SHOULD THE STATE FINANCE PRIVATE EDUCATION? ALAIN SAVARY'S ATTEMPT TO SOLVE THE PRIVATE SCHOOL DEBATE IN FROM 1981 TO 1984

Sofia Oberti

B.A, University of British Columbia, 1999

THESIS SUBMTITED IN PARTLAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in the Department of History

O Sofia Oberti 2001 SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY August, 2001

Al1 tïghts resewed. This work may not be reproduced in whole or in part, by photocopy or other means, without permission of tne author. National Library Bibliothèque nationale 1*1 of Canada du Canada Acquisitions and Acquisitions et Bibtiographic Services services bibliographiques 395 Wellington Street 395. rue Wellington Ottawa ON KiA ON4 Ottawa ON Ki A ON4 Canada Canada

The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive licence allowing the exclusive permettant à la National Library of Canada to Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de reproduce, loan, distribute or seli reproduire, prêter, distribuer ou copies of this thesis in microform, vendre des copies de cette thèse sous paper or electronic formats. la fome de microfiche/film, de reproduction sur papier ou sur format électronique.

The author retains ownership of the L'auteur conserve la propriété du copyright in this thesis. Neither the droit d'auteur qui protège cette thèse. thesis nor substantial extracts fiom it Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels may be printed or otherwise de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés reproduced without the author7s ou autrement reproduits sans son permission. ABSTRACT

This thesis examines the private versus public school debate that took place in

France when the Socialists came to power in 1981. The Minister of Education Alain

Savary attempted to find a compromise between his party7s insistence on a unified and secular system of education, no longer subsidizing private education, and the Catholic's position favouring state aid to private education whiie allowing some freedom of education. Savary's failure to achieve his objective, largely because the Socialist deputies in the National Assembly sabotaged his delicate compromise, led to the fa11 of the

~Mauroygovernment in 1984. The compromise Savary was seeking and failed to obtain was one in which the public and private (Catholic) schools would coexist, as they do today, with private schools depending heavily on state aid to survive while being subject to considerable state control.

This thesis analyzes the origin and development of the private and public school debate from Napoleon to Mitterrand, the cornplex interpIay of forces within the Socialist government and in private education, and the events Ieading to the withdrawal of the bill in 1984. The educational debate is important because the great majority (three-quarters) of the French people supported Savary's compromise between public and private education, while the government held to its anticlerical position despite changing public opinion. Although Alain Savary resigned, his three years as Minister of Education were invaluable to the future of French education as most of his reforrns were realized in the following years.

The primary sources of this thesis are the works of the main actors in the debate, ... II1 from Alain Savary himself to the leaders defending the public and the pnvate schools, who provide different explanations for Savary's failed attempt to resolve the private- public school issue. It draws upon newspapers and journals for statistics and further analysis, as well as on the parliarnentary debates for a vivid picture of the political conflicts, which led to the blockage of policy innovation. The extensive secondary literature on the French education system, particularly since Napoleon's Concordat, is helpful in understanding the roots and significance of the Chumh-State educational quarrel in 1984. To my parents I wish to express my utmost gratitude to Dr. Charles R. Day, whose knowledge, encouragement and support have been invaluable to achieve the completion of this thesis. His thorough and on going reviews, feedback, guidance and patience reflect his dedication to teaching. Many thanks also to Dr. Mary Lynn Stewart, whose fresh perspective and useful insights were of great help.

I would also like to thank my mother, who inspired me with her culture and critical rnind, and family and friends who supported me in coui;tIess ways. Their interest to balance my academic endeavours with non-acadernic activities has been most appreciated. TABLE OF CONTENTS

Approval Page

Abstract

Dedication

Acknowledgements

List of TabIesFigures

Abbreviations

Introduction

I The Origin of the Church-State Conflict in Education

2 Private and Public Schools in France, 198 2

3 Savary's Attempts to Solve the Church-State Debate

Conclusion

Appendices

Bibliography

vii LIST OF TABLESLFIGURES

Table 1. Number of pupils per year in public and private schools 50

Figure 1. The use of public and private schools by French farnilies 62

viii APEL Association des parents d'élèves de l'enseignement libre

APLE Association parlementaire pour la liberté de l'enseignement

B ac Baccalauréat

CAPES Certificat d'aptitude professionnelle d'enseignement sécondaire

CNAL, Comité national d'action laique

CNEC Comité national de l'enseignement catholique

EIP Etablissements d'intérêt public

FCPE Fédération des conseils de parents d'élèves des écoles publiques

FEN Fédération de l'éducation nationale

FEP Fédération de l'enseignement privé

MW Mouvement républicain populaire

PS Parti socialiste

RPR Rassemblement pour la république

SFI0 Section française de l'internationale ouvrière

SNEC Syndicat national de l'enseignement chrétien

SNES Syndicat national des enseignements de second degré

SNE sup Syndicat nationai de l'enseignement supérieur

SNI Syndicat national des instituteurs

SPELC Syndicat professionnel de l'enseignement libre Catholique

UNAPEL Union nationale de l'association des parents d'élèves de l'enseignement libre On 11 May 1981 François Mitterrand was elected President of the French

Republic. There was great enthusiasm in 1981, for it was the first time during the Fifth

Republic (1958 to the present) that a Socialist President and left-wing parliament would govern France. Mitterrand's party platform was based on a "modemization" theme,

which implied keeping up with the technological and scientific advances and social- econornic changes that had taken place since 1945. This involved far-reaching educational reform, one aspect of which was the creation of a unified and democratic school system in which private schools would no longer receive state subsidies. Sociaiists believed that publicly funded private schools should, in principle, be nationaiized because the funds directed to the private schools had increased to over one billion francs and were depriving the public schools of funds. They failed to reaiize, however, that three quarters of the French people favored govemment aid to private schools.

This thesis describes the attempts of Alain Savary, education minister from 1981 to 1984, to formulate a bill that wouid reform both the privzte and public schools without threatening the autonomy and subsidies the private schools enjoyed. After three years of negotiations, Savary finally drafted a reform bill that was agreed upon by representatives of both the private and public schools. The bill was corning close to passage when the

Socialist group in the National .4ssernbly amended it, strengthening its secular tone, thus provoking a Catholic reaction and a massive demonstration with over one million people protesting on behalf of subsidized private education and the right to "freedorn of education." The thesis examines the efforts of Savary to find a compromise between the militant anticlericals in his own party, who favored the complete integration of state- aided Catholic schools to the public system, and the desire of the Church, backed, as it became increasingly obvious, by public sentiment to maintain some degree of independence for their schools as an alternative to the public system. The majority of

French people were secular and liberal ir! outlook and yet there was mass support from both the Lefi and the Right for Catholic schools; this thesis asks how Savary's efforts to reach a peaceful solution through a delicate compromise with the Catholic schools failed, ruined by his own government.

The debate between private and public schools in 1981 was not a battle between the Church's religious teachings versus the state's scientific and civic instruction. Instead, it focused on "liberty of education" and the people's right to choose subsidized private schools, which were affordable to the lower classes and a viable alternative to the public schools. 1 Religion was but a minor issue, as less than fifteen percent of the French were practicing CathoIics in 198 1, and religion was not a mandatory subject in private schools

(of which 95 percent were Catholic) for pupils after the age of fourteen?

This thesis is unique for it is one of the only studies written in English that examines Savary's attempt to resolve once and for a11 the private school debate in France from 198 1 to 1984. Historians have overlooked President Mitterrand's abandonment of the Savary project, which caused Prime Minister and Education Minister

Alain Savary to resign. This was a tuming point because, despite the setback of 1984, it

' Class is detennined by econornic and social conditions, as identified by occupation. Pierre Bourdieu stated: "Toconstmct he classes and class fractions on which analyses are based, systematic account was taken not only of occupation and education Ievel but also, in each case, of the available indices of the volume of the different sorts of capitai, as weIl as age, sex and place of residence." Pierre Bourdieu, Distinction: A Social Critiqzie of the Judgernent of Tasre (London: Routiedge, 1984), 57 1. LaVie, 7-13 June 1984,30- set the stage for a new period of cooperation between the private and public schools,

where diversity and pluralism replaced the old notion of laicité.

The thesis is based on primary sources, ranging from prominent newspapers and

news weeklies such as Le Monde, Le Monde de I'Education and Le Nouvel ~bservateur,~

to the published works of the main actors in the debate, such as Alain Savary's En toute

liberté and Jean Battut, Christian Join-Lambert and Edmond Vandermeersch's 1984: La guerre scolaire n bien eu lieu." Nearly dl of the secondary literature is produced by

French historians who published their works in t!!e 1985 aftermath of Savary's defeat,

thus their accunts are sometimes biased.' This thesis fills a gap, for it attempts to be an unbiased account based on the testimony of defenders of both private and public schools of the 198 1- 1984 private school debate while addressing some of the deeper problems rooted in French society and education, which can be traced back to Napoleon's

Concordat of 1802.

The thesis proceeds chronologicaliy, as the origin and development of the

Church-state educational debate is crucial to the understanding of the events of 198 1 to

1984. The first chapter traces the stmggle between the state and Church in education from the Enlightenment to the late 1970s. From the time of the Napoleonic Concordat to the end of the 1870s, most governrnents sought to find a compromise between the demands of the state and the Church in education. At the primary level, rnost schools

Other news weeklies consulted are La Vie. Le Point, L'Express. 4 Alain Savary, En toute liberte' (: Hachette, 1985); Jean Battut, Christian Join-Lambert and Edmond Vandermeersch, 1984: La guerre scolaire a bien eu lieu (Paris: Descleé de Brouwer, 1995) See Jean-Pierre Chevènemen t, Le pari sur fintelligence: Entretiens avec Hervé Hamon et Patrick Rotman (Paris: Denoel, 1985); Gérard Leclerc, La Bataille de 1 ëcoie: 1.5 siècles d'nisroire. trois ans de combat (Paris:Denoel, 1985); Edwy Plenel, L'Erar et l'école en France:La République inachevée (Paris: Payot, 1985). An exception is Pierre Favier and Michel Martin-Roland's book La décennie Mitterrand: Les épreuves 1984-1988 (Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1990) which serves as a prirnary document since it is based on interviews with the protagonists of the debate in 1989 and 1990. were at once public and confessional and the Church made in-roads even at the secondary

level, part~icularlyunder the Falloux Law of 1850. The Ferry Laws of the early 1880s and

the Combes Law of 1905, separating Church and state, expelled the Church from public

education. Confessional schools were henceforth private by definition.

By the time of the Fifth Republic, pnvate schooling had endured a long penod of

decline at both the primary and secondary levels, until the passage of the Debré Law of

1959, which provided state fùnds to private schools. This was arguably the first time a peaceful coexistence was attained, as private schools could choose to become subsidized

and receive state funding for the full costs of the teaching staff and part of the operating costs of the school, though they reiinquished some control and did not have the same

legal and financial status as the public schools.

The second chapter explains the different state of the private and public schools in

198 1. Although only 17 percent of schoolchildren were registered in private schools, approximately 45 percent of al1 French children had passed through a private school at one time of their careerse6 The defenders of subsidized Catholic education cited the right of choice in education and the need for a viable alternative to the public system. A minority was inspired by religious reasons. Private schools seemed to be more stable than the public schools. Private school teachers did not strike, and they followed their pupils' progress very closely, maintaining a good relationship with pupils and parents, whereas public school teachers were tenured and refused to provide extra help without overtime pay.

Alain Léger. "Les détours par l'enseignement privé." in Jean-Pierre Terrail La scolarisation de la France (Pais:Dispute, 1997), 7 1.

4 The third chapter descnbes and analyzes Savary's negotiations with private and public school representatives, as he sought to realize the Socidists' goal of better integraùng the subsidized private schools into a national secular system. After complex negotiations, Savary introduced a reform plan that decreased the gap between the two types of schools without threatening the autonomy of the subsidized private schools.

This was agreed upon by the private and public school representatives, and by Mitterrand and Mauroy. However, in the National Assernbly, the Jacobin sector of the Socialist

Party disagreed with the decentralizing and liberalizing tone of Savary's policies and added several arnendments to strengthen the bill's secularist tone. Prime Minister Pierre

Mauroy gave in to pressure from his party (in which 48 percent were public teachers or former teachers and devout laics) and approved the arnendments.

The amendrnents played into the hands of the opposition as over one million people demonstrated in Paris on 24 June 1984 for "freedom of education," accusing

President h4itterrand of violating "freedom of education" because he did not overrule

~auro~.' Mitterrand needed to remove himself and his government as quickly as possible from the corner in which the Savary law, as arnended by the Socialist deputies on their own initiative, had pushed therns8 On 14 July 1984 he officially withdrew the

Savary bill on private education, which caused the resignation of Alain Savary and the fa11 of the Mauroy government.

Indeed, Savary suffered a double defeat, as he had been caught in the rniddle of a centralized state system where interna1 conflict between the govemment and parliament halted policy changes. In fact, Savary's bill was probably doomed to fail in the face of

John Ambler, "Educational Pluralism in the ." in James F. Hollifield and George Ross (eds.) Searching for the New France (New York: Routiedge, 1991), 200,

5 well-organized pressure groups, the devotion of Socidkt parliamentarians to the traditional idea of laicité, and the preference of the mass of French people for freedom of education.

Although Savary resigned, his efforts were not in vain, as many of his reforrns were implemented by subsequent ministers, notably by Jean-Paul Chevènement and

Lionel Jospin, Ministers of Education from 1984 to 1986, and 1988- 1992, who adopted many of Savary's policies. Politicians had learned, for a time anytvay, that they could ignore public opinion at their own peril. Hence the story of the failure of Savary's reform is an important one in the history of French education, for it signals the transition from an older laicité and anticlericalism to a new educational pluralism.

8 Joseph Morray, Grand Disillusion, François Mitterrand and the French Lefr (London: Praeger, 1997) 14 1.

6 CIfAPTER ONE

TmORIGIN OF THE CHURCH-STATE CONFLICT IN EDUCATION

It is the purpose of this chapter to trace the developments and conflicts between the State and Church for control in education since the eighteenth century to President

François Mitterrand's campaign promise of creating a unified and secular school system in 1981. Until the French Revolution, the Catholic Church controlled almost al1 components of French education, from the petites écoles for the poor, to the collèges and universities for the middle and upper cla~ses.~In 1789 there were 562 secondary schools or colleges; modem boarding schools without Latin were evolving, and the physical sciences were being introduced.1° The state controlled several special higher schools for the training of engineers and military offkers for the state services, but for the most part education was in the hands of the ~hurch." Conflict between church and state authorities developed as the philosophes insisted that the state, not the Church, had the right and the duty to educate the people.

The Revolution and Napoleon

Tne revoiution had an enormous impact on the Church and education. By 1792, the existing educational structure was dismantled with the nationalization of Church properties, the elimination of tithes, and the abolition of religious corporations and their schools." Most revolutionaries believed that Church schools were an obstacle to the building of a modem nation. They favored a national systern of public lay schools and

9 Joseph Moody, French Educarion Since Napoleon (New York: Syracuse University Press, 1978), 4. 'O Ibid. " Charles R. Day, Educarion for the Indi~srnulWorld (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, 1987), 1. wedded eighteenth century rationalism to the idea of bureaucratie efficiency that a

centralized system of education would parantee. Because "education was influenced by

the idea that the French nation is identical with French culture," private schools and their

different philosophy threatened the unity md spirit of the nation."

A national system of education was not realized until Napoleon decided that

education was to be in the service of the stze and provide trained and loyal

administrators. The Concordat of 1801, which recognized Catholicisrn as the religion of

the state, solved the religious problem. Thereafter the government restored religious

instruction to the public schools and ernployed religious personnel for teaching, provided that they accepted state tutelage. Napoleon established a centralized education system in

1808, known as the Imperia1 University or Université, which encompassed the whole of

French education from primary to higher education. The Université was a national teaching corporation that brought uniformity of teaching throughout the Empire. No school could open without its authorization or employ teachers who had not received its diplornas. The system allowed the state to indoctrinate citizens politically and morally.

Teachers were civil servants, appointed and disrnissed by the state. The hierarchical and centralized administrative system Napoleon established was the first in Europe to incorporate the teaching profession into the state service, and it has lasted in part until the present day.

The Université was based on the idea that secondary schools were reserved for the

élite while primary schools served the masses. When referring to primary and secondary education, one must note that each system had its own version of the other; primary

- - -- '*Moody, French Education Since Napoleon,9. l3 Ibid., 8. schools had higher primary classes, whereas secondary schools had their own elementary classes attached to them.14 Secondary schools were designed for the upper classes ls who paid high tuition, and prepared students for the baccalauréat, which is at once a secondary school-leaving diploma and the first university degree, guaranteeing admission to the universities and, for the brightest students, to the grandes écoles after further examination.16 Primary schools were designed for those portions of the lower classes that couId afford a small tuition; the students learned the three R's, civic morality and religion, which prepared them for lower-class professions such as farming and artisanal-work.17

Napoleon was primarily concerned with training an elite of dutiful and efficient officiais for his expanding imperial administration. He thus established a system of secondary schools called lycées where bourgeois students received a liberal and humanistic education based on philosophy, mathernatics, and classical languages.

Napoleon also established municipd colleges, or colZèges communaux, in large towns or small cities, that depended mainly on local financing (though their personnel were employed by the state) as opposed to the lycées, which were completely financed by the state. The collèges seldom had the facilities to prepare students for the baccalauréat and thus students often transferred to a lycée for the final two years of school. Theoretically, the two secondary schools were equal, but in reality the lycées had better resources and facilities, and their tuition rose accordingly.

Napoleon surrendered female and popular education to the Church, though he insisted on its supervision by the University. In 1812, the Christian Brothers (Frères des

l4 D.L.Hanley, A.P. Kerr and N.H. Waites, Conremporary France: Politics and Society since 1945 (London: Routledge, 1984). 285. l5 Socid classes are determined by econornic and sociai conditions, as identified by occupation. l6 C.R. Day, Schools and Work (Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 2001). 9. Ecoles Chrétiennes) received 25,000 francs from the state to develop primary ~chools.'~

They were encouraged to offer free education provided they paid a fee to receive authorization and opened their schools to the University in~~ectors.~~The Christian

Brothers trained their own teachers, formed their own pedagogy and wrote their textbook~.~~

Napoleon wanted the state to control secondary education since it forrned the future leaders, so private schools were not allowed to prepare their students for the baccalauréat exam, which opened the door to higher education. If there was not a public secondary school in the town, the private school pupils wishing to obtain the baccalauréat had to move to a lycée in a neighboring town for the final two years of snidy." The University was a centralized system that was elitist, utilitarian and classical; the upper classes had access to secondary schools, which offered a classical educattion that was in service to the state.

The Restoration, 18 15- 1830

The Napoleonic arrangements survived under the Bourbon Restoration of 18 15-

1830 despite the opposition of the Ultras who desired to return to the ways of the Ancien

Rigime, when the Church enjoyed considerable power in education. The monarchy did not abolish the Concordat and the Université for, conscious of its unpopularity, it did not dare threaten the constitutionai system widely suyported by the upper and middle classes, especially frorn 18 15- 1820.

- - -

" Day, Educarion for the industrial World, 32. '' Antoine Prost, L'enseignemenr en France 16'00-1967 (Paris: Armand Colin, 1968), 89. Hanley et al., Contemporaty France: Politics and Society since 1945, 259. 'O Prost, L'enseignement en France, 89. " Ibid., 26. The debate on education was heated during this time. The main argument was that only the state, religiûusly and philosophicalIy neutrai, couid provide an education suitable to a pluralistic ~ociet~.~'For the Catholics, "education shouid be moral to form the man, religious to form the Christian, and political to fom the ~itizen."'~Religiously trained youth were essential to the health of society, the moral order and the prosperity of

France; man's relationship with God was the indispensable foundation of the social order.

Though incapable of overthrowing the University, they sought at once to gain greater influence within the system and to limit state control.

The one exception to the University's monopoly over secondary education lay in independent Catholic ecclesiastical schools. As of 5 October 1815, each diocese was pennitted to open a petit séminaire without submitting itself to University jurisdiction. In theory, these schools were for future priests, but in redity they educated young men not destined for the priesthood.'4 With a program of studies sirnilar to the lycées, the small seminaries charged half the boarding fees of the lycées, and prices remained flexible for poorer families. The petits séminaires could not gant degrees, so students not intending to become priests still managed to take the baccalauréat examination by transfemng to a lycée for a year, or by private instruction with a tutor. The petits séminaires becarne a

" Anticlericdism is a political ideology that condemned the influence of the Catholic clergy in French political and social life. Fear and resentrnent of the Catholic clergy are rooted in the powcr and wealth of the medieval Church. Histarical Dictionary of the Third French Republic, 1870-1940, S.V. "Anticlencaiisrn,"by T.A. KseIman. " Quoted in Moody, French Education, 19. Harrigm, "The Church and Pluralistic Education: The Development of and Teaching in French Catholic Secondary SchooIs 1850-1 870," Carholic Histoncal Review 64 (April 1978). rival system of secondary schools, as they were an attractive option for Catholic families

who preferred a religious but not always sacerdotal education for their sons.=

Primary education saw some extension of state contro! on 29 February 18 16 when

the Restoration governrnent ordered each commune to provide primary education, which

the poor could receive grat~itousl~.~~A committee whose President was a cantonal curé,

would supervise the schools; any religious association, such as the Christian Brothers,

was allowed to provide teachers to the public schools so long as the municipal cornmittee

had invited thern to do so and had received the state's authorization. For the first time,

the state provided modest funding for popular education, and worked cooperatively with

religious authorities to open schools.

In addition, the state created écoles normales primaires, which were teacher-

training schooIs for the primary school teacher. The two-year program was designed for

young men aged sixteen to eighteen who studied the advanced 3 Rs, science, math,

history, geogaphy, religion and morality, and Ied to the state brevet d'enseignement primaire (primary teaching certificate)." The Christian Brothers were exempted from

the brevet if they had a letter of obedience from their Superior ~eneral? This provision

was later extended to female religious congregations provided they were legally

recognized, and thus the religious orders acted practically autonomously from the state.

By the 1860s, archival reports show that enrollment in the small seminaries surpassed the legal number of 20,000 by 5,000 to 10,000. Historical Dictionary of France from the 1815 Restoration to the Second Empire, S.V. "Petits-Séminaires,"by Patrick 3. Hamgan. '6 Moody, French Education. 2 1. " Historicai Dictionary of Francefrom the 1815 Restoration to rhe Second Empire. S.V."Ecoles Normales Primaires,"by C.R. Day. '' Moody, French Education. 22. Many villages preferred the Christian Brothers as teachers because they obeyed a vow of poverty and cost less to maintain, and they had solid resources and training.'g

While primary education greatly expanded with the help of state and Church, conflict in secondary education increased. There was a turn to the Right in government from the years 1820 to 1827 and Abbé (soon Bishop) Denis Frayssinous was appointed

Grand Master of the University and Rector of the Acaderny of Paris, and subsequently

Minister of Ecclesiastical Affairs and Public Education. Even before his appointment, the bishops were allowed to entrust eight of the périts séminaires to the Jesuits, who proceeded to make them their own private secondary schools. Frayssinous' goal was to extend Catholic influence into the University, which aroused fear among universitaires and liberals of the retum of ultrmontanism, and the clerical control of government.

