![]() |
Elements for a Diagnosis of the Spanish Educational System![]() ![]() ![]() |
1
|
Diagnoses of education in Spain, commissioned by the political authorities (1968-1996)N.B.: The INCE commissioned a study on this theme and title to Manuel de Puelles Benítez, Professor of Educational Policy at the Spanish National Open University. The lines included here are based on that study, which may be requested from the INCE by those with a special interest in the matter.THE WHITE BOOK OF 1969It is common knowledge that the General Education Act of 1970 was preceded, the year before, by a document that, in spite of initial scepticism, was a real success, due to its diffusion and the seriousness and rigor of its preparation. It is known as the "White Book", which was really titled Education in Spain: Bases of an educational policy. The White Book was undoubtably the first critical report produced in Spain on the overall educational system. It referred with notable harshness to the main deficiencies in education in Spain at that time, as for example the low rates of schooling in kindergarten, primary and, most especially in secondary education (where, however, there had been an explosion in the student population), as well as severe structural problems, in the foreground of which there was the "double track" offered to Spanish children as of the age of ten, which discriminated children, above all due to their resources and social and family background. Many of the problems criticized in the White Book may be considered inherent to that time and were solved to a greater or lesser extent by enactment of the General Education Act and, later, through other legal measures. Thus, we shall not refer to these here. What we are now interested in is to pinpoint some of the trends noted then that may, at least partially, still exist nowadays. Specifically as to secondary education, the White Book then emphasised:
The White Book also emphasised failings of the academic system for which, as could be expected, it did not offer a solution to please everybody. This is especially applicable to the matter of school segregation of 10 to 14 year old students. By proposing elimination of the preexistent bipolarity and establishment of a common channel for all students, a solution that was fully accepted and adopted by the Act of 1970, some sectors of society and the educational sector (especially in secondary and university education) clearly reacted against the measure, insisting that it led to a flawed interpretation of democratisation of education and hindered selection and adequate training of the more skilled students with an interest in higher education. Another important point worth pointing out is the denouncement in the document that teaching - at all levels, but specially in middle or secondary education - was too memory based. This may also have favoured a policy tending toward syllabuses that reinforced instrumental knowledge and cultivated the memory to a lesser extent, as then and later frequently pointed out. To conclude this brief reference to the White Book, one must add that the Report published in the same period through private initiative (the so-called 2nd Foessa Report, in 1970) substantially validated the critical observations of the White Book, although pointing out that some of the data provided in it, in spite of their severity, were rather optimistic (such as those related to schooling and drop-out rates). The most substantial criticism in the 2nd Foessa Report as to the White Book concerned matters of funding, due to the inadequate financial calculation of the needs the reform announced aimed to cover. |
THE EVALUATION REPORT OF 1976Six years after approval of the Act, a new Report was commissioned by the ministerial authorities. This was requested in 1976 by the Minister Robles Piquer, by a Committee presided by Fernando Suárez, which was not published, although it did have a restricted circulation (Report presented by the Committee to Evaluate the General Education and Educational Reform Funding Act pursuant to Decree 186/76/ of 6th February). As its very name states, it aimed to evaluate implementation of the said Act and, in conclusion, to appraise its achievements and deficiencies at a time when the political situation, after the death of Franco, was undergoing a profound change. The first of the three large volumes comprising the Report was dedicated to recording the quantitative evolution of the academic system from 1969, and it records the great growth at all levels, which is especially notable in secondary education (which almost tripled its number of students over those seven years) and also notable, although to a lesser extent, in Vocational Training (VT) (which was doubled). It also recorded practically universal application of General Basic Education (EGB) (that is to say, obligatory primary education up to the age of 14). It pointed out the great expansion in the public sector, especially in secondary education (much above that which took place in the private sector), although also at other levels. The second volume is dedicated to evaluation of the different levels and modes. As to the matters of