The Constitutional endorses the teaching of Spanish in communities with their own language, as established by the Celaá Law, by defending that "the Magna Carta does not derive the necessary fixing by the State of a proportion of use of Spanish in the educational system" but rather "a pattern of balance or equality between languages".
The Plenary of the guarantee court has approved the sentence that fully endorses the educational law, which was one of the main star projects of the Government of Pedro Sánchez, after the rapporteur prepared a new paper, according to the majority's criteria, which he dismissed the Vox resource.
The Celaá law includes as the most controversial points that Spanish is no longer the vehicular language in education, that within 10 years ordinary centers have the means to enroll students in Special Education centers or the prohibition for centers private receive public funds if separated by sex.
Regarding Spanish, the sentence explains that the new regulation is in accordance with article 3 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to use Spanish and the co-official status of the autonomous languages, and also with the responsibility of the State to ensure respect of the linguistic rights of students.
It considers that "the necessary setting by the State of a proportion of use of Spanish in the educational system does not derive from the Constitution" but rather "a pattern of balance or equality between languages" and an effective right to use them, which this law does not deny.
Regarding the prohibition for private centers to receive public funds if they separate by sex, the ruling says that "a pluralistic educational model" derives from the Constitution, but not that "all educational models have to receive aid", nor "a right subjective to public provision".
For the court, this precept is not only not unconstitutional, but quite the opposite: "the difference in treatment between educational centers that separate students based on their gender, in order to be able to be financed totally or partially by public funds, responds to a ideological conception of the educational system that not only cannot be branded as arbitrary, but is also inspired by constitutional values".
Regarding special education, the magistrates say that the article that orders attention to "the will of families who show their preference for the most inclusive regime does not exclude (...) in case of discrepancies (...) the hearing of families who show their preference for special education, nor does it attribute greater value to the opinion of certain families over others".
The ruling also considers the absence of mention of religion as a subject in the educational curriculum in accordance with the Constitution, as well as Vox's complaint that the law incorporates "gender ideology" as "state ideology in which it necessarily intends to indoctrinate the students".
Regarding the latter, the court recalls that education "is not merely the transmission of knowledge, it is also human formation", and that according to European jurisprudence, "respect for religious or moral beliefs" does not prevent any transmission of values but rather this is carried out "in an objective, critical and pluralistic manner".
This, he adds, without there being anything in the precepts of the Law that suggests that "health education, including affective-sexual education" can be provided in a different way.
The sentence has the particular votes of the four conservative magistrates: Ricardo Enríquez (rapporteur), Enrique Arnaldo, Concepción Espejel and César Tolosa, who defend the unconstitutionality of certain aspects of the law.
As it happens with special education, when noting that the law devalues the only criteria to be taken into account in these cases, which is to detect and impose the defense of the best interests of the minor concerned, regardless of the will of their parents or the need highly specialized care.
In addition, they believe that the prohibition of public aid to schools that separate by sex attacks educational pluralism simply because the legislator does not find it convenient for this model, which violates the rights of minorities.
