5. Progressive Education on the Eve of the Civil War and the Question of Its Destruction by the Franco Regime

Jorge Cáceres-Muñoz, Tamar Groves, and

Mariano González-Delgado

Introduction

At the end of the nineteenth century and at the beginning of the twentieth century, Spain saw the emergence of a variety of educational projects aimed at progress. The origins of this general efort to transmit culture and knowledge to citizens can be found in the circulation of enlightened ideas and in the acknowledgment of the need to establish a national education system as set forth in the Constitution of 1812.[1] Since then, the aspiration to provide citizens with access to education has undergone many changes, some in the direction of increasing the central provision of educational services[2] and others working to improve the channels of dissemination.[3] At the foundation of this second tendency, associated with the development of progressive educational initiatives, is a determination to improve educational practices, an interest in understanding the role of educational agents and actors, an attempt to alleviate situations of vulnerability, the aim to gain efciency in methods of transmitting knowledge, and an ideal of enriching the moral development of citizens. The Free Institution of Education, the New Education Movement, the Freinet movement, and Ferrer i Guardia’s Modern School are examples of this phenomenon. This group of educational avant-gardes formed a heterogenous but solid body of progressive education theory and practice of diferent origins and nature.[4] The infuence of these educational projects increased as they disseminated ideas and experimented with new practices through multiple initiatives and institutions that had an important efect on the educational reforms of the Republican period.

After the rebel victory in the civil war, Franco’s regime imposed a complete dictatorship that reached its highest degree of severity during its frst decade. The historical-educational research carried out on this period characterizes the education system as a total rupture with previous educational models, stressing the eradication of all traces of educational projects from the Second Republic. Instead, the dictatorship imposed National Catholicism, a combination of patriotism, Catholicism, and conservative social values.[5] This chapter looks at this frst period of the dictatorship in relation to the preceding era to question whether there really was a total break with the educational model of the Second Republic or whether dynamics, practices, or ideas from the previous period in fact managed to survive. Thus, this chapter aims at unpacking the complex question of the continuity and transformation of educational discourses and practices and their interaction with the political context.[6]

The educational sphere lends itself to policies that can augment the control and subjugation of educational actors and agents across all levels of the education system. The regime’s education policy undoubtedly sought to subdue and transform school practice in this direction. However, education is also an instrument of resistance, as evident in practices that take place inside school buildings, in educational interactions, and in communities. There is often more distance between educational policies and school culture than it appears. This opens the door to a more nuanced historical interpretation of the period, which goes beyond ofcial academic or normative political texts and instead centers on the empirical level of school culture and educational actors. Thus, the aim of this chapter is not to oppose the accepted historiographical narrative that is supported by reliable sources. Rather, it is to distance ourselves from absolute terms that propose a total rupture between these two key periods in Spanish educational history and to suggest the integration of evidence attesting to a certain continuity between the Republican and Francoist periods in the sphere of education. This work is based on a series of publications that has been published in recent years and that attempt to support this hypothesis of partial continuity.[7] We suggest that these signs of continuity could be organized into three categories: evidence of utilization, evidence of undercurrent adaptation, and evidence of resistance. As we explain, these categories help shed light on the dynamics and behaviors of educational actors and agents, who built and maintained their own school culture in the face of wider political and social developments.[8]

The Climax of Educational Modernization and the Consolidation of Educational Avant-Gardes

The establishment of the Second Republic in 1931 was marked by profound reform and ferce ideological confict, unleashing the civil war (1936–39) that culminated in the defeat of the Republican government and the imposition of a new dictatorial order under General Franco,[9] who remained in power for almost four decades. Education played an important role in the political upheaval of Spanish history in the 1930s. The Second Republic placed the improvement of Spanish education very high on its list of political reforms. This was no easy task, as the four periods into which its government could be divided—the Provisional Government, the Azañista Biennium, the R adical-Cedista Biennium, and the Popular Front—were marked by attacks and contradictions leading to problems in implementing reforms, attempts to suppress what had been achieved, and, as a result, a continuous climate of tension.[10] A series of reforms was therefore implemented that were considered crucial for revitalizing and modernizing the education system: introducing coeducation in all stages of the education system, reducing illiteracy, constructing new schools, improving and expanding school endowments, raising the professional and social prestige of teachers, allowing bilingualism in schools in Spanish geographical areas with a diferent linguistic identity, bringing culture to isolated areas of the country, and limiting or reducing the weight of the Catholic Church in Spanish education.[11]

This set of educational goals was pursued by advancing political reforms and economic investment.[12] To achieve this, institutions were established and diferent qualifed and ideologically and pedagogically connected fgures were put in charge of developing this progressive change.[13] The secularization of education was sought through measures such as the Law on Religious Confessions and Congregations of June 2, 1933; the decree that abolished compulsory religious instruction in primary schools; or the decree that regulated the teaching profession, preventing those who did not have an ofcial teaching certifcate from working in schools.[14] Apart from the aforementioned measures, the new teacher training policy stood out, because it ofered a process of selection on the basis of training as an alternative to competitive examinations. It also provided more places for students and passed legislation on the reform of teacher training colleges, which developed the most complete and pedagogically well-founded teacher training strategy up to that time.[15] The decree on April 29, 1931, re-established bilingualism in Catalan schools, and it was complemented by Article 50 of the Spanish Constitution of 1931, which developed the principle of teaching and regional autonomy, making it possible to introduce the particular features of the diferent Spanish regions in each school. There was also an efort to build new schools given the dire situation in terms of number and quality of school buildings at that time. To this end, a school construction plan was launched, to be carried out over eight years with an investment of 600 million pesetas, approved by the parliament.[16] Finally, in the feld of coeducation, various decrees allowed this cohabitation to exist in educational centers, including teacher training colleges. However, it is worth mentioning nuances that afected the curricula; in some cases, curricula maintained diferences between the sexes, calling into question the efectiveness of the implementation of this measure due to the resistance of religious institutions.[17]

These educational policies to a certain degree signaled the consolidation of the educational avant-garde that had developed prior to this period. Since the last third of the nineteenth century, reformist and progressive ideas were being developed, and these alternatives sought to improve an educational system that needed to respond to the challenges of modernity. These actions moved from private, isolated, independent, or elite circles and gradually shifted to enter the public, shared, collaborative, and popular sphere. The educational policy of the Second Republic drew from the culmination and crystallization of a progressive education movement. Each of the components of this larger vanguard educational movement had its modus operandi, its protagonists, and its tools for contributing to this network of educational progress and impact on the education system.

