La justice sociale en éducation prioritaire : conceptions et opérationnalisations dans le cadre d’un dispositif de promotion de l’excellence

Abstract

En France, si la conception de l’excellence repose sur la performance académique, le phénomène de démocratisation ségrégative remet en question le principe méritocratique. L’article analyse, à travers le prisme des conceptions de la justice sociale, la manière dont les acteurs de l’éducation prioritaire se saisissent de “Parcours d’excellence”. Quelles pratiques de sélection choisissent-ils dans ce dispositif de promotion de l’égalité des chances ? Une recherche par entretiens (définition de l’excellence, objectifs déclarés, opérationnalisation de la sélection), menée de 2017 à 2019 en collaboration avec une académie ayant un fort taux d’établissements en éducation prioritaire, montre que la performance et la forme scolaire, critères objectivés du mérite, semblent orienter significativement le choix des publics destinataires de ce dispositif d’ouverture sociale. Si certains professionnels tentent de résister à l’injonction de sélection, ce refus de choisir peut s’inscrire dans une visée universaliste ou se traduire par la délégation du choix aux élèves eux-mêmes, sommés de se porter volontaires et ainsi exposés au risque d’auto-sélection.

Special Education and Meritocratic Inclusion

“…Hence, we will discuss inclusiveness at a system level, taking into account the potential ideological obstacles to its implementation (Nilholm & Göransson, 2017). In the next section, we will particularly argue that recognizing and considering the situations at the origin of the difficulties for students with special educational needs on the one hand while, on the other, providing fair and equitable compensation could clash with the prevalent scholastic norms of recognition of individual merit and the promotion of an elite school (Dubet & Duru-Bellat, 2020;Pavie et al, 2021). In the following, we further develop our argument that the project of an inclusive school conflicts with the meritocratic myth of selection based on individual effort.…”

“…More recently, Pavie et al (2021) offer a distinct definition of a universalist model of justice that aims to promote equality for all, by recognizing and compensating for each student’s specificities or by canceling and/or removing the school selection criterion altogether. Here, the concept of equality refers to that of outcomes, namely that everyone is expected to succeed to the same degree.…”

“…Since the meritocratic principle of selection classifies and sorts students based on their achievements and efforts, providing accommodations for some students, as evoked above, could be seen as an impediment to “fair” selection (by “helping” them), thus threatening the system (Brueggemann et al, 2001; Pavie et al, 2021). Put another way, a successful student who has his or her special needs recognized and met could be seen as a threat to the principle of equality of opportunities promoted by school meritocracy.…”

“…Research in the sociology of education and social psychology has demonstrated that this ideology is a cornerstone of many educational systems and is particularly prevalent in occidental countries (Butera et al, 2021). Thus, school meritocracy can be operationalized as an ideology that justifies inequalities, and as a principle of justice that promotes a social model based a supposed “equality of opportunity” (Pavie et al, 2021; Pratto et al, 1994).…”

“…For Mijs (2016), one way to restore a principle of equity among individuals would be to consider the starting positions of groups and individuals so that they are compensated and/or equalized. In doing so, an alternative to the current meritocratic model of education would be to compensate for students with low ability with greater investment in educational resources or to offer everyone the same educational opportunities of outcomes regardless of their respective ability (Pavie et al, 2021). However, in such a context, a “successful” inclusion would still mean that students with special educational needs would have to compete against their peers (Lloyd, 2008).…”