Sistema de agua potable

This section aims to draw up a provisional assessment of the research conducted over the last five years. In line with the initial questions, it is organised around four points: the interest of the experiment conducted in the school, the development of the results put forward, problem areas, and the eventual transferability of what was set up. It can only be understood however, in the light of the whole work which supports and helps construe it.

2-2-1 –The interest of the experiment

The interest may be organised around a dozen or so dimensions that we believe give rise to ‘positive effects.’

Fundamentally, in relation to the previous situation, the school has improved, both with respect to the increase in the number of pupils and their image in the social environment, and regarding the knowledge and know-how assessed institutionally. The problems of violence tended to decrease, accompanied by an evolution in the pupils’ representations and standards. Greater incorporation of regulations, rules and values was noted, with better appropriation of the rules than that noted in other institutions, a greater sense of justice and better acceptance of sanctions, together with fewer problems between pupils. Three other factors illustrate the substantial nature of these ‘changes’: acts of violence decreased very rapidly (it was already noticeable one month after the experiment began), the ‘climate’ (of work, education and justice) also improved considerably, becoming notably better than that in many other schools, and disputes dealt with during staff meetings were increasingly related to schoolwork rather than conflicts with no relation to studying.

‘Problem’ pupils sent by other schools or pupils “in great psychological difficulty” also seemed to integrate better as they were treated in the same way as the others, and their

“recovery” was in close liaison with the shared pedagogy and construction of knowledge… Consequently, we noted during interviews and observations that there were fewer school motives for pupils to ‘suffer,’ and that as they were able to fit in and were encouraged to ask questions, many of these pupils felt less humiliated and impotent. We could therefore suggest that, as a general rule, the pupils’ institutional set up can contribute to the recovery of some children.

We also felt that the relationship with the school, and with work, learning and knowledge… seemed to evolve in a ‘positive’ way: the work climate and the value given to the work carried out; greater autonomy in the tasks carried out, and greater risk- taking as opposed to the inhibition of pupils often noted elsewhere; development of a reflexive distance accompanied by explanations and longer and better supported arguments, with greater attention to coherence and meaning; feeling of security and serenity (for example, during the introduction to writing) ; clear links between situations, activities and objectives; awareness and control of tasks; sense given to learning and early and strong feeling of being in learning situation at school via work; positive vision of school and knowledge... In a way, we could suggest that the way the pupils study and their relationships with the school, work, learning and knowledge, etc. that are developed and express themselves through their practice are the major outcomes of the teaching method introduced here, certainly facilitating learning acquisition.

With respect to the learning of the different disciplines, even if the results continue to vary, many of them have shown progress since the experiment was first set up, with performances equal or superior to those of pupils from the same backgrounds but who work in a different teaching setting, or even, in some areas, with results that are closer to those of pupils from more advantaged backgrounds. This is the case for:

– the introduction to writing (with awareness of the stages that need to be covered, clarity concerning the activities undertaken, enhanced sensitivity to the sense and functions of texts);

– written production with, in particular, effort (development of the length of texts, frequency of writing…), diversification of textual means, joint updating of the imaginary and textual structuring …

– the management of oral production (from nursery school onwards) with interesting indicators regarding listening and respect for others, the length of productions, elocution and confidence, the ability to speak without notes, risk-taking or even the construction of possible roles;

–maths learning with remarkable performances (in axial symmetry, for example), the development of explanations and arguments, the variety of strategies used, task control …

– academic learning, particularly with regard to calling into question, relationship with knowledge, fitting it into networks (within the class) and the dynamics at work in its development, the importance of observation, awareness of the importance of multiple reference sources …

In every case, we have to add, concurrently, the beginning of the use of questioning (providing meaning for the pupils) and research (which authorises and supports trying out, turning to multiples tools, length of time…) as well as the development of a self- assessment aspect (enabling the state of their performance to be analysed more precisely, pointing to possible improvements and introducing a concern for means to verify the success of the task).

Contrary to many generally accepted ideas, the move to the first year of secondary school is not a particularly traumatic experience. Globally, even if, for these pupils, as for others, changing school brings with it certain fears, their level does not suffer, there is continuity in their performance and results, and they compare well with their peers from other schools. They are not more ‘lost’ than others and, in addition, they demonstrate a reflexive capacity that enables them to compare ways of working and teaching methods often better than other pupils. At any rate, we have the impression that the development of a feeling of safety and self confidence in the Hélène Boucher school, as well as autonomy in their work organisation and their judgements may not resolve all the problems, but has given a number of them considerable advantages in overcoming certain difficulties linked to the transition to another school.

