Well, Claude Bessy had some choice words about Aurelie Dupont and her comments about the school:
"She is talking about herself. Because though she has brilliant gifts, she was always lazy and from the very first days she didn't like the school that her mother had sent her to. During her whole six years Aurelie never lost a resentful expression on her face, not a shadow of a smile ever. All the teachers knew this grimace of hers."
Regardless of where the truth lies (and it does become a bit like the chicken and the egg with these two), Claude Bessy has been gone from the school for a decade. My impression of Elisabeth Platel's tenure is that she has defended the style itself with the classwork but eased up on the atmosphere a bit so it's less like a cross between a Catholic monastery and a reformatory.
The sense I have gotten from reading interviews with some of the top dancers is that the problem is not with the school per se but with the repertory the school's graduates have had to dance first under Nureyev and then under Madame Lefevre. Karl Paquette gave an interview to Ballet Review during the company's 2012 US tour and he very pointedly said that the training didn't prepare them for a lot of the technical challenges in the Nureyev productions. And there was much criticism of Madame Lefevre during her tenure regarding some of her programming choices and how they were asking classically trained dancers to be something they weren't. So, is the training at fault? Or, have the repertory choices gone too far afield? (And now you have Millepied bringing in this New York City Ballet aesthetic to complicate matters further.)
I'm not opposed to retiring certain Nureyev productions if they have outlived their usefulness. I just don't know that Millepied is necessarily the person to conduct such a review, or that he should be the person choreographing new versions.