From CICAE we believe it is time to open the debate on the financing of education in Spain. Rethink and deepen the pros and cons of the models that currently exist to find a more efficient and fair system for families, and also requires more transparency.
CICAE defends the coexistence of the three networks and the importance of the educational work carried out by each of them. The system of concerts is not updated to the existing reality and has been distorted, being very different from the social benefit model for which it was created. In some communities, the concert has attracted the entry of actors with more commercial than social and educational vocation. This is due to the many advantages that the current concert model allows them, since they guarantee the economic profitability of their enterprise. The stability is total in terms of the awarding and renewal of the subsidy, there are no known withdrawals of concerts or subsidies, not even in cases of serious cases. Neither are they required to render clear accounts and they generate high profitability through the two financing channels: the subsidy of all expenses (personnel and maintenance) and the fees they demand from families for all complementary services.
Under the mantra of underfunding, all kinds of charges and practices have been accepted, when it is evident that many of these centers make large profits and charge almost the same amounts as independent private ones. There is talk of very different figures regarding this supposed underfunding, without there being a clear study. The reality is that these centers have their personnel covered by the agreement, so it remains to be assessed to what extent the operating costs make them loss-making if they do not charge fees.
Studying ways such as direct aid to families, based on income criteria, would allow optimizing State resources, prioritizing those who need it most. It is a measure that would provide greater freedom to families to choose the school they consider appropriate for their children, overcoming the economic barrier. This funding would be in the hands of the families, with a fairer redistribution of resources, and not in those of the owner of a center, regardless of the economic needs of the students it serves.