Antecedentes Nacionales

In ToR 1- “Support measures for schools with high drop-out rates” we looked at the rebound measures geared towards socio-economically disadvantaged areas and presented as “the main initiative addressing young people disaffected from the school system” (ESEN, 2005), together with the Mission Generale d'Insertion (MGI : General insertion mission). We will not spend time on assessing these initiatives by researchers. Perhaps the question we should pose is that formulated by Eric Maurin (2007) : “What would have happened without these public policies to correct social inequalities in the ZEPs ? ”

The French report, drawn up in February 2008 and included in appendix 1, gives the list of official texts governing them.

In ToR 5 - Support measures for teachers working in such schools, we present a case study with more positive results with respect to the “contrats de réussite” (success contracts, Loison, 2005). Their creation marked the passage of ZEPs to REPs, from 1999, and their refocus on basic apprenticeships and citizenship education.

In ToR 11 – Selected innovative and successful projects or case-studies that have proved successful at school institution, local, regional and national level, we present three evaluations of researchers’ experiences, two in secondary schools (1 and 3) and one in the primary sector (2), that are particularly significant in terms of the evolution of strategies set up to help schools in socio-economically deprived areas.

In ToR 3, we look at the three-pronged evolutions:

- the policy of decentralisation, that takes the disparities between the different components of the country into consideration and aims to deal with issues more effectively through rebound schemes, thus facilitating the introduction of initiatives by regional and local bodies, both educational and other, including

“lycées” and “colleges” that had EPLE status (Etablissement public local d’enseignement : Local state education institution) in 1985;

- the increase in social problems in disadvantaged areas, with unemployment, urban insecurity with peaks in violence such as the 2005 riots, and the inability of each institution to find solutions on their own, leading to a combined approach to urban and education policies, which had previously been conducted separately;

- the support strategies set up for schools in socio-economically deprived areas: the transition from a policy introduced to compensate for educational inequality arising from social inequality, along the lines of positive discrimination (giving more to those who have less) to a policy focusing on success, and then a policy of excellence, which involves giving the best, usually only enjoyed by the elite, to the poorest in society.

We will start by defining ZEPs and REPs and give a brief outline of their environment and the geographical location of ZEPs. We will then describe their evolution and give an assessment of their results based on the latest report from the two Chief Inspectors of Schools at the ministry, the IGEN and the IGAEN, dedicated to them (Armand, Gille, 2006). We will conclude with the most recent aim of national policy : the concept of ZEPs as “areas of teaching excellence.” We will cover the effects of this new strategy in greater detail in one of the three case studies in ToR 11 concerning ToR 3.

1 – DEFINITION AND MAP OF ZEP/REPs IN FRANCE (Education Action Zones/Networks)

The compulsory and secular French republican school model was designed at the end of the 19th century to ensure equality of education for all children within a given area, based on the same national programmes. If a child did not succeed at school, it was because he or she had failed to seize the opportunities presented by the state. The democratisation of education by prolonging compulsory schooling to the age of 16 (1959) and, even more, the creation of a single “collège” (1977) for all children leaving primary school, gave rise to research studies that highlighted the role of social inequalities regarding the pupils’ school results. “Compensation programmes” began to be developed in the United States in the 1960s and, in 1967, British “Education Action Zones” were set up that inspired the development of the French “ZEP” policies. Associations and trade unions took up the issue, leading to the creation of “zones

prioritaires” (priority areas) in France in December 1981, which were later called “Zones d’Education Prioritaire” (Priority education areas), known by the acronym, ZEP (Armand, Gilles, 2006).

This form of positive discrimination corresponded to a policy of territorialisation that the decentralisation laws gave rise to at the same period in France (1982). However, this is in line with Anglo-Saxon principles of differentiated treatment of pupils nationwide, which prefers to take the conditions of local community life into consideration and partnerships with parents, associations, elected representatives, while the original republican school was designed as a sanctuary and protection from the external and negative influences of the street. We are currently experiencing a reversal of the French model.

Thus, in the decrees of December 1981 that created the ZEPs (“Zones d’Education Prioritaire”), their initial denomination was “zones prioritaires” (priority areas), clearly reflecting the recognition of the primacy given to local areas. From the moment they were created, there was a risk of seeing the gap widen between the marginalised schools and those that fit in strictly with the official national programmes which continue to be promulgated from on high by the Ministry.

The expression “Zones d’Education Prioritaire” (ZEPs), in which the noun in the singular reflects the fact that it is education and not the area that is coming first, first appeared in the ministerial letter of 8 July 1988, and the denomination “Education Prioritaire” (EP) was first mentioned in the decree of 10 July 1988, which created the REPs (“Réseaux d’Education Prioritaire”: Priority education network). This designates an entity that includes both the ZEPs and the REPs (Armand, Gilles, 2006, p. 9-10). The following definitions are given by Cécile Carra and Maryse Hédibel (2004).

