Quickly read the article by Dominique Scali and Geneviève Lajoie onBedford primary school of the CSSDM.
They summarize the investigation report requested by Minister Drainville on the climate and the actions underway for years in this location.
Valérie Lebeuf, from 98.5 FM, had already sounded the alarm.
Eleven teachers will now be the subject of another investigation.
Clan
I read the 97-page report Thursday afternoon. “Devastating” said Bernard Drainville.
Devastating, shocking and deeply disturbing.
Humiliation of students, bullying from another era, classes plunged into darkness, ears pulled, students treated as “lost causes”, differentiated treatment according to sex, refusal to question oneself, infiltration of decision-making bodies by a “dominant clan “, etc.
Principals do not stay, teachers opposed to this clan leave, and the school’s bad reputation makes it unattractive, which perpetuates the domination of this group.
This dominant clan is mainly composed of teachers of North African origin.
And this is where things get tricky.
Both my colleagues’ article and Mr. Drainville’s comments invite nuance.
There are North African teachers who are not part of this dominant clan and who do not approve of these methods.
By searching, we will undoubtedly find other schools in which teachers of other origins and other religions also have methods from another age.
But if nuance is one thing, denial is another.
Who will seriously deny, for example, that physical bullying of children is more common in the more traditional and conservative cultures of the Maghreb?
The ethnoreligious dimension is an important dimension of the matter here.
It is enough to read this heavily redacted report to see that this clan of teachers seems, as the host Paul Arcand noted, on a “religious mission”.
Sciences are rarely taught (p. 18), as is sexuality education (p. 36).
North African textbooks from the 70s and 80s have already been used (p. 10).
Several teachers are very active in the neighborhood mosques, and people associated with one of them came to the school to emphasize “that it would be important for the management to have a good relationship with the Muslims in the neighborhood » and “that she works with them” (p. 62).
“For the teachers of the dominant clan, the protection of their honor is a priority (…)” (p. 52).
Skilled, they understand the importance, according to anonymous witnesses because they are afraid, of not “leaving traces” (p.47).
Tip of the iceberg?
These professors, who deny everything, defend themselves by invoking their conception of “professional autonomy” enshrined in the law.
Their leader is also, this is not making it up, the union delegate.
We already knew that the origins of certain students explain, for example, the rise in homophobia.
Clearly, it doesn’t stop there. What else will we find if we dig deeper?