Bishops were given the right to supervise religious matters in secular schools within their dioceses.

Moreover, congregational institutions could be raised to "coilèges de plein exercise" giving them the same status as the petits séminaires. This worried rnany state officials for it increased the number of Catholic-trained secondary school students who had access to higher education and the liberal professions. The congregational schools were prestigious, for they offered the same curriculum as the lycées (although they could not adrninister state degrees) and their traditional and rigorous intellectual training. high tuition prices, and exclusivity attracted the aristocra~~.~~The aristocracy wanted to protect their children from the "materialistic spirit" and liberal tendencies of the state

By 1830 there were 1,420 Christian Brothers in 320 schools mostly in the towns. 13 other male congregations with 950 teachers and 28 1 schools worked in the countryside. Moody, French Education, 22. lycées. The quaiity of instruction was hi& but not recognized by the University, since the congregational teaching corps had its own certification process. This differed from the lycée professors, who had to pass the state competitive examination, the agrégation, in order to teach. The situation of the corps of secondary school teachers was precarious during the Restoration, as one-tentb of the corps was suspended or expelled and salaries were very low.3 1

Catholic influence was reduced somewhat during the last two years of the

Restoration. Bishops lost some of their control over primary education, and a law on 16

June 1828 restricted the number of petits séminairiens to 20,000 (nationally), and prohibited graduates of such schools from receiving the baccalauréat until after they had been ~rdained.~'

July Monarchv, 1830- 1848

The July Monarchy was closer to the upper bourgeoisie or notables who wanted to reduce the role of the Church in the University. Members of this class were bankers and businessmen, high officiais, magistrates and members of parliament and therefore they had a great influence on the education ~~stern.~~At first they chose the lycées and supported the state, but over the course of the century, the notables becarne increasingiy conservative and were attracted to the Jesuit colleges, whose aristocratie reputation was more appealing than the middle-class state schools.

30 Hisrorical Dictionary of France frorn the 1815 Restorarion to the Second Empire, S.V. "Jesuits,"by Charles R. Bailey. 31 Moody, French Education, 27. 32 Paul Gerbod, La condition universitaire en France au XIXième siècle (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1965), 96. 33 R.D. Anderson, Education in France, 1843-1870 (Glasgow: Oxford University Press, 1975), 8. While advocating constitutionai government, the regime wanted to inculcate conservative principles of order, authority and property. It favored a dud system of education in which the primary schools provided the masses with the basic tools required by modem society, while secondary education prepared the nation's leaders. The regime maintained that the dual system was for the good of society, that a basic education was necessary for a rural society that could not afford or be interested in the abstract and long courses of the secondary schools.

Therefore, in 1833, the Loi Guizot was passed, which obliged every commune with over 508 inhabitants to open a public primary school for boys. Public education was neither compulsory nor free, although poor children were usuaily admitted free of charge.

Communes were responsibIe for providing a schoolhouse, in which the teacher lived and taught, and they had to pay the teacher a small fixed sa1a1-y~~

The Guizot Law strengthened relations between the state and Church in pnmary education, as independent institutions were also able to open their own primary schooIs, whether they were Catholic, Protestant or Jewish schools, although no choices were offered to freethinkers. The July Monarchy believed that the stability of the social order rested not only on the instruction of the masses, but dso on their moral and religious education. Guizot stated: "Nothing is more desirable than a good relationship between pnest and teacher; both are clothed with moral authonty and both exert on the students a common influence in a variety of ways.""

The Guizot Law set private and public primary schools on the same level: religious instruction was mandatory, and dl teachers were expected to be Christians.

3.' Anderson, Education in France, 30. 35 Guizot, quoted in Moody, French Education, 43.

15 Confessional primary education lasted from 1833 to 1882.~~Parish pnests or pastors sat

on school boards and exercised considerable power over teachers, who were civil

servants, so as to supervise and nourish the teacher's moral state. The number of public

and private primary schools greatly expanded during the July Monarchy; by 1847 there

were 63,000 schools, and student enrollments almost d~ubled.~' Guizot also obliged cities and towns with over 6,000inhabitants to establish higher primary schools, which raught geometry, science, history and geography, and prepared the petite bourgeoisie for

lesser supervisory positions in commerce and indu~tr~.~~Each department was required to maintain a prirnary normal schooi (école normale primaire) which trained future primary school tea~hers.~~As of 1833, members of male teaching orders, as well as lay teachers, were required to obtain the University's brevet d'enseignement primarie, but the mernbers of female religious comrnunities continued to need only a letter of obedience from their s~~erior.~'

The status of private secondary schools and the issue of freedom of education was a central problem dunng the July Monarchy. The University benefited from government support, and Louis Philippe sent his sons to the Lycée Henri N. The Royal Council of

Public Education and the public education hierarchy (rector, academy inspectors etc.) saw themselves as the guardians of civic morality and of a traditional culture based on

36 Harrigan, "The Catholic Contribution to Universal Schooling," in Raymond Grew and P.J. Harrigan, School, State, and Society (Michigan: The University of Michigan Press, 199 l), 92. 37 Moody, French Education, 44. The petite bourgeoisie were shopkeepers, artisans, smail manufacturers employed in trade, exchange and service at a local level. Histon'cal Dictionary of France from the 1815 Restoration to the Second Empire. S.V. "Ecoles primaires supérieures," by CR.Day. 39 Historical Dictionary of France from the 1815 Restoration to rhe Second Empire, S.V. "Ecoles normales primaires," by C.R. Day. It should be noted that the Ecoles nomles primaires were different from the Ecole normale supérieure, which trained secondary school professors to pas the agrégation in order to teach in the lycées and universities. W. D. Hails, Sociexy, Schools and Progress in France (New York: Pergamon Press, 1965), 20. classical civilization. At the sarne time, France was beginning to industrialize, and there were calls for a more modern curriculum based on modem languages, math and science and less Greek and Latin. Though willing to entertain some expansion of primary education, the universitaires resisted change in classical secondary studies, which fonned the social elite.41

Another problern was that secondary school e~~rollmentswere stagnating during the penod of the constitutional rnonarchy. Expenses were high, national and municipal scholarships were rare. The government believed in an elite education, but it failed to fund it adequately. The Grand Master Villemain revealed tbat in 1843 there were fewer students in secondary schools than in 1789, despite the growth in population, and that the nurnber of secondary graduates was insufficient."

Gradually, support for CathoIic secondary education increased to the point where the Church began to react against its subordination to the University's authority and sought to establish its own schools to prepare students for the baccalauréat and higher education in the narne of "Iiberty of education." René Rémond explains the ironical case where the battle between the Church and state schools is rooted in contradictory terrns: those on the liberal left wanted to maintain the state's centrdized control over education, whereas those faithful to a dogmatic authority were fighting for freedom of ed~cation.~~

During the constitutional monarchy, the University expanded primary education and shared power with the Church, but in secondary education, it struggled with the Church for power and influence over those who ultimately determined the nation's future.

41 Moody, French Education, 33. " Zbid., 38. The Second Republic and Second Empire, 1848-1 870

The 1848 revolutions provoked a conservative political reaction from the elite which wanted to restore stability, and this played into the hands of the Church. The fear of social revolution led many freethinking property-owners to turn to Catholicism - specifically Catholic education - as a means to restoring social order." Three major changes affected Catholic education: the introduction of universal manhood suffrage, growing disillusionment with the Republic, especially arnong the upper classes, and the legislative elections of May 1849, contended between the Right and the Republican

~eft.~~

As René Rémond wntes, "one of the major events in French] political history in the nineteenth century is the Falloux Law of 15 March 1850," which introduced "liberty of teaching" for secondary education, and which modified the legal monopoly of the

tat te.^^ In fact, Antoine Prost observed that at the beginning of 1848 the University's monopoly was only a shadow, and that opinion was moving in favor of private education, which explains the subsequent expansion of the Catholic schools."

The Falloux Law allowed the Church to become a partner with the state in secondary education. Any adult over the age of twenty-five possessing a bcccalauréat or having at least five years of secondary teaching experience could open a secondary school. None of the restrictions the University had previously enforced were imposed on the private schoo~s.~~Any private secondary school could obtain a subvention up to one-

43 Réné Rémond, "La guerre de deux cents ans," Le Nouvel Observateur, 21 October 1983,25. 41 Gordon Wright, France in Modern Times (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 198 f ), 246. '' Moody, French Eciucation, 49. j6 Quoted in Moody, French Education, 5 1. 47 Prost, L 'enseignement en France, 27-28. 48 Anderson, Educarion in France, 49. tenth of its expenses from a commune, a department, or the tat te.^' Private school

teachers could continue at their posts as apprentices. An unwritten nile was that pnvate

secondary school teachers did not need the agrégation to teach. The Falloux Law

allowed Catholic schools to prepare their students for the bac, though the state retained

control over exarninations and thus indirectly controlled what the private schools taught.

In addition, the Church had greater influence on academic councils at

departmental and national Ievels, thereby reducing the power of the University. Bishops

held great responsibilities in the , they were equal to the prefect in the provinces,

and parish priests were ensured a place on local public school boards ex-officio and

therefore had considerable control over lay teachers. In the University's administration,

the new higher council for education consisted of seven clergymen, of whom four were

Catholic, three representatives from pt-ivate education, nine governmental officials and

eight lay teachers. State officials inspected the new secondary schools simply to ensure

that no unconstitutional values were being taught in Catholic public scho~ls.~~

The Loi Falloux affected public secondary schools by allowing municipal

councils to withdraw their collèges communara from the University and transfer them to

the Church to becorne collèges diocesiens. Thus Catholic public secondary schools

began to flourish, with a Catholic curriculum taught by layrnen, priests or rdigious

orders. The strong influence of the Church on municipal councils is seen as enrollment in diocesan colleges increased by 75 percent between 1854 and 1867." Catholic public secondary schools grew faster than other secondq schools, and by the early 1860s

49 Moody, French Education, 56. 50 Hamigan, "The Catholic Contribution to Schooling," 95. " Harrigan, "Social and political implications of Catholic secondary education during the second French empire," Socieras 6, no. 1 (1 W6),48. Catholic secondary schools attracted almost half the male population. If one considers

Paul Gerbod's statistics, the overwhelming presence of the Church in secondary education is clear? Between 1854 and 1865, Catholic public secondary schools founded

22 new institutions and received 13,702 students, Congregational schools done founded

1 1 new secondary schools and by 1865, they directed 43 establishments, schooling about

10,000 st~dents.'~

Several types of schools appeared by the 1850s: public (lay or Catholic) and private (lay or Catholic). Public schools received public funds and were considered lay when the teachers had not taken religious vows, and Catholic when their teachers belonged to a religious order. Al1 schools not publicly funded were calied écoles libres, and these could be lay, Protestant, or Catholic depending on who the teachers wereSs4

Religion was compulsory in al1 public and private schools, and the idea of Christianizing the Empire was popular.55 Universitaires wanted to ensure the moral order not only in the pnmary sector but also in the secondary schools.

Catholic schools were popular even arnong republicans such as Thiers because the

Church propagated "la bonne philosophie," and the conservative reaction to the 1848 revolutions was based on the hope that the Church would supercede the "antisocial, social and communist" tendencies of the public school teachers. Catholic secondary schools attracted those "not satisfied with the present direction of society" and they challenged the state schools by the quality of their instr~ction."~~State schools were charged with neglecting moral instruction, regardless if religion was offered as a subject. The

'' Gerbod, La condition universiraire en France au XLYe siècle, 376. 53 Ibid. sa Hamgan, "The Catholic Contribution to Schooling," 95. '' Harrigan, "Social and political implications," 41. éducation of the Catholic schools superceded the instruction of the state schools because

éducation was a combination of the moral, physical and intellectual training of students5'

It was argued that the discipline and order of the Catholic schools, notably of the Jesuits and Dominicans, explained their success and high scores in the bac examination compared to the lycées. Harrigan cites Francois Butel, who contended that Jesuit schools steadily increased their successes in the bac during the 1850s and 1860s.'~

For some families, the flexible and lower prices of Catholic schools, such as the

Marists, the collèges diocesiens, or petits séminaires, were simply the only affordable choice for secondary education. Public Catholic schools received funds not only from the municipaiity but also from the Church. They becarne a viable alternative to the lower classes since they operated on a decentralized bais and served groups whose ambitions were not tied to the liberal professions. Their flexibility in pnce and in cumculum was a pleasant contrat to the high costs and rigid programs of the state schools.

The Falloux Law also expanded primary schooling; anybody over the age of twenty-one with a brevet, a certificate of apprenticeship, a baccaZuz~réut,or the title of minister of a religion recognized by the state could open a pnvate primary school. Only the University could gram degrees and appoint inspectors for both private and public schools, though the Church did not suffer because Councils were largely dominated by conservatives.

The Falloux Law obliged every commune of more than 800 to open a female public primary school. The new schools for girls were supposed to be taught by

- - -- -

56 Ibid., 47. '' Felix Dupanloup, De I'Education, 3 vols. (1853), Crans. P. J. Harrigan, "Social and political implications of Catholic secondLayeducation," 43. Ibid., 48. institutrices or lay teachers of which there were very few, so fernale primary schools were usually run by sisters, who simply needed a letter of obedience from their superior to teaches9

By the late 1860s, Catholic pt-imary schools were widespread, particularly in rural regions, where 70 percent of al1 school-age children attended schools: 29 percent attended public primary Catholic schools, 22 percent attended private Catholic or secular schools (there were few private secular schools) and 19 percent attended public non- denorninational scho~ls.~~Most rurd municipalities established Catholic public prïmary schools, taught by lay graduates from the normal schools who received a minimum of

500 francs from the commune plus the small fees of the students, most of whom attended seasondly. The Christian Brothers taught in larger towns and cities, which could afford to maintain at least three brothers and adequate schools and supplies. New schools were also founded in industrial areas where Catholic employers believed in a school that was

Christian, cheap and efficient, and new Catholic or Protestant prirnary schools were often founded with money provided by Christian philanthropists.61

In the 1860s there was more cornpetition and less cooperation between state and

Catholic secondary schools as the latter expanded in the sarne areas as state schools and better prepared their students for the baccalauréat. The state was threatened as Catholic schools were attracting students normally destined for the lycées. Church-state cooperation diminished as education ministers sought to reassert the supremacy of the state and to reduce the role of the Church in public education, especially in the secondary

I9 Hmigan, "The Catholic Contribution to Schooling," 95. Halls. Society, Schools and Progress in France, 93. '' Anderson, Education in France, 1 1 1. sch~ols.~'For exarnple, Gustave Rouland, Public Education Minister from 1856-63 was a Gallican legalist, determined to uphold the rights of the state in ed~cation.~~He refused to allow the Jesuits to open new schools, and municipal councils were obliged to take back the diocesan colleges they had tumed over to the bishops after the Falloux ~aw.~

Rouland's successor, Victor Duruy (1863- l869), took a stronger stand against the

Church and wanted to replace the nuns as the soie teachers in female education. He introduced a law on April 10, 1867 that authorized the establishment of secondary courses for girls in town halls or lycées, taught on a voluntary bais by professors of lycées and collèges. The courses were based on modem subjects, and Latin was not offered, so the girls could not take the baccalauréat examination. This was the first time public fernale secondary education was an option. The Church had already provided secondary education for girls in convents and in private boarding schools, but Duruy was challenging the Church's monopoly of female education. Duruy replaced the "day courses" for girls wishing to become teachers, with public femde normal schools to meet a new demand for lay female teachers who could eventually replace the nuns' hold on female education. Considering that female lycées were not established until December

1880, and that nuns merely needed a letter of obedience from their order to automaticaily qualify them as teachers, the Catholic Church held a monopoIy over female education

(both primary and secondary) during the nineteenth century.

With the defeat in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870, the Second Empire was overthrown, which weakened the Catholic Church, as it was associated with the regime.

'' Befoce the Falloux Law of 1850, the Church7sdomain was primary education. while the state monopolized secondary and higher education. 63 Moody, French Education, 67. Hanigan, "Social and political implications," 53-4. The finai years of the Second Empire foreshadowed the educational disputes of the

subsequent Third Republic. A new generation had risen in the 1860s that would

eventually take control of the University and its acadernic councils and impose secular

and democratic changes. The initial advance of Catholic schooling after 1850 was checked by the 1860s, shedding light on the dependency of Catholic education on

govemmental bene~olence.~'By the late 1860s, demands were made to replace religion

with civic instruction and to provide free, compulsory and secular schools in service to

the state. Yet even after the republicans defeated the impenalist regime in the second

half of the 1870s, Catholic secondary schools were thriving as they continued to provide

over half the French population with secondary education.

The Third Republic, 1875- 1940

The Franco-Prussian war of 1870 was a rude awakening to Frenchrnen, who

sought for an explanation of the disasters that had befallen France and pointed their fingers at the Empire and its backward traditions, including the Church, the army, and the education system. Many believed that the Université had failed to adapt to the changing

world; the supposed (but untrue) widespread illiteracy among the cornmon people, the

neglected science training in schools, and poor research facilities in higher education

highlighted the weaknesses of the education system. Indeed it did not help that the

French were defeated by the Prussians, who were well known for their superior education

system, particularly their universal pnmary education, universities and research facilities.

65 Moody, French Education, 68. In the late 1870s, the Republicans defeated the roydists in parliamentary elections

and forrned the Third Republic at the same time as the Catholic Church had reached its

peak in education. The years of the Third Republic under the Moral Order, associated

with the presidency of Marshal MacMahon from 1871 to 1878, began successfully for

Catholic schooling. In 1876, at the primary level, 44 percent of boys were enrolled in

Catholic public schools. The number of boys in congregationd schools was at about

680,000 that same year. Of those girls in public elementary schools, 60 percent were

taught by nuns, who continued teaching the majority of girls in public and private elementary schools until the end of the century.

The Republicans who defeated the royalists were mostly from the rising bourgeoisie, who had paved their way not by inherited wealth or privileges as property- owners, but by acquinng the skills to become administrators, doctors, lawyers, and merchants. They believed in the ideals of liberty, equality, fraternity and that France, as a

lay nation, should have a secular education system that was neutral in religious matters.

Léon Gambetta insisted France needed a unified education system to teach civic morality based on the principles of natural reason. He wanted to make "nationalism the iay religion" and to regard republicans as "apostles of the national mission."66 For him, education was the exclusive right of the state?'

Considering the previous decades of prospering Catholic schools, anticlerical

Republicans felt themselves threatened by a strong Catholic presence that was mainly conservative and frequently royaiist, but they were also reacting against the regime of the

66 ibid., 89. 67 Anticlericalism in the Third Republic was initially a response of republicans to clerical support for a restoration of the monarchy in the early 1870s. Historicai Dictionary of the Third French Republic, 1870- 1940, S.V. " Anticlericdism," by T.A. Kselman. Second ~rn~ire.~'The new state schools, under the Third Republic would be secular,

modern, and most importantly, "republican" - emphasizing civic rnorality and patnotism,

with a positivist and scientific cumculum. At the sarne time, the majonty of Republican

leaders were firmly committed to the classical syllabus and were hesitant to introduce

modem studies to serve the industrializing nation. Thus the great reforms of the 1880s

lay in primary education, while attempts to reforrn the secondary system were less

successful.

To achieve his goal of secularizing and modernizing education, Education

Minister Jules Ferry decided to dissolve a number of teaching congregations in 1880, on the grounds that they had never been authorized by the state. Public and private congregational schools continued to be closed until 1890. The Camille See Law of 1880 opened public secondary schools for girls, though the govemment was slow to implement the law due to the lack of lay female teachers. In 1882, Jules Ferry made primary education compulsory and free for dl children aged six to twe~ve.~~In addition, he greatly expanded the higher primary schools and the normal schoois for women (he opened one in each department) so as to supercede Church influence in education. In

1886, Ferry required lay teachers to replace the teaching orders in the public schools, though the presence of the Catholic Church in primary education, particularly in fernale eaucation, persisted into the twentieth century.

Education was the Third Republic's instrument of social control, and public primary schools becarne the state's instruments to form patriotic young citizens.

Nevertheless, during the 1890s the state did not officially interfere with private

Hanley et al., Conremporciry France. 276. 69 Wright, France in Modern Times,246.

26 institutions. For the first generation of the Third Republic, religious orders taught 1.3 million primary school girls in 1886, and 1.1 million girls in 1901 (still40 percent of total enr~llment).~'Enrollment of boys in congregational primary schools was almost constant

(450,000 in 1880, 410,000 in 1901), while enrollment in lay schools increased only slightly (2.1 million to 2.3 million). Although these figures changed by 1914, the structure and content of primary schooling as established in the 1880s remained practically unchanged until World War Two.

The secularist regime of the 1880s affected religious secondary schools to an even lesser degree. Enrollment in state schools dropped slightly, while Catholic enrollment increased by more than 17,000.~' In 1900 there were 100 more Catholic secondary schools than lay secondary schools (see Appendix The Catholic schools' lower tuition and more practical and flexible cumculum explained their popularity.

Catholic secondary schools maintained a prominent position during the 1880s and

1890s partly also because the first generation of the Third Republic was led by

Opportunists, who believed that the Concordat of 1801 was a means of controlling religious activities, without completely eliminating the Church. In contrast, the Radicals wanted a cornplete separation of the Church and State. Thus, the anticlerical carnpaign gained momentum at the turn of the century when the Radicals dominated the republican majority in May 1902 and Emile Combes enforced the Law of ~ssociations.~~This law forced thousands of schools to close, the property of the orders was confiscated and sold

-- --

'O HiStorical Dictionary of the Third French Republic, 1870-1940. S.V. "Schools,Roman Catholic,"by P.J. Harrigan. 71 Moody, French Educatioti, 107. " Historical Dictionary of the Third French Republic, 1870-1940, S.V. "Schools,Roman Catholic."by P.J. Harrigan 73 Historical Dictionary of the Third French Republic, 1870-1940 S.V. "Associations, Law of," by T.A. Kselman. by the state, and religious orders wishing to continue practicing their faith had to leave

France. The secular clergy protested against the law, which led to an even harsher measure against the Church. On 7 July 1904, Emile Combes won the abrogation of the

Falloux Law of 1850 and forbade ail religious orders frorn teaching in rance.^^

Moreover, in 1905 the Napoleonic Concordat of 1802 was revoked, and al1 ties between the Church and State were severedS7' The 1905 law guaranteed freedom of religious belief and practice and declared that the state would no longer pay the salaries of priests, ministers, or rabbis. Church property was trmsferred to the state, though local communities kept the parish churches and Catholic hymen adrninistered Church affairs.

