Made by:
Cristina Nacif Alves
Educators, like other professionals, are responsible for the future of mankind. Every acting subject sets history moving: the history of the future. Therefore, the resources capable of triggering the transformation towards a better quality-life concern the human being. No technology, no matter how advanced it is, is competent, by itself, at assuring the necessary changes to the social inclusion process, if it is not ethically, conscientiously and specifically associated to the day-to-day practices of the social agents.
The human resources available in the different action, knowledge, and power areas need to be on the lookout for a question: which values is tomorrow going to be built upon? The end result of that meditation is going to point to the real social transformation.
That matter can be better understood when seen under the light of Foucault’s relationship between knowledge and power. According to him, the issue of power moves, above all, through doubts and restlessness. Starting from the principle that every social system is sustained by a desire position, power is better structured when the relationship between knowledge and the will to know is on the go, triggering the search for explanations about means of knowledge, its genesis and its function. Thus we come upon the knowledge technologies (scientific discourse) which establish themselves throughout history.
The production of the speech is, simultaneously controlled, selected, organized, and redistributed by procedures that work like exclusion systems, putting into play social and psychological control mechanisms. These are advanced domination technologies which end up diffusing through the whole social fabric (school, work, community, family, etc.), whose fundamental core of knowledge is made up of the so-called human and social sciences. Those provide the investigation and registration techniques, create and develop data sorting and analysis methods on individuals, their bodies, their lives, their passions, etc., thus giving rise to certain world thought and action currents, which interfere in consolidated conceptual fields, undoing beliefs and concepts, giving rise to new brands and new paradigms.
That way, the social agents by awarding the creation of truth on things, by trying to adjust the praxis to the rules of the discourse, build up the society. The discourse, then, slowly migrates to pedagogy and education, to the relationship between adults and children, to family relationships, to work, to medicine, to the whole social fabric, in a word. Thus history, according to Foucault, should be understood from the history of discourse, of the relationship between discourse and power. Thus we start to control thoughts and actions, coming from all parts, of each relationship between subjects. Those relationships are dynamic, mobile, and can be described in terms of force/power to build or destroy systems and domination schemes, being the core of any social and individual transformation.
Yet, one can not establish the exact moment in which the ideological transformation occurs, since the whole ideological sphere is expressed in the relationship and in the communication between the subjects of a certain historical period and cultural context.
The word is, undoubtedly, the instrument of communication, it gives truth the tone.
“Statements express and feedback the day-to-day ideology… The day-to-day ideology is expressed by means of each one of our acts, gestures or words, allowing the formed ideological systems to crystallize from it [the word]… Only the social interaction current provides the word with the light of its meaning… To ignore the social and dialogical nature of the statement is to erase the deep connection there is between language and life” (BAKHTIN)
Bakhtin stresses the ideological character of any verbal statement, pointing out that the ideological content of the reality is expressed in the facts, objects, things, words, and gestures – signs of a precise historical and cultural situation. Furthermore, he suggests that every ideological sign carries contradictory values, reaffirming its dialectical value, whose polyphony and multiple meanings are fundamental traits. It is precisely that crossover of voices and meanings that makes it dynamic, flexible, and therefore capable of transforming the state of affairs, redimensioning its own meaning.
Reaffirming the ideological character of all things and amplifying the understanding of the linguistic sign, Bakhtin goes back to the socio-historical events as fundamental aspects of the subject’s and the culture’s constitution.
Thus, by rejecting an individual approach to human and social reality, one recovers the value of the ambiguous word, which, at the same time, reveals and covers the truth as an indispensable theoretical construction to the theory of knowledge, embodying in the social practices another dimension of conceiving the human subjectivity.
That way of conceiving subjectivity is not centered, alone, on the inside of the human psyche, taking part instead in the various signs present in the movement of history. What is proposed is the amplification of the notion of conscience in the sense that it includes the various forms of organization of desire in the social field.
For example, the subject’s condition, as masculine or feminine, says something not only about its identification with the paternal or maternal image, but also the identification with models expressed in a social and political “collective consciousness”. In the same way, the quality of “being disabled” does not match, alone, the specific biological, physical, and perceptive conditions, but also the way other people deal with and face the disability, and also the established expectations regarding the posture of that social subject.
