MEXICANOS PRIMERO Board of Directors Claudio X. González Guajardo President Alejandro Ramírez Magaña Vice President David Calderón Martín del Campo General Director José Ignacio Ávalos Hernández Bruno Ferrari García de Alba Pablo González Guajardo Sissi Harp Calderoni Fernando Landeros Verdugo Alicia Lebrija Hirschfeld Antonio Prida Peón del Valle Roberto Sánchez Mejorada Donors Emilio Azcárraga Jean, José Ignacio Ávalos Hernández, Alejandro Baillères Gual, Agustín Coppel Luken, Antonio del Valle Perochena, José Antonio Fernández Carbajal, Carlos Fernández González, Claudio X. González Guajardo, Pablo González Guajardo, Carlos Hank González, Sissi Harp Calderoni, Fernando Landeros Verdugo, Laura Diez Barroso de Laviada, Alicia Lebrija Hirschfeld, Alejandro Ramírez Magaña, Ignacio Deschamps González, Alejandro Legorreta González, Marcos Martínez Gavica, Carlos Rahmane Sacal, Daniel Servitje Montull, Eduardo Tricio Haro. Academic Council Miguel Basáñez Ebergeny, Gustavo Fabián Iaies, Bernardo Naranjo Piñera, Roberto Newell García, Harry A. Patrinos, Federico Reyes Heroles, Lucrecia Santibáñez Martínez, Alberto Saracho Martínez. Staff Cintya Martínez Villanueva Associate Director Adriana Del Valle Tovar Director of Communication and Mobilization Norma Espinosa Vázquez Media Jennifer L. O´Donoghue, Manuel Bravo Valladolid, and Fernando Ruiz Ruiz Research Alfonso Rangel Terrazas Design Alejandro Ordóñez González Digital Communications Miroslava Félix Sariñana Public Affairs Alberto Serdán Rosales Citizen Activation María Teresa Aguilar Álvarez Castro Legal Studies Francisco Meléndez García Operations Paulina Martínez Rivera Events Iliana Martínez Oñate Assistant to the President Laura Castillo Carro Assistant to the General Director Maricruz Dox Aguillón Liaison and Operations Analyst Miriam Castillo Ramírez, Raquel Cervini Paulín, and Alicia Calderón Ramos Analysts and Assistants Esther Reyes Nieves Administrative Support Gabriel Escobar López, Ernesto de Santiago Corona Logistical Support First edition: September 2013. (Mis)Spent:The State of Education in Mexico 2013. Executive Summary Copyright © MEXICANOS PRIMERO, VISIÓN 2030 A.C. Av. Insurgentes Sur No. 1647, piso 12 Torre Prisma Col. San José Insurgentes, C.P. 03900, Del. Benito Juárez. México, D.F. +52 (55) 55 98 64 98 www.mexicanosprimero.org http://www.facebook.com/MexPrim http://twitter.com/#!/Mexicanos1o http://www.youtube.com/mexicanosprimero2030 http://www.flickr.com/photos/38062135@N05/
(Mis)Spent:The State of Education in Mexico 2013. Executive Summary David Calderón and Jennifer L. O´Donoghue Editors México Evalúa, Marco A. Fernández, David Calderón, Jennifer L. O´Donoghue, Manuel Bravo Valladolid, and Fernando Ruiz Ruiz Contributors Jennifer L. O´Donoghue Translation Jennifer L. O´Donoghue, Manuel Bravo Valladolid, and Fernando Ruiz Ruiz Technical Review Itzel Ramírez Osorno Editorial Coordinator Alfonso Rangel Terrazas and Itzel Ramírez Osorno Cover and Interior Design Jorge Ramírez Chávez and Graciela Iniestra Ramírez Copy Editing and Proofreading Itzel Ramírez Osorno and Rafael Tapia Yáñez Design Alfonso Rangel Terrazas, Yadín Xolalpa, and Sofía González Photography Rafael Tapia Yáñez, Alejandro Ordóñez González, and Alfonso Rangel Terrazas Illustration Printed in Mexico / Impreso en México We appreciate the willingness and openness of officials, teachers, students, and parents in Guanajuato, Guerrero, Hidalgo, Mexico City, the State of Mexico, Oaxaca, Sonora, and Yucatan who, under condition of anonymity, shared with us their experiences and perspectives, as well as their views on education and education spending. We also would like to acknowledge the support and guidance offered at various times in this work by: Edna Jaime, Lucrecia Santibañez, Rosa Maria Giorgana, Diego Martinez, and Hector Robles. We appreciate the participation of Lucia Gamboa Sorenson (Chapter 6) and Lorenzo Gomez Morin, Edward Guise, and Javier Patino (Chapter 5) as research assistants. We recognize the availability of the staff of the Directorate General for Policy Evaluation (DGEP) of the Ministry of Public Education and the National Institute for Education Evaluation (INEE) to respond to our requests for information and relevant statistics. No part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or by any information storage or retrieval system, without the prior written authorization of the publisher.
