“In my time, it wouldn’t have happened like that!” exclaims Christian Forestier, who directed the Versailles academy between 1998 and 2000. The one who was also Jack Lang’s chief of staff when the latter was Minister of National Education, reacted to the affair of the letters sent by the administration to the parents of Nicolas, 15, who committed suicide on September 5 after having suffered months of harassment. Before the tragedy, during its written discussions with the family, the rectorate had judged “unacceptable” the parents’ comments which would have “called into question the professionalism and integrity” of the establishment’s staff. The agents asked them to adopt a “respectful attitude”, reminding them of the risks of a slanderous denunciation.
Since then, an administrative investigation has been launched. On September 27, an interministerial plan intended to better combat school bullying was unveiled, with, among the measures announced, a “systematic” referral to the prosecutor in the event of a report, the creation of dedicated academic teams, the establishment of empathy lessons, the ban on social networks for harassing students, or even the confiscation of their cell phones. For former rector Christian Forestier, the administration will also have to, in the future, rethink the way it addresses parents in such sensitive matters. Interview.
L’Express: Does the very administrative tone used in the exchange of letters between the Versailles rectorate and parents of students in cases of harassment surprise you?
Christian Forestier: In my time, when I myself was rector of Versailles, between 1998 and 2000, it would have been inconceivable to send this type of letter to parents. When I was in office, we did not have the practice of calling on professional lawyers. The ways of proceeding were not at all the same, since, in this type of very sensitive matter, the first instinct was to call or invite the parents to come and talk. In short, to always favor dialogue. Some unions will retort that direct contact with families is more complicated to establish today due to a glaring lack of resources, but I do not think that the problem comes from there, because the workforce is stable, the number of students and establishments to manage has generally remained the same over the last thirty years. For me, it is above all a problem of method and organization.
Certain members of the legal service or human resources involved do not come from the ranks of National Education. Could this have played a role?
Yes it’s possible. Here again, times have changed, since, in the past, National Education was very endogenous and the institution was only managed by trained teachers. Myself, before being appointed rector, I had been a teacher, a university professor, in short, I had reached the different levels of the educational world. Once again, the composition of the legal service implicated in the Versailles affair shows that this is no longer necessarily the case. Its members are hard-line lawyers who use administrative jargon, which is not at all appropriate, especially when it comes to communicating with families. The use of these very specialized agents really does not seem useful to me, and it can even prove counterproductive, as we can see.
How were harassment cases handled when you were rector, in the 1980s and 1990s?
At the time, it wasn’t really a subject, probably because social networks didn’t yet exist and the phenomenon was much less widespread. Parents’ complaints focused more on issues of school cards and assignments. The most terrible case that I had to deal with as rector, and which marked me for the rest of my life, was that of the death of this student from the Paul-Eluard high school in Seine-Saint-Denis. , killed by a falling basketball backboard in 1991. This tragedy aroused strong emotion throughout the country. The same evening, I went to the scene of the accident to meet the totally devastated parents. Subsequently, they were very angry with the establishment and, in particular, with the principal. An exceptional woman, undoubtedly the best in the entire Créteil academy, which I directed at the time. Even though it was my duty to defend her, I obviously never exchanged a single letter with the parents, but I received them several times to express all my compassion.
Is the educational institution today less “human” and more “disconnected from the field” than in the past, as we often hear?
I wouldn’t be so harsh. It seems to me that this administration, as a whole, is still trying to maintain this concern for proximity and personalized exchanges with its users. The case of the Versailles academy is particular, in the sense that it is very difficult to manage. Much more than the Créteil academy, which I also directed, and which nevertheless welcomed a more disadvantaged public. The difference is that the latter remains quite homogeneous, while that of Versailles looks a bit like a leopard skin: you have Hauts-de-Seine, where Neuilly and Nanterre rub shoulders; Yvelines, which includes Versailles, Saint-Germain-en-Laye, but also Mantes-la-Jolie and Trappes, and so on. This requires a lot of adaptation work. Perhaps this contributed to increasing the distance between the institution and the families… But this in no way excuses the nature of the exchanges of letters recently revealed. In this matter, I am still surprised that only the responsibility of the rector is questioned. Strangely, there is never any question of the role of the general secretariat, which is nevertheless located just below the rector in the hierarchy and which is responsible for services, nor of that of Dasen [directeur académique des services de l’Education nationale].
Since the revelation of this affair, several teachers have in turn complained of having received extremely cold and distant letters from the Versailles rectorate. Does this surprise you?
As is often the case, in this type of case, tongues are loosened, and everyone gives their testimony, but each case should be carefully studied before giving an opinion. I know from experience that one of the main criticisms made of the institution by teachers concerns their assignments, which they do not choose. It is obvious that this poses major personal problems, especially when some couples find themselves separated and are forced to live miles apart. We can understand that some people, in this situation, take a refusal of transfer sent by mail badly. But, in this specific case, these are indeed administrative exchanges and that does not seem shocking to me. The tone used may be cold but not insulting. And it would be very difficult to do otherwise, to have very personal exchanges with each of the 80,000 teachers in, for example, the Versailles academy.
For some analysts, sending these letters which call parents to order would be proof that the “no waves” is still at work: instead of resolving the problems, families are encouraged to keep quiet… Is this the case, in your opinion?
Former minister Jean-Michel Blanquer was right to attack the excesses of this famous “no waves”, which, unfortunately, has always existed. When I was appointed head of the Créteil rectorate in 1989, its reputation was already there. We knew it was a “difficult” academy, but it took me time to understand, through veiled words, the extent of the situation. You had students who hit each other, some even attacked the teachers, but we never talked about all this. No doubt because the heads of establishment thought – perhaps rightly at the time – that the reports risked turning against them. This is why I took the initiative of bringing them all together to reassure them and encourage them to speak without fear. I also set up an information feedback system, which has since become widespread in all academies. I imagine that, even if the situation tends to improve, the “no waves” continues today. This is why the firmness displayed by Gabriel Attal in this matter of letters sent to parents seems beneficial to me.