A few quick thoughts I had while listening. I think there are 3 similarites that are major areas of concern: (a) segregation, (b) equality vs. equity, (c) parent involvement.

Lux secondary schools have long been segregated wrt socio-economic /national /ethnic backgrounds. (1/11) https://twitter.com/pianocktaillu/status/1300361968298135552

This gov has stratified this segregation, by introducing a parallel public school system based on European school curricula. This has notionally been done to address the achievement gap caused by learners' L1 not corresponding to the language(s) of instruction. (2/11)

Crucially, segregation has thus been extended to primary education as well. There have been regular press reports about the alleged success of this system, but there's no hard data to back this up yet. (In fairness, the system has only been running for a few years.) (3/11)

There's most importantly also no real data to indicate whether this increased segregation addresses the socio-economic drivers of our achievement gap. Are those children disadvantaged by the traditional system actually the European system's target audience and/or reached? (4/11)

Which leads us to (b) equality vs. equity. Two different systems to lead students to success would suggest our gov is aiming for greater equity. But unless we know if those disadvantaged by the traditional system are reached, we can't actually say if that's the case. (5/11)

Elsewhere our gov is working hard towards a goal of equality. Everybody gets access to the same, often free, resources (iPads, child care, etc.).

Efforts to compensate for societal disadvantages and systemic biases are few and far between. Equity is not this gov's goal. (6/11)

So finally we come to (c) parent involvement. 1 example of maximising parent involvement would be the increased role parents play in children's post-primary education.

But, again, this only works for those familiar with the system and not already disadvantaged by biases. (7/11)

Elsewhere the functionally segregated ESC and ESG "classes inférieures" offer two wholly different sets of progress criteria, one of which (ESG) is basically unintelligible for non-experts. This, again, reduces parent involvement. (8/11)

New organizations for parental representation are meant to increase involvement, but unlikely to really lead to disenfranchised voices being heard. However, complexity disincentivizes participation. So, involvement by socio-economically advantaged parents is more likely. (9/11)

So, what to do? Broadly: (1) reduce the amount of sway those already advantaged have in shaping education for those for whom the system wasn't primarily designed, (2) pursue policies aimed at equity rather than equality, so (3) increase democracy. (10/11)

There's surely a lot more to think about (in much more depth than I have done in this thread). But especially given the past six months, we can't just uphold this educational system that does not protect its most disadvantaged children. Thanks for listening to my TED talk. (fin)