Teachers’ anger after instruction to avoid speaking with press sparks government rebuttal

A recent instruction circulating among a segment of Andorra’s teaching staff, asking them to refrain from speaking with journalists about their work, has provoked notable unease within the Cos d’Educació, the national body representing teachers. While some educators accepted the message as a reminder of their legal duty to protect confidential information, others view it as an excessive restriction on professional speech.

The Ministry of Education has pushed back on portrayals of the measure as a blanket ban. Government sources emphasise a distinction: when a media outlet approaches an individual teacher for a personal interview, the ministry does not intervene and the teacher may respond freely. Protocols come into play, officials say, only when the request involves filming inside a school, in-depth coverage of a curricular project or demands for access to internal material. These rules are presented as coordination mechanisms designed to prevent confusion and ensure orderly handling of media enquiries.

The dispute centres on how to interpret Article 74 of the Law of the Public Function, which imposes a duty of reserve on public employees and requires confidentiality for certain administrative data. Teachers critical of the instruction argue the duty covers internal or protected information but does not extend to personal opinions, descriptions of classroom methods or general reflections on the education system. From their perspective, casting a wide net around what may be discussed with the press risks undermining transparency and curtailing pedagogical debate.

The episode was triggered by a specific media contact that asked a teacher purely pedagogical and opinion-based questions — on how Andorran history is taught, what materials are used, recent curriculum changes and pupils’ reflections about identity — without requesting recordings, access to school premises or confidential documents. Some sources say the questions fell outside the scope of the ministry’s coordination protocols and that the teacher could have answered normally.

Reactions within the teaching corps are mixed: some professionals treated the instruction as a straightforward reminder of legal obligations; others see it as an overreach into freedom of expression. The Ministry insists it respects teachers’ freedom to speak, while maintaining that coordination protocols are necessary when media requests implicate school operations or sensitive information.

Authorities have not issued further clarifications spelling out the boundary between permissible public comment and protected internal information. As the debate continues, teachers and the ministry appear to agree on the need to balance confidentiality and orderly media relations with the right of educators to discuss pedagogy and professional experience publicly.