One key example is the Institución Libre de Enseñanza, or ILE. It was founded in 1876 by a group of intellectuals, politicians, and university professors belonging to the Spanish liberal bourgeoisie in response to the backwardness and intellectual conservatism of the country. They believed that only through education could Spain achieve the social, political, economic, and moral reform it needed to catch up with other nations. The main fgure of the ILE was Francisco Giner de los Ríos. Together with other prominent fgures in Spanish culture and politics in the nineteenth century, he developed an innovative pedagogical ideology inspired by diferent pedagogical, philosophical, and scientifc currents such as pedagogical naturalism, Krausism, and positivism.[18] The institutionist pedagogical ideology was thus infuenced by educational ideas, institutions, and personalities coming from countries such as England, Germany, Belgium, Italy, France, Switzerland, or the United States.[19] Krause, Comenius, Rousseau, Pestalozzi, Froebel, and Dewey are just some examples of the sources of inspiration for this openness to the world. Although the ILE can be considered more an elite than a popular form of the avant-garde, its impact on education and on schools has been thoroughly demonstrated.

Through its teachers and students, the ILE defended various educational concepts and practices that were later echoed by the reforms of the Second Republic. Some of the most important examples are the concept of integral education, the principle of activity, coeducation, the importance of teacher training, the centrality of the school building and environment, and religious neutrality. The development of the Five-Year Plan for the creation of schools, the secularization of education, the reform of teacher training colleges, and the introduction of coeducation all corroborate its infuence. To be efective, the ILE utilized various initiatives, and its members became prominent in the spheres of politics and research in Spain. The Museo Pedagógico Nacional,[20] the Junta para Ampliación de Estudios e Investigaciones Científcas,[21] the Instituto-Escuela,[22] the Residencia de Estudiantes,[23] the Residencia de Señoritas,[24] or the Boletín de la Institución Libre de Enseñanza[25] exemplify this network of impact on Spanish education. The Patronato de Misiones Pedagógicas was the last project with institutionist origins, exemplifying another pillar of Republican educational reform: that of popular and rural education.[26] The main aim of this initiative was to bring culture, the arts, and pedagogical and hygienic aid to the most isolated parts of the country. With this, the ILE culminated its pedagogical plan that spanned the most elite and academic spheres to popular education, closing the circle of its infuence on the educational system by confguring Republican educational policy.

Another notable avant-garde movement is the New Education Movement. The Montessori system, Decroly’s centers of interest, Kerschensteiner’s work school, Kilpatrick’s project method, and the Cousinet method, among other initiatives, were increasingly introduced from the 1920s onward, above all in diferent schools, at scholarly events, and in both the specialized and general pedagogical press. This resulted in the propagation and implementation of progressive pedagogical and methodological principles that fought against teacher-centered pedagogy, encyclopedism, verbalism, and the passivity of the traditional teaching system. The heterogenous proposals of this movement aimed at a radical change in the structures of the educational relationship between educator and student, defending a paidocentrism within the framework of a school that would be connected to life and the community; these schools would host active, dynamic teaching and promote skills for living in society. In the years prior to the Second Republic in Spain, the principles of the Movement were implemented, sometimes in an eclectic manner.[27] Some noteworthy cases include schools in the Catalan educational context: Colegio Sant Jordi (1898), Escuelas Mosén Cinto (1904), Colegio Mont d’Or (1905), Escuela Horaciana (1905), Granja Escolar Catalana (1905), Escoles Catalanes del Districte VI (1906), Vallparadis (1910), Escuela de la Sagrada Familia (1910), Nuevo Colegio de Mont d’Or (1913), Escola del Bosc de Monjuïc (1914), Escuela racionalista Galileo (1915), Casa del Bambini (1915), Escola del Mar (1922), Mutua escolar Blanquerna (1923), and Grupo Escolar Milà i Fontanals (1931). Of note are also the initiatives in Madrid: Grupo Escolar Cervantes (1918) and Grupo Escolar Príncipe de Asturias (1918).[28]

And beyond institutions, the dissemination of scholarship through publications or the educational press was also a decisive path for communicating educational proposals featuring pedagogical ideas from New Education in Spain. The publishing house La Lectura launched a series of books on the new educational methods thanks to the board of directors led by Domingo Barnés, who had been president of the Association of Former Students at the JeanJacques Rousseau Institute since 1921.[29] Furthermore, the Revista de Pedagogía, directed by Lorenzo Luzuriaga, was established in Spain as the organ of dissemination for the New Education Movement.[30] Specifc authors such as María Montessori became infuential in Catalonia above all, thanks to the environment of educational innovation in Catalan schools and the positive reception of her ideas; the Third International Montessori Course was even held in Spain in 1916.[31] The infuence of New Education ideas on Republican educational policy is evident in the adoption of secularism and the principles of activity and collaboration as the core of work in the classroom. This is directly related to the increase in autonomous experimental schools; the organization of the Pedagogical Missions; the development of institutions complementary to the school; the creation of agricultural camps, workshops, and libraries; and the introduction of advanced training courses for teachers.[32]

