This is a hitherto little-developed, yet essential, approach.
Yes, plurilingualism, when we take a close look at the concept of language in terms of both its educational scope and everyday life, reveals a social dimension which deserves attention.
We take as our starting point the practical case which has recently emerged that levels of literacy (language) and numeracy (mathematics) are falling in most Western countries, and in France in particular, with serious economic and social consequences.
The temptation is strong to link this phenomenon to the Internet and the emergence of networks. This is undoubtedly partly true, given that to establish this type of relationship, there needs to be a certain parallelism between the observation periods, and the means of observation need to be fairly complete. It would seem that these two conditions are only partly met.
The hypothesis we're going to discuss here is that, after decades of ignoring the linguistic fact with negative social and economic consequences yet to be made explicit, we are witnessing, or should witness, a great comeback of language and language in education.
A convergence of observations
For decades, critics have been denouncing the decline in academic standards. For a long time, these warnings were simply denied by both educationalists and the school system. Today, we need to agree on what we're talking about.
If we're talking about comparing the level of the baccalauréat in the 1960s with that of the baccalauréat today, it's obvious. There's no arguing about it.
But if we want to compare the overall level of the population, the conclusion is the opposite, because when you make a whole population literate, it's normal for the general level to rise. This does not mean, however, that the best elements of the population should be ignored. There is a dissociation between the level of individual diplomas and the general level of the population.
The international surveys organized by the OECD tell us a lot.
- Since its first edition in 2000, the best-known PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) survey has assessed the skills of 15-year-old students every three years in three main areas: reading, mathematical and scientific literacy. Since 2000, France's results in the PISA surveys have shown a general downward trend, particularly in mathematics and reading comprehension. Germany, Finland and Norway also show significant declines in mathematics. Conversely, Canada ranks among the top performers in reading comprehension. In mathematics, Asian countries such as Singapore, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Japan regularly dominate the rankings.
- Every five years, the international Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) assesses students' reading comprehension skills at the end of the fourth year of compulsory schooling (CM1 in France). The results of the 2021 edition show that France achieved an average score of 514 points, above the international average of 500 points, but below the European average of 527 points. After fifteen years of steadily declining performance, France stabilized its results in 2021, in contrast to the majority of European countries, which recorded a statistically significant decline, with an average drop of 11 points compared to 2016. Situations are therefore quite different from one country to another. The differentiating factors between countries are :
- A strong emphasis on reading from an early age
- The importance of in-service teacher training
- A pedagogical environment conducive to differentiated learning, a factor linked to ongoing training.
Detailed analysis of these international surveys and specific studies have enabled us to confirm certain results over the last twenty years.
As far as the impact of new technologies is concerned, we know that students who spend more than two hours a day on screens outside school perform significantly worse in reading than those who spend less time in front of a screen.
As far as teaching methods are concerned, we know that educational reforms focusing on inductive methods and pupil autonomy have a negative impact on pupils from working-class backgrounds, who require a more structured framework to progress. We therefore need to be able to apply differentiated teaching methods according to children's profiles, which, incidentally, makes the work of teachers more complex and demanding, implying higher levels of teacher training.
As far as linguistic diversity is concerned, we know that allophone pupils (whose mother tongue is not French) are more often in difficulty with written and spoken French.
Of course, we can't be satisfied with averages alone. We also need to look at inequalities, and see whether the trends observed concern all students equally, or whether certain categories are more affected than others. The fact is that these are global phenomena, but their effects are more marked for the poorer categories. In other words, inequalities are worsening, whereas the vocation of schools is not only to raise the general level of the population, but also to reduce inequalities through equal opportunities.
This observation has far-reaching consequences. Not only does the social elevator function less well, but we are also witnessing massive phenomena that are undermining society as a whole.
The similarity of certain percentages is striking.
NEET in perspective
According to one study, around 50% of students entering junior high school have not fully mastered the fundamentals of elementary school curricula, with around 15% experiencing serious difficulties in reading and mathematics.
In 2021, it was estimated that around 13% of 18-24 year-olds in France were "school drop-outs", i.e. without a diploma or training.
The calculation is easy. Consider a cohort of 700,000 students. 15% of 700,000 is 115,000 students, or 1,725,000 young people in 15 years.
