Abstract*
Despite the
level of determination, Guatemalans have the lowest level of educational
attainment in Central America, particularly significant when considering the
fact that over half the country’s population is under 18 years of age. Over half of
Guatemalans lives within a measure of poverty, some very extreme, and a
majority of the people live within territorial boundaries, in small, medium,
and large-sized pueblos, some of these in remote mountain regions,
characterized by specific culture, language, politics, and history, to name a
few. The educational policy change initiated by the government is challenged
because of its disregard to diversity, to the linguistic and cultural
uniqueness in each of the 22 ethnic groups. The reform plan includes the
elimination of the teacher institution (magisterio) and replaces it with costly,
unaffordable university-based designs that remotely address the true nature of
the educational problems.
In
this research paper we used a contextual framework of social justice, inclusive
of historical and political ramifications, to describe and analyze the following:
a) the conflict(s) arising from the new government’s change agenda in
education; b) the role
of the United States in Guatemala’s decision making and policy development; and
c) the consequences as the direct result of the government’s changes, especially
amongst the diverse indigenous communities.
We framed our study within a comparative perspective and
viewed Guatemala not only as part of Central America but also, as an integral
member of all Latin America. As such, the scope of our research has broad implications
for other countries, including Mexico.
The Time for Change in the Worst of Times
Guatemalans are living in the most challenging of times; some would argue that
conditions are just as worst or more so then during the armed conflict between 1960
and 1996 (see Burrell, 2013). Undoubtedly, the country’s most principle need
for reform is in the educational system. Even though great strides have been
achieved through the sheer determination and persistence of the people,
Guatemala has the lowest level of educational attainment in Central America.
The government statistics point to 96 percent attendance level of children in
primary grades, but this number excludes the 1.5 million children with
excessive school absences, mostly due to economic hardships.1 Dropout rates are exceedingly high and
only less than 10 percent of the student population attends the university. The
crisis level is alarming when considering the fact that over half the country’s
population is under 18 years of age.
Reform Efforts
At
the heart of the current political struggle that pits community and students
against the government is in the training of teachers. Many arguments point
to the need for improvement and change in the preparation of teachers as the
most important strategy that may positively impact educational achievement.
Students pursuing their preparation in teacher training colleges, called Escuelas
Normales, and the communities that support them, have embarked in an intense
campaign to repudiate the proposal from the Minister of Education to eliminate
the current gratuitous programs and replace them with costly university-based
designs that don’t even address the true nature of the educational problems.
The students attending Escuelas Normales, or Normalistas, object to the
proposal for many reasons and they have been vocally opposing these measures for
almost a year. Still, to date, the Ministry of Education has refused
to engage in substantive dialogue with the students and other
stakeholders.
Research Method
In this research paper we used a
contextual framework of social justice, inclusive of historical and political
ramifications, to describe and analyze the conflict(s) arising from the new
government’s change agenda in education; the role of the United States in
Guatemala’s decision making and policy development and the motivating factors;
and the consequences as the direct result of the government’s changes,
especially amongst the indigenous communities. Most of our work was completed in
the field, and was based on anthropological perspectives of maintaining
objectivity while collecting data using qualitative modes of inquiry: Our fieldwork
took place in a community in the city of K’iché (in the highlands of Guatemala in the
Department of Quiche) for six weeks in the Fall of 2012. The collection of data
included photos, field notes, interviews with formal and informal protocols,
transcripts and notes of the interviews conducted with various members of the
community; archival data from internet sources, including official government
web sites and other various sites such as the USAID and Ministry of Education;
social media sources, including blogs, newsletters, and other news sources. Also
included were interviews with community
leaders, organizers; photos of community members in action, such as in school
and in home and meetings; videos of community members in action; and published
research studies. One member of our team served as a volunteer/participant
observer for four weeks in a community school.
We used
“documentation’ from all of the sources to focus on the lead questions. The
“narrative” emerged to provide us with insights into contextual environment
inclusive of various social, cultural, economic, and political factors, which
then led to the development of
“discussion queries,” by which we drew analysis and eventually,
conclusions. Triangulation of the data was used in every way possible to divert
from a unilateral perspective or biasness.
