The surprise labor reform of the teaching ranks, misnamed "education reform", has detonated a longstanding conflict about public education that today focuses on the evaluation of students and teachers, and the labor consequences of such evaluations for teachers.
Two interwoven issues have not yet been discussed in depth, although they are certainly mentioned. One refers to the hypothesis, a certainty for many, that no true assessment that contributes to a genuine education improvement will be possible without genuine decentralization and democratization of education, without real participation and without the empowerment of the education communities as a whole.
The other issue is the real diversity that exists in the country--and not only in the case of the indigenous peoples. This diversity requires us to recognize the definitive exhaustion of education's standard models: a single curriculum with its textbooks, and the stubborn defense of a centralized monopoly on the subject of education. It's not by chance that the current critique justly focuses its fire on the current standardized educational tests (ENLACE) as a possible core piece of the new model of education evaluation mandated by the law.
The other issue is the real diversity that exists in the country--and not only in the case of the indigenous peoples. This diversity requires us to recognize the definitive exhaustion of education's standard models: a single curriculum with its textbooks, and the stubborn defense of a centralized monopoly on the subject of education. It's not by chance that the current critique justly focuses its fire on the current standardized educational tests (ENLACE) as a possible core piece of the new model of education evaluation mandated by the law.
I will address these two issues from experience with a highly innovative indigenous school project. In the 1990's, a team of P'urhépecha teachers began their own program of bilingual, intercultural education based on their original culture and language. The schools of San Isidro and Uringuitiro on the P'urhépecha Meseta [highlands west of Pátzcuaro, Michoacán] began to teach reading and writing, mathematics and other subjects in the indigenous language, thus taking advantage of the strong ethno-linguistic vitality in the area. For more than ten years, they have relied on the accompaniment of an academic team of the UAM [Autonomous Metropolitan University] and UPN [National Pedagogical University]. Working together we developed a program, their own curriculum and a collaborative research experience.
Always tied to classroom practice, the program incorporates the latest scientific knowledge with elements of P'urhépecha culture and worldview that the teachers and communities considered relevant to be paid attention to in the school ....
As part of the work, we developed a battery of tests in both languages to assess learning; we administered the tests to all school students for several years. The tests may not have the technical quality of the ENLACE and EXCALE tests, but they were developed with the practical and theoretical wisdom of experienced teachers and the modern inputs of applied linguistics. They also have high statistical confidence (between 0.85 and 0.97 on Cronbach's alpha scale).
Test results demonstrate the validity of the model, and they confirm one of the most important hypotheses / assumptions in bilingual education: that literacy and teaching in the native language can lead to better results than "castellanización" [Spanish-ification] in the development of both language and curriculum content. They also refute the ingrained ideology of monolingualism and of castellanización that establishes Spanish as the only valid language for teaching.
Together we engaged in the long sessions of assessment and grading of tests. This allowed us to understand how students learned, and where their progress and deficiencies were. So we were evaluating the students while their teachers were evaluating themselves. It was not easy to raise the issue of inadequate education performance that were reflected in some results. But as we talked we managed to establish a basic collective confidence, and it was the team that exercised and controlled the process in all its phases. We were able to address deficiencies and seek remedies.
We lost the fear of tests and came to realize that they can provide valuable diagnostic and learning instruments. What matters is who designs them, who administers them and for what purpose, in order that they might have validity and, above all, legitimacy. Our evaluation work proved to us that the schools can develop an evaluation from the bottom up, when the tests are constituted as a project and rely on some advice. The most important thing is that they [teachers] take ownership of the instruments, make them their own and create the basis for trust and mutual respect. Assessment approaches one of the most fragile areas of any human system: it has directly to do with dignity, self-respect and the respect of others--all components of professional identity.
The experience of a local education project cannot be moved directly to the national level. However, the exhaustion of the prevailing model is indisputable; that is, of the vertical and authoritarian imposition of public policies defined by tiny groups of power that lack legitimacy and act behind the nation's back.
The experience of a local education project cannot be moved directly to the national level. However, the exhaustion of the prevailing model is indisputable; that is, of the vertical and authoritarian imposition of public policies defined by tiny groups of power that lack legitimacy and act behind the nation's back.
Faced with a partially failed basic education project, particularly in indigenous education, many local and diverse projects have emerged grounded in committees of self-defense for the educational rights of a defenseless population. There are hundreds of rich and creative experiences that could, and should, be the germ of a new education, including evaluation.
It is in this context that the National Institute for Educational Evaluation (INEE) will have to undertake its task of designing and implementing new systems and evaluation approaches. Given the very respectable composition of its new board of directors, I want to think that it is very clear that little would be served by designing a system, however perfect it may be technically, from the top. The INEE would do well to make contact with a group of local education projects that are working to improve education.
It is in this context that the National Institute for Educational Evaluation (INEE) will have to undertake its task of designing and implementing new systems and evaluation approaches. Given the very respectable composition of its new board of directors, I want to think that it is very clear that little would be served by designing a system, however perfect it may be technically, from the top. The INEE would do well to make contact with a group of local education projects that are working to improve education.
In P'urhépecha communities, the term "t'arhexperakua" means to evolve or grow together (-kua). It refers to a view that we are able to proceed on our road in a collectivity that respects itself and collaborates. It is the name the P'urhepecha teachers gave to their school project. May it be the vision of "t'arhexperakua" and not of the authoritarian cudgel that might guide the transformation of education and its evaluation. Spanish original
*Rainier Enrique Hamel is a professor of linguistics in the Department of Anthropology at the Autonomous Metropolitan University. He earned the PhD in Philology (Historical Linguistics) from the University of Frankfurt. Dr. Hamel's research topics include: bilingualism, language conflict, language shift and maintenance, bilingual education, second language acquisition and teaching, plurilingualism and pluriculturalism, language policy and globalization, language policy in science and higher education, language use, verbal interaction and power relations in institutions.