“ZEPs are groups of schools located in areas with a number of social, economic and cultural problems. The national education system and its partners conduct concerted educational schemes in these areas that aim to help as many pupils as possible to get good educational results and better social and professional integration opportunities.” (Letter from the Prime Minister to the regional prefects on 22/12/90 Enseigner

en éducation prioritaire (Teaching in priority education) - 28 ).

“_{In 1999, the priority education zone incorporated a new structure : the REPs, in which the institutions} “pool their teaching and educational resources as well as their innovations to help pupils get good educational results” (Carra, Hédibel, 2004, p. 27).

A network is a coherent socio-geographic group, usually made up of each ZEP classified “collège”, together with the primary schools that are attached to it.

“The number of REPs is limited insofar as they each require considerable resources. Each Regional Education Authority has a map of the REPs which is updated every three years.”

- after potential areas are located at local level (“départements”) by the IAs (“inspecteurs d’académie”: Chief Education Officers responsible for “départements”), based on social criteria (socio-professional categories of the population, the number of scholarship holders) and the social urban development map; - calls for tender to submit success contracts are addressed to schools by the Inspections académiques (School inspectorates for “départements”);

- the projects are examined and validated and the list of REPs is drawn up by the “recteurs” (Chief Education Officers responsible for “académies”, State education districts corresponding more or less to regions; LEA in the UK).

The national map in 2006 “operates a distinction between three different levels of difficulty (EP 1, 2 et 3). The first level, called “réseaux ambition- réussite” (ambition-success networks), made up of 249 networks that include a “collège” and its primary schools in the sector, is the one that takes in the pupils with the greatest academic and social difficulties. The criteria retained at national level were both academic and social : a social criterion of over 66% of disadvantaged socio-professional categories and two academic criteria (the percentage of pupils at least two years behind on entering “collège” and the assessment of their results when they enter the first year of collège). These criteria are reinforced by an academic analysis that takes into account the number of pupils whose parents receive the RMI (Revenu minimum d’insertion : Minimum income for social integration) and the number of non French speaking pupils. From the present academic year, these networks will be provided with 1000 more teachers and 3000 teaching assistants.

The second level will include primary and secondary schools, the latter with the status of EPLE

(Etablissement public local d’enseignement : Local public education institutions), characterised by a greater social mix, and destined to remain within the framework of a so- called “Réseau de réussite scolaire” (Academic success network). They will continue to receive the same assistance as before.

The third level is made up of schools and institutions destined to progressively leave the priority education system.

Five “académies” count more than 12 ambition-success networks : Créteil, Versailles, Aix- Marseille, Lille and La Réunion. Seven “académies” have between 8 and 12 networks : Orleans-Tours, Lyon, Nantes, Rouen, Amiens, Martinique and Guyana. The eighteen other

“académies” have fewer than 8” (p. 14).

“In 2001, 2868 structures (2357 schools and 511 secondary schools, 365 collèges, 81 lycées, 65 LP

(Lycées professionnels : vocational secondary schools), located in ten “académies” (Aix-Marseille,

Amiens, Créteil, Lille, Lyon, Montpellier, Rouen, Strasbourg, Toulouse et Versailles) were involved in a scheme to combat violence, reflecting the officially defined areas of violence.” (p. 13).

This geographical division of ZEP and the mixed nature of the “academies” or Regional Education Authorities territories was highlighted in the report by the two IG (Inspecteurs généraux : Chief schools inspectorate at the Department for education), insisting on the issue of “the local effect.” (Chambon, 2000).

State initiatives, via the legislation they give rise to, and their application by its regional representatives (similar to LEA in UK), the two Chief Education Officers, the “recteurs” in “académies” (regions) and the “inspecteurs d’académie” in “départements”, are backed up by initiatives developed by the local municipalities, which play an increasingly important role in national education. Initiatives have developed in particular in areas with difficult populations. Local municipality and national education policies began developing in parallel, and then began to join forces. 2 – TOWARDS COLLABORATION BETWEEN EDUCATION AND URBAN POLICIES

“A whole series of texts redefined the three hubs of young people’s education, namely the family, school and out-of-school institutions, as well as the institutional contexts in which they operate.”(Zay, 2005, p. 24).

The decisive turning point came in the year 2000.

“The inter-ministerial decree entitled ‘National education and town policies : preparation and follow-up of local contracts’, dated 3 December 1999, created zones of convergence which aimed to reduce the gap between the affirmative action policies of the two public services. ‘In the directive of 25 October 2000 relative to local educational contracts, the State reaffirmed its conviction that education is a shared mission, together with its desire to make the local educational contract the contract that federates educational policies’ (Repères, 2001, p. 2)”(Zay, 2005, p. 25).

The orientation law of 1989 acted as the cornerstone of a policy to modernise the national education system, enabling a model that prevailed in socio-economically deprived areas to combat academic and social exclusion to be extended to the whole school system. This partnership policy, encompassing all the educational and social players, combined efforts to facilitate the integration of young generations, and was effectively embodied in both ZEPs and urban social development policies.

