Why concerted teaching?

The new Education Act adopted by the CAV against most public school officials aims to ensure that concerted education is free of charge through the financing of public authorities. The Spanish State has also announced a significant increase in public money that the members of the Executive will spend on this: “The objective, explains the ministry, i.e. the free provision of education in the concerted centers. Therefore I hope that the updating of the concerts will go from the part of a commitment by the concerted schools regarding the elimination of the quotas of the…” (El País, 23/10/2024).

But is it really desirable that concerted education be free of charge? Before that, we believe that there is a prior debate: to determine what the role of this type of teaching is in our current society, to value its role. On that basis, we would decide whether or not its funding is worthwhile.

Those of us working at Harro Topagunea on the Basque Public School believe that private education should have a subsidiary function of public education, and only a private initiative should be agreed where there is no public offer (and until it exists) to guarantee the right to education. If we assume this subsidiary role that private education has to play vis-à-vis public education, and educational planning and the use of public money is done for a public school of all, no more than EUR 820 million (by 2023-24) would be spent on an unnecessary network in most places.

Ending the free segregation of schools? Dog dreams

To think and defend that a greater amount of public money would facilitate the gratuitousness of concerted teaching and reduce segregation are dog dreams. Concerted education has never been free and, even with the greatest funding it has ever had, it will not be free because it does not want to: it wants to continue selecting students (and teachers), because it has to be separated, because it depends on the market, because it has to continually improve the supply (better services, higher school hours, facilities...) and because it has to compete with the public school. The collection of quotas has been illegal since 1987 and they do so with complete impunity; to think that it is going to be achieved by giving more money and without raising any criminal measures, and that, therefore, segregation is going to decrease, is stupidity. Consultation itself is the source of segregation. School segregation is the basis of the concerted system. This system is designed to be non-inclusive. To think that they need to be inclusive is not a reality, it is on their own bases not to be” (Daniel Turienzo).

Do we arrange private education? Public money for public school

The free provision of concerted education is not, therefore, the objective to be achieved. What for? So that all families can go? Is this the attitude of public policies, to facilitate citizens' access to private services? That is to deceive the people, it is a privatization policy, which only leads to the precariousness of the public service. What kind of administrative is it that gives money to a company that is not its own? In no case is it a question of directing families to private service, but of trying and working for the majority to choose public school. To this end, this public service must have an absolute priority in terms of resources and planning. We want the best for our children.

It could be said that this approach would call into question the freedom of families to choose the centre. But the debate is not that. Families can always choose the offer that they like the most, but they don't have to ask for it to be paid by those who haven't made that choice. As in the other sectors, families who for any reason do not want to have access to the public education service and prefer the private sector should face the costs with their own resources. It is unfair that some families continue to help with the money of everyone else. It is not possible to base all educational planning on the choice of the center that families carry out, as it has been up to now, and with the negative consequences that we know.

Our proposal is clear: if public schools can be the refuge of most with their tools, it makes no sense to do so through private companies. Let us not use everyone’s money in an unnecessary private education offer, in the neighbourhood or in the village when there is a sufficient public offer; let us not give more money to a private network that will never be free and therefore discriminatory; let us not go on with a system that acts against cohesion. It is more logical that this money should be used sensibly and effectively in public schools. Now that we are debating and approving the budgets, it is time to rethink the system of concertation of private education.

Maribel López de Luzuriaga Alonso and Xabier Iglesias, members of the Basque Public School Harro Topagune