This imperative enjoins the school to prevent all forms of exclusion by opening up to all students without distinction on the basis of origin, social background or health condition. It asks the school to place the student at the center of its concerns in order to be as close as possible to his or her rhythms, needs and expectations (Cartron 2013; Plaisance 2013, 2014; European Agency for Special Needs and Inclusive Education 2015). This transformation of accessibility into an imperative invites us not to be satisfied with the usual discursive uses of the term “accessibility” that are induced by the conditions of institutionalization of the field of disability (Ebersold 1997; Larrouy 2006). Following Durkheim, it reminds us that the organization of education systems is consubstantial with the representations that societies make of their cohesion and their adaptation to new conditions (Durkheim 2012).
As a result, the transformation of accessibility into an imperative invites us to associate it with an “official social image” (Castoriadis 1975), that is, with a mode of self-representation of society through which it asserts itself and its norms and values, and legitimizes ways of educating and, more generally, ways of making society. Indeed, the imperative of accessibility is consubstantial with a transformation of school culture. Countering the prejudice that there are a priori limits to the exercise of rights based on individual profiles, it reverses the normative frame of reference underlying school functioning by placing the causes of learning difficulties and, more generally, social difficulties on the shortcomings of school systems before inferring them from the characteristics of individuals: the universal design for learning seeks to compensate for the inabilities and failings of schools and not those of students (Rose and Meyer 2002). In doing so, the imperative of accessibility aims to transform the way in which educational diversity is viewed: it encourages education systems to see it as a resource and to make themselves inclusive by taking into account the variety of contexts and cognitive profiles (Büchel et al. 1995; Paour 1995; Hart et al. 2004; CNIRE 2017).
The imperative of accessibility is therefore consubstantial with the shift in economic, political, educational and social issues that gave rise to it, in particular through the promotion of inclusive schools. This chapter relates this imperative to the forms of normativity promoted by a society based on the knowledge and participation of every individual in economic and social well-being, to the detriment of those born into the wage-based society (Boltanski and Chiapello 2000; Ebersold 2001). It also addresses the instituting effect of the accessibility imperative by considering the meaning given to inclusive education and the principles of vision and division that characterize it in light of the aims that specify the education systems, proposed organizational factors and suggested professional practices. In addition to the analysis of books, reports and articles on inclusive education, this chapter is based on analysis of the principles set out in the inclusive policies promoted by international bodies (European Commission, OECD, United Nations (UN), European Agency for special needs and Inclusive Education, European Parliament), those developed in recent years within the countries of the European Union (Ebersold 2016) and the reforms of the education system undertaken in France in recent decades. This chapter first links the need for accessibility to the reinvention of education systems brought about by the advent of new concepts of social justice, and then characterizes it in terms of the concepts that permeate it. Thirdly, it links the imperative of accessibility to a redefinition of the roles and aims of the school and the establishment of new forms of normativity.
1.2. Accessibility, or school as a social protection vector
The imperative of accessibility enshrines the redefinition of the obligations uniting society and its members that are imposed by a knowledge-based society, linking its possibilities of development and social cohesion to the active involvement of everyone in collective well-being. Instead of the integrative ambition based on equal access to knowledge and social goods that is embodied by the welfare State, this model of society prefers an equitable form of rights enabled by a contextualized application of individual rights (Rawls 1999). The inclusive schools promoted by the countries of the European Union over the last few decades are intended to give concrete expression to the right to education of every learner without any distinction and thus prevent any need for protection requiring a posteriori action by the public authorities (Council of Europe 2009; European Parliament 2017).
In conjunction with the enactment of legislation prohibiting all forms of discrimination, the imperative of accessibility is the counterpart of human rights, which has become the norm for a societal model that sees itself as composed of individuals owning their rights and who are to be treated as such (Gauchet 2016). This illustrates the advent of principles of justice that see difference as a form of equality, and social and economic disparities as an opportunity for the emergence of a more just society that is aware of the advantages of its members (Rawls 1997; Sen 2010). These principles of justice relate social vulnerability (and related social inequalities) to the lack of the cultural, social, economic, identity-related resources, relational resources and other resources necessary for self-actualization and a social engagement caused by discrimination resulting from the inaccessibility of society. In this way, they diminish the importance of the inequalities of condition engendered indirectly from the wage conditions resulting from illness, lack of employment, disability or other factors. Instead of the collective forms of solidarity provided by the welfare state, this perspective prefers more individual forms aimed at the development of human capital, that is the strengthening of knowledge, skills and competences that arm individuals against the vicissitudes of life, such as unemployment, job insecurity or illness (OECD 2007; European Parliament 2008). In this way, it aims to prevent any form of exclusion through a “school for all” that is concerned with the success of everyone, regardless of their individual or social characteristics, and that allows students to be the actors of their relationship with society and the reappropriation of their rights (Lachaud 2003; Thélot 2004; European Parliament 2017). Beyond the transmission of knowledge, education and training are associated with a vector of social protection that is as effective, or even more effective, than the health system, provided that universally accessible school environments are developed and adapted to the needs of each learner (Ebersold 2001; Derouet 2005; Frandji and Rochex 2009).
The need for adaptation ceases to be the student’s only problem (the supposed need to adapt) and becomes that of the school institution as well. The imperative of accessibility requires the “status rights” granted to target population groups to become “de facto rights” (Weller 2003) by being adapted as closely as possible to the singularity of learners and contexts (Downes et al. 2017; UNESCO 2017). The No Child Left Behind Act enacted by the United States in 2001 requires that curricula take into account the potential and future development of each student and that the knowledge of all students be assessed, including those with SEN. The Knowledge Promotion Act promulgated by Norway in 2006 requires the education system to ensure that every student masters the basic skills necessary for their involvement in society, such as speaking, reading, mathematics, writing and the mastery of information and communication technology. The PISA survey aims to assess the possibilities of involvement in social and professional life available to students approaching the end of their schooling in terms of the knowledge and key skills they possess. Reading literacy is judged to be an indicator of students’ ability to achieve their goals, develop their skills and potential, and participate actively in society; mathematical literacy is judged to be an indicator of the ability to be constructive, engaged and reflective citizens, that is, to make informed judgements and decisions; and scientific literacy is seen as indicative of an individual’s ability to be responsive to technological change through thoughtful engagement with science-related issues and ideas (OCDE 2017b).
The accessibility imperative enshrines a way of schooling centered on differentialist logics. These differentialist logics invite schools to favor “real” equality, that is, effective and concrete equality, made possible by the accessibilization of school environments, over “formal” equality embodied in forms of solidarity supported by the welfare state. They intend to combine performance and equity by ensuring the success of as many people as possible while reducing disparities linked to gender, ethnic origin or disability. These different social logics place the singularization of practices at the heart of a school’s effectiveness, which is expected to transform its methods of organizing its