The acronym NEET, in French Ni en Études, ni en Emploi, ni en Formation (neither in education, employment or training), is becoming increasingly familiar. The concept was developed by the OECD to better understand the situation of a population of young people, generally aged between 15 and 29, on the job market and in the education system. It is used by Eurostat for European countries and by Insee in France. This figure is estimated at around 1.5 million people, which in France, for example, represents 50% of the total population who, for various reasons, while still of working age, are durably distanced from the labor market, estimated at around 3 million.
If we compare this number of 1.5 million young people, i.e. 12-13% of the total population of the same age, with the cohorts of young people who arrive at secondary school without the fundamentals, i.e. French and math, that they need to follow a normal course of education, it's easy to understand that students in this situation have a very high risk, if they are not sufficiently supported, of joining the NEET group.
Going back in time
It's not enough to simply take stock of the current situation. To understand the dynamics at work, we need to go back to the 1960s-1970s, when the process of democratization and massification of education was still far from complete.
In the 1960s-1970s, repetition was the default response to school failure. It was also a means of guaranteeing the academic quality of education. The repetition rate was very high, approaching 50% at the end of elementary school. Middle school enrolment was rising rapidly, as compulsory schooling had been extended to age 16 in 1959.
At the same time as school enrolment was on a massive scale, so was school failure. It is estimated that in the 1960s-1970s, between 30% and 40% of pupils - the so-called "drop-outs" - left the school system without any qualifications before entering upper secondary education.
This led to the discovery of massive school failure, and the first response was the creation of the SES (Section d'Education Spéciale) in 1963, which were replaced in 1996 by the SEGPA (Section d'Enseignement Général et Professionnel Adapté). Of course, neither the SES nor the SEGPA were intended to correct the educational trajectory of all pupils who had not mastered the fundamentals sufficiently to pursue a normal education.
As middle school education became more democratic, the number of students dropping out of school declined, albeit slowly. In the 1980s, around 25% of young people still left school without a diploma, despite an extremely high repetition rate.
The ineffectiveness of repetition was obvious. From the 1980s onwards, the aim was to reduce the repetition rate, in the belief that the mere fact of reducing repetition would have a positive impact on students' progress. In reality, however, this meant shifting the problem and shifting onto the collège the burden of a mission not taken on by the primary level. By passing struggling pupils on to the next level without any support, we could only reinforce the dropout rate in the long term, and feed what would later be known as NEET. We've come full circle. Let's look for the mistake.
For a long time, the reduction in repetition was achieved without any real alternative measures being put in place. Teachers found themselves faced with pupils in great difficulty, with no specific tools or resources to help them.
In the 1990s, the government began to take action to combat the dropout problem. Measures such as remedial classes and local missions were set up to reintegrate young dropouts.
At the end of the 1990s, the rate of school leavers with no qualifications was around 15% to 20%. This figure reflects a clear improvement on previous decades, but is still very high.
In 2000, we introduced Personalized Educational Success Programs (PPRE) and refresher courses (set up during the school vacations). However, these schemes were often underfunded and depended on the motivation of teachers.
Since the 2010s, we've been developing schemes such as personalized support (starting in middle school), homework assignments and the Unités Localisées pour l'Inclusion Scolaire (ULIS) for students with special needs.
Nevertheless, these measures are often criticized for their lack of universality, uneven implementation and lack of human and financial resources.
A steady decline in the level of French language skills over more than thirty years
Overall, despite the difficulties, the general level of the population has not fallen. However, the average rise in level is not perceived as such, and coexists with a general feeling of downgrading. For reasons that are easy to explain. Firstly, the length of studies has increased considerably. Secondly, the chances of rising to positions of responsibility have fallen. François Dubet and Marie Duru-Bellat1 point out that, in the 1960s, people with a higher education diploma had every chance of holding a management job. Today, this probability is increasingly low, and access to a managerial job is becoming the prerogative of the most highly qualified young people: while this is the case for almost all PhDs and two-thirds of "bac +5" graduates (when all fields of study are taken into account), the figure drops to 13% for "bac +3" (or 4) graduates, 6% for "bac +2" graduates, and becomes virtually nil with the baccalaureate alone.
