[Assam] Part 4--lessons from Mexican education refrom

[umesh sharma]

Current status of educational opportunities for indigenous people:

Table 7:  Percentage of students meeting National Standards

               On Reading and Math tests � different types of schools

S.N.	Particulars	Rural public	Indian school	National
1.	Reading, Third	15	8	20
2.	Reading, Fifth	12	6	19
3.	Math, Third	15	9	17
4.	Math, Fifth	4	5	5

Source: (Schmelkes, 2000). 

 

A recent national assessment exercise carried out in 2000 showed significantly lower performance of Indian schools compared to rural public schools and other types of schools in Mexico (Table 7). In Reading test, in grade three and five, the Indian students scored 50% less than those of rural public schools. In grade three math also there was a significant difference. However, in grade five math the national average score was same as that of the Indian students, (Schmelkes, 2000). 

 

School facilities: In Mexico the poorer area schools generally have poorer facilities. However, as discussed above, Indian schools have worse physical facilities, educational and other resources than even rural marginal schools, with the sole exception of supply of textbooks, where the situation is comparable.

Thus, on all counts Indian students are way behind other students, but  can we conclude that it is because of faulty implementation of the government policies? Or should we explore whether there is a racial bias �at the policy level - against educating Indians in Mexico.

 

Similarity with successful policies of 1932-1942

The current policies are similar in spirit to those from the period 1932 to 1942, which had then shown remarkable positive changes in the lifestyle and power structure of the Indian people of Mexico. Later, however, the government reversed these policies � labeling them as spreading communist ideology among the indigenous people (Dawson, 2001).

 

In the programs for indigenous education for the 1932-1942 period, the students were expected to become leaders of their social communities �as was felt the need of the hour. The aim was to �make the internados powerful educational forces with a tendency towards shaking the Indian races (out oft their lethargy) and stimulating them to work for their own improvement� (Dawson, 2001).  The internados (residential schools for indigenous students) were to also promote the use of Indian languages as a part of the educational process (Dawson, 2001).  

 

Thus, the current �bilingual-bicultural education� policies for the educational development of the indigenous people of Mexico are similar to those of the policies of the 1932-1942 period, which were then highly successful. However, the lack of success of the current program seems to stem from faulty implementation, which is perhaps compounded by inadequate allocation financial resources and inadequate political support for the program. Once proper implementation and adequate resources are provided it is likely that this program would yield successful results.

 

Bridging Quality divides

 

PARE program:

�The Program to Overcome the Educational Gap (PARE), started in 1991, was the first program to be implemented in accordance with ANMEB. It was invested in two areas, improvement of educational services and institutional strengthening.

 

The general objective of the program was to improve the quality and efficiency of primary education in rural schools in the states lagging behind most of the country. The specific objectives were to increase levels of learning in primary education, to improve the preparation and motivation of teachers, and to strengthen the organization and educational administration,� (Izquierdo, Sanchez, 2000: Reimers, 2000)

 

The main characteristics of the program were:

• �Provision of didactic material
• Provision of textbooks for indigenous education
• Endowment of school libraries
• Construction of regional warehouses
• Training and modernization of the teaching profesion
• Distance education and training
• School infrastructure and equipment improvement
• Improvement of school supervision
• Incentives for good teacher performance
• Improvement of information systems
• Evaluation of scholastic achievements
• Mechanisms of social participation in the finance and educational tasks
• Program evaluation�

(Izquierdo, Sanchez, 2000: Reimers, 2000)

 

The program was not successful in meeting its objectives of improving the quality of schooling for rural, poor and marginalized communities for the following reasons: �the selection of the program components were not based on an investigation of the needs that were unsatisfied. In general, the components were administered in a disjointed form, and some were not provided in a timely fashion�.These teacher training courses were not always given by qualified personnel. Often supervisors did not help with training teachers as they should have,� (Izquierdo, Sanchez, 2000: Reimers, 2000.)

 

Thus, PARE program, which was based on the theoretical model of education reform was lacking in its practical application and was not successful in meeting its objectives due to faulty implementation.

 

Decentralization for improved efficiency of the education system

 

 �In May 1992,� the states, the federal government structures, and the National Union of Workers in Education (Sindicato Nacional de Trabajadores de la Educaci�n, SNTE) signed the National Agreement for the Modernization of Basic Education (Acuerdo Nacional para laModernizaci�n de la Educaci�n B�sica, ANMEB). This agreement was created in response to demand for a decentralized educational system. �. ANMEB is part of a long process that yielded satisfactory results until May 1992, when the federal government, state governors, federal agencies and the SNTE signed the agreement.

 

This program had three main objectives. The first was associated with the reorganization of the educational system, which consisted in the transfer of the education sector, formerly administered by the federal government, to the States.

 

The second objective was the reformulation of regional educational content, in which �.the role of the states is to propose content, while the federal government decides and puts the proposal into practice.

 

 The last objective, the revaluation of teaching activities, consisted in launching Carrera Magisteria, for basic education teachers and union members�. In this context, the federal government modified its educational discourse, placing more emphasis on the

quality of educative content instead of the previous focus on educational coverage,�(Lopez-Acevedo, Gladys, 2004.)

 

 Carrera Magisterial program and curricular reforms are discussed in detail later in the paper. Now I discussed the process and results of the decentralization as were initiated under the ANMEB agreement.

 

Decentralization process:

 

Decentralization happened quickly, (Grindle, 2004.) �The reform meant that more than a half million teachers, more than 100,000 administrators, almost 14 million students, and 100,000 schools would be transferred to states almost overnight,� in 1992 (Grindle, 2004.)  For most states, their educational responsibilities increased many fold over this short period of time, for which they were ill � prepared  �and considerable chaos characterized the transfer of funds, personnel, students and infrastructure,� (Grindle, 2004.)

 

 The reforms had been implemented in almost all the states simultaneously, which created immense problems of managing the reform process, (Grindle, 2004.)  �Many teachers felt orphaned by the changes; problems of implementation were interpreted as evidence of the failure of decentralization; conflicts continued to characterize the management of education; constraints on the use of funds limited the reach of state level reform initiatives; and local participation in the reform initiative was lacking,� (Grindle, 2004.)         

 

End result in Mexican decentralization efforts in education: �at the end of the decade (of 1990s), Mexico�s education system remained highly centralized,� (Grindle, 2004.)    �Although state governments were now administering basic and normal education, and municipalities were given the responsibility for construction of schools�. Curriculum, base salaries and benefits for teachers, most of the funding, standards  and criteria for educational achievement � all continued to be determined centrally. The teachers looked to national decision makers to tell them what to teach � and how to teach � and they did not have much! leeway for responding to parental demands, even if they were prepared to do so,� (Grindle, 2004.)

 

Comment: In the implementation phase also the Mexican reformers could have learnt from Bolivia�s reformers, which chose to implement their education reforms  in a phased manner, initially implementing them in only a quarter of the total municipalities � in the ones � carefully selected as areas where important gains could be made,� (Grindle, 2004.)   In subsequent years, Bolivian reforms continued with this strategy of phased implementation successfully and thus avoided the confusion and lack of accountability experienced by Mexican reformers.

 

A cautionary note:  "decentralization might reduce central bureaucratic corruption (Bardhan

and Mookherjee 2005a and 2005b), improve political accountability (Tommasi and

Weinschelbaum 1999), and enhance incentives in the provision of public services (Besley

and Ghatak 2003).

However, decentralization may also degrade the provision of public services

under a number of circumstances. One important case is when local governments are less

technically able to administrate public services than the central government (Smith 1985).

Another possibility is that decentralization may facilitate the capture of resources by local

elites that face reduced political competition. This could involve explicit corruption or

allocation of the resources to public uses preferred by the local elites

............decentralization only had a positive effect on schools located in non-poor municipalities

in well-managed provinces. Decentralization had no impact on schools in non-poor

municipalities in poorly managed provinces, nor on schools located in poor municipalities in

well-managed provinces," in Argentina (Galiani, Gertler, Schargrodsky, 2005.)

 

Thus, decentralization, though a desirable  objective needs to be implemented in a phased

Manner, with building of local capacity to shoulder the increased responsibilities in a satisfactory manner.

---

How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos. Get Yahoo! Photos

_______________________________________________
Assam mailing list
Assam@pikespeak.uccs.edu
http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/listinfo/assam

Mailing list FAQ:
http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/assam/assam-faq.html
To unsubscribe or change options:
http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/options/assam