Analyzing the school segregation processes remains a major research object at a time when more and more voices denounce the absence of social mix. The last issue of Social Sciences Research Proceedings offers new empirical studies on the production of school segregation, as well as unprecedented reflection on the articulation between the concept of segregation and that of social reproduction.
If segregation and social reproduction at school are relatively classic issues in education sociology, the last issue of Social Sciences Research Proceedings Renew the reflection in this area by leaning on how these two concepts can be articulated. Appeared in France in the 1980s, at an era of massification of teaching and diversification of educational offer, sociological work on the disparity of schooling contexts were initially intended to an alternative to the very “approach unified »Of the school system proposed in the Reproduction By Bourdieu and Passeon in 1970. However, in this issue, as announced in the Choukri Ben Ayed and Frank Poupeau Introduction, the territorial approach is not considered as a competitor of the reproductive model but rather as a modality making it possible to decline it.
Another originality of this issue lies in the analysis upstream of the segregation processes, which we know, since the work on the effects of context, which it then affects the academic success of the students through the “ Effects-statements “And” effects ». The different contributions thus present empirical elements to open the “ black box “Segregation, focusing not on the institutional characteristics of the school offer but on the actors who, outside the school, operate or validate these choices, namely families and academic actors .
By focusing on manufacturing, behind the scenes, of school segregation, this research suggests the new levers which would allow policies to act in favor of mix. Indeed, in this area, the tools are rather lacking, as shown in Choukri Ben Ayed in the article which opens this number. Dressing an instructive history of educational policies in favor of social mix, the author notes in particular that the emphasis placed by the public authorities on the fight against school segregations, from the 1990s, contrast with the weakness of the institutional instruments for implement it. The school card, only capable, for lack of other means, to guarantee a certain social mix, constitutes, according to the author, an imperfect instrument, on the one hand because it can in some cases confirm urban segregations, on the other hand Because it was very softened very early on.
Repeated studies on the unequal effects of softening measures did not prevent that the school card becomes, notably during the debates for the 2007 presidential election, the privileged target of the defenders of mixed, on the right and on the left . Its abolition, planned from 2010, by allowing the free choice of the school, was thus presented as a solution in order to ensure social mix in establishments. This measure betrays the transition from a technocratic state to a withdrawal of the State (article Denis Laforgue in this issue): in the first case, the State is seen as having a mission to reduce social inequalities, while in the second case, social actors and families are designated as “ Responsible for the school destiny of their child And, indirectly, as the key to social diversity. What about really ? How to anticipate parents’ school choices in a context of free choice ?
The attitude of families with regard to social diversity
In the current context of a relaxation of the sectorization, Georges Felouzis and Joëlle Perroton recall that the choices of families tend to increase social and ethnic segregation in schools. From a summary of work in sociology of education and juvenile culture, the authors explain this growing preference of parents for the inter-self by the importance given to the socialization of adolescents by peers, to which Added to the absence of information on the quality of establishments.
This very large attention by families to the social composition of the establishment, often to the detriment of the evaluation of the educational qualities, is very well understood by the article by Agnes van Zanten, which relies on a study of Motivations of school choices of families of executives, intermediate professions and employees in four municipalities in the Parisian suburbs. Family attitudes relating to the choice of the establishment are available according to two ideal-typical models. The first, overrepresented among the families of upper social classes and the holders of economic capital, corresponds to a search for the early and fully assumed interior, based on a binary conception of society (the “ similar “And the” others »). The second, observed especially in the intellectual fringes of the middle and upper classes, defends a certain “ brewing “Cultural within society and manifests itself either by later school choices and more” ashamed », Either by a advanced investment of parents in favor of the integration of different social groups in the establishment of their child. This last attitude shows that the meaning of the general interest, and not only individual rationality, can intervene in the school choices of certain parents.
It is interesting to note with Lorenzo Barrault that families also appear unevenly endowed to have their derogation requests accepted from the competent administrations. The parents’ derogation letters are indeed welcomed from administrative services with benevolence which increases with the quality of writing the letter – according to the expression and advanced motivations -, indirectly with the cultural capital of the parents. More surprisingly, the letters written by social services are likely to succeed, but the requests made, less strategic, often target less selective establishments.
School offer and polarization of establishments
The research presented in this issue of Social Sciences Research Proceedings Also contribute to showing that, if the choices of certain families have a responsibility in the production of school segregations, these choices and their effect on social reproduction depend, moreover, on the local institutional and administrative context. Sylvain Broccolichi thus shows in his article that a higher density of public establishments in a department, by allowing certain families of “ place Their children in a strategic way, and therefore by strengthening the differences in population between establishments, accentuates school inequalities between students according to their social background: the author observes that competition between establishments can not only be unfavorable to students of backgrounds popular, enclosing them in establishments “ ghettos “, But also destabilize students from intermediate backgrounds, by making their integration into favored establishments difficult.
Gabrielle Fack and Julien Grenet confirm this segregative effect of the density of the public education offer through an original study carried out from the prices of real estate located on the border between school zones in Paris. The authors also show that the private education offer affects urban segregation. Indeed, the presence of the private sector thus tends to reduce residential social segregation but to increase social segregation between schools to the detriment of the public sector.
Establishments to the aid of diversity
To compensate for the deficiencies of public action and stop the social closure of the training of “ Excellency “, Some institutions have implemented so -called” social opening »In favor of students educated in disadvantaged areas. Although very publicized, the entry of a handful of these students into an elite establishment is only one of the effects of these programs, as Marco Oberti, Franck Sanselme and neighboring Agathe show thanks to the survey that ‘They carried out with high school students who benefited from “ experimental classes »Within establishments approved for entry to Sciences-Po.
Indeed, these measures, by their punctual and arbitrary character, also help to create fracture lines within partner establishments, between students of the classes eligible for the program and the others, and between those given for “ favorite And the rest of the class. Finally, they cause a certain bitterness among those who fail to take advantage of this “ second chance Which is granted to them by making them carry all the responsibility of their failure. The same students, due to the cultural catch -up necessary for this “ mixing Accelerated, will also be brought to an awareness of social inequalities at school and to the absence of measures of the public authorities to remedy it.
In the end, both the ambivalent character of these experimental measures and the sometimes individualistic character of family choices encourages the greatest caution in the implementation of policies in favor of mix, whether they are voluntary or that they advocate laissez-faire. Admittedly, we can regret the absence in this more general framing data file on the “ choice »Schools: what is the proportion of families who choose the establishment, in a context of softening school card ? Who are they ? Likewise, the French case could have benefited from interesting lighting by helping that international comparisons. Thus, what lessons from free choice policies can we draw foreign experiences ? Nevertheless, the contribution of contributions presented here is indisputable within the framework of the current debate by questioning the opportunity of a removal of the school sectorization in the absence of additional measures intended to stem the perverse effects of the choices of families.