Bertrand Pluyaud
Nikki Kergozou
OECD Economic Surveys: France 2024
OECD Economic Surveys: France
Abstract
France’s educational system is facing many challenges despite a strong commitment to providing quality education. The country spends more on education per student than the average OECD country, notably in secondary education, and has undergone numerous reforms aimed at improving students’ educational performance, which remains however around the OECD average, and performance in reading has been declining over the past decade. The link between socio-economic background and educational outcomes is particularly strong in France. Continuing to raise school autonomy and accountability, promoting modern teaching approaches and boosting the attractiveness of the teaching profession could help ensure a high-quality education. Allocating more resources to disadvantaged students and continuing to work with the network of private schools under contract to encourage them to change their selection practices could help to provide more equal opportunities. Encouraging more young people, and especially girls, to pursue scientific careers could ensure sufficient skills for the green and digital transitions. Better training teachers to enforce discipline in classrooms could further support students’ wellbeing. Hiring additional assistants would offer better learning conditions to students with special needs.
France’s commitment to providing quality education for young people is strong, spending on education per student is above the OECD average, notably in secondary education, and school closures were limited during the pandemic. Yet, the French educational system is facing numerous challenges. The OECD’s Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) test scores show that French students’ performance is around the OECD average. Nevertheless, students’ PISA scores fell by more than the OECD average in 2022, and particularly sharply in mathematics. Students’ reading scores have been declining since 2012. While students from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds typically perform less well than advantaged students, this effect is even larger in France compared with the OECD average. Average public spending on education per student and as a share of GDP is higher in France than in other OECD countries. However, while France spends one-third more per upper secondary student than the OECD average, spending per primary student is 9% lower.
Teachers in France are amongst the most qualified across OECD countries but fewer feel prepared in general pedagogy than their peers in other OECD countries and the use of more modern cognitive activation practices is less widespread. Several factors are reducing the attractiveness of the teaching profession, including wages and limited career perspectives.
Finding a job is difficult for young people without a tertiary qualification, notably those who have followed vocational education. The current mismatch between skills and knowledge to labour market needs is high, with significant lacks in the areas of health, science and education. Few young girls are pursuing scientific careers, limiting diversity in the field. Also, skill needs related to digital and environment protection is expected to increase in the coming years. Numerous structures provide a range of career guidance information that can help improve the transition from school to employment. However, career guidance is mainly provided by teachers and psychologists, and not enough by labour market specialists.
France could improve the wellbeing of its students. France, like other countries, is affected by bullying and violence at school, and a lack of classroom discipline is particularly prevalent. Ensuring an inclusive education remains challenging. The number of students with special needs enrolled in schools has steadily increased in recent years and recruiting enough assistants is proving difficult.
This chapter reviews recent reforms and proposes directions to improve the effectiveness of its educational policies. The first section describes the structure of the education system. The second section discusses how to support a high-quality education system, by improving the efficiency of public spending, finding the right balance between centralisation and school autonomy and supporting innovative and effective teaching practices. The final sections explore policy options to support quality teaching and make the teaching profession more attractive, reduce inequalities in educational outcomes, ensure a smooth transition from education to employment and improve student well-being.
France has a centrally governed education system, mostly funded by the State (OECD, 2020[1]). The Ministry of National Education and Youth (Ministère de l’Éducation Nationale, de la Jeunesse, MENJ) is responsible for pre-primary to upper-secondary schooling. The State defines curricula and recruits, trains and oversees school managers and teachers in public institutions (OECD, 2020[1]). The Ministry develops national standards, organises exams and defines national qualifications (Box 5.1).
Since 2019, France is one of the few countries where school at the age of 3 is compulsory, remaining so until the age of 16, and almost 100% attend school between the ages of 3 to 17 (OECD, 2022[2]). Since 2020, some form of training is compulsory for 16-18-year-olds who leave school but are not employed (MENJ, 2023[3]). Children begin with three years in pre-primary school, followed by five years in primary school four years of lower-secondary school and three years of upper-secondary school (Table 5.1).
Source: Ministry of National Education and Youth.
At upper-secondary school, students attend either a general or technological school (three years) or a vocational school (two or three years). In both tracks, students take core subjects, such as moral and civic education, history and geography, and modern languages, in addition to their specialty subjects. The general track includes various specialty courses, which replaced the three traditional literary, economic and social, and scientific options in 2019. Obtaining the general and technological Baccalaureate is based on continuous assessment (40%), and the final Baccalaureate exams (60%). In 2022 around 40% of students in upper-secondary education chose the vocational track, compared to 44% across the OECD (OECD, 2023[4]). Students can prepare to sit the vocational aptitude certificate (certificate d’aptitude professionelle, CAP) after two years or the professional Baccalaureate after three years. Students who sit the CAP can also choose to undertake an additional two years to complete a professional baccalaureate. In the professional Baccalaureate, 40-60% of students’ time includes learning professional techniques in workshops, classrooms and in firms, in addition to general education courses. To obtain the professional Baccalaureate, students sit an exam or receive a validation of acquired experience (validation des acquis de l’expérience, VAE). All holders of the Baccalaureate may continue to tertiary education but, generally, those holding the vocational Baccalaureate are more successful in short-cycle tertiary programmes than in bachelor’s programmes.
Local authorities have a number of education-related responsibilities, such as the construction and maintenance of school buildings, school transport, school meals, the provision of teaching materials and recruiting and managing non-teaching staff (OECD, 2020[1]). The local authority responsible varies across levels of education: municipalities (communes) are responsible for pre-primary (maternelle) and primary (élémentaire) schools, departmental authorities (départements) for lower-secondary institutions, and regional authorities (régions) for upper-secondary institutions.
France has 18 academic regions (régions académiques), grouped into between 1 and 3 académies, or educational districts, resulting in 30 académies in total. The académie is the administrative district of reference for the French education system. The rectorat implements national education policies at the level of the académie. The recteur and their services are responsible for implementing education policy and work in collaboration with the relevant local authorities.
Several structures, some consultative, provide guidance to decision-making bodies in the education sector (OECD, 2020[1]). The Conseil de l’évaluation de l’école (School Evaluation Council, CEE), established in 2019, independently evaluates all schools. The Conseil national de la refondation (National Refoundation Council, CNR), under its wider goal of finding concrete solutions on the major transformations to come, aims to develop innovative educational projects that meet local needs, improve students’ outcomes and wellbeing and reduce inequalities.
French students perform at a level similar their OECD peers in the OECD’s Program for International Student Assessment (PISA). Since 2003, 15-year-old French students have performed around the OECD average in mathematics and science (Figure 5.1). However, based on the TIMMS mathematics and Pirls science assessments, around 10-year old French students (CM1) have been performing below their OECD counterparts since 2011. In 2022, about 7% of French students were high performers in mathematics (PISA level 5 or above), below the OECD average of 9%, while 28.8% did not achieve minimum proficiency (below PISA Level 2), slightly below the OECD average of 31.1%. In 2022, French students performed around the OECD average in reading. France spends more than the OECD average as a share of GDP and per student on the educational system, raising questions about the system’s effectiveness considering France’s middling educational performance (see below).
While PISA scores declined across most OECD countries in 2022, French students PISA scores fell by more than the average OECD country across all three areas, particularly in reading (OECD, 2023[5]). This brings French students PISA scores to their lowest measured levels in PISA. The long-term trajectory differs across subjects. In mathematics, the large decline witnessed in 2022 is unprecedented and follows a period of relative stability. In reading, PISA scores have been declining since 2012. In science, the change is not statistically significant.
Source: OECD Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), 2022 Reading, Mathematics and Science Assessment.
While on average across OECD countries, students from disadvantaged socio-economic backgrounds perform less well than advantaged students, this effect is even larger in France. This highlights one of the key challenges for the French education system. In 2022, students’ mathematics performance was strongly correlated with their socio-economic and cultural status, predicting 21.5% of the variation in test scores compared to only 15.5% in the OECD. However, this gap does not appear to have increased over the past decade in France. Students from advantaged socio-economic backgrounds, with a non-immigrant background, and in schools where learning is less hindered by bullying score higher in PISA and even more so than in the average OECD country (Figure 5.2). Disadvantaged students are 10 times more likely not to reach minimum proficiency in mathematics than their advantaged peers, compared to 7 times for the OECD average.
Score point differences in maths performance by student characteristics
Note: The score point difference in maths, except for the variable: Girls outperform boys in reading. Represents the simple difference in scores, not controlling for any other explaining factors. Rural students are those attending a school in an area with up to 100,000 inhabitants. Schools where learning is less hindered by bullying is where principals replied that the learning of students is not at all or very little hindered by bullying compared to some extent or a lot. A socio-economically advantaged (disadvantaged) student is in the top (bottom) quarter of the PISA index of economic, social and cultural status (ESCS).
Source: OECD Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), 2022 Reading, Mathematics and Science Assessment.
Exploring the factors behind education outcomes can provide interesting insights for policy design. The link between education policies and outcomes as measured by students’ test scores can be analysed by estimating an education production function across OECD countries (Egert, de la Maisonneuve and Turner, 2023[6]). This analysis connects PISA scores to inputs including educational policies measured at the country, school and individual levels and a range of school and student characteristics. Several factors can be identified as being associated with better educational outcomes, including at least one year of early childhood education, the share of teachers with a master’s degree, greater accountability for schools and lower income inequality.
The link between these factors and PISA scores can then be extrapolated towards aggregate productivity developments, for which human capital is an important driver (Egert and Gal, 2016[7]). A new measure of human capital combines students’ PISA scores and mean years of schooling with estimated elasticities that suggest that the ‘quality’ dimension of education, as measured by PISA scores, is more important than the quantity dimension (Égert, de la Maisonneuve and Turner, 2022[8]). The impact of the policies outlined above are estimated to impact aggregate productivity through the human capital channel by between ½ to 5% on average across OECD countries.
Re-estimating the above analysis on French data only illustrates if policy changes could have a differing impact on educational performance in France. This re-estimation also adds additional control variables that differ in France from the OECD average, including the disciplinary climate and teachers’ satisfaction in teaching. Overall, this analysis suggests that an increase in the average PISA score in France, as a result of students achieving the average score of the top 10 performing OECD countries in each of reading, science and maths, would increase productivity by 2.7% (Table 5.2). The policies outlined above, as well as the additional control variables added to the re-estimation for France, outline ways in which France could achieve this increase in its average PISA score. An increase in girls’ maths performance, boys’ reading performance, improvements in teachers’ satisfaction in teaching and the disciplinary climate and an increase in schools’ accountability in France would boost productivity by a combined 1.2% (Table 5.2). In France, attendance in early-childhood education is already universal.
Note: The estimates control for public/private school, school size, age, socioeconomic background and its within-school dispersion, gender and language spoken at home. See Égert, de la Maisonneuve and Turner (2023[6]) for further details.
Source: Estimates based on the model in Égert, de la Maisonneuve and Turner (2023[6]), Quantifying the effect of policies to promote educational performance on macroeconomic productivity, OECD Economics Department Working paper.
The distribution of educational decision making between national, regional and local authorities, and schools is a much-debated topic in many OECD countries, including in France (OECD, 2020[1]). Centralisation can cause delays in decision making and fail to address local needs while decentralised systems can result in differing educational outcomes across geographical areas (OECD, 2023[4]). In France, 55% of decisions at the lower secondary level were taken centrally in 2017, compared to 24% for the average OECD country (OECD, 2018[9]). Despite recent efforts, primary schools have more limited autonomy and are not institutions in the sense that they do not have a legal status like that of secondary schools, which are deemed établissements publics locaux d’enseignement (EPLE). Results from PISA suggest that appropriately combining autonomy and accountability is associated with better student performances (OECD, 2023[10]). In recent years across OECD countries, many schools have become more autonomous and decentralised, as well as more accountable to students, parents and the wider public (OECD, 2023[4]), although there are varying degrees and types of autonomy (Smidova, 2019[11]).
The French system combines centralisation, devolution at academy level and decentralisation at local authority level. The State takes decisions on planning and structures, defines pedagogical guidelines and curricula and carries out the recruitment, training and management of teachers and school management staff in public schools (OECD, 2018[9]; 2020[1]). It also decides the career structure of teachers and school leaders and how they are remunerated and is involved in the oversight of teachers and supervisory staff in private schools, notably through certification programmes. On average, increases in school responsibility for selecting teachers have been associated with improvements in test scores (OECD, 2018[12]), and higher school autonomy in appointing or hiring teachers is associated with a more even distribution of experienced teachers across schools (OECD, 2022[13]). School autonomy in staffing practices may also only translate into greater equity in student performance if it is accompanied by higher levels of accountability (OECD, 2018[14]; 2016[15]; Torres, 2021[16]). The degree of autonomy granted to schools is closer to or above the OECD average in terms of allocating the school’s budget, student disciplinary measures and the choice of teaching resources.
School autonomy requires investment in school leadership and management capacity, with the effects of autonomy dependent on schools’ ability to make use of it. The status of school leaders in France differs by education level (OECD, 2020[1]). At the primary level, school principals (directeurs d’école) are teachers who, while retaining their teacher status, take on administrative and pedagogical leadership tasks, generally on a part-time basis and have little hierarchical power over other teachers (OECD, 2020[1]). While the 2023 Rilhac law (loi Rilhac) and subsequent legislation provided school leaders at the primary level functional authority over persons present in the school during school time, clarified their duties, affirmed their role in leading the school’s pedagogical practices, and introduced a system of accelerated career advancement for work undertaken in the capacity of school leader, they do not have hierarchical authority over the school’s teachers. School leaders can draw on various resources to help support them in this role, particularly with respect to training and assessment. At secondary level, public schools are run by school leaders (chefs d’établissement) who are appointed either through a competitive examination, from a selection list of suitable candidates or via a secondment. School leaders in secondary education have considerable responsibility for school organisation and the school climate (OECD, 2020[1]). School heads in primary education earn 25% less than school heads in secondary education, the second largest difference in remuneration between the two levels of education across the OECD, after England. School heads in primary schools earn 93% of the remuneration of a tertiary-educated worker, compared to 125% for a school head in secondary education (OECD, 2023[4]). Strengthening the role, responsibilities and career paths of school leaders, particularly in primary education and for those working in challenging contexts, would support the quality of the education system (OECD, 2020[1]).
