Where do special education schools stand?
In recent weeks, we have seen thousands of teachers fill the streets with slogans and banners demanding recognition for their work and a better education, and now new protests are being announced. The education sector has been suffering from deficiencies for years, which have ended up translating into strikes and demonstrations across the country.
The proposal presented by the Department of Education and signed by UGT and Comisiones Obreras has not been enough for the majority union among teachers, USTEC, to join it. This union believes it is a proposal of "minimums" and demands an agreement that takes into account the demands and presents solutions to structural problems, for example, by incorporating economic reports and budgetary specifics.
Furthermore, the government of the Generalitat de Catalunya has signed an agreement with the five consortia of private-subsidized schools to improve the financing of these centers.
The media, the press, the unions, the employers' associations, and the executive have been talking about public schools and subsidized schools. And, among all this, where do the special education schools fit in?
This is not a minor oversight. It is a structural contradiction.
Special education centers are not a residual or transitional element. They are part of the Catalan Education Service and perform an unequivocally public function. They cater to students with high-complexity educational needs — people with neurodevelopmental disorders, cerebral palsy, and multiple disabilities — who require intensive, continuous, and highly specialized support.
Without these centers, the system is not more inclusive. It is more unequal.
However, the debate cannot be simplified into a false dichotomy between mainstream schools and special education. Both networks are essential and complementary to guarantee an adequate response to students with special educational needs, with different degrees of intensity in their approach.
Real inclusion does not simply consist of expanding mainstream schools. It consists of ensuring that all students — especially those with greater complexity — receive an adequate response. And this is only possible with specialized resources, prepared teams, and financing consistent with the reality being addressed.
Today, this consistency does not exist.
Special education centers are suffering from a chronic structural underfunding situation. Ratios that do not reflect the intensity of support required by students. Insufficient resources for profiles of maximum complexity. Centers that assume recurrent deficits to guarantee dignified care.
The system is sustained, in large part, by the responsibility and commitment of the professional teams. But this model is not sustainable.
And the risk is evident: that, under the discourse of inclusion, the very resources that make it possible end up being weakened.
We are not facing a technical debate. We are facing a political and national decision.
Either special education is incorporated into educational funding and planning policies, recognizing its structural function, or it is assumed that the system will leave behind the students who need the most support.
