The doubts about the good faith of the Minister of National Education regarding her son privatized in the private sector have not been resolved.
But why did Amélie Oudéa-Castéra send her three children to a private establishment? While she affirmed at the end of last week that she wanted to avoid “heaps of unreplaced lesson hours”, the former teacher of one of her sons affirms to the daily Release have never been absent during the 6 months that this child was educated in public school. A testimony which contradicts the version of the new Minister of National Education.
Questioned this Monday morning about this new controversy, at the microphone of France Inter, the Minister Delegate in charge of Democratic Renewal and government spokesperson, Prisca Thevenot, had difficulty defending the Minister of Education. “I don’t know if she lied. I’m just saying that she did explain why her eldest son was educated privately,” she conceded. A frankness that stands out, especially since these comments provide no support for Amélie Oudéa-Castéra. In this register, a short ready-made sentence is often more expected, such as: “You will ask the question directly to the minister” or “I do not doubt the involvement and good faith of the Minister of National Education” . No. The government spokesperson had this formulation which demonstrates that the executive’s words are fumbling.
Prisca Thevenot still added: “I’m telling you this as a government spokesperson today, but I could tell you this as a former MP or as a committed daily activist: I’m willing to we answer the question of how we work on non-replaced hours. I myself am the mother of two children, 7 and 9 years old and yes, we are faced with these non-replaced hours. It is thanks to them that public schools are holding up and we must continue to support them and work on the attractiveness of these professions.”
According to Amélie Oudéa-Castéra’s entourage, contacted by franceinfo, “the minister categorically denies the comments reported by ‘Libération'”. “We can wonder about the intention linked to these inaccurate, inappropriate and hurtful comments for parents about their child almost 15 years later,” adds its communications service.