MEXICANOS PRIMERO
3
Introduction
Spending to learn and learning to spend
I
n our series of studies on the “State of Education in Mexico,” we aim to shed light on crucial aspects of the national education system. This year, our fifth, we take up the topic of education spending, focusing on the extent to which public spending, a principal public policy instrument, contributes to the realization – or not – of the right to a quality education. The exercise of this right remains but a pleasant thought, a mere rhetorical commitment, if material resources are not made available to effectively support education actors and processes that facilitate learning, within a system that ensures equity, par ticipation, efficiency, transparency, and honesty. The constitutional reform ratified in early 2013 defines quality as a central feature of education and emphasizes the obligation of the Mexican State to guarantee it. However, if economic resources are not aligned to the new requirements arising from Article 3 of the Constitution, we will find ourselves facing a failed reform: a vision inspiring in its ends, but lacking the means to fulfill its purpose. In the various chapters of this book, accompanied by the contributions of researchers, public officials, teachers, and parents, we take up the task of
THE STATE OF EDUCATION IN MEXICO 2013
formulating a diagnosis and launching a series of recommendations that would contribute to making education spending a tool to transform both processes within and results of the national education system. We do not claim to be exhaustive, but rather seek clarity in our analyses, with two principal objectives in mind: 1) set a precedent of evidence, demand, and correction, from the very definition and allocation of the budget through to its use, in order to guarantee the exercise of a fundamental human right; and 2) firmly establish the topic in public opinion, taking it beyond specialized bodies of “experts” and exposing a problem that adversely affects millions of Mexicans. In the multiplicity of voices included in this work one message is conveyed loud and clear : in order to ensure true investment in our children and youth, education funds must cease to be misspent. Although the urgent transformation we need is legal and administrative, the impetus for this change must be political and ethical: political forces must take responsibility for reordering education spending, safeguarding it from the rampant capture of resources that currently ails the education system, and citizens must abandon their position as spectators to become decisive participants, demanding accountability for the use of public funds.
MEXICANOS PRIMERO
4
1. S
pending as a Key Public Policy Instrument David Calderón
T
hree paradigms should guide public policy linking economic resources to the right to education: 1) focus on spending rather than just budgeting, 2) follow a progressive logic, redistributing opportunities, and 3) develop vigorous, transparent public institutions, held accountable by citizens.
Spending, in Addition to Budgeting Our decision to give preference to “spending” over “budgeting” was mainly due to the fact that the budget cycle in Mexico is incomplete: the actual distribution and use of the official budget is subject to a cycle of capture, distortion, and diversion by formal and informal actors; in short, formal allocation does not mean that resources reach schools. “Per student spending” should not be interpreted as real and effective spending on that student.Throughout our report, then, we concentrate on trying to answer how our use of resources relates to the learning opportunities and outcomes for the children and youth of Mexico.
