The debate outside Parliament is expanding regarding the bill that aims to regulate the pedagogical and educational professions, with the novelty of the establishment of specific Orders or professional registers. We are working hard to propose improvement amendments to those passages of the text which, at the moment, seem to lend themselves to ambiguous or discriminatory interpretations.
A joint press release was recently issued by Mille – Independent movement of free education workers, Aiped – Italian Association of Pedagogists, e Aniped – Italian National Association of Pedagogists. Andrea Rossi, national president of the Mille, summarizes the proposals put forward by the three organizations: “From a scientific point of view, educational action cannot be divided into different sectors: either it is educational action or it is not”, he begins. «An educator must follow a course of study that makes him such both in the health sector and in the socio-pedagogical field. If there is only one science, the first level university course must also be unique, as is the case for the other degree courses. The premise is necessary for eliminate any type of discrimination between workers. I say this without polemical intent, but because I have the feeling that this whole operation was carried out on the heads of educators, similarly to what was done for operators in the health sector. If this bill goes through, there will be most educators (and perhaps a little less pedagogues) who, from one day to the next, will have to enroll in a register they know nothing about».
Rossi clarifies his thoughts: «With respect to the register itself, we don’t have a prejudicial hostility. But there are other priority elements. First of all, we cannot go on with two profiles of professional educators who then, in services, do the same things: this can be confirmed by 90 percent of educators who work regardless of their educational qualification. The subdivision they would like to introduce really has no scientific basis. The establishment of another register for the new figure would stiffen a situation that is in itself complex. It is a service management problem but also for companies. Operators often run away because in the private sector there are terrifying working conditions, while in the public sector the national contract is more favourable».
On another point Rossi is adamant: «Then there is a sensational hole: we cannot think that socio-pedagogical educators and pedagogists are still kept out of the health sector. It’s unthinkable. Moreover, there are laws in force that provide for it but are not applied. A hearing of the social partners is desirable to clarify all the controversial points, otherwise all that remains is the path of amendments. We aim to establish a single educator profile. In the meantime we are all engaged in an information campaign with the workers».
«Most of the problems arise upstream, that is, from a wrong vision of the world. One should think about the attainment of the highest possible level of health by all, i.e. a a state of total physical, mental and social well-being. Instead, at least in Italy, one simply thinks of the absence of disease or infirmity. The concept of health is much broader, and the WHO itself supports it. And here too there is a vulnerability: the Italian translation of the World Health Organization is incorrect, because here we talk about healthcare and not about health».
«The pedagogist and the educator actually work in the active promotion of health, social well-being and in the construction of educational and life processes in critical situations: just think of the work carried out in the pediatric oncohaematology departments, in the nursing homes, but also in the end-of-life or detention facilities and counseling centres. These figures must be included in the health sector in their own right as non-medical personnel» concludes Rossi.