Zapatistas and the Mexican Educational System

Ian Harazduk

2014

DEDICATION

To my wife, Sofia, and my daughter, Matilde Rose.

ZAPATISTAS AND THE MEXICAN EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM:

A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF CURRICULUM

Ian Harazduk

ABSTRACT

The Zapatistas, an indigenous group from the Mexican state of Chiapas, began a rebellion on January 1, 1994 with the purposes of demanding their rights, including the right to education.

The uprising highlighted concerns about the Mexican government’s perpetual policies towards integrating indigenous people into the dominant mestizo culture. This project seeks to determine if the Mexican government has increased multicultural educational concepts into its curriculum since the Zapatista’s emergence. Curricula were reviewed from the federal government before and after the Zapatista uprising, from the State of Chiapas, and from the autonomous Zapatistas.

The review found that the current federal and state curriculum has incorporated more multicultural concepts into the education system. However, the primary focus of the Mexican educational system with respect to indigenous peoples is to improve particular competencies that will foster integration into the dominant mestizo society.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would first like to thank my wife for being my cheerleader, my translator, and my best friend through this process and every other. I would also like to thank my daughter, who does not know her father other than as a graduate student (which shall soon change). Her inspiration and passion shown through giggles, scowls, shouts of joy, and tears of unimaginable heartbreak at the temporary loss of a stuffed Gua-Gua put this whole project in perspective.

A huge debt of gratitude goes out to my advisors, who focused, supported, and guided me through the initial inklings of this project on through to its conclusion: my primary advisor, Dr.

Robert Albro, and my secondary advisor Dr. Charles Tesconi.

I would also like to thank all the people who responded to my out-of-the-blue requests for information and assistance. Specifically, I would like to thank Alvaro, Lorena, and Lore for their willingness to assist and their support and kind words throughout.

Finally, I would like to thank my mother, as it was her hard work that allowed me the opportunity to be in the position I am now. Thank you mom.

Thank you all.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ...... ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... iii

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ...... 1

CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY ...... 8

Limitations of Research ...... 12

CHAPTER 3: LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 15

Comunalidad ...... 15 History of Mexican Education for Indigenous Peoples ...... 21 Diverging Views: Indigenous Resistance and Neoliberal Reforms ...... 34 The Zapatista Movement and its Aftermath ...... 45 Multicultural Education ...... 59

CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS ...... 65

Pre-1994 SEP Curriculum...... 65 Post-2011 SEP Curriculum ...... 69 Post-2011 State of Chiapas Curriculum ...... 74 Zapatista Curriculum ...... 78 Analysis...... 81

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION ...... 86

Opportunities for Further Research ...... 88

APPENDIX A CHECKLIST FOR EVALUATING MULTICULTURAL CURRICULUM IN MEXICO ...... 90

APPENDIX B CHECKLIST FOR EVALUATING MULTICULTURAL CURRICULUM IN MEXICO: SEP PRE-1994 CURRICULUM...... 91

APPENDIX C CHECKLIST FOR EVALUATING MULTICULTURAL CURRICULUM IN MEXICO: SEP POST-2011 CURRICULUM ...... 92

APPENDIX D CHECKLIST FOR EVALUATING MULTICULTURAL CURRICULUM IN MEXICO: STATE OF CHIAPAS POST-2011 CURRICULUM ...... 93

APPENDIX E CHECKLIST FOR EVALUATING MULTICULTURAL CURRICULUM IN MEXICO: ZAPATISTA CURRICULUM ...... 94

REFERENCES ...... 95

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

A Zapatista slogan states: “Para todos todo, para nosotros nada” [For everyone,

everything. For us, nothing] (Berteley Busquets, 2010, p. 142). The Zapatistas, an indigenous

rights movement from the rural region of Chiapas, seek to defend the rights and values of the

indigenous peoples. In doing so, the Zapatistas use language that appeals to all Mexicans (and all

people) in order to position themselves apart from elites who continue to dominate the country.

Their resistance stems from five centuries of dominant cultures striving to eradicate the indigenous identity through policies of marginalization and integration. The Mexican nation, and the Spanish colonizers before them, sought to transform the perceived backwardness of the

indigenous peoples and their communities into forms that would fit the interests and desires of

the elite. A major point of contention between indigenous populations and the Mexican elite is the organization of society. Indigenous peoples view the community as the center of the universe rather than the individual (Meyer and Alvarado, 2010, 24). In this system, the social order of the

community is not built on the rights of the individual, but on mutual, common obligations

(Esteva, 1999). This view is at odds with the dominant ideology of Mexico, which vies for a

citizenry and economy that is increasingly privatized and individualistic. Due to the different

social organization, ideology, and values, indigenous peoples have been regarded by the

dominant culture as a category of persons in need of change. The ongoing goal of the Mexican

national project is to transition indigenous peoples away from their communal lifestyles and into

the mestizo culture.

In an attempt to create a cohesive national community, Mexico has alienated a large

proportion of its people. As a result, indigenous communities have fought back against such

dismissive and integrative policies. The Zapatista movement arises out of this long history of

indigenous protest. The Zapatistas overriding objections to the Mexican state are that indigenous

beliefs and cultures have not been sufficiently incorporated into the political, economic, and

cultural construction of Mexico. Their communal lifestyle has been continuously attacked in

legal and violent form. The Zapatistas express their dissatisfaction in communiques such as the

Fifth Declaration of the Lacandon Jungle which states that that the government seeks “to shrink the Indian peoples by limiting their rights to communities, promoting in that way their fragmentation and their dispersal which will make their annihilation possible” (EZLN, 1998).

The Zapatistas claim that for over 500 years, those in power have not listened to the will of the people. Now, it is the Mexican government that refuses to listen and instead is dominated by foreign interests at the expense of the poor and the indigenous peoples (EZLN, 2005). Therefore, the Zapatistas have demanded and taken hold of the right to self-determination in order to govern and educate themselves under their beliefs.

The Zapatistas and their struggle represent a movement to challenge the “bad government” of Mexico which they believe has been thoroughly influenced by the globalizing force of individualism and neoliberalism (EZLN, 2005). On January 1, 1994, the movement gained notoriety after their short-lived, yet dramatic armed rebellion against the Mexican government. The rebellion came as a direct reaction to the signing of the North American Free

Trade Agreement (NAFTA) which went into effect on New Year’s Day, 1994. In addition, the government initiated other actions in preceding years such as peso devaluation, credit restrictions, and modifying ejidal laws which all had detrimental effects on indigenous communities (Stahler-Sholk, 2010, p. 1-2). Specifically, the new agrarian law struck at the core of the indigenous peoples which is their communal social order. Ejidos are collectively held

lands which were implemented through Article 27 of the Mexican Constitution of 1917

(Perramond, 2008). The 1992 reform to ejidal laws allowed individuals within an indigenous

community to privatize their plot, allowed private companies to buy these lands, and removed

any ability for peasants to petition for land redistribution (Harvey, 1998, p. 187). For the

Zapatistas, these reforms erased all gains made by indigenous peoples through land reform

(Marcos, 1994). Their sense of community was being ripped apart for the purposes of economic

efficiency. The focus of the Mexican government was to privatize lands and commodities in

order to encourage foreign investment over local priorities and control (Stahler-Sholk, 2000, p.

3). Indigenous communities once again felt first-hand the focus of maximizing economic output rather than respecting the rights and desires of people. These modernization policies forced indigenous peoples into a choice between their livelihood and their way of life. Purveyors of

NAFTA and the ejidal reforms constructed these policies within a particular neoliberal framework which favored individual responsibility and competition as the markers for a successful society. Therefore, the communal organization and means of production of indigenous communities were in need of replacement because of the need for continuous economic growth and development.

In response, the Zapatistas rebelled against this perceived destruction of their lifestyle.

The movement harnessed the rage and resistance of a historically and still presently marginalized people and demanded that their rights and culture be included within the Mexican democratic process (Harvey, 1998, p. 228). Their ultimate goal is to create a new Mexican patria based on the idea that people should govern their own lives (Esteva, 1999). This revised democracy is the foundation for the Zapatistas, and for all citizens, to receive their demands of housing, land,

work, food, health, education, information, culture, independence, democracy, justice, liberty,

and peace (EZLN, 2005).

This thesis will primarily discuss the Zapatista demand for education. The Mexican

educational system, like many nation-states, has consistently played a key role in purveying the

ideals of the dominant culture. Aurolyn Luykx (1999) explains in her book, The Citizen Factory,

that schooling has become strictly seen as a consumer good. Public schooling’s original purpose

as a tool for social control and division of labor, though it still remains, has become hidden. In

Bolivia, the country Luykx studied for her book, school is designed to construct indigenous

peoples into a particular type of individual (Luykx, 1999). The Mexican story is quite similar.

The system was envisioned as a primary apparatus in which to raise the Indian into the civilized

ideal of the Mexican liberal elite. The explicit objective was to construct a national identity by

regenerating the indigenous identity. The dominant culture sought to eliminate their superstitious

and communal traditions and replace them with rational and economically productive habits

(Erickson, 2002; Schell, 2012; Hiller, 2009; Perez-Aguilera and Figueroa-Helland, 2011; Eiss,

2008). This dynamic began with the original Spanish colonizers. In order to dominate the indigenous peoples, the Spanish socialized them within their religious, moral, and economic framework. The ideologies have somewhat changed over the subsequent centuries, yet the prevailing idea that indigenous people should shed their past lifestyle for the ways of modern life has remained. As such, the curriculum from colonial times through the revolutionary periods has been designed to instruct a particular knowledge framework which in turn further marginalizes indigenous peoples. This framework has transformed over time along with the ideologies of those in power. Its current formation is focused on producing rational, individualistic, and economically productive members of society.

Paolo Freire, a Brazilian educational philosopher and critical theorist, describes this top- down, disciplinary approach as “banking education.” The focus of this pedagogy is on depositing pre-determined information and knowledge on to students (Freire, 1970). The students simply store facts and information into the file cabinets of their mind rather than engaging and critically analyzing the material. This causes the students to become passive, disciplined, and obedient. As another critical theorist Michel Foucault (2006) describes, the teacher has all of the power in this relationship since they hold the information that is deemed correct. In the Mexican context, the teacher receives the study plans and materials from the Mexican government, namely the

Secretaría de Educación Pública (SEP), and deposits this information to the students. The clear goal is to produce students that do not question authority and do not question the information and knowledge they receive.

The Zapatistas understand that education is a powerful political tool and thus have denounced the government’s disciplinary and integrative approach and created their own alternative system. The Zapatistas oppose the education supplied by the Mexican state because they feel the system and its teachers either ignore or disrespect their communal culture and if any interest is provided it is simply focused on training students to work in the national economy

(Barmeyer, 2008, p. 519). The purpose of education in their communities is to understand their oppression, learn how to run their autonomous government, and defend and preserve their cultural rights (Rodriguez, 2006, p. 87; Rockwell, 2010, p. 175). The method for providing this education is through a dialogical and participatory process. Schooling is fully incorporated within the community life and focuses on applied knowledge in the languages, math, geography, and ecology (Barmeyer, 2008). Therefore, the Zapatistas have designed their education, first and foremost, to maintain their traditional lifestyle which they have seen as perpetually missing in

government-run schools. In addition, the Zapatistas see education as a political process. For that

reason, the Zapatistas recently began the freedom school which is an attempt to educate

interested people from outside their community about their beliefs, values, ways of life, and

ideology. This is the education they have been providing Zapatista children since they began

their autonomous project and is supposed to serve as the direct antithesis to the education

provided by the Mexican education system. Ultimately, the main reason the Zapatistas began

their education project is so that schools would be run entirely by each community and for each community and not handed down by outsiders.

The Mexican government has made some changes as a result of the pressing concerns by indigenous communities. In 1990, President Salinas de Gortari amended the constitution to recognize Mexico as a multicultural nation and legally gave indigenous groups the right to preserve and protect their cultures (Dawson, 2005). However, in practice the government ceded little authority and belied these constitutional amendments with the aforementioned reforms that privatized ejidos. Since the Zapatista uprising, the government has made public pronouncements of changing policies in favor of indigenous self-determination, yet has consistently failed to meet these claims. The most notable instance of this failure is the San Andrés Accords. In February

1996, two years after the initial rebellion, the government and indigenous communities negotiated an agreement that provided the indigenous people the right to their self-determination.

However, the Mexican government quickly reneged on that deal and never implemented the accords (Hernández Navarro, 1999). Then, in 2001, after continued pressure by indigenous groups including the Zapatistas, the Mexican Congress passed the Indigenous Law which deferred the responsibility for recognizing autonomy to the states and rejected indigenous rights to land, natural resources, and their own judicial system (Hernandez, 2002, p. 93). The Zapatistas

were upset by this legislation because it did not allow for their autonomy and as a result the

Zapatistas decided to construct autonomy for themselves. The government offers programs to

support and develop the indigenous communities; however, these programs have a specific end

goal. For instance, in the educational sector, the government has instituted and promoted

compensatory programs such as PROGRESA/Oportunidades to encourage indigenous children to

attend schools. However, the Zapatistas argue that since their viewpoints, values, and insights are

not equitably included in the management and maintenance of these programs, they are merely a

means to further integrate the indigenous into the dominant individualistic framework. Since the

Zapatistas feel that they have been unable to have their voices properly heard, they have removed themselves from any interaction with government including their schools.

CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY

The Mexican government has claimed through its constitution that it is a multicultural

nation. This paper researches whether the Mexican educational system reflects this

pronouncement and whether any changes have been made after the Zapatista uprising. A review

will be conducted of formal curriculum before the Zapatista movement and a review of the

current curriculum. Along with this review in curricular changes over time, a review will be

conducted in Chiapas to determine how the curriculum has changed in the state in which the

Zapatistas reside. Finally, to the degree possible, the Zapatista autonomous curriculum will be

reviewed to determine whether their schooling includes multicultural aspects or if they are

predominantly focused on teaching their own ideologies and viewpoints. The review of each of these set of materials include critically analyzing the documents against a particular framework to determine the extent of multiculturalism within the various curricula.

A curriculum is the outcome of a complicated conversation involving many different aspects of education. A curriculum is not simply the published materials and resources provided in classrooms. There are a number of different elements to consider, and the study of curriculum, particularly in the Mexican context, intersects with many other educational issues such as quality of teachers, lack of resources, overcrowding, and inequality (Diaz Barriga, 2011, p. 76).

Curricular plans, materials, trainings, and pedagogy must take into account the context within which an education is being provided and received. Angel Diaz Barriga (2014) notes that curricula have a number of elements including: a) student plans and programs of formal curriculum structures; b) learning and teaching processes; c) the hidden curriculum of the daily classroom; d) training of professionals and teachers; e) social and educational practice; f) problems generated by curriculum content; and g) subjective interpretation of subjects taught (p.

330). Many of these curricular factors are difficult to evaluate and quantify particularly at

thousands of miles away. Therefore, the goal of this project is to determine whether the Mexican government has formally modified the curriculum in response to concerns expressed by the

Zapatistas, whether it has been accomplished at both a regional and national level, and whether the Zapatistas, with their own autonomous curriculum, have also incorporated the viewpoints of others into their educational model. I will only focus on the first and fourth elements of curriculum: study plans and programs of formal curriculum and training of professionals. These curricular aspects can be reviewed through published documents. The manner in which they are implemented cannot be reviewed through documents. The interpretation that particular teachers and students have of these published materials is certainly a part of the makeup of a curriculum.

The biases, prejudices, and socializing factors that individuals input into the classroom are part of this hidden curriculum. Researching these interpretive factors is not a part of this research project. Therefore, this review will not be able to garner the full picture of education in Mexico, but it can provide insights regarding priorities and philosophies of those who create the curriculum.

The primary materials for review of the formal Mexican curriculum will consist of study plans published by SEP, textbooks, official educational policy documents and improvement plans, and professional development and schooling for teachers. In cases where primary source materials cannot be obtained, secondary sources referring to the aforementioned will be gathered and reviewed. I will specifically focus my research on the state in which the Zapatistas reside,

Chiapas, as well as curriculum produced by the federal government. Materials have been selected from two different timeframes: pre-1994 (before the Zapatista movement) as well as current materials (within the past three years). The materials for the review of the Zapatista

curriculum will include any published documents regarding their curricular philosophy, policy statements, textbooks, and teacher trainings. The Zapatista curriculum is certainly not as standardized as in government-run schools and the education is often tailored to individual communities (Rodriguez, 2006, p. 77). In addition, the Zapatistas are quite cognizant and limiting of materials that they produce for mass consumption. Therefore, the review of Zapatista education will not be as indicative of the events taking place in the classroom since these will be more varied than in the formal education system. The purpose of choosing these particular materials in each of the periods of review is to reduce different interpretations of the documents.

Each individual that interacts with these materials has their own understanding of its meaning with their particular context. The goal of this review is to review the Mexican curriculum in one context through its historical precedents. The idea of choosing similar published materials for each of the period is to compare and contrast the documents in order to produce measurable, analyzable results.

In this analysis, there will be four different sets of curricula reviewed: 1) pre-1994 SEP curriculum; 2) current (post-2011) SEP curriculum; 3) current (post-2011) Chiapas curriculum; and 4) the Zapatista curriculum. A standard tool is required to ensure that findings can be evaluated against one another. Therefore, a qualitative analysis will be conducted of these curricula using checklists originally created by James A. Banks’ (1999) to evaluate multicultural education. These checklists were created specifically for the American context; therefore, they have been adapted and consolidated in order to fit the Mexican context (Appendix A). The analysis will consist of rating 14 separate criteria questions on whether they are incorporated

‘extensively’ within the curricula or ‘hardly at all.’ The primary and secondary sources will be reviewed in line with the checklists to determine the formal content provided to students in a

number of areas: representation and analysis of ethnicities (indigenous/mestizo peoples); the

version of history presented; languages offered and studied; and professional development and

training for teachers. These elements will be reviewed at the federal level and compared against

the Chiapas region, the different time periods, and (to the extent possible) the Zapatista curricula.

The element of languages offered will determine whether content is offered in Spanish and/or in

native languages. The element regarding representations of indigenous and mestizo cultures will

decipher the major themes and/or claims that these materials offer about these populations such

as their customs, ancestors, socioeconomic status, and overall worldview. An analysis of

materials in relation to language, history, civics, and cultural will incorporate whether there are

any differences in how these materials are presented depending on the location and time period.

In addition, the materials will be reviewed to determine whether a variety of historical and

cultural experiences are expressed in each curriculum and not simply the experience of the

majority of the students. Finally, reviewing documents regarding professional development for

teachers will include determining whether multicultural training is provided to the teacher as

well as whether the group of teachers, themselves, are multicultural.

The idea of multicultural education is to provide the student with skills, attitudes, and

knowledge of not only their culture, but also other cultures including those that have been

marginalized. Instead of unity and cohesion being created through assimilation and integration,

multicultural education strives for unity through negotiation and discussion (Banks, 1999, p. 8).

When others understand the different perspectives as well as the power imbalances between their

diverse classmates and compatriots, an honest dialogue can begin. The predominant goal of the

Zapatista rebellion was to begin a multicultural conversation that included the beliefs and perspectives of indigenous peoples. Indigenous communities have been struggling for centuries

to be heard, to have their culture and communities respected and treated equitably. Therefore, I

chose to investigate whether the Mexican government at the national and regional level has

incorporated this framework into the school system. Specifically, it is worth determining whether

the dramatic events of the Zapatista movement have significantly changed the historically

integrative educational policies of the nation. In order to be fair and thorough, Zapatista

educational materials need review to determine whether the self-proclaimed purveyors of

democracy and justice are including various viewpoints in their schooling.

