During my twenty years spent as principal of primary schools, on several occasions I felt unease about what was going on in certain classes in the schools for which I was responsible. I was not fooled, I understood that the conditions favorable to learning were not there, despite all the good will that the teachers could demonstrate.
Upon retirement, internship supervision brought me into contact with several dozen primary school groups in different environments. I saw, obviously and by chance, many groups driving smoothly, but I also witnessed extreme situations on a few occasions. Children of 6 or 7 years old who, at the slightest annoyance, found themselves in a state of crisis and ended up throwing chairs, spitting, screaming, biting. Situations that made no sense for the other students, teachers and trainees called upon to deal with such realities.
We must emphasize in broad strokes that the foundations of school are based on collective action. However, the current context where individualism tends to supplant the collective dimension has significantly shaken the columns of the temple.
In recent years, intervention plans have multiplied. As virtuous as they may seem, they add undue pressure on teachers. How can it be possible for a teacher to deal with a group in which more than half of the students have an intervention plan? There are limits to the adaptations that can be implemented by a single person. We are currently acting as if these limits did not exist. This reality is unfortunately the lot of too many groups. We delude ourselves. It is imperative that the composition of the class be marked out.
In addition, to cope with the few services offered by the school, parents who have the means turn to external professional resources in speech therapy, psychology, occupational therapy, etc. These professionals make evaluations and recommendations that the school struggles to respect. It goes without saying that the parent who paid top dollar for professional expertise expects the school to put in place recommendations favorable to THEIR child’s success. Who will we turn to to demand the implementation of these recommendations?
Inclusion, which I have already defended, is a theoretical concept which holds water on paper, but which quickly hits a wall when faced with the daily life of the class. The school in its current format simply does not have the means to achieve its ambitions.
Having been back in the classroom for four years now, my main observation is that teachers are fundamentally dedicated people who care about the success of the students entrusted to them. Obviously, they do not want to become poorer, but above all, there is their desire to offer a quality school environment to the children they meet on a daily basis.
In the context of current negotiations, it is surprising to hear the management side constantly repeating that it wants more flexibility. Teachers have demonstrated this for a very long time by accepting to take on challenges that are beyond comprehension.