International Development ISSN 1470-2320

Prizewinning Dissertation 2014

No.14-AK

Intercultural Bilingual Education

The role of participation in improving the quality of education among indigenous communities in Chiapas, Mexico

Anni Kasari

Published: June 2015

Department of International Development

London School of Economics and Political Science

Houghton Street Tel: +44 (020) 7955 7425/6252

London Fax: +44 (020) 7955-6844

WC2A 2AE UK Email: d.daley@lse.ac.uk

Website: http://www.lse.ac.uk/internationalDevelopment/home.aspx

DV410 Page 1 of 65 24411

CandidateNumber:24411

MScinDevelopmentManagement2014Dissertationsubmittedinpartialfulfilmentoftherequirementsofthe

degree

InterculturalBilingualEducation:theroleofparticipationin

improvingthequalityofeducationamongindigenouscommunitiesinChiapas,Mexico

WordCount:9,989               

DV410 Page 2 of 65 24411

AbstractIntercultural bilingual education promises to provide culturally andlinguisticallypertinenteducationtomarginalisedindigenouscommunitiesin Mexico. However, legislative advances have not improved academicoutcomes among indigenous students. This dissertation goes beyondproximate causes of academic failure to investigate the link betweenparticipation and educational quality. It finds that despite the officialrhetoric, indigenous communities remain excluded from the design anddelivery of education, resulting in a decontextualised learning processwhereschoolsreproducethecoercivepowerrelationspresentinthewidersociety.Itarguesthatimprovingeducationalqualityrequirestransformingthose power asymmetries by increasing community participation at alllevels.

DV410 Page 3 of 65 24411

TableofContents

1.INTRODUCTION 71.1Background 71.2ResearchQuestions 91.3Justification 91.4Structure 10

2. LITERATUREREVIEW 112.1Conceptualunderpinnings 112.1.1Theoreticalgrounding 112.1.2Interculturalism 122.1.3IBEasparticipation 122.1.4DefiningQuality 14

2.2.Towardsaconceptualframework 152.2.1Ladderofparticipation 152.2.2Themissinglinkbetweenparticipationandquality 18

3.METHODOLOGY 213.1Methodologyandresearchdesign 213.2Limitations 21

4.IBEINMEXICO 234.1IndigenouseducationinMexico 234.2FindingsI:Literature 244.2.1Decision‐making 244.2.2Curriculumcontent 264.2.3Indigenouslanguage 274.2.4Pedagogy 284.2.5Materials 284.2.6Qualityofeducation 29

4.3FindingsII:Interviews 314.3.1Decision‐making 314.3.2Curriculumcontent 334.3.3Indigenouslanguage 344.3.4Pedagogy 354.3.5Materials 354.3.6Qualityofeducation 36

5.DISCUSSION 39Moreparticipation,betterqualityeducation? 39

6.CONCLUSION 43

BIBLIOGRAPHY 45

APPENDICES 54

ListofFiguresFigure1:MapofChiapas 6Figure2:Ladderofparticipation 17Figure3:FrameworkforempoweringIBE 20

DV410 Page 4 of 65 24411

AcronymsCGEIB GeneralCoordinationofInterculturalBilingualEducation

DGEI GeneralDirectionofIndigenousEducation

Ecidea IndigenousCommunityEducationforAutonomous

Development

EZLN ZapatistaNationalLiberationArmy

IBE InterculturalBilingualEducation

INEE NationalInstituteofEducationalEvaluation

INEGI NationalInstituteofStatisticsandGeography

PISA ProgrammeforInternationalStudentAssessment

SEP SecretaryofPublicEducation

SNTE MexicanNationalEducationalWorkersUnion

UNEM Teachers’UnionoftheNewEducationforMexico

DV410 Page 5 of 65 24411

“Nopedagogywhichistrulyliberatingcanremaindistantfromtheoppressedbytreatingthemasunfortunatesandbypresentingfortheiremulationmodelsfromamongtheoppressors.Theoppressedmustbetheirown

exampleinthestrugglefortheirredemption.”

‐PauloFreire,‘PedagogyoftheOppressed’(1970:54)

DV410 Page 6 of 65 24411

Figure1:MapofChiapas

Source:Rus,HernándezandMattiace(2003:5)

DV410 Page 7 of 65 24411

1.INTRODUCTION

1.1BackgroundIndigenouspeopleconstitute thepoorest segmentofMexican societyand

suffer the highest rates of marginalisation in both socioeconomic and

educationalterms.Around75percentofindigenouspeopleinMexicolive

in poverty, while the corresponding number for the non‐indigenous

population is around 50 per cent (Garcia‐Moreno and Patrinos 2011). In

theschoolyear2009‐2010,7.3percentofindigenousstudentsrepeateda

gradeattheprimarylevelcomparedtoanationalrateof3.5percent(DGEI

2011).InthestateofChiapas,whichhasoneofthehighestconcentrations

ofindigenouspeopleinthecountry1,roughlyoneinsix215to24‐year‐olds

cannotreadorwrite3(INEGI2005).

 

Since the turn of the millennium, indigenous children have been

guaranteed the right to receive basic education4in their mother tongue

within the parameters of the Intercultural Bilingual Education (IBE)

framework.Ratherthanamerepedagogicalmodel,IBEseekstoreposition

theindigenousandmestizo5culturesonanequalplayingfieldandpromote

mutual respect and understanding of the other (CGEIB 2004), thus

addressingtheinequalitywhichhaspermeatedMexicosincecolonialtimes.

However, despite advances in legislation and educational policy, the

academicoutcomesofindigenousstudentsremainfarbehindthoseoftheir

non‐indigenous counterparts (PNUD 2013). In Chiapas, the educational

1The number varies depending on the identification criteria used. According to INEGI(2005), 29.1%of thepopulationof Chiapasbelongs to indigenoushouseholds, i.e. thosewhere at least one of the parents speaks an indigenous language. Rockwell and Gomes(2009) argue that the indeterminancy of the denomination reflects the negation orreificationofethnicidentities,asindigenouspeopleremainstatisticallyinvisibleiftheydonotspeakanindigenouslanguage.217.3%3Inanylanguage.4Preschoolandprimarylevels.5ApersonofmixedEuropeanandNativeAmericanancestry.

DV410 Page 8 of 65 24411

achievement gap between indigenous and non‐indigenous students is 30

percentagepoints(Ibid).

This studygoesbeyondstandardised test results toanalyse the failureof

IBE to deliver quality education from a participatory angle. Citizen

participationindecision‐makingprocessesisintendedtoleadtoimproved

publicservicedeliveryandtheempowermentofpoorpeople throughthe

creationofvoiceandagency,yetempiricalevidenceismixed(Mansuriand

Rao2004;Banerjeeetal.2006).Inthispaper,participationisonlyassumed

to lead to citizen empowerment if it is true collaboration rather than

tokenisticconsultation(Burfordetal.2012).At itsbest,participationwill

result in equal representation of indigenous communities and their

worldview in the design and delivery of IBE, or the perpetuation of

asymmetricpowerrelationsattheotherextreme.

Using a novel conceptual framework, the extent of participation is

measuredwithregardstoindigenousinvolvementindecision‐makingand

the inclusion of their culture and language in the curriculum, classroom

language,pedagogyandeducationalmaterials.Subsequently,aconceptual

link between participation and educational quality is established and

analysed.Qualityofeducationisunderstoodtoencompassbothacademic

and affective outcomes, i.e. the affirmation of one’s cultural identity and

attitude towards schooling (Cummins 1979; Leonard et al. 2004). The

inferencesaredrawnfromaliteraturereviewofthetopic,whichisfurther

supportedbydata froma seriesof semi‐structured interviews conducted

witharangeofstakeholdersinChiapasandMexicoCityinJulyandAugust

2014.

DV410 Page 9 of 65 24411

1.2ResearchQuestionsThisdissertationisguidedbytwoquestions:

1. TowhatextentdoesInterculturalBilingualEducationallowforthe

participationofindigenouscommunitiesinMexico?

2. Canmorecommunityparticipationresultinbetterqualitybasic

educationforindigenouschildren?

1.3JustificationQualityofeducationisatopicalissueforstudyasinternationally,thefocus

isshiftingfromensuringuniversalaccesstoimprovinglearningoutcomes

intheclassroom(UNICEF2013;UNESCO2014).Educationremainsoneof

thekey‘unfinishedbusinesses’oftheMillenniumDevelopmentGoalsandis

acoreaspecttobeaddressedinthepost‐2015framework(UNICEF2013).

Likewise, community participation is increasingly perceived as crucial to

achievingbetterdevelopmentoutcomes(Banerjeeetal.2006). Inmiddle‐

incomecountries, reducing inequalityandsupportingminoritiesare seen

as key to achieving social inclusion, stability and growth (World Bank

2014;IFAD2014).

IBE as an educational paradigm has received a substantial amount of

attentioninacademicliterature,especiallyamongLatinAmericanscholars.

Researchhasfocusedparticularlyonproximatecausesofpooreducational

attainment(McEwanandTrowbridge2007;WorldBank2005;Fernández

2003),complementedbyethnographicstudiesofindigenousstudents’and

teachers’experiencesofIBE(VelascoandGarcía2012;PérezPérez2012).

Althoughstudiesregardingthedifferencesbetweentop‐downandbottom‐

upIBEinitiativesacrossLatinAmericaexist,thereisascarcityofresearch

focusing specifically on the participatory aspect of state‐led IBE and the

potentialofcommunity involvementtoimproveeducationaloutcomes.As

Cortina(2014:5)states, ‘themost importantelementfortheexpansionof

DV410 Page 10 of 65 24411

EIB is community engagement, the possibility that the community will

participateactivelyintheeducationoftheirchildren’.

This study adds to existing literature by constructing a conceptual

framework to gauge the extent to which community participation is

allowed, and subsequently seeks to initiate discussion on improving the

qualityofeducationthrough increasedparticipation.Theaimhasbeento

includetheviewsofstakeholdersfromavarietyofsectorsinordertogain

an all‐round view of the perceptions of both indigenous community

representatives and policy‐makers, something that few previous studies

havedone.

1.4Structure This paper has six chapters. The first chapter sets the context and

introduces the research questions. Chapter 2 reviews literature to

constructaconceptualframework,whichwillbeusedtoanalysetheextent

of participation aswell as the link between community participation and

educationalquality.Chapter3details themethodologyused.Anoverview

of indigenous education is given in chapter 4, followed by the research

findingswhicharepresented in twoparts: first, secondaryevidence from

literature, followed by the findings of the semi‐structured interviews.

Theseareanalysedinchapter5.Finally,chapter6concludes.

DV410 Page 11 of 65 24411

2. LITERATUREREVIEW

Thischapteranalyseskeyacademicliteraturetoreviewmainconcepts,and

subsequentlyintroducesaconceptualframeworkwithinwhichthefindings

ofthestudyshallbeanalysed.

2.1ConceptualunderpinningsThis section provides a conceptual grounding for analysing IBE. It is

divided into four parts: section 2.1.1 explains the theoretical

underpinnings,2.1.2introducestheconceptofinterculturalism,2.1.3links

theconceptsofparticipationandIBE,andfinallysection2.1.4discussesthe

qualityofeducationasaconcept.

2.1.1TheoreticalgroundingThisstudyisinformedbyacriticalviewofinterculturalism(Gasché2008),

taking the recognition of asymmetric power relations in post‐colonial

societies as a necessary starting point for analysis. Conceptually, critical

IBE is grounded in postcolonial theory, which departs from the premise

that colonial dominance was not based merely on power but also on

knowledge(Said1978).Themanydebateswithinpostcolonialtheoryshall

not be explored here, but what is of importance is that postcolonialism

problematizes the power relations through which the legitimisation of

Western knowledge occurs, positioning it as universal whilst reducing

other knowledge systems to superstition, folklore or mythology (C.

McEwan2008;Sharp2009).

Althoughthereareargumentsagainst thevalueofpostcolonial theory for

solving practical development issues (Goss 1996), it can nevertheless

provide a useful conceptual point of departure for analysing the power

relations embedded in the legitimisation and dissemination of Western

knowledgeandworldviewthroughthestateeducationsystem.Therefore,

DV410 Page 12 of 65 24411

the research also draws on critical pedagogy (Giroux 1997), viewing the

schoolasapoliticalconstructratherthananeutralsiteforinstruction.

2.1.2InterculturalismInterculturalism as a concept is contested and does not have one

universallyagreedupondefinition.AccordingtotheGeneralCoordination

of Intercultural Bilingual Education (CGEIB 2004:42), interculturalism

referstoarelationshipbetweencultures,whichis ‘constructedfromalevel

playing field and on equal terms between the interacting cultures.

Conceptually, it denies the existence of asymmetries deriving from power

relations; instead, itadmits that diversity isapotential richness’6. Aikman

(1998) states that the ideal of IBE is the dissolution of dichotomies

between cultural groups, constructive dialogue, cultural recognition and

preservation, and the strengthening of democracy. Thus, IBE must be

viewednotonlyasapedagogicalbutalsoapoliticalchallengefortheequal

participationofindigenouspeopleinsociety.

2.1.3.IBEasparticipationCommunity‐based and –driven approaches that include the poor not as

passive recipients but informed participants are proliferating in the

development sector in general (Mansuri and Rao 2004). Involving the

community in decision‐making intends several benefits: smoother

implementationofpolicies(IrvinandStansbury2004);theempowerment

of poor people; facilitated collective action; and fostering demand‐driven

projectsthatcanmakeadifference(Banerjeeetal.2006).Participationis

arguedtobeparticularlydesirable insituationsofhorizontal inequalities,

i.e. inequalities between culturally constructed groups rather than

individuals (Stewart 2002). However, the empirical evidence onwhether

increasedcommunityparticipationleadstomoredevelopmentaloutcomes

ismixed(MansuriandRao2004).

6Translationsaremyownunlessotherwiseindicated.

DV410 Page 13 of 65 24411

Participationasaconceptisnotneutral:Slocumetal.(1995)highlightthat

participationdoesnot necessarily imply transforming the statusquo, but

can equally be controlled by outsiders tomaintain it – somethingwhich

Aikman(1998) termsparticipationasconsentorparticipationascontrol.

Theformof interculturalismthat isproducedthroughthesetwodifferent

ways of participating can either be unequal interculturalism, which

assumesarelationshipofdependencybetweenthemestizoandindigenous

communities; or equal interculturalism, implying a transformation of

powerandcontrol(Aikman1997).Forparticipationtobemeaningful,the

voiceoftheindigenouscommunitymustbeconsideredequaltothatofthe

mainstream. As Arnstein (1969:216) asserts, ‘participation without

redistribution of power is an empty and frustrating process for the

powerless’.

Mosse (2001) points to a further conceptual and operational issue with

definingtheterm‘community’–hearguesthatparticipatoryprojectstend

toviewthe‘community’asahomogeneousgroup,ignoringinternalpower

struggles which may exclude the most marginalised. Finally, increased

participation of the subaltern7may lead to conflict and feelings of

insecurityinbothindigenousandgovernmentstakeholdersasasymmetric

powerrelationsarechallenged(Sichra2002).

Inviewofthesedebates, thisstudyseekstoestablishtheextenttowhich

equal interculturalism is currently promoted in the design and

implementation of basic Intercultural Bilingual Education through

participatoryprocesses,understoodhereasthedevolutionofrealcontrol

to indigenous stakeholders, whether it is parents, sabios8 or other

indigenous representatives. This leads to the first research question: to

what extent does Intercultural Bilingual Education allow for the

participationofindigenouscommunitiesinMexico?

7Subalternreferstomarginalisedpeople,suchasindigenouscommunities(Sharp2009).8Indigenouswiseman

DV410 Page 14 of 65 24411

2.1.4DefiningQualityAs Edwards (1991) states, the quality of education cannot be neutrally

definedbutisalwaysacontext‐specificandrelativeconcept,whichcarries

a political, social and cultural positioning. Hamel (2009) distinguishes

betweenqualityviewed from theneoliberal andhumanisticperspectives.

In the former, quality is understood as effectiveness and efficiency;

measuredbyuniversalaccess,achievingtherequiredstandardoflearning

for each level, reduced grade repetition, resource efficiency, and labour

market relevancy (Ibid). It follows that both worldwide and in Mexico,

therehasbeenan increasing focusonmeasuring thequalityof schooling

throughnationalandinternationalassessments,suchasPISA(Álvarezetal.

2007). The assumption is that ‘an education system that is based on

constant assessment and participation in international benchmarking

exerciseswillimproveitseffectiveness’(Idem:2).

The humanistic perspective does not reject the values of efficiency and

effectiveness, but considers that quality is also inherently linked to the

equity, diversity, justice, relevance and pertinence of education (Hamel

2009). Thus, interpreting quality through standardised measures of

students’ cognitiveachievement is insufficient– instead,emphasis should

alsobeplacedonaffectiveoutcomes,i.e.thoserelatedtostudents’identity,

behaviourandattitudetoschool(KnuverandBrandsma1993;Leonardet

al. 2004). This view of education as a process of human interaction is

developed furtherbySchmelkes (1994)andCummins (2000),whoargue

that thequality of schooling is essentially a functionof the quality of the

relationshipsbetweenstudents,parentsandteachers.

This paper adopts the latter position, arguing that quality cannot be

reduced to measuring academic outcomes through standardised test

results only. The second research question ‐ can more community

participationresultinbetterqualitybasiceducationforindigenouschildren

– is therefore two‐fold, with quality referring to the extent to which the

DV410 Page 15 of 65 24411

school environmentpromotes academic achievement aswell as students’

self‐worthandidentity.

2.2.TowardsaconceptualframeworkThissectionpresentsaconceptualframeworklinkingparticipationandthe

quality of IBE. Subsection 2.2.1 introduces the ladder of participation, a

framework for gauging the extent to which participation of indigenous

communities is encouraged within IBE. Section 2.2.2 establishes a

conceptuallinkbetweenparticipationandeducationalquality.

2.2.1LadderofparticipationAs theprevious sectionhighlighted,participationcan functionas consent

or control of indigenous people. Drawing on Arnstein’s (1969) ladder of

participation,Burfordetal.(2012)developathree‐dimensionalframework

formeasuringtheextentofindigenousparticipationinIBE,understoodas

a continuum ranging from tokenistic consultation (consent) to real

collaboration(control).Theirframeworkconsistsof(1)depth,or ‘ladder’,

of participation,measured by indigenous curriculum content and control

overdecision‐making;(2)breadth(diversityofstakeholders)and(3)scope

of participation (number of key stages where stakeholders participate).

Potential stakeholders may include policymakers, implementers,

beneficiaries,andcivilsociety(Ibid).

Althoughtheframeworkisausefulconceptualtoolforanalysingtheextent

of participation, its application proves challenging in certain aspects.

Firstly,consideringthedepthofparticipation,thedefinitionsprovidedfor

eachstep lackprecision, leavingconsiderableambiguitywhichallowsthe

potential matching of one piece of evidence with multiple categories.

Secondly, as the authors acknowledge (Idem: 7), identifying the different

categories of stakeholders participating in any given stage is practically

impossible due to the existence of individuals who take on a number of

stakeholder roles simultaneously – e.g. as a teacher and member of an

indigenous community. Finally, identifying all of the key stages where

DV410 Page 16 of 65 24411

participation occurs (scope) is difficult when analysing the design and

implementation of state‐ and federal‐level policies that are characterised

bymultipleactorscollaboratinginvariousforasimultaneously.

Dueto these theoreticalandpractical limitations, themainanalytical tool

thatwill be usedhere is the ‘ladder of participation’. It has beendefined

and expanded by adding the linguistic‐cultural aims and the role of the

mothertongueindifferentIBEparadigms(López2009;forLópez’soriginal

framework,seeAppendix7).Thenewframeworkhasbeencolour‐codedto

demonstrate how the different authors’ contributions have been fitted

togethertocreateanewladder:Burfordetal.’soriginaldefinitionsare in

green and López’s contributions in blue. The red text denotes any gaps

identified, which were subsequently filled to arrive at a comprehensive

framework (for theoriginal ladder, seeAppendix 5). For the purposes of

thestudyhere, the first twostepsof theoriginal ladder (denigrationand

neglect) have been left out, as the official endorsement of IBE by the

MexicanSecretaryofPublicEducation(SEP)clearlyindicatesatleastsome

levelofacknowledgement.

The original two indicators of participation (curriculum content and

decision‐making) have been complemented by another three: (1)

pedagogy, referring to the extent towhich themethodology teachers are

trained in and subsequently implement in the classroom reflects

indigenouswaysoflearningandteaching;(2)materials(e.g.textbooks),as

indigenousparticipationintheirdesignisassumedtoleadtomaterials in

indigenous languageswith culturally relevant content; and finally (3) the

roleof indigenous language,whetherusedasa languageof instruction in

the classroom or reduced to a mere subject of study. The additional

indicators allow for a more comprehensive analysis of whether the

educational system treats cultural diversity as a resource, or whether

alternativeworldviewsandwaysofteachingandlearningareconsidereda

problemtobeeradicated.

DV410 Page 17 of 65 24411

Figure2:Ladderofparticipation

Level Decision‐making Curriculumcontent Indigenouslanguage(IL)

Pedagogy Materials

Level4Fullpartnership–‘learningasone’

Fullycollaborative;incorporateslocalstakeholdersoutsidetheformalsector.Opportunitiesforcollectivesocialactionarecreated.The‘usandthem’mindsetisdissolved,fosteringasenseofcommonhumanityandsharedresponsibility.

NewknowledgeisgeneratedattheintersectionofindigenousandWesternknowledge.

Bilingual/multilingualcurriculumforthewholeeducationsystem.ILsassubjectsandmediaofinstruction.Spanishaslanguageofinterculturalcommunication.

IndigenousandWesternpedagogicapproachesareequallyrepresented.

Materialsarewritteninindigenouslanguages,accountingforlocallinguisticvarieties,withculturallyrelevantcontent.

Level3Interculturality–‘learningtogether’

Collaborativedecision‐makingandanawarenessoflearningtogethertowardssharedgoals.Thedichotomybetweenindigenousandnon‐indigenous(the‘usandthem’mindset)isstillmaintained.

Theinherentequalityofdifferentknowledgesystemsisacknowledged(integrationofIndigenousandWesternknowledge).

Bilingualcurriculum.ILsassubjectsandmediaofinstruction.

IndigenousandWesternpedagogicapproachesareequallyrepresented.

Materialsarewritteninindigenouslanguagesandtheircontentisculturallyrelevant.

Level2Engagement–‘learningfrom’

Limitedindigenousinvolvementindecision‐making,e.g.byteacherswhoarealsolocalcommunitymembers.

Themeritsofindigenousknowledgeareemphasised,butnon‐indigenousapproachesstilldominatecurricula,andtheirsuperiorityisassumed.

Spanishcurriculum(exceptforlearningIL).Spanishasmediaofinstruction.

Mainstream pedagogicapproachesdominate.

MaterialstranslatedintokeyindigenouslanguagesfromSpanishwithmainstreamcontent.

Level1Acknowledgement–‘learningabout’

Indigenousinvolvementindecision‐makingisverylimitedornon‐existent.

Indigenousknowledgeisdescribedinformalcurricula,usuallybyoutsiders;assumeshomogeneityorreinforcesdiscoursesoftraditionalism.

Spanishcurriculumimplementation(exceptforlearningIL).Spanishasmediaofinstruction.

Mainstreampedagogicapproachesonly.

MaterialsprovidedinSpanishwithmainstreamcontent.

AdaptedfromBurfordetal.(2012)andLópez(2009)

DV410 Page 18 of 65 24411

2.2.2Themissinglinkbetweenparticipationandquality

Althoughparticipationcanbeconsideredtohaveintrinsicvalue,thisstudy

focusesonwhetherincreasedcommunityinvolvementhasthepotentialto

result in better quality basic education for indigenous children. Recent

researchisbeginningtoaddressthisissue,yetfewtheoreticalexplanations

exist regarding the mechanisms through which participation may affect

students’academicandaffectiveoutcomes.Callsforincreasingschool‐level

accountability and giving parents a greater role in school management

(Brunsetal.2011)arenarrowlyfocusedontheefficiencyandeffectiveness

variables; treating the problems of poor quality schooling as technical

rather than political. Therefore, they critically ignore the need to pay

attention to unequal power relations and the potential of community

empowermenttoaffectstudents’learning.

Cummins(2000)establishesalinkbetweenasymmetricpowerrelationsin

thewidersocietyandbilingualstudents’educationaloutcomes.Heargues

thatcoercivepowerrelationsbetweenthestateandsubalterncommunities

influence both teacher attitudes and expectations and the type of

educationalstructuresthatareestablished,andthattheseinturncondition

the relationships between educators, students and communities. These

micro‐interactionsdeterminestudents’academicsuccessorfailure,either

reinforcing or challenging the societal status quo, and thus empower or

disempowerculturallydiversestudents.

Cummins demonstrates that the pedagogic and socio‐political aspects of

IBEarefundamentallyinterrelated,implyinganeedtogobeyondtherealm

oftheclassroomtofind,andsubsequentlyreverse,thecausesbehindpoor

academic outcomes. However, the extent of community participation is

presentedasaneducationalstructureproducedbysocietalpowerrelations

atthetopwithnocapacitytoinfluenceoutcomes.Thisisinclearcontrast

withtheliteraturediscussedearlier,whichmaintainsthatparticipationcan

leadtoimprovedservicedelivery(MansuriandRao2004).

DV410 Page 19 of 65 24411

Figure3presentsanadapted frameworkwhichconsiders thecommunity

as a key factor influencing educational quality. Following the original

framework, participation depends on the extent to which established

structuresandteacherattitudesallowforcommunityinvolvement–yetin

the new version the interaction between community participation and

educational structures is seenasbidirectional.This ideadrawsonearlier

workbyCummins(1979),inwhichhesuggeststhattheestablishmentofa

particular educational program can influence a community’s attitudes in

relationtolinguisticissuessuchasfirstlanguagemaintenance,notjustvice

versa.

Theadaptedframeworkdemonstrateshowcommunityinvolvementinthe

design of IBE can improvemarginalised students’ academic and affective

outcomesby increasing theculturaland linguistic relevancyofeducation.

Thisincreasedrelevancycanbemanifestedthroughthestructuresdetailed

intheprevioussection(2.2.1):theincorporationofstudents’languageand

culture into the curriculum, educational materials and pedagogy. The

importanceofculturalrelevancyishighlightedbyMorris(1971:162),who

argues that minority language children do poorly in reading

comprehension not because they cannot decode or reproduce the word,

but because the word ‘fails to trigger anything because the concepts it

representstousandtotheauthorsimplydonotexistforthechild,orthey

exist in a limited vague form’9. Thus, creating empowering academic and

affective outcomes requires involving the community in the design of

culturally relevant educational content and practices which depart from

thecontextinwhichthechildrenlive.

9Italicsinoriginal.

DV410 Page 20 of 65 24411

Figure3:FrameworkforempoweringIBE

AdaptedfromCummins(2000:46).Theaddedcontributionsaremarkedinred.Forthe

original,seeAppendix6.

DV410 Page 21 of 65 24411

3.METHODOLOGY

This sectionoutlines the researchdesignused in the studyanddiscusses

thelimitationsandethicalissuesinvolved.

3.1MethodologyandresearchdesignQualitativemethodologywasadopted for the studyas it is deemed tobe

particularly appropriate for researching vulnerable populations such as

indigenous people (Daly 1992). According to Hesse‐Biber and Leavy

(2005:28),qualitativeresearchallowshearingthevoicesofthosewhoare

‘silenced,othered,andmarginalizedbythedominantsocialorder’.

The researchdesign involved a reviewof the academic literatureon IBE,

followed by 15 semi‐structured interviews with indigenous and

government representatives (see Appendix 1 for a full list). Two sets of

questionnairesweredesignedforthedifferentgroupsofrespondents(see

Appendix 2). These were applied over a period of two weeks in three

locations in Chiapas and a further two weeks in Mexico City. Semi‐

structured interviews were chosen due to their flexibility, making it

possible to interviewavarietyof stakeholderswithdifferent experiences

andbackgroundsasthequestionsetcouldbemodified(Walliman2005).

Astheinterviewspotentiallyinvolvedcriticismofgovernmentpolicies,the

respondents were given the option of remaining anonymous. All

intervieweesreadandsignedaninformationsheetandaconsentform.An

English version of the original Spanish documents can be found in

Appendix3.Transcriptsareavailableuponrequest.

3.2LimitationsTheintervieweeswerecontactedthroughsnowballingmethodologydueto

thedifficult‐to‐reachnatureof thecommunities inquestion(Liamputtong

DV410 Page 22 of 65 24411

2007),whichlimitstherobustnessofthefindings.Accesstothesegroupsis

challengingtoarrangeandthusthesampleofrespondents is toosmall to

infer statistically significant results. However, the answers obtained

providesomesupport fortheconclusionsdrawnfromliteratureandseek

to illustrate similarities and differences between the views of indigenous

andgovernmentrepresentatives.

Asignificantchallengewasposedbythetimingoftheresearchduringthe

summer holiday period; although officially the school year does not end

until15July,inpracticealltheschoolsintheareahadfinishedteachingby

the time the research commenced on 1 July. This meant that classroom

observationswerenotpossible.Methodologicaltriangulationoremploying

more methods for data collection could have resulted in more reliable

results(Golafshani2003).

Anotherlimitationwaspresentedbythefactthatdespiteseveralattempts,

interviews with students’ parents could not be arranged. Anderson and

Hatton (2000) explain that some vulnerable people may not be able to

participateinresearchduetopressingsocioeconomicneeds.Additionally,

manyoftheteachersinterviewedwereorhadbeeninvolvedininnovative

projects concerned with improving the quality of education and thus

cannotbe considered to represent themajorityof indigenous teachers in

Chiapas.

During the research I was conscious of my position as a subjective

researcher. The answers given by the interviewees may have been

influencedbythefactthatIamawhite,Westernoutsider.Foracritiqueon

researchingandrepresentingnon‐Westernpeople,seeSpivak(1994).Itis

alsorecognisedherethatthereareethicalissueswithstudyingindigenous

communities when the outputs are going to be disseminated among the

academiccommunityandunlikelytobeaccessibletotheresearchsubjects

(Liamputtong2007).

DV410 Page 23 of 65 24411

4.IBEINMEXICO

This section gives a brief overview of the development of indigenous

educationinMexicoandsetsthepolicycontext.

4.1IndigenouseducationinMexicoEarly nation‐building ideologies in Mexico sought to affirm the

monolingual‐monocultural character of the nation‐state, first through the

exclusion of indigenous people from state education and later through

assimilation (López 2009). Despite the project of mestizaje, aimed at

virtuallyforcedculturalintegration(CastroandSmith2011),Mexicotoday

has the largest indigenous population in Latin America, comprising 68

linguistic groups which can be further subdivided into 364 linguistic

dialectsandvarieties(SEP2009).

Assimilatory education with Spanish‐only instruction led indigenous

childrentocontinuouslyrepeatgradesorfailcompletely(López2009).As

a response to these challenges,Mexico introduced bilingual education in

the1940s,oneofthefirstcountriesinLatinAmericatodoso.Theofficial

aim of the new paradigm was the Spanishization, evangelisation and

civilisationofindigenouspeoples(López2014).Inthe1970s,thebilingual

bicultural approach was adopted with an emphasis also on indigenous

culture(Schmelkes2006a).

Theseparadigmaticchangesineducationmustbeseenwithinthebroader

contextofindigenous‐staterelations.The1970smarkedthe‘returnofthe

Indian’ (Albó1991)with indigenousmovementsbeginning to recall their

rights throughout Latin America. In Mexico, this culminated in the 1994

rebellion of Mayan Zapatista rebels in Chiapas, calling for rights and

recognitionfortheindigenouspeople(EZLN1993).Sincetheearly1990s,

several legislative reforms have been passed to officially endorse

DV410 Page 24 of 65 24411

interculturalism.Mexicoreformeditsconstitutionin1992toacknowledge

themulticulturalnatureof thestate,guaranteeing therightof indigenous

people to ‘preserve and enrich their languages, knowledge and all the

elementsthatconstitutetheircultureandidentity’(MexicanConstitutionof

28.1.1992).

The General Directorate of Indigenous Education (DGEI) was founded in

1978‐9 as subsystemof the Secretary of Public Education (SEP), but IBE

was not officially embraced until 1997when itwas first adopted for the

indigenous population at the primary level (Schmelkes 2006a). The

creation of CGEIB in 2001 broadened interculturalism to encompass the

educationsystemaswhole(Schmelkes2004).ConsideringthatIBEisonly

offered at the primary level, students are expected to gain an adequate

level of literacy in both their native language and Spanish before

transitioningintoSpanish‐onlysecondaryeducation.Thisisinspiteofthe

factthattheLawonIndigenousLanguageRightsof2003grantstherightto

receivebilingualeducationatalllevels(Ibid).

4.2FindingsI:LiteratureThissectionreviewsliteraturetodeterminetheextenttowhichthecurrent

IBEmodel allows for theparticipationof the indigenous community, and

whethermoreparticipationcanresultinbetterqualityIBE.Itisorganised

accordingtothecategoriesintheconceptualframework:part4.2.1reviews

theextentofindigenousparticipationindecision‐making;4.2.2curriculum

content; 4.2.3 the role of indigenous language; 4.2.4 pedagogy; 4.2.5

educationalmaterialsand4.2.6educationalquality.

4.2.1Decision‐makingThe literature highlights a virtual lack of participation of indigenous

communitiesinthedesignanddeliveryofstate‐ledIBEinMexico.Bertely

(2007) sums up the main message by stating that the advances in

legislation have not led to the participation of indigenous peoples in the

DV410 Page 25 of 65 24411

design of national or state‐level plans, programs or educational policies.

Thisargument issupportedbyLópez(2009),whoconcludes that the IBE

modelinimplementationstillreflectsthetransitionalapproach,whichhas

the aim of assimilating the indigenous into the mainstream. Indeed,

RockwellandGomes(2009:104)maintainthat‘schools,evenbilingualand

interculturalschools,tendtointegrateIndigenouschildrennotintoaspace

ofmutualrecognitionofdifferencebut,rather,intoasubordinateroleina

dominantnationalconfiguration’.

According to Sartorello (2009), far from constructing a new equal

relationship between the state and indigenous communities, this form of

top‐downIBEmerelysubstitutesthepovertydiscoursewithadiscourseon

culture. The highly centralised educational system leaves no room for

regionaladaptation,withSEPdesigningthecurriculum,hiringandtraining

teachers ‘based on a Western vision of what (bilingual) intercultural

education should be’ (Despagne 2013:117). At the local level, Schmelkes

(1994) finds that parents’ role in education is limited to purely

administrative matters and rarely extends to supporting children’s

learning. As the following sections shall demonstrate inmore detail, this

top‐downsystemreflectsaneoliberalapproachofmulticulturalism,where

diversity isrecognisedbutstill treatedasaproblemtobesolvedthrough

culturalinclusion(DíazPolanco2006).

It isalsoevidentthat,asMosse(2001)states,theindigenous‘community’

is far fromuniform in their opinions regarding IBE. Although indigenous

movements have fought for the right to a culturally and linguistically

relevant education, considerable disagreement among different actors

exists: many parents resist their children being taught in their native

languages,oftenduetofearofdiscrimination(López2009;MartínezNovo

2012).SantisGómez(2011)assertsthatthisisduetoparents’perception

of their children already speaking their native language and needing to

learnSpanishinstead–evenifthechildren’swritingorgrammaticalskills

arenon‐existent.Additionally,asgovernmentofficers,indigenousteachers

DV410 Page 26 of 65 24411

are usually politically aligned with the state or the powerful Teachers’

UnionSNTE(RockwellandGomes2009;LópezandSichra2007).

By contrast, literature demonstrates that bottom‐up IBE projects led by

indigenouspeoplethemselvesarehighlyparticipatoryinnatureandtreat

education as a political rights challenge rather than a mere technicality

(López and Sichra 2007). The literature on the topic ismainly limited to

evaluating two of themost prominent alternative educational projects in

Chiapas, Teachers’ Union of the New Education for Mexico (UNEM) and

Ecidea(IndigenousCommunityEducation forAutonomousDevelopment),

which are characterised by a high level of community participation. In

Ecidea, for example, educators discuss and define educational policies

together,withanydecisionsrequiringtheparticipatingcommunities’seal

ofapproval (CGEIB2006;seeAppendix4 for theorganisationalstructure

ofEcidea).Bothorganisationselect theireducatorsdemocraticallywithin

each community (Bertely 2006). This is a clear difference from the SEP

model in which indigenous teachers are regularly sent to communities

whose language theydo not speak (Schmelkes in: Fierro Evans andRojo

Pons2012).

4.2.2CurriculumcontentThe literature conclusively demonstrates that indigenous content is not

included in the national curriculum, which is competency‐based and

appliedbothinindigenousandmainstreamschools.Evenifthecurriculum

is sufficiently ambiguous to allow individual states to accommodate local

contentintheory(PérezPérez2012),López(2009)arguesthatitsdensity

and abundancemake the inclusion of indigenous knowledge10practically

impossible. Comboni Salinas (2009) asserts that the content taught in

mainstream schools is completely alien to the students and at oddswith

the indigenousworldview.The fact that indigenous content is omitted in

10Mistry (2009) defines indigenous knowledge as local and context‐specific, orallytransmitted,constantlychangingandholistic.

DV410 Page 27 of 65 24411

mainstreamschoolsmaycontributetoreproducinginequalitybetweenthe

indigenousandnon‐indigenouspopulations(DelPopoloandOyarce2005).

By contrast, curriculums designed by grassroots IBE initiatives are

constructed from the sociocultural context of the indigenous villages,

fostering the integration of the school into normal community life

(Sartorello 2009). These alternative programs combine the national

curriculum with indigenous content, positioning the two knowledge

systemsasequal in status (Hamel2009).Forexample,UNEMandEcidea

havesystematisedandcombinedindigenousandWesternknowledge,and

translatedscientificconceptsintoindigenouslanguages(Bertely2009a).

4.2.3IndigenouslanguageTheevidenceontheuseofindigenouslanguagesinIBEschoolsshowsthat

the role of indigenous language isminimal and bilingual pedagogic tools

areseverely lacking.Officially,1stand2ndgradestudentsaresupposedto

be taught in their native language for 80% of the time, with 3rd and 4th

graders50%ofthetimeandfinally20%inthe5thand6thgrades(Velasco

and García 2012). However, empirical studies have demonstrated that

bilingualpedagogyinprimaryschoolsisnon‐existent,withsometeachers

notusing indigenous languagesatall, somecode‐switching inconsistently

betweenSpanishand indigenous languages;and ineverycase,dedicating

farlesstimeontheindigenouslanguagethanofficiallyrequired(Ibid).

In another ethnographic study in Chiapanecan schools withmonolingual

TzotzilandTseltalstudents,PérezPérez(2012)findsthatthestaffinclude

teachers who only speak Spanish, and the language and culture of the

students is considered an obstacle rather than an asset. Likewise, in the

communityofSanAndrésLarráinzar,GomezLara(2011)recordsteachers’

attitudes demonstrating suspicion towards indigenous cultural practices

andabeliefthatstudentsareonlyabletoparticipate fully intheMexican

societyiftheySpanishize.

DV410 Page 28 of 65 24411

4.2.4PedagogyAlthough there is evidence to show that indigenouswaysof learningand

teachingdifferfromthosefavouredinstandardeducation(Paradiseandde

Haanin:RockwellandGomes2009),literaturedemonstratesthattheseare

not accounted for in indigenous schools. Gomes (2004) and Pérez Pérez

(2012) explain that the complex systems of learning in indigenous

communitiesarebasedonparticipation ineverydayactivitiesandrituals.

However, according to Despagne (2013), the pedagogy employed in SEP

schoolsistraditionalandteacher‐centred.ThisissupportedbyVelascoand

García (2012) who find that memorisation, copying from textbooks and

decodingwordssyllablebysyllableratherthanpronouncingthemproperly

are common practices in indigenous classrooms. Podestá Siri (2009)

attributesthisbehaviourtoteachers’training,neverhavinglearnttoteach

fromtheirownindigenousworldview.

Yetagain,bottom‐up IBEprojects standout fromthestateparadigm.For

example,theEcideamodel,organisedaroundtheconceptofpuyoraspiral

anddevelopedwiththeparticipationofstudents,considersthatthespaces

for learning are limitless and extend beyond the school walls (Bertely

2009b).Themethodology includesexplorationout in thecommunityand

the transformation of new learning into works of art, which are then

presented to the community (see Appendix 4 for the full Ecideamodel).

Indeed, the community is considered the foundation of educational

processes, with students as the protagonists and the educator as the

creatoroflearningsituations,acompanioninthelearningprocessinstead

ofaciviliser(GuzmánGutiérrezetal.2009).

4.2.5MaterialsThe literature on the topic reveals that thematerials used in indigenous

classroomsareoftenlacking;orwhentheyexist,culturally irrelevantand

direct translations from Spanish.According toDespagne (2013:117), ‘the

fewpedagogicalmaterialsandtextbooksinIndigenouslanguagesthatexist

are mere translations of the textbooks used in the monolingual system’.

DV410 Page 29 of 65 24411

Studying fourprimaryschools inChiapas,VelascoandGarcía (2012) find

that the textbooks used for Spanish language teaching in indigenous

schools are inappropriate for students of Spanish as a second language.

Furthermore,theygiveanexampleofalessonplanprovidedbySEPwhere

theunderstandingofastoryisbasedonknowledgeoftraditionalWestern

fairytales – the children are able to read the words in Spanish but the

contentislostonthem.

Materials developed by UNEM in collaboration with indigenous

communities are an exception: the first is a textbook called ‘Men and

WomenofCorn: IndigenousDemocracyandLaw fortheWorld’,written by

academicresearchersandindigenousteachersinTzotzil,Tseltal,Choland

Spanish (Bertely2007).Thebookcombinesboth indigenousandmestizo

content and is aimed at teaching literacy. The second is Tarjetas de

Autoaprendizaje, a set of cards for independent learning in indigenous

languagesandSpanish(Bertely2009c).

4.2.6QualityofeducationThe literature is unambiguous in that indigenous students suffer from a

poor quality of education. Some of the main issues include desertion,

reprobationandnon‐inscription (Schmelkes1994).Measuredbynational

examresults,amere2.5%ofindigenoussixthgradersachievethehighest

score levels in Spanish, with 0.67% in mathematics respectively. The

corresponding figures forurbanschoolsare14.09and3.12%(Schmelkes

2006b).Asubstantialamountofacademicliteratureisfocusedontryingto

explain this considerable test score gap (Álvarez et al. 2007; Hernandez‐

Zavalaetal.2006;P.J.McEwan2008).However,thesestudiesdonottake

into account that standardised testing leaves out indigenous, context‐

specific knowledge (Del Popolo and Oyarce 2005), making the testing

processinherentlybiasedagainstthoseoutsidethemainstream.

A significant lack of reliable research is evident regarding the effects of

increasedparticipationoneducationaloutcomes.However,recentstudies

DV410 Page 30 of 65 24411

invariably recommend involving indigenous communities to a greater

extent(Cortina2014;Zavala2007).Oneofthefewexceptionsisprovided

by Hamel (2009), whose research in Michoacán shows that students

attending schools employing their own, context‐specific and appropriate

curriculum taught in their native language, P’urhepecha, obtain

significantly better results in reading and writing in both Spanish and

P’urhepechathanthose inschoolsemployingaSpanishizingstrategy.The

P’urhepecha curriculum is also found to strengthen students’ cultural

identity. He thus concludes that the application of an inappropriate

curriculumisoneofthemostsignificantreasonsbehindpoorperformance

innationalandinternationalassessments(Ibid).

Other available research is limited to improved outcomes as a result of

increased indigenous language use: evidence from Bolivia and Ecuador

suggests that teaching students in their mother tongue can result in

increased and better quality participation, as well as produce significant

improvements in enrolment, attendance, retention and decreased grade

repetition (López 2006; Garcés 2006). Finally, Danbolt (2011) finds that

students in bilingual schools report higher levels of self‐esteem than in

monolingualschools.

DV410 Page 31 of 65 24411

4.3FindingsII:InterviewsThis section details the findings of the semi‐structured interviews. It is

organised similarly to the previous chapter: subsection 4.3.1 discusses

decision‐making; 4.3.2 curriculum content; 4.3.3 the role of indigenous

language;4.3.4pedagogy;4.3.5materialsand4.3.6educationalquality.For

adescriptionoftheinterviewees’organisations,seeAppendix1.

4.3.1Decision‐makingAlloftheindigenousteacherswerestronglyoftheopinionthateducation

was delivered from the top down without real participation of the

indigenous communities, save somesuperficial consultations.Aprofessor

from Jacinto Canek teacher training college said: ‘everything comes from

above, sometimes they’ll call one or another bilingual teacher but it is the

high‐uppeopleinSEPwhomaketheplans’.

Atthelocallevel,communityinvolvementwasseentobelimitedtoparent

committees that concern themselves with purely administrativematters.

Moreover, in many respondents’ experience, rather than willing

participants, parents were often against teaching their children in their

nativelanguage.Thiswasputdowntoafearofdiscriminationorbecause

theythought indigenouslanguageandknowledgewasgoingtobeuseless

whenthechildrenwouldinvariablyleaveforthecity.Toillustrateparents’

attitudes,anotherJacintoCanekprofessorsaid:‘parentswouldask:whyare

yougoingtoteachhim inTzotzilorTseltal ifhealreadyknows it?It is just

theinternalisationoftheracismthatthestateusedtoincorporateindigenous

people. The community itself ismaking barriers so that theywouldn’t be

taughtinTzotzilorTseltal.Thoseattitudeshavetobeworkedwith’.Another

one concurred, adding: ‘the teachers acquiesce because of parents’

resistance’.

By contrast, government officials stressed thatmechanisms hadbeen set

uptoincludeindigenouscommunities,includingvariousSEPpilotprojects

DV410 Page 32 of 65 24411

and consultations. A National Institute of Educational Evaluation (INEE)

representative cited an on‐going free prior informed consultation on the

organisationofeducationandevaluationin50communities.However,she

also contended indigenous people had no real role in any stage of the

designof IBEeducation,with theonly formofnational‐level involvement

being independent grassroots organisations or NGOs communicating the

resultsoftheirprojectstothewiderpublic.

Indeed, Ecidea stood out as having a much higher level of community

involvement in education. Although their initial experience with parents

wassimilartotheonereportedbySEPteachers,anEcidearepresentative

told parents’ resistance had been overcome by raising awareness on the

importanceof culturally relevanteducation.Hehighlighted thatEcidea is

not fully recognised by the SEP, with teachers receiving rather than a

salary,ameagremonthlygrantvaryingfromMXN853.00to2390.50(65‐

181 USD) designated for continuing their own education. During the

interview and visit to the office, it became evident that Ecidea educators

arehighlymotivated,havingworked for freeprior to theagreementwith

SEP which set up the grant system in 2001. According to the

representative, ‘thegovernmentdoesn’twanttorecognise[Ecidea]because

it’sanautonomouseducation;becausethegovernmentthinksit’sthesameas

the EZLN11. But no, it’s an education that was constructed by Tseltal

indigenousgroupswhowere thinkingof the futureof thechildrenwhoare

leftbehind’.

When asked about the SEP’s official position regarding these bottom‐up

initiatives, a CGEIB representative said they sought to support the

numerous community organisations seeking official recognition, compile

andpublishtheirexperiences,butadded: ‘wehavetokeepaneyethatthey

fulfil what the educational system asks for’. This seems to support the

argumentthattheprioritiesoftheeducationalsystemaredecideduponin

a centralised manner, with indigenous involvement or interculturalism11EZLNhasitssupportbasesintheChiapasHighlandswhereEcideaoperates.

DV410 Page 33 of 65 24411

being a mere add‐on. Another official from CGEIB’s area of Intercultural

Curriculum Development stated: ‘the fact that national and autonomous

projects are seen as separate is amore sophisticatedway to continue the

dichotomy.Wecontinueplayingwiththatseparationwhichwon’tletusenter

intoaninterculturalrelationship’.

However,governmentrepresentativeswere ingeneraloftheopinionthat

there shouldbemoreparticipation.Oneasserted: ‘personally,Ibelievethe

system should be decentralised and leave much more freedom to make

decisions ifnotbyschool,byregionorstatebecausetheyvary.Thegeneral

guidelines would need to be very precise and clear in what needs to be

achieved,buthowtoachieveitshouldbedowntotheschool.Theyshouldbe

seenasaminimum,notamaximum’.

4.3.2CurriculumcontentAlthough one of the principles of the national curriculum is

interculturalism, all of the respondents said that indigenous knowledge

wasnotpresentinofficialcontentattheprimarylevelapartfromamodule

called Civics and Ethics Education. Respondents considered that each

teacher could include indigenous content if they sowished, but that this

wasunlikelytohappenbecauseoflackofrespectfortheirownculture:‘we

havealwaysthoughtthatthebooksayseverything.We’llneveraskaparent;

wethinkthattheknowledgeofthecommunityisworthless’ (teacher trainee

student,JacintoCanek).

Primary school teachers participating in the Diploma in Education

Methodology for Indigenous Teachers thought SEP’s national targets, or

core competencies, were another reason for the omission of indigenous

knowledge as each level left no time for other activities. By contrast, the

Ecidearepresentativereportedtheorganisation’scurriculumwasdesigned

bytheteachersthemselvesandwasorganisedaroundfivecorethemesof

indigenousknowledge,combinedwithscientificcontentfromthenational

DV410 Page 34 of 65 24411

curriculum.Hehighlighted the fact that communitymembersare seenas

importantcontributorstothelearningprocess.

Both indigenousandgovernmentrepresentatives invariablyconsidered it

important to teach indigenous knowledge in the formal school system.

Many expressed concern about the gradual disappearance of indigenous

knowledge with the elders passing away unless transmitted to younger

generationsatschool.Manyasserteditshouldbeuptothecommunitiesto

decidewhatcontenttoinclude.Asoneprofessorcontemplated,

‘The problem is that youwould get into a logic of certification for the

knowledgethatatraditionalhealerhas.Whohasthepowertodothat?

Another issue is that thesedays,people in thevillagesdonotbelieve in

traditional knowledge anymore. They trust certified midwifes; not

parteras12who don’t have a certificate from the national healthcare

system ‐ ‐ ifwe takea traditionalhealer intoa schoolwhere thereare

protestant childrenand soon,peoplewill say it’s superstitionand that

childrenshouldn’tbelearningit‐‐thecommunityitselfshouldlegitimise

whichknowledgewillbecarriedon.’

4.3.3IndigenouslanguageAll of the indigenous respondents stated that the role of indigenous

languageinprimaryeducationwasrestrictedtobeingtaughtasasubject,

with Spanish remaining the language of instruction. They considered the

process of Spanishization to be still in effect and contended that little or

nothinghad changed fromearlier educational policies despite theofficial

rhetoricendorsinginterculturalism.

The teacher trainee students interviewedexpresseddiscontent about the

lackofqualifiedprofessorsforindigenouslanguages,consideringtheirown

language skills insufficient for teaching others. A CGEIBofficial explained

therecentdevelopmentof interculturalhighschoolsanduniversitieswas

12TraditionalMayanmidwife.

DV410 Page 35 of 65 24411

an attempt to address the problem. All respondents considered it

fundamental to reinforce the teachingof indigenous languagesand foster

prideinspeakingthem,whilstensuringanadequatelevelofSpanish.

4.3.4PedagogyIt was evident from the responses that the current pedagogy, both in

teachertraininganditspracticalimplementationintheclassroom,reflects

the standard Westernised model. With regards to state‐led IBE, the

responses highlighted complete lack of dialogue and participation in

pedagogydevelopmentexceptforoccasionalcoursesdeliveredbyCGEIB.

4.3.5MaterialsTherespondentssaidthattextbooksandothermaterialswereproducedin

indigenous languages,but several issueswerementionedwith regards to

theircontentandavailability.

Both government and indigenous representatives acknowledged that

materials often did not arrive at schools in remote locations. Itwas also

mentioned that thematerials did not reflect different linguistic varieties;

sometimesthematerialswouldbesentonaUSBmemorydrivewhenthe

teachersdidn’thaveaccesstoacomputerordidn’tknowhowtouseone;

andingeneral,thecontenttranslateddirectlyfromSpanishwasconsidered

inappropriate and contextually irrelevant. One of the teacher trainee

studentssaid:

‘An indigenous child doesn’t knowwhat a supermarket is, nor has he

been toathemepark.Hehasonlybeen toa localshop. It’snot thathe

doesn’thave thecapacity tounderstand,butyouhave tostartwith the

easyandgotowardsthemorecomplex.Nowitisbeingdonethewrong

wayround.Achildhastobeginfromhisnaturalsurroundings,fromhis

context. Yes, the curriculum should be different, in terms of

contextualisation.’

DV410 Page 36 of 65 24411

4.3.6QualityofeducationOverall, the lackof relevanceof the curriculumwas considered tobe the

key issue behind poor outcomes and high drop‐out rates. The INEE

representative explained: ‘the homogenous curriculum is one of themost

importantreasonsforacademicunderachievement.‐‐Ithasbeenanerrorby

theMexicangovernmenttoorganisethecurriculuminacentralisedmanner.

Tobeabletomovetowardsbetterquality,itisnecessarytodecentraliseand

openupspacesofparticipation’.

This viewwas echoed by indigenous teachers and teacher trainees, who

considered the issue to be particularly grave in relation to standardised

national exams, which are applied in Spanish and thus place indigenous

students at a disadvantage. As one professor exclaimed: ‘the argument

[itself] is racist. On the one hand, it is true. If I apply a testwithMayan

parameterstoamestizo,hewon’tdowell.‐‐Theexamsaredesignedfroma

differentlogic...we,indigenouspeople,wouldhavetosubmitourselvestothat

Westernassimilationistlogictobeabletodobetterinthoseexams.’

A CGEIB official agreed that standardising meant that those who are

different loseout,butadded: ‘wedoneedstandardisedexamsbecausethey

tellusalotaboutthehiccupsinthesystemingeneral.That’showtheyshould

beused.On theotherhand,weneed toevaluatedifferent typesof learning

and compareand complementonewithanother.Wedoneed standardised

tests to see if the system is delivering. The fact that they perform badly

doesn’tmeantheyarestupidbutthatthesystemcouldbebad’.

Finally, interviewees were asked whether increased participation could

leadtowhattheyunderstoodasabetterqualityeducation.Oneprofessor

said: ‘Ecidea and UNEM are schools which depart from what indigenous

peoplewant–sustainabledevelopment.From the indigenouspointofview,

they are of better quality but not from the state’s point of view. They are

giving people what they want’. This highlights the subjectivity of

DV410 Page 37 of 65 24411

educational quality, conceived by the indigenous communities to depart

from local needs. The Ecidea representative added: ‘they [SEP] did

evaluations for sixyears to find thequalityofeducation.Butwehave seen

thatyoudon’tachievequalityeducationbyevaluatingthestudents’.

Overall,theintervieweescoincidedthatmoreparticipationcouldleadtoa

better quality education. Community involvement at the local, state and

federal levels was considered to have several positive effects, with the

increasedrelevanceofcurricularcontentasthemostimportant.According

totheINEErepresentative, ‘participationcancertainlyleadtobetterquality

education insofar as there is curricular relevance. They will feel like the

schoolbelongstothem,andthattheschoolispartofthem.It’llbepossibleto

heartheirvoice–onwhattheydon’tlikeandwhatshouldbeemphasised’.

In Ecidea’s experience, students’ performance had improved since the

introductionoftheEcideasystem–however,itwasnotpossibletoconfirm

thisas test resultshadbeensentaway toSEPandwerenotavailable for

viewing; also, improved quality would not necessarily show in

standardised test results due to the bias discussed earlier. However, the

representative remarked that the students experienced difficulties

transferringtoSpanish‐onlysecondaryschool.Asmentionedbefore,IBEat

the secondary level is a legal right yet remains unrealised in practice.

Additionally, the practice of hiring teachers from the communities

themselveshasbeenaclearimprovementfromthepast: ‘thecommunities

expelledthe[SEP]teachersbecausetheywon’tstayintheclassforthewhole

week.Theycome inonMondayand leaveonThursday.They losedaysand

don’trecoverthem’.

When asked whether there was any evidence on improved quality as a

result of the participatory Diploma in Methodology of Education for

IndigenousTeachersproject,theINEErepresentativereplied:‘theDiploma

showsthatthereare importantchanges intheteachersandstudents.There

have been many changes in the professors, but we haven’t been able to

DV410 Page 38 of 65 24411

capture those. The students reallywant to be at school forwhat they are

learning.The school ismuch closer to the community’.However, she also

highlighted theneed for indigenous communities toorganise themselves:

‘if youwant togive them the responsibility todesigna curriculum,who is

going to take charge? There are two tasks: the state needs to open up,

decentralise, give more autonomy to communities and schools. But the

indigenouscommunitiesalsoneedtostrengthentheirorganisations’.

DV410 Page 39 of 65 24411

5.DISCUSSION

Thischapteranalysesthe findingsof the literaturereviewand interviews

withintheconceptualframeworkoutlinedinchapter2.

Moreparticipation,betterqualityeducation?The findings of the literature review are clearly confirmed by the

interviewees’perceptions:despite theofficial rhetoricof interculturalism,

indigenouscommunitiesarevirtuallyabsentfromthedesignanddelivery

ofstate‐ledIBE.Thenationalcurriculum,pedagogyandteachingmaterials

lack any influence of indigenous culture andworldview,with indigenous

languages playing a negligible role in the classroom and educational

materials. The official educational policy is contradictory with supposed

room for local adaptation, yet teacher training practices, national

evaluation standards and educators’ own perceptions of their culturally

diversestudentsdemonstratethatIBEisfarfromintercultural.Currently,

rather than a cross‐cutting value in the national curriculum,

interculturalism issomething that is left for the teachers to implementat

theirowndiscretion.However,thisismadeallbutimpossiblebythelackof

appropriate materials, density of the national curriculum and centrally

definedtargets,andmostimportantly,teachertrainingpracticesreflecting

traditionalWesternmethodologies.

Thesecharacteristicspointtolevel1inthe ladderofparticipation,where

IBE is reduced to acknowledgement, or ‘learning about’ indigenous

communities. A careful analysis of all of the five categories reveals that

decision‐making, indigenous knowledge in the curriculum, indigenous

languageandpedagogy are all at level 1,withonly educationalmaterials

reaching level2 (engagementor ‘learning from’ indigenouscommunities)

due to the fact that at least some materials are provided in indigenous

languages despite their content being completely Western. Both the

DV410 Page 40 of 65 24411

literature review and interviews show that legislative advances have not

translated into a culturally and linguistically pertinent education for

Mexico’smostmarginalisedcitizens.

By contrast, the bottom‐up IBE initiatives Ecidea and UNEM are

characterisedbyhighlevelsofparticipationinallareasstudied.Forapoint

ofcomparison,theseprojectsreachalevel3intheladderofparticipation

overall: decision‐making involves local communities; the equality of

different knowledge systems is acknowledged by integrating Indigenous

andWesterncontentinthecurriculum;childrenaretaughtintheirnative

languageandthepedagogyreflectsindigenouswaysoflearning.However,

althoughtheseprojectsarearguablydeliveringamuchmoreculturallyand

linguistically relevant education thanwhat SEP is currently offering, they

aresmall‐scaleandthushavealimitedimpact.Achievingtrueintercultural

education–representedbylevels3and4oftheladder–mustencompass

theeducationsystemasawholeandbeaimedattransformingthedeeply

rooted attitudes which foster the continuation of asymmetric power

relations.Educationalprojectsthatleaveoutthemestizopopulationcannot

thusbeconsideredinterculturalinthefullsense.

The interviews also highlighted the challenge of overcoming the

internalised discrimination among parents and entire communities in

order to truly decolonise education (Gustafson 2014). However, the

experience of Ecidea demonstrates that these engrained attitudes can be

overcome by a conscious effort to strengthen the school‐community

relationship and by creating a school which does not only contribute to

students’ academic learning but fosters the cultural identity of the entire

community. This supports Cummins’ (1979) suggestion that the

establishment of a particular educational program can influence a

community’s attitudes in relation to first languagemaintenance, not just

viceversa.

DV410 Page 41 of 65 24411

Althoughliteratureofferslittleclueastowhethercommunityinvolvement

can improve the quality of education, the interviews highlighted that

stakeholders across the board are convinced of the need for increased

participation to reverse poor academic outcomes. What is clear is that

limiting our understanding of educational quality to standardised test

results fails to capture the role of schools in forming students who are

knowledgeable and proud of their cultural and linguistic identity.

Additionally, it contributes to the continued dominance of the Western

worldview over indigenous knowledge, legitimising the former and

discreditingthelatterasirrelevanttothenationasawhole.

Theinterviewsprovidesupportfortheconceptualframeworkdevelopedin

thispaper,withbothindigenousandgovernmentrepresentativesasserting

that increasedcommunityparticipationcan lead to improvededucational

quality,both in thesenseofacademicandaffectiveoutcomes.Accounting

for the heterogeneity of indigenous communities and contextualising

learningandassessmenttostudents’realitiesaccordinglywasseenasthe

key mechanism through which this could happen. Although the study is

limitedinitsscopeandgeneralisability,thetentativefindingspointtothe

potential of improving quality through taking students’ culture and

language as a point of departure for designing curriculum content,

materials and pedagogic practices. This cannot be achieved through the

currenttop‐downprocess.

Anumberofotherquestionsthathavearisenduring thestudyalsomerit

further inquiry. It isevidentthatthetheoretical foundationsforassessing

the role of participation in improving educational quality need to be

developed.Ecidea’ssuccess inovercomingparents’resistanceto IBEcalls

for further investigation of the conceptual link between educational

structuresandcommunityparticipation.Howcancommunityresistancebe

overcome in instances of internalised discrimination?What factors have

contributed to successful community involvement in the communities

wherealternativeeducationalprojectshavebeenestablished?

DV410 Page 42 of 65 24411

Although offering policy recommendations was not the purpose of this

study, some suggestions are however put forward. The antagonism

between the state and indigenous communities in Chiapas can only be

overcomethroughtherealinclusionofindigenouspeopleinthedesignand

deliveryofnationaleducation.Consultationsandoccasionalpilotprojects

in marginalised communities do little to change the exclusion,

discrimination and perception of being treated as second‐class citizens.

True interculturalism can only surge when indigenous communities feel

their input is required and valued. Decentralising education, with

substantialroomforadaptationatthestateandlocallevels,istheonlyway

fortheMexicanGovernmenttodeliverlinguisticallyandculturallyrelevant

educationtothediversepopulation.

DV410 Page 43 of 65 24411

6.CONCLUSIONThis dissertation has explored the extent of indigenous participation

allowed by the IBE model of basic education in Mexico, and sought to

analyse whether increased community involvement has the potential to

improveeducationaloutcomes.Thesequestionsaretopicalareasofstudy

as indigenous people continue to be the some of the poorest citizens

worldwide(UN2014),with improvingthequalityofeducationremaining

highonthepost‐2015policyagenda(UNICEF2013).

Drawingoncriticalpedagogy,interculturalbilingualeducationisaimedat

theequalisationofasymmetricpowerrelationsrootedinthecolonialpast.

Itisthusnotonlyaneducationalbutalsoapoliticalchallengefortheequal

participationof indigenouspeople in society.However, the literatureand

stakeholder interviews reveal that legislative advances and a rhetoric of

interculturalism have not translated into real inclusion of indigenous

communities,butinstead,perpetuateandlegitimisethestatusquo.

Using a novel conceptual framework, this dissertation has demonstrated

thatindigenouspeople,theirculturesandworldviewsarevirtuallyabsent

fromthedesignanddeliveryofeducation–measuredintermsofdecision‐

making, curriculum content, native languages, ways of teaching and

learning, and educational materials. This represents IBE as

acknowledgement,or‘learningfrom’indigenouscommunities,ratherthan

true interculturalism. Bottom‐up IBE initiatives in Chiapas are

characterised by amuch higher level of participation, yet remain almost

entirelyshutoutoftheofficialsystem.

It is arguedhere that this lackofparticipation is fundamentally linked to

poor educational outcomes, as the exclusion of indigenous cultures and

languages results in a decontextualised learning process where schools

merelyreproducetheinequalitypresentinwidersociety.Interviewswith

DV410 Page 44 of 65 24411

governmentandindigenousstakeholdershaverevealedthatactorsacross

the board view increased community involvement as key to reversing

educational failure, yet true inclusion requires substantial changes at the

institutional level. In order to improve marginalised students’ academic

and affective outcomes, it isnecessary tomovebeyond standardised test

measures and invest in a culturally and linguistically pertinent basic

educationwhilstopeningupspacesofdemocraticparticipationatalllevels

ofgovernment.

Thechallengesofunderrepresentationandpooreducationalqualitywithin

IBEarepartofabroadernarrativeofthestruggleforindigenousrightsin

MexicoandelsewhereinLatinAmerica.Recognisingindigenouslanguages,

culturesandworldviewsasequaltothoseofthemestizorequiresmoving

beyond the rhetoric of interculturalism and democratising education

through real participatory processes. Quality Intercultural Bilingual

Educationcanonlybeachievedwhentheindigenousleavethemarginsto

becometheprotagonistsinitsdesignanddelivery.

DV410 Page 45 of 65 24411

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aikman, S. (1997) Interculturality and Intercultural Education: A Challenge for

Democracy.InternationalReviewofEducation43(5/6),pp.463‐479.

Aikman, S. (1998) Towards an Intercultural Participatory Approach to Learning

fortheHarakmbut.InternationalJournalofEducationalDevelopment18(3),

pp.197‐206.

Álbo,X.(1991)ElRetornodelIndio.RevistaAndina9(2),pp.299‐366.

Álvarez, J., García Moreno, V. and Patrinos, H. A. (2007) InstitutionalEffectsas

Determinants of LearningOutcomes: Exploring State Variations inMexico.

Washington,D.C.:WorldBank.

Anderson, D. G. and Hatton, D. C. (2000) Accessing Vulnerable Populations for

Research.WesternJournalofNursingResearch22(2),pp.244‐251.

Arnstein(1969)ALadderofCitizenParticipation.JournaloftheAmericanInstitute

ofPlanners35(4),pp.216‐224.

Banerjee, A., Banerji, R., Duflo, E., Glennerster, R. and Khemani, S. (2006) Can

InformationCampaignsSparkLocalParticipationandImproveOutcomes?A

StudyofPrimaryEducationinUttarPradesh,India.Washington,D.C.:World

Bank.

BertelyBusquets,M.(2006)LaConstruccióndesdeAbajodeunaNuevaEducación

InterculturalBilingüeparaMéxico.In:Todd,L.E.andArredondo,V.(eds.)

LaEducaciónqueMéxicoNecesita.VisióndeExpertos.NuevoLeón,Mexico:

CentrodelosAltosEstudioseInvestigaciónPedagógica/CECyTE.

Bertely Busquets, M. (2007) Indigenous Rights and Intercultural Citizenship:

IntroductiontoaProjectwithTzotzil,Tseltal,andCholTeachersinChiapas,

Mexico.ConflictResolutionQuarterly25(1),pp.71‐77.

Bertely Busquets, M. (2009a) SembrandoNuestra Educación ComoDerecho: La

NuevaEscuelaInterculturalenChiapas.Mexico:UNEM/ECIDEA/CIESAS‐

PapelesdelaCasaChata/IIAP/OEI/EdicionesAlcatraz.

DV410 Page 46 of 65 24411

Bertely Busquets, M. (2009b). ‘Currículum para la Educación Primaria

InterculturalyBilingüeECIDEA.’In:BertelyBusquets,M.(ed.)Sembrando

Nuestra Educación Como Derecho: La Nueva Escuela Intercultural en

Chiapas.Mexico:UNEM/ECIDEA/CIESAS‐PapelesdelaCasaChata/IIAP

/OEI/EdicionesAlcatraz.

Bertely Busquets, M. (2009c). ‘Modelo Curricular de Educación Intercultural

Bilingüe UNEM.’ In: Bertely Busquets, M. (ed.) Sembrando Nuestra

Educación Como Derecho: La Nueva Escuela Intercultural en Chiapas.

Mexico:UNEM/ECIDEA/CIESAS‐PapelesdelaCasaChata/IIAP/OEI/

EdicionesAlcatraz.

Bruns,B.,Filmer,D.andPatrinos,H.A.(2011)MakingSchoolsWork:NewEvidence

onAccountabilityReforms.Washington,D.C.:WorldBank.

Burford,G.,Kissmann,S.,Rosado‐May,F.J.,AlvaradoDzul,S.H.,andHarder,M.K.,

(2012)IndigenousParticipationinInterculturalEducation:Learningfrom

MexicoandTanzania.EcologyandSociety17(4),pp.1‐33.

Castro, I. and Smith, M. (2011) La Escuela Publica en México y la Definición

InciertadelaNación.CadernosCedes31(83),pp.57‐77.

CGEIB (2004) Políticas y Fundamentosde laEducación InterculturalBilingüe en

México.MexicoCity:SEP.

CGEIB (2006)LumaltikNopteswanej,A.C.EducaciónComunitariaIndígenaparael

DesarrolloAutónomo (Ecidea),Ocosingo,Chiapas. In: CGEIB, Experiencias

InnovadorasenEducaciónInterculturalvol.2.MexicoCity:CGEIB,pp.15‐

40.

CGEIB (2013). La CGEIB. Mexico City: SEP. Accessible at:

http://eib.sep.gob.mx/cgeib/la‐cgeib/[accessed25Aug2014]

Comboni Salinas, S. (2009) Lumaltik Nopteswanej: Educándonos para Nuestra

NuevaVida.LaConstruccióndeunProyectoEducativoInterculturalBilingüe

AutonómicoenlaSelvaLacandonadelEstadodeChiapas.MexicoCity:UAM.

Cortina, R., ed. (2014) The Education of Indigenous Citizens in Latin America.

Bristol:MultilingualMatters.

DV410 Page 47 of 65 24411

Cummins,J.(1979)LinguisticInterdependenceandtheEducationalDevelopment

ofBilingualChildren.ReviewofEducationalResearch49(2),pp.222‐251.

Cummins, J. (2000) Language, Power and Pedagogy: Bilingual Children in the

Crossfire.Clevedon:MultilingualMatters.

Daly, K. (1992) The Fit between Qualitative Research and Characteristics of

Families.In:Gilgun,J.F.,Daly,K.andHandel,G.(eds.)QualitativeMethods

inFamilyResearch.NewburyPark,CA:SagePublications,pp.3‐11.

Danbolt,L.D.(2011)ThechallengeofBilingualisminaMultilingualSociety:The

Bolivian Case. Journal of Intercultural Communication 27. Available at:

http://www.immi.se/intercultural/nr27/drange‐27.htm [accessed 14 Aug

2014]

Del Popolo, F. and Oyarce, A. M. (2005) Población IndígenadeAméricaLatina:

PerfilSociodemográficoenelMarcodelaConferenciaInternacionalsobrela

PoblaciónyelDesarrolloydelasMetasdelMilenio.SantiagodeChile,Chile:

CEPAL/CELADE.

Despagne,C.(2013)IndigenousEducationinMexico:IndigenousStudents’Voices.

Diaspora,Indigenous,andMinorityEducation7,pp.114‐129.

DGEI(2011)EstadísticaBásicadeEducaciónIndígena.InicioyFindelCicloEscolar

2009‐2010.MexicoCity:SEP.

Díaz Polanco,H. (2006)Elogiodeladiversidad.Globalización,multiculturalismoy

etnofagia.MexicoCity:SigloXXIEditores.

Edwards, V. (1991) El Concepto de Calidad de la Educación. Santiago, Chile:

UNESCO/OREALC.

EZLN (2013) La Primera Declaración de la Selva Lacandona. Accessible at:

http://palabra.ezln.org.mx/comunicados/1994/1993.htm [accessed 13

Aug2014]

Fernández,T. (2003)DeterminantesSociales,OrganizacionaleseInstitucionalesde

los Aprendizajes en la Educación Primaria deMéxico:Un Análisis de Tres

Niveles.MexicoCity:INEE.

FierroEvans,M.C.,andRojoPons,F.(2012)AninterculturaleducationforMexico:

DV410 Page 48 of 65 24411

CareerandcontributionsofSylviaSchmelkes.CurriculumInquiry42(1),pp.

103–125.

Garcés,F.(2006)‘SituacióndelaEducaciónInterculturalBilingüeenEcuador.’In:

López,L.E.andRojas,C. (eds.)LaEIBenAméricaLatinaBajoExamen,pp.

111‐184.LaPaz,Bolivia:PluralEditores.

Garcia‐Moreno,V.A. andPatrinos,H.A. (2011)IndigenousPeoplesandPovertyin

Mexico.MexicoCountryBriefNo.7.Washington,D.C.:WorldBank.

Gasché,J.(2008) ‘LaMotivaciónPolíticadelaEducaciónInterculturalIndígenay

susExigenciasPedagógicas.¿HastaDóndeAbarcalaInterculturalidad?’In:

Bertely, M., Gasché, J. and Podestá, R. (eds.) Educando en laDiversidad.

InvestigacionesyExperienciasEducativasInterculturalesyBilingües. Quito,

Ecuador:EdicionesAbya‐Yala.

Giroux, H. (1997) Teoría y Resistencia en Educación: Una Pedagogía para la

Oposición,3rded.MexicoCity:SigloXXIEditores.

Golafshani, N. (2003) Understanding Reliability and Validity in Qualitative

Research.TheQualitativeReport8(4),pp.597‐607.

Gomes,A.M.R.(2004)ElProcesodeEscolarizacióndelosXakriabá:HistoriaLocal

eRumbosdelaPropuestadeEducaciónEscolarDiferenciada.Cuadernosde

AntropologíaSocial19,pp.29‐48.

Gómez Lara, H. (2011) La Educación Intercultural y las Identidades de Género,

ClaseyEtnia.PueblosyFronterasDigital6(11),pp.273‐298.

Goss,J.(1996)Postcolonialism:SubvertingwhoseEmpire?ThirdWorldQuarterly

22(4),pp.479‐489.

Gustafson, B. (2014) Intercultural Bilingual Education in the Andes: Political

Change, New Challenges and Future Directions. In: Cortina, R. (ed.) The

Education of Indigenous Citizens in Latin America. Bristol: Multilingual

Matters,pp.74‐97.

Guzmán Gutiérrez, J. et al. (2009)DeMaestroaAcompañante:LaConcepcióndel

DocentedePrimariaenlaPropuestaEducativaInterculturalyBilingüedela

Unión de Maestros de la Nueva Educación para México (UNEM AC) y

DV410 Page 49 of 65 24411

Educadores IndependientesdeChiapas.Presented at: X Congreso Nacional

de Investigación Educativa, Veracruz,Mexico 21‐25 Sep 2009. Accessible

at:

http://www.comie.org.mx/congreso/memoriaelectronica/v10/pdf/area_t

ematica_12/ponencias/0499‐F.pdf[accessed13Aug2014]

Hamel, R. E. (2009) La Noción de Calidad desde las Variables de Equidad,

Diversidad y Participación en la Educación Bilingüe Intercultural.Revista

GuatemaltecadeEducación,pp.177‐230.

Hernandez‐Zavala,M.,Patrinos,H.A.,Sakellariou,C.andShapiro,J.(2006)Quality

of Schooling andQuality of Schools for Indigenous Students inGuatemala,

MexicoandPeru.Washington,D.C.:WorldBank.

Hesse‐Biber, S. N. and Leavy, P. (2005) The Practice of Qualitative Research.

London:SagePublications.

IFAD (2014) Effectivedevelopment inmiddle‐income countriesmeans closing the

inequalitygap,saysIFADPresidentvisitingMexicothisweek. Press release

No.: IFAD/43/2014. Rome: IFAD. Accessible at:

http://www.ifad.org/media/press/2014/43.htm[accessed25Aug2014].

INEE (2014) Acerca del INEE. Mexico City: INEE. Accessible at:

http://www.inee.edu.mx/index.php/acerca‐del‐inee/que‐es‐el‐inee

[accessed25Aug2014]

INEGI(2005)IIConteodePoblaciónyVivienda2005.MexicoCity:INEGI

INIDE, Escuela y Comunidad: Diplomado en Metodología de Educación por

Proyectos para Docentes de Primarias y Secundarias en Comunidades

Indígenas. Accessible at: http://www.escuelaycomunidad.org/ [accessed

25Aug2014].

Irvin,R.A.andStansbury,J.(2004)CitizenParticipationinDecisionMaking:Isit

WorththeEffort?PublicAdministrationReview64(1),pp.55‐65

Knuver, J.W.M.andBrandsma,H.P. (1993)Cognitiveandaffectiveoutcomes in

school effectiveness research.SchoolEffectivenessandSchoolImprovement

4(3),189‐204.

DV410 Page 50 of 65 24411

Leonard, C., Bourke, S. and Schofield, N. (2004) Affecting the affective: Affective

OutcomesintheContextofSchoolEffectiveness,SchoolImprovementand

QualitySchools.IssuesInEducationalResearch14(1),pp.1‐28.

Liamputtong, P. (2007)ResearchingtheVulnerable:AGuidetoSensitiveResearch

Methods.London:SagePublications.

López,L.E.(2006)DeResquiciosaBoquerones.LaEducaciónInterculturalBilingüe

enBolivia.LaPaz,Bolivia:PluralEditores&PROEIBAndes.

López, L. E. (2009) Reaching the Unreached: Indigenous Intercultural Bilingual

Education in Latin America. Background Paper forEFAGlobalMonitoring

Report2010.Paris:UNESCO/EFA.

López,L.E.(2014)‘IndigenousInterculturalBilingualEducationinLatinAmerica:

Widening Gaps between Policy and Practice.’ In: Cortina, R. (ed.) The

Education of Indigenous Citizens in Latin America. Bristol: Multilingual

Matters,pp.19‐49.

López, L. E. and Sichra, I. (2007) Intercultural Bilingual Education among

IndigenousPeoplesinLatinAmerica.Cochabamba,Bolivia:PROEIBAndes.

Mansuri, G. and Rao, V. (2004) Community‐Based and –Driven Development: A

CriticalReview.TheWorldBankResearchObserver19(1),pp.1‐39.

Martínez Novo, C. (2012) ‘The Tension between Western and Indigenous

Knowledge in InterculturalBilingualEducation inEcuador.’ In:Cortina,R.

(ed.) The Education of Indigenous Citizens in Latin America. Bristol:

MultilingualMatters,pp.98‐123.

McEwan,C.(2008)PostcolonialismandDevelopment.Abindgon:Routledge.

McEwan,P.J.(2008)CanSchoolsReducetheIndigenousTestScoreGap?Evidence

fromChile.TheJournalofDevelopmentStudies44(10),pp.1506‐1530.

McEwan,P.J.andTrowbridge,M.(2007)TheAchievementofIndigenousStudents

in Guatemalan Primary Schools. International Journal of Educational

Development27(1),pp.61‐76.

DV410 Page 51 of 65 24411

Mexican Constitution of 1992, amended 28.1.1992. Accessible at:

http://www.diputados.gob.mx/LeyesBiblio/ref/dof/CPEUM_ref_122_28en

e92_ima.pdf[accessed1Aug2014]

Mistry, J. (2009) ‘Indigenous Knowledges.’ In: Kitchin, R. and Thrift, N. (eds.)

InternationalEncyclopediaofHumanGeography.London:Elsevier.

Morris, J. (1971) ‘Barriers to successful reading for second‐language students at

the secondary level.’ In: Spolsky, B. (ed.) The Language Education of

MinorityChildren.Rowley:NewburyHouse.

Mosse, D. (2001) ‘People’s Knowledge,’ Participation and Patronage: Operations

andRepresentations inRuralDevelopment.’ In: Cooke, B. andKothari, U.

(eds.)Participation:TheNewTyranny.London:ZedBooks.

PérezPérez,M.E.(2012)PertinenciaCulturaldelosProyectosEscolaresAnualesen

dosEscuelasPrimariasBilingüesdelEstadodeChiapas,México. Santiagode

Chile:UniversidaddeChile.

PNUD (2013) ÍndicedeEquidadEducativa Indígena: InformedeResultadospara

México,susEstadosyMunicipios,2010.MexicoCity:PNUD.

PodestáSiri,R.(2009)ExplorandoelInteraprendizajeenRealidadesEscolaresde

PaísesInterculturales.RevistaLatinoamericanadeEducaciónInclusiva2(3),

pp.201–217.

Rockwell, E. and R. Gomes, A. M. (2009) Introduction to the Special Issue:

Rethinking Indigenous Education from a Latin American Perspective.

Anthropology&EducationQuarterly40(2),pp.97‐109.

Rus,J.,HernándezCastillo,R.A.,andMattiaceS.L.,eds.(2003)MayanLives,Mayan

Utopias: The Indigenous Peoples of Chiapas and the Zapatista Rebellion.

Oxford:Rowman&LittlefieldPublishers.

Said,E.(1978)Orientalism.NewYork:Vintage.

Santis Gómez, F. (2011)LaConstruccióndelaIdentidadIndígenaenDosEscuelas

Primarias Tseltales Bilingües del Estado de Chiapas. Presented at: XI

CongresoNacionaldeInvestigaciónEducativa,MexicoCity,7‐11Nov2011.

Accessible at:

DV410 Page 52 of 65 24411

http://www.comie.org.mx/congreso/memoriaelectronica/v11/docs/area_

06/0837.pdf[accessed15Aug2014]

Sartorello, S. C. (2009) Una Perspectiva Crítica sobre Interculturalidad y

Educación Intercultural Bilingüe: El caso de la Unión de Maestros de la

Nueva Educación para México (UNEM) y Educadores Independientes de

Chiapas.RevistaLatinoamericanadeEducaciónInclusiva3(2),pp.77‐90.

Schmelkes, S. (1994) Hacia unaMejor Calidad de Nuestras Escuelas. Colección

INTERAMER.Washington,D.C.:OEA/OAS.

Schmelkes,S.(2004)LaPolíticadelaEducaciónBilingüeInterculturalenMéxico.

In:Bertely,M.,Gasché, J.andPodestá,R. (eds.)EducandoenlaDiversidad:

InvestigacionesyExperienciasEducativasInterculturalesyBilingües. Quito,

Ecuador:EdicionesAbya‐Yala.

Schmelkes, S. (2006a) La Educación Intercultural Bilingüe en México. Paper

presentedattheVIICongresoLatinoamericanodeEducaciónIntercultural

Bilingüe,Cochabamba,Bolivia,1‐4Oct2006.

Schmelkes, S. (2006b) Interculturality and Basic Education. PRELACJournal:

RegionalEducationProjectforLatinAmericaandtheCaribbean 3,pp.120‐

128.

SEP (2009) Educaciónpara y conPoblaciones IndígenasdeMéxico. Mexico City:

SEP.

Sharp, J. (2009) Geographies of Post‐Colonialism: Spaces of Power and

Representation.London:SagePublications.

Sichra,I.(2002)Educacao,DiversidadeCulturaleCidadania.Consideracoessobre

a Educacao na Bolivia. In: Ministerio de Educacao (eds.) Congresso

BrasileirodeQualidadenaEducacao:FormacaodeProfessores 4. Brasilia,

Brazil:MEC‐SEF.

Slocum, R. et al. (1995) Power, Process and Participation— Tools for Change.

London:IntermediateTechnologyPublications.

Spivak, G. C. (1994) ‘Can the subaltern speak?’ In:Williams, P. andChrisman, L.

(eds.)ColonialDiscourseandPost‐colonialTheory.NewYork:Columbia,pp.

DV410 Page 53 of 65 24411

66‐111.

Stewart, F. (2002)HorizontalInequalities:ANeglectedDimensionofDevelopment.

WorkingPaperNumber81.Helsinki,Finland:UNU/WIDER.

UN (2014) The World Conference on Indigenous Peoples. Accessible at:

http://www.un.org/en/ga/69/meetings/indigenous/ [accessed 25 Aug

2014]

UNESCO (2014) Teaching and Learning: Achieving Quality for All. EFA Global

MonitoringReport2013/4.Paris:UNESCO.

UNICEF(2013)MakingEducationaPriorityinthePost‐2015DevelopmentAgenda.

Reportof theGlobalThematicConsultationonEducation in thePost‐2015

DevelopmentAgenda.Paris:UNICEF.

UNICH(2013)MisiónyVisión.SanCristobaldelasCasas,Chiapas.Accessibleat:

http://www.unich.edu.mx/mision‐y‐vision/[accessed25Aug2014]

Velasco, P. and García, O. (2012) Insufficient Language Education Policy:

Intercultural Bilingual Education in Chiapas. Diaspora, Indigenous, and

MinorityEducation: Studies ofMigration, Integration,Equity, and Cultural

Survival6(1),pp.1‐18.

Walliman,N. (2005)YourResearchProject:AStep‐by‐stepGuidefortheFirst‐time

Researcher.London:SagePublications.

World Bank (2005) Mexico:Determinants of Learning PolicyNote. Washington,

D.C.:WorldBank.

WorldBank(2014)Discriminatedagainstforspeakingtheirownlanguage,16

April.Accessibleat:

http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2014/04/16/discriminados

‐por‐hablar‐su‐idioma‐natal‐peru‐quechua[accessed1Aug2014]

Zavala,V.etal.(2007)AvancesyDesafíosdelaEducaciónInterculturalBilingüeen

Bolivia,EcuadoryPerú:EstudiodeCasos.Lima,Peru:CARE.

DV410 Page 54 of 65 24411

APPENDICESAPPENDIX1Interviewees1.1 ListofintervieweesName Role/institution Place Date1.Anonymous Teachertraineestudent

/JacintoCanekZinacantán,Chiapas

2.7.2014

2.Anonymous Teachertraineestudent/JacintoCanek

Zinacantán,Chiapas

2.7.2014

3.Anonymous Teachertraineestudent/JacintoCanek

Zinacantán,Chiapas

2.7.2014

4.Anonymous Teachertraineestudent/JacintoCanek

Zinacantán,Chiapas

2.7.2014

5.Anonymous Teachertraineestudent/JacintoCanek

Zinacantán,Chiapas

2.7.2014

6.Anonymous Professor/JacintoCanek

Zinacantán,Chiapas

3.7.2014

7.Anonymous Professor/JacintoCanek

Zinacantán,Chiapas

3.7.2014

8.Anonymous Professor/JacintoCanek

Zinacantán,Chiapas

3.7.2014

9.Anonymous Primaryschoolteacher/DiplomainEducationMethodology

SanCristobaldelasCasas,Chiapas

8.7.2014

10.Anonymous Primaryschoolteacher/DiplomainEducationMethodology

SanCristobaldelasCasas,Chiapas

8.7.2014

11.Anonymous Ecidea Ocosingo,Chiapas

10.7.2014

12.Anonymous UNICH SanCristobaldelasCasas,Chiapas

11.7.2014

13.Anonymous CGEIB MexicoCity 25.7.201414.Anonymous INEE MexicoCity 31.7.201415.Anonymous CGEIB MexicoCity 5.8.2014Theroleofsomeoftheparticipantshasbeenleftoutsoasnottocompromisetheiranonymity.

DV410 Page 55 of 65 24411

1.2 Descriptionofinterviewees’organisations

1. Indigenous Intercultural Bilingual Teacher Training School Jacinto

Canek,Zinacantán,Chiapas

JacintoCanekisthefirstNormalSchoolinMexicowhichexclusivelytrains

indigenouseducationprofessionalsforthepreschoolandprimarylevels.It

islocatedinthevillageofZinacantán,Chiapas.

2. ‘School and Community’ Diploma in Education Methodology for

PrimaryandSecondaryTeachersinIndigenousCommunities

TheDiplomaisaparticipatoryproject for indigenousteachersfocusedon

developingthepedagogy,culturalrelevanceandrevaluationoftraditional

knowledgeineducation.ItisledbySylviaSchmelkesinherpositionasthe

DirectoroftheResearchInstitutefortheDevelopmentofEducationatthe

UniversidadIberoaméricana(INIDE,onlineresource).

3. Ecidea

Ecidea,whichstandsforCommunityIndigenousEducationforAutonomous

Development, isagrassrootseducationalproject implemented insomeof

the poorest Tseltal communities in the Chiapas Highlands. It is run by

LumaltikNopteswanej,acollectiveofindigenousteachers(Bertely2009a).

4. UNICH

TheInterculturalUniversityofChiapasisoneofeightinterculturalhigher

education institutions inMexico. It has campuses in five locations in the

state of Chiapas. UNICH’s mission is to form professionals fluent in the

indigenous languages of Chiapas and integrate indigenous and scientific

knowledge to contribute to the construction of a society with a higher

qualityoflife(UNICH2013).

DV410 Page 56 of 65 24411

5. CGEIB

TheGeneralCoordinationofInterculturalBilingualEducationistheentity

which coordinates, promotes, evaluates and assesses material related to

equity, intercultural development and social participation within the

SecretaryofPublicEducation.Itsactivitiesincludeinvestigation,designof

educationalmaterials andprograms, deliveryof teacher training courses,

and promotion of culturally and linguistically pertinent education to

indigenousstudents(CGEIB2013).

6. INEE

Founded in 2002, the National Institute of Educational Evaluation is

responsible for the evaluation of the quality, performance and results of

education in Mexico. It designs and carries out evaluations and issues

guidelines for lower level authorities. It has been an independent public

entitysince2013(INEE2014).

DV410 Page 57 of 65 24411

APPENDIX2InterviewquestionsQuestionset1:indigenousteachers,professorsandteachertraineesThesamesetofquestionswasusedforallindigenousintervieweesinChiapas.

The teacher trainees were asked to answer the questions based on their

experience of teacher trainingandprofessionalpractice in indigenouspre‐

andprimaryschools.

1. Whatdoyouunderstandbytheterminterculturalism,bothin

theoryandpractice?

2. Howisinterculturalismreflectedinthe:

a. Curriculum–i.e.doesitcontainindigenous

content/knowledge?

b. Materials–i.e.whatlanguagearetheywritteninanddothey

includeindigenouscontent?

c. Pedagogy–i.e.areindigenousmodesofteachingand

learningincludedinthemethodology,bothduringteacher

trainingandimplementationintheclassroom?

3. Howdoestheindigenouscommunityyoucomefromparticipatein

theprovisionofformaleducation(sabios,parentsorother)?

4. Howisindigenousknowledgeincludedininterculturalbilingual

education?

5. Shouldindigenousknowledgebetaughtintheformalschoolsystem

orlefttothecommunity?Ifso,whatshouldthisinclude?

6. Thereisalotofevidenceindicatingthatindigenousstudents

performpoorlycomparedtonon‐indigenousstudentsintermsof

educationaloutcomes.Inyouropinion,whyisthisso?

7. Shouldthemodelofinterculturalbilingualeducationcontinueasit

is,orshoulditbechangedsomehow?

8. Canmoreparticipationoftheindigenouscommunitiesresultin

betterqualitybasiceducation?Ifso,how?

DV410 Page 58 of 65 24411

Questionset2:Governmentrepresentatives

1. Whatdoyouunderstandbytheterminterculturalism,bothin

theoryandpractice?

2. Howisinterculturalismreflectedinthe:

a. Curriculum–i.e.doesitcontainindigenous

content/knowledge?

b. Materials–i.e.whatlanguagearetheywritteninanddothey

includeindigenouscontent?

c. Pedagogy–i.e.areindigenousmodesofteachingand

learningincludedinthemethodology,bothduringteacher

trainingandimplementationintheclassroom?

3. Shouldindigenousknowledgebetaughtintheformalschoolsystem

orlefttothecommunity?Ifso,whatshouldthisinclude?

4. Howdoes[yourinstitution]perceivetheroleoftheindigenous

communityindesigningandimplementingtheplansandprograms

ofbasiceducation?Inpractice,howdotheyparticipate(parents,

sabios,committeesetc.)?

5. Whatisthepositionof[yourorganisation]withregardsto

alternativeeducationalprojectswhicharedevelopedbythe

indigenouscommunitiesthemselves(e.g.Ecidea,UNEMorother)?

6. Thereisalotofevidenceindicatingthatindigenousstudents

performpoorlycomparedtonon‐indigenousstudentsintermsof

educationaloutcomes.Inyouropinion,whyisthisso?

7. Whatdoesqualityofeducationmeantoyou?Towhatextentcan

nationalexamsserveasindicatorsofqualityofeducation?

8. Canmoreparticipationoftheindigenouscommunitiesresultin

betterqualitybasiceducation?Ifso,how?

DV410 Page 59 of 65 24411

APPENDIX3Informedconsent3.1Participantconsentform Participantconsentform

TitleofProject:InterculturalBilingualEducationandTraditionalKnowledge:HowDoestheIndigenousCommunityParticipate?EvidencefromChiapas,Mexico.

Researcher:AnniKasari,MScDissertationStudent,DepartmentofInternationalDevelopment,LSE.

Email:a.p.kasari@lse.ac.uk

IhavereadandunderstoodtheParticipantInformationSheet.IunderstandwhatmyroleintheinvestigationwillbeandIhavehadtheopportunitytoaskquestions.Iagreetoparticipateintheresearch.

IhavebeentoldhowtheconfidentialityoftheinformationIprovidewillbesafeguarded.

IunderstandIhavethefreedomtowithdrawfromtheinvestigationforanyreasonandwithoutprejudicebyinformingtheabovenamedresearcherwithintwoweeks(14days)ofmyinterview.

IhavebeengivenacopyofthisformandtheParticipantInformationSheet.

NAMEOFPARTICIPANT:

__________________________________________________

SIGNATURE:

__________________________________________________

DATE:

__________________________________________________

YOUWILLBEGIVENACOPYOFTHISFORMTOKEEP.

DV410 Page 60 of 65 24411

3.2Participantinformationsheet

All participants were informed they had the option of remaining

anonymous,butthattheirorganisationandpositioncouldbereferredtoif

thisdidnotcompromisetheiranonymity.Anyparticipantswhowishedto

remainanonymoushavehadtheirnameschangedintheintervieweelist.

Participantinformationsheet

You are invited to take part in a research studywhich forms part of theassessmentformyMScdegree.Beforeyoudecidewhetheryouwishtotakepart, please read the information below so that you have a betterunderstanding of the research, how it will be conducted and the likelyoutputs.Pleasefeelfreetoaskifyourequireanyfurtherinformation.

Title: Intercultural Bilingual Education and Traditional Knowledge: HowDoes the Indigenous Community Participate? Evidence from Chiapas,Mexico.

Purposeofthestudy:

ThestudyisfocusedonanalysinghowtheInterculturalBilingualEducationmodel involves indigenous knowledge and enables the participation ofindigenous communities in the planning and implementation stages ofprimary education in the state of Chiapas, Mexico. The analysis will bebased on interviews of government representatives, teachers andrepresentativesofindigenouscommunities(includingparents).

The findingswillbeused toexamine theextent towhich the inclusionofindigenous knowledge can have implications for the quality of primaryeducation.

Whoisundertakingtheresearch?

Anni Kasari, MSc Dissertation student, Department of InternationalDevelopment, London School of Economics andPolitical Science, London,UK.Email:a.p.kasari@lse.ac.uk

WhyamIbeinginvitedtoparticipateinthisstudy?

Youhavebeen invited toparticipate in the investigationbecauseyouareeither

a) ArepresentativeoftheMexicanGovernmentwithparticular

DV410 Page 61 of 65 24411

knowledgeonInterculturalBilingualEducation;b) Aparentwithchildrenwhoattendanindigenousprimaryschool.c) Arepresentativeofanindigenouscommunitywithknowledgeon

education;ord) Ateacherinanindigenousprimaryschool.

DoIhavetoparticipate?

Itisyourchoicewhetherornottoparticipateinthisstudy.Ifyoudotakepart,youwillbegivenacopyofthisinformationsheet,andIwillaskyoutosignaconsentform.Pleasenotethatevenifyoudodecidetotakepart,youare free to withdraw within 14 days of the interview without giving areason.

WhathappensifIdecidetotakepart?

If you decide to take part, I will ask you a series of semi‐structuredquestions.Theinterviewwilllastapproximately30minutes.

Willmyresponsesbeanonymised?

All informationyouprovidewillbekeptanonymousatyourrequest,andwill be securely stored. Your name will never be associated with any ofyour answers. Some comments may be attributed to describe yourorganizationorthecommunityyourepresent.

Whatwillhappentothefindingsofthestudy?

Selectedquotesfromyour interviewmaybeusedinmyMScdissertation.The informationgeneratedby thestudymaybepublished,butnodetailsfromwhichyoucouldbeidentifiedwillbedivulged.

WillIbenotifiedofthefindingsofthestudy?

I will offer you a short summary of the research findings should yourequestitatthetimeoftheresearch.

ThankyouforreadingtheParticipantinformationsheet.

30June2014

YOUWILLBEGIVENACOPYOFTHISFORMTOKEEP.

DV410 Page 62 of 65 24411

APPENDIX4Ecidea4.1Ecideaorganisationalstructure

Source:Bertely2009b:51

4.2Ecideamethodology

Source:Bertely2009b:13

DV410 Page 63 of 65 24411

APPENDIX5Burfordetal.’sladderofparticipationAladderofindigenousparticipationininterculturaleducation

Source:Burfordetal.2012:6

DV410 Page 64 of 65 24411

APPENDIX6Cummins’originalframeworkInterventionforcollaborativeempowerment

Source:Cummins2000:46

DV410 Page 65 of 65 24411

APPENDIX7López’smodelsofIBEBilingualeducationmodelsunderimplementationinLatinAmerica

Source:López2009:11