Overview

The Third Republic was instituted in September 1870 after the demise of the Second Empire following defeat by the Prussians. For this reason some historians say it happened by accident but lasted longer than any of the previous post-revolutionary regimes (Gildea 1996). Yet this belies a more complex reality, for the birth of the Third Republic accompanied the violent suppression of the Paris Commune and this secured its foundations (Dell 2007). The first decade was based on political compromise between factions of royalists and republicans of various hues. Nevertheless, the 1870s saw the republicans gaining the upper hand and democratic institutions taking root. In this way it differed from the other major European powers where democratizing tendencies were blunted or absorbed (Nord 1995). In England the radicals agitated for universal suffrage but this was realised in the habitual piecemeal fashion with full universal manhood suffrage not achieved until 1918 whereas in France it was achieved in 1851.Footnote 1 This was of crucial importance, as the popular vote had the power to change what had been a country dominated by the old elite of notables to one which was more amenable to popular needs and the return of a republican majority in 1876 was decisive. In England the landed class dominated government until the early 20th century and beyond and the mystique of aristocracy was to conserve its cultural hegemony (Anderson 1964). In France, on the other hand, the monarchy and all its paraphernalia were banished and its governments were composed not of noblemen or landed gentry but of bourgeois and the terms were set by new democratic elites not the old ones (Nord 1995).

This victory for democracy won less than a hundred years after the Revolution, succeeded in re-establishing the Republican tradition inherited from that earlier experience. There were three strands to the republican tradition at this time. The first strand was liberal and favoured maintaining parliamentary institutions. The key figure among these was Thiers , who disliked universal suffrage and was prepared to compromise with royalists. He became the first Prime Minister of the Republic. This strand represented the right wing of Republicanism. The second strand was that of the Radical Republicans for whom Gambetta was a key figure. He believed firmly in universal suffrage and universal education and was prominent in the defence of the country against the Prussians. This strand represented the centre/centre left. The third strand incorporated a mixture of insurrectionary Blanquists (non-Marxist revolutionary socialists) and Jacobins who along with members of the First Workers International participated in the Paris Commune when they formed an insurrectionary government in Paris (Gildea 1996). They called for the establishment of a workers’ republic in March 1871 when the government had defected to Versailles but were brutally suppressed in May by forces loyal to Thiers . They represented the left wing of republicanism which was expanding thanks to the growing strength of the socialists and communists. Following an attempted ‘coup’ in 1876 by the government composed of right wing republicans, monarchists and Bonapartists to dissolve the democratically elected Chamber of Deputies with a republican majority, the principle of republican legitimacy was introduced. This meant that a government could only rule which had the support of a majority of republicans in the Chamber (Gildea 1996).

Once the republicans were confident of their majority, they set themselves the immense task of unifying a country split in one way between republicans, liberals and monarchists and, undercutting this, by another schism between clericals and anti-clericalists . The ‘school question’ which divided clerical and anti-clerical factions epitomised the question of the legitimacy of the republic and which was fought over by left and right for the first 30 years of its existence. For that reason, it is claimed, issues relating to labour and women’s rights were relegated and at this time, Gildea (1996) states, even women’s leaders tended to put the defence of the anti-clerical Republic first.

The Belle Epoque 1871–1914

Culture and Ideology

In order that democratic institutions could flourish it was paramount that French citizens could be counted on to vote for those representatives who could best serve their interests. Furthermore, they needed to be imbued with the ideals of republicanism. It was also necessary to fill the moral and emotional void left by the Church. For these reasons the republicans needed to succeed in the area of culture and ideology.

A republican culture and ideology, which had been articulated albeit covertly from the time of the Second Empire when republicanism was driven underground, was revitalised and reformulated during this period. The following quotation from Nord (1995) emphasizes the persistence of the ideals of the Revolution.

Republicans invited the nation to participate in a range of activities that encouraged beliefs and habits supportive of a democratic public life. The idea was to shape a particular kind of citizen: a conscientious human being who revered the philosophes and the revolutionaries of 1789, who valued liberty, laicity and the riches afforded by literacy and a vital associational life. With such citizens, elections might be won and democratic institutions made to work, but the citizens had to come first. (191)

The most powerful republican rituals and symbols, so redolent of the Revolution, were institutionalised during the Third Republic: the Marseillaise was definitively proclaimed as France’s national anthem in 1879, the 14th July as its national holiday in 1880, and during the 1880s the motto “Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité” was inscribed by law on all public buildings (Nord 1995).

The school was seen as the most important tool for inculcating republican norms and values. These new and reformed educational institutions were set up to bring about this transformation.

  • The École Normale would train the teachers charged with dissemination of the republican secular values.

  • The École Primaire would mould the citizens for participation in the new society.

  • The École Primaire Supérieure would form the ‘non-commissioned officers of democracy’ who would secure the hegemony of republicanism.

The effects of this ideological campaign on education policy will be addressed later in the chapter.

Social Classes and Political Alliances

A republican majority in parliament was crucial for maintaining ‘republican legitimacy’ and the struggle for this was particularly fraught during the early decades of this regime. For this the republicans depended on the support of the peasantry who by force of numbers represented the largest social class and held the balance of power electorally. In 1901, out of a total population in France of 39 million, 23 million (60%) lived in rural areas of under 2000 inhabitants with 16 million working in agriculture (Gildea 1996). If you count those living in areas of under 5000 inhabitants the proportion of the population living in rural areas rises to 70% (Gould 1999). The republicans maintained their dominance by focusing on the anti-clerical sentiments of the peasantry . The Catholic Church had been a substantial landowner in France which caused much resentment and it had more land than elsewhere in Europe confiscated and sold during the Revolution of 1789 (Gould 1999).

Workers’ support for the democratic ideals of the Republic was not in doubt and they pushed for economic reform in advance of other social classes (Gould 1999). However, their support for the republicans in government was much more ambivalent. After all, the birth of the Third Republic came about after the crushing of the Paris Commune in which many of its leaders were killed, wounded or exiled. The industrial workers represented 33% of the total active population in 1911 and therefore their electoral power was important (Gildea 1996, 26–29). The government proceeded to introduce industrial reforms and while these prior to World War 1 were modest, they were not inconsiderable: trade union organisation and the right to strike were legalized in 1884 followed by limited arbitration rights and the ten hour-day in 1904, medical care provision increased incrementally with half a million receiving it by 1914, a pension scheme was introduced in 1910 with pensionable age reduced from 65 to 60 in 1912, and in 1913 social assistance was provided to the poor . Luebbert (1991) argues that the integration of the workers within the Republic was real and had less to do with the material benefits of social reform in France (where workers were less well compensated materially than in Britain) than with another kind of well-being. The appeal of the Republic for workers and particularly their leaders was to do with the legitimacy it gave to their aspirations and the promise of what could be gained through class struggle and political alliances.

