[ad_1]
Provincial rankings and institutes for substitutes: teachers who lose the top positions in the ranking for what they call “an oversight” but which for the Ministry is the communication of a specific will.
Our readers write
“Dear Lalla, I am a precarious teacher who this year signed up for the new GPS at the school office in the province of Naples. I previously enrolled in the third section for the 2017/2020 triennium in which I increased the service provided for three years in a similar institute and thanks to this score I was able to perform, in that triennium, service in public schools as a substitute teacher. When subscribing to the new rankings, I made the mistake of uploading only the service performed in the last three years in state institutions, in the mistaken belief that, being already enrolled in the third tranche and having already raised the previous score, the system of online instances accumulated them by default ( as it happens in the other years).
Due to my carelessness, I find myself in the ranking with a score much lower than the accumulated one, finding myself with three years of service instead of six. What I am asking is that the school office could proceed to correct my score. If you are going to check the ranking of the previous three years, you find the previously loaded score and therefore you know that it was an oversight on my part. It seems absurd to me that in any case we cannot give the opportunity to remedy those who, like me, have made this mistake through carelessness, with the risk that there will be no work for the next two years. I trust your kind answer. “
“I have been working at the school for 10 years and unfortunately the system did not charge me 6 years of hard work to complete the application, for a total of 70 points omitted. This resulted in a very low place in the ranking, with the consequence that not only have I not been called for the annual replacement, but I will not even be called for the shorts, which caused the loss of my job with serious psychological consequences and relatives.
It is true that the response pdf after submitting the application contained only a part of the years of service, but as they were the last 3 to be uploaded, therefore the new service of the last inclusion in the third level rankings of 2017 I thought that everything was normal, that the rest was already crystallized, after all I am not a computer scientist and I went up all my years of work in the same way, with many difficulties in the education site that was constantly collapsing.. “
“I wanted to know if the form filling error was mine … as I have only updated and not logged in all the years that I have worked, is it really not fixable? Basically I am in the fiftieth year since I was before, since only the last three years of Service Who scored.“
GPS: new classifications, records from scratch
The provincial and institute rankings (GPS) were established for the first time this year thanks to Law 41 of June 6, 2020. The 2017/20 rankings no longer exist, are out of date and unattainable.
Compared to the previous updates (2017 and 2014 to mention the last two), the teacher already present in the rankings also had to re-present the admission ticket, service titles and cultural titles from scratch.
In fact, the evaluation tables of the degrees have changed and this has also caused changes in the previous scores. Or rather, now it is impossible to talk about a previous score.
The new classifications must be read and thought in the light of OM n. 60/2020.
For some teachers, with years of service behind them, it was “hard work.” The Ministry facilitated the compilation of the application by allowing to view some contracts already known to the Ministry and that the applicant could remember and validate in the application. The services not present necessarily had to be inserted from scratch by the applicant.
Impossible to add now what is not declared
School offices are now unable to add, at the request of applicants, undeclared service titles prior to August 6. In fact, how is it possible to distinguish between “carelessness”, “material error”, “superficiality” in reading the indications and “law”? This is certainly a matter for lawyers.
We are close to the teachers for what happened, because we know how much confusion there was in the days when the system was opened to compile the application, with continuous changes, frequently asked questions, clarifications.
[ad_2]
