Professional Documents
Culture Documents
]
On: 18 August 2015, At: 13:13
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:
1072954 Registered office: 5 Howick Place, London, SW1P 1WG
To cite this article: Maria Fernandez Mellizo-Soto (2000) Education policy and
equality in France: the socialist years, Journal of Education Policy, 15:1, 11-17,
DOI: 10.1080/026809300285971
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/026809300285971
This article analyses the design of French Socialist egalitarian education policy, defined in terms of a number of indicators: organizational aspects of the education system, financial aspects of education policy and the size of the education system. It considers the extent to which the Socialists altered the institutional structure of the education
system in order to create opportunities for lower class pupils or students to study. The performance of the Socialist
government suggests that the institutional structures of education tend toward a high degree of continuity and are
difficult to change in a short period of time. Nevertheless, despite this pattern of continuity, the Socialists did reform
the education system in a way that seems slightly more egalitarian. The article does not attempt to provide a comprehensive explanation of this continuity, but points out some of the factors that account for continuities in certain
elements of education policy related to the aim of equality.
The Parti Socialiste (PS) won power in 1981. Despite being allied to the communists
during the election campaign, it won a majority of votes. The Socialist Party enjoyed
full control of both the executive and legislative branches of government; nevertheless, from 1981 to 1984 it governed in coalition with the Parti Communiste (PC),
even though it was not obliged to do so. In 1977, the PSs programme for education
had defined its first goal as `the fight against social and educational inequalities
(Savary 1985: 11). In their electoral manifestos of the seventies and early eighties, the
Socialists, contrary to previous right-wing governments, defended a concept of
equality in education that went beyond mere formal (meritocratic) equality. They
introduced the principle of positive discrimination, `to give more to those who have
less, as exemplified by their support for compensatory education. The SGEN
(Syndicat General de lEducation Nationale) had adopted the principle of compensatory education in the early seventies (following the example of the Labour Party in
Britain), and the PS soon took it up.1 In 1988, after losing to a centre-right coalition
in 1986, the elections returned the PS to power, but only gave it enough seats to
form a minority government.2 The PSs 1988 manifesto for presidential elections
(Propositions pour la France) included the declaration that the fight for the school success
of all is therefore a priority within the general struggle against the reproduction of
social inequalities. After 1985, though the priority was still said to be National
Education, the manifestos became vaguer and less egalitarian.3 Instead of defending
Mar a Fernandez Mellizo-Soto is a researcher at the Juan March Institute in Madrid where she is a
Doctoral Candidate. The theme of her dissertation is the comparison of Socialist educaion policy and
equality in Spain and France. Since 1998, she is also a researcher at the Instituto de Estudios Sociales
Avanzados (Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cient ficas) in Madrid.
J ournal of Educational Policy ISSN 0268 0939 print/ISSN 1464 5106 online # 2000 Tay lor & Francis L td
http://w ww .tandf.co.uk/journals /tf/02680939.htm l
12
NDEZ MELLIZO-SOTO
MARIA FERNA
13
this article is rather contradictory, and basically ambiguous.9 The clear statement of
the right to choose is followed by a clause stating that in case of disagreement between
teachers and the student and/or his or her family, the headmaster has the last word.
In upper secondary education (for instance in the baccalaureat or bac, that is, the final
year of secondary education) and in higher education, student selection was essentially
made on the basis of objective criteria, and the Socialists mantained the same selectiv e
procedures. This is obvious in higher education, where the elitist system of preparatory classes and grandes ecoles (entry to which is usually dependent on passing a
meritocratic examination) coexists alongside the overcrowded university system.
The socialists in opposition and at the beginning of their mandate were opposed to
this rigid separation of the two branches of higher education, but they did almost
nothing to change it when they won power. Under the 1984 Higher Education Bill,
selection at the first cycle of university was postponed until the second cycle.
Nevertheless, this law left the elitist system of higher education virtually untouched
except for minor changes (for example, courses for the entry examinations for the
grandes ecoles could now be offered in universities and not exclusively in the preparatory courses of lycees). The Socialists had promised a closer relationship (second
opportunities for students in university to go to the elitist education) between the
two strands of higher education, but in fact the changes were of marginal importance
and of more significance for teachers than students. The survival of the elitist profile
of higher education is best explained by the pressure from middle class students,
both in universities and above all in the grandes ecoles, as well as from the `elites created by the meritocratic system, former students of grandes ecoles.10 The Socialists
opted to make the student selection procedures less objective in non-higher education,
although, as we have seen, not entirely so. This implies that the estimated probability
of success in non-higher education became higher for lower income pupils. In addition to this, costs of study were relatively low. In higher education changes were
more limited.
In 1981 and 1982, a serie of regulations (circulaires) issued by the Ministry of
Education created compensatory education in a number of special zones, known as
ZEPs, Zones dEducation Prioritaires. The schools located in these areas were considered
to have special needs, and this measure ostensibly provided them with extra resources.
