In the mid-1990s, the Vaud school system was debating its future. The Department of Education and Youth (DFJ), led by Social Democrat Jean-Jacques Schwab, proposed a sweeping reform christened « École vaudoise en mutation » (EVM), the Vaud school in transition.
The reform reorganised schooling into learning cycles (CIN, CYP1, CYP2, transition cycle), played down the weight of grades in favour of so-called formative assessment, and promised a more differentiated pedagogy meant to reduce early selection and « give every pupil a chance ».
Challenged by referendum, the amendment to the School Act went to the people on 1 December 1996. Vaud voters approved it with 60.5 % of the vote. EVM took effect in 1997 — but grade-free assessment would dog the Vaud school for fifteen years.
▲ Approved on 1 December 1996 Vaud voters approve the amendment to the School Act with 60.5 % Yes. EVM takes effect in the 1997 school year. | ▼ The opposition (39.5 %) Nearly four in ten Vaud voters reject the reform, uneasy about the disappearance of grades and the pedagogical shift. A left-right divide shapes the ballot. |
The players
▲ Yes camp • Jean-Jacques Schwab (SP cantonal minister, head of the DFJ), architect of the reform • The Social Democratic Party and the majority of the Grand Council • The Vaud teachers' society (SPV) and parents' associations (APE) | ▼ No camp • The referendum committee, made up of sceptical teachers • Supporters of the traditional school (grades, selection, streams) • Part of the parents and the centre-right, wary of levelling down |
Arguments and verdicts
▲ Arguments FOR (Yes camp) A more open school, centred on the pupil « give every child a chance and reduce early selection » Verdict: ✓~ Partly delivered. EVM did introduce learning cycles and eased early grade-repeating. Yet in substance the Vaud school kept selecting: guidance and streaming remained very much alive. Source: Le Temps Fairer assessment than the grade guillotine « replace the race for marks with formative assessment » Verdict: ✗~ Largely disproved. Grade-free assessment disappointed: in a union survey, 82 % of teachers polled rated it unsatisfactory; the return of grades was demanded and eventually reinstated. Source: Le Temps; union surveys | ▼ Arguments AGAINST (No camp) Scrapping grades will bewilder families and pupils « it levels down and deprives parents of clear markers » Verdict: ✓~ Largely confirmed. The vagueness of formative assessment fed fifteen years of discontent; parents and teachers demanded numerical markers, partly obtained later on. Source: Le Temps; 24 heures An ideological reform doomed to fizzle out « too ambitious, without the means to match its promises » Verdict: ✓~ Confirmed. EVM « failed almost silently, for lack of support and resources » and was replaced by the LEO after the « École 2010 » initiative, approved at the ballot box in 2011. Source: Retrospectives; RTS |
The record, in figures
✓ 60.5% Yes on 1.12.1996 | ✓ 1997 EVM takes effect | ~ 82% of teachers rated the assessment unsatisfactory | ! 2011 EVM replaced by the LEO after « École 2010 » |
EVM belongs to those grand reforming impulses that French-speaking Switzerland is fond of: a generous intention — a less guillotine-like school, more attentive to each child — broadly adopted by a well-meaning electorate.
Reality proved rougher. The learning cycles survived, but grade-free assessment crystallised the opposition: too vague for families, uncomfortable for many teachers.
Each camp was partly right. The supporters held a sound idea — loosening the grip of early selection — but dressed it in a hard-to-sustain device. The opponents were wrong on principle, right in practice.
Fifteen years on, the return of grades and the LEO (2011) settled the experiment. EVM did not so much fail as dissolve into a very Vaud compromise: keep the label, change the contents.