Student interest. “Magical” formula often used by the institution, National Education, to pass the pill when teachers are outraged by its proposals. “To oppose or resist would be to harm the “interests of the students”” writes Laurence De Cock. “The image hits the mark, it activates immediate guilt; what could be worse for a teacher than to go against “student interest”? “. The historian devotes her column to it.
At the moment, the Inspectorate brings together literature and mathematics teachers. Since Covid, which revealed the magic of distancing, “bringing together” means sending a link to connect online and thus giving yourself the possibility of a long monologue by muting the participants’ microphones.
The aim is to explain to them the “shock of knowledge” reform. It is a tradition of the house, the reform must “go down” to the ground through the inspection body. An increasingly out-of-ground simulacrum when we know that, often, the field in question is as much or even better informed about the spirit and content of the reforms, which have largely leaked into the media and have been commented on and dissected on the social networks or in different collectives and unions. But the simulacrum has a function, to maintain the chain of command and defuse possible anger. Sorry, “giving meaning” to the reform, that’s how we say it now.
Because these moments are not devoid of interest once we have taken upon ourselves our assignment to silence behind the screen, they show the deployment of New Public Management in National Education and we must admit that it is sometimes fascinating.
One of the key formulas of this little game is the following: “student interest”. All reforms, all top-down and non-concerted decisions are justified by “the interests of the students”. Its use borders on the absurd, the void. And as always with New Public Management, it is this void that creates coercion. The formula is designed for this: above all, say nothing and force blind obedience.
Because to oppose or resist would be to harm “the interests of the students”. The image hits the mark, it activates immediate guilt; What could be worse for a teacher than going against the “students’ interests”? The image strikes and in an instant cuts us off from others. It refers to ourselves, to our work, to what is wavering in our heads at the moment, to our deep convictions which are undermined by what is happening at school and to our profession. In a fraction of a second, we receive this injunction as if we were alone. The inspection is aimed at me. She must tell herself that I am doing it wrong, that I am not thinking enough of my students, that I am entirely responsible for my failures. The formula is poisonous, it presses where it hurts as they say. It is made for that, to neutralize anger by transforming it into guilt.
When a company wants to get rid of a troublesome employee who has made no mistake, but who has the presumption to open up a little too much, the HR department summons him, preferably alone. She tells him in a cutesy voice that she is worried about him, that it seems to him that his work, after a period of flawless performance, is suffering greatly from his current dispersion. The HR department is worried about him because they wonder if in the long term the troublesome employee will not in turn suffer from working against “the company’s interests”. That is to say, going against the collective, even sabotaging this collective that the company needs to guarantee its turnover. But turnover is the condition for a comfortable life for everyone else too. What will happen if the business collapses? How will the employee live with the guilt of wrecking the ship?
This is how we silence the most recalcitrant. And that’s what we learn in caring management courses.
Reverse the guilt
So let’s take the formula again if it can make sense. What would be “the interests of the students”? In a school worthy of the name, every child, whatever their social, cultural, geographical origins, gender, etc., should be able to achieve the educational trajectory of their choice. To do this, they should benefit from dignified and respectful learning conditions. Firstly in welcoming, pleasant, beautiful, equipped, airy buildings; spaces that we are happy to find every morning, and why not sad to leave in the evening because the house is sometimes less comfortable. “The interest of the students” is also the joy of meeting friends, different children, grouped in the same class, who learn to know each other, to love each other, to hate each other and then to come back to each other. -like a few hours later. The pleasure of cooperating, of learning from others. “The interest of the students” is to feel free to make mistakes, not to feel ashamed, to progress at their own pace in learning, never denigrated, always encouraged by teachers happy to be there and feeling considered in their work. Teachers trained to meet the challenge of supporting future generations who will live and act in a more than uncertain world. “The interest of the students” is to bring children who are not necessarily born in an easy environment to experience some pauses of suspended time and to experience the pleasure of being a child like any other.
Instead of all this, what is offered to them?
I have already been led to say how the “clash of knowledge” is the most harmful reform of recent decades, to detail the mistreatment that it prepares for children now programmed to be separated. By standardized assessments which deny the singularity of children’s learning rhythms, by indigestible programs transmitted in the manner of force-feeding geese, by competition training, competition and the early internalization of a law of the jungle driven by algorithms which decide the bifurcations of life. A “clash of knowledge” which is only the academic counterpart of a much broader denigration and contempt for a young people who are frightening, who must be civilized and redressed, as the increasingly public speeches show. more authoritarian of the Prime Minister. Childhood is confiscated and youth sacrificed on the altar of electoral competition with the far right by stealing its ideas.
Shame on those who support this project by claiming to remain on the side of the children. And strength to others who are truly mobilizing in “the interests of the students”, who are resisting this groundswell and have reason to take enormous pride in it.
Laurence Decock
