However, it must be emphasised that, in spite of pupils’ difficulties (academic failure, interference of major personal difficulties etc.) and in spite of their lack of training and support, certain teachers in CEFs succeed in restoring these children’s interest in school, thanks to great patience, real tolerance and pedagogical imagination (“one has to accept that there is a bridge that has to be crossed, not setting them traditional schoolwork straight away, starting on the basis of what they want”). As these remarks show, teachers of this kind deliberately take a position of supporting children towards becoming autonomous: “we agree upon an objective, but I decide the method”, to which was added: “my goal is to facilitate their personal development and social and professional integration 95”. It is to be regretted that such conceptions are not more widespread. The CGLPL recalls that education constitutes a major issue for minors and an obligation for the youngest among them. It recommends that teachers appointed in prisons for minors should have the benefit of specific training and support. Apart from respect for fundamental rights, support towards becoming autonomous should also find expression through daily and social life. In both types of institution, the times for getting up and going to bed scarcely leave minors any room for manoeuvre; the intention is to set or re-establish a rhythm of life for them that corresponds to their age, something which is entirely in accordance with their interest. However, certain prohibitions raise questions, such as the case of one CEF where the possession of alarm clocks is only authorised after a certain waiting time, subject to good behaviour (in case of poor behaviour, the minor being woken by a tutor); it appears regrettable for the availability of alarm clocks to be reduced to the simple possession of an object, when they clearly constitute a useful tool for autonomy. As far as bedtime is concerned, CEF tutors know that it is a moment laden with anxiety, and most of them authorise “play”, which means that it is delayed. One institution has set up a library-lounge on the same floor as the rooms, enabling the most mature, or the most anxious, to have the benefit of a period of autonomy before sleep. The tutors or night watch officers do not hesitate to talk to minors whose state so requires. This is far from being the case in EPMs, although these cater for the same minors, faced with the same anxieties; bedtime takes place at a fixed time, television constituting the only diversion, which neither clarifies nor resolves any difficulty. Only extreme incidents (screaming, self-harm etc.) give rise to action. Keeping the room and collective areas in good condition and participating in daily life in all of its forms are promoted as opportunities for learning to become autonomous within CEFs. In practice, this learning relies upon the support of tutors or a “house mistress”. In one of the CEFs inspected, it was reported that this participation in daily life (cooking, washing up, cleaning, etc.) on a “stimulated voluntary basis”, under the eye of an adult and with the latter’s benevolent assistance, had a clear impact upon the respect shown to staff and, moreover, upon ideas of the division of masculine/feminine roles, both within the institution and in couples, families and society. In other institutions, maintenance of rooms is set down as an obligation and controlled after the event, giving rise to assessment that may lead to reward or punishment. As opposed to the previous example, this “carrot and stick” approach appears less conducive to autonomy. 95 It is to be noted that this definition of education is, almost to the exact letter, that advocated by article 29 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child quoted above. 116