Improving the training for school leaders could support their performance, as targeted in the reform currently underway. At each level of education in France, management staff undergo statutory initial training during their first year in the role yet receive little training in pedagogical management (OECD, 2020[1]). Additionally, in 2018, at the lower secondary level, only 43% had attended courses or seminars on teaching methods or other aspects related to pedagogy in the last 12 months. This is the lowest share in the OECD, where the average was 70% (OECD, 2019[17]).
The autonomy and accountability of schools can be supported by effective school evaluations, which occur in varied ways across OECD countries (OECD, 2023[18]). In France, the autonomy of schools goes alongside assessment procedures conducted by the School Evaluation Council (Conseil d’Évaluation de l’École, CEE), an independent body which evaluates around 20% of schools each year based on the decisions they have taken within the realm of their autonomy. With its first evaluations occurring in 2020, the CEE estimates it will have evaluated around 50% of all schools by the end of the 2022/23 school year (CEE, 2023[19]). School evaluations help enhance the quality of the education system and the findings can be used to inform policy and practice. Schools first self-evaluate before the CEE follows up with an on-site visit then provide their evaluation and recommendations. The CEE publishes its results publicly to promote a collective learning process.
Relative to the OECD average, France spends a smaller share of GDP on primary education than the OECD average (1.3% of GDP compared to 1.5% of GDP), and more on secondary (2.6% compared to 2.1%) (OECD, 2023[18]). It is difficult to assess the optimal resources needed to prepare young people for life and work in modern societies and labour markets. Across OECD countries, higher levels of spending on education do not necessarily translate into better education outcomes, with the effectiveness and implementation of policies also a key contributor (OECD, 2020[20]). However, international comparisons of spending can provide useful reference points (OECD, 2023[4]).
France’s education system is largely funded by the central government. In 2020, 91% of expenditure on educational institutions was financed by public funds, similar to the OECD average (OECD, 2023[18]). Around 74% of public spending was financed by the central government, 15% by regional governments and 11% by local governments, against respectively 45%, 15% and 40% on average across OECD countries. The State pays the salaries of teachers in public schools and those private schools under contract of the State (privé sous contrat), which account for almost all private schools (OECD, 2020[1]). Physical operations, including school buildings, transport and teaching materials, and the recruitment and management of non-teaching staff are financed by municipalities for primary schools and departmental and regional authorities for secondary schools. Departmental and regional authorities and municipalities also contribute to the financing of private schools under contract (OECD, 2020[1]). While France spends more on education as a share of GDP than the average OECD country, excluding tertiary education, they spend less as a share of total public spending (6% compared to 7.5%), reflecting a relatively high level of public spending (see Chapter 2). From the 9% of education spending financed from private funds, around two-thirds came from household contributions in the form of tuition fees.
France spends less than the OECD average per primary student and more per upper-secondary student than the OECD average (OECD, 2023[18]) (Figure 5.3). This gap in spending per primary and secondary student is relatively large. While OECD countries spend 13% more per secondary student than primary student on average, France spends 43% more, partly due to more favourable student-teacher ratios in vocational education.
Total expenditure on educational institutions per full-time equivalent student (2020), in equivalent USD converted using PPPs for GDP
Note: Spending on vocational education includes lycées agricoles and centres de formation en alternance (CFA.)
Source: OECD Education at a Glance 2023.
Continuing to rebalance spending towards primary education could help to limit the accumulation of unequal student performance and improve educational outcomes for a given amount of public spending. Correlations of learning outcomes with socio-economic backgrounds increase during a student’s primary education, particularly in mathematics (France Stratégie, 2023[21]). Continuing to address the sources of these inequalities in primary school could help limit the number of students falling behind at a young age, and the need for remedial measures in secondary school.
Average spending per student also reflects higher spending on students attending schools in disadvantaged and rural areas in both primary and secondary schools. The education system allocates additional resources to disadvantaged schools in its Priority Education Networks (Réseaux d’Éducation Prioritaire, REP) and Reinforced Priority Education Networks (Réseaux d’Éducation Prioritaire Renforcés, REP+). This aims to reduce the impact of social and economic inequalities on educational success, largely in the form of additional teaching resources (OECD, 2020[1]) (see below). Each recteur also allocates additional resources to some schools outside of the priority education system through local support agreements (contrats locaux d’accompagnement, CLA).
While spending on primary education remains lower, over recent years, France has made efforts to increase resources in primary schools, including through a 2013 law (loi pour la refondation de l'école de la République) and a more recent one of 2019 (loi d’une école de la confiance). Spending on primary education increased by 41% between 2012 and 2020 compared to a 30% increase in total spending per student. Nevertheless, continuing to rebalance the distribution of spending between primary and secondary schools could provide greater support to young people in the early years of their education (OECD, 2020[1]; 2022[2]; 2023[4]). As student numbers continue to decline in primary education and start to decline in secondary education in 2024 (DEPP, 2023[22]; 2022[23]), France is facing choices around its future education spending. Continuing to reflect on how to harmonise public services in sparsely populated areas will help support an efficient and quality education system across the country, even if this is an administratively complex endeavour with many actors involved.
Education systems are more effective when teachers use teaching practices that develop students’ full potential, regardless of their socio-economic background, native language or migrant status (OECD, 2018[24]). What teachers do is the strongest direct school-based influence on learning outcomes (Hattie, 2009[25]), with other school factors mostly influencing learning by influencing teachers’ practices.
OECD TALIS and PISA data show that cognitive activation has positive effects on student learning, attitudes and motivation (OECD, 2019[17]; 2018[24]; Echazarra et al., 2016[26]; OECD, 2018[24]). Constructivist approaches focus on cognitive activation and promote the development of a student’s analytical and critical thought, reasoning process, self-inquiry, peer-collaboration and problem solving. The approach considers students as active participants in the process of acquiring knowledge and consists of practices capable of challenging students to motivate them and stimulate higher-order skills, such as critical thinking, problem solving and decision making. This compares to teacher-directed instruction where the teacher is the main actor responsible for transmitting knowledge and skills to students. It includes practices based on lecturing, memorising and repetition. However, a balanced use of knowledge transmission and independent and collaborative work likely supports students’ learning, with traditional practices positively associated with repetitive tasks and more modern approaches linked with high-level problem solving (Echazarra et al., 2016[26]; Le Donné, Fraser and Bousquet, 2016[27]). The issue may be for the teacher to find the right balance of approaches, including when, in what way and with which students it is appropriate to use each type of practice.
Despite their effectiveness, constructivist approaches and cognitive activation practices appear to be less widespread than teacher-directed instruction across OECD countries. In 2018, France performed below the OECD average on three measures of cognitive activation (Figure 5.4, Panel A) (OECD, 2019[17]; DEPP, 2019[28]).This may be related to the fact that only 37% of teachers felt well or very well prepared in general pedagogy, compared to 70% in the average OECD country (OECD, 2019[17]). Moreover, 70% of lower-secondary school leaders highlighted the lack of teachers who can take care of students with special educational needs, which is above the 32% OECD average.
Teaching practices linked to “enhanced activities”, such as giving students projects that require at least one week to complete or letting students use ICT for projects or class work are also used less frequently than in other OECD countries (Figure 5.4, Panel A). As of the start of the 2024 academic year, mathematics programmes in primary schools will adopt a concrete and visual approach inspired by the “Singapore method”. The National Council for the Refoundation of Education, “Our School, Let’s Build it Together” (Conseil National de la Refondation Education, “Notre École, faisons-la ensemble”), aims to boost the success and well-being of students while reducing inequality in schools through innovation, among other approaches (see below).
Note: ICT stands for Information and communication technology. Classroom management is an average of: tell students to follow classroom rules; tell students to listen to what I say; calm students who are disruptive; and when the lesson begins, tell students to quieten down quickly.
Source: OECD TALIS 2018.
Effective teaching also includes providing constructive feedback (Hattie, 2009[25]). Teachers in France do this more often than in the average OECD country, both when it comes to administering their own assessment or providing written feedback in addition to a mark. Practices are similar to the OECD average with respect to observing students on particular tasks and providing immediate feedback compared to the average OECD country (Figure 5.4, Panel B). Marking student work can update teachers on student progress, enabling them to determine what subject content and teaching practices to use, while giving students regular feedback on their progress and ways to improve (OECD, 2021[29]). While useful, it must be balanced with teachers’ workload, which can be alleviated by effectively using technological tools (OECD, 2021[29]).
Supporting teachers with continuous training on innovative practices, sufficient time to plan and deliver lessons, support and feedback and collaboration across colleagues could help them implement a diversified use of innovative pedagogical practices (OECD, 2020[1]). Teachers’ self-efficacy is strongly correlated with their pedagogical practices and the quality of their instruction (see below) (OECD, 2021[29]; 2020[1]). Teachers from the same school tend to share a more similar approach to teaching than two teachers in different schools. This finding suggests that teaching practices are part of a “teaching culture” within the school, which can be influenced by many factors, including the school leader (Le Donné, Fraser and Bousquet, 2016[27]). For the start of the 2023 school year, France has introduced a “Teacher’s Pact” (Pacte Enseignant), which includes missions to coordinate and manage one or more pedagogical innovation projects in schools. This could also help adapt the teaching culture.
Class size is another factor that affects teachers’ working conditions, their ability to manage their class and the type of teaching practices that teachers can use. At the same time, the evidence on the impact of class sizes on students’ education outcomes is mixed. In France, class sizes in public primary schools have fallen from 23.5 students per class in 2015 to 21.1 in 2022 as a result of both demographics and a policy aimed at reducing class sizes in priority education. This trend is in part due to a decline in student numbers in addition to a notable decline in average class sizes in priority education areas, where the average class size fell from 22.7 students per class in 2015 to 16.7 in 2022 (DEPP, 2023[30]). Data from TALIS 2018 show that smaller classes tend to be associated with more actual teaching and learning time, but that they are not related to teachers’ use of cognitive activation practices nor reported self-efficacy in teaching (OECD, 2019[17]). Smaller class sizes may be beneficial in some cases, such as for students from disadvantaged backgrounds (see below) (Dynarski, Hyman and Schanzenbach, 2013[31]). Across high-performing countries in PISA, there is significant variation in class sizes, ranging from 20 to 42 (OECD, 2021[32]). The positive effects of reducing class sizes may be undermined if challenges in teacher quality are not addressed (OECD, 2018[14]). Given that reducing class sizes is costly, it is important to compare its impact with that of other ways to increase the quality of teaching, such as improving teachers’ salaries and working conditions and fostering new approaches to teaching and learning (OECD, 2022[33]).
The emergence of artificial intelligence (AI) opens up new perspectives in the field of education. AI can free up time for teachers but also help better adapt lessons to each student. The application of AI tools is particularly promising for students with disabilities, notably those suffering from hearing or visual impairment, as they facilitate the use of subtitling and automatic reading (OECD, 2023[34]). However, the development of AI is accompanied by risks, such as threats to data security, inequalities in access or weakening the essential student-teacher relationship. Furthermore, the social acceptability of these new tools is not always easy (Vincent-Lancrin and van der Vlies, 2020[35]; OECD, 2023[34]). The dissemination of educational tools and materials using AI is still in its infancy across the world (OECD, 2023[34]). The United States is a pioneer in this area, with first experiments in 2012 with the Teach to One program (Vincent-Lancrin and van der Vlies, 2020[35]). France is one of the countries that already uses AI in school teaching, for example with the “MIA Seconde” tool, which allows students to train in mathematics and French.
Teaching quality is by far the most effective way for schools to raise students’ cognitive and social-emotional skills (OECD, 2022[13]; Hattie, 2009[25]; Rice, 2003[36]; Seidel and Shavelson, 2007[37]). Factors that can be influenced by teachers are found to have a strong and lasting impact on former students’ educational attainments and earnings (Chetty, Friedman and Rockoff, 2014[38]; Hanushek and Rivkin, 2010[39]; Kane and Staiger, 2008[40]).
Teachers in France are amongst the most qualified across OECD countries. In 2018, 70% of teachers had a master's degree or higher, a requirement since 2010, compared to 45% in the average OECD country (OECD, 2020[1]). France has a model for teachers where entry into the profession is competitive, career development is extensively regulated and lifetime employment is largely guaranteed, similar to Italy, Japan and Korea (OECD, 2018[14]). As teachers cannot easily be removed for unsatisfactory performance, the quality of their work mainly depends on setting high standards for entering the profession and on the quality of initial education and continuous training.
To become a teacher, candidates must obtain a master’s degree, although mid-career pathways for professionals with a tertiary qualification are available. Teachers pass a competitive entry examination to become a trainee teacher (OECD, 2022[2]). Primary school teachers, or “professeurs des écoles” (ISCED 02-1), must pass the "concours de recrutement de professeurs des écoles” (CRPE) examination to teach in a particular académie (educational district) in France. Secondary teachers (ISCED 2-3) can sit one of several examinations depending on their subject. The most prevalent is the “concours du certificat d'aptitude au professorat de l'enseignement du second degré” (CAPES), to become a “professeur certifié”. The highest and most well-remunerated qualification requires passing the rigorous "aggrégation" examination to become a "professeur agrégé". All teachers must complete a one-year paid traineeship after which a jury determines whether they can be granted the status of teacher and become civil servants.
As in many OECD countries, France is struggling to attract and retain teachers, particularly in certain subjects, such as maths, chemistry, physics and languages, and in some geographic areas, notably the Greater Paris region, where student numbers have grown more strongly. Secondary teachers are in principle placed in a school in any part of the country, although preferences are considered.
