The Contextual Barriers to School Reform in Spain

8/12/2019 The Contextual Barriers to School Reform in Spain

1/17

Contextual Barriers to School Reform in SpainAuthor(s): Jos L. Arco-Tirado and Juan-Miguel Fernndez-BalboaSource: International Review of Education / Internationale Zeitschrift frErziehungswissenschaft / Revue Internationale de l'Education, Vol. 49, No. 6 (Nov., 2003), pp.585-600Published by: SpringerStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3445399.

Accessed: 27/03/2014 06:57

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Springeris collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toInternational Review of

Education / Internationale Zeitschrift fr Erziehungswissenschaft / Revue Internationale de l'Education.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=springerhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3445399?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3445399?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=springer


2/17

CONTEXTUAL BARRIERS TO SCHOOL REFORM IN SPAINJOSE L. ARCO-TIRADO and JUAN-MIGUEL FERNANDEZ-BALBOA

Abstract - Over the past two decades, the Spanish educational system has under-gone various legal reforms. However, judging by the low educational performance ofSpanish students as reported by the OECD for the year 2001, it seems that additionalreforms are necessary. Several factors may account for the failure of previous reformsto attain the desired results. These include: (a) educators' low expectations that furtherreforms will succeed, (b) lack of financial resources, (c) institutional lack of com-mitment to implement the structural and administrative changes called for and (d)the adoption of questionable theoretical models for making appropriate structural,curricular and educational decisions. This essay presents some suggestions for imple-menting a reform program that would bring about substantial changes in these areas.Zusammenfassung - In den letzten zwei Jahrzehnten wurde das spanischeSchulsystem einem fortlaufenden Prozess rechtlicher Reformen ausgesetzt. Es scheintjedoch sogar ein Bedarf an zusatzlichen Reformen vorhanden zu sein, wenn man diegeringen schulischen Leistungen spanischer Schiller laut OECD-Bericht fur das Jahr2001 betrachtet. Mehrere Faktoren konnen fur das Versagen der Reformen - was dieschulischen Leistungen anbetrifft - verantwortlich sein. Zu diesen Faktoren gehoren:(a) die geringen Erwartungender Lehrer, dass weitere Reformen Erfolg haben werden,(b) der Mangel an finanziellen Ressourcen, (c) der Mangel an Engagement auf Seitender Institutionen, die geforderten strukturellen und administrativen Veranderungenvorzunehmen und (d) die Durchfuhrung fraglicher theoretischer Modelle, mit derenHilfe entsprechende Entscheidungen zur Struktur, dem Curriculum und der Bildunggetroffen werden. Die Autoren dieses Aufsatzes machen einige Vorschlage zurDurchfuhrung eines Reformprogramms, das bedeutsame Veranderungen in die Wegeleitete.Resume - Au cours des vingt dernires ann6es, le systeme 6ducatif espagnol a connuune serie de r6formes juridiques. Pourtant, des r6formes supplementaires s'averentn6cessaires, a en juger par les faibles r6sultats scolaires des 6coliers espagnols,mentionn6s dans le rapportde I'OCDE pour l'annee 2001. Plusieurs facteurs peuventexpliquer pourquoi ces r6formes ne parviennent pas a produire les r6sultats souhait6s:(a) la faible foi des enseignants en la r6ussite d'une 6nieme r6forme, (b) le manquede ressources financieres, (c) le manque d'engagement de la part des institutions aopdrerles changements structurels et administratifs requis et (d) I'adoption de modelestheoriques discutables pour prendre des d6cisions structurelles, curriculaires et 6duca-tives appropri6es. Les auteurs 6mettent plusieurs propositions pour r6aliser un pro-gramme de r6formes qui apporterait des changements tangibles.Resumen - A lo largo de las uiltimas dos decadas, el sistema educativo espafiol haestado expuesto a un permanente proceso de reformas legales. No obstante, pareceque este sistema educativo aun necesita varias reformas mis, a juzgar por el deficientedesempefio de los estudiantes espaioles comprobado en el informe de la OCDE sobreel afo 2001. Varios factores deben haber contribuido a que las reformas no hayan

International eviewof Education Internationale eitschriftur Erziehungswissenschaft- RevueInternationale e l'Education49(6): 585-600, 2003.2003 KluwerAcademicPublishers.Printed n the Netherlands.

This content downloaded from 103.24.98.179 on Thu, 27 Mar 2014 06:57:06 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/17