The Freinet movement was another part of the pedagogical vanguard in Spanish education during the frst third of the twentieth century that had a notable infuence during the years of the Republic. In Spain, it had a growing impact among teachers from diferent parts of the country.[33] Scholarly literature and primary historical sources indicate that the training and dissemination of Freinet’s ideas among Spanish teachers began some years before the Second Republic, but they reached the height of their impact during this period. Several teachers who were fascinated by Freinet’s pedagogical work and the development of examples of a specialized pedagogical press in Spain allowed his ideas to fourish in the country. Works describing the techniques of the Modern School were published disseminating his ideas. Some of the works of note include “La imprenta en la escuela” (1926) by Sidonio Pintado Arroyo, published in the journal El Magisterio español; “La imprenta en la escuela” (1932) and “Técnicas auxiliares de la escuela: el cine, la radio, los discos” (1933) by Herminio Almendros, published in Revista de Pedagogía; both “Manera de construir el modelo de 1928 de la prensa escolar Freinet” (1929) and “La imprenta en la escuela: la última prensa” (1933) by Juan Manuel Cluet, also published in the Revista de Pedagogía. Furthermore, many teachers who introduced and disseminated Freinet’s thought forged personal relations. From the beginning, meetings, gatherings, and talks were held regularly, giving way to the consolidation of groups. One example is the Batec group,[34] a sort of pedagogical wordof-mouth network[35] that generated a dialogue both among teachers and between teachers and students in Teacher Training Colleges. All these spontaneous and sometimes-independent initiatives reached a more advanced level with the creation of the Cooperativa Española de la Técnica Freinet (CETEF) in 1933. This served as a space for bringing together all the initiatives that the movement would undertake as well as for clarifying the ideas and practices that defned the actions of its members; this helped to build a consciousness for a pedagogical revolution and to shape a Spanishspeaking identity for the movement.[36] The Freinet movement in Spain also saw the creation of a periodical, the bulletin Colaboración, published for the frst time in 1935.[37] As the Republican project gained momentum, Freinet’s ideas and political convictions became very much in tune with the aspirations of diferent forces on the Spanish left. It was not by chance that the movement expanded during the Republican era.[38] The result was that Freinet techniques were one of the fve most prominent pedagogical models adopted by Spanish teachers during the frst third of the twentieth century.[39]

Another avant-garde experiment was the proposal of Ferrer i Guardia’s Modern School. Ferrer i Guardia projected his anarchist and revolutionary aspirations onto education at a time of ideological vibrancy.[40] Pedagogically speaking, the infuence later refected in Republican educational policy was part of his aspiration to carry out a mixed, religion-negating, rational, and libertarian education.[41] Ferrer i Guardia considered the school to be an instrument of domestication or training, which is why he proposed the need to break with the oppressive education system controlled by the state.[42]

Republican policy thus turned education into a crucial axis of its political project.[43] This predisposition was mainly confned to the frst period of the Republican government, when regenerationist and socialist tendencies were mixed with the pedagogical infuence of the aforementioned avant-garde movements. These had been carrying out parallel and evolving work for decades, beginning with merely practical or academic matters to end up being integrated into the political-regulatory sphere.

New Perspectives on Education During the First Years of Franco’s Dictatorship

The victory of the rebel side in the civil war led to the imposition of strict control, purging of political opponents, and the installation of an authoritarian dogma in education. From its beginnings, the dictatorship tried to eliminate and repress forms of teaching conducted in the Republic.[44] This aim was largely achieved, as shown by scholarly research dedicated to the study of the education system under the Franco regime, testimonies, and collective memory.[45] But in the following pages, we will develop a line of argument based on a hypothesis of continuity that various authors have been working on in recent years. According to this new line of research, the pedagogical innovation initiated during the time of the educational avant-garde in Spain did not sufer an absolute collapse; we argue for evidence of continuity that can be organized into three categories: evidence of utilization, evidence of undercurrent adaptation, and evidence of resistance.

The frst category of evidence is characterized by the conduct of those who held positions of responsibility during the early Franco regime. There was a pragmatic use of institutions, materials, organizations, and progressive educational ideas with the clear intention of harnessing them for the consolidation of the new regime. We are referring to an adapted use of these previous educational elements, but this continuity still adds nuance to the dominant narrative of complete destruction.

One of the key structures for educational and scientifc progress in Spain in the early years of the twentieth century was the Junta para Ampliación de Estudios e Investigaciones Científcas (JAE). This institution played a dual role of cultural dissemination and pedagogical training. On the one hand, it disseminated Spanish culture abroad, and, on the other, it placed Spain on the international cultural stage.[46] One of the vital axes of the JAE was the promotion of international exchanges to put an end to Spain’s scientifc stagnation. The process of Europeanization that took place in Spain, thanks to the scholarships awarded by the JAE, was infuential across all disciplines: medicine, engineering, law, philosophy, history, and pedagogy, among others.[47] The grantees in the feld of education had an enormous impact on the Spanish education system. The subjects that drew most interest on behalf of the grantees were school organization and didactics. However, there was also an important fow of ideas associated with the New Education Movement and studies on educational theory, vocational guidance, and special education. The results of these projects can be seen in the grantees’ publications and the role they played within institutions of popular culture, professional associations, and medical-charitable institutions.

