France and Germany are among the European countries where a pupil's performance at school depends most on his or her social background. According to the 2023 PISA international survey, the difference in performance on mathematics tests between the most socially advantaged and the most socially disadvantaged students was 113 points in France and 111 points in Germany, both well above the OECD average of 93 points(OECD, 2023b, 2023a).

Numerous measures have been taken in Germany and France to address the 'big problem' of the strong correlation between social background and educational outcomes. The European Eurydice report on equity in education distinguishes several types of policy aimed at reducing this correlation(Eurydice, 2020).These are: support measures, which grant aid to socially disadvantaged schools and pupils; stratification policies, which modify the structure of the education system by reforming the number of secondary school streams, for example ; and, finally, standardisation policies, which determine the standards set in the school system, such as the level of autonomy of schools and the type of diplomas awarded.

I focus on two recent support policies: Schule macht stark (school makes you strong) (SchuMaS) developed in Germany in 2019 and Les contrats locaux d'accompagnement (local support contracts) (CLA) launched in France in 2020. These policies share an experimental format with an implementation in a limited number of schools (with option to be extended) and a limited budget. I am intrigued by the deliberately restricted format of these two policies. I want to explore the relationship that these 'small' policies have with other measures in France and Germany that also tackle the 'big' problem of social inequalities in education.

I ask the question: to what extent are SchuMaS and CLA bringing about change in the way social inequalities in education are dealt with in France and Germany?

To answer this question, I choose a neo-institutionalist approach(Scott, 2014). The institution I am interested in here is 'addressing social inequalities in education'. In France, the treatment of social inequalities in education is essentially thought of in terms of support policies. For the past forty years, the French have sought to reduce the impact of social origin on school results mostly by granting additional resources to schools with a high proportion of socially disadvantaged pupils (Heurdier, 2023). In Germany, the treatment of social inequalities is essentially thought of in terms of stratification policies. Debates about the advantages of a tiered school system drew the attention of politicians and impacted their approach to tackling social inequalities (Maaz, 2020). The German way of addressing social inequalities in education has traditionally focused on (de-)stratification measures. These two different ways of looking at the same problem inside Europe make the Franco-German comparison particularly relevant.

I put forward two hypotheses: H1 (self-reinforcement mechanisms)(Mahoney, 2000): CLA and SchuMaS do not break with the policies that developed before them. They confirm the path dependence of the way social inequalities are tackled in France and Germany. The ‘smallness’ of the policies would be a sign that they are being launched for political reasons, to give the impression that measures are being taken to combat social inequalities in education, but without really changing what was being done before. They would be "small" measures taken on the surface to avoid changing the education system in depth.

H2 (layering)(Mahoney & Thelen, 2010): CLA and SchuMaS bring about a gradual institutional change and are deployed alongside or on top of the other measures dealing with social inequalities in France and Germany. The restricted operating mode would make it possible to introduce innovation without making a sudden political break.

I follow a case study research design based on qualitative analysis. My empirical data collection takes place within the temporal framework of these policies. From 2021, the year SchuMaS and CLA were launched in schools, to 2024, when the first phase of both ended. I conducted 34 semi-structured interviews (Rathbun, 2008): 20 in France and 14 in Germany. My interview guides focused on questions about the characteristics of the CLA and SchuMaS and the relationship between these policies and what already existed in terms of the fight against social inequalities in education. I adapted a common questionnaire to the specific institutional features of each country. I also adapted the questionnaire to each interviewee. I interviewed people from the world of politics, such as the Federal Minister for Education, members of ministerial cabinets, and people from the national and regional administrations. I also interviewed trade unions, experts, and researchers from the SchuMaS research consortium. To have a glance of the reception of the policy at the local level, I also interviewed head teachers and teachers. The interviews took place face-to-face or remotely. Before each interview, I sent interviewees a consent form to take part in a research interview. The interviews lasted one hour on average. I transcribed the interviews using Noota software. I made a distinction in the processing of interviews that were conducted with public figures such as the former Federal Ministry of Education in Germany or the three rectors of the three CLA experimentation academies, for example, and interviews whose data could compromise the situation of the interviewees. In the latter case, I have anonymised the content of the interviews. To guarantee this anonymity, I coded my interviews. My analysis is also based on primary sources of various types: content collected from official websites: the French and German Ministry of Education websites, for example, or trade union websites. Also, tweets from politicians or videos of parliamentary sessions. I also used documents, including official, public documents or technical documents given to me personally. In the case of technical documents, I have anonymised certain elements where necessary. I also collected newspaper articles relevant to my analysis.