Jean Jaurès more than any other socialist leader through his social republicanism championed the formation of political alliances (with radical republicans) for the benefit of workers and promoted taking on all responsibilities including that of taking cabinet seats. Not all socialists agreed with the primacy of republican defence, particularly Jules Guesde, leader of the Marxist French Workers Party. Their clash over cabinet participation came to a head at a meeting in Amsterdam of the Socialist International in 1904 which condemned any accommodation with bourgeois reformism. Jaurès remained, nevertheless, with the united socialist party of the French Section of the Workers International (SFIO ) and thus managed to strengthen and unify it and shape its policies. Jaurès’s brand of humanist socialism which fused socialism with republicanism attracted a large portion of the intelligentsia. As well as this his struggle for pacifism and to prevent war led to co-operation with syndicalists. All of this led to an increase in socialist deputies to 104 in the elections of 1914 when it became the second largest party in that year which tragically saw his assassination by a militarist.

The Third Republic up to World War I was ruled by bourgeois political leaders supported by the lower middle class and farmers and to a lesser extent by workers. Radical republicans for the most part governed during this period with occasional socialist alliances. These alliances were cemented by the policy of anti-clericalism. As we have seen, some important industrial reforms resulted from these alliances. Workers’ aspirations, however, were disappointed until the Popular Front period (see below). The combination of middle and farming classes retarded social legislation at the beginning of the 20th century (Derfler 1966) as did the political forces linked to the propertied classes (Mayeur and Rebérioux 1989). Nevertheless, the alliance of petite-bourgeoisie and peasantry was conducive to implementing educational legislation to bring about universal primary education and the reduction of social inequality in education . Before addressing how these alliances had an influence on educational reform it is useful now to briefly examine French colonisation during the Third Republic and its relationship to republicanism.

French Overseas Expansion and Republicanism

After the defeat of Napoleon in 1815, France was virtually left without colonies. Within 15 years, however, France had gained control over Algeria and this began 80 years of expansion, albeit in a piecemeal fashion, over Morocco, Tunisia, sub-Saharan Africa, Indochina, South Seas, Indian Ocean and Australasian islands. At its height in the 1920s and 1930s, France controlled the second largest empire in the world, after Britain (Aldrich 1996). However, attitudes towards colonialism were ambivalent in France and aroused much scepticism among parliamentarians and the general public. Its merits were considered insufficient compared with the violence and expenditure it engendered. The revolutionary ideals and the abolition of slavery, finally legislated for with the 1848 revolution, were abhorrent to colonisation with its exploitation, uprooting, land dispersal and denial of cultural identity to indigenous peoples. Paradoxically, it was during the Third Republic under Jules Ferry, when republican values were uppermost, that colonial expansion was revived. This was greatly influenced by the need to boost national morale after defeat by the Prussians. Another motivation was to catch up with other colonising countries, particularly Britain, and to assert France’s role in the world. Ferry further justified expansion in Indochina in 1883 by the need to find outlets for France’s expanding industries (Mayeur and Rebérioux 1989). A more fundamental motivation for colonisation perhaps, related to the republican ideology and the legacy of the Revolution, was the desire to advance the progress of humanity by bringing French ‘civilisation’ to the colonies.

A further complication for the Republican supporters of colonialism was that while pursuing anti-clerical policies at home, the state would have to protect and often share administration of overseas outposts and colonies with Catholic missionaries who had been there beforehand, (over two centuries in the case of Indochina). Research by Daughton (2008) shows that while the French state and the missionaries believed in the need to spread French ‘civilisation’ overseas – seen as superior to the cultures of the indigenous peoples - this was envisaged in different ways. On the one hand the Republicans wished to spread progress to colonised populations based on science and reason, while the missionaries were preoccupied with evangelisation and spreading the word of God to ‘heathens’. The divergence between these two contrasting interpretations became particularly acute during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, following the Dreyfus AffairFootnote 2 and the separation of the Churches and the state. This was exemplified by complaints from Freemason colonists, that the missionaries neither taught French values nor its language and were only interested in conversion. This in turn led to denunciations by missionaries of the extreme secular vision of the Freemasons. Finally, a modus vivendi was reached with missionaries and state officials in agreement that work for the glory of God was compatible with French patriotism (Daughton 2008). Although there were obvious contradictions between republican ideals and colonisation , for leaders such as Ferry , it was part and parcel of bringing glory to the patrie and advancing progress and science not only via the republican school but by disseminating these across the world (Mayeur and Rebérioux 1989).

The Institution of the Republican School: Free, Secular and Compulsory

Since the Guizot Laws of 1833 primary schooling in France had seen a continuous increase with three-quarters of the population registered in schools by 1876. The unschooled quarter belonged for the most part to the rural parts of the country, mainly to the left of a diagonal line running from Saint-Malo in Brittany to Geneva which marked off the worst areas for primary education.

The 1880s were characterised by intense educational fervour and legislation in this area (Mayeur 1981). Most importantly it is associated with the setting up of the ‘free, secular and compulsory’ Republican school. Jules Ferry and Paul Bert are most associated with the laws of the 1880s. The school laws coincided with the Freycinet Plan which was launched in the late 1870s to boost the sagging French economy by pouring funds into it. It brought roads and railways to the most remote parts of the country and made improvements to rivers, canals and port installations. Similarly, it involved massive school building to these same areas. Nine billion francs were invested into this enterprise. The effects were cultural and political as well as economical and as a result the republican vote from the peasantry solidified (Weber 1976). For so long the school had been seen as both inaccessible and irrelevant. This now began to change. A huge obstacle had been to do with the fact that so many people did not speak French. By the 1880s the huge effort to eradicate patois from the schools was having the desired effect and inspectors’ reports from the more backward departments and communes showed that French had taken over in the schools. The school also broke the dependency of the peasantry on the Catholic Church, for so long an integral part of their lives. The example of Weber’s peasant who found that the teacher was more useful than the priest because he/she taught how to read, add and subtract and advised on taxes, farming and fertilizer, is illuminating (Weber 1976).

Equality of access to education for all children was without doubt the objective, but what was unique in the French primary education laws compared to elsewhere in Europe was their emphasis on secular education. This was linked to the overarching policy of anti-clericalism and against the negative influence of the church in politics and education. An earlier bill for compulsory education in 1872 during Thiers government was defeated by a rival project from the clericalists led by Monseigneur Dupanloup (who in 1868 had led a ferocious attack against Duruy’s proposed law for the public secondary education of girls) calling for freedom of education. Thus when the republicans set about introducing the bill for educational reform in the 1880s, Ferry realising the contentiousness of the bill, divided it into different parts.

