For a long time, boys and girls were separated at school, even in mixed establishments. For a very long time.
Photo dated 1955 of children showing their school bags at the start of the school year in Paris I UPI / AFP
Photo dated 1955 of children showing their school bags at the start of the school year in Paris I UPI / AFP
Reading time: 5 minutes
At a time when the principle of co-education in schools is being challenged by politicians and education researchers, it is highly beneficial to recall the time it took to establish it: a long process from 1792 to 1976.
In 1862, there were 18,000 mixed schools in France, out of a total of 70,000 . Desired by Condorcet in his education plan in 1792, they had existed since an order by François Guizot in 1836, when it was the only solution for educating girls. These mixed schools had playgrounds that were strictly non-mixed in principle. A skylight of suitable height was prescribed by regulation to separate girls and boys.
The Goblet law, in 1886, established the organization of compulsory public schools, “special” schools , that is, for boys or girls, and specified that coeducation applied to under 35 students. The previous regulation on the separation of classes was not mentioned in the law, but the provisions remained.
A mixed school but separate students
In 1887, a decree provided for another mix: two special schools with a single class could become a single one with two levels, that of the “little ones” and that of the “big ones” . Girls and boys were brought together but not “mixed” , neither during recess, nor in class for that matter, where two separate parts were arranged. This was called co-education or gemination, i.e. the grouping of boys and girls by age.
At recess, “everyone at home” . The maneuver is easy if the two classes are in the new schools of the Third Republic type plan , with their symmetrical courtyards, otherwise it is delicate since it is necessary to accompany the children from one school to another to reunite them according to their gender.
The risk of a mixed playground, to simplify things, is then proven. Priority is given to local initiatives, but the plans must be provided and approved by ministerial agreement. A certain distance between the playgrounds can be tolerated, but how much? It is couples of teachers who are in charge of the so-called twin schools (Viviani decree, March 1914) to avoid any risk of promiscuity between teachers and girl students, particularly during breaks.
The application of this law which calls into question the playground was done in three ways: not at all, very willingly, or with difficulties. A tripartite map of France would be too summary but indicative all the same. Religious or political divide? The two can “blend into a perfect alloy” .
The distinction between the pros and cons is ideological. On one side, the “new education” which claims to be inspired by Rousseau, advocating trust in the human person, defended by Pauline Kergomard , founder of the nursery school, on the other that of Catholic conservatives such as Abbé Desgranges or Xavier Vallat .
In difficult cases, mayors claim “not to be able to guarantee order in their community” , others threaten to resign. For parents of pupils, “this promiscuity is not without danger for morals and sometimes even for the physical health of children aged 10 to 13” .
These protests can become petitions. Not to mention the support of the Church during actions undertaken against co-education, such as the school strike. The students are then welcomed in religious schools, which were able to be opened especially for the occasion. The inspector of the Doubs Academy denounces in a letter dated 1934 “a traditionalism eager to demonstrate its power and to revive vanished times for its own benefit” .
An exemplary illustration
Let us take the case of a commune in the Lot which had two mixed schools, adapted to a very dispersed habitat, since 1891. In May 1925, the priest demanded from the pulpit the separation of the classes of the two schools.
This was done fifteen days later with the help of the faithful, who brought wood to build the separation skylights under his threat of depriving the children attending them of solemn communion. One of the two teachers concerned warned her inspector in a letter: “I do not separate the pupils during recess, I let them play freely.”
Change in the playground was not made from the top down; the 1933 law, which approached it cautiously, encountered difficulties. Total co-education in schools did not impose itself after the war, as a fairly widespread belief would have it. It was imposed slowly, not without turmoil and even conflict, and in a non-linear way. An additional reason to defend this outcome.