However, this policy was abandoned in 1984, after Jean-Pierre Chevenement replaced
Savary at the ministry (Peignard and van Zanten 1998: 70). The main reason for this
change lay in the differences between the two mens conceptions of the causes of
inequality of educational opportunities, as well as other electoral factors and the pressure from groups such as the SNES.11 From 1988 onwards, when the Socialists
returned to power, they made some attempt to revamp compensatory education,
but this was of more rhetorical than practical importance. Between 1981 and 1994,
the number of ZEPs increased from 0 to 558 (the greater effort corresponding to the
Savary years when 363 ZEPs were created), accounting for 11.3% of all students (it
should be noted that there were more lower secondary education schools or colleges
in ZEPs (14.2% ) than primary schools or ecoles (9.6% ), and there were more ZEPs
in the North-East than in the South-West).12 Compensatory education is particularly
important for equality since, as the process of policy decentralization advances, as it
did under the Socialists, geographical inequalities (both regional and local) tend to
increase.13 So, above all at the beginning of their period in government, the
Socialists reduced the costs of education through compensatory education. The problem is that it is not clear how far this policy has been continued afterwards.
14
NDEZ MELLIZO-SOTO
MARIA FERNA
15
out in 1983 at the time of the demonstrations 71% of respondents favoured the survival of private education, 52% of these being government supporters (Ambler 1985b:
37; Chevenement 1985: 122). Public opinion on this issue had a major influence on
the Socialists decision to withdraw the bill. After that defeat, virtually nothing was
done until 1992, when Jack Lang reached an agreement with the Catholic education
sector over the outstanding problem of financing. But, in general, state-aided private
schools remained outside the control of the state. So, as regards private education,
the situation after the Socialists was in general terms unchanged. The costs for students
remained basically the same.
NDEZ MELLIZO-SOTO
MARIA FERNA
16
followed either the general or technical track. The proportion of students in vocational tracks dropped to 30.85% in 1993.23 The reason for this quantitative and vocational emphasis, above all after Chevenement came to power, again could lie in the
particular conception of equality of opportunity espoused by Chevenement and the
following Ministers of Education as well as other electoral considerations.24 So, in
conclusion, estimated probabilities of success in education increased for students.
Nevertheless, as the Socialists objectives included an emphasis on the expansion of
vocational education, this could reduce these probabilities in the future.
Conclusions
The analysis of the performance of the French Socialist governments suggests at least
one general conclusion: the institutional structures of education systems show, in general terms, a high degree of continuity and are difficult to change in a short period of
time, in this case a decade. Nevertheless, within this continuist path, the Socialists did
reform the French education system in a way that seems slightly more egalitarian;
that is, they may have increased equality in education. And, in fact, when Socialists
won power in 1981 they had a concept of equality in education that went beyond
mere meritocratic equality and included the principle of positive discrimination in
education in their discourse. But after the defeat of Savary, and mainly with
Chevenement, this concept and this principle became vaguer, more meritocratic and
less compensatory.
Rather than these marginal egalitarian changes the Socialists introduced through
their education policy, what in fact needs to be explained is the continuity in the institutional structure of the French education system during this period. This article has
not attempted to provide a comprehensive or exhaustive explanation, but has pointed
at some of the factors that may lie at the heart of the continuities of certain dimensions
of education policy considered of importance for equality aims. The factors weighing
in favour of continuity include the pressures from teachers unions (usually secondary
teachers unions), from middle class higher education students (both at university
and in grandes ecoles as well as the present elites who are the graduates of grandes ecoles),
public opinion and other electoral considerations (that is, the necessity of consolidating the actual socialist electorate or attracting new voters to the PS).
Notes
1. Information comes from an interview conducted with Christian Nique, who hold a series of key posts in the
Ministry of Education and was in the cabinet of the President of the Republic Francois Mitterrand from 1989
to 1995. See also Peignard and van Zanten (1998: 69).
2. See Histoire de la France des origines a nos jours (1995), (Paris: Larousse).
3. It is also true that from 1989 to 1993 (the end of the second socialist period) the public expenditure on education
(as a percentage of GNP) increased from 6.4% to 7.3% (MEN-DEP. 1995. 30 indicateurs sur le syste me e ducatif,
Letat de lecole, 5, p.13). Besides, with the 1989 Orientation Law the Socialists tried to relauch positive discrimination principles in education.
4. I use the word `students both in a generic sense and also to refer exclusively to students in higher education as
opposed to school pupils.
5. See Fernandez Mellizo-Soto (1999). In order to identify the most accurate indicators for equality in education
policy a rational (educational) choice model is proposed, at the same time that evidence for some countries is
provided. Due to the limitations of space, here I will not develop all the relevant indicators. Other indicators
not contemplated in this article are the length of educational tracks and the opportunities to return to education
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
17
or to the prestigious track, including through adult education or special education. The changes the Socialists
made with regard to these specific measures were relatively insignificant. The evolution of special education is
quite similar to compensatory education which is analysed below (see Plaisance 1996).
