The ULIS classes welcome students with disabilities within ordinary school establishments. Between the promise of inclusion and the constraints on the ground, the ULIS system produces very variable results depending on the resources mobilized, the profile of the students, and the training of the coordinating teacher. Understanding these discrepancies allows for an informed choice of schooling.
ULIS school, middle school, and high school: what each level offers and what it limits
| Criterion | ULIS school (primary) | ULIS middle school | ULIS high school |
|---|---|---|---|
| Maximum number of students per program | Small group, often fewer than 12 | Small group, often fewer than 12 | Small group, often fewer than 12 |
| Time spent in ordinary class | Variable, often limited to PE and arts | Wider if AESH available | Focused on pre-professional training |
| Teacher profile | Specialized teacher (CAPPEI) | Specialized teacher (CAPPEI) | Specialized teacher (CAPPEI) |
| Main identified risk | Functioning in a closed class | Reduced inclusion due to lack of resources | Limited training offer depending on the regions |
This table highlights a often underestimated point: the actual time of inclusion varies greatly from one establishment to another. A student assigned to ULIS middle school may attend several subjects in an ordinary class in a well-equipped establishment with AESH, while being confined to regrouping in another. Several teachers in position note that some non-reading students only participate in PE during inclusion, raising questions about the effectiveness of the system.
Read also : Humorous Text Ideas for a Memorable and Positive 70th Birthday
To delve deeper into this issue, the opinions on ULIS classes collected from specialists allow for cross-referencing field feedback with institutional objectives.
Further reading : Tips and Tricks for Cultivating Daily Growth and Self-Confidence
Gap between prescribed inclusion and actual inclusion: what institutional reports indicate
The Defender of Rights, in its 2022 report on inclusive education, and the CNESCO in its 2023 file, converge on one observation: ULIS sometimes function as safety valves to compensate for the lack of ordinary resources. The numbers exceed the planned threshold, there is a shortage of AESH, and the times of inclusion are reduced by default.
This tension is concretely reflected in situations where the ULIS system reproduces a separate class functioning. The teacher mentioned on the DCalin forum describes nine students, of whom two or three derive real benefit from the system, while the others remain non-readers with inclusions limited to PE.
Increase in the number of programs without a proportional increase in resources
The government strategy for inclusive education, confirmed by the Interministerial Committee on Disability in 2023, has led to a continuous increase in the number of ULIS programs, particularly in middle and high schools. The DEPP documents this progression in its annual reports.
However, human resources (AESH, specialized teachers) have not kept pace. The opening of new programs without sufficient support dilutes the quality of inclusion offered to each student.
Training of the ULIS coordinating teacher: a crucial factor too little discussed
The ULIS coordinating teacher holds the professional aptitude certificate for inclusive education practices (CAPPEI). This certification attests to a specialization, but it does not guarantee mastery of all disability profiles welcomed in the same program.
ULIS are divided into several categories according to the type of disorder:
- Cognitive Function Disorders (TFC), which represent the majority of programs and welcome very heterogeneous profiles, from mild delays to more marked disabilities
- Auditory Function Disorders (TFA), Visual Function Disorders (TFV), Motor Function Disorders (TFM), each requiring distinct pedagogical skills
- Autism Spectrum Disorders (TSA), whose management requires specific training in structured educational strategies
A coordinator trained in TFC is not automatically equipped to support a TSA student. Recent reforms in initial and ongoing training aim to fill these gaps, but their effect remains gradual.
Psychopedagogue Avigal Ama-Tuillier, who taught for nine years in ULIS in Paris, reminds us that ULIS is not a class but a system. The child remains a full-fledged student in an ordinary class and benefits from a schedule adjustment to work on certain subjects in regrouping.
ULIS orientation: role of the MDPH and families’ decision-making margin
Assignment to ULIS goes through the commission for the rights and autonomy of disabled persons (CDAPH), attached to the MDPH. Families do not directly choose the ULIS program: they submit a request via the personalized schooling project (PPS), and the CDAPH decides.
This procedure often creates a gap between parental expectations and the reality of the assigned program. The testimony of Marion, mother of a TSA child who went through ULIS, illustrates this point: the small group and the alternation between ULIS and ordinary class corresponded to her son’s needs, but the fear of being with children with very different needs was present from the start.
Can one refuse a ULIS orientation proposed by the CDAPH
Families can contest the CDAPH’s decision through administrative appeal. In practice, refusing a ULIS orientation without a viable alternative (ordinary school with AVS, medico-social establishment) places the child in a precarious schooling situation. The refusal must be based on a concrete alternative project included in the PPS.
The choice of schooling in ULIS should be evaluated program by program, by visiting the establishment and discussing with the coordinator. The quality of a ULIS depends primarily on local resources: effective presence of AESH, training of the coordinator, willingness of the ordinary teaching team to welcome inclusions.
These parameters, rarely visible in MDPH notifications, make all the difference in the educational journey of a child with a disability.