for mastering and new competition as the magnitude mobilization (motions, text, etc..) cons cons its measures and the timetable. We gave him the call with the signatories (more then 950) and the letter to the General Inspectorate of history and geography. MS
any later stated that the mastering is a "lifting" the level that we can not deny that he is therefore a rising level of demand and there is no "drop level. All contests will be at Masters with two separate competitions for secondary (CAPES and aggregation). It also states that he will hear, on our part, no questioning of the "frame" of the reform itself and that we do not get why. It clearly reaffirm this position several times during the interview, or whenever we will challenge the reform itself. There he is, he tells us to hear "proposals". He tells us, finally, that we will receive a half-hour [as a number of questions we had prepared will not be asked].
We then addressed the issue of mastering recalling that the department's position that is to strictly separate training under the masters (the responsibility of universities) and recruitment (the responsibility of the employer, the Department of the IN) is not tenable since the contents of the tests determine a portion (MS takes us at once saying only part ...) content masters "teaching" which must of course prepare for competition. We emphasize that in these circumstances and given the specific requirements of preparing for the competition (such as the level of "license" for knowledge of all secondary school curricula to CAPES), the proportion allocated to " research "in these courses will often be reduced to a minimum, at best a half, which is particularly serious because it means" sacrifice "for this essential aspect of teacher training that requires clearly a longer time. We also note that the proportion allocated to the preparation of competition may be particularly "intrusive" in the multidisciplinary Masters (included in the framing of the DGES) for the preparation CERPE particular Masters often "carried" by IUFM .
MS says he takes "true masters", they are the responsibility of universities and any student can make a master and then prepare to take the examination. About our protest against the reduction of the dimension "research" in one semester due to the constraints of preparing for competition, he reacts quite strongly and argued that it poses no particular problem. He added that in all cases there will be contests whether or not specifically prepared. About the preparation for the competition PE, university can "build" or not on the hum. They "manage" as they wish, the problem is that they were not used to this type of training. It reaffirms the position that while it is important that the masters "are not confined to the preparation of competition": it is a matter of "balance" between research and preparation for competition.
We operate then the "training" by insisting on the abolition of the year paid internship training in which we reaffirm the need for a true professional. We argue that the "transfer" the masters of this form of vocational training courses, including practical courses accompanied (MS., but the practical courses work well together ..) does not replace the internship year and removed. We request a clarification on what education means "full responsibility" for the first year of the contest winners, we mean "full time"? On this last point the MS rejects consideration of the matter until later stating that by 2010, the date of establishment of new competitions, there is "still time", the agreement on the issue could be to June 2009. Actually he adds, part of the training is integrated Masters, it must articulate the discipline, the teaching and knowledge of the education system.
We turn to the question of tests. MS said that the decrease in the number of tests for the CAPES was negotiated long (about six months he says) with the CPU and CDIUFM and with the "teacher organizations signatories" with a balance (in not accepting such a proposal to reduce to 3 events). It emphasizes the multiplicity of projects discussed in this phase. The process of developing the test was done by MS, in conjunction with the "signatory organizations" from Working Paper (emphasizing the phrase "working document" ...). In respect of the overall framework presented as intangible it may still be adjustments each discipline since the storylines are still available papers.
We work on the place of the reflexive dimension in the tests (provided by the epistemology and history of the disciplines and that was an achievement of the deceased ESD for history and geography): under what conditions this practical dimension will be Does this in the contest? MS replied that this question is to see, "she Also future boards and he is, anyway, open to "proposals".
On the written tests - called discipline - we reiterate our opposition to what the competition program is defined by the set of secondary school curricula, arguing that requiring a "license level" for the "period" of Antiquity Today in history and in all areas of geography are strictly illusory. This issue of the competition program is it part of "accommodations" disciplinary mentioned repeatedly by MS? We ask for our share program small, the issues selected for this program may be restricted to "seat" on the labels of the curriculum. MS
first recalls that the CPU requested that there is no program and in other disciplines, the adoption of the whole curriculum as competition program poses, according to him No problem. There also may consider "proposals" and does not react negatively to a priori the idea of a "restricted". He stated that there will anyway "subjects zero and suggests that the development" final " tests will not be given until mid-January.
on oral lesson we will recall the failure of the first test version of the "didactic" (so-called professional) in 1992 and emphasize the oral test only "lesson" teaching and learning is the same scenario which prepares the test is likely to become, for students with no real classroom practice, an exercise of "didacticism" formal ... Where is the proper size and scientific discipline in this event do we ask? The model lesson aggregation internal (For his part called science) could it serve as a reference? MS defends immediately want to make this event a year of "didacticism" and leaves open (?) The possibility of a "reformulation of the test", confirming that the reference to internal aggregation (we specify: there are teachers who have already established a long teaching practice, which obviously changes the game for the educational part of the race ...) is a track. Again the answer is: make proposals (but still without touching the "framework" ...).
The latest questions are on trial with the jury maintenance (knowledge of the education system). We reiterate our position: The test has no place as a full oral qu'épreuve and its coefficient is "abnormally" high. What is the composition of the jury of the test (reference to "representatives of civil society")? Is it a jury or by subject "transdisciplinary"? MS states that "representatives of civil society" will be school principals, of NEI for example, that the composition of these boards is the responsibility of the President of each disciplinary panel, the President may even choose, for example for the CAPES of history and geography, heads of schools from this discipline ...
At the end of the interview MS reaffirms that it expects the "proposals" within the scope defined.
Christian Delacroix, François
Dosse, Patrick Garcia.
