Search

According to the Vichy Regime, beginning in July 1940, the whole school system, from preschool to university, had a great responsibility in the decline of patriotism justifying the rapid defeat in the face of the German armed forces. As Marshal Petain pointed out in his 20 June 1940 speech: "Since the Victory, a spirit of pleasure prevailed over the spirit of sacrifice. People claimed more than they served. Efforts were saved, and people nowadays have been living in despair." The national Revolution the Regime brought about had to help revive the true values of the Nation, founding its activities on Work, Family and Homeland. Therefore, the "undesirables" (Jews, Freemasons, Communists, ...) had to be rejected from the school system and the dissemination of national values had to prevail. As Serge Jeanneret, one of the Marshal's trustees, noted: "Making the Revolution without Schools is as useful as a sand building" (extracted from Serge Jeanneret, La vérité sur les instituteurs [The Truth about Teachers], Paris, Flammarion, 1941, p. 173). From that point of view, all the educational ministers belonging to the Vichy Regime tried to reform the school system – its organisation, its programmes and staff – in order to train a "newman", even if they sometimes fed projects launched during the interwar period. The Communist teachers and the Freemasons were expelled from schools because the 13 August 1940 Law prohibited them from working in the civil service. Registration as not belonging to secret societies was required of the educational staff. The first Jewish status (3 October 1940), then the second (2 June 1941), excluded Jews from the school system. The Act proclaimed on 21 June 1941 introduced a numerus clausus for the Jews (3%) in universities. The 8 September 1940 Act closed teacher training schools for primary staff, which were replaced by a new training organisation. The competitive examination laureates were integrated into secondary schools, passed the baccalaureate and, for one year, they attended a vocational training institute and had to undergo four different practical trainings. They had a three-month period at the vocational institute, a three-month training period in primary schools, a three-month training period in an agricultural education school or a technical school and, for women, a three-month training period in a housecraft centre, and one month's training in a regional sport centre. The Vichy Regime and the Germans also forbade certain schoolbooks. Consequently, they modified the programmes to assert the stronger continuity of French History with Ancient times. This enabled a reduction of the revolutionary and Republican impact and promoted French geography and homeland. Pupils were invited to love their local and national fatherland. That sense of belonging could induce them to remain attached to their home. The veneration of the leader, the morals for duty and sacrifice, the symbol of eternal femininity serving the family were reasserted in the educational culture. At the same time, the Vichy Regime struggled with secularism and supported private schools, giving numerous grants to Catholic schools thanks to the Law of 2 November 1941. The Minister Jacques Chevalier, with the 6 December 1940 Act, restored duties to God in civic and moral instruction programmes for primary schools (those duties had been suppressed in 1923). The Ripert Act on 15 October 1940 allowed the local education city office to award grants to poor pupils who attended private schools. The Jacques Chevalier Act on 6 January 1941 allowed cities to finance equipment charges and operational costs concerning the private schools (and especially lighting, heating and lunchrooms). The 6 January 1941 Law, by welcoming God in schools and asserting that religious instruction could exceptionally be delivered by a priest in educational buildings, modified one fundamental pillar of the French Republican School. With the 10 March 1941 Law, Jérôme Carcopino, faced with such a great number of opponents, demanded that religious instruction became optional and was studied off school premises. he Vichy Regime also reformed school organisation. Jérôme Carcopino launched the main transformations with the 15 August 1941 Act. Higher Primary Schools became modern secondary schools and were linked to secondary education in the hope of weakening them. At the same time, the selection process was reinforced. Primary schooling was divided into two cycles. The first included a preparatory class (for children aged 6–7 years), an elementary class (7–9-year-olds) and a middle class (from 9- to 11-year-olds). At the end of the first cycle, a diploma for preparatory primary studies was created and prescribed as compulsory if pupils intended to go further in public schooling (i.e. additional classes, primary or secondary high schools); but pupils who succeeded in the scholarship examination were exempted from the diploma. The second cycle (three years from age 11 to age 14) ended with the Primary Certificate. In secondary education, Jérôme Carcopino increased selection and, according to the 15 August 1941 Decree, the principle of free access was suppressed for pupils older than 14 years of age. This multidimensional reform had to face two major obstacles that considerably reduced its implementation. First, the war years were not favourable to educational change – the country was partly and afterwards totally occupied after November 1942. German troops occupied a majority of schools. Shortages were numerous and many teachers were imprisoned in Germany. Labour requisitioning progressively affected the older pupils, mainly student and fresh teachers. The Vichy Regime, after the succession principle failed – the principle was established on 22 June 1942 and proposed that one prisoner came back to France and was traded for three skilled workers sent to Germany – decided, according to the 4 September 1942 Law, to organise forced conscription for male workers (from 18 to 50 years old) and for unmarried women (from 21 to 35 years old). The constraint was then accentuated with the 16 February 1943 Law implementing Mandatory Work Service – Service du Travail Obligatoire STO – for young adults (aged 20–21 and 22-year-old men). All these young men had to be registered and the process made people-requisitioning easier. Therefore, they could definitely be sent to Germany. Second, there was a sort of revolt by the educational staff, who were deeply attached to the Republican values and the Jules Ferry conception of school. Indeed, they strove to reduce the scope of the legislation, rejecting the political choices of the Vichy Regime and also collaboration. If teachers, students and older pupils joined the collaborator parties, most of them remained prudent and followed as little as possible the Vichy Regime's instructions. They commemorated forbidden celebrations and listened to BBC radio. A minority joined the Resistance fighters and got involved in the dissemination of tracts and of clandestine papers. They also committed to information networks, escape organisations or fights against the occupiers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Worldwide, subject-matter teachers are commonplace in post-elementary schools. Teachers' specialisation appears as a key characteristic