This isn't about the student, it's about forcing people to usage digital communications with the office.
As you can see, not only officials, but "poor" fb users repeat this phrase, they are in specified a hurry to feel - that Poland will break out of their hands.
Poles - don't stop!
Well, no.
No 1 is protesting that the e-journalist is to be free.
The problem is something completely different.
Schools that test the solution are expected to keep double documentation for any time. It's old and new. And that means extra work. And here is the argument that I love: "Well, there are besides 2 papers in parallel in many companies erstwhile implementing fresh systems."
Of course.
Only that the school is not a corporation, and the teacher is not an administrative department employee, which can be "add" to the implementation task for a fewer months.
In school, all minute for unnecessary bureaucracy is simply a minute taken from the student.
It's truly not complicated math.
The teacher has a certain amount of time. If alternatively of working with a student he has to do another administrative act, then this time does not magically appear out of nowhere. He's just disappearing from the didactic area.
But good. Let's presume that we can handle double documentation.
Let's decision on to the second problem.
Login is to be done by mCitizen.
And this is where it starts to get truly interesting.
Because suddenly, the teacher to usage its private device, its private application and its digital identity, to carry out work activities.
And now, delight pay attention to something.
Same online expertWho likes to talk so much about the student's rights, about the student's autonomy, about the fact that you can't force the student to do everything, about the fact that the school can't require things from him that don't have the right basis in the statutes or regulations...
He's abruptly little afraid about the same problem about the teacher.
If the regulation applies:
“You cannot force a man to do something that is not in the regulations”
- it besides applies erstwhile a man is simply a teacher.
You can't be a law defender erstwhile it's convenient, and erstwhile a teacher shows up, abruptly you run the rule:
"All right, but the teacher should adapt".
Why?
And on what grounds?
Is there an work for all citizen to have a mCitizen?
Is all citizen obliged to have a smartphone?
Is all worker obliged to usage a private device to carry out their duties?
And finally, can the school presume that a private teacher's telephone is part of the school's infrastructure?
These are questions worth answering., before we start explaining to the teachers that “it’s just logging.”
Because it is just specified “only” that the full school bureaucracy is later made up.
"It's just 1 login".
"It's just 1 app".
"It's just 1 telephone call."
"It's only a fewer minutes".
"It's just additional documentation".
“It’s not a large deal.”
And then it turns out that the teacher spends more and more time not with the student, but with subsequent systems, forms, applications, passwords, authentications and confirmations.
But let's leave the mCitizen for a while.
If a student can't usage his telephone at school, why would a teacher usage his phone?
Great.
Really.
I'm all for the consequence.
If the telephone is simply a problem, let's take this full rule.
The teacher doesn't have a telephone either.
He doesn't bring a private smartphone to school.
He's not utilizing a private device.
You don't log into private applications.
He does not usage private infrastructure to carry out professional duties.
And now comes the question that should be asked to this expert:
If the teacher doesn't have a phone, no problem.
Except then there's no tool to log in with.
And we have a beautiful paradox.
On the 1 hand:
"Teacher should not have a telephone if the student cannot have one".
Two:
"Teacher should usage a strategy requiring telephone and digital identity".
Logic.
And just to make it even more interesting, we have environments that very frequently mention to educational organizations and movements. putting student rights in the center. The same in itself is of course not wrong. Student rights are important.
Only that student rights may not automatically mean the deficiency of teacher rights.
Education cannot be built on the presumption that each form of request for a student is simply a oppression, while any request for a teacher is simply a ‘professionalisation’.
It's precisely the same person.
Human.
An employee.
Citizen.
And it besides has its limits.
He has the right to say:
"I don't want to usage a private telephone to do business duties."
He has the right to ask:
"Why should I usage a private digital identity?".
He has the right to say:
"I do not want to keep double documentation for a limited period of time if this means additional work without any reasonable justification."
And most of all, he has the right to ask:
“What does my student get in return?”
Because that should be the basic question for all shift at school.
No:
“Is the strategy modern?”
No:
“Is it digital?”
No:
“Does it sound innovative?”
Just:
Is this solution improving the school's work and giving the teacher more time for the student, or is it taking him another minute to operate the system?
Digitalisation itself is not a value.
He's a tool.
If the teacher enters attendance faster, papers work faster, the parent has easier access to information and the manager has a more efficient strategy - great.