Limitations of Research

The research will provide some insight as to whether the Mexican government has

listened and understood the critiques of the Zapatistas and made changes in its educational

policy. The materials will indicate whether the Mexican educational system still attempts to integrate the indigenous into the broader mestizo culture. However, there is much that this study will not be able to identify. Since I will only be reviewing formal and published curriculum, much will be missed. Curricular elements such as specific teaching styles, daily classroom activities, and the subjectivities of teachers and students will, for the most part, be omitted from the research materials. As a result this project will rely on formal and official statements of curriculum which may, in effect, vary widely from the teaching and learning occurring in practice. The focus will not be on the implementation of curricular concepts, but on curricular policy and by extension the curricular philosophy.

The project uses the case study of the Zapatistas and the state of Chiapas. However, there are many other regions with diverse indigenous communities that have different relationships with each other and with the Mexican government. Therefore, this study can only make determinations about how educational policies have affected the Zapatistas. Though, there may

be similarities with this group and other indigenous groups, the research project will be specifically focused in the Zapatistas case.

Curricular materials are being reviewed prior to the Zapatista rebellion and well after the initial armed conflict has subsided. This review occurs at a specific point in time, twenty years after the Zapatistas first came to prominence. Mexico is currently dealing with a prolonged drug war; the reemergence of the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) to the office of the presidency; and recent reforms in energy, television, and elections. The Zapatistas and indigenous grievances are not as hotly discussed as a decade ago which must be acknowledged within this review. Furthermore, Mexico is a diverse and complicated nation with a long and complex history. This project is reviewing materials from two decades apart with its focal point on the Zapatistas uprising beginning in 1994 and its aftermath. Yet, this is but one event in a long chronology of events in Mexico and in the state of Chiapas. There is no doubt, however, that the

Zapatista movement has played and continues to play an important role in the current political and cultural consciousness of the State of Chiapas and to a lesser extent the entire nation.

However, there is no claim being made that the Zapatista movement necessarily and/or exclusively caused any changes to Mexican educational policies. However, with the movement garnering national and international acclaim the hypothesis is that the Zapatistas had an effect on altering the ongoing construction of the Mexican national identity as it relates to educational policies and curriculum

The goal of the project is to obtain identifiable and measurable results about whether the

Mexican educational system has detoured away from its integrative policies in order to become more multicultural since the Zapatista movement. In order to make this determination a

contextual, conceptual, and historical analysis of the education policies within the Mexican national project and the eventual Zapatista rebellion is necessary.

CHAPTER 3: LITERATURE REVIEW

Comunalidad

Indigenous communities and the dominant mestizo culture have different beliefs as to the importance placed on the community versus the individual. An integral part of the indigenous identity is their practice of a communal way of life (Meyer and Alvarado, 2010, p. 30).

Indigenous communities are diverse in their ways of expressing their sense of community. The

Zapatistas are essentially a band of like-minded communities with a similar political ideology.

They wish to place the power not in the people, but this does not mean in any theoretical individual, but within each community (Esteva, 1999). Meanwhile mestizos have mostly adopted the Western liberal view that the individual is the most important figure in society. The differences these two cultures have in the ways to organize society has served as an important discussion throughout Mexican history and has deep political, social, legal, and economic ramifications. This thesis will focus on these differences and primarily on the ways in which these viewpoints have affected educational policy and practice in Mexico from the time of its independence until today. In order to set the discussion of this section and this paper, the concepts of the indigenous, the mestizo, as well as their culture and societal organizing principles need to be further explained and clarified.

The United Nations working group has defined indigenous peoples using four principles:

a) priority in time, with respect to the occupation and use of a specific territory; b) the voluntary perpetuation of cultural distinctiveness, which may include aspects of language, social organization (sic), religion and spiritual values, modes of production, laws and institutions; c) self-identification, as well as recognition by other groups, as well as State authorities, as a distinct collectivity; and d) an experience of subjugation, marginalization (sic), dispossession, exclusion or discrimination, whether or not these conditions persist (Saugestad, 2008, p. 165).

Therefore, defining exactly who is indigenous is a controversial undertaking. In Mexico, the state has historically defined indigenous peoples using a linguistic determination: if an individual speaks one of the 56 recognized indigenous languages then the individual is determined indigenous (Fox, 1999). This is certainly a simplified process and there have continually been claims that the state is undercounting its indigenous populations since it primarily uses language as the determining characteristic (Fox, 1999; Knight, 1990). An estimates as of 2005 place the indigenous population at approximately 10.1 million people which is 9.8% of the Mexican population (CDI, 2006).

The indigenous population in Mexico includes a wide variety of individuals, communities, and cultures. There are 11 different language families, 67 language groups, and

364 dialects (INALI, 2008). The indigenous are spread throughout the country, however, they are more heavily concentrated in rural locations within states such as Oaxaca, Chiapas, and

Veracruz which have over 10% of their population recognized as indigenous. Though, there are certainly different cultures there are similarities including poor development statistics for the indigenous population. Over 80% are impoverished and over 66% do not attend school

(CONDEP, 2007). In Mexico, the indigenous lag behind the non-indigenous in every development category: income, education, health, infrastructure (electricity and information technology), resources (water and sanitation) (World Bank, 2005). The indigenous population, as a whole, is no doubt a marginalized class.

The dominant culture in Mexico is maintained by those considered to be mestizos who are essentially the mixed population of Spaniards and the indigenous. In colonial times,

Spaniards and criollos (individuals of Spanish decent born in the New World) were the elites of the colony. However, after independence, Mexico embraced the concept of the mestizaje. This

cultural concept hailed to blend indigenous and Spanish blood in a process that sought to

translate the racial conflicts of colonial times into a harmonious “cosmic” race (Fuentes-Morales,

2008, p. 21). The idea of a united nation with a mestizo culture grew even further into the

country’s consciousness after the revolution in the 20th century. José Vasconcelos, the founder of

SEP, formulated this idea of the cosmic race bridging together the two cultures into one with the following characteristics: quick, vivacious, mercurial, free of prejudice, and seeking novelty

(Knight, 1990, p. 86). Citizens with these characteristics would be able to create a harmonious new nation that could push the country forward economically and morally. In essence, the

mestizo meant to encompass the best of each tradition, which means that the ideal Mexican

citizen would be patriotic, loyal obedient, industrious, and perhaps most importantly modern

(Fuentes-Morales, 2008, p. 21). In this context, the modern individual was one focused on

improving themselves for the benefit of the country. This new Mexican would no longer be

trapped by communal values. To benefit oneself meant to benefit the country. The ideology was

created by elites that sought to bring all of Mexico including its indigenous population into this

new view of the liberal world. Mestizo was (and continues to be) an achieved and supposedly

desired status (Knight, 1990, p. 73). The indigenous peoples are meant to evolve through their

current culture and into the ways and lifestyle of the new individualistic Mexico.

The difference between the indigenous peoples and mestizos is a social not a racial

distinction (Knight, 1990, p. 74). This serves an important point as it is not biological features,

but merely behavioral and cultural traditions that differentiate the two groups. Perhaps the most

important distinctive feature is their organizing principles for society. Indigenous communities

place everyone (the entire community), not the individual, at the center of the universe (Meyer

and Alvarado, 2010, p. 24). This organizing principle is a fundamental concept of the indigenous

lifestyle. In many Mexican indigenous communities, individual members participate in communal meetings, work on behalf of the community, and own their land together (Alvarado,

2010). Those communities that align with the Zapatista community particularly adhere to this communal lifestyle. The system of communal ownership of land, the ejido, began after the 1910

Mexican Revolution. The 1917 Mexican Constitution for purposes of land reform created this ejidal system. Between the 1930s and the 1970s, Mexico’s government transferred about half of the country’s land into ejidos (Perramond, 2008). The Zapatistas, for one, organize their society around lands held under common ownership and divided into familial holdings. For the

Zapatistas, democratic principles are extremely important to the functioning of the indigenous organizational system. The process for making decisions includes “patient consideration of many disparate points of view, collective and critical discussion, and [is] consensual” (Meyer and

Alvarado, 2010, p. 20). There is inclusivity and a respect for each member as an integral part of the whole. The goal with every discussion is to receive input from everyone in the community for the hopes that no one is marginalized.

On the other hand, the present Mexican nation dominated by mestizos has liberal and individualistic values. In the Constitution of 1857, Mexico formally expressed this interest by replacing the communal lifestyle and instituting privatization and individualism (Purnell, 2002).

The state sought through more private property to increase economic production and revenue through property taxes. Furthermore, the goal for Mexico’s indigenous population “was to weaken their communal and religious identities…and transform them into virtuous and hardworking citizens” (Purnell, 2002, p. 214). The communal land system, specifically ecclesiastical lands, was discouraged (Martinez Luna, 2010, p. 86). Liberals who led the country were intent on constructing a country based on economic individualism and citizenship in direct

opposition to religious and indigenous values (Purnell, 2002, p. 214). For the decades preceding

the revolution, this liberal ideology was for the most part forced on the Mexican population

particularly during the dictatorship of Porfirio Diaz (Eiss, 2008).

Once the revolution occurred, the ideology did not change, but the strategy and the

producer of this strategy did change. A new individual, the mestizo, took power. This individual

was supposedly a combination of Spanish and indigenous blood as well as culture and values.

However, the overriding ideology remained individualistic and liberal (Knight, 1990). The

Mexican state set up the ejidal system and focused on land reform for indigenous peoples and the

poor, yet still sought their development into the new economy and philosophy of the Mexican

nation. The Indian, in this context, is a historical relic. They were fundamental in the creation of the national culture, but indigenous peoples, in their traditional form and communal organization, are no longer useful. “Indigeneity has been constitutive of Mexicanness, but only as its residual abject which is continuously being left-behind in order to ‘modernize,’ ‘develop’ or ‘globalize’” (Perez-Aguilera and Figueroa-Helland, 2011, p. 274). Mexico has only been interested in celebrating the great indigenous civilizations of the past. The mestizos of the current

Mexican nation are the advanced, civilized, and liberalized descendants of this indigenous past.

They have indigenous heritage in name only and the goal if the Mexican nation has been to integrate those who have not yet be integrated.

Since the 1970s indigenous communities have become more vocal about the fact that the government has not listened to their concerns. Indigenous populations have either been forgotten or pushed towards integration. Therefore, communities began requesting, then demanding, their autonomy and their right to self-determination. The struggle for the right to self-determination has occurred through local, national, and international settings. The International Labour

Organization (ILO) in 1989 produced Convention 169 on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in

Independent Countries which includes policies on self-determination and communal rights.

Mexico ratified the convention in 1990 (Hall and Patrinos, 2006, p. 8). In 2007, the United

Nations passed the U.N. Declaration of the Indigenous Peoples’ Rights, which set the ideas of

collective rights and the right to self-determination in international law (United Nations, 2008).

Mexico is also a signatory to this declaration. As mentioned earlier in 1990 Mexico declared

itself a multicultural nation. Although, the Mexican government has accepted these international

norms in relation to indigenous rights, they have not implemented these policies.

After the Zapatista uprising, the government negotiated with indigenous populations at the San Andrés Accords in 1996 to allow for the right to self-determination in local political representation, administration of justice, and control of administrative functions (Hernandez

Navarro, 1999). However, the government balked at implementing these policies (Maybury-

Lewis, 1999). Despite these proclamations of supporting indigenous rights and cultures, the

actions of the Mexican government indicate that they are continuing to support policies that

integrate indigenous peoples into the mainstream mestizo culture. The Indigenous Law of 2001,

initiated by the Fox administration and agreed to by all three major political parties, is proof that

the Mexican government is not set on listening to indigenous communities, but rather on trying

to make this problem go away. The law did not institute the ownership of communal lands and

resources the major component of Zapatista movement. Instead, the Fox administration focused

on it’s the Plan Puebla Panamá (PPP) which was a development program that sought to make

more efficient use of lands in Chiapas (Earle and Simonelli, 2005, p. 191). These policies are

simply continuations of the process to integrate indigenous peoples into the broader society

which has been occurring since the Mexican independence (and before). Education has played a

predominant part in attempting to assimilate the indigenous peoples. A historical analysis of these educational and assimilationist policies over the past two centuries will place Mexico’s current conversation surrounding its supposed multicultural ideology in context.

History of Mexican Education for Indigenous Peoples

Mexican Independence

Once Mexico obtained its independence the project of building a nation and a national identity began. The ideology of the nascent nation was to liberalize, equalize, and privatize. The goal was to have all individuals viewed the same under law (Olivera, 2012). Formally, this meant that the communal rights which the indigenous were allowed to maintain during the colonial period were to be eliminated. The Constitution of 1824 legally abolished communal rights for

Indians (Purnell, 2002). The goal of the nation as seen by liberals was to civilize the Indian by eliminating their backwardness and forcing them into the modern age (Dawson, 1998). Unlike their neighbors to the North, Mexican elites did not want to force Indians into reservations. The desire was to incorporate them into broader society; specifically because after independence there was much hostility towards the Spanish (gachupines) and other foreigners (Hernandez,

2010, p. 318). The Gómez Farías administration of the 1830s attempted to force the Aztec into fusing with the masses by having the Indians accept the cultural values of the elites (Hernandez,

2010, p. 307). In education, the liberals hoped to secularize and civilize the population. This policy, along with privatizing lands, attempted to create more economically productive and liberally-minded individuals in order to modernize the nation. Article 50 of the 1824

Constitution, to this end, empowered the federal government to create educational institutions in military, engineering, fine arts, and physical, political, and moral sciences (Pescador, 2005, 104).

These liberal ideas ran into philosophical and practical challenges. The Catholic Church, a dominant force in colonial Mexico, along with many landed elite fervently disagreed with these policies and their concerns continued through much of the century. Both the Church and the landed elite were content with the current status of the nation. Since the liberals were secular, the

Church feared that their influence would wane if liberals remained in power. The landed elite feared policies meant to break up their large land holdings (McHenry, 1970). However, an even greater challenge during this period was implementing these new policies in any sort of effective manner. Not only did the new government have consistent challenges from their political rivals, but there was also little state control over much of the nation. At the time of independence

Mexico stretched from present-day Oregon to Guatemala and the Indian population was approximately 60% (Hernandez, 2010). Mexico was large and inhabited by many individuals that did not take direct orders from the state. For example, Chiapas (presently the southernmost area of Mexico and 765km from Mexico City) had a large Indian population that had a high level of autonomy from state control (Harvey, 1998, p. 43). In addition, there was not sufficient funding in order to implement the proposed educational institutions of the federal government

(Pescador, 2005). Due to the difficulty of implementing the legal and political reforms of the independence, schooling remained controlled mostly by the Church (Loyo Brambila, 2008). In practice, the elites—criollos, landowners, and church hierarchy—retained power and their children received a private education (Erickson, 2002, p. 149). Independence did change the authority in the classroom; it was no longer the priest providing the education, but the teacher.

Yet the content of the education remained that of the Catholic philosophy established and implemented throughout colonial times, though liberals were set on changing that policy

(Pescador, 2005).

Reform Years

The ideological camps of the liberals and the conservatives became more entrenched

throughout the early 19th century. These political rivals continually traded power in the early

years of the republic. In the mid-1800s, Mexico lost a large portion of its Northern lands to the

United States and some southern territory to Guatemala (McHenry, 1970). Liberals blamed

conservatives for the mismanagement of the nation and once they controlled power, they

implemented reforms. The presidency of Benito Juarez instituted reforms including the

Constitution of 1857, Article 3 which declared that education be free and secular and that the

government control licensing requirements for teachers (Erickson, 2002, p. 146; Pescador, 2005,

p. 104). In addition, the liberals instituted the Lerdo Law of 1856, which privatized lands in order

to remove ownership from the Church and from other means of communal ownership as a means

to boost agricultural production (Purnell, 2002, p. 221). Many of these lands, particularly those

owned by the Church, housed not only farms but schools and hospitals (McHenry, 1970, p. 101).

The liberal desire was to have all Mexicans buy individualized property and become a unified

nation of small land-owners. In actuality, the privatization of these lands in many areas led to increased power and property for local elites as well as some foreigners. In the State of Chiapas after the indigenous peoples had their lands stripped from them, they were forced to work on lands controlled by political bosses. And by 1870 much of the land and autonomy that Indians

enjoyed prior to independence was lost (Harvey, 1998, p. 48). These elites (just as the Church

did in colonial times) demanded services and payments from indigenous peoples (Olivera, 2012,

p. 103). Conservatives encouraged indigenous people to defy the laws and join the

counterrevolution, which eventually erupted into full-fledged civil war (Harvey, 1998, p. 44;

McHenry, 1970, p. 104). The country was ravaged by this war. The liberals eventually won the fight and their ideals of privatization were further entrenched into the nation. 23

Profiriato

Porfirio Diaz was the dictator of Mexico from 1876-1911. He was born in Oaxaca, a mestizo from an Indian mother and a criollo father, and understood local and indigenous politics quite well (Wasserman, 2008, p. 263). Liberal reforms throughout the century had made all

Mexican citizens legally equal. The Diaz administration did provide financial and political stability to a country that had seen turmoil since it independence. Yet, to do so, Diaz ruthlessly suppressed any political uprising as he felt only through his strong stewardship could the country become stable and productive (Rowe, 1912). Diaz believed that acculturation was necessary for indigenous peoples to improve their status. Since he, himself, born of Indian blood proved by

example (Eiss, 2008). The model of development during these times was on commoditizing

Mexican natural resources through foreign investment. The model advocated for the continued

dispossession of indigenous lands in order to create a reliable labor force (Knight, 1990, p. 79).

Indigenous communities revolted against these policies. As a result, the Diaz regime cracked

down and instituted even harsher measures. Diaz used the guise of the ‘myth of the lazy native’

to justify these oppressive actions (Knight, 1990, p. 79). Because the Indians were seen as

racially inferior, they needed to be forced into productivity (Eiss, 2008, p. 126). For example,

Indians in the state of Chiapas often became indentured servants for local elites (Harvey, 1998, p.

49). The process of state-building for Diaz mainly included forcible assimilation into his ideal.

This ideal commissioned statues of Cuauhtémoc in Mexico City, yet brutally killed, deported,

and enslaved the Yaqui population (Dawson, 2005, p. 9).

The educational philosophy during the Porfiriato aligned with the French positivist

movement in which scientific knowledge took precedence over traditional knowledge and

intuition (Lewis, 2005). In conjunction with the continuation of privatization and modernization,

schooling in rural areas was meant to free Indians from their harmful superstitions (Levinson, 24

2001). Though, as in earlier times, the implementation of this liberal schooling was not

especially successful in indigenous communities mainly due to a lack of continued financial

support from the Diaz government (Loyo Brambila, 2008). Overall, in the intra-revolutionary period, a liberal education was still a privilege held only for the elites since over 80% of the population was illiterate (Mabry, 1985, p. 221). Even though, the educational strategy had not been as successful as planned, liberal policies still achieved one of its goals which was to incorporate the Indian into modern society. The Indian population in Mexico declined from approximately 50-60% of the total population in 1793 to only approximately 15% a century later

(McCaa, 2000; McHenry, 1970). These numbers may be skewed since there was an official repudiation of racial distinction after Mexican independence. In addition, a so-called “statistical ethnocide” occurred since official census takers, as previously mentioned, preferred a neat dichotomy between mestizo and indigenous based on language (rather than including self-

identification or traditional culture). By some estimates this lowered the indigenous population in

Chiapas from 80% to the official count of 38% (Knight, 1990, p. 74). In any case, through

assimilationist strategies and in many cases through violent force, the Mexican state reduced, yet

certainly did not eliminate, indigeneity in the country.

