How Policies of Priority Education Shape Educational Needs: New Fabrications and Contradictions

Abstract

This article aims to interpret how different policies of priority education deal with the notions of “educational needs” and “educational inequalities.” Indeed, it is the processes and mechanisms embedded in the deployment of such policies that ultimately model a category of educational need that goes beyond the conceptualization of educational inequality used to justify the policies themselves. The authors reach this conclusion by examining four European programs of priority education (PPE). Two basic tendencies are identified. On the one hand, recent deployment of the English and French initiatives seems to be altering the formulation of problems they are designed to address by enhancing in practice a decontextualized notion of individual educational need in which it is considered legitimate to intervene. On the other hand, the Catalan and Dutch programs, which theoretically address both territorial and nonformal educational inequalities, in fact apply prioritization schemes and interventions mainly based on school-based social measures.

Full text

Educational Policy
25(2) 299 –337
© The Author(s) 2011
Reprints and permission: http://www.
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0895904809351688
http://epx.sagepub.com
How Policies of Priority
Education Shape
Educational Needs:
New Fabrications and
Contradictions
Miquel Àngel Alegre,1 Jordi Collet,1,2
and Sheila González1
Abstract
This article aims to interpret how different policies of priority education deal
with the notions of “educational needs” and “educational inequalities.” Indeed,
it is the processes and mechanisms embedded in the deployment of such
policies that ultimately model a category of educational need that goes beyond
the conceptualization of educational inequality used to justify the policies
themselves. The authors reach this conclusion by examining four European
programs of priority education (PPE). Two basic tendencies are identified. On
the one hand, recent deployment of the English and French initiatives seems
to be altering the formulation of problems they are designed to address by
enhancing in practice a decontextualized notion of individual educational
need in which it is considered legitimate to intervene. On the other hand, the
Catalan and Dutch programs, which theoretically address both territorial and
nonformal educational inequalities, in fact apply prioritization schemes and
interventions mainly based on school-based social measures.
Keywords:
priority education, educational needs, educational inequalities, fabrication
1Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
2Universitat de Vic, Barcelona, Spain
Corresponding Author:
Miquel Àngel Alegre, University Institute of Public Policies and Government, Universitat
Autònoma de Barcelona, Campus UAB, Edifici B, Bellaterra, Barcelona, Spain 08193
Email: miguelangel.alegre@uab.cat
EPX351688EPX
at Institute of Education, University of London on July 6, 2015epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

300 Educational Policy 25(2)
Introduction
Affirming the multifaceted nature of the concept of educational inequalities
sheds no new light on things, for, indeed, it can be interpreted and measured
in many different ways. As a result, there are numerous indicators that can be
employed to encapsulate the diversity of educational inequalities. It is how-
ever pertinent to note that this is a relative notion, the scope of which will
depend on the boundaries used for comparison. Thus, while it is possible to
compare the academic achievement or attainment of pupils from the same
class or school, pupils from different schools, or even pupils from different
countries, it is equally possible to aggregate individual measures to assess
educational inequalities existing between schools of the same type, in the
same territory, in the same country, or in different countries, and so on.
Regardless of which case is considered and how measurements are taken,
there can be no doubt that educational inequalities do exist, that they are
evident to a greater or lesser extent in each territory, and that they mostly
respond to recurring explanatory patterns. For decades, educational research
has attempted to unravel this latter aspect, regularly focusing on the effects of
numerous independent variables: individual variables (e.g., socioeconomic
status, parents’ level of education, ethnic group, country or territory of origin,
mother tongue), school-based variables (e.g., school type, social or ethnic
composition, type of organizational and pedagogical structures, and pro-
cesses implemented), and contextual variables (e.g., structure of the school
network, policies on school access, expenditure on education, etc.). Although
there appears to be undeniable evidence concerning which variables or set of
variables have more explanatory power when accounting for certain types of
educational inequality, the research is by no means unanimous in its conclu-
sions regarding how and to what extent each factor contributes to explaining
these inequalities. This should come as no surprise if we consider the diver-
sity of theoretical perspectives and methodological strategies developed,
sources of data employed, and, no less importantly, political positionings
taken as a starting point in each case.
At the same time, policy makers have promoted different intervention
strategies in an attempt to at least limit some of these inequalities, sometimes
relying on specific research conclusions and sometimes not.
Part of the diversity that characterizes such policies is owing to the multi-
faceted nature of the concept of educational inequalities and educational
needs mentioned above as well as to the notion of social justice on the basis
of policy approaches. Here, we cannot discuss in depth the different ways in
which one can model the huge range of policies and programs that seek to
at Institute of Education, University of London on July 6, 2015epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Alegre et al. 301
foster equal educational opportunities. It can be stated, however, that while
some of these policies base their general approach on the attempt to equalize
formal access to educational inputs, others focus their intervention on dif-
ferentiated forms of treatment for target populations, schools, or neighbor-
hoods. The first model departs from a liberal perspective of social justice
(Rawls, 1972), which emphasizes the notion of equal distribution of educa-
tional opportunities. The second approach, in contrast, appears to be associ-
ated with priority education frameworks, relying on the argument that
specific forms and sources of inequality can only be dealt with through spe-
cific and differentiated interventions. While the first model is concerned with
the issue of “contextual” educational equality (in terms of both access to
education and utilization of public education resources), the second approach
is more preoccupied with institutional and social “microprocess” features,
where one can find the origin of specific educational needs (Demeuse &
Baye, 2005; Demeuse, Frandji, Greger, & Rochex, 2008). In the frame of this
oversimplified division, the four specific programs we compare here are
related to the second of these general approaches.
What we would like to highlight here is that, whichever kind of policy is
discussed, in the course of their formulation, operationalization, concretion,
implementation, and assessment, the regulations developed with regard to
educational inequalities reproduce some specific aspects of the very concept
of educational inequality itself as well as of its causes and consequences. In
sum, what generates inequalities in, for example, school performance, certi-
fication rates, and career progression is the process that delineates the situa-
tions in which it is considered legitimate to intervene.
Particularly in the case of policies that, to some degree, include approaches
to priority education,1 one encounters actions that extract, from a specific
concept of educational inequality, different constructions of the notion of
“educational needs”—or, more precisely, “special or specific educational
needs”. Priority education policies are intended to intervene in those realities
(e.g., groups, schools, territories) defined as more disadvantaged and, there-
fore, in need of intervention. In other words, the definitions of “educational
needs” that these policies produce through their internal procedures of for-
mulation and implementation are in part, and only in part, explained by the
diverse notions of educational equality/inequality on which they are based. It
is the very dynamics and mechanisms inherent in the deployment of policies
that ultimately shape and objectify a category—educational need—which
quite often overcomes the notion of educational inequality that is used to jus-
tify the policy in the first place. In this respect, it is useful to approach
the policy constructions of the category “educational needs” in terms
at Institute of Education, University of London on July 6, 2015epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

302 Educational Policy 25(2)
of institutional fabrication. According to Ball (2003), this term refers to the
production of “selections among various possible representations or visions
of the organisation or person. Truthfulness gives way to effectiveness and
authenticity is replaced by plasticity” (Ball, 2003, quoted by Radnor, Koshy,
& Taylor, 2007, p. 288). Ball therefore described the framework of a new
orthodoxy that puts the concepts of efficiency and performativity at the core
of the deployment of education policies.
The aim of this article is to propose a comparative approach to the dynam-
ics and fabrications through which four education policies with different
focuses on priority education—the English experience Excellence in Cities
(EiC), the priority education programs in France, the Plans Educatius
d’Entorn (PEE; local environment education plans) in Catalonia, and the
Dutch community schools (CS)—produce the category “educational need.”
It is also worth noting that we will be focusing on constructions that go
beyond the official definitions that may exist for the same term within the
framework of each educational system.
To do so, we will consider the normative orientations and mechanisms of
such policies—that is, their basic formulations and criteria for intervention.
In this respect, we should point out that our analysis does neither include the
study of the intervention methodologies promoted by these programs nor
include an evaluation of the real corrective impact they have on the educa-
tional needs they are intended to face. With regard to the former of these limi-
tations, it is worth stating that various analytical and empirical studies
conducted in different contexts have already reviewed this matter.2 With
regard to the latter, considering the difficulties involved in obtaining exten-
sive and comparable data regarding the net effect of these programs, the aim
of our research is rather to analyze the way in which different policy instru-
ments represent the concept of educational need, regardless of the extent to
which their implementation results in the fulfillment of those needs.
Let us end this introduction with one last clarification. This article articu-
lates its analysis and reflections in reference to the concepts of inequalities
and educational needs, not the notion of social justice (or injustice). It is worth
arguing that, when transferred to the field of education, social justice is also a
multidimensional expression (Brighouse, 2000; Clark, 2006; Cribb & Gewirtz,
2003), which has also been applied in the critical analysis of certain education
policies based on specific priority focuses (Lupton, 2005; Power & Gewirtz,
2001; Thrupp & Lupton, 2006; Van Zanten, 2007). In general terms, however,
most of the uses of the social justice/injustice dichotomy maintain a close
relationship—sometimes confusingly so—with the meanings usually assigned
to the social equality/inequality dichotomy. It is beyond the scope of this
at Institute of Education, University of London on July 6, 2015epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Alegre et al. 303
article to examine in depth the possible continuities and discontinuities
between both conceptual frameworks. In short, our conceptual choice is based
on the more descriptive features of the expressions educational inequalities
and educational needs. This facilitates a more detailed comparison between
the various prioritization schemes through which the education policies we
have studied fabricate a factual category of educational need.
Analytical Framework: Levels of Attention
and Dimensions of Inequality
When attempting to explore the conceptualizations of educational inequali-
ties and the fabrications of special or specific educational needs embedded in
different priority education programs, it is important to pay particular atten-
tion to the three operations inherent in their formation processes.
First, it is necessary to examine in detail the content of the underlying
justifications, motivations, and objectives that act as a rhetorical framework
for legitimizing a program’s criteria for action. In some cases, these param-
eters are explained in the regulatory documents or policy statements that gov-
ern the implementation of the program. In other cases, however, it is necessary
to focus on the content of the political pronouncements that accompany their
development. We shall address this point in “Discursive Positions With
Regard to Educational Needs” section of the article.
Second, it is important to consider the content and use of the measure-
ments employed by these programs in assessing the degree of disadvantage
of the target populations, territories, or schools. Here we are referring to the
“need criteria,” which the programs establish with the following threefold
objective: to define candidates as eligible for the program’s actions; to calcu-
late the distribution of resources among the different populations, territories,
or schools the programs address, prioritizing according to various indicators;
and to determine the basic variables that will guide the indicators to be taken
into account in later assessments of the impacts of actions. We shall address
this in “Ways of Measuring Educational Needs” section in the article.
Third, it is necessary to identify the final definitions of those who ulti-
mately become the targets of interventions. As we shall see later, this target
may be an intermediary (institutions or partnerships that receive the resources
and have the autonomy to relocate/redistribute them in one direction or
another) or a direct target (the population involved in the action). Whichever
the case, it is in this definition that we find the concrete demarcation of the
specific educational need on which to legitimately act. We examine this in
“Defining Priority Beneficiaries” section.
at Institute of Education, University of London on July 6, 2015epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

