a diploma qualification at the end of the cycle in sections d’enseignement général et professionnel adapté (adapted general and vocational education sections) (SEGPA). These “bridging systems” are designed to reintegrate pupils who are in the process of dropping out of school and desocializing into a mainstream education system in order to promote their mastery of the common skills base, as well as learning of the rules of social and school life.
However, these supports are not restricted to students. The support role of professionals specializing in managing school diversity is also aimed at school stakeholders. In particular, their mission is to support headteachers in developing and implementing a school policy focused on the accessibilization of school environments and the prevention of difficulties at school. They are also often responsible for coordinating, in conjunction with members of the education community, the implementation of support measures and student support. It is also their responsibility to respond to teachers’ requests for advice on the development of pedagogical responses to educational needs and to work on the accessibility of learning within the framework of existing programs or co-teaching actions, and so on (UNESCO 2017).
1.3.3. A corrective approach to accessibility aimed at restoring school legitimacy
A corrective approach to accessibility is intended to modify the school environment on a case-by-case basis in view of the difficulties encountered by individuals in order to restore their ability to carry out regular activities under normal conditions. In most countries of the European Union, this corrective approach to accessibility targets learners whose difficulties at school are the result of a disability, or a medically or psychologically disabling health condition. In France, it concerns pupils identified under provisions of the Act of February 11, 2005, on the participation, integration and citizenship of disabled persons, while in Finland it concerns pupils for whom the mere intensification of support by the school is not considered conclusive proof. Accommodations and supports are unique, specialized and dedicated adjustments to a individual’s support needs. These are identified by a multidisciplinary team including educational, socio-educational and medical personnel, and formalized in an “individual education plan” developed by the maisons départementales des personnes handicapées (MDPH, or regional homes for persons with disabilities) and validated by the commissions des droits et de l’autonomie (commissions on rights and autonomy) (Ebersold et al. 2017). The purpose of these supports is supplementary when they concern tasks that the pupil is deprived of owing to his or her particularity. It is augmentative when their ambition is to enable the pupil to do more, and to perform the tasks required of them faster and better. In most European countries, these facilities and supports are available in the form of adapted teaching materials (books, etc.). They also consist of human aids responsible for improving the autonomy of pupils, their learning and their social registration, through educational assistants; they also mobilize assistance techniques such as the addition, a posteriori, of ramps at entrances or the provision of computers or specific materials (Stephanidis 2009).
The imperative of accessibility correlates the personalization of practices to making practices ergonomic. This must guarantee access to resources and learning processes that influence students’ academic results through an articulation of differential approaches to accessibility: the universal approach to accessibility makes pedagogical flexibility the means to prevent any need for further assistance by organizing teaching practice around profiles, needs and learning beyond the act of teaching (CNED 2018); the integrated approach to accessibility makes pedagogical adjustment and adaptations the means of preventing the risks of failure and drop out inherent in school heterogeneity without calling into question the content of teaching; and the corrective approach to accessibility makes it possible to support pupils through the intervention of personnel specialized in a type of deficiency or disorder and can lead, in some countries, to a questioning of the content of teaching.
1.4. An ergonomization of practices related to the fight against institutional discrimination
This reorganization of the legitimacy of the school institution around the ergonomization of practices changes the role and missions of schools. They must be committed to prevent and act against institutional discrimination that results from the way they operate, and many countries have endeavored to make schools socially responsible in being inclusive (Ebersold and Meijer 2017).
This accountability of schools aims to ensure physical access to mainstream forms of schooling. Following the Treaty of Amsterdam, most European countries have amended their legislative framework to prohibit all forms of discrimination and to give pre-eminence to mainstream forms of schooling over specialized forms. The Inclusive Education Act enacted in Estonia in 2010 supports, as in other countries, the mainstreaming of students with disabilities by recognizing their right to be supported by a special education teacher during their schooling. The law on education promulgated by Luxembourg in 2009 recognizes the right of every pupil with a disability to education in a mainstream environment. This empowerment of schools goes hand in hand with a redefinition of the missions and orientations of the specialized sector, which is now required to support schools in their policies and strategies for environmental accessibility (European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education 2013; Florian 2005).
This empowerment of schools also aims to enable people to exercise their duty as pupils and to be seen to do so legitimately. Most countries of the European Union ask schools to do this by putting the figure of the average pupil at a distance in order to take into account the forms of vulnerability encountered on a day-to-day basis therein (NESSE 2012; Wisnia-Weill 2014). In France, for example, 6% of the circulars issued by the Ministry of Education between 1982 and 2011 on the schooling of pupils with educational needs relate the personalization of practices to such a change in outlook. Prompted by codes regulating school environments, this taking into account of vulnerabilities requires teachers, as stated in the circular of May 23, 1997, on the “mission of the teacher”, to identify what knowledge and know-how has been acquired and what has been poorly mastered, and to analyze the obstacles encountered in the course of teaching and any gaps between expected and achieved results, with a view to increasing the relevance and effectiveness of their practice. In addition, 11% of the circulars cited above correlate the personalization of practices with the ability of schools to identify pupils at risk of failure at school and to mobilize the additional technical, financial and human resources required to prevent it. Flemish-speaking Belgium has developed a specific programme (Zorgbreedte) to pay special attention to children from disadvantaged backgrounds as soon as they show signs of any learning difficulties that may complicate the transition from nursery school to primary school by monitoring, in particular, the child’s speech and social skills, preventing and correcting any learning difficulties, considering socio-affective problems and cooperating with families (Wisnia-Weill 2014).
This accountability on the part of the institutions also includes the capacity for student engagement. In contrast to the integrative ambition of the 1970s, the inclusive one makes student engagement in the processes at work a central requirement and substitutes “the participating student for the visiting student of the integrative ambition” (Barton and Armstrong 2007). Many countries have progressively correlated the accessibilization of school environments to the subjective components of students’ educational success with their engagement in educational processes. It is the responsibility of governments to focus on their involvement and assessment to encourage students’ motivation to learn and succeed (OCDE 2017a). It is incumbent on school policies to encourage members of the educational community to pay particular attention to the needs and emotions of each student and, more particularly, to those who lack academic motivation. It is up to the modes of educational organization to emphasize the cognitive functioning of pupils and their “capacity […] to mobilize their achievements, both at school and in life” (Durand 2013, p. 290).
1.5. Accessibility, or the advent of new forms of normativity
