School diversity: inequality of opportunity?

Upon his arrival rue de Grenelle, Pap Ndiaye announced that he wanted to make social diversity at school his priority, his hobbyhorse. A few months later, in October, the National Education was forced to make public the social position indices (IPS) of schools. Basically: the sociology of students. It then became apparent how segregated our school is, with an ever-increasing separation between advantaged and disadvantaged students. This publication had raised some awareness. The moment seemed favorable to a voluntary action in favor of school co-education.

On the one hand, there is what we knew: the separation of pupils within public education, by the only game of the school map. If you happen to live in the center of Paris, for example, where the price per square meter is one of the highest in France, your children will naturally be educated in establishments in the center of Paris, with classmates from , too, from very wealthy families.

But above all, there is what we sensed, and of which we now have proof: private education is massively used by the most privileged families to circumvent this school map. Of the 100 colleges with the highest GPI, 81 are private institutions under contract. Taken as a whole, private colleges enroll less than 20% of students from underprivileged families, and 40% of highly privileged students. These proportions are strictly inverse in the public. I could go on with a torrent of figures, but they all point in the same direction: the French school turns out, in the opinion of all educational sociologists, to be one of the most segregated within developed countries. .

>>> “We would like the mix not to be just a mixture of children”: mixed results in a Parisian establishment

In saying this, I am not making a value judgment: I am simply making an observation. That families who can afford it choose to offer their children the best possible educational conditions, I find it hard to see how they could be blamed. On the other hand, one must have the honesty to describe reality as it is.

The Debré law of 1959, which guarantees the existence of private education, was justified by respecting the freedom of conscience of families. It is now completely diverted from its spirit, since it is used, above all, in the search for a privileged schooling. And this, let us specify, at the expense of the taxpayer, since the private establishments are very largely financed by the State. Even over-financed: they capture 20% of the budgetary means, for 20% of the workforce, while hardly taking charge, for example, of students with great difficulty at school, or with disabilities. Under these conditions, if there is a criticism to formulate, it is aimed at successive governments, which have allowed this state of affairs to take hold.

The plan presented by Pap Ndiaye: insufficient and vague

As far as the public is concerned, he limits himself to two announcements: the creation of an “academic body for dialogue, consultation and management of social and school diversity”. Good… And the objective of “reducing the differences in social recruitment between establishments by 20% by 2027”. Blurry objective, of which we do not know how it will be measured, nor on what means it will be based. As for the private sector, it’s even worse: no binding decision has been announced. At most, the private establishments have accepted the “objective” of welcoming more scholarship children, but without any means of pressure, which had however been mentioned by the minister, being finally retained. As I told you: a missed opportunity!

Many politicians are calling not to destabilize a private education which, according to them, works well. I answer them with a very simple question: what role do we see for the republican school? If we believe that it is destined to reproduce and even increase inequalities, then, indeed, let’s not change anything! Because, yes, sociology has shown it many times: it is a little easier to succeed in school when you grew up with parents who are teachers, lawyers, engineers, journalists; when, from the earliest childhood, family meals are an accumulation of thousands of hours of private lessons; and when you meet, at school, classmates with exactly the same profile. Under these conditions, indeed, it is true, the private school functions well!

But at what cost ? As sociologist François Dubet reminds us, together the best students are a little better; but the less good ones are very noticeably less good. The result is a school of inequality of opportunity.

It seemed to me, however, to have heard that the heart of macronism is the fight for “the emancipation of individuals”, and the fight against “house arrest”. As long as the government does not really act in favor of school co-education, these words will remain nothing more than an empty slogan.