586arrojadoos resultadosdeseados.Entreellas, el autor ncluye:(a) el escepticismodelos educadores,de que otrareformamas vaya a tener buenosresultados, b) la faltade recursosecon6micos,(c) la falta de determinaci6n, orpartede las instituciones,de implementaros cambios estructurales administrativosxigidos y (d) la adopcionde modelos teoricos de dudosa utilidadparauna toma de decisiones apropiada ncuanto a estructuras,planes de estudios y educaci6n.Este trabajopresentaalgunassugerenciaspara mplementar nprograma e reformasquepodriaprovocar ambiossustanciales.Pe3IoMe: B TexeHHe 4BYX nocJieX4HHX eCATHJCTHiiHCHCTeMa o6pa3oBaHHIA HI4naHHHripeTepneJia pA1.Zpa3JIH'IHbIXaKoHo0AaTeJ1HbIX pe4)opM. OI(HaKO, B CBSI3H HH3KHMHo6pa3oBaTei?bHbIMH nfOKm3aTenJMHHCHaiHCKHXTyJeHTOB, 3a414KCHpoBaHHb1MH BoTmeTe OpraIHH3auHH 3KOHOMH'iecKorocorpy,4HHqeCTBa H4Pa3BHTHS1(OECD) 3a 2001ro,, coxpaHmIerAl Heo6xooHMocTb B rlOBegeHHH aOnOJ1HHTeJIbHb1X pe4opM.He34I4PeKTHBHOCTb paHee npOH3BeaeHHb1X pe4)opM B AOCTH)KeHHH xceaiaemmxpe3y.1,TaTOB MO)KeT O6bSICHATbC6CCJieayiOllHMH4 4aKTopaMH: (a) HH3KaSI BepaneglaroroB B 344qeKTHBHOCTb rPipeCTOAIUHX pe4opM, (b) HeaocTaTo'IHoeJMaHaHcHpoBafHHe, (c) OTCYTCTBHe o6A3aTeJbHoro f0 POBegeHHA Heo6xo)aHMmx

CT]YKTYPHb1X H a,4MHHHCTpaTHBHbIXnpeo6pa3o0BaHHr B yLe6HMlx3aBeaeHHMrx, TaioKe(d) HCflOJ1b30BoH14 COMHHTTehlHbHX eopeTHLeCKHXMoaenek anA n1lHHATHMpewIeHHlno o6pa30BaTembHoHi crpyIcKype, yte6HoMy n.aaHy H yHe6HoMy npoueccy. aaHHb1i4iOKcMyHTO,4eKXHT HeKOTOmbIepeKOMeHAaUHH rI0 ocyWuecTBJeHH1O6pa3oBaTe.JbHoi

pe4)opMbI, KOTOpbIe n03BOJIIT )0CTh4Yb OMeBH4Hb1X pe3yJIbTaTOB B Ha3BaHHbIXo6lacTTAx.

In the past ten years, the Spanish educational system undergone a significantand ambitious reform process. During this time, two governmental Acts haveframed all structural, organizational and functional changes: (1) the Act of1990 entitled LOGSE (General Educational System Organization Act); (2) theAct of 1995 entitled LOPEG (Participation, Evaluation and Administrationof Schools Organization Act). These two Acts culminate 30 years of contin-uous reform begun with the LGE (General Act on Education) of 1970.The educational reforms undertaken in this shortperiod of time - a processwithout precedent in recent Spanish history - have affected all aspects of theeducational system, including the curricula and teachers' careers. The Spanisheducational system has been made to adapt to modern society's needs anddemands, including those of the job market, even as democratic structures andmethods have been introduced into the system itself.Although this study does not intend to enumerate or analyze those struc-tural and organizational reforms proper to LOGSE and LOPEG (Marchesi1999a, b), we must mention that the former brought numerous significantchanges, for example: (a) revision of the age at which children can attendschool; (b) extension of the age at which children complete elementary andsecondary education; (c) modifications to the curriculum, including the intro-duction of transversal subjects such as health education, education for peaceand consumer education; (d) integration of students with special education



4/17

587needs into mainstream classrooms; (e) introduction of the teacher's assistantto the classroom.Among the most outstanding changes engendered by LOPEG was thatold mechanisms based on personal and authoritative decisional processeswere replaced by consensual structures, institutions and administration.Furthermore, democratic election became mandatory for all representativesat each of those levels. In orderto accomplish these aims, additional measuresare still being implemented, such as giving schools more organizationalautonomy and professionalizing the role of the school principal as well asthe school board. However, in order to guarantee the adoption and imple-mentation of these legal and curricular changes, more and deeper strategicchanges must be implemented.In the currentreform, teachertraining is a key factor. Changes implementedduring the past few years include: (a) widening the range of study areas tochose from; (b) increasing the number of credit hours spent in training; (c)developing ways of monitoring training; (d) reducing the number of studentsper group; and (e) introducing periodical career evaluations and other regu-lations. However, the changes proposed should not be evaluated by their inten-tions, but by whether or not the initial objectives have been accomplished.This can only be determined through internal and external evaluation. In thisregard, and employing the following sources, we have identified threeelements that have affected the successful implementation of the currentSpanish reform. The first is the survival of structures and administrativenetworks incompatible with the new psycho-pedagogical objectives requiredin high-level standard education (Defensor del Pueblo Andaluz 1998). Thesecond is the adoption of theoretical frameworks based exclusively on devel-opmental theories and models already discarded in other countries (Alexanderet al. 1992). The third is the lack of feedback into political and administra-tive decisional processes (Consejerfa de Educaci6n y Ciencia 1998). Let usexamine each one of these issues in detail.

Structural and administrative reformsIn 1998 the Consejerfa de Educaci6n y Ciencia de la Junta de Andalucfa (theregional Department of Education and Science of Andalusia) carriedout a descriptive study to evaluate the reform process begun in 1991. Usinga questionnaire, they sampled schools and teachers from elementary schoolswithin the region, focusing on (a) planning, (b) implementation and (c) theresults of the process. Their findings are presented and analysed here.



