In these back-to-school times, we wanted to talk with some activists
from the CNT education unions. Statuses, hierarchy, children on thestreets, sorting of students... there is no shortage of topics to try to
draw up a state of education. ---- For this interview, it is the
question of children on the streets that we addressed. ---- Already
published: * The statuses of education professionals, a cauldron with a
thousand ingredients * About hierarchy: "We think about our work, we
know what we have to do and we know that efficiency is more in direct
management and self-management than in hierarchical solutions."
* About "children without a roof": "A child cannot learn anything if
their basic needs are not covered.»
* About the "sorting of students": "This dream of the man or woman who
makes it alone, it is an individualistic delirium ultra problematic for
the kids."
* *
Sorting students
On the subject of sorting students, the so-called "Knowledge Shock"
reform seemed to us to be a good introduction. So we sent Alexandre to
meet Sofiane, a teacher for 10 years in REP and REP + (priority
education zones that have changed titles over the ministries) in Paris
(75), then 10 years in REP in Seine-Saint-Denis (93), and who is now in
charge of the systems for dropout students in 93. After a long interview
during which the recorder did not work, we met again in a café before
work time and we did not even have time to properly ask the first
question before it was off at high speed.
Sofiane: The Shock of Knowledge is, I quote, "a general mobilization to
raise the level of the school". A bit martial. And this mobilization is
done with three main "axes" . The first is "Better support for teachers
to lead the battle of knowledge", support which involves annual
objectives to be achieved and the standardization of learning methods.
The standardization of learning methods means making a single textbook
for math and reading in primary school, something that does not
currently exist.[See to develop this subject, the interview on the
hierarchy where the question of pedagogical freedom and the application
by teachers of "methods freely chosen and considered according to the
situation of the students" is addressed.]In secondary school, there are
a thousand different textbooks, each publishing house publishes one for
each subject... and teachers pick what they need. Here, it would have
been a single textbook, published by the ministry. Nice support for the
teachers of the Battle of Knowledge!
Second point of the Shock of Knowledge is "Adapt the organization of
teaching to the needs of each student", cool, right? Oh no... because
what does that give? These famous level groups, which then became "need
groups". This very problematic organization hidden behind a speech that
seems cool: teaching must best meet the needs of students, we will boost
their efforts, the weakest will have more attention, etc. It is an
individualizing conception of learning, behind a speech that could be
common sense.
We'll come back to that right after. The third point is?
It's "Raising the level of requirement and ambition for all students".
Of course, no one had thought of that... This involves, in particular,
giving "importance to diplomas". In particular the brevet, the diploma
at the end of 3rd year , which is currently of little or no use. And
Attal, the Minister of Education at the time of this famous Shock,
wanted to make it the obligatory passage to enter high school. Hence the
creation, this year, of experimental classes in each department which
are supposed to welcome students who should have gone to high school but
who did not get the brevet.
These classes exist? Are they in place?
At an experimental level. In fact, the ministry does not have the means
at all to assume this discourse of "mandatory entry point". You have
about 16% of students who do not obtain the brevet out of a little less
than 860,000 third-year students. Which brings you to almost 140,000
students who do not have the brevet. And these experimental classes, on
this contingent, it really represents almost nothing. So there are lots
of kids, this year as before, who did not get the brevet and who
nevertheless have a place in second year, mainly in vocational courses,
obviously.
But if we had to make all those who did not get their brevet repeat the
year, we would have to release budgets accordingly, which obviously has
not been done.
So that was the third big block of the large "Clash of Knowledge" group.
I suggest that we focus specifically on level groups. As of this 2024
school year, is it effective?
Almost not. Very few middle schools had the will and the means to set
them up. While the government had really not given up anything.
Belloubet clearly had quite crazy pressure on the implementation of
these groups, even though there was very strong opposition to their
implementation, both from teachers and from heads. The only thing she
got from Attal, who continued to control everything, was that we no
longer say "level" groups but "needs" groups. No one was fooled.
We should do a little recap of the education ministers because in recent
years, it's impossible to keep track.
Let's say that if we only go back to Blanquer, we're already under
Macron. So you have Blanquer, from May 2017 to May 2022. He notably
launched his "high school reform" by making education à la carte for
students. We'll see that later I think, it ideologically ties in with
the Clash of Knowledge. Then Attal until January 2024. After that comes
Belloubet but always with Attal (who became Prime Minister) at his side.