Lionel Jospin, who drew up this law when he was Minister of Education, developed a more wide-ranging policy when he became Prime Minister. In his speech to UNESCO on 7 March 2001, he stated:

“We would like to develop cross-sector projects in which teachers, parents, elected representatives and associations collaborate. Many measures have been introduced at local level with this in mind: schoolwork support measures, local educational contracts, local town contracts and tutoring for the most

disadvantaged, together with the setting up of ‘educational monitoring units’. These measures are still too limited, inadequately managed, and sometimes give rise to local administrative conflicts. That is why I asked the Urban Affairs Minister, Claude Bartolone, and the Minister of National Education, Jack Lang, to draw up a real collective strategy to work with these children both inside and outside the school confines within the framework of a stronger and extended partnership with all the local, institutional and social players. The principal urban projects should provide the main experimental framework for this strategy. Above all, we need to ensure better integration of the institutions in local areas by opening them up to other activities and services for the population. This will lead to another, more global, education policy with greater concern about everything that children and young people can experience outside the school walls (Repères, 2001, p. 3)” (Zay, 2005, p. 26).

This partnership policy met with strong resistance, but the partisans were supported at national level by legislation that they could refer to in the event of reticence by their colleagues and/or different hierarchical levels, effectively supported by pedagogical movements. They received official acknowledgement of their right to intervene as such in national education and teacher training, and not only by affiliated teachers from the Savary Ministry who founded the ZEPs in 2001. An agreement was drawn up with some of them in 2002, FRancas (FRANcs and franches CAmarades) and CEMEA, to facilitate their collaboration in the frame of rebound schemes. In ToR 11, case study 2 is devoted to a primary school (including a nursery school) managed by a pedagogical team belonging to the Freinet movement in a REP still to-day.

For André Chambon (2000), the ZEP initiative, which was considered ahead of its time when it was first introduced, is now seen as outmoded, incorporated in various municipal initiatives by the emergence of “projet éducatif local” (PEL : local educational project) which provide a closer fit with local situations. Urban educational initiatives are characterised by the extension of the “territorial effect.” Municipalities demonstrate greater local knowledge and a greater capacity for initiative than the coordination teams in a ZEP. They can introduce “development spaces” and invent new functions, setting up “educational geo-policies.” This means that we move from a “school form” to a “multiple educational form,” which implies and leads to joint responsibility, an educational co-production, and co-education.

Local national education and training policies and the promotion of social and educational development procedures, the engagement of local authorities and social or business partners has generated new education and training situations. The team from the Education, Training, and Integration Research Centre in Toulouse (CREFI-T), EA 799, University of Toulouse Le Mirail, led by Anne Jorro, professor in Education, have been conducting a study in this area since 1999, looking into “these new

forms of education and training by analyzing the decision-making processes that contribute to their emergence as well as the socio-educational interventions that aim to optimise their implementation (training, expertise, consulting, decision-making support). Analyses focus on the educational and training decentralisation conditions, the individual and collective changes that they are responsible for, and the underlying agenda, as well as how the partnerships with the ‘players’ in the training-employment- development systems are defined (individuals, organisations, schemes socio-technical, contractual documents, etc.) within a given period and context.”

The local educational project is analysed “as a form of socio-political regulation with an exploratory design and a tool for mobilising partners in local education and training schemes. The process of developing local educational contracts comprises one of the chosen experimental options.

- the types of organisation of training-employment relationships applied to different systems of training-employment-development and their interrelations : teaching institutions, training organisations, business organisations, associations and local authorities provide diverse contexts in which recruitment practices and professionalization are studied in particular.”

(cf. Bart, 2002; Bart., Bedin, 2005; Bedin, 2004; Fournet et al., 2001, 2002).

Dominique Glasman (1999) analysed the principles and specificities of different types of contracts drawn up at this time, in particular the CEL, “contrat éducatif local” (local education contract), the CLAS, “contrat local d’accompagnement scolaire” (local schoolwork support contract), the “contrat de réussite” (success contract) in ZEP/REPs, their impact on public policies, stakeholders, democracy, public policy funding and the effectiveness of public services. He analysed the stability and sustainable nature of these contracts, the public service renovation objectives they give rise to, and the difficulties inherent in reconciling interests and demands from users and professionals.

Looking at the situation from the political analyst’s perspective, Françoise Lorcerie (2006) considered that “priority education is an under-administered policy.”

Teacher training, a key element in getting teachers on board and giving them the tools to interact appropriately with their pupils, focused on more sustainable changes in the period that followed the law of 1989. Achievements appeared to take root at times, even if they were difficult to attain and encountered numerous obstacles in the process. Lessons were drawn to help teachers to better interact with the people they had to deal with both inside and outside the national Education system (Zay, 1994, 1999). As it takes more time to introduce changes in education than to change electoral mandates, the system overall is slow to shake up.

The present government’s apparent retraction regarding this policy will almost certainly curb such development, largely by accentuating the split between teaching programmes

for well-adapted pupils and remediation – or relegation – schemes for those who we nonetheless, in principle, wish to reintegrate.

In ToR 5 - Support measures for teachers working in such schools, we use a case study (Loison, 2005) to analyse the conditions for success in a programme adapted to the success contract strategy.