Some interesting effects were also noted regarding the teachers in this school: no requests to change schools, mutual support, constant dialogue (including between nursery and primary school), congruence in the way they work within the school, stimulation of inventiveness, successful integration of some ‘peripheral’ contributors (RASED8 teacher, teaching support staff…), perceptive evaluative analysis of their practices, continual calling into question of the initiatives, operations and tools … In parallel, we noted that this experiment generated real stimulation and greater attention to practices and results between the schools in the area, illustrated by an improvement in the results during national assessments.

On the parents’ side, we noted certain shifts in discourse, attitudes and behaviour: increased satisfaction with the school, improvement (if fragile) of certain relationships, slightly more involvement as parents of pupils, or even as an evening workshop coordinator …

We need to add two other important remarks to these aspects, regarding the pupils in this school. They are not as destabilised as others when confronted with tasks, situations or unusual tests (which seems to indicate a real adaptive flexibility) and they are more confident than others in their relationships with adults that they don’t know very well. All this brings us to posit categorically that, according to our study, with respect to the prior school situation, the pupils concerned and the surrounding environment, the experiment conducted here has proved beneficial.

2-2-2 - Some problems

However, we also have to point to certain limitations to the beneficial character mentioned previously. I would like to highlight four problem areas in particular.

In the first place, the initiative and its outcomes remain fragile, in a particularly difficult social environment, subject to sporadic dysfunctions linked to personal difficulties, relationships with the police, human dramas, etc. The parents’ involvement remains minimal. The pupils’ incorporation of standards remains unsteady as illustrated by recurrent problems when replacements arrive, for example. This probably reflects the fact that the patiently constructed reference points remain highly tributary to the measures in place and the teachers’ authority. It reminds us, at any rate, of just how ‘difficult’ the pupils can be.

We also believe that the promotion of the concept in place in the school also gives rise to certain problems:

– less attention paid to the pupils (very relative, however, compared to other schools) at certain moments (visits by the media, for example) ;

– difficult relations at times with occasional contributors (psychologist, nurse…) who may have the impression that their competencies or their power is called into question; – tense relations with neighbouring schools at times, which feel targeted, less supported, and above all, in competition;

– heightened sensitivity to incidents with the parents.

Other less successful aspects can be identified in disciplinary learning situations. This concerns, for example, some aspects of writing (syntax, spelling and vocabulary), the

highly ritualised oral production measures which at times generate stilted and routine interactions, the mastering of formalised ‘academic’ practises (weakness in the disciplinary vocabulary or codes of grammar, maths and science; wavering use of mathematical concepts that can be less immediately contextualised within everyday life; destabilisation in the face of metalinguistic exercises whose sense and function are only perceived to a limited extent).

Lastly, we identified a certain heterogeneity in the pupils’ progress (a relative stagnation or regression during the second year of the experiment, for example) and in the impact that was more or less intense, depending on the level and the pupils.

Given these assessments, we are therefore continuing to work on the relations between the solidity and the fragility of what has been created; between a space of autonomy, authorisation and freedom on the one hand and the setting of limits on the other; between the development of a reflexive attitude on the one hand and problems of ‘academic’ formalisation on the other.

2-2-3 – The difficult issue of transferability

The issue of transferability remains a particularly complex issue and, in the absence of large-scale experimentation over a relatively long timeframe, there is inevitably a speculative dimension that, in addition, overlaps the possible and the desirable. The following points, which have resulted from long joint discussions by the team, should therefore be considered with a certain degree of caution.

1° Transferability : hypotheses concerning the possible and the desirable

It appeared to us a priori possible and desirable to transfer certain principles and working methods insofar as, either they have proved successful in other schools (with similar associated effects), or replacements or teachers other than the ‘permanent’ staff have been able to use them and make them work without too much difficulty, or again, they can be appropriated by other teachers in such a way that the great benefits will largely and rapidly compensate for the cost of certain changes in teaching methods. With respect to the working principles, we would like to highlight:

– team solidarity;

– the collective and continual construction of working rules and their scrupulous respect (by both pupils and teachers);

– respect for pupils and constant attention to their progress, the questions they ask and the problems they may come across;

– the concern to keep parents informed in as detailed a way as possible and to involve them in the school;

