Since the 1980s, many OECD countries have experienced a process of decentralization of educational policies, emphasizing the need for a territorial approach (Delage & al., 2023). Despite its deeply centralized political system, France is also part of this movement, as reflected in 2019 by the creation of the Cité éducative. Encouraging partnerships between central government and local actors, its aim is to improve educational support for young people (aged 0–25) in and out of school in disadvantaged urban areas. This new program lies at the intersection of two territorial policies that target less favoured areas: education policy, which since 1981 has implemented priority education policy in primary and secondary schools (Zone d’éducation prioritaire which became Réseau d’éducation prioritaire in 2014), and the urban policy, with specific measures for underprivileged neighbourhoods called Priority Neighbourhoods (creation of the Zone Urbaine Sensible in 1996, replaced by the Quartier Prioritaire de la Ville in 2015). Despite their objectives, the efficiency of these policies in reducing inequalities between territories remains a matter of debate among scholars (Epstein, 2014; Rochex, 2016). While childhood and the start of schooling are decisive in shaping and understanding the process of increasing inequalities between territories, most studies regarding the sociology of priority neighbourhoods have focused on adolescence and young adults (Oppenchaim & Rivière, 2018). In this regard, our research aims to study territorial effects on educational inequalities for primary school pupils in France, with emphasis on priority neighbourhoods.

The first objective is to assess the differences in terms of skills acquisition and relationship with the school system in primary education in France depending on where the pupils live and grow up. In doing so, we want to measure the initial gap between pupils according to their place of residence and how this gap evolves throughout primary school. Beyond inequalities in school achievement, our research aims to study the differences in the relationship and feelings towards school of pupils and their parents, which can influence both overall socialisation and educational trajectories (Ichou & Oberti, 2014; Oppenchaim & Rivière, 2018).   

One of the main criticisms of priority education and neighbourhood policies is the stigma attached to giving such labels to schools or neighbourhoods. It encourages the wealthiest and more mobile families to avoid these areas, residential mobility being the main source of school mobility (Bonnard, 2023; Davezies & Garrouste, 2018). These movements reduce the social diversity of disadvantaged neighbourhoods (Courtioux & Maury, 2022). It has a negative effect on school outcomes, both because the leaving pupils tend to be more advantaged, and because a more homogenous group of lower-performing pupils tend to worsen their skills acquisition and their relationship with the school system. Despite the intensity of mobility in France at young age (more than 11% of under-10s had changed home in 2010 (Cauchi-Duval, 2016)), the effect of this mobility has received less attention, particularly in the context of primary school and underprivileged backgrounds. The second objective of this research is to analyse the effects of residential mobility on school outcomes, with particular focus on priority neighbourhoods. Thus, we want to assess the influence of moving to or from an underprivileged area and the difference in pupils’ skills acquisition and relationship with the school system.

Our analysis is based on data from the Elfe survey, a longitudinal survey conducted in France that follows 18,328 children, from their birth in 2011 to early adulthood. Coordinated by Ined (Institut national d’études démographiques) and Inserm (Institut national de la santé et de la recherche médicale), this multidisciplinary survey covers a wide field of research, including health, environment, child development and socialisation, and school life. The current data available for the main sample, and used for this research, includes six waves when the children were respectively: 2 months, 1 year, 2 years, 3.5 years, 5.5 years and 10.5 years old. In addition to telephone interviews of both parents, home visits were organized, including child development and psychometric tests as well as a specific questionnaire. In our research, the longitudinal aspect of Elfe data will be used in several ways. First, we will track and measure educational outcomes at three key points: the pre-school period, the first year and the final year of primary school. Outcome variables include results on British Ability Score, a reading comprehension test and questions asked to children and parents about their appreciation of school life and their socialisation. Using inferential methods, we will analyse the factors explaining these outcomes on each key point, but we will also measure the cumulative effects of previous outcomes to skills acquisitions and the relationship with the school at the end of primary school. To this end, we will also include information on early school attendance (before age 3) and on skills development prior to school enrolment, as previous research has shown their major influences on the correct measurement of inequalities in educational outcomes (Herbaut, Farges & Giret, 2024). Longitudinal data are also critical to assess the effect of our main variables of interest, the place of living and the residential trajectories. First, we will identify within each wave whether the child lives in a priority neighbourhood or not. In this way, we can measure the effect of the place of living at each stage of schooling, and assess the reduction in the initial social gap over the years. Second, we will classify residential trajectories over ten years and compare how different types (in and out of priority neighbourhoods) and timing of mobility influence school outcomes at the age of ten. To do so, we will use the sequence analysis approach.