And it was even Attal who spoke in her place in official outings!
Basically, for her, it's spring and summer 2024. Wait! I forgot Ndiaye
too, between Blanquer and Attal, who did... nothing. He was so framed,
locked down by Macron (and the Blanquer cabinet which remained in place)
that he could not do anything anyway in my opinion.
You also forgot Oudéa-Castéra.
No but there... That minister was a joke, I can't count her.
And now?
I don't have her name in mind yet, I only have her CV. She's the lady
who can give us tutorials to hire domestic staff in Singapore. I feel
concerned, I think we're in phase.
Post-interview note: this current minister is called Genetet. During the
2010s, she ran a training and consulting company for domestic
recruitment in Singapore... She recommended in particular not giving
paid leave to her employees and sprinkled the whole thing with racist,
essentializing, neocolonialist remarks using numerous stereotypes,
particularly about Asians, "docile and hardworking".
So about the level groups, you said that the government didn't want to
give up anything.
This back-to-school period, these groups were supposed to be "only" in
6th and 5th grade and in two subjects, French and maths (the famous
"fundamental knowledge") and next year it would supposedly also be for
4th and 3rd grade (still in these two subjects). Except that setting up
these groups, in addition to the almost general opposition already
mentioned, requires a lot of resources, resources that have obviously
not been given entirely to the heads of establishments.
In 6th and 5th grade , it would actually be necessary to put classes in
bars on the French and maths hours (i.e. classes that have maths and
French at the same times during the week) and have 3 teachers for two
classes. Then mix the classes to make three levels, the good, the
average, the bad, at the discretion of the schools. And in fact, it
requires a lot of resources to succeed in aligning the classes and the
teachers at the same time.
What do these groups involve, how are they organized?
Welcome to 6th grade , are you bad at math? Well in math you will go
with teacher Whatsit, in charge of the bad ones, while your friends from
the same class, who are average, will go with another teacher, and the
same for the good ones. And in this group, you will find the people from
your class who are at the same "level" as you, but also students from at
least one other class: of course, it is not a question of putting 3 math
and French teachers for a single class... So you have to align several
classes (at least 2, maybe 3? each school does what it wants) on certain
schedules so that they all have math or French at the same time,
mobilize 3 teachers of the subject for this hour and distribute the
students from these 2 classes into the 3 different groups.
Math and French being the subjects with the longest weekly hours
throughout middle school, if you want to succeed in setting up this kind
of timetable, you need to have a sufficient number of hours and teachers
available. This is where the resources have not been allocated to meet
the needs.
Where are we in this organizational imbroglio?
There has been resistance almost everywhere in the country against these
level groups, from teachers but also from heads! The SNPDEN, which is
the ultra-majority, not to say hegemonic, union of heads of
establishments, affiliated to the UNSA, nevertheless released a rather
sharp press release very shortly after Attal's speech announcing the
Clash of Knowledge. Because this reform is a challenge to the
comprehensive school system. And that doesn't go down well even with heads.
And all this resistance meant that on July 5, the date teachers go on
vacation, in a lot of schools, the question of how all this would be
implemented at the start of the school year was not resolved. Including
when everyone agreed not to set up these groups or at least to pretend
to set them up without necessarily doing so (by putting classes in bars,
but without mixing the classes for example).
There are exceptions of course, with schools that have set up these
level groups. But the vast majority of them have not set up.
Let's get to the students: when do I hear about these groups? When do we
judge which level group I'm going to be in?
Let's ignore all the resistance in middle school, we just talked about
it, but also in elementary school from CM2 teachers who are sick of
sorting their students. Let's be in the strict theory of the Attal plan.
You, little Alexandre, a 6th grade student , this is what would happen.
You would have heard about these famous level groups since last spring,
the one in your CM2, without knowing exactly where you would be placed.
The groups would have been formed at the start of the 6th grade school
year, based on information transmitted by the CM2 teachers. Because to
get away from theory, you have to know that we have meetings, unrelated
to this reform, between the CM2 teachers and the 6th grade teachers
where we give each other lots of information. This allows us to
intelligently constitute the 6th grade classes . These are real
transmissions of information about the kids. So there, back to the
theory, these teachers should have also transmitted information
specifically in maths and French so that we could define the groups.
This information should have been refined at the start of the 6th grade
by the results of the national assessments.