There was fierce ideological debate in both houses of parliament. Ferry defended the secularisation of education, which was anathema to the Catholic party, on the basis of freedom of conscience (and here he resembles Condorcet). He argued that his secularism was not anti-religious. His concern was to curb the political power of the Church and its capacity to undermine the state (Doyle 2017). Therefore, this struggle was a continuation of that of the revolution of 1789, which had taken away the political organisation of the Church and its role as a major player in the affairs of the state and education. The Bill making primary education free became law on 16 June 1881 but disagreement by the Senate over the removal of religion from the curriculum delayed the vote on this. The ideological campaign, however, had prepared the way for the change to a secular education and the Law making primary education secular and compulsory was voted on 28 March 1882 (Mayeur and Rebérioux 1989). Also the social class alliances, as suggested earlier, were in favour of universal primary education free from church influence. Crucially, since the principle of republican legitimacy, the republicans had the upper hand politically and the school laws were voted in their favour.

According to Lelièvre (1996) the education of girls was of the highest priority. For this reason the first school law of August 1879 was to make it obligatory to have a training college (École Normale ) for females in each department as well as for males. This quotation from Ferry’s speech at the Salle Molière in 1870 gives a flavour of his strong feelings in this regard.

Those who control women control everything, firstly because they control the child, then because they control the husband. …. That’s why the Church wants to have control over the woman, and that is why it’s necessary that democracy frees her from it …. (Lelièvre 1990, 92. Translation by the author.)

The École Normale Supérieure was opened at Fontenay for young women in 1880 and at Saint-Cloud for young men in 1882, for the training of École Normale teachers. The stakes were indeed high because in 1879 only 36% of girls attended public lay schools compared to 76% of boys, while 56% of girls attended religious schools both public and private which is why the education of girls in lay schools was paramount (Lelièvre 1990).

The earlier law of 1881 also helped towards this goal. This related to teaching qualifications and abolished the privilege of the ‘letter of obedience’. After this law all teachers were obliged to have the Brevet de Capacité within three years, except in exceptional circumstances. This was important for at that time there were 37,000 nuns who were primary teachers of whom only 15% were qualified (Lelièvre 1990). It was also important for the Republicans to bring female teachers into the corporate fold. The decline of public and private schools of the religious orders for girls, however, was slow. When a religious public school was replaced by a lay one, another private school was opened in its place. In 1900, these schools were still teaching over a million children (Prost 1968). State lycées and colleges for girls were instituted in 1880 resulting in a huge rise in enrolment from 13,000 in 1885 to 42,000 in 1920.

The law passed in March 1882 decreed that primary schooling would be ‘free, obligatory and secular: it abolished the teaching of religious instruction in schools and stipulated that in primary education ‘moral and civic education’ would replace ‘moral and religious education’. Schools would close for one weekday so parents, if they wished, could provide religious instruction for their children outside of the school. Teachers should remain neutral in relation to religion; otherwise teachers were expected to promote republicanism (Mayeur 1981). The primary school laws were completed by the Loi Goblet in 1886. It named various institutions to include, alongside the primary elementary school , the école maternelle, the école primaire supérieure and the cours complémentaires – an extension of two or more years to the primary school, and schools of manual apprenticeship.

The school laws went some considerable way to removing the Church’s influence over public education; the separation of the Church and the State made it complete. The elections of 1902 brought the radical ‘Bloc des Gauches’ into power under Combes . The radicals represented a Left or centre Left tendency among republicans and during this period they formed a coalition government with parliamentary socialists, such as Jean Jaurès. Once again, it was anti-clericalism that cemented their union and Combes wanted to remove the influence of the Church in politics and education for good. He called for a rigorous application of the laws of laïcité including the removal of all religious emblems, such as the crucifix, from schools and legislated for the closing down of all public religious schools within five years. In 1905 the French-Vatican Corcordat of 1801 was abrogated bringing about the Law of the Separation of the Churches and the state – which applied to Protestant and Jewish faiths as well as Catholicism .

Effects of the Education Legislation

As a result of the republican school laws the ideal of universal primary education was achieved. The goal of bringing the republican message to all corners of the country was also achieved bringing about a uniformity of language and culture as well as a national identity. How had these laws contributed to reducing social inequality in education? The answer to this is both positive and negative. It achieved the basic stage of development towards educational equality by providing for all children to receive an elementary education from six to 13 years of age. As well as this it provided secular education which allowed children to receive enlightened education untrammelled by religion and which would fit them to participate in a democratic society. It left in place, however, a structure whereby the republican school was in fact the school of the people and the lycée system, hermetically sealed for the children of the bourgeoisie . The struggle for its replacement by a common school for all is dealt with later in this chapter.

The Interwar Period 1918–1939

Introduction

The policy of anti-clericalism succeeded in uniting various social classes. In particular it brought together the rural and urban middle classes and the peasantry . As has been suggested in the previous section, it was instrumental in gaining majority support for radical educational reform. Up to World War I the policy mobilised the urban working class to a certain extent: after this it was insufficient. During the war the bulk of the population rallied to the defence of the Republic. There was an all-party government in which the socialists held ministerial portfolios. For the first two years there was little industrial conflict and strikes were insignificant. The unexpected long duration and the sheer brutality of the war brought about a fundamental change of attitude. The casualties were higher in France in relative terms than in any of the other countries involved in the war. By the end of the war there were 1,400,000 French soldiers killed compared with 745,000 British (10.5% of active population compared to 5.1%). There were three million wounded compared to 1,600,000 British. This tragic outcome was most likely to embitter attitudes to the elites who had propelled them into war and the French working class, in particular, became radicalised (Gallie 1983). The Jauresian pre-war doctrine of peaceful transition to socialism held little credence among those who felt resentful of their government who instead of supporting their legitimate demands for industrial reform colluded with the bosses in repressing them. Radicalism hardened within the SFIO and the upshot was that a majority of socialists renounced democratic politics for revolutionary communism and formed the French Communist Party in 1920 at the Congress of Tours. The Russian Bolshevik Revolution in 1917 also had an important effect on the radicalisation of the labour movement. However, Léon Blum, a disciple of Jaurès , remained with the minority, rebuilt the party to the extent that in 1924 he participated in a coalition government of the Left, the Cartel des Gauches (Derfler 1966).

Luebbert (1991) argues that, compared to the pre-war period, class relations were more polarised in France in the interwar period and that this, combined with the lack of divisions among the middle classes, inhibited interclass alliances. Given the minority position of the working class, it could only achieve power through an alliance with a non-socialist party, and according to Luebbert there would be little opportunity for this. Luebbert correctly blames the lack of coherence and disciplined organisation of the trade unions for the failure of the successive waves of strike action that dominated this period. Contrary to Luebbert’s argument, however, the polarisation of class relations, did not rule out political alliances in France and the Cartel des Gauches of 1924 was one of a number of radical/socialist alliances which saw left-wing victories notably in 1932 and 1936. Luebbert downplays the ability of the socialist party under Léon Blum to achieve alliances with radicals under conditions which did not compromise their ideological principles. This in fact was achieved through qualified alliances at election time. At the same time Blum outlined principled preconditions for participating in cabinet which would be met when socialists held the majority in parliament and when they could dictate advanced social and industrial reform. In 1936 they achieved all of this.

Crucially, Luebbert (1991) is incorrect in overstressing the similarities between France and Britain in terms of political economies and between the French socialists and the British Labour Party . The latter was non-revolutionary in ideology while at the same time espousing parliamentary democracy to achieve its goals. French socialists had a dangerous rival in the Communist Party which had seceded from its ranks and feared being upstaged by it and this had a radicalising effect which was not the case in Britain. While there was also a growing involvement of workers in the Communist Party in Britain, this never represented the mass organisation that it did in France. These ideological differences affected education policy and are exemplified by the fact that a comprehensive type of school was not part of the official Labour Party’s programme until after World War II (Wiborg 2009) whereas the école unique was part of the policy of radicals and socialists since the 1920s. (It is fair to say, however, that there was support for multilateral schools by a minority in Labour in the 1930s but this never came to fruition. See Chap. 7 for a discussion on multilateral schools.) Furthermore, Luebbert conflates liberalism and republicanism and fails to distinguish between their distinct ideologies. In particular, he fails to recognise republican ideology and its power to unify progressive forces in their defence of democratic institutions.

The Movement for L’École Unique

The 20th century inherited from the previous century its educational structures and these were heavily resistant to change. They juxtaposed two systems, primary and secondary, complete in themselves, for the primary had its secondary level with the Enseignement Primaire Supérieur (EPS) and the Cours Complémentaires (CC) and the secondary had its primary – les classes élémentaires. This situation was not unique to France as this parallel structure existed in all European societies at the time, yet a common school emerged in different ways and at different speeds in each country. As well as this structural distinction, there also existed one at the pedagogical level which also masked the social function of each system (Prost 1968).

The social consequences of this hermetic educational structure were clear: the secondary school was reserved for the bourgeoisie , the primary school for the ordinary people. The former needed to distinguish themselves from the latter and the barriers imposed at entry to secondary school were indispensable to this. As much as the financial barrier was prohibitive for much of the lower middle and working classes, more important still was the hurdle of classical education dispensed in the secondary schools. It was the classical languages of Latin and Greek that provided the distinctiveness they needed. The classical humanities were lauded for their importance for the cultivation of logic, reason, morality and a multitude of virtues, in short for the cultivation of an intellectual elite. This form of reasoning cloaked the real reason for this pedagogical distinction because, as succinctly affirmed by Goblot (1925), ‘The bourgeoisie needs an education which remains inaccessible to the people, which is closed to them, which acts as a barrier.’ (Translation by the author.) It was this social and pedagogical barrier and the mind set that supported it which was to block the institution of l’école unique for another 50 years.

The injustice of this situation and its social wastage inspired a movement for common or comprehensive-type schooling in the post-war period. It led to various projects in which two models became predominant. On the one hand there were those in favour of an extended primary school and on the other hand those in favour of a middle school to which all children would have access at the end of primary school. It was the latter model which won out eventually following intense rivalry and debate between primary teachers on the one hand and secondary teachers on the other. Yet a middle school already existed in France, this was the Ècole Primaire Supérieure. However, as described above, this school was separated for socio-economic and cultural reasons from the secondary school which was the preserve of the bourgeoisie .

The Ècole Primaire Supérieur had been launched in 1833 as an intermediate school. This institution was revitalised by the republicans and was included in the Loi Goblet of 1886. Lelièvre (1990) argues that the republicans found distinct political-ideological possibilities in the creation of the E.P.S. He quotes the Minister of Education at the time, René Goblet, in the ministerial newspaper, Le Progrès de la Somme, 14 Octobre 1878.

The E.P.S. are often represented as apprenticeship schools for training skilled workers and foremen. … but the goal of this education is higher and less specialised. It will form citizens. ... The pupils of Higher Primary Schools will not graduate from a school for foremen, but from a school for non-commissioned officers of democracy. (Quoted in Lelièvre 1990, 112. Translated by the author.)

What the republicans needed was a corps of republican elite to shore up their hegemony . The upcoming middle classes (petite bourgeoisie and farmers) would be the most appropriate to assume this role. The E.P.S. would provide them with the required education. The other part of the republicans’ strategy was to guard secondary education as the preserve of the bourgeoisie . This preference for the E.P.S. at the start of the 20th century fitted with their ideas of social mobility by stages. The concept of a social elite had widened over the second half of the 19th century to encompass the upcoming classes and filtering through to the workers – the notion of elite workers was also dear to the hearts of the republicans. This notion of stage mobility was sanctioned by various certificates for which the E.P.S. was an important conduit. It only received those students furnished with the Certificat d’Études Primaires. It provided three years of general education (although there were also specialised sections) including a preparatory year, usually taken in the Cours Complementaires which were annexed to the primary school. The E.P.S. prepared pupils for the Brevet Supérieur which could lead to other institutions, with 7–8% entering the Ecoles Normales where they might aspire to finish their teaching career, or even the École Normale Supérieure of Saint-Cloud or Fontenay (Prost 1968).

According to Prost , of the 61,868 pupils who attended the E.P.S. between 1889 and 1899, 17% came from agriculture, 30% from industry, 23% from commerce, and 17% from administrative positions such as the railways and the post office. As for the graduate employment: 11% went into agriculture, 29% industry, 20% commerce, 11% diverse administrative posts and 8% to professional schools. These figures show a very slight social mobility even stability. But it did allow children of the lower classes to continue their studies and to gain employment in the civil service, in industry, commerce and education. It allowed many to bypass the secondary schools and go into teacher training. In many ways the E.P.S. took the place of the lycées spéciaux (see earlier section on Duruy) which had been turned into lycées modernes with their own baccalauréat moderne. By 1922 there was little difference between their curriculum and that of the first cycle of the modern section in the lycées and collèges and this inspired the attempts at reform in the interwar period (Prost 1968). Between 1929 and 1939 the E.P.S. saw an increase in numbers from 76,000 to 105,000 while the Cours Complementaires (C.C.) doubled their numbers from 61,000 to124,000. These schools were more popular at this time than secondary schools because they were better adapted to people’s needs and provided a more practical education leading to a more secure if more limited career pathway (Prost 1968).

The demand for common education was initiated in 1909. Ferdinand Buisson, himself one of the founders of the republican school and, mindful of the inconsistency of this example of educational inequality with Republican beliefs, put forward, unsuccessfully, a bill in support of l’école unique (Prost 1992; Barreau et al. 1998). The first serious attack on the traditional system was launched at the end of World War I. This came from a group of professors and teachers known as Les Compagnons with the publication of articles in April 1918 and later a publication entitled l’Université Nouvelle. These educationists, former combatants, wished to extend the fraternity formed among the trenches beyond the war and believed that the sons of fathers who had fought together should be schooled together. They launched an appeal for democratic education. The model of the école unique they put forward would extend compulsory education to 14 years and would educate children from all sections of society together up to that age.

At their conference in Strasbourg in 1920, the Radical Party committed themselves to support for l’école unique which the historian, Thibaudet, described as an ideological platform to bring life back to their ranks. It was also endorsed by the socialists in the same year. Therefore the advent of the Cartel des Gauches in 1922–24 with the radicals supported by the socialists in power, represented a real opportunity to push for common schooling. Paul Lapie, Director of Primary Education, articulated a second model of the école unique in the Revue Pédagogique (Lapie 1922). He proposed the amalgamation of the first cycle of secondary education with the E.P.S and other vocational schools. First of all, the issue of les classes élémentaires which charged fees and schooled children of the bourgeoisie , needed to be resolved. Decrees in 1925 and 1926 stipulated identical conditions of recruitment and nomination for teachers of the classes élémentaires of the lycées and the teachers in primary schools, as well as an identical curriculum in both areas. The reformists of the Cartel set up a Committee for the study of the école unique and drafted a reform project. The general federation of the Conféderation Générale du Travail (CGT) trade union modified this project and had it adopted by the CGT congress in 1931 (Prost 1968). Another reform in 1924 was that the curriculum in secondary schools for girls, which up to then did not prepare for the baccalauréat , became identical to that for boys.

The first experiment of mixing pupils from E.P.S and secondary schools took place in 1925 when around 150 schools brought pupils together for certain subjects. In July 1926 the first école unique was formed at Saint-Amand-des-Eaux where children at the end of primary school came together for certain subjects and then divided up into secondary, higher primary and technical sections. This had little success but it led to an important reform which brought about free secondary education. This was initially for those schools attached to an E.P.S. (which never paid fees) in 1928 and in 1930 this was extended to all secondary schools. An entry examination was established and thus the financial barrier to secondary education was abolished in favour of one based on merit. These attempts towards creating a common lower secondary school failed according to Prost (1968) for reasons of demography, pedagogy and administration. Falling birth rates after the war favoured the amalgamation of classes but rising birth rates at the end of the 1920s went against this. The different amalgamated sections had different administrative structures with a different inspectorate which needed new structures. Importantly, ideological reasons played a role in its failure. While the Left, apart from the Communists, were solidly in favour of l’école unique, on the Right the clerical party opposed it. They claimed that it would put an end to private education, l’enseignement libre, which was already in difficulty. They considered it a Marxist project. As well as this, the creation of the Cercle Fustel de Coulanges, by a group of university teachers close to the ultra-Right Action Française in 1927, led to propaganda in its publications fulminating against laicité , democracie and l’école unique. Also, although the campaign for l’école unique was important as a rallying point and for bringing the Cartel to power, it became subordinate to disputes over economic policy and had to wait until the ‘Popular Front’ with socialists in power for further governmental action to be taken in its favour.

The ‘Popular Front’ Up to the Declaration of War

It is not fitting to outline the educational developments of this period without first of all providing an account of the political and social events of this dramatic period which in its aftermath achieved a certain mythical status among the Left. The period of the ‘Popular Front’ represented the most revolutionary period of the Third Republic when the republican and revolutionary ideology came together bringing about a certain unity between republican leaders and the people. The Front was a coalition of anti-fascist forces including the SFIO , Communist Party and radical republicans. These left wing groups were deeply divided at the time but the crisis precipitated by the rioting of various right-wing groups led to a pact between them. This pact was widened to include radicals and hence to a coalition of anti-fascist forces committed to defending the Republic. The influence of intellectuals was important. The first alliance came about in March 1934 through the intervention of intellectuals such as Paul Rivet, an anthropologist and member of the SFIO , Paul Lang, a communist, and the philosopher Emile Chartier, pen-named Alain, with links to the Radical Party. Their contact with leaders of their respective parties helped negotiate the beginnings of the ‘Popular Front’ (Sowerwine 2001). The Front was secured when the Radical Party agreed to participate with the other parties on the Left in a series of national celebrations on 14 July 1935.

The victory of the Left in the elections of 1936 represented an historic opportunity for the working class and their leaders to achieve the progressive industrial legislation which had eluded them for so long. They showed their support for the Socialist government under Blum by their demonstrations as well as by a series of sit-in strikes. These events represented workers solidarity when they were emboldened by a belief in the great changes about to take place. They were following in the tradition of the revolutionary journées of the sans-culottes but without their attendant violence. These were depicted in the left-wing press as taking place in an atmosphere of conviviality and festivity (Dell 2007). Blum lost no time in responding to these events and called a meeting at his residence at Hôtel Matignon where he secured important and historic agreements. These reforms included: paid holidays, a 12% wage increase, collective bargaining, extension of industrial arbitration procedures and the 40-hour week, all of which represented a major victory.

Educational Reform

The impetus for reform in the industrial sector was also reflected in education. In 1936 Jean Zay, Minister of National Education under Blum , set about a plan for educational reform. He secured via Parliament the extension of obligatory education to 14 years. He changed the age for the certificat d’études at the end of primary school to 11 years. The classes élementaires would be free of charge and open to all. His decree of June 1937 and arêté of April 1938 announced the co-ordination of curriculum of the first cycle of secondary school and the four years of E.P.S. so that it would be possible to go from one section to another. The other aspect of his plan was the introduction of a classe d’orientation during which pupils would study all subjects in common before going into their different sections – classical, modern or technical. By 1939 when the tragedy of war and eventual defeat of France by Germany occurred, this phase was still one of experimentation but it had opened the way for the creation of a social ladder through education for all children of the Republic.

Analysis of the Explanatory Factors

Persistence of Revolutionary/Republican Ideology

As has been outlined previously, the revolutionary ideology took root during the Jacobin phase of the Revolution supplanting that of liberalism. Both traditions coalesced within the ideology of republicanism and are manifested in political terms by parliamentary democracy and direct democracy respectively. The revolutionary republican ideology persisted during the Third Republic and for the first time since the Revolution a discourse of egalitarianism and secularism came to the fore. It was during the intense debates surrounding the setting up of the ‘free, secular and compulsory’ Republican School that this became evident. Jules Ferry nailed his egalitarian credentials to the mast in his speech on educational equality in the Salle Molière in 1870 when he stated:

The last century and the beginning of this one annihilated the privileges of property, the privileges and distinctions of class; the work of our time is assuredly not more difficult … it’s a pacific work, it’s a generous work, and I define it thus: to make the last, the most redoubtable of inequalities which originates from birth disappear, the inequality of education. (Quoted in Prost 1968, 14. Translated by the author.)

The republicans reconstituted the revolutionary concept of education as a public service bringing together the right of children to be educated and to provide equality of access for them all. From this followed the duty of the state to provide for this. The Law of 16 June 1881 established free education in primary, higher primary and maternity schools.

School fees will no longer be charged in public schools nor in public nursery schools. Fees for boarding and for training colleges are abolished. (Ministére de l’Instruction Publique 1882a. Quoted in Allaire and Frank 1995, 98. Translated by the author.)

It was on the issue of laïcité that the most enflamed debate took place and the question of whether religion should be taught at school. In response to a proposition that it be optional, Ferry argued for the freedom of conscience of the teachers and their independence from the Church. He affirmed the principle of the secularisation of public education.

Our institutions are founded on the principle of the secularisation of the state and public service. Public education, which is the first of the public services, ought to have been so since1789 together with the government, and the institutions and the laws. (Sénat, 10/6/81, Journal Officiel de la République Française, 809, quoted in Prost 1968, 194. Translated by the author)

For Ferry national unity should be founded on the principles of 1789.

It is important for the security of the future that the management of schools and the declaration of doctrines which are taught there do not belong to the prelates who have declared that the French Revolution is a deicide, as the eminent prelate that I have the honour to have before me, declared in Nantes in front of the tomb of La Moricière, that the principles of ‘89 are the negation of original sin. (Chambre de Députés 23/12/80, Journal Officiel, 12793. Translated by the author)

The Law of 28 March 1882 established compulsory as well as lay education which were provided for in the following articles.

Article 2: Public primary schools will close one day a week, outside of Sunday, to permit parents to give their children, if they so desire, religious instruction outside of school premises.

Article 3: Articles 18 and 44 of the law of 15th March 1850 are repealed, which gave religious ministers a right of inspection, of surveillance and of management of public and private primary schools and nursery schools, also paragraph 2 of article 31 of the same law, which gives the consistory similar rights for teachers from non-Catholic religions.

Article 4: Primary instruction is obligatory for children of both sexes aged between six and thirteen years of age; it may be given either in the primary or secondary schools, or in the public or free schools, or in the family, by the father himself or by any person whom he will choose.

(Ministère de L’Éducation nationale 1882b. Quoted in Allaire and Frank 1995, 100. Translated by the author.)

While loyalty to the patrie as to the nation-state was uppermost in the values inculcated by the republican school, there remained the problem of how people were affected by this. There was also the issue of the collective life and how individuals had a feeling of belongingness in society (Zeldin 1980). Emile Durkheim believed that the ideals of fraternity and solidarity which the Revolution had stood for had not been achieved in practice. An eminent sociologist, Durkheim also dedicated his time to educational issues and in 1902–3 he lectured on the science of education at the Sorbonne. His lectures were published as Éducation Morale in 1925 and greatly influenced educational policy and practice during the Third Republic. For Durkheim the role of the school for bridging the gap between the individual and the state is paramount and for reviving the collective spirit.

It is precisely at this point that the role of the school can be considerable. It is the means, perhaps the only one, by which we can leave this vicious circle. The school is a real group, of which the child is naturally and necessarily a part. It is a group other than the family. Its principle function is not, as in the case of the family, that of emotional release and the sharing of affections. Every form of intellectual activity finds scope in it, in embryonic form. Consequently, we have through the school the means of training the child in a collective life different from home life. We can give him habits that, once developed, will survive beyond school years and demand the satisfaction that is their due. We have here a unique and irreplaceable opportunity to take hold of the child at a time when the gaps in our social organisation have not yet been able to alter his nature profoundly, or to arouse in him feelings that make him partially rebellious to common life. This is virgin territory in which we can sow seeds that, once taken root will grow by themselves . (Durkheim 1961, 235–6)

Here we find a theme which originated in the Revolution and persisted in various political speeches and texts since then. For the revolutionaries such as Lépelletier and Robespierre , the mixing together of children from different social backgrounds would develop a sense of equality to last until their old age. Similarly the Compagnons spoke of the equality forged in the trenches that should be replicated on the school benches. With Durkheim the analysis and method is outlined in detail about the role of the school in developing the other ideal of the Revolution, that of fraternité or social solidarity.

In the new century, following the judicial separation of the Churches and the state and particularly with the sentiment of national unity brought about by World War I, the issue of anti-clericalism became displaced and the issue of universalisation of primary schooling gave way to that of equality of access to secondary education. The group of educationalists and former combatants, Les Compagnons , laid down the gauntlet in their appeal for a democratic education.

What we want is a democratic education. …True democracy is where society takes it as a general rule that men do not live as though they have different origins, but where each one collaborates, according to his strength and aptitudes in taking responsibility for the common tasks, where the only hierarchy is that of merit and utility. …the École Unique is the school for all, the school which is open to all who are worthy of secondary education . (Les Compagnons 1919. Quoted in Barreau et al. 1998, 5. Translated by the author.)

Amalgamation and breaking down barriers between primary education and secondary dominated discourse at the time. Paul Lapie, Director of Primary Education in the Cartel des Gauches government proposed the amalgamation of the first cycle of secondary with the E.P.S. and other vocational schools.

Take the first cycle of a secondary school and the different sections of a vocational school (higher primary or similar); instead of juxtaposing these, join and amalgamate these different elements and you will have the establishment we are seeking to define. (Lapie 1922, 89. Quoted in Garcia 1994, 59. Translated by the author.)

Paul Lapie challenged the separation of the two types of school:

For young people of the same age and intellectual level, we now have several types of education: secondary education and higher primary education, for example, are two types of ‘middle’ education. Why are they different? Is it for pedagogical reasons? Some reasons could be found to justify a distinction. However, the truth is that primary education, through its development, has created a middle type education, which by not charging fees, is addressed to the poorest, whereas secondary education, as it charges fees, is reserved for the richest. (Lapie 1922. Quoted in Barreau et al. 1998, 74. Translated by the author.)

Paul Lapie’s proposal was therefore to amalgamate the primary school and the first four years of the secondary into one common school. This was opposed by those minority of partisans of the traditional lycée for whom the ‘slow impregnation of culture’ was of prime importance (Barreau et al. 1998). For these partisans only secondary education could fulfil this ideal. One notable exponent of this position, Jean Delvolvé, states:

The only type of existing education which responds to such an end is the secondary type, taken in its purest and most disinterested form. The democratic idea of integral education therefore presupposes firstly the maintenance of a form of pedagogy provided by French secondary education and its intensive development in keeping with its own excellence: …Secondly, it presupposes the progressive extension of the benefit of this type of education to the whole mass of the population, that is, an undertaking that is very vast and unceasing. (Delvolvé 1928, 409–19, quoted in Barreau, Garcia et Legrand, 89. Translated by the author.)

