Can we still save primary school? – release

Among the reasons pointed out by The report of the Court of Auditors Published this week on the failures of the French primary school, there is one which arouses more than other anger as the scenario was written in advance: the absurdity of what is agreed to call School rhythms. Rhythms of the day, week, year, which are, reminds us of the Court of Auditors, « Departing with the needs of the child ». A clarification if it was needed: this question obviously cannot explain the failure of the school alone to compensate for the social inequalities that the magistrates of rue Cambon point. But this story of rhythms is very emblematic of nonsense committed with full knowledge of cause by political power. No one who has worked a little bit the subject discovers thanks to this report that The choice of France to opt for the four -day week is an inept choice. Thirty years ago, and no doubt more, chronobiologists already alerted to the inanity of this concentration over four days of class hours.

So why did you immerse both feet forward in a system that does not put the child at the center of reflection? The mystery is not very thick. The right, under Nicolas Sarkozy for example, but also with Jean-Michel Blanquer, preferred to favor the economic interests of the country, especially in the tourism sector. Whatever well-being, and therefore the capacity for concentration, of children. The left? If she tried to deviate from this damn four -day week, she was also sensitive to the wishes of teachers, a historically acquired corporation (it is much less true today). Right and left were also under a more global societal pressure, the French, in any case those who have the means, being eager to better benefit from their weekends. For all these reasons, where educational but also economic and societal choices come across, this question of rhythms is edifying. But unfortunately, if the diagnosis on the dead end of these four days is clear, any backwards will be complex.