Translated by Ruby Izar-Shea
In its report on its analysis of the 2014 public accounts, the Superior Auditor of the Federation (ASF) points out that neither the Secretariat of Public Education (SEP) nor the National Institute for Educational Evaluation (INEE) met the objective of using the results of evaluations of the quality of basic education, which involved students, teachers and schools [K-9], to make decisions and define guidelines or programs in that sector. What’s more, the auditing agency highlights that this omission by the education authorities made it impossible to make visible short and medium term improvements in the quality of public education.
It’s important to remember that according to the promoters of said reform, teacher evaluations would be the touchstone and compass from which public policy actions that would contribute to raising the quality of education would be defined. However, judging from the ASF findings, it can be concluded that the country’s education has been navigated, in the last two years, with disrupted navigation instruments.
The lack of connection between the reform’s stellar mechanism and reality crystallizes, among other things, in inconsistencies like the fact that the INEE has published a dozen policy documents and criteria for the process of admission to and promotion within the Professional Teacher Service, but has not issued the corresponding processes for recognition and job permanence in the system, according to the regulatory agency which is an arm of the Chamber of Deputies.
It is, in short, the latest setback for an evaluation model that has not only shown its punitive character but has also been used to illegally introduce administrative and labor standards into an alleged education policy. It’s also now evident that the authorities charged with its implementation and public defense have not used it to define concrete actions.
Moreover, the extensive criticism against teacher evaluations has not stopped practically since it was approved in 2013 by the de facto parliamentary coalition known as Pact for Mexico (PRI-PAN-PRD). Last Thursday, with a letter signed by more than 7,000 scholars and teachers, the Mexican Council of Educational Research asked the head of Public Education, Aurelio Nuño, to change the course of teacher evaluations because it considers that this tool, aside from being punitive, is also flawed and unreliable.
It’s important to remember that according to the promoters of said reform, teacher evaluations would be the touchstone and compass from which public policy actions that would contribute to raising the quality of education would be defined. However, judging from the ASF findings, it can be concluded that the country’s education has been navigated, in the last two years, with disrupted navigation instruments.
The lack of connection between the reform’s stellar mechanism and reality crystallizes, among other things, in inconsistencies like the fact that the INEE has published a dozen policy documents and criteria for the process of admission to and promotion within the Professional Teacher Service, but has not issued the corresponding processes for recognition and job permanence in the system, according to the regulatory agency which is an arm of the Chamber of Deputies.
It is, in short, the latest setback for an evaluation model that has not only shown its punitive character but has also been used to illegally introduce administrative and labor standards into an alleged education policy. It’s also now evident that the authorities charged with its implementation and public defense have not used it to define concrete actions.
Moreover, the extensive criticism against teacher evaluations has not stopped practically since it was approved in 2013 by the de facto parliamentary coalition known as Pact for Mexico (PRI-PAN-PRD). Last Thursday, with a letter signed by more than 7,000 scholars and teachers, the Mexican Council of Educational Research asked the head of Public Education, Aurelio Nuño, to change the course of teacher evaluations because it considers that this tool, aside from being punitive, is also flawed and unreliable.
Faced with these accusations, it seems incomprehensible that the authorities are still determined to announce tomorrow the results of teacher assessments done in the last two months of last year. Especially when academics and the auditing agency itself have identified critical points and inconsistencies in the teacher evaluations. The announcement that results will be published on Monday loses strictly educational relevance and becomes, instead, a factor of uneasiness, anxiety and a political threat for thousands of teachers. It’s imperative to question what arguments will be used to justify dismissals or sanctions arising from this evaluation process, when the mechanism in general suffers from cracks, design errors, lack of credibility in the academic community and discredit in the teaching world.
It is desirable and necessary that officials responsible for implementing the key aspects of the educational reform focus on clarifying and resolving its unclear areas before insisting on its progress. Moreover, it’s noteworthy that business groups [Mexicans First] that launched and maintain lynching campaigns against groups of teachers who have mobilized for years to oppose the reform do not also criticize the reform’s enormous shortcomings. Such an attitude is not, of course, consistent with their alleged interest in raising the quality of education in the country. Spanish original