Accueil / Vaud / Vaud Compulsory Education Act (LEO)
Acceptée Vaud Société, famille et égalité 04 septembre 2011

Vaud Compulsory Education Act (LEO)

On 4 September 2011, Vaud voters chose between two visions of schooling. They accepted, with about 52% in favour, the new Compulsory Education Act (LEO), the Grand Council's counter-proposal, and rejected the popular initiative « School 2010: Save the School…

Oui — 52% Non — 48%
Participation : 40.0%
L'enjeu de l'époque

On 4 September 2011, Vaud voters chose between two visions of schooling. They accepted, with about 52% in favour, the new Compulsory Education Act (LEO), the Grand Council's counter-proposal, and rejected the popular initiative « School 2010: Save the School » (about 41% in favour). Turnout was around 40%.

The LEO implements the HarmoS concordat in the canton: compulsory schooling from age 4, an eleven-year curriculum, and above all a lower-secondary level reorganised into two tracks — pre-gymnasium (VP) and general (VG) — with ability sets in French, mathematics and German. The « School 2010 » initiative, by contrast, wanted three clearly separated tracks, grades from the first year, and so-called « explicit » teaching.

More than ten years after the LEO took effect (August 2013), this briefing tests both camps' promises and fears against the effects observed on Vaud schooling.

Methodological note: This briefing treats the vote factually and non-partisanly. The verdicts bear solely on the verifiable campaign arguments — those that can be tested against the facts observed since the vote — and not on the ballot result itself.
Overall result
LEO (counter-proposal) accepted: ~52% Yes. « School 2010 » initiative rejected (~41% Yes). In case of a double yes, the tie-break question favoured the LEO. Turnout ~40%.
Vote map
Support for the LEO stronger in urban centres; the initiative held up better in some regions. A district-by-district breakdown is not reproduced here.

Actors and figures

▲ Yes camp
Vaud Council of State (sponsor of the LEO counter-proposal)
Anne-Catherine Lyon (head of the education department (Socialist), face of the reform)
Socialists, Greens, The Centre/Christian Democrats (support for the LEO)
PLR Vaud (Liberal-Radicals) (for the LEO and against the initiative)
▼ No camp
« School 2010 » committee (initiators, in favour of three tracks and explicit teaching)
SVP/UDC Vaud (opposed to the LEO counter-proposal)
Liberal Party, Centre patronal, Ligue vaudoise, EDU (backers of the initiative)
Note: The ballot pitted a counter-proposal (the LEO, passed by the Grand Council on 7 June 2011) against an initiative filed in 2008 with over 15,000 signatures. Only the SVP fought the counter-proposal; among centre-right parties, only the PLR rejected the initiative. A textbook case of a long-negotiated Vaud school reform.

Arguments and verdicts

▲ Arguments FOR (Yes camp)
Two permeable tracks and ability sets: a less compartmentalised school
« The LEO offers more flexible streaming than the old rigid-track system. »
— Argument for the LEO, 2011
✓~ Partly confirmed
The two-track system (VP/VG) with ability sets replaced the earlier tracks. The share of pupils in the pre-gymnasium track rose from about 24% (1976) to 46% (2021), and access to the gymnasium grew markedly. But the debate over the fate of the weakest pupils remains open.
Source: vd.ch, 2021 dashboard; Le Temps « weak pupils, victims of the Vaud school »
Aligning with HarmoS and stabilising the school
✓ Argument confirmed
The LEO took effect in August 2013, implementing HarmoS: schooling from age 4 and an eleven-year curriculum for some 87,000 pupils. The framework has remained stable since.
Source: vd.ch; 20 minutes (entry into force August 2013)
A broadly supported reform
✓ Argument confirmed
Apart from the SVP, all governing parties backed the counter-proposal. This broad base allowed implementation without major political challenge.
Source: RTS; vd.ch press releases
▼ Arguments AGAINST (No camp)
Three separate tracks and « explicit » teaching are needed
« Saving the school means returning to clear tracks and structured teaching. »
— « School 2010 » committee
✗ Argument refuted
Voters rejected the initiative: neither the three separate tracks nor « explicit teaching » were introduced. It was the LEO's two-track model that prevailed and durably shaped Vaud schooling.
Source: RTS « Vaud voters reject the School 2010 initiative »
The LEO will level down and penalise good pupils
✗~ Partly refuted
The fear of levelling down is not clearly borne out: access to the gymnasium rose markedly over the period and the pre-gymnasium share increased. The pedagogical debate over support for weaker pupils nonetheless remains lively.
Source: 24 heures « in ten years, has the LEO transformed pupils? »

Factual assessment

2
Confirmed
1
Partly confirmed
1
Partly refuted
1
Refuted
The LEO took effect and held
Applied from the August 2013 school year to some 87,000 pupils, the law introduced schooling from age 4 and an eleven-year curriculum, unchallenged since.
~
Two tracks (VP/VG) instead of three
The two-track model with ability sets replaced the old system. The pre-gymnasium share rose from about 24% (1976) to 46% (2021).
~
The fate of weaker pupils remains debated
Ten years on, the pedagogical record is mixed: several analyses point to the difficulties faced by the most fragile pupils in the new system.
A sharp rise in access to the gymnasium
The number of gymnasium pupils rose sharply over the period, to the point that the canton must adapt its post-compulsory education infrastructure.
Analyse éditoriale
Conclusion

More than ten years on, the LEO has won on the ground: it structures Vaud schooling without having been seriously challenged. Its promise of a less compartmentalised school is partly kept — access to the gymnasium has risen markedly and the pre-gymnasium track now takes in nearly half of all pupils — but the fate of the weakest pupils remains the subject of an unresolved pedagogical debate.

The « School 2010 » initiative's vision — three separate tracks and explicit teaching — was set aside at the ballot box and never implemented. Its fear of « levelling down » is not confirmed by access figures to demanding tracks, even if the question of class heterogeneity keeps fuelling controversy. At bottom, the canton opted for reforming continuity rather than a return to a selective model.