Therefore, the posture regarding human resources’ background should be tilted towards the development and the transformation of the subject within her culture, never outside it. The human being is made of needs, which are only socially satisfied in the relationships that determine them. The subject is a subject created in a social practice. There is nothing that is not the product of the interactions between individuals, groups, and classes. That is, all subjective essence should be considered as the interaction between external and internal objects and subjects, in a permanent dialectical inter-relation.
Culture is the common background of humanity, to which social subjects contribute, enjoying and turning it into the space of experience, which shows itself in the thoughts and actions over the world.
Inclusive education is not the one that accepts the differences but rather the one that turns the difference into a distinct form of expressing and operating upon the world.
It is not enough to recognize the difference. One has to transform the diversified action and experience into something that amplifies our vision of the world towards a citizen attitude regarding the differences. To deny the difference is to submit to pre-established patterns, which entails the loss of identity. The loss of identity, in turn, amputates our condition as subject, turning us into subjected instead. That is what we have to fight against in the spaces we relate with: the assurance of diversity.
We, social subjects and educators, have a duty, and we are agents capable of turning such a harsh and negative reality in what concerns those excluded, whether they be poor, black, disabled… No subject, infant, youth, adult, or senior can be kept from developing and acting upon the world with all her creative potential. Speaking more specifically about the student, not one can be kept from developing her full potential. And, if we borrow the words of Sônia Fernandez, during the “Inclusive Education: Present Diagnosis And Future Challenges” Workshop, declaring “I have many doubts, and very few certainties, but one of the former is that every single child can learn”, we are led to assume a learning conception which waits for neither development stages to make itself present, rather surpassing development and pushing it forward, nor does it await standardized development levels, recognizing in each pupil a being that is different from the remainder, with her own time and pace. In that sense, the role of the educator becomes decisive, mostly interactive, her performance with the student being responsible for triggering the necessary learning for the full development of the subject.
If we manage to transform the concept of learning in a way that it can be seen like the result of social interactions, we will be advancing the inclusion process, as our role as citizen and educator will be to assure significant exchanges between the subjects, and promoting co-building practices, through the interactive participation of the people involved.
The working plan on Inclusive Education under the topic of “Human Resources” was proposed in the Workgroups, during the “Inclusive Education: Present Diagnosis And Future Challenges” Workshop, making reference to three concepts – Inclusion, Inclusive Education, and Universal Design – based upon two guiding questions: are the cases presented, really, an inclusion project? What contributions can be made? The participating members initially had ten minutes to answer the questions in a piece of paper – which, at the end of ten minutes, was picked up by the group moderator –, the remaining fifty minutes being dedicated to the debate.
The concepts presented were
In the beginning the group questioned the proposed methodology and the definitions for the concepts of Inclusion and Inclusive Education, suggesting that they should be investigated and reformulated – which was promptly accepted by the group moderator. The group was not at ease to answer the first question either (is that case really an inclusion project?), because it believed that would constitute a judgment call, and not enough data was provided for that.
That initial resistance or reflection to the proposed methodology generated a distinguishing feature to this group: only two of the participants made written records that made it to the moderator; the others limited themselves to oral views. However, the content of the interventions and the reflections could be recovered, since the discussions were recorded on tape, making it possible to transcribe and retrieve them.
In what regards the group created in the online lists, as the moderator launched some questions, the contributions and the exchange of views became apparent, even though the previous acquaintance of the participants and the discussions of the previous topics made it happen that many interactions occurred in parallel to the one suggested by the list coordinator.
Referring to the concept of inclusion, according to the group, from a Human Rights standpoint, inclusion can not be considered a “new ethic”, since exclusion is a crime (CP – Law 7853/89). When talking about man, one is considering the human value, and to think of it as “more or less human” – even though in society there are segments that do not enjoy culture in an equalitarian way – on the one hand is to define by denial, on the other hand it is to incur upon a serious offence and contempt of the law. So, this is not about assuming a new ethic, but rather to assure that ethic in its expression; not just in the full enjoyment of citizenship, but also in its non transgression.
The central object of inclusion is the set of processes and knowledge related to the exercise of citizenship. Everyone should be assured the right of access to the world, both from the viewpoint of having touch with and absorbing culture, and from the viewpoint of acquiring knowledge accumulated throughout history, making it thus possible to individuals, groups, and classes the participation and the creation of new values and beliefs. Inclusion actions should promote the equalization of opportunities to the whole population, respecting the concept of diversity – whether it is cultural-, sensorial-, age-, race- or belief-related…
In that sense, the possibility of having where to fetch the necessary support for social transformation, for both teachers and students, is a part of the political struggle fought under the aegis of the social. The attained conquests are a product of thinking and rethinking, making and remaking, essential attitudes when adopting inclusive practices, whether they be educational or not.
