CIPL Opening Statement at the 9th Dec School Council

Nous vous invitons à lire la déclaration liminaire lue hier au Conseil d’Etablissement du LFCG.
Prenez également connaissances des questions posées par les représentants des parents auxquelles la Direction de l’établissement a refusé de répondre.

Madame la Proviseure, Mesdames et Messieurs les membres du Conseil d’établissement,

The families of the Lycée Français Charles de Gaulle (LFCG) are currently experiencing an unprecedented crisis of confidence.
The cost of French education in London has gradually become completely detached from economic reality, from the commitments that were made, and even from the legal obligations of the AEFE.

A pupil graduating in 2026 will have cost his or her family £105,000 from Moyenne Section to Terminale.

Over this period, school fees have risen by 123%, whereas cumulative inflation has been only 45%, and English university tuition fees — the path taken by the majority of our pupils — have increased by just 6%.

Faced with this staggering gap, families are asking a simple question: how can such runaway fee increases be justified when Article L452-2 of the Education Code requires the AEFE to ensure the stabilisation of school fees?
Families whose children are starting Moyenne Section this year are already wondering whether they will have to pay £225,000 for their child’s full schooling.

We are witnessing a structural rupture between the objectives proclaimed by the AEFE and the decisions actually taken.
The consequences are already being felt: falling enrolment in the younger classes, and for some families the prospect of leaving the French system altogether or separating siblings because they can no longer keep up with fee rises that have become unsustainable.

Last year, families put forward two reasonable requests:

• to stagger the introduction of VAT,
• to suspend the 4% increase, given the available cash reserves, the savings generated by VAT, and the possibility of reclaiming VAT prior to registration.

These requests were rejected, even though:

• the CFBL and the Lycée International Winston Churchill (LIL) froze their fees for 2025–2026;
• the AEFE reduced the contribution payable by the LIL, thereby lightening the burden on its families;
• and the AEFE justified maintaining the increase at the LFCG by referring to a mere “moral commitment”, whereas the revision criteria published on the LFCG website were perfectly applicable.

Moreover, the financial regulations state that school fees are neither refundable nor reducible under any circumstances. How can such rigidity be justified when the services invoiced now include VAT?
Bewilderment turns to outright astonishment when we see that the AEFE, which since 2009 has levied a 6% contribution indexed to school fees in order to fund building maintenance and civil-service pensions, is now proposing further increases at its Board meeting of 27 November 2025 to finance… exactly the same items.

Families would therefore be paying twice for the same thing.

Yet in its most recent Contrat d’objectifs et de moyens, the AEFE declared:

“The transparency of public action and the duty to inform the educational community require a rethinking of the governance of the network. The contribution of parents must lead to better account being taken of their opinions. The AEFE will ensure that it strengthens its relationship of trust with parents and their representatives.”

Today, we are forced to acknowledge that we are a very long way from that, and that the situation is no longer sustainable.

Families do not dispute the need to fund pedagogical excellence or the essential renovation of buildings. What they contest is the notion that these objectives can only be achieved through uncontrolled, opaque fee inflation that contradicts the AEFE’s legal obligations.

Nor have families forgotten that in 2015 the AEFE withdrew €3.5 million from the LFCG’s reserves in the name of network solidarity the AEFE withdrew €3.5 million from the LFCG’s reserves in the name of network solidarity — a withdrawal that has lastingly restricted the school’s capacity for renovation and investment. That decision continues to fuel a sense of injustice, because families feel they are now paying the price for a past levy that has never been compensated.

This is why, if the AEFE genuinely wishes to “strengthen its relationship of trust with parents”, a clear, concrete and tangible change of direction is essential.

Families are calling for:

1. A review and cancellation of the announced increase, in light of the cash reserves, the savings linked to VAT, the reclaiming of VAT, a credible plan to control operating costs, and the practices of the other French lycées in London.
2. A guarantee that the LFCG’s reserves will no longer be subject to unilateral withdrawals, having regard to the 2015 precedent (€3.5 million taken), so that funds built up by families are used exclusively for the needs of the LFCG, in accordance with the principle of budgetary autonomy of EGD establishments.
3. More transparent financial governance, with access to data, to the decisions taken, and to the criteria justifying fee increases.
4. A fee trajectory that complies with the law, stabilised in accordance with Article L452-2 and aligned with the local economy.
5. Genuine consideration of parents’ opinions — not as a mere consultative ritual, but as a structuring element of financial policy, particularly with regard to fee changes and property projects — in line with the Contrat d’objectifs et de moyens and circulaire AEFE 732 du 21 juin 2022.

Although this statement focuses today on financial accessibility — because it is the precondition for access to the French system itself

CIPL wishes to stress that it stands ready to represent parents’ priorities and to contribute constructively on all the essential aspects of school life, in particular with regard to safeguarding and wellbeing:

• guaranteeing the confidentiality of pupils’ sensitive data;
• combating bullying, discrimination and racism;
• promoting the inclusion of pupils with special educational needs (EBEP/SEND);
• improving school meal provision, a matter of fairness and inclusion;
• strengthening security both inside and outside the school premises.

And also on structural issues such as:

• the attractiveness and long-term demographic viability of the LFCG (support for families, major building works, etc.);
• strengthening non-punitive measures;
• pedagogical and digital challenges, including the LFCG’s AI strategy;
• administrative efficiency;
• communication and transparency of information.

The families of the LFCG are deeply attached to French education, to its excellence and to its ambition. They express sincere gratitude to the teaching and administrative teams for their daily commitment.
But that attachment can only endure if access to the system remains economically viable and if the AEFE’s public commitments are honoured.

Today, families are asking for neither favours nor exceptions.

They are simply asking that the continuity of the French public education service abroad be ensured within a framework that is fair, clear and compliant with the Agency’s obligations.