Mexican Revolution and Aftermath

The political alliances that held together the dictatorship of Porfirio Diaz started to come apart as state governors and local officials increasingly abused their power. The Diaz

administration had remained in power for so long not only because of coercive efforts, but also

because of the ability of the federal administration to act as a negotiator and intermediary

between hostile groups (Wasserman, 2008, p. 263). However, the entrenched nepotism of hand-

picked political officials as well as the continuous favor shown to local landed elite caused a

critical mass of discontent with the Diaz government (Rowe, 1912). Both peasants and those in

the middle class could no longer tolerate the corrupt practices of the administration and a mass

uprising ensued. The Revolutionary War lasted from 1910-1920 and over one million lives were

lost (Lewis, 2005). Indigenous communities fought mainly due to local grievances; their

concerns were often economic not cultural. Although figures like Emiliano Zapata and Pancho

Villa, with their calls for land reform, arose out of the conflict, there was no broad nation-wide

Indian project (Knight, 1990, p. 76). In places such as Chiapas, Indians were excluded from the war which only included the federal army and local landed elites (Rus, 1994, p. 265; Harvey,

2008, p. 53). In other areas, indigenous peoples desired the gains of modernization as they requested more support from the government towards these efforts (Dawson, 1998). The diverse

Indian populations encountered different experiences during the revolution and often had different desires. Therefore, they did not successfully organize their grievances, and as such the revolutionary period was ultimately dominated by the concerns of middle class mestizos. The revolution, however, did close the chapter on colonial divisions—“the old Indian/European thesis/antithesis had now given rise to a higher synthesis, the mestizo, who was neither Indian nor European, but quintessentially Mexican” (Knight, 1990, p. 85). The mestizo became the new dominant culture in the country. Jose Vasconcelos formulated the notion of the “cosmic race;” he saw the mixed ethnicity as a positive evolution of a new Mexican citizen that would serve as a bridge to the future (Knight, 1990, p. 86).

The mestizo thus became fully intertwined with the idea of the Mexican nation.

Intellectuals at the time of the revolution believed that integrating indigenous peoples into this new nationality would allow the ideas of the mestizaje to grow without the need for further immigration (Knight, 1990, p. 85). A new political base could be created through this

transformation. Andrés Molina Enríquez described Mexico as a nation on the march to mestizaje.

In his view, the Indians had become dismantled from years of exclusion and the criollos had become disgruntled at the rise of the mestizo. Therefore, it was only the mestizo that could serve as the foundation for the nation (as cited in de la Peña, 2006, p. 279). The goal thus was to construct Mexico around the notion of the mestizo. The policies towards the indigenous peoples changed as a result of the revolution. No longer was the idea to forcefully assimilate indigenous people as had been done during the Porfiriato. Instead, the goal was the peacefully integrate the indigenous into the population (Dawson, 1998). Manuel Gamio coined this new policy indigenismo (de la Peña, 2006, p. 281). The new ruling mestizo middle class attempted to understand the local traditions and cultures of indigenous communities. However, these elites were quintessentially liberal and secular and thus were philosophically at odds with the folk religious values and community organization of indigenous peoples (Wasserman, 2008, p. 268).

Therefore, indigenistas still wanted to strip the indigenous of their perceived negative and antiquated characteristics including their native languages, communal social organization, and means of production and replace them with modern, liberal values (Fuentes-Morales, 2008, p.

22). The end goal was the same as in the days of Porfirio Diaz, but the means had changed.

Essentially, the “aim of the indigenistas was…to integrate the Indians, in other words to

‘mestizo-ize’ them” (Knight, 1990, p. 86).

The goal of this new nation was to create a united patria. However, according to elite mestizos, indigenous peoples were lagging behind partly as a result of a lack of resources and partly because of their lifestyle. Therefore, in order for the ideal of equality to be reached,

Indians needed to receive sufficient education, political access, and economic development.

Thus, the paternalist state was born (Knight, 1990, p. 84). By providing the necessary resources

through education, healthcare, and reestablishment of lands, the Mexican elite believed that the

Indian could become as successful as the mestizo (Dawson, 2005). The state followed through in

the Calles presidency (1924-1928) providing three million acres of land as well as building 2,000

primary schools (Wasserman, 2008, p. 266). The ideology of the Porfiriato was replaced with a

more nuanced tone and set of actions. As Knight (1990) explains no longer was the country

dominated by ideas of “Rightist Westernism” which demanded acculturation of Eurocentric

ideals by force. Post-revolutionary nationalism fit the framework of “Leftist Westernism,” which

saw the indigenous as peasants in need of economic liberation (p. 81). In any event, the policies towards indigenous peoples were set on constructing cultural homogeneity and thus were exclusionary by definition (de la Peña, 2006, p. 281). Indigenista policies stressed that indigenous peoples needed to rid themselves of their antiquated ways and communal ideology.

However, it acknowledged that the population had some useful traits, just not those that

conflicted with liberal ideals.

Public education has always been political. In the context of a remerging nation-state, this education has a nationalist ideology (Luykx, 1999, p. 43). The education system was dominated by the mestizo philosophy. Article 3 of the Constitution of 1917 restated that the government should establish public education which is secular and free (Pescador, 2005). The goal of schooling in this era was to liberalize and secularize the populace (Loyo Brambila, 2008). The federal government took a much more involved role in the creation of the Mexican education system. The Secretaría de Educación Pública (SEP) was established by Vasconcelos in 1921 to supervise federal schools as well as oversee private, parochial, and technical schools (Erickson,

2002, p. 147). This agency was tasked with expanding education into rural areas through building schools and libraries and introducing new methods of health care (Lewis, 2005;

Wasserman, 2008). New forms of education were also introduced to indigenous populations

such as “cultural missions” and a John Dewey-based “school of action” (Loyo Brambila, 2008;

Levinson, 2001). The cultural mission typically included a group of trained individuals which was often a doctor, an agronomist, a tradesman, an instructor in European aesthetics, a cook, and others who would organize seminars for indigenous peoples. The “school of action” encouraged teachers to involve the students in small-scale industry, technical and agricultural training, and instill a love of the land. Both of these methods attempted to provide the Indians with a love of country (Loyo Brambila, 2008). These initiatives often had inconsistent effects dependent on funding and local conditions. One particular concern was that all of these programs were still taught in Spanish (Lewis, 2005). Although, there were efforts to consider indigenous communities in the creation of these educational programs, they still had the overall intention of converting indigenous peoples into the modern Mexican nation. Paradoxically for indigenous peoples, this concerted effort and interest in responding to rural needs resulted in an increase in state power (Levinson, 2001, p. 22). These were the first compensatory programs created by

Mexico in which money and resources were provided to the communities in exchange for further integration into the Mexican society and economy.

The Cardenas Presidency

The Church continued to express their concerns with the dominant liberals, which in

1926 resulted in the Cristero revolt. The concerns of the clergy were that the newly empowered state had instituted policies to limit or prohibit religious education and priesthood activities

(Loyo Brambila, 2008, p. 211). The new director of the SEP, Narciso Bassols, had anti-religious leanings and furthered reforms that hindered religious education (Levinson, 2001). Eventually the two sides agreed on an arrangement where the secular legislation remained, yet private

Catholic schools were allowed to teach religion (Loyo Brambila, 2008, p. 211). State power,

however, continued to grow and shift. The presidency of Lazaro Cardenas implemented a new

type of liberalism in line with socialist ideals. The “socialist education” instituted during this era

continued to espouse the benefits of national unity, yet this identity no longer included a simply

individualist viewpoint (Loyo Brambila, 2008). There was a specific anticlerical nature to the

Cardenas era which attempted to replace religious ceremonies with patriotic celebrations (Lewis,

2005, p. 316). The philosophy of “socialist education” favored technical education that was to

form a productive worker and a patriot (Levinson, 2001; Lewis, 2005). Cardenismo placed

Indians and peasants in the same class; and the Mexican campesino became the ideal citizen as opposed to the mestizo during the revolutionary period (Dawson, 1998). To this point Cardenas redistributed over 50 million acres of land (Lewis, 2005, p. 315). However, in turn for these new lands the Indians were included within the state system and were also expected to modernize and become more economically productive (Dawson, 1998). Cardenas continued the idea of indigenismo and he focused on implementing the policy across the entire country. Cardenas worked with local and state governments to incorporate their communities into the broader aim of a socially unified and economically healthy nation. For example in the state of Chiapas, the government promised and delivered new lands as well as better labor conditions and wages in exchange for government involvement within indigenous communities by way of language and politics (Rus, 1994). Cardenas changed the focus of the Mexican nation from the middle and upper class to the poor campesinos. Since peasants were the majority of the nation it was politically expedient to pronounce these individuals as the backbone of the country. Though, in providing beneficial policies such as land reform, the state sought to incorporate these individuals into the broader nation. The state encouraged and incentivized campesinos,

particularly indigenous peoples, to shed their religious and traditional lifestyles and pledge their support to Mexico.

The Cardenista administration definitively felt that indigenous autonomy was anathema to the state project. Cardenas ultimately sought to unite the nation. His project was “to mobilize peasants and workers around the country, incorporate them into the ruling coalition, and then use the power derived from their organization to neutralize the conservatives and push through necessary reforms” (Rus, 1994, p. 273). The goal was to organize campesinos (both indigenous and non-indigenous peasants) for the economic and social betterment of themselves and the country. The administration felt that indigenous communities that resisted reforms were backward and in need of being dragged into the 20th century (Dawson, 1998, p. 306). Just as the

Zapatistas would be painted over a half century later, the resistance of these indigenous peoples was deemed irrational. However, many indigenous communities did just that and resisted because they were skeptical of the new found eagerness of the government to support them when for so many decades they had been forgotten or told they were backward.

The implementation of this grand strategy of “socialist education,” as with many previous

Mexican educational initiatives, was not consistently applied across the different regions of

Mexico. Though, in this case the administration did provide a significant amount of funding for these initiatives. In some regions such as the State of Oaxaca the reforms were deemed a success.

Teachers who were well-organized in the region became important figures in the community and important agents of the state’s goal of Mexicanization. In addition, bilingual education began to be used in the region alongside efforts to further the education of women (Smith, 2007).

However, in other regions indigenous communities resisted, at times with violent backlash, the implementation of this socialist education (Dawson, 1998, p. 307). The inconsistent

implementation of the policy occurred as a result of the different interactions of teachers and

administrators with local communities. In communities where teachers did not respect local

tradition, the socialist education program went poorly (Wasserman, 2008, p. 264). Indigenous communities often did not appreciate “socialist” teachers parachuting in to tell them the new way they should live their lives.

The Cardenas presidency was the most favorable president at that time for the indigenous, since he implemented real reforms to boost their economic and human productivity.

Yet, just as in colonial times, in the era of independence, the Reform Years, the Porfiriato, and the post-revolutionary period, another administration decided the needs of the indigenous and attempted to integrate them into that construct of Mexican identity. Different indigenous groups reacted differently to this idea, which supports the claim that indigenous thought, in itself, is diverse. In addition, the indigenous people and communities have political agency and leaders cannot simply determine, without their participation, that they have their best interests in mind.

Centralized and paternalistic policies for the state were certainly and still are a hallmark of the

Mexican nation along with most other nation-states. All non-elites, including a majority of mestizos, did not participate in the vast array of political decisions that affected their lives. The difference, though, with the indigenous peoples than with non-indigenous people is that their way of life, traditions, language, and culture were all at risk with these political decisions. Even the Cardenas administration that was for the most part supportive of indigenous communities still conditioned their support upon the personal and economic development of these individuals within a particular liberal framework.

Mexican Urbanization and Industrialization – 1940s – 1970s

Following the presidency of Cardenas, General Manuel Avila Camacho took charge in

1940 and immediately dismantled much of the socialist initiatives in favor of foreign investment strategies (Loyo Brambila, 2008, p. 212). Mexico entered a period of industrialization, modernization, and urbanization (Lewis, 2005). The agrarian reform of the Cardenas period was halted. The new administration did not have a similar affinity or tolerance for the indigenous peoples. In Chiapas, the new governor believed that the Indian was the enemy to progress and thus refused to fund schools or pay indigenous teachers (Rus, 1994, p. 282). Therefore, in educational practice the idea of preparing a unified citizen to productively work the land was replaced with the idea of now preparing for the modern industrialized worker (Levinson, 2001).

Jaime Torres Bodet as the director of SEP believed that education was to prepare the child for his role as a citizen and a worker in adulthood (Loyo Brambila, 2008, p. 212). In 1943, Article 3 of the Constitution was amended to now include that education was not only free and secular, but also compulsory (Pescador, 2005, p. 105). Due to increased modernization, the Mexican nation required a more advanced workforce. In line with industrialization, Mexico became significantly more urban during this time period: in 1940, 65% of the workforce was in the agricultural sector and in 1970 that number fell to 35% (Lewis, 2005, p. 316). Education, then, began to focus more on urban areas rather than on the rural population that were targeted during the Cardenas era

(Lewis, 2005). The increased need of an educated workforce, as well as the constitutional amendment to make education compulsory, brought a large number of new students into the educational system. As a result, the educational focus during these years was more on expanding the quantity of education rather than the quality (Levinson, 2001).

The Mexican government in 1948 appeared to recognize the need to at least nominally provide indigenous communities with governmental support and thus continued the policy of 33

indigenismo by creating the Instituto Nacional Indigenista (INI). A main purpose of the

organization was to link indigenous regions to the broad market economy (Olivera, 2012). The

idea was to produce economic development without threatening cultural integrity. The

educational system also began supporting accommodations for indigenous peoples, including the

rise of bilingual and bicultural education (Pescasdor, 2005). Yet, bilingual education, which was

officially introduced in 1963, was primarily for the purposes of transitioning the indigenous to

the Spanish language (Fuentes-Morales, 2008, p. 107). In addition, the government and

specifically the INI still desired indigenous integration through social development programs that

meant learning to read, write, and speak Spanish and to become an entrepreneur rather than a

peasant (Olivera, 2012). The Mexican state promoted its national ideology which was for its

citizens to be hard-working productive individuals rather than simply members of a poor ejido.

The paternalistic state continued to tell the indigenous communities what was best for them.

Diverging Views: Indigenous Resistance and Neoliberal Reforms

Precursor to Resistance – 1970s

By the 1970s, the indigenous population that remained had been marginalized and

subjugated for almost five centuries. For over a century, the battle between liberals, peasants, landed elite, the Church, and the indigenous peoples had wavered between the socialization and privatization lands. For the most part, indigenous communities that resisted the urge to assimilate over the past century did not improve their lot. In Chiapas, in particular the indigenous had been dislocated from lands received during the Cardenas agrarian reform and though, there had been a redistribution of land, it was limited. Modernization policies including increased oil production and logging and the building of dams coupled with the entrenched power of local elites led to the indigenous being thoroughly dominated by the state and caciques (Harvey, 1998, p. 228).

Indigenous peoples had perpetually been made the subject of national unification projects.

Whether it was by force or by integration, in every case, it was always the indigenous peoples that had to change their traditions and beliefs to fit within the dominant culture. Their communal way of life did not fit the emerging narrative of the Mexican nation, which was focused on successive models of economic advancement. The decade of the 1970s proved to be an important moment in the history of Mexican indigenous peoples. In Chiapas, during this era, just as

Cardenas did, the government reached out to further their alliance with indigenous leaders

(Harvey, 1998, p. 91). However, after stewing in decades of discontent, there was a resurgence of indigenous political organization and movement of resistance away from government control.

In 1970, Luis Echevarria obtained the presidency after student protests erupted against one party rule the day before the 1968 Olympic Games. Echevarria reaffirmed the Mexican state’s commitment to support workers and peasants. Redistribution of lands and reforms in the ejido sector were reconstituted during this era. The government felt the indigenous and peasant resistance to their perpetual grasp on power and attempted to appease their grievances. However, in practice, these reforms were not always successful in wrestling power and lands away from local caciques (Harvey, 1998, p. 76). Indigenous populations faced the overarching indigenista attitudes and policies of the federal government, along with the local political power of landed elite. Therefore, only through the insistent work of local organization did indigenous populations begin to open up political space for their concerns. Neil Harvey (1998) in his book, The Chiapas

Rebellion, chronicles the ebb and flow of indigenous resistance that eventually led to the

Zapatista rebellion. With assistance from local church organizations, many indigenous communities began to organize and vie for broad-based solutions. In addition, as a result of land reforms and redistribution, many areas became inhabited by different ethnicities. However,

because of shared concerns and struggles many of these groups worked together politically

(Harvey, 1998). A watershed moment in indigenous history in Mexico was the Indigenous

Congress of 1974 which consisted of a number of different indigenous groups that met in

Chiapas, discussed their concerns, and demanded from local officials the titling of ejido land, elimination of corruption, minimum wage, and education in their own languages and respect for indigenous cultures (Harvey, 1998, p. 78). In Michoacán another congress took place in 1975 with similar demands and also included the desire for linguistic and cultural self-determination.

In these congresses, indigenous peoples once again declared their political agency. The demands of indigenous peoples (as did the subsequent Zapatista movement) mixed traditional peasant complaints with aggressive demands for cultural rights (Dawson, 2005). Though, the Echevarria administration showed concern for these claims, the government would not support indigenous autonomy. Integration policies were still in effect and still the ultimate goal.

In the 1970s, the Mexican education system continued to ramp up the quantity of education provided; however, at times this sacrificed quality (Loyo Brambila, 2008, p. 216). The

Mexican education system prior to the 1970s consisted of primary education for the majority of the population (Levinson, 2001). The main goal of education outside of the intellectual elite was to teach basic information such as the Spanish language, literacy, love of country, the ethic of hard work, and technical education. Though, as Mexico modernized in its industry and grew economically at a rapid speed, a greater need for a more educated and professional labor force made secondary schools more popular (Levinson, 2001). In the 1970s, Mexico borrowed much of its curricular innovation from the United States who at this time had a vested interest in ensuring that Mexico did not end the way of communist Cuba (Kumar, 2011). The most prominent idea of curriculum design at the time was based on behaviorist objectives, which

basically served to condition students to learn certain pieces of knowledge. Instructional activities in this method were derived, then implemented, then evaluated (Diaz Barriga, 2011, p.

92). The educational processes were based on a scientific rational approach (Diaz Barriga, 2014, p. 331). Implementation of these strategies occurred through the typical Mexican centralized system where study plans were handed down from SEP for primary education, the first three years of secondary education, and teacher education (Kumar, 2011, p. 31). This new approach allowed Mexico to effectively provide the information that the students would need to know in order to develop into productive workers. The historical, social, and local aspects surrounding education were disregarded; the goal was to efficiently learn the material handed down (Diaz

Barriga, 2014, p. 331).

Critical Theorists and a Debt Crisis

The indigenous resistance that began in the 1970s gained traction and their grievances began to be noticed and supported by academics and practitioners. Indigenous teachers who had been trained in acculturation and indigenista methods beginning in the Cardenas period and continuing through the following decades began questioning the educational process. These educational promoters began demanding indigenous involvement in the creation of policies and supporting a so-called critical indigenismo (Fuentes-Morales, 2008, p. 108). The SEP acknowledged this pressure to include the indigenous in educational policy decisions and thus in

1978 it created the Dirección General de Educación Indígena (DGEI), which was managed by the indigenous and had the goal of implementing critical pedagogy into their education.

Critical pedagogy was emerging as a field within academics. Critical pedagogy sees schooling as a political process. It “demands that people repeatedly question their roles in society as either agents of social and economic transformation, or as those who participate in the

asymmetrical relations of power and privilege” (Smith and McLaren, 2010, p. 332). Paolo Freire is perhaps the best known theorist of critical pedagogy. In his seminal work, Pedagogy of the

Oppressed, he spoke about the potential liberating effects of education. Freire (1970) detailed how education in its current form focused only on distributing specific knowledge that served the purposes of the ‘oppressors.’ The oppressors in the field of curriculum were those who supported the behaviorist view of education. Freire termed this “banking” education because the teacher simply deposits information to the student. This education was devoid of any transformative or critical properties since it simply provided mere pieces of information to students. This education was exactly the type being provided to Mexicans over the preceding decades. Students were in the school to simply receive information and be tested on whether one attained it. Education had become a disciplinary model that complimented the assimilationist strategies of the state. Michel

Foucault describes that school “became a sort of apparatus of uninterrupted examination…It became less and less a question of jousts in which pupils pitched their forces against one another and increasingly a perpetual comparison of each and all that made it possible to both measure and judge” (Foucault, 2006, p. 132). These judgments and evaluations were based on students knowing defined and specific information determined by those in power (the SEP). Within the

Mexican context, mestizo students (or for that matter indigenous students) who embraced the behaviorist approach to education would certainly advance within the structure as opposed to those who challenged, questioned, or resisted the information provided. Foucault explains that these evaluations transform school and society into a power imbalance between those who have the correct information and those who do not. “The distribution according to ranks or grade has a double role: it marks the gaps, hierarchizes qualities, skills, and aptitudes; but it also punishes and rewards” (Foucault, 2006, p. 130).

