They call them “teachtokers”: teachers who use the school to record social content, obtaining followers and extra earnings. They sprout like mushrooms with the idea of making the studio more modern. But are we sure this is the case?
«The school will also be enjoyed online, outside the four walls, many teachers will work part-time and offer online content, perhaps even for a fee. Why should a good product be on sale in a supermarket, and why shouldn’t good culture be on sale?”. He was the one who said it, sparking the controversy Vincenzo Schettiniprofessor and social media star with his profile «The physics we like», guest of the podcast The Bsmt, last February.
Schettini also revealed, very lightly, that in the past he had asked his students to connect to his channel YouTube to follow the live broadcasts, the subject of questioning in the following days. In short, in a few minutes the most famous teacher in Italy (who even took to the stage at the last Sanremo Festival) candidly admitted that he had racked up views thanks to the pressure on his students.
Influencer teachers and the set at school desks
Furthermore, from his words a very problematic and questionable vision of the figure of the teacher emerged. Of which Schettini, however, is only the tip of the iceberg: in recent years, in fact, social media (especially TikTok And Instagram) have become filled with “influencer teachers” or so-called “teachtokers” who use school classrooms as a set for their content, sometimes also framing and making students interact.
From “Prof Barbella” to “Prof Polsi”, from “Maestro Gabriele” to “Maestro Righez” and many others, the Web is full of videos shot inside schools during working hours, with cuts, languages and music typical of content creators. Obviously, the more followers you get, the greater the attention of private companies that offer visibility and collaborations, which are sometimes not very transparent from an economic point of view. However, we must not lump everything together: there are many teachers who, despite publishing content online, carry out dissemination activities in a legitimate manner. Furthermore, teachers are allowed to carry out a second job, albeit with strong limitations and almost always with the prior authorization of school manager.
The regulatory vacuum and the positions of the unions
Around the figure of “teachtoker” in Italy there is still little clarity: there is a lack of precise legislation, no indications have been received from the Ministry of Education, nor from the National Association of Principals (PNA). The unions, however, have clear ideas, although with different nuances. «For the activities of teachtokers or influencers it is a question of verifying whether and to what extent they are configured as commercial or entrepreneurial (which would not be permitted), whether they instead fall within the sphere of freelance professions, or, finally, whether they are comparable to scientific and cultural dissemination tasks», Ivana Barbacci of Cisl school. «If it is legitimate to write a physics book and receive the proceeds, it is difficult to consider it illicit to talk about physics in a YouTube video», adds the secretary, who – however – does not exclude the «risk that a highly characterized presence on social media accentuates an “individualistic” profile of the profession».
No a priori closure towards extra-scholastic educational contents not even on the part of Carlo Castellana, of the union Guild: «In principle I’m not against it. These activities have always happened. Many teachers are also authors and co-authors of textbooks, which are often even more effective, given their experience “in the field”. Even for its acronym, however, there are limits to keep in mind: «The teacher must not be the student’s “friend” and must have a very specific educational role. Unfortunately, the “informal” presence, if it does not set limits, could lead to a confusion of roles which would cause a greater weakening of the figure of teachers, who are not “entertainers” or “tourist village entertainers”, but who often have an uncomfortable and complicated role, which must aim at the cultural and social growth of individual students”.
Privacy and risks of educational privatization
Then there is the paradox of the use of the telephone in class by teachers in the face of the absolute ban on students, launched by the ministry last year. «The issue is not the tool itself, but its educational use. Technologies can be useful if managed by the teacher as learning tools. Use not aimed at teaching is different. We need balance, avoiding abuse but also not demonizing technology when it is functional to teaching”, argues Giuseppe D’Aprile, of Uil Schoolhowever underlining the importance of protecting the privacy of pupils: “School is a place of education and protection of minors, this principle must remain central”.
For Luigi Del Prete, by Usb Schoolwhat is needed instead is “a clear rule that explicitly prohibits any commercial use of content that involves, even indirectly, minor students”. Another critical point is the possible disparity that social success can create within the teaching body: «It is one of the most insidious risks. Social visibility introduces an informal hierarchy of prestige parallel to the institutional one: the teacher with 100 thousand followers enjoys media recognition that has no relationship with the quality of his daily teaching, seniority or commitment”, adds Del Prete, “public schools are based on collegiality and professional equality. The logic of the influencer is ontologically incompatible with these values. Rather, it is necessary to strengthen the economic recognition of the ordinary work of teachers – paid in a scandalously inadequate way compared to the European average – rather than opening up spaces for informal privatization of teaching”.
Clear position also on the part of Ugl Educationwhich through Ornella Cuzzupi, national secretary, as well as member of the Superior Council of Public Education, defines teachtokers as «a phenomenon that certainly does not arise from educational needs, but rather from a search to demonstrate one’s ability to disseminate and, perhaps, one’s ego. This may even prove to be a useful although complementary tool, but it is certainly not school, nor can it become one. School spaces and children”, continues Cuzzupi, “cannot, nor must they become a promotional corollary of those who have made different choices from the many teachers committed every day to training the women and men of tomorrow”.
Beyond legitimate alignments and opinions, the growing presence of influencers or aspiring teachers makes a structured debate and possible rules and prohibitions necessary. Censorship is certainly not desirable, but even less so is a scenario in which public education is subjected to logics similar to those of OnlyFans or a premium subscription to Netflix.
