publish, on an exceptional basis, the official position of the lock on the Student DDL 1905, drawn up by Education Minister Gelmini, on the reform of the university. The work of Noah Mancini ( academic senator of the Second University of Rome Tor Vergata, who was elected Student Block ) is volutamen you technical and complex (the synthetic version will be published shortly on new issue of "Seaplane"), as it targets those students (and others) who have got fed up of empty slogans and demagoguery who feel these days, preferring to inform then with skill and spirit antipregiudiziale those who want to get some light on the so insulted, how little analyzed, Reform Gelmini. Happy reading!
........................................
The bill 1905 (the so-called "Reform Gelmini" on the University), already passed the Senate on July 29 this year, has increased recently, although amended, also in the House (November 30) , final approval will take place only after the ratification vote in the Senate. For the latter The session was currently scheduling to 9 December.
For this reason, and also by virtue of the protest organized by us, it is clear we can not avoid expressing an opinion of on the Reformation, which may well be regarded as an ambitious attempt to reinvigorate higher education and an effort to tackle head on the problems of the university. Who refuses to block it does, in fact, solely for partisan or ideological because it belongs to the most conservative sectors of the academic world.
First, it must be admitted that are certainly welcome the guiding principles of the Reformation.
In paragraph 4 of Article. 1 of the bill actually says: "The Ministry, in respect for freedom of education and the autonomy of universities, indicating the objectives and strategic directions for the system and its components and, through the National Agency for the Evaluation of the university system and Research (ANVUR) \u200b\u200bas within its competence, monitor and evaluate the results according to criteria of quality, transparency and promotion of merit, also based on the best common experience at international level, ensuring a distribution of public resources consistent with the objectives, guidelines and activities of each university, the principle of national cohesion, as well as assessment of the results. "
quality, transparency, promotion of the merit principle of national cohesion. Nothing to complain. Or rather, is a well-conducted and well-being merit-stop rain for funding.
It has to be careful. Given The guiding principles (transparency, meritocracy, cutting wastage, etc..) shows clearly the intention of the Government of 'dry' waste. It should also be acknowledged that the reform is done on a large scale, without account for the individual universities and their economic conditions in which they pay.
That is to say, ok, enough funding to rain ... but this is likely to make cuts with a hatchet.
Also, if we consider the meritocracy and the "virtuosity" of the University in a purely economy, which has become a main criterion for deciding on the allocation of funding, it is clear that private universities will start always enjoy an advantage over public ones, also payable on those cuts to the Ordinary Financing Fund (FFO) fixed in Law 133.
The main consequence, and which certainly deserves special attention by the entire university community, which is basically lying to have to keep on the basis of tuition fees, the public universities will find themselves forced (in many companies already happening) to find external lenders in the market.
then proceeding in an orderly fashion, what is most relevant for the purpose of drafting a policy on the bill, which is consistent and productive, the resolution of problems relating to two focal issues: the Reform of the Board of Directors (BoD) and the question of researchers
The reform of the Board
We said that at the time in which the public universities will effectively reduced by the portion of FFO required for their functioning (as provided by law 133 converted to 180), they will find themselves having to maintain primarily on fees paid by students. Alternative in this case become clear: 1) a significant increase in fees, but not sufficient, 2) the need of the University of addressing one or more external donors, largely private.
This in some cases it may also result in the entry of private players in the Board of Public Universities. SO that, according to paragraph g) of Article 2 of the Bill, composition will have a "maximum number of eleven members, including the rector and a member also of elective representation of students; nomination or selection of other components in accordance with procedures established by statute, including through public notices, including Italian and foreign personalities have proven competence in management and professional experience of high-level non-membership of at least forty percent of directors to the roles of the university after the three years preceding the appointment and for the duration of the assignment; election of the President of the Board of Directors among the members of the same ...».
In fact what is being expressed here is the willingness to let a person having experience in field management, but they are not at the same university within the administration. The measure is seen as a necessity, a key factor in a little 'as shares rose in Parliament. In addition, even if the document is not specified, it is assumed that these people demonstrated "competence in the management field" may be part of private limited companies or limited liability, thus creating a significant conflict of interest. At some point even a dirty word appears: at least. There refers precisely to that 40% of external personnel shall succeed to the Board. What do you mean 'at least'? Instead of being listed on the upper limit is listed on the limit.
The Board inter alia, under the reform, while maintaining all the existing expertise in the financial,
1) acquire the power to manage and programming to all staff, including teachers and researchers;
2) shall have the power to decide to activate or the abolition of the graduate course and locations;
3) decide the strategic direction of the University.
What is the risk?
The risk is that the increase of the functions of the Board, in anticipation of an increasing input of private lenders in large part in the public university system, may well constitute a threat to 'independence and autonomy of the public University itself.
is clear that, when these private entities will be required to invest in public universities, will do so only in those areas that will result in their eyes more "attractive" from a point of view of business profits, and to the extent that an actual purchase decision-making power in economic management and teaching those same areas in which they invested.
There are two possibilities: either it was a mistake or you really believe that to solve the problem of funding drizzle with a system of type 'a bit for a never hurt anyone, "it must create another, namely the interference of the private sector in public.
The solution? Autonomy and non-straight direction
Block Student University two years ago, before the protests of autumn, when the law had not yet been turned 133 in 180, had set out clearly as the first point in the program the idea of \u200b\u200bblocking "any intrusion of the private University that is accepted, legalmente ed economicamente, al controllo diretto, in forma partecipativa, da parte dell’Ateneo. Autonomia e non etero-direzione! Siamo contrari a qualsiasi proposta che possa dare alle università italiane la possibilità di trasformarsi in fondazioni di diritto privato, giustificazione ai tagli effettuati dal Governo, primo passo verso una futura privatizzazione dell’intero sistema universitario. Così facendo si correrebbe anche il rischio di penalizzare facoltà che non suscitino un particolare interesse economico» (punto 1 del programma: «nessun privato nell’università»).
In alcune interviste avevamo also stated that, if private hospitals have had to come in the management plans of the universities, the quota should not exceed 40%, referring thereby to the Russian university structure that sees, in fact, public and private companies work together organically in the idea of one was included. Thus recovering, for others the principle of national cohesion mentioned among the guiding principles of the Reformation.
Indeed, the DDL provides that these external agents can not stay in office more than four years, which, although it can be bypassed with ploy by companies that have the interest, of course is a form of guarantee to prevent appoltronamento of who would make a mere matter of interest.
However what remains to be specified (and which unfortunately does not provide the Reformation) at this point are the selection criteria for entry.
If the University should be the place of training for future leaders of a nation, then it is a structure that works for the state, and for this reason these companies, if of companies are discussed, which replace the Boards of Directors, will prove to be organic to the company and the idea of \u200b\u200bdevelopment and national growth.
Policy-based - according to our proposal - should be: businesses must be Italian or at least European, but with headquarters in Italy, because we must absolutely avoid the interference of foreign multinationals (such as pharmaceuticals), the Italian companies must not relocate their production bases in other countries, especially outside the EU. Let alone be eligible banks or banking foundations, and even companies that have debt financing with any bank.
With this we must reiterate the absolute NO to the "possible" transformation of the universities in private foundations, which is obviously a real attack to dismantle what we have left the welfare state.
That's the central point of the speech: the presence of the state. It is irreplaceable. But it is primarily a cultural problem. In this sense, if there was an ethical state in which citizens and other social groups cooperate synergistically, as organic components of the national project, questo punto del DdL sarebbe sottoscrivibile. Usiamo a proposito la parola «sarebbe», nella forma condizionale, proprio perché le logiche che regolano il meccanismo sociale odierno puntano sempre e solo al profitto. Così ciò che va ribadito è che, se la Riforma si tramutasse in una tappa verso l’americanizzazione del sistema universitario, o più semplicemente verso la sua privatizzazione, risulterà necessario bloccarla immediatamente alle prime avvisaglie di speculazione.
La questione dei ricercatori
Altra questione deserves some clarification is that of researchers in universities.
At present, the aspiring researcher, at the end of the doctorate, he faces a period of precariousness, of indefinite duration. This period may receive a research grant (for up to 4-5 years) or other forms of grants and / or contracts. The entrance to a permanent status is with the competition by Researcher (on average, the entry age is over 35 years).
now proceed to analyze each situation case by case basis.
I ricercatori a Tempo Indeterminato (TI) oggi:
1) il concorso è pubblico e avviene sulla base del curriculum e delle pubblicazioni. Prevede due prove scritte e una orale, in cui normalmente il candidato ha modo di illustrare la propria attività di ricerca;
2) i ricercatori universitari sono sottoposti ad un periodo di prova per la durata di tre anni. Per essere confermato, il ricercatore deve redigere una relazione sull’attività scientifica e didattica, sottoporla all’approvazione del Dipartimento e della Facoltà e a una commissione nominata dal Ministero, composta da 3 professori di altri Atenei;
3) coloro che non superano per due volte il giudizio di conferma cessano di essere ricercatori, e possono passare ad altra amministrazione.