5/17

588Planning1. There remainsa disparitybetween official regulationsandnorms derivedfrom academicauthoritiesat one level and,at another,non-official,intui-tive andnon-systematicapproaches.2. The curriculum s inadequatelycontextualizedin a high percentageofschools dueto theadoptionof models(e.g., books,manuals tc.) fromotherregionsand communities.3. Educationalobjectives, contextualneeds and curriculumprojectsare dis-connected.4. Thereis a lack of intermediateand transitionalguidelinesbetween lawsand concrete diosyncraticcurricularmodels for each school.5. Planningand monitoringof the protocols and documentsrecommendedby the educationalauthoritiesare inadequate.Implementation1. 63.1% of school-boardmembers, ncludingteachers,students,parentsandadministration,ad not considered aftersix yearsof reform)which criteriaandproceduresarenecessaryfor internalevaluationof the schools.2. 21.5%of schools had not set up an internalcommission,despitethe factthat this was consideredone of the key elementsin the reformefforts.3. 50% of schools thathad set up such a commissionstated that its contri-butionto the transformation rocesseshad been significantly ow.4. 33.3%of schools had not revisedtheirclassroomcurriculumprogram.Results1. 95% of studentspass theircourses.2. 85.4% of schools have carriedout studies of theiracademicachievement;only 44.7% have included anotherstudy of the reasons for the deficientevaluation and results of their students.Another similar percentageofschools have no proposalsto improvethe situationat all.3. The satisfaction level expressedby families, teachers and students withregard o school functioningcan be seen in Table 1 (percentagesrefer toschools).

Despitethe deficient technicalsophisticationof the Consejeria's tudy,wecanrelyon thefeasibilityandvalidityof thefindingspresentedby thisofficialinstitutionwith directresponsibilities or education. Some of those findingsaresurprising ndhighly alarming for example,thoseconcerningplanning,particularlywherethere s twofoldplanning.Inthefinding concerning mple-mentation,one must notice the importantdifficulties that schools and theirboardsof administration ad to face, given the fact that half of the schoolswere not able to set up an internal commissionin a beneficial way. As forreform, t is surprising hat95%of studentspass theircourses of studywith



6/17

589Table1.Families 93.1%Teachers 92.7%Students 93.7%Families(teachers' ob) 91.5%Students teachers' ob) 87.6%Teachers self-satisfaction) 92.2%Families(theirchildren'swork) 87.1%Students self-satisfaction) 85.6%Teachers students'work) 87.9%Families(participationn school issues) 70.1%Students familyparticipationn school issues) 72.9%Teachers family participationn school issues) 60.4%Teachers needto increasefamilyparticipation) 49.6%Teachers needto increase studentparticipation) 19.9%Source:Consejeriade Educaci6ny Ciencia, 1998.

no problems. Also surprising is that 93.1% of the families are satisfied withthe functioning of the school, and that only 50% of the teachers agree withthe goal of increasing parents' participation in school issues (one of the foun-dations of the reform). We view these data as a proof of the profound con-tinuing gap between legislation on one hand and on the other teachers' andparents' expectations.In a further report on school and family (Garcfa et al. 2000), answers to asurvey showed that at least 70% of Spanish parents are satisfied with theirchildren's academic results compared with other children of their age; 57%reply that their children are motivated (always or frequently) to study; 76%of fathers and 83% of mothers are satisfied with the relationship they havewith their children as to their studies; 70% of fathers and 71% of mothersare satisfied with their children's academic performance. Moreover, parents'perceptions of children's academic performance itself are high: one in fourconsider it "very good" and almost half "good", somewhat less than a quarter"reasonable", and only 6% "bad".It is evident that the figures do not match,especially the latter.If, as the data on performance suggest, we have academicfailure rates of about 25% and 30% among students aged 14 and 16, how isit possible that less than 25% of parents state that their children's performanceis only "reasonable", while only 6% admit a situation of real failure? It isdifficult to fight academic failure in a society that does not admit its exis-tence, at least in its real proportions.The practice of not researching the potential causes and preventive initia-tives to ensure the success of reforms is also discouraging, since research isa key issue for such transformation. However, there are some exceptions tothis rule. In 1997 the democratic foundation "El Defensor del Pueblo Andaluz"(DPA) ("AndalusianPeople's Ombudsman")published its annual report(1998:412), which included the following results:



7/17

590After revising last year's complaints about compensatoryeducation,we havereachedthe troublesomeconclusionthat, afteryears of efforts in which we hadbeen able to set up a net of educational esourceswith a high degreeof solidarityand progressivism,we are witnessing a process of disintegrationof social andeducationalpolicies. Such disintegrations especiallynoticeable n the reductionof personalandmaterial esources orpromoting ducationalntegration f ethnicalor social minorities.

The report highlights:(a) the [...] decision, made by the GeneralDirection of the AdministrationofHumanResources,not to renew contractswith institutionsandprofessionals,andnot to enter ntoanynewcontractswithothers; b)the modification f norms elatedto the referralof studentswith special educationalneeds to those public institu-tions;c) the suppressionof financialsupport or booksfor economicallydeprivedfamilies;(d) the stagnationof programsdedicatedto preventschool absenteeism(412).Besides the circumstances outlined above, other factors influence and

amplify the shortcomings of this reform. One of them has to do with the lackof financial resources that could have prevented many of these problems.Nonetheless, we are convinced that it is not just a matter of money, but ofknowing how to use properly the financial resources already available.Formative and summative mechanisms often ignored in large-scale reforms,yet equally important, such as feedback on instructional processes, shouldhave been applied.

