When school and family talk, but the child disappears

In Solomon J. in the village of the Pepileni, the relationship between Mother and the teachers brings a concrete problem into focus. Communication between school and family can lose its purpose when it stops producing understanding and starts assigning responsibility.

In the book, some of Solomon J.'s behaviours are read through words that define the child and his reactions. Anger, withdrawal and relational difficulty are reduced to "unpleasant tantrums". During meetings, Mother senses a growing attribution of responsibility for her son's moods.

The critical point concerns the gradual breakdown of dialogue. The issue goes beyond politeness between adults. It concerns the quality of the information that reaches the child.

"He answered back." "He refused to work." "He isolated himself." "He was disruptive." These observations can have value. They become truly useful when they are completed.

What was happening before? What request had been made? How long had the activity lasted? Had something similar happened before in the same kind of situation? What helped the child come back to himself?

The difference is substantial. In the first case, a list is built. In the second, information is gathered.

An effective meeting should allow school and family to understand the child's functioning better, without turning every episode immediately into a personal trait.

"He pushed a classmate during the change of activity" describes a fact. "He is aggressive" interprets that fact. "After twenty minutes of exercises he put his head under the desk" offers a piece of information. "He is defiant" already introduces an explanation.

Words shape what we notice. When a label enters the conversation too soon, everything that happens afterwards can be read through that definition.

Communication deteriorates when the school meeting also becomes an implicit assessment of the family.

Questions about routines, habits, sleep, recent changes or the strategies used at home can be very useful. Their value depends on the purpose behind them.

There is a difference between seeking information and seeking a cause. In the book, Mother comes to feel that Solomon J.'s emotional difficulties are also being traced back to her. The book's critical apparatus speaks explicitly of a "failed educational partnership" and shows how, in the absence of an effective three way link with the school, the mother ends up carrying an ever growing share of educational and interpretive work.

Communication built around finding someone to blame quickly impoverishes the amount of information available. The parent begins to defend herself. The teacher feels her competence questioned. The meeting fills up with mutual explanations. The child stays in the background.

An educational partnership requires reciprocity. The parent knows the child within the family story, its routines, interests, fears and moments of greatest security. The teacher observes him within a group, during a task, in transitions, in relationships with peers and in classroom demands.

These are different vantage points. That is precisely why both are needed.

A mother may know her child very well and have little information about what happens during the many hours spent in class. A teacher may know a pupil's classroom behaviour well and little of what that child carries with him when he arrives in the morning.

The quality of the exchange grows when the two points of view are brought into relation with each other.

One question can change the tone of an entire meeting: "What more can we understand about this situation?"

It shifts attention from blame to enquiry. It allows hypotheses to be formed while keeping them open.

A child may shut down in the face of a task for many different reasons: difficulty, boredom, overload, frustration, fear of making a mistake, misunderstanding, tiredness, relational tension. The observed behaviour is only the starting point for the enquiry. The explanation requires more information.

This approach draws on the idea of mentalising, that is, the ability to consider the mental states that may accompany a behaviour. In a school setting it means keeping professional curiosity alive even when the behaviour is hard to manage.

Telling each other what has happened is only part of the work. A meeting becomes operative when it ends with something to observe or try out.

The school can adjust a task, prepare the child for an upcoming change, offer an agreed pause, or observe when a particular reaction appears. The family can check whether the same behaviour shows up in other settings, report recent changes, and describe which strategies help the child regain balance.

After a short period, school and family can compare their observations. The meeting then stops being a chronicle of the problem and becomes a working tool.

When a child is going through a difficult period, communication can focus almost entirely on the problems. School and family end up meeting mainly around what needs managing.

Interests, skills, curiosity, successful relationships and moments of participation carry valuable information too.

If a child collaborates during some activities and withdraws during others, the difference deserves attention. If he connects easily with one adult and finds it harder with another, that too is data. If a particular subject immediately lights him up, that passion can become an educational key.

Observing what works helps to understand what causes difficulty with greater precision too.

The criticism of school found in Solomon J. in the village of the Pepileni concerns above all the quality of the gaze. The book shows how easily sensitivity, anger, imagination, pain and the need for protection can be interpreted through categories that flatten a more complex reality.

The risk grows when school and family begin arguing over who knows the child better or who caused the problem. The solution requires a change of method.

Describe before interpreting. Ask before concluding. Compare what happens in different settings. Set up one small, observable step. Check its effects. Revise the hypothesis when the data points elsewhere.

This form of communication also protects everyone's role. The family brings knowledge the school does not have. The school brings observations the family cannot gather in the same way. The child benefits from the quality of the link between these two worlds.

In Solomon J. in the village of the Pepileni, the theme of bridges runs through the whole book. School and family communication can also be read through this image.

A bridge needs two ends and a passable space between them. In an educational relationship, that space is made of precise observations, open questions, respectful language, willingness to revise one's own interpretations, and shared responsibility.

When these elements are missing, the meeting risks becoming the place where adults tell each other about their mutual difficulties. When they manage to meet, the child comes back to the centre of the conversation.

The question then changes. From "Whose fault is it?" to "What is this child telling us, and what can each of us do, from where we stand, to understand him better?"