The educational systems and the laws that regulate them are accompanied by the political development of the states. Therefore, their analysis will reveal the nature of the former and vice versa. If this is true, it can be concluded that governments only change aspects when legislating on education, leaving the important equally. And that's education in general, and it's education in schools in particular, because they're designed to perpetuate the political system.

Therefore, it is very important to distinguish between what the educational laws have as their objective and the practical measures they take in reality. For example, to point out in a law that seeks social justice, while in practical reality private centers are authorized, guaranteed and supported with public money, besides being contradictory is fraud.

The relationship between the interests of the powerful and the educational system should be evident to the left, but, unfortunately, the parties that want to change reality, the unions, the pedagogical movements, the teachers…, have largely forgotten it.

Of course, the current social reality is different from the 1960s, when the pedagogy of the oppressed by Paolo Freire was published, but, as my professor Iñaki Otxoa de Olza said, in the Spanish state it is customary not to read the theories. Freire's message that in order for social, autonomous and conscious change to take place, it is necessary to have another kind of education that the power desires, is correct and current. And that present situation will not be lost as social inequalities and injustices persist. This means that students should not try to adapt to the programming that institutions have prepared for inclusion, but rather teach them new ways from their situation to make the unjust reality a more just reality.

Those who work in teaching to carry out this message must be aware that their activity is political and not merely administrative.

In the 1970s, when Franco's Franco was in force (the other Franco without tyrant largely follows) and in the next, for many professors of the time working in education was participating in politics. Many of us who worked in teaching militated and tried to convince the leftist parties, but we did not listen to those who said that education should be out of politics, that they were supporters of the hierarchization of society, who argued that only the old (the “experts” of today) had to deal with politics, knowing that then those who were in political power would be those, not on merits, but heirs.

And the reason we got into education policy was that we wanted to change an unjust society, and that in order to correct the injustices that were there, the students had to become aware of those injustices through us. Therefore, for many of us it was impossible to separate classroom work from the fight for justice. And we did not do it by indoctrination, but by the discovery of other realities that were not official, so that the students had the opportunity to channel their lives. For this reason, we sought and proposed alternatives to official content collected by Francoist textbooks and professors. Examples were: ADARRA, an autonomous pedagogical movement that helped us to improve our teaching, functioning through assemblies, through which we elaborated a scale of access to teaching, eliminating the competence of the directors of the center to choose the faculty; the wave of teachers to register at AEK was created, not with the objective of accessing the jobs, but by the awareness of recovering the language that was about to be lost assemblies, and the impulse of parents to participate. All this with a practical political objective: to change the system of creating injustices.

Today, capitalism has absorbed and eliminated all these alternative attempts through institutionalization and theft of concepts. Thus, the movement for pedagogical innovation became Formation and pedagogical innovation, for which Berritzegunes were created, which not to help the teachers, but to flee the chalk; the learning of the Basque language was also made official, and from there was more importance to the formation through their exams; the school councils were regulated so that the participation of the students would become a law of arbitration. And if this were not enough, we must add to the educational degeneration “quality systems” badly called, because those programs that were created to improve production and sales have been integrated into teaching through false experts and profit companies, turning students and their parents into “customers”, and thanks to an endless bureaucracy they have managed to control learning, as a product of productive chain.

To improve the education provided in the centers, the proposals among others would be: that the students be reputed to copy the model of those who provoke the injustices; that they do not stop doing it in the hands of those who are not in the classroom; that they share the experience outside the institutions that control power; that they overcome the bureaucracy imposed to give 100% to the programming and their development; that these programs stop

Julen Goñi, professor of philosophy