304 Educational Policy 25(2)
It is from the sum of the development of these three factors—discourse,
the need indicators, and final demarcation of the target—that the real defini-
tion of the category educational need stems. Ideally, one would expect clear
coherence between the contents of fabrications underpinning all three levels.
This means that interventions should ultimately be acting on the reality,
which the discourse defines as in need of priority action, and the measuring
of such a reality should serve to justify why resources are redistributed in a
particular way. Nevertheless, as we shall see below, this ideal situation does
not always correspond with the reality of how the programs in question are
implemented.
When accounting for such tensions and contradictions, it is useful to con-
sider the emphasis that these programs, in each of the three levels, place on
the various basic dimensions of educational inequality that the academic lit-
erature has tended to consider in this field. These dimensions are as follows:
Territory or environment. In this case, it is understood that the principal
source of educational inequalities (and therefore, what points to different
degrees of educational need requiring attention) is found in the sociourban
structure of the territories. In other words, when attempting to explain why
some pupils are successful and others fail at school, special attention must be
paid to the significance of the characteristics of the territory in which they
live (Lupton, 2004, 2005; Thrupp & Lupton, 2006). Issues such as spatial
segregation, the existence of socially disadvantaged neighborhoods, geo-
graphical enclaves where most of the immigrant population is concentrated,
repeated episodes of social conflict in an area, and districts particularly lack-
ing in equipment, organizations, or specific public services are all of particu-
lar relevance at this level. It is therefore to be expected that those policies that
base their framework for legitimization on this approach will focus their
interventions on schools, groups, and individuals depending on specific ter-
ritorial demarcations.
Groups. This perspective points to the existence of certain social groups
that are particularly disadvantaged—that is, with special or specific educa-
tional needs. The definition of these groups or collectives can indeed be justi-
fied on the basis of diverse conditions or characteristics—whether adscriptive
or acquired—which in turn highlight the type of disadvantage that causes
these inequalities. For example, some of such conditions may be the follow-
ing: groups of a low socioeconomic status, pupils with low instructed fami-
lies, pupils from ethnic minorities, immigrant groups, girls (or boys), or
pupils with physical or mental disabilities, and so on. As we have seen, the
delimiting of a group boundary characterizes the variables at the base of the
problem: economic and educational factors; cultural, linguistic, and gender
at Institute of Education, University of London on July 6, 2015epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Alegre et al. 305
variables; and physical or mental disabilities, and so on. Clearly, the charac-
terization of one group or another as bearing specific educational needs is
rooted in different conceptualizations of social structure and its processes
and mechanisms3 while providing diverse scenarios for intervention. Despite
this, it is important to underline that taking this approach facilitates prioritiz-
ing resource allocation to the schools or territories with the highest concen-
trations of groups defined as disadvantaged.
Schools. In this case, educational inequalities and educational needs arising
from them are outlined in relation to the different realities of schools, which
leads to the identification of particularly disadvantaged schools. It is in fact
fairly common for schools to be labeled as such, depending on the territory
in which they are located or the proportion of problematic students they
enroll. However, this perspective raises other relevant questions for discus-
sion. The focus on schools suggests that what makes a school a particularly
disadvantaged one is the balance between the profile of the pupils as more or
less disadvantaged on the one hand and the quantity and quality of the
resources with which they work on the other.4 Thus, when faced with two
schools of a similar social composition, priority action is considered to be
required by the school with fewer educational resources (e.g., teachers, mate-
rials, organizational resources, etc.). In sum, within this approach, the mea-
sure for educational needs is determined by the schools themselves, as the
school effect on educational inequalities depends on the balance between its
institutional and social realities.
Individuals. Typically in tune with a neoliberal approach, here the stress
falls on the individual and on his/her skills and attitudes toward education.
By overlooking the repercussions of social and ethnic inequalities and power
hierarchies within the social structure in the field of education, it is believed
that possibilities for academic progress basically lie in the hands of each
pupil. Within this perspective, some authors have tended to consider the exis-
tence of certain cultural deprivations (e.g., economic or educational resources,
social environment, etc.) that affect the foundation of each pupil’s education
and endanger the value of meritocracy. However, it is thought that positive
(or compensatory) individualized actions may readdress the scope of these
situations of deprivation and allow able and motivated pupils to excel in their
educational career. From this point of view, it appears that the most efficient
and legitimate priority intervention would consist of providing those cultur-
ally deprived pupils who prove to be talented and motivated with the neces-
sary conditions to escape the cycle of marginalization. It is in this selection
that the prioritized educational need is defined.
at Institute of Education, University of London on July 6, 2015epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

306 Educational Policy 25(2)
Empirical Approach: Four Policies
of Priority Education
The sample for this study consists of four contrasting targeted education poli-
cies. These four cases respond to one single goal: to increase educational
opportunities among more socially disadvantaged students. Based on the
classical pattern of comparing “like with like,” this approach allows us to
compare different interpretations and subsequent actions involving these four
education policies while at the same time permitting us to highlight disso-
nances within each one, offering a deeper knowledge of anomalies occurring
within each context (Gewirtz, 2004; Pepin, 2004). Two of these—the EiC
Program in England and the priority education programs in France—are
mainly school-centered policies, whereas the other two—the PEE in Catalo-
nia and the Dutch CS—specifically focus their scope for action on the sphere
of nonformal education. Their level of internal complexity is also notable.
We will see how all four policies are structured into strands or subprograms
that have varying degrees of interdependence on one another. Finally, we
should also point out that through our analysis we have attempted, as far as
possible, to allow for the assessment of the main changes and developments
that some of the programs have undergone since their initial formulation.
We base our analysis on two basic sources of information: (a) the norma-
tive documents and policy statements, which govern and develop the pro-
grams and (b) the different studies that focus their (more or less critical)
attention on the content, meanings, and expressions of the policies in ques-
tion. Wherever possible, we have analyzed some of the more significant dec-
larations by means of which the corresponding political authorities have
justified and accounted for the underlying values of the respective
programs.
Excellence in Cities (EiC) in England
EiC is a targeted support program for schools in particularly deprived urban
areas of the country. Launched in 1999 (Department for Education and
Employment, 1999), during its initial phase it was intended as a mechanism
to raise the educational standards of secondary schools located in six large
metropolises. Since 2001, EiC areas have been able to extend the scope of the
program to some of their primary schools. In 2006, around 1,300 public sec-
ondary schools and 3,600 primary schools were involved, with 80 local
authorities forming part of the program.
at Institute of Education, University of London on July 6, 2015epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Alegre et al. 307
EiC can be understood as a supplementary instrument of the general com-
pensatory criteria applied by the central government to redistribute its expen-
diture on education among the country’s local authorities. At the same time,
the bodies responsible for managing these resources—EiC partnerships—
have regularly used other specific sources to fund EiC strand interventions
(e.g., European funds, the Ethnic Minority Achievement Grant, the Leader-
ship Incentive Grant, etc.).
The general plan of the EiC is based on three strategic core strands: the
subprogram Gifted and Talented pupils (G&T), which is aimed at broadening
opportunities for the more able and motivated pupils at participating schools
through the organization of a differentiated pedagogical action specifically
addressed to this group5; the subprogram Learning Mentors (LM), focusing
on the individual accompaniment, inside and outside the school, of those
pupils who are susceptible to situations of long-term absenteeism, academic
abandonment, or school failure; and Learning Support Units (LSU), which
are small and transitory school-based units for pupils at risk of exclusion.
Policies of Priority Education (PPE) in France
In France, the first experience of priority education intervention—zones
d’éducation prioritaire (ZEP)—was launched in June 1981 (Ministère de
l’Éducation Nationale, 1981, 1982), representing one of the first political
decisions carried out by the Socialist–Communist coalition that had won the
French elections in May of the same year. The aim of the ZEP project was to
demarcate geographical areas—containing from 3 to 15 primary schools
(écoles) or secondary schools (colleges)—where it was felt that there was an
urgent need for special educational intervention. The first action was to grant
the centers included in a ZEP with supplementary pedagogical resources and
sufficient human resources to allow a significant reduction in the number of
pupils per classroom.
Since then, the ZEP project has been subject to strong criticism. In short,
the way in which the project has evolved does not seem to have solved the
problem of school segregation to reduce educational inequalities. In this
respect, the outlying urban areas (banlieues) continue to represent a territo-
rial trap, in which a range of social stigmatizations limit the socioeducational
mobility of the young people while limiting their point of reference in terms
of collective identity. Leaving aside the objective foundation on which these
evaluations may be based,6 since the second half of the 1990s PPE in France
have undergone very significant reformulations.
at Institute of Education, University of London on July 6, 2015epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