Critical pedagogy believes that education is not by its nature merely disciplinary. Nation-

states have utilized its transformational power to align with their political objectives. Pierre

Bourdieu (1986) notes education is a field of struggle with the ability to create, continue, or

change inequalities within society. In the “banking” education model, social inequalities are

perpetuated since the dominant culture creates and maintains the educational content. Individuals

within the dominant culture learn knowledge in school (educational capital) that compliments

their social relationships and networks (social capital) as well as their cultural beliefs and

concepts (cultural capital) (Swartz, 1990). This has been the educational model in Mexico since

the creation of the SEP. The education mestizos receive fits within their social identity, while indigenous students must either adhere to these new forms of capital through assimilating into the dominant society or remain in an inferior class. Through educational, social, and cultural capital, individuals can receive not only economic capital, but also political power and status.

Therefore, the only way within Mexican society for an indigenous person to gain necessary capital was for them to lose their indigeneity. Education through the state system was not an available option for indigenous people who sought to maintain their traditional and communal lifestyle.

The dominant culture and the indigenous peoples were set within two differing camps with respect to schooling and social capital. Christopher Hurn discusses these two opposing

theories of schooling, which he calls the functional paradigm and the conflict paradigm. The

functional paradigm states that schooling performs two crucial functions: 1) sorting and selecting

talented people, and 2) pushing the knowledge economy forward (Hurn, 1993, p. 42). Conflict

theorists, on the other hand, argue that the fundamental purpose of school is to maintain the

current social order (Hurn, 1993, p. 58). The Mexican educational system has historically been

constructed under the functional paradigm which states that Mexican society is on a path to

further progression, modernization, and advancement and education is a fundamental tool to lead

the nation to that goal. Conflict theory opposes this notion and instead states that societies are

perpetually in conflict with one another and the dominant culture seeks to maintain their control

through major institutions such as the educational system.

The only possible solution, if one exists, to this prolonged problem is to engage in a

dialogue or as Freire termed it ‘problem-posing’ education. Classes should not be solely lectures, where information geared towards one culture is deposited into the student’s mind and then the students are judged on who retains that knowledge the best. The “teacher is no longer merely the-one-who-teaches, but one who is himself taught in dialogue with the students, who in turn while being taught also teach. They become jointly responsible for a process in which [we] all grow” (Freire, 1970, p. 58). Education is to be a critical analysis for all involved to self-reflect on particular context within the world. “For Freire, pedagogy is…a political and moral practice that provides the knowledge, skills, and social relations that enable students to explore the possibilities of what it means to be critical citizens” (Giroux, 2010, p. 716). The DGEI focused on taking a first step towards critical pedagogy by introducing bilingual and bicultural education.

Indigenous students would first learn and foster their indigenous cultures, and then they would learn the universal values of other cultures (Fuentes-Morales, 2008, p. 109). There were teachers and parents that were opposed to this strategy, since it unfairly required indigenous children to become competent in two languages and cultures while the dominant and advantaged mestizo population only had to learn their own (Hernandez, 2001). In addition, in the Mexican context a student-centered approach also proved difficult to put in practice due to the institutionalized culture of an administrative and managerial centralized authority (Kumar, 2011, p. 39). The SEP

had complete control over educational content and the recommendations made by the DGEI were not often implemented because the SEP continued their focus on education geared toward economic advancement. Moreover in academic circles, there was concern over whether critical pedagogy could even be implemented effectively. The complex discourse presented by the theory was difficult to translate into classroom and thus there was a communication gap between the producers of the material and the actors in the field (Diaz Barriga, 2014, p. 333). This may have been due to the nature of the material. But more likely it was a result of the fact that at this time resources were not used to incorporate this method sufficiently into the curriculum.

There had been hope for indigenous communities heading into the 1980s that they may have been able oppose the policies of integration and control or at least assist with the creation of educational content and materials provided to their communities. Indigenous communities had intellectual support from critical theorists. In addition, the educational system was also in the process of decentralizing due to its own inefficiencies at implementing its goals (Loyo Brambila,

2008). The teacher’s union in Mexico was gaining power and was demanding more resources for education and opposed to modernization policies of the government (Pescador, 2005). However, economic realities struck in 1982 in the form of a debt crisis. Therefore, structural reforms were instituted, which cut funding for subsidies and sectors such as education (Loyo Brambila, 2008).

In addition, more foreign investment flooded into the country in line with the privatization of state-owned companies (Williams, 2005). Whatever inroads the indigenous movement had made were quickly forgotten by the Mexican government in lieu of concerns regarding the economic stability of the nation.

In Chiapas, in the early 1980s, there were nominal land reforms provided to the indigenous. However, these were unfavorable lands and powerful cattle ranchers ensured that

they kept their lands. With other concerns on their mind, the government wished to appease indigenous populations and diminish the amount of political organization in the region (Harvey,

2008). Furthermore, there was a potentially destabilizing conflict in neighboring Guatemala and the government could not handle any spillage from that struggle. Therefore, the federal government in conjunction with the state initiated Plan Chiapas which sought “to rapidly improve living standards of the chiapanecos and to strengthen the social and cultural integration of the state” (Harvey, 2008, p. 151). The plan provided funds for border security and road and communication infrastructure. The government claimed the money was coming due to historical neglect of the region. However, the entire plan was yet another pronouncement of supporting and assisting indigenous and peasant populations when it really had ulterior motives, which included the need for further government control of the region as well as the integration of indigenous peoples. The plan had the opposite effect regarding integration and during the 1980s the Ejército

Zapatista de Liberación Nacional (the Zapatista army) was clandestinely growing in number and in arms.

Salinas Administration - Multicultural or Neoliberal Reforms?

Carlos Salinas de Gortari won the presidency in 1988 after a disputed election. He was a technocrat and was focused on bringing Mexico definitively out of its economic crisis and into the first world. Yet, the debt crisis hit poorer communities harder than others. The unrest in

Guatemala and continued repression of indigenous communities furthered tensions (Harvey,

2008). The indigenous populations, particularly in Chiapas, had become increasingly discontent with their subordinated position within Mexican society. In Chiapas, the population still suffered from intense development concerns: 50% of the population suffered malnutrition, 30% were illiterate (compared to the 10% national average), and 62% did not complete primary school

(compared to the 21% national average). Despite the targeted strategy of Plan Chiapas, the

region still suffered from little infrastructure in the way of roads, water, and electricity as well as

a lack of social and credit services (Harvey, 1998, p. 173). As a result Salinas made significant

national pronouncements and policy changes to support and develop indigenous communities

and culture. One of his first policy initiatives was the National Solidarity Program (PRONASOL)

which created a vast anti-poverty bureaucracy in an attempt to gain support from local

communities (Kaufman and Trejo, 1997). Salinas also instituted a direct payment program,

PROCAMPO, which paid peasant farmers for each hectare they planted (similar to farming

subsidies in the United States). However, there were concerns with both of these programs in

that due to local situations, many of these funds ended up in the hands of merchants (Harvey,

1998, p. 182).

Perhaps the most important policy and legal change made by Salinas with respect to

indigenous peoples was to officially amend the constitution in order to make Mexico a

multicultural nation (Fox and Rivera, 1999). His administration also gave indigenous peoples the

right to protect and preserve their cultures. Furthermore, Salinas raised the budget for the INI 18-

fold. All of these policies were in line with the historical practice of indigenismo. The new

money for the INI was in an attempt to absorb the indigenous population into mainstream society

in order to diffuse their discontent (Harvey, 1998, p. 201). Federal officials had little intent to cede any real authority to indigenous groups (Dawson, 2005).

In regards to educational policy Salinas signed a number of laws into action. In 1992, he signed the Acuerdo Nacional para la Modernizacion de la Educacion Basica (ANMEB), in which the main purpose was to improve the quality of education. The law sought to decentralize portions of the educational system which gave more power to the states for determining teacher

salaries as well as allowing textbooks to be printed in indigenous languages (Tatto, 1999, p.

270). Although, the main purpose for decentralization was to reduce the resources necessary to

run administrative functions at the federal level; it was a cost-reduction strategy. The law regulated recognition of private schools and established the public nature of evaluations of the educational system (Loyo Brambila, 2008). Furthermore, Salinas signed into law that lower secondary education (grades 6-9) was now compulsory. This reform was a symbolic effort in order to raise the reputation of the school system which aligned with Salinas’ overall policies to modernize and advance the Mexican nation. Many teachers continued to be concerned about these modernizing policies since it appeared to be a move towards neoliberal education

(Levinson, 2001).

Although, Salinas did pronounce that Mexico was now a multicultural nation, his policies clearly supported the notion that in order to be Mexican one must be economically competitive

(Harvey, 1998, p. 200). His ultimate goal was to have Mexico leap into the First World. To that point, his reigning achievement, which ultimately triggered the Zapatistas rebellion, was the signing of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). At the time of its signing it was seen by indigenous peoples in the agricultural sector as a “death certificate for the [I]ndian peoples of Mexico” (Barry, 1995, p. 157). NAFTA forced poor campesinos, of which many were indigenous, into the market economy to compete with U.S. and Canadian agribusinesses.

Prior to the signing of NAFTA, in 1991, Salinas also allowed for the privatization of ejidal lands,

which reignited tension across and among indigenous communities about what land belonged to

whom and whether these lands should be sold to investors (Williams, 2005). The neoliberal

strategies implemented by Salinas, along with the crises of the overvaluation of the peso in 1994,

caused poverty to increase specifically for the indigenous (Olivera, 2012, p. 108). In Chiapas,

these neoliberal reforms, along with ever-present state and local repression and local divisions,

caused much social dislocation (Harvey, 2008, p. 171). Ultimately, NAFTA and the coffee crisis

in 1999 forced many campesinos out of business and in need of finding work outside of Mexico

(Ruiz Medrano, 2010; Olivera 2012).

Specifically in regards to curricula, Salinas’ reforms required teacher certification procedures which standardized many educational programs around the idea of teaching students

to compete in the 21st century workplace (Kumar, 2011, p. 42). Continual economic crises made

it extremely difficult for the government to pay for public services. Therefore, Mexico received

loans from the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund as well as the United States

government. In response to these loans, Mexico was required to institute structural reforms in

order to make the economy more stable and efficient. The education sector following suit had to

become more efficient which placed curricular emphasis on acquiring productive and useful

skills, and then testing to see if these skills have been obtained (Apple, 2001). In education, in

land reform, in the agricultural section, and in trade policy, the Salinas government focused on

economic growth and productivity at the expense of indigenous and peasant populations. The

Zapatistas felt that the story of how these policies affected the chiapaneco indigenous population

needed to be told.

The Zapatista Movement and its Aftermath

The Zapatista Movement

The EZLN began in the early 1980s, when an organized and politicized group of

indigenous in Chiapas accepted the FLN, a group of non-indigenous left-wing radicals

(Barmeyer, 2008, p. 510). The group started as a coalition of self-defense units arming and defending themselves from the violence and repression of local elites (Harvey, 1998, p. 165).

The group grew through social relations and political networks to 1,300 combatants by 1989

(Barmeyer, 2008, p. 510; Harvey, 1998, p. 167). The group acted clandestinely and all of its

growth was done in secret. During these formative years, the EZLN had a non-confrontational

policy with the state (Harvey, 1998, p. 196). In fact, they received funds from the integrationist

development programs of PRONASOL and PROCAMPO. However, instead of using the funds

for their intended purpose, the organization used this money for the procurement of arms for the

upcoming insurrection (Barmeyer, 2008, p. 511).

The EZLN’s challenge in its early years was to reignite as well as reconcile the political

organization of indigenous communities. Due to government intervention in the region, conflicts

arose about whether to work with the government or resist (Harvey, 1998, p. 90). Limited outcomes resulted from organizational efforts since much of the region still had a lack of clean water, non-existent health care, insufficient nourishment, and the most basic of housing

(Barmeyer, 2008, p. 511). There was organizational fatigue. Yet, the EZLN promised something different than those past organizations; they were not captive to an uncompromising leader.

There was a community of leaders; and participation and discussion were key parts of the organizational climate and structure (Harvey, 1998, p. 196). The Zapatistas, in their formative years, were able to gain support and trust from indigenous communities because their discourse focused on leadership by obeying the people rather than the all too familiar strong-armed leader.

During the Salinas government, the EZLN doubled in size. By 1992 and the time of

Salinas’ reform of Article 27 which privatized ejidos, the group controlled many communities within Chiapas. In fact, the group was ready to fight as a result of this reform and as a result of local conditions continuing or worsening when it came to repression, poverty, and health

(Harvey, 1998, p. 197). However, the group chose January 1, 1994, the day the North American

Free Trade Agreement went into effect to begin their armed rebellion. The EZLN, a group of

10,000 masked and poorly armed rebels took over the city of San Cristobal by force along with seven other district capitals (Barmeyer, 2008, p. 511; AP, 1994). The war lasted 12 days and hundreds died in the initial insurrection (Wild et al., 1998). The Zapatistas were thoroughly defeated on the battle field. However, through effective public relations via existing political networks and new media, the EZLN capitalized on their popularity (Barmeyer, 2008, p 510).

The Zapatistas stated the reason for their insurrection in the First Declaration from the

Lacandon Jungle: “We are a product of 500 years of struggle…They don't care that we have nothing, absolutely nothing, not even a roof over our heads, no land, no work, no health care, no food nor education…today, we say enough is enough” (EZLN, 1993). They also stated their basic demands for work, land, housing, food, health care, education, independence, freedom, democracy, justice and peace (EZLN, 1993). The Zapatistas brought the issue of indigenous rights to the attention of the Mexican masses. The Salinas administration had made pronouncements about the multicultural ethic of the nation, but, for the Zapatistas, their current living conditions proved that those statements were empty. The rebellion and subsequent public relations movement had exposed the gaps between the liberal ideals of democracy and equality and actual daily practice (Harvey, 1998, p. 12). The Zapatistas had a different idea of democracy than what had been implemented to date in Mexico. Democracy for them was the right to speak and to be heard and the duty to listen (EZLN, 1995). Their democracy was based on participation from the people and then discussion and negotiation. For that reason, the Zapatista leadership wore masks. They did not do it for their own protection, but rather to highlight that the movement is not dependent on one personality, but on the collective (Anonymous, 1994).

The Mexican government certainly did not agree with the means or methods the

Zapatistas used to make their voices heard. The government brutally cracked down on the armed rebellion. Only through pressure from Mexicans outside of the situation and the international media, who showed sympathy for indigenous peoples, did the hostilities end in a ceasefire

(Barmeyer, 2008, p. 510). Not surprisingly, the army did not respect nor take kindly to the rebellion. The general in charge of putting down the perceived insurrection stated “If you hide your face you’re not an army you’re a delinquent” (AP, 1994). The government, as a result of civil society pressure, attempted to negotiate with the Zapatistas. The two sides sat down in

February 1994 for the Dialogue for Peace and Reconciliation in Chiapas at the Cathedral of San

Cristóbal. After the negotiations the EZLN leadership took the government proposals back to the

Zapatista communities for discussion. In June, the EZLN reported that the communities rejected the peace offer (Anonymous, 1994). Nevertheless, the Zapatistas were allowed to retain thousands of hectares that they gained during their initial offensive (Barronet and Ortega Breña,

2008, p. 116).

At the end of the year, Ernesto Zedillo was elected president and was immediately forced to deal with a peso crisis that required the devaluation of the Mexican currency and a bailout from the United States government. The Zapatista rebellion continued to serve as a nuisance for the Mexican government. The United States, which had just started a trade deal with Mexico and now lent them money, had much invested in the country and the lingering threat of the Zapatistas potentially destabilized these interests. A confidential memo by Chase Manhattan Bank confirmed these interests. The January 13, 1995 memo stated that the Mexican government “will need to eliminate the Zapatistas to demonstrate their effective control of the national territory and of security policy” (Wirpsa, 1995). President Zedillo may have been influenced by external

parties to act. But in either case, in February 1995, Zedillo went on the offensive invading

Chiapas and attempting to capture Zapatista spokesperson Subcomandante Marcos (Harvey,

1998, p. 207). In this event, 20,000 people were forced to flee their homes (Harvey, 1998, p.

230). There was a backlash from the Mexican population and the Zapatistas as a result of the

military offensive. Zapatista resistance increased and their resolve strengthened (Earle and

Simonelli, 2005, p. 92).

After the failed invasion by the Zedillo government, the two sides finally agreed to

negotiate their differences at the San Andrés Accords in January 1996. The accords were meant

to have four separate sessions each detailing a different topic: 1) indigenous rights and culture, 2)

democracy and justice, 3) welfare and development, and 4) women’s rights (Earle and Simonelli,

2005, p. 95). Only the area of indigenous rights and culture was successfully negotiated between the two parties. This part of the negotiation sought to increase political representation by indigenous peoples with the formation of a committee to resolve agrarian issues in the region

(Harvey, 1998, p. 222). The government however failed to implement the negotiations

(Hernandez Navarro, 1999). This served as yet another example of the Mexican government promising benefits to the indigenous peoples and then never following through. The Zapatistas decided to break off the talks related to democracy and justice unless the government implemented the first negotiated item (Earle and Simonelli, 2005, p. 95).

At this time, in late 1996, many Zapatista communities declared their autonomy from the

Mexican government (Harvey, 1998, p. 231). A rift had occurred within many communities about whether autonomy was the best option (Earle and Simonelli, 2005, p.150). This division within the ranks only further encouraged the region to devolve into a place of steady armed conflict. Paramilitary groups with backing from the government became actively engaged in

violence with the Zapatistas (Wild et al., 1998). The worst episode of this low-intensity warfare occurred in December 1997 when a paramilitary group committed the Acteal massacre killing 45 men, women, and children (Earle and Simonelli, 2005, p. 2). The Zapatistas suspected that the government was at least indirectly responsible for these killings. Nonetheless, the conflict raged on. The government was not pleased with the declaration of autonomy and in April and May

1998 the Zedillo government once again launched a massive military campaign. The goal for this invasion was to stop the ability for the Zapatistas to maintain their autonomous communities

(Earle and Simonelli, 2005, p. 104). Once again the offensive was not entirely successful as many Zapatista communities returned to their autonomous ways.

The New Millennium

A new president and a new party came to power in 2000, with the election of Vincente

Fox, which ended the 70-year one-party rule of the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI). In

2001, the three major political parties in Mexico came together to attempt to resolve the indigenous struggle for autonomy with the proposal and passage of the Indigenous Law. The new law provided some legal benefits for indigenous peoples in that it contains firm condemnation of all sorts of racial and ethnic discrimination. In addition, there is now a constitutional duty for all level of government to devise specific plans to provide development, regional and intercultural education, distribution of indigenous culture heritage, health and nutritional improvements, among other actions. Furthermore, the law requires that the indigenous peoples be consulted in consideration of these plans (de la Pena, 2006, p. 292). The law, however, for its benefits had some major deficiencies according to indigenous peoples including the Zapatistas. It does not recognize indigenous lands as apart from national lands; it does not allow for the collective management of resources; and it waters down the San Andrés Accords

by changing the requirement for recognizing indigenous autonomy in development to making it

an option. In essence, “the law permits autonomy but doesn’t allow it to work” (Earle and

Simonelli, 2005, p. 193). As a result the EZLN decided unilaterally to carry out the San Andrés

Accords for themselves (EZLN, 2005). They no longer demanded their autonomy and instead

they took it.

