In recent days, the world of education has been shaken by a series of controversies linked to the first regional rankings for the progression of Administrative Officials (FF) to the role of Director of General and Administrative Services (DSGA).
According to what has emerged, several candidates have met delete your application to participate in the selection process shortly before the deadline, precisely at 11.59pm on the last available day. Only the intervention of the police and the proof of having sent the application allowed some of these candidates to have their candidacy readmitted. An episode that leaves perplexed on the transparency and process efficiency.
But that’s not all. According to the published postsome technical assistantsfigures not foreseen for the role of DSGA according to the current National Collective Labour Agreement (CCNL), they are included in the rankings. In particular, the case of a technical assistant, also provincial manager of a trade union that signed the CCNLincluded in the lists of eligible candidates despite never held the role of FF DSGA.
To make the situation even more complex, as reportedthere is the presence in the rankings of personnel who have provided service through coordinated and continuous collaboration contracts (Co.co.co.), a contractual form that raises further questions about compliance with the requirements for access to the role of DSGA. Furthermore, as highlightedmany candidates appear not to meet the requirements of seniority e expected educational qualifications, as the minimum two years of service as FF DSGA or the possession of a master’s degree.
The element that made many raise their eyebrows is as reported by the DSGAthe strong presence of union leaders of the Trade Union Organizations (OOSS) that have signed the CCNL among those eligible.
A conflict of interest, the group underlines, “We… DSGA”, hard to ignore, considering that many of these executives are on union detachment for yearstherefore potentially far from daily practice in schools. The doubt arises as to whether these figures can obtain the role of DSGA only to then return to operate in the union headquartersleaving the position vacant and therefore needing to be replaced.
These episodes cast a shadow on the evaluation procedure and raise questions about the real intention to valorise the figure of the DSGA. More than one role promotiona trend seems to be emerging towards deskilling and to the treatment superficial of a fundamental figure for the proper functioning of the scholastic institutions. The many FF DSGA who have participated in the procedure with commitment and transparency risk being overtaken by these “furboni“, come the post on Facebook defines them.
In a system that should reward merit and competence, the frustration and anger of excluded or penalized candidates seems more than understandable.
The request for clarity e justice it’s strong: the valorization of the role of the DSGA cannot ignore a transparent and rule-compliant selection.