– the emphasis on cooperation and mutual support, as well as the articulation between the recognition of pupils as unique and the construction of a community;

– the importance given to the notion of work and conscious effort, together with a real concern to value everyone’s efforts;

– the strong articulation between production (diversified, frequent…) and the establishment of a reflective attitude;

– the diversity of categories of activities and positions in the face of knowledge, together with the constant forging of links between them;

– the development of a learning climate (serenity, right to make mistakes, encouraging all attempts, optimization, using the pupils’ questions for a basis, listening to their questions, replying to their requests for clarification…) ;

– the constant search for clarity with regard to frameworks, rules, tasks, objectives… – the importance of time (to adjust to the learning path of each individual, to complete research…), which should be highly structured while nonetheless remaining “open”; – the development of a common class culture, transaction between school and out-of- school cultures, common heritage and basis for research…

With respect to the initiatives, we can probably mention – apart from the free writing and the “what’s new?” (in the forms adopted here and not in their vulgate) – research and mathematics creations, cooperative dictations, ways of integrating IT tools (in everyday working life), socialisation measures (exhibitions, brochures disseminated to outside, presentations to parents on Saturdays…), regular and frequent staff meetings, jobs (with different responsibilities given to the children), the many types of reminders (images or texts produced by the teacher to echo the pupil’s work; questions to develop or to socialise individual research …); public management of behavioural problems; the introduction of tailored work plans; various frequent and early public speaking situations accompanied by controlled listening; regular readings to the nursery school children by the primary school children …

2° Transferability: some issues regarding what is possible and what is desired

Several categories of issues should be taken into consideration. First of all, it is clear that the ‘success’ noted is dependent, in this instance, on the way the team was put

together – co-opting the other members to join the project – which we see as both legitimate and justified, in other words, in the case of a school in difficulty in a particularly disadvantaged environment, but in which abuses can also easily be envisaged if this system is generalised beyond the targeted and justified projects.

Secondly, here, as in many experiments, three elements are highly present: the tremendous involvement of the teachers, the high level of professional competency as much in terms of some of the content as with the measures and the belief in the principles and initiatives in place. It is easy to understand that many teachers would not wish to get as involved in such a project, that the competencies demonstrated are not very widespread and that they need time to develop and, lastly, that this belief may be judged as arguable, for many reasons.

In the third place, a classic problem remains to be resolved. If we agree to consider that the various elements previously mentioned function as a system, to what extent may any one of them (either principle or measure) continue to function in an identical way and produce similar effects after being extracted or isolated from its context and placed in a different system? In a number of cases, the comparisons that we have drawn regarding the initiatives (advice or discussions, for example) clearly indicate different ways of functioning and different effects, particularly with regard to a more formal shift. And with respect to the principles, unless they are underpinned by measures constructed in the same way, they very frequently arise more from a discourse of intent than any observable reality. All of this tends to highlight the need for caution.

We will end with a final question. To what extent is it possible for an ‘ordinary’ school, in other words one which is not seeking to experiment and to promote its strategy (institutional, social…), to adopt such methodologies without specific contact with the school’s inspectorate, researchers, teaching movements, the media etc., without the discussions, feedback and bonuses (symbolic) linked to these exchanges? This raises a serious paradox: the more experimental the school practices in place, the more the transferability it is trying to promote is likely to be endangered …

We are well aware that what is desirable belongs more to the nation, to politics and to institutional decision-makers, but we would nevertheless like to highlight two points in this respect.

The first arises both from policies (to what extent is it desirable to attempt to unify educational operations?) and from research insofar as, in our opinion, there are far too many gaps in the information on which such decisions are based:

– it is important, in effect, to extend the methodology and the effects of these teaching methods, in particular by studying their differences depending on the school level and the category of pupils (primary school, types…);

– it is equally important to study these issues in more depth, taking into account other styles of teaching (project-based teaching, for example);

– it is still crucial to clearly formulate these questions with competent teachers who respect their pupils with respect to what we include in the category of ‘classic’ or ‘ traditional’ working methods, in order not to be too quick to throw out approaches that have sometimes been hastily compiled or criticized on the basis of certain abuses… The second point concerns the limitations of the working methods we have studied, especially as they may exclude a priori other interesting possibilities from the specialised literature which exist elsewhere (small group work, individual help with spelling problems, instructions for joint writing, long writing…), or in that some of the emphasis (on research and creation in mathematics, for example) results in a certain degree of disequilibrium (absence of similar grammar or science initiatives, for example).