308 Educational Policy 25(2)
On the one hand, compensatory education programs have diversified. In
1997 and 1998, the ZEP were relaunched through the introduction of new
forms and schemes of prioritization, such as the réseaux d’éducation priori-
taire (REP) and its contrats de réussite, and the policy of partenaires de la
réussite (Ministère de l’Éducation Nationale, 1997, 1998). In 2006, three
basic types have been recognized (Ministère de l’Éducation Nationale, 2006):
réseaux ambition réussite (RAR), currently numbering around 250, which
provide a service for infants and young children schooled in disadvantaged
areas; Level 2 zones d’éducation prioritaire (ZEP 2), which serve less disad-
vantaged areas (some 700); and REP, currently numbering around 900, which
include schools theoretically in transition toward a nonprioritized treatment.
In addition to these, the programmes personnalisés de réussite educative
(PPRE) have also recently come into effect (Ministère de l’Éducation Natio-
nale, 2005). These were implemented in both primary and secondary schools
as mechanisms of individual attention for low performance pupils outside of
the classroom. A few years before, new politiques d’ouverture sociale (POS)
had been introduced aiming to open access to higher education. In this case,
prestigious institutions such as the Grande École Science Po or the École
Supérieur de Sciences Économiques et Commerciales (ESSEC) or the Lycée
Henri IV select a small group of pupils from different secondary schools to
form part of individual accompaniment and monitoring programs with the
participation of private companies.
Plans Educatius d’Entorn (PEE) in Catalonia
The first 31 PEE came into effect for the 2004-2005 academic year in 25
Catalan municipalities (Departament d’Educació, 2004). In the 2006-2007
academic year, there were 95 PEE funded by the Department of Education in
80 municipalities. The main objective of the PEE is to set up an institutional
network of services and activities in various neighborhoods and districts of
the city that offer children and adolescents the opportunity to participate in
educational activities outside of school, particularly aiming to benefit those
environments and groups that are in greater need of help. The above is based
on five basic strategic objectives: (a) raising academic success and reduce
inequalities among groups, (b) strengthening the network of relationships
between the school and its environment, (c) increasing participation in lei-
sure activities, (d) strengthening the links between families and schools, and
(e) improving the social use of the Catalan language.
The set of PEE interventions are subdivided into two categories, the first of
which is a strand for closed actions. Accessing the resources assigned for
at Institute of Education, University of London on July 6, 2015epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Alegre et al. 309
these actions does not entail focusing or prioritizing criteria. Two such subpro-
grams have been developed to date: (a) Assisted Study Workshops, the pur-
pose of which is to provide extra-curricular educational attention (a minimum
of 1 hour a day) for those pupils who live in a socioculturally disadvantaged
environment, aiming to guarantee conditions that help them to follow the
school curriculum through the acquisition of organizational and study habits
and (b) Workshops for Families, the aim of which is to provide a facilitative
space for families to interrelate with each other while participating in diverse
activities (e.g., computer science, cooking, theatre, language courses, etc.).
Second, a broad margin is open for the local partnerships to prioritize a
range of tailored actions that may come under the following general subject
blocks: training of diverse educational agents, optimum and balanced school-
ing for all boys and girls, welcoming immigrant pupils and families, promot-
ing academic success for all pupils, promoting education outside school,
academic–professional guidance and monitoring, spaces for meetings and
interaction for families, and response to multiple social demands.
Community Schools (CS) in The Netherlands
The 2003 Dutch Government program “Operation Youth,” aimed at develop-
ing an integrated and coherent youth policy with the support of all the rele-
vant Ministries, included the CS program as one of its instruments. The
actions contemplated in this program are coordinated by the “National Steer-
ing Group for Community Schools,” comprising representatives of the Min-
istry for Health, Welfare and Sport; the Ministry for Education, Culture and
Science; the Ministry for Social Affairs; the Ministry for Planning, Housing
and Environment; and, lastly, the Association for Dutch Municipalities. It is
worth pointing out, however, that there is currently no national policy to
establish CS in the Netherlands, as the promotion and support for their devel-
opment lies fundamentally in the hands of the local authorities.
The purpose of the CS is to provide the neighborhoods and districts where
they are implemented with a coherent network of educational, cultural, and
welfare services for children and young people under 24 years of age.
Although one of the program’s fundamental premises is that a restrictive
focus may lead to the accentuation of differences between groups, many CS
are organized by focusing on one particular age group, ethnic minority, social
group, or particularly high risk area.
CS are established using local resources and receive funding from the
participant institutions, sponsoring companies, and local authorities through
public subsidies for specific projects. The local authorities, which are the
at Institute of Education, University of London on July 6, 2015epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

310 Educational Policy 25(2)
main managers of CS resources, often redirect resources into the CS program
from diverse national programs such as early childhood education, policies
regarding educational disadvantages, youth participation policies, programs
regarding the conciliation of working hours and family life, and policies for
the renewal of impoverished neighborhoods.
In 2003, 54% of Dutch municipalities were working to set up a CS in a
primary school, and 25% believed this would happen in the immediate future
(in 2011, 1,600 CS are expected to be in operation). In January 2005, a total
of 600 primary CS were in operation, and 2 years later, in 2007, almost 1,000
CS were already established in different cities of the Netherlands. Further-
more, 16% of secondary schools had at least one mechanism that could be
considered CS and 9% were working in this direction. Seventy-six percent of
CS were established in disadvantaged neighborhoods and 5% in neighbor-
hoods under reconstruction. On the other hand, 7% of these schools were
created in newly built neighborhoods and 8% in city centre neighborhoods.7
Discursive Positions With
Regard to Educational Needs
As is to be expected, all of the programs and strands of intervention consid-
ered here include within their regulatory documents different motivations,
declarations, purposes, and general and specific objectives. We refer to these
elements as discursive positions. Our purpose is now to collect and interpret
those aspects that indicate the way in which these discursive positions deal
with the notion of educational needs. It is true that at this level not all frame-
works for action are equally explicit and elaborated. However, the rhetorical
fields that serve as a basis for the issues in question are clearly identifiable in
each case.
EiC (England)
As previously described, the EiC is a targeted support program for pupils in
primary and secondary schools located in the more disadvantaged urban
areas of England. In defense of this prioritization scheme, it is argued that
taking into consideration the reality of the whole local authority prevents the
stigmatization that certain schools or neighborhoods would find themselves
subjected to if their deprived situation was the only basis for public
intervention.
We should point out that none of the rhetorical arguments that accompany
the implementation of the EiC make explicit references to the existence of
at Institute of Education, University of London on July 6, 2015epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Alegre et al. 311
social and ethnic inequalities and discrimination as possible causes of the
educational needs the program is intended to address. By contrast, general
justifications are introduced referring to the importance of high expectations
of every individual pupil (schools should have high expectations of every
pupil and young people should have high expectations of themselves), the
importance of flexible intervention plans adapted to the diversity of situa-
tions presented in different schools so that the needs of all pupils can be met,
and the importance of promoting actions, which enhance quality and excel-
lence in all schools. With regard to the justification of the three core strands
under the EiC program—G&T, LM, and LSUs—one also finds that the more
salient references point to the consideration of different personal characteris-
tics, in terms of aptitude and attitude.
From a critical perspective, one can suggest that the rhetoric behind the
EiC program may have been influenced to some degree by one of the main
discursive arguments rooted in 1970s British politics. Since this time, due to
the concerns and political issues arising from successive Conservative gov-
ernments, all social and ethnic discrimination has been dissolved into one
vague category known as “inner-city problems,” which denotes situations of
conflict and public disorder particularly experienced in urban ghettos charac-
terized by the high presence of working-class and ethnic minority popula-
tions (Gillborn, 1995; Tomlinson, 2005). This leads to the invisibility of
social and ethnic inequalities in education, which in turn facilitates a priority
action strategy toward these areas that does not recognize the real structural
and institutional causes of the problem.
PPE (France)
The way in which the ZEP were initially proposed and justified in the early
1980s represented an ideological and procedural step away from the concept
of equal opportunities that had guided the extension of comprehensive edu-
cation during the 1970s. This new framework focused on enhancing the
equality of results and worked toward correcting educational inequalities by
introducing preferential treatment for the more disadvantaged groups (Van
Zanten, 2007). However, the reference framework for priority action was
based on territory, for two fundamental reasons. First, importance was attrib-
uted to the weight of territorial inequalities, in terms of a territory’s public
and semipublic resources and social composition, as a variable accounting
for the origin of inequalities and educational needs to be addressed. Second,
in the cultural tradition of the French education system, there is a strong
social and political opposition to intervention procedures that positively
at Institute of Education, University of London on July 6, 2015epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

312 Educational Policy 25(2)
discriminate by highlighting specific groups (e.g., immigrant pupils).8 As we
shall see in more detail, in practice the different resources provided by the
ZEP are distributed on the basis of the social and institutional characteristics
of different schools.
Since 2000, a large part of the rhetorical and political discussions sur-
rounding different PEE has continued to consider the importance of territory
as a marker of educational needs, albeit from different discursive angles. For
example, in the case of the justifications accompanying the PPRE as well as
the social measures to open access to elite higher education, spatial segrega-
tion continues to be the differentiating factor. In all cases, the aim is to rescue
the more talented pupils being schooled in particularly disadvantaged neigh-
borhoods (banlieues) from the geographical trap that threatens them. Despite
the fact that in these discursive reformulations the key to explaining—and the
key to the solutions for—educational needs is predominantly situated in vari-
ables that point to individual attitudes and aptitudes (Delhay, 2006; Mellier,
2006; Van Zanten, 2004), the territorial factor continues to play a relevant
role. It is understood that deprived environments severely restrict young peo-
ple’s access to middle-class cultural activities, leaving them lacking in infor-
mation regarding paths to higher education and ultimately impeding them
from developing the social codes and relationships necessary for social
mobility. However, it is expected that the more these students are able to
access made-to-measure tools and resources aimed at increasing their socio-
educational aspirations, the more they may be able to avoid the trap these
environments represent.
PEE (Catalonia)
PEE are presented as programs that aim to extend their general principles and
methodologies for action to the ordinary operations of all socioeducational
contexts, rather than focusing on those most deprived. At the same time,
however, in its general guidelines there are references to the need to pay par-
ticular attention to the more disadvantaged environments and more vulnera-
ble age groups to provide a suitable response to the specific needs of those
areas or zones that need it most. In fact, more specifically, the main targets of
PEE are defined as boys and girls aged 10 to 16 years, with a particular
emphasis on immigrant pupils and/or those at risk of social exclusion.
In summary, the dimensions enhanced in the program’s discourse as prin-
cipal causes of inequality and/or educational needs refer to the category ter-
ritory/community on the one hand while addressing certain group factors on
the other. Let us remember that PEE establishes its scope of action outside
at Institute of Education, University of London on July 6, 2015epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Alegre et al. 313
school time. Thus, the territory—that is, the sociourban environment—
becomes the location of the educational processes and influences which PEE
interventions will be set in motion. The primary concerns, then, centre on
urban and community realities that make access to quality educational activi-
ties and equipment difficult for youngsters, fundamentally owing to the lack
of a basic and accessible network of educational services. There also seems
to be an awareness that individual experiences in leisure time are affected by
implications of social class and ethnic background. It is not simply the fact
that families of a low socioeconomic status find it more difficult to enroll
their children in expensive nonformal learning activities but also that the
level and type of participation in this kind of activity depends on other fac-
tors, such as cultural capital or habitus (Bourdieu, 1997; Reay, 2004), which
are also unequally distributed among social groups.
By employing territorial and group boundaries as its primary arguments
for prioritization, PEE discourse places the school dimension on a secondary
level, viewing it as a location where the positive effects expected from the
implementation of its extra-curricular actions can be visualized. Neverthe-
less, as we shall see later, in practice the resources provided by the different
strands of the program are often prioritized according to the social character-
istics of the schools selected by the local authorities as candidates for the
program.
CS (The Netherlands)
Although internally diverse and quite dissimilar to the other experiences of
priority education considered here, the Dutch CS program still provides a dis-
cursive profile of specific educational needs and their causes. In general terms,
it seems clear that the principal ground for priority attention is territory—or
more precisely, its institutional articulation. Indeed, all of the CS interventions
work with the assumption that it is necessary to provide neighborhoods and
districts with a network of educational, cultural, care, and leisure services that
is accessible and well coordinated, with the participation of a wide range of
professionals (e.g., teachers, parents, mediators, social workers, psycholo-
gists, leisure organizations, doctors, artists, police, etc.) and the technical sup-
port of the local authorities. Without this, it is thought that certain neighborhoods
will remain in a situation of socioeducational neglect, reinforcing the cycle of
spatial marginalization and segregation, which in turn results in the resurfac-
ing of visible inequalities and educational needs in schools.
Simultaneously, although the ideal would be to extend the program and its
actions to benefit all of the young people in a neighborhood, it is suggested
at Institute of Education, University of London on July 6, 2015epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

