Primary Education schools and pedagogical renewal: Reviewing experiences
Educación y Humanismo 21(36): pp. 176-193. Enero-Junio, 2019. DOI: http://dx10.17081/eduhum.21.36.3293
These are projects that have undoubtedly known and been able to achieve official
recognition, both in the public and private contexts, and that has managed to articulate an
educational response understood as more coherent with real life and therefore more
useful for the correct formation of the human being. They have also been accompanied
and even promoted by the family context and the community environment that has
configured them as right promoters, vertebrators and energizers of the social life of all
families.
Apparently, if the Spain pedagogical renewal has changed over time, because the
country's social structures have changed throughout the 20
th
century, the different
tendencies among the projects analysed in this article are also noticeable. Thus, just as
the pedagogical renewal of the early 20
th
century, in which the development of the
graduate school, for example, marked the path of the Spain educational renewal (Pozo,
2007), cannot be equated with that of the current 21
st
century in which more
heterogeneous and diversified classroom structures and curricula (Gil, Gil & Vera, 2011)
can be established. Therefore, neither relations nor excessively general principles can be
compared. However, a series of standard characteristics and shared elements can be
inferred among these projects: community participation and the assumption of its vital
importance for school improvement, special appreciation of cultural diversity, curricular
and organizational flexibility, the use of diverse techniques and materials that de-politicize
the use of textbooks and the master class, critical reading of reality, and finally, the
development of creativity. These are some of the leading conventional features that define
these projects, which ultimately seek the path of respect for the interests and needs of
their students and, consequently, a real integral development.
We also see, and perhaps here lies the real common axis of all these projects, the
structural renewal they promote, which gives them the label of `renewing schools´
per se
and not just innovators. It is about the axiological plane, the personality of each school, all
assumed as projects for change that also put in the collective commitment to the
sustainable transformation of its structures one of its chief merits. Without a doubt, these
are schools projects from which all the teachers, organized and committed to the process,
are erected as real precursors of the process through creativity, solidarity and radicalism,
that is, from the root of the problems (Rogero, 1999) for the common purpose they
propose.
It should be borne in mind that some of these schools and others that move away from
the traditional school model have generated all kinds of criticism in part of the educational
community. The main ones revolve around the academic performance of students, the
construction of `pedagogical islands, ´ the scarce heterogeneity of students, and finally,
the possible future difficulties of students when they move to other schools with a more
traditional methodology. In this sense, the limitations of our work, as explained in the
introduction, are highlighted, since it has only been attempted to describe part of the