After a strong decline in the recruitment of teachers between 2005 and 2015, recruitment indicators are starting to improve (Cour des Comptes, 2023[41]). Nevertheless, in the 2022 national examinations, four académies were unable to fill all available teaching positions (DEPP, 2023[42]). The share of teachers voluntarily leaving the profession has also been accelerating since 2012 (Figure 5.5). The use of contract teachers has increased steadily over the past decade to 2% of primary teachers and 10% of secondary teachers in 2022/23 (DEPP, 2023[42]), while reaching up to 27% in French Guiana and 51% in Mayotte in 2020/21 (Cour des Comptes, 2023[41]). As in many OECD countries, the profession is dominated by women. In 2022, women made up 85% of primary and 59% of secondary teachers (DEPP, 2023[42]).
Several factors are reducing the attractiveness of the teaching profession, including relatively low remuneration, a lack of career perspectives and not feeling valued by society (MENJ, 2023[43]; OECD, 2020[1]). Surveys found that in 2023, only 14% of teachers and 27% of the broader public would recommend becoming a teacher and only 23% of respondents agreed that teachers are respected, despite 58% agreeing that teachers work hard (UNSA Éducation, 2023[44]; Ipsos, 2023[45]). In 2018, only 7% of French teachers reported feeling valued by society compared to 26% in the OECD (OECD, 2020[46]). In 2022, 63% of tertiary students cited reasons linked to salary and working conditions as to reasons for not wanting to become a teacher (Ispos / Cour des Comptes, 2022[47]). Engaging in a system-wide reflection across stakeholders on how to re-create a valued teaching profession would help to attract and retain teachers, both through a salary that is aligned with teachers’ workloads and through improved work conditions.
Percentage of teachers
Source: DEPP (2023[42]).
Teachers’ salaries impact the attractiveness of becoming a teacher and better salaries draw more capable people to the profession (Fullard, 2021[48]). In 2022, 55% of primary teachers and 60% secondary teachers in France chose purchasing power as one of the three priority areas to be improved for their job, while 48% of primary and 39% of secondary teachers selected workload (DEPP, 2023[49]).
The statutory salaries of teachers with the most prevalent qualifications in France were below the OECD average in 2022 (OECD, 2023[4]). Statutory salaries are those that are set out in the official national salary scales, plus any bonuses received by all teachers (OECD, 2023[50]). In France, the salary progression for early-career teachers is relatively slow. As a result, the gap in statutory starting salaries between France and the OECD average peaks at 19% and 18% for primary and general upper-secondary teachers with 15 years of experience compared to around 4-5% for starting and top salaries. While salaries at the top of the scale are well above the OECD average, it takes 35 years of experience to attain this salary compared with 25 years in the average OECD country (OECD, 2023[4]). In 2022, primary teachers earned 9% less than upper-secondary teachers at the start of their career and 8% less after 15 years in the job, compared with 8% and 7% less for the OECD average.
Actual salaries can provide additional information on what teachers receive on their payslip, incorporating payments or bonuses related to additional responsibilities or teachers’ characteristics (OECD, 2023[50]). In France there are numerous bonuses, including those for working in a disadvantaged area classified as REP or REP+ or taking on the role of class or form teacher (professeur principal) in secondary schools. Also, 6% of lower-secondary and 29% of upper-secondary teachers have the aggregation qualification, the highest level of accreditation, and receive higher salaries and teach fewer hours than teachers with the most prevalent qualification, inflating teachers’ ‘average’ salary. While a difference in salaries can be justified, the fact that teachers with the aggregation qualification teach fewer hours appears questionable.
As in almost all OECD countries, teachers’ average actual salaries are lower than other career options with a tertiary qualification (Figure 5.6). This limits the ability of the profession to attract and retain high-potential candidates (OECD, 2019[51]).
Actual salaries compared to those of tertiary educated workers
Note: Actual salaries of 25-64 year-old teachers. In equivalent USD converted using PPPs for private consumption. BEL:FWG and BEL:VI. stand for the Flemish and French communities of Belgium, GBR:ENG stands for England and GBR:SCT stands for Scotland.
Source: OECD Education at a Glance 2023.
Teachers’ salaries can also be analysed in the light of their teaching and total workload, with primary teachers in public institutions spending more time teaching than the OECD average, while secondary teachers have a teaching workload slightly higher than the OECD average (Figure 5.7). Primary teachers teach for 25% more than secondary teachers, a larger gap than in many OECD countries. In 2021, French teachers total statutory working time was also above the OECD average, which reflects the legal working time and includes the time involved to prepare lessons, correct students’ work, collaborate with peers, communicate with parents and undertake professional learning (OECD, 2022[2]). In 2018, teachers cited working around 37 hours per week, slightly below the OECD average of 39 hours per week (OECD, 2019[17]). However, by 2018, half of teachers cited working around 43 hours per week (Dion and Feuillet, 2022[52]). In 2018, 60% of teachers reported that too much administrative work is a source of stress “quite a bit” or “a lot”, compared to 49% in the OECD (OECD, 2020[46]). Reducing the burden of administrative work could help allow more time for professional development (see below).
Net statutory teaching time of teachers in public institutions, 2021
Note: In the USA, LVA and CHE, represents actual teaching time. In the USA, the reference year differs from 2021. In Japan, represents the average planned teaching time in each school at the beginning of the school year.
Source: OECD Education at a Glance 2022.
While the French authorities have made efforts to improve teachers’ remuneration over recent years, particularly since 2021, further increases would help to further support the attractiveness of the profession (Cour des Comptes, 2023[41]). For the 2023/24 school year, teachers’ minimum net monthly salary increased to EUR 2100 and EUR 2466 for teachers working in disadvantaged areas classified as REP, largely benefitting early-career teachers (MENJ, 2023[53]). A total of EUR 7.7 billion has been allocated to salary increases between 2020 and 2024, with EUR 4.8 billion for 2023-2024 alone. However, the State’s dialogue and commitment to salary progression has at times generated certain expectations for teachers which did not seem to be met. The 2023 “Teacher’s Pact” (Pacte Enseignant) allowed teachers to earn more bonuses for certain additional tasks. The voluntary Pact was given a budget of around EUR 1 billion to cover these new tasks.
Continuing the recent increases to bring remuneration closer to the OECD average for primary teachers and teachers in the middle of their careers could be one part of boosting the attractiveness of the teaching profession (OECD, 2020[1]). For primary teachers this could include better reflecting in their statutory salary their lesser ability to earn bonuses compared to secondary teachers. While France offers a mid-career pathway into teaching, which can help mitigate immediate teacher shortages and diversify the profiles of teachers (Musset, 2010[54]), only two-thirds of teachers’ previous experience is recognised in the remuneration scale for certified teachers. No previous experience of contract teachers is recognised, reducing the attractiveness. Recognising the skills and experience of mid-career professionals within the teaching pay scale could improve the attractiveness of this pathway.
While the teaching wage bill represents the largest single cost in formal education and fiscal consolidation remains a priority (see Chapter 2), the number of students is declining (DEPP, 2023[22]; 2022[23]). This reduction will autonomically lead to an adjustment in the number of teaching positions and could allow for adjustments to the structure of spending and be a lever for change (Cour des Comptes, 2023[55]).
Improving pay alone will be insufficient to reverse the declining attractiveness of the profession (Cour des Comptes, 2023[41]), with education professionals dissatisfied by their career perspectives and not perceiving that their profession is valued by society (MENJ, 2023[43]). Many teachers cite being strongly motivated by the profession for social reasons, such as playing a role in the development of children and young people (92%) and contributing to society (83%) (OECD, 2019[17]). However, in 2022, French teachers gave a score of 5.9 out of 10 to the question whether they were satisfied with their work in general (DEPP, 2023[49]). Supporting teachers’ geographic mobility, career perspectives and training, discussed below, would improve working conditions for teachers. These are important factors for teachers’ job satisfaction and remain key goals for the Ministry. A staff well-being barometer has also been set up to monitor and understand changes in the quality of life at work for staff and diagnose the working conditions that are most conducive to improving it. The reduction in the number of students per class since 2015 has helped to improve these working conditions.
Additional measures targeting the particular challenges in regions facing shortages, including housing, teaching, training and financial support could help address the unequal attractiveness of the profession and the elevated recruitment needs in the Greater Paris region and in French Guiana and Mayotte. Further promoting geographical mobility may encourage more teachers to go to areas with high shortages for temporary periods whilst improving working conditions for teachers more generally, with 34% of early-career teachers, citing geographic mobility as a key priority for improvement (DEPP, 2023[49]). In France’s centralised teaching model, geographic mobility for teachers is constrained, which can be particularly important for secondary teachers, whose regional preferences are not always taken into account. Teachers who have worked in disadvantaged areas and with more experience accumulate more points in their application to move across académies. In 2018, 26% of French teachers cited that they would like to change schools, compared to 20% in the OECD (OECD, 2020[46]).
In 2022, 22% of primary and 27% of secondary teachers selected career perspectives following the top-ranked purchasing power and workload, as one of the top three priority areas to be improved (DEPP, 2023[49]). Increasing the frequency of career meetings, which also clearly define teachers’ training needs, could better support teachers to further develop their teaching practices, progress in their careers and improve their job satisfaction (OECD, 2013[56]). Teacher appraisals are infrequent and when they do occur, the emphasis placed on training needs varies considerably depending on the inspectors who conduct them (OECD, Forthcoming[57]). Since 2017/18, teachers have three appraisal meetings over their career, which occur every 7 years on average. This means that after 20 years of teaching many teachers no longer benefit from exchanges with inspectors on their professional practices whilst the challenges that teachers are facing are rapidly evolving. Moreover, some teachers have never benefited from an appraisal because it was introduced late in their careers (OECD, Forthcoming[57]).
Teachers and education professionals appear to have little buy-in for reforms and experience high levels of stress keeping up with changing policies. In. In 2018, 65% of teachers experienced quite a bit or a lot of stress keeping up with changing requirements from local or national authorities, compared to 41% in the OECD (Figure 5.8) (OECD, 2020[58]).
Percentage of teachers for whom keeping up with changing requirements from local, municipal/regional, state or national/federal authorities is a source of stress "quite a bit" or "a lot"
Note: 1. Alberta (Canada). 2. England (the United Kingdom).
Source: OECD (2020[46]).
Initial training could better prepare teachers, by providing more practical experience and training from practising teachers. Recognising several challenges, in 2019, the French authorities reformed initial teacher training and its provider, creating the INSPÉ (Instituts nationaux supérieurs du professorat et de l’éducation or National Institutes of the Teaching Profession and Education), within universities (OECD, 2022[2]). While in 2022 the competitive national teaching exams were moved to the second year of the masters programme to put future teachers in front of students before sitting the exam, only one internship was offered for every 1.6 teaching students in primary and 1.5 students in secondary education, with differences across rectorates and disciplines (Billon, Brisson and Monier, 2022[59]). Ensuring that rectorates have sufficient resources, in part by ensuring a sufficient supply of teachers, would guarantee the access to practical experience that is stated in the curriculum. In the second year of the teaching masters’ programme some students are being deterred from participating in practical experience, fearing a lack of time alongside preparation for the entry exams. Increasing the value of the practical experience of teaching students in their competitive exams could encourage greater participation (Billon, Brisson and Monier, 2022[59]). The authorities are currently considering giving more weight to work experience by developing practical, in-class training periods.
Extending the period of initial training in a teachers’ early years could provide greater support and ensure the continued development of skills, particularly for those who transition into the profession mid-career. In 2022, 29% of primary and 24% of secondary teachers with less than 5 years of experience cited that support in early career was a key priority for improvement (DEPP, 2023[49]). While France is above the OECD average in terms of teachers' participation in induction activities during their first job, few benefit from co-teaching with experienced teachers (25% compared to an OECD average of 45%) and even fewer benefit from a reduction in their workload as part of their induction activities (8% compared to an OECD average of 21%). Furthermore, supervision by a tutor appointed as part of a formal scheme in the school is still relatively rare for early-career teachers, despite the extremely positive perception of this type of scheme by headteachers (OECD, 2020[46]; Forthcoming[57]).
While France has reformed the professional development system, it remains complex and could be made more efficient (OECD, Forthcoming[57]). It could also better incorporate the evolving research on educational practices. Continuous training can play a key role in developing the skills, knowledge and practices that enable teachers to deliver quality teaching (Boeskens, Nusche and Yurita, 2020[60]; OECD, 2019[51]) and teachers’ participation in effective training is associated with greater confidence in their abilities and job satisfaction (OECD, 2019[17]; Boeskens, Nusche and Yurita, 2020[60]).
To provide a more accessible, more individualised and richer training offer for education professions, the Ministry of Education set up 30 new Écoles académiques de la formation continue (EAFC) in September 2022 (MENJ, 2022[61]). Primary teachers have a high level of participation in continuous training, with 18 mandatory hours annually, and while training is compulsory for secondary teachers, it is not included in their annual service obligations and only 59% took part in training 2021-2022 (MENJ, 2023[43]). While the EAFC are supposed to provide professional development opportunities for all education staff, the transition of the primary degree training offer under the EAFC has not yet been implemented in all académies (OECD, Forthcoming[57]). The professional development system also remains fragmented, including numerous players with a poorly defined distribution of responsibilities and often with different priorities. Rethinking the governance of the system and the roles and objectives of the EAFC and other training providers could support a reallocation of funds towards higher quality training (OECD, Forthcoming[57]). Promoting the pooling of resources between individual EAFCs could lead to further efficiency improvements.
Continuous training often doesn’t meet teachers’ needs and is of variable quality (OECD, Forthcoming[57]; Longuet, 2022[62]). Teachers in France are less well-prepared for the pedagogical aspects of their profession than their OECD peers, with only 66% of teachers having studied both the subject content and pedagogy of the subjects they teach, and had the opportunity to put them into practice with students, compared to 79% on average across the OECD (OECD, 2020[1]). To support professional practices, France is implementing a master plan for continuous training from 2022 to 2025. Training methods will be adjusted to not interfere with classroom time and better meet teachers’ expectations.