Inclusion should be a matter of public policy, with assured budget assignment, both for human resource training and for the creation and implementation of technical resources capable of anchoring the proposal into action. Qualification and training of human resources should occur continuously and not sporadically, as an assurance of the transformations necessary for inclusive actions, whose efforts have to be compatible with the specific reality of the community, taking into account its requirements.
Inclusion should be a primary part of the schooling process. It is necessary to think of inclusion in the context of formal education, considering the several key actors: teachers, students, experts, managers, family, and community.
As one discusses the concepts, a consensus is created that including/excluding involves a vision of the world which in turn interferes with the daily practices, whether they are pedagogical or not.
Regarding the issue at hand – Human Resources – one considers that continuous training should be an action taken into account and assured by public policy. The political compromise of general society will be responsible for the extinction of inhuman and unfair practices, such as exclusion.
However, still, present society is structured in such a way as to attend the requirements of those subjects that do not experience any difficulty, be it economical, social, physical, or emotional, accessing the goods and services made available for the fulfillment of their needs. However, those that some way or another do not fit the patterns demanded by the system, end up seeing their rights being denied, being deprived of a full social participation, motivated by the difference with which they operate their lives.
Diversity does not imply inequality. Diversity refers to the difference in seeing, acting, thinking, behaving, whose structuring, in spite of the difference, is founded in a coherent and complex way, based upon a logic and a world vision appropriate for a certain subject in action, expressed in a certain culture and a certain time, the products of engendered history.
Diversity can not be denied: there are specificities that should not be rejected or neglected. Diversity has to be in the political confrontation, at the theoretical and practical levels, so that it can go on in search of living standards for all, which is the main goal of inclusive practices. Diversity can not be a matter of interest, alone, to the subject that experiences the disability or the one that belongs to some minority, being rather a reference to any of the interested parties (rulers, administrators, experts, teachers, family, community, in a word, society) who struggle for a fairer society which is more equalitarian to the participation of all.
“Inclusion without the participation of the people is physical presence (WGs, Workshop, 03/24/03). When we talk about Inclusion, we are referring to societies that assure the improvement of the living standards of all citizens. And living standards for all includes improvements in education, housing, transportation, health, leisure, world access… And for that, there are no recipes, methods or models that can be followed. One has to identify the needs for change, legitimizing them in a process of cultural transformation – which we believe to be on the way.
Therefore, it is urgent to establish a new paradigm aimed at transformation. “Paradigm refers to the set of ideas, reflections, and results. In general, a new paradigm emerges because the previous one was questioned. We can not confuse disagreement with denial, we should take the former as an investigation of reality and as a specific possibility of transformation of what there is already into something better and more appropriate” (WGs Workshop, 03/25/03).
In the discussion on the concept of Inclusive Education provided by the event, according to the workshop participants, it “comes directed to ‘special vulnerable groups’, positioning them in regular education classrooms. When the concept is focused upon the classroom, [it refers to the concept of Inclusive Teaching as opposed to Inclusive Education]. Inclusive Education requires an interface with the family, [with the community, with the specialist, with the theoretician, with professionals from all areas], with every public organ. And educational inclusion should start with the politico-pedagogical project which should, necessarily, cover the establishment of its pedagogical action. Meanwhile, it is a project that should be lived by the school. It should be gradual, progressive, and consented. However, inclusive education is compromised with social inclusion. School alone can not guarantee inclusive education. Education can only be inclusive if society is too, if society favors inclusion.” (WGs, Workshop, 03/24/03)
Regarding the concept of inclusive education, as discussed by the workshop participants, it should not be seen, just and only, as the guarantee of participation and learning opportunities in the classroom of the regular educational system. Of course, that is an important aspect of Inclusive Education, but it does not fulfill the requirements of educational inclusion, since it does not take into account the specificities. We can not forget the requirements imposed by certain conditions, whether they are physical or psychological, permanent or temporary, as it is the case of children and youth interned in a hospital, of those who, in spite of being in the classroom, require a specific attention. Inclusive education is the guarantee of learning on the part of the student, not only in the classroom, but in every walk of life.
Another issue that was described as being of fundamental importance when assuming an inclusive posture in Education – the one that prioritizes equal access opportunities – regards the “establishment of references for the definition of indicators for system evaluation. There is, within society, the coexistence of two paradigms: integration and inclusion. The integration model requires a system of services, a network of resources centered upon the individual, whereas the inclusion model requires a system of supports, a network of help, characterizing an intervention in the system itself. An inclusive society implies inclusive systems: educational, health, law and human rights… living and leisure…”
The Human Resources topic, the focus of the discussions throughout the work developed during the Workshop and the Inclusive list, scores the relevance of some items for reflection and the effective consolidation in the social practices:
Inclusive practices are part of a process that concerns not only education, but society as a whole. The social inclusion project contributes to the creation of a new society, the one that seeks structural modifications to the system, so that the needs of individuals may be met upon their request. Inclusion rests upon principles such as ethical conduct; difference acceptance; valuing different ways of feeling, thinking, and acting upon the world; access to available goods and services; learning that assures full development; restless search for new action possibilities. These points involve a pragmatic complexity that touches many points, such as: improvement of professional wages and living standards; generic and specialized training; compromise and pleasure in the performance of the job; but fundamentally, “change of outlook” on the world and the subjects of the world. Thus, the time we do not have, the value we do not receive, the study we do not invest in… all that becomes a problem of struggle, political struggle, against any excluding manifestation on the part of the individuals or the political power. Exclusion has to be perceived as a problem that affects everyone, not just specific groups: inclusion has to be a common wish, a common need. Therefore, those that thus position themselves should scream, yell, denounce, and compromise themselves with the transformation process that will affect us all.
Specifically, in what concerns education, an inclusive educational system is the one that, through its public policy, assures learning and development to those involved in the process – students, teachers, managers, community, family, etc.
The inclusive school implies:
Two other aspects were also thoroughly discussed and pointed as a way out of the educational crisis, and should be present in the action/training of the teacher: the pleasure with a good professional performance, and the compromise with the investigation-action in the midst of the school environment.
In what concerns the pleasure of work, a story was told and, in view of the relevance of its content and meaning, it will be reprinted and commented here.
“In a certain school, there was this teacher, who was head of a class, with a certain inclination for literary work. Her reports were always very well done. She taught a class of blind teenagers. [Only] She didn’t like to teach. Therefore, she was always absent. When she was late, she issued a notice that she wouldn’t be teaching class, so she could take care of her writing. Amongst her students, there was one that had an apparent mental disability.
A certain morning the teacher was absent. Someone came to look for her and someone else replied that the teacher was absent. At that moment, the aforementioned student, pacing back and forward in the front of the classroom, was saying: “She is frozen! When she does not come, she does not have why she did not come; when she comes, she comes and she does not have.” (Inclusive, Online, 05/22/03).
This story provides us with important reflections on the implementation of inclusive practices, as well as on the rejection and denunciation of excluding practices. Any initiative, whether it is positive or negative, founds a sentiment and leaves marks both on the individual development of the subject affected by the action, and on the wider social development. One can not just stand up and watch while the denial of citizenship, which is the denial of life, quality-life for all, is at stake. Those kinds of practices have to be denounced and cut out from the social spaces.
The compromise with the job in what concerns the technical competence is directly related to the pleasure taken in performing such and such function. When the pleasure for what is being done is absent, the result is, to say the least, mechanical, and the involvement without affection or sentiment impedes the investment in the appropriation of more efficient practices and in the future development. However, when besides the lack of technical competence, the political engagement is not present either, the result can be disastrous, such as in the case of the Story teacher, where the students are put to the side, they have no assured access to the school knowledge, they do not learn (at least what they should), they do not fully develop. A lot more serious than missing the technical competence is to fail the ethical obligation.
Starting from the principles of the Constitution of 1988, which already marked the social right to the Education of a person affected by a disability, the new National Education Basis and Guidelines Act determines that, upon entering a school institution, the citizen with disabilities becomes a student – a subject of the pedagogical making that is specific of education, that is, with a social role that is defined as a function of a specifically scholar action. The same Basis and Guidelines Act further establishes, in its article 59, paragraph I, on the responsibility of the schooling systems in assuring the students “specific curricula, methods, techniques, educational resources, and organization, in dealing with their needs”. A question can then be put forward: what are then those young people from “The Story”? Students would not be the correct designation, because in order for a subject to play the role of a student, there necessarily has to be someone else playing the role of the teacher. In order for there to be teaching, there has to be learning. Practices, such as the one described, represent the annihilation of the status of rights-bearing citizen, they are contrary to the fight against segregation of the student with disabilities, whose expression can be found in the documents and Acts and, doubtlessly, represents a desire to reach democratic educational goals.
