The single school undermines the principle of equal opportunity. That public schools guarantee equality. The enthusiasm aroused by the single school, in certain sectors, is not something new. It is the return, in a renewed form, of a concept that has already failed, and therefore abandoned: the neutral school. The aspiration towards a neutral school fell apart, due to its inconsistency, like a sugar cube in a glass of water. That of neutrality and freedom only fit in the minds of the Marxist chip. The same happens now with the single school, it does not reconcile with freedom either. In a democratic society, expression of individual liberties, the imposition of a unique model of Education is not of receipt . It smells of indoctrination. A plural teaching seems more in line with democracy, because it safeguards the right of parents to choose the Education of their children, a piece core topic in the gear of a society respectful of freedoms.

In an attempt to overcome this incongruity, the single school takes refuge in the benefits of the public school. Although this dialectic between public and private already smells stale; it represents another mental ointment that oozes anachronistic Marxism. An advanced society must offer a plural Education of quality, so that citizens can choose freely. A quality Education commits as an inalienable conquest.

In addition, the single school violates the principle of equal opportunity. The idea that public schools guarantee equal opportunities is an ideological millenon that incomprehensibly cajoles certain groups. But it does not stand up to the force of the facts: it is unfeasible at internship, if the zoning criteria and the current promotion systems of academic staff are maintained.

Zoning consists of giving priority to the proximity of the student address as a preferential requirement for granting place in a center. And this rule discriminates for a simple reason: the price of housing. The stubborn reality shows that the economically strong live in exclusive or luxurious areas; the young or those on the way to becoming well-off crowd the suburban developments; and the most disadvantaged live on the peripheries, in poorly endowed neighborhoods or shantytowns. At final, purchasing power determines the arrangement of the population in urban centers. Consequently, zoning favors schools with students from wealthy families, and schools with students from less well-off families. Expressed in populist language: rich children with rich children and poor children with poor children¿ Let us also take into account the correlation¿still valid today¿between socioeconomic status and cultural level, educational expectations, social aspirations, and verbal fluency.verbal fluency. This impoverished cultural context predisposes, at least, to a slowing down of teaching and learning. But there is more. In the internship, the years of teaching represent the preferential factor in the promotion of academic staff. Of course, the experience professor is not a sufficient guarantee for good professional performance; however, it can be affirmed that competent professionals have been forged in and with the educational internship . What is usually the first destination of first-time teachers? On the other hand, teachers with sufficient years of service aspire to a place in a prestigious center, or one close to their home. Where are the centers with educational pedigree generally located in the select or traditional areas of the cities?

To sum up: affluent neighborhoods enjoy experienced teachers and a student body with high educational and social expectations; and at the other extreme, in vulnerable areas, schools are populated with first-time teachers and students with low aspirations. Equality of opportunities The following hypothetical democratic incongruity could occur: a student from a well-to-do family, 'sitzfleisch' (warm up) in a prestigious public high school , engrossed with the next yacht trip; and a student of high capacity and excellent academic results yawns in an unmotivated classroom of a marginal neighborhood. Wouldn't it be fairer, more egalitarian, to change their benches and, besides, in this way we would optimize resources?

The full certainty of what has been said so far is irrefutably demonstrated by a well-known picaresque: the enormous amount of tricks and gimmicks that families devise in order to register at addresses close to the centers they want for their children. And if it is bad to break the law, it would be better for us if the law would provide mechanisms for a real and equal free choice of center. Under such conditions, we would see how parents would be inclined, for the most part, to choose schools with higher quality instruction and Education.
And what about resources? It is worth seriously questioning the aprioristic budget that the quality of Education is proportional to the quantity of resources, without detriment to the value of the means. In the process of teaching/learning there are only two essential and effective elements: the preparation of academic staff and the aptitude and attitude of the students. The influence of everything else¿it depends, as a Galician would say.