But if digitalization means that the teacher is to additionally keep records, install applications, usage a private device, authenticate with a private digital identity and carry out further administrative activities, it is truly hard to announce success just due to the fact that everything takes place on the screen.
Paper bureaucracy is bureaucracy. Digital bureaucracy is besides bureaucracy.
Just a small more colorful.
That is why I would truly like to end this discussion with a childish divided into "progressive teachers" who love all digital novelty, and "backward teachers" who protest against everything.
Because you can be a supporter of digitization and at the same time have questions about how it is implemented.
You can support an e-journal and at the same time argue double documentation.
The digital administration can be supported and the employer should at the same time be given the essential tools.
You can support a modern school and at the same time consider that a private teacher's telephone is not free school equipment.
And you can yet defend the rights of a student very strongly, but then you gotta have the decency and consequences to apply precisely the same principles to a teacher.
Otherwise, we don't defend rights.
We are simply defending the rights of 1 group at the expense of another.
And this is no modern education anymore.
It's ordinary. hypocrisy dressed in a very fashionable word:
‘innovation’.
And therefore, before another online expert begins with outrage to explain to teachers that “e-journal is free”, I propose that he first respond to 3 trivially simple questions:
Who's expected to do extra work while double-managing?
Who is to supply the teacher with the device and tools essential for logging in?
And how can a teacher usage an e-journalist if, according to his own earlier argument, he should not have a phone?
I truly don't anticipate much.
Just let him answer all three.
No modernity slogans.
Without the “rights of a student” utilized as a teacher's baton.
No comparisons to corporate.
And most of all - without changing the rules in the mediate of the discussion.
Because education needs quite a few things today.
But 1 of them is surely not another expert who demands all the another consequences by remaining exempt from it.
www.biologia.szkolnastrona.pl
There is no logic here, due to the fact that they want to destruct youth by giving her "over-programmed" rights to rebel against adults and lead her astray, and on the another hand they request to force people to usage e-Citizen, hence contradiction:
It's not about logic, it's about achieving their goals.
My comment with fb:
"Because abruptly it turns out that the teacher is to usage his private device, his private application and his digital identity to carry out work-related activities"
This is planned - they absolutely want to get utilized to the usage of this application and digitalize contacts with offices - and the way to this is "e-journal" for the social group in this case teachers and parents.
Do you see how simple they are? What ideas come to their mind?
This is another jump after the Polish Post, which I notice. Before that, digital "facilitation", it didn't work out for them, but fewer people registered, and now they've come up with the thought to punish people for not picking up the message from the photoradir - that is, to get everything.
This is the way to privatise the state, i.e. any anonymous officials become owners of the country from which you buy "services" and before which you gotta account for taxes on their behalf, by following the rules they pass. And it's expected to be a digital road so you can't solve problems with anyone on the gemba, but first they'll put you in like that farmer for plowing asphalt, and there in that crap things can happen...
There's a number trying to take control of us, the full state, pretending to be the digitalization of the state.
Remind me:
2015:
>>
In another words, it is inactive not explained why
- within 1 territorial scope of the committee, and
- in functionally akin areas
There are very large differences in the level of cast-off of null ballots, including in peculiar multiple votes.
html
https://maciejsynak.blogspot.com/2025/11/ciasto-z-lukrem.html
for fb:
OKE or Eye of Critical Examiner
16 August 2026
I have a problem with 1 of the online “edu experts”. Whoever it is, let everyone curious figure it out. I will not take distant this small pleasance from you.
Recently he has been very outraged that teachers are protesting the e-journalist. And already at this phase the first problem arises, due to the fact that it seems that the discussion has been brought to the argument: “The e-journalator will be free, so what precisely is it?”
OKE or Eye of Critical Examiner
16 August 2026
I have a problem with 1 of the online “edu experts”. Whoever it is, let everyone curious figure it out. I will not take distant this small pleasance from you.
Recently he has been very outraged that teachers are protesting the e-journalist. And already at this phase the first problem arises, due to the fact that it seems that the discussion has been brought to the argument: “The e-journalator will be free, so what precisely is it?”
Well, no.
No 1 is protesting that the e-journalist is to be free.
The problem is something completely different.
Schools that test the solution are expected to keep double documentation for any time. It's old and new. And that means extra work. And here is the argument that I love: "Well, there are besides 2 papers in parallel in many companies erstwhile implementing fresh systems."
Of course.
Only that the school is not a corporation, and the teacher is not an administrative department employee, which can be "add" to the implementation task for a fewer months.
