A law that favors a state model of Education and school, inevitably raises a discussion based on a dilemma educational:skill or quasi-monopoly? My answer is "skill", since, in any field, it enables higher quality and lower price. The skill in the field of Education requires a diversified educational system. It is very illustrative that at the Global Innovation Summit of Education, held in Qatar, in 2017, many different models of schools were represented.

The Lomloe, approved on November 19, 2020, ostensibly privileges a state model of Education and school. From now on, the state network will become the hub of Education, acting as a virtual monopoly. Charles Glenn, Full Professor of Boston University, has warned about the "totalitarian temptation the state may have to use its schools to control the minds and hearts of children and future adults."

The state schools, wrongly known as "public" (since private schools, whether or not they are subsidized, are also public and are protected by the Constitution), account for 69% of the supply. agreement They are all protected by article 27 of the Constitution, which recognizes the right to freedom of teaching, the right to receive the religious and moral Education that is in accordance with the convictions of the families, and the right of individuals and legal entities to create new schools.

The core topic of the radical change of axis that the Celaá Law implies is the modification of the article 109.2 of the previous law, the Lomce, from which the reference letter to the "social demand" is eliminated. It relegates to irrelevance the preferences of parents and invents a right "to the public Education " that does not appear as such in the Constitution.

The quasi-monopoly of the State on Education can be observed in several sections of the Lomloe. For example, the one menti oned below. The schools of Education Differentiated are relegated, not establishing economic concerts with them because they are not coeducational. This seriously undermines the freedom of teaching and pluralism educational. It is argued that the differentiated school "segregates by sex," thus failing to distinguish between differentiating and segregating. group To segregate is to separate and marginalize a person or a group of people for social, political or cultural reasons (RAE). Differentiate, on the other hand, enables a more personalized Education .

The Lomloe sample in its articles shows its preference for the public school, placing an almost blind faith in it, thus converting the network concerted in an auxiliary and secondary network of the public one. It is a law that aims at the state predominance of the Education, based on another "argument": children do not belong to their parents (Isabel Celaá dixit). It is a way of insinuating that they belong to the State, as in the extinct Soviet Union. This witticism can only be sustained for sectarian ideological reasons. If the family and the individual exist before Society and the State, it is evident that they have received neither their nature nor their end from them. This means that parents have their own innate and inalienable rights over their children, including the free choice of subject of Education and school.

Differentiated school and mixed school are two models that are not mutually exclusive. Each has possibilities and limitations (which I will not discuss here due to space constraints); I will simply allude to some novelties found by recent research. In coeducational schools, adolescent students often achieve much lower academic results than female students, which is attributed to one cause: the difference in maturity between a boy and a girl of the same age and grade. A study by F. A. Mael concludes that sex-differentiated schooling has positive benefits for academic achievement for both girls and boys. The criticism that in differentiated schooling there is no experience of coexistence between boys and girls has lost much weight in recent years, given that in today's open society this relationship exists in any space and at any time.