By 1905 Catholic public schools closed down, and private schools came to mean

Catholic schools; it was no longer possible to have confessional public school~.~~

Ironically, the state, which strongly believed in national unity, especially after the defeat of 1870, imposed a national system of education which served to divide rather than unite the country between Catholic and secular school supporters.77

By 1918, lay public schools had triumphed in both the pnmary and secondary sectors. The government's role in schoo1ing had become more assertive and centralized as it controlled public school funding, hiring, curriculum, training and certification of teachers, whereas during the nineteenth century, municipaiities had played an important role in building and funding schools, especialty at the primary level.

One cannot dismiss the fact that the Catholic Church contributed to creating a single, nationai educational system. ReIigious teaching orders had established Catholic

74 Hîstorical Dîcrîonary of the Third French Republîc, 1870-1940 S.V."Combes, Ernile," by A.J. Staples. 75 Wright, France in Modem Tintes, 267. 76 Harrigan, "The Catholic Contribution," 103. In 1850 the number of Catholic public schools was slightly higher than the nurnber of Catholic independent schoois. schools in educationally less developed areas; they made schools free, urged attendance

year-round, and provided for female education. By the 1870s most young French people

were attending schools. Since the religious orders needed public funds from either the

communes or the state to maintain their schools, they encouraged the state to participate

in a pluralistic education system, in which public funds were granted to independent

religious instiniti~ns.'~

The controversy over Catholic education continued during the inter-war period.

Although the war may have caused a new spirit of confratemity between congregational

and secular teachers, one must not exaggerate this point because there followed a solidification of theoretical positions.79 While in 1927, secularists represented by the pnmq school teachers' union, the Syndicat national des instituteurs (SNI), adopted the principle of nationalizing the entire education system, in 1929, the Vatican announced that it was irreligious for Catholic parents to send their children to public schools.

Catholic schools deteriorated during the interwar years for want of lack of funds and teachers. The question regarding freedom of education was resurfacing as Catholic school supporters argued that religious schools deserved funds from the state, since the citizens should have a choice between private and public education. To alleviate some of their financial burdens, Catholics hoped for proportional distribution of taxes to CathoIic and public secondary schooIs according to enrollment. They wanted to cooperate with the state, especially as nurnbers in their schools were increasing as quickiy as their funds

77 Rémond, "La guerre de deux cents ans," Le Nouvel Observateur, 2 1 October 1983. '13 Ibid. 79 Prost, L'enseignement en France, 473. were decrea~in~.~'Catholic school supporters believed that nationaiizing the public school system should not inchde monopolizing it, and they claimed the right of adrninistenng their own "free schools." When the Vichy regirne took power in 1940,

Catholic schools experienced a smdl revival. The 1905 ban on religious teaching orders was lifted, and the state agreed to provide public funds for the private schools, either though the communes or by grants to pupils in private or state schoo~s.~~

Fourth Republic, 1944- 1958

After Vichy fell in 1944, Catholic schools were once again cut off from state funds and strained under the pressure of limited resources and teachers and the dilapidated state of their school buildings. The costs of Catholic education were becorning increasingly high and Catholic school supporters turned to the government for aid. Agitation increased and partisans of free schoois formed a pressure group cailed the

Association des parents pour l'enseignement libre (APEL). A Christian Democratic political party, the Mouvement républicain populaire (MRP), gained a large following after 1945. The political roots of the MRP stemmed from 1789 when Church officiais encouraged CathoIics to accept democratic, republican institutions, and to participate in republican politics so as not to lose power, but they did not enjoy large-scaie support until

1945, when Catholics in the Resistance organized themselves as "Catholics without the

Catholic label."8' Georges Bidault, who had been president of die National Resistance

80 The numbers in Catholic secondary schools were as follows: 95,000 in 1920, 119,000 in 1928, 146,000 in 1930, 240,000 in 1937. Prost, L'enseignement en France. 473. Ibid. '' Wright, France in Modern Times, 42 1. Council, headed the new MRP.~~The MW becarne a key party of the Fourth Republic, with up to 28 percent of the vote, and sitting in most govemments, sharing power first with the left, and then with the ~-i~ht.'~

In April 1948 Edouard Lizop founded the Secrétariat d'études polir la liberté de l'enseignement. In the elections of 195 I the group pressured candidates of the MRP to support ganting state subsidies to Catholic schools. Indeed, 3 15 right-wing deputies were in government in 1951 during which they passed two laws, known as the Marie and

Barangé Laws of 195 1, which provided lirnited funds to the Catholic scho01s.~~The laws were inspired from American laws, which maintained that providing "social" aids to religious schools did not contradict the Constitution of a secuiar tat te.'^

The Marie Law of 1951 allowed both private and public school students to win state scholarships, and therefore the state was indirectly providing funds for private schools. This angered those who believed that public funds should only be allocated to public schools. The Barangé Law of 1951 granted al1 families (pnvate or public schools) an allocation of one thousand francs per child for one trimester per year.87 For the private schools, these funds were passed directly to the parents' associations, which were in charge of distributing funds; in the public schools, the funds were given to the conseil général. which managed the department's budget. Financially, the repercussions of these

- -- --

83 The MRP was tom between a reforrnist leadership similar to the socialists (on social policy and European union) and a conservative electorate. Conservatives voted for it because it was Catholic and because other conservative parties were discredited after the occupation, and GauIlism was not yet an option. As Gaullism gained support, the MRP rnoved steadily to the right in an attempt to hold on to its supporters. However, it was in a bind because if it openly supported rïght-wing demands, such as state aid to church schools, it Iost support from the left, If it tmed away from conservative interests it lost votes from the rioht. Hanley et al., Contemporas, France, 168. ~Ibid. as Prost, L'enseignement en France, 476. laws on the state budget were slight. Politicaily, however, tliere was increased hostility

between those supporting secular schools, such as the left wing Section française de

Z'internarionale ouvrière (SFIO) socialists, communists, and some members of the

Radical Party, and those supporting private schooIs, the MRP, Gaullists, and conservative

parties. Of the two laws, the Barangé caused particular hostility and in 1956, a motion

for repeal failed by only nine votes."

The Fifth Re~ublic.19%- 198 1

The private school question revived in 1958 when General De Gaulle becarne

President of the Fifth Republic. At the time, there were over one and a half million

students in private schools, most of whom were Catholic. Although the Loi Marie and

Loi Barangé had alleviated some financial burdens, Catholic schools were still in a

desperate situation. Catholic teachers were not well paid and there was a shortage of qualified tea~hers.'~President de Gaulle appointed the Lapie Commission to investigate

the financial situation of Catholic schools. As a result, a compromise was made with the

Debré Law of 2959, from which Catholic schools benefited.

The Debré Law helped the Catholic schools by providing much-needed funds.

The law provided four options for al1 private schools (95% of private schools were

Catholic, the remainder being Protestant, Jewish, or secular.) They could renounce their private status, become regular public schools and operate dong secular lines. They could remain private and retain al1 control, without receiving any money from the state. They

86 Edmond Vandemeersch, "Laicité 188 1-198 1," Erudes 355, No. 4 (October 198 1): 332. '' Savary, En toute liberté (Paris: Hachette, 1985), 35. '' Hanley et al, Contemporary France. 277.

32 could enter into what was called a contrat d'nssociation with the state, meaning they

would relinquish some control over syllabi, examinations, pedagogicai techniques and the

hiring of teachers in return for receiving large subsidies from the state. The last option

was the contrat sinrple where schools would receive small subsidies, and in return

relinquish control over syllabi and the setting of examination while retaining control over the hiring of teachers.

Most Catholic schools agreed to one of the two contrücts. By 1964, out of approximately 12,000 elementary schools, 1O,44 1 signed the contrat simple, and 147 signed the contrat d'association. Of the 1,500 secondary schools, 509 agreed on the contrat simple and 344 agreed on the contrat d 'asso~iation.~~It is notable that nearly al1 non-confessional private schools chose to remain independent; most Jewish schools also remained independent so as to preserve their cultural and religious character; most

Protestant schools chose to become secular and join the state ~~stern.~'

Another result of the Debré law was that the state would begin paying the salaries of teachers in subsidized Catholic schools. A decree in 1965 allowed private school teachers to take the cornpetitive state exminations and receive its diplornas such as the agrégation - the highest level allowing for senior high school and higher education professorships, le certificat d'aptitude au professorat de l'enseignement secondaire for senior high school teachers, le certificat d'aptitude au professorat de l'enseignement technique for technical school prof essor^.^^ This was a major breakthrough for the

- - 89 W.R. Fraser, Refonns and Resrraints in Modem French Education (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul itd, 1971), 65. Fraser, Reforms and Resrraints, 69. 9' Savary, En toure liberté, 38. 92 Fraser. Reforms and Restrainrs, 69. Catholic schools since they had previously been denied the priviIege of receiving state diplornas, and with the new law they couid compete with the public schools when recruiting new teachers. This contributed to improving not only the status but also the pedagogical techniques of the Catholic schools, making them once again a viable alternative to the public schools even for non-Catholics. By 1982, 78 percent of Catholic primary schools were under the contrat simple, and 21.5 percent were under the contrat d'association, whiie every single secondary school was under the contrat d'ass~ciation.~~

When the Debré Law was passed in 1959, , leader of the Socialist

SFIO, warned the conservative majority that the Left would one day corne to power and

"on that day al1 schools and teachers which solicit public funds will be considered, ipso facto, as having affirmed their calling to enter the public service, and thus it wili be d~ne."'~Overall, the Debré law increased animosity among politicians, especially since the state was paying 1,035,800 francs to teachers in the subsidized private scho~ls.~~The militantly secularist union Cornitg national d'action laiqzre (CNAL) tried to revoke the

Debré law in the 1968 elections. Contrary to the CNAL1s expectations, the popular revolts and demonstrations of May 1968 initially directed against the education system, narnely higher education, provoked a conservative reaction which led to the massive electoral victory of the Gaullists, who favored the status quo.

Turbulence in the public system in the late 1960s favored the Catholic schools, which were largely unaffected by the May 1968 riots. Catholic schools seemed more

93 Christine Vial, Le Monde (Paris) 26 January 1982. 94 Journal Oflciel, Asseniblée Nationale, Débate, December 23, 1959: 3608, quoted in John S. Ambler, "French Education and the Limits of State Autonomy," Western Political Quarrerly 41 (September 1988): 474. 95 Hanley et al., Contemporary France, 278. stable, and teachers provided a more disciplined and attentive education as opposed to the public teachers whose larger and rowdier schools were more difficult to handle. Catholic schoolteachers also put in more time offering extra-help sessions for those students in need, whereas public school teachers seldom stayed a moment beyond their legally allotted teaching time. Therefore, the Catholic schools increasingly offered a choice for those who were disappointed in the public system's continuous decline. Although the

Debré Law was hotly zontested by pressure groups of the Mt, particularly the CNAL, there seemed to be a decreased amount of interest in the Church-state education issue arnong the masses. Baby boomers were, for the most part, not religious and even those who considered themselves Catholic were largely non-practicing.

The new that emerged under François Mitterrand's leadership in

1972 repeated the SFIO's 1959 pledge that subsidized private schools would be integrated into the state system once they came to power. Their protests grew louder as the Right continued to make concessions to help the Catholic schools. RPR deputy G. Guermeur, president of the parliamentary association supporting private schools, Association parlementaire pour la liberré de l'enseignement (APLE) introduced a law which was passed in October 1977, the Loi ~uemeur.~~The law granted state loans with a reduced interest rate towards building pnvate secondary schools and training teachers for the new private schoo~s.~~

As stateà by J. Cornec, president of the Fédération des conseils de parents d'élèves des écoles publiques (FCPE), the Guermeur Law was yet another example of the

% Ibid., 279 Catholic Church challenging state control over national educati~n.~~Anti-clericals insisted that the Guermeur Law harmed public education and infringed on the rights of the general public because too many public knds were diverted to private education; the state paid the staff salaries and some of the maintenance costs of subsidized schools, which in turn had to follow the national cumcul~rn.~~

The historicai evolution of the church-state education battle in France rnay be sumrned up as follows. From the law of 18 16, the Guizot Law of 1833 and particularly the Falloux Law of 1850 to the Ferry Laws of the 1880s, the Church and State worked in mutuai cooperation and cornpetition, during which time private and public, religious and secular, primary and secondary systems established themselves throughout urban and rural France. From 188 1 to 1939, public education predominated and Catholic education declined. Since 1940, thanks to the state subsidies, Catholic schools have regained their position as established educational institutions, which, once again, offer a viable choice for those families, religious and non-religious, who seek an alternative to the public school system. When the Socialist govemment took power in 198 1, the Catholic Church ran 95 percent of private schools, and 17 percent of schoolchildren attended private school~.~~~Because of state subsidies, tuition for Catholic schools was affordable for

97 Jean Battut, Christian Join-Lambert, Edmond Vandermeersch, "Les sliites de ia loi Guermeur: La bataille du forfait d'externat," in 1984: La Guerre scolaire a bien eu lieu (Paris: DescIée de Brouwer, 1995), 300-1. 98 I. Comec, Le Monde (Paris) 7 July 1977. 99 In general, those who supported pnvate schools believed in a "private service of the general interest" and were politically associated with the right or the center-right. In contrast, those in favor of secular state schools, mostly on the left, believed that freedom of education couId only be found in a unified public s stem, open to al1 denominations. Savary, En route Ebert&. 38. 100 John Ardagh, France Today (London: Penguin Books, I995), 470. rniddle to lower-middIe class farnilies, since fees rarely exceeded the sum of 3,000 to

4,000 francs per year. 'O1

Today, a compromise seems to have been reached between private and public education in a world where neither secularism nor religion inspire widespread passion.

Within this more liberal and open environment, however, France has not completely escaped the effects of the old ideological qumels. The following chapters will look more closely at the social and political climate of France in 1981 and examine Mitterrand's campaign policy of creating "a national unified secular system of schooling," and

Savary's atternpts at resolving the age-old quarrel between the Church and state. CHAPTER TWO

PRIVATE AND PUBLIC SCHOOLS LN FRANCE, 1981

Nineteen eighty-one was a groundbreaking year for the French Socialist Party. It

was the first time in the twenty-three years since de Gaulle created the Fifth Republic in

1958 that a left wing party would govern France. The Socialist Party's leader François

Mitterrand won the Presidency, and the Socialists had a rnajority in the National

Assembly. Only once previously during the Fifth Kepublic (in 1968 when the Gaullists won a huge nnmber of seats in parliament) had a single party held so much power.'O'

This chapter wiI1 examine the Socialist Party's idea of creating a national and secular school system, in light of the ideological changes of the time and of the situation of private and pubIic schools.

Since the creation of the Secrion française de ïinrernationale ouvrière (SFIO) in

1905, the French Socialists had actively participated in few governments, the Popular

Front of 1936-7, Tripartism 1944-7, and the brief governments of Pierre Mendès France and Guy Mollet in the 1950s.'~' The SFIO was formed in 1905 when Jean Jaurès, a

Socialist revisionist, joined forces with Jules Guesde, a revolutionary Marxist. The left wing split from the SFIO in 1920 to form the Comrnunist Party of France. They allied bnefly with the SFIO during the Popular Front government in 1936-7 only to split again until the SFIO was transformed into the Socialist Party in 1971 (which brought together

Socialists, some Radicals and some Cornmunists in the sarne party).

'@D.S. Bell and Byron Criddle, The French Sociaiist Party.- The Emergence of a Party of Governrnenr (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988), 5. 'O3 Ibid., 1. In 1969, the SFIO changed its name to the Parti socialiste (PS). Guy Mollet

resigned as party leader of the old SFIO and chose Alain Savary to replace him as first

~ecretar~.'~~The PS was officially established at the Congress of Epinay in 1971' when

Mitterrand, a new-corner to Socialism who had never been a member of the SFIO, was elected first secretary of the PS. Mitterrand was a moderate Socialist and able to convince the left-wing groups that his strategy for developing a Union of the Left would help the Left win the 1974 executive and legislative elections. Though Savary and

Mollet were shocked to see a new-corner lead the PS, they remained on friendly terms with Mitterrand.

The Socialist Party developed a "common program," explaining the party's goals and ideological makeup, which "was composed of overlapping layers of unity and disunion."lo5 This was not conducive to creating an image of a stable and unified left- wing party, which may be why Mitterrand ran as an independent candidate for the presidency in 1974 rather than as the candidate of the Socialist Party. Indeed, Mitterrand did very well in the elections as he lost to the right-wing candidate Giscard d'Estaing by less than two percent.'06

It is important to note that many PS policies were a response to the period of rapid expansion and growth that France haci experienced since 1945. As industrial and technological industries began to boom, the nation embrxed a spirit of innovation and progress. In the early post-war years, anticlericalism was still a contentious issue, as it

104 Savary, En toute liberté, 10. 'O5 Steven C. Lewis and Serenella Sferza, "French Socialists between State and Society: From Party- building to Power," in George Ross, Stanley Hoffman and Sylvia Maizacher The Mitterrand Experiment: Continuity and Change in Modem France (Oxford; PoIity Press, 1987), 103. 'O6 Joseph Morray, Grand Disillusion: Fran~oisMitterrand and the (Connecticut: Praeger Publishers, 1997), 64. "persisted as a political force ...and served almost as a litmus test of Socialist bona fides ...It was still felt impossible to be on the Left and go to mass, though the tangible form in which the conflict manifested itself was in the dispute over church sch001s.~~~~~

This idea changed as France rapidly modernized during de Gauile's Fifth Republic, and traditiond values were questioned. Consumerism took hold as the French opened to the modern worId and bought automobiles, shopped in supermarkets, and worked in skyscrapers. Many cities tripied in size as a result of a rurai exodus, immigration, and a dramatic increase in the birth-rate also known as the "baby boom." Left-wing and right- wing orientations were increasingly defined in regards to economic and social goals, not necessarily according to religious beliefs.

As John Ardagh States, "Nothing reflects more vividly the post-war shift in values than the transformation of Catholicism in rance."'^^ Ardagh argues that although the influence of the Catholic Church decreased, religion and spirituality were reviving. Some radical Catholic groups began to focus their attention on social issues, working side-by- side with Marxists to combat mental diseases, aIcoholism, and poverty. There was a growing individualism in the Church, as practicing and non-practicing Christians believers asserted their spintual life according to their own style. Even today, many who practice Catholicism admit they reject some of the most important teachings of the church, particularly on abortion and on premarital sexuai relations. Based on a representative national sample taken in 1988, only 13 percent declared themselves practicing Catholic~.'~~Eighty-two percent described themselves as Catholics, although

'O7 Bell and Criddle, The French Socialist Party, 17. 'O8 Ardagh, France Today, 430. 'O9 Henry W. Ehrmann and Martin A. Schain, Politics in France (New York: HarpeCollins Publishers, 1 W2), 76-77. The data are taken from a variety of sources usually based on public-opinion polls. La Vie more than half no longer attended church at dl.' (Figures may vaty slightly). Suffice it

to say, secularism and faith in science developed in tandem in post-war France. By the

1970s the weakening of clericalism was followed by a softening of anti-clencalism.' lL

Until the 1970s, the SociaIists had not been very popular in France. Their new-

found support may be a combined effect of the post-1973 economic slow-down after

thirty odd years of booming industry, and a disiliusion with the consumerist culture and

rapid material change, and the growing social problems brought about by change. This encouraged a shift from right to left.

René Rémond described the situation in 1980 as such: "The pendulum has been swinging back. In the 1950s the French moved from values of stability to those of growth and change. Now they are shifting back to stability."'" The term "progress" was revised in the late 1970s - quality of private life was preferred to glittery public life. In this environment, the Socialist Party pressed for a program that would reform the structures of French life by decentralizing the nation, granting more autonomy to local govemments and regions, and reducing the inequality between the rich and the poor. The most contentious issue was their plan to nationaiize al1 subsidized schools which, in their opinion, wodd eliminate academic and social inqualities. Yet instead of finding support for their private school reforrn program, they simply reignited the old ideological quarrel between the Church and State for control in education, which had more or less simrnered

conducted a poll from April 13 to 18, 1984 with a simple of 1000 people. The results were as follows: 13 percent were practicing Catholics (attended mass every Sunday); 7 percent attended mass once or twice per rnonth; 17 percent were irregular practicing Catholics; 45 percent were non-practicing but self-proclaimed Cathoks; 4 percent were of a different religion; 13 percent were atheist; 1 percent did not respond. 110 Alain de Penanster, "Vocations: espoir lointain," L'Express, 18 May 1984,46. 11 1 Ardagh, France Today, 435. "'René Rémond, quoted in Ardagh, 22. since the Debré Law of 1959, especiaily as more pressing needs, such as reforming

higher education, held public attention.

François Mitterrand carnpaigned for the 1981 presidential elections on a party

platform made of 110 propositions, of which the ninetieth proposed to create "a great

unified and secular system of public education." ' l3 The term "secular" was defined as

foIlows:

Secularism is the knowledge and respect of different opinions. It is a way of living in a society with pluralistic philosophies, religions, ideologies, it is a way of respecting differences. Dualism is opposed to the notion of public service.' l4

The important point was that the Socialists hoped to better serve the public, the nation, by

abolishing the dual system of pubtic and subsidized private schools, hence their slogan,

"private funds for private schools, public hnds for public schools." (They did not

disagree with the existence of autonomous private schoois). The PS disagreed with the

subsidized schools because the state had to sacrifice a portion of its national budget,

which in turn disadvantaged state schools, in order to provide for private schools by the

terms of the Debré Law of 1959 and Guermeur Law of 1977.

On 15 March 1981, Mitterrand published a more specific set of ten propositions

for changes to the education system, of which the seventh stated that a national, unified,

secular system of schooIing would be created. This reflected in particular the powerhl

influence in the party of the teachers' union, the Féderation de l'éducation nationale

(FEN), and Mitterrand's desire to gain their support in the first round of presidential

elections. '15 The FEN is an dl-encompassing educational federation, with forty-nine

Il3 Savary, En toute liberté, 1 1. ' l4 Parti Socialiste, Libérer 1 'école: Plan Socialiste pour 1 'EducationNationale. Presented b y Louis Mexandeau and Roger Quillot, with a preface by François Mitterrand (Paris: Flammarion, 1978), 12. 115 hlorray , Grand Disillusion. 1 30. unions afi3iated to it, and 500,000 adherents, about huo thirds of the teaching and non- teaching staff.lL6 As Ehrrnann and Schain write, "What is unique about the FEN is its

active participation in the official cornmittees of the Ministry of National Education, which set the rules determining tenure, promotion, and transfer in the entire education

~~stern."~~~Indeed, there is no other union organization with as much institutional power within a public administration. The FEN bas political factions within the organization, the most numerous being the Socidists (61 percent of the congress votes in 1988) and

Communist (32 The problem with such a huge corporation is that each refom, each effort takes on political overtones, making cooperation and agreement difficult, and change is a long drawn-out process.