314 Educational Policy 25(2)
that priority attention should be given to groups of children and young people
who find themselves in a more vulnerable situation brought on by either their
socioeconomic status or ethnic background. As we shall see later, these gen-
eral claims have provided justification for the formation of certain types of
CS that incorporate two fundamental prioritizing dimensions: territorial
demarcation and group assignation.
Comparative Overview of the Programs Analyzed
Table 1 gives an overview of the extent to which the discursive standpoints
of each of the programs under consideration mark the boundaries of specific
educational need in each of the aforementioned processes of conceptualizing
inequality.
Ways of Measuring Educational Needs
As previously noted, ideally one would expect a clear continuity between
the political discourse detailing the intentions and objectives of the policy
on the one hand and the criteria and measurements through which these
programs assess—and therefore, fabricate—the level of educational need on
which they intend to focus on the other. Furthermore, this continuity should
imply the existence of a dual level of coherence. First, the basic unit of refer-
ence for the data to be gathered should correspond to the dimensions of
inequality highlighted at the discourse level, whether it be territory, group,
school, or individual. Second, one would also expect coherence between
what the discourse defines as the principal causes of the problems and the
contents of the indicators of need that are assessed when redistributing
resources among different actors, for example, socioeconomic or ethnic
composition of territories or schools, resources and services in neighbor-
hoods, and so on.
However, the logical correspondence between the accompanying dis-
course and the design of the measurements of need is not always apparent in
practice. Possible discrepancies between the two levels are frequently the
result of two fundamental realities that are not mutually exclusive: (a) the
existence of tensions and contradictions originating from a lack of transpar-
ency (deliberate or otherwise) in the formulation and deployment of the pol-
icy and (b) the impossibility of accessing the data required and the need to
work with what information is available, which may only partially reflect the
reality being measured (proxy data).
at Institute of Education, University of London on July 6, 2015epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Alegre et al. 315
EiC (England)
The criteria that define general access to the resources offered by the EiC
program refer to school data collected at municipal level. More specifically,
the basic indicator here is the total percentage of pupils who are eligible for
Free School Meals (FSM) in the municipality. The level of deprivation is
measured on the difference between the local percentage of FSM pupils and
the average national percentage. At this level, therefore, the EiC has a mark-
edly territorial approach: areas compete among themselves to enter the pro-
gram. As regards the general distribution of resources to the different strands,
Table 1. Discourse Positions and Dimensions of Inequality
Territory Groups Schools Individuals
EiC Emphasis on
attention for pupils
from particularly
deprived areas
— — Emphasis on the
importance
of individual
attitudes/
aptitudes
PPE Emphasis on support
for schools in
particularly
deprived areas
— — New PPE:
emphasis on
the importance
of individual
attitudes/
aptitudes
PEE Emphasis on attention
for pupils in
particularly deprived
environments
(for social and
institutional
reasons)
Emphasis on
adolescents
(10-16 years old)
Emphasis on
immigrants and
pupils at risk of
social exclusion
— —
CS Emphasis on attention
for particularly
deprived
neighborhoods
and districts
(for institutional
reasons)
Emphasis
on ethnic
minorities and
pupils at risk of
social exclusion
— —
Note: EiC = excellence in cities; PPE = programs of priority education; PEE = plans educatius
d’entorn; CS = community schools.
at Institute of Education, University of London on July 6, 2015epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

316 Educational Policy 25(2)
the following criteria are used: for G&T the allocation is calculated on the
basis of the total number of pupils; for LM and LSU, half of the budget is
calculated on the basis of the total number of pupils and the other half on the
total number of pupils eligible for FSM.
It is worth mentioning that the final prioritization of resources among
schools is the responsibility of the EiC partnerships. Although each partner-
ship has formal autonomy to design and apply the redistributive criteria it
deems fit, they have generally tended to comply with the following guide-
lines: allocation of resources to the G&T subprogram on the basis of the total
number of pupils at each school, and allocation of resources to the LM strand
on the basis of the percentage of FSM pupils at each school (Braun & West,
2003; Noden, Braun, & West, 2001).9 With regard to LSU, there are various
possibilities for its establishment throughout the territory: (a) to provide each
school with an LSU (if sufficient resources are available), (b) to provide cer-
tain schools with an LSU for their pupils, (c) to provide certain schools with
an LSU for their pupils and divide the remaining budget among the others,
and (d) to provide certain schools with an LSU that can be attended by pupils
from other centers.
This prioritizing procedure for access to the EiC programme has not been
exempt from criticism, specially related to the possible existence of some
exclusion or inclusion error. For instance, from the outset, it has been pointed
out that not all of the schools in a situation of deprivation (still measured in
terms of FSM pupils) are located in generally deprived municipalities. In
2002, over a quarter of the English schools with more than 20% of FSM
pupils were falling outside the scope of EiC.10 Conversely, not all schools in
a deprived municipality provide schooling for children with special educa-
tional needs, and their inclusion in these priority programs can, consequently,
imply the distribution of resources to pupils who are not disadvantaged.
PPE (France)
Originally, the definition of a group of schools as a ZEP was established
according to a series of indicators based on measurements of the social and
institutional realities of such schools. Thus, the possibility that schools could
benefit from the human, logistical, and pedagogical resources provided by
the program was dependent on measurements relating to both their social
composition (e.g., the proportion of pupils from a socially disadvantaged
background, pupils repeating academic years, pupils who have attended or
currently attend preprimary and postcompulsory education, etc.) and their
institutional structures and processes (e.g., ratios of pupils per classroom,
at Institute of Education, University of London on July 6, 2015epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Alegre et al. 317
resources for dealing with diversity, status and level of stability of teaching
staff, etc.). Hence, the school becomes the reference context for the indica-
tors of need. It is also important to note that the specific content of these
school-territorial indicators subrogates specific reasons for inequality (such
as ethnic origin or mother tongue) within two extended categorizations:
socioeconomic status and learning difficulties.
To a great extent, although abounding in discursive justifications and
implementations that differ from those of the original ZEP, the new reformu-
lations of the policies of priority education in France—the RAR, the ZEP 2,
and the REP—distribute their resources among schools by means of very
similar need indicators. What is worth mentioning here is that, first, the
degree of need (measured using the same indicators) that permits access to
each of these programs is established according to different thresholds,11 and
second that the resources received aim to promote individualized forms of
intervention, for example, by encouraging educational promotion of pupils
enrolled at the selected schools who are identified as more talented and moti-
vated. Regarding this latter strategy, we will see how the new programs
developed by various elite institutions to open access to higher education
select their beneficiaries from secondary schools (on a national or local level,
depending on each case) in line with parameters based strictly on personal
characteristics.
This method of measuring special educational needs implies that some
children who attend socially disadvantaged schools but do not have special
needs are accessing the support, whereas other children who attend less dis-
advantaged schools but with a higher degree of individual educational needs
are not the targets of these priority policies.
PEE (Catalonia)
When discussing PEE, it is worth acknowledging the lack of a substantive
filter for accessing the general framework of the program. Any application
presented by the local authorities is taken into consideration and supported
by the Catalan Department of Education. The only condition here is that the
initial frameworks and contents of any demand must be agreed on by all of
the political, technical, and civic actors who will be involved in it. Simply
accessing the general framework of the PEE allows local authorities to
receive standard funding to carry out the so-called closed activities. This
amount is calculated on the basis of the number of pupils at the schools
included in each plan, regardless of their social, economic, and cultural back-
ground or characteristics of their environment or municipality. Furthermore,
at Institute of Education, University of London on July 6, 2015epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

318 Educational Policy 25(2)
the subsequent application of priority focusing criteria (the so-called “needs
assessment”) is used to calculate 60% of the budget to fund those actions
labeled as tailored.12
With regard to the contents of the measurements considered under these
criteria, it is apparent that the procedures used to date clearly contradict the
conceptualization of the origins of educational inequalities—and so the frame-
work for specific educational needs—outlined by the program’s discourse.
Certain social indicators are considered taking the whole municipality as the
unit of reference (e.g., percentage of population that speaks the language of
instruction [Catalan], average family income, and school enrolment rate
among 0- to 3-year-olds), when in most cases the scope of action for PEE is a
district or a neighborhood.13 Furthermore, although the extra-curricular orien-
tation of the program would suggest a focus on territorial delimitations, the
local score in the prioritization scheme depends mainly on measurements of
school composition (e.g., percentage of pupils that do not complete compul-
sory secondary education, percentage of immigrant pupils according to mother
tongue, percentage of pupils with special educational needs).
Some exclusion errors derive from these criteria. For instance, by allocat-
ing resources based on data from the whole municipality, socially disadvan-
taged neighborhoods that exist within not disadvantaged municipalities are
not eligible for such resources.
Finally, within the same needs assessment, no measurements are taken relat-
ing to the educational, cultural, or sports networks or resources that the area has
to offer. Although at this level the collection of data is certainly more laborious,
to exclude it altogether from the process of prioritizing resource distribution
would contradict the concerns of the PEE with regard to urban and community
realities lacking in a minimal institutional network and free activities.
CS (The Netherlands)
The process that results in the recognition of a primary or secondary school
as a CS is based on a model of public tender for accessing the program. It is
the networks involved that submit CS project proposals to the local authori-
ties. These are then approved and funded according to the number of projects
presented, how the projects adapt to the objectives and methodological pro-
cedures established by local authorities, how suitable the budgets requested
are, the overall budget available for the proposals, and so on.
As there is no national plan to guide and homogenize the criteria and
indicators for accessing the CS program, in practice the different experiences
that have been recognized as such have been selected according to unequal
at Institute of Education, University of London on July 6, 2015epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Alegre et al. 319
prioritizing premises and measurements. Although exhaustive and system-
atic information is not available with regard to the need criteria defined in
each of the approved CS proposals, it does seem clear that the different typol-
ogies reflect the two prioritizing criteria at the root of the discursive founda-
tion of the program: territorial demarcation and group assignation. Thus, the
so-called “opportunities profile” corresponds with those CS implemented in
neighborhoods under reconstruction and in socially and institutionally disad-
vantaged neighborhoods, whereas the “all-day attention profile” corresponds
to schools in newly constructed neighborhoods, often lacking a network of
educational services and equipment, where the objective is to provide chil-
dren and adolescents with a broad range of socioeducational activities out-
side school time. Last, those CS that respond to the “community profile” are
implemented in rural areas, city suburbs, or districts of large cities where the
centralized articulation of basic public resources has left the neighborhood
significantly deprived of such resources. In practice then, a clear combina-
tion of social and institutional indicators is taken into account when prioritiz-
ing the establishment and funding of CS.
Comparative Overview of the Programs Analyzed
Table 2 identifies how the different dimensions of inequality are considered
by the four programs when establishing the indicators used to define eligible
candidates as well as to quantify and prioritize resources among them. These
are indicators that mark (fabricate) the different levels of educational need,
which are theoretically the objects of intervention.
Defining Priority Beneficiaries (Targets)
Each of the programs under consideration defines two types of target: (a)
intermediary targets or priority beneficiaries of resources (e.g., economic,
material, human) who, with a certain degree of autonomy, redistribute and
relocate these resources by defining specific actions for specific groups and
(b) direct targets or end beneficiaries of the actions—these are individuals or
groups who directly take part in the programs. Depending on the procedural
framework of each program, the process that defines the step from the inter-
mediary to the final target may be more or less direct in nature and may also,
to a certain extent, be regulated beforehand.
In this section, we will focus on the analysis of the profile of the direct
targets that ultimately benefit from the actions of the programs and subpro-
grams.14 It is once again expected that there is some form of coherence
at Institute of Education, University of London on July 6, 2015epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

