The boy was supposed to go with his companions on a day trip to Finale Ligure (Savona). Given the unavailability of the two support teachers who follow him in class, the 17-year-old’s mother had proposed a solution to the principal: “I asked if the educator of the Institute for Research, Training and Rehabilitation, Irifor, who follows my son between school and home, could go with him – said the woman – but I was told that he couldn’t since he wasn’t part of the school staff”.
At that point the principal proposed a solution: “The only way to be able to make my son go on a trip with the whole class was for either me or my husband to accompany him. I said no, since a teenager doesn’t want mother on a trip with him. To me it seemed like a desire to offload responsibilities, no added value.” The boy was upset, his mother added, “but he was understanding”. “But, I’m going ahead: I intend to write to the school office to report the matter, because there has been no inclusion”, concluded the woman.
The principal’s reply
“We are talking about a student with very complex fragilities in management, whose accompaniment could only take place with the support teachers of his class who know all the support methods in case of emergencies and needs. But, unfortunately, teachers can also have mandatory needs and therefore not being able to give their availability. For this reason I invited the mother to accompany her son, but she did not want to, reasoning that it was a question of principle, and so the boy did not go to Finale Ligure. I would like to point out, in any case, that the student participated in all the other educational activities of his class. Being inclusive, in my opinion, does not mean jeopardizing the psycho-physical safety of a student, but rather guaranteeing his well-being ‘we have guaranteed it, so much so that the mother herself declared that her son comes to school willingly,’ added the head teacher.
