"Reality has overcome linguistic models long ago"

Pello Otxandiano, head of the EH Bildu program, denounces the change of script: "For two and a half years many texts have been used and nowhere has there been reference to linguistic models, precisely because the current situation of education does not require it and we believe that the models for the future must be overcome. But yesterday, at the last minute, the PNV and the PSE have included the reference to linguistic models and brought to the centre the debate on linguistic models, when this was not the focus of the debates so far". Otxandiano made it clear that linguistic models do not serve to manage the current diversity of classrooms, and that "reality has exceeded linguistic models long ago". It sets as an example a classroom in which the newly arrived student of Pakistan, newly arrived from Venezuela, who brings Basque from home…, where surely all the linguistic models mixed will be applied.

"The experience we have is that linguistic models do not guarantee the possession of official languages at the end of compulsory education. The objectives of the law [to reach level B2 at the end of compulsory education] are not supported by models, model A, model B, or model D".

The PSE tooth flies the table

"It's clear what happened. The PSE has put a red line, has thrown the ordago, has said publicly that linguistic models must be guaranteed, incorporated and shielded, because for him it is politically important, not with educational arguments, and the PNV has bought him the framework," Otxandiano criticised.

However, the PSE and the PNV have read the amendment differently: "The PSE representative says that the amendment incorporates the three linguistic models into the draft law, that the current models are guaranteed and shielded (and that, therefore, the family wishing to study in model A will now and in the future). On the contrary, Education Advisor Jokin Bildarratz has pointed out that language models should be updated, because they do not meet the objectives of the educational agreement, and that something else needs to be built, changed, updated, transformed."

The issue of contradictory versions is not serious and calls on both sides: "That they should be able to give a joint press conference and give a unique interpretation of this amendment, what it is and what its objectives are. It's minimal."

From there "we will try to feed the debate constructively". He points out three statements as a starting point for the debate, asking whether PNV and PSE add to the statements: "Linguistic models are not valid for managing the socio-linguistic diversity that we currently have in schools; linguistic models (A, B, D) do not guarantee that pupils have the two official languages (reaching level B2); the fourth title exceeds the system of linguistic models". That is, the fourth title of the law requires the centers to elaborate the linguistic project, how does this relate to the maintenance of models A, B, D?

Otxandiano mentions a political reference for the debate (the agreement on language reached in Catalonia last year, including the CSP) and five key questions: "What is the theoretical framework that we take as reference in the fourth title? What is the strategic framework? What instruments have we not had so far to develop language projects? What new resources do we need to develop language projects? What development do we see in this law over the next ten years in terms of languages? ".

You will find detailed information about the CAV Education Act on the channel dedicated to the ARGIA law.