See also Robert (1993), Derouet (1991), Lelievre and Nique (1995) and Prost (1992). These studies contain very
complete descriptions of the general education policy followed by the Socialists in France.
MEN-DEP. 1993. Geographie de lecole, p. 55.
This information comes from an interview conducted with Louis Legrand (see also Barreau, Garc a and
Legrand 1998).
I obtained this information from an interview with Claude Pair, one of Jospins advisers.
Information comes mainly from Alain Bergounioux, who was in the cabinet of the Prime Minister Michel
Rocard from 1988 to 1991 and has had important positions in the PS from 1985.
This information comes from interviews carried out with Alain Bergouniuox, with Catherine Moisan, one of
Savarys advisers, and with two of Chevenements advisers, Phillipe Barret and George Laforest.
These figures are from MEN (Ministere de lEducation Nationale), Reperes et references statistiques sur les
enseignements et la formation, 1995, p. 51, and Peignard and van Zanten (1998: 70).
See Duru-Bellat and van Zanten (1999) for a description of the decentralization processes in education policy in
France.
These figures are from MESR (Ministere de lenseignement Superieur et de la Recherche), Informations sur le
financement et les effectifs de lenseignement superieur, 1994, pp. 11 and 18, and from MEN, Reperes et references,
1984, p. 23.
These figures are from MEN, Reperes et references . . . , 1995, p. 163.
Information comes from interviews carried out with Jean-Paul Costa, a senior adviser to Savary, and with
Claude Blondel, one of the advisers on educational issues to Mauroy (the first Socialist Prime Minister). A
report on this subject completed in 1982 (Claude Domenach, Les conditions de vie et le contexte de travail des etudiants)
defends the predominance of a system of indirect assistance.
Information comes from Jean Hebrard, one of Jospins advisers. There was a plan `social-etudiant proposed in
this period by Claude Allegre, Jospins right-hand, defending a system of direct financial assistance.
These figures are from OCDE, Evolution des modes de financement de lenseignement. Rapport national: France,
1989, pp. 44 45.
These figures are from MESR, Informations sur . . . , 1994, p.18. Technical note: the 1980 data excludes STS and
CPGE students (some post-secondary education tracks; Sections de Techniciens Superieur and Classes Preparatoires
aux Grandes Ecoles), while these students are included in the 1994 data.
These figures are from MEN, Reperes et references, 1984, p.17 and OECD, OECD Education Statistics 1985 1992,
1995.
These figures are from MEN, Reperes et references . . . , 1984, p.19, and from MEN, Reperes et References, 1995,
p.23.
These figures are from MEN, Reperes et references . . . , 1995, pp. 21 and 79.
Although there were much more students in upper secondary education (see above). These figures are from
MEN, Reperes et references . . . , 1995, p.79. Terrail (1997: 27 28) also showed this trend.
Information comes from an interview with George Laforest.
References
A MBLER, J. S. (1985a) Equality and the Politics of Education, in J. S. Ambler (ed.), The French Socialist Experiment
(Philadelphia: Institute for the Study of Human Issues), 116 44.
A MBLER, J. S. (1985b) Neocorporatism and the Politics of French Education, W est European Politics, 8(3), 23 42.
B ARREAU, J., GARCIA, J. and LEGRAND, L. (1998). LEcole Unique (de 1914 a nos Jours) (Paris: PUF).
CHEVE NEMENT, J. P. (1985)Le pari sur lintelligence, entretiens avec H. Hamon et P. Rotman (Paris: Flammarion).
D EROUET, J. L. (1991) Lower Secondary Education in France: From Uniformity to Institutional Autonomy,
European Journal of Education, 26(2), 119 32.
D URU-BELLAT, M. and VAN ZANTEN, A. (1999) Sociologie de lecole, 2nd edn (Paris: A. Colin).
FERNANDEZ MELLIZO-SOTO, M. (1999) Politica Educativa e Igualdad en Espa a: Una perspectiva comparada, in
Desempleo y Politicas de Bienestar (Madrid: Fundacion Argentaria y Visor).
cole des Pre sidents. De Charles de Gaulle a Francois Mitterrand (Paris: Odile Jacob).
L ELIEVRE, C. and N IQUE C. (1995) LE
P EIGNARD, E. and VAN ZANTEN, A. (1998) Ladaptation des enseignements. Les Zones dEducation prioritaires.
Cahiers Francais, Le systeme educatif, 285 (Paris: La documentation francaise), 69 75.
P LAISANCE, E. (1996) Les enfants handicapes, in S. Paugam (ed.), Lexclusion,. Letat des Savoirs (Paris: La
Decouverte).
P ROST, A. (1992) Education, societe, politiques. Une Histoire de lEnseignement en France, de 1945 a nos Jours (Paris: Seuil).
R OBERT, A. (1993) Systeme educatif et reformes, de 1944 a nos jours (Paris: Nathan).
S AVARY, A. (1985) En toute liberte (Paris: Hachette).
TERRAIL, J. P (ed.) (1997) La scolarisation de la France. Critique de letat des lieux (Paris: La Dispute).