1.1. A movement emerging internationally

The inclusive paradigm has developed since 1990 under the influence of UN agencies, in particular UNESCO. The Salamanca Declaration and Framework for Action on Special Educational Needs of 1994 is often cited as a founding text (^{UNESCO, 1994}). The latter promotes "school for all" based on the right to quality education for all students, breaking with separative education.

The inclusion movement tends to fight against the different forms of exclusion that target specific groups of students. ^{Ramel and Vienneau (2016)} identify three waves that contributed to the development of the inclusive paradigm: The schooling of students with disabilities (1920 to 1984), the integration of marginalized students (1990 to 1999), and the Guiding Principles for Inclusive Schools (years 2000). The second wave marks a broadening of the public of these policies, and the third states in its Guiding Principles (2005; 2009) that quality education must be offered to EVERY student without exception (^{UNESCO, 2020}) and not be limited to specific students. Thus, it intends to go beyond the search for physical or pedagogical accessibility specific to the first waves to also concern itself with the recognition of the diversity of students in all areas of school life to promote their sense of belonging. This requires allowing them to question the contents provided and the educational practices deployed (^{GOYER; BORRI-ANADON, 2019}).

The inclusive paradigm postulates the structural modification of the school in its relationship to students and their educational success. For ^{Potvin (2020, p. 11)}:

The inclusive approach is a continuous process of transforming learning environments to reflect the diversity of student realities and needs in curriculum, policies, and practices to eliminate exclusion and ensure equity and equality of achievement.

The inclusive approach calls for a change in the school form as a standard-setting institution to "overcome barriers that limit the presence, participation, and success of learners" (^{UNESCO, 2017}, p. 7). Therefore, it calls for the school to become introspective about its role in producing exclusion mechanisms and concrete measures to avoid them. It seeks not only to fight discrimination by promoting equity and taking into account the realities of the public, a fortiori minoralized, but it also engages the responsibility of the system, and therefore of its actors, in its ability to lead a process of change (^{POTVIN, 2020}). Therefore, it requires an examination of "how it [the school system] is organized, the forms of teaching offered, the learning environment, and how learners' progress is supported and evaluated" (^{UNESCO, 2017}, p. 13). The inclusive approach thus breaks with the integrative approach, which does not require any structural change⁵ and tends to perpetuate the deficit perspective around diversity, the beneficiary students being considered in terms of gaps that need filling (^{EBERSOLD; DETRAUX, 2013}).

Several studies that have documented this transformation of the education system highlight the critical issue of the role of teaching teams in the process (^{CURCHOD-RUEDI; RAMEL; BONVIN; ALBANESE et al., 2013}; ^{RAMEL; BENOIT, 2011}; CHRISTMAS, 2014). In their daily pedagogical practices, they are first of all responsible for the progress of all their students. From an inclusive perspective, it is a question of recognizing the legitimacy of expressing diversity (Prud'homme et al., 2011). While the principle may seem obvious, its implementation poses several concrete challenges. It involves mobilizing new pedagogical practices related to the universal conception of learning (^{BERGERON; ROUSSEAU; LECLERC, 2011}), such as pedagogical differentiation (^{TOMLINSON, 2014}). The development of inclusive schools also leads to interprofessional collaboration, which seeks to link the profession and its borders (^{PELLETIER; ALLENBACH; ST-VINCENT, 2023}).

Altogether, it seems necessary to think of inclusion as a "situated activity," where the changes implemented are "a function of local activity and the tools and discourses associated with it." (^{WAITOLLER, 2020}, p. 3). Thus, this study's national and cantonal contextual anchoring should be explained.

1.2 the Swiss case: Between integration and inclusion

To situate the development of the inclusive paradigm at the national level in Switzerland, we can highlight the agreements signed by the Confederation on this issue. It should be remembered that Switzerland is a federal state that delegates authority over its education system to each of its cantonal governments. It is up to the cantons to respect national agreements and adapt their schools' legal texts so they comply with UN commitments. Let us also note a trend towards harmonization since the 90s, strengthening inter-cantonal cooperation, particularly for special education.

