Reviews

Written Review #3

Benabou, R., Kramarz, F., & Prost, C. (2007). The french zones d'education prioritaire: Much ado about nothing? Retrieved February 10, 2012 from http://www.crest.fr/ckfinder/userfiles/files/Pageperso/kramarz/zep0607.pdf

Why did I choose this article?

I chose this article because although I am not teaching in a ZEP school, I was interested in learning about how these schools are designated and what sort of resources they receive. I only first heard about the ZEP program this past week, and was surprised because everything that I have read so far indicated to me that there were no provisions or extra resources provided for students with lower socio-economic status. 

What is this article about?

This article gives a definition of the ZEP program, explains how resources are allocated and how they are used, and finally examines the effectiveness of the program.

The ZEP (zones d’education prioritaire) program was launched in 1982 in order to provide extra resources and funding to schools that are located in areas with high-need. ZEP schools are loosely determined based on the following criteria: parents’ social and professional backgrounds, parents’ rate of unemployment, the fraction of students who are not native French speakers, and the fraction of students who have repeated a grade. Neither the amount or nature of the additional resources was ever specified, nor was the exact procedure by which ZEP status was determined. There is no official system in place for assessing the areas of greatest needs, or for evaluating the effectiveness of the program. 

The ZEP program was meant to be temporary, but soon became permanent. Currently, 11% of primary schools and 15% of colleges are designated ZEP schools. Very few lycees are designated as ZEP schools, likely because schooling is no longer mandatory after the first year of lycee. The vast majority of ZEP schools are in large, urban centres. 

The idea of the ZEP program is highly controversial; it is the first program in France that promotes the decentralization of the department of education and puts some of the control over the allocation of resources into the hands of individual school administrators. Some critics argue that allocating extra resources is to go against the national ideal of quality. Others argue that this type of program is vital to the success of students from low socio-economic backgrounds, while others argue that the whole program is a waste of public funds. The resources that are given to ZEP schools are allocated according to seemingly random administrative procedures; the resources vary from zone to zone, from year to year, and may be used differently by different schools. It appears that across all the ZEP programs, about half of the resource money is used for staff bonuses and wage increases. 

On a closer look it appears that the resources and funding are not resulting in increased academic success for its students. Despite the increase in wage and bonuses, the ZEP schools were not able to hire or retain more qualified teachers, if anything it seems that very qualified teachers do not want to teach at schools that are ZEP designated. Also, because the funding and resources were handed out somewhat haphazardly, there was no targeting towards the students who would be most likely to benefit from extra resources, and these students did not appear to make any significant gains, despite the extra resources allotted to the school. 

Other than extra financial resources, the mandate of the ZEP program allowed schools to design and implement additional educational projects that would link students with resources in the community, and support the development of local relationship and community building. However, few schools took advantage of this opportunity, and most schools never tried to initiate such a project. 

The authors of this paper found that ZEP designation had no effect on any of their four measures of academic student success: obtaining at least one diploma, reaching 8th grade, reaching 10th grade or earning a Baccalaureat. For all the opposition and controversy, the ZEP program has not achieved its goals, and does not appear to support student success. 

How does this reading contribute to my understanding of my placement in France, and myself as a teacher?

I found it fascinating that the the ZEP program exists, since in all my other readings I found no mention of this program. It seems that the allocation of resources for the ZEP program has become too decentralized, as there is no accountability for how or where the resources are used. 

Reading this article allowed me to reflect on how far ahead we are in Canada in terms of providing additional resources, and in meeting the needs to individual students regardless of their socio-economic status. Additional resources in Canada almost seem like a right for students, rather than a privilege. We believe that all students deserve access to an education that will support them in achieving their personal best. I also believe that in Canada there is a great deal of accountability for actions and resources, and that this accountability is what allows us such a strong system. 

Despite its efforts, France is a society that is still based in classism, and a students socio-economic status is still a factor in students’ chances of success. The failure of the ZEP program shows that there is a long way to go before true equality is achieved in the French education system. 

Written Review #2

Dobbins, M. & Martens, K. (2012). Towards an education approach a la finlandaise? French education policy after PISA, Journal of Education Policy, 27:1, 23-43.

