The apostles of inclusion at any price

News 31 March, 2018
  • Photo Sylvain Dancause

    Sylvain Dancause

    Saturday, march 31, 2018 08:00

    UPDATE
    Saturday, march 31, 2018 08:00

    Look at this article

    Don’t tell especially in person, but reading the text the limits of “integration” into the mainstream class I was literally enraged. I screamed, threw a chair, kicked the dog, insulted the children and hit my joint.

    I know. I am ” a boy’s turbulent “.

    Turbulent ? It is an understatement.

    To a lesser extent, I felt this discomfort in reading about Julia Druliolles, a commissioner with the Commission scolaire de Montréal. In connection with the turbulence in the extreme in a primary school, she shares with us her indignation : “I have the impression that the school team does not want any more of these children. They say that it is too difficult, that they bother the other, that it is necessary to place them elsewhere. But the place of a child of five years, it is in a classroom, at the school. If a school is not able to deal with a student turbulent, it has a problem. “

    That was a problem ?

    The parents of the child ? The parents of the other children ? The students in the class ? All the staff of the school ?

    We balance then this superb sophism : “to Reject a child that can be considered as different, it is as if a doctor would say : I’m going to choose my patients not to take those who are sick. We do not have the right to do that. “

    I’m going to take back his false analogy in order for it to be a tad more realistic.

    The system accepts all patients. For my part, I am a family doctor. I get people healthy and also sick. I do not choose my patients, I do not reject anyone. By training, I am able to follow or treat most of my patients, but I am unable to treat. This is why I refer cases to my colleagues specialists : orthopedic surgeons, psychiatrists, etc, Some must be found elsewhere than in my office.

    The theory and practice

    To convince us that the inclusion may be to live harmoniously in the regular classes, there is always a disconnected we include the Ontario or New Brunswick as the model to follow.

    However, it will never tell you that these two systems do not fund the private school. The rate of attendance at private school is, respectively, 5.2% and 0.7 % in these two provinces. He will not speak to you not of the astronomical number of special programs in the public schools of Quebec. Not that it will come to the conclusion that it is the regular class which supports much of the weight of the inclusion in our beautiful province.

    If the ontario model you’re interested in, I invite you to read the recent announcement from the government regarding the education of children in difficulty (here). A small sample of measures from one system to light years of our quebec model.

    Ten years ago, teachers were fighting to limit to 10% the number of exceptional students integrated in the regular classroom. Today, this figure seems ridiculous. Such a proposal would provoke the hysteria of the apostles of inclusion at any price.

    It is true that this concept is admirable. No one is against virtue.

    Nevertheless, we are witnessing since the beginning of the years 2000 to an inclusion wild. The great no matter what. Of the shares for the sole purpose of giving themselves a good conscience.

    Because, behind the appearance of the noble principles, it hides a cruel reality. That want to make savings in the optical loop its budget. While this system radin household resources, who actually pays ? The student included his comrades from the regular classroom and all of the stakeholders in insufficient quantity who work with these groups.

    The reality

    You will read the text, Mr. Jean-François left the field of education. It represents the current situation.

    It reminded me of the famous pyramid model response to intervention (RTI) as it attempts to implant in Quebec. A three-tiered model.

    Thus, our interventions in the classroom should be appropriate for 80 % of our group (level 1), 15 % of students would need intensive intervention sub-group (level 2), and 5 % of students require specialized intervention, and individual (level 3).

    An interesting model for the organization of services, but which does not stick to the reality on the ground. I challenge you to ask the question to any teacher on the regular.

    I’m going to answer the first.

    I work in the regular classroom, in a school situated in an advantaged environment, according to socio-economic indicators of the department. In levels 2-3, I feel that it is rather the case of 40 % of my students.

    I don’t know how to manage a class ? Proof of my good will, for two years, I trained on classroom management in the company of the psycho-educator. I don’t know the best approaches to teaching ? The academic advisor cares for me.

    I arrive there just not. No more than the psychologist, the psycho-educator or a resource teacher.

    It doesn’t matter. The same finding emerged for years. The inclusion for whom, why and especially how ?

    No offense to some, if we are all equal in front of death, this is certainly not the case in the face of the school.

    End of the fairy tale of Disney.

    _____________________________________________

    The difference between integration and inclusion according to the CTREQ :

    “Academic integration refers to the fact that we place a student with special needs in a school environment adapted to his needs, e.g. a special class in a regular school. Regarding the inclusion school, it refers rather to the fact that this student, regardless of its difficulty, in an ordinary class corresponding to their age and located in the school of his district. “

     

    latest news