Geneva: appeal against the exclusion of cross -border students

The exclusion of border students from the Geneva school system is attacked in court. The collective “School for all”, which brings together 48 families concerned by The decision of the Council of State unveiled on June 11announces that he will file two appeals from the Constitutional Chamber. According to these parents, other appeals, outside theirs, are to be expected.

The Council of State announced that, from the start of the 2026 school year, the Geneva school would no longer welcome new students residing outside the canton. In 2018, this measure had already been taken for primary school and the orientation cycle (CO), without targeting the students already in the course and the members of their siblings.

The Council of State therefore puts an end to this “transitional measure”, while extending the exclusion of non-residents in secondary II-with the exception of Dual learning.

Students already in the course will however be able to finish the cycle in which they are (1p-4p; 5p-8p, CO, Diploma in secondary II). Thus, around 1000 students will not be able to finish their course in Geneva on the 2,500 non-residents educated last year in the canton.

Rebellious

“This decision has revolted us, it puts us in a very difficult situation and will uproot our children,” deplores Anthony Lehmann, on behalf of the collective. However, a sign of a relative confidence in the chances of success in justice, “our lawyers advised us to also act on the political level”.

The collective therefore sent an argument to all deputies to convince them to support a socialist motion that could be debated next week in plenary session. It requires allowing children already engaged in the Geneva school system to finish their education there, including secondary.

This is what the collective of parents is asking, which combines the very principle of excluding non-residents. He denounces a violation of the principle of free basic education or the disproportion of the measure. According to these parents, the profits will be “derisory” for “enormous” repercussions on the organization of families and the schooling of around 1000 students.

Reversal

Indeed, according to the collective, the 28 million savings expected will be much less if these households return to live in Geneva. In addition, a few less students in a school will not allow you to close classes. And even less to resolve the shortage of school buildings.

The main argument, however, aims at the “turnaround” compared to the 2018 decision. “Families moved by having in mind that they could educate their children in Geneva, what confidence to have in authorities that change the rules along the way?” asks Anthony Lehmann.

A mother of three, Arwen Conod claims that most families “would have stayed in small apartments in Geneva” if they had known that the rules would change. She herself dismisses the idea that her children bounce back into the French school system, which she considers very problematic.

It points to the consequences of uprooting. In addition to the risk of dropping out of school, children will be cut off from their friends, comrades, teachers. “My children, for eight years at the Laconnex football club, will no longer be able to play it if they go to school in Saint-Genis-Pouilly.”

A third parent, the market gardener Rudi Berli, gives the example of his daughter who wants to become a veterinarian, which implies studying German …

Housing crisis

These families would almost all seek to return to Geneva, but they struggle to find accommodation there. “Some even imagine divorce for a spouse to take up an address in Geneva,” comments Anthony Lehmann. But we were made to understand that pseudo-addresses would not work. ”

“We are massively contributing to the prosperity of Geneva,” adds Rudi Berli. For him, Geneva shoots herself in the foot by excluding part of his future labor. These families still denounce a “fiscal injustice” since they are now deprived of a service paid by their taxes (taken at the source).

They finally deplore a measure which “stirs up hatred of cross -border workers”. “We will not read the comments under your articles,” anticipates Anthony Lehmann.

Did you find an error? Please report it to us.

2 comments