The term “inclusion” is currently fashionable in education. So is kindness and, despite this, there has never been so much violence in our schools and centers. This insidious violence has taken hold slowly with, in addition, tolerance and its trivialization. Phrases such as “it doesn’t matter if he bites, he’s small, he’s only four years old” are widespread.
With the latest amendments to the Public Education Act, education relies on evidence and popular trends to guide the mission of Quebec schools, which consists of instructing, socializing and qualifying students. Is it really on these three axes that the school is currently focusing by tolerating such an increase in violence? Does the school fulfill its mission for all in a fair and egalitarian manner by trivializing violence?
Too often, a student shouts, insults, profanities, bites, hits or destroys equipment in a classroom. Should Quebec schools tolerate this situation because they are bound by the framework of the Public Education Act, which imposes compulsory attendance? What happens to other students when a student becomes disorganized, shouts, hits or insults? Where are the rights of other students to schooling? In the daily life of the classroom, when a student is disturbed, the teaching and support staff are always on hand to protect the other students. Meanwhile, the educational mission of Quebec schools is put on hold.
Who loses in inclusion? Is it the special needs student or the other 20 students in the group?
In times of severe staff shortages, the regular class is very often made up of a multitude of resources: teaching staff providing educational support, remedial teachers, psychoeducators, special education technicians, etc. Shouldn’t we group resources together in a specialized class, taking into account the recommendations of school teams relating to the needs of students, to give them a climate conducive to learning? Shouldn’t we allow students to learn, to socialize, without anxiety over a student who curses, bullies, yells, insults others, hits or causes destruction?
In this way, the composition of the class would be improved, which would allow teaching and support staff to teach, support, intervene and not manage crises or inappropriate behavior in order to ensure student safety.
As part of a survey, one in five teaching members of the Grand-Portage Education Union said they had suffered physical violence from students. As for the Kamouraska–Rivière-du-Loup School Support Staff Union, one in two workers say they have suffered physical violence from students. Note that special educators, daycare staff and student supervisors are the professions most affected. One in two teaching staff members also say they experience verbal and psychological violence from students. The statistics are no better for support staff: one in three employees declare themselves victims of verbal and psychological violence.
We seem to have already heard that violence is not tolerable… Why then tolerate it? Because the children are small? Because the student lives in a dysfunctional environment? Because the student has a mental health problem?
In short, the composition of the class has become more complex, yes, but probably the orientations of the school service centers, including inclusion at all costs, which aims not to harm the self-esteem of students with special needs, make so that it is now the safety of students and staff that is at stake. We are talking here about both psychological and physical safety, essential in a learning or work context.
Are we too tolerant? Are we hearing the heartfelt cries of teachers, support staff and students? Responding to it means confirming that integration has limits for students with special needs, who have the right to quality education, but also for all other students, who also have the right to education.