320
Table 2. Need Indicators and Dimensions of Inequality
Dimensions Content of indicators Use of indicators
EiC MunicipalityaSchool-based indicators (all of the schools in
the municipality)
In general access to the program and in the total
quantification of resources for each subprogram
Neighborhood/areaa— —
Groups Disadvantaged pupils in the whole
municipality (proxy: total number of pupils
eligible for FSM)
In general access to the program and in the
internal distribution of 50% of resources for
strands LM and LSU
Schools Social composition: disadvantaged pupils (i.e.,
“groups”)
Basic unit of measurement (aggregated by
municipality) in general access to the program,
total quantification, and distribution of resources
among subprograms
Individuals — —
PPE Municipality — —
Neighborhood/area School-based indicators (all of the schools
included in the area or network)
In general access to the program and in the total
quantification of resources of ZEP (orig.), RAR,
ZEP 2, and REP
Groups Disadvantaged pupils in the area or network
as a whole (proxies: socioeconomic status,
repeaters, postcompulsory education
pupils)
In general access to the program and in the
allocation of resources among schools from the
area or network
Schools Social composition (i.e., “groups”)
Institutional realities (proxies: ratio pupils
for classroom, resources for dealing with
diversity, stability of teaching staff)
Basic unit of measurement (aggregated by area or
network) in general access to the program and
quantification of resources
Individuals — —
(continued)
at Institute of Education, University of London on July 6, 2015epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

321
Dimensions Content of indicators Use of indicators
PEE Municipality Social indicators In the quantification of 60% of the resources
allocatable to tailored actions
Neighborhood/area School-based indicators (all of the schools
included in the area)
In the quantification of 60% of the resources
allocatable to tailored actions
Groups Social indicators: disadvantaged population
(proxies: average family income, population
which speaks the language of instruction,
school enrolment rate among 0-3 year-olds
In the quantification of resources allocatable to
tailored actions
School-based indicators: disadvantaged pupils
(proxies: pupils that complete compulsory
secondary education, immigrant pupils
according to mother tongue, pupils with
specific educational needs)
Schools Social composition (i.e., “groups, school-
based indicators”)
Basic unit of measurement (aggregated by area)
for calculating “school-based indicators”
Individuals — —
CS Municipality — —
Neighborhood/area Institutional resource indicators In access to the local aid program
Social and school-based reality indicators
(schools in the neighborhood)
Groups (No general specification) In access to the local aid program
Schools (No general specification) In access to the local aid program
Individuals — —
Note: EiC = excellence in cities; FSM = free school meals; LM = learning mentors; LSU = learning support units; PPE = programs of priority education;
ZEP = zones d’éducation prioritaire; RAR = réseaux ambition réussite; ZEP 2 = Level 2 zones d’éducation prioritaire; REP = réseaux d’éducation prioritaire;
PEE = plans educatius d’entorn; CS = community schools.
a. Subdivisions within the territorial dimension
Table 2 (continued)
at Institute of Education, University of London on July 6, 2015epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

322 Educational Policy 25(2)
between these designs and delimitations and the notions of (specific) educa-
tional need constructed on different levels. That is to say, it is to be expected
that the definition of the final targets of the actions is consistent with both the
measurements that highlight the specific educational needs to be corrected
and the conceptualizations that generally legitimize the implementation of
the corresponding policies. Also, however, the distance between the ideal and
the specific (and diverse) applications does not always result in scenarios of
continuity and logical coherence.
Furthermore, in relationship to the possible discrepancy between the defini-
tion of the final target and the significance of educational need generated at
other levels (i.e., discourse and measurement indicators), one must consider the
following. Indeed, it could be argued that a large number of the possible actions
are unlikely to directly affect the cause of the problem as it is only possible to
intervene in the problem’s manifestations. For example, one could explain edu-
cational inequalities/needs as a consequence of living in a socially “problem-
atic” neighborhood or coming from a family with a low level of education.
From this starting point, the argument becomes clear: acting directly on these
factors is beyond the scope of a priority education policy. By contrast, it is
within the capacity of such a policy to work with the individuals or groups
among whom the consequences of the problem are most clearly manifested.
This argument is perfectly legitimate and realistic. It is to be hoped then that the
connection between the definition of the causes of the problem and the delimi-
tation of its manifestations is clearly identified. Otherwise, the significance of
the priority action under consideration may be questionable.
EiC (England)
As mentioned before, Local EiC partnerships are responsible for redistribut-
ing the resources available to the EiC strands between the schools of the
locality (these would be the intermediary targets of the program). With regard
to the selection of individuals or groups who will directly benefit from the
actions of the different subprograms, it is the schools themselves that ulti-
mately hold the power to make the selection. In fact, schools hold the auton-
omy to choose to convert their available funding into alternative types of
resources (e.g., hiring staff, purchasing material, carrying out activities, etc.)
while identifying the final target that will benefit from the action. When con-
sidering the processes through which the schools define the final target, it is
worth noting that they often take different forms, in terms of the extent to
which they follow the general guidelines established in the description of
each of the strands.
at Institute of Education, University of London on July 6, 2015epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Alegre et al. 323
Theoretically, the hired learning mentors provide individualized learning
support for those pupils who are considered to be at risk of abandonment or
academic failure, to stimulate their motivation to learn and, consequently, their
academic performance and expectations. With regard to G&T, each school
may place up to 10% of its pupils in this category. Each school therefore has a
broad margin of autonomy for determining which pupil can be assigned this
label, and in accordance with the Department for Education and Skills (DfES)
guidelines, the selection criteria range from the scores obtained in different key
subject tests to qualitative assessment of pupils carried out by teams of teachers
or specialist teachers. Finally, those students classified as academic failures and
who have severe learning difficulties may attend the LSU.
We have already outlined some of the possible criticisms of the general
prioritization scheme that frames each locality’s access to EiC resources. It is
worth repeating here what has been one of the frequent conclusions reached
by various studies conducted into the real application of EiC strands among
schools. In practice, those pupils who are ultimately selected as G&T are
native pupils in a less disadvantaged socioeconomic situation (Kendall,
2003).15 By contrast, those mechanisms of compensatory education aimed at
pupils with academic dropout problems (the LSUs and LMs) have mainly
been monopolized by working-class and ethnic minority pupils, in particular
those of an Afro-Caribbean background (DfES, 2005; O’Donnell & Golden,
2003), with all of this being justified on the basis of individual/personal indi-
cators of need (e.g., skills, abilities, motivation; Gillborn & Youdell, 2000;
Power, 2002).
PPE (France)
It is worth remarking on the lack of systematic studies and evaluations that
would allow for a detailed assessment of how the different schools involved
in RAR, ZEP 2, or REP programs have managed and used the resources they
have obtained to establish the final targets of their actions. Thus, although it
has been possible to document the existence of certain processes of “contex-
tual adaptation” (Van Zanten, 2001) and some of their main effects, there is
no in-depth knowledge regarding the extent to which schools have restruc-
tured their strategies for dealing with diversity, either through inclusive strat-
egies or through segregated schemes.
By contrast, it is clear that in the programs of which the basic foundation
is the development of strategies for accompanying individuals, the tendency
has been to target those pupils who, enrolled in priority education schools,
display specific characteristics which make them “easier to help.” This has
at Institute of Education, University of London on July 6, 2015epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

