The debate began with an introduction by each of the speakers. First, Carmen Pellicer, director of the Trilemma Foundation, remarked that previously the role of the school was merely an instructor: the school did not have the task of educating, but only of instructing. For her now the school has the power to shape the style of society and to make it work, the complicity between school and family environment is necessary: the school is the least active agent of those who configure the total education of the person, since they are more effective family and atmosphere, but it is the most modifiable agent, and that is why we must act. I thought that the most effective factor for quality within the school is its teachers, but good teachers who work alone do not solve anything; Good schools are essential. The threshold, therefore, is in the quality of the teachers, be it in the part of the world that is. Some of the measures mentioned by Carmen to achieve this change are: that the teacher is the leader of learning, the formation of the management teams, the linking of the teacher development system to the needs of the student, the teacher’s training and evaluation and the autonomy of the management of educational projects.
EDUCATIONAL PACT speakers
He also explained that a society without moral training or that banishes the humanities is condemned to repeat the same problems of the past because it is not about training only competent people at an intellectual level but at a human level. According to her, few lessons have been learned from the crisis, which leads to the creation of another great bubble. The tendency in education in some countries is to the practical training (China for example), looking to stand out in detailed evaluations, like Pisa, but for her, the school also has to be a temple of vital excellence, because the talent is a consequence of a good education.
He summarized his intervention with this phrase: “A good teacher can change the life of a child forever; a school can change the life of a community; education can change a country: change the education system. “
Alfonso Aguiló, president of CECE, was the second to intervene, stressing that we must start from our educational system is very good. He pointed out that our Constitution proclaims freedom of education and in compulsory education courses it must be offered publicly and free of charge; therefore, for school -and society- to be plural it must be financed: otherwise, it would only be plural for those who could pay for it. And just as political parties (which are private) or the media (among which there must be private entities) or unions (which are also private) must be plural, to guarantee a plural society education must be plural, and for that there must be a plurality of schools; for there to be, it is necessary to finance education.
He added that wanting to contrast public to private education is a mistake: it is necessary to make the most of the resources we have, going hand in hand. On the other hand, individual or concerted education does not take away from public education. On the contrary: the average cost of a school place in the public school is double the cost of the concerted school. He also stressed that education laws are not as important given the differences in results with the same education law and that the same happens with spending, which does not correlate with the results in many cases. He argued that the system that best guarantees plurality and access to education is that of concerts; the so-called school check model, for example, does not have proven experience but could easily result in a simple discount on the price, which would mean that some schools could raise their prices. And what the State can not do is set the amount that a school place must cost. The best system, therefore, after having compared with other models in different countries, seems to be the concert. And without a doubt it would be, he affirmed, if they were provided with as many places as are demanded by the parents.…