Theories and educational modelsDevelopment as evolutionWith regard to developmental theories related to infancy or adolescence oreven to human being in general, we have to take into account that there arethree levels around which knowledge of such topics is organized. First, wehave the concept 'development', second the concept 'theory', and third, forexample, the concept 'infant'. Each one of those terms is far from having aclear and scientifically consensual definition. This is also the case with basicconcepts such as 'model', 'paradigm', 'analogue' and other terms to whichthe prefix 'meta-' can be attached, such as 'meta-analysis', 'meta-learning','meta-perception' and 'meta-cognition' (Thomas 2000). Furthermore, thereare many concepts related to theories about learning that are commonly used,for instance: 'development' and 'evolution'. In this instance, the nature ofthe phenomenon itself is not clear. In fact, as some authors have remarked(Havighurst 1976; Rutter et al. 1976), there are doubts about its very exis-tence, as is the case with 'adolescence' (understood as a qualitatively differentdevelopmental period in and of itself). We should be careful and aim for



8/17

591greater precision when using these terms. For instance, according to Stone(1994), the evolutionary notion of development is a theoretical perspective(founded on a set of psychological and educational theories) that emphasizes(1) the sufficiency of a natural inclination to learning, (2) the limits posed bybiological and environmental constraints on learning and (3) the desirabilityof instruction tailored to learner attributes and proclivities.Mistaken assumptionsDevelopmental theories account for the emergence of human characteristicsas a product of maturation in conjunction with environmental factors. As aconceptual tool employed by behavioral scientists, this account may seemuseful and benign. As a guide to educational practice, however, it is fraughtwith difficulties (Binder and Watkins 1989). Some of these are:1. Developmental theories have simply not been effective, especially withstudents who are 'at risk'. Nonetheless, some educational concepts arisingfrom the developmental tradition, such as 'discovery learning', continue tobe widely used in some attempts to improve schools. This is the case withthe so-called "Follow Through Project", a program aimed at evaluating theresults of several instructional models in American schools. Likewise, the lowefficacy of different versions of developmental theories is revealed byprograms such as "Open Education", "Responsive Education" and the BankStreet Model (Proper and Pierre 1980). Probably the most significant criti-cism of developmentalism, however, comes from the United Kingdom'sSecretary of State, the Chief Inspector of Her Majesty's Inspectorate and theChief Executive of the British Government's National Curriculum Council inthe report entitled "Curriculum Organization and Classroom Practice inPrimary Schools". This document reaches the following conclusion: "Overthe last few decades the progress of primary pupils has been hampered bythe influence of highly questionable dogmas which have led to excessivelycomplex classroom practices and devalued the place of subjects in the cur-riculum" (Alexander et al. 1992: 1; italics added). These highly questionabledogmas reside in nothing other than the Piagetian developmentalism thatenjoyed great popularity in the United Kingdom during the late 1960s (Stone1994).That these very same dogmas underlie the foundations of many officialpublications can be seen in LOGSE. An example representing the conceptualand procedural difficulties inherent to the theoretical foundation underlyingproposed changes are shown in Figure 1, which stems from The White Book,on which LOGSE is based.2. Developmental theories hinder educational practices that might otherwisebe effective because they imply that the attemptsto teach unpreparedor unmo-tivated students may do harm to them, even as they ignore the deficiencies



9/17

592Figure 1.

.......... ..... ......:-., .: '.5... . '.;................. .................'i, ::: :::::: :: : :: :: :: ::::::: ::: : ::::::...WELC. .. :.iii:.::i~:::~::~:~::iii i.:::. :;a:: : :::i:::::;:::::::::::::::::: :s :;:..:::..:.. ::~i'~i~i:i~i~~iii~~i~~i;i:)i?:i~i:i`:: ::::::

::::::..::..Nucation(Ep. 118).

. .r',. ,t~,

..................:::::::::::::::,,:::,::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

.. .{.. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

White oto.le m t IE, ai::':: : : White,.n;f;t::::[email protected](. 18).Whiok. I aletarta ........ .. . .. ......

)*.-.*.*.::1.:.i:?::I.::.i:::a:i..:j.::.r:.:.:..-:.:.::.::::.::.::::::...........:.;.:.................:::::::::::::: ..:::::: :::::::

. . . . . . . .

,Whitcook,e.od& y::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::i.......,.................*Xv~~~~~~~ ~ ~,..'.'''. ..........

resulting from insufficient instruction (Stone 1991). In other words, if devel-

opment s definedas a successionof stagesin whichthe transition rom onestage to the next as well as the intrinsicmotivationof such transitionreliesupon each person'sdegree of maturation, t would be a mistaketo exposechildrento schoolingexpectationsgreaterthanthose thatmatch the naturalrateof development.Thus, teachersoughtto be encouragedo aimtheireffortsnot towardsteaching and practicing academic skills, but instead towardspupils' masteryof theirown predispositions Bredekamp1988). Moreover,in line with this approach,one ought to discourage he use of positive rein-forcementbecausethe child's intrinsicmotivation o learnand developmaybe underminedDickinson1989).3. Themost counterproductiveharacteristic f developmentalismmay be thatit contributes o students'immaturityand complacency,insteadof encour-agingor fosteringtheir independent ffort and dedicationto socially valuedformsof achievement. n the wordsof Garciaet al. (2000: 147),

nowadayscultivationof excellence in Spanishschools is fairlylow, perhapspar-tially due to the fact thatthe teachingstaff is required o achieveat least reason-

..........ecaus AVOIDSA RndS deve



10/17

593ably satisfactoryevels. Spanishschools do not seem to seek excellence,nor doesSpanishsociety at large.One musttake another ook at the optimismshownas tothis point by a high percentageof Spanish amilieswhentheyconsiderobviouslymediocre results 'good or very good', and results that are clearly unsatisfactory'mediocre'('reasonable' s the termused).