Spending and the Redistribution of Life Chances The universal right to education implies the collective commitment to consistently promote the development of the maximum potential of each individual, providing broadly equivalent opportunities, beyond what may be expected due to origin or current situation. We use the term “life chances” to refer to occasions that allow individuals to take charge of their own lives and to define and express themselves; in short, to pursue their self-proposed goals. Education is a life chance par excellence; it represents the possibility to take advantage of opportunities, to unleash the full potential of each of us and all of us together. In this sense, education is the master strategy for development: it is itself to be universally enjoyed, by everyone with equal entitlement, and its effect enables the enjoyment of other rights, which in turn promote equity and individual decision. However, in Mexico mere access to schooling does not necessarily close the opportunity gap, but rather may crystallize it. Formal education should provide the opportunity for a decent and well-paid job, but this only occurs when education pathways are complete and successful; that is, it depends on the amount and the quality of education going hand in hand. If funding processes continue to be distorted, increased spending will not enhance THE STATE OF EDUCATION IN MEXICO 2013
MEXICANOS PRIMERO
5
equity, but precisely the opposite: accelerate the capture of public resources by private interests. We must instill, culturally and with regard to the budget, the conviction that education spending ought to be an explicit instance of the redistribution of life chances for the next generation. Compensation should be directed towards both schools (and their teachers) as well as families with lower income and education levels. It is outrageous that public schools are not provided explicit and sufficient funds to finance their everyday operation, leaving parents the burden of collecting fees to pay for basic supplies or services. The step that would truly make these fees unnecessary has yet to be materialized in public policy: the establishment of a budgetary minimum to be allocated and delivered to each and every school. A symmetric spending scheme – same spending per student across the country – which does not consider the elevated costs caused by distance and population dispersion, and which does not provide necessary compensation for low cultural capital, is simply a simulation of equality. Brutal inequality exists between – as well as within – states, and it increases year after year. For education spending to achieve its purpose, which is to finance the redistribution of life chances, it must be progressive, activating the power of “desegmentation” that is at the heart of its mandate.
Spending and State Stewardship of Education True State stewardship of education – and its corresponding finances – is not characterized by stifling and opaque paternalism, nor does it imply abandoning government responsibility to ensure equity in public schooling. Rather, it is distinguished by its ability to use spending according to its democratic mandate. The right to quality education is hindered by lack of foresight or destination and by improvisation, THE STATE OF EDUCATION IN MEXICO 2013
discontinuity and lack of educational grounding in education spending decisions. However, even more serious is the damage inflicted when government lacks the power or the will to prevent the capture of public resources. It is a gross contradiction that our appointed administrator generates revenue based upon the authority resulting from our collective decision only to lose our common resources to a particular faction. The new federal administration has taken up the slogan, originating in the demands of civil society, of “recovering State stewardship of education.” Their spokespeople have expressed it thusly, and the speed and force with which they have enacted constitutional changes are a first step in the right direction. However, State stewardship is an exercise of authority, not of authoritarianism, and it should not be interpreted as exempting proposals made by the Executive Branch from criticism and open discussion. The current government, and its subnational counterparts, now have the enormous responsibility to ensure that spending reform follows regulatory reform: if public education is to be reshaped in light of the constitutional guarantee of its quality, spending cannot be left as it is, let alone allowed to be privatized in practice through the unlawful diversion of resources. Learning is not a simple “production function,” in which regular inputs and standard processes generate identical results: more money in does not necessarily translate into more points on standardized tests. Increasing the amount we spend is not enough; we must know on what, how and in benefit of whom ourresources are to be spent.The Mexican government must assure its citizens of the wise and equitable use of funds, as well as their honest and vigorous protection against looting.The school system must be sufficiently resourced and adequately and equitably compensated; education financing must be efficient, transparent, and correctable, with the joint participation and co-responsibility of both federal and state governments. Only an education system characterized by quality spending can produce quality learning.
MEXICANOS PRIMERO
6
2. T
he Meaning of Education Spending: Guaranteeing the Right to Learn
Jennifer L. O’Donoghue
T
he right to education is internationally recognized and nationally guaranteed by law. The recent reform of Article 3 of the Constitution establishes the Mexican State’s responsibility to ensure education quality – “the maximum achievement of learning” – in compulsory education.This approach represents a major and important shift: we can now understand the right to education as the right to learn, and the State’s obligation extends beyond simply providing access; it implies promoