Scientific programme > Lecturers

Thursday 6 OCTOBER 2022 - Amphiteatre Louise Michel - 10h00 to 11h00

Conference - Philippe TREMBLAY

Professor at Université Laval, Quebec

Philippe Tremblay is now a professor of education at Laval University in Quebec City. He worked for many years in Belgium as a primary school teacher in both regular and special education. He is the author of numerous books and articles on co-teaching and inclusive schools. His research focuses on the implementation, study, and evaluation of schooling programmes for pupils with special needs.

 The ethical foundations of the inclusive school

The inclusive school is based on an ethical principle, that of the right of all to attend ordinary school (Plaisance et al., 2007). It posits the concept of universal education (Prud'homme et al., 2011) and opposes the exclusion or setting aside of certain children on the basis of their characteristics (Plaisance et al., 2007). In this perspective, difficulty and disability are mainly related to the school environment, to the obstacles and barriers that the school institution may put up to the participation and success of students. UNESCO defines Inclusive Education as "the most effective way to combat discriminatory attitudes by creating welcoming communities, building an inclusive society and achieving the goal of education for all" (2009, p. 13). This new understanding implies the emergence of an inclusive school with a differentiated pedagogy for all (Thomazet, 2008).  The aim is to make the school physically, pedagogically and curricularly accessible (Benoit, 2014; Ebersold, 2021).

In short, the inclusive school is defined by actions (differentiation, adaptation, effective practices, etc.), by considering the consequences of these actions and the system in which they take place (exclusion, graduation, educational success, etc.) and, finally, by values (equity, educability, recognition of diversity, etc.). It is a process in which the school tries to meet the needs of all (Sebba and Ainscow, 1996; UNESCO, 2009), which implies a paradigm shift (Clark, Dyson, Millward and Robson, 1999; Plaisance et al., 2007; Tremblay, 2012).

 This transition was based on several types of questioning of special education (and related concepts) using multiple registers of justification. As early as 1975, Kauffman, Gottlieb, Agard and Kukic distinguished different pressures or forces acting in favor of integration and then of inclusive education: philosophical influences, empirical contributions, the impact of court decisions and the effect of government education policies. Vienneau (2002) analyzes the historical foundations and proposes two foundations: empirical and philosophical and ethical. Tremblay (2012), meanwhile, classifies these foundations into three main categories: (Tremblay, 2012).

1 — The political foundations (international conventions, legislation, judgments, pressure groups, etc.)

2 — Pedagogical foundations (social model of disability, (de)normalization, transferability of practices, etc.)

3 — The scientific foundations (absolute or relative, perceived and real effectiveness, efficiency, reliability, impact, etc.).

In this conference, these three foundations of the inclusive school will be analyzed from the three main theories that frame normative ethics: 1) deontologism (appreciation, a priori, of certain acts as morally required and others as morally prohibited), 2) consequentialism (appreciation of the morality of an act according to its consequences on the general welfare) and 3) virtuoism (appreciation of the moral thickness of agents, beyond the acts performed) (Prairat, 2015; Lewin, 2014). This contextualized analysis based on the strengths, weaknesses and limitations of these theories will allow us to draw and discuss the contours of an ethic for teachers involved in the construction and development of an inclusive school.

----------

References

Clark, C., Dyson, A., Millward, A. & Robson, S. (1999). Theories of inclusion. Theories of schools : deconstructing and reconstructing the “inclusive school”. British Educational Research Journal, 25(2), 157- 178.

Ebersold, S. (2021). L’accessibilité ou la réinvention de l’école. ISTE Group.

Kauffman, J.M., Gottlieb, J.A., Agard, J. et Kukic, M.B. (1975). Mainstreaming : Toward an explication for the construct. In Alternatives for Teaching Exceptional Children, E.L. Meyen, G.A. Vergason et R.J. Whelan (Eds), Denver (CO) : Love Publishing Company.

Lewin, D. (2014) What’s the use of ethical philosophy? The role of ethical theory in special educational needs, European Journal of Special Needs Education, 29(4), 536-547.

Plaisance, E., Belmont, B, Vérillon, A. et Schneider, C. (2007). Intégration ou inclusion? Éléments pour contribuer au débat, La nouvelle revue de l’adaptation et de la scolarisation, (37), 159-164.

Prairat, E. (20145). Quelle éthique pour les enseignants ? Éditions de Boeck : Bruxelles.

Prud’homme, L., Vienneau, R., Ramel, S. et Rousseau, N. (2011). La légitimité de la diversité en éducation : réflexion sur l’inclusion. Éducation et francophonie, 39(2), 6–22.

Sebba, J. et Ainscow, M. (1996). International developments in inclusive schooling: Mapping the issues. Cambridge Journal of Education, 26(1), 5-18.

Thomazet, S. (2008). L’intégration a des limites, pas l’école inclusive ! Revue des sciences de l’éducation, 34(1), 123- 139.

Tremblay, P. (2012). Inclusion scolaire : dispositifs et pratiques pédagogiques. de Boeck : Bruxelles.

UNESCO (1994). Déclaration de Salamanque et cadre d’action pour l’éducation et les besoins spéciaux. Conférence mondiale sur l’éducation et les besoins éducatifs spéciaux : accès et qualité. UNESCO : Paris.

UNESCO (2009). Principes directeurs pour l’inclusion dans l’éducation. UNESCO : Paris.

Vienneau, R. (2002). Pédagogie de l’inclusion : fondements, définitions, défis et perspectives, Éducation et francophonie, XXX(2), 257-286.