in nine years from 1976 to 1977: a grade> special education special education Building in CEL for teachers review in April 1977 News – Echoes yards Authors: A. Fabre, Bernard Gosselin, Christian Provost, F. Knight, J. Deville Jean-Claude Saporito, MF. Petel, Pierre Berton and Simone Yvin More Building in special education – No.
6 1988-1989 (153) in: school level> Special Education Special Education Building in CEL For teachers review in February 1989 Authors: Adrien Pittion Rossillon, Anne-Marie Djeghmoun Arlette Laurent-Fahier Frederick Lespinasse, Martine January, Michel Albert, Nicole Elert Pascal Ducimetiere Rene Laffitte Serge Jaquet and Simone Berton more Building in special education – # 1 year 1983-1984 (88) in: school level> special education special education Building in CEL For teachers review in September 1983 Authors: Eric Debarbieux Jean-Claude Saporito, Joel Barrault Michel Fevre, Michel Loichot Patrick Robo, Renee Bideaux Simone Suzanne Berton and Ropert more SUMMARY reports of 1975 open to secondary courses in: the Breach CEL for teachers review teaching techniques> autonomy in January 1976 SUMMARY of the 1975 Internship reports open to secondary • Authors: Genevieve The Besnerais and Simone Berton More Feature: Start in Freinet Pedagogy: international match experience in: The Breach CEL For teachers review French pedagogical principles> communication> correspondence in April 1980 INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCE oF cORRESPONDENCE «Finally, the Netherlands, something that is not flat» (*) Author: Simone Berton more some deaf meet other teens in the difficulty school> the disability educator CEL for teachers review educational principles> term-creation in January 1972 There is no question here of inter-school correspondence as it is usually understood in Freinet pedagogy, that is to say: exchange school work and personal correspondence between students of two classes of regions more or less distant, but friendly meetings, discussions and presentations of common concern, outputs and extra-curricular activities. Author: Simone Berton More
1 result Results BTR No. 13-14 – The special moments? In: one grade> kindergarten BT and research CEL For teachers journal Education and Research> Research in November 1975 WORKING LIBRARY AND RESEARCH N ° 30 November 1975 first edition Authors: Francoise Gosselin, Francoise Rigaud, Marie-Claire PENICHOU and Marie-Helene Maudrin more
3 Results Building in special education – No.
1-2 year 1981-1982 in: school level> Special Education Special Education Building in CEL For teachers review EPS> body language Maths Teaching Principles> Communication> school newspaper August 1981 Authors: Andree Bernard, Bernard Gosselin, Bernard Heurtaux, Francois Vetter, Carret Jo, Marie-Claire PENICHOU Michel Albert, Michel Forget and Monique Gobert more Travel-trade In: the Educator For teachers teaching techniques review > classroom organization> transplanted class teaching Principles> communication> correspondence in September 1982 Authors: Gerard Senecal, Jacqueline Mercier, Marie-Claire PENICHOU and Pierrette Van de Velde more BTR No. 13-14 – the special moments?
In: one grade> kindergarten BT and research CEL For teachers journal Education and Research> Research in November 1975 WORKING LIBRARY AND RESEARCH N ° 30 November 1975 first edition Authors: Francoise Gosselin, Francoise Rigaud, Marie-Claire PENICHOU and Marie-Helene Maudrin more
In: The Educator CEL For teachers review Art> Cinema in January 1950 There are, alas! a case of the film L’Ecole Buissonniere.
We have said a few words in passing, but we had to push to the limit our concern for an amicable settlement that would have saved the material rights, educational and moral of our homework market
movement. We went to the limit of our trust and our sacrifices. Some will say that we do not yet know the men and that we insist our yardstick to measure the businessmen for whom the ideal is often an alibi and a screen.
We will continue to trust those with whom we come to work, because he can not be a deep work, intelligent and human out of this open collaboration. But it is also our duty to condemn unreservedly the men who abuse our good feelings, exploit for their benefit our efforts and generosity. We will bring you here a very objective presentation of irrefutable documents. Each of you will interpret as he will hear and act accordingly. We do not seek publicity or scandal.
We do not aim at a spectacular trial for propaganda which we do not need. But we say and we say the truth, and we will call for the defense of this truth comrades who understand us as cooperative work. We have given everything to this film: our innovations, our efforts, our struggle and our lives. We brought 90% of the scenario Chanois was content to put in pictures, it is true, with an undeniable talent. We gave our school for three months, lived only for this film.
We gave the effort – enthusiastic but real – fourteen of our children for nearly three months, worked in conditions that adult actors, let alone the stars would never have accepted. We gave it all, as we give all our effort for thirty years, because we had a formal assurance, verbal and written this film – serve our techniques and our educational movement; – that, if successful, and it was to be successful, it had to report to the School Freinet substantial sums that would save the misery she floundering since its foundation.
Because we were dealing with comrades who claimed mutual friends very safe, we have required any prior contract, the word given to satisfy us until the signing of a contract for which I had – according to the promise that we had made me – go to a board meeting of the General Cooperative of French Cinema, producer of the film. But as the film approached, I demanded in vain the actual meeting that would clarify our rights.
It took three days before the film’s release, we put, by registered letter, garnishment on film for a member of the board of the Film Cooperative immediate attendance in Cannes to make concessions and give us sign a provisional contract, according to the lawyers, is a final contract and is, apparently, a dupe of contract. The film came out and we saw in Angers. I realized then stunned a mention on which we were formally agreed, had jumped the credits.
It was, indeed, wear according to our written agreements, the following statement: This film is dedicated to: Montessori (Italy), Pestalozzi (Switzerland), Ferriere (Switzerland), Bakule (Czechoslovakia), Decroly (Belgium) Freinet (France). So my name disappeared from the credits. So no one would know the Freinet-C.E.L parentage. and «Ecole Buissonniere».
On the other hand, despite the formal written assurance Chanois «to the Freinet techniques and C.E.L. the place they deserve and that was never our intention to sacrifice, «the press given to the press (and everyone knows since they were reproduced in newspapers), systematically ignore Freinet and CEL The film is presented everywhere as the authentic creation Chanois, which is at least a breach of trust, if not more. It is against this non-execution of formal clauses of our contracts that we protest for nine months.
It caused us serious financial and moral wrongs The film gave us no calls in France or abroad. We demand the restoration of unlawfully removed to generic words and damages for the harm that was caused us. The party recognizes his wrongs as it proposes restoring the deleted words.
But as this recovery will cost too much. given the large number of copies in circulation, we proposed to the mention in American star at the end of the film, when the music plays and everyone goes.