Nothing works. Even if, on January 14, Amélie Oudéa-Castéra declared that she “regretted” having “could have hurt certain teachers”, the controversy is struggling to subside. Two days earlier, during her first trip alongside Prime Minister Gabriel Attal, the new Minister of National Education had been asked to explain the fact of having enrolled her children in the private sector under contract. More precisely in the private establishment Stanislas, renowned for its elitism and whose abuses L’Express had denounced in June 2022. After confirming the information, the former executive manager of Axa and Carrefour put forward the reasons for her choice, highlighting “packages of hours” of teaching not replaced in the public. Which provoked the ire of a large part of the teaching world. Literature professor Loys Bonod analyzes the reasons for this anger and the roots of this debate.
L’Express: To justify her choice of having enrolled her children in the private sector under contract, Amélie Oudéa-Castéra deplored the too large number of unreplaced absences in the public sector. This caused great anger in the teaching world. How do you explain it?
Loys Bonod: Of course there may be teacher absences. But to suggest that this would be the primary problem facing schools today is absurd. The exasperation comes from the fact that we are constantly being accused of this. This helps to anchor this idea that we are a profession of slackers when the problem is that of not replacing those who are absent. I see in this a desire to conceal the policy pursued by the State for years and which has contributed to the downgrading of teachers and the resulting recruitment crisis. This crisis has been ongoing since 2011, with hundreds or thousands of positions going unfilled each year. As a result, the stock of replacements continues to decrease, many are assigned to year-round positions even though this is not their initial vocation. Perhaps replacements are better organized in the private sector, with parents who are more consumers and therefore more demanding. An advantage that would make a difference and encourage families to turn to the private sector in the most deprived areas of the Republic and priority education areas… but certainly not in the sixth arrondissement of Paris!
As a general rule, the number of absences among teachers would be lower than in the rest of the public service, you say…
Yes, this is what a report from the Court of Auditors dated 2021 demonstrates. The figures clearly show that the absence rate of public officials in education is lower than that found in other sectors as well. public functions than in the private sector. I hear parents saying: “My son hasn’t had an English teacher for several weeks.” It is a scandal linked to long-term absences which are not replaced due to unfilled positions. Regarding short-term absences, a form of intolerance seems to have been established in society. A teacher can, like anyone, not go to work because they have caught the flu! This can happen to anyone. But we must understand this magnifying glass effect which tends to artificially amplify the phenomenon: the occasional absence of a single teacher can affect hundreds of families. Hence the persistence of this stubborn cliché: teachers who are absent. The saddest thing is obviously to see this cliché taken up by our own minister, who only repeats what people want to hear.
How do you explain the success of the private sector and what are the real reasons why families tend to favor these establishments?
The private sector leaves with an undeniable “advantage”: the possibility offered to it of selecting its students at the entrance to the establishment or along the way. Of course, there are mainly children who are academically good and necessarily advantaged both culturally and economically. Study conditions are better there since you have fewer problems related to school climate or discipline. All of this has the effect of encouraging mutuality. The worst is that academic optimization paths tend to become stronger. Those who make the choice of the public are increasingly condemned to undergo the educational guidance of their children, assigned to this or that college or high school according to this or that reform and increasingly according to criteria far removed from their level. or their merit: because it is the paradox of a ministry imposing – only in the public – measures of social and educational diversity. In the private sector, the student, on the contrary, has the assurance of continuing in the same school group… provided, of course, that they have the sufficient level. In order to put all the chances on their side, parents follow this logic and register their children earlier and earlier. To be sure of getting into Stanislas high school or college, it is better to have been to Stanislas school, or even Stanislas kindergarten!
Does it seem logical to you that the State continues to finance 73% of private establishments without the latter being more accountable in terms of social and educational diversity?
Absolutely not, in fact I would like to point out that we are an exception in the world. Only in France is denominational education financed by the secular state. The Pisa report may regularly point out the unequal aspect of our system, but nothing changes. Note that in Finland, a country long highlighted in this world ranking for its good results – even if this is a little less true than before – there are no private schools. Proof that we can succeed without it. But no one wants to talk about these inequalities. By opening the vent, despite herself, the minister brought this underground school war to light. Stating as she does that there is only one school in France rings hollow. Today, we are indeed dealing with a two-tier school. Despite the numerous reactions that this affair has generated, I remain quite pessimistic and do not believe in a real revolution on this issue which paralyzes political leaders, from the right to the left. And for good reason: we know that almost one in two parents today have to send their children to private school during their schooling. Everyone legitimately wants to be able to afford an emergency exit door. Note that alongside very posh establishments like Stanislas, there are private establishments that are less elitist but which nevertheless contribute to a form of educational segregation, in the sixth arrondissement of Paris as in the district of Nanterre.
.