And if you were already in 6th grade last year, you would have been told
that in 5th grade , you were not going to be with your whole class in
maths and French. You would have been with the strong ones, well done
little student!, or with the average ones or otherwise sorry, you're
such an idiot, you'll be with the cassos[social cases]group.
You said, what are "national assessments"?
These are assessments sent by the ministry to all establishments
(national therefore) so that they can administer them to students. They
take place within the more general framework of international
measurement of student levels, with criteria given by the OECD, in
particular the media-famous PISA survey. It is the obsession of always
evaluating everything you do (what teachers do, etc.) and as far as
public policies are concerned, these assessments are systematically
based on strictly quantitative criteria. It always has this completely
inhuman side of never measuring, for example, the pleasure that people
have in doing this or that thing (students in coming to school, for
example).
As far as school is concerned, the big thing is "the academic level, in
France, is not going well at all" and so we are going to change a lot of
things (clash of knowledge) and measure all that by evaluating students
every year from CP to 2nde . Until now, the national assessments were
CP, 6th , 2nd , then 4th and CM1 I think, I don't remember exactly.
Are these assessments the brevet and the baccalaureate?
No, it's something else. These are "diagnostic assessments" - so to
speak - which are done at the beginning of the year to assess the level.
"This student who is going into 6th grade , what can he do in maths and
French?" Always the same, the self-proclaimed "fundamentals" and only
these fundamentals.
It's a test parachuted in from above, from the ministry, that the
teachers don't know about and that the students take in front of a
computer, generally in the form of multiple choice questions. It's
terribly brutal.
This back-to-school season, there have been quite a few calls made by
the CNT unions and local inter-unions - some of which can be found on
the confederal website - to boycott these assessments. I remember
Rennes, 93...
To not pass the assessments and not pass them at all, indeed.
In fact, what's crazy about these assessments is that all the teachers
at the beginning of the year do this type of assessment. But we do it
our way, with our elements and just for our class, not to pass them.
Because when you take over a class with lots of students you don't know,
it's still pretty good to know where they are at. Whatever the subject.
Teachers have always done that. But now, they're throwing this at us...
It's once again so infantilizing and contemptuous. As if we hadn't
thought of it before... fortunately, the Grand Minister is going to take
us by the hand and allow us to progress.
So there have been plenty of calls for boycotts, there have been a lot
of pockets of resistance for a long time but it's wearing us down, so
let's not kid ourselves, there are also plenty of places where it ends
up happening. And there is pressure: in elementary school in the 93 for
example, there are IENs[national education inspectors]who tell us "your
boycott is going to have consequences!" Many teachers laugh about it:
"Whoa, maybe I'm not going to get a very good grade that would allow me
to gain half a point in 20 years?" But there are always people who feel
uncomfortable about it...
So in the Attal-Choc des savoirs process: I am in CM2, I am assessed in
a form of continuous assessment. My teacher fills out a file for the
middle school. And it is the middle school teachers who will make these
level groups, weighted by the national assessments that I should answer
when I start 6th grade .
That's it. And you are told that you are in such a class, but that in
math and French you will be in such a group. Which means that for about
a third of your classes (since math and French are the largest
contingent of hours), you will not be with your class. You are with
another group that brings together students from other classes.
Wasn't there the idea that the whole class would be good, average, or bad?
No, they still haven't dared to do that yet, it's too big, too visible.
We haven't yet got to the point of creating those classes. For that,
there's already Latin and that kind of option that sorts things out. But
with these level groups, we're still going to make distinctions between
the students. Categorize them from a very young age.
Let's make something clear: from the beginning, we have been saying
"bad, average, good", in a caustic way of course, to assume, in their
place, the ministerial policy. I suppose that the official language is
not this one.
In fact... I'm not even sure that they gave official titles to these
groups. Sort it out yourselves.
"These level groups question more generally the framework in which we learn.
"
Why are these groups not good? You put "bad" students together, you give
them more resources, you have teachers who can give lessons more adapted
to their level...
And teachers who will also be more interested? Yes, that's in your ideal
world Alex, it's beautiful. Here it would be fantastic: "we give more to
those who need it". But no, Alex!, that's not the real world.
Of course, the question of students' needs is fundamental, and adapting
teaching is great. And in fact in our classes, we are constantly
adapting to the needs of our students, we didn't wait for ministerial
directives to do this individualization. The thing is that, contrary to
what might be common sense in what you just said, obviously in this
Knowledge Clash, there are no more resources provided for kids in
difficulty. So in this context, level groups do not work and this has
been demonstrated by many teachers. It does not work in the sense that
it does not allow the general level to be increased (which is supposed
to be the objective - international level...).
