[ad_1]
Allocation of substitutes for the current 2020/21 school year: some School Offices have republished the corrected provincial GSP rankings and in some cases there have been numerous changes in scores, others are proceeding without corrections or in any case with corrections that still they are partial. Not a few teachers still complain of incorrect marks.
No mention of “cunning”
We say it in the introduction: our article is not dedicated to the “mischief of the rankings”, to the applicants who have entered abundant titles, even knowing that they could not be evaluated based on the evaluation tables attached to OM n. 60/2020.
The article is dedicated to those who have entered titles and services because they have doubts about the evaluation of them. How many times, even in peer chat, have we read the phrase “enter, then the secretary will tell you if it is valid or not“But this year the secretariats did not have time for a precise verification, especially for the evaluation of the” other qualifications “, focusing in particular on the admission qualification to verify the right or not to be included in the ranking.
Thus it happened that some of those titles, inserted with more doubts than certainties, currently stand out at first glance in many rankings.
In fact, we recall that in the fifteen days of useful time for submitting applications, the only structures that accompanied this process were the unions. And mutual help in social networks and wa groups, which is not always 100% useful.
Lower scores and higher scores
We have addressed the problem of applicants who, due to a not very complete reading of the new ordinance, find themselves with service scores lower than those due for not having withdrawn the services proposed by the Ministry or having indicated only the last three, believing that It was an update and not a new entry, like the one from 2017.
But there are also those who score the most and, despite having reported the error to the school office in different ways, no rectification has been followed. In fact, in some cases the substitute has already been received.
E.g
“the algorithmic verdict that assigns me to a lower high school with a score 25 points higher than I should have. Basically I had to compete in that kind of competition with 53 points (29 for the grade + 24 of the 4 years of support done in a high school) and instead I find myself with 78. What had happened? Very simply, whoever did my score evaluated my years of support in high schools with full points in high schools (instead of 24 points they gave me double, 48).“
or
“When sending the request to update the rankings in August, I made a mistake when inserting in the item doctorate, master’s degree and other equivalent degrees, courses that I attended but that, according to current legislation, do not give the right to obtain 12 points for each indicated course . Unfortunately, however, I also got 48 points that did not legitimately correspond to me. I already sent a self-certification / complaint to the CSA in which I explained the whole situation but they did not answer me anything, nor did they update the rankings correcting the score.“
Controls over substitutes
The control this year is multilevel
- the first entrusted to the information system;
- the second to the territorial areas that carried out the evaluation;
- the third to educational institutions, where the applicant stipulates the employment contract, called to initiate a definitive verification and notify the provincial school offices.
The verification of the statements presented, according to OM 60/2020, will be the responsibility of the Director of the school in which the teacher signs the first contract.
In the case of invalid access tickets, the DS does not sign the contract or cancel it and immediately communicates it to the territorial scope to monitor the competition.
Ours, however, are not the cases related to tickets, but to “other titles”, service or cultural.
In this case, therefore, the verification will be negative, resulting in a redetermination of the scores and the candidate’s position in the ranking.
And art. 8 paragraph 9 adds
“In consequence of the determinations referred to in paragraph 9, any service provided by the applicant based on false statements is, with a specific provision issued by
school director, declared as effectively provided and not by law, with the consequence that it is not mentioned in the service certificates requested by the interested party and is not attributed
without punctuation, nor is it useful for the purpose of recognizing length of service and career progression, without prejudice to other penalties “
Caution: Let’s say, as in some of our examples, that you can’t talk about false statements. So how do you behave? The replacement will have to be revoked and assigned to whom? For the first free candidate in the ranking, do you start the checks again? Leave the substitute to the professor in question, admitting the error of the convocation?
A real mess, which must necessarily be addressed.
[ad_2]
