🔍💡 Educational alliances and Educational Cities: this document shows how inter-institutional cooperation, with families and young people, concretely transforms practices in priority areas.🔍💡 Co-education, neighbourhood, digital, families: this study provides operational guidelines to structure, animate and sustain educational alliances with high educational value.
Summary
🔴🔑AT THE HEART OF THE SUBJECT: Analytical summary, Key points to remember, Action tracks for stakeholders, Additional references
➕🛠️ ADDITIONAL RESOURCES: Cross-sectional analysis, Multiple choice questions, Frequently asked questions, Easy to Read and Understand
Source: 📒 The practices of educational alliances in the context of Educational Cities: a challenge for transformation📜🔗LINK
The set of four documents (this document and the 3 complementary references - see below) provides a solid framework for integrating health prevention actions into educational cities, in line with the health education pathway. The report "Understanding the Practices of Educational Alliances..." helps to situate prevention within the five spheres (family, school, third places, neighbourhood, virtuality) and within the bodies (CPO, troika, working groups), which allows for a clear positioning of health actors within governance. The guide "Act" provides a method and tools to evaluate health actions (hygiene, mental health, physical activity, addictions...) by integrating them into the overall project of the educational city. The INJEP report on the role of families sheds light on how to involve parents in prevention (co-construction of diagnostics, participation in actions, recognition as educational actors), which is a major lever in health. Finally, the article from the Bank of Territories highlights the fragilities of management and resources, useful for arguing the needs for engineering and funding dedicated to prevention actions.
At the heart of the matter
1. ANALYTICAL SUMMARY
Context, issues and scope
The study is part of the national programme of Educational Cities (created in 2019, co-led by ANCT and Dgesco) which aims to strengthen the role of schools, ensure educational continuity, and open up possibilities for those aged 0-25 in priority urban areas. It examines educational alliances, understood as structured cooperation between institutions, professionals, parents, and young people at micro, meso, and macro levels. Three hypotheses guide the analysis: the contribution of collaborative functioning to supporting children in their transitions, the capacity of the Cities to become territories of high educational value, and the transformative and sustainable nature of alliance dynamics. The approach is based on 41 interviews in 34 Educational Cities, supplemented by focus groups with parents, young people, and professionals, and by the analysis of the 2024 Project Review covering 208 Cities. The Cities surveyed are anonymised and categorised into four groups (Attractiveness, Inequalities, Pauperisation, Singularities) to articulate territorial issues and institutional legacies.
Operational contributions for field actors
The document provides a modelling of the role of operational project manager (CPO), described as a polymorphic pivot of educational alliances articulating coordination, facilitation, innovation, mediation, evaluation, and structuring. It describes the stages of maturity of cooperations (communication/support, coordination, cooperation-integration) and the observed effects on the spheres of school, families, third places, neighbourhood, and 'virtuality' (digital). The study offers a reading of the 'quests' for co-education (equality of opportunity, connections and meaning, innovation) and documents structural, functional, and human changes (reorganisations of services, new functions, committees, working groups, experimental methods). It identifies areas for improvement (the role of high schools, measuring the effects on academic success, participation of parents and young people, prevention rather than reaction, cooperation around digital issues) and future avenues (observatories of educational success, support for evaluation, coordination with other initiatives such as the Promeneurs du Net).
2. KEY POINTS OF THE DOCUMENT
Model the role of CPO as a pivot of alliances (6 dimensions: coordinator, facilitator, animator, evaluator, mediator, pilot) to structure governance and co-education (pp. 30-33).
Monitor the maturity progression of cooperations, from simple exchange to shared governance (3 stages, data from 208 Cities) to steer the alliance dynamics (pp. 10, 36-39).
Integrate five spheres of co-education (family, school, third places, neighbourhood, virtuality) to analyse the effects of the educational cities label and adjust actions (pp. 13-15, 66-71).
Use working groups and committees (steering, technical, thematic) as "laboratories of cooperation" to experiment, evaluate, and disseminate co-educational practices (pp. 9-12, 48-55).
Identify structural transformations (reorganisation of services, new hubs, new functions) and the conditions for sustainability (long-term, engineering, recognition of cooperation time) (pp. 66-76).
3. ACTION PATHS FOR LOCAL ACTORS (max. 4)
Support the role of the CPO through a clear framework of missions, cross-training, and peer spaces to enhance its capacity for coordination, mediation, and steering (pp. 30-33, 71-72).
Structure and sustain thematic working groups involving schools, associations, families, and young people, with explicit reflective, operational, and evaluative missions (pp. 11-12, 48-55).
Build a local "co-education chessboard" by systematically analysing the effects of actions on the five spheres (family, school, third places, neighbourhood, virtuality) and working on their permeability (pp. 66-71).