On the other hand, in a strictly quantitative way, good students will
probably be boosted and progress faster than in a heterogeneous class.
But at what "qualitative" price, that is to say in the pleasure taken in
learning? At the price of greater pressure, of new stress since within
the group of "strong" students, we will be able to become, in fact,
average or zero, the hierarchy will be reproduced. For the weakest
students, homogeneity is a disaster on all levels, both for getting them
to work and for the devaluation, even the humiliation that will follow:
when you're in a homogeneous group, you're immediately stigmatized, the
kids feel it and verbalize it very quickly: "Forget it, we're losers, we
won't achieve anything." And putting them to work, with this dynamic
when they're among themselves, is a real problem.
And these level groups question more generally the framework in which we
learn. What these individualistic liberals who have been in power for a
long time don't want to hear is that we don't learn alone. It goes
against their conception of individual freedom, which we have with the
Attal plan and which was the same for Blanquer. With his high school
reform, the latter has imposed on us the individualization of the paths
and specializations that you can take. He broke the major streams we had
(literature, science, etc.) for a "new formula" where you take 3 options
in Première and drop one in Terminale. In these options, you can take
whatever you want, which, in itself, is a beautiful illusion of
freedom:"I'll take for example art, economics and social sciences and
philosophy." And more maths-physics-chemistry or
language-philosophy-history-geography, to caricature. In itself, it
could be a great thing that we do à la carte. But it first ignores what
is needed as a cultural resource to know what is "strategically"
important to take as an option to keep as many doors open for you as
possible, to then do the studies of your choice (a choice that is
generally not at all clear in Seconde). Second big problem: it is
forgetting that we do not learn alone, we do not build ourselves alone
in our desires, in our projections, in our choices of orientation. We
build in a group with our peers, with or against moreover, it does not
change the fact that our choices are the result of a group. Not wanting
to hear that is to fail most kids. Only the strongest psychologically,
socially, the most armed are capable of making decisions alone, of
learning alone (and no longer revising while laughing and hanging out
with their friends), and that's a tiny minority.
I don't know if you know any people our age who have very good
professional and social positions and who, when you ask them why they
made such a choice after the final year of high school for their
studies, they say "actually I didn't know, I did like my friends." Which
seems surreal when you see the completely "successful" social,
professional, financial position that they can have now. And this
phenomenon, obviously, is reproduced at all levels. A fortiori among
teenagers where the importance of groups, peers, friends "for life and
death" is enormous in the construction of each and every one.
And so this hyper-liberal dream of the man or woman who makes it on
their own, who is able to freely make rational choices for their own
life, is an individualistic delirium that is extremely problematic for kids.
"We do not learn alone, we do not build ourselves alone in our desires,
in our projections, in our choices of orientation.
"
In this liberal vision, you say that there are these three groups of
levels, but that at the same time these groups are not different
classes, they are "breakdowns" of classes?
Yes, already with the Blanquer high school formula, the class group no
longer exists. But there with the Attal formula, it is from the 6th and
5th grades that you have a breakup of this group. You are in 6e1, but in
fact in maths and French, so more than a third of your class hours, you
are no longer in 6e1, but with some 6e1 and some 6e2 (and maybe even
some 6e3).
And besides for maths or French teachers, if you are in a middle school
that has decided to set up these level groups, you can no longer be the
main teacher of these two levels: you cannot be the main teacher of a
class that you do not have in its entirety. This has been a problem for
4 years, 5 years in high school: when, for a class of 38 students in
Première, there are 37 teachers in total (with all the specialties since
even two students who have the same specialties are not necessarily in
the same groups!), the students in a Première class are in fact only
together for the few subjects of the common core, half of their weekly
hours. So if you are the main teacher, who are you actually?
Is it serious?
Yes! You're not a homeroom teacher to get your 100 bucks bonus at the
end of the month! Well... yes, also... but not only that! It's a
follow-up of the students, to help them. Where are you homeroom teachers
of students you don't have in class?
"You break up the class group, you remove the collective reference
points... and you complicate or even really handicap the lives of a good
number of students by forgetting (or not wanting to see) that we learn
and find our way in a group, not alone.
"
And from the students' point of view?
It's always the same, as a student, it depends on where you come from.
