2-2 – Problems for teacher education relative to bullying
3 – DOUBTS ABOUT THE IMPACT OF THE LAW OF
At the same time, the president of the FNASEPH voiced a certain number of reservations. The first relates to the criticisms regarding the support strategies developed for socio-economically deprived areas. In effect, we already noted that time is the enemy of non-sustainable measures and this aspect gives rise to a number of issues.
“Everyone knows that a successful project is a project in which the different actors have time to develop it. First of all, the child’s arrival needs to be prepared. Then the project needs to be followed through, and tools need to be developed for its assessment. This all implies planning and fitting in meetings to share the expertise of all the actors involved. We believe that not enough time is allowed by the school and this can jeopardize the project. People invest a great deal in the projects and if insufficient time is allowed, this will create a number of problems for those involved and for the projects to develop.” (18)
The lack of tools required to assess the young person’s potential needs mean that the project could fail to validate schooling adequately.
The law stipulates that “every child is registered by right in an ordinary school and that this shall be their base institution.”
However, there is no corresponding statement in the legislation governing the base school. What exactly are the commitments of the school head ?
In the same way, the law recognises the right to be registered at a university with specific support, but there is no provision for this in the laws regarding finance, and teaching assistants’ jobs remain insecure.
Furthermore, the law will achieve nothing if the staff who implement it are not trained to deal with the disabled or with the arrival of the disabled. “When a handicapped child arrives at the school doors, it gives rise to a number of fears and anxieties. While these may be legitimate, they should be dealt with at some point, or at least some form of support should be provided : this is the role of the training programme.”
At the beginning of the 2007-08 school year, a French opposition review noted that schooling for disabled children was a “dashed hope,” for the “opposable rightwritten into the
laws was poorly applied,” due to the “lack of assistant teaching staff (AVS) and teachers, both in terms of numbers and training” (Tranchant, 2008, p. 26-27).
In effect, despite the initial promises, the planned improvements regarding the reception of disabled pupils were affected by the reductions in National Education resources, and the suppression of jobs.
This policy of shortage that accompanies and contributes to discrediting the reforms might be considered an economic problem, but it also reflects a recurrent problem in the French school system, namely the absence of acknowledgement of differences and the tendency to relegate anyone who fails to adapt spontaneously to specific structures. This right, explicitly demanded in the case of disability, is the same everywhere and for all citizens.
“All children and adolescents are now registered in a school. This means that our child is recognised first as a ‘child’ before being considered as ‘disabled’, and I believe it was high time that this was stated and published clearly for once and for all.” (Faraut, Philbert, 2006, p. 19).
Nevertheless, after analysing the new law, Serge Ebersbold (2006) identifies a possible conclusion to the present topic 8: the inability of the French education system to adapt to all young people, including difficult pupils and pupils in difficulty, children “at risk”, drop outs, the disabled, and the “socio-culturally challenged” who do not adapt spontaneously to the norms.
The author firstly notes that the semantic shift “from ‘integration at school’ to ‘schooling’” brings France closer to other countries that have already taken this concept on board. “Because once we start speaking about schooling, we admit that school is not an end in itself but a means. In other words, the question of pedagogic differentiation is no longer simply a question of pupils in difficulty, and thinking about disabled children’s schooling implies thinking about every
pupil, because what a disabled child may need, every child may need. Rather than focusing on the
notion of misfits, or extent of inability, the law operates an essential shift with respect to previous laws by thinking about the issue of diversity, making the school think about the needs of every child. In this frame, we do not think about pupils with specific needs, but only pupils who all need teaching
methods and support measures that enable them to succeed, to construct their lives and to gain a foothold. (p. 37).”
Finally, “Thinking about disability in school means thinking about disability as an opportunity.”
“Thinking about schooling for children with a disability implies thinking about school for everyone, in
other words thinking about school in a different way, thinking about the ability of every one of us to construct a world based on human beings and living together.” (p. 38-39).
This leads on to the notion of partnerships, which as we already saw, arise from all the difficulties encountered by teachers with regard to drop-outs or disadvantaged
populations as, in such cases, turning to others faced with the same situations appears to be a necessity and is imposed by legislation.
“It seems to me that we will never develop coherence regarding schooling in the ‘ordinary’ environment if we don’t question the legitimacy of each and every one of us. What is the parents’ legitimacy in the process? It is a moral legitimacy but not necessarily an institutional legitimacy with respect to the rationality of the school? What is the legitimacy of professionals in the social and medico-social sector given that they were created as an alternative and thus in opposition to school ? (…)
If the parents, more often than not for financial reasons, have to ‘select’ the professional and are unable to be present when the project is drawn up, they risk being considered as inadequate or remaining in the background. What is important in the partnership is to develop a collective social capital and to create resources for families to help them to be socially and professionally involved in the project” (p. 39). Similar analyses have been produced by researchers in the domain of young people from immigrant backgrounds and ethnic and religious minorities. We will explore these aspects in ToR 9. As already noted, these points of convergence suggest that rather than restrict solutions to problematic situations in special cases which are treated separately from the school system overall, we should instead review national education policies overall.
REFERENCES : QUOTED TEXTS AND AUTHORS
APF (Association des paralysés de France). (2008). Ni pauvre. Ni soumis. 29 mars une date historique dans l’histoire de l’AFP et de ses adhérents. Ensemble, n° 100, juin 2008, p. 4-6.
Beauvais, L. (2008). En place pour l’égalité des chances. In Les cahiers de la compétitivité, spécial Handicap. Cahier du Monde daté du 10 avril 2008, n° 19662, p. I.
Beauvais, L. (2008). « Les efforts accomplis commencent à porter leurs fruits. ». In Les cahiers de la compétitivité, spécial Handicap. Cahier du Monde daté du 10 avril 2008, n° 19662, p. VIII. Ebersold, S. (2006). La nouvelle loi change radicalement la place du handicap pour l’école. Reliance.
Revue des situations de handicap, de l’éducation et des sociétés, n° 22, décembre 2006, p. 37- 39.
Faraut, M.-C., Philbert, M.-C. (2006). L’éducation et la formation : 1975-2005. Quelles évolutions ?
Reliance. Revue des situations de handicap, de l’éducation et des sociétés, n° 22, décembre
2006, p. 17-21.
Paulay, A. (2008). « La tolérance à la discrimination diminue ». In Les cahiers de la compétitivité, spécial Handicap. Cahier du Monde daté du 10 avril 2008, n° 19662, p. I.
Toustou-Chedlize,E. (2008). L’école pour tous en voie de concrétisation . In Les cahiers de la compétitivité, spécial Handicap. Cahier du Monde daté du 10 avril 2008, n° 19662, p. VIII). Tranchant, B. (2008). Le handicap à bras-le-corps. L’hebdo des socialistes, 27-9-08, p. 26-27.