In school, all minute for unnecessary bureaucracy is simply a minute taken from the student.
It's truly not complicated math.
The teacher has a certain amount of time. If alternatively of working with a student he has to do another administrative act, then this time does not magically appear out of nowhere. He's just disappearing from the didactic area.
But good. Let's presume that we can handle double documentation.
Let's decision on to the second problem.
Login is to be done by mCitizen.
And this is where it starts to get truly interesting.
Because suddenly, the teacher to usage its private device, its private application and its digital identity, to carry out work activities.
And now, delight pay attention to something.
Same online expertWho likes to talk so much about the student's rights, about the student's autonomy, about the fact that you can't force the student to do everything, about the fact that the school can't require things from him that don't have the right basis in the statutes or regulations...
He's abruptly little afraid about the same problem about the teacher.
If the regulation applies:
“You cannot force a man to do something that is not in the regulations”
- it besides applies erstwhile a man is simply a teacher.
Not just a student.
You can't be a law defender erstwhile it's convenient, and erstwhile a teacher shows up, abruptly you run the rule:
"All right, but the teacher should adapt".
Why?
And on what grounds?
Is there an work for all citizen to have a mCitizen?
Is all citizen obliged to have a smartphone?
Is all worker obliged to usage a private device to carry out their duties?
And finally, can the school presume that a private teacher's telephone is part of the school's infrastructure?
These are questions worth answering., before we start explaining to the teachers that “it’s just logging.”
Because it is just specified “only” that the full school bureaucracy is later made up.
"It's just 1 login".
"It's just 1 app".
"It's just 1 telephone call."
"It's only a fewer minutes".
"It's just additional documentation".
“It’s not a large deal.”
And then it turns out that the teacher spends more and more time not with the student, but with subsequent systems, forms, applications, passwords, authentications and confirmations.
But let's leave the mCitizen for a while.
Because there's 1 more component of this communicative that I peculiarly enjoy.
The same expert late argued something like this:
If a student can't usage his telephone at school, why would a teacher usage his phone?
Great.
Really.
I'm all for the consequence.
If the telephone is simply a problem, let's take this full rule.
The teacher doesn't have a telephone either.
He doesn't bring a private smartphone to school.
He's not utilizing a private device.
You don't log into private applications.
He does not usage private infrastructure to carry out professional duties.
And now comes the question that should be asked to this expert:
So how's the teacher expected to usage this e-journalist?
Because the strategy requires a certain method of authentication.
Because the strategy requires a certain method of authentication.
If the teacher doesn't have a phone, no problem.
Except then there's no tool to log in with.
And we have a beautiful paradox.
On the 1 hand:
"Teacher should not have a telephone if the student cannot have one".
Two:
"Teacher should usage a strategy requiring telephone and digital identity".
And between 1 conviction and another, there is something that is starting to be dramatically lacking in this discussion.
Logic.
And just to make it even more interesting, we have environments that very frequently mention to educational organizations and movements. putting student rights in the center. The same in itself is of course not wrong. Student rights are important.
Only that student rights may not automatically mean the deficiency of teacher rights.
Education cannot be built on the presumption that each form of request for a student is simply a oppression, while any request for a teacher is simply a ‘professionalisation’.
It's precisely the same person.
Human.
An employee.
Citizen.
And it besides has its limits.
He has the right to say:
"I don't want to usage a private telephone to do business duties."
He has the right to ask:
"Why should I usage a private digital identity?".
He has the right to say:
"I do not want to keep double documentation for a limited period of time if this means additional work without any reasonable justification."
And most of all, he has the right to ask:
“What does my student get in return?”
Because that should be the basic question for all shift at school.
No:
“Is the strategy modern?”
No:
“Is it digital?”
No:
“Does it sound innovative?”
Just:
Is this solution improving the school's work and giving the teacher more time for the student, or is it taking him another minute to operate the system?
Because you can have the most digital school in Europe and at the same time completely forget, Why is there actually a school?
Digitalisation itself is not a value.
He's a tool.
If the teacher enters attendance faster, papers work faster, the parent has easier access to information and the manager has a more efficient strategy - great.
But if digitalization means that the teacher is to additionally keep records, install applications, usage a private device, authenticate with a private digital identity and carry out further administrative activities, it is truly hard to announce success just due to the fact that everything takes place on the screen.
Paper bureaucracy is bureaucracy. Digital bureaucracy is besides bureaucracy.
Just a small more colorful.
That is why I would truly like to end this discussion with a childish divided into "progressive teachers" who love all digital novelty, and "backward teachers" who protest against everything.
Because you can be a supporter of digitization and at the same time have questions about how it is implemented.
You can support an e-journal and at the same time argue double documentation.
The digital administration can be supported and the employer should at the same time be given the essential tools.
You can support a modern school and at the same time consider that a private teacher's telephone is not free school equipment.
And you can yet defend the rights of a student very strongly, but then you gotta have the decency and consequences to apply precisely the same principles to a teacher.
Otherwise, we don't defend rights.
We are simply defending the rights of 1 group at the expense of another.
And this is no modern education anymore.
It's ordinary. hypocrisy dressed in a very fashionable word:
‘innovation’.
And therefore, before another online expert begins with outrage to explain to teachers that “e-journal is free”, I propose that he first respond to 3 trivially simple questions:
Who's expected to do extra work while double-managing?
Who is to supply the teacher with the device and tools essential for logging in?
And how can a teacher usage an e-journalist if, according to his own earlier argument, he should not have a phone?
I truly don't anticipate much.
Just let him answer all three.
No modernity slogans.
Without the “rights of a student” utilized as a teacher's baton.
No comparisons to corporate.
And most of all - without changing the rules in the mediate of the discussion.
Because education needs quite a few things today.
But 1 of them is surely not another expert who demands all the another consequences by remaining exempt from it.
www.biologia.szkolnastrona.pl
There is no logic here, due to the fact that they want to destruct youth by giving her "over-programmed" rights to rebel against adults and lead her astray, and on the another hand they request to force people to usage e-Citizen, hence contradiction:
students have "right" to smartphoneBecause it's bad for them, and if someone's against it and thinks the student can't have a smartphone, then tHe's threatened to get his smartphone taken besides - In short, any method is good to accomplish the goal, even if it is illogical, inconsistent, where there are no consequences.
They're dumb as a shoe on the left leg, but that's no reason to underestimate them!
It's not about logic, it's about achieving their goals.
When they request teachers as a social group to become a mention point in further rhetoric and propaganda: "but all teachers are already utilizing e-Citizen, so should you!" then suddenly: "Yes, a teacher should usage an e-journalist with his own phone!"
My comment with fb:
"Because abruptly it turns out that the teacher is to usage his private device, his private application and his digital identity to carry out work-related activities"
This is planned - they absolutely want to get utilized to the usage of this application and digitalize contacts with offices - and the way to this is "e-journal" for the social group in this case teachers and parents.
Do you see how simple they are? What ideas come to their mind?
This is another jump after the Polish Post, which I notice. Before that, digital "facilitation", it didn't work out for them, but fewer people registered, and now they've come up with the thought to punish people for not picking up the message from the photoradir - that is, to get everything.
Today you can ignore the aviso in the mailbox, in the case of digital solutions - judd will want to impose obligations on you to receive correspondence, and it starts, as I described, with traffic regulations...
This is the way to privatise the state, i.e. any anonymous officials become owners of the country from which you buy "services" and before which you gotta account for taxes on their behalf, by following the rules they pass. And it's expected to be a digital road so you can't solve problems with anyone on the gemba, but first they'll put you in like that farmer for plowing asphalt, and there in that crap things can happen...
There's a number trying to take control of us, the full state, pretending to be the digitalization of the state.
There are so fewer of them that they can't take us by force.
Remind me:
- the petitioner's not a client.
- "You won't get a letter from the photo-radier? You'll pay more"
- for the mob with a device weapon in hand - 6 years, for plowing asphalt - up to 10 years, for "accident" on the road made Arteon - 20 years
- I'm sorry. Ice cream cake!
- "You won't get a letter from the photo-radier? You'll pay more"
- for the mob with a device weapon in hand - 6 years, for plowing asphalt - up to 10 years, for "accident" on the road made Arteon - 20 years
- I'm sorry. Ice cream cake!
2015:
>>
In another words, it is inactive not explained why
- within 1 territorial scope of the committee, and
- in functionally akin areas
There are very large differences in the level of cast-off of null ballots, including in peculiar multiple votes.
html
https://www.pap.pl/updates/20-years-incarceration-for-lukasha-zaka-doctor-deadly-accident-on-trace-lazienkowska
https://maciejsynak.blogspot.com/2025/11/ciasto-z-lukrem.html
https://maciejsynak.blogspot.com/2025/09/petent-nie-client.html