Students' inattention and apathy are met with Herculean efforts to stimulatetheir interest and enthusiasm, while their recurrent falling short of evenminimal achievements is accepted as lamentable but unavoidable (Stone 1994).That is exactly the perspective adopted by the Spanish government whendesigning and implementing the new Educational Quality Law, which pretendsto reform compulsory secondary education. If we analyze it from a criticalperspective, however, we find several contradictions. (a) The new law doesnot guarantee enough pre-K educational opportunities for all children, sinceparents must pay part of the tuition; for many of the schools intended for thisage group function under a semi-private model of financing. (b) Despiteacknowledging that many of the problems students experience in school beginat the elementary level, the law does not foresee any significant changesaddressing such problems. What it does do, is to place some emphasis on theimportance of promoting reading among students and set an innocuous examat the end of the last course. (c) Those students who fail the same course twicewill not be able to obtain the final certificate, which, in turn, prevents themfrom reaching higher levels of education. (d) The law forces students at therelatively early age of 14 and 15 to make decisions on their future career pathsdespite the fact that, at that age, many students are not ready to make such adecision. (e) The law reduces the competencies of the school board, thus relin-quishing previously established democratic power. (f) Another blow to thedemocratic process is the appointment by the government representative ofthe school principal previously elected by the school board. (g) Instead ofaddressing the roots of problems which students face in schools (such asviolence, drugs etc.), the new law only proposes increasing disciplinarymeasures at the behavioral level, such as disciplinary expulsion. (h) Relatedto this, the new law also establishes an additional final exam at the end ofcompulsory secondary education, which seems to annul the merits alreadyobtainedby students throughoutthe previous four years, as their fate and there-with their future career opportunities hinge on this one exam. (j) Finally, forthose who decide to pursue studies at the university level, the new law estab-lishes yet another entrance exam for each particular career path, creating anew obstacle to higher education and annulling the academic merits alreadyattained by the students in their coursework.New names - old problemsInstead of responding to low academic achievement with alarm, responsibleauthorities have played down the problem as a sort of malaise of uncertainty,



11/17

594as at presentmany professionalroles and institutions are changingin theircompetenciesand social functions.The devaluationof such areas as History,Philosophyand Grammars a good exampleof this and, indeed, a possiblereasonwhy ever more studentshaveproblemswith attention,comprehensionand reading which, in turn, lead to academic and personal difficulties.According to Garciaet al. (2000), the situation in Spain does not justifyalarmn comparisonwithothercountries,althoughurgentcorrectivemeasuresshouldbe taken.However, he reporton primaryeducationperformedby theINCE(NationalInstitutefor Qualityon Teaching) n 1995 claims thatonly51%and 64% of pupils aged 12 achievedacceptableresultsin Mathematicsand Spanish language, respectively,which means that there are 49% and36%,respectively,who do not achieve these. The lack of statisticaldata forthe entireSpanisheducationalsystem preventsus frombeing more specificwhentalkingabout,forintance,Andalusia'seducationalneedsandresources.But the educationalreportsubmittedby the INCE(1999), a nationalagencyin chargeof improvingquality n Spanisheducationalprocesses,states that

Thereare two methodologicalproblems he teachingstaff especiallynotice. Oneconcernsheterogeneous lasses, the modelwhichESO reinforcesby also applyingit to studentsaged between 14 and 16. It seems clear that extendingthe modelwithouthavingadequateresourcesmay be a source of conflict and cause a dropin quality.The secondproblem s the difficultythat teachersused to the previoussystemof SecondaryEducationhaveto adapt o the ESO students;his is aproblemthat s closely related o the deficiencies n theinitialtrainingandongoingtrainingthatarealso reportedby the teachingstaff (150).Anexampleof whatwe aretrying o saycanbe extractedromchanges,duringthe last several decades, in the educationaltreatmentof Down's syndromechildren. Forty years ago, the expectations for such children in terms ofpersonal,affective,socialormaritaldevelopmentwereverylow. Infact,eventoday,the (relativelylow) social integration evel attainedby these individ-uals is evident. Whatis more,the filing cabinetsare full of pedagogicalandpsychologicalreports signed by so-called 'professionals'sure that it wouldbe impossiblefor these childrenever to become 'normal'.They assumed hatthesechildrenwouldnot be able to masterbasic and vital autonomic nd socialskills such as self-care,readingandwriting.Yet today,no real professionalwould defend such barbarities.Manyfactors have influenced this changeofperception nd attitudes owards hesechildren,amongothers: hekey elementof 'early stimulation'by educatorsand parents.Early diagnosis and inter-ventionas well asparents' nvolvementarewidelyrecognizedasguaranteeing,to some extent, that these childrenwill develop at a similarpace as their'normal'mates.Apartfrom individualdifferencesarisingfrom otherbiolog-ical complications, he syndrome tself has not changedsince its descriptionin 1866 by BritishsurgeonLangdonDown. The questionto be answered sthen:Wherecould the limitationsof these childrenbe located?Intheir nnateneuro-biological quipment?Or n thelearningopportunitieswith which theirfamily,school andsociety provided hem?