324 Educational Policy 25(2)
even been the case with the PPRE implemented in both primary and second-
ary schools. Although they seek to provide individualized attention outside
the classroom for low performance pupils, in practice teachers tend to recom-
mend for this program pupils who are assigned greater motivation and pos-
sibilities for improvement of their academic performance.
However, the adoption of a markedly individual and psychological
approach is even more evident within the framework of priority programs
steered by prestigious institutions of higher education. In fact, institutions
such as the Grandes Ecoles, Science Po or ESSEC, or the Lycée Henri IV
select from the different secondary schools involved in priority education
programs (Science Po and Henri IV on a national scale, and ESSEC on a
local one) those pupils who they and their respective schools observe as hav-
ing better predispositions, such as positive visions of their talent and motiva-
tion. It is important to note two arguments here. First, these elite institutions
appear to work with a notion of talent that goes beyond meritocratic assess-
ments focused on academic results. Both in the contents of these programs as
well as in the criteria that ultimately provide the places reserved for these
pupils at the Grandes Ecoles, there is a tendency to conceptualize talent as the
sum of ability and key competences (personal, interpersonal, and social),
which the adaptation to the new demands of the labor market requires. Sec-
ond, motivation levels tend to be measured in terms of the commitment stu-
dents display in relationship to the program and in terms of the initiative they
demonstrate in overcoming the risks of the geographical trap in which their
family and community environments theoretically place them.
To summarize, it seems clear that, as in the case of the English G&T
strand, the final beneficiaries of the social programs for access to higher edu-
cation are often native pupils in a less disadvantaged socioeconomic situa-
tion. Thus, we are faced with a discriminatory process that is concealed by
supposedly neutral measurements (not affected by social background), such
as those which refer to personal-type/individual variables (Van Zanten,
2007). Simultaneously, those pupils who are objectively more vulnerable (for
socioeconomic reasons and/or due to their ethnic background) become the
main recipients of compensatory education mechanisms developed within
the framework of other programs that are structured according to more tradi-
tional parameters of priority education (RAR and ZEP 2; Stefanou, 2001).
PEE (Catalonia)
In the case of the PEE, it is necessary to differentiate the discussion of the
definitions of targets according to the category—tailored or closed—of its
at Institute of Education, University of London on July 6, 2015epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Alegre et al. 325
actions. We have seen previously how all of the schools that participate in a
PEE have standardized or universal access to the resources for closed actions
depending on the number of pupils they have. As mentioned before, until
now, this subprogram has incorporated the following strands: assisted study
workshops and workshops for families. With regard to the first, certain
doubts have emerged surrounding the criteria that schools use to select pupils
for the workshops, where attendance is voluntary. The absence of common
agreement on these criteria leads to a combination of extremely diverse indi-
vidual circumstances in these classrooms—for example, pupils with severe
learning difficulties, pupils with behavioral problems, disaffected students,
and immigrant pupils. Concerning the workshops for families, it is worth
pointing out that the profile of participating mothers and fathers has been
very diverse depending on the school and has changed over time. Certain
studies have concluded, however, that these workshops have not managed to
engage families whose vulnerable position (for socioeconomic or linguistic
reasons) distances them from an active involvement in school activities
(Alegre & Collet, 2007).
The nature of the tailored actions implemented within the framework of
the different PEE has also been diverse and unequal. The definition of differ-
ent blocks of action (see the section titled “Empirical Approach: Four Poli-
cies of Priority Education”) has not, in practice, narrowed the margin of
autonomy that local PEE commissions are granted to demarcate the thematic
boundaries on which to intervene. Many different themes fit easily within the
different blocks of action, and in addition, these blocks have mostly been
interpreted by municipalities as a practical guide for action. Such circum-
stances have resulted in a tailored strand, which includes interventions with
very different meanings and purposes. For example, in certain municipalities,
some of the resources have been used to defray some of the fees families pay
to enroll their children in school sports activities, regardless of the social
background of pupils and schools. In other cases, supplementary educational
activities have been organized at open centers or libraries in the neighbor-
hood for pupils with greater learning difficulties (often by hiring specialist
teachers or social workers outside school hours), whereas in some PEE,
resources have been used to fund open seminars and conferences on educa-
tional issues. In part, this heterogeneity can be justified by the need to adapt
the profile of actions to the social and institutional particularities of each
neighborhood. Nevertheless, it should be emphasized that most of the inter-
ventions have not received enough consideration in terms of the extent to
which they coincide with the principles and specific objectives established in
the general framework for PEE (Alegre & Collet, 2007). In other words, in
at Institute of Education, University of London on July 6, 2015epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

326 Educational Policy 25(2)
many cases, exploitation of the lack of a clear and substantive definition of
tailored activities has resulted in the organization of activities of which the
final beneficiaries are not the disadvantaged or vulnerable groups prioritized
by the general PEE program as the intended recipients.
CS (The Netherlands)
As in the tailored scheme of PEE, in the case of the Dutch CS program, the
lack of a national plan for formalizing specific objectives, criteria, and indi-
cators of need, as well as the absence of a concrete design of a set of activities
that can be supported under the program, allows for a wide range of interven-
tions and target definitions. This has resulted in the proliferation of a notable
diversity in CS experiences and projects with regard to both the profile of
activities and that of the groups ultimately benefiting from them.
However, if we look back at the three basic types of CS mentioned previ-
ously, it is possible to illustrate the principal significance of actions carried
out within the framework of each of these. In this sense, the CS with an
“opportunities profile” have focused their program for action on activities
such as attention for children with learning difficulties, preprimary programs,
free-time activities, linguistic support, social skills programs, and language
courses for parents. The CS with the “all-day attention profile” have particu-
larly channeled their resources into programs providing attention for infants;
school canteens; extra-curricular activities such as music, sport, and theatre;
and additional services such as library services, health centers, and the like.
Finally, some of the services coordinated by the CS with the “community
profile” are post offices, health centers, social services, artistic education,
banks, and nurseries.
Furthermore, an analysis of the characteristics of the neighborhoods
where CS have been implemented allows us to formulate a more detailed
profile of the prioritization procedures employed in practice. From this per-
spective, we see a large majority of CS (76% in 2003) being established in
socially disadvantaged neighborhoods, whereas only a minority are found in
neighborhoods under reconstruction (5%) or newly constructed neighbor-
hoods (7%). This finding points to the development of prioritization schemes
that—of the two dimensions underlying the rhetorical legitimization of the
program, the institutional reality and social reality of the territory—gives
more significance to the latter. As the opportunities-type profile of CS is pre-
dominant, one can conclude that, despite the diversity of experiences
throughout the territory, their definition of end beneficiaries primarily
accounts for the case of infants and adolescents with learning difficulties
at Institute of Education, University of London on July 6, 2015epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Alegre et al. 327
(above all, those facing linguistic issues), to which actions of compensatory
education are being addressed to.
Comparative Overview of the Programs Analyzed
Table 3 summarizes how the different dimensions of educational inequality
mentioned above enter in the definition of the prioritized targets within the
framework of the programs analyzed.
Conclusions
In this article, we have attempted to analyze how through their discursive
positionings, their indicators and criteria of need, and their delimitation of
priority targets, various policies with different approaches to priority educa-
tion fabricate a certain concept of educational needs that frequently goes
beyond the conceptualization of educational inequalities taken as a starting
point. We have highlighted the fundamental differences and practical devel-
opments of these policies. Above and beyond these general differences,
however, we have identified significant contradictions between the concep-
tualizations and fabrications of educational needs within each of these poli-
cies, which occur throughout the three basic operations inherent in their
processes of formation and implementation.
Thus, for example, in the case of EiC, while the rhetoric of its guiding
principles emphasizes the importance of the territory (locality) and certain
individual factors (ability and motivation) in defining educational needs, the
indicators employed to prioritize resources among localities are exclusively
school-based measures and are restricted to proxy data on the socioeconomic
composition of schools (number of FSM students). As far as the defining of
targets is concerned, on the one hand, the Local EiC partnerships have a
broad margin for allocating the strand resources among different schools
―an operation that they carry out according to need criteria that are not
always the same. On the other hand, there is evidence that schools tend to
select the pupils who will benefit from the actions of the different subpro-
grams on individualistic criteria (e.g., assessment of pupils’ levels of motiva-
tion and talent), diminishing the significance of other structural variables
such as socioeconomic status or ethnic background. Some of these tensions
are also found in French policies of priority education. The underlying rheto-
ric of the ZEP establishes certain territorial demarcations as a source of edu-
cational need, while in its new reformulations (RAR, ZEP 2, and REP)
emphasis is placed on the importance of individual attitudes/aptitudes. In
at Institute of Education, University of London on July 6, 2015epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

328 Educational Policy 25(2)
Table 3. Targeting Procedures and Dimensions of Inequality
Definition of beneficiaries of actions
(final targets) Resulting group profiles
EiC LM subprogram: pupils facing
academic dropout (in particularly
disadvantaged schools in
disadvantaged municipalities)
LM and LSU subprogram:
mainly pupils of a low
socioeconomic status and/or
ethnic minorities
LSU subprogram: pupils with learning
difficulties and/or facing academic
dropout (in particularly disadvantaged
schools in disadvantaged municipalities)
G&T subprogram: mainly
native and less disadvantaged
pupils (in socioeconomic
terms)
G&T subprogram: pupils who exhibit
special abilities, skills, and motivation in
one or more areas of the curriculum,
even when these are pupils with
a low academic performance (in
disadvantaged municipalities)
PPE ZEP (orig.) and ZEP 2: pupils from all of the
schools in socially disadvantaged areas
RAR and REP: pupils from all of the
schools included in a network of
socially disadvantaged schools
ZEP (orig.), ZEP 2, RAR, and
REP: mainly pupils of a low
socioeconomic status and/or
ethnic minorities
PPRE: pupils with low performance in
priority schools
POS: pupils with talent and motivation in
priority schools from one locality or
across the country
PPRE and POS: mainly native
and less disadvantaged pupils
(in socioeconomic terms)
PEE TEA: pupils with learning difficulties from
all PEE schools
TF: families of pupils from all PEE schools
Tailored activities: particularly
disadvantaged pupils in PEE
TEA: mainly pupils of a low
socioeconomic status and/or
immigrant pupils
TF: changing diversity
depending on how actions
are designed
Tailored activities: changing
diversity depending on how
actions are designed
CS Diversity depending on the activity
project approved and implemented
in each locality, prioritizing action in
socially disadvantaged neighborhoods
and districts
Mainly infants and adolescents
of a low socioeconomic
status and/or ethnic
minorities
Note: EiC = excellence in cities; LM = learning mentors; LSU = learning support units; G&T = gifted
and talented pupils; PPE = programs of priority education; ZEP = zones d’éducation prioritaire; ZEP
2 = Level 2 zones d’éducation prioritaire; RAR = réseaux ambition réussite; REP = réseaux d’éducation
prioritaire; PPRE = programmes personnalisés de réussite educative; POS = politiques d’ouverture sociale;
PEE = plans educatius d’entorn; TAE = Tallers d’Estudi Assistit / TF = Tallers per Famílies;
CS = community schools.
at Institute of Education, University of London on July 6, 2015epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Alegre et al. 329
practice, all of these programs prioritize the allocation of resources to one
area or school network depending purely on school-based indicators (e.g.,
socioeconomic composition and performance, and teaching quality). Ulti-
mately, as in the English case, the definition of targets is justified by referring
to individual characteristics (once again, talent and motivation), in practice
leading to schemes of attention that are highly stratified in terms of socioeco-
nomic status and ethnic background. For example, strategies for socioeduca-
tional acceleration and promotion (such as those included in the POS
promoted by elite university institutions and certain private companies) wel-
come the more privileged groups from priority schools, while mechanisms of
traditional compensatory education deal with the less privileged pupils.
In summary, in both the English and French cases, there is a clear ten-
dency toward a discursive and practical approach that, instead of focusing on
actions to overcome structural barriers to equality, is based on a neoliberal
maxim of optimizing resources both in terms of effectiveness and success,
and efficiency and cost reduction (Van Zanten, 2007). This tendency reelabo-
rates the meritocracy principle now under the framework of accountability
and performativity (Ball, 2004). In this framework, the very root of the
concept of educational needs is altered: the identification and measurement
of specific educational needs based on the place of residence and on socio-
economic status are substituted by a decontextualized notion of individual
educational need in which it becomes legitimate (and profitable) to intervene.
Although this search for effectiveness is not reprehensible in itself, it is nec-
essary to be aware of the risks involved in the tendency to make a biased
selection of the students who are eligible to receive support to achieve “easily
better” results.
These normative shifts are neither evident in the case of the PEE in Cata-
lonia nor in the program of CS in the Netherlands, although in both programs
there are still relevant and significant internal tensions. We have seen how the
prioritization arguments of the PEE rhetoric place educational needs in rela-
tion to certain territorial characteristics (socially and institutionally disadvan-
taged areas) and group features (emphasis on the 10-16 age range and on
immigrant students or those at risk of social exclusion). These approaches
contradict the type of indicators employed to allocate resources for PEE tai-
lored actions. In fact, these indicators not only give more significance to
specific measures regarding the social composition of schools, but most of
them also establish the whole municipality, and not just the prioritized area,
as the unit of analysis. Rather than a mere effect of efficiency or resource
optimization criteria, the significant diversity that characterizes the social
background of pupils participating in PEE tailored activities is a result of the
at Institute of Education, University of London on July 6, 2015epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