Use national evaluation tools (Project Review, ANCT "Act" guide) to formalise partnership evaluation approaches and adjust the territorial strategy over the long term (pp. 7-10, 72-76).
Other references
ANCT & Dgesco, "[Act] Guide to Supporting the Evaluation of Educational Cities", 2025, available online on the ANCT website (FR, evaluation methodology, post-2020).LINK
This guide proposes a six-step framework for building robust local evaluations of Educational Cities, from framing to recommendations. It is accompanied by a 'toolbox' (methods, examples, inspiring practices) and is aimed at all territories, regardless of their level of maturity, as very practical support for the evaluative approach.
INJEP, 'The Role of Families in Educational Cities – Final Report', 2024, national analysis of parental participation methods (FR, additional information on co-education and participation).LINK
This report analyses how Educational Cities address the issue of families, their modes of involvement, and the effects on the role of parents in the local educational community. It highlights that the priority given to families is widely stated, but practices remain heterogeneous, with tensions between 'beneficiary' families and families recognised as full actors.Banque des Territoires, 'Educational Cities: The Alliance Under Tension', 2025, analytical article on governance issues, cooperation, and local tensions (FR, additional critical insight).LINK
This article offers a critical reading of the programme based on a report from the Court of Auditors: a real partnership dynamic but national management deemed fragile, weakened political impetus, unevenly distributed allocations, and still insufficient evaluation. It also highlights the key role of the CPO and the need to strengthen governance (local troika, coordination with departmental and regional councils) so that educational alliances endure over time.
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
5. CROSS-ANALYSIS — VALUES OF HEALTH PRACTICES
Literacy: the document remains technical but offers diagrams, typologies and examples that can be used as educational tools for intermediate actors, less so for the public directly.
Empowerment: parents and young people are seen as co-educators and citizens, with a progression from 'supported free participation' to 'committed free association', but involvement is still uneven across regions.
Participation: mechanisms for co-construction exist (focus groups, working groups, selection of beneficiaries) but the presence of families in governance bodies remains limited.
Community health: the collective dimension is strong through the educational community, the neighbourhood and third places, even if the vocabulary of 'health' is mainly socio-educational.
Ethics: the text clarifies issues of posture (non-judgment, diplomacy, horizontality), respect for voices and consideration of life contexts, without overlooking tensions (turnover, institutional timelines).
Human rights: the approach aims for equity, the reduction of inequalities and the recognition of parents and young people as active citizens, but does not explicitly develop the human rights framework.
Intersectorality: the interaction between the City, National Education, the Prefecture, associations, the social and medico-social sector, culture, employment, and digital is described as the core of the system.
Partnership: governance models (Troika, CPO, comitology, working groups) are formalised as structures for multi-actor collaboration.
Combating discrimination: discrimination is not addressed in a legal manner, but social, educational, and territorial inequalities are at the centre, with an emphasis on non-judgment and educational co-responsibility.
Final summary (PES values)
The document largely meets the criteria of participation, intersectorality, and equity, but addresses the human rights framework and discrimination as such only minimally.
6. EVALUATION OF THE RELIABILITY OF THE RESOURCE
Scientific relevance: explicit methodology, combining qualitative approach (41 interviews, focus groups) and quantitative (data from 208 Cities from the 2024 Project Review), with support from a CNRS anthropologist (Noël Barbe); references to existing works (Jesu, HEPL, Dansac & Vachée).
Recommendation: a very useful resource for field actors and decision-makers; to be complemented by impact evaluations more focused on educational outcomes and by specific resources on health, digital issues, and discrimination.
7. MCQ — 5 QUESTIONS
PART 1 — Questions (without answers)
Question 1 (pp. 6-8, 24-26)
In the context of the study, at what three levels are educational alliances analysed?
a) Individual, educational, national
b) Micro, meso, macro
c) Local, regional, European
d) Educational, extracurricular, out-of-school
Question 2 (pp. 30-33)
What professional function is at the heart of the CPO job modelling?
a) Administrative manager focused on funding
b) Coordinator articulating structuring and co-education
c) Teacher-referent responsible for educational monitoring
d) Digital facilitator specialised in social networks
Question 3 (pp. 10-12, 48-55)
What main role do working groups play within the Educational Cities, according to the 2024 Project Review?
a) Sanctioning the shortcomings of local partners
b) Organising only festive events
c) Offering reflective, operational, and sometimes evaluative spaces
d) Managing the national communication of the label
Question 4 (pp. 13-15, 66-71)
What is the fifth sphere added to the co-education chessboard in the study?
a) Business
b) Virtuality (digital life)
c) High-level sport
d) European institutions
Question 5 (pp. 66-76)
Among the conditions for the sustainability of transformations, which one is highlighted?
a) Limiting cooperation to primary schools only
b) Reducing engineering and coordination expenses
c) Embedding the label in the long term with funding and recognition of engineering
d) Eliminating steering bodies to lighten governance
PART 2 — Commented correction
Question 1
✅ Correct answer: b) Micro, meso, macro
📝 Explanation: The study distinguishes educational alliances at the micro level (around the child and family), meso level (interprofessional relationships, school-family, inter-degree), and macro level (inter-institutional relationships). Source: pp. 6-8, 24-26.