12/17

595The point here is not to criticize, but instead to find solutions. In short, we

are interested in observing whether teachers and parents' training systemsare adequate to meet the needs of children and, by extension, all students'needs. Unfortunately,the lack of extensive and appropriate raining is commonamong purely educational professions. It is not found among astronauts, engi-neers or surgeons. Their objectives and procedures are more clearly defined,as are their monitoring processes and financial incentives. In education,however, there are huge discrepancies in terms of objectives and means ofaccomplishing them. There are even many educators who believe that in thenear future we will have a vaccine or a pharmacological treatment to 'cure'dyslexia, addictions, ADD or ADHD. Such attitudes and attendant patternsof behavior constitute strong barriers for creating methods of evaluation andintervention more adequateto the interactive and psychological natureof theseproblems.Finally, we wish to offer a related reflection. From our perspective, teachershave found that the concept of 'developmental stage', when used to 'explain'andjustify students' academic failure, is a perfect ally of educators, inasmuchas such failure can be presented in terms of developmental delays and defi-ciencies in maturity (Tomlinson and Cross 1991). Various professionals haveidentified this as the factor responsible for poor academic results, instead offocusing on work done on school assignments during the school year. Theindustry of evaluation, diagnosis and labelling, to which failing students areoften referred,has its own vested interests in expanding the idea that academicdeficiencies are caused by developmental factors beyond the control ofschools, teachers and parents (Stone 1991).

Politics and administrationProfound reflection is needed. If instead of coming from Departments ofEducation, these results - of reform processes ( ) - were announced to thepublic by Departments of Health or Ministries of the Economy, it is likelythat different steps would have been taken to rectify the situation. Paradox-ically, the mass media have not followed up on this data, although every yearbrings periodical waves of teachers' strikes. Not even specialized publicationshave devoted much copy to these issues.One example of this lack of interest in educational issues in general, andparticularly in the last reform attempt, is that the percentage of parents par-ticipating in the most recent school-board elections was about 15.1% onaverage (Ideal 2000). Such a low percentage resembles that calculated byGarcia et al. (2000), who estimate that the percentage of people actuallyinvolved in Parent Associations (AMPAs) does not exceed 14%. The rele-vance of these data is obvious if we observe how importantthe role of parentsin the functioning of schools has become. With such a low percentage ofinvolvement and the accompanying lack of representativeness, it is no wonder



13/17

596that these parents are suspicious of further reforms. Again, according to Garciaet al. (2000: 160):

Many parentseven ignore the existence of these essential bodies for operationandparticipation nd,even moreso, theyalsoignorethatthey maymakedecisionsas to theirchildren'seducation.This indeedmeans that the students'parentswhoare candidatesfor election are not backedby a sufficiently relevant numberoffamilies.As the years go by, the matterdoes not seem to improve,and one maythusask whether here s a real will for suchimprovement mongthe mainpartiesresponsible or the academicsystemandmanagement f schools.In addition to the lack of media attention to these problems, along with

inadequate parental participation in school matters, political orthodoxy andthe dearth of comparative studies have also combined to promote the viewthat the status quo is acceptable. Yet according to the previously mentionedreport (DPA 1998: 415), "We are facing an educational system in Andalusiathat in a subtle way is allowing the administration to offer excellent percent-ages of implementation of the LOGSE reform [...] but with no foundation inreality".Another factor that negatively contributes to the accomplishment ofLOGSE's more relevant objectives concerns the new and basic functionsassigned to the educational system. These involve so-called 'cross contents':e.g., health education, substance-abuse education, education for peace andconsumer education, among others. An issue exemplifying how importantschools are becoming in terms of helping to prevent social problems is thegrowing number of adolescents who start taking illegal drugs at earlier ages.Schools have become one of the most important places for combatting drugaddiction (PNSD 2000). Since other strategies - the use of mass media andother secondary approaches - have apparently failed, the National Plan onDrug Addiction (PNSD) has decided to rely on the educational system to tryto win this 'war'. However, we do not know enough about whether schoolsare ready to meet such a challenge, especially when previous and more basicchallenges still await their solutions.In this regard, the following data are significant: (a) only about 15% ofcurrent schoolbooks address drug addiction prevention; (b) there are no dif-ferences in this particular percentage if we compare the periods before andafter the enactment of LOGSE; (c) very few include drug addiction preven-tion in health education (the corresponding 'transversal' content) (Gavidia etal. 2001). This is particularly troublesome when considering that the mosthighly valued resource mentioned by teachers is the textbook (Garcia et al.2000. Furthermore, most textbooks do not include appropriate content(Gavidia et al. 2001). We understand that in Spanish syllabuses textbookscarry enormous weight; yet it cannot be denied that governmental departmentssuch as Education, Health, Home Office or Justice, along with the publishinghouses, bear some responsibility in this matter.Additional data may help us to understand the current situation in which



14/17

597teachers are being required to address social problems, that is, in whichproblems of society at large are being made educational problems. Teachersare being requiredto perform duties for which they have not been sufficientlytrained (Garcia et al. 2000). In another survey carried out by the PNSD,teachers were asked about how they perceived the way that drug-abuseprevention was being addressed in schools. The results were the following:(a) The number of teachers taking part in continuing education on this topichas reached 26.3%. (b) About 16.4% have received training on health edu-cation during the last five years (PNSD 2000). If the political institutions planto establish high-quality education for all teachers (Real Decree 1991/99) bythe year 2008, then financial resources will have to be increased proportion-ately in order to meet the new objective. However, we cannot be very opti-mistic in this regard, because according to official data from 1999, thepercentage of investment dedicated to prevention is barely 15.8% of all invest-ment (PNSD 2000). Hence, the investment should be raised about 400% inthis period of time. However, we wonder whether it is reasonable to rely onsuch forecasts, considering that between 1998 and 1999 the percentage ofincrease for that very same purpose has been only about 1.51%.According to the PNSD, there is a total of 24 programs available to schoolsfor preventing drug-related problems. The report of the PNSD holds: "itcan be said that in our country we have high quality programs [...] easilyapplicable when minimal and necessary conditions as well as the availabilityof materials are guaranteed" (14). But according to our data, we are far fromactually having high-quality programs available, since many of the proposedprograms and materials have been adopted from foreign programs without thenecessary cultural and educational changes. What is more, according to theprestigious international Blueprints for Violence Prevention program, just avery few programs- no more than ten targeting drugs and violence in schools- meet recommended scientific standards. These are programs that (a) makethe most of their experimental design, (b) provide evidence of preventive ordeterrent effects, (c) can be replicated and (d) have demonstrated long-termeffects.The situation is actually worse. A recent call for grant proposals by theHome Office offering "financial assistance to develop research programs inpublic institutions on drug abuse" (BOE 2001) is typical of the way in whichpublic officials often say they are going to do one thing, then do another,claiming eventually that they have done something else.According to Table 2, of 54 proposals submitted, only 14 (25.9%) havebeen accepted. A total of 11 (78.5%) proposals out of those 14 accepted areprojects related to research on biological, medical and/or pharmacologicaldrug-related issues. Eventually, just 3 of those 14 proposals accepted arerelated to research on educational issues.



15/17

598Table 2.

# of %of %of %ofprojects granted total budgetTotalnumberof projectssubmitted 54 -Projectsgranted 14 - 25.9Projectsgranted or researchonbio-medical-pharmacologicaldrug-relatedssues 11 78.5 20.3 94.16Projectsgranted or researchondrug-educationelated ssues 3 21.4 5.5 5.84Source: Resolucidn de convocatoria BOE de 31 Mayo de 2001. Delegacidn delGobiernopara el PNSD [BOEDecision about GrantProposals,31 May 2001. TheGovernmentAgency for the NationalPlanAgainstDrugs]

RecommendationsWe recommend the following measures:1. Public schools have the duty not just to teach, but also to provide studentsat risk of failure with the best possible educational opportunities by: (a)

improving teacher qualification, (b) optimizing the educational materialavailable and (c) bettering instructional strategies. Through these measures,we can enhance the chances of at-risk students to meet personal, familialand social expectations. Politicians and other responsible parties mustsupportschools through specific measures and resources (Garciaet al. 2000:152). Reducing student drop-out rates requires not just spreading blame,but starting to share responsibility.2. In order to promote authentic school reform, we as researchers propose towork on several issues: (a) emphasizing alternative theories for settingeducational and/or therapeutic objectives, (b) collaborating with educatorswho are willing to incorporate novel instructional practices that might bemore effective and (c) addressing the question of how to inculcate instudents a deeper commitment to education itself.3. There is a need for more monitoring and evaluation of educationalmeasures. Specifically, we recommend more political and economicaccountability. (a) Given that teachers cannot assume the entire responsi-bility for the education of children, it is imperative that mechanisms arecreated for including parents in the process. (b) It is also necessary (i) toallocate additional economic resources for adequate training courses forteachers to improve their qualifications in classroom management and theuse of new technologies and (ii) to conduct more research at the univer-sity level ascertaining those elements and features of (new) programswhich



16/17

599should be adapted according to the needs and cultural background of localpopulations.