A lack of qualified trainers and an inadequacy of training for trainers, with limited recognition and lack of adequate rewards for their work are making it difficult to attract and retain them and develop more innovative training. Providing more time released from regular duties for the role would support teachers with time constraints to work as tutors. The difficulty in replacing teachers on continuous training courses due to staff shortages is hindering participation in longer and better-quality training courses (OECD, Forthcoming[57]). Anchoring continuous training in working hours for secondary teachers could help for it to not be seen as a compromise with other duties. At the same time, shortages are increasing the use of contract staff who have high training needs, which cannot be met. While the Ministry of Education has introduced training and support programmes for contract teachers, the offer remains short, and insufficient for entry into the job, resulting in teachers needing to heavily support contract teachers or contract teachers not benefitting from support (OECD, Forthcoming[57]).
Improving the limited incentives for continuous training would support the take-up of training (OECD, Forthcoming[57]). Many teachers view that initial training and success in the entry exam are sufficient for an effective career path afterwards (OECD, Forthcoming[57]). France’s relatively flat career structure of teachers results in few opportunities for career progression that are tied to training or skills development. In 2022, only 22% of primary school teachers and 16% of secondary school teachers considered that continuing professional development was a priority for improvement in their job (MENJ, 2023[43]). Linking continuous education to professional standards that define what people working in education should know and do, strengthening the links between professional development and career advancement and recognising skills developed, including in informal learning settings, could support participation. For example, countries including Australia, Estonia and Singapore have introduced systems to strengthen the links between teachers’ responsibilities and expectations in terms of skills at different stages of their careers (OECD, 2019[51]; 2021[63]).
Gaps in educational outcomes of those students from less privileged backgrounds are more pronounced in France than across OECD countries. To reduce the impact of social and economic inequalities on educational outcomes, France has allocated additional resources to schools in “priority education” since 1981 (OECD, 2020[1]). In 2014/15, France established the Priority and Reinforced Priority Education Networks (REP and REP+, Réseaux de l’Éducation Prioritaire). Schools are classified as REP or REP+ depending on criteria related to socio-economic background and academic performance of students. Around 1,090 schools were in the network at the start of the 2022 school year, attended by around one in five students in the public system. The investment is significant, with the authorities providing EUR 2.3 billion of additional investment in priority education 2021/22. However, around 70% of students from disadvantaged backgrounds do not attend schools in the network (Azéma and Mathiot, 2019[64]).
One of the main forms of extra resources for schools in priority education is more personnel, particularly teaching resources, including adjustments to their remuneration and working conditions. As in many OECD countries, France provides financial incentives to boost the attractivity of working in disadvantaged schools in the form of an indemnity bonus (OECD, 2019[51]). Another factor boosting attractivity is that after five years, teachers receive additional bonus points towards an application to transfer, facilitating their geographical mobility. These teachers also have fewer hours of class time and undergo additional training. Existing evidence suggests that these incentives have been effective in attracting teachers to disadvantaged schools. One study found that the doubling of the indemnity for teachers working in REP+ between 2017 and 2019 encouraged teachers’ mobility towards schools classified as priority education (Insee, 2023[65]).
Another factor contributing to greater teaching resources is smaller average class sizes. In 2012, France increased the number of teachers in priority education and in 2017 started halving class sizes for students aged 6-8 (grande section, CP and CE1) in REP and REP+ schools. By the start of the 2020 school year, the reduction in class sizes had been implemented for students aged 7 and 8 (CP and CE1) and by the start of the 2024 school year, they will have halved class sizes for 6-year-olds (grande section). The reduction in class sizes for 7 and 8 year olds was found to improve students’ progress in French and maths and narrow the gap in performance compared to students in non-priority education, except temporarily in 2020 (DEPP, 2021[66]; 2022[67]).
While smaller class sizes for disadvantaged students can have a positive impact on learning outcomes, the benefits largely hinge on accompanying efforts to develop teachers’ skills and ensure teacher quality. On average, OECD countries that reduced class sizes and student-teacher ratios in disadvantaged schools do not have narrower performance gaps related to socio-economic status (OECD, 2018[14]). Teachers with certain characteristics and practices may tend to concentrate in certain types of schools across OECD countries (OECD, 2022[13]). In particular, in France and many OECD countries, disadvantaged schools have a lower share of experienced teachers, with more experienced teachers on average spending more time teaching and being more effective in raising the performance of their students (OECD, 2019[17]; Papay and Kraft, 2015[68]). This can be addressed by giving schools more responsibility in teacher selection and recruitment, alongside stronger collaboration between teachers (OECD, 2022[13]; 2018[14]). A limited set of highly attractive project positions for experienced teachers in disadvantaged schools may also be an effective response (Cour des Comptes, 2017[69]; OECD, 2018[14]). Support and training for teachers in reduced-size classes and assisting school leaders and inspectors in their oversight roles could also be beneficial.
France’s binary model of priority and non-priority education is unique compared to most other OECD countries, combining substantial support for some schools with sharp threshold effects. In schools outside of priority education, the authorities adjust funding in a gradual manner based on student needs. The latter approach is more common in OECD countries. France’s priority education model provides a clear structure in which to provide additional resources and manage teachers and other staff (Azéma and Mathiot, 2019[64]). This can give rise to schools outside of priority education with similar characteristics to those in the network but with no additional support. Additionally, unlike the gradual adjustment in funding for schools outside of priority education based on their effective needs, the scope for adjusting resources in priority education is more limited (France Stratégie, 2019[70]). The label of priority education can also stigmatise schools, which may discourage some students from attending (Azéma and Mathiot, 2019[64]).
In addition to threshold effects, the priority education system is not best suited to take into account the diversity of local needs and evolving social and educational difficulties. For example, schools in rural areas are typically not in priority education but can face particular challenges (Azéma and Mathiot, 2019[64]). While tools exist to consider certain social and geographic criteria when allocating funding, they are not systematically used to adapt the allocation of resources (Cour des Comptes, 2023[71]). In the absence of a formalised national strategy, some académies (educational districts) have introduced specific policies for rural schools (Cour des Comptes, 2023[71]). Improving the performance of schools could become more effective with a more nuanced and progressive differentiation in resource allocations, taking into account local constraints and the region’s economic context, relying on a wider use of mechanisms to progressively allocate resources (Cour des Comptes, 2023[71]; 2023[55]).
Combining priority education alongside a formalised national strategy that reaches all students from disadvantaged backgrounds and limits threshold effects could help ensure a better balance between school needs and resources. At a national level, the authorities have been experimenting with two programmes since 2021. Contrats locaux d’accompagnement (local support contracts, CLA) introduce a more progressive allocation of resources to schools whilst taking account of the social position index, the proportion of scholarships, territorial characteristics and training opportunities, and could be used to avoid abrupt exits from REP/REP+ status in the event of reforms. The Territoires éducatifs ruraux (Rural Educational Territories, TER) scheme was implemented in 10 educational districts (académies) and further extended at the start of the 2023 school year. It aims to achieve greater differentiation in educational policies, in part by taking greater account of the specific features of rural areas. France could also use the opportunity of the planned reform to “priority” neighbourhoods (quartiers prioritaires de la politique de la ville, QPV) in 2025 to consider any adjustments to priority education.
Students’ academic performance and their career aspirations are influenced by their personal characteristics as well as those of their schoolmates, suggesting the presence of peer effects (Nash, 2003[72]; DEPP, 2019[73]) (Box 5.3). Schoolmates can motivate other students and help each other overcome learning difficulties. At the same time, they can also disrupt instruction, require disproportionate attention from teachers and be a source of anxiety. While the degree of this influence is highly debated (OECD, 2019[74]), there is some consensus on a detrimental impact of attending schools with many low achievers and the benefits of having high-achieving schoolmates (Burke and Sass, 2013[75]; Hanushek et al., 2003[76]; Lavy, Silva and Weinhardt, 2012[77]). Diversity within schools may also enable students from different backgrounds to interact with each other and may have a positive impact on social cohesion and tolerance (Borgonovi and Pokropek, 2017[78]; Karsten, 2010[79]).
High- and low-ability students’ performance may not be affected in the same way by their peers (Sacerdote, 2011[80]; Mendolia, Paloyo and Walker, 2018[81]). The negative consequences of a concentration of low achievers on student performance seems to especially be the case for students who are themselves low achievers. By contrast, high-ability students are usually less sensitive to the composition of their classes (Abdulkadiroğlu, Pathak and Angrist, 2014[82]). This suggests that reducing socio-economic segregation of schools may be beneficial for both increasing student performance at the country level as well as improving equity in educational achievement and opportunities (OECD, 2021[29]).
A students’ socio-economic background and that of their school impacts their educational performance. OECD PISA data can help disentangle these the individual and the school environment effects, following the methodology in Causa and Johansson (Causa and Johansson, 2010[83]) and as in OECD (OECD, 2022[84]). The individual effect is defined as the estimated difference in PISA scores between two students attending the same school but with different individual socio-economic backgrounds. The school environment effect is defined as the estimated difference in PISA scores between two students with the same socio-economic background but who attend schools with different socio-economic backgrounds.
An increase in a student’s socio-economic background from the first to the third quartile of students’ socio-economic distribution of in France is associated with an increase their PISA score in mathematics by around 32 points in France, equivalent to a 7% increase in the average score of a French student. This link is slightly stronger in France than for the average OECD country (Figure 5.9). The socio-economic background of students’ peers in their school has an even stronger link to test scores than the individual background, and the size of this link in France is one of the largest among OECD countries. An increase in the socio-economic background of a student’s schoolmates from the first to the third quartile of schools’ socio-economic distribution in France is associated with an increase their PISA score in mathematics of around 58 points in France. This is equivalent to a 12% increase in the average score of a French student. This result highlights the potentially significant impact that the relatively low diversity in French schools could be having on students’ performance. These results may be affected by the composition of the sample and the choice of explanatory variables. In particular, the students in the PISA sample for France are not necessarily representative of their schools.
Estimated difference in a student’s PISA mathematics score due to an increase in their or their peers socio-economic background from the first to the third quartile
Note: Estimates of a country-by-country multilevel OLS regression of students’ mathematics score on their family socio-economic background (measured by PISA ESCS), and school-level socio-economic background (average PISA ESCS across schoolmates). The regression is weighted by students’ sampling probability and controls for school size, age and gender.
Source: OECD calculations based on OECD PISA 2022 database.
PISA data suggest that 15-year-old French students of certain characteristics are slightly more concentrated in certain schools than their peers than in the average OECD country (OECD, 2023[10]) (Figure 5.10). The isolation index measures the extent to which certain types of students are isolated from all other types of students based on the school they attend. In France, low-achieving students are significantly more isolated from both all other students and from high achieving students than in the average OECD country, while high-achieving students are as isolated as in the average OECD country. In France, immigrant students are also more isolated from non-immigrant students than in the average OECD country. There are also other segregation indices, some of which may be less sensitive to the composition of the groups of students studied and lead to different conclusions, in particular the dissimilarity index.
A school’s diversity is directly affected by the school system, but also by external factors such as economic inequalities and residential segregation. School system factors include school admissions and selectivity, the degree of school competition, the criteria families use to choose a school, the size of the private education sector and the share of students enrolled in vocational programmes (Bonal, Zancajo and Scandurra, 2019[85]; Kutscher, Nath and Urzúa, 2023[86]; Wilson and Bridge, 2019[87]). In France, around 86% of primary and 78% of secondary students attended a public school in 2021/22, typically in their local school district (DEPP, 2023[88]). Parents can request for their child to attend a different public school for reasons including having a sibling in another school, the availability of a particular school subject or for being from a disadvantaged background. Around 13% of primary and 21% of secondary students attend a private school under contract with the state, with a 20% limit imposed by law (Cour des Comptes, 2023[89]). Around 0.9% of primary and 0.4% of secondary students attended fully private schools.
Isolation index from zero (full exposure) to one (full isolation)
Note: Only countries and economies where at least 5% of the student population has an immigrant background are examined. Low-achieving students are students who score among the bottom 25% of students within their country or economy on the PISA test. High-achieving students are students who score among the top 25% of students within their country or economy on the PISA test.
Source: OECD PISA 2022.
Private schools under contract have a greater share of students from advantaged socio-economic backgrounds than public schools and this share has increased over the past two decades (DEPP, 2022[90]; Cour des Comptes, 2023[89]). Lower-secondary private schools under contract have more “very advantaged” students than the public sector (42% compared to 21%) and fewer disadvantaged students (16% compared to 40%) (DEPP, 2023[88]). This attendance gap across schools for advantaged students in their first year of lower-secondary school reached 20 percentage points in 2022 compared to 11 percentage points in 1989 (DEPP, 2023[91]). In France, the share of advantaged 15-year-old students in private schools was 21 percentage points higher than the share of disadvantaged students, compared to only 13% in the average OECD country (Figure 5.11).
In some highly urbanised académies, private schools under contract are accentuating, and sometimes sharply, the social and educational gaps across schools (Azéma and Mathiot, 2019[64]). For instance, in Paris, 33% of students from “advantaged” and 50% of students from “very advantaged” backgrounds were enrolled in lower-secondary private schools under contract at the start of the 2019 school year, explaining around half of the social segregation in Paris lower-secondary schools (Grenet and Souidi, 2021[92]).
The decrease in diversity in private schools under contract appears to be in part due to families avoiding public schools (Cour des Comptes, 2023[89]). Even though 96% of private schools under contract are catholic, some families see private schools under contract as an alternative to public education. Interviews with family representatives often cited the quality of teaching, the school climate, or the distance from public education, which is perceived as a less secure environment and less effective, as reasons for choosing private schools under contract (Cour des Comptes, 2023[89]).