330 Educational Policy 25(2)
program’s lack of a clear definition of what the content and therefore who the
end beneficiaries of these activities should be. We see a similar occurrence in
the case of CS. Here, the lack of a national plan detailing the specific objec-
tives and methodologies for the local development of the program ultimately
leads to the proliferation of varied experiences throughout the territory.
Although it is particularly difficult in this case to assess the significance of
possible contradictions across the different stages of the formation and imple-
mentation of the program, it does appear that the main tension occurs between
a general rhetoric focusing on socially as well as institutionally deprived ter-
ritories on the one hand and the extended practice to establish CS in neigh-
borhoods on the basis of their social characteristics, focusing on providing
attention to infants and adolescents of a low socioeconomic status and/or
ethnic minorities on the other.
It is to be expected that both the PEE and the CS place emphasis on the
importance of the territory (of its social and institutional realities) and of
specific group designations as delimiting factors of possible educational
needs. Not in vain, both programs establish their scope for action beyond the
restrictions of school time. However, both programs fail when it comes to
delimiting in practice these territorial variables and so the definition of the
final targets of the actions. From this tension between discourse and practice,
two problematic effects emerge. On the one hand, overly generic catego-
ries—of the type “socioculturally disadvantaged pupils” or “with learning
difficulties”—are assigned to very diverse individual and group situations,
difficult to treat within the framework of specific resources or standardized
mechanisms (Harris & Chapman, 2004). On the other hand, this same confu-
sion creates the possibility of increasing the flexibility of the profile of
the activities and their recipients, which in turn may put excessive strain on
the basic meaning of the territorial and social prioritizing criteria on which the
programs are based.
To conclude, it is worth arguing that if social justice is to be fostered by
priority education policies, there must be a more sophisticated understanding
and overt recognition within policy text and enactments of the complexity of
injustices in operation and of the nature and scope of remedies to address
them (Power & Gewirtz, 2001). Furthermore, it should be added that both the
methodologies used to prioritize the allocation of resources and the definition
of its final targets are also required to respond to the same level of recogni-
tion with regard to the complexity of the educational inequalities to be
addressed. That is, what is required is an understanding of the complexity of
the principal factors that demarcate the diverse characteristics of the territo-
ries, schools, groups, and collectives with specific educational needs.
at Institute of Education, University of London on July 6, 2015epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Alegre et al. 331
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interests with respect to the authorship
and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors declared no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this
article.
Notes
1. In this article, we avoid any attempt to equate the expressions priority education
policies and positive discrimination policies. As much as certain formulations and
procedures we will be reviewing would respond to the meanings encompassed by
the latter expression, in a large number of the contexts we will be referring to the
use of the phrase positive discrimination as well as the application of policies that
are directly justified under this parameter, is perceived negatively, and has even
been deemed illegal (as is the case in England, for example).
2. For example, in reference to the significance that certain partnership procedures
have acquired within the framework of these programs, see Cardi and Chambon
(1997), Evans, Castle, Cooper, Glatter, and Woods (2005), Glasman (1992), Sed-
don, Billet, and Clemans (2004), Van Zanten (2007).
3. We can only refer here to how from its very beginnings the sociology of edu-
cation and other related disciplines have approached the mutually determining
relationships existing between social structure and education: by considering the
school to be an instrument that serves to reproduce the structure of classes and of
a segmented labor market (Bowles & Gintis, 1976), by entering into more detail
in the interpretation of those educational procedures and mechanisms leading to
processes of sociocultural reproduction (Bernstein, 1975; Bourdieu & Passeron,
1970; Reay, 2004), by focusing on the explanation of those dynamics that place
specific ethnic groups in situations of educational vulnerability (Gibson, 1988;
Mac an Ghaill, 1988; Ogbu, 1978), or by assessing how different axes of inequality—
mainly social class, gender, and ethnic background—intersect to form multiple
educational disadvantages (McCarthy, 1990), and so on.
4. It goes beyond the scope of this article to assess the terms of a debate that, briefly
expressed, would place in opposition, on the one hand, those who enhance the
importance of the school composition effect—whether in terms of socioeco-
nomic (an internationally widespread argument since the publication of the Cole-
man report, 1966) or ethnic composition (Caldas & Bankston, 1998; Hanushek,
Kain, & Rivkin, 2002)—and on the other hand, those who highlight the effect
of educational processes (a main argument in the frame of the so-called school
at Institute of Education, University of London on July 6, 2015epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

332 Educational Policy 25(2)
effectiveness research: Scheerens & Bosker, 1997; Teddlie & Reynolds, 2000).
Although recent research seems to agree that the different variables referring
to school social composition contribute more significantly than those referring
to pedagogical and organizational processes when explaining the inequalities
between students and schools’ outcomes (De Fraine, Van Damme, Van Lande-
ghem, & Opdenakker, 2003; Dumay & Dupriez, 2004; Thrupp, 1999), other
studies, both qualitative and quantitative, confirm the existence of mutual inter-
actions between one set of variables and another (Lupton, 2005; Opdenakker &
Van Damme, 2001; Van Zanten, 2001).
5. Each school can place up to 10% of its pupils in this category.
6. For example, Van Zanten states that the real substantive and methodological pro-
posals at the basis of the zones d’éducation prioritaire have never been applied in
practice for a great variety of reasons (2007).
7. See www.bredeschool.nl.
8. According to Van Zanten (2007), establishing areas of priority education was a
strategy of taking into account patterns of spatial segregation to target specific
social and ethnic groups but without admitting this publicly.
9. Besides this common indicator, partnerships often take into account other school
variables such as percentage of pupils with special educational needs, percentage
of pupils with a mother tongue other than English, levels of absenteeism, data
regarding academic performance, pupil mobility, percentage of Afro-Caribbean
children, and percentage of refugee pupils.
10. It is worth pointing out that there has been an attempt to address this limita-
tion through the Excellence Clusters Program (launched in 2001), which on the
grounds of the very same principles and guidelines of the Excellence in Cities
targets small networks of schools as units of measurement and intervention.
11. Let us remember that the ZEP 2 and réseaux d’éducation prioritaire are intended
to serve schools in less disadvantaged areas.
12. As is the case with the total budget for closed actions, 40% of the remaining
funding for tailored actions is calculated on the basis of the number of pupils at
participating schools.
13. This lack of continuity between the basic approach of the program and the indica-
tors of need employed has been justified as being due to the difficulty of access-
ing socioeconomic data and, moreover, data on a neighborhood or district level.
14. For this reason, when approaching the resulting targeting practices within each
program, we refer to different studies already compiled at this level.
15. According to Radnor, Koshy, and Taylor (2007), this fact probably has to do with
the methods usually employed by schools to fill the G&T register. Given the fears
of the teaching staff in a context of educational regulation based on the maxims
of accountability (Ball, 2003), schools tend to select pupils on the basis of the
at Institute of Education, University of London on July 6, 2015epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Alegre et al. 333
results obtained in specific standardized skills tests and in national school assess-
ments made at 11 and 14 years of age (SATS). According to Radnor et al., fairly
widespread is the premise that “clever pupils who attain are going to be a safer
bet than under-achievers with potential” (Radnor et al., 2007, p. 288). Through
this practice, the connections between attainment and structural variables such as
socioeconomic status or ethnic background come easily into effect (see Note 3).
References
Alegre, M. A., & Collet, J. (2007). Els plans educatius d’entorn. Debats, balanç i reptes
[Local Environment Education Plans. Debates, outcomes and challenges] (Col.
Informes Breus 9). Barcelona, Spain: Fundació Jaume Bofill.
Ball, S. J. (2003). Class strategies and the education market. London: Routledge Falmer.
Ball, S. J. (2004). Performativities and fabrications in the education economy towards
the performance society. In S. J. Ball (Ed.), The Routledge Falmer reader in soci-
ology of education (pp. 143-155). London: Routledge Falmer.
Bernstein, B. (1975). Class, codes and control: Towards a theory of educational
transmission. London: Routledge & Keagan Paul.
Bourdieu, P. (1997). The forms of capital. In A. H. Halsey, H. Lauder, Ph. Brown, &
A. Wells (Eds.),Education, culture, economy, and society (pp. 46-59). Oxford,
UK: Oxford University Press.
Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J.-C. (1970). La reproduction: Éleménts pour une théorie
du système d’enseignement [Reproduction: Elements for a theory of education
system]. Paris: Editions de Minuit.
Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (1976). Schooling in capitalist America. London: Routledge
& Keagan Paul.
Brighouse, H. (2000). School choice and social justice. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
Braun, A., & West, A. (2003). Evaluation of excellence in cities primary extension:
Patterns of funding for EiC primary schools (NFER Research Report). Retrieved
on October 28, 2009, from http://www.emie.ac.uk/publications/other-publications/
downloadable-reports/evaluation-of-excellence-in-cities-primary-extension-patterns-
of-funding-for-eic-primary-schools.cfm
Caldas, S. J., & Bankston, C. (1998). The inequality of separation: Racial composi-
tion of schools and academic achievement. Educational Administration Quar-
terly, 34, 533-557.
Cardi, F., & Chambon, A. (Eds.). (1997). Les mêtamorphoses de la formation: Alter-
nance, partenariat, développement local [The changing face of training: Alternat-
ing, partnership, local development]. Paris: L’Harmattan.
Clark, J. A. (2006). Social justice, education and schooling: Some philosophical
issues. British Journal of Educational Studies, 54, 272-287.
Coleman Report. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, DC:
Government Printing Office.
at Institute of Education, University of London on July 6, 2015epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