Through the Revista de Pedagogia, the Revista de Escuelas Normales, the Boletín Escolar or La Escuela Moderna, or even the Boletín de la Institución Libre de Enseñanza, the grantees disseminated new ideas, in particular through reviews of works by Montessori, Piaget, Petersen, Audemars, Claparède, Cousinet, or Vermeylen and the authors of the review Pour l’Ére Nouvelle, the organ of the European pedagogical renewal.[48]

The JAE’s existence as such was interrupted by the civil war, and under the dictatorship, it underwent a transformation marked by a signifcant purge of its staf.[49] A large part of its functions was taken over by a newly created body: the Centro Superior de Investigaciones Científcas (CSIC) created by the decreelaw of November 24, 1939 (BOE of November 29). The CSIC continued to manage study trips abroad, although under other criteria and standards.[50] We can see the continuity of the program here, maintaining some of its original spirit of internationalization but eliminating its more ideological aspects. The CSIC was assigned with the mission of developing a Catholic scientifc program consistent with the regime, trying to surpass the scientifc achievements of the previous period and simultaneously purge or disparage it.[51]

In addition to the trips, the former JAE sponsored the development of other projects under its scientifc structure, such as the Residencia de Estudiantes, the Residencia de Señoritas, and the Instituto-Escuela. There is no doubt that the Franco Regime brought destruction to these institutions associated with the ILE. However, this destruction may not have been so complete, as there is evidence pointing toward a certain degree of continuity. The Residencia de Estudiantes ceased its usual functions in July 1936 with the outbreak of the civil war. The events that followed its ofcial closure reveal the particular eforts to control the institution by the successive authorities that emerged from the new confguration of the regime. Starting in 1939, the Instituto de España, the CSIC, and the university all bid for and had control of the Residencia de Estudiantes and the Residencia de Señoritas. There is no doubt that the Francoist authorities considered these two institutions to be crucial, as can be seen in the words of the minister, dated June 27, 1939:

The immediate opening of the universities requires the urgent reorganisation of those bodies which can best foster their teaching function and supply the very urgent needs of students. For this reason, this Ministry, considering that the infrastructure of the Residencias de estudiantes y de señoritas in Madrid constitute the basis of those bodies, whose technical organisation corresponds to the Head of the National Service of Higher and Secondary Education, who has ordered to proceed immediately with the reorganisation of these centres and the appointments that it deems appropriate for this purpose.[52] In 1941, the Residencia de Estudiantes, already under the name of Jiménez de Cisneros, became part of the CSIC by a ministerial order, and its role was to house university and college students to complement their cultural training and also to house Spanish and foreign grantees designated annually by the CSIC. Here we fnd structures being used that were already consolidated in the previous period, with some similar modus operandi but for the beneft and under the management of the new dictatorship. Finally, in 1943, it once again came under the control of the university with a new name, Colegio Mayor, using the buildings of the university area.[53] In a short period, there were changes in ownership, management, and mentality, but the new regime maintained previous structures and, to a certain degree, their aims.

The Residencia de Señoritas was one of the key institutions in training women during the frst decades of the twentieth century.[54] Wiping such an institution of the map was not a luxury the new educational authorities under the Francoist period could aford. As such, it constitutes a clear example of the exploitation of consolidated projects, as previously mentioned. The Residencia de Señoritas would end up being transformed into the Colegio Mayor Santa Teresa de Cepeda, transforming from a secular and liberal center to a Catholic and conservative one. However, there is enough evidence suggesting continuity and that the center was idiosyncratic in terms of its development, indicating that there was not a total break with the original residential model. First, some of the residence’s employees remained in its management. Some examples are Eulalia Lapresta, right hand of the former director (María de Maeztu); Matilde Marquina, resident and former student; Enriqueta Martín y Ortiz de la Tabla (librarian); and Lucia Calvillo (accountant). We do not argue that the institution did not sufer any purging, but it is worth pointing out that the center continued to have a special identity related to the role and ideals of these women, who aspired to complete their university studies; they were educated, cultured, and actively developing their intellectual capacities. This was a far cry from the ideal for Francoist women, centered on the role of docile wives and devoted mothers. Undoubtedly, this issue generated the occasional confict with Catholic and fascist organizations. At the same time, many curricular activities from the previous period were maintained, such as language classes, bibliometrics, poetry competitions, music, conferences, and exhibitions. This did not prevent it from being a center that served as an example of the re-education of the elites through political, religious, and moral tutoring.[55]

The prestigious Instituto-Escuela de Madrid is another educational center that maintained a certain degree of continuity. Clearly institutionist in origin, it underwent a transformation during the Franco dictatorship and became known as the Instituto Isabel La Católica. It is another example of an existing educational structure that has been exploited. Of course, there were changes and ruptures with the previous model of education, since the institution was adapted to a new context of religion and the separation of the sexes. But old habits, people, and materials also remained and are notable. For example, some of the teachers from the previous period were re-admitted and some of the new teachers were former pupils who were trained according to the previous ideas and practices. Thus, an atmosphere marked by the youthfulness of the teaching staf, the close educational relationship between students and teachers, uncrowded classrooms, and a fruitful climate of collaboration with families continued to develop. In addition, a preparatory school was housed on the premises (maintaining the graded and cyclical education initiative of the previous period), and in 1948, the nursery section was incorporated. Other factors that explain the distinctiveness of the school stemmed from its permanent status as an experimental center for teaching. The school developed a diverse program of didactic practices derived from the use of the existing infrastructure: a physics and chemistry laboratory, natural history laboratory, literary museum, geography and history department, and drawing room. Complementary activities such as lectures, visits, excursions, artistic evenings, and the development of physical education and sporting activities continued. Medical care and school health services continued to be ofered to students, as was already the case in the Republic.[56]

In addition to these surviving traditions in specifc institutions, there are other, more general administrative and curricular areas that also show signs of continuity during the frst years of Franco’s regime. One example is the recovery of preparatory schools in the 1945 Primary Education Reform Act, which had already been created during the Republic as a way of achieving continuity between primary and secondary education. There was also a certain continuity in some teaching objectives and methodological guidelines in the reforms of 1945 and 1953, ranging from the defnition of objectives, such as the enrichment of children’s personalities, to the importance of action and experimentation.[57]

Likewise, ideas derived from the previous stage of Spanish history were present in internal debates about the new reform of teacher training already initiated during the civil war. The aim was to bring teacher training into line with the regime’s idea of education and to link its design with the future law on the reform of primary education, which would come into force in 1945. To this end, technical commissions were set up and an intense debate took place between two clearly disparate positions. The frst position was led by Pedro Sainz Rodríguez (the frst Minister of National Education). His approach advocated continuing with the foundations of the Professional Plan of 1931, in which the balance between the cultural and pedagogical training of future teachers was—for the frst time—very much focused on pedagogical and didactic knowledge. The intention was to continue leaving the burden of cultural training mainly on secondary education, thus safeguarding the university status of teacher training. The change would simply involve adapting this model to the national and Catholic ideals of the movement. The second position was led by José Ibáñez Martín (President of the CSIC) and Romualdo de Toledo (Director General of Primary Education). This was based on a total break with the Republican model of education. The second position advocated that the cultural component of the curriculum should be strengthened, leaving the pedagogical component as a complement to teacher education.[58] In the end, the result was an eclectic vision in which the culturalist zeal of Ibáñez Martín and Romualdo de Toledo’s position was maintained, with the pedagogical feld remaining subordinate to it. The need for baccalaureate studies obtained in secondary education centers was nonetheless maintained as a preliminary step to training in the teachers’ colleges. In short, the result was a conception of education that was rich in culturalist content but difuse, since any hint of pedagogical continuity with Republican ideas was to be avoided, even if some supporters of the regime shared these ideas.

This impulse for continuity among those leading the technical commissions for education under the new regime was also evident in the drafting the 1938 school programs. Those who formed part of this commission had been grantees of the JAE and consequently had contact with the pedagogical innovations that were taking place abroad. This prior training of course generated a package of proposals in line with an innovative mentality in education. Thus, in the frst proposals, features characteristic of progressive education of the time were put forward for primary education. From the conception of transmitting knowledge in cyclical order to the methodological application based on the principles of the Escuela Nueva: activity, globalization, paidocentrism, and participation.[59] This initiative, like the case mentioned earlier, ultimately did not proceed.

Finally, in the intellectual sphere, Dewey was vetoed by the Franco regime in the early stages of the dictatorship. His ideas were considered to be akin to other educational styles related to pedagogical avant-gardism. This was the reason he was introduced into Spain by the ILE; there was a direct justifcation for his rejection both in academic circles and in practice. However, the subsequent and progressive opening toward the liberal and American world (only timidly accepted by the Franco regime) allowed a subtle rapprochement, which also benefted from a reinterpretation of Dewey’s message in accordance with Catholic pedagogical activism. This coincided with a later period of openness once Joaquin Ruiz Giménez’s headed the Ministry (1951–56).[60]

These two last examples may suggest that continuity did not translate directly into policy reform, but that does not mean that it did not survive in other spheres. The second category of evidence, which we have termed “undercurrent adaptation,” suggests continuity of progressive teaching practices within schools. We cannot argue that this can be generalized, but it certainly existed to some extent. Despite Franco’s purging of teachers identifed with the Second Republic, there were still teachers trained in the thought and practice of the pre-Franco period, in which the climax of avant-garde pedagogical ideas generated a signifcant impact on teachers’ professional mentality. This allowed these ideas and practices to survive to an extent, even in the most ironclad period of Francoism. School practices described by aspiring headmasters are a case in point. The documentary sources[61] show the use of an active teaching methodology and a paidocentric New Education conception despite the ideological climate and the political context charged with religiosity and patriotism. Decroly’s centers of interest, Montessori’s and Fröebel’s take on play, references to Dewey to justify certain actions together with didactic materials, references to visits and excursions, and the importance of intuition are all examples of reasoning employed by candidates for school management in Francoist times who saw great merit in these daily practices. In the descriptions of these practices, one also fnds the new uses and organizational changes of Franco’s day-to-day schooling, charged with patriotic and religious overtones: military-style order and arrangement of pupils in rows, patriotic songs, fag-raising, and prayers. This shows that the school culture shaped in the previous period coincided with the implications of the new academic and normative-legislative discourses.

Another documentary source that allows us to confrm the hypothesis of continuity is the student teachers’ reports of the frst years of the Franco dictatorship.[62] This evidence shows continuity in certain categories. Here one sees the survival of materials that evoke the active and intuitive teaching of the previous period. For example, allusions were made to Montessori materials, Fröebel’s gifts, and Decrolian methods. There are also descriptions of methodological forms typical of innovative pedagogy, albeit in the development of content related to the imposed Catholicism and patriotism. The intuitive method coexists with memorization, which gave rise to an eclectic form of didactics.

As further evidence of this eclectic approach, this period also saw the application of centers of interest as a methodology for learning religious content or outings and excursions accompanied by patriotic or religious songs to observe nature, or rather God’s work of creation. There is also evidence of continuity between periods through the survival of models of school furniture infuenced by the hygienist style of the late nineteenth century.[63] Therefore, in many cases, pedagogical coherence prevailed in the absence of a new didactic approach, as did the use of school tools and equipment. Active didactic strategies continued to be used; they were assimilated by teachers in their formative years but at the service of new ideological principles.

Finally, we would like to mention a third category of evidence that connects the educational past with the early Franco period: the evidence of resistance. Marked by development in private and clandestine contexts, it is also proof that the spirit of pedagogical innovation in Spain did not disappear with the early Franco regime. We have examples of private initiatives that tried to keep alive the practices of the Institución Libre de Enseñanza, the Instituto-Escuela, or the Junta para Ampliación de Estudios. Examples of this continuity can be found in both Catalonia and Madrid. Schools in the Catalan case include San Gregorio, Talitha, Instituto Costa i Llobera, Thau, and Toni i Guida. Schools in Madrid include the Colegio Estudio and the Colegio Estilo.[64]

In the Basque Country, we can fnd another important example of resistance which maintained the spirit of the pedagogical vanguard of the republican period. Francoism persecuted all nationalist aspirations and their propagation through education in the region. The National Catholic state system of education was imposed, and consequently, teaching in Basque was banned. In the years prior to the civil war, there were ambitious projects linked to educational innovation, as in other parts of Spain, but of course corresponding to the particularities of Basque culture. However, all this was dealt a mortal blow by the new centralist regime. There nevertheless were those who resisted clandestinely and managed to build a bridge between the educational aspirations of the prewar period and the resurgence of innovative ideas through the Iskastolas movement in the 1960s. This impasse was marked by a proto-movement of domestic schools (etxe-eskolak) in which the teacher Elbira Zipitria was the initiator and key fgure. Located in private fats, these forms of school resistance to Francoism developed a methodology in line with the principles of the New Education, with an active pedagogy linked to teaching Basque language and culture.[65]

In these conditions, pedagogical innovation—although it continued outside the ofcial system in private or clandestine schools—would not truly penetrate the boundaries of schools until well into the 1970s with the climate generated by the Movements for Pedagogical Renewal, international infuence, and the social, political, and economic circumstances of Spain in transition. This opened a new political period that began with the changes of the LGE of 1970 and continued with the 1978 Constitution.[66] However, the spirit of progressive pedagogical innovation never died. It continued, albeit weakened, diminished, and tenuous. This is because part of the school organization, the curricular model, the teaching bodies, and the methods of hiring staf were maintained.[67] And beyond ideological closed-mindedness and pedagogical blindness, there were even ways of utilizing structures from the previous period to the beneft of the new system.

Conclusions

This chapter analyzes education during a short and critical period in Spanish history: the Second Republic, the civil war, and the frst years of the Franco regime. The nature of these events makes it necessary to speak of change, rupture, and transformation. However, this research introduces the term “continuity” into the analysis, as there is evidence suggesting that the educational thinking, practices, and infrastructures of one period may have survived into the next. This new approach to the study of two historical periods as antithetical as the Second Republic and Francoism generates greater complexity in historical explanation and analysis. New terms such as utilization, adaptation, survival, resistance, or pedagogical coherence must be added to the already-familiar lexicon of destruction, dismantling, purging, rejection, persecution, etc. The new implications for researchers lie in understanding the diferent rhythms of change when it comes to educational spaces. Although such signifcant and macro-structural historical events as an armed confict, the enactment of a new government, or a new constitution mark key historical changes and divisions, a certain time lag afecting micro-structural levels must also be considered. In this way, this chapter defends a position of continuity in education that may seem controversial, but we understand this continuity to be merely circumstantial to the agents and phenomena that occur in the everyday dynamics of social systems.

The education system, as a social system, and the school, as a microsystem, contain subjects and agents with a culture and mentality that cannot be erased or deactivated instantaneously. The roles and practices of teachers, students, and families often set a diferent agenda from that of education policy and legislators. This leads us to highlight the survival and adaptation of educational practices and resistance to educational changes, even when the circumstances are as drastic and dramatic as those of the Spanish Civil War. This chapter is based on existing research that utilizes new sources; these sources go beyond ofcial documentation limited to political-normative discourse of law or regulation and illuminate more signs of continuity than one might imagine.

Bibliography

Armitage, David. “The International Turn in Intellectual History.” In Rethinking Modern European Intellectual History, edited by Darrin M. McMahon and Samuel Moyn, 232–52. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014.

Aubert, Paul. “¿A la Sorbona, a Marburgo o a la Alpujarra? La Junta para Ampliación de Estudios.” Circunstancia 14 (2007): 1–31.

Avilés, Juan. “Republicanismo, librepensamiento y revolución: la ideología de Francisco Ferrer y Guardia.” Ayer 49 (2003): 249–70.

Barceló-Bauzà, Gabriel, Francisca Comas-Rubí, and María del Mar del Pozo Andrés. “La práctica escolar durante los primeros años del franquismo.” História da Educação 22, no. 54 (2018): 334–57.

Barceló-Bauzà, Gabriel, and Bernat Sureda Garcia. “El mobiliario escolar en España durante los primeros años del franquismo: testimonios para su estudio.” Revista Educação e Emancipação 13, no. 3 (2020): 21–44.

Barceló-Bauzà, Gabriel, Bernat Sureda-Garcia, Francisca Comas-Rubí, and Sergi Moll-Bagur. “La práctica escolar en Menorca durante el franquismo.” Espacio, Tiempo y Educación 9, no. 1 (2022): 122–49.

Boucher, David. Texts in Context: Revisionist Methods for Studying the History of Ideas. Boston: Martinus Nijhof Publishers, 1985.

Cáceres-Muñoz, Jorge. “La formación permanente del profesorado y la cultura escolar.” In La formación del profesorado. Nuevos enfoques desde la Teoría y la Historia de la Educación, edited by Miguel Martín-Sánchez and Tamar Groves, 91–104. Salamanca: FahrenHouse Ediciones, 2015.

Cáceres-Muñoz, Jorge. La Institución Libre de Enseñanza y Extremadura. Caminos de regeneración pedagógica. Salamanca: FahrenHouse, 2019.

Cáceres-Muñoz, Jorge, and Miguel A. Martín-Sánchez. “Difusión y participación de Extremadura en el Boletín de la Institución Libre de Enseñanza.” In Prensa pedagógica y patrimonio histórico educativo, edited by José María Hernández Díaz, 93–103. Salamanca: Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca, 2013.

Canales Serrano, Antonio F., and Amparo Gómez-Rodríguez. “La depuración franquista de la Junta para la Ampliación de Estudios e Investigaciones Científcas (JAE): una aproximación cuantitativa.” Dynamis 37, no. 2 (2017): 459–88.

Castillo Encinar, Borja del, and Gabriel Parra-Nieto. “Una escuela para todos y todas. La herencia educativa de la Segunda República Española.” Magister 34 (2022): 9–16.

Colom, Antoni. “Vanguardias educativas en la España del siglo XX.” Revista Española de Pedagogía 56, no. 210 (April–June 1998): 263–84.

Cuño Bonito, Justo. “Reforma y contrarreforma de la enseñanza primaria durante la II República Española y el ascenso del Fascismo (1932–1943).” Revista historia de la educación latinoamericana 15, no. 21 (2013): 89–106.

Escolano Benito, Agustín. “Las culturas escolares del siglo XX: encuentros y desencuentros.” Revista de Educación, no. extr. 1 (2000): 201–18.

Esteve Martí, Javier. “Originalidad, desarrollo y destrucción de la historiografía progresista en la educación primaria española (1931–1939).” Didáctica de las Ciencias Experimentales y Sociales 36 (2019): 33–46.

Flecha, Consuelo. “Education in Spain: Close-Up of Its History in the 20th Century.” Analytical Reports in International Education 4, no. 1 (2011): 17–42.

Galera Pérez, Antonio D. “Escuela pública durante el altofranquismo educativo (1936–1970): Aspectos administrativos y curriculares.” Cabás 23 (2017): 82–114.

García Madrid, Antonio. “Los maestros freinetianos de las Hurdes durante la II República. Noticias documentadas.” Revista de Educación 340 (2006): 493–521.

Garrido, Manolo. “Historia de la educación en España (1857–1975). Una visión hasta lo local.” Revista Contraluz 2 (2005): 89–146.

González-Delgado, Mariano, and Tamar Groves. “La Unesco y la Ley General de Educación: La infuencia de los organismos internacionales en torno a la modernización educativa en el franquismo.” Historia y Memoria de la Educación 14 (2021): 209–52.

González-Pérez, Teresa. “El discurso educativo del nacionalcatolicismo y la formación del magisterio español.” Historia Caribe 13, no. 33 (2018): 83–120.

Graham, Helen. La república española en guerra (1936–1939). Barcelona: Debate, 2019.

Groves, Tamar, Jorge Cáceres-Muñoz, and José Luis Hernández Huerta. “Resistance Through Teachers’ Professional Development: Revisiting the Spanish Freinet Movement.” Bulletin of Hispanic Studies 100, no. 1 (2023): 79–95.

Hernández Díaz, José María. “Revistas pedagógicas de divulgación en España.” Aula: revista de pedagogía de la Universidad de Salamanca 27 (2021): 33–47.

Hernández Huerta, José Luis. “Extensions of Schooling Environments into the Local Community, and Social Construction of Democracy in Spain (1931–1939). Contributions Made by the Freinet Pedagogical Movement.” Cadernos de História da Educação 18, no. 1 (2019): 122–45.

Hernández Huerta, José Luis, and José María Hernández Díaz. “Freinet na Espanha (1926–1939).” Revista História da Educação 16, no. 36 (2012): 11–44.

Jiménez Mier Terán, Fernando. Batec: historia de vida de un grupo de maestros. Lérida: Universitat de Lleida, 2007.

Lawson, Parker. Between Tradition and Transgression: Education, Culture, and (Inter)national Pedagogies in Spain (1857–1931). Cambridge: University of Cambridge, 2021.

Lemke Duque, Carl A., and Carlos V. Lavín. “‘Tipo ideal español’: clave sociopedagógica del primer franquismo.” Revista Mexicana de Sociología 1, no. 1 (2022): 135–66.

López Sánchez, José María. “El árbol de la ciencia nacionalcatólica: los orígenes del Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científcas.” Cuadernos de Historia Contemporánea 38 (2016): 171–84.

Maestro, Pilar. “Lorenzo Luzuriaga y la educación republicana.” Pasajes: Revista de pensamiento contemporáneo 21–22 (2007): 19–42.

Mainer Baqué, Juan. “La Renovación Pedagógica en España: crónica de una pertinaz desmemoria (1945–1990).” In De súbditos a ciudadanos: Escuela y sociedad en el siglo XX, edited by Herminio Lafoz and Javier Vicente, 227–42. Zaragoza: Fundación Sindicalismo y Cultura de CCOO, 2008.

Marín Eced, Teresa. “La pedagogía europoea importada por los becados de la JAE (1907–1937).” Historia de la Educación. Revista Interuniversitaria 6 (1987): 261–78.

Martínez Alfaro, Encarnación. “Memoria del Instituto Isabel la Católica.” Tarbiya: revista de investigación e innovación educativa 44 (2016): 107–22.

Martínez Alfaro, Encarnación. “Tiempo y memoria del Instituto-Escuela.” Innovación educativa 28 (2018): 43–60.

Martínez Valle, Carlos. “Un ‘etno-típico flósofo americano’ en la Pedagogía académica del Franquismo. Dewey y el activismo: entre el rechazo, el idiosincrático uso pragmático y la ortodoxización.” Espacio, Tiempo y Educación 3, no. 2 (2016): 157–81.

Martín-Sánchez, Miguel, and Jorge Cáceres-Muñoz. “European Cultural Convergences in Spain During the 19th Century: The Institución Libre de Enseñanza.” History of Education and Children’s Literature 16, no. 1 (2021): 525–44.

Menguiano-Rodríguez, Carlos, María del Mar del Pozo Andrés, and Gabriel BarcelóBauzá. “A New Source for the Study of Educational Practices: Competitive Exams for School Headteacher Positions (Spain, 20th Century).” History of Education & Children Literature 15, no. 2 (2020): 199–218.

Miguel Alonso, Aurora. “La biblioteca de la Residencia de Estudiantes hasta su incorporación en la Universidad de Madrid (1910–1943).” CIAN-Revista de Historia de las Universidades 14, no. 1 (2011): 53–74.

Molero Pintado, Antonio. “La Segunda República y la formación de maestros.” Tendencias pedagógicas 14 (2009): 85–94.

Moreno Martínez, Pedro L. “The National Pedagogical Museum and Educational Renewal in Spain (1882–1941).” Cadernos de História da Educação 21 (2022): 1–15.

Muñoz Marín, Domingo. “La inspección de enseñanza primaria durante el franquismo (1936–1975).” Anales de pedagogía 11 (1993): 209–28.

Núñez Nadal, Carmen. “Mismos nombres para otra Institución: de la Residencia de Señoritas al Colegio Mayor Santa Teresa de Jesús (1939–1945).” CIAN-Revista de Historia de las Universidades 25, no. 2 (2022): 86–113.

Olmos, Oscar. “Los viajes de estudio no murieron con la JAE: El caso de Díaz Arnal en el Franquismo.” In Relaciones internacionales en la historia de la educación. Junta para Ampliación de Estudios e Investigaciones Científcas (1907–2007), edited by Felicidad Sánchez, Javier Alejo, Gaspar Calvo, Manuel Lucero, María Paz González, María Rosa Oria, and Enrique Iglesias, 183–94. Cáceres: Sociedad Española de Historia de la Educación y Departamento de Ciencias de la Educación de la Universidad de Extremadura, 2007.

Palma, Cristian. “Formación de Maestros y Cultura Escolar en España durante el siglo XX.” Historia de la educación-anuario 15, no. 1 (2014): 139–56.

Peralta, María Dolores. “Los antecedentes de los estudios universitarios de magisterio. Infuencia del plan profesional de 1931.” Revista Tendencias Pedagógicas, no. extr. 1 (1998): 201–12.

Peralta, María Dolores. “Infuencia de la JAE en la Educación Primaria de los comienzos del Franquismo.” In Relaciones internacionales en la historia de la educación. Junta para Ampliación de Estudios e Investigaciones Científcas (1907–2007), edited by Felicidad Sánchez, Javier Alejo, Gaspar Calvo, Manuel Lucero, María Paz González, María Rosa Oria, and Enrique Iglesias, 205–17. Cáceres: Sociedad Española de Historia de la Educación y Departamento de Ciencias de la Educación de la Universidad de Extremadura, 2007.

Pérez Galán, Mariano. “La enseñanza en la Segunda República.” Revista de Educación, no. extr. 1 (2000): 317–32.

Pericacho Gómez, Francisco J. “La Renovación Pedagógica Española. Un estudio a través de escuelas emblemáticas: de fnales del siglo XIX hasta el fnal de la dictadura franquista (1975).” In Actas del XVIII Coloquio de Historia de la educación: arte, literatura y educación, 522–29. Vic: Universitat de Vic-Universitat Central de Catalunya, 2015.

Pericacho Gómez, Francisco J., Miguel A. Novillo, Amaya Arigita, Roberto SánchezCabrero, Amelia Barrientos, and Lidia Mañoso-Pacheco. “History of the Spanish Pedagogical Renewal through Its Education Centers: 1876–1972.” Educational Process: International Journal 8, no. 2 (2019): 134–44.

Pozo Andrés, María del Mar del. “La Escuela Nueva en España: crónica y semblanza de un mito.” Historia de la Educación. Revista Interuniversitaria 22–23 (2003–4): 317–46.

Pozo Andrés, María del Mar del. “El sistema educativo español: viejos problemas, nuevas miradas. Conmemoración de un bicentenario (1813–2013).” Bordón: Revista de pedagogía 65, no. 4 (2013): 13–17.

Puelles Benítez, Manuel de. “La educación en el constitucionalismo español.” Cuestiones Pedagógicas 21 (2011/12): 15–35.

Ramírez Aísa, Elías. Educación y control en los orígenes de la España liberal. Madrid: Biblioteca Nueva, 2003.

Ribagorda, Álvaro. “Una ventana hacia Europa: la Residencia de Estudiantes y sus actividades culturales.” Circunstancia 14 (2007): 1–17.

Safón, Ramón. “Las fuentes pedagógicas de la Escuela Moderna.” Educació i història: Revista d’història de l’educació 1 (1994): 73–75.

Sanchidrián, Carmen. “El método Montessori en la educación infantil española: luces y sombras.” Historia de la Educación 39 (2020): 313–35.

Sayavera, Soraya C. “El sistema educativo durante el franquismo: las leyes de 1945 y 1970.” Revista Aequitas: Estudios sobre historia, derecho e instituciones 8 (2016): 31–62.

Tiana, Alejandro. Las misiones pedagógicas: educación popular en la Segunda República. Madrid: Los Libros de la Catarata, 2021.

Vázquez Ramil, Raquel. Mujeres y educación en la España contemporánea: la Institución Libre de Enseñanza y la Residencia de Señoritas de Madrid. Madrid: Akal, 2012.

Vega Gil, Leoncio. “Aproximación a la enseñanza secundaria durante el franquismo (1938–1967).” Historia de la Educación 8 (1989): 29–43.

Vicente Sánchez, Héctor. “La secularización de la enseñanza primaria durante la Segunda República.” Historia de la educación: revista interuniversitaria 36 (2017): 301–20.

Viñao, Antonio. Sistemas educativos, culturas escolares y reformas: continuidades y cambios. Madrid: Ediciones Morata, 2002.

Viñao, Antonio. “La educación en el franquismo (1936–1975).” Educar em Revista 51 (2014): 19–35.

Zabaleta, Iñaki, Joxe Garmendia, and Hilario Murua Cartón. “Movimiento popular y escuela en el franquismo: las ikastolas en Gipuzkoa.” Historia de la Educación 34 (2015): 305–36.