The Mexican government has continued to make progress towards further inclusion

indigenous peoples into government actions, but has not been overly successful. The Fox

administration in 2003 replaced the INI with the Comisión Nacional para el Desarrollo de los

Pueblos Indígenas (de la Pena, 2006, p. 294). The CDI, at its inception, through the assistance of

many former INI staffers attempted to create formal recognition and representation of indigenous

communities. Though, with the transition to Fox’s successor, Felipe Caldéron, the budget for

CDI was drastically cut and most staff members left the organization (Saldívar, 2011, p. 85).

Even prior to the cuts, most indigenous communities saw the CDI as another cosmetic effort that

was not going to change their structural or institutional concerns (de la Peña, 2006, p. 295).

Further to this point, since the 2001 law, indigenous movements and demands for cultural rights

have been largely dismissed (Saldívar, 2011, p. 85). At a structural level, there has also been

little change in how policies are constructed or implemented. The state and federal government

still execute programs with little involvement from local communities, little experience in the

field, and little understanding of the local context in which these laws will be implemented (de la

Peña, 2006, p. 295; Saldívar, 2011, p. 85). The education system has seen similar limited

changes in education with the new administration. Like with Salinas, changes to legislation have

occurred, yet there is little ability or will to implement these proposals. The 2001 law modified

the constitution requiring the government:

To guarantee and increase the levels of schooling for indigenous people, favoring intercultural and bilingual education, literacy, the finishing of basic education, the productive capabilities and medium and higher education...To define and develop programs with regional educational contents that recognize [sic] the cultural heritage of their peoples, in agreement with the law and in consultation with the Indian communities. To promote respect and recognise [sic] the existing and diverse cultures of the nation (as cited in Ornelas, 2004, p. 409-410).

There is an implication that the government and by extension the SEP will change educational content, teacher training, and policies for all cultures with in Mexico (Ornelas, 2004, p. 410).

The indigenous peoples have not been allowed to offer much input, though the law requires it.

When indigenous people finally have a chance to speak about their own education, they are typically not taken seriously (Sandoval-Forero and Montoya-Arce, 2013, p. 26).

As for the Zapatistas, with the new Fox administration, the Mexican government decided on a new strategy to resolve that issue. They replaced militarism with developmentalism (Earle and Simonelli, 2005, p. 260). The Mexican government implemented new programs that, like

PROCAMPO, provided direct assistance for peasants. The purpose was to develop communities as well as attempt to keep potential supporters away from the Zapatistas through handouts such as money for attending school (Earle and Simonelli, 2005, p. 258). The strategy has not been to communicate or listen to the Zapatistas or other indigenous communities, but rather to provide development assistance in order to incentivize individuals away from possible involvement in autonomous communities.

The most popular of these programs and the most relevant for this project is a conditional cash transfer (CCT) program named PROGRESA (and later changed to Oportunidades during the Fox administration). The program provides cash transfers to children in families that qualify based on impoverished conditions. Children and their families receive scholarships for attending school; cash transfers for school supplies; economic, nutritional, and medical services for young

and school-aged children; savings programs for high school graduates; and other benefits

(SEDESOL, 2010). Progresa/Oportunidades has expanded tremendously since its inception, largely due to positive development indicators of the program. Initially, in 1997, the program

included 300,000 families; it has since grown to 5.8 million families and a budget of US$5

billion (SEDESOL, 2010). The program has been targeted towards indigenous populations

mainly as a result of the fact that indigenous populations are statistically poorer than their

mestizo counterparts. Therefore, the program serves the purpose of a poverty reduction effort.

Though, it also serves as a new form of indigenismo, because it incentivizes indigenous peoples

to receive money in exchange for attending government-run schools. CCTs, by definition, influence individuals to act in accordance with policies that have been created by the state. In

Mexico, the desired effect of CCTs is to eradicate poverty by increasing the income and health conditions of impoverished individuals through their participation in the market economy and the

Mexican healthcare system (Levy, 2006). Chiapas, because of its large indigenous population and certainly because of the Zapatista conflict, had the second most participants in 2000. The program also focused largely on rural women and their integration into family-planning processes and income generation. This stood as a direct competition to the Zapatistas strategy which is characterized by strong female inclusion and leadership (Barmeyer, 2008, p. 518). The lure of direct payments as well as other benefits such as free breakfast in school was often too strong to resist for many indigenous families (Barmeyer, 2008, p. 518). Since the Zapatistas are in staunch resistance to any government aid and have expelled any family that cooperates with the government, there are difficult choices about livelihood and lifestyle to be made by individual families (Gottesdiener, 2014; Russo, 2000).

With minimal resources and an unsupportive and hostile government, the Zapatistas have maintained their autonomy for over a decade. The Zapatistas have built multiethnic communities.

They have set up their own schools, businesses, banks, hospitals, clinics, a judicial system, and a fully-functioning government (Gottesdiener, 2014). In 2003, the formal organization of the

Ejército Zapatista de Liberación Nacional handed power of the communities to the people

(EZLN, 2005). The political organization of the Zapatista now consists of five caracoles

(regional headquarters). Each of the caracoles has their own leadership group, the Junta de Buen

Gobierno. The leadership group resolves legal disputes, conducts land registrations, and officially records births, death, and marriages. Political representation of the leadership is continually rotated and in the Zapatista community “everyone is government” (McCaughan,

2014). The communities have forged a multiethnic alliance in which decisions are made based on discussion, negotiation, and communal participation (Purnell, 2002, p. 30). The Zapatistas continue to promote their way of life to their fellow Mexicans and the world beyond. In 2006, they initiated the other campaign (La Otra Campaña) which attempts to build consensus through dialogue around class issues rather than their personal ethnic struggles. In addition, the hope of the Zapatistas remains the construction of, as they see it, a new democracy built from the ground up in which they strip the Mexican patria from the clenched hands of the neoliberals (EZLN,

2005). Over the past year, the Zapatistas have initiated another strategy to promote their autonomous lifestyle. The Escuelita is a four or five day program by which interested outsiders of the community may live with the Zapatistas and learn their culture and organization. The program provides educational content and training materials that allow others to see their ways of living as well as their educational philosophies (Castro, 2014).

Zapatista Education

Education for the Zapatistas is one of their founding demands and their resistance, in part,

was a result of the consistent yet failed effort of the Mexican government to integrate indigenous

peoples into the dominant mestizo population through the educational system. Since the Zapatista rebellion there is indication that the strategies to incorporate all Mexicans into a “banking” model of education have continued, if not intensified. A number of reforms have incorporated the managerial model of neoliberalism into the educational system, including competency-based curriculum, accountability, accreditation, and regulation by means of standardized assessments

(Diaz Barriga, 2014, p. 337; Kumar 2011, p. 43). The Alliance for Educational Quality (ACE), enacted during Felipe Calderon’s administration, preaches the importance of “quality education,” but in reality it reduces education to test-taking and market-driven competencies (Meyer and

Alvarado, 2010, p. 18). In addition, Mexico has successively increased requirements for education while not providing sufficient resources in rural or indigenous communities to adhere to these standards. As Michael Apple (2001) explains schools are controlled by a market that constantly seeks higher quality and higher credentials in its system. School has now transformed in Mexico from a nationalist model in the day of Cardenas to one focused primarily on productivity and efficiency (Berteley Busquets, 2010, p. 147).

Philosophically, the Zapatistas have a different understanding of the purpose and therefore the construction of education. Any Gutmann (1999) provides a theoretical underpinning for the difference between the Mexican national educational system and the

Zapatista system. Gutmann describes different versions of how education can be organized including the family state and the state of families. In the family state, education is a means to understand the “good life” as established by the state. Those who subscribe to the benefits of the family state, such as the SEP, believe that it creates harmony since education is grounded on 55

having individuals strive for a similar good life. And in striving for one’s own good, they will contribute to the social good (Gutmann, 1999, p. 23). This construction is clearly individualistic since each individual is responsible for their own attainment of the good. Meanwhile, in the state of families, it is parents (or the community in the Zapatista context) that determines how education should be assembled and implemented (Gutmann, 1999, p. 29). This type of educational structure creates pluralism in society since each parent or community may have a different interpretation of the good which may result in a lack of mutual respect between groups.

These two constructs explain the current setting of the Mexican educational system. There is a centralized authority, in the SEP, that produces the materials and the conception of these materials. On the contrary, there is the Zapatistas who have created their own system of education totally separate from the Mexican state. Gutmann’s solution to these different states is a democratic state of education in which, in a Freirean sense, deliberation and dialogue occurs in order ensure the people have a voice (Gutmann, 1999). There is certainly no dialogue occurring presently occurring between the two groups.

The Zapatistas critique government-run schools not only for their educational philosophy and pedagogy, but at a more basic level in the lack of concern or effort shown by its teachers.

The Zapatistas criticism of the official school system ranges from “absenteeism and alcohol abuse by government teachers to their interference in the communities’ internal affairs, the levying of compulsory fees, disrespect for indigenous language and culture, professional incompetence, corporal punishments, and sexual abuse” (Barmeyer, 2008, p. 519). The unionized bilingual teachers are for the most part not residents of the communities in which they teach (Barronet and Ortega Breña, 2008, p. 115). In addition, the powerful union for which most of the teachers are members is constantly in battle with the SEP over issues such as pay, teacher

evaluations, and promotions (Ornelas, 2004). Therefore, the teachers appear to be more

concerned with the politics surrounding their own careers than with the communities they serve

(Rockwell and Gomes, 2009, p. 4).

As an extension of their commitment to autonomy from the Mexican state, the Zapatistas

have set up their own schools and teacher training programs. Their model for education is based

in the pedagogy and practice of the Freirean model of problem-posing education. It also

resembles the John Dewey-based schools of action in the early 20th century, but now with the process of education owned and maintained by the indigenous communities, with due respect given to their traditions and language. Participation, and applied practices such as the creation and cultivation of community gardens for medicinal herbs and vegetables are an integral part of the learning experience (Barmeyer, 2008, p. 520). The students learn that problems are resolved through dialogue, which often involves the teacher, the student, as well as the parent (Barmeyer,

2008, p. 519; Earle and Simonelli, 2005, p. 103). In the Zapatista setting, the teacher is merely a facilitator assisting the students to generate their own knowledge (Barronet and Ortega Breña,

2008, p. 117). The students study collectively and through collaboration, though they are allowed to proceed at their own pace (Earle and Simonelli, 2005, p. 167).Class discussion occurs in native languages; however, literacy occurs in Spanish so that students can communicate with others outside of their community (Rodriguez, 2006, p. 82).

There is no standardized curriculum across the region; however, there are four common subjects that are taught to each student: history, language, math, and the environment (Barmeyer,

2008, p. 520; Rodriguez, 2006, p. 81). An elected educational committee supervises the curriculum and pedagogy and through training and participatory involvement of educational promoters, the committee encourages the tenets of collectivity and mutual support. For instance,

since the educational promoter is often in the classroom, the community will provide support by

harvesting the promoter’s fields or providing them with necessary fund to cover expenses.

However, there are often complaints by educational promoters that the community is not

fulfilling its community commitment (Barronet and Ortega Breña, 2008, p. 116). The ultimate

goal of Zapatista education is to strengthen comunalidad as well as preserving and reviving their

language and culture (Berteley Busquets, 2010, p. 148; Rockwell, 2010, p. 175; Barronet and

Ortega Breña, 2008, p. 117). In addition, the education provides students with an understanding

of the autonomous government for the purposes of understanding and defending their rights

against oppression (Rodriguez, 2006). Zapatista education, in line with Freire’s beliefs, is

emancipatory. It seeks to empower and develop the students (Barronet and Ortega Breña, 2008, p. 116).

The Zapatista teachers come from the community itself. They are typically young, in their teenage years, and have often only completed a year of secondary education. As a result, there is high turnover in the field (Barmeyer, 2008, p. 521). Teacher training consists of a 20-day

session, where they master the four subject areas, and then a 10-day practicum in a local

community. Teachers also receive yearly professional development that includes workshops for

academics throughout Chiapas and Mexico (Earle and Simonelli, 2005, p. 167). Many of the

training materials for teachers have been produced by external non-governmental organizations

and interested mestizo academics. Although the content is owned and maintained by the

indigenous, much of it is created by those outside of the indigenous communities. There has been

internal criticism about whether the schools are truly “autonomous” and whether too much

influence has been provided by foreigners (Barmeyer, 2008, p. 524). In addition, the high drop-

out rate of teachers, and the fact that neighboring schools often provided breakfast, lunch, and

cash transfers, has made the Zapatista educational movement a difficult sell in many areas. The

Zapatistas created their own education system because they were perpetually disappointed with

the educational theory and implementation in government-run schools. The Zapatista model is based on critical pedagogy which encourages dialogue and praxis. In its theory the model has many supporters in and out of Zapatista communities. However, its implementation has not been as successful. Multicultural education has faced a similar fate, but the extent to which that has occurred is worth further investigation.

Multicultural Education

This project is focused on researching whether Mexican education has become more

multicultural after the Zapatista movement. Multicultural education and its counterpart

intercultural education erupted in academic circles around the time of the initial Zapatista

movement (Fuentes-Morales, 2008, p. 113). There have been discussions over these past decades

about which approach the Mexican educational system should take and which approach it has

taken. The differences between the two concepts are not wholly agreed upon theoretically and

practically. In Mexico, multicultural education has typically referred to a non-critical

appreciation of other cultures while intercultural education is a critical approach that recognizes

the challenges and disparities of power between cultural groups in society (Meyer and Alvarado,

2010, p. 36). There is also a third term often used in this field, multiethnicity, which typically

refers to the creation of an environment that provides for mutual understanding and tolerance

(Ssenid-Ssensalo, 2001). (For purposes of this paper multiethnicity is not referred to as an

educational concept, but rather a sociological concept referring to multiple ethnicities within a

population).

Many multicultural education theorists would argue that their concept of multicultural

education includes more than the Mexican definition which only incorporates tolerance and

appreciation. Paul Gorski (2010), in particular, sees multicultural education with three purposes

to: transform the self, transform the school, and transform society. Its goal is more than just

understanding other cultures. “It is grounded in ideals of social justice, education equity, critical

pedagogy, and a dedication to providing educational experiences in which all students reach their

full potentials as learners and as socially aware and active beings, locally, nationally, and

globally” (Gorski, 2010). This educational philosophy seeks unity, but it does not seek it through

assimilation, but rather through dialogue and discussion. In engaging with different experiences

and perspectives there may be conflict; however, this conflict helps bring about issues. As a

result, the students can create a negotiated construct that fits within the perspectives of its

participants (Banks, 1999). It also acknowledges that society must be self-reflective and

deconstruct structures of power and inequality (Gorski, 2010). The goal, ultimately, is a

democratic form of education which will lead to democratic individuals and a democratic society

(Banks, 1999, p. 88).

There is also a utility to multicultural education. The education provides skills, attitudes,

and knowledge of the student’s culture as well as mainstream cultures (Banks, 1999, p. 2). These

skills are important to function in the diverse world. Through this education students can

understand different experiences, perspectives, and knowledge constructs (Banks, 1999). In the

Mexican context, it is the practical goals of multicultural education that are challenged as merely

for the purpose of tolerance and appreciation. This portion of multicultural education does not take into account the power relations between cultures. If multicultural education only offers

various perspectives without placing these perspectives in context, then it is doing a disservice to

the purpose of the education. For instance, in Mexico, students must be aware of the power imbalance between indigenous peoples and mestizos. Typically, indigenous people and their traditions are seen predominantly as relics of the past. Therefore, multicultural educational materials must acknowledge this present day reality and seek to transform it. Mere appreciation and tolerance of different perspective will continue to place more importance on the mestizo interpretation since this is the dominant culture. It is these assumptions that need to be challenged.

Language itself is also a key component to the discussion regarding multicultural education. Language is integral to the formation of any culture as well as to any nation

(Schmelkes del Valle, 2009). The use of the Spanish language was fundamental to the formation of a common Mexican identity. The education system perpetuated this concept since all educational materials were produced in Spanish. The educational and for that matter the political system was skewed against indigenous peoples since many did not have the ability to communicate in Spanish. It was 1963 before the Mexican education system finally began producing materials in other languages and the main purpose for this change was to transform the indigenous into Spanish speakers. Indigenista policies attempted to integrate indigenous peoples into the larger Mexican framework through this approach. Language served as a clear and institutional advantage for mestizos since for the most part that is their native language. In comparison, indigenous peoples had to learn the Spanish language in order to interact in the broader society and as a result many indigenous languages and conceivably cultures have been lost (Lastra, 1992).

Intercultural education, in Mexico, is a response to the bilingual-bicultural approach which sought to transition indigenous students into the dominant society. Intercultural education

theorists believe that new constructions and organizations of schooling and education are

necessary in order to create fair relations between students (Fuentes-Morales, 2008). Teaching to appreciate other cultures because you may interact with them does not resolve the position in which the indigenous find themselves. However, intercultural education is similar in concept to transformative aspects of multicultural education. Intercultural education promotes dialogue and equal relations between different groups with distinct values (Burford, et al., 2012). For the purposes of the rest of this thesis, I will refer to transformative multicultural education and intercultural education interchangeably. Since both theories hope that in changing the dynamic at the educational level, this will change society as well. This term will be in contrast to utilitarian multiculturalism which does not have a particularly political element. Instead, it is focused on providing an appreciation and understanding of different cultures for the purposes of being able to interact in a diverse world.

In the years directly following the Zapatista movement, national educational policy did not include the concept of intercultural education. The approach for indigenous education remained bilingual-bicultural. However, in 1999 the DGEI completed a general outline for indigenous education. Then in the national educational policy for 2001, the concept of intercultural education is acknowledged as a key factor in eradicating any “deprivations or delays” relating to education (Fuentes-Morales, 2008, p. 178). Furthermore, President Fox created the General Coordination of Intercultural Bilingual Education (CGEIB), which sought to design and introduce intercultural education policies at the national level. The government indicated that intercultural education needs to be bidirectional. This means that “the involvement of the whole society was considered necessary, which implied the transformation of mainstream schools to know and appreciate the cultural and linguistic diversity of the country” (Fuentes-

Morales, 2008, p. 178-179). Furthermore, it means that intercultural model must ensure that

mestizos learn, respect, and comprehend the context of indigenous knowledge, culture, and

history. In addition, the indigenous must learn the Spanish language and the broader culture and

history of Mexico in order to enjoy equal opportunities and rights (Schmelkes del Valle, 2009).

To borrow Bourdieu’s phrase, indigenous students must build social and cultural capital. In

addition, indigenous students must also learn their own values and history and knowledge

framework. Intercultural education requires that different values and world views be taught

across the board in all subject and all levels of the curriculum (Schmelkes del Valle, 2009).

These changes were included in curricular reforms for elementary education and teacher training on this new approach. And an independent evaluation of the CGEIB program indicated that there were advancements towards intercultural education for instructional materials and teacher training. Another aspect of intercultural education is that there must be an ongoing critical analysis of culture and cultural values (de la Peña, 2006, p. 294). The formal education system is a primary forum for these discussions which should occur not only in the classroom, but as the curriculum is being produced. In Mexico, it is still the SEP that has ultimate control over the curriculum and its implementation of the intercultural educational model. A top-down approach

to the construction of curriculum is at odds with the intercultural idea of participation from all

cultures (Fuentes-Morales, 2008). Therefore, it is necessary to determine whether materials

produced by the SEP have fully embraced the concept of intercultural education.

Mexico has made a number of pronouncements that it is a multicultural nation with

multicultural policies in its constitution as well as in its educational policy. This project aims, in

essence, to determine whether Mexico followed through to some degree with these

pronouncements or if they were solely for political appearances. The project asks three questions

regarding multicultural education in Mexico. The first question asks whether Mexico has officially incorporated multicultural education into its curriculum since the Zapatista movement.

The answer to this question will offer insight about multicultural education at its most basic level, a non-critical appreciation of different cultures, the concept of utilitarian multicultural education. This type of educational content offers practical uses to understanding cultures outside of one’s own. The second question asks whether multicultural education is in fact bidirectional or if it is only geared towards making the indigenous students learn two cultures, but not the mestizo. This question will provide better insight into whether Mexico has incorporated transformative multicultural or intercultural education into its system. The final question inquires whether the Zapatista educational system, itself, includes multicultural education or if it is simply geared towards teaching its community about its culture. If it turns out that the Zapatistas are teaching a monocultural curriculum, this would seem to oppose their democratic ideals. The Zapatistas want to build a democracy that includes all; however, if their education excludes learning about a large majority of the population, then it seems that the

Zapatistas, at the present time, simply support their own self-determination rather than the inclusivity of all.

CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS

A variety of materials was studied to determine the extensiveness of multicultural education in each of the curricula. The four periods, once again, include 1) curriculum produced by the SEP prior to 1994; 2) curriculum produced by the SEP after 2011; 3) current curricular materials affiliated with the State of Chiapas; and 4) the Zapatista educational philosophy and curriculum. The framework designed to review each of the periods has four main components: 1) how the materials view ethnicity within the Mexican national project (“Ethnicity”); 2) the version of history that is presented (“History”); 3) the languages used as well as the respect given to linguistic diversity (“Languages”); and 4) whether the teachers and their training is multicultural (“Teacher Education”). In addition to the findings presented below, Appendix B –

E offer the tallies for the criteria questions for each of the four curricular reviews.

Pre-1994 SEP Curriculum

The pre-1994 curricular materials included study plans and policies produced by SEP, teaching guides and teacher training materials as well as secondary source materials that discussed textbooks and teacher education and development. The review of these materials fits the context of the Mexican educational system at that time period. The Mexican system, under

Salinas, was in the midst of a modernization project. The Salinas administration believed that education, and specifically improving its quality was imperative to strengthen the Mexican nation, strengthen democracy, and modernize the country (Vazquez, 1996, p. 931). Specific to this modernization project was the signing of the National Agreement to Modernize Basic

Education (ANMEB) in 1992. This agreement had the purpose of decentralizing educational administration away from the SEP, reforming the curriculum of primary and secondary education, and revising and upgrading teaching training (Tatto, 1999, p. 258). As will be seen in 65

reviewing this period as well as reviewing the current Chiapas curriculum, the decentralization

happened mostly in name only, since the SEP retained control over producing and disseminating

textbooks and teaching guides, design of the national examination, and design and

implementation of teacher training and evaluation (Tatto, 1999, p. 259). The focus of these

reforms was on improving educational quality in line with Mexico’s focus on modernizing the

nation and its economy. The purpose of schooling in this context was to defeat ignorance—to

educate children on the advances of the modern world (SEP, 1993).

Ethnicity

The materials touched on the multicultural and multiethnic aspect of the nation, but these

instances were limited in number and in depth. The Plan y Programas de Estudio 1993:

Educación Básica, Primaria noted that Mexico is “un país pluriétnico y pluricultural” (SEP,

1993, p. 135). Not surprisingly since mestizos are the majority population, they are noted first in the listing of ethnicities and are described as a fusion of cultures. The indigenous peoples are mentioned secondarily and are noted, singularly, as one group. Certainly, this may be due to the limited space of this plan as well as the brevity involved within this document. However, this is the last theme listed for the fourth grade and one of the only times ethnicity is mentioned with any specificity throughout the document.

Throughout the documents there is mention of Mexico as a diverse nation which refers to all aspects of differentiation including economic status, political ideology, and ethnicity. It also refers to differences in particular people such as height, age, gender, and other identifiable characteristics. The plan stresses that the values of Mexico include diversity, tolerance, and respect of differences (SEP, 1993, p. 119). However, the education plan also takes a look at the utility of diversity—its advantages and disadvantages in Mexico’s modern economy. The

advancements in technology and communication allow rural communities to develop and

become more integrated with the rest of the country (SEP, 1993, p. 115).

Furthermore, through the ANMEB and modernization project the SEP noted that they

encourage parents, teachers, and the community to provide their feedback and input into the

education plan for their children and assure that these recommendations will be heard (SEP,

1993, p. 1). However, the SEP, especially in the production of textbooks during this period, did

not include much information from these parties. Due to the quick turnaround necessary in

producing and disseminating these texts, the SEP was basically the sole content provider (Sigal,

1993, p. 9). The materials reviewed, particularly those related to the study of history, confirm

that input from the community did not appear to be gathered or implemented into the learning

materials.

History

Indigenous peoples are mentioned sparingly and superficially in the materials reviewed for this period. Though, when these individuals are mentioned specifically, it is mainly as historical creatures or as marginalized characters. Indigenous peoples are clearly presented as others. A 1995 book on how to teach history, Libro para el maestro: Historia, Sexto Grado, which uses its resources prior to 1994, requested that teachers discuss with students the role that social inequality among many groups including indigenous peoples had on causing the

Independence. However, the book specifically mentions the criollos as the primary group of individuals to study (SEP, 1995, p. 72). The only other time indigenous individuals are discussed in the book is in the pre-historic period (SEP, 1995).

Furthermore, the textbooks and the curriculum produced by the SEP for students includes only the dominate interpretation of events (Chávez Garcia, n.d., p. 3). The information presented

in the history curriculum is only those of typical Mexican heroes and important dates (Chávez

Garcia, n.d., p. 8). The information in the history courses was criticized by the SEP itself in its

comparison of curriculum from 1993 and 2009 as only imparting data to its students and not

focusing on applied knowledge (SEP, 2009, p. 4). History was presented in an encyclopedic

format without much analysis and with using the SEP-published textbook as the sole source of

information (Sigal, 1993, p. 3). The materials are skewed towards seeing indigenous peoples in a

particular light, and the way the information is taught is at a disadvantage for indigenous ways of

learning. The official curriculum clearly followed a “banking” education model in which

students were merely in school to receive the particular deposits of information produced by the

SEP.

Languages

The materials that were reviewed spoke little about languages and linguistic diversity. It may have been the particular documents that were reviewed, but it is clear that the materials produced by the SEP, particularly geared towards mestizos, did not talk in depth about Mexico’s various languages and dialects. The 1993 Plan does note the variety of languages in Mexico, yet

Spanish is listed first and indigenous languages are identified as simply one category (SEP, 1993, p. 135). The portion of the plan that focuses on languages mentions only the necessity for children to become literate in Spanish (SEP, 1993, p. 7). There is no mention of indigenous languages or the curriculum that would be provided to students that speak those languages.

Teacher Education

The main purpose of the reforms to teacher education and training under the Salinas administration was to professionalize the field. The goal of these projects was to provide more education and specifically education that dealt with teaching theory and pedagogy (Tatto, 1997,

p. 204). Teacher training that was supported through government resources, such as the Normal

de Maestros and Programa para Abatir el Rezago Educativa (PARE), did not dive down into the

social contexts or different perspectives that students may have (Tatto, 1997). Teachers, like

students, were taught only the official account of information. In this vein, the tests that were

produced by teachers and provided to students were mainly to determine whether the students

can recognized dates, facts, and processes (SEP, 1995, p. 73). The government training strategy

focused more on furthering formal education for teachers and not on better understanding the

actual material they were teaching (Tatto, 1997).

There were activities during this time to provide teacher training that was more inclusive

of indigenous teachers as well as their learning styles. However, these trainings were funded as

only temporary measures rather than permanent projects. Furthermore, the most successful

teacher training project at including the indigenous context, language, and perspectives was

produced by educational researchers at the Center for Educational Research in Mexico and was

not affiliated with the government or their training programs (Tatto, 1997). This project sought to

move teachers toward understanding students as actors with different contexts and learning styles

such as applied learning tactics. Unfortunately, this program was an outlier during this period.

Post-2011 SEP Curriculum

In recent years, the Mexican curriculum has been focused on two main objectives: strengthening competencies through quality education and providing for education that is inclusive and respectful of diversity and difference. In the new millennium there have been two policy initiatives at the primary education level that have driven these goals: the Reforma

Intergral de la Educación Básica (REIB) and the Alianza por la Calidad de la Educación

(ACE). The REIB signed in 2003 focuses on improving students’ personal development, their

ability to deal with the cultural and linguistic diversity in Mexico, and providing the skills to

work democratically in a global and interdependent world (SEP, 2011a, p. 7). The ACE was signed in 2008 between the federal government and the teacher’s union (SNTE) and sought to raise the quality of education through further evaluation and accountability of teachers (SEP,

2011b, p. 16). In a review of the materials it is evident that the SEP is conflicted since it is attempting to both improve the quality of education, in a particular manner, and provide for further cultural and linguistic diversity to fit the entire student population.

Ethnicity

The curricular plan presented in 2011 by the SEP is filled with discussions, exercises, and competencies based on coexistence with diverse cultures and peoples (SEP, 2011a; SEP, 2011b).

The 2011 Plan de Estudios stresses the importance of respecting each individual’s unique heritage as well as the cultural and linguistic diversity in Mexico (SEP, 2011b). A key skill within this context is the ability to interact through dialogue with people that are different.

Therefore, as part of this plan, the SEP garnered input from a variety of individuals including teachers, parents, students, and the community (SEP, 2011b). Furthermore, the SEP particularly sought input from indigenous peoples on materials, curricula, and evaluation strategies (SEP,

2011b). There was a focus on utilizing various sources with various perspectives to teach the multiethnic makeup of the Mexican student in an intercultural format.

Along with encouraging coexistence with the diverse Mexican population, the materials stressed the importance of building competencies. These competencies included understanding and respecting the pluralistic nature of Mexico; however, the curriculum prioritized other skills that may be more helpful in the job market. These competencies included critically thinking skills, conflict resolution ability, and skills for managing information (SEP, 2011b, p. 38).The

materials presented both an individualistic and communitarian ideology in that students should respect individual freedom and develop personally. Though students must also interact and understand different cultures through dialogue (SEP, 2011a; SEP, 2011b). At a superficial level, these objectives appear to simply be focused on accomplishing the two goals of the SEP which are improving quality education and stressing intercultural respect and dialogue. However, the curriculum evidently prioritizes the need to build competencies over the need to build respect and dialogue. The priority is placed on the particular individual acquiring certain skills rather than the well-being of the larger group. First, the need to create quality education through competency is always the first objective listed, while interculturality is typically the last objective listed (SEP, 2011b). Furthermore, the manner by which ethnicity and difference is presented places indigenous peoples as the other. As aforementioned, evaluations of students were reformed to specifically include indigenous ways of learning. In one example, teachers must be cognizant of textual types when asking questions, because indigenous children are not aware of “preguntas típicas” (typical questions) when it relates to news items (SEP, 2011b, p.

34). Indigenous practices and ways of knowledge are described as atypical. On other occasions, discussion regarding indigenous individuals is adjacent to discussion regarding children with special needs or gifts (SEP, 2011b). These instances do occur infrequently, and in most cases discussion regarding indigenous peoples is respectful of their traditions. However, these occurrences make it evident that the curriculum was predominantly produced by the dominant population and is geared toward those types of students.

History

The version of history presented in the current curriculum includes different perspectives and interpretations of Mexican history. History, as a subject, always involves a number of

dimensions such as political, social, and economic factors. And the current curriculum includes

the differences within these factors, such as locating the diversity of Mexico in how its groups

organize socially (SEP, 2011a). The materials also ask the students to be critical learners.

Specifically, the students must inquire as to how far Mexico has come in issues such as intercultural acceptance as well as how far Mexico still has to go (SEP, 2011a, p. 195). There are also exercises within the textbook produced by the SEP that encourage students to use a variety of sources prior to coming to a conclusion (SEP, 2011a, p. 462). In one particular instance, the

History textbook presents two different sources about the death of the Aztec leader, Moctezuma.

One of the texts is written by the indigenous group, the Mexicas, and the other by the Spaniards

(SEP, 2011c, p. 105).

The SEP curriculum, however, displays the indigenous in a particular way. They are often seen as historical beings or as passive characters in the Mexican story. The History textbook discusses how certain customs and traditions of pre-Hispanic cultures are still relevant today. The book praises those cultures for being the pillars of Mexican identity (SEP, 2011c, p.

78). In these compliments, the indigenous individual is seen as a relic, an inhabitant of the past.

The materials recount the story of the Mexican past and note how these events affected indigenous individuals, but these individuals and communities are still not seen as agents, they were merely characters that Spaniards or mestizos exploited (SEP, 2011c).

Languages

In its curriculum, the SEP included both Spanish and indigenous languages. Instead of learning Spanish as a first language and English as a second language, native speakers learn their native language first, then Spanish as a second language, and then English (SEP, 2011a; SEP,

2011b). There is discussion in the Ethics and Civics textbook about the discrimination that has

previously occurred to native speakers. The book presents an example of an indigenous

individual that is saddened by the loss of his language and hopes that education can recover these

traditions (SEP 2011d, p. 114). In addition, the curriculum encourages non-indigenous speakers

to value and appreciate indigenous languages. A particular assignment in the Spanish textbook

asks students to research an indigenous group and the language that they speak. However, the

assignment asks whether there are any indigenous in the student’s community and evidently

identifies indigenous speakers as others (SEP, 2011e, p. 38). Obviously the text is written in

Spanish and thus primarily intended for those students, but the indigenous population who has

first been forced and then chosen to learn Spanish is not incorporated in the text as an equal

participant in society. Their language is not viewed as the norm.

Teacher Education

Since the ACE was signed in 2008, teacher training has been focused on increasing the

quality of education provided to the students through professionalizing teachers and instituting a

culture of evaluation (SEP and SNTE, 2011). There is a definitive focus on student achievement

and mastering the competencies of the curriculum. As seen through the aforementioned review

of the curriculum, these materials and outcomes are not balanced in their consideration of

indigenous peoples. The SEP has demonstrated that the primary purpose of education is to have

the individual student develop his/her skills and then secondarily the students are taught to

coexist with diverse populations (SEP, 2011a, p. 245). The training materials for teachers express how students must be taught to respect and value different perspectives and communities

(SEP, 2011a; SEP and SNTE, 2011). However, the materials offer an individualistic ideology.

In the training guide dealing with the objective of personal development and development to coexist with others, the guide notes that each person must construct his/her own reality. In

addition, each person must be able to exercise his/her own rights and respect the dignity of others

(SEP, 2011a, p. 438). Therefore, the emphasis is placed on the individual to determine his/her

beliefs and simply respect those of others rather than the emphasis being placed on the beliefs of

the entire group with respect being provided to each individual. The teacher’s guide notes that

they must encourage students to learn to coexist, respect, and tolerate others, but the framework within which this occurs clearly emphasizes personal responsibility for making decisions. The communal lifestyle and social organization that many indigenous peoples follow is deemphasized in this framework that sees the individual as the center of everything.

Post-2011 State of Chiapas Curriculum

In researching materials distributed by the Secretaría de Educación del Estado de

Chiapas, I found that the majority of materials were those created by the SEP at the federal level.

The materials reviewed that were specifically produced by the state government were plans to

improve the education. The rest of the documents were produced with a specific focus towards

the state and its population which include the strategic plan for education in the state and the

textbook chiapanecos use to learn about where they live, Chiapas: La Entidad Donde Vivo.

These materials, even though, created by the federal government were still reviewed due to their

specific focus on Chiapas. However, in other instances such as with subject textbooks and

teacher training, there were no comparable materials to be reviewed at the state level.

Ethnicity

The materials acknowledge that the state is a multiethnic population (SEP, 2011f, p. 7).

The challenges regarding the state and its people are clear since many chiapanecos lack the necessary resources in order to succeed at education (SEP, 2011g). Specifically, 64% of the

population is considered educationally backward because they either have not completed basic

education or are illiterate (SEP, 2011f, p. 7). Indigenous peoples are particularly prone to this

classification, since they often lack electricity and technological tools as well as often have poor

test-taking abilities on federally created tests (SEP, 2011f, p. 35). Indigenous students’ scores on standardized tests are almost half that of non-indigenous (SEP, 2011f, p. 17). Therefore, the state improvement plan focuses on improving achievement and specifically for the indigenous population (Coordinación General Estatal del PEC, 2013, p. 6). The goal is to accomplish this improvement equitably; however, the plans for improvement do not state any specifics for increasing quality and achievement for indigenous students (SEP, 2011f; Coordinación General

Estatal del PEC, 2013). Even so, the achievement rates that the state seeks to meet for its

indigenous population are based on national standardized tests and in subjects which the

indigenous peoples have an inherent disadvantage such as Spanish (SEP, 2011f).

The state materials, since many of them are produced by the SEP, also encourages

students to respect other people and their cultures. In addition, the state materials stress the

importance and value of its diverse population, including the indigenous communities (SEP,

2011g, p. 22). When referring to the current status of indigenous peoples, the textbook

acknowledges that the current socioeconomic situation of indigenous peoples in the state of

Chiapas has occurred because of the lack of attention the federal and state government has given

these communities (SEP, 2011g, p. 129). The communities are certainly receiving more attention

than in the past; however, the focus in reference to education seems to be on improving their

achievement in comparison to the national average.

History

The history in the textbook for chiapanecos offers a fair representation of indigenous

communities and their struggles. The text explains how the Spanish exploited and evangelized

these communities during the colonial period (SEP, 2011g). In addition, the book states that liberals consistently attempted to privatize the communal lands of indigenous peoples and then forced them to work in subservient positions (SEP, 2011g, p. 107). As a result of these conditions and in order to maintain their customs and traditions, indigenous communities resisted. However, their rebellions were typically defeated and they were even more cruelly repressed in turn (SEP, 2011g). This version of history demonstrates that indigenous communities were not simply passive observers of their exploitation; they were agents who sought to keep their traditions and fight for justice. The text also notes the current history of the

Zapatista rebellion. The Zapatistas, so the book states, are fighting for their identity and culture.

They attempted to resolve the conflict through dialogue; however, only through the establishment of an autonomous government has there been peace. The book also notes the tragedies that have occurred as a result of this conflict including the Acteal massacre (SEP,

2011g). The text is intended for children in primary education and its version of history, though obviously not totally complete, presents the struggles of Mexico and of Chiapas, in particular, in a balanced way.

Languages

The materials indicate that education is provided in Chiapas consistent with the linguistic diversity of its population. The state government notes that Spanish is the national language, yet states that indigenous languages must be preserved in equal relation to Spanish (Secretaría de

Gobierno de Chiapas, 2013, p. 12). The text discusses the various languages spoken in the state and asks the students about the different languages that they or their family speak (SEP, 2011g, p. 63). With this question, the book acknowledges that the reader may in fact be bilingual and thus includes native speaking students as part of the population. Even though, the plans and texts

acknowledge and praise the linguistic diversity, the ultimate desire is still to improve the quality and achievement of the students, particularly in Spanish. The strategic plan for Chiapas details that indigenous students perform at a much lower level in Spanish than their non-indigenous classmates. This is certainly not surprising; however, the surprising aspect is that the plan states that these achievement levels are alarming because Spanish is fundamental to further cultural attainment (SEP, 2011f, p. 38). Though, the materials note the importance of linguistic diversity, ultimately, the improvement plan for the state is focused on the poor outcomes of indigenous children in Spanish.

Teacher Education

The strategic plan notes that teachers in indigenous communities are not members of those communities and are often disinterested or not committed to the betterment of their students (SEP, 2011f, p. 37). As a result, teacher training strategies are focused on improving their interaction with these communities; however, there is also a focus, like at the federal level, with teacher professionalization and advancement in scientific and technological fields (SEPf,

2011, p. 77). Teachers must also be aware of and take into account differences among students and their learning styles (Coordinación General Estatal del PEC, 2013). However, as noted previously, the improvement plans are focused on particular achievement outcomes and thus training must be focused on improving these scores. Teacher trainings in indigenous languages, though offered, are not fully implemented across the state because they are considered quite costly (SEP, 2011f, p. 66). Every sector and every community has particular priorities and the state of Chiapas has expressed that their priority as it relates to education is on improving achievement in certain areas such as Spanish, science, math, and technological skills.

Zapatista Curriculum

The Zapatistas numerous communities are organized into caracoles. The translation for caracoles in English is snails. Snails are small and slow and this represents the Zapatistas in relation to the large and face-paced centralized Mexican government. The Zapatistas are a multiethnic group of communities. In light of these cultural and organizational aspects of the group, the educational system and the curriculum is constructed in a participatory manner and not constructed at a centralized body (“Gobierno Autonómo II,” n.d., p. 4). The Zapatista educational system consists of 157 primary schools and 1 secondary school with 496 educational promoters (teachers) and 4,886 students (“Autonomous Government I,” n.d., p. 26). The

Zapatistas after their rebellion could have continued to use the SEP curriculum. Instead, they chose to create their own since the Zapatistas believed that the government curriculum did not fully incorporate their customs, knowledge, and way of life (“Gobierno Autonómo II,” n.d., p. 4).

Therefore, there is not necessarily a published curriculum associated with each or any Zapatista school. However, the Zapatistas have recently initiated a project known as the Little School

(Escuelita), which invites Mexicans not affiliated with the autonomous group and international supporters into the Zapatista territory for a multiple day training seminar discussing the Zapatista way of life and ideology. The Zapatistas have created textbooks as training materials for the

Little School. Those texts were reviewed for purposes of this project. Although these texts are not geared towards primary level students within the school system, they do provide insight into the Zapatista curricular philosophy. In addition, the texts also describe how each caracol envisions their autonomous education as well as their implementation strategies. These materials are not directly comparable to the materials for the others researched; however, they do provide insight into whether the Zapatista curriculum is multicultural.

Ethnicity

The Zapatistas do not focus their attention on ethnicity. Rather, they focus on political divisions. The Zapatistas are a multiethnic group of communities that incorporate community involvement into every action including the construction of their educational system

(“Autonomous Government I,” n.d., p. 75). A conscious decision has been made to focus their struggle on ideology and politics. The Zapatistas accept any individual who subscribes to their participatory and communal way of life. Individuals of any ethnic group that affiliate with the government (belong to any official political party—PRI, PAN, PRD) are not welcome to

Zapatista resources. Those individuals have their own government (“Autonomous Government

I,” n.d., p. 27). The curriculum specifically teaches students in Zapatista schools about their ideology and demands and that they are different than government-run schools (“Resistencia

Autónoma,” n.d., p. 13). The goal is for these students to retain the traditional beliefs and customs of their communities (“Resistencia Autónoma,” n.d., p. 15). Another difference in

Zapatista education is that their learning assessment is not conducted through standardized examinations. The students are evaluated through their applied actions to determine whether they have learned the material (“Gobierno Autonómo II,” n.d., p. 5). Zapatista education supports one culture, which is their own. However, the system does allow any individual or community included within the group an opportunity to participate in the development of the curricular materials.

History

The Zapatistas version of history is certainly biased towards their beliefs and understandings of the past. Ironically, the communities did not agree with the SEP curriculum because it was too biased towards the dominant population and chose to focus their version on

Zapatistas history and other social movements (“Gobierno Autonómo II,” n.d., p. 4). Providing such a narrow window of history, obviously does not allow students to grasp the full context of their situation, the situation of their compatriots, or the situation of other people around the world. With this curriculum, Zapatistas will only see the world through their perspective. Their view is that the evil government forced them into an armed rebellion by way of domination, marginalization, and injustice (“Autonomous Government I,” n.d., p. 42). There certainly may be truth (and much truth) in this view; however, it is simply one perception of events. The

Zapatistas mimic the SEP in creating their own particular version of history. However, the

Zapatistas are at least upfront about these outward expressions of celebrating their history since it is a means of resistance (“Resistencia Autónoma,” n.d., p. 50).

Languages

The Zapatistas are a linguistically diverse community. Native languages are especially important to link present day communities with the heritage of their past. Educational promoters speak the native language of their students and thus use this as a cultural connection

(“Resistencia Autónoma,” n.d., p. 17). Since there are so many different ethnicities, languages, and dialects, Spanish is the language used for individuals of different ethnicities to interact with one another; however, there is certainly immense respect and appreciation for all of the different languages in the region (“Resistencia Autónoma,” n.d., p. 15).The Zapatistas encourage others to participate and appreciate native languages. There is a language center in the Oventik caracol which Mexicans and internationals can learn Tzotzil as well as Spanish if necessary

(“Autonomous Government I,” n.d., p.37). The Zapatistas learn Spanish out of necessity as well as to ensure they are able to communicate with each other and the outside world. However, they

are intent on preserving their languages which is why they changed the SEP subject of Spanish to

“Languages” (“Gobierno Autonómo II,” n.d., p. 5).

Teacher Education

The educational promoters (teachers) in Zapatistas schools unlike neighboring

government-run schools are individuals who reside and participate in the community (“Gobierno

Autonómo II,” n.d., p. 17). In fact, the communities, including students, specifically support their

promoters through assistance of their milpa and other necessary tasks (“Autonomous

Government I,” n.d., p. 37). This is obviously a different dynamic than at government schools.

The Zapatistas claim these teachers are often absent or drunk and are wholly disinterested in the educational betterment of their students (“Gobierno Autonómo II,” n.d., p. 17). The promoters in

Zapatistas schools learn to be part of a participatory experience with their students since the

promoter knows their language, customs, and type of knowledge. The training session for

promoters is a six month long process which includes a total of twenty days training with

education specialists from outside the community and ten days of practicum training in a

Zapatista classroom (“Gobierno Autonómo II,” n.d., p. 17). This is certainly at odds with the

required professionalization at government schools. Promoters are often young and

inexperienced; they often realize that they are not interested in that role which results in high

turnover (“Resistencia Autónoma,” n.d., p. 16). However, those that continue with the position

are highly regarded in the community and are continuing the work of the Zapatista demands.

Analysis

The four different curricula provided interesting findings regarding the current

educational philosophy of the SEP, the State of Chiapas, and the Zapatistas. In comparing and

analyzing these separate curricula insights can be garnered about how much and what kind of

multicultural education has been incorporated into these systems. From the materials it is clear that the curriculum produced by the SEP prior to the Zapatista movement did not offer much in the way of multicultural education, especially as compared to the SEP curriculum two decades later. The 1993 curriculum did not include much participation from its diverse constituents.

Although it acknowledged the importance of this input, it did not follow through. However, in the current construction of the curriculum, the SEP sought feedback from teachers, parents, students, and community members in order to ensure that those interested parties had the ability to provide their insight into the curriculum. A similar concern regarding the 1993 curriculum was that the materials only focused on one interpretation of events, culture, and knowledge. The history text only included the dominant perspective and it did not utilize other sources to offer a different slant to an occurrence or concept. Furthermore, Spanish was basically the only language referred to throughout the curriculum. Meanwhile, the 2011 SEP curriculum offered a variety of interpretations through various sources in various languages. These native languages were also studied by non-indigenous speakers in order to appreciate their value and the diversity of the Mexican nation. In this context diversity was seen as a positive feature of the country that should be studied, understood, and appreciated. Diversity helps students gain an important skill, which is the ability to interact with those of different backgrounds, cultures, and ethnicities.

However, the curriculum 20 years prior spoke of diversity on only a superficial level and weighed its importance by its usefulness rather than being accepted as a fundamental concept of the nation.

Another objective is quality education measured through competency which began at the time of the 1990s modernization project. Although, this reform had not yet been fully implemented into the curriculum at that time, the current SEP curriculum has certainly

incorporated this learning objective into its philosophy. In fact, this focus on competencies has

been prioritized over the concept of intercultural education. This quality of education is

determined within an individualistic framework that prioritizes the dominant culture and the

dominant language. This places the two objectives of quality education and interculturality in

competition with one another. The curriculum is predominantly focused on improving outcomes

and particularly outcomes that fit within the dominant framework.

There is no doubt that the SEP, whether because of or in spite of the Zapatistas, further

incorporated the concept of multicultural education into its curriculum. However, the

multiculturalism that was included did not challenge the power imbalances engrained within

Mexican society between the indigenous and mestizo population. The multicultural education was for the utility not for the transformation of society. Multicultural education provided a non-

critical, appreciation of different cultures for the purposes of being able to better function in a

diverse and interdependent world.

In comparing the current curriculum of the SEP with that of the state of Chiapas, they

were relatively similar in incorporating multicultural education. This is logical since many of the

curricular materials are shared between them. The materials geared toward the State of Chiapas,

however, were more balanced and egalitarian between the various cultures of the region in their

representation of history and in languages spoken. Therefore, since Chiapas has a higher

concentration of indigenous peoples than the nation as a whole, the state understandably had a

slightly more multicultural curriculum than did the SEP. The question raised in comparing these

two curricula is whether multiculturalism was only geared toward indigenous students or if non-

indigenous students were required to learn about indigenous cultures. The analysis of these

materials finds that multiculturalism is in fact bidirectional in that the indigenous are learning

about the dominant culture of the country and the non-indigenous are also learning to appreciate and interact with indigenous peoples.

However, similar to the SEP, the education was focused on utilitarian multiculturalism.

The purpose of this model of education was not to politically transform the student or society, but rather give further diversity skills to chiapanecos since they will interact more often with a more diverse population. The State of Chiapas gave prominence in its educational philosophy to increasing achievement and particularly increasing achievement among the indigenous population. The same tests are being offered at the state level as at the national level. The State of Chiapas’ educational improvement plan is focused on improving test scores in these areas.

Thus the desire is that chiapanecos, just like the rest of Mexico, gain particular competencies in subjects such as Spanish, math, and civics (SEP, 2011f).

The Zapatistas fought for their autonomy and desire a democratic Mexico that is ruled by the people not by the “evil government” (“Autonomous Government I,” n.d.). The Zapatistas have incorporated these democratic teachings into their particular communities and their curriculum. There is participation in the construction and dissemination of curricular materials for the local communities. In addition, the Zapatistas appreciate the linguistic diversity of various ethnic groups and understand the utility of Spanish. However, in many ways, the Zapatistas has followed the footsteps of the curriculum (the 1993 SEP curriculum) they deliberately did not adopt. The Zapatistas provide only one perspective of historical events that occurred. Even more restrictive, the Zapatistas focus history on their recent past as well as other social movements.

This excludes important events, concepts, and processes that have taken place in Mexico and around the world that would provide a broader and more multicultural context for those students.

Furthermore, the Zapatistas teach their particular demands and ideology and oppose any others

that have any affiliation with the bad government. In an attempt at role reversal, the Zapatistas

clearly see anyone outside their group as ‘an other’ which is the mantle that indigenous peoples have been carrying since the Spaniards invaded. Although it is understandable that the Zapatista curriculum encourages its students to resist the dominant culture, these individuals and communities are losing an opportunity to dialogue with others and come to a better understanding of their perspectives.

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION

The curriculum created by the SEP has certainly undergone changes since the Zapatista uprising. In two decades the Mexican educational system has changed drastically. The

incorporation of multicultural education into the curriculum has a number of catalysts, which

includes the sustained indigenous resistance of not only the Zapatistas but other indigenous

communities in other regions. As one small indication of indigenous presence in the educational

system, the SEP now includes the director of the DGEI on the front pages of its curricular plans.

There is certainly a call for more input to be provided from diverse people and places when it

comes to the creation of educational materials at the federal level. The materials and policies evidence opportunities for individuals and communities to provide input into the curriculum.

However, non-affiliated literature states that feedback particularly from indigenous groups has

been mostly non-existent or dismissive. This is but one small example of the limitations of this

project. Official discourse has encouraged, and in fact due to the 2001 Indigenous Law it is

obligated to receive, feedback from its constituents. Yet, in practice this did not necessarily

occur. Furthermore, the fundamental construct of the centralized system has not changed since

the SEP is still responsible for producing all of these curricular materials.

The concern with the SEP controlling the production and dissemination of curricular

materials is that they remain within the dominant framework. The Mexican educational system has changed throughout its history. It no longer look as it did during the Porfiriato, at the initiation of the SEP, or during Cardenismo. Yet, its main purpose, particularly with respect to indigenous peoples continues, to be a political purpose which is to provide a particular ideology through the course materials. Unlike during the Cardenas period, the ideology is not about shared nationality, but is instead about achieving particular competencies. The measures for these

competencies occur through standardized tests in subjects and knowledge frameworks that

disadvantage indigenous students because they are focused in areas such as Spanish, science, and

technology. Even the subject of civics and ethics has been turned into a competency. And the indigenous are performing worse than non-indigenous in this task (SEP, 2011f, p. 38). This may be because the competency of coexistence and tolerance is based on an individualistic attitude rather than a community-based decision making process.

In the current Mexican context, quality education is based on achieving competency on particular standardized tests. The examination as Foucault explained is the ultimate disciplinary tool within the educational field. This instrument determines whether an individual has obtained the information desired by the centralized state authority. Although, the tests were not reviewed for the purposes of this project, the areas in which these test were taken provide insight as to the priorities of the state such as Spanish and science. In addition, certain skills such as the respect and appreciation for others and the ability and willingness to dialogue should not be reduced to assessment scores. This intent on evaluating each competency turns education into a mere utility, a tool for another purpose. Education should also have a transformative purpose for the student, the school, and the society (Gorski, 2010).

Zapatista education uses a critical pedagogy approach to its education system. Students are challenged to understand the political context that surrounds them and seeks to change these circumstances. The system encourages participation from members of the community. In addition, the curriculum focuses on applied learning rather than “banking” education and uses other means aside from tests to assess the learning process. Although, the Zapatistas utilize critical pedagogy in their curriculum, they do so within an extremely narrow framework. The materials produced by the Zapatistas have only one particular perspective on the world which is

that of the Zapatistas. Any ideas and individuals that are outside the Zapatista community are not

incorporated into the education of Zapatista children except perhaps as ‘an other.’ The periods reviewed had varying results on the extensiveness in which a multicultural model is incorporated into the curriculum. However, at most, this multicultural education only offers skills in order to respect and interact with people that have different cultures, customs, and values. Yet none of the periods came particular close to providing a transformative multicultural system. A transformative multicultural education approach recognizes the power imbalance between the different cultures and attempts through dialogue and negotiation to transform these inequities in the system. A review of official curriculum would not be the only way to determine whether this model has been incorporated. Yet, tt is clear in the formal Mexican educational system this has not yet occurred because curricular materials still represent indigenous communities and their communal values not as the norm, but as ‘an other.’

Opportunities for Further Research

This review of multicultural education in Mexico is quite limited in scope, which allows

for much further research in this area. The review only included official published curricular

documents including study plans, textbooks, educational plans, and teacher trainings. Even

amongst published materials, there are certainly other materials that could have been reviewed

such as standardized tests and specific class assignments. As noted previously, national curricula

are a complex portion of the education system. They include many facets, such as learning

processes, daily activities in the classroom, subjective interpretations of information by teachers

and students as well as other content. Further review of curricular activities, specific at the

school or classroom level, and within the so-called hidden curriculum, would allow more insight

as to how these materials are being interpreted and applied. Furthermore, there is opportunity to

review more geographical regions than the entities that I reviewed for this project, which

consisted of the federal government, the State of Chiapas, and the autonomous education of the

Zapatistas. There are certainly opportunities to research other states, communities, and schools in

relation to multicultural education in Mexico and determine the extent to which multicultural

education has been incorporated around the nation.

The theoretical conversation regarding multicultural education is well-defined. Though, there may be possible clarifications regarding the definitions of particular terms, the concept and purpose of multicultural education is well understood. To that point there are a number of frameworks that have been produced including the Banks checklists that I used for this project

(Gorski, n.d.; Irish Department of Education and Skills, 2010; Marri, 2005). The next step in this field is researching the implementation of these concepts. As with critical pedagogy, the theory of multicultural education certainly has potential to be a positive step in fair and equitable education. Yet, the application of this theory will be the true test of its success. In Mexico, it does not appear as though multicultural or intercultural education has been fully operationalized.

It is not an easy model to produce at a national level. Therefore, further study at a classroom, school, and community level may provide insight into the ability for this theory to be translated into practice. Research in this area would be central to determining how best to incorporate a multicultural education model within a state or national system.

APPENDIX A

CHECKLIST FOR EVALUATING MULTICULTURAL CURRICULUM IN MEXICO

Criteria Questions Rating Hardly at all Extensively 1. Includes a range of racial, ethnic, and cultural groups that reflects the diversity within Mexican society 2. Includes a range of ideologies of political and cultural groups (specifically between secular and religious and collectivism and individualism) 3. Describes the wide range of diversity that exists within racial, ethnic, and cultural groups (language, social class, ideology). 4. Information provided in different languages as well as explaining the contribution that these languages make to Mexican society 5. Integrates the histories and experience of racial and ethnic groups into the mainstream story of Mexico rather than isolating these groups in special sections. 6. Helps students view historical developments from the perspective of groups that have been victimized in Mexican history (such as indigenous groups); and from the perspectives of groups that have been advantaged in Mexico (Spaniards, mestizos). 7. Uses primary resources to document and describe the experiences of racial, ethnic, and cultural groups in Mexico. 8. Helps students to understand the powerful role of culture and social class in Mexican society and the extent to which these aspects are still significant factor in determined life chances of citizens. 9. Helps students understand the extent to which acculturation within Mexican society is a two-way process and the way in which dominant groups have incorporated aspects of the cultures of ethnic groups and the extent to which these ethnic groups have adapted and incorporated mainstream culture. 10. Helps students to understand the extent to which the Mexican ideal for unity and equality is still incomplete and the role that students need to play to help close that gap. 11. Acquaints students with key concepts that are essential for understanding the history and culture of racial, ethnic, and cultural groups in Mexican history. 12. Acquaints students with key historical and cultural events that are essential for understanding the history and culture of racial, ethnic, and cultural groups in Mexican history. 13. School has systematic, comprehensive, and mandatory multicultural development programs for its teachers. 14. Teachers at the school are multicultural and multiethnic. Adapted from ‘Checklist for Evaluating Informational Materials’ and ‘A Multicultural Education Evaluation Checklist’ (Banks, 1999, p. 124-128).

APPENDIX B

CHECKLIST FOR EVALUATING MULTICULTURAL CURRICULUM IN MEXICO: SEP PRE-1994 CURRICULUM

Criteria Questions Rating Hardly at all Extensively 1. Includes a range of racial, ethnic, and cultural groups that X reflects the diversity within Mexican society 2. Includes a range of ideologies of political and cultural groups (specifically between secular and religious and collectivism X and individualism) 3. Describes the wide range of diversity that exists within racial, X ethnic, and cultural groups (language, social class, ideology). 4. Information provided in different languages as well as explaining the contribution that these languages make to X Mexican society 5. Integrates the histories and experience of racial and ethnic groups into the mainstream story of Mexico rather than X isolating these groups in special sections. 6. Helps students view historical developments from the perspective of groups that have been victimized in Mexican history (such as indigenous groups); and from the perspectives X of groups that have been advantaged in Mexico (Spaniards, mestizos). 7. Uses primary resources to document and describe the X experiences of racial, ethnic, and cultural groups in Mexico. 8. Helps students to understand the powerful role of culture and social class in Mexican society and the extent to which these X aspects are still significant factor in determined life chances of citizens. 9. Helps students understand the extent to which acculturation within Mexican society is a two-way process and the way in which dominant groups have incorporated aspects of the X cultures of ethnic groups and the extent to which these ethnic groups have adapted and incorporated mainstream culture. 10. Helps students to understand the extent to which the Mexican ideal for unity and equality is still incomplete and the role that X students need to play to help close that gap. 11. Acquaints students with key concepts that are essential for understanding the history and culture of racial, ethnic, and X cultural groups in Mexican history. 12. Acquaints students with key historical and cultural events that are essential for understanding the history and culture of X racial, ethnic, and cultural groups in Mexican history. 13. School has systematic, comprehensive, and mandatory X multicultural development programs for its teachers. 14. Teachers at the school are multicultural and multiethnic. X

APPENDIX C

CHECKLIST FOR EVALUATING MULTICULTURAL CURRICULUM IN MEXICO: SEP POST-2011 CURRICULUM

APPENDIX D

CHECKLIST FOR EVALUATING MULTICULTURAL CURRICULUM IN MEXICO: STATE OF CHIAPAS POST-2011 CURRICULUM

APPENDIX E

CHECKLIST FOR EVALUATING MULTICULTURAL CURRICULUM IN MEXICO: ZAPATISTA CURRICULUM

Criteria Questions Rating Hardly at all Extensively 1. Includes a range of racial, ethnic, and cultural groups that X reflects the diversity within Mexican society 2. Includes a range of ideologies of political and cultural groups (specifically between secular and religious and collectivism X and individualism) 3. Describes the wide range of diversity that exists within racial, X ethnic, and cultural groups (language, social class, ideology). 4. Information provided in different languages as well as explaining the contribution that these languages make to X Mexican society 5. Integrates the histories and experience of racial and ethnic groups into the mainstream story of Mexico rather than X isolating these groups in special sections. 6. Helps students view historical developments from the perspective of groups that have been victimized in Mexican history (such as indigenous groups); and from the perspectives X of groups that have been advantaged in Mexico (Spaniards, mestizos). 7. Uses primary resources to document and describe the No experiences of racial, ethnic, and cultural groups in Mexico. Data 8. Helps students to understand the powerful role of culture and social class in Mexican society and the extent to which these X aspects are still significant factor in determined life chances of citizens. 9. Helps students understand the extent to which acculturation within Mexican society is a two-way process and the way in which dominant groups have incorporated aspects of the X cultures of ethnic groups and the extent to which these ethnic groups have adapted and incorporated mainstream culture. 10. Helps students to understand the extent to which the Mexican ideal for unity and equality is still incomplete and the role that X students need to play to help close that gap. 11. Acquaints students with key concepts that are essential for understanding the history and culture of racial, ethnic, and X cultural groups in Mexican history. 12. Acquaints students with key historical and cultural events that are essential for understanding the history and culture of X racial, ethnic, and cultural groups in Mexican history. 13. School has systematic, comprehensive, and mandatory X multicultural development programs for its teachers. 14. Teachers at the school are multicultural and multiethnic. X

REFERENCES

Alvarado, B.M. (2010). Comunidad, comunalidad, y colonialismo en Oaxaca, Mexico: la nueva educación comunitaria y su contexto. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstream/handle/1887/15950/fulltext.pdf?sequence=2 Comunidad, comunalidad y colonialismo

Anonymous. (1994). Zapatistas!: documents of the new Mexican revolution. Brooklyn: Autonomedia.

Apple, M. W. (2001). Educating the “right” way: markets, standards, God, and inequality. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.

Associated Press. (1994, February 12). Chiapas rebellion puts army to the test. The Vancouver Sun, A20.

Autonomous Government I (n.d.) Retrieved from http://dorsetchiapassolidarity.wordpress.com/zapatista-freedom-school/

Banks, J. A. (1999). An introduction to multicultural education (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Barronet, B. & Ortega Breña, M. (2008). Rebel youth and Zapatista autonomous education. Latin American Perspectives, 35(4), 112-124.

Barmeyer, N. (2008). Taking on the state: resistance, education, and other challenges facing the Zapatista autonomy project. Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power. 15, 506- 527. Barry, T. (1995). Zapata's revenge: free trade and the farm crisis in Mexico. Boston: South End Press.

Berteley Busquets, M. (2010). Views from the hemisphere of resistance. In L. Meyer & B. Maldonado (Eds.), New world of indigenous resistance: Noam Chomsky and voices from North, South, and Central America (pp. 142-161). San Francisco: City Lights Books.

Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241-258). Westport, CT: Greenwood.

Burford, G.; Kissmann, S.; Rosado-May, F.J.; Alvarado Dzul, S.H.; & Harder, M.K. (2012). Indigenous participation in intercultural education: learning from Mexico and Tanzania. Ecology and Society, 17(4).

Castro, J.S. (2014, January 23). On the EZLN’s escuelita: neo-Zapatista autonomy. Counterpunch. Retrieved from: http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/01/23/neo-zapatista- autonomy/print

CDI [Comisión Nacional para el Desarrollo de los Pueblos Indígenas] (2006). Indicadores Sociodemográficos de la población indígena 2000-2005.

Chavez Garcia P.J. (n.d.). Significados del libro de historia de las reformas de 1993 y 2009.

CONDEP [Comisión Nacional para el Desarrollo de los Pueblos Indígenas]. (2007). Los pueblos indígenas de México. Retrieved from http://www.cdi.gob.mx/index.php?id_seccion=1066

Coordinación General Estatal del PEC (2013). Programa escuelas de calidad del estado de Chiapas.

Dawson, A. (1998). From models for the nation to model citizens: indigenismo and the ‘revindication’ of the Mexican Indian, 1920-1940. Journal of Latin American Studies 30(2), 279-308.

Dawson, A. (2005). Aboriginal People and Policy (Mexico). In P.H. Stuart & J. Herrick, Encyclopedia of Social Welfare History in North America (pp. 7-10). Thousand Oaks, Cali: Sage Publications.

de la Peña, G. (2006). A new Mexican nationalism? Indigenous rights, constitutional reform and the conflicting meanings of multiculturalism. Nations and Nationalism, 12(2), 279-302.

Diaz Barriga, A. (2011). Curriculum studies in Mexico: origins, evolution, and current tendencies. In W. F. Pinar (Ed.), Curriculum studies in Mexico: intellectual histories, present circumstances (pp. 91-109). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Diaz Barriga, F. (2014). Curriculum research in Mexico. In W. F. Pinar (Ed.), International handbook of curriculum research (Second ed., pp. 329-339). New York: Routledge.

Earle, D., & Simonelli, J. M. (2005). Uprising of hope: sharing the Zapatista journey to alternative development. Walnut Creek, Calif.: AltaMira Press.

Eiss, P. K. (2008). Deconstructing Indians, reconstructing patria: indigenous education in Yucatan from Porfiriato to the Mexican Revolution. The Journal of Latin American Anthropology, 9(1), 119-150.

Erickson, R. J. (2002). Foundations of the Mexican federal education system. The Clearing House, 75(3), 146-150.

Esteva, G. (1999). The Zapatistas and people’s power. Capital and Class, 68, 153-182.

EZLN [Zapatista Army of National Liberation] (1998). Fifth declaration of the Selva Lacandona. Retrieved from http://www.csuchico.edu/zapatist/HTML/Archive/EZLN%20Communiques.htm

EZLN [Zapatista Army of National Liberation] (2003). Declaration of war. Retrieved from http://www.journalofamericanhistory.org/projects/mexico/zapmanifest.html 96

EZLN [Zapatista Army of National Liberation] (2005). Sixth declaration of the Selva Lacandona. Retrieved from http://enlacezapatista.ezln.org.mx/sdsl-en/

Foucault, M. (2006). The means of correct training. In H. Lauder (Ed.), Education, globalization, and social change (pp. 125-137). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Fox, J. (1999). Mexico’s indigenous population. Cultural Survival, 23(1).

Fox, J. G. & Rivera, S. L. (1999). Indigenous rights and self-determination in Mexico. Cultural Survival, 23(1).

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Herder and Herder.

Fuentes-Morales, R.G. (2008). The discursive construction of intercultural education in the Mexican indigenous context. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from (Order No. 3349176, University of Pittsburgh). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.

Giroux, H.A. (2010). Rethinking education as the practice of freedom: Paolo Freire and the promise of critical pedagogy. Policy Futures in Education, 8(6), 715-721.

Gobierno Autónomo II (n.d.) Retrieved from http://dorsetchiapassolidarity.wordpress.com/zapatista-freedom-school/

Gorski, P. C. (2010). Critical multicultural pavilion: working definition. Retrieved from http://www.edchange.org/multicultural/initial.html

Gorski, P. C. (n.d.). 7 key characteristics of a multicultural education curriculum. Retrieved from http://www.edchange.org/multicultural/resources/ct_characteristics.html

Gutmann, A. (1999). States and education. Democratic education (pp. 19-46). Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Hall, G. & Patrinos, H. (2010). Indigenous peoples, poverty, and development. Draft manuscript.

Hall, G. & Patrinos, H. (2006). Indigenous peoples, poverty, and development in Latin America 1994-2004. New York: Palgrave Macmillan

Harvey, N. (1998). The Chiapas Rebellion: the struggle for land and democracy. Durham: Duke University Press.

Hernandez, J. A. (2010). From conquest to colonization: Indios and colonization policies after Mexican Independence. Mexican Studies/Estudios Mexicanos, 26(2), 291-322.

Hernández, N. (2001). De la educación indígena a la educación intercultural. La experiencia de México: Un breve repaso. Paper presented at the Primera Feria Hemisférica de Educación

Indígena. Retrieved March 12, 2014 from http://www.worldlearning.org/feria/docs/parte3.pdf

Hernandez, R. A. (2002). Indigenous law and identity politics in Mexico: indigenous men's and women's struggles for a multicultural nation. Center for Advanced Studies in Social Anthropology, 25(1), 90-109.

Hernandez Navarro, L. (1999). The San Andres Accords: Indians and the soul. Cultural Survival, 23(1).

Hiller, P. T. (2009). Contesting Zapata: differing meanings of Mexican national idea. Journal of Alternative Perspective in Social Sciences, 1(2), 258-280.

Hurn, C. J. (1993). The limits and possibilities of schooling (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

INALI [Instituto Nacional de Lenguas Indígenas]. (2008). Catálogo de las lenguas indígenas nacionales: variantes lingüísticas de México con sus autodenominaciones y referencias geoestadísticas. Retrieved from http://www.inali.gob.mx/catalogo2007

Irish Department of Education and Skills (2010). Intercultural education strategy, 2010-2015. Retrieved from http://www.education.ie/en/Schools-Colleges/Information/Intercultural- Education-Strategy/mig_intercultural_education_strategy.pdf

Kaufman, R.R. & Trejo, G. (1997). Regionalism, regime transformation, and PRONASOL: the politics of the National Solidarity Programme in four Mexican states. Journal of Latin American Studies, 29(3), 717-745.

Knight, A. (1990). Racism, revolution, and Indigenismo: Mexico, 1910-1940. In R. Graham (Ed.), The idea of race in Latin America, 1870-1940 (pp. 71-112). Austin: University of Texas Press.

Kumar, A. (2011). Curriculum studies in Mexico: an overview. In W. F. Pinar (Ed.), Curriculum studies in Mexico: intellectual histories, present circumstances (pp. 29-48). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Lastra, Y. (1992). The present-day indigenous languages of Mexico: an overview. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 96, 35-43.

Levinson, B. A. (2001). We are all equal: student culture and identity at a Mexican secondary school, 1988-1998. Durham: Duke University Press.

Levy, S. (2006). Progress against poverty: sustaining Mexico's Progresa-Oportunidades program. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.

Lewis, S. E. (2005). Rural education (Mexico). In P.H. Stuart & J. Herrick, Encyclopedia of Social Welfare History in North America (pp. 314-317). Thousand Oaks, Cali: Sage Publications.

Loyo Brambila A. (2008). Schooling in Mexico. In S. Gvirtz & J. Beech (Eds.), Going to school in Latin America (pp. 203-228). Westport: Greenwood Press.

Mabry, D. J. (1985). Twentieth-century Mexican education: a review. History of Education Quarterly, 25(1/2), 221-226.

Mabury-Lewis, D. (1999). Nation building and the pluriethnic state. Cultural Survival, 23(1).

Marcos, S. (1994). Chiapas: the southeast in two winds a storm and a prophecy. Retrieved from http://www.csuchico.edu/zapatist/HTML/Archive/Communiques/marcos_se_2_wind.htm l

Marri, A. R. (2005). Building a framework for classroom-based multicultural democratic education: learning from three skilled teachers. Teachers College Record, 107(5), 1036- 1059.

Martínez Luna (2010). The fourth principle. In L. Meyer & B. Maldonado (Eds.), New world of indigenous resistance: Noam Chomsky and voices from North, South, and Central America (pp. 85-101). San Francisco: City Lights Books.

McHenry, J. P. (1970). A short history of Mexico. (2nd Ed.). Garden City: Dolphin Books.

McCaa, R. (2000). The peopling of Mexico from origins to revolution. In M. R. Haines & R. H. Steckel (Eds.). A population history of North American (pp. 241-304). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

McCaughan, M. (2014, January 14). Mexico’s Zapatista movement transforming lives 20 years on. Irish Times.

Meyer, L., & Alvarado, B. (2010). New world of indigenous resistance: Noam Chomsky and voices from North, South, and Central America. San Francisco: City Lights Books.

Olivera, M. (2012). From integrationist indigenismo to neoliberal de-ethnification in Chiapas: reminiscences. Latin American Perspectives, 39, 100-110.

Ornelas, C. (2004). The politics of privatisation, decentralization, and education reform in Mexico. International Review of Education, 50(3/4), 397-418.

Perramond, E. P. (2008). The rise, fall, and reconfiguration of the Mexican ejido. Geographical Review, 98(3), 356-371.

Pérez-Aguilera, D. A. & Figueroa-Helland, L. E. (2011). Beyond acculturation: political “change”, indigenous knowledges, and intercultural higher-education in Mexico. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 9(2), 268-296.

Pescador, O. A. (2005). Education policy (Mexico). In P.H. Stuart & J. Herrick (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Social Welfare History in North America (pp. 103-106). Thousand Oaks, Cali: Sage Publications.

Purnell, J. (2002). Citizens and sons of the pueblo: national and local identities in the making of the Mexican nation. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 25(2), 213-237.

Resistencia Autonoma. (n.d.) Retrieved from http://dorsetchiapassolidarity.wordpress.com/zapatista-freedom-school/

Rockwell, E. M. (2010). Resistance and cultural work in times of war. In L. Meyer & B. Maldonado (Eds.), New world of indigenous resistance: Noam Chomsky and voices from North, South, and Central America (pp. 162-176). San Francisco: City Lights Books.

Rockwell, E. & Gomes A.M.R. (2009). Rethinking indigenous education from the Latin American perspective. Anthropology and Education Quarterly 40(2), 97-109.

Rodriguez, V. I. (2006). Awaking to the dream: education, leadership, and politcal-cultural formation in four Neo-Zapatista communities of Chiapas (Master’s thesis). (Order No. MR24335, Simon Fraser University (Canada)). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/304942535?accountid=8285. (304942535).

Rowe, L.S. (1912). The Mexican Revolution: its causes and consequences. Political Science Quarterly, 27(2), 281-297.

Ruiz Medrano, E. (2010). Mexico's indigenous communities their lands and histories, 1500- 2010. Boulder: University Press of Colorado.

Rus, J. (1994). The “Comunidad Revolucionaria Institucional”: the subversion of native government in highland Chiapas, 1936-1968. In G.M. Joseph & D. Nugent (Eds.), Everyday forms of state formation: revolution and the negotiation of rule in modern Mexico (pp. 265-300).Durham: Duke University Press.

Russo, T. (2000). A day in a Zapatista autonomous community. NACLA Report on the Americas. 33(5), 23.

Salvídar, E. (2011). Everyday practices of indigenismo: an ethnograpy of anthropology and the State of Mexico The Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Anthropology, 16(1), 67- 89.

100

Sandoval-Forero, E.A. & Montoya-Arce, B.J. (2013). La educación indígena en Estado de México. Papeles de Población, 19(75), 1-28.

Saugestad, S. (2008). Beyond the Columbus context: new challenges as the indigenous discourse is applied to Africa. In H. Minde (Ed.), Indigenous peoples: self-determination, knowledge, indigeneity. The Netherlands: Eburon Academic Publishers.

Schell, P. A. (2012). [Review of the book La educación en México]. Journal of Latin American Studies, 44, 415-416.

Schmelkes del Valle, S. (2009). Interculturidad, democracia, y formación valoral en México. Revista Electronica de Investigación Educativa, 11(2), 1-10.

Secretaria de Gobierno Direccion de Asuntos Juridicos Departamento de Gobernacion. (2013). Ultima Reforma Publicada en el P.O. Num. 045-2ª.Seccion, Tomo III, de fecha 31 de Julio del 2013. Decreto 238.

SEDESOL. (2010). Oportunidades, a program of results. Mexico City.

SEP. (1993). Plan y programas de estudio 1993, educación básica: primaria.

SEP. (1995). Libro para el maestro, historia: sexto grado. Mexico D.F.

SEP. (2011a). Programas de estudio 2011 guía para el maestro: educación básica primaria. Mexico D.F.

SEP. (2011b). Plan de estudios 2011: educación básica. Mexico D.F.

SEP. (2011c). Historia: sexto grado. Mexico D.F.

SEP. (2011d). Formación cívica y ética: sexto grado. Mexico D.F.

SEP. (2011e). español: sexto grado. Mexico D.F.

SEP. (2011f). Libro estratégico estatal: Chiapas. Mexico D.F.

SEP. (2011g). Entidad donde vivo: Chiapas. Mexico D.F.

SEP & SNTE (2011). Carrera magisterial: lineamientos generales

Sigal, V.L. (1993). Libros de historia para niños: parámetros y dificultades para elaborarlos. Perfiles Educativos, 62.

Smith B. (2007). Defending “our beautiful freedom”: state formation in local autonomy in Oaxaca, 1930-1940. Mexican Studies/Estudios Mexicanos, 23(1), 125-153.

101

Smith M. & McLaren, P. (2010). Critical pedagogy: an overview. Childhood Education, 86(5), 332-334.

Ssenid-Ssensalo, B. (2001, October). Multiculturalism v. multienthnicity: strategies toward creating a truly positive campus environment-CSU Long Beach, a case study. Paper presented at Sixth Annual National Conference, POCPWI, Lincoln, Nebraska

Stahler-Sholk, R. (2000, March). A world in which many worlds fit: Zapatista responses to globalization. Paper presented at Latin American Studies Association, Miami, Florida.

Swartz, D. (1990). Pierre Bourdieu: culture, education, and social inequality. Education and society: a reader (Eds. K.J. Dougherty & F.M. Hammack). San Diego: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.

Tatto, M. T. (1999). Education reform and state power in Mexico: the paradoxes of decentralization. Comparative Education Review, 43,(3), 251-282.

Tatto, M.T. & Velez, E. (1997). Teacher education reform initiatives: the case of Mexico. In C.A. Torres & A. Puigros (Eds.), Latin American education: comparative review. Boulder: Westview Press.

United Nations (2008). United Nations declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples.

Vázquez, J.Z. (2006). La modernización educativa (1988-1994). Hmex, XLVI(4), 927-952.

Wasserman, M. (2008). You can teach an old revolutionary historiography new tricks: regions, popular movements, culture, and gender in Mexico, 1820-1940. Latin American Research Review, 43(2), 260-271.

Wild, N. (Director) & Carson, B., Tougas, K. & Wild, N. (Producers) (1998). A placed called Chiapas. [Motion Picture]. Canada Wild Productions.

Williams, H. (2005). Neoliberalism, social programs, and social movements (Mexico). In P.H. Stuart & J. Herrick, Encyclopedia of Social Welfare History in North America (pp. 103- 106). Thousand Oaks, Cali: Sage Publications

Wirpsa, L. (1995, March 24). Chase bank says Mexico memo ‘not policy.’ National Catholic Reporter, p. 10.

World Bank. (2005). Mexico - tertiary education student assistance project: social assessment and indigenous people’s development plan. Vol. 1. Washington, DC: World Bank. Retrieved from: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2005/05/5840817/mexico- tertiary-education-student-assistance-project-indigenous-peoples-plan-vol-1-2-mexico- tertiary-education-student-assistance-project-social-assessment-indigenous-peoples- development-plan

102