334 Educational Policy 25(2)
Cribb, A., & Gewirtz, S. (2003). Towards a sociology of just practices: An analysis
of plural conceptions of justice. In C. Vincent (Ed.), Social justice, education and
identity (pp. 15-29). London: Routledge Falmer.
De Fraine, B., Van Damme, J., Van Landeghem, G., & Opdenakker, M. C. (2003).
The effect of schools and classes on language achievement. British Educational
Research Journal, 29, 841-859.
Delhay, C. (2006). Promotion ZEP. Des quartiers à Sciences Pol. [Promotion Priority
Education Zones: From districts to Political Science] Paris: Hachette Litteratures.
Demeuse, M., & Baye, A. (2005). Pourquoi parler d’équité? In M. Demeuse, A. Baye,
M. H. Straeten, J. Nicaise, & A. Matoul (Eds.), Vers une école juste et efficace.
26 contributions sur les systèmes d’enseignement et de formation. [“Why to talk
about justice?”] [For a just and effective school. 26 contributions for the school
and formation system] (pp. 149 -170). Brussels, Belgium: De Boeck.
Demeuse, M., Frandji, D., Greger, D., & Rochex, J. Y. (2008). Les politiques d’éducation
prioritarire en Europe. Conceptions, mises en oeuvre et débats. [Policies of Priority
Education in Europe. Conceptions, practices and debates] Lyon, France: Institut
National de Recherche Pédagogique.
Departament d’Educació. (2004). Pla per a la Llengua i la Cohesió Social. [Language
and Social Cohesion Action Plan]. Barcelona: Subdirecció General de Llengua i
Cohesió Social, Generalitat de Catalunya.
Department for Education and Employment. (1999). Excellence in cities. London:
Author.
Department for Education and Skills. (2005). Ethnicity and education. The evidence
on minority ethnic pupils (Research Topic Paper No. RTP01-05). London: Author.
Retrieved October 8, 2009, from http://www.dfes.gov.uk/research/data/upload-
files/RTP01-05.pdf
Dumay, X., & Dupriez, V. (2004). Effet établissement: effet de processus et/ou effet
de composition?. Les Cahiers de Recherche en Éducation et Formation, 36. [The
school effect: process effect and/or composition effect?], 1-29
Evans, J., Castle, F., Cooper, D., Glatter, R., & Woods, Ph. A. (2005). Collabora-
tion: The big new idea for school improvement? Journal of Education Policy, 20,
223-235.
Gewirtz, S. (2004). Equity in education: What counts as success? In L. Moreno, &
G. Francia (Eds.), Educational policies—Implications for equity, equality and
equivalence (pp. 25-40). Örebro, Sweden: Department of Education, Örebro
University.
Gibson, M. (1988). Accommodation without assimilation. Punjabi Sikhs immigrants
in an American high school. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Gillborn, D. (1995). Racism and antiracism in real schools. Buckingham, UK: Open
University Press.
at Institute of Education, University of London on July 6, 2015epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Alegre et al. 335
Gillborn, D., & Youdell, D. (2000). Rationing education: Policy, practice, reform and
equity. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Glasman, D. (1992). L’école réinventée? Le partenariat dans les zones d’éducation
prioritaires [School reinvented? The partnership in priority education zones].
Paris: L’Harmattan.
Hanushek, E. A., Kain, J. F., & Rivkin, S. G. (2002). New evidence about Brown v.
Board of Education: The complex effects of school racial composition on achieve-
ment (NBER Working Papers No. 8741). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of
Economic Research.
Harris, A., & Chapman, C. (2004). Improving schools in difficult contexts: Towards
a differentiated approach. British Journal of Educational Studies, 52, 417-431.
Kendall, L. (2003). The characteristics of gifted and talented pupils (NFER Research
Paper 22/2003). Retrieved on October 28, 2009, from http://www.emie.
ac.uk/publications/other-publications/downloadable-reports/the-characteristics-
of-gifted-and-talented-pupils.cfm
Lupton, R. (2004) Schools in disadvantaged areas: recognising context and raising
quality. CASE Paper 76. London: CASE.
Lupton, R. (2005). Social justice and school improvement: Improving the quality of
schooling in the poorest neighbourhoods. British Educational Research Journal,
31, 539-604.
Mac an Ghaill, M. (1988). Young, gifted and Black: Student-teacher relations in the
schooling of Black youth. Buckingham: Open University Press.
McCarthy, C. (1990). Race and curriculum: Social inequality and the theories and
politics of difference in contemporary research on schooling. London: Falmer
Press.
Mellier, J. P. (2006). Du projet de zone au Programme Personnalisé de Réussite Éduca-
tive. Cahiers Pedagogiques, 445 (Dossier “Où en sont les ZEP?”). [From territory
based programs to individualized programs aiming educational success] Retrieved
on October 7, 2009, from http://www.cahiers-pedagogiques.com/article.php3?id_
article=2498
Ministère de l’Éducation Nationale. (1981). Zones prioritaires. Bulletin Officiel de
l’Éducation Nationale, no. 27 du 9 septembre (Circulaire No. 81-238). 1981
[Priority zones. Official Bulletin of National Education, number 27, 9th Septem-
ber] 1982 [Priority Zones and Programs of Priority Education. Official Bulle-
tin of National Education, number 21, 21st January] 1998 [Recovery of Priority
Education: establishment of priority education networks and educational success
contracts. Official Bulletin of National Education, number 29, 16th July] 2005
[Measures to help and encourage the school success of students. Official Bulletin
of National Education, number 31, 1st September] 2006 [Principles and modali-
ties of Policies of Priority Education. Official Bulletin of National Education,
number 14, 6th April] Paris: Author.
at Institute of Education, University of London on July 6, 2015epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

336 Educational Policy 25(2)
Ministère de l’Éducation Nationale. (1982). Zones prioritaires et programmes
d’éducation prioritaire. Bulletin Officiel de l’Éducation Nationale, no. 1 du 21
janvier (Circulaire No. 81-536). Paris: Author.
Ministère de l’Éducation Nationale. (1998). Relance de l’éducation prioritaire: mise
en place des réseaux d’éducation prioritaire et des contrats de réussite. Bulletin
Officiel de l’Éducation Nationale, no. 29 du 16 juillet (Circulaire No. 98-145).
Paris: Author.
Ministère de l’Éducation Nationale. (2005). Dispositifs d’aide et de soutien pour la
réussite des élèves à l’école. Bulletin Officiel de l’Éducation Nationale, no. 31 du
1 septembre (Décret No. 2005-1014 du 24-08-2005). Paris: Author.
Ministère de l’Éducation Nationale. (2006). Principes et modalités de la politique
de l’éducation prioritaire. Bulletin Officiel de l’Éducation Nationale, no.14 du 6
avril (Circulaire No. 2006-058). Paris: Author.
Noden, P., Braun, A., & West, A. (2001). Funding EiC partnerships and funding
schools (NFER Research Report 13/2001). Retrieved on October 28, 2009, from
http://www.emie.ac.uk/publications/other-publications/downloadable-reports/
funding-eic-partnerships-and-funding-schools.cfm
O’Donnell, L., & Golden, S. (2003). Learning mentors strand: Survey findings
(NFER Research Report 19/2003). Retrieved on October 28, 2009, from http://
www.emie.ac.uk/publications/other-publications/downloadable-reports/learning-
mentors-strand-survey-findings.cfm
Ogbu, J. (1978). Minority education and caste. New York: Academic Press.
Opdenakker, M. C., & Van Damme, J. (2001). Relationship between school composi-
tion and characteristics of school process and their effect on mathematics achieve-
ment. British Educational Research Journal, 27, 407-432.
Pepin, B. (2004). Comparing notions of social justice in education across borders and
cultures: Some methodological considerations. In L. Moreno, & G. Francia (Eds.),
Educational policies. Implications for equity, equality and equivalence. (pp. 221-235)
Örebro, Sweden: Department of Education, Örebro University.
Power, S. (2002). Education in deprived areas: Outcomes, inputs and processes.
London: Institute of Education, University of London.
Power, S., & Gewirtz, S. (2001). Reading education action zones. Journal of Educa-
tion Policy, 16, 39-51.
Radnor, H., Koshy, V., & Taylor, A. (2007). Gifts, talents and meritocracy. Journal of
Education Policy, 22, 283-299.
Rawls, J. (1972). A theory of justice. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
Reay, D. (2004). Finding or losing yourself? Working class relationships to educa-
tion. In S. J. Ball (Ed.), The Routledge Falmer reader in sociology of education
(pp. 30-44). London: Routledge Falmer.
Scheerens, J., & Bosker, R. J. (1997). The foundation of educational effectiveness.
Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
at Institute of Education, University of London on July 6, 2015epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Alegre et al. 337
Seddon, T., Billet, S., & Clemans, A. (2004). Politics of social partnerships: A frame-
work for theorizing. Journal of Education Policy, 19, 123-142.
Stefanou, A. (2001). Les caractéristiques des collèges de l’éducation prioritaire et le
destin scolaire de leurs élèves. [Characteristics of Priority Education Schools and
the school future of their students] La Revue Éducation et Formations, 61, 97-101.
Teddlie, Ch., & Reynolds, D. (Eds.). (2000). International handbook of school effec-
tiveness research. London: Routledge Falmer.
Thrupp, M. (1999). Schools making a difference: Let’s be realistic. Buckingham, PA:
Open University Press.
Thrupp, M., & Lupton, R. (2006). Taking school contexts more seriously: The social
justice challenge. British Journal of Educational Studies, 54, 308-328.
Tomlinson, S. (2005). Education in post-welfare society (2nd ed.). London: McGraw-
Hill.
Van Zanten, A. (2001). L’école de la périphérie: Scolarité et ségrégation en banlieue
[The school on the outskirts: Schooling and segregation in the suburbs]. Paris:
PUF.
Van Zanten, A. (2004). Les politiques d’éducation [Education policies]. Paris: PUF.
Van Zanten, A. (2007, October 17-18). New positive discrimination policies in basic
and higher education: From the quest of social justice and equality to inclusion
and optimal mobilisation of human resources. Paper presented at the Symposium
on Education and Immigration in Catalonia, Barcelona, Spain.
Bios
Dr. Miquel Àngel Alegre, PhD in Sociology (Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona).
He is research coordinator at the University Institute of Public Policies and
Government (UAB). He has been research fellow of the Graduate School of
Education (UniversityofBristol), the Faculty of Education (UniversityofCambridge),
and of the Department of Political and Social Sciences at the European University
Institute (EUI, Florence).
Dr. Jordi Collet, PhD in Sociology (Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, UAB). He
is assistant professor of the Department of Pedagogy (Universitat de Vic), and
researcher at the University Institute of Public Policies and Government (UAB).
Sheila González, M. Phil in Political Sciences (Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona,
UAB). She is assistant professor of the Department of Political Sciences and Public
Law (UAB), and researcher at the University Institute of Public Policies and
Government (UAB). She has been a visiting researcher of the Departamento de
Investigaciones Educativas (UNAM,Mexico), Instituto Politécnico Nacional de
Mexico, and of theCenterofMigrationand Citizenship of the Hochschule Bremen
(Germany). She is currently completing her PhD.
at Institute of Education, University of London on July 6, 2015epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from