With the help of secularist supporters, Mitterrand successfully completed the first round of elections. To gain enough support to defeat the Right in the second round,

Mitterrand needed the centrist voters. He had to play his cards carefully because the

Socialist idea of "a secular national education system" would surely alienate many centnst voters who, although not religious, suppoaed private education. Therefore, to stren-aen his position in the second round of elections against Giscard d'Estaing,

Mitterrand decided to write a letter to the public on May 1, 1981, clariwing his educational policies to al1 associations of parents of private school st~dents.'~~He stressed that education was a public service benefiting al1 sectors of national life. No private schools would be forced to integrate to the public system, and, more importantly,

116 Serge Bolloche, "Lesyndicat: un cocon tout-puissant," Le Monde de 1 'Education 99 (October, 1983): 18. '17 Ehrrnann and Schain, Poiitics in France, 183. Il8 Ibid., 182. '19 François Mitterrand, Lenre de campagne du candidat, lmai 1981, cited in J. Battut et al, 1984: La guerre scolaire a bien eu lieu, 279. chmge would evolve from negotiations. Mitterrand wrote that he wished to persuade, not

compel, the people to accept the new public system (see Appendix 2).

1 hope that a public national service will be createci.. .which will be the result of a negotiation, and not a unilateral decision. 1 intend to convince, not compel ...I hope to unite and not di~ide."~

This letter was a crucial element in Mitterrand's campaign, as he distanced himseif from

the Socialists' secularist agenda and won support from moderate centrist and right-wing

voters, who wished for a President who could effectiveiy control the Communists and the

FEN. The FEN did not approve the letter, for it disagreed with such a moderate stance,

but it had no alternative to Mitterrand's plan. The future Minister of Education would

use Mitterrand's letter as a reference point on numerous occasions while trying to solve

the public-private school issue.

Once elected President, Mitterrand shocked his party by his choice of Minister of

Education. Instead of choosing the anticipated Louis Mexandeau, who had previously

been the Socialist Party's primary spokesman on education, Mitterrand chose a moderate

Socialist, a diplornat and negotiator, Alain Savary. Savary's experience in government

had been extensive but far removed from the sphere of education. He even admitted: "1

was a little bit surprised by this proposition, not because of the ministeriai responsibility, but because it was that of the National Education. Nothing had prepared me for this position, even if 1 have always attached the most importance to educational problems."121

Savary's experiences in administration began when he was chef du territoire of

Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon from 194 1 to 1943, rallied to the Resistance in 1943, cornnrissaire de la République at Angers from 1945 to 1947, and then General Secretary

''O Gerard Leclerc, LA bataille de i'ecole (Paris: Denoel, 1985). 87.

44 of German and Austrian affairs from 1946 to 1947.'" As leader of the Socialist Party

(SFIO) in 1969, he sought the reform of the outdated structures of the party (after the failure of the Mollet government from 1956 to 1957, and the 1968 events).'" He maintained close relations with the FEN.'" He worked with the FEN in trying to find a peaceful solution in Algeria, and in opposing the OAS: they fought for cultural cooperation in Tunisia and later they worked together to form the PS from the sF'Io.~"

Savary was well known for his diplomacy, prudence, and ability to negotiate: "a man of conviction, a negotiator.. .who did not have preconceived ideas, especiaily because he had never dealt with the particular problems of the Education ~inistry""~

As the newly appointed Minister of Education, Alain Savary claimed that

"nothing shall be done in haste."'" He reinforced Mitterrand's statement that the private schools would be persuaded, not cornpelled, to integrate into the state system by declaring on 16 July 198 1 that the teachers' unions would not dictate governmental policies.12s This implied that though he respected the unions' ideas, he intended to hold open discussions with private and public school supporters, in view of creating a national service of public education, secular and unified, respecting the liberty of tea~hing"~

121 Savary, En toute liberté, 10. '" Ibid. 123 John Ambler, "Equality and the Politics of Education," in The French Socialist Experirnent (PhiIadeIphia: Institute for the Study of Human Issues, 1985)- 124. 124 Savary, En toute liberté, 10. '= Savary had also worked with the oldest labor union in France, the Conféderation Générale di1 Travail (CGT),which was led by the Communists. In 1988, it had approximately one million members. It is interesting to note that the FEN was originaily part of the CGT until it chose to separate in 1948 when the CGT split between communists and anticommunists. The CGT did not unionize teachers except for technical teachers. Ehrrnann and Schain, Politics in France, 179. 126 Battut et al., 1984: La guerre scolaire a bien eu lieu, 19. 12' 12' Morny, Grand Disillusion, 13 1. 12' 12' Savary, En toute liberté, 108. '" Ibid. Before proposing a program of reform, Savary appointed a series of study

commissions to survey problems adpossible solutions to the education system chaired

by Louis Legrand on the collèges (junior secondary schools), Antoine Prost on the lycées

(senior secondary schools), Laurent Schwartz and the Commission du Bilan on the

educational system as a whole, Jean-Louis Quermonne on the status of teachers in higher

education, André Peretti on the training of elementary and secondary teachers, and

Benrand Schwartz on the educational and employmen t problems of 16 to 18-year-o!ds. 130

The problem for Savary was that the pressing need for reform in education was not centered on the private-public school debate. In an opinion poll of 1977, conducted by SOFRES, almost two thirds of the respondents believed Catholic schools were "very" or "rather important" for a democratic nation:I3' 40 percent of Communists and 42 percent of Socialists supported Catholic edocation."' The secular slogan "public funds for public schools, private funds for private schools" did not have majority support, and

Savary confirmed this with another poll conducted by IFOP in April 1982, which established the public's opinion on a series of questions related to school reform.'"

There were three populations surveyed: the general population of France, parents of students in public schools, and parents of students in private s~hools.'~~Results showed that approximately 80 percent of parents of students in public and private schools supported private schools, usually because they considered liberty of education a

130 Ibid.. 53. 13' SOFRES,1 'Opinion publique, 1984. 154, cited in J. Arnbler, "Educationai Pluralisrn in the French Fifth Republic," 20 1. 13' Christel Peyrefitte, "Religionet politique," in SOFRES, L'opinionfronpise en 1977 (Paris: PFNSP, 1978), 292. '33 Savary, En toure liberté, 122. 134 Morray, Grand Disillusion. 132. fundamental right.135 Savary showed the secularists that the public supported the

subsidized private schools, but they did not believe him: "They did not believe it or they

pretended to not believe it, with some of them even doubting the legitimacy of the

p~11.w136

The reai need for educational reforrn lay in creating a more democratic system of

higher education.13' Since the May 1968 riots, relations between the universities and

government had become very tense; students criticized the impersonal and centraiized

administrative framework of the University and the irrelevance of what was taught, since

degrees no longer guaranteed a job. Reforms were made to decentralize the system,

allowing students greater participation in administrative affairs. Facultés were replaced

by the unités d'enseignement et de recherche (UER) with councils representing teachers,

researchers, students, non-teaching staff and people from the outside world. Student

representation was proportionate to teacher representation, but this depended on the

number of students voting for their representatives. Because the representatives were prïrnarily communists, student interest lapsed and the increased bureaucracy made change a slower and more difficult endeavor.

To dernocratize higher education, Savary emphasized in 198 1 that greater pluridisciplinarity, participation, and autonomy were required. Higher education was se-mented between the universities and the elite grandes écoles, which trained the brightest students from ail over France to become senior managers, administrators, and professors. To enter the grandes écoles, students studied for the first two or three years

'35 Savary, 124. '36 Ibid., 127. after completing high school in classes préparatoires that were attached to the most

prestigious lycées. The upper class origin of most grande école students made this

system of higher education extraordinarily elitist and Savary proposed to move the

classes préparatoires from the lycées to the first two years in the universities, so the

grandes écoles could recruit from a broader student body.138Although the Savary Law on

higher education was eventually passed in 1983, it was revised and watered down to the

point that the segmented and elitist character of higher education remained. The classes préparatoires were kept within the lycées, and Savary's primary goal - to achieve a major

reform of higher education - was not realized and has not been reaiized since.

This is important because Savary had many reform proposais that encompassed

different aspects of the education system, and private school integration was just one of

his goals. Initially, the idea of integrating subsidized private schools into the public sector

was a vital issue for only a segment of the govemment - the anticlericalists and the public

school teachers' unions. Even President Mitterrand did not consider it of primordial

importance: the education budget increased in 1982 by 17.3 percent, compared to a general budget increase of 27.6 percent and an inflation rate of approximately 14 percent.139 However, considering the massive demonstration that occurred on Iune 24,

1984, with over one million people defending private schools, it is clear that in three years, the private school issue had become the focus of attention for al1 of France.

Alain Savary's task was to improve the public service in the education system.

The difficulty was that both sides of the Church-state debate rnaintained that their goals

13' Day, Schools and Work, 135-7. 155-6. 13' Day, Education for the Industrial World, 29. were for the good of the nation; while secularists believed a national system would reduce inequalities, private school supporters believed the dual system aIIowed for the freedom and liberty of the French to choose the education system they preferred. Savary relied on his skills as a negotiator and diplomat as he proceeded to negotiate with private and public school supporters, repeatedly stating that he would avoid al1 precipitate actions or decisions. As Socialist deputies and teachers' unions pressured Savary to act quickly, he responded, "The task is long, therefore we rnust begin slo~l~."~~~

John Amber States, "The leadership is aware that the private school issue is one of the last residues of religious conflict in France and could easily overshadow and jeopardize al1 other reform effort^."'^' Indeed, this is what happened. By December

1982, Savary had received the reports of the sfudy commissions. Public schools received

83.2 percent of France's student population: 86.1 percent attended elementary schools, and 79.8 percent junior and senior high schools (collèges and lycées).142 Private schools,

95 percent of which were ~atholic,'~~enrolled 16.8 percent of school children: 13.9 percent were in elementary schools, and 20.7 percent in junior and senior high schoo~s.~"

The following table illustrates the growth in Catholic schooling since World War Two.

13' Arnbler, "Equality and the Politics of Education," 125. 140 Le Monde (Paris), 12 Novernber 198 1,6. Le Monde is France's national newspaper and is owned by its staff. It recruits readers in many political camps, though its editorial poky has been generally sympathetic with the Lefi, and since 1981 it has supported the Socidist government. Schain and Ehrmann, Politics in France, 121. 14' Arnbler, "Equality and the Politics of Education," 130. '" Savary, En toute liberté, 28. la3 In 198 1-82, 99 % of al1 CathoIic schools (which taught 95% of al1 pupils in pnvate schools) were subsidized with either a "simpIe contract" (7 1% of elementary schools, 1% of secondary schools) or a "contract of association" (29% of elernentary schools and 99% of secondary schools). The term private schools and Catholic school will thus be used invariably to mean the same thing. Le Monde (Paris) 2 1 December 1982, 10. 14j Savary, En toute liberté, 35. Table 1. Number of pupils per year in public and private schools.

Public Schools Private Schools Pupils per year Pupils per year 1939-1949 Primary Schools 4 139 000 89 300 Secondary Schools 233 714 209 273 Total 4 372 714 j 298 573 (6.4 %) 1 1945-1946 Primary 3 753 O00 99 300 Secondarv 491 637 385 284 Total 1 4 244 637 1 484 584 (10.2 B) t ! 1 1958-1959 Primary 5 913 000 1 172 100 Secondarv 1 348 300 496 60 1 Total 1 7 261 300 1 1959-~eb=éLaw

- -- 1968-1969 Primary 6 336 500 1 049 800 Secondary 2 986 000 835 800 Tota1 9 322 500 1 885 600 (16.8 %)

1976-1977 Primary 6 366 200 1 043 600 Secondary 4 054 700 983 500 Total 10 420 900 2 027 100 (16.3 %)

1977 Guermeur Law

Secondary 4 146 700 1 025 400 Total 10 493 400 2 029 600 (16.2 %)

Source: Ministère de 18Education,Le Norrvel Observateur, 2 mars 1981,46.

The nurnber of public school teachers was as follows: 298,218 in public elementary

schools and 39,198 in private elementary schools, 293,884 in public junior and senior

high schools and 84,094 in private high sch~ols.'~~Private secondary schools attracted

more students than private elementary schools.

'" Josette Lécrivain, "Les deux enseignements: année scolaire 1982-1983," Le Point, 30 January 1984,42. Why, when only thirteen percent of the French were deemed to be practicing

Catholics, did parents continue to send their children to Catholic schoois? It is interesting to see the different results according to different journals. Whereas Le Nouvel

Observateur wrote in March 1981 that a national survey showed that 3 1.5 percent of families chose Catholic schools for religious rea~ons,'~~Le Monde de I'Education wrote

(ahin Mach 198 1) that only 10 percent did ~0.l~~In Le Point Catherine Wgard cites a private school professor who said, "Twerity percent of the parents choose our school because of religious instruction, the others come for ~~~ortunisrn."~~~What is clear is that a minorïty of those choosing private schools considered religion to be the deciding factor.

In some schools, where directors conducted private polls as to why parents chose the private school, religion would be in fourth or fifth place in the list of reasons for their choice.

Since religion was not the main reason for choosing a Catholic school, one rnay think that the academic results and teaching credentials were higher in private schools than in the public ones.14' With the exception of some of the most prestigious private

'" Gérard Petitjean, "Pourquoi met-on encore ses enfants dans des écoles privées?" Le Nouvel Observatertr, 2 March 198 1,46. Le Nouvel Observateur is one of the three major news weeklies in France, which publishes between 400,000 and 650,000 copies. Le Nouvel Observateur has socialist sympathies but is independent of the Socialist party. Le Point and L'Express are the two other major news weeklies. Le Point is moderately conservative; L'Express is the oldest news weekly and was once left of center but is now indistinguishable fiom Le Point in its political orientation. Ehrmann and Schain, PoZirics in France, 122. lJ7Edwy Plénel, "A quoi sert l'école catholique?" Le Monde de 1 'Education 70 (March 1981): 15. Le Monde de I'Education is a monthly education journal affiliated to Le Monde newspaper. Since its creation in 1974, it has been the most important periodical on education. Jean Battut et al. 1984: La Guerre Scolaire, 20 1. 'j8Catherine Pégard, "Privé: un peu de discipline ne nuit pas," Le Point, 3 1 October 1983,4 1. 'j9For detailed account on results on the baccalauréat from private and public schools, see Le Monde de ifEducation 82 (March 1982): 10-28. The conductors of the poll admit that the figures are slightly higher than the reality because it is usually those schuols with good results that respond to the polls, especially in the case of private schools. Nevertheless, resuIts are legitimate since they rnay be off by shply 2-3 percent. schools, such as the Jesuit schools, baccalauréat results from Catholic schools were not higher than public school res~lts.'~~In 1978, 68.3 percent of public school students passed the baccalauréat, compared to 66.5 percent from Catholic schools, and 47.8 percent from private non-Catholic school~.~~~In 1982, the public schools' success in the baccalauréat exarn was even more marked. Between 1978 and 1982 the public schools were ahead, after that private ones, though this varied frorn year to year.15' Yet even if an overall average of 69 percent passed the baccalauréat (in both private and public schools), private school results varied, ranging from one extreme to the other, whereas the majority of public school results stayed closely on one side or other of the average.lS3

These figures fluctuated over the next fifteen years as more private than public schooI students passed the baccalauréat, and with higher result~.'~~

In the 1980s, private schools were most often the solution for students having failed a year in public schools, because the extra help and attention within private schools offered them a greater chance of passing the baccalauréat. Considering many private schools were attracting students who needed extra help, their lower average on the baccaiauréat is understandable. There was an exception, however, with regards to two types of baccalauréat - the technical and economic - where private school students

''O The baccalizuréar is a state examination that marks the completion of secondary schooling, and automatic qualification for university entrance. Not ail secondary schools, such as vocational and technical ones, prepare students for the bac. There arc also many different types of bacs, focusing on different subjects. 151 Petitjean, "Pourquoi met-on encore ses enfants dans des écoles privées?" Le Nouvel Observareur, 2 March 1981,46. ''' Dossier réalisé par Michel Blan, Marc Coutty, Jean-Michel Croissandeau, Guy Herzlich, Yves-Marie Labé et Michèle Saitiel, "Jules Ferrj super-star," Le Monde de lTEducation82 (March 1982): 17. lS3 Dossier réalisé par Michel Blanc et al., "L'enquête," Le Monde de 1'Educarion 82 (March 1982): 10. lW Anne Fohr, ''La verité sur l'école privée," Le Nouvel Obsewareur, January 1994,33. In 1994,81.6% passed the bac from private schools, as opposed to 72.5% who passed from the public schools. 80% passed the technical bac from private schools, compared to 67% from the public schools. obtained better results than the public schooi st~~dents.'~~Catholic schools specialized in certain areas of study, because they did not have the money or the resources to adequately provide for all. They often received extra funds from private enterprises and from municipal councils, who pushed for more modem, technological, and job-oriented prograrns, with which Catholic schools were happy to attract more students.

Furthemore, the Ievèl of teaching credentials was lower in Catholic schools compared to the public schools: 90 percent of the public teachers were tenured, whereas at lest 75 percent of private teachers were on probationary con tract^.'^^ In March 1982, a national poll showed that one percent of private school teachers held the highest teaching diploma, the agrégation, 5 percent had the second highest diploma, the certzflcat d'aptitude professionneile d'enseignement sécondaire (CAPES), and 94 percent were auxiliary teachers. In the public schools, 18 percent were agrégés, 62 percent were certifiés, and 19 percent were a~xiliaries.'~~In 1987, a national poll stated that only 0.5 of the private teaching corps for one thousand high school students were agrégés, and only 2.2 teachers had the CAPES.158 Private elementary school teachers did not even need a baccalauréat; in fact, there were three thousand teachers without the baccalaur6at in 1987.''' In contrast, public elementruy teachers had to pass the baccalauréat as well as two or three years of teacher training in a normal school before they could teach.160

lS5 Regardless if the technical bacs were less prestigious than the classics or sciences. they benefited students not excehg in academics who wished for university education. Is6 Petitjean, "Pourquoi met-on encore ses enfants dans des écoles privées?"Le Nouvel Observateur, 2 March 198 1,46. lS7 Dossier réalisé par Michel Blanc et al., "Jules Ferry, super-star," Le Monde de I'Education 82 (March 1982): 17. lS8 Christine Garin, "L'enseignementcatholique est-il le meilleur?" Le Monde de 1'Education 139 (June, 1987): 43. lS9 Ibid. ''O Savary, En toute liberré. 47. Surprisingly, however, there is no correlation between the rate of success at the baccalauréat exam and the level of diploma of the teachers. Students who did poorly in public schools often irnproved after they transferred to a private schools, and this was due mainly to the extra attention and discipline exercised in private schools.

One may assume that parents chose Catholic schools for the prestige associated with exclusive institutions and the wealthy classes. However, Catholic schools were not, as stereotypically defined, reserved for the rich. It is trie that Parisian Catholic schools and some provincial schools did recruit an upper-class clientele and charged high tuition fees; however, rnany provincial Catholic schools were affordable to the working classes thanks to the subsidies provided by the 1959 Debré and 1977 Guermeur Laws. Since

Catholic schools operated on a decentralized basis, each school was free to fix the tuition fees it required. Schools were allowed to charge a fixed amount to al1 families, or to ask the wealthier parents to pay a large fee so as to allow the poorer farnilies to pay a small one, or nothing at dl. For example, one of the lowest tuition rates was found in a small

Parisian district, where parents paid 12OF ($30.00) each month for primary schooIing, and 135F for high sch~ols.'~~A working class family could usually find a Catholic school that asked them to pay 150F per rn~nth.'~~Some schools allowed parents to choose their own tuition fees, according to how much they could offer and how much they were wiIling to contribute to the school. Nonetheless, rates did increase especially in the more upper-class provincial towns where parents paid 330F per month for junior high schools, 400F for senior high school. Prices also were higher in the more expensive

Christine Garin, "Le coût de la scolarité," LR Monde de I'Education 139 (June 1987): 43. 162 Petitjean, "L'argent du privé," Le Nouvel Observareur, 2 March 1981,47.

54 and prestigious Parisian private schools which charged 800F (about $200) for a student in terminale, or grade tl~irteen.'~~

For those schools not under contract, tuition was very high because the school had to provide salaries for the teachers (the state paid teachers in subsidized schools), and pay for al1 expenses on its own. For subsidized private schools, farnily contributions were put toward school building maintenance and acquiring new equiprnent and pedagogical tools.

Since the Guermeur Law, state funds to subsidize private schools increased from 10.7 to

13.2 percent in four years, while funds to public schools decreased from 16.4 percent in

1977 to 14.9 percent in 198 This anned secularists who wished to abolish the subsidy of private schools. lG5

Indeed by the 1980s, the state was helping the private schools to such a degree that subsidized private education had become a realistic alternative for a family of modest income. In 1978-79, 32 percent of pupils in private elementary schools were children of manual workers, demonstrating that private schools were an option for students from the working classes.166 Nevertheless, statistics demonstrate that private schools were generaily destined for middle class farnilies.16' A major survey was conducted by the

Centre de recherche pour l'étude et l'observation des conditions de vie (CREDOC), which revealed the following statistics in the case of Saint-Jean private school at Douai in

163 Garin, "Le coût de la scolarité," 43. Petitjean, "L'argentdu privé," 47. '" Parti Socialiste, "Le principe 'fonds publics à l'école publique, fonds privés à l'école privée,"' in J. Battut et al, 1984: La guerre scolaire a bien eu lieu, 305. '66 Françoise Oeuvrard, "Note sur la clientèle des établissements privés: l'origine sociale des élèves," Educarion et Formation 6 (October 1983-June 1984). Service de l'information, de gestion, et des statistiques, Ministry of National Education, 22. Cited in Ambler, "EducationalPluralism in the French Fifth Republic," in James HoIlifield and Geroge Ross, Searching for The New France (New York: Routledge, 1991), 201. 1978- 1979: 3 1 percent of high school students were from farnilies of liberal professions,

20 percent from industrial and commercial enterprises, 18 percent from rniddle classes,

1 1 percent from agicultural professions, 1 1 percent from small commercial

entrepreneurs, and 9 percent from the working cla~s.'~~The relatively homogeneous

upper-middIe class clientele explains why private schools were considered to be "similar

to a cocoon for the young ...the social milieau is that of the middle classes."'69 In contrast, students in the puolic lycée at Douai came from more diverse backgroiinds.

