Debate on the school: Why so much hate? After the ticket on the use of the word "pedagogism" I keep thinking about the "debate" educational. That this ticket stuck in my head for quite some time but reading the comments following the report of Philippe Meirieu cat in the newspaper Le Monde that precipitated the writing. One can read comments from a fairly high level of violence. Philippe Meirieu is treated to the best of "quack" or "incompetent" but also "public enemy" that we shall be responsible on his own in the "bankruptcy" of national education and even violence school! This violence about, even if it is not acceptable, is not new. It is found at work on many blogs. I still remember that when Davidenkoff Emmanuel was journalist with Liberation. The comments on each of the notes were very numerous and are, as Emmanuel Davidenkoff said in his last post in February 2006, "Witness difficulty discussing school, not for lack of combatants, not for lack of intelligence; but too much hate (s) annealed (s), of witchcraft trials, words that hurt for hurt. "Since that time, the question I ask myself is always the same: Why so much hate? I see several explanations families superimposed. Some are related to the Internet tool and especially blogs. One can also have a sociological approach to issues of power within the small world of education. Other reasons are finally in my opinion, to be connected to the construction of identity in art and thus refers to a psychologizing approach. I know this is a very risky area and strongly criticized me but I may still … ITSELF BEHIND HIS SCREEN … Let us not forget that much of this outburst is related to the nature of the tool used to express themselves. Blogs and the Internet in general, favor anonymity. It is very easy to express his resentment and violence by hiding behind a nickname. Initially, the use of an assumed name was synonymous with freedom since the expression on a blog can sometimes get into conflict with professional constraints. But today is increasingly a way to overcome all the rules of politeness and ethics. Another phenomenon well spotted in various forums and blogs, the troll, the flaming and echo. many lists is known that one or more people manage to change the subject of discussion by inciting controversy and using defamatory. The "advantage" of the Internet is that it is not necessary to be many to achieve impose this intimidation. Just one or two bad guys to give the replica and make echo flooding the comments of a blog or lists to give the illusion of the number and deter those who would intervene but does not taste or the time of the controversy to. This phenomenon is at work in the field of education debate. Just visit the forum or on the France 2 Le Monde, to realize the technique used by some fierce contributors. But if it helps to understand the intensity of the expression, it does not explain why this debate on education is so particularly passionate and polemical. We must look for explanations elsewhere and take it to some of the arguments used by anti-pedagogues. THE SUPPOSED CONSPIRACY OF PEDAGOS … One argument often used is that of the seizure of power by the "pedagos". "They" would take the reins of Education, contaminate the inspection and prosper in the physics homework answers free
IUFM where they decerebreraient poor students with a vengeance. Besides this thesis comes under the conspiracy theory and soon finds its limits when we look at the reality of practices and decisions taken, it is mostly a symptom of the power issues that are underlying this debate. Indeed, without the sub-Bourdieu, we can say that this is a classic manifestation of symbolic struggle that is at work for domination of the "field" of the school. It is clear that behind the repeated attacks and pamphlets are also at work structures organized pressure groups, unions, publishing houses. We also know the importance that may have resentments and disappointments, ego logic in individual behavior of this or actors in this struggle for influence. The problem in these terms is as comfortable as it has the advantage of placing those who develop into supposed ‘rebel’ against a hypothetical "Doxa" and against the institution. The position of teachers in this situation faces two difficulties. The first is that the official discourse borrows indeed often the discourse of "teachers" even if unfortunately it is often perverted and the acts do not follow the speech. The second problem is a recent historical period that has been disastrous. This is the time "Allegre". If this period was marked by some progress and intentions going in the direction of innovation, it was spoiled by a disastrous communication and contempt of teachers that are still suffering lasting negative effects today. It does not advance the education system and teachers insulting. As Philippe Meirieu was one of the minister advisers, it is unfortunately permanently associated with that image and still suffers a disproportionate and irrational violence. THE CONTROVERSY IS TO MEASURE THE LOAD EMOTIONAL Irrational, the word is out. I hypothesizes that excessive and violent nature of the debate about school is that the players have a heavy emotional investment vis-a-vis the school. And it refers to a large extent on how each has built his report to the school and its professional identity. Let us first of all that everyone, regardless of the "camp" is sincere in its commitment and is highly committed to the idea he has of the school. This is what makes the debate difficult (or impossible) and passionate. the passion you can not blame and we must recognize his opponents. But we must admit that singularly complicates things when it leads to the best of bad faith and at worst to violence and insults. We know that the teaching profession is a profession where one has brought into "I". And questioning even the mere questioning of what is the way it has built his professional identity (its values, its history and its past alumnus, love of discipline that is taught …) can be experienced as an assault. From what I see, my place of basic teacher in a school in suburban and associations responsible brought to public debate is that the discourse of "educators" – though they deny it – is experienced as inflicting guilt speech. And teachers are particularly responsive to this dimension because it is often difficult to separate the practice and the person. Talk of the job is often experienced as a questioning of the person. "The pedagogy is of the order of intimacy" had told me a teacher colleague of philosophy there a few years … The emotional charge is also found for non-teachers. I often say, in debate, in France, there are 64 million school experts … Everyone will has, or has had a relationship with the school. A happy or unhappy experiences, hopes and disappointments. The stakes are extremely high. For many, school is a nostalgia for a mythical time. For others it is a source of anxiety to changing labor market and the future of their children. Difficult in these conditions to have a rational debate and an expert voice on the issue. Difficult, in particular, to accept the job and the teaching methods may have changed, as above – far from the image of "vocation" – implies mastering a number of skills and equip itself with concepts useful in thinking about its practices. It is easy to mock the "peda jargon" and dauber on abuses such as the famous "repository leaping" … It is just as easy and comfortable to decree that educational sciences are false sciences. OPTIMISTIC DESPITE ALL … You can say that in these conditions the debate is very bad start. Despite all the attempts of the above explanations, insults and violence of the remarks in the debate on the school are unacceptable. For my part, although my nature and my taste for controversy incite me, I struggle to engage in debate with people who insult me. The only thing that can make me hope is to distinguish the practices and discourse. What I see now 26 years since I teach, they are often very virulent discourse and show the commitment of each other to who built them and engaged in this business. And these words it is very difficult to make them change. This is what social psychologists analyzed through the notion of "cognitive dissonance" But behind the speeches, the secret of classes daily, practices differ. And often there is a big gap between words and deeds. In both directions elsewhere. As colleague who will hold a "Republican" stating emphatically that speech "it is not a leader" and that he is there to "impart knowledge" is going to support wild with his students placed long moments to unwind own personal problems to a student. Another, on the contrary, who profess beliefs based on active learning will be found to often purely lecture he denounces elsewhere. It is an added dimension that complicates the debate. Again, and this is perhaps my incorrigible optimism (but it is an essential quality for this craft which too often cynical take the upper hand), I hope that the debate is possible and that out of these insults and caricatures. Although my purpose is psychologizing part and can make me the reproach, I would like constantly guessing the supposed opponents. And above that kind of intellectual comfort which is to see the cause of all problems in a hypothetical scapegoat and the solution in a golden age equally mythologized. The debate over school deserves better than this! Posted by Watrelot on Monday, May 12, 2008