Terrorist attacks targeting teachers force us to confront, among other things, the question of the school’s roles and powers. In the face of barbaric fanaticism, what can education really do? Teachers are expected to serve as a bulwark against obscurantism. But is this realistic when schools seem incapable of fulfilling their primary mission of imparting knowledge and ensuring the success of all students?

The Minister of Education, who hopes to address this decline in student achievement through a “knowledge shock,” recently stated in an interview with the newspaper *Le Monde* that “pedagogy can overturn sociology.” Does school education, then, have the power to counteract the influence of the social determinants of success—the power of which has been demonstrated by numerous studies? Is the minister’s hope well-founded?

Social Factors That Affect Academic Success

The sociology of education shows that students’ socioeconomic background appears to largely determine their educational outcomes. In this regard, two key findings can be drawn from the PISA surveys (“Program for International Student Assessment”), which have been conducted every three years since 2000 under the auspices of the OECD.

First of all, despite the alarming headlines in the press, there has been no significant decline in test scores in France. France is an average (or mediocre?) student, whose results—aside from a relative dip in 2006—have remained virtually stable, as can be seen, for example, in reading comprehension scores since 2009.

While France sometimes drops in the rankings—though one must take into account the effect of the “increase in the number of countries surveyed,” from 32 countries in 2000 to 85 countries in 2023—its scores do not decline significantly. But they do not increase either.

However—and this is the second major finding—the impact of social inequalities is not diminishing. In fact, there is even a trend toward widening performance gaps between “high-achieving” and “low-achieving” students. In 2012, 22.5% of students’ math scores were attributable to socioeconomic background, compared with an OECD average of 15%. In 2015, socioeconomic background still accounted for more than 20% of performance. And there was a 118-point gap in scores based on the “background” variable (advantaged vs. disadvantaged).

In 2018, among high-achieving students, 20 percent came from affluent families, compared with 2 percent from disadvantaged families. Undeniably, inequalities in academic achievement are strongly influenced by social factors. But does that mean education is powerless?

Advocating for the educability of all

While students from disadvantaged backgrounds (statistically) have a harder time succeeding than others, sociology does not show that they are, for that reason, at a disadvantage that cannot be overcome. As if they were afflicted by a substantial “lower educability”! It must be acknowledged in this regard—as the work of Guy Avanzini and Philippe Meirieu has clearly shown—that the educability of all students (their capacity to develop and succeed) is not a matter of empirical evidence, but rather a postulate.

Yet this premise is a necessary condition for the educational act itself. As Avanzini has forcefully argued, “belief in educability” is akin to an act of faith, a gamble, or a challenge. It expresses an ethical requirement; but, even more so, a logical one. For it would be absurd to try to educate someone whom one assumed to be uneducable! “To undertake the education of someone without assuming they are educable would be contradictory.”

Here, then, the hope, the desire, the wish—expressed in even the smallest act of educational intent—carry more weight than sociological findings. We are not dealing with facts that can be proven, but with the prior, overarching realm of “that without which” an action has no meaning. From this perspective, insofar as it is based on the premise of educability, pedagogy takes precedence over sociology.

What model should we use to think about educational pathways?

But simply believing that it is possible is not enough to ensure effective action. The obstacles may be too numerous—or even insurmountable. Among these obstacles are the number and significance of extracurricular factors influencing success, which must be taken into account when developing a model to explain academic success and failure.

However, on the one hand, these factors are clearly very numerous; and, on the other hand, most of them fall squarely within the economic and social spheres. Indeed, following Bourdieu and Passeron (1970), we can point to the influence of habitus (the generative and unifying principle of behaviors and opinions forged in early childhood through the inculcation of cultural norms); the socially conditioned mastery of language—first oral, then written; the family environment, which may be more or less receptive to academic demands; the ability (or lack thereof) to afford “enrichment” expenses (private lessons, travel, summer camps); and so on.

In this regard, the exceptional academic success of teachers’ children— the “favorites” at school—is highly significant. Their parents have a significantly large amount of “time capital” and “cultural capital”; possess a particular mastery of school norms; and are able to ensure continuity in practices and values between the family and school environments.

Rather than simply identifying success factors—which is part of a static analysis of reality—it is now essential to adopt a dynamic model of the educational journey. One possible model is the “vortex spiral.” Each individual is caught up in a spiral with numerous “driving forces”: linguistic capital, cultural capital, personal energy, the desire to succeed, self-confidence, attitude toward schoolwork, and previously acquired skills and knowledge, among others. And we must not overlook the essential factor of prior academic success.

Past success is becoming (and increasingly so) a factor in future success. This creates a dynamic in which some remain at the center of the whirlwind until the very end, a whirlwind that will carry them to the École Normale Supérieure on Rue d’Ulm or to the École Polytechnique. Meanwhile, those who are less well-equipped will have been swept out of the whirlwind at one point or another along the way.

Can we break the cycle of inequality?

But can’t we break the cycle of a downward spiral? For one thing, the claim that “the social mobility ladder no longer works” is based on the retrospective illusion that it ever worked properly in the first place—a claim that is far from proven. And, for another, it reveals a lack of understanding of reality. Arnaud Lacheret’s recent work on the successes of the second generation of North African immigrants suggests that an excessive focus on failures and discrimination (which are nonetheless real!) overshadows the “ordinary successes” (which are just as real!) of all those who have managed to integrate.

[More than 85,000 readers rely on The Conversation’s newsletters to better understand the world’s major issues. Subscribe today]

Ultimately, success is not reserved for a select few and denied to others. While it is clear that some have better odds than others in their endeavors, many others have managed to enter a virtuous cycle. This is thanks, in particular, to encountering a teacher who was able to identify and unlock a student’s potential—a student whose capacity to learn the teacher believed in. Numerous testimonials attest to this. It takes very little to turn a downward spiral into an upward one. Simply meeting a teacher who was able to engage them can be enough…

It is in this sense that pedagogy can overturn sociology. We must not, therefore, view pedagogy as opposed to sociology; rather, more broadly, we must see it as the hope of making a difference, as opposed to fatalistic defeatism. Pedagogy cannot be the source of every success in the world. But it can—and must—play its part.