What is the Ministry of Education’s Proposal?
Prerequisite to understanding the content and implications of the Ministry of
Education’s (MINEDUC) proposal are some vital facts. In Guatemala’s educational
system students first complete six years of their compulsory primary education,
then continue to Ciclo Prevocacional or Middle School for three years.
Students that follow the carrera magisterial to become primary teachers continue
to Secondary Education, Ciclo Diversificado or Diversified Secondary for two
years. At Tertiary Education stage, students complete three years of study at a
teacher training college or Escuela Normal, which allows them to teach at a
primary school. To receive the title of “professor” students must complete an
additional three-year program at a university. A four-year university program
leads to a Baccalaureate in Arts and Science.2
The pathway to the formation of teachers is
as important as the physical, geopolitical, economic, and demographic landscape
of the country in understanding the tensions and conflicts behind the peaceful
resistance and demands of the students and their supporters (see Arnove, 2005).
Over half of the country lives within a measure of poverty, some very extreme,
and a majority of the people live within territorial boundaries, in small and
large-sized pueblos, some of these in remote mountain regions, characterized by
specific culture, language, politics, and history, to name a few. Thus,
diversity, with all its amplifications, is a major factor that underlies every
aspect of the proposal and rebuttal.
The main points in the MINEDUC proposal are:
• Eliminate
the “magisterio,” which essentially means to change radically the
current system of preparing primary school teachers.
•
Replace the “magisterial” system of preparing
teachers with a university program that requires students to complete a
Bachillerato en Ciencias y Letras. So in essence, students must enroll and complete
a three-year university program in order to qualify for the title of
“professor.”
•
To implement a teacher
training program for pre-primary teachers in the Escuelas Normales, public or
private. Technical assistance is programmed for this program and for the
Bachillerato en Ciencas y Letras.
•
To seek incentives to
increase the salary of graduates from the proposed program wherever they are
hired to teach.
•
To provide scholarships (in 2015) for
graduates of the proposed program to continue their studies (as post-graduates)
in private or public universities (the only public university is University of
San Carlos).
•
To offer courses in conjunction with the
Bachillerato in Ciencias y Letras that includes agroforestal (forestry),
turismo (tourism), and textiles, among others.
Normalistas’ Response
Several key points in the Normlistas’ rebuttal are valid in the sense that they
posit realistic concerns that challenge MINEDUC to provide a response
accordingly:
•
The proposal does not address how the
proposed changes will purportedly impact positively the quality of
education on a short and long-term basis. There’s no information that
addresses the improvement levels at the university-based programs, in fact, the
Normalista’s rebuttal asks who will be in charge of their program at the
university level where resources are scarces and irrelevant to the needs of the
educational programs in the pueblos and rural communities.
•
Eliminating the magisterial and requiring
students to complete university programs translates to an economic burden
on behalf of the students and their families. The MINEDUC proposal includes the
participation of the universities, however, the only public university that
doesn’t charge tuition is University of San Carlos (USAC); the other eight or
nine are private universities that require students to pay tuition. The Normalistas
are concerned that USAC lacks sufficiently the capacity and resources so that
most of the Normalistas will have to attend a costly university program. This point
underscores their secondary concern that MINEDUC’s proposed changes are meant
to enrich the private universities, or to put it in another way, it is a
strategy to privatize teacher education. Additionally, the
proposal doesn’t address how the universities will effectively improve teacher
training.
•
There is no guarantee that the
proposed changes will lead to an increase in salaries for the
graduates.
•
The scholarships proposed
by MINEDU are not meant for the students beginning their training. These are
proposed for graduates as post-graduate scholarships that are clearly meant for
private universities. Again, this is a clear instance validating the Normalistas’
claim that the proposal is focused on the privatization of the
professional training of teachers.
•
The proposed changes undoubtedly reduce the
opportunities for students to pursue a teacher credential. Presently, less than
1 percent of the indigenous student population attends the university. But
besides that, the proposed changes lack credibility in demonstrating how these
changes will improve education, not only for the teachers-in-training, but for
the school children as well, on a short and long-term basis.
Bilingual Intercultural Education
The
loss of the magisterial will drastically change the Bilingual Intercultural
Education programs. The Normalistas are proud of the fact that the 18 Escuelas
Normales in the country train teachers to help students become bilingual in
Spanish and one of the four language groups: K’iche, Kaqchikel, Q’eqchi, and Mam.
Their concern is that a university-based program does not have the capacity or
resources to carry out the programs in an effective manner. The community
support garnered through these programs is immeasurable and closing the
magisterial will inadvertently cause problems of maintaining the engagement by
the communities. In this light, the Normalistas’s claim that their rights to
their language and culture in an educational setting will be violated is a
valid one. The Bilingual Intercultural Education Program is described in the
MINEDU’s website.3
The Role of the United States in Guatemala’s Neoliberal Politics
In
2009, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID)
distributed funds to Guatemala’s governmental agencies that totaled 32.1
million dollars.4 Funds earmarked for Education and Social Services
were 5.9 million, for which 5.5 million were specifically for Basic
Education and $400,000 for Higher Education. Guatemala’s Ministry
of Education has a website specifically dedicated to USAID’s educational
program, Reforma Educativa en el Aula,5 that include broad
educational goals for the time frame 2009-2013. While USAID and the Guatemala
MINEDU’s educational goals are similar, a pronounced difference exists as
listed below:
Similar Goals:
o
To strengthen the capacity of institutions.
o
To improve instruction in the classroom.
o
To promote access to quality education to underserved populations,
women, and Mayan groups.
o
To provide strategies for parents, communities, and leaders to
participate actively in education of students.
Difference in Goals:
o
MINEDUC – To increase effectiveness or improve teacher training
(“prácticas docentes”).
USAID does not specify a goal
toward teacher training improvement but does mention in the needs statement
that the lack of educational attainment by students is due to “poor teacher
training.” If MINEDUC subsumes this goal as an objective in conjunction with
the goal, To strengthen the capacity of institutions, there is no
mention of this in their related statements. Furthermore, it’s questionable
whether eliminating the “magistrial” is keen to strengthening the capacity
of institutions.
However, to understand the underlying motives
for the goals and objectives stated by both the United States’ USAID agency and
Guatemala’s MINEDUC it’s necessary to analyze the philosophical differences and
historical facts that shed light on a broader perspective of the problematic
issues.
USAID History and Politics
USAID
was launched during President Kennedy’s administration in 1961.6 Since then, its evolution has resulted
in the distribution of foreign aide to hundreds of countries and in the
creation of partnerships with corporations and non-profit organizations.
Currently, they have personnel in 100 countries including Guatemala and El
Salvador in Central America. According to the agency, one of their most
successful strategies is partnering with more corporations that have
increased their funding levels. The overall goal of USAID has not changed
in the 50 years of its existence.
USAID’s Goal: Furthering America’s foreign policy interests in expanding democracy
and free markets while also extending a helping hand to people.
USAID’s Goal in conjunction with Guatemala: Guatemala has the
potential to become Central America’s largest economy and United States leading
partner.
The Results
and Accomplishments stated by the USAID offer insight into their
perceptions and expectations of Guatemala and can be interpreted as incentives
or rewards for future funding. According to their statements, Guatemala’s
MINEDUC has achieved success in the following areas:7
•
The MINEDUC has the
support of the educational communities for the K-9 national education content
standards.
•
MINEDUC has implemented an
innovative standardized test in Spanish and in nine Mayan languages to hire and
place teachers.
•
MINEDUC has made strides
in addressing transparency and efficiency in the Ministry of Education that
resulted in an international certification system for management in 2007.
•
MINEDUC has developed a
Municipal Education Progress Index, i.e., the use of data spreadsheets to
analyze and compare school operations against student achievement levels, or
what we know as accountability system.
•
MINEDUC has assessed and
produced a list of basic competencies for secondary students (grades 9th
to 12th) that are needed to be competitive in the labor markets.
Additionally, USAID and its corporate
partnerships claim success with MINEDUC that has resulted in over 51,825
scholarships, outreach programs for at least 300 at-risk youths. However,
this information has not been verified with MINEDUC.
USAID’s funding level for Guatemala in
education, health, and nutrition activities has totaled 10 million
dollars according to their website’s information. This information
lacks verification as well.
Analysis
Whether MINEDUC uses the leverage from
USAID’s funding to substantiate their political strategies under the banner of Reform
is open for interpretation. However, by accepting USAID’s
funds, MINEDUC has the responsibility to comply with the funding requirements.
Clearly, USAID’s motive behind the funding distribution is to garner the
support of the Guatemalan government to accelerate the country’s efforts toward
economic recovery that would be beneficial and profitable to the United States.
The educational practices noted in the Results and Accomplishments list
are squarely aligned with the United States educational model that privileges a
capitalistic approach or a market-led reform of education for economic gains.
It’s well noted in Latin American history that the tension between capitalism
and socialism is heightened during economically stressful periods (Arnove,
2005). If the United States and Guatemala work together in reforming the
country’s educational system, then this collaboration can be viewed as an
influential strategy by both countries to steer Guatemala away from socialistic
reforms, even though capitalism is not a viable solution for a country with
enormous, complex economic issues. A free market economy inherent in a
market-led reform would best serve the interests of the wealthy in a country
like Guatemala. Thus, what appears to be an educational reform model that
purportedly will lift the country out of economic turmoil and succeed in
improving the educational system is more like a roadmap toward disaster.
Historical and Political
Background on the Minister of Education
When Guatemala’s
president, Otto Pérez Molina took office on January 14, 2012, his vision of
change for the education system in a country of over 11 million people, was
firmly rooted in a far-reaching plan that embraced notions of economic
globalism. He wanted a fearless Minister of Education that shared his passion
for an “all or nothing” educational reform that would catapult the country into
the international global arena, and he’d receive the accolades from world
leaders for his efforts in transforming Guatemala. He found the person in
Cynthia del Aguila, educated in the United States, a former professor at
Guatemala’s private Universidad del Valle, and in her early career had held
different positions at the Ministry of Education in Guatemala. At the time that
del Aguila was appointed she was employed with the Research Triangle Institute
(RTI) International based in North Carolina in the United States and had worked
there for seven years as an educational manager. At RTI, her main
responsibility was with a United States agency called Allianzas, which
was devoted to forging partnerships with the private sectors in Guatemala. In
del Aguila’s reform plan the solution was quite simple: eliminate the Magisterio,
the current training college system consisting of Escuelas Normales,
and the Normalistas will have to attend the private universities, thus creating
governmental partnerships with private institutions of higher learning. But
students, parents, community leaders, and supporters have steadfastly
repudiated the reform agenda, and for almost 12 months after del Aguila
unveiled the plan they have organized and participated in non-violent protests,
sit-ins inside and outside facilities, marches, rallies, and used the social
media to their advantage. Police have used tear gas and arrested
protesting students. The embattled del Aguila refuses to concede defeat for
doing so may cost her the job as Minister of Education.
Acción de Amparo
On
February 25, 2013, the latest legal action taken against the
Ministry of Education, called the Acción de Amparo, was submitted
by the Consejo Nacional Permanente de la Reforma Educativa, the social
leadership organization representing the Magisterio. In this document,
the Consejo asks the court for a legal proceeding that will order MINEDUC not
to eliminate the Magisterio. 8 The document, Acción de Amparo9 makes
reference to the key role of the Consejo Nacional in the decision-making process
as stipulated in Article 12 of the Ley de Educación Nacional10, and
that MINEDUC overstepped its authority, a violation of human rights, when it
disregarded the required proceedings and approval of the reform plan by the
Consejo. The Corte Suprema de Justicia (Justice Supreme Court) must
decide on the Acción, whether to halt or allow the reform to continue as
initiated by the MINEDUC, although the MINEDUC can appeal the decision against
it. This was the case the first time the Acción de Amparo was submitted against
MINEDUC in November of 2012.
The
Corte Suprema de Justicia granted approval for the first temporary
Acción de Amparo but as reported on November 27th by Prensa Libre.11 Del Aguila
announced that the Ministry would appeal the court’s decision. Del Aguila’s
comments alluded to her conclusion that since the previous agreement on the magisterial
teaching careers had expired in 2011, the MINEDUC had followed appropriate
steps to include a process of feedback and input from the institutes and
colleges on the new program for teacher training. Del Aguila emphasized that
the MINEDUC has every authority to make decisions on how to train teachers as
well dispense decisions regarding the careers of teachers. Furthermore, she
added that it is the MINEDUC’s responsibility to renew programs that have
expired under its authority.
But
less than two weeks later, in response to an appeal filed by MINEDUC the Corte
Suprema de Justicia reversed its decision, revoking the Amparo on the basis
that it lacked sufficient substance. Speculation was raised on whether the
MINEDUC’s move to enter a counter legal action in case it lost its appeal was
influential in the Corte’s decision to overturn the Acción.12
The MINEDUC maintains its authority as the
supreme entity that has the sole responsibility and right to make decisions on
which reform plan to institute without regard to the democratic participation
of stakeholders, even when such inclusion is stipulated in national
proclamations. Pres. Pérez Molina has not publicly commented on del Aguila’s
hard line posturing of MINEDUC’s authority. His silence may well be interpreted
as an unequivocal approval of the actions of his appointed Minister of
Education.
Charges of Racism and Discrimination
While MINEDUC maintains its course toward
full implementation of the reform agenda, communities such as the Pueblo Xinka
have charged the Ministry with racism and discrimination. 13 The
Pueblo Xinka consists of 400,000 people from three departamentos (states) in
southwestern region of Guatemala bordering El Salvador. The parliamentary board
of Xinka has formally complained that their requests to the MINEDUC for
teaching positions in their Xinka/Spanish Bilingual Intercultural Education
program have been ignored. They have waited for a response since 2011,
despite the fact that since its initial start four years ago, 60 bilingual
students from the Escuelas Normales have successfully completed their training
and 300 more Normalistas are enrolled in the program. They claim that
their educational rights as a Pueblo inherent in the national proclamations
including the constitution protect their language and culture in the school
curriculum. The fact that MINEDUC has refused to support them is an
affirmation of the agency’s deliberate negation of their rights. MINEDUC’s
proposed reform agenda would eliminate the Escuelas Normales that have educated
the students like those in the Pueblo Xinka, and accordingly, eliminate or
reduce the quality of Bilingual Intercultural Education programs.
Decreased Funding Formula and
Decentralization
If del Aguila’s plan for decentralization of
educational funds is implemented as her announcement has declared, schools will
be in total control of their spending for all of their educational needs.14
In light of the decreased funding formula for primary education, this strategy
will cause friction amongst school communities, especially in small pueblos and
rural areas that have scarce resources. Both the decentralization in the
funding formula and the MINEDUC’s reform agenda may result in a chaotic
landscape of communities fending for their specific educational needs and while
some may succeed, those with less funding and other resources will certainly
lose.
Analysis
From the outset, Minister del Aguila was
determined to accomplish a task for which she had been especially selected.
Indeed, overhauling the country’s educational system is akin to rebuilding a
county from the ground up. Whether she or President Pérez Molina knew what was
at stake and that the complexity of the task would produce a Pandora’s box are
difficult to analyze without firsthand knowledge. But, what is clear is that
del Aguila didn’t launch a leadership agenda; her priority was and continues to
be a task-fulfilling role rather than assuming a leadership in the Ministry of
Education. A leader understands fundamentally the role of education in every
aspect of society. Experience, perception, insight, and knowledge – all are
essential in a leader, but the people of Guatemala want someone that understands
them and can bring hope into their lives. Pérez Molina has to assess whether he
has chosen the right kind of leader to take charge of probably the most
important and challenging social issue of his presidency.
Discussion
The
Normalistas are within their right to protest and demand change in all aspects
of their teaching profession and in the educational system. They have the support
of their constitution, and other official proclamations for their rights. Their
community lends support to their demands. But, without the cooperation of
MINEDUC, a meaningful, sustainable plan toward improving education that is in
the best interest of the Guatemalan people will not be realized.
Historical analyses of
educational reforms in contexts of post-war conflicts and economic and social
instability have produced a collection of various recommendations and caveats. Consistent
with a human rights approach is the common view that, for example, education
should be inclusive, relevant, sustainable, and democratic. The community must
be engage and have a clear voice in the “public debate” over what constitutes
education for all children. Access to education is not sufficient; individuals
must be able to overcome economic, social, and cultural barriers. What is clear
in Guatemala’s educational reform process is that educational issues are
inseparable from the expansive context that includes the legacy of colonialism
and social and economic inequalities (Tikly, 2011).
The uphill battle for
educational equality is well documented by researchers and noted in the
responses by protesting students. The unequal and elitist schooling system in
Guatemala’s history is the common story throughout Latin America, including
Mexico. But Guatemalans have less access to education in the primary grades
than other countries, particularly among the rural poor and girls. The
inequality contrasts sharply with the privileged elite that have the resources,
political clout, and social mobility that allows them entry into the most
competitive sectors of the global society (Reimers, 2000).
Other related research
has focused on Lifelong Learning ideals as a basis for an educational reform
plan for countries such as Guatemala (Carneiro, 2013). Aligned with this model
is that lifelong learning (LLL) both embraces and responds to change. Thus, the
curriculum centers on respecting context, history, languages, cultures, and
heritage while advocating for empowerment in the citizenry and promoting
diverse modes of learning. The democratic citizenship, which is the basic
structure founded on the common understanding of human rights, recognizes the
value and dignity of all human life. The culture of peace, rejects violence as
a controlling mechanism and advocates for democratic negotiations to advance
solutions and ideas.
Guatemala’s educational
reform process has evoked anger and frustration among teachers, students and
families. However, the community responses have been characterized by
democratic deals despite the heavy handedness of the country’s administration. Democracy
is foremost the modus operandi by its people, clearly an example of the
strength and determination of the Guatemalan citizens.
Concluding Remarks
In
conclusion, I include an excerpt from the Diseño Reforma Educativa
Runuk’ik jun K’aka’a Tijonik, (the Educational Reform design) published
in 1998. In these introductory paragraphs, the Reform is designated specifically for Guatemala. The main points,
translated from the original Spanish text are the following (full text in
Spanish found in Appendix A):
·
The commission has as its main charge to design an educational system
that has the obligation to the Peace Accords, in particular the “Acuerdo sobre
Identidad y Derechos de los Pueblos Indígenas,” that grants the rights to the
indigenous population to their identity and culture;
·
The main goal is to reach common ground that serves as the basis for the
national project;
·
The process includes the seeking and engaging in the transformation of
attitudes that facilitates in a better understanding of others;
·
To respect and value the cultural diversity of the country; and
·
To attain mutual agreement, dialogue and harmony based on organizational
principles of equity and equality.
The question remains: Which is the best road
that will lead Guatemala to a better future? No doubt, the teachers, students
and their families carry this enormous responsibility.
Notes
1.
For many children in Guatemala, lessons have to be learned in the
streets. Article by Jessica Shepherd for the Guardian. Accessed October 24, 2013, from http://www.theguardian.com/education/2011/mar/08/global-campaign-for-education-guatemala.
2.
Education system in Guatemala. Accessed October 24, 2013, from http://www.classbase.com/countries/Guatemala/Education-System.
3.
Ministry of Education website. Accessed October 24, 20`13, from http://www.mineduc.gob.gt/DIGEBI/.
8.
Otro amparo por reformas a la Carrera magisterial. Article published in Prensa Libre by Hugo Alvarado y Alex
Rojas on Feb. 26, 2013. Accessed October 24, 2013 from http://www.prensalibre.com/noticias/justicia/amparo-reformas_0_872912729.html.
9.
Accion de amparo. Accessed October 24, 2013, from https://skydrive.live.com/?cid=7bdfe400ca92465c&id=7BDFE400CA92465C%21113&authkey=!AKzUW4fT-pcz6OQ#!/view.aspx?cid=7BDFE400CA92465C&resid=7BDFE400CA92465C%21113&app=WordPdf&authkey=%21AKzUW4fT-pcz6OQ,
10.
Ley de Educación Nacional. Accessed October 24, 2013 from http://www.marn.gob.gt/aplicaciones/normas10g/pdf/307.pdf.
11.
CSJ suspende temporalmente bachillerato en educación. Article published
by Prensa Libre on November 27, 2012.
Accessed October 24, 2013 from http://www.prensalibre.com/noticias/politica/Dudas-rodean-magisterio_0_818318175.html?print=1.
12.
CC revoca acción contra cambio en Carrera de magisterio. Article by
Byron Rolando Vasquez published in Prensa
Libre on Dec. 12, 2012. Accessed on October 24, 2013, from http://www.prensalibre.com/noticias/justicia/Revoca-accion-cambio-magisterio_0_827317272.html.
13.
Pueblos Xinkas exige educación bilingüe. Article published by CPR-Urbana
on Feb. 26, 2013. Accessed on Oct. 24,
2013, from http://cpr-urbana.blogspot.com/2013/02/pueblos-xinkas-exige-educacion-bilingue.html.
14.
Déficit de maestros en priprimaria y básicos es del 50%. Article by Prensa Libre published on Feb. 27,
2013. Accessed on Oct. 24, 2013, from http://www.prensalibre.com/noticias/politica/Deficit-maestros-preprimaria-basicos_0_873512856.html.
References
Arnove,
R. (2005). Globalisation and public education policies in Latin America:
Challenges to and contributions of
teachers and higher education institutions. In J.
Zajda, International handbook on globalization, education and
policy research:
Global
pedagogies and policies, (431-442).
Springer: Dordrecht, the Netherlands.
Burrell, J.L. (2013). Maya after war; Conflict, power, and
politics in Guatemala. Austin:
University
of Texas Press.
Carneiro, R. (2013). Living by learning, learning by
living: The quest for meaning. International Review of
Education: Journal of Lifelong Learning, 59:3, 353-372.
Tikly,
L. (2011). Towards a framework for researching the quality of education in
low-income countries. Comparative
Education, 47:1, 1-23.
Zajda, J. (Ed.).
(2005). International handbook on
globalization, education and policy
research: Global pedagogies and policies. Springer: Dordrecht, the Netherlands.
Appendix A
La
Comisión Paritaria de Reforma Educativa
-COPARE
fue constituida por Acuerdo Gubernativo
No.
262-97 de fecha 20 de marzo de 1997,
el
cual establece como objetivo de la Comisión:
“diseñar
una reforma del sistema educativo, en
la
cual deberá considerarse lo que al respecto
contemplan
los Acuerdos de Paz, particularmente
el
Acuerdo sobre Identidad y Derechos
de
los Pueblos Indígenas, numeral III, Derechos
Culturales;
literal G, Reforma Educativa, numeral
2”.
La
Comisión quedó formalmente instalada el
2
de abril de 1997 y se integró con diez personas:
cinco
representantes del Gobierno de la
República
y cinco representantes de Organizaciones
Indígenas.
Al aceptar el mandato que
le
fue confiado, la Comisión estableció como
principios
internos de trabajo: la apertura, flexibilidad
y
tolerancia, por parte de todos sus
integrantes,
con el fin de alcanzar un objetivo
común:
establecer las bases para construir un
proyecto
educativo nacional propio. Con ese
objetivo,
se buscaron transformaciones actitudinales
que
implicarán conocer y comprender
mejor
al otro y al mundo; respetar y valorar
la
riqueza y diversidad cultural del país; y favorecer
el
entendimiento mutuo, el diálogo y
la
armonía; lo cual significó organizarse bajo
principios
de igualdad y equidad.
*This paper was presented at the Annual Meeting of the World Education Research Association in Guanajuato, Mexico, November 18-22, 2013, and published in part in this blog and others. All Rights Reserved.