Switzerland signed the Salamanca Declaration in 1994 (^{UNESCO, 1994}). A few years later, in 2002, it adopted a new law, the LHand or Federal Act on the Elimination of Inequalities Affecting Disabled Persons. This law, which is still in force, emphasizes the social participation of people with disabilities and targets training as a lever for this. In particular, it calls on the cantons "to encourage the integration of disabled children and adolescents into regular schools through appropriate forms of schooling, insofar as this is possible and serves the good of the disabled child or adolescent" (SWISS CONFEDERATION, 2002, section 5, art.20). We note that it is instead the term integration that this law highlights, by conditioning it to criteria of feasibility and well-being of the child.

A similar formulation can be found in the Intercantonal Agreement on Collaboration in the Field of Specialized Pedagogy [CONFERENCE OF CANTONAL DIRECTORS OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION (CDIP), 2007]. This agreement, signed by 16 cantons out of the 26 in Switzerland, intends to break with the separative tradition by mobilizing the integrative paradigm, stipulating that "integrative solutions are preferred to separative solutions, with due regard for the well-being and opportunities for development of the child or young person concerned and taking into account the environment and school organization" (art. 2). Although it does not mention the term "inclusion," it describes it as an "important milestone" in a country with a strong separative tradition (^{RAMEL; VIENNEAU; PIERI; ARNAIZ, 2016}, p. 48).

Therefore, can Switzerland be placed in an integrative or inclusive paradigm? The question is thorny insofar as using the two terms is frequent in some legal texts, the media, and scientific publications⁶. In his report on the issue at the national level, ^{Kronenberg (2021)} highlights the coexistence of different cantonal models, leading him to assert that "there is no clear delimitation between integration and inclusion" (p.56) and that the two terms are often considered equivalent. It brings to light the problem of translation. The term "inclusion" is used in English and becomes "intégration" in French or "integration" in German, for example, in the Salamanca Declaration. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, ratified by Switzerland in 2014, also shows variations between the term "full inclusion" in its English version and the terms "intégration" and "inclusion" in its French version. Article 3 in English: "Full and effective participation and Inclusion in society" becomes "la participation et l'intégration pleines et effectives à la société" in the French translation in Switzerland (UNITED NATIONS (UN), 2014 art. 3). The official page of the Confederation presenting this Convention, however, uses the term "inclusion" when it addresses the objective of this Convention, which commits the country "to eliminate the barriers faced by people with disabilities, to protect women against discrimination and to promote their inclusion and equality in civil society" (^{SWISS CONFEDERATION, n.d.}). Kronenberg thus highlights that the inclusive model, when it differs from the integrative model, refers rather to the idea of "full inclusion," which, as it stands, "does not match the current legal situation in Switzerland" (p.59). What seems to exist is instead a hybrid integration-inclusion model based on the presence of political discourses and training devices mobilizing inclusion and the coexistence of education in ordinary and specialized classrooms, with explicit use of the categorizations of special educational needs to guide the pedagogical action intended for "integrated" students. These categorizations are visible in the Intercantonal Agreement on Collaboration in the Field of Specialized Pedagogy (^{CDIP, 2007}), which defines a nomenclature of "needs, disorders, and deficiencies," thus building a reference frame for pedagogical action based on an essentially psycho-medical approach (^{BENOIT, 2005}).

The reference to an "inclusive" or "integrative" school or a hybridization of both may vary depending on the canton. Moreover, variations also exist depending on whether it is legislation or implementation. In this context, how is the Bernese case positioned?

1.3. And the canton of Bern?

The canton of Bern is not yet a signatory to the Intercantonal agreement on specialized pedagogy. However, the canton's membership is on the political agenda, as it seeks to transform its school system to become eligible (^{CONSEIL EXECUTIF (BERN), 2018}).