special interest to us, we may say that the Report backs the Act of 1970 as a "success" in unifying schooling between the age of 7 and 14, adding that "under no circumstances may one accept a return to the previous discriminatory situations which divided the school population at basic level into diverse groups" and that "if there is anything lacking in the present system, it is precisely a premature discrimination in educational treatment as of age 13-14 and an excessively radical division into predominantly humanistic, pretechnological and professional education". On the other hand, although it records the criticism raised in various sectors as to the drop in the quality of upper secondary education (high school baccalaureate "Bachillerato Unificado Polivalente - BUP"), it clearly favours the form established in the Act, emphasising the convenience of reinforcing its "unified" and "multiple-purpose" core. Among the failings noted in the scope of secondary education (general and vocational, lower and higher level), some have to a fair extent been dealt with in later years, as for example the reference to free obligatory education (to a great extent "still an aim", according to the Report), or there still being deficient classrooms at primary schools. Other failings may perhaps have lasted same years after the Report, as for example:
Puelles summarises that the Committee considers that, pursuant to the Act of 1970 special attention had to be paid to the following realities:
In other aspects, the Report by the Committee also insisted that many of the remaining difficulties are due to insufficient funding of the Act of 1970. In the Updated synthesis of the 3rd Foessa report, published in 1978, the observations were not much different from the previous ones. It made particular emphasis on educational expenditure still being notably below the needs and usual practice in the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries. |
THE 1981 DOCUMENT ON SECONDARY EDUCATIONThe Report Secondary Education in Spain published in 1981 also contains, apart from its proposal for reform, an evaluation of the Baccalaureate and Vocational Training more than ten years after enactment of the Act of 1970. On the basis of the great in the number of students in both educational groups (above all in Vocational Training, which duplicated from 1975, although amounting to half those enrolled in Baccalaureate then), the Report referred amply to "severe failings" and "anomalies requiring urgent correction". A summary of the deficiencies and anomalies stated in the Report is, mainly, as follows.
Once more, the 4th Foessa Report, published two years later, also points out such anomalies as those already stated in the official Report in 1981. |
THE OECD REPORT OF 1986A report that was also commissioned by the political authorities is that of 1986, carried out by the OECD on Spanish educational policy (Survey of Spanish educational policy, OECD 1996). This Report begins by pointing out the great thrust education has received in Spain since the General Education Act of 1970, due to which there was growth throughout the educational system overall which the surveyors considered "was more spectacular than in any other OECD country". The OECD Report emphasises some points of the criticism above, such as, for example, those concerning the faulty approach to Vocational Training, in the first grade (due to the type of students it takes in, and due to its scarce social appreciation) and at the second (due to the scarce proportion of high school students who chose it, not greater than 20% then, as well as the considerable number of drop-outs). However, it also mentions other key points such as:
Of course, the OECD survey also covers matters related to funding, stating that "it would be useful to prepare more systematic estimates of the medium and long term requirements for resources". |
THE WHITE BOOK IN 1989As Puelles points out in the study taken as reference, the White Book published in 1989 (White Book for the Reform of the Educational System), also as a prologue to the Act to be enacted a year later (Educational System General Organisation Act, LOGSE), is much briefer than the one twenty years before as to diagnosis of the situation and sets more directly about presenting the reform it wishes to implement. However, its first part provides a fairly ample analysis of the achievements and shortcomings of the Act of 1970 which, twenty years later, must be properly implemented. This is not the stage to examine what the new White Book considers many important "achievements". Among the shortcomings that have lasted until the end of the eighties, the document specifically emphasised the following ones, which it considers the effect of the new Act must address specifically:
In addition to these shortcomings, the White Book also points out the need to bring about a general adaptation of the Spanish educational system to present day circumstances, pointing out the following related factors:
|
© Instituto Nacional de Calidad y Evaluación (INCE) calle San Fernando del Jarama, 14 E28002 MADRID |
Tel: +34 91.745.9200 Fax: +34 91.745.9249 email: info@ince.mec.es |