Vol. 9 No. 3 (2011)
Articles

Notes for a Comparison Of the Systems of Education of Argentina and France: A Case Study

Published May 29, 2016

Keywords:

Education, teachers, Argentina, France, education system comparison, comparison
How to Cite
Cosse, G. (2016). Notes for a Comparison Of the Systems of Education of Argentina and France: A Case Study. REICE. Ibero-American Journal on Quality, Effectiveness and Change in Education, 9(3). https://doi.org/10.15366/reice2011.9.3.003

Abstract

This study presents a comparative analysis of the systems of education of Argentina and France at the beginning of the first decade of the twenty-first century. A case study approach is used for the comparison, which consists of examining the experience of an Argentine adolescent girl who was initially enrolled in the first year of secondary school in her country, where she completed one semester, and subsequently moved to France, where she finished her secondary education. The data for the study was gathered through interviews with school directors, teachers, and teaching coordinators; observation (in some cases participant observation) in Argentina and France; and documentary analysis (report cards from both countries, written evaluations from the two schools, etc.). The names of the people interviewed or observed are naturally omitted to preserve their privacy, in particular in the case of the Argentine subjects. At least several of the factors that affect the quality of education in Argentina and which are listed throughout this study operate in both the pubic and private sector; moreover, the observations made with regard to the school in Argentina are to a large extent applicable to the system as a whole. In sum, the institutional operation rationales, the implementation of syllabus designs with significant margins of flexibility, a strong leadership conducted as part of a team effort, and the monitoring of performance, as well as the provision of personalized responses to the problems faced by students, are the factors that most greatly influence the quality of education.The organizational rationales, teaching strategies, syllabus designs, systemic characteristics, and educational quality of both systems are analyzed, as well as the academic performance of the student in both settings and that of the student’s class in France. Focus is placed on the factors that explain a major change in the student after only one year of studying in France, as compared to the semester she studied in Argentina. The analysis of the curricular, evaluation, and organizational rationale are prioritized with the aim of providing examples of certain important systemic characteristics of the two education systems. Special attention is given to pedagogical practices, evaluation strategies and the mechanisms used to monitor students in both cases, as well as the systems of rewards and penalties used. The characteristics shared by the two schools and their respective education systems are considered and explained. The main features of Argentine and French teachers in general are also described, based on information provided by the two Ministries of Education and existing literature on the subject.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Aguerrondo, I. (1996). La escuela como organización inteligente. Buenos Aires: Ed. Troquel.

Bodin, A. (2005). Ce qui est vraiment évalué par PISA en mathématiques. Ce qui ne l’est pas. Un point de vue français. IREM de Franche-Comté. Joint Finnish-French Conference “Teaching Mathematics: beyond the PISA survey”.

Braslavsky, C. (2003). The Secondary education curriculum in Latin America: New tendencies and changes. Final Report of the seminar organized by IBE and IIEP, 2-3 September, Buenos Aires. Ginebra: IBE/UNESCO.

Braslavsky, C., Halil. K., Souto M. y Truong. N. (2004). Historical Competence as a Key to Promote Democracy. V Congreso Interamericano de Editores, Bogotá.

Braslavsky, C. (2005). Competencia histórica y estructura curricular en la educación básica de comienzos de siglo. Draft. Ginebra: Bureau International d´Education.

Braslavsky, C. y Cosse, G. (2003). Panorama internacional sobre calidad y equidad en la educación. En: Calidad, equidad y educación. pp. 9-32. Barcelona: Erisa.

Carnoy, M. (2002). Achieving Greater Access, Equity, and Quality of Education in Latin America: ¿What Lessons for UNESCO’s Latin America and Caribbean Regional Education Project. UNESCO Meeting of Ministers of Education of Latin America and the Caribbean, Cuba.

Carnoy, M., Cosse, G., Cox, C., y Martinez, E. (2002). Las reformas educativas en Argentina, Chile y Uruguay. Proyecto Alcance y Resultados de las reformas educativas en Argentina, Chile y Uruguay en los ´90, Ministerios de Educación de Argentina, Chile y Uruguay. Buenos Aires: Universidad de Stanford / BID.

Cosse, G. (2009). Los docentes: estado de la cuestión, situación y problemas. Revista Sudamericana de Educación, Universidad y Sociedad, pp. 10-25.

Cosse, G. (2010). La evaluación internacional de la calidad educativa: Estado de la cuestión, avances y dificultades. En: Martinez, E. y Chiancone, A.,Coord, Políticas educativas en el cono sur. pp. 95-134 Montevideo: Magró.