Why did I choose this article?

I chose this article because on my second day in Saint Fargeau I attended a meeting at the University where the PISA evaluations were discussed in great depth (specifically comparing Canada to France). I was interested in reading more about the international comparisons, and seeing specifically how the French and Canadian systems were compared. 

What is this reading about?

This reading looks at French results in, and response to, the international PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) comparisons. PISA evaluate the skills of 15 year old students in the areas of reading, math, and scientific literacy, and then compares the results internationally. PISA results often influence educational policy at the national level. Though France has been hesitant to participate in international comparisons of their education system, they have participated in PISA for the last 10 years. Over this time, France consistently placed in the bottom half of the rankings, and have decreased their scores over the last 10 years, as now they place near the bottom of the rankings.

As opposed to many decentralized education systems (i.e. Canada, Finland), the French government determines all educational content through the National Ministry of Education. This centralization is consistent with French ideals and tendency towards political uniformity and egalite (equality). In addition to government control of educational content, the French education system is exclusively funded by the public, and all of the teachers are employees of the central government. The result of this centralization that individual schools have little to no autonomy in either their curriculum, or even their pedagogical methods. In terms of their education system, the French ideal of equality means that each student gets the exact same program delivered the exact same way.

This ideal of equality is paradoxical in that by providing each student the same program does not mean that they are receiving an education that will help them to succeed. As the state is required to provide the same opportunities, regardless of socio-economic status, often times the students who need more support are not entitled to it. Also, because it is mandatory for students to attend the school that is in their neighbourhood, students with similar socio-economic status are all grouped together, but there is no allowance for additional resources of specialized programs in areas of high need. In this way, the socio-economic status of a students’ family is often a strong determinant of student success. 

The results of the PISA assessment show that one of the main challenges in the French education system is that they are unable to deal with low-achieving students. As compared to international standards, France has a high number of high-achieving students, but an even greater number of low-achieving students (in countries that rank high such as Finland and Canada, there is little disparity between the highest and lowest students). These students go on to repeat classes or grades (40% of French students repeat a class/grade, as opposed to the international standard of 5-10%). Due to the centralization, there is no leeway for individual or tailor-made teaching or learning methods, and as a result the students who fall behind have no way of catching back up.  

The main pedagogical method calls for students to passively acquire knowledge, and then reproduce it on standardized tests. As a result, though most French students acquire a great deal of knowledge, they often have great difficulty expressing opinions and critiques, or dealing with situations that require independent, analytical thinking. Students in France are twice as likely as the international average to feel uncomfortable in school, and they rank their teachers very low as compared with the international standard. Only 43% of 15 year old students feel that their teacher individually supported their learning in school. In addition, in comparison to the international average, French students have a high level of fear and a low level of self-esteem. They refrain from sharing opinions in fear of being wrong, and they are largely pessimistic about their own achievements. 

Despite the international rankings, France is reluctant to change their system, and teachers, students, and administrators hold on to historically entrenched educational pedagogy (despite pressure from some political parties for change). For example, recently the French education minister put forth a proposal to base final marks not only on a single examination, but also on performance over the previous three years. The students overwhelmingly rejected this idea and wanted to maintain the rigorous, centralized testing procedures. Concerns were expressed that teachers and administrators would not be able to retain the same level of objectivity in evaluating performance, and would inevitably base performance assessment on socio-economic status. The students, teachers, and administrators felt that decentralized testing/marking procedures was going against the French ideal of equality. 

Finally, in looking at countries that rate high in the international rankings (Canada, Finland) PISA suggests that the following criteria are necessary for high achievement: comprehensive teacher training, flexible and diverse pedagogical approaches, in school support, a highly integrated pedagogical culture, and social diversity within the school. 

How does this reading contribute to my understanding of my placement in France, and myself as a teacher?

The highly centralized, teacher-directed French education system is the complete opposite of the decentralized, inquiry-based Canadian system that I have experienced and appreciate so much. In reading this article I became more aware of the historically entrenched pedagogical practices here in France, as well as the great importance that is placed on equality and having all students experience the same education system. 

