How will coexistence between Spanish and Basque be approached in Basque education?

The future Basque education law is one of the projects of the legislature and its preparation is generating an intense debate around crucial issues from the point of view of coexistence. The objective is to approve this law during the next 12 months, before the end of the legislature, and, although general consensus has been touched at times, there are still frictions around three fundamental issues: coexistence between the public and subsidized networks; the fight against segregation; and, thirdly, the eventual restructuring of linguistic models.

This last issue has once again jumped to the forefront of the media in recent hours, after the Basque Government, made up of PNV and PSE, approved yesterday the bill. This procedure means that the text is sent to the Basque Parliament for debate between the groups and its final approval in the coming months. The Socialists warned yesterday that they gave the green light to this step so as not to hinder the processing of the law, although they are in favor of maintaining the three linguistic models that have existed in recent decades.

The PSE, therefore, stages its doubts regarding an approach that had been included in the text of the bases for the future law, an agreement that a year ago elicited an initial agreement from the PNV, EH Bildu, PSE and Podemos, or what which is the same, the representation of 90% of the Basque Parliament. This scheme, included in the draft bill approved yesterday, basically proposes solving the issue of linguistic coexistence by paying attention to linguistic objectives and overcoming the system of linguistic models in force in recent decades.

The option that seemed to arouse this almost generalized consensus proposes to “articulate” Basque education around the two co-official languages ​​and at least one foreign language. And it would do so on the basis of two fundamental principles: firstly, the objective of guaranteeing knowledge of the co-official languages, as well as of at least one foreign language; and, secondly, the autonomy of the centers.

Thus, if the law goes ahead, schools would have autonomy to decide, for example, the number of subjects they will teach in Basque, Spanish or English; however, at the end of compulsory education they must guarantee that students have a command (B2 level) of the two official languages ​​and “sufficient knowledge” of at least one foreign language (at least B1 at the end of ESO).

In this way, the educational project of each center would become relevant, which can be adapted to the sociolinguistic reality of each environment or to the preferences of the parents, provided that the aforementioned objectives are guaranteed.

Faced with this consensus approach, the PSE proposes to set linguistic objectives, although maintaining the current scheme of linguistic models.

It must be taken into account that in the Basque Country there are three linguistic models to respond to the enormous existing sociolinguistic diversity: A, B and D, both in the public network and in the concerted one (private schools, without agreement with the Administration, work outside of these models).

Model A has Spanish as the vehicular language and offers Basque as a subject. In model B the different subjects are taught in both Basque and Spanish. Finally, model D has Basque as the vehicular language and Spanish is taught as a subject. Many centers teach some subjects in English, both in the D model and in the A and B models. In fact, the Basque Country tends to have the highest levels of knowledge of English among all the communities.

Models A and B, the most demanded by families during the 80s and part of the 90s, are now a minority; Model D, on the other hand, has become the majority: it has a share of over 90% in Early Childhood Education and around 70% in Baccalaureate.

Is the system of models incompatible with the approach of linguistic objectives? Yes, although only in part. Should the approach included in the current draft prosper, it is certain that many centers will bet on a scheme similar to the current model B (subjects in Spanish, Basque and English), just as it is certain that many other centers will bet on a scheme similar to the current model D (Basque as the vehicular language with subjects in English and Spanish as a subject). In the case of model A, the new approach would require a reinforcement of the Basque language and teaching some subject in Basque (in addition to the Basque language), since it has been shown that as it is today it does not guarantee competence in Basque.

Until now, the PNV has been the main supporter of this approach to linguistic objectives and autonomy of the centers. EH Bildu, for his part, proposed a linguistic immersion system similar to Catalan, although he had embraced the aforementioned consensus option from the educational pact of a year ago. Podemos had also proposed a single system with Basque as the vehicular language, although it has not shown discomfort with respect to the option included in the draft. The purple formation, yes, seems increasingly distant from the educational pact due to how the other two key issues are being addressed: coexistence between networks and the implementation of measures to deal with segregation. The PP, finally, proposes to maintain the current linguistic models.

The majority unions in Basque education, Steilas, ELA and LAB, for their part, have shown themselves to be in favor of a single model with Basque as the vehicular language.

The future Basque law on education, which should replace the one in force since 1992, reaches the key moment in a situation that is not very conducive to broad consensus. The electoral horizon is presented as an obstacle that is difficult to overcome in order to forge great consensuses like the one staged a year ago.