Timeshare trainers of ESPE (flashback) The National Assembly has just adopted in the night of Thursday 14 to Friday, March 15, Article 1 of the draft law on the rebuilding of the school.

Timeshare trainers of ESPE (flashback) The National Assembly has just adopted in the night of Thursday 14 to Friday, March 15, Article 1 of the draft law on the rebuilding of the school. This is in fact the report attached to the bill itself. Among the amendments that were adopted, one of them encourages trainers High schools of the teaching and education (Espe) to also teach in the schools of first and second degree. I welcome the vote on this amendment. First, because this is my status ( "time share") and an educational personal choice since 2006 and secondly because I think this incentive (the deputies did not go to the obligation) can raise some number of criticisms of the initial training. The challenge of building hope is to propose a significant change in formation over older IUFM. The origin and the training of trainers should change. But if we are to succeed this development, we must give ourselves the means. And this especially goes through a development schedules and statutes. Otherwise, this wish will end up like many good intentions in the cemetery of good intentions … Let us recall that this wish was already in the decree on teacher training in 2007! And it was never acted upon … To illustrate this, I come out of my archives, a text written in December 2007 for publication of Pedagogical Notebooks. It was unfortunately not aged (me, so ..). ——————————————- The text reforming teacher training , published on 4 January 2007, is an important text that marks a key step in the professionalization of the teaching profession. The definition of skills for structuring better training for teachers of first and second degree. Several trends identified in this text are in line for a better articulation between professional experience and initial training. One of the provisions that eventually two-thirds (70% exactly) IUFM trainers are in "time sharing." This means they share their time between their exercise facility and the IUFM where they will be trainers or teachers. This is my case since September 2006. I am a professor of economics and social sciences in the Essonne and high school teacher (PRAG) at IUFM of Paris where I coordinate the training of PLC1 and PLC2 SES Ile three academies . I perform eight hours in school and I have 192 hours in the IUFM where the service is annualized. My service is composed of two half-time and I get a pay slip for each of these jobs. If I go here to lean on my personal experience it is not a purpose of recrimination (although …) or will to me before but to try to draw some general lessons and identify some possible developments for this status I would call wobbly. My position is indeed this: if the principle of shared time from a good intention and can have positive effects on training, implementation is a revealing ambiguities and shortcomings of the reform. It remains, as usual, to provide the means to ensure that good intentions are acted upon before the negative effects and discouragements will prevail. Why "shared time"? The answer to this question seems seemingly self-evident. The text of the Official Bulletin gives rather clear and convincing arguments. "All the teachers, whatever their status, lecturers or teachers in primary and secondary, must establish a direct experience or knowledge of classes today. ". It is therefore to offer teachers the opportunity to be trained by instructors in contact with the ground and well equipped, in their eyes, more legitimate speech and better able to meet their immediate concerns. But this evidence can be questioned in two distinct ways: 1. A full-time trainer is it necessarily out of touch? And correspondingly, is it enough to be "on the ground" to be a good trainer? 2. A good teacher is it enough to make a good trainer? These questions are often formulated in the IUFM and used to justify the refusal to create such posts. The answers are not so simple. One of the biggest complaints against IUFMs is that the gap between the experiences of students in their classes (during the training situation or "spun course") and what is proposed training considered disconnected from their real. The sacrosanct "field" is so opposed to the theory (necessarily "smoky") IUFM. The image of the trainer would not have a class for many years and talks about a reality that he no longer knows is very present in the stories of trainees. Although we will see later, take a step back to this speech, the presence of trainers ‘timeshare’ up this criticism and gives greater legitimacy to the proposed training. Rely on recent experiences, share questions, do not be afraid to refer also to potential failures, are conditions to balance a didactic and pedagogical discourse often perceived as dogmatic. But we must not, however, give too much weight to the inevitable criticism in the process of building professional trainees. He does not take more than the highlighting of the "field" make you forget that what characterizes training at the IUFM is just a constant back and forth between theory and practice and the construction of a "reflective practitioner" . Trainer and teacher are indeed related but different trades. There are specific teaching skills in adult trainer: needs analysis and professional practices, career building highly customized training, call management and collective productions. But the proximity to the teaching practice is also an asset. A good teacher is a good teacher if he develops the ability to reflect on their practice, to problematize professional situations, the joint theoretical constructs and questions from professional situations experienced. If the "time-sharing" is not a sufficient condition, it can greatly help in this "return". Note also that this works in reverse. Being trainer helps you become a better teacher. Reflecting on his practice, the need to formalize contribute to a change in practice. This evolution can be beneficial to students but also to the entire building if the return is considered an asset and valued (in the school board, for example). But all full-time trainers are not necessarily disconnected from reality and do not deserve, far from it, all the criticism against them. The visits, the link still very bright with the original business, the transitory nature trainer status may be possible guarantees against this inconvenience. The solution is certainly in a balanced mix within the team of trainers between "full-time" and "time-sharing". It is a condition for raising some criticisms and provide the trainees with