Difference in the share of advantaged and disadvantaged students in private schools, percentage points
Note: Results based on principals' reports. A socio-economically disadvantaged (advantaged) student is a student in the bottom (top) quarter of the PISA index of economic, social and cultural status (ESCS) in his or her own country. Data for Belgium represent only the French-speaking and German-speaking Communities.
Source: OECD (2023), PISA 2022 Results (Volume II): Learning During – and From – Disruption, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a97db61c-en.
Evidence from multiple countries indicates that the impact of publicly funding private providers on equity is influenced by the institutional arrangements in which they are embedded (OECD, 2017[93]; 2018[12]). In France, private school leaders have complete autonomy in enrolling students and selection criteria are not transparent with no social inclusion component (Cour des Comptes, 2023[89]). These school leaders also have greater autonomy in teacher recruitment. At the same time, private schools under contract receive only slightly less national funding compared to public schools, although significantly less funding from local authorities. Overall, for private schools under contract, families provided 22% of funding for primary schools and 23% for secondary schools in 2020 (Cour des Comptes, 2023[89]). Selective admission allows private schools to “cream-skim” high-ability students and attain a competitive advantage that may not necessarily be a result of the quality of education they provide (OECD, 2022[33]). For example, while students in private schools in France and across OECD countries achieve higher test scores, on average they achieve lower scores when controlling for socio-economic characteristics (OECD, 2023[10]).
Ensuring that school choice increases access to education in France also requires ongoing dialogue with private schools under contract to set selection criteria to maintain a diverse student composition (OECD, 2022[33]; 2019[74]). The government has signed a protocol to improve diversity with the General Secretariat of Catholic Education (Secrétariat general de l'enseignement catholique, SGEC), which represents 96% of private schools under contract. This agreement includes specific goals for increasing the number of scholarship recipients, special attention to classes with specific needs, and consideration of local contexts. Other measures underway will also help to foster diversity. A public database detailing access conditions for private schools and the change in social and academic diversity within private schools under contract at the national, academic and departmental levels will also be created. Social diversity will be further improved through a commitment to increase by at least 50% in five years the number of schools offering family contributions scaled by income and doubling the rate of scholarship students where students receive the same social aid as in public schools. There will also be steps to improve accommodation of students with special learning needs.
The authorities have been implementing policies aiming to support diversity, including by supporting a more balanced allocation of students across schools and increasing the attractivity of public schooling. At the start of the 2021 school year in the académie of Paris, which faces high school segregation, the Affelnet procedure of applying for upper-secondary schools was reformed to take into account the socio-economic background of a students’ lower-secondary school. This led to a 39% reduction in social segregation in public upper-secondary schools (Charousset and Grenet, 2023[94]). Implementing this measure on a national scale could help to increase the attractiveness of attending disadvantaged schools. Including private schools under contract in the Affelnet procedure could further support all students to select a range of publicly funded schools. Dialogue is ongoing between the government and private education networks under contract to improve diversity at these schools.
In 2015, the authorities launched an initiative to promote greater social diversity in 56 lower-secondary schools across France. Experiments including combining the school districts of several lower-secondary schools and re-assigning students to schools using different techniques, redesigning catchment areas and closing or opening schools. These initiatives were relaunched in 2021, along with other measures to improve the attractiveness of schools through international or European sections, where more class time is in English, or specialised subjects. Preliminary results find an increase in diversity and no increase in avoidance by defecting to the private sector. The results suggest no impact on learning but positive effects on personal and social well-being (CSEN, 2023[95]). The forthcoming complete evaluation of these policies could support the successful aspects to be implemented more widely into policy.
One goal of education is to enable students to develop a pathway to employment in line with their aspirations, potential, and the needs of an ever-changing labour market. Integrating into the labour market is a significant challenge for young people without tertiary education qualifications. Among 25-34 year-olds who have completed tertiary education, the unemployment rate is close to the OECD average, at 5.4%, compared to 4.9% in 2022 (Table 5.3). However, the unemployment rate for 25-34 year-olds who have not completed tertiary education is significantly higher, particularly for those whose education is below upper-secondary level. This highlights the importance of continuing policies aimed at reducing the number of early school leavers. For those with secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education, unemployment rates are marginally higher for those who took vocational paths, in contrast to the OECD average.
Therefore, special efforts must be made to facilitate the integration of young people from vocational pathways. More broadly, enhancing student integration requires a clear understanding of the current and future needs of different economic sectors in terms of knowledge and skills. The digital and green transitions are set to significantly reshape these needs in the years ahead. As a result, it is vital to adapt educational content accordingly. Effective career guidance policies are key in helping students find their way in this changing environment. In particular, this is the purpose of the career discovery programme in lower secondary school, which will be introduced into the second year of secondary school from the start of the 2023 academic year and will be extended to all classes above this level from the start of the 2024 academic year.
Percentage of unemployed 25-34 year-olds among all 25-34 year-olds in the labour force
Note: In most countries data refer to ISCED 2011. For Argentina and India data refer to ISCED-97. See Definitions and Methodology sections for more information. Data and more breakdowns are available at http://stats.oecd.org/, Education at a Glance Database.
Source: OECD/ILO (2023). For more information see Source section and Education at a Glance 2023 Sources, Methodologies and Technical Notes.
Young people who finish their studies without qualifications face significant challenges in finding employment. In 2022, the employment rate for 25-34 year-olds without an upper secondary qualification was 61% on average in the OECD, and only 52% in France. To address the issue, France has been implementing policies aimed at reducing rates of early school leavers for several years (OECD, 2020[1]). Platforms to provide services and support to students who leave school early (Plateformes de Services et d’Appui aux Décrocheurs, PSAD) were introduced in 2009 and regions were tasked with coordinating efforts to reduce rates of early school leavers in 2015. The “All Together to Overcome Early School Leavers” action plan (Tous Mobilisés pour Vaincre le Décrochage Scolaire), introduced bridging programmes providing temporary, tailored support for students in secondary education at risk of leaving school early. The plan aims to develop partnerships, in particular among local actors, to target young people who have left school early. Other measures include the Personalised Educational Success Programme (Programme Personnalisé de Réussite Educative, PPRE) and the creation of Early School Leaver Prevention Groups (Groupes de Prévention du Décrochage Scolaire, GPDS) in schools. Moreover, since September 2020, young people in France aged 16 to 18 have been required to remain in education or training if they are not employed. This includes schooling, apprenticeships or traineeships, civic service, mentoring programmes and specific programmes for social integration and labour market transitions. Finally, the drive to reduce the number of early school leavers has been reinforced through an overhaul of career guidance policies (see below). These policies led to a three-point decrease between 2015 and 2022 in the percentage of 25-34 year-olds without an upper secondary qualification (11%), which is lower than the OECD average of 14% (OECD, 2023[96]). There was also a substantial decline in the out-of-school rate at upper secondary level.
Efforts to tackle leaving school early must continue and be broad-based. Several countries, such as the Netherlands, Belgium, and Latvia, have successfully implemented policies activating various levers, including coordinating the mobilisation of schools, regions, and municipalities, creating of early warning systems for cases of leaving school early, and providing joint support for students, teachers, educators, and parents. The European Commission also embraced this approach in its “Pathways to School Success” initiative, launched in 2021. Canada and Australia identify at-risk populations or schools to ensure they receive targeted support (OECD, 2022[97]). At the start of the 2023 school year, France introduced a new “opening up” initiative (Tous Droits Ouverts) to offer tailored training opportunities for students in difficulty, alongside an introduction and exposure to the labour market with the support of local stakeholders involved in providing support, integration, training and employment for young people. Implementing such policies requires effectively detecting students at risk of leaving school early. In France, the interministerial system for information exchange (Système Interministériel d'Echange d'Information, SIEI) identifies young people over the age of 16 who have left the school system without qualifications. Earlier detection within this system could enhance the effectiveness of overall prevention measures for early school leavers (Inspection Générale de l'Education, du Sport et de la Recherche, 2020[98]).
Many young people choose vocational pathways: in 2020, 39% of students in upper secondary education in France were enrolled in vocational courses, compared to 43% on average in the OECD. However, this pathway continues to lack appeal and is too often chosen as a last resort. Around 21.1% of students in the final year of lower secondary education in 2019 or 2020 applied for vocational programmes, but 24.3% were ultimately directed onto this path (Iasoni and Schneider, 2023[99]). In 2017, students with at least one parent who graduated from higher education constituted 49% of those enrolled in general upper secondary education, but only 13% in vocational education. The vocational route is also predominantly male, with girls comprising only 41% of the total in 2021, compared to an average of 45% in OECD countries (OECD, 2023[96]).
To be more attractive, vocational pathways must primarily ensure students easy access to the job market and quality employment. Strengthening the ties between educational institutions and employers is crucial in this regard. This is one of the main goals of the vocational secondary school reform introduced in 2023, including making careers offices widely available in schools (Box 5.4). Countries with the lowest rates of vocational graduates not in employment, education or training typically offer students significant work experience during their studies (Figure 5.12). In Germany, Switzerland, Denmark, and to a lesser extent in Austria, this experience mainly involves programmes combining work and study. In France, only 28% of upper secondary students were enrolled in such programmes in 2021, compared to an OECD average of 45% (Figure 5.13). However, since 2018, France has been committed to a wide-ranging policy to support apprenticeships (Chapter 3). While the increase in the number of apprentices has primarily been in post-secondary education, secondary education numbers are also rising, and were up 15.7% in 2021. For these collaborations between schools and employers to be fully effective, it is important to ensure they do not impose excessive time and resource constraints on either party (OECD, 2022[97]).
Percentage of people aged 25-29 with vocational upper-secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary attainment not in employment, education or training (NEET).
Source: OECD, Education at a glance (2023)
Percentage of upper secondary vocational students enrolled in combined school and work-based programmes (2015 and 2021)
Note: The work-based component represents between 25% and 90% of the programme in programmes combining work and study. These programmes may be organised in partnership with the authorities or educational institutions.
Source: OECD/UIS/Eurostat (2023), Table B1.3 (2015 online data). For more information, see Education at a Glance 2023. Sources, Methodologies and Technical Notes, (OECD, 2023).
The government introduced a reform of vocational secondary schools in May 2023 (Ministère de l'Education Nationale et de la Jeunesse, 2023[100]). The reform focuses on enhancing student pathways, strengthening ties with employers, and aligning training with changes in the labour market. Reform measures are due to be implemented in the 2023, 2024, and 2025 academic years. An additional one billion euros will be allocated to vocational secondary schools annually to fund measures such as paid internships, improved general education, reduced class sizes for mathematics and French, optional activities (art workshops, digital creation, etc.), the use of artificial intelligence to personalise student exercises, and support to start a career, including the widespread roll‑out of careers offices in schools. These offices give students access to a network of companies for internships, facilitate communication between teachers and potential employers, and help clarify the needs to better adapt training. A quarter of courses leading to qualifications are due to be updated by 2025, largely to address the digital and environment transitions and population aging. Less effective pathways will be closed and new ones opened up in high-demand fields. In 2023, 2,600 places were removed and 3,000 new places created, along with 1,050 places funded under the France 2030 plan and created in line with the needs of corporate partners.
In France, the mismatch between skills and knowledge and labour market needs is significant (OECD, 2022[101]). The percentage of employees who do not have a field-of-study that matches their job requirements is higher than the OECD average (35% against 32% in 2019), as is the proportion of employees lacking the required qualifications (21% against 18%). In contrast, there are fewer overqualified employees in France than in the OECD average (13% against 17%).
The knowledge areas that recruiters find most lacking relate to health, sciences (especially physics and chemistry), and education (Figure 5.14). In contrast, France appears to have ample knowledge in management and commerce. Regarding skills and abilities, the most glaring deficiency is the ability to learn. This is also the case, to a lesser degree, across the OECD, highlighting the need in France for teaching methods that enable students to “learn to learn”. This advocates pushing for constructivist pedagogical practices in the French educational system. There is less of a shortage in computer programming and digital content creation in France than in the OECD overall, but these still rank among the most sought-after skills. Overall, the areas of knowledge, skills, and abilities where deficiencies are most and least marked are quite similar in France and across OECD countries. The need to align student training with the diverse needs for knowledge and skills was one of the main motivations behind the Baccalaureate and general and technological upper secondary reforms adopted in 2018 (Box 5.5).
Skill Needs Indicators (2019 or most recent available year)
Note: Positive values indicate skill shortage while negative values point to skill surplus. The larger the absolute value, the larger the imbalance.
The data refer to 2019, with the following exceptions: they refer to 2018 for CHE, FRA, IRL, ITA, POL, THA; 2017 for DEU, GBR, KOR; 2016 for AUS; 2015 for BRA, TUR; and 2012 for ISL, SVN.
Source: OECD Skills for Jobs database
General and technological Baccalaureate and broader secondary school reforms were implemented in 2018:
General pathways – literature (L), science (S), and economics and social science (ES) – were abolished. Now, students in their final two years follow a core curriculum and choose additional specialist subjects. This reform seeks to offer a wider range of educational pathways and to diminish the implicit hierarchy among subjects and streams. The scientific S stream was particularly popular, comprising 52.7% of general Baccalaureate graduates in 2018. While the specialty combination corresponding to the former S stream (mathematics, physics-chemistry, life and earth sciences) remained the most popular, it attracted only 23.4% of students in the second year of upper secondary education (première) in 2021.
The weighting of the final Baccalaureate exams was reduced to 60% of the final grade, with continuous assessment comprising the remaining 40%. The goal was to simplify the Baccalaureate, which was traditionally costly to organise, while recognising that career and further education choices are largely based on the results achieved during the school year.
Annually, up to 54 hours may be dedicated to career guidance, depending on student needs.
Specific periods are reserved for smaller class teaching, and personalised support is available to some students.
