I capaci e i meritevoli, anche se privi di mezzi,
hanno diritto di raggiungere i gradi più alti degli studi.
La Repubblica rende effettivo questo diritto
con borse di studio, assegni alle famiglie
ed altre provvidenze, che devono essere attribuite per concorso.
Costituzione della Repubblica Italiana, art. 34
Del resto, mia cara, di che si stupisce,
anche l’operaio vuole il figlio dottore
e pensi che ambiente ne può venir fuori,
non c’è più morale, contessa… P. Pietrangeli, Contessa
I provvedimenti più discussi contained in the DDL Gelmini concern, as we highlighted in the last interview [http://rdsuniversita.blogspot.com/2010/06/la-protesta-dei-ricercatori.html] primarily researchers. But our focus has fallen on another provision contained in the draft bill: the art. 4 "on the fund" through which "is established at the Ministry of Economy and Finance on a special Fund aims to promote excellence and respect among students through national testing standard (paragraph 1)" . This is an action affecting the right to study, in fact, "the Fund is to: a) provide grants study to be used for the payment of university fees and to cover living expenses during their studies, b) provide good study [...] providing for a share to be returned at the end of the studies [...] c) to ensure student loans [...] "(paragraph 1). "The Minister, in consultation with the Minister of Economy and Finance [...] by decree establishes criteria and procedures for implementing this Article, in particular a) the criteria for access to national testing standards, b) criteria and procedures for the award of scholarships and good access to funding secured; [...] e) requirements on che gli studenti devono rispettare nel corso degli studi per mantenere il diritto a borse, buoni e finanziamenti garantiti; f) le modalità di utilizzo di borse, buoni e finanziamenti garantiti; […] i) le modalità di svolgimento delle prove nazionali standard” (comma 2). Sebbene il Fondo venga istituito presso il Ministero dell’economia e i criteri di funzionamento vengano disciplinati dal MIUR, “la gestione del Fondo, dei rapporti amministrativi con università e studenti è affidata a Consap s.p.a.” (comma 3) e “gli oneri di gestione e le spese di funzionamento degli interventi relativi al Fondo sono a carico delle risorse finanziare del fondo stesso” (comma 4). Ma chi eroga i finanziamenti per questo fondo? La risposta (vaga) negli articoli successivi: “Il Ministero dell’economia e delle finanze, con propri decreti, determina, secondo criteri di mercato, il corrispettivo per la garanzia dello Stato, da imputare ai finanziamenti erogati” (comma 5); “il Fondo speciale è alimentato con versamenti effettuati a titolo spontaneo e solidale effettuato da privati, società, enti e fondazioni, anche vincolati, nel rispetto delle finalità del fondo, a specifici usi, nonché con eventuali trasferimenti pubblici previsti da specifiche disposizioni” (comma 6); “il Ministero, di concerto con il Ministero dell’economia e delle finanze, promuove anche con apposite convenzioni, the help of private and discipline through a decree the procedures by which individuals can participate in the development of donor fund, including setting up, at no cost to public finances, an Advisory Committee "(paragraph 7). In the draft decree and doubts remain vague in many respects, for example, the type of national testing, funding and therefore rely on the amount of grants disbursed.
We asked, therefore, an opinion in general and in particular on the DDL. 4 Angelo Rinaldi, a student of Philosophy at the University of Bologna and student representative part of the "Union of University Students."
noisiest protests against the Gelmini DDL have been, so far, quelle dei ricercatori e di alcuni rettori. Le rappresentanze studentesche nazionali, invece, hanno espresso un parere in merito? Come hanno accolto questa proposta di riforma?
A livello nazionale le rappresentanze studentesche hanno espresso il loro parere su questo DDL; l’UDU (Unione degli Universitari) sia attraverso i forum istituzionali del Ministero sia attraverso il CNSU (Consiglio Nazionale degli Studenti Universitari) ha posto un veto, ha detto “si parli di riforma ma si parli con gli studenti e non si chieda loro semplicemente una ratifica di ciò che è stato già deciso, e soprattutto si mettano in discussione i tagli”. Su questo l’UDU è stata molto netta e rigida: bisogna sfatare il mito per cui si can reform the university at no cost. We had a different behavior from the CLDS (Coordination Listings Right to Education), which has basically already ratified the Law 133 and asked for little reward on the right to study - which also gave the Gelmini immediately after the period of the , then as a sop to silence the huge protest that concessions were the result of a contingency and not direct trading of CLDS.