Working class children represented 38 percent in the collège, and 19.5 percent in the

lycée, whereas in private schools, they accounted for 21 -3 percent in junior high, and 1 1.1 percent in senior high s~hool.~~~

Although private schools were affordable for a working class farnily, the middle- class bourgeois families made more use of the private schools than did the working classes. In private junior high schools, 17.5 percent came from families of executives in business and industry, whereas in public junior high schools, there were only 9 percent with parents in executive positions.'71 19 percent of the private senior high school students' parents were in executive positions, while only 1 1 percent of the public senior high schools had parents who were business and industriai executives. Moreover, in private junior hiph schools, 15 percent of the students' parents came from the liberal professionals, while only 9 percent of public junior high school students did so. In

167 Christine Garin, "Ni pour le plaisir de payer, ni par conviction religieuse," Le Monde de L'Educntion 139 (June, 1987): 53. 168 Edwy Plénel and André Meury, "Uncocon pour les jeunes," Le Monde de 1 'Edrication 70 (March 198 1): 13. 169 Ibid. 170 The statistics are taken from "Un cocon pour les jeunes," Le Monde de L'Education 70 (March 198 1): 13. They are based on a study conducted by the Ministry of Education in March 1981, published as "Service d'étude et d'informations statistiques, Etudes et Documents, 80-1, p. 13. private senior high schools, 28 percent came from liberal professionals while 25 percent in public schools came from the same background. Thus the rniddle class clientele was clearly a trademark of the private schools.

Pnvate school defenders often justified the existence of their schools on the bais that they provided "freedom and liberty of education." They maintained that the dual school systern offered the free choice of schooling for families, and this served to democratize the school systern since either system was aordable for al1 social g~ou~s.'~'

The problem with this argument is that many families did not have the free choice of a private or public school because of geographic or social constraints. Private schools were generally established in bourgeois districts, especially because they were not subject to district laws (carte scolaire), and were free to open new schools wherever they chose.

This was a contentious issue Savary would try to resolve.

Moreover, pnvate schools often specialized in a certain area because of a lack of funds and because each private school had to prove its caractère propre, its trademark:

"The principle, in private schools, is that al1 parents can freely choose the institution they prefer for their child. However, not al1 the institutions can offer the sarne options. The choice, therefore, seems to be somewhat limited, but nothing is ever imposed on the fa~nil~."'~~The problem is that perhaps the only private school close to a student who has failed in a public schooI is either too expensive or it focuses on, for example, technical studies, as opposed to humanities, the area in which the student is struggling.

17' Ibid. 173 Alain Léger, "Les détours par l'enseignement privé," in Jean-Pierre Terrail, La scolarisation de la France. (Paris: La Dispute/Snédit, 1997), 72. '73 Edmond Vandermeersch, "Enseignement catholique: L'illusion du 'libre choix,"' 92 Le Monde de 1 'Education (February, 1983): 47. Though private schools did not hold up to their seemingly democratic image,

neither did the public schools, for the public schools were guitty of streaming working

class students to lesser apprenticeship or vocational schools. For those working class

students in private schools, results were consistently higher than for working class

students in public schools. This sheds light on the undemocratic nature of the public

system. Sixteen percent of working class students in private schools make it to grade eleven (troisième), while only 12 percent reach grade eleven in public schools. Of those

working class students who pass the baccalauréat, 35 percent corne from private schools whereas 21 percent corne frorn public schools (as opposed to 60 percent generally who pass the bac).'" Why were working class students more successful in the private system as opposed to the public one? One explanation derives from Pierre Bourdieu's theory of social reproduction in education.

Bourdieu maintains that education is a tool whereby the dominant class, or the elite, reproduces itself by strearning students to different schools at the age of fifteen, between junior and senior high s~hool.'~~The elite embodies "cultural capital," which is defined by a certain culture, general knowledge, diction, style, and mannerisms, which are similar to those of the teachers. Students with "cultural capital" are able to adapt to the school's expectations, and their acadernic resuits reflect this. Because these students receive high academic results in junior high school, they are strearned to classical senior high schools which focus on the humanities or sciences, and prepare for the baccalauréat exmination. Those who have difficulty in high school, frequently of working class and

"'Terrail, La scolarisation de la France. lower rniddle class ongins, are strearned into vocational schools and apprenticeship programs, which offer at best a professional baccalauréat (introduced in 1985) geared toward the work place rather than higher ed~cation.'~~

Strearning is based on academic and psychological assessment. Report cards are a fine example of both kinds of assessment for they provide the student's grades as well as an evaluation of the student's ability and work habits. Bourdieu provides a synopsis of several evduations, with grades and comments, from the reports on students. Working class students often began schooling with disadvantages, such as accents, weak vocabulary and diction skills, and rough mannerisms, which work against them in their report cards. Bourdieu shows that working class students with below average grades receive comrnents that described their work as "completely insipid, foolish, mediocre, badly written," whereas students with the sarne grade but from middle to upper class backgrounds received comments such as "some understanding but uses phiIosophicai concepts for their stylistic color, some good elements but not well connected, disorganized, lively, fluent but uneven e~ocution."~~~The pejorative comments of the working class student stand out compared to the optimistic and supporting comments of the upper class student. Thus public schools frequently track working class students having neither cultural capital nor "economic capital" (wealth) to the Iess prestigious vocational schools or apprenticeship programs. Although private schools were also guilty of streaming, their teachers offered more one-on-one attention, after school

17* Pierre Bourdieu and Jean-Claude Passeron, Reproduction in Edrtcation. Sociew and Culture (London: Sage Publication, 1977); Outline of a Theory of Practice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977); Homo Academicus (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1988); The Store Nobility (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1996). 17' Since the 1960s it has been possible for students to reach at least the first (two-year) cycle of higher education in the Sections de technicien supérieur located in the lycées or in the Instituts universitaires de technologie, situated in the universities, which accept some bacheliers professionnels. Day, Schools and Work, 140-3. tutorials, greater surveillance and discipline, al1 of which contributed to the success of the student.

Discipline, surveillance, adaptability, personable atmosphere, extra-help - these are the reasons why parents chose Catholic ed~cation."~Parents of public school students frequently complained that teachers were never available for extra help and that the anonymous, impersond, cornpetitive nature of the public schools hmed the potential pwth of their children. The good reputation of Catholic schools was based mainly on the teachers' one-on-one attention to their students and their extra-cumcular study sessions before and after school. Chiidren in private schools couId be dropped off at 8 am (although classes began at 9 am) and parents did not have to pick them up until 6 or even 6:30 in the evening. This proved convenient for working parents. At the senior levels, teachers often took turns holding study sessions in the evenings or on Sanirday mornings. Students in private schools were followed very closely in their studies, for there was much more frequent testing than in public schools, and children in elernentary schools sometimes had to ask their parents to sign their homework.

Moreover, the private school teachers had a strong esprit de corps. Teachers preferred the smaller class sizes (on average, there were 26 students in a private secondary school, as opposed to 31 students in public classrooms) and personable atmosphere of the private schools. Principais hired their own teachers, many of whom were alumni and embodied the school's esprit de corps. This contrasts with the public system where teachers are hired by the state and p1aced wherever there is an open

ln Bourdieu, The Stare Nobility, 37. 178 Catherine Pégard, "Privé: un peu de discipline ne nuit pas," Le Point, 3 1 October 1983,41. Petitjean, "Pourquoi met-on encore ses enfants dans des écoles privées?" 46. position.179 In a private school, principals (hired by the diocese) were both

administrators and teachers; they put in their time in extra-curricular activities, and could

thus fairly assess the students' dispositions and academic potential, as well as pedagogical

problerns.180In the public system, the principal was solely an administrative figure who

seldom had a chance to meet the students. Many pnvate schools were also boarding

schools, with a relatively controlled environment, whose teachers often served as an extended family. "To know, to follow through and to advise" - these were the duties

bestowed on teachers, as often cited in the private schools'brochures.18'

Not al1 private school teachers were happy with their positions, however, for they

worked very long hours and were paid less than public school teachers (although the Law

Guermeur of 1977 had provided for an increase in salaries to be put into effect over the next five years so that dl private and public teachers received equal pay according to their credentials). Transfening from a private to a pubIic teaching position was not easy, because teachers often lacked the credentials required to teach in the public schools, or they were unable to find a position in the city in which they lived.lg2 For the most part, private school teachers seemed happy to work in favorable and personable atmosphere where discipline, hard work, and respect were stressed:

We work under the eye of our director who chose us from numerous candidates and under the eye of the parents who chose us to educate their children. It does not matter whether or not we are religious. Instead, what counts is our personality, Our spirit, and the awareness that we are responsible for the successes or failures of the establi~hrnent.'~~

t79 Michèle Saltiel, "Cette autonomie qui fait peur," Le Monde de 1'Education 99 (October 1983): 16. Christine Garin. "Encadrement, suivi, discipline: les trios 'plus,"' Le Monde de I'Education 139 (Junr: 1987): 40. IS1 Ibid. 182 Edwy Plenel and André Meury, "Un choix pour chaque enfant: les enseignants restent," Le Monde de I'Education 70 (March 198 1): 20. Is3 Ibid. Naturally, as the level of education increases, the Ievel of instruction is more

demanding and students risk having to repeat a year.184 As sociologist Gabriel Langouet

confirms, "The transfers from public to private occurred most often when students failed

a grade."185The move for two thirds of the zappeurs is from public to private institutions

(zappeurs are students moving from public to private or vice versa). The temporary use of private schools is essential for those families trying to prevent their children from failing, or for those needing to repeat a year.1s6 Therefore, the number of transfers increased in tandem with the level of education.

Gabriel Langouet and Alain Léger distinguish between "passing clients" and

"faithful clients" in the private schooIs, and conclude that the rnajority of private school students are temporary or passing clients. The following graph shows the rnajority of private school students were "passing clients" or zappeurs meaning they used both private and public schools during their careers:

Figure 1. The use of public and private schools by French families (based on a sample of 5265 families in 1993).

Source: Jean-Pierre Terrail La scolarisation de la France: Critique de 1 'état des lieu. Sous la direction de Jean-Pierre Terrail (Paris: Dispute, 1997), 7 1.

1 84 A study by Jean-Luc Pigelet, "Qu'est-ce qui fait un bon résultat?" Le Monde de 1'Education 82 (March, 1982):13. 18' Gabriel Langouet, "Enseignement public et enseignement privé: coexistence ou complémentarité" (March 1985), cited in Le Monde de 1'Education 139 (June, 1987): 50. 186 Anne Fohr, "Public-privé: où réussit-on le mieux?" Le Nouvel Observateur, September 199 1,50. Almost 28 percent of stucients moved from public to private schools; 37 percent of students entering sixième in public schools had already attended a private school.'" The real percentage of those who used private schools is much larger than the numbers provided by officiai statistics. Although 17 percent of French children were educated in pnvate schools in 198 1, Alain Léger demonstrates that 45 percent of French families had used private education, for at least one of their children, during at least one year.188

Indeed, the ratio of zappeurs in private schools is greater than the permanent clientele:

57.8 are passing clients, while 42.2 percent are permanent clients (See Appendix 3).

Ironically, however, Langouet and Léger conclude: "Private schools are not only for students who failed in the public system, but they are for parents who want to ensure their children will not fai1."189 They found that the zappeurs were predorninantly from the middle classes - the very group that had fewer chances of failing as opposed to the working classes.'90 ''The pressure parents put on their children is increasing. Parents are seduced by this [private] type of teaching that is more personable and human; they want to avoid the gigantic public establishments.. .. 9,191

The idea that consumerisrn had invaded the school system was put forward by sociologist Robert all lion.'^' He rnaintained that Catholic schools were earning a reptation as products of the consumer culture because parents increasingly chose schools that were suited to their child's needs. The prirnary goal was to pass the

lg7 Alain Léger, "Les détours par l'enseignement privé," in Terrail La scolarisation de la France, 7 1. lS"bid. 18' Christine Garin, "L'enseignement catholique est-il le meilleur?" Le Monde de I'Educarion 139 (June 1987): 53. '* Ibid. "' Dossier réalisé par Blanc et al., "Jules Ferry super-star," Le,Monde de I'Education 82 (March 1982): 17. baccalauréat, and the private system was a recourse for students requiring extra help

(Appendix 4). Pnvate schools explicitly proposed to adapt their school to the needs of the families supporting them, and to the needs of each child, whereas public schools were bound by the statutes regulating the public education system. Although private schools offered the sarne curriculum as the public schools, every Catholic school had its caractère propre. The brochure of one school highlighted that "Acadernic results are a major sip of the intellectual value of an educationd institution," and that students with an average of 11.5 out of 20 are expelled, and no students having had to repeat a year may be admitted.lg3 This is representative of the prestigious private school, where academics and the schooI's tradition mark its elite character. Other Catholic schools are designed for those students who are required to repeat a year and are therefore in need of extra attention, help, and surveillance, al1 of which public school teachers refuse to provide since they are not paid overtime. As BalTion writes, "Private education may be considered as a social construction seeking to tone down the disfunctions of the dominant educational institution." Ig3

One of the paradoxes of the national education system is that mentally handicapped children are provided for in specid schools that are financed by the state; however, if the child does not have a medical problem, but is clearly siiffering from a learning disability, or needs a different pedagogical approach to lem, there is no recourse, no solution. The child is simply left behind until he ultimately considers

191 Robcrt Ballion, "L'enseignementprivé: une école sur mesure?" Revuefrarzçaise de sociologie (April- June 1980) and Les Consommateurs d'école (Paris: S tock/Laurence Pemoud, 1982). Ci ted in Arnbler, "Educational Pluralism in the French Fifth Republic," 201. Ig3 Christine Garin, "L'enseignementcatholique est-il le meilleur?"Le Monde de flEducarion 139 (June 1987): 37. himselF a failure. The only alternative to repeating years is a private school and indeed

many private schools were established for the sole purpose of collecting those students

abandoned by the public system. In this garne of supply and demand, the location and the

history of the private school also played a large role (similar to the more prestigious

public schools). Indeed, after the 1984 demonstrations defending private schools, a

reporter from Le Monde wrote: "The defenders of the public school, the school of the

Republic, were stupefied to discover that consumex-ism had invaded education." lgs

While most farnilies in the 1950s and 1960s preferred Catholic instead of public elementary schools because they taught mords and good manners to young children, by the 1980s, parents increasingly chose public elementary schools either to Save on unnecessary costs or because they believed that religion and manners should be taught within the home. As the children grew older, more chose private schools for academic reasons; anxious to have their child pass the baccalauréat, they were willing to make an econornic sacrifice if the private school could help their child's academic progress.

Thus it is clear that Catholic schools were usually chosen not for religious reasons, but for more practical objectives. Indeed, religious education in Catholic secondary schools is no longer obligatory and has become increasingly watered down.

Sometimes demands for religious teaching were made but the teachers themselves are rarely qualified and sometimes they even refuse to teach cate~hisrn.'~~By 1985, 95 percent of the teaching corps in Catholic elementary schools were lay, 96 percent in

194 Robert Ballion, LES fonctions sociales de l'enseignement privé, rapport CORES, 1978,48. Cited in Edwy Plénei, "A quoi sert l'école catholique?" Le Monde de IEducation 70 (March 1981): 16. Ig5 Le Monde, Dossiers et docurnenrs, 30. Cited in Cited in Ambier, "Educational Pluralisrn in the French Fifth Republlc," 202. '% André Meury, "La conversion du bastion breton," Le Monde de I'Educarion 70 (March 198 1): 21. Catholic secondary scho~ls;~~~this contrasts greatly with the figures in 1959, when 40

percent of the teaching corps were from the ~ier~~.'~*However, many parents, especially

from traditional families, believed that Catholic schools did instill values and mords that

were not necessady Catholic, but nevertheless spiritual. Indeed, there seemed to have

been a revived spiritualism and mysticism in the schools that paralteled the secularization

of the post-war decades: "Little by Iittle, as the theory of liberal democracy

develops ...one sees that the bais for freedorn of education changes: frorn religious, it

becomes ideol~~ical."~~~One teacher explains the new found spiritudity as such: "There

is a strict minimum.. .that is to respect Christian values. But that does not mean one must

teach religion in a dogrnatic manner. We simply tell our students to listen for one hour each week: listen to who we are.''2m

Support for the existence of Catholic schools was widespread. Since 1978, polls showed that two thirds of French people favored the subsidized private scho~ls.~~~The problem lay with the government for it had to allocate public funds to private schools to the detriment of public schooling. In 198 1-1982, funding for private subsidized schools increased by 22 percent, whereas funding for public schools increased by only 17.3 percent.'0' Private schools were also benefiting from the Guermeur Law of 1977, as the

state had five years to increase teachers' salaries in private schools to the level of the public schools. Socidists were annoyed that they were bound by previous laws to pay for new programs in the subsidized schools, even if they disagreed with the programs. By

19' 19' Le Monde de 1 'Education 1 39 (June 1987):46. Ig8 Lucie Tanguy, "L'état et l'école: l'école privée en France," Revuefrançaise de sociologie 13 (1972): 34811. Cited in Ambler, "Educationai Plurdism," 20 1. 199 Edsy Plénel, "A quoi sert l'école catholique?" Le Monde de I'Education 70 (March 198 1): 15. '* Catherine Pégard, "Privé: un peu de discipline ne nuit pas," Le Point, 3 1 October 1983,41. 20 1 Savary, En route liberté, 122. 1982, tension was building within the govemment, especially because 48 percent of the

Socialist deputies in the National Assembly came from the teaching profession, most of whom were cornrnitted to secularizing and unifying the education stem.'^^ Savary had to find a solution to these problems.

While public schools were undemocratic in their strearning mechanisms, private schoois were undemocratic in that they appealed primarily to an upper-middle class clientele. Considering the number of transfers from public to private schools at the secondary level, it is clear that the public school system needed reform. While secularists strongIy maintained that reform could only begin with a national, unified secular system,

Catholics believed changes could be made to the status quo provided that the goal to integrate their schools would not be pursued.'04 The public was more preoccupied with providing children with the best possible education, whether from the state or the

Catholic Church. As Savary States, "The public was not ready for a total reversa1 of relations between the state and private schools. In a quarter of a century, France not only became accustomed to the Loi Debré but becarne attached to its goals."'05

By the 1980s Church schools had evolved from their traditionalist face to more open, plurdistic, and modem approaches to education. But the Left refused to accept the dual nature of Church-state schools and favored a unified national pubiic education

~~stern.*~~In contrat, Catholics maintained their right to serve the public in a system

'O'z Christine Vial, "Guerre ou paix pour lvécoleprivée?" Le Monde (Paris), 20-22 March 1982. 'O3 Of the 277 deputies elected as Socialists or RadicaIs of the Left WG),there were 25 university professors, 94 secondary school teachers, and 13 elernentary school teachers. Les Elections Législatives de Juin 1981,Le Monde, Dossiers et Documents, June 198 1, 84. 204 Savary, En route liberté, 13 1. Ibid., 121. 'O6 Ibid., 149. allowing liberty of education via their own schools with the help of public funds. Alain

Savary had to find a way to draft a reform program that would not only appeal to both sides, but which would also solve or reduce the social inequalities of both school systems. CHAPTER THREE

SAVARY'S ATTEMPTS TO SOLVE TBE CHCTRCH-STATE DEBATE

In 1982, Alain Savary's skills as a negotiator and peacemaker were tested. His

goal was to wnte a program of reform that would satisfy both Catholic and public school

supporters, and guarantee that "liberty of teaching" was not threatened. His difficulties

often stemrned from the rigid positions of his own party members, who finnly held on to

the idea of laicité,'07 even though the nation at large had learned to accept a more

pluralistic society. The purpose of this chapter is to trace Savary's attempts to draft a bill

that would settle the century long conflict between the Church and state in education.

Savary consulted forty-eight organizations between 25 January and 19 May 1982

in order to understand the different views on the question of ref~rrn."~He named as his

main advisors regarding the reform dossier Jean Gasol, a practicing Catholic and

Socialist leader, and Bernard Toulemonde, a law professor at the University of Lille and technical advisor at Matignon. It is also important to note the main actors with whom

Savary consulted. Defending the secularists' point of view were Jacques Pommatau, secretary of the Fédération de I'éducation nationale (FEN), Jean-Claude Barbarant, secretary of the Syndicat national des instituteurs (SNI), and Michel Bouchereissas, secretary of the Comité national d'action laique (CNAL).

207 Luicité. or Secularism, is defined as "The belief that religion and religious bodies should have no paît in political or civic affairs or in running public institutions, especially schools." Encarta (I999), S.V. "Secularism." In 1978, Louis Mexandeau and Christian Join-Lambert wrote the Socialists' plan of education. They defined laiciré in schools as "pluralistic ideas, beliefs, cultures, ethnicities.. .the indispensable right to differences finds its liberty at the heart of a public, secular school system.. .that is the true "free" school." Mexandeau and Join-Lambert, "Le P.S., les pouvoirs et I'ecole," Le Monde de 1 'Education 99 (October 1983): 26. 'O8 Alain Savary, En toute liberté, 225. The major French teachers' union, the FEN, enjoyed advantages of mass

membership, extensive delegated administrative powers and access to a sympathetic

government.'Og In 1983, the FEN consisted of 49 unions, 530,000 rnernbers in total."'

After 1981, when many former teachers held high civil service posts and rninisterial

cabinets, there were criticisms of the government that the unions were defending

particular interests, and not the interests of the whole nation. Yet although the FEN advised the government, it was completely independent from it. The FEN recognized political and philosophical pluraiism, with the union accornmodating socialist and

Communist factions. This, however, often led to conflict within and greatly hindered reform programs. The FEN has often been described as the "conservative master of the

Ministry of National Education," because it was a vigorous defender of the rights and privileges of its members."' When the govemment proposed reform policies, the FEN was cautious, ensuring its pnvileges would not be threatened; the FEN was thus rarely an innovator.

The FEN's largest component union is the Syndicat national des instituteurs -

Professeurs de I'enseignemenl général de collège (SNI-PEGC, referred to as the sNI).~''

As Ambler writes, "From the intenvar period onward, membership in the SNI became an expression of solidarity with one's chosen vocation and with the virtues of secular, public

209 The FEN enjoys neither compulsory rnernbership nor a representational monopoly, and it retains its autonorny in selection of both leaders and policies. Yet it cornes very close to representing a whole profession - especially in public elementary education - with a union membership of close to 80 percent. Ambler. "Neocorporatism and the Politics of French Education," Wesr Europeatr Politics 8 (1985): 24. "O Serge Bolloch, "Le syndicat: un cocon tout puissant," Le Monde de IEducation 99 (October 1983): 18. "' John Ambler, "French Education and the Limits of State Autonomy," Western Political Quarterly 4 1 (Septernber 1988): 472-73. 212 The Syndicat national des instituteurs-Professeurs de l'enseignement général de collège (SNI-PEGC) emerged in the 1880s frorn the struggle between the Church and the Third Republic, when the republic firmiy established its own lay teaching corps in the public schools. The SNI consists of over half of al1 of education which the instituteur was expected to defend.""3 The FEN's secondary and higher education affiliates are not as strong as the SNI. The Syndicat national des enseignements de second degré (SNES) and Syndicat national de l'enseignement supérieur (SNE Sup) actually tend to weaken the Federation because of internai conflicts with the SM.