If your life isn't very simple from a social point of view, when you
have learning difficulties because you have less easy material
conditions than others, when you doubt what you "should" do, what you
"can" do, then your main teacher can quickly become your privileged
interlocutor. For many students, a main teacher is someone important, in
their schooling, in their life, as a help. So it's true that it's not
valid for everyone, but it is for many.
That's what these group stories are: you break up the class group, in
about half of your class time, in subjects that you are told are "super
important", you remove the privileged collective reference that the head
teacher can be... and you complicate or even really handicap the lives
of a good number of students by forgetting (or not wanting to see) that
we learn and orient ourselves in a group, not alone. Once again, with
the exception of the few kids who have enormous confidence in
themselves, who are capable of saying what they want to do even if it
goes against the grain. But let's not kid ourselves, it's the same as
with adults, how many kids are truly capable of that?
"For middle school students, with the Attal reform of the Shock of
Knowledge, it's even worse than that. We don't even give them a choice,
we just break them by putting them in a job.
"
Are middle school students being asked to have a maturity that
first-year university students often don't have and that most adults
don't even have?
That's it, especially in high school following the Blanquer reform with
these stories of supposedly free and informed, rational choices of
options... But for middle school students, with the Attal reform of the
Shock of Knowledge, it's even worse than that. They're not even given a
choice, they're just broken by being put in a position. You break the
framework that allows you, especially when you're a bit fragile, and
even more so when you're very fragile, to cling to your friends, with
whom you're going to do your exercises, with whom you're going to
revise, from whom you're going to copy in class... because that's also
how you learn. When you break that, you take away their ability to
continue to hang on. You create that disconnect. It's not that you're
putting pressure on them, it's that you're taking away their crutch.
"When you break this framework, you take away from the kids this
possibility to continue to hang on. You create this disconnect. It's not
that you put pressure on them, it's that you take away their crutch.
"
I remind you that today, you are dealing with school dropouts in
Seine-Saint-Denis. Could you tell us about it?
Oh yes, for hours...! School dropout is something that regularly comes
up in the discourse of our great thinkers. These are the kids who can no
longer, for many reasons, follow classes, come to class, get up in the
morning, get to work... and who then gradually become absent until they
leave the school system. Without a diploma. And that is what poses a
problem for them: in international statistics, it is still a sign of the
failure of the French education system...
Because otherwise, school dropout, when we see the few resources devoted
to it, we can only say that they frankly don't care... Their problem is
to ensure that the good ones continue to be very good and reproduce the
system well. Afterwards, the weakest become boss fodder - as we say -
who will have no choice but to accept poverty wages, especially because
they don't have a diploma... it suits them very well. So dropping out of
school, in itself, they don't give a damn -beep-. So there are the
announcements ("it's really not good all these young people who leave
the school system every year without a diploma"), but very few means
actually implemented to combat it.
"Their problem is to make sure that the good ones continue to be very
good and reproduce the system well. Then, that the weakest become fodder
for the bosses...
"
What matters much more to them, however, are the hotheads, the
"unmanageable" or "disruptive". And we often hear it on a daily basis,
especially for middle school students, a link is made between these
students whose behavior is problematic at school and students who are
dropping out of school. The association is quickly made: "dropouts are
the agitated ones who do whatever they want and act wild". Obviously
there are agitated dropouts. But mixing up, or not differentiating,
dropouts with students who turn the classes upside down is crazy. And it
is on these "agitated ones" that the ministry is focusing in middle school.
This is to make the fight against dropping out a "simple" repressive act
or control of bodies (and heads), not to mention pedagogy and the
academic difficulties that could have led to dropping out, not to
mention the misery and social, psychological, medical suffering that
young people can undergo and that could have led to dropping out. As a
result, one way of fighting against dropping out of school is, for some
politicians, to simply have these spaces of school relegation that allow
the "good", the "nice", to continue their education peacefully.
For high school students, it is a little different, with compulsory
schooling having ended, the young people furthest removed from school
codes can be forgotten and for the others, we try to find them
training... or work... in sectors that need it... the fight against
dropping out of school tends to become professional integration (I am
exaggerating a little, but not that much).
"Mixing up, or making no distinction between, dropouts and students who
return classes is crazy. It makes the fight against dropping out a
"simple" act of repression or control of bodies.
"
We must therefore not confuse the official speeches on dropping out of
school, which are in fact directed at students "who cause trouble", and
real dropping out of school.