of secondary schools as opposed to the polyvalence of primary school teachers. Historians have already studied the long process of teachers' specialisation, which started, in France as in Prussia (for example), at the beginning of the nineteenth century and developed alongside secondary school modernisation. Those works have usually focused on professional aspects: the structuration of professional groups thanks to the unification of training and recruiting processes, the organisation of teachers within subject-matter associations etc. However, they have not paid much attention to the resistance opposed by other forms of pedagogical organisation, as if polyvalence were were just a backward anomaly, a backward anomaly, doomed to disappear. This paper seeks to shed new light on this question using a comparison between the different forms of post-elementary schooling that existed at the same time in France between the last third of the nineteenth century and the middle of the twentieth, when the slow growth of post-elementary schooling was mainly due to the success of subaltern institutions. In those institutions, dedicated to technical education, girls' secondary education, or upper-lower classes' education ("primaire supérieur", "secondaire special"), different kinds of polyvalence or bivalence were experienced in the classrooms. At the same time, specialisation was triumphing in classical secondary education. Why, how and to what extent did specialisation eventually impose itself in these different institutions? To address this question, two types of material are used. On the one hand, the question is studied on a national level, analysing both the legislation and the controversies it arouses in pedagogical and professional reviews. On the other hand, these views and theories are confronted with a prosopography of post-elementary school teachers in one department, Eure-et-Loir, which offers several forms of post-elementary institutions. This question is addressed focusing on literary disciplines (philosophy, French, Latin, Greek, modern languages and history and geography). By narrowing the scope, the intellectual and cultural stakes of the various pedagogical organisations that were implemented or advocated may more easily be grasped. The first part of the article examines the most common (though relatively untested) hypothesis: there was just one strategy for those who advocated the promotion of subaltern types of post-elementary schooling as part of a democratisation process, and this strategy was reproducing the model of the elite institution, secondary classical education, including its pedagogical organisation, starting with subject-matter teachers. The chronology of the changes, the content of the debates, as well as a comparative inquiry into teachers' remuneration induces us to discard this hypothesis as insufficient if not irrelevant. For girls' secondary education, a trade-off may be observed between equalisation (of salaries, rights etc.) and pedagogical alignment. For the other institutions, there was no lack of advocates for the specificity of the pedagogy or of the institution; however, specialisation was usually considered a process that could ameliorate the quality of teaching in these institutions without renouncing its specificity. In fact, in the period under study, the louder advocates for less specialised teachers came from secondary classical education itself: the specialisation process as well as the fragmentation of the class schedule had pedagogic inconveniences, abundantly noticed and commented on by subject-matter teachers themselves. In the second part, these critics and the two main alternatives suggested by the teachers are examined. The first is linked with the Progressive Education movement ("Education nouvelle" in French). The École des Roches, a private institution, tested an original organisation that combined the tradition of the humanities with the modern characteristic of "Éducation nouvelle": there was only one teacher for history, geography, French, Latin and Greek. The teacher was thus enabled to practise a pedagogy of interest, as advocated by Ovide Decroly. The second alternative was advocated by some modern language teachers: if modern language teachers could teach French as well as a modern language, this pedagogic organisation could give strong unity to the until then defective "modern" curriculum (without Latin). The third part turns towards the effective organisation of post-elementary schools in Eure-et-Loir. To what extent were these alternative conceptions of pedagogical organisation implemented? The analysis of individual records of teachers suggests several results. First of all, in small institutions – be they classical secondary institutions like "collèges" or modern ones like "écoles primaires supérieures" – specialisation of services was a luxury that most teachers could not afford. Most of the time, they had to teach several subjects, even if they had been trained for just one. However, polyvalence was not used as an opportunity to make connections between the subjects. Class schedules rarely enabled teachers to use polyvalence as a way to teach several subjects to the same pupils. More often, polyvalence was used by the administration as an expedient that some teachers explicitly tried to escape, for example by asking for a move to a bigger institution. This mundane reality of small institutions invites us to pay renewed attention to teacher training and its regulation during the same period. At the end of the nineteenth century, teachers' specialisation had been inextricably linked with the modernisation of universities through the specialisation of the "licence de lettres" in 1880. When this model proved to be partially irrelevant for a significant proportion of post-elementary schools, how did universities react? Were universities fit for something other than training specialised teachers? The answer is yes. The curriculum organisation of the licence opened up several possibilities for training polyvalent teachers. This perspective was still looming at the end of the 1930s. The curricula of the different post-elementary settings analysed in this article shared the same characteristics: they worked as "serial codes" not as "integrated codes", to quote Basil Bernstein. Therefore the specialisation, bivalence or polyvalence of the teachers did not have much influence, in itself, on the degree of integration of the curriculum. From this perspective, specialisation could probably guarantee better teaching of the subject matters. However, polyvalent teachers were better suited to small schools than specialist ones. Considering demographic and geographic constraints, there was a clear trade-off between specialisation of teachers and separation of publics. In small cities, it was necessary either to mix the pupils to specialise the teachers, or to accept some kind of polyvalence to keep different types of students separated; the debate was still open during the 1930s. School massification, coeducation and the baby-boom era rapidly settled the matter for small cities after the Second World War, giving way to an effective specialisation of teachers. But the question remained open, until the end of the 1970s, for rural settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]