I ricercatori a tempo determinato (TD) oggi:
1) a partire dall’entrata in vigore della nuova legge, non sarà più possibile bandire nuovi posti per ricercatore a TI. Si potranno ban only places to TD, with contracts of three years, renewable once only;
2) contracts will be banned from both universities, both at the national level. For the latter, you must submit a research project, if successful, you can decide where to go to do it, but the necessary funds are not guaranteed;
3) to enter in the role of associate professor will have achieved sufficient competence at the national level, held each year.
4) if the researcher follows the suitability TD by the end of the second period and may be called as an associate professor ... otherwise he must find a new job;
5) the universities do not are obliged to ensure that there are resources for the call (as happens in countries with Anglo-Saxon tenure-track), so that the researcher TD, taking the fitness at the end of 3 +3, we could not find work simple budgetary reasons.
From Bill, also is perceived as both the first and the second category is subjected to a rigid control system documentation regarding the transparency of the work, which comes into force is required to report tot publications each year, and it becomes necessary to fulfill the obligation to provide information on the mountain 'hours chair "during the academic year. It is, however, quite clear, as the Reformation actually penalize researchers, as
1) does not consider them: low puts the role, does not recognize the work actually done by the time teaching, but excludes them from university fees for competitions;
2) penalizes them financially: shots from two-year salary in three years (subject, however, the total compensation), removal of the reconstruction of his career, from early retirement to teachers;
3) create great difficulties in their career: the cuts in university funding, which will inevitably reduce the new jobs created by Assistant Professor, Researcher and the introduction of the figure of a TD that, after 3 +3 years not known if he is unemployed, cause unwelcome and unfair competition between Researchers to TI and TD.
The problem for researchers is engaged also on the broader question as to which is subject to general underfunding public education better. The marginalization of the researchers and the current insecurity of future results, combined with cuts to FFO, the entry of private plans the University administration and management, risk, if not controlled properly, causing a depletion of the teaching and research in general.
In this sense, care must be taken also a very important relative to backwardness General of Italy in funding for research and teaching.
With regard to research funding, in fact, the general increase of investment in research and development in the OECD area in recent years, matched by even the fall in GDP of our country under 1%. From this point of view, we sidereal distance from countries like the United States, and we are instead of just unplug other countries such as Estonia.
As for the backwardness of the country over the funding to education, the reform does not intervene in the direction of bridging the gap that currently separates Italy from more OECD member countries, both in terms of per capita spending per student (Italy: $ 8,725; OECD average: 12,236), and is of value for students per teacher (Italy: 20; OECD average: 15).
So, to put it simply: the steps to stop funding to rain, the walk took place on merit, pass the cuts to waste, passes through the entry of private education public (only if and to the extent that such entry is configured in terms of university autonomy, once a public-private cooperation in functional and organic way to the national system).
But from an overall view, what is less and less present in all of this is the figure of the state itself, which, although efforts to address key issues such as just wastage of public government, the fight to the barons and fannulloneria which unfortunately often pervades the government itself (those responsible for public education in particular), he forgets to draw clear guidelines in relation to those areas instead, in the light of the Reformation, most in need of strong and decisive responses.
We refer to what has been said up on the selection criteria for the entry of private players in the Board so that the external borrowing at the end of the facts showing a genuine contribution the formation of the Italians tomorrow, with a view just "organic" state cohesive and inclusive, and not a mere exploitation driven by the logic of profit as an end in themselves.
We refer to the funds necessary to ensure the research, which seem to leave a bit 'to the case, but which necessarily require concrete answers and prompt; starting perhaps from a larger investment in GDP, still in a growth and development of the entire country.
We refer to greater public attention to the University so that it goes back to being source of men and ideas, and frontier of conquest and colonization of special interests.
make this possible, it is necessary, in practice, that this part of the same level of University in the distribution of private funds, and to this end, interventions under the equalization DDL 1905 do not seem sufficient. Whether a mistake or a calculated risk, not even remotely foreshadow a distinction between future University of series A (and private) and University of series B (public companies).
As mentioned on, everything goes through a cultural problem: what to re-envision the state as an ethical state, organic and social. This is the only way forward. A state where you certainly take account of merit, but where all as citizens, as the Italians, from the start the same starting line. Only with that basis and within this context to get to the finish. This goal is called "future". Riprendiamocelo.