«We have lost the healthy balance»

Mr Bless, why should children with behavioural problems or disabilities attend mainstream school?

Because this increases their chances of being integrated into society. We have carried out several comparative studies on their development in special and mainstream schools. Children with disabilities who attend a mainstream school benefit more academically than those who attend a special school.

This learning progress is most evident in children with learning disabilities and least evident in those with behavioural problems. For children with intellectual disabilities, we see certain advantages in the area of language, but not in maths. Overall, there is a slight increase in learning success. In my view, however, another finding is more central.

Namely?

That integration at a mainstream school in their place of residence increases the prospect of social participation in the local community. In contrast to their peers without disabilities, children with special educational needs live in their neighbourhood: they are not drawn to faraway places when it comes to education and employment, their opportunities require a local radius.

That is why it is important not to uproot them, but to offer them prospects where they are likely to spend their lives.

They argue strongly from the perspective of the children concerned. Those who have to implement integration pedagogically are increasingly complaining about it.

Teachers have an ambivalent attitude towards inclusive schools. Most of them like the idea, but have reservations when it comes to facing the associated challenges. So: integration yes - but preferably not in my class. This conclusion is, of course, a shortened one, but it reflects the trend from the surveys. They also show that it depends on who is involved.

Children with learning disabilities benefit the most from attending mainstream school, those with behavioural problems the least.

Teachers are more open to integrating children with learning or physical disabilities as well as speech and language disorders than children with behavioural problems. In the case of children with intellectual disabilities, many express the fear of being left alone with this challenge.

The concern appears to be justified. Only 60 per cent of those who offer integrative support are trained special needs teachers.

In some cantons, the rate is even slightly lower. However, there are not that many children with severe disabilities. They tend to be the exception that schools are confronted with in terms of integration, and then there are also trained people there to support the teacher. If the teacher were denied support in this constellation, and I am not aware of any such case, this would be legally contestable.

Such close-knit support is linked to special school status. At the same time, the spectrum of so-called normality also presents some challenges - which teachers often have to deal with on their own.

Yes, they used to be able to send children with behavioural problems or academic difficulties, as well as those who didn't speak the language, to small classes. There are only a few mainstream schools that still run such classes.

The mainstream classes have been provided with the appropriate resources for this, i.e. staff support in the form of special needs teachers, speech therapists, classroom assistants and so on. Providing even more resources wouldn't help much, it might even be counterproductive.

Counterproductive in what way?

Firstly, with more specialised staff on site, children with special educational needs would increasingly be taught separately and there would be a lack of positive stimulation from their peers. Secondly, if I prematurely delegate children who are educationally challenging to experts, as a teacher I lose practice and expertise in dealing with such challenges.

A barely audible lisp, a slightly awkward pen stroke, and a therapist is already there. Yes, I have doubts as to whether resources are being used in the right place.

Swiss schools are well funded. The question is whether resources are being used correctly, i.e. whether the children are receiving the integrative support they need.

Do you have any doubts?

I wonder whether we are setting the standard correctly. Child development is not linear, but undulating and at different speeds. The spectrum of what is normal is very broad. Instead of accepting this, we assume that children should conform to an ideal. Tolerance towards deviations is decreasing. This leads to more and more measures, even where there is no pressure to suffer.

A barely audible lisp, a slightly awkward pen stroke and a therapist is already there. Yes, I have doubts as to whether resources are being used in the right place. We have lost the healthy balance. Some difficulties are part of it, they can't be remedied pedagogically.

20 per cent of primary school children are considered to have such severe behavioural problems that they require counselling.

Nobody wants behavioural problems, not even in special schools. Research shows that it is not a good idea to separate them from their peers. Then they lack positive role models to learn from and behavioural problems get worse. If we segregate them, these children will disappear from mainstream classes, but not from society - this threatens to have a boomerang effect later on, which will cost us dearly.

How can the problem be solved?

The school alone cannot solve it, there are so many factors involved. Urban development, for example, with regard to ghettoisation, where in some neighbourhoods nine out of ten children grow up in socially underprivileged families. Better prevention when it comes to early childhood support for such children.

Social influences also play a role: the acceleration of life, the constant confrontation with stimuli that affects children and parents, high professional demands and limited family time, from which education suffers because parents shy away from conflict. Yes, teachers have a challenging job. But the situation is not as catastrophic as it is sometimes portrayed.

Every second teacher leaves the profession after five years.

These are often young professionals. They don't have the experience of older colleagues, who don't allow themselves to be put under pressure so quickly. Take Curriculum 21, for example, which has greatly increased the workload. It's a completely overloaded curriculum that doesn't allow enough freedom to respond to the children's needs. You touch on umpteen topics instead of deepening a few.

Many children need more time, but they have to get through the material. It takes courage to leave gaps - newcomers who want to do everything right have less of that. Then there's all the administration involved because schools today are «managed». We would do well to declutter concepts, trust the experts in the classroom and let them do their job.