The environmental transition presents a twofold challenge in education. First, there is a need to make students aware of climate and environmental issues. Second, these issues will significantly impact labour market composition and job content in the coming years, requiring corresponding changes to different fields of education and school curricula.
Enhancing environmental education in teacher training and school curricula could better communicate to students the attitudes needed to protect the environment and mitigate the impact of climate change. French students are relatively well-versed in this area, even if there is room for further progress (Figure 5.15).
Adapting education to climate and environmental issues involves anticipating future training needs. Employment projections by France Stratégie and the Ministry of Labour show that meeting the National Low Carbon Strategy goals would generate 200,000 additional jobs by 2030, mainly in construction (+120,000 jobs related to thermal renovations), legal and advisory services (+45,000 jobs), and research, development, and agriculture (15,000 jobs each) (France Stratégie and Dares, 2022[102]).
Distribution of students with advanced levels in environmental sustainability competence in OECD countries (PISA 2018)
Note: Countries are sorted in ascending order of the percentage of students with advanced levels in environmental sustainability competence. Results were obtained from the sub-sample of students with valid information in all areas. The figure presents the percentage of students who reported that looking after the environment was important to them; who achieved at least the foundational proficiency Level 4 in the PISA science assessment; who indicated being aware of climate change and global warming; who reported high levels of environmental self-efficacy [see Section 1 in Borgonovi et al. (2022) for a full description]; and who reported either reducing energy consumption for environmental reasons or participating in activities in favour of environmental protection.
Source: Calculations based on OECD (2018), PISA 2018 Database, www.oecd.org/pisa/data/2018database/.
The digital transition is expected to drastically change work and the skills required in many sectors in the years to come. OECD estimates suggest that automation could result in the disappearance of 14% of existing jobs and profoundly modify 32% of these jobs in the space of 15 or 20 years in 2019 (OECD, 2019[103]). In this context, it will be important to continue to regularly renew the offer of training, as was done with the vocational high school reform.
Given the demands of the digital transition, equipping students with optimal information and communication technology (ICT) skills should be a cornerstone of education policy. A particular challenge is preparing students for careers in the emerging field of artificial intelligence, where job opportunities are growing rapidly.
In recent years, France has implemented measures to integrate more ICT into learning. Mandatory training in “digital and technological sciences” was introduced in 2019, with a “digital and computer sciences” specialisation in general upper secondary education. A digital competency framework and certification platform (PIX) has also been developed for students and made compulsory for new teachers (OECD, 2020[1]). The National Education system has made a wide range of digital content available to the public through the Eduscol website, the Lumni portal, and the Canopé network for teachers. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the state continued school education by leveraging these resources and the online learning expertise of the National Centre for Distance Education (CNED).
These efforts have resulted in an improvement. Hence, according to PISA, 70% of students said they had teachers with the necessary technical and pedagogical skills to integrate digital devices into their teaching in 2022, against 56.6% in 2018. However, other countries have also progressed in this area, meaning that France remains behind the OECD average that was at 87.6% in 2022 and 64.5% in 2018. Also according to PISA, in 2022, 74.5% of French students said they were in schools where effective professional resources for teachers to learn how to use digital devices were available, against 70.9% in 2018. In the OECD, the progress has been stronger on average, from 64.2% in 2018 to 76.2% in 2022. However, progress regarding digital equipment has been stronger in France that in the rest of the OECD: in 2022, 0.99 computers per 15-year-old student were available in France and 0.81 on average in the OECD, against 0.74 and 0.80 respectively in 2018.
In 2023, the French Ministry of National Education and Youth unveiled its 2023-2027 digital strategy, aiming to ensure strong digital competences for all students and train 400,000 to 500,000 digital professionals (MENJ, 2023[104]). Only 3% of students chose computer science in higher education in 2020, compared to an OECD average of 6% (OECD, 2022[105]). The Ministry has also set up the Edu-up system which supports the production of innovative digital resources for schools by companies or associations.
Few girls choose science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM), industrial and digital fields. While this is a concern in a number of countries, enrolment in France is below the OECD average, (Figure 5.16). The government aims to encourage more female students to pursue these pathways. A key goal of the 2023-2027 digital strategy is to double the number of girls in “digital and computer sciences” to address the low enrolment rates, which were 18.5% in the second year of upper secondary school (première) and 14% in the final year (terminale) in 2021 (MENJ, 2023[104]). Since 2019, the government has also been running the IndustriElles initiative, focusing on communication and mentorship to facilitate the integration of women in industry. Introducing in-school talks by women successful in STEM careers can inspire young girls to enter these fields (Breda et al., 2021[106]). Other countries, such as Australia, Mexico, and Ireland, have developed policies to break stereotypes and make STEM fields more inclusive through communication initiatives and curriculum adaptations (OECD, 2022[97]). In Ireland, an advisory group set up by the Government has recommended continued consideration of gender balance in national curriculum specifications and in the language, visuals and examples used throughout a national programme of mathematics and science resources (Gender Balance in STEM Education Advisory Group, 2022[107]). In the 2022 PISA survey, the difference between boys and girls scores and slightly increased in maths (+3 points) and remained stable in sciences between 2018 and 2022, while they slightly increased in the OECD on average (+4 and +2 points) (OECD, 2023[5]).
Share of female graduates in tertiary education, by field of study, in percent (2021)
Source: OECD/UIS/Eurostat (2023). For more information see Source section and Education at a Glance 2023 Sources, Methodologies and Technical Notes, (https://doi.org/10.1787/d7f76adc-en).
Better guiding students in their career choices can help align academic paths and skills with labour market demands. France relies mostly on teachers and psychologists for career guidance but could rely more on counsellors with an understanding of the labour market.
In secondary schools, form teachers are the initial points of contact for students and parents for queries related to further education and careers. However, 85% of form teachers lacked specific training (Cour des comptes, 2020[108]). Since 2018, the law has indicated that students in the final two years of upper secondary school should be given up to 54 hours of guidance a year as part of their timetable. However, this is only “a guideline” to be implemented “according to the needs of the students and the guidance methods in place in the school”. In lower secondary schools, 12 hours are set aside in third year of secondary school (quatrième) and 36 hours in the fourth year (troisième). Although the Teacher's Pact (Pacte Enseignant) provides for additional remuneration for teachers who take on guidance responsibilities, which may encourage some to engage in these tasks, it would be useful to define a mandatory time to be devoted to guidance and the expected initiatives (Juanico and Sarles, 2020[109]; Cour des comptes, 2020[108]).
National Education Psychologists (PSY-EN) help students and their parents to plan for the future. They provide services in Information and Guidance Centres (Centres d'Information et d'Orientation, CIOs), which are overseen by the Ministry of National Education and include 450 centres nationwide. Yet, with a ratio of one Psy-EN for every 1500 students, there are too few to provide a personalised service to all students. Furthermore, the need to provide psychological support for students raises questions about the relevance of assigning guidance responsibilities to people trained in this field (Cour des comptes, 2020[110]). At the same time, recruitment of guidance counsellors could place more emphasis on knowledge of the labour market (Cour des comptes, 2020[108]) and be broadened to more diverse profiles.
A major challenge for France's public guidance service lies in effectively communicating the wealth of information provided by state and regional services to students and their parents. Clarifying the roles of different actors involved in this process is crucial (Inspection Générale de l'Education, du Sport et de la Recherche, 2020[98]). The actions of approximately 8,000 bodies handling guidance could be better coordinated and streamlined (Charvet, Lugnier and Lacroix, 2019[111]). The national career guidance service (ONISEP) could be given a central role. The AVENIR(S) digital platform could be a significant source of progress. Backed by €30 million in funding through the France 2030 plan, the platform will enable young people from lower secondary level onwards to create personal accounts for access to specific information and support for their respective transitions and skills development. It includes a digital platform, learning portfolios, a skills development application and tailored resources for teachers.
Guidance in education can contribute more to reducing social inequalities by prioritising students from disadvantaged backgrounds. Young people's aspirations are often shaped by their social environment (Musset and Mytna Kurekova, 2018[112]). Those from modest backgrounds tend to be less informed about higher education options, which influences their preferences regarding higher education (Guyon and Huillery, 2014[113]). Countries like the Netherlands, Canada, and the United States have policies to enhance guidance for disadvantaged students (Dutercq, Michaut and Troger, 2018[114]; OECD, 2022[115]). In France, the Cordées de la Réussite programme partners higher education institutions with schools in priority education networks, urban priority areas and remote rural zones to offer personalised support. However, PISA 2018 data shows that nearly two-thirds of students in socio-economically advantaged French schools received regular services from at least one specialised guidance counsellor, compared to only half in disadvantaged schools. Both of these ratios are below the OECD average.
Bullying at school can have serious repercussions on the well-being of the student being bullied, as well as on his or her academic results and adult life. It is a phenomenon that concerns all countries and affects all social backgrounds to varying degrees, and its characteristics have changed in recent years with the use of social networks. France is no exception. According to the 2022 PISA survey, the percentage of 15-year-old students regularly being bullied was 9.1% in France, compared with an OECD average of 8.3% (Figure 5.17). The situation in France has deteriorated since the 2018 survey. Measures to combat bullying have been in place for around ten years. The Ministry of National Education and Youth allocates an annual budget of around 100 million euros to tackling the problem, which it considers a priority. This budget covers the remuneration of 150 full-time positions specifically dedicated to this issue.
Since 2019, the pHARe programme has been the cornerstone of the anti-bullying policy. It combines various tools for detecting and dealing with bullying, using local teams of teachers, education staff, secondary school students, and parents trained to tackle bullying. This open approach to the issue, involving students, parents and educational staff, is fully in line with the OECD's recommendations in this regard and is similar to what has been implemented in other countries, following programmes developed in Norway and Finland (OECD, 2017[116]).
Penalties for bullying were also tightened in 2023. In primary schools, bullies can now be expelled permanently to protect the victim. In secondary schools, systematic disciplinary procedures for bullying are now in place. Finally, a bill aiming to strengthen penalties for cyberbullying has been drafted.
At the start of the 2023 school year, the government introduced additional measures to tackle bullying in schools. They include a survey (the findings of which will soon be available) conducted among all students from CE2 onwards, involving an anonymous self-assessment designed to determine if students are at risk of being bullied. Norway’s experience in the matter may inspire the way in which the French authorities build on this survey.
However, as already mentioned, France has room for progress in terms of discipline in schools, which is one of the factors that can reduce cases of bullying (Gregory et al., 2010[117]; OECD, 2017[116]).
Percentage of frequently bullied students
Note: A student is frequently bullied if he or she is in the top 10% of the index of exposure to bullying across all countries/economies. The index of exposure to bullying includes the following statements: “Other students left me out of things on purpose”; “Other students made fun of me”; and “I was threatened by other students”.
Source: OECD, PISA 2022 Database, Table II.B1.3.30; OECD, PISA 2018 Database, Table III.B1.2.1.
A positive climate in schools is conducive to students' development and performance. PISA 2022 shows a positive correlation between academic results and discipline in all countries. The survey was used to develop an index based on answers to various questions about classroom discipline. The index shows that France has the sixth-highest level of indiscipline. PISA results also show that France is the OECD country with the third-highest proportion of students who report noise and disorder in all or most lessons, at 42.5% of students compared with an OECD average of 30.4%.
Providing teachers with training in classroom management and student behaviour can help them to better ensure discipline in their lessons. In France, only 55% of teachers have received such training according to the TALIS 2018 survey, compared with an OECD average of 72% (Figure 5.18). The same survey shows that only 22% of teachers in France feel adequately prepared to manage classes and student behaviour, compared with an OECD average of 53%.
Some general principles can be drawn from the literature on the subject. Clear rules must be imposed on students so that they know the correct attitude to adopt (OECD, 2020[118]). However, students are more likely to accept the rules and punishments imposed by teachers if they believe them to be fair (Gouveia-Pereira, Vala and Correia, 2017[119]). Moreover, students will be more involved in classes if they appreciate the relevance of what is being taught, understand what is expected of them, and receive the support they need from the teacher (OECD, 2013[120]). Teachers who spend time developing individual relationships with students by paying attention to their expectations, showing appreciation for their work, and providing constructive feedback, are more likely to instil discipline in their classes (Rhodes and Long, 2019[121]).
Source: OECD, TALIS 2018 Database, Table I.4.13, Table I.4.20, Table I.5.18, Table I.5.21, Table I.2.20 and Table I.3.50.
Guaranteeing the well-being of students and educational staff also means limiting acts of violence in schools. According to a 2021 survey carried out in France by the Ministry of National Education among primary school students, 23.1% had been afraid to come to school during the year because of violence, 33.1% had sustained deliberate injuries, and 40.2% said they had been victims of theft (Traore, 2022[122]). In addition, the TALIS 2018 survey shows that 18.9% of primary school teachers and 24.6% of lower secondary school teachers in France report that they are stressed by intimidation or verbal abuse from students, compared with 11.0% and 14.4% across OECD countries (OECD, 2019[123]).
To respond to violence in schools effectively, UNESCO recommends a comprehensive "whole-school" approach, combining a robust legal and policy framework for children, the gathering and analysis of detailed data on the subject, specific training for teachers, the involvement of all stakeholders (students, teachers, educational staff, parents and local authorities), better information for students, special consideration for vulnerable students, and the implementation of reporting, complaint and victim support mechanisms (UNESCO, 2019[124]). Portugal adopted this approach when it launched its "School without bullying, school without violence" plan in 2019, which mobilises a wide range of stakeholders and tools (OECD, 2021[125]). In 2019, France also introduced a plan to respond to violence in schools, which is also based on a wide range of measures. Disciplinary procedures and protection for school staff were strengthened, and support manuals were drawn up. Assistance and reporting mechanisms have been put in place, as well as “national school climate surveys”. Groups bringing together the various stakeholders involved in this issue have been set up at academic level. Close monitoring of the results of this plan will be useful in fine-tuning the measures to be implemented.