The ideological conflict between the two groups is based on the Socialist-

Communist split, which thus affects their pedagogical and jurisdictional views. Socialists led the SNI, whose pedagogical program emphasized the need for greater equality in education, whereas Communists led the SNES, whose program emphasized achievement rather than equality."4 Indeed, the FEN has been described as a "battlefield in which the two largest members exchange artillery fire."'lS Although the two groups were united in their secularist campaign against subsidized private education, they greatly disagreed about the questions facing the public schools. Many civil servants were plagued by a deep sense of mutual mistrust, and even when they were committed to reform, the attachment of their members to traditional privileges and ideas of laicité made change a dificult and slow process."6

Parents' associations evolved from the FEN, the largest being the Fédération des conseils de parents d'élèves (FCPE) and the Comité national d'action laique (cNAL)."'

The CNAL played a decisive role between 198 1 and 1984 because many of its members

-- the FEN's membership and it provides the FEN with the top leaders. It has been the most successful in mobilizing teachers. An~bler,"Neocorporatism and the Politics of French Education," 25. "'Frank R. Baumgartner and Jack L. Wdker, "Educational Policymaking and the Interest Croup Structure in France and the United States," Compnrarive Politics 21 (Apnl 1989): 282. '"Ambler, "Neocorporatism and the Politics of French Education," 3 1. 216 Jean-Claude Escaffit, "Ecole Iaique: la forteresse enseignante," La Vie, 17-23 November 1984, 33-35. were also deputies in the National Assembly. The unions and parent groups held in common a strong solidarity in "la défense laique." For them, the Church was seen as "a

major threat to democratic values, in an era when for the society as a whole socid and econornic policies have tended to overshadow the clencal issue as the major divider between left and right.""8 What they failed to realize, however, was that the electorate had evolved and three quarters of the population did not consider the Church and its schools as a threat.

The French state played an active role in subsidizing and encouraging the growth of interest groups in education. Over half of the interest groups received aid from the government either in the form of direct subsidies or seconded personnel. In 1984, the ministry of education asked over 1,200 civil servants to work full-time in educational

union^."^ Although every ministry delegated a proportion of its employees to its representative union, it is notable that almost 60 percent of the educationai groups received one forrn or other of govemmental subsidy. The national leaders of the pressure groups were even paid by the state (which is ironic because those very pressure groups stall governmental reforrn programs). The government gave the most support to the biggest groups - notabIy the SNI - because it needed its support. As Baumgartner and

Walker write, "Government agencies are trying to build stable and sympathetic constituencies that will join cooperatively in the irnplementation of government programs and will be supportive when the agency makes requests for budget increases or new

"'The CNAL was created in 1959 (during the debate on the Debré Law) by teachers who disagreed with the distribution of public hnds to private schools, Pierre Favier and Michel Martin-Roland, La décennie Mitterrand, vol. 2 (Paris: Editions du Seiuil, 1991), 100. "'Ambler, "Neocorporatismand the Politics of French Education," 28. 219 Baumgartner and Walker, "Educational Policyrnaking and the Interest Group Structure," 275. prograrns. ""O As will be discussed, this idea certainIy backfired as Savary sought to

resolve the private schooI issue. The problem is that the French groups were locked in

bitter rivalries and seldom joined each other in cooperative coalitions, as they competed

for access to the ministry of education. When they could not gain support from the govemrnent, they attempted to "generate mass mobif izations.. .to force the government to pay attention to their demands. ""l

Private schools were backed by numerous unions that supported the idea of reforming the education system as a whoIe, while maintaining the subsidized status of the private schools. Two of the largest unions were the Syndicat national de 1 'enseignement

Chrétien (SNEC), supported by 44 percent of private elementary teachers and 37 percent of secondary teachers and the Syndicat professionnel de l'enseignement libre Catholique

(SPELC), which represcnted 32 percent of elementary teachers and 35 percent of secondary teachers."' Smaller unions supporting subsidized private education included the Syndicat nationale des chefs d'établissements d'enseignement libre (S YNCEEL), the

Syndicat national de directeurs de collèges (SYNADIC), both of which represented school principals.'"

Support for private schools was not unanirnous, however, even among private unions, as several groups criticized the working situation and conditions of private school personnel, and recognized the possibility of integrating the private schools to the state system. Such unions included the Fédération de l'enseignement privé (FEP), representing approximately 24 percent of elementary teachers and 35 percent of

"O Ibid., 276. '71 Ibid., 284. 179 - Le Monde (Paris) 13 April 1983, 12. '73 Savary, En toute liberté, 138. secondary teachers, and the Féderation nationaie des syndicats professionnels de l'enseignement libre catholique (FN-SPELC), a small organization which played a rninor ro~e?

The Catholic teachers' unions were significant, but not as powerful as the parents' unions, the Comité national de lknseignernenr Catholique (CNEC)~and the Union nationale des associations de parents d'élèves de l'enseignement libre (UNAPEL), whose leaders, Canon Paul Guiberteau and Pierre Daniel, enjoyed mass piiblic support and were prirnary negotiators in the reform dossier with savaryZ6 Guiberteau and Daniel were in contact with governrnent officids who were members of the Association parlementaire pour la liberté d'enseignement (APLE), the Union pour la démocratie française (UDF), or the Rassemblement pour la république (RPR) - al1 of which argued that it was impossible to revoke laws that guaranteed fundamental civil rights, which inciuded the provision of public funds to private schools."

As noted earlier, in 1981-82, funding for the private schools increased by 22 percent whereas the public schools increased by only 17.3 percent. The left-wing government disagreed with and yet was bound to the Guenneur Law of 1977, which obliged the municipalities to pay subsidies to the private schools, and which required private school teachers' salaries to be raised to the public school level within five years.

"4 Le Monde (Paris) 13 April 1983, 12. 2'5 The CNEC was formed in 1965 and is the voice of al1 Catholic educational institutions, although it has no legal authority over schools. Only the Secretary (Guiberteau) has institutionai authority, because he is an executive lied to the cpiscopate, the Commission épiscopale du monde scolaire et universitaire, and because he is also head of the Secrétariat général de I'enssignemenr catholique (SGEC),which is a permanent service to the Commission épiscopale. The commission is composed of bishops frorn the nine apostolic regions, with Monseigneur Jean Honoré as the supreme authonty. There are 24 organizations of Catholic education - unions, associations, parent groups, and they voice their concerns to the CNEC. "6 The UNAPEL was forrned before World War Two, but played a major role after the war. It organizes carnpaigns to pressure the govemment to pass laws, such as the Barangé and Marie Laws of 195 1, to the benefit of the pnvate schools. In addition, the Socialists were required (because of previous laws) to pay for new

prograrns the contract schools wanted to implernent, even if the government disagreed

with them.

In May 1982, after five months of delegations, three main issues were apparent."'

First, the carte scolaire (school district map and overall plan for the creation and location

of schools) was a contentious issue because public schools, and not the subsidized private

schools, had to follow state-defined boundaries that defined the number of schools in a given area.22g Secularïsts wanted the private schools to follow the carte scolaire and abolish their privilege of opening new schools anywhere they wanted. The private schools believed that this infringed on their freedom to teach - la liberté d'enseignement.

A second issue was that private school teachers were to be subject to a national law that specified the qualifications necessary for a teaching certificate, la titularisation.

Considering the number of private school teachers without state diplornas, this proposal was likely to cause problems for private school teachers. Many teachers did not want to rake the state exarninations, and many directors were afraid that they would henceforth lose their teachers to the state system. Third, public school supporters wanted to end the local governments' obligations to pay subsidies to the private schools under the contrat d'association. This was harming the public schools since they suffered from a cutback of municipal funds.

Savary, En route liberté, 188- 189. Favier and Martin-Roland, La décerinie Mitterrand, 101-2. See aIso Jean-Sébastien Stehli, "Ecole libre: Savary jette la première pierre," Le Point, 27 December 1982,26-27. 229 The cane scolaire was established in 1963 as the basiç for a ten-year planning programrned which would cope with the demands of the rising birth-rate. J. Minot writes, "The school map is the distribution of educationai establishments throughout the country in accordance with a method of forecasting which irns to calculate, for each school district, the number of pupils to be received, and to determine what kind of establishment is necessary for their educational developrnent. J. Minot LIEducationnationale (Paris: There is no doubt that under the Fifth Republic, Catholic schools had benefited

greatly from state granted subsidies. By 198 1, state funds to private schools arnounted to

85 percent of their total budget.=' To prevent the government from implementing changes through a parliamentary vote, defenders of private schools, namely the

UNAPEL, organized on 24 April 1982 a public gathering at Porte de Pantin in Paris, where the opposition political parties RPR and UDF criticized the Mitterrand-Mauroy government. An unexpected 100,000 people came, and some of the organizers, such as the archbishop of Paris, Monsignor Jean-Marie Lustiger, were concerned that the meeting was too politically charged. The Church wanted to focus the debate on the ideological issue of "freedom for teaching" rather than accusing the Socialist party of unjust anticlerical F~!icies.z3'

What became an irnpressive anti-Socialist demonstration was countered by the

CNAL at Bourget on the centennial anniversary of Jules Ferry's creation of a secular, compulsory, and free system of primary education in 1882. The tone of this "meeting" was more combative than that at Porte de Pantin, as over 200,000 public school supporters held banners calling for "Immediate abrogation of the anti-secular laws!" and

"Nationalization: The only solution!" Prime Minister Mauroy and Education Minister

Savary gave speeches calling for patience and tolerance toward the values and views of both sides of the debate."' Savary's speech was written by Jean Gasol, with the assistance of François Furet, a revisionist historian of the French Revolution. Furet

Berger-Levrault, 1979)' 17; quoted in D.A. Howell, "The Carte Scolaire in French Education: A Study of Decision-Making in a CentraIized System,"Pztblic Administration 64 (Autumn, 1984): 275. 330 - Diocesan directors receive and distribute state grants. They also recruit, form and promote teachers, hold judiciai and red estate powers, and guarantee the Catholic, or at least moral, nature of the Catholic schools. They represent the Bishop at a locai level, and although they are not the teachers' official employer, they have authority over them. believed that the de-Christianizing atheists in 1793-94 provided a negative example, sirnilar to the militant secularists of the 1980s, whose goal of "secularization" should be modified to one of "tolerance and pluralism." Most important for Savary was that a pluraiistic and strong nation could only develop if personal passions were appeased and divisions overcome:

Secularism, because it is both tolerant and pluralistic, is still an essential battle for which we must Eght so that the republic, one and indivisible, may give to every citizen the means to be faithfùl to hisher particular belief~.~~

Mauroy stated that the only conclusion to be drawn from Mitterrand's electoral letter of 1

May 1981 to private school supporters was that a single, uniform, secular school system would never be realized." Mitterrand's campaign promise had to be sacrificed to the more pressing need to "negotiate to a consensus," and to unification without "integration" or "uniformization." These speeches were received with boos and hisses, a clear sign of disapproval.

By the sumrner of 1982, it was clear that the FEN's great ambition of a secular, unified, public school systern was to be abandoned, though the teachers' unions did not lose hope that reforms would be made from which the public schools would benefit. The values of pluralism and tolerance certainly appealed to the teachers of both public and private schools, though different interpretations were made of the idea of "liberty of ed~cation.""~Whereas private schools believed that "liberty of education" could only be realized if parents had a choice of two school systems, public school supporters believed

Favier and Martin-Roland, La décennie Mitterrand, 103. "'Morray, Grand Disill~tsion,134. 233 Savary, En route fiberté, 116. 'Y Le Nouvel Observateur, 15 May 1982,46. 235 Jean-Claude Escaffit, Alain des Mazery, and Bernaid Soule. "Enseignement: deux idées de la liberté." La Vie 1940,4-10 November 1982.34-38. that "liberty of education" lay in the equal opportunity for al1 to succeed in the sarne unified public system.

Tension increased on this issue especially between the Socialist leadership -

Mitterrand, Mauroy, Savary, and in govemment, as 34 percent of the National Assembly

(48 percent of the Socialists and MW) were teachers with a strong dedication to intepiting the private schoo~s."~Teachers or former teachers also made up 24 percent of the new ministerial cabinets, and of the 36 Sociaiist Party ministers, 13 had begun their careers as teachers."' The difference between the deputies and the Socialist leaders is that the latter were aware that the pnvate school issue could re-ignite the old religious conflict in France, which in turn couid jeopardize and paralyze al1 other reform efforts.

WhiIe the govemment proposed progressive and innovative policies, pressure groups reacted and raised objections to governmental plans (thereby reducing the chances for reform) so as to defend traditional pnvileges - les droits acquis. Even though former teachers held many high civil posts, suspicion and bittemess increased between the govemment and the secular pressure groups.

The Socialist leaders realized that any changes to be made had to result from negotiations with the Church. Mitterrand asked his sister, Geneviève Delachenal, director of Christian publication at the Bayard Press and a consultant to the president on this issue, to secretly hold meetings at her apartment with Msgr. Guiberteau, Jean Gasol and Bernard Toulemonde in autumn, 1982. Indeed, Gasol and Toulemonde wrote what

236 Of the 277 deputies from metropolitan France elected as Socialists or Radicais of the Left (MRG),the professions listed in the candidates' officiai declaration of candidacy give the folIowing totals: 25 university professors, 94 secondary school teachers, and 13 elementary school teachers. Les Elections Legislarives de Juin 1981, Le Monde, Dossiers et Documents. June 1981, 84. Cited in John Ambler, "Equality and the Poiitics of Education," in The French Socialist Experiment, 143. "'Ambler, "Neocorporatism and the Politics of French Education," 23. was soon to be known as the "Savary Project," which Savary ratified and announced to the public on 20 Decernber 1982."8 It was published on the front page of the national newspaper Le Monde, on 21 December 1982.~'Msgr. Guiberteau, Gasol, Toulemonde, and Savary approved the proposal; it was up to the government and the general public to respond.

The main feature of these proposais was that al1 lay teachers in subsidized schools could choose to become tenured (ritule3 and be incorporated into the civil service dong with public school teachers. Clergy, on the other hand, would continue to teach under contract. The titularisation would allow teachers to transfer from public to private schools, or vice versa, with a salary paid from public funds. Second, private schools would be included in the carte scolaire. In this way, families could choose freely among dl schools in their area, and both private and public schools were subject to review by a cornmittee of school principals, teachers and parents. Third, subsidized private schools and public schools would be grouped in a particular geographical region and called

établissements d'intérêt public (EIP - public interest establishments) implying that the private schools were not to be nationalized. Within each EIP the school calendar was identical for dl schools. Administrative councils representing the state and the local governments would run the EIP, dong with the sponsoring association, which would remain owner of the buildings. Last, each school would be allowed to select a particular focus - its caractère propre - whether it was spiritual, cultural, or ath~etic?~'

238 Jean-Sébastien Stehli, "Ecoie libre: Savary jette la première pierre," Le Point, 27 December 1982,26-27. See also Petitjean, "La règle du professeur Savary," Le Nouvel Observateur, 25 December 1982. 32-3. Fallot, "La fin du privé," L'Erpress, 3 1 December 1982, 32. Le Monde (Paris), 21 Decernber 1982, 1. Ibid., 10 The vague description of the role of the EIP lended itself to different

interpretations from both sides of the debate. It did promise a closer connection between

public and private schools, which the secularists regarded to be a step fonvard, whereas

the clencalists believed it looked ahead to their possible absorption into the state system.

Moreover, if private school teachers were tenured, movement between the two systems

would increase, thus merging the systems even closer. Yet Savary's goal was not so

much to appease his secularist supporters than to please the religious authonties. This is

why he had organized special meetings with Msgr. Guiberteau, hoping that conflict

would be avoided between the govemment and the Church, and that he would be able to

produce what the president had asked of him - to create a plan of "reform" that would

satisfy both public and private school supporters.

Savary's first attempt to solve the problem failed, as defenders of the private

schools vigorously opposed his propositions. Curiously, Guiberteau announced to the press within twenty-four hours that the Savary proposals "undermine the conditions for exercising freedom of teaching," and that the "public interest establishments would lead to the intrusion of public power into academic life of Catholic sch~ols."~~'This is strange because the secret negotiations between Guiberteau and Savary's advisors seemed to have gone well and to have satisfied Guiberteau. However, in an interview, Guiberteau stated that he wanted a more explicit parantee that the private schools would not be integrated into the state stem.'^' Claude Labbé, President of the Gaullist RPR group in the

Nationai Assembly, held a more aggressive view, maintaining that the proposals attacked

-- -

24' Ibid. 242 Escafit, "Le patron de l'école catholique s'explique," La Vie, 20-26 January 1983, 16-18. the hindarnental liberties of the Fifth ~epublic."~~~Michel Debré, the former prime

rninister who wrote the Debré Law of 1959, said that the Socialist Party had chosen to

"give ideological satisfaction to the militants by inventing a problem and reviving archaic

quarrels which are incomprehensible to the young." For Debré, "The cancer of

intolerance exists not only in the domain of education. One sees it everywhere, and it is

one of the most bitter and agonizing signs of national dec~ine."'~ Private school

defenders mobilized public opinion as the UNAPEL drew a petition with one million

signatures and sent it to President Mitterrand. Savary had clearly not resolved the issue.

The reason why Savary did not insist on integrating the private schools is probably because it was unredistic, if not impossible, to completely dissolve the subsidized private schools at that time. The majority of the population supported subsidized Catholic schools and if any reforms were to be made, it was to the public schools, which seemed to be in a worse state than the Catholic institutions. Catholic representatives refused to negotiate because Savary's proposa1 threatened their identity and autonomy. Although Savary never explicitly used the word "integation," he used

"insertion," which alarrned many supporters of private education.

On 2 January 1983, there was a fundamentai retreat on the part of the government.

Mitterrand declared on national television, "Could there be private education in France? 1 say yes. Pluralistic, decentralized, private."245 The initial idea of creating a national, secular, public school, as outlined in Mitterrand's party platfom, offkially changed.

Both Savary and Mitterrand realized that what was needed was a general reform, which

*j3Le Mande (Paris) 23 December 1982, 8. '* Interview with Charles Vid, Le Monde 29 December 1982, Transiated in Arnbler, "Equdity and the Politics of Education," 13 1. 'jSL'Express, 16 March 1984, 32. was national (reforming both private and public schools) but not uniform (thus accepting subsidized Catholic schook). It rnust be noted that Mitterrand had received a Catholic education, of which he spoke very highly. It seems as though Mitterrand would only implement those changes the Church agreed on, and indeed the Church realized this and began to take advantage of its reputation üs the underdog in education. Mitterrand's ninetieth proposition of creating a "national, secular, public school system" seemed, in

1983, to have been a means to attract Socialist supporters in order to win the first round of elections in 1981. Nonetheless, Mitterrand was obliged to the Socialist Party and this responsibility was passed to Savary who was required to continue his attempt to draft a bill that would please al1 parties.246 In the winter of 1983, negotiations resumed and

Savary was able to organize open meetings with both the private and public school representatives.

During this turbulent time, almost 400 municipalities under Socialist govemments stopped paying subsidies to pnvate schools as the Guermeur Law of 1977 required. They used the ambiguous situation of school reform as an excuse to refuse to renew contracts, arguing that the private schools' status might well be changed in a rnatter of weeks or months. Some religious schools brought the issue to the regiona! "courts of account"

(these were newly established by the Socialist Iaws on decentralization); some courts obliged the municipalities to pay their dues, whereas others tumed a blind eye to the situation. This weakened the Socialists in the municipal elections of March 1983, for the

Church fimily established its case against the Socialists as a group that did not believe in the peopies' right of freedom of education. Passions were stirring no matter what stand one took.

249eanSébasten Stehli. "Savary sur deux fronts," Le Point, 17 Ianuary 1983,34. 82 On 18 October 1983 Savary published his second set of propositions.'47 His objective was to decrease the gap between the two types of schools without threatening

the religious or unique character and autonomy of the private schools. He based his negotiations on three basic principles: cquality of educational opportunity, freedom of conscience, and freedom of education. Any reforrns made would apply to both school systems so as to harmonize but not threaten them. Savary modified many ideas put forth in the first set of propositions of December 1982. He focused on decentralizing administration by reducing the role of the EIP to simply distributing public funds to the private and public schools: communes were responsible for eIernentary schools, departments were responsible for the collèges (junior secondary schools) and regions were responsible for the lycées (senior secondary schools). However, the private schools had to belong to the EIP in order to receive subsidies through the contrat d'association

(the contrat simple ceasing to exist). Both school systems would receive the same finances (this was already proposed in October 1982), and follow the sarne rules for school timetables and the creation of new jobs. Since the role of the EIP was to basically coordinate public and private schools in the same area, it was clear that the private schools would not be absorbed into the state system. Savary invoked the Socialist policy of decentralizing national education, stating that different pedagogical techniques wouId benefit the different needs of students and offer a greater variety of choices for parents.

He proposed that private schools become participants in this new decentralized system, which granted both public and private schools more autonomy and responsibility.

'" Savary's text was published in Le Monde, 18 October 1982, p.10, under the heading "Education can be national without being uniform." See aIso "Enseignement privé: les propositions du gouvernement," Le Monde de 1 'Edrrcation 100 (November 1983): 6-7. See also Fallot, "Le petit guide Savary," L'Express, 4 November 1983,40- 1. Moreover, private school teachers would be recruited from a list approved by a commission dlzgrément, a commission regulated by Catholic and state representatives

(until then, the diocese had been solely responsible for recruiting private school teachers).

Private school teachers would have a contractual status with the state, meaning they were not tenured until they had been "contracted" for six years, after which time they would be free to teach in private and public schools. The tenure issue was delicate brcause

Catholic authorities feared that their teachers, once tenured, would escape from the control of Catholic education, and state teachers would evenntally replace them and absorb the private schools.

Savary's second bill was a "success" in so far as both sides agreed it was

"negotiable." However, the text remained arnbiguous and open to interpretations on both sides. The private schools asked what kirid of judicial and administrative autonomy their schools could keep. The role of the director had been reduced to that of simply narning principals and teachers approved by the cornmision d'agrément. The private schools were afraid that as their teachers becarne public employers they would be integrated into the public system. The private school representatives agreed to discuss three points with the secularists: first, the schooIs' ties with local municipalities; second, curriculum reform; third, the pnvate school teachers' credentials and salaries.

However, this time the secularists did not wish to negotiate the proposal because there was no clear indication that the private schools would in the long run be absorbed.