However, the decline in French language levels (in France) is an objective fact. Admittedly, it is partly linked to the competition between the screen and reading. But the decline in French language levels goes back a long way, and according to studies carried out by the Ministry of Education's DEPP, began in the late 1980s.
A comparative study by DEPP has revealed that CM2 pupils in 2021 scored lower in spelling than those assessed in 1987, 2007 and 2015. In 2021, pupils made an average of 19.4 errors during a dictation, compared with 10.7 in 1987, 14.7 in 2007 and 18 in 2015.2
Another older study, not using the same methodology, compared the French language skills of students in the 1920s with those of 1996. The results showed that, on average, 1996 pupils made 2.5 times as many mistakes as 1920s pupils. Whereas in the 1920s, almost a quarter of pupils made 0 or 1 spelling mistake, in 1996 only 5% did, meaning that 95% made more than one spelling mistake in 1996, compared with 75% in 1920.3
François Dubet and Marie Duru-Bellat4 note that "although the number of pupils repeating a year has been drastically reduced, this has not meant that their difficulties have disappeared; and in the absence of specific pedagogical measures, many teachers and the Ministry itself observe that the average level of pupils leaving primary school has fallen overall since the first strictly comparable assessments were carried out, i.e. since the end of the 1980s[1]. This is particularly the case in French, and especially for weaker pupils, with a consequent marked widening of inequalities between pupils, depending in particular on their social background. These inequalities from the earliest stages of learning will accumulate thereafter, even if pupils go further.
Today, everyone agrees that the weakest point in the education system is at elementary school level, i.e. the acquisition of the fundamentals, i.e. French (for France) and mathematics.
Hence the standardized assessments, with the sole aim of identifying changes on entry to collège and primary school at the start of CE1 put in place in 2017 and 2018. Hence Minister Michel Blanquer's much-maligned initiative at the outset to double up kindergarten and elementary school CP classes in priority zones.
It's surprising that the diagnosis has come so late, as if since the 1980s we've been doing exactly the opposite of what we should be doing. For 30 years, the focus has been on middle schools, and little on elementary school.
No doubt it was thought that the fundamentals, i.e. French (for France) and mathematics, were not really "fundamentals" and that pupils had plenty of time to learn French. So we started doing something else, when we should have been thinking in the opposite direction, and considered that only a sufficient mastery of French would enable us to do something else. Let's be clear about the notion of mastery. There's no question of turning our children into future agrégés. It's a question of acquiring the fundamentals that are absolutely essential for gaining autonomy and access in the best possible conditions to knowledge that is both useful to society and a guarantee of personal fulfillment. That's how we build society.
We made a big mistake
In our view, the root of all this lies in a conceptual failure. It's as if language had become an unknown from which it was possible to free oneself. No doubt this was an unexpected and unfounded consequence of linguistics' accession to the status of a science among the sciences. Language, no longer the exclusive mediator between man and reality, had suddenly become a simple communication tool or object of study.
But we didn't have to think that way.
In 1975, Italian linguist and politician Tullio de Mauro published "Ten Theses for a Democratic Linguistic Education" as part of a collective effort (Le GISCEL Groupe d'intervention et d'étude dans le domaine de l'éducation Linguistique). This document had a major impact in Italy, influencing didactic and sociolinguistic research and promoting plurilingual and intercultural education.
The first article in Dieci tesi sheds light on the concept of the "centrality of verbal language":
"Verbal language is of fundamental importance in social and individual life because, thanks to the receptive (ability to understand) and productive mastery of words and phrases, we can understand others and make ourselves understood (communicative uses); order and subject experience to analysis (heuristic and cognitive uses); intervene to transform experience itself (emotional, argumentative uses, etc.). We are not limiting the importance of verbal language, but rather placing it in a more appropriate context, emphasizing that in general, and in human beings in particular, it is one of the forms assumed by the communicative capacity, which has been variously called the fundamental symbolic capacity or the semiological (or semiotic) capacity. And, once again, both in general and in theory, and in the concrete and specific development of human organisms, verbal language maintains very close relations with the rest of the expressive and symbolic capacities and activities."