Although l’école unique would, in principle, allow all pupils access to secondary level, mass education was not envisaged at this stage. Therefore, when fees were abolished between 1928 and 1933, the issue of selection became urgent. An entrance examination was therefore established by a decree on September 1933.

With Jean Zay’s reform project of 1937, the additional concepts of ‘orientation’ and ‘common-core curriculum’ were introduced, both of which have remained important elements of the French collège unique down to the present day. Zay was adamant that selection would be postponed beyond the first year of secondary. His decree of 21 mai 1937 was presented with the following extract from his exposé:

The plan we are submitting for your unified deliberation first of all primary elementary public education while transforming the elementary classes of the lycées and colleges into public schools and by instituting one sole examination for primary elementary study: the certificate of primary elementary studies. …..The entry into second level education has been the subject of great controversy. But the teaching body has unanimously expressed the desire that those pupils admitted into second level education are only those capable of profiting from this education. That is why we propose the requirement of the Certificate of Elementary Studies and in that way require from all future pupils of our lycées , colleges, higher primary and technical schools, a minimum of knowledge and aptitude.…

At this age, however, children’s tastes and aptitudes are not very developed: a premature orientation would risk being prejudicial to many of them. Thus the first year will be an orientation year common to all pupils, regardless of the education for which they are destined. After a year of observation, the teachers of this class will formulate an opinion, which, certainly, will not commit the families, but which, at least, will at the same time inform them about their careers and work prospects, on the aptitudes of the children and on the nature of the study for which they have most talent. Three pathways are open to the pupils after the orientation year: a classical section, a modern section or a technical section. (Decaunes 1962, 255–8. Quoted in Allaire and Frank 1995, 130. Translated by the author.)

I have here provided a snapshot of the period from 1870 to 1939 by providing an analysis of the literature and official documentation that relate to educational aims and policy. This aims to demonstrate how the revolutionary ideology with its emphasis on equality and secularism persisted within this literature and its importance as an explanatory factor . Despite its contested nature, this ideology helped to push for a form of schooling which was universal and to break down the social class divisions in education. This was partially achieved through the attainment of universal secular primary education and in the plan for the École Unique under the ‘Popular Front’ Government which set up the first example of common schooling in secondary education.

Social Class Alliances During the Third Republic

The Third Republic was governed for the most of the time by radical republicans supported by socialists punctuated by periods of centre right administrations. These regimes broadly appealed to the petite-bourgeoisie and farmers and to a lesser extent to the working class. At an early stage the principle of republican legitimacy was secured (see above) thereby excluding the Catholic party, royalists and reactionaries from government and consequently any attempts at a return to power of the upper class and aristocracy. This was important as it prevented any Tory style governments, such as presided in England, from taking power. The centre-left consensus was beneficial to the farmers and rural working-class by modernising and bringing progress to the countryside, providing free compulsory schooling, providing opportunities for social mobility as well as secular education to fit their children for democratic society. The working class also benefitted e.g. from industrial reform and medical care provision, an old-age pension scheme and social insurance for the poor as well as free primary education. This consensus, however, belied deep divisions at the heart of the Third Republic born out of the violent repression of the Paris Commune of 1871. The notions of legitimacy and rights of the combatants derived from their sacrifice at that time led to resentment among the working-class at their repression and the rift remained unhealed and without amnesty for decades.

How were these divided allegiances managed and how did a working-class committed to class struggle become reconciled to the Republic, even as far as to defend it? The Jauresian brand of socialism from 1905 onwards which adapted Marxist socialism to the French traditions of democratic republicanism played an important role in achieving this. Blum’s delicate balancing act of holding together a multi-factioned socialist party (SFIO) under the constant threat of being outflanked by an ideologically rigid Communist Party was of major importance in this regard in the inter-war period. Jauresian socialism, as Lichtheim (1966) points out, closed the gap between the labour movement and the intelligentsia. This resulted in socialism competing with and eventually usurping radicalism as the dominant ideology in the educational establishment. This conversion to socialism by the majority of the teaching profession – from primary to university teachers evolved over decades from the Dreyfus affair to the pacifism of pre-1914 and again after the war and was consolidated with the anti-fascism of the 1930s and the World War II resistance movement. This was crucial because of the importance of the Université as a political force in France. As will be seen in Chap. 7, the Labour Party in Britain also incorporated the intellectual Left into its ranks but unlike Labour the French socialists remained committed to Marxism and the class struggle. During the Interwar period, the SFIO was becoming a broad representative party with a wide spread of electoral support both geographically and among the progressive social classes encompassing working-class, teachers, lower middle and professional classes. In 1932 the largest increase came from employees making up 18% of the newly elected socialists. By 1936 there were 36 teachers, 50 liberal professions, 23 employees and 16 workers who were elected. A mere 5% were from agriculture. When the social backgrounds of these deputies are considered, their more democratic origins become clear. From this perspective 36% were from a working-class background in 1924 with 28% in 1936. Only 8% were from the liberal professions and 4% from teaching backgrounds. Conversely and in sharp contrast to their occupations, 20% were from agricultural backgrounds in 1924 and the proportions remained unchanged in 1936 (Judt 1986). This pattern of change clearly reflected the upward mobility of socialist deputies during this period. Thus during the period of the ‘Popular Front’, half the socialist deputies came from working-class and agricultural backgrounds.

How did the alliances between radicals and socialists and the continuing growth of the Left impact on reducing social inequality in education during this period? The consensus among republicans and the broad social class constituency that supported them in the 1880s favoured universal primary education which led to free secular education for all. The support of radicals, socialists and the trade unions representing a broad socio-economic milieu supported more equal access to secondary education and a radical transformation of the parallel system. This resulted in free secondary education from 1930 and the raising of the school-leaving age to 14. The education policy of the ‘Popular Front’ under the education Ministry of Jean Zay reflecting the alliance of progressive social classes resulted in the plan for secondary common schooling for all children by amalgamating the first four years of the secondary school with the E.P.S.

This discussion of the importance of the explanatory factor of the alliance of progressive social classes suggests that the reduction of educational inequality during the Third Republic depended on a constellation of socio-economic groupings whose interests lay in promoting educational and social mobility and in the espousal of social equality in education by the political parties that represented them. A key mechanism for the formation of social class alliances was the ever-expanding influence of left-wing parties particularly of the SFIO (socialist party) .

