The Administrative Litigation Room of Superior Court of Justice of the Canary Islands has determined that with spelling mistakes you cannot be a teacher. The ruling, revealed yesterday by Anpe Canarias, gives the reason to the union and endorses that the qualifying courts of the 2015 teacher oppositions applied evaluation standards known to all applicants and that the selective process was carried out with all the guarantees.
Anpe recalled yesterday that the plaintiffs filed an appeal against the resolution of the General Directorate of Personnel of the Ministry of Education, which approved and published the lists of selected applicants in the Corps of Teachers in the specialties of Infant Education, Physical Education, Music and Therapeutic Pedagogy.
Among other reasons, the plaintiffs understood that the opponents had been required “a correct spelling” when this requirement “was not provided either in the bases or in their explanatory notes.”
However, the Administrative Litigation Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of the Canary Islands has specified that this requirement, “in addition to being a basic requirement for those who intend to be a teacher,” was present in the bases.
Specifically, it was included in the “Guidelines for the preparation and evaluation of the practical exercise” -included in Annex IV-, which referred to “spelling correction” as a criterion to be taken into account by the rating courts when evaluating the tests.
Pedro Crespo, president of Anpe Canarias, figures at 84 teachers who have defended the union in this case and applauds the decision of Justice, which ends the uncertainty of these professionals.
“We could not understand that in some oppositions to be a teacher, the correct use of our language is not taken into account and, as is normal, nor was it contemplated in the regulations,” Crespo said.
In addition, the plaintiffs also motivated their denunciation in other alleged irregularities, such as the “abnormal” volume of suspensions in the oppositions, the alleged breach of the parity criteria in several courts or that the anonymity of the aspirants
According to the aforementioned union, the court, once studied all the documentation presented, has dismissed all its claims because it has considered that they are “absolutely generic statements and arguments and without any supporting evidence.”
“In reality, there is no mention, with the minimum required precision, of a specific irregularity that should lead to the radical nullity of the contested action,” added Crespo, who applauded that justice maintains the results of the 2015 teachers’ oppositions.