a consistent and comprehensive training. It is also necessary that instead of these teachers to "time share" is well established and allows this balance. What place for teachers to "time share"? Drawing on my own experience and numerous exchanges with other colleagues, I am tempted to answer: everywhere and nowhere …! This situation is not specific to the "time-sharing" is also of some TZR and all the teachers who have to share among several institutions at all levels of education. This is never easy, it is always hard to feel integrated and active part in school life when one has to share his time and energy between two locations. Hence the feeling that often comes up in conversations to be "everywhere and nowhere". Feeling strengthened, often by transport time more or less between the various places of exercise. In everyday life, this will result in reflections more or less bring her colleagues that will make you notice you never see before you remember that you’re now past the "other side." While your status is built precisely to avoid this! It is also difficult to "change hats" in the same day: the morning and teacher trainer in the afternoon. This requires mental gymnastics, certainly stimulating, but sometimes problematic. The question of the organization of work is not anecdotal, it is very essential as it can seriously undermine motivation. How to feel motivated when we have the feeling of not being recognized and not to invest enough in his work? For, indeed, the status is shaky and often leads to unbalanced workloads. Half + half = more than a full time … Not surprisingly, the addition of two workloads can not be reduced to a simplistic arithmetic. The schedule, in secondary education, is a key element of the workload. For my part i need help with my home work
, I have to come three days in my school for eight hours of classes. As work at the IUFM is, meanwhile, concentrated on the other two days, gives much busy weeks and little time spent in preparation and reflection. Moreover, as we have seen above, trainer and teacher are two different professions. The arrival in IUFMs therefore requires a significant investment. The "shared time" spent on training thus causes a new workload and quite heavy. This is often done to the detriment of the work and commitment in the home institution. This can also cause discouragement and even more tired when the status leads to absurd situations making life difficult. A legal vacuum if the text of BOEN resembles an injunction, we can indeed note that the elements that allow the application of such measures are not specified. There is even a legal vacuum. One can cite the example of a colleague who had seen impose a schedule that perfectly straddled his interventions at the IUFM. When she protested, he was retorted that no text required the headteacher to align schedules IUFM … This case is, of course, exceptional and most of the time, goodwill helps solve problems. But, in fact, no text frames the construction time at this level jobs. Similarly for other very specific aspects. What to do when going to have both a class consulting and training to coach at the IUFM? What prevails? It is not always easy to adjust and the absence at any times can be problematic. Often the teacher in "time sharing" is then considered a "nuisance" with requirements that increase the functioning of the institution. A revealing ambiguities IUFM. This feeling can also be found in the teacher training institutes where the presence of teachers ‘time sharing’ is not always accompanied by sufficient efforts to accommodate and promote their integration. If the official speeches in IUFMs can comply with the ministerial injunction, actual practices may be different. This can result in different ways: by scheduling meetings do not allow participation by hiring preference always "full time" and especially the vague feeling that the timeshare is in the final hierarchy implied a sub- status that places the person well below the full-time staff … on this point, the integration of the IUFM at the university has only strengthened this feeling. It is as if the training institutes does not really gave the means to achieve this 70% target. Lack of conviction? Difficulty to change its practices? While IUFMs were able to seize the innovations of the new specifications should be a true reflection also settles on the conditions to be implemented to allow real integration "shared time" in order to achieve the ambitious quantitative targets mentioned above. Under what conditions? We saw one of the difficulties is related to the workload becomes heavy since cumulate the two activities. Could we consider, especially for the first year, a different time allocation? The person recruited to "time share" should such a third of service in their home institution and half in the IUFM, or the reverse. This would affirm clearly that these are two separate trades and the importance of good form for exercise training profession. It would be desirable also that specific instructions be given to head teachers so that the situation of these personnel be clarified and their specific operating conditions to be better taken into account in the construction timetables. This desire to develop teachers ‘time sharing’ should also be reflected in the IUFM. The management of human resources and work organization could be improved to move in this direction. Training new trainers can also rely more on this dimension to build a new professionalism. The development objective of teachers and trainers "shared time" is a good intention. But the current provisions and especially the conditions of exercise make a wobbly status. While we can already make assessments of existing, we must emphasize the heaviness of the load and the lack of recognition of this investment. The risk is great that the perverse effects, red tape and the lack of attractiveness of this status will undermine that idea. Unless one really gives itself the means to promote a real status of "shared time" that allows efficient work and a breath between training and education. Philippe Watrelot December 2007 [1] "All the teachers, whatever their status, lecturers or teachers in primary and secondary, must establish a direct experience or knowledge of classes today. They must work together. Teachers of primary and secondary teachers in IUFM are the first concerned [...] The principle of time-sharing service, school or institution on the one hand, the other university, must gradually spread: at least 70% of teachers first and second degrees teacher IUFMs exercise time-sharing. "Boen # 1 of 4 January 2007. Published by Watrelot to Friday, March 15, 2013

Leave a Comment