ReferencesAlexander, R., J. Rose, and C. Woodhead. 1992. Curricula OrganizationandClassroomPractice in PrimarySchools.A Discussion Paper. London:Departmentof EducationandScience.Binder,Carl,andCathyL.Watkins.1989.PromotingEffective InstructionalMethods:Solutions o America'sEducationalCrisis.FutureChoices 1(3):33-39.Bredekamp,oe S. 1988.NAEYCPositionStatement n DevelopmentallyAppropriatePractice in the PrimaryGradesServing 5- through 8-year-olds. YoungChildren(January): 4-84.Consejeriade Educaci6ny Ciencia. 1998. Plan de Evaluacidnde Centros.InformeS'ntesis. Curso 1996/97. Direcci6n Generalde EvaluacidnEducativay Formaci6ndel Profesorado SchoolsEvaluationPlan. 1996/97.GeneralDirectionon EducationalEvaluationandTeacherTraining].Sevilla:Consejeriade Educaci6ny Ciencia.Defensordel PuebloAndaluz.1998.Informe l Parlamentode Andalucia1997[Reportto the Congressof Andalusia1997]. Sevilla: Defensor del PuebloAndaluz.Dickinson,Alyce M. 1989. The DetrimentalEffects of Extrinsic Reinforcementon"IntrinsicMotivation".BehaviorAnalyst12(1): 1-15.Garcia,Jos6L., AlvaroBuj,JuanGonzdlez,Jos6A. Ibanez-Martin,os6L. P6rez,andJos6L.Rodriguez. 000.Diagnosisof theEducationalSystem.TheEducational ystemin the LastCycle of Compulsory chooling.TheLastStage of theCompulsory chool.1997. National Institute or Quality n Education.Reportsand Studies. PublicationsCenter:Ministryof Educationand Culture.Gavidia,Valentin,J. Sieres,andE. Moliner.2001. La prevenci6nde la drogadicci6nen los libros de texto [Drug AddictionPreventionin Textbooks]. In: Informedesituacidnde losprogramasdeprevenci6nde drogodependenciasn el dmbitoescolar[Reporton Drug-AddictionPreventionPrograms n Schools]. Madrid:Delegaci6ndel Gobiernoparael PNSD. PNSD Ministeriodel Interior.Havighurst,R. J. 1976. A Cross-CulturalView. In: UnderstandingAdolescence,ed.by JamesF. Adams.Boston:Allyn and Bacon.Institute f BehavioralSciences. 1996.Blueprintsor ViolencePrevention.Universityof Colorado.http://www.coloarado.edu/cspv/blueprints,ccessed November14,2000.Marchesi,Alvaro.1999a.Del lenguajede la deficienciaa las escuelas nclusivas FromDeficiencyLanguage o InclusiveSchools]. In: Desarrollopsicol6gico y educacidn.3. rastornos del desarrollo y necesidades educativas especiales [PsychologicalDevelopment and Education.3. DevelopmentalProblems and Special EducationNeeds],comp.AlvaroMarchesi,CesarColl, y JesusPalacios,21-44. 2nd ed. Madrid:AlianzaEditorial.Marchesi,Alvaro. 1999b.La practicade las escuelas inclusivas [InclusiveSchoolsPractice].In: Desarrollo psicol6gico y educacidn. 3. Trastornos del desarrollo ynecesidades educativasespeciales [Psychological Development and Education. 3.Developmental roblems ndSpecialEducationNeeds],comp.AlvaroMarchesi,CesarColl, y JesusPalacios,45-70. 2nd ed. Madrid:Alianza.



17/17

600Plan Nacional Sobre Drogas (PNSD). 2000. Memoria 1999 [Annual Report 1999].Madrid: Ministerio del Interior.Plan Nacional Sobre Drogas (PNSD). 2001. Informe de situaci6n de los programasde prevencion de drogodependencias en el dmbito escolar [Report on Drug-AddictionPrevention Programs in Schools]. Madrid: Delegacion del Gobierno para el PNSD.PNSD Ministerio del Interior.Proper, E. C., and R. G. Pierre. 1980. A Search for Potential New Follow-ThroughApproaches: Executive Summary. Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates.Rutter, M., P. Graham, O. Chadwick, and W. Yule. 1976. Adolescent Turmoil: Factor Fiction? Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 17: 35-36.Stone, John E. 1994. Developmentalism's Impediments to School Reform: ThreeRecommendations for Overcoming Them. In: Behavior Analysis in Education: Focuson Measurably Superior Instruction, ed. by Ralph Gardner, Diane M. Sainato, JohnO. Cooper, Timothy E. Heron, and William L. Heward, 57-72. Pacific Grove, CA:Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.Stone, John E. 1991. Developmentalism: A Standing Impediment to the Design ofthe "New American School". Network News and Views 10(2): 1-3.Thomas, R. Murray. 2000. Comparing Theories of Child Development. 5th ed.Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.Tomlinson, T. M., and C. T. Cross. 1991. Student Effort: The Key to Higher Standards.Educational Leadership 49(1): 69-73.U.S. Department of Education. 1987. Japanese Education Today. Washington, DC:U.S. Government Printing Office.U.S. Department of Education. 1991. America 2000: An Education Strategy. Rev. ed.Washington, DC: United States Department of Education.

The authorsJose L. Arco-Tirado received his doctoral degree from the University of Granadaand worked for a time for the Andalusian School of Public Health. Currently, he isProfessor in the Department of Developmental and Educational Psychology atthe University of Granada, where he is also Coordinator of Counseling andPsychopedagogical Services. His major research areas are: health education, psycho-logical intervention in educational settings, design, implementation and evaluation ofcounseling service programs, and emotional development.Contact address: Campus Universitario de Cartuja s/n, Facultad de Ciencias de laEducacion, 18071 Granada, Spain.Juan-Miguel Fernandez-Balboa obtained his doctoral degree from the Universityof Massachusetts-Amherst. He is currently Professor of Education at Montclair StateUniversity. His research focuses on emotional issues involved in education, criticalthinking, e-learning and human development.Contact address: Montclair State University, Upper Montclair, NJ 07043, USA.E-mail: [email protected].

Documents

The Contextual Barriers to School Reform in Spain