Underlying their opposition to Savary's bill was the fear that Saviq's decentralizing policies would weaken the teachers' unions, which were organized on a national basis, and il1 equipped to deal with local authoritie~.'~~Instead, they concentrated their energies in attacking Savary's dualist solution as abandoning the Socialist goal of integrating the subsidized private schools. M. Bouchereissas, general secretary of the CNAL, stated:

"The real problem is not between the public and private schooIs, but it is between the state and private schools. Educational peace cannot be achieved until the duai systern is abolished where the state has to support two ~~sterns."~~~

At this time one must recognize that the Socialists seerned to be divided into two factions, with different ideas on how to administer a national system of education. On the one hand, there were the militant secularists - the Jacobins - who believed in the key roie of the state. Their policies were "top-down" rneaning that it was the State7sduty to organize the national curriculum, budget, recruitment, and pedagogy. These Jacobin

Socialists were represented by Deputy André Laignel and strongly supported by the FEN and its components, the SNI and the SNES, to name a few. There was also the FCPE and the most militant group of dl, the CNAL, who supported the Jacobin tradition. These groups had taken Mitterrand's ninetieth proposition literally to mean simple integration of subsidized schools into the state system. However, they had listened to only one part of

Mitterrand's campaign promise without hearing him say he wished to "convince and not compel" in the unification process.

On the other hand, the more moderate and flexible strand within the PS adopted

"bottom-up" policies, calling for decentralization, spontaneity, and pluralism. This side was represented by Alain Savary, President Mitterrand and Prime Minister Mauroy.

There were dso Socialist deputies such as Didier Chouat, whose constituencies were

248 Favier and Martin Roland, La décennie Mitterrand, 1 1 1. 249 Le Monde (Paris) 1 1 October 1983, 1 1. based on left-wing private school defenders?' Many of the moderate deputies realized that the electorate had evolved and they needed their support in municipal elections.

Moving outside of the Socialist camp, there was also a split between extremists and moderates defending the Catholic schools. The extreme right-wing called for total intransigence and accused the governrnent of totalitarian tendencies. The moderates wished to reach agreement with the government so long as the religious character of their schools was not sacrificed. There was also a split between parents and the Catholic hierarchy. For parents supporting pnvate schools, it was essential to maintain the choice of schools; the teachers' status and the diocesan administrative powers were secondary preoccupations. In contrat, for diocesan directors the priority was to maintain their power in narning teachers; if private schools were integrated into the state system, the

Church would lose its hold on scholatic and administrative affair~.~'Savary had been in contact with the Vatican's ambassadors whose belief that negotiation was the only road to educational peace influenced the French episcopate and education c~rnmittee?~

In November 1983, Monsignor Jean Vilney, president of the Conference of

Bishops in France, met President Mitterrand in secret at the apartrnent of Geneviève

Delanchel. Vilney stated that Mitterrand promised him that regardless of the debates in

Parliarnent, the Church's hold on its private schools would not be threi~tened."~

Mitterrand was clearly supporting the Catholic side of the debate, and was thus at odds with the Socialist-Communist majority in the Parliarnent.

WJDidier Chouat (Socialist deputy frorn Côtes du Nord), interview with John Arnbler, 20 June 1982 and 25 July 1984. Cited in Ambler, "Educational Pluralism in the French Fifth Republic," 2 1811.33 Favier and Martin-Roland, La décennie Mitterrand, 103. 252 Savary, En route liberte, 130- 1. 253 Favier and Martin-Roland, La décennie Mitterrand, 1 12. It is said that President Mitterrand told Archbishop Lustiger of Paris in December

1983 or January 1984 that the Savary law would be withdrawn before Parliament could

approve it.254 The president never confirmed nor contradicted these revelations, and this

showed that he was prepared to oppose Savary and the Socialist Party in favor of the

private school supporters in order to maintain peace and stability. His efforts to keep

peace failed as the first months of 1984 were agitated with demonstrations and

movements defending "freedom of education," which parents within the UNAPEL

~r~anized.~'In January 1984, 80,000 demonstrated at ord de aux;^^ in February,

30,000 marched at Lille and 400,000 at ~ennes."' On 4 March 1984, 800,000 gathered

at ersa ail les,'^^ where thousands of small stickers showing children behind bars were

dist~ibuted.'~~This infuriated Mitterrand, as well as some of the Catholic authorities who

disagreed with the political overtone of the debate. Father Guiberteau maintained that the

purpose of the private school defense was to protect the ideological question of "freedom

of education," and not to attack the Socialist Party's secular policies.

Mitterrand adrnitted at a press conference that although Savary's propositions

were "good ones," they shed light on a difficult reality: "This politicai reality, which is

that of the French nation, 1 must respect."'60 As the nation showed its support to the

Catholic schools in Street demonstrations, it became clear that the Church had not lost dl

influence in an increasingly secular society. Another tuming point was when Mitterrand

Ibid., 112-1 13. 2S5 Alain de Penanster. "Ecole libre: les parents au créneau," L9Erpress120 January 1984. 54-55. Jacques Juliiard, "Les cathos ont-ils gagné?" Le Nouvel Observateur, 2 March 1984-21. 257 Michel Richard, "Ecole: le fleuve Liberté," Le Point, 5 March 1984, 32-36. 258 Evelyne Fallot, Arlette Marchot, and Alain de Penanster, "Ecole libre: pourquoi le pouvoir recule." L'Express, 16 March 1984,30-33. ~5'Escaffit, "Ecole: le parie sur la paix," La Vie, 8-14 March 1984, 23. See also Richard, "La mobilisation de Versailles," Le Point, 27 February f 984,40-4 1. Rémond, L'Express, 18 May 1984, 39-42. agreed that private schools offered a viable alternative to families whose children failed or were expelled from one of the two systems. This showed that Mitterrand may have realized that the idea of a "unified" school system would not work.

The Savary project was nonetheless pushed forward to the Council of Ministers, which officially approved the text on 18 April 1984 for submission to ~arliarnent.~~'The

Catholic Church benefited as the Council obliged the state to pay contract schools their subsidies, regardless if the municipality disapproved; hence the power of municipal governments was reduced. In addition, the particular character of the private schoots was respected, and teachers retained the right to choose whether they wished to become tenured.

In Parliament, Socialist deputies demanded that the text be arnended so as to strengthen the secularist tone of the bill. They believed that it was unacceptable to force the communes to pay for the subsidized private schooIs, which in turn harmed the public schools. As Morray writes, "The spirit of the "de-Christianization" movement of 1793 began to express itself in the modem form of total secularization of education, a unified education system from which al1 religious teaching would be excl~ded."~~~The govemment could not count on support for the Savary text from the Socidists in

Pariiarnent, which made the issue extraordinarily troublesome for Mitterrmd.

In the Spring of 1984, , first secretary of the Socialist Party, began to urge Mitterrand to simply drop the Savary bill, for it was not worth the trouble it was creating and ir was clearly playing into the hands of the opposition parties. Mitterrand found himself on the defensive in his meetings with Socialists, as party members began

- . .- -. - -- "' Le Monde (Paris) 19 April 1982, 19. '" Morray, Grand Disillusion, 138. resigning in protest against the Savary biIl and its retreat from secularization. Teachers unions and the CNAL continued to put pressure on the government by organizing public meetings, though these were not well attended, shedding light on the division and confusion within the Socialist Party. The issue mobilized masses in support of private schools much more than it moved the public school supporters.

In the National Assembly, the Savary Bill was subrnitted to a special cornmittee headed by André Laignel, a militant secularist, who was supported by Pierre Joxe,

President of the Socialist parliarnentary group. The Jacobin side of the National

Assembly did not agree with the decentralizing and Iiberalizing tone of Savary's policies.

Therefore, six amendments were added to the bill (known as the Laignel Arnendments) which strengthened the secular side and which revealed the government's intentions of ultimately integrating the private scho~ls.~~~Among the arnendments, the state refused to donate any public funds to private preschools or nurseries because mandatory schooling began at age six. New private nursery and primary schools could only be opened if the commune agreed to them and if a public school already existed. The most contentious amendment was that communes paid maintenance expenses to subsidized schools provided that at least half of the teaching staff of that school was certified, or tit~rlé.

These arnendments, according to Savary, ruined the delicate compromise that he had reached with the Church. Indeed he stated, 'The mine had been set."'M He knew that the Catholic side would not tolerate this last-minute change, especially because the bill that had been agreed on was not the same one the Socialists were attempting to pass in

'63 Journal O#ciel de la République Française, "DébatsParlementaires Assemblée Nationale,"Première Séance, 21 mai 1984,2495-97. 'a Savary, En toute liberté, 163. the National Assembly. Savary's own government was ruining his efforts to reach a

peaceful solution.

Once the amendments were written, Prime Minister Mauroy bore the

responsibility of refusing or accepting tk~ern.'~~He faced a dilemma; if he sided with

Savary, the deputies might move a motion of censure against his Government; if he

decided to ovenule Savary and approve the amendments so as to avoid an endless

parliamentary debate, he would destroy a delicate compromise, offend public opinion and

perhaps force his rninister to resign. Under pressure from the party and from militant

teachers unions, Mauroy overruled Savary; the government had no choice Save to back

the amended bill and ended up clashing with Savary and the public. President Mitterrand

had the power to overrule Mauroy and support Savary, but he failed to intervene, possibly

because he could not deny the will of his Socialist majority in ~arliarnent.~~~Mitterrand

was aware of Savary's objections and the risk of destroying the compromise, but he

misjudged the effects of the arnendments and did not foresee the intense protest by the

private school supporters.

On 22 May 1984, the Socialist amendments were officially added to the Savary

AS expected, one hundred and forty-nine deputies proposed a motion of censure

at 12: IO in the morning, stating the following: "Considering that we are at a time when the French people need to corne together to face problems regarding the economy, social

Article 49 of the Fifth Constitution States the following: "The Prime Minister, &ter deliberation in the Council of Ministers, may pledge the responsibility of the Government before the National Assembly with regard to the program of Government, or if it be so decided with regard to a dedaration of general policy. The National Assembly may cal1 into question the responsibility of the Government by the vote of a motion of censure. Such a motion shall be in order only if it is signed by at Ieast one-tenth of the members of the National Assembly. The vote may not take place before forty-eight hours after the motion has been introduced." William Safran, The French Polity (New York: Addison Wesley Longman, 1998). 373. '66 Favier and Martin-Roland, La décennie Mitterrand, 125-7. and family policies, reform and modernizing the education system, the govemment is endangering a fundamental liberty and is seriously dividing the nation by re-igniting the education battle."268 The Assembly defeated the motion of censure on 24 May 1984, with 246 against and 159 for?' Before the bill became law, it required further votes in the Senate and a final passage again by the National Assembly (See Appendix 5).

Nthough the opposition was losing in the National Assembly, the Church md its supporters carried the fight out in the streets. Demonstrations took place in six major cities with hundreds of thousands of people defending "freedom of education." The amended Savary bill sparked great conflict between the Church and the Socialist-

Communist majority in the National Assembly. Indeed, the opposition parties within the

National Assembly were happy to see the battie the government had to confront outside of parliament. The fact that Mitterrand had also expressed his neutrality to Church authorities played into the hands of the Church for it showed that Mitterrand's govemment revolted against him by amending and further secularizing the Savary bill, and that Mitterrand appeared unable to defend himself in front of his government.

The effect of the arnendments was "to throw the private-school lobby into the welcorning anns of the right-wing conservative parties," who did not tolerate the

Sociaiists' last-minute change."* ~hus,the drama continued as UNAPEL organized a national mass demonstration on 24 June 1984 to protest against the arnended bill."' The

President was warned of this demonstration and replied that patience was needed,

'" Journal ODciel de la République Française, "Débats Parlementaires Assemblée Nationale,"Troisième Séance, 22 mai 1984,2565. Ibid. 269 Journal OfJiciel de !a République Française, "Débats Parlementaires AssernbIée Nationde," Deuxième Séance, 24 mai 1984,2640-4 1. 270 Ambler, "Educational Plwalism," 200. "' Alia et Petitjean, "Le chahut ou l'explication de texte?" Le Nouvel Observateur, 22 June 1984,24-5. implying that the Constitutional CounciI would condernn the law, and therefore a mass demonstration was not necessary. Nonetheless, the demonstration went ahead especially after Monsignor Lustiger approved it, and in an interview in Le Monde, he accused

Mauroy of betraying his word to Guiberteau in giving in to the pressures of the Laignel

~ommission.~~'Although the Church supported the demonstration, it strongly maintained that "order and digriity are absolute requiremrnts of this demonstration," and that "the most absolute discipline" had to be maintained.

On June 24, the National Railway systern put 150 extra trains in service, dong with 6,000 intemrban buses to transport crowds from al1 over rance."^ Routes were established that Ied demonstrators from Paris's six railway stations to the Place de la

Bastille. Le Monde reported that 1,300,000 people took part in the rnar~h."~Mitterrand spent the day in a farm in the Landes region, though all the leaders of the opposition parties marched in Paris: Jacques Chirac, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, Sirnone Veil, Jean

Lecaunuet, François Léotard, Raymond Barre, Jacques chaban-~e1rna.s.~~~The atmosphere was festive with chants such as "Pays libre, école libre" and "L'icole libre vivra." There were also political slogans attacking anticlericals, including Mauroy,

Savary and even Mitterrand. Mitterrand was targeted as a traitor and a violator of

"freedom of education" because he appeared to have accepted the parliarnentary amendments and thus to have accepted the integration of the private schools. The problem for Mitterrand was no longer how to reform the private schools, but how best to extricate himself and the government from the terrible situation which the Socialist

27' Le Monde (Paris) 5 June 1984, 12. '73 Leclerc, La bataille de l'école, 288. Escaffit, "La démonstration," LA Vie, 28 June 1984,24-25. "'Le Monde (Paris) 26 June 1984.9 275 Leclerc, La bataille de 1 'école, 288. deputies had created for them, without showing any signs of intimidation by the massive pro-Cat'iolic demonstrators of June 24.

The next step was for the government to cal1 on the Senate, which was controlled by the opposition, to consider the Savary law as arnended and approved by the National

~ssernbl~."~Whereas Mitterrand wanted to end the affair as quickly as possible, the

Senators decided that they would take their time (the session could last until 10

November 1984). They decided to meet only twice per week and to never extend discussions past seven o'clock in the e~enin~.'~~The reason why they delayed the vote was to stall the application process for the following school year. The risk to the stalled process, however, was fierce criticism from Parliament and the press. While Jacques

Chirac, leader of the opposition, wanted to dissolve Parliarnent and cal1 elections, Alain

Poher, President of the Senate, advised Mitterrand to withdraw the bill frorn Parliament.

The next stage was more dramatic as Charles Pasqua (RPR) proposed to

Mitterrand to subrnit die question of school reform to a national referendurnan8 As

Pasqua expressed, "The majority of the French detest that the state considers children to be its property."27g Indeed, this was the best way for the opposition to use the situation in its best interest because a national referendum would surely defeat the secularists, and possibly cause Mitterrand's humiliation and resignation. Mitterrand did not have much choice because if he refused to call a national referendum, he could be accused of acting contrary to public opinion.'80 On the other hand, he did not have the power to call a

276 Richard, "Ecole: le cortège arrive au Sénat," Le Point, 2 July 1984,55-57. ZnJean-Yves Boulic, "Sénat: les sages montent au créneau," Le Point, 9 July 1984, 36. '78 LR Monde (Paris), 7 July 1984, 8. 279 Favier and Martin-RoIand, La décennie Mitterrand, Vol. 2, 140. 280 Gilles Anquetil, "Référendum:les oui et les non des experts," Le Nouvel Observateur, 24 August 1984, 18-19. referendum because Article 1 1 States that "The President of the Republic, on the proposal of the Government during Parliamentary sessions ...may subrnit to a referendum any bill dealing with the organization of the public authorities, with reforms pertaining to the econornic or social policy of the nation and to the public services concemed.. .. 1128I The issue of "public liberties" in education was not a condition in Article 11 and therefore

Mitterrand did not have the right to cal1 a referendum.

In July, opinion surveys revealed that 60 percent of the nation had lost confidence in Mitterrand - he was the most unpopular president since 1958. Nonetheless, Mitterrand was not showing any signs of stopping the National Assembly hm putting the bill through the final stages in legislation. During the week of 7 July 1984, Mitterrand revealed in secret to two of his advisors his plan for dealing with the crisis. The two men were Michel Charasse, an expert on the French Constitution, and Lionel Jospin, first secretary of the Socialist Party. Mitterrand knew that if he simply withdrew the Savary law, it would infuriate most of the Socialist deputies in Parliament, including Mauroy and

Savary. However, Mitterrand was intent on ending the issue once and for alI. According to Franz-Olivier Giesbert in Le Nouvel Observateur Mitterrand said to his colleagues, "1 am caught in the middle of a triangle: the Senate, which is prolonging the Savary bill; the

Constitutional Council, which hopes to annul certain components of the bill, and the demonstrators who will continue to demonstrate. 1 want to remove myself from this position."282

Mitterrand initiaily proposed to hold a prelirninary referendum to amend the

Constitution so as to include "public liberties" in Article 11 and legitimately allow for a

Safran. The French Polity, 365. "'Cited in Favier and Martin-Roland, La décennie Mitterrand, 308.

94 referendum on the Savary bill. By doing this, he distanced himself from the Socialist

Party, which soon realized its own subordination to the president. Mitterrand could have

simply withdrawn the bill without proposing the mini-referendum, but this arbitrary

decision could have sparked even more conflict. It was safer for Mitterrand to leave the decision to the nation. On 1 1 July 1984, Mitterrand told Prime Minister Mauroy of his plan and that he would announce it on national television the following e~ening'~~

Sources describe Mauroy's stunned reaction, as it was increasingly clear that Mitterrand would withdraw the bill frorn the ~arliarnent.'~~

Mitterrand decided to infom only three people of his plans, not including Alain

Savary, who discovered his plan while watching the evening news broadcast. In his address, Mitterrand stated: "1 have the supreme duty to preserve in al1 circurnstances national unity, respect for the Constitution and the continuity of the state. Nothing will be possible if you allow yourselves to be drawn into excessive divisions."285 He decided that he would cal1 on Parliament to approve a referendum amending Article 11 so as to include al1 "great questions touching public liberties;" if that arnendment were approved, the refere~durnon the Savary bill could take place. Mitterrand's announcement was a total shock to Savary, who had had no forewarning.

Mitterrand seems to have realized on 13 July 1984 that the Senate would refuse to revise the constitution and therefore a referendum could not took place. Therefore, on 14

July 1984 Mitterrand formally withdrew the Savary law. He explained to his ministers that it was absurd to propose a law that everybody but the government opposed. It seems as though Mitterrand's intentions had always been to withdraw the bill, but he waiteci

783 Favier and Martin-Roland, La décennie Minerrand, 147. 284 Gérard Leclerc, La bataille de 1 "école, 308-9; Favier and Martin-Roland, La décennie Mitterrand, 147. until the situation becarne desperate, because withdrawing the bill would surely infuriate

his government. Shonly thereafter, both Alain Savary and Pierre Mauroy resigned from office.

Mitterrand had clearly used the Socialist Party platform to corne to power, but once there, he distanced himself from the PS, and his policies were directed more explicitly at serving the nation at large, instead of Iimiting his policies to the Socialist agendazg6 Pressure groups, notably the FEN, discovered that neither corporatist privileges (receiving funding from the state and having a voice in ministerial affairs) nor ideological affinity to a left-wing govemment helped persuade Mitterrand, whose policies reflected the will of the nation. Indeed Savary suffered a double defeat, as his own party had altered his bill in the National Assembly, and then the President had abandoned his bill altogether.

285 Morray, Grand Disillusion, 44.

96 CONCLUSION

It is possible to conclude that the withdrawal of the Savary Bill represented a

victory for the people over the state. It is equaily possible to view it as the resuIt of

conflicts within the state, Ieading to the blockage of policy innovation. A third

perspective shows that the debate was not soleiy between state and Society or between

elements within the state but was a battle between groups supporting public or private

schools. The secularist organizations (pressure groups in the form of teachers' and

parents' unions) couId not control Savary, and therefore sought support from the PS and

its deputies in the National ~ssernbl~.'~~

Savary had been able to formulate a negotiable and plausible solution, benefiting both public and private schools, which could have been passed and approved in govemment had the militant deputies not arnended the bill, which sparked the massive

Street demonstrations. It seems absurd to see that what had initially been an attempt to refotm the education system on the part of the government resulted in a massive popular demonstration against the Savary bill. As Stanley Hoffman notes, "The error had been in not forseeing how the last minute amendments, as slight as they were, had a huge symbolic significance. The amendments, as limited as they were, made everything faIl apart."'s8 Savary had also predicted the disastrous effect of the amendments as he stated thereafter: "The mine had been set."'sg

286 Jacques Bouzerand, Danielle Molho, and Michel Richard, "Trois étapes pour un renversement,"Le Point. 16 July 1984, 32-33. 357 Ambler, "French Education and the Lirnits of State Autonomy," 476-77. 288 Stanley Hoffman, "Un Américain juge la manif du 24 juin." interview by Michel Richard in Le Point, 2 July 1984,58. ~3'Savary, En toute liberté, 128. Despite Savary's resignation and apparent faiIure, his three years as Minister of

Education had a decisive effect on French education in later years. His successor, Jean-

Paul Chevènement would subsequently adopt many of Savary's policies. Chevènement echoed Savary and stated:

1 never supported those who viewed the unification process as an urgent issue. The reason is simple: 1 did not understand the logic behind this project.. .In my opinion, one must first reform the school of the Republic ...The public/private school affair has shed light on the widespread dissatisfaction with the public schooi ~~stern.'~~

Chevènement's changes were essentially a watered-down version of Savary's bill: they provided a choice between private and public schooIs, finances administered by a decentralized system, and private school teachers recruited and agreed upon by the academy rector and school principal (the 1959 Debré Law allowed the principal to choose his own tea~hers).'~' Chevènement admitted that his "simple and practical measures" were taken from Savary's project. According to Chevenement, the key points to Savary's project had been lost through the interpretation of the press and through word of rnouth: "It's true: nobody understands the Savary project. People only understand the caricatures, or gross distortions from the tr~th."'~~Chevènement was initidly well received by both private and public school supporters. He established a decentralized system where municipalities were responsible for maintaining the primary schools under the contrat d'association. Yet this law gave rise to new wonies because some viewed it as increasing geographic inequalities because certain municipalities did not have the same means to support the schools as others did.

