Ei-iE

The 25th of April, forever! This is the rallying cry of those who continue to believe in the key promises of our democratic revolution of 25th April 1974. In recent years, contrary to what the utopias of the revolutionary process promised, the idea of emancipation has been forgotten or has taken on new meanings. The internationalisation of capitalism and the reduction of nation states’ relative autonomy, together with the growing hegemony of the so-called global agenda for education, are just a few of the many factors that we cannot cease to consider with a critical eye.

In this context, the meaning of emancipation as a collective project now leans more towards the notion of hyper-valuing individual projects that are steeped in competitive logic and strategies of neo-Darwinian selectivity, more consistent with the neoliberal idea of the entrepreneurial individual who seeks to survive, avoiding being labelled as incapable and sidelined as useless. It is no coincidence that the old strategies adopted by the ruling classes, and even by some sections of the middle class, have been updated and strengthened, and now take the form of neo-meritocratic strategies. These strategies combine classic meritocracy with parentocracy, in other words, the individual capacity and effort of each student combined with the intervention of the parents in defining pathways and options to guarantee success. Although not new, this strategy has led to a growing search for private education and the internationalisation of studies. In a world where collective bonds and ties are unravelling, all this has contributed to generating new social and educational inequalities and to devaluing public schools as a place for the emancipatory construction of our shared reality.

The legitimate right to choose between education projects, between state-run public schools, social and solidarity schools (less mentioned) or private schools, is not at issue here. But as a defender of universal public education, of scientific, pedagogical and democratic quality, I must point to the insufficient investment and growing constraints affecting social policies, which should be instruments of basic human rights and not mere instruments of social control. Consequently, public education and the dignity and recognition of teachers as intellectual workers have suffered not only a material deficit but also a symbolic deficit, largely stunting motivation and commitment in the profession, both personal and collective. Viable alternatives and other opportunities for professional fulfilment and advancement are needed: conditions for a more egalitarian school system, with greater social and cognitive justice. Therefore, it is worth looking back to the 25th of April Revolution (after all, this is what we are celebrating, on the 51st anniversary) and making a few brief notes on the paths travelled since.

During the long decades of fascist dictatorship, the regime expected primary and secondary school teachers to have a missionary vocation and spirit, to act as zealous and subordinate employees of a centralised, bureaucratic, and extremely hierarchical education system. The objective of this education system was to provide a minimum level of education (not always for everyone), which would ensure the differentiated and discriminatory (classist) distribution along the possible paths, selecting the (few) needed at a higher level to sustain the dominant ideology and the status quo of a deeply unequal, muzzled society, with a dictatorial regime that imposed a protracted colonial war.

During the revolutionary period, which lasted two years, teachers freed themselves from the shackles of the old regime as it was crumbling. Many took on the role of educational activists and intellectual agents of change. A whirlwind of emancipatory desires and sentiments emerged, as well as many contradictions and ambiguities, although the most striking experiences were deeply immersed in the progressive spirit of the time.

Unfortunately, in the field of education, the utopian fervour of the Revolution soon faded. Instead, teachers embraced the narratives and promises of a new professionalism (with all that this could mean as a collective gain). However, now they find themselves confronted with de-professionalisation or, perhaps even, neo-professionalism.

At the antipode of the 25th of April, de-professionalisation, which (also) translates as the social and political devaluation of the teaching profession, is now intensifying the unbearable and alienating effect of the countless limitations present in everyday life: from the impossibility of using time and space creatively, to the isolation of the classroom; from the erosion of collegiality, to the increasingly tactical nature of interactions; from the imbalances caused by a range of injustices in the establishment of timetables and the allocation of responsibilities and tasks, to the failure to recognise investment in training; from the most harmful effects of sidelining ethical issues, to the acritical openness to various forms of de-democratisation; from attitudes of intimidation and cancellation, to managerial manipulation and autocratic surveillance.

Of course, there is also counter current resistance, constructive alternatives, innovative projects and commitments that uphold the dignity of teachers. But the current context also encourages neo-professionalism – a set of practices that merge into the uncritical assimilation of psychologising didacticism; into an unconditional attachment to the digital technification of education and the allure of artificial intelligence; the interiorisation of the logic of measurable results for national and international rankings, and the transformation of teachers into tutors, mediators or (even) personal coaches. It is a neo-professionalism that coexists alongside increasingly difficult working conditions in many schools, with the reinforcement of hierarchical (if not authoritarian) subordination, the simplification of initial training and the consequent devaluation of education sciences (contrary to the need for complex training that intellectual workers require), among many other problems.

Relations between teachers, inspired by the ideals of the Revolution, have changed over time and are now being redefined in a syncretic and often paradoxical way. Fair demands and galvanising union struggles coexist alongside individualistic competition and professional survival strategies (which are not always fair). The erosion of solidarity and the devaluation of dialogue-based collegiality sit alongside the disillusionment generated by unfulfilled political promises and the exhaustion caused by excessive workloads and an excess of administrative tasks. All this, very often, with the panoptic and autocratic vigilance of some school directors, receptive to the most reactionary spirit of some emerging political and educational ideologies. Yet another reason for the urgent need to resist, because critical education will always be an (achievable) utopian ideal of the 25th of April!