The Nature of the State During the Third Republic

Despite the conflictual politics between left and right, clericals and anti-clericals , the French state could be said to have been regarded, as above politics as a defender and protector of human rights and a guarantor of liberties (i.e. assembly, association and speech) and of a formal equality (Knapp and Wright 2001). The history of revolution in France from the time of the Revolution and incorporating the Left shows support for a central authority embodied in the state, with some notable exceptions e.g. the Paris Commune of May 1871. This in fact goes beyond the Revolution to the philosophes of the Enlightenment who defended the national authority against the ultramontanism of the Catholic Church. The French Left, including socialists and communists, in keeping with the traditions of the Revolution, recognized the importance of the state as guarantor of the inalienable rights of its citizens rather than a source of oppression. It was seen as embodying the sovereignty of the people who could confer legitimacy through universal suffrage or withdraw it when the need arose (Judt 1986.). This was of particular relevance during the Third Republic when the Republic itself was under threat. More than at any other period, the Third Republic sustained the umbilical link between the state and the school in the common birth of republic and public education because it relied on the school, which it created, for its legitimacy and for transmitting its values. In this way it forged the state as nation with the people united around its cultural values.

The French state during the Third Republic maintained the centralised characteristics inherited from the Revolution and Napoleon , and going back to the Ancien Régime (de Tocqueville 1955). The overarching state through its departmental administrative arm was able to reach into all corners of the héxagone. While the Revolution had initiated state responsibility for education, the Third Republic, having removed the political and educational influence of the Catholic Church during the 1880s, assumed full responsibility in this regard. Enormous sums of money were spent on school buildings and the five-year report in 1901–02 put the total for this whole operation at 1 billion francs (Levasseur 1907). The Third Republic’s success in systematising and centralizing the public service of primary education was largely due to the centralised nature of the state. It was important for carrying out primary education laws in a coherent and systematic way so that the essential reforms took place throughout the whole country in a short space of time. This contrasts with the situation in England where primary education reform took place in a piecemeal way and over a few decades. In France this coherence was also due to the consensus across political parties for the reform.

The French state embodied the universal values of the Republic – of liberté, fraternité and égalité and of laïcité . Thus the movement for l’école unique was directly in consonance with these ideals of the state in contrast to the parallel system of education for different social classes it wanted to replace, which went against it. However, the republic was at that time under threat from its enemies on the Right who vehemently opposed the policy in favour of l’école unique. The situation was much more protracted than in the case of universal primary education. Education Minister, Jean Zay’s reform Bill was left unread in Parliament and anticipating that legislative attempts to bring about common schooling at lower secondary level would only produce a stalemate in parliament, he followed the administrative route instead. By turning to the state institution of the Conseil Supérieure de la Fonction Publique, he gained authorisation for his reform and in 1937, through decree, he was able to bring this about. This example of intervention by the state advanced social equality in education.

This chapter has focused for the most part on the degree to which the centralised state in France had an impact on educational policy and educational structure. It is important also to analyse comparatively the impact on educational outcomes in terms of social equality in education. For this we need to look at recruitment figures for school attendance. Grew and Harrigan (1991) carried out important research in relation to this. They analysed quantitatively the growth of primary schooling in France during the 19th century based on data from the national records: Statistique de l’Enseignement and Statistique Générale de la France for population and economic data. They presented a picture of steady increase in enrolment throughout the century which contrasts with the impression commonly given by commentators. Grew and Harrigan’s figures (see Table 6.1 below) are similar to those of Lévasseur (1897) for France over the period up to 1895.

Table 6.1 Number of students enrolled in primary and higher primary schools
Full size table

In order to provide a picture of progressive enrolment throughout the century, Grew and Harrigan used the benchmarks of 50%, 75% and 100% enrolment. A department would achieve a 50% enrolment if all children between 6 and 13 years attended school for three and a half years, or half of the children attended for 7 years. These are composite figures and the reality was somewhere in between. The first benchmark of 50% was achieved by all départments by 1876. To achieve 75% a department would need to have all school age children enrolled for over 5 years, or three-quarters of them for 7 years. This benchmark of 75% was achieved by all départements by 1881. The equivalent of 100% enrolment was reached in the same year by 93% of départements. Grew and Harrigan also add that by 1881 98% of France’s departments had the equivalent of everyone between 5 and 15 years in school for at least 6 years (1991 Table E.9, 59)’.

Levasseur (1889), renowned for his statistical rigour puts these figures into perspective. From his statistics of the French population by age group based on the census of 1881, the number of children between the ages of 6 and 13 was 4,583,000 (figures given in 1000s). However the number of children registered in primary schools for 1880–81 were 5,019,363 (Levasseur 1897, 91) – the data for this year is missing in Grew and Harrigan’s figures. This shows more than 100%. The reason for the extra students could be explained by children over school-age attending and this is to be expected as the E.P.S students are included. If we take the total number of children between 6 and 14 years according to the census of 1881, there are 5,213,000 – which equates to approximately 96.1% registered. While these figures include some children between 12 and 15, at the same time it does not include those who received instruction at home, nor in schools for apprentices, petits séminaires , military schools, nor the junior classes of the lycée (where, according to Grew and Harrigan 1991, 84, there were 71,000 students under 13 in 1886). When one considers all this data a very powerful case is to be made that before the Ferry Laws in 1882 made primary schooling compulsory, there was close to 100% of children between 6 and 13 in some form of schooling.

The duration of the school year was another aspect of growth. While enrolment at school increased steadily throughout the century there was concern among educators about attendance throughout the school year which did not increase at the same rate. While the six-month school year was common early on in the century, the 11-month year became the norm as the century progressed (Grew and Harrigan 1991). Poor attendance particularly during the summer and harvest periods was a feature, which many commentators referred to often as endemic to the system. By 1881, before the Ferry laws, nearly all départements achieved around 70% summer attendance by school age children and by 1906 not quite half the departments had achieved the equivalent of 100% summer attendance. According to Grew and Harrigan , much of the historical emphasis on resistance to schooling by parents may have been due to a misunderstanding about summer attendance and taking it as a representation of attendance in general. The picture overall was at variance with that given by commentators, as Grew and Harrigan (1991) point out:

The fact remains that the picture emerging from these structured statistics contrasts with a common impression that schooling in France was for a long time inadequate, progressed slowly and late, and had to overcome great local resistance. Ironically, that dark picture comes primarily from the inspectors themselves, the very men who gathered these statistics, and from the way historians have used their reports. (14)

The intervention of the state on behalf of public education was one example of republican equality which formed part of an expanding range of public services accessible to all French citizens on an equal basis. This was possible because the French state had a sufficiently developed organisational apparatus capable of implementing educational reforms in a relatively short space of time. This is in contrast to the situation in England as will be seen in the next chapter. In this way, it is suggested, the centralized state was an important factor in the reduction of educational inequality during the Third Republic.