After having been in the classroom now for both observation, and for my own teaching, I have seen the principles of this article brought to life, and it is clear to me that this article speaks the truth about the education system here. I believe that in seeing this education system, my beliefs in our own education system in Canada are strengthened, and I can better explain (or even defend) why I believe the Canadian system is so successful for its students.

Written Review #1

Eurydice. (2011). National system overview on education systems in Europe. Retrieved on January 20, 2012 from http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/documents/ eurybase/national_summary_sheets/047_FR_EN.pdf.

Why did I choose this article?

The organization of the French education system is quite different than that of the Canadian system. I choose this article in order to get a foothold on how the system is structured, before I tackled the ideological differences between the French system and our own. 

What is this article about?

This article provides a systematic overview of the structure of the French education system, and is current to 2011. The French education system centralized and is the responsibility of the Ministere de l’Education Nationale (National Ministry of Education). The vast majority of students attend the public system (88% of primary students and 79% of secondary students), although in recent years a tendency towards privatized education is becoming more apparent. The governments’ role in the education system also includes: defining conditions and objectives of teacher training, recruitment of teachers and administration, managing personnel, setting the status and operating rules of all educational institutions, organizing examinations, and awarding diplomas. 

The French Education system divides their education into four different levels:

1. Ecole Pre-primaire (ages 2-5)

This level of schooling is not compulsary, yet the majority of students attend from the age or 2 or 3 years. The main objective of the education is to contribute to the general development of the student, and to prepare the student for entry into ecole primaire.

1. Ecole Primaire (ages 6 - 11)

This is the beginning of compulsory education in France. The length of the school year is 180 days, and students only attend school four days per week (M/Tu/Th/F). The grade levels in Ecole Primaire are: CP, CE1, CE2, CM1, CE2. The curriculum of the Ecole Primaire focuses on “basic learning skills: reading, writing, arithmetic, development of motor skills and sensitivity.”

1. College (ages 11-15)

A continuation of compulsory education. The length of the school year is 180 days, and students only attend school four days per week (M/Tu/Th/F). The grade levels in College are: 1st year, 2nd year, 3rd year, and 4th year. The curriculum of College “comprises 8 or 9 compulsory subjects, depending on the year, and is gradually enriched by optional subjects.”

In the final year of college, students have the option to choose between:

1. a final general year in college (academic stream)
2. a professional discovery year in college 
3. a year in vocational training in college

At the end of the year, regardless of what stream the student has taken, they will receive their Brevet (diploma). 

1. Lycee (ages 15-18)

The final stage of compulsory education in France. Students can choose between a general, technical, or vocational stream in Lycee. The Lycee is three years, and at the end students will receive their Baccalaureat. The are specialized stream within Lycee, and students must choose at the end of their first year. 

1. General Lycee
1. Economic & social stream
2. Literary stream
3. Scientific stream
2. Technological Lycee

      a. Laboratory science and technology stream

      b. Management science and technology stream

      c. Industry and sustainable development science and technology stream

      d. Design and applied art science and technology stream

      e. Health and social science and technology stream

      f. Music and dance techniques stream

      g. Hotel and catering stream

      h. Agronomics stream

      i. Life science and technology stream

1. Vocational Lycee

     a. Vocational Baccalalureat

     b. Certificate of professional aptitude

     c. Vocational studies certificate

It is important to note that only the first year of Lycee is compulsory, after that it is optional for the students if they wish to remain in school. 

The French education system does not require that end-of-year exams are taken to pass students from one grade/level to the next. It is the parents responsibility to ask that students move up at the end of the year, and while a teacher can recommend that a student be held back, the ultimate decision rests with the parents. There is national testing in CE1 and CM2 in both French and Mathematics, but the results are only to identify and analyze difficulties, and the mark does not impact the students’ progress. The vast majority of marks come from homework and exams, however a “school life” mark is given to students in college that evaluates attendance and respect for the rules. 

How does this reading contribute to my understanding of my placement in France, and myself as a teacher?

Coming into a new, and quite different education system, I think that it is very important to understand how the system is structured, as well as the expectations and options that students have in terms of their own education. When I first arrived I didn’t understand the terms that were being used such as CE1, college, lycee, etc. This article gave me a basic understanding of the school structure, as well as an understanding of the options that students have in their final years.