examine the rule which relates more closely at the students, namely the establishment of the Fund for the credit. But first, can you explain the current organization of support for the right to study, his strengths and weaknesses.
currently supporting the right to education is managed primarily by regional companies for the right to higher education, which, with funds coming mainly from the region by financing scholarships. The granting of scholarships is based on this principle: if the family unit which is part of the student falls in certain economic parameters, can apply for a scholarship (or make use of reduced contribution of age, again depending on the economic parameters) at the university to which he is registered, and these conditions remained unchanged, the student benefits from the scholarship provided, of course, at the end of each year will capture a certain number of credits. It is also planned, at least in Emilia Romagna, a number of scholarships for merit only, paid regardless of the economic requirements of the student. The strength of this system is the very fact of giving priority to the social condition of the student's departure and to build on that to support his right to study. A flaw, in my opinion is that this system does not take into account the total, that is taken into account, yes, the credits, but these can be of any type can be achieved with any vote, and are sometimes designed with a very rigid system, that are the same for students who learn it, and for those who Erasmus ago, and for those who work for those who experience apprenticeship. It is not a dramatic thing, sure, but from this point of view, it could create more flexible pathways, varied depending on the type of student. Another shortcoming is that it provides no contribution to the student for their training, but to his family because the student may have a training program, thus not expected to precisely those most disadvantaged households require a greater contribution to the student. Finally hardly all eligible students to take advantage of the scholarship recipients are able to be even, since the funds are not always able to cover any number of bags.
The establishment of the Fund on how it fits into this picture? It solves the problems and shortcomings of the legal system in the study?
Absolutely not, indeed, is a step backwards from the right to education. First, because it is a measure that is part of a reform that must be done at no cost, you add to this the fact that the reform is preceded and accompanied by cuts, first those of the law 133/2008 and then by the last Finance Act, indiscriminately cutting funds to the regions. In addition we, as Union of Universities, we believe that the very principle that underlies the Fund for the credit is wrong. The logic is this: Ministero eroga la borsa allo studente a prescindere dalla sua provenienza regionale, dall’appartenenza a un sistema di diritto allo studio (in quanto il fondo per il merito è su base nazionale) perché ha dei requisiti considerati meritori. Una volta ottenuta la borsa, lo studente va a scegliersi l’università che ritiene migliore. In sostanza è un’idea abbastanza malata di libero mercato del sapere. Dov’è che non funziona poi questa logica? Nel momento in cui si va a fare il test nazionale delle borse di merito, con un quizzone a crocette, quasi fosse l’esame per la patente, non il diritto allo studio. Altro problema: siccome il prelievo fiscale avverrà sulle borse di studio, per più anni il Ministero attribuisce borse di merito e per più anni le conferma agli studenti che le hanno già prese, meno soldi passa alle Regioni per il diritto allo studio. E quindi meno soldi le Regioni sono vincolate a metterci perché c’è il vincolo che se, ad esempio, il Ministero eroga un euro, la Regione deve mettercene un altro. Quindi tagliando un euro se ne tagliano due. La nostra paura qual è? È che si vada a togliere il diritto allo studio come welfare, come diritto sancito costituzionalmente, e lo si vada a trasformare in un incentivo premiante basato su criteri di merito che sono tutt’altro che discutibili. La meritocrazia intesa in questo modo porta alla scelta di coloro che magari provengono da un tessuto sociale migliore ed hanno possibilità major economies, and then you go to select the strongest socially, it goes to emphasize the economic hierarchy. Anything but study as a medium of social progression. The University however, since educational institution must have the seriousness and the courage to give priority to transport those who do not own them, to those who financially can not do it (provided always that respects and falls within the economic and credit achieved), particularly in this period. Instead, it institutionalizes a principle exactly opposite.
In general, beyond art. 4, what is your opinion on the DDL Gelmini?
In our opinion, governance contains a shared principle: the fact that the CDA and the Senate should have clear and different skills. For the rest, this is a controversial text, but just as inadmissible because it seeks to reform the university without investing a single penny. If you really want to talk about university reform, then, in our opinion, we must consider these points: the right to education, quality of education (which should not be merely reproductive, especially in the humanities, and should not be based only on the amount graduate students), improved governance, accountability (you can not open the universities like mushrooms). If the reform is to serve only to make cash, then no, there is no question either. This is why the latest standards are inadmissible, because we want to talk about universities as educational institutions, the government instead of impersonating budget needs reform.
Emanuela De Luca
0 comments:
Post a Comment