Regarding specialized pedagogy, the Bernese school system gives municipalities room for maneuver. They can choose between setting up special classes (separative model) or integrating students into ordinary classes (integrative model). While the two models still coexist, integration is explicitly encouraged by the 2001 school law (DEPARTEMENT DE L'INSTRUCTION PUBLIQUE (DIP), LEO, art.17). Despite this, the use of the separative model in the canton was still increasing in the early 2000s (DIP, 2007).

Subsequently, in 2007, the canton further strengthened the integrative model by way of decree (^{DIP, OMPP, 2007}): "As a general rule, pupils who require special educational measures attend regular classes." (art. 3). If this decree still leaves separative possibilities, it redistributes resources to make it an incentive for integration.

Since 2008, several follow-up reports (^{PFISTER, 2013}; ^{STRICKER & PFISTER, 2015}; PFISTER, JUTZI, STRICKER & BURGENER, 2016) show a sharp decrease in special classes and a sharp increase in specialized teaching hours in ordinary classes. These reports also highlight that the adoption of integrative measures is gradually taking place. Various projects remain to be carried out, particularly a transformation of the cantonal school law, which entered into consultation in 2019 and became effective in 2022 (after our data collection), reinforcing the integrative model once again.

These various milestones demonstrate that the canton of Bern seeks to encourage an integrative model by transforming its legal framework and institutional functioning. While this change was initiated several decades ago, reports show it has not yet been achieved. ^{Huberman (1973)} notes that a change can take about 20 years to impact the classrooms in the school context. Therefore, the analysis of the effects of the integrative policies of the canton of Bern remains relevant. Indeed, this reform generates significant changes, especially for teachers, bringing a new audience of students previously detached from the regular system into their classroom. To better understand the nature of this change and its consequences for the teaching staff, it is essential to define the dimensions of this concept and its indicators, allowing us to evaluate its substance. The following section presents a theoretical framework for this purpose.

4.1 Integration-inclusion: A change in practice or a simple change in vocabulary?

When we ask teachers about the changes they are currently experiencing in their profession, most of them spontaneously evoke the issues related to integration and inclusion, mainly in relation to the realities that have become everyday matters: the observation of a substantial heterogeneity of their students, the presence of specialized teachers in their class or school failures for which they try to find solutions.

The two terms, integration and inclusion, are often used without any clear distinction, consistent with ^{Kronenberg's analyses (2021)}. When we address the subject of closing special classes and integrating students with special needs, nine teachers use the term inclusion in their discourse, three use the term integration and inclusion in a way that makes it very hard to differentiate between them, and only one teacher uses only the word "integration." When we asked them about the meaning of these words, the teachers interviewed reported having had training on the subject and said they do not remember much. Three of them, however, try to distinguish between the two approaches:

Eli: But then inclusion is the fact, uh, of including all the students in the same classroom context. This is different from integration. Integration, if I remember my courses on inclusion and integration. Integration is to integrate students or some students who have disabilities or have particular challenges, but they come from time to time in class or from time to time in specific structures and certain activities. However, for me, inclusion is the same class together all the time.

It thus seems the boundaries between integration and inclusion are somewhat blurred for teachers, especially since some of them clearly explain that they consider these conceptual questions to belong in the realm of noosphere theories that concern them minimally and to which they grant little or no legitimacy:

Yohann: But because there are people like Geiser (alias), I think you know him (author's note: A recognized trainer in the field of inclusion) because he advocates that now in the HEP,⁹ inclusion, something, and it remains a big word, in 5 years, we will change and we will have I don't know what (…) I think it is a fashion, it is a beautiful and lovely term, like ten years ago we were talking about I don't know which other term, I don't know, like there are lots of pedagogical currents and now, obviously, it is HEP compatible, so it's good, but in fact I think it's more of a fashion.