In Germany, the experimental form of SchuMaS was meant to overcome an institutional constraint: in educational matters, the federal state is limited to funding research. In France, the experimental form of CLA is used as a political tool to gain acceptance for a new way of thinking about support policies in a context of highly influential veto players. The ‘smallness’ was thus in both cases a strategy to deal with a deeply entrenched institution. Albeit with different outcomes. CLA brings a shift from support policies based essentially on social criteria to project-based funding. This change in the orientation of support policies seems to validate hypothesis 2 of an institutional change of the layering type. However, this result needs to be put in perspective, since CLA remains a support policy and reaffirms the traditional way of thinking about the treatment of social inequalities in France (H1). In Germany, SchuMaS is the first support policy launched at federal level to combat social inequalities in education. In this sense, it represents an institutional change of the layering type (H2): moving from stratification measures to support policies. I, thus, show that the apparent 'smallness' of the policies reinforced the institution of treating social inequalities in education in France, but led to institutional change through layering in Germany. Given the economic weight of France and Germany in Europe, how and whether they deal with social inequalities in education will have repercussions for other economies and is likely to influence other states’ practices. Just as the ‘small’ policies can lead to institutional change (as in Germany), these big players in Europe would do well to learn from ‘smaller’ states but that are more successful at dealing with social inequalities in education. My study thus calls for further European comparison.

Becker, R., & Lauterbach, W. (2016). Bildung als Privileg. Erklärungen und Befunde zu den Ursachen der Bildungsungleichheit. 5. Auflage. Springer VS. Eurydice. (2020). Equity in school education in Europe: Structures, policies and student performance. Felouzis, G. (2020). Les inégalités scolaires. Presses Universitaires de France. Frandji, D. (2008). Pour une comparaison des politiques d’éducation prioritaire en Europe. In M. Demeuse, D. Frandji, D. Greger, & J.-Y. Rochex (Eds.), Les politiques d’éducation prioritaire en Europe, Conceptions, mises en oeuvre, débats. Institut national de recherche pédagogique. Heurdier, L. (2023). Regards historiques sur 40 ans de politique d’éducation prioritaire en France (1981-2021). Histoire de l’éducation, 1(159), 9–43. Maaz, K. (2020). Mehrgliedrigkeit versus Eingliedrigkeit – eine unnötige Debatte? Die Problematik der Vielgliedrigkeit der Schulformen in Deutschland im Lichte internationaler Vergleiche der Schulleistungsforschung und Bildungsbenachteiligung. Lehren & Lernen, 46(2), 13–20. Mahoney, J. (2000). Path Dependence in Historical Sociology. Theory and Society, 29(4), 507–548. Mahoney, J., & Thelen, K. (2010). A Theory of Gradual Institutional Change. In J. Mahoney & K. Thelen (Eds.), Explaining Institutional Change, Ambiguity, Agency and Power (pp. 1–38). Cambridge University Press. Miethe, I., Wagner-Diehl, D., & Kleber, B. (2021). Bildungsungleichheit, Von historischen Ursprügen zu aktuellen Debatten. Verlag Barbara Budrich. OECD. (2023a). Country Note, France, Results from PISA 2022. OECD. (2023b). Country Note, Germany, Results from PISA 2022. Rathbun, B. C. (2008). Interviewing and Qualitative Field Methods: Pragmatism and Practicalities. In J. M. Box-Steffensmeier, H. E. Brady, & D. Collier (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology (pp. 685–701). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Scott, W. R. (2014). Institutions and Organizations. Ideas, Interests, and Identities. 4th Edition. SAGE Publications Inc.