In France, urban policy targets urban neighbourhoods facing very serious social and economic difficulties, initially referred to as ‘sensitive urban areas’ and, since 2014, as ‘priority neighbourhoods’. These neighbourhoods receive public funding aimed at reducing urban segregation and improving residents’ living conditions (housing, public services, safety) and their socio-economic opportunities (education, employment). Numerous research studies have weighed up the benefits against the potentially counterproductive effects of public policies implemented in these neighbourhoods. This paper examines a little-documented downside of urban policy: territorial stigmatisation, which is analysed here through the lens of school avoidance of state middle schools / lower secondary schools located in neighbourhoods designated under the policy.
Truancy: a ‘boomerang’ effect of labelling in Urban policy?
Presentation
Key Results
- State middle schools / lower secondary schools in neighbourhoods covered by the Urban policy have seen an increase in school avoidance compared with middle schools / lower secondary schools in counterfactual neighbourhoods situated above the eligibility threshold.
- On entry to Year 6, the proportion of pupils enrolled in these middle schools / lower secondary schools thus fell by an average of 3.5 percentage points, representing approximately 6 fewer pupils compared with the counterfactual middle schools / lower secondary schools.
- This school avoidance was immediate and persisted for up to five years after the reform of
the priority areas. - It affected all families, but those from more modest socio-occupational backgrounds
tended to opt for state middle schools / lower secondary schools, whilst those from more affluent backgrounds
tended to opt for private middle schools / lower secondary schools. - Public middle schools / lower secondary schools in neighbourhoods no longer covered by the priority areas policy, however, did not experience any increase in attractiveness following the reform, compared with counterfactual neighbourhoods still included within the scope of the Urban policy.
This study raises the question of the relevance of ‘zoning’ policies, given the effect of reinforcing social segregation in schools highlighted here. Given the potentially negative consequences of this segregation on pupils’ academic success, these findings suggest that priority should be given to directly targeting pupils in difficulty, rather than neighbourhoods and their schools.
Method and Data
The study is based on a reform of the priority areas introduced in 2014, known as the Lamy reform, named after the Minister for Urban Affairs at the time, which redrew the map of targeted neighbourhoods using a very fine grid division of the territory and an eligibility threshold based on the median taxable income of residents in each grid square. Although the school catchment area (map) was not altered by the reform, some middle schools / lower secondary schools thus ‘entered’ the policy’s scope, whilst others ‘exited’ it. Comparing middle schools / lower secondary schools in neighbourhoods situated just above and below the eligibility threshold, before and after the reform, makes it possible to assess the average causal impact of a neighbourhood’s designation under Urban policy on school avoidance.
To assess the effect of the urban policy on secondary school choice and academic achievement among pupils in priority neighbourhoods, the authors drew on the Urban Policy Geographical Information System, within which schools can be geolocated.
Data from the Ministry of National Education’s statistical service (Directorate for Evaluation, Forecasting and Performance) make it possible to identify the middle school / lower secondary school at which each pupil is enrolled, whether state or private, and their ‘zone 2’ middle school / lower secondary school.
The authors use a ‘double difference’ estimation method, which allows them to compare parents’ propensity to enrol their child in a sector middle school / lower secondary school that fell within the scope of the Urban policy in 2014 (or in another neighbouring state or private middle school / lower secondary school), relative to families whose local middle school / lower secondary school is situated in a neighbourhood just above the poverty line; this control group is used as a ‘Counterfactual’ to the changes that would have been observed had the ‘priority’ designation not been introduced.