In line with previous research, we expect marked differences in school outcomes between pupils from underprivileged areas and those from other areas. Social origin has long been linked to imbalances in school achievements, which primary school is unable to compensate for (Abdouni, 2015). During middle school, the gap between pupils in priority education school and the others is not narrowing (Stéfanou, 2017). However, studies have shown that early schooling has a major impact on skills acquisition, especially for children from socially disadvantaged backgrounds (Herbaut, Farges & Giret, 2024). In addition, some children in the ELFE cohort living in a priority neighbourhood have benefited from the class size reduction measure of 2017, implemented for the first and second levels of elementary school in some priority education schools, which could improve school results and the relationship with the school system. Hence, if a gap in school outcomes is expected, it is unclear if it could be reduced. The effect of residential mobility from or to a priority neighbourhood is less well documented. In France, the effect of school mobility on educational outcomes varies according to the reason for mobility, with residential mobility having a greater influence (Bonnard, 2023). A similar result was found for pupils under 13 from disadvantaged areas in the United States who practice school mobility to lower-poverty areas thanks to public funding (Chetty, Hendren & Katz, 2016). However, other studies have shown weaker outcomes for the lowest-performing pupils (Pirus, 2017) and the risk of school and social discontinuity (Burkam, Lee & Dwyer, 2009). Thus, we expect that moving from a disadvantaged to a more privileged neighbourhood will have a generally positive outcome, but it is more uncertain for the movement in the other direction or for more complex trajectories.This effect may also depend on the timing of the mobility.

•Abdouni, S. (2015), « En forte baisse depuis trente ans, le retard à l’entrée en CE2 reste très dépendant du milieu social de l’élève Comparaison des panels 1978, 1997 et 2011 », Note d’information - DEPP, vol. 23. •Bonnard, C. (2023), « Pupils’ school mobility during elementary school: what motives and results? », British Journal of Sociology of Education, 44(6), pp.1018-1034. •Burkam, D. T., Lee, V. E., & Dwyer, J., (2009), « School mobility in the early elementary grades: Frequency and impact from nationally-representative data», Prepared for the workshop on the impact of mobility and change on the lives of young children, schools, and neighborhoods, Washington, DC, 48 p. •Chetty, R., Hendren, N. & Katz, L.F. (2016), « The Effects of Exposure to Better Neighborhoods on Children: New Evidence from the Moving to Opportunity Experiment », The American Economic Review, vol. 106, n°4, pp. 855‑902. •Courtioux, P. & Maury, T.-P. (2022), « Social Diversity: A Review of Twelve Years of Targeting Priority Education Policies », Economie et Statistique / Economics and Statistics, n°528‑529, pp. 9‑28. •Davezies, L. & Garrouste, M. (2018), « More Harm than Good? Sorting Effects in a Compensatory Education Program », Journal of Human Resources, pp. 0416-7839R1. •Delage, A., Giband, D., Mary, K. & Nafaa, N. (2023), « Géographie de l'éducation Concepts, enjeux et territoires. », Armand Collin, 224 p. •Epstein, R. (2011). Politiques de la ville: bilan et (absence de) perspectives. Regards Croisés sur L’économie, (1), 203-211. •Herbaut, E., Farges, G., & Giret, J. F. (2024), « Can early schooling at age 2 narrow the gaps in child development? Evidence from the French Elfe cohort », Oxford Review of Education, pp. 1-19. •Ichou, M., & Oberti, M., (2014), « Immigrant Families’ Relationship with the School System : A Survey of Four Working-Class Suburban High Schools. Population, Vol. 69(4), 557-597. •Oppenchaim, N., & Rivière, C. (2018), « Enfants et quartiers prioritaires. Quelle socialisation résidentielle? », Diversité: ville école intégration, pp 27-33. •Pirus, C. (2017), « Le changement d’établissement au collège », Education et Formations, vol. 95, pp. 107‑138. •Rochex, J. (2016), « Faut-il crier haro sur l’éducation prioritaire ? Analyses et controverses sur une politique incertaine », Revue française de pédagogie, vol. 194, n°1, pp. 91‑108. •Stéfanou, A. (2017), « Éducation prioritaire Scolarité des élèves au collège de 2007 à 2012 », Éducation et formations, n°95