Question 2
✅ Correct answer: b) Coordinator articulating structuring and co-education
📝 Explanation: The modelling of the CPO profession reveals six dimensions (coordinator, facilitator, animator, evaluator, mediator, pilot), articulating structural transformation and strengthening co-education. Source: pp. 30-33.
Question 3
✅ Correct answer: c) Provide reflective, operational, and sometimes evaluative spaces
📝 Explanation: The 2024 Project Review shows that working groups have reflective (78%), operational (69%), and evaluative (35%) functions, constituting spaces for co-construction. Source: pp. 11-12, 48-55.
Question 4
✅ Correct answer: b) Virtuality (digital life)
📝 Explanation: In response to the educational challenges of digital technology, the study adds the sphere of "virtuality" to those of family, school, third places, and the neighbourhood, highlighting its transversal nature. Source: pp. 13-15, 66-71.
Question 5
✅ Correct answer: c) Embed the label in the long term with funding and recognition of engineering
📝 Explanation: The sustainability of transformations relies on the long term, the continuity of national/regional support, sufficient funding, the valorisation of engineering, and the recognition of cooperation times. Source: pp. 72-76.
8. FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQ) —
Who is leading the national programme for Educational Cities and what is its main objective?
Answer: The programme is co-led by the ANCT and Dgesco; it aims to strengthen the role of the school, promote educational continuity, and open up possibilities for young people aged 0 to 25 in priority neighbourhoods. Source: pp. 6-8, 17-19.
How does the study define educational alliances?
Answer: Educational alliances are structured cooperations between institutions, professionals, parents, and young people, at micro, meso, and macro levels, aiming for sustainable transformations of practices, structures, professional cultures, and governance. Source: pp. 6-8, 22-25.
What is the role of the CPO in an Educational City?
Answer: The CPO is a pivot that articulates institutional strategy and operational implementation; it coordinates, facilitates, drives, evaluates, mediates, and structures educational alliances, while managing issues of transversality, shared strategy, transmission, policy, and ethics. Source: pp. 30-33.
How does the study characterise the maturity of cooperations in Educational Cities?
Answer: Three stages are identified: communication/support (informal exchanges), coordination (systematic adjustment of actions), and cooperation-integration (common strategies, mutualisation, shared governance), which coexist at the level of a territory. Source: pp. 10, 36-39.
What role do parents play in co-education according to the report?
Answer: Parents are gradually being recognised as co-educators and citizens, with a shift from free accompanied participation to engaged free association; however, their participation in governance bodies remains limited and needs to be strengthened. Source: pp. 11-12, 48-53.
What effects of the label are observed on educational third places and the associative fabric?
Answer: The label supports the sustainability of associative expertise and innovation, promotes co-construction and the redefinition of projects, but also highlights fragilities (volunteer engagement, territorial disparities, need for training, lack of visibility). Source: pp. 13-14, 66-70.
How does the study propose to take into account the digital dimension (virtuality)?
Answer: It recognises 'virtuality' as the fifth educational sphere, linked to socialisation, learning, leisure, citizenship, and inequalities, and emphasises the need for multidisciplinary cooperation and networks such as the Promeneurs du Net. Source: pp. 13-15, 70-71.
REWRITING IN EASY TO READ LANGUAGE
9. Analytical summary (Easy to Read Language)
Title 1: Where does the project operate?
Educational Cities work in working-class neighbourhoods.
Young people are aged between 0 and 25 years.
Schools are not alone in helping children.
Families and associations also participate.
State and city services work together.
The goal is to reduce inequalities among children.
Title 2: What the document provides
The document explains the work of the project manager.
It shows how to organise useful meetings.
It provides ideas for working with parents.
It also discusses the neighbourhood and the internet as places of education.
It suggests ways to better cooperate among the stakeholders.
It helps to think about changes over time.
Key points (Easy to Read)
The project leader coordinates actions for young people.
The stakeholders communicate more and work together.
Parents are invited to participate in education.
The neighbourhood and associations are places of learning.
The internet is also an important place for young people.