In article 2, Tullio de Mauro continues:
Given the many links with individual and social life, it is obvious (but perhaps not irrelevant) to assert that the development of language skills is rooted in the development of the whole human being, from childhood to adulthood, i.e. in the possibilities for psychomotor growth and socialization, in the balance of emotional relationships, in the awakening and maturing of intellectual interests, and in participation in the life of a culture and community.
In contrast, the French Education Act of July 10, 1989, known as the "Jospin Law", only mentions language once and in connection with regional languages.
In other words, the question of language is simply ignored. This linguistic non-issue, well established for decades, is still with us.
A return to language
A belated realization took shape with Jack Lang, Minister of Education from 2000 to 2002, who marked an effort to detect school difficulties early and treat them with differentiated teaching methods.
The drafters of the 2006 socle commun put the French language (for France) at the forefront of learning, and at the same time opened up the teaching of French at secondary level to French literature. In addition, a timely and even fundamental definition of what is meant by "mastery of the language" is introduced: "Helping all pupils to master the French language, to express themselves precisely and clearly, both orally and in writing, is a matter for the teaching of French, but also for all disciplines", followed by an asserted mission for the entire educational community: "Every teacher and all members of the educational community are accountable for this priority mission of the educational institution."
In 2011, Apprendre à lire5, which emphasizes the vital importance of early learning, was published under the direction of Stanislas Dehaene, a neuroscientist specializing in cognitive psychology.
This trend will be confirmed in the 2016 version of the Common Base with back-to-school instructions for its unequivocal application:
In Cycle 2, the French language is the central focus of learning. The construction of meaning and automaticity are two necessary dimensions of language mastery. Mastery of the phonographic code, from sounds to letters and vice versa, is an essential part of learning French in Cycle 2. However, learning to read also means understanding narrative or documentary texts, and beginning to interpret and appreciate texts, by understanding what is sometimes not entirely explicit. This learning process is carried out in writing and reading simultaneously and in a complementary way. The central role given to the French language is not achieved at the expense of other learning. On the contrary, language is also a tool for all the learning activities in the cycle, in fields that each have their own language... Language is a means of giving greater meaning to learning, since it builds links between the various lessons and enables us to integrate real-life experiences into language.
In 2017, in a noteworthy article published in the magazine Esprit6, Pierre Judet de la Combe “Language, finally a raw material for school?”
The 2015 program reform extends the focus on language to cycle 1, i.e. kindergarten.
In 2020, in a Ministry guide "based on the state of research" "Pour enseigner le vocabulaire à l'école maternelle", it is written:
Every day, in all learning situations, but also in everyday exchanges and thanks to the stories the teacher tells or reads, children discover new words that they need to reuse to express themselves and make themselves understood. However, mere exposure is clearly insufficient to acquire a sufficiently rich vocabulary. Vocabulary enrichment requires explicit, directed learning, with specific sequences, regular classification activities, word memorization, vocabulary reuse and interpretation of unfamiliar terms based on context or morphology.
Many of the guides that followed confirmed this refocusing on the French language and languages, while making room for "world" and immigrant languages and cultures.
After half a century of misguidance, we can only hope that the new generations will be better equipped to face the challenges of the future, especially those of artificial intelligence, because understanding the world requires a mastery of language.
Many a philosopher has foreseen the impasse into which the marginalization of linguistic fact in the scale of knowledge would lead us.
We could draw on the issues raised by Ernst Cassirer, Merleau-Ponty, Hannah Arendt, Umberto Eco, Paul Ricœur and Barbara Cassin. We will limit ourselves to Michel Foucault's invocation of a return to language and to language in Les Mots et les Choses, after noting the displacement of the centrality of language in modern knowledge:
"Perhaps it [language] will return in a different light; perhaps it will regain, in a different form, that brilliance from which it was all knowing of things." Are we at that decisive turning point?
2Note d'information n°22.37, December 2022. https://www.education.gouv.fr/media/119533/download
3Ministère de l'Education nationale, Direction de l'évaluation et de la prospective (DEP), February 1996 https://michel.delord.free.fr/cep96.pdf
4Dito
5 Publisher Odile Jacob, Paris, 2011, 155 p.
6 revew Esprit No. 437, September 2017