Offering children with special needs an education adapted to their requirements is essential to ensuring equal opportunities. Since 2005, French law has stipulated that any child or adolescent with a disability has the right to enrol in the school in his or her neighbourhood. As a result, the number of disabled children enrolled in schools has risen sharply, from about 150,000 in 2005 to close to 440,000 in 2022. At the same time, the budget dedicated to catering for disabilities in schools has increased considerably. It will exceed 3.8 billion euros in 2023, an increase of over 80% compared with 2017. Making school more accessible to children with disabilities is based mainly on the use of support staff for students with disabilities (AESH) and specialist teachers, who account for 63% and 36% of the budget respectively. Depending on their disability, students may be educated in ordinary classes, or with the support of a Local Unit for Educational Inclusion (ULIS), or in specialist units set up as part of the national strategy for autism. ULIS units are set up within schools and bring together students with disabilities in small classes. Teaching is coordinated by a specialist teacher. Regarding autism, the 2018-2022 national strategy established pre-school autism teaching units (UEMA), primary autism teaching units (UEEA) and self-regulation units (DAR) for secondary education, after having been developed in primary schools. These units are small classes of a maximum of seven students in pre-school and ten in primary and secondary education, led by a coordinating teacher along with health and social services professionals.
The support provided by learning assistants is invaluable for both students and teachers. According to a survey carried out in 2016 among teachers of students with disabilities, 81% of them felt that the learning support assistant in the classroom facilitated the student's independence and 59% felt that the support assistant facilitated their relationship with the student (Le Laidier, 2018[126]). The number of assistants has doubled in five years, rising to almost 130,000 in 2023. However, recruiting enough staff to match the growing needs remains a challenge. In 2022, more than 3,400 full-time equivalent posts had not been filled (Sénat, 2023[127]). Since the start of the 2021 academic year, localised inclusive support hubs (PIAL) have been set up to coordinate the work of support staff and respond more quickly to requirements. In addition, since 2018, support assistants have received 60 hours of basic training and distance- or classroom-based training. Expanding their training, by offering modules tailored to the needs of the students they will be assisting, would help to improve the way disability is managed in schools (Billon, Brisson and Monier, 2022[59]).
The increase in the number of disabled young people attending school also represents a significant shift for teachers, one which can sometimes prove demanding. Between 2012 and 2022, the number of disabled students enrolled in ordinary classes rose by 85% in primary schools and by 147% in secondary schools (MENJ, 2023[43]). In 2016, over 61% of teachers of students with disabilities felt that the presence of a disabled student in class created additional work for them (Le Laidier, 2018[126]). In 2018, the TALIS survey showed that there is a particularly significant need in France for teacher training on how to cater for students with special educational needs due to a physical, mental or emotional disability (Figure 5.19). To enhance teachers' abilities to accommodate students with disabilities, a certificate of professional competence in inclusive education practices was introduced in 2017. Since the start of the 2021 academic year, the training provided by the network of INSPE teacher training institutions has included at least 25 hours dedicated to inclusive school practices. From the start of the 2023 academic year, a special education teacher will be appointed in each school.
Percentage of principals reporting a shortage of teachers with competence in teaching students with special needs
Note: Students with special needs are those for whom a special learning need has been formally identified because they are mentally, physically, or emotionally disadvantaged.
Source: OECD, TALIS 2018 Database
References
[82] Abdulkadiroğlu, A., P. Pathak and J. Angrist (2014), “The Elite Illusion: Achievement Effects at Boston and New York Exam Schools”, Econometrica, Vol. 82/1, pp. 137-196, https://doi.org/10.3982/ecta10266.
[64] Azéma, A. and P. Mathiot (2019), “Rapport Mission Territoires et Réussite”, https://www.education.gouv.fr/rapport-mission-territoires-et-reussite-7577.
[59] Billon, A., M. Brisson and M. Monier (2022), Rapport d’information n°543 établissant le “bilan des mesures éducatives du quinquennat”, https://www.senat.fr/rap/r21-543/r21-5431.pdf.
[60] Boeskens, L., D. Nusche and M. Yurita (2020), “Policies to support teachers’ continuing professional learning: A conceptual framework and mapping of OECD data”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 235, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/247b7c4d-en.
[85] Bonal, X., A. Zancajo and R. Scandurra (2019), “Residential segregation and school segregation of foreign students in Barcelona”, Urban Studies, Vol. 56/15, pp. 3251-3273, https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098019863662.
[78] Borgonovi, F. and A. Pokropek (2017), “Birthplace diversity, income inequality and education gradients in generalised trust: The relevance of cognitive skills in 29 countries”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 164, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/f16a8bae-en.
[106] Breda, T. et al. (2021), Do Female Role Models Reduce the Gender Gap in Science? Evidence from French High Schools, http://www.parisschoolofeconomics.com/grenet-julien/wp/Breda_Grenet_Monnet_Van_Effenterre_2021.pdf.
[75] Burke, M. and T. Sass (2013), “Classroom Peer Effects and Student Achievement”, Journal of Labor Economics, Vol. 31/1, pp. 51-82, https://doi.org/10.1086/666653.
[83] Causa, O. and Å. Johansson (2010), “Intergenerational Social Mobility in OECD Countries”, OECD Journal: Economic Studies, https://doi.org/10.1787/eco_studies-2010-5km33scz5rjj.
[19] CEE (2023), “Bilan national de la campagne d’évaluation des écoles et des établissements 2021-2022”, Conseil d’évaluation de l’École, https://www.education.gouv.fr/conseil-d-evaluation-de-l-ecole-305080.
[94] Charousset, P. and J. Grenet (2023), “La réforme d’Affelnet-lycée à Paris : une mixité sociale et scolaire en forte progression dans les lycées publics”, Note IPP, Vol. 88, https://www.ipp.eu/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Note_IPP_88.pdf.
[111] Charvet, P., M. Lugnier and D. Lacroix (2019), Refonder l’orientation, un enjeu État-régions, https://www.education.gouv.fr/refonder-l-orientation-un-enjeu-etat-regions-3728 (accessed on Juin 2019).
[38] Chetty, R., J. Friedman and J. Rockoff (2014), “Measuring the Impacts of Teachers I: Evaluating Bias in Teacher Value-Added Estimates”, American Economic Review, Vol. 104/9, pp. 2593-2632, https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.104.9.2593.
[41] Cour des Comptes (2023), “Devenir enseignant : La formation initiale et le recrutement des enseignants des premier et second degrés”, Rapport public thématique, https://www.ccomptes.fr/fr/publications/devenir-enseignant-la-formation-initiale-et-le-recrutement-des-enseignants.
[89] Cour des Comptes (2023), “L’enseignement privé sous contrat”, Rapport pubic thématique, https://www.ccomptes.fr/fr/publications/lenseignement-prive-sous-contrat#:~:text=Les%20%C3%A9l%C3%A8ves%20de%20familles%20favoris%C3%A9es,%2C1%20%25%20dans%20le%20public.
[71] Cour des Comptes (2023), “Mobiliser la communauté éducative autour du projet d’établissement”, Rapport public thématique, https://www.ccomptes.fr/fr/publications/mobiliser-la-communaute-educative-autour-du-projet-detablissement.
[55] Cour des Comptes (2023), “Privilégier l’approche territoriale et l’autonomie dans la gestion des dépenses d’éducation”, Note thématiques, Contribution à la revue des dépenses publiques, https://www.ccomptes.fr/fr/publications/privilegier-lapproche-territoriale-et-lautonomie-dans-la-gestion-des-depenses.
[69] Cour des Comptes (2017), “Gérer les enseignants autrement”, Rapport publi thématique, https://www.ccomptes.fr/sites/default/files/2017-10/20171004-rapport-gerer-enseignants-autrement.pdf.
[110] Cour des comptes (2020), Les médecins et les personnels de santé scolaire, https://www.ccomptes.fr/system/files/2020-05/20200527-rapport-58-2-medecins-personnels-sante-scolaire.pdf.
[108] Cour des comptes (2020), Un premier bilan de l’accès à l’enseignement supérieur dans le cadre de la loi Orientation et réussite des étudiants, https://www.ccomptes.fr/fr/publications/acces-lenseignement-superieur-premier-bilan-de-la-loi-orientation-et-reussite-des (accessed on Février 2020).
[95] CSEN (2023), “Mixité sociale au collège : premiers résultats des expérimentations menées en France”, Vol. n°9, https://www.reseau-canope.fr/fileadmin/user_upload/Projets/conseil_scientifique_education_nationale/Note_CSEN_2023_09.pdf.
[30] DEPP (2023), “À la rentrée 2022, la taille des classes continue de diminuer dans le premier degré”, Note d’Information, Vol. n° 23.05, https://doi.org/10.48464/ni-23-05.
[91] DEPP (2023), “Évolution de la mixité sociale des collèges”, Note d’Information, Vol. n° 23.37, https://doi.org/10.48464/ni-23-37.
[42] DEPP (2023), “Panorama statistique des personnels de l’enseignement scolaire 2022-2023”, La Direction de l’évaluation, de la prospective et de la performance (DEPP), https://www.education.gouv.fr/panorama-statistique-des-personnels-de-l-enseignement-scolaire-2022-2023-379668.
[22] DEPP (2023), “Prévisions d’effectifs d’élèves du premier degré : la baisse des effectifs devrait se poursuivre jusqu’en 2027”, Note d’Information, Vol. n° 23.10.
[88] DEPP (2023), “Repères et références statistiques”, http://Repères et références statistiques.
[49] DEPP (ed.) (2023), Satisfaction professionnelle des enseignants : un niveau plus élevé en début et en fin de carrière, Note d’information, https://doi.org/10.48464/ni-23-38.
[67] DEPP (2022), “Évaluations repères 2021 de début de CP et de CE1 : les effets négatifs de la crise sanitaire de 2020 surmontés en 2021”, Note d’information, Vol. n° 22.01, https://doi.org/10.48464/ni-22-01.
[90] DEPP (2022), “Évolution de la mixité sociale des collèges”, Note d’Information, https://doi.org/10.48464/ni-22-26.
[23] DEPP (2022), “Prévision des effectifs du second degré pour les années 2022 à 2026”, Note d’Information, Vol. n° 22.12.
[66] DEPP (2021), “Évaluation de l’impact de la réduction de la taille des clases de CP et de CE1 en REP+ sur les résultats des élèves et les pratiques des enseignants”, Document de travail, Vol. n 2021. E04, https://www.education.gouv.fr/media/94352/download.
[73] DEPP (2019), “Les camarades influencent-ils la réussite et le parcours des élèves ?”, Document de Travail, Vol. n° 2019-E02, https://archives-statistiques-depp.education.gouv.fr/Default/digital-viewer/c-43756.
[28] DEPP (2019), “Pratiques de classe, sentiment d’efficacité personnelle et besoins”, Note d’Information, Vol. N° 19.22, https://www.education.gouv.fr/pratiques-de-classe-sentiment-d-efficacite-personnelle-et-besoins-de-formation-une-photographie-12581.
[52] Dion, É. and P. Feuillet (2022), La moitié des enseignants déclarent travailler au moins 43 heures par semaine, DEPP, Note d’Information, https://doi.org/10.48464/ni-22-30.
[114] Dutercq, Y., C. Michaut and V. Troger (2018), Politiques et dispositifs d’orientation : un bilan international, https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwj5lYTHhseCAxWMVaQEHVx2Av4QFnoECBkQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnesco.fr%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2018%2F12%2F181211_Cnesco_orientation_Dutercq_Michaut_Troger_.pdf&usg=AO.
[31] Dynarski, S., J. Hyman and D. Schanzenbach (2013), “Experimental Evidence on the Effect of Childhood Investments on Postsecondary Attainment and Degree Completion”, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, Vol. 32/4, pp. 692-717, https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.21715.
[26] Echazarra, A. et al. (2016), “How teachers teach and students learn: Successful strategies for school”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 130, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5jm29kpt0xxx-en.
[6] Egert, B., C. de la Maisonneuve and D. Turner (2023), “Quantifying the effect of policies to promote educational performance on macroeconomic productivity”, OECD Economics Department Working Paper 1781.
[8] Égert, B., C. de la Maisonneuve and D. Turner (2022), “A new macroeconomic measure of human capital exploiting PISA and PIAAC: Linking education policies to productivity”, OECD Economics Department Working Papers, No. 1709, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a1046e2e-en.
[7] Egert, B. and P. Gal (2016), The quantification of structural reforms in OECD countries: A new framework.
[21] France Stratégie (2023), “Scolarités : Le poids des héritages”, https://www.strategie.gouv.fr/sites/strategie.gouv.fr/files/atoms/files/fs-2023-rapport-poids_des_heritages-octobre.pdf.
[70] France Stratégie (2019), “Écoles primaries : mieux adapter les moyens aux territoires”, La note d’analyse, Vol. n°76, https://www.strategie.gouv.fr/sites/strategie.gouv.fr/files/atoms/files/fs-na-76-ecoles-primaires-avril-2019_0.pdf.
[102] France Stratégie and Dares (2022), Métiers 2030 : rapport du groupe Prospective des métiers et qualifications, https://www.strategie.gouv.fr/publications/metiers-2030.
[48] Fullard, J. (2021), “Relative wages and pupil performance, evidence from TIMSS”, ISER Working Paper Series, Vol. 07, https://www.iser.essex.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/files/working-papers/iser/2021-07.pdf.
[107] Gender Balance in STEM Education Advisory Group (2022), Recommendations on Gender Balance in STEM, Department of Education, https://assets.gov.ie/218113/f39170d2-72c7-42c5-931c-68a7067c0fa1.pdf.
[119] Gouveia-Pereira, M., J. Vala and I. Correia (2017), “Teachers’ legitimacy: Effects of justice perception and social comparison processes”, British Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 87/1, pp. 1-15, https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12131.
[117] Gregory, A. et al. (2010), “Authoritative school discipline: High school practices associated with lower bullying and victimization”, Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 102/2, pp. 483–496, https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018562.