Exactly. For middle school students in any case. Besides, you have
students who drop out and who were nevertheless strong academically. Of
course, academic weakness and not understanding the issues at school
cause dropping out of school. But there are a thousand other reasons,
psychological, medical, social, geographical, for dropping out.
Do you draw a parallel between these level classes, this Blanquer reform
and this Attal knowledge shock, and the general concept that we call the
social sorting of students?
Completely. Level groups (and what preceded them in recent years with
the Blanquer high school in particular) are the contemporary,
neo-liberal variation of social sorting. Sorting through the fantasy of
individualizing paths that means that kids are completely lost, will not
make the right choices and will not end up in the right streams for the
future. It is a current form of social sorting, but social sorting is
not something new. It has always existed.
Before the comprehensive middle school, sorting was done directly by
schooling in different orientations after primary school. Kids from
working-class backgrounds stopped after the school leaving certificate
or continued a little in "upper primary school" while the upper social
classes went to high school, which started in the 6th grade and went up
to the baccalaureate. It was a form of social sorting institutionalized
by access or not to this or that type of training place. A very violent
sorting and which therefore existed well before Blanquer and Attal.
"Level groups are the contemporary, neoliberal variation of social
sorting. It is a modality of social sorting, current, but social sorting
is not something new. It has always existed.
"
You have spoken several times about the comprehensive middle school,
what is it?
The comprehensive middle school was introduced in 1975, it is the Haby
law, named after the Minister of Education at the time, which unifies
the different professional and general streams that existed before. The
idea is that all students, up to the age of 16, so up to the 3rd year ,
the end of middle school, will have to go to the same establishment. The
end of primary school is no longer a time for orientation. After 1975,
with the comprehensive middle school, you go up to the 3rd year with
general education, not specific to a professional sector. Students who,
before, at the end of primary school left for long studies therefore
find themselves in the same classes as those who went into apprenticeships.
Do you think that these classes of levels of the Clash of Knowledge are
a challenge to this single middle school?
Yes, of course. But it does not date from this law. Resistance to the
implementation of the single middle school was very strong from the
beginning, with the argument... that the level is falling... And in
fact, the unification of education by the Haby law is not total: from
the beginning, there were still CAP preparation classes after the 5th
grade , which were then eliminated... but replaced by others... This
desire not to mix everyone, to sort and classify has sometimes lost its
effectiveness but it has always been there. Attal's reform is yet
another variation on the theme of the level falling, that it is useless
to mix everyone when we do not all have the same abilities, the same
desires...
But if we (at the CNT) criticize this challenge to the single middle
school, it is not to defend the false equality that it allowed. We would
like a truly inclusive school, where all kids can find a welcoming place
that allows them to grow and flourish, even become emancipated...! So
our dream of an inclusive school, middle school, high school is not to
do 15 hours of math and 15 hours of French per week!
But while waiting to offer better... we wouldn't want worse and these
level groups are a challenge to the idea of the "unique" place, to the
very possibility of being all together and mixing. A perverse challenge
because it is accompanied by this discourse on the choice of children
(for orientation in high school with Blanquer) and the school that would
adapt to them (Blanquer and Attal). It is therefore perverse because
with all this good that we bring you, if you fail, suddenly, it is
really your fault! The guilt will fall on the students when in reality,
no real help has been provided... Geniuses... for whom there are no
problems, only solutions...
Thanks Sofiane!
Shall we stop there? We can continue if you want.
Yes, but there is a bit of work to transcribe all that.
Ok, then I'll stop.
The CNT education unions bring together education professionals -
teachers, ATSEMs, AESHs, etc. whatever their status - as well as pupils
and students.
The CNT education union federation can be reached at 07 82 14 98 31 and
fede-educ @ cnt-f.org and its website can be viewed here .
You can find the contact details of the education union closest to you
here .
This discussion is part of a file dedicated to the work of education
professionals.
Discussions already published in this file:
* The status of education professionals, a cauldron with a thousand
ingredients
* About hierarchy: "We think about our work, we know what we have to do
and we know that efficiency is more in direct management and
self-management than in hierarchical solutions."
* About "children without a roof over their heads": "A child cannot
learn anything if their basic needs are not covered."
* About "sorting students": "This dream of the man or woman who makes it
alone is an individualistic delusion that is ultra problematic for kids."
https://www.cnt-f.org/spip.php?article3706
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S N E W S S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten