This reflection – matured over the course of professional experience, first in school and then in juvenile justice – works on the pedagogical motives that precede the ius scholae, reminiscent of Don Milan’s lesson and the most up-to-date psycholinguistic research on “bilingual speech” and “think bilingual”. The author says: “The school welcomes everyone, and in this openness lies the most important and significant feeling that it is a place of education”.
When there are boys and girls from all over the world in a classroom, one realizes how great and important, perhaps crucial, the significance of this presence can be for the future of humanity.
After the family, school is the place of the first socialization, that is, the opening of credit to interpersonal relationships, but also of the formation of intelligence and character and of the transfer of the civilization values that can make sense to our lives.
There is an extraordinary richness inherent in human potential: of minds and hearts ready to receive good teaching, of creatures that grow, and to whom it can be pointed – with the institutional and moral authority implicit in the task of educators – the path of good, so that they themselves can find the truth.
They are boys and girls who do not yet know anything about the evils and evils of the world, and who certainly do not attribute to cultures of origin, different ethnic groups, religious beliefs, or skin color these characteristic and selective meanings, sometimes of heritage, that adults usually use when relate to each other.
The most extraordinary task that awaits any teacher is to form open, critical and free minds, and this process takes place naturally in a multicultural context.
The school welcomes everyone, and in this openness lies the most important and essential feeling that it is a place of education.
Even from a strictly didactic point of view, the linguistic crucible accelerates understanding and communication between people.
In fact, it is known that the use and enrichment of language occurs not only through the acquisition of syntactic and grammatical rules, but by ‘immersion’, by ‘osmosis’, even by ‘promiscuity’, that is, by entering into direct contact with the cultural and living environment, whose learning should be borrowed.
The metabolism of linguistic content therefore takes place more easily in an open and fluid communicative context rather than in a closed and separate context: in the first case, learning takes place by participating in a ‘living’ and direct form in verbal socialization, in the second only by to send dry-mind performances, which must then be rejected in the use of the word.
Interpersonal relationships are an extraordinary facilitating agent in terms of language skills, more so than what happens through the mere transfer of notions and rules in separate training contexts: there is no place where one learns that is clearly separated from where one lives because both coexist in the didactic action one teaches and learns while living among others.
The most consolidated acquisitions of pedagogical research have shown that there is a phase of linguistic competence that precedes expressive learning in the narrow sense: one can actually e.g. say that in the study of a foreign language one ‘thinks bilingual’ even before ‘speaking bilingual’.
I therefore believe that I can confidently argue that a return to “differentiated” classes, this time according to the linguistic matrix of origin, would be a step backwards in terms of the cultural and didactic evidence that the choices of integration and inclusion have made, both in terms of pedagogical values and civilization both in terms of the pragmatic utility of possessing in a short time and in the most facilitated and spontaneous way the keys that open up knowledge and expressive skills and that enable us to understand and communicate.