[92] Grenet, J. and Y. Souidi (2021), “Renforcer la mixité sociale au collège: une évaluation des secteurs multi-collèges à Paris”, Rapport IPP, https://www.ipp.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/renforcer-mixite-sociale-college-evaluation-secteurs-multi-paris-ipp-fevrier-2021.pdf.
[113] Guyon, N. and E. Huillery (2014), Choix d’orientation et origine sociale : mesurer et comprendre l’autocensure scolaire, https://www.sciencespo.fr/liepp/sites/sciencespo.fr.liepp/files/Rapport-LIEPP-3_AUTOCENSURE_logosPartenaires_0.pdf (accessed on Décembre 2014).
[76] Hanushek, E. et al. (2003), “Does peer ability affect student achievement?”, Journal of Applied Econometrics, Vol. 18/5, pp. 527-544, https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.741.
[39] Hanushek, E. and S. Rivkin (2010), “Generalizations about Using Value-Added Measures of Teacher Quality”, American Economic Review, Vol. 100/2, pp. 267-271, https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.100.2.267.
[25] Hattie, J. (2009), Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement, Routledge.
[99] Iasoni, E. and F. Schneider (2023), L’orientation en fin de troisième reste marquée par de fortes disparités scolaires et sociales, https://doi.org/10.48464/ni-23-40.
[65] Insee (2023), “L’impact du doublement de l’indemnité REP+ sur les vœux de mobilité des enseignants”, Insee Analyses, Vol. No 87, https://www.insee.fr/fr/statistiques/7658358.
[98] Inspection Générale de l’Education, du Sport et de la Recherche (2020), L’orientation, de la quatrième au Master, https://www.education.gouv.fr/rapport-thematique-igesr-2020-l-orientation-de-la-quatrieme-au-master-325088.
[45] Ipsos (2023), Global Education Monitor 2023, Public opinion on education, https://www.ipsos.com/fr-fr/global-education-monitor-2023.
[47] Ispos / Cour des Comptes (2022), “Facteurs d’attractivité et de rejet du métier d’enseignant chez les étudiants”, https://www.ccomptes.fr/fr/documents/63632.
[109] Juanico, R. and N. Sarles (2020), Rapport sur l’évaluation de l’accès à l’enseignement supérieur, https://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/dyn/15/rapports/cec/l15b3232_rapport-information (accessed on 22 Juillet 2020).
[40] Kane, T. and D. Staiger (2008), Estimating Teacher Impacts on Student Achievement: An Experimental Evaluation, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA, https://doi.org/10.3386/w14607.
[79] Karsten, S. (2010), School Segregation, OECD Publishing, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264086395-en.
[86] Kutscher, M., S. Nath and S. Urzúa (2023), “Centralized admission systems and school segregation: Evidence from a national reform”, Journal of Public Economics, Vol. 221, p. 104863, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2023.104863.
[77] Lavy, V., O. Silva and F. Weinhardt (2012), “The Good, the Bad, and the Average: Evidence on Ability Peer Effects in Schools”, Journal of Labor Economics, Vol. 30/2, pp. 367-414, https://doi.org/10.1086/663592.
[27] Le Donné, N., P. Fraser and G. Bousquet (2016), “Teaching Strategies for Instructional Quality: Insights from the TALIS-PISA Link Data”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 148, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5jln1hlsr0lr-en.
[126] Le Laidier, S. (2018), Les enseignants accueillant des élèves en situation de handicap à l’école, Ministère de l’Education Nationale, https://doi.org/10.48464/ni-18-26.
[62] Longuet, G. (2022), “La comparaison européenne des conditions de travail et de rémunération des enseignants”, Rapport d’information, https://www.senat.fr/rap/r21-649/r21-6491.pdf.
[81] Mendolia, S., A. Paloyo and I. Walker (2018), “Heterogeneous effects of high school peers on educational outcomes”, Oxford Economic Papers, Vol. 70/3, pp. 613-634, https://doi.org/10.1093/oep/gpy008.
[53] MENJ (2023), Bilan de la rentrée scolaire : communication en conseil des ministres, Ministère de l’Education Nationale et de la Jeunesse, https://www.education.gouv.fr/bilan-de-la-rentree-scolaire-communication-en-conseil-des-ministres-379383.
[3] MENJ (2023), “L’Obligation de formation des 16-18 ans”, https://www.education.gouv.fr/l-obligation-de-formation-des-16-18-ans-306954.
[104] MENJ (2023), Numérique pour l’éducation 2023-2027: la vision stratégique d’une politique publique partagée, Ministère de l’Education Nationale et de la Jeunesse, https://www.education.gouv.fr/strategie-du-numerique-pour-l-education-2023-2027-344263.
[43] MENJ (2023), Repères et références statistiques 2023, Ministère de l’Education Nationale et de la Jeunesse, https://www.education.gouv.fr/reperes-et-references-statistiques-2023-378608.
[61] MENJ (2022), Les écoles académiques de la formation continue (EAFC) : des formations au plus près des besoins et de l’environnement de travail, https://www.education.gouv.fr/les-ecoles-academiques-de-la-formation-continue-eafc-des-formations-au-plus-pres-des-besoins-et-de-l-340541 (accessed on 5 September 2023).
[100] Ministère de l’Education Nationale et de la Jeunesse (2023), Réformer les lycées professionnels : Faire du lycée professionnel un choix d’avenir pour les jeunes et les entreprises, https://www.education.gouv.fr/media/155246/download.
[54] Musset, P. (2010), “Initial Teacher Education and Continuing Training Policies in a Comparative Perspective: Current Practices in OECD Countries and a Literature Review on Potential Effects”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 48, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5kmbphh7s47h-en.
[112] Musset, P. and L. Mytna Kurekova (2018), Working it out: Career Guidance and Employer Engagement, OECD Publishing, https://doi.org/10.1787/51c9d18d-en.
[72] Nash, R. (2003), “Is the School Composition Effect Real?: A Discussion With Evidence From the UK PISA Data”, School Effectiveness and School Improvement, Vol. 14/4, pp. 441-457, https://doi.org/10.1076/sesi.14.4.441.17153.
[96] OECD (2023), Education at a Glance 2023: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, https://doi.org/10.1787/e13bef63-en.
[4] OECD (2023), Education at a Glance 2023: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/e13bef63-en.
[18] OECD (2023), “Education at a glance: Educational finance indicators”, OECD Education Statistics (database), https://doi.org/10.1787/c4e1b551-en (accessed on 21 November 2023).
[34] OECD (2023), OECD Digital Education Outlook 2023: Towards an Effective Digital Education Ecosystem, OECD Publishing, https://doi.org/10.1787/c74f03de-en.
[5] OECD (2023), PISA 2022 Results (Volume I): The State of Learning and Equity in Education, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/53f23881-en.
[10] OECD (2023), PISA 2022 Results (Volume II): Learning During – and From – Disruption, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a97db61c-en.
[50] OECD (2023), “What do OECD data on teachers’ salaries tell us?”, Education Indicators in Focus, No. 83, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/de0196b5-en.
[2] OECD (2022), Education at a Glance 2022: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/3197152b-en.
[97] OECD (2022), Education Policy Outlook 2022: Transforming Pathways for Lifelong Learners, OECD Publishing, https://doi.org/10.1787/c77c7a97-en.
[115] OECD (2022), Education Policy Outlook 2022: Transforming Pathways for Lifelong Learners, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/c77c7a97-en.
[13] OECD (2022), Mending the Education Divide: Getting Strong Teachers to the Schools That Need Them Most, TALIS, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/92b75874-en.
[84] OECD (2022), OECD Economic Surveys: Belgium 2022, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/01c0a8f0-en.
[105] OECD (2022), Regards sur l’éducation 2022: Les indicateurs de l’OCDE, OECD Publishing, https://doi.org/10.1787/8b532813-fr.
[101] OECD (2022), Skills for Jobs database, https://www.oecd.org/employment/skills-and-work/.
[33] OECD (2022), Value for Money in School Education: Smart Investments, Quality Outcomes, Equal Opportunities, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/f6de8710-en.
[32] OECD (2021), Education at a Glance 2021: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b35a14e5-en.
[125] OECD (2021), Education Policy Outlook 2021: Shaping Responsive and Resilient Education in a Changing World, OECD Publishing, https://doi.org/10.1787/75e40a16-en.
[29] OECD (2021), Positive, High-achieving Students?: What Schools and Teachers Can Do, TALIS, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/3b9551db-en.
[63] OECD (2021), Teachers’ professional learning study: Diagnostic report for the Flemish Community of Belgium, https://doi.org/10.1787/7a6d6736-en.
[118] OECD (2020), Crime & punishment, OECD Publishing, https://doi.org/10.1787/945692bd-en.
[1] OECD (2020), “Education Policy Outlook: France”, http://www.oecd.org/education/policy-outlook/country-profile-France-2020.pdf.
[20] OECD (2020), PISA 2018 Results (Volume V): Effective Policies, Successful Schools, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/ca768d40-en.
[46] OECD (2020), TALIS 2018 Results (Volume II): Teachers and School Leaders as Valued Professionals, TALIS, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/19cf08df-en.
[58] OECD (2020), What Students Learn Matters: Towards a 21st Century Curriculum, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/d86d4d9a-en.
[74] OECD (2019), Balancing School Choice and Equity: An International Perspective Based on Pisa, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/2592c974-en.
[103] OECD (2019), OECD Employment Outlook 2019: The Future of Work, OECD Publishing, https://doi.org/10.1787/9ee00155-en.
[123] OECD (2019), Talis 2018 - The OECD Teaching and Learning International Survey, https://www.oecd.org/education/talis/.
[17] OECD (2019), TALIS 2018 Results (Volume I): Teachers and School Leaders as Lifelong Learners, TALIS, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/1d0bc92a-en.
[51] OECD (2019), Working and Learning Together: Rethinking Human Resource Policies for Schools, OECD Reviews of School Resources, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b7aaf050-en.
[9] OECD (2018), Education at a Glance 2018: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/eag-2018-en.
[14] OECD (2018), Effective Teacher Policies: Insights from PISA, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264301603-en.
[12] OECD (2018), Responsive School Systems: Connecting Facilities, Sectors and Programmes for Student Success, OECD Reviews of School Resources, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264306707-en.
[24] OECD (2018), Teaching for the Future: Effective Classroom Practices To Transform Education, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264293243-en.
[116] OECD (2017), PISA 2015 Results (Volume III): Students’ Well-Being, OECD Publishing, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264273856-en.
[93] OECD (2017), The Funding of School Education: Connecting Resources and Learning, OECD Reviews of School Resources, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264276147-en.
[15] OECD (2016), PISA 2015 Results (Volume II): Policies and Practices for Successful Schools, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264267510-en.
[56] OECD (2013), “Teacher appraisal: Enhancing teacher professionalism”, in Synergies for Better Learning: An International Perspective on Evaluation and Assessment, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264190658-9-en.
[120] OECD (2013), The Nature of Learning principles revisited, OECD Publishing, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264203488-9-en.
[57] OECD (Forthcoming), État des lieux de la formation continue des personnels de l’Éducation nationale et de la mise en place des Écoles Académiques de la Formation Continue.
[68] Papay, J. and M. Kraft (2015), “Productivity returns to experience in the teacher labor market: Methodological challenges and new evidence on long-term career improvement”, Journal of Public Economics, Vol. 130, pp. 105-119, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2015.02.008.
[121] Rhodes, I. and M. Long (2019), Improving Behaviour in Schools: Guidance Report, Education Endowment Foundation, https://educationendowmentfoundation.org.uk/education-evidence/guidance-reports/behaviour.
[36] Rice, J. (2003), Teacher quality: Understanding the effectiveness of teacher attributes, Economic Policy Institute, https://www.epi.org/publication/books_teacher_quality_execsum_intro/.
[80] Sacerdote, B. (2011), “Peer Effects in Education: How Might They Work, How Big Are They and How Much Do We Know Thus Far?”, in Handbook of the Economics of Education, Elsevier, https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-444-53429-3.00004-1.
[37] Seidel, T. and R. Shavelson (2007), Teaching effectiveness research in the past decade: The role of theory and research design in disentangling meta-analysis results, Review of Educational Research, https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654307310317.
[127] Sénat (2023), Projet de loi de règlement du budget et d’approbation des comptes de l’année 2022 : Enseignement scolaire, rapport 771, tome II, annexe 14, https://www.senat.fr/rap/l22-771-214/l22-771-214_mono.html#fnref4.
[11] Smidova, Z. (2019), “Educational outcomes: A literature review of policy drivers from a macroeconomic perspective”, OECD Economics Department Working Papers, No. 1577, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/990801aa-en.
[16] Torres, R. (2021), “Does test-based school accountability have an impact on student achievement and equity in education?: A panel approach using PISA”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 250, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/0798600f-en.
[122] Traore, B. (2022), Résultats de la première enquête de climat scolaire et victimation auprès des élèves de CM1-CM2 : 92,4 % d’entre eux déclarent se sentir “bien” ou “très bien” dans leur école, DEPP, https://doi.org/10.48464/ni-22-08.
[124] UNESCO (2019), Au-delà des chiffres: en finir avec la violence et le harcèlement à l’école, https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000368997.
[44] UNSA Éducation (2023), Baromètre UNSA Éducation 2023, https://www.unsa-education.com/article-/barometre-unsa-2023-crise-de-confiance-et-crise-democratique-renforcees-apres-6-ans-de-presidence-macron/.
[35] Vincent-Lancrin, S. and R. van der Vlies (2020), Trustworthy artificial intelligence (AI) in education: Promises and challenges, OECD Publishing, https://doi.org/10.1787/a6c90fa9-en.
[87] Wilson, D. and G. Bridge (2019), “School choice and the city: Geographies of allocation and segregation”, Urban Studies, Vol. 56/15, pp. 3198-3215, https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098019843481.