Thus, Teachers seem to borrow to discern whether inclusion and integration are mere fashions or participate in a long-term vision, while their effects on their practice and framework conditions are very concrete and are part of their daily concerns.

Indeed, teachers see a new population of students previously excluded arriving in their classes, and they are responsible for these students' success. This situation has the particularity of directly questioning the class's role system since teachers are forced to position themselves in front of this new audience. However, our interviews show that the general principle of a fairer, more accessible school, where each student has their place, does not meet opposition in itself. Above all, the modalities of application provoke the participants' reluctance, to the point of bringing profound contradictions, as the following sections support.

4.2. The postulate of educability: An accepted principle

In their speeches, teachers say they believe in each of their student's ability to learn and consider that it is their responsibility to put in place the necessary conditions for their progress:

Eli: My goal is to really make each student progress, uh, finally, to use each student's potential to bring them as far as possible with the potential they have in them. That's my goal, my objective; it's really that each student progresses, uh, until… finally they give everything they have, and they can progress, go as far as possible, that's my goal. And that I do everything and implement everything to help them progress, help them achieve their goals. That's the purpose of my teaching, uh, that's it.

In this, they are part of what Prud'homme et al. (2011, p.6) describe as an ethical posture concerning the diversity of students, "choosing to believe in each student's potential for success, to believe in universal educability, whatever the specificities of each."

The teachers interviewed seem aware of each of their students' value; they seek to be benevolent and are sensitive to the difficulties their students encounter. They are aware of the heterogeneity of their classes and sincerely wish to take it into account. Many of them wish to implement differentiation practices.

Yohann: (…) once you have inclusion, you have to differentiate clearly; it is a consequence (…).

This opinion widely shared by teachers seems to highlight conceptions favorable to integration-inclusion and, more broadly, to inclusion, initiating, in particular, the practices of differentiation necessary for its implementation.

4.3. Doubts and constraints regarding the implementation of integration-inclusion

However, their discourses are much less favorable when we dig into the subject and discuss the application details with the teachers. Most teachers have serious doubts about its implementation, explaining in particular many limitations at the practical level. In our interviews, teachers' conceptions can be categorized using three arguments: The first is structural, the second pedagogical, and the third political.

4.4. As a result, a lack of transformation of the role system

Our analyses show that, apart from an endorsement of principle, the conceptions shared by teachers dissent in the face of integration-inclusion. This leads the vast majority of them to reject the transformation of the role system in their class, keeping traditional pedagogy and its modes of exclusion well in place. Indeed, our analyses of the explanatory interview excerpts show very few changes in pedagogical practices, which the comprehensive interview excerpts confirm. Few teachers differentiate to provide more accessibility and justice, and even fewer question the assessment or boundary standards of the class to extend them to the new audience they teach.

However, teachers have no choice but to accept integrated students. We observe that the behavior considered "out of the norm" of these students facing traditional pedagogy leads teachers to a crisis of their conceptions. Arrived at this stage, teachers react by refusing to move (^{WEICK, 2003}) or initiating adaptations, reporting role issues outside the classroom, on the specialists in the psycho-medical field, on the specialized teacher, or the school management, never questioning their pedagogical practices or, by extension, their class's role system:

Jeanne: But I mean it is, he does nothing, just nothing, and he, he can't integrate writing, he can't, reading was fine, but he can't integrate grammatical notions, he can't integrate… with us, in first, second year, his big thing was the laminator, the laminator! So, I appointed him chief of the laminator. (…) so he was cute, he was endearing, he disturbed nothing, but he could not, he was not, he could not progress like the others, so as a teacher, it was, it was frustrating (…) As a different child, well he, he needs someone next to him all the time.

Our analyses show very little rupture and even less change in roles: Only 2 cases out of 13 show changes in the relationships and expectations established between students and teachers. Most of the comments are from a deficit perspective towards integrated students for whom the principle of educability, although defended initially, seems no longer to apply. Integration would ultimately be a reform without social change since it fails to change teachers' conceptions or teaching practices.