Cosse, G. (2000). Gasto educativo, eficiencia, eficacia y equidad en Argentina. 1990-1999. Proyecto Alcance y Resultados de las Reformas Educativas en Argentina, Chile y Uruguay los ´90. Ministerios de Educación de Argentina, Chile y Uruguay. Buenos Aires: Universidad de Stanford /BID.

Cosse, G. (2006). El sistema educativo argentino entre 1995 y 2005 y los efectos de la crisis del 2001. Buenos Aires: Ministerio de Educación, Ciencia y Tecnología.

Cox, C. (1999). La sociedad del futuro y sus requerimientos al sistema escolar: la reforma del Currículum. En: Azúa, X. y Nervi, M.L. (comps) La reforma curricular chilena. Enfoques críticos. Santiago: Universidad de Chile.

García Huidobro (Ed).(1999). La reforma educacional Chilena. Madrid: Proa.

Cox, C. (2006). Reflections on a Lifelong Journey in Search of Quality education for All. En:Benavot, A. and Braslavsky, C. School Knowledge in Comparative and Historical Perspective. Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre.

Crozier, M. y Friedberg, E. (1990). El actor y el sistema. México: FCE.

Dupriez, V. y Draelants, H. (2004). Classes homogènes versus classes hétérogènes: les apports de la recherche à l’analyse de la problématique. Revue Française de Pédagogie, 148.

Filmus, D. (2001). La educación secundaria en América Latina frente a la crisis del mercado de trabajo. Ginebra: Bureau International d´Educacion/UNESCO.

Gamoran, A., y Berends, M. (1987). The Effects of Stratification in Secondary Schools: Synthesis of Survey and Ethnographic Research. Review of Educational Research. 57 (4), pp. 107-140.

Gerstner, L. V. et. al. (1996). Reinventando la educación. España: Ed. Paidós.

Ibarrola, M. (2006). New Proposals for Upper Secundary Curricula in Tour Latin America Countries, 1990-2005. En: Benavot A. and Braslavsky C. Knowledge in Comparative and Historical Perspective, pp. 221-242. Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre.

Kames, D. H. y Benavot, A. (2006). Worlds Models of Secundary Education, 1960-2000. En: Benavot A. and Braslavsky C. Knowledge in Comparative and Historical Perspective, pp. 135-144. Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre.

Linnakylä, P. y Välijärvi, J. (2006). Rendimiento de los estudiantes finlandeses en PISA. Las claves del éxito en lectura. Revista de Educación, PISA. Programa para la Evaluación Internacional de alumnos, número extraordinario 2006, pp. 227-235.

Ministère de l'Education. (2003). La diversité des profils et des métiers d’enseignants. Éducation & formations. juillet-décembre 66, pp. 33-145.

Ministère de l'Education. (2003). Le Système Educatif Francais. París: Ministère de l'Education.

OECD (a) (2001). Connaissances et compétences: des atouts pour la vie. Paris: OECD-PISA.

OECD (b) (2001). Analyse des politiques d´education. Paris: OECD-PISA.

OECD- UNESCO (2000). Compétences pour le monde de demain. Résultats supplémentaires à l’enquête PISA. Paris: OECD.

Rothstein, R., Carnoy, M., and Benveniste, L. (2000). ¿What Can Public Schools Learn from Private?. Washington, D.C.: Economic Policy Institute-BID.

Schleicher, A. (2006). Fundamentos y cuestiones políticas subyacentes al desarrollo de PISA. Revista de Educación. PISA. Programa para la Evaluación Internacional de alumnos, número extraordinario 2006, pp. 21-43.

Schulte, B. (2005). El sistema educativo alemán. En: VV. AA. Los sistemas educativos europeos: ¿crisis o transformación?, pp. 149-175. Madrid: Obra Social de la Caixa.

Tedesco, J. C. y Tenti, E. (2002). Nuevos Tiempos y Nuevos Docentes. Buenos Aires: IIPE.

Tedesco, J. C. (1987). El desafío educativo: calidad y democracia. Buenos Aires: GEL.

Tedesco, J. C., Tenti, E., López, N. y Urresti, M. (2000). Los Docentes Argentinos. Buenos Aires: IIPE.

Tenti, E. (2002). Algunas dimensiones de la profesionalización de los docentes. Primera Reunión Intergubernamental del Proyecto Regional de Educación para América Latina y el Caribe (PRELAC). La Habana: PRELAC