In order for the pedagogical character of Special Education to be outlined, one needs the definition of an educational pedagogical proposal which assures the students the acquisition of the knowledge historically built upon humanity’s experience, trying to shift the work axis from the student’s core disability to her special educational needs and potentialities. An educational proposal should take into account the meta-theoretical models and the reference frames stemming from them, so that it is founded upon a certain conception – of man, of the world, of knowledge, of development and learning, of education, of educator, and of student – capable of giving (new) meaning to democratic classroom practices, that are critical and magnifying of the human and social capabilities of the students.
Conceiving both the curriculum and students and teachers as historical and social products, one understands that the school contents will only become object of knowledge through a specific educational action, which renders possible the meaningful relationship of the students with them in the practical activity. The role of the teacher then reaches preeminence as a mediator of that relationship, through a process of pedagogical intervention and interaction, making it possible for the student to move forward in the process of knowledge about the world, magnifying her action conditions.
However, the Special Education curriculum should be the same as that of Regular Education, once the special adaptation to the individual needs is taken into account. Content should be recovered and become the fundamental axis of the teacher/student relationship, without letting that content be selected from a lowering of the goals to be achieved.
One of the expressions of special education is the low expectations one has regarding the syndrome bearer, where one supposes they are not capable of achieving abstract thought, leading to practices bounded by the use of the concrete, eliminating any experience that associates with abstract thought. If that is the difficulty, it is up to the school, to the educational environment, to push the student in the direction of abstract thought, away from the chains of the concrete world and away from the limitation of her capabilities.
When the focus is upon the disability, it translates into and gives rise to low expectation and the weakening of the worked contents, not encouraging the student to overcome her difficulties. By supposing the student’s incapacity the teacher develops a mechanical pedagogical practice of little or no significance, biased towards the elaboration of routine tasks, which do not exploit the student’s learning potential.
One aspect of that “Story”, which should be underlined and rethought by special education, exemplifies the presence of low expectation – on the part of Education in general and the educators more specifically – towards the disabled person, which is affected by the belief that her mental capacity can not go beyond the concrete, being seen and classified as incompetent for putting together abstract thought. That supposition has led to practices that are cut out from any experience associated with generalizing thought, sticking to concrete methods. The speech of the “Story’s” student, classified as a bearer of a mental limitation, points in a different direction. When he says: “She is frozen! When she does not come, she does not have why she did not come; when she comes, she comes and she does not have,” the student reveals his potential for constructing abstract concepts, featuring possibilities for learning and for internalizing different views of the world. His expression not only denounces, between the lines, the lack of commitment on the part of the teacher but also the sterile school environment. The students attend, they do not skip school, their families do not give up on the expectations regarding the school teaching, but in spite of being present, they do not absorb the essential for their development to go forward and in new directions.
The points previously discussed open the way for discussing the quality of training of the educator, whose vision on what is learning and development, what is teaching, which is the role of the school, etc. are the basis of the pedagogical practices. In that sense, a training that stresses the reflection upon the pedagogical practices is getting urgent.
In that framework, the quality of the teacher training rests upon the movement of deconstructing the excluding educational model and, consequently, upon the creation of new paradigms that challenge the recreation of the sense of educating, triggering and consolidating practices that are both questioning and immersed into the “doing by way of thinking” – translated, here, into research practice.
Theoretical knowledge, in spite of its importance and relevance, is insufficient when confronting the demands of daily school. In other words, the efficient teacher training rests upon the investigation, the questions arising from the articulation between theory and practice, whose action-reflection movement is translated into transformations that move on to better forms of comprehension of the educational phenomenon and the search for solutions to the problems faced in the daily school routine, which is marked by unpredictability, by multiplicity, by plurality.
