The International Observatory on Academic Achievement - Documentary search

File number :
POEE-ISC-08e

Bibliographic reference :
Armand, A., & Gilles, B. (2006). La contribution de l’éducation prioritaire à l’égalité des chances des élèves. Inspection générale de l’éducation nationale; Inspection générale de l’administration de l’éducation nationale et de la recherche. Paris: Ministère de l’éducation nationale, de l’enseignement supérieur et de la recherche, 175 pages.

Abstract :

Priority Education Policy Objective
A priority education policy (PEP) was implemented in France in 1981. Its objective was to help mitigate social inequality through the democratization of education. The method employed was to create priority education zones (PEZ) where more teaching means were provided to those who needed them the most. In 2000, the objective was to pursue the same logic, in other words, provide more, but also better teaching means to those who needed them. To this effect, PEZs were converted into “teaching excellence zones” in order to avoid ghettoization or elitism to some extent.

Policy Assessment
This research report presents an assessment of the priority education policy as it was until September 2005. It provides a synthesis of results drawn from several assessments carried out in past years. In addition, it is based on results drawn from a 2005 survey conducted with rectors (senior officials) and visits in PEZs.

PEP Benefits and Problems
The priority education policy is advantageous in several respects. It was widely agreed upon, and the objectives established in 1981 have been well maintained on the whole, over time. The PEP focuses on the importance of an overall perspective of education by taking into account both organization and pedagogy and by falling within a broader context extending beyond that of the school (e.g., municipal policies). Among other benefits, improvement of school climate and student behaviour were observed.

However, this policy did not achieve expected results and the players who supported it became disheartened. PEZ stigmatization was among the negative outcomes of the policy, particularly because more privileged social classes avoided these zones. In addition, the academic results of students attending PEZ schools showed little improvement compared with those of non-PEZ students. Moreover, difficulties were encountered during the process of guiding students towards higher education.

The concept of “giving more to those who have less” was a major challenge that social, psychological, cultural, didactic and pedagogical factors made more complicated. Since 1981, the social context has changed rapidly and taken a less favourable turn to learning at school because of factors such as urbanization, media and change in family structure.

Leads to Solutions
This policy is quite legitimate and constitutes a valuable tool in the pursuit of equal opportunities in terms of education. However, to derive the most benefits from this policy, priority education should be targeted in precise areas to prevent dispersion. Efforts should be directed at organization and pedagogy without changing their levels of requirements. Shortcomings should be defined and corrected, particularly with regard to deficient policy management. In addition, priority should be given to teaching practices instead of policy organization and mechanisms alone. The authors emphasized that a balance has yet to be found between PEP autonomy and its interdependence with regional municipal and cultural policies.

Lastly, efforts should not be confined to theoretical debates and routine, since the priority education policy is constantly adapted in a given social context.

Key Words :
Public Policies, Priority Education Zone, Democratization of Education, Equal Opportunities, Social Inequalities, Stigmatization, Positive Discrimination, School Organization, Pedagogy, School Climate, Newsletter5

Monitored Countries :
France