Jean-Pierre Chevènernent, Le pari sur l'intelligence. Entretiens avec Hervé Hamon et Patrick Rotman (Paris: Flammarion, 1985), 105-7. '" Richard, "Où, après un chahut monstre, le calme revient dans Ies rangs," Le Point, 3 Septernber 1984, 38. Although the govemment rnissed an opportune moment in 1984 to solve the

Church-state debate in education by arnending Savary's bill, Savary's efforts were worthwhile because most subsequent reforms were inspired by his work. Today, French private schools operate similarly to the public schools, in an atmosphere of peaceful coexistence.293 Private primary schools generally charge from FF 600 ($l5O.OO) per year in rural areas to FF 2500 ($60)in Paris. Fees are higher in secondary schools, although they are adjusted according to the parents' incomes. Teacher-pupil ratios and class sizes are better on average in private schools than in state schools, 26 in pnvate secondary schools as opposed to 3 1 pupils in state schools (the numbers, however, have come down in the public system since then).

Savary had indeed formulated a plausible solution not only to the private school question, but also to the higher education issue, which had also sparked great controversy in 1983. He had tried to democratize higher education by moving the dite two-year cours préparatoires to the universities so as to force the grandes écoles to recmit from a broder student body.lg4 He failed because the students rejected the idea of having an examination âfter the second year of university studies, and the government, under pressure from powerful interest groups defending the status quo, and primarily composed of grandes écoles graduates itself, decided to preserve the exclusive nature of the cours préparatoires. The govemment also rejected Savary's draft decree for implementing common teaching loads for staff of al1 ranks. The decree required tenured professors to teach one hour more per week, whereas auxiliary professors were slightly relieved €rom

292 Chevènement, Le pari sur l'intelligence, 1 19. 293 Anne Fohr, "Ecole:des idées pour sauver vos enfants," Le Nouvel Observateur, 19 September 199 1,44- 5 1 ; "La venté sur l'école privée,"Le Nouvel Observateur, 13 January 1994,30-33. their heavy workload and teaching hours. The draft caused angry responses from the

SNE supérfeure and the SGEN, who boycotted meetings and refùsed to agree to the changes.'95 Their vested interests stood in the way of agreeing on policy goals.

Fragmentation and conflict within teachers' unions and in government limited the possibility of reforming higher education.

As Savary's higher education bill was adamantly attacked, his chances of solving the private school issue dirnini~hed.'~~ Savary was caught in the rniddle of a centralized state system where interna1 conflict halted policy changes. When a govemment is divided, as it was over the higher education and the private school bill, and is not under popular pressure to implement change, then it will usually fail to do so, especially when it is confronted by well-organized pressure groups."7 In the case of the private school issue, Savary's liberal and open refoms differed €rom the goals of the secularist deputies who used their position in govemment to hold on to the traditionai idea of laïcité.

The problem with the French systein is that any change to be made that rnay disturb the delicate balance between public and private education may be viewed as an attack on the principles of secularity or liberty. France inherited its tradition of respect for individual rights from the Revolution, and its centralized education system from the

Napoleonic Empire. Michel Crozier's explanation of France in the 1960s as la société bloquée, or blocked society, is based on the idea that centralized decision-making in

France has been limited or blocked by the unwritten rules defining the boundaries and

Day, Schools and Work, 137. 295 Ambler, "Neocorporatism and the Politics of French Education," 34. '% Day, Schoels and Work, 136-7. 297 Ambler, "French Education and the Lirnits of State Autonomy," 34.

100 responsibilities of the various ranks in society. Each rank is aware of its rights and duties and identifies itself accordingly. In such a system, the rights of the individual are protected from above, but since communication between groups is difficult, decisions are made at the higher levels of the bureaucracy and government, a confusing and slow process often out of touch with the real state of public opinion. Change often cornes through crisist rather than a compromise, and indeed one could relate this idea to the events leading to Mitterrand's dissolution of the bill in 1984.

The crisis took place within govemment, at the core of the centralized system.

Savary reached a workable compromise between the Church and state in education, but his efforts were fmstrated by his own party-members who were trained to make decisions from above rather than to consuit those of lower rank. Mitterrand moved from supporting the public to backing the Socialist parliamentary group, but when it became obvious that he had made a very unpopular decision, he withdrew the amended bill, a move which brought down the Mauroy government. hsisting on creating a unified and secular system that did not subsidize private schools, Socialist deputies had paid lip service to educational reform and failed to progress from bureaucratie to participative management; they refused to adapt their rigid notion of laicité to modem day society.

1984 was a historical chance to finaily resolve the private school question, but the opportunity was not seized. The Laignel Amendments, which led to mass dernonstrations, weakened the govemment in its attempts to bring about change.

Ironicdly, the withdrawal of the Savary bill was not only a defeat for Savary, but it was also a defeat for those very secularists whose amended bill was 10st.'~~Savary's attempts

198 Antoine Prost, "The Educationd MaeIstrom," in George Ross et al,, (eds.) The Mitterrand Experirnent: Continriiîy and Change in Modern France (Oxford: Polity Press, 1987). 234. to reform both private and higher education were ultimately defeated because what had initially been a liberal and plausible solution was defeated by disunity within the governing party and by vested interests appealing to the masses, which caused a breakdown of the reforrn process.

De divers cotés je suis interrogé sur l'avenir de l'enseignement priré. Sur cate quesrion il fiut que Icr choses soient dites clairement, en dehors de tour esprit pariisan. Sn di,!orsqu5'1 s'agit de l'avenir de nos enfants. la pokmique me paraît nuisible. C'est O un @OR de comprPhension que je vous invite. Je propose la mise en place d'un grand senice public, un$é et Iaïque de !'&ducation nafionale. II convient de comidérer chaque terme de la proposit ion er non d'isoler tel ou tel point pmicrrlier. L'essentiel rn de donna au semice public les moyens lui perrnertant d'assurer sa mission Et ces moycnr. ii ne les a pas. D 'oii le probl&meposé par la dispersion des crédits. I'ai cependant toujours inrth? sur la nCcessaira dPcpntra- fisafion de la gestion. la prisc en compte de toutes les expressions pddagogiques. la pculicipcrion des familles aux tâches &ducativer,le d&veloppernent de !'espace idtuafi/ autour de l'irok Tous ces aspmîs doivent Ptre inrOgtOj h la notion de service public. service public ouvert & torrs les en/onts. h fous les parents, & tous les enseignants. Est-ce possible-du jour au Iendemain? Ce~ainementpar. R nous faut tenir compte datradilions Ii&it&esde I'Hktoire. surmonter Ies divisions. apaiser les pussions. C'at pourquoi je souhaite que lu mise en place de ce grand senice public de lëducaiion - qui aura vocation d'accuei//ir tour les ~tablis?ementset tous les personnels - soit Ie r&sultat d'une négociation et non d'une dtkision unilart!rale. Yentends convaincre et non contraindre. Vous le savez. je pré/hre Ie dialogue d la vindicte. Je souhaite rassembler a non diviser. En attendant que les ntgociations aboutissent, les contrats d'arsociation seront resperctës. Aux établissements privks qui vivent sous le rPgime du contrat simple. il sera propos& de conclure un conlrat d'iwoc-iation afin de les rapprocher du service public et d'arrirer au personnel la shritd de l'emploi. Aux personnels - enr4ignanu ei non enseignants - une nigociarion sera propar& par l'intenn&diaire de /mm organisariuns syndicales représe~rative~ Leurs droils acquis seront maintenus et leur infégrationdans la fonction publique leur donnera la possibililé de mutation et non le dPplacement d'oflce, comme on essaie, malheureusement, de le leur faire croire. L0l?ducationnarioncle aura besoin de tout le monde ei je precise. en outre. qu'aucun &ablissement ne sera contraint d l'int&ration,pourtant prévue par la loi du 31 dkembre 1959. Me.proposif ions correspondent aux conceptions que ai toujours défendues. Elfes reposent sur une haute conception des devoirs de I' Ltar ci I'êgard du service public comme sur la n4gociation et 1'auverturc d'esprit qui doit caracrériser I'évo- lution de notre sociért!. Elles excluent route spoliation a tour monopole. EIles res- pertent la liberte de Iknseignement que je n 'entends nullement remettre en cause. - pas que de Enfin, il ne faau oublier toute modt~cation la législation et des . dotations budgétaires est du ressort de IAssembl4e nationale qui aura à délibérer, en toute clarté, de cette imporrante question. JeespPre avoir répondu à votre interrogation. Ainsi. chacun de rous pourra prendre, en conscience, sa décision sur les véritables enjeux du 10 mai. FRA NCOlS ,Cf I TTER Ri .f 'D

Source: Gérard Leclerc, La bataille de l'école (Paris: Denoel, l985), 87. APPENDIX 3

a.-- -- A

Source: Le blonde de I'Educafion (June 1987): 5 1. Source: Le Monde de I'Education (June 1987): 4 1.

1 O6 APPENDIX 5

(private member's) bil (privale mernbeis) ôüi (-sita de loi) fmsy:i0nab loi)

--. Piesident of RepWi 1 (signature) -..-. .. i

Source: William Sa&, The French Polify (New York: Addison Wesley Longman, 1998), 226. Chevènement, Jean-Pierre. Le pari sur l'intelligence. Entretiens avec Hervé Hamon et Patrick Rotman. Paris: Flammarion, 1985.

Favier, Pierre and Martin Martin-Roland. La décennie Mitterrand. Vol 2. Paris: Editions du Seuil, 199 1.

Savary, Alain. En toute liberté. Paris: Hachette, 1985.

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES

"Débats Parlementaires Assemblée Nationale." Journal Oficiel de Za République, 2 1-24 May 1984.

PERIODICALS

Alia, Josette and Gérard Petitjean, "Le chahut ou l'explication de texte?" Le Nouvel Observateur, 22 June 1984,24-25.

Ambler, John. "Constraints on Policy Innovation in Education. Thatcher's Bntain and Mitterrand's France," Cornparutive Politics 20 (October 1987): 85- 105.

. "French Education and the Limits of State Autonomy," Western Political Quarterly 4 1 (September 1988): 469-85.

. "Neocorporatism and the Politics of French Education," West European Politics 8 (1985): 23-42.

Anquetil, Gilles. "Référendum: les oui et Ies non des experts," Le Nouvel Observateur, 24 AU~LIS~1984, 18-19.

Baumgartner, Frank R. and Jack L. Waiker. "Educational Policymaking and the Interest Group Structure in France and the United States," Comparative Politics 21 (April 1989): 273-288.

Blan, Michel, Marc Coutty, Jean-Michel Croissandeau, Guy Herzlich, Yves-Marie Labé and Michèle Saltiel. "Jules Ferry super-star," Le Monde de 2 'Education 82 (March 1982): 17-18.

. "L'enquête," Le Monde de Z'Education 82 (March 1982): 10.

Bolloche, Serge. "Le syndicat: un cocon tout-puissant," Le Monde de Z'Education 99 (October 1983): 18-20.

Boulic, Jean-Yves. "Sénat: les sages montent au créneau," Le Point, 9 July 1984, 36.

Bouzerand, Jacques, Danielle Molho, and Michel Richard, "Trois étapes pour un renversement," Le Point, 16 July 1984, 32-33.

Cole, Alistair. "Goveming the Academies: Sub-Central Secondary Education Policy- Making in France," West European Politics 20, no. 2 (April 1997): 137-56.

Day, Charles. R. "Social Advancement and the Prirnary School Teacher: The Making of Normal School Directors in France, 18 15- 1880," Social History 7, no. 13 (May 1974): 87- 102.

. "The Development of Protestant Primary Education in France under the Constitutional Monarchy, 18 15- 1848," Canndian Journal of flistory 16, no. 2 (1981): 217-36.

. "The Rustic Man: The Rural Schoolmaster in Nineteenth-Century France," Comparative Studies in Society and History 25, no. 1 (January 1983): 26-49.

De Penanster, Alain. "Ecole libre: les parents au créneau," L'Erpress, 20 January 1984, 54-55.

Escaffit, Jean-Claude. "Ecole laique: la forteresse enseignante," La Vie, 17-23 November 1983,33-35.

. "Ecole: le parie sur la paix," La Vie, 8-14 March 1984, 23-24.

. "La démonstration," Ln Vie, 28 June 1984,24-25.

. "Le patron de l'école catholique s'explique," La Vie, 20-26 January 1983, 16- 18.

EscaKit, Jean-Claude, Alain des Mazery, and Bernard Soule, "Enseignement: deux idées de la liberté," La Vie, 4- 10 November 1982,34-38.

Fallot, Evelyne. "La fin du privée," L Express, 3 1 December 1982, 32. Fallot, Evelyne, Mette Marchot and Alain de Penanster, "Ecole libre: pourquoi le pouvoir recule," L 'Eipress, 16 March 1984,?0-33.

Fohr, Anne. "Ecole: des idées pour sauver vos enfants," Le Nouvel Observateur, 19 September 199 1,4451.

. "La verité sur l'école privée," Le Nouvel Obsenratetrr, January 1994,30-33.

- "Public-privé: oû réussit-on le mieux?" Le Nouvel Observateur, September 1991,45.

Garin, Christine. "Encadrement, suivi, discipline: Ies trois 'plus,"' Le Monde de 1 'Education 139 (June 1987): 40-43.

. "Le coût de la scolarité," Le Monde de 1Education 139 (June 1387): 43.

. "L'enseignement catholique est-il le meilleur?" Le Monde de Z'Education 139 (June 1987): 34-39.

. "Ni pour le plaisir de payer, ni par conviction religieuse," Le Monde de 1'Education 139 (June 1987): 53.

Harrigan, Patrick J. "Social and Political Implications of Catholic Secondary Education during the Second French Empire," Societas 6, no. 1 (1976): 41-59.

. "The Church and Pluralistic Education: The Development of and Teaching in French Catholic Secondary Schools 1850- 1870," Catholic Historical Review 64 (April 1978).

Howell, D.A. "The Carte Scolaire in French Education: A Study of Decision-Making in a Centralized System, " Public Administration 62 (Autumn 1984): 272-90.

Julliard, Jacques. "Les cathos ont-ils gagné?" Le Nouvel Observateur, 2 March 1984, 2 1-

Lécrivain, J. "Les deux enseignements: année soclaire 1982- 1983." Le Point, 30 January 1984,42.

Meury, André. "La conversion du bastion breton," Le Monde de lYEducatr'on70 (March 1981): 18-23.

Mexandeau, Louis and Christian Join-Lambert, "Le P.S., les pouvoirs et l'école," Le Monde de 1 'Education 99 (October 1983): 26-27. Pégard, Catherine. "Privé: un peu de discipline ne nuit pas," Le Point, 3 1 October 1983, 40-4 1.

Petitjean, Gérard. "La règle du professeur Savary," Le Nouvel Observateur, 25 December 1982,32-33.

. "L'argent du privé," Le Nouvel Observateur, 2 March 198 1,47.

. "Pourquoi met-on encore ses enfants dans des écoles privées?" Le Nouvel Observateitr, 2 March 198 1,46.

Plenel, Edwy. "A quoi sert l'école catholique?" Le Monde de 1'Education 70 (March 1981): 10-16.

Plenel, Edwy and André Meury. "Un choix pour chaque enfant: les enseignants restent," Le Monde de f Education 70 (March 198 1): 20.

. "Un cocon pour les jeunes," Le Monde de Z'Education 70 (March 1981): 13.

Pigelet, Jean-Luc. "Qu'est-ce qui fait un bon résultat?" Le Monde de ZEducation 82 (March, 1982): 13.

Rémond, Réné. "La guerre de deux cents ans," Le Nouvel Observateur, 2 1 October 1983, 25-26.

Richard, Michel. "Ecole: le cortège arrive au Sénat," Le Point, 2 July 1984, 55-57.

. "La mobilisation de Versailles," Le Point, 27 February 1984,40-41.

. "Après un chahut monstre, le calme revient dans les rangs," Le Point, 3 September 1984-38.

. "Un Américain juge la manif du 24 juin," Le Point, 2 July 1984, 58.

Saltiel, Michèle. "Cette autonomie qui fait peur," Le Monde de Z'Education 99 (October 1983): 16-17.

Stehli, Jean-Sébastien. "Ecole libre: Savary jette la première pierre," Le Point, 27 December 1982,26-27.

. "Savary sur deux fronts," Le Point, 17 January 1983, 34.

Tanguy, Lucie. "L'état et l'école: l'école privée en France," Revuefrançaise de sociologie 13 (1972). Vid, Christine "Guerre ou paix pour l'école privée?" Le Monde (Paris), 20-22 March 1982.

Vallet, Odon. "L'école catholique dans la société politique française," Etudes 353, no. 5 (November 1980): 479-9 1.

Vanderrneersch, Edmond. "Enseignement catholique: L'illusion du 'libre choix."' Le Monde de Z'Education 92 (Febniary 1983): 46-47.

. "Laicité 188 1- 198 1 ,"Etudes 355, no. 4 (October 1981): 325-40.

. "Problème scoiaire: Deux ans et demi de tâtonnements," Etudes 360, no. 2 (Febniary 1984): 199-204-

Ambler, John. "Educational Pluraiism in the French Fifth Republic." In Searching for The New France, eds. J. Hollifield and G. Ross, 193-220. New York: Routledge, 1991.

Anderson, R.D. Education in France, 1848-1870. Glasgow: Oxford University Press, 1975.

Ardagh, John. France Todq, 5

Ballion, Robert. Les Consommateurs d ëcole. Paris: Stock/Laurence Pernoud, 1982.

. Les fonctions sociales de l'enseignement privé. Paris: CORES, 1978.

Battut, Jean, Christian Join-Lambert and Edmond Vanderrneersch, 1984: La guerre scolaire n bien eu lieu. Paris: Desclée de Brouwer, 1995.

Bell, D.S. and Byron Criddle, The French Socialist Pariy: The Emergence of a Party of Govemment. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988.

Bosworth, William. Catholicism and Crisis in Modern France. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1962.

Bourdieu, Pierre. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgernent of Taste. London: Routledge, 1984.

. Homo Academicus. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1988. - Outline of n Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977.

. The State Nobility. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1984.

Bourdieu, Pierre and Jean-Claude Passeron. Reproduction in Education, Socieo and Culture. Cambridge: folity Press, 1970.

Brown, Bernard. Socialism of a Dzrerent Kind: Reshaping the Left in France. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1982-

Day, Charles R. Education for the Industrial World- The Ecole des Arts et Métiers and the Rise of French Industrial Engineering. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, 1987.

. Schools and Work Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 2001.

Ehnnann, Henry W. and Martin A. Schain. Politics in France. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1992.

Fraser, W .R. Reforms and Restraints in Modern French Education. London: Rou tledge and Kegan Paul Ltd., 197 1.

Gerbod, Paul. La condition miversitaire en France au XIXième siècle. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1965.

Grew, Raymond and Patrick J. Harrigan. School, State, and Sociery. Michigan: The University of Michigan Press, 1991.

Groux, Guy and René Mouriaux, "The Dilemma of Unions without Members." In The Mitterrand Era: Policy Alternatives and Political Mobilization in France, ed. Anthony Daley, 172-85. London: MacMilIian Press Ltd., 1996.

Hall, W.D. Society, Schools and Progress in France. New York: Pergamon Press, 1965.

Hanley, D.L., A.P. Kerr and N.H. Waites, Contemporary France: Politics and Socieo since 1945. London: Routledge, 1984.

Leclerc, Gerard. La bataille de 1 'école: 15 siècles d'histoire, 3 ans de combat. Paris: Denoel, 1985.

Lewis, Steven C. and Serenella Sferza, "French Socialists between State and Society: From Party-building to power." In The Mitterrand Experiment: Continuiiy and Change in Modern France, eds. George Ross, Stanley Hoffmann and Sylvia Malzacher, 100- 114. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1987. Léger, Alain. "Les détours par l'enseignement privé." In Lu scolarisation de la France: Critique de 1 'état des lieux, ed. Jean-Pierre Terrail, 69-85. Paris: La Dispute/Snédit, 1997.

MacShane, Denis. François Mitterrand: A Political Odyssey. New York: Quartet Books, 1982.

Mexandeau, Louis and Roger Quillot, eds. Libérer L'école: Plan socialiste pour l'éducation nationale. With a preface by François Mitterrand. Paris: Flammarion, 1978.

Moody, Joseph. French Education Sirtce Napoleon. New York: Syracuse University Press, 1978.

Morray, Joseph P. Grand Disillusion: François Mitterrand and the French Lep. Connecticut: Praeger Publishers, 1997.

Nay, Christine. The Bluck and the Red. François Mitterrand: The Story of an Ambition. Orlando, Florida: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1987.

Northcutt, William. Mitterrand. A Political Biography. New York: Homes and Meier, 1992.

Peyrefitte, Christel. "Religion et politique." In SOFRES, L'opinionfron~aiseen 1977. Paris: PFNSP, 1978.

Plenel, Edwy. La République inachevée: L'Etat et l'école en France. Paris: Payot, 1985.

Prost, Antoine. L'enseignernenr en France 1800- 196% Paris: Armand Colin, 1968.

. "The Educational Maelstrom." In The Mitterrand Experiment: Continuio and Change in Modem France, eds. George Ross, Stanley Hoffmann and Sylvia Malzacher, 229-36. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1987.

ROSS,George, Stanley Hoffmann and Sylvia Malzacher, eds. The Mitterrand Experiment: Continuity and Change in Modern France. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1987.

Safran, W. The French Polity. New York: Addison Wesley Longman, 1998.

Staples, A.J. "Combes, Emile." In Historical Dictionary of the Third French Republic, 1870-1940, ed. Hutton, P.H. (1 986).

Suleiman, Ezra. Private Power and Centralization in France: The Notaires and the State. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1987.

Terrail, Jean-Pierre, ed. La scolarisation de la France: Critique de l'état des lieux. Paris: Wright, Gordon. France in Modern Times: From the Enlightenment to the Present, 3d ed New York: W.W. Norton Company Inc., 198 1.

DICTIONARIES

Bailey, C.R. "Jesuits." In Historical Dictionary of France from the 1815 Restoration to the Second Empire, ed. Newman, E.L- (1 987).

Day, Charles R. "Ecoles normales primaires." In Histot-id Dictioncry of Francefrom the 1815 Restoration to the Second Empire, ed. Newman, E.L. (1987).

. "Ecolesprimaires supérieures."In Historical Dictionary of Francefrom the 1815 Restoration to the Second Empire, ed. Newman, E.L. (1987).

Harrigan, Patrick J. "Petits séminaires."In Historical Dictionary of Francefiorn the 1815 Restoration to the Second Empire, ed. Newman, E.L. (1987).

. "Schools,Roman Catholic."In Historical Dictionary of the Third French Republic, 1870-1940, ed. Hutton, P.H. (1986).

Kselman, T.A. "Anticlericalism."In Historical Dictionary of the Third French Republic, 1870-1940, ed. Hutton, P.H. (1986).

. "Associations,Law of." In Historical Dictionary of the Third French Republic, 1870-1940, ed. Hutton, P.H. (1986).