The one thing that characterizes the human race is being the product of social relations. The human being doesn’t develop the capacity to think and act but within social and cultural relations. Language, the thought, the values, the beliefs, the senses, the forms of attention and memory only develop from and in answer to social and cultural experiences, the ways and means of culture transmission being performed through education. Then, the educator that wishes to move forward in her educational work needs to understand the student’s development and learning processes. The development and learning go from social to individual: first the child achieves learning from interpersonal relationships which, as time goes by, become internalized. Thus, the pedagogical practices that stem from that vision exhibit the following features: the relationship between teacher and pupil is based upon dialog, and doing it once and again together; the knowledge the subjects possess is valued, the worked contents are significant; the pedagogical work starts from what the student is capable of doing in cooperation, since what she already knows she already performs autonomously; pedagogical work is organized, shared by the whole group; the evaluation practices are featured in the process, involving the performance of both teacher and students. However, one must stress that the teacher does not learn by himself, such as the student doesn’t, and so she must reflect, analyze, investigate, adapt, and redo, continuously her practice, mediated by available theories. Thus, success will be achieved.
Therefore, the concept of INCLUSION is connected to the desire and the need for profound educational changes: “the secret is in the politico-pedagogical project”. The mere presence of the Inclusion designation is not enough to redimension the educational process. One needs a politico-pedagogical proposal, a wish for changes in the educational paradigms and the social and political coexistence.
Inclusive education can not be seen as, simply, the one that deals with the matters of people with disabilities or vulnerable groups, but rather the one that encompasses all the students, respecting the differences without, however, trying to industrialize them with a supposed homogenization, characterizing thus what is best for the student. “To do the best for the student is to provide to her every need, however what will determine what is best for the student is not the seriousness of her disability, but rather how and how much her school is ready to receive this student”(WGs, Workshop, 03/24/03).
There is an attempt to try to abandon the practices of integration, assuming instead those of inclusion. However, in order to do that, one can not face the disability as something to be overcome, but rather as a different reality of acting upon the world. And so that new practices, capable of dealing with the differences, can be embodied, we need to investigate each action concerning the student, raising questions such as:
The inclusive school does not have to wait for the student to be ready for learning, taking into its charge, instead, that she is in consonance and resonance with what she is about to learn. That is, “inclusive education goes way beyond the physical presence of the student at the school, it has to assure a significant learning that favors the relationship, the perception, and the interaction of the environment” (WGs, Workshop, 03/24/03).
The participants in that debate on the present reality of inclusive educational practices and on the challenges facing its implementation stressed the importance of a discussion, a reflection, and a professional stance engaged with the access of all to the needs required by each subject. But, for that requirement to be in fact fulfilled, a form of continuous training has to be assured. Training should be continuous because the educator is seen here as a subject of culture, and since culture is a fertile, mobile, dynamic ground, she can not lend herself to dogmas and beliefs, one has to flex the thoughts and the practices in the search of improvements in living and teaching standards. It is necessary that the teacher’s action moves towards a practice of research, where the studied object reverts into human development promotion through learning, while it also serves as mediation in the process of building the identity of the social agents.
However, a very common practice, even to this day, is to think of knowledge, of education, as something that comes from the top down, from the more competent to the least competent. And, generally, each management proposes a new practice, a new model, a new theoretical referential with solutions for every single problem, “asking”, “soliciting”, not to say imposing upon the teacher that she abandons her previous practices and beliefs – as if everything she knew meant nothing, as if the construction of her personal and professional life history was not important. However, considering that past/history is the possibility of transforming the future, it does not make any sense to give up that past that is an integral part of the personal and professional identities. It is necessary to keep it alive in memory, so that in the present, it [the past] may echo the voices of the future.
But, in order for that professional’s history not to be denied and for her to have the possibility of tracing new guiding goals in her practices, it is necessary to start a dialogical relationship with that subject, to give a voice to her anguishes and her questionings, coming up in the midst of her present disturbances and uncertainties, thus generating a change-bound movement, a transformation of yesterday into tomorrow. To give voice to that professional is to believe in her research capacity, in her ability to come up with new knowledge and paradigms.
That, however, will only occur when the pedagogical practice is investigated, reviewed, continuously evaluated, so that the student – whether he is disabled or not – can in fact (and no longer, only, as a right) take possession of what is the “school’s fundamental role: to assure access to the knowledge already built up by humanity and the co-building of new knowledge emerging from that process.
Thus, we will be providing a school for everyone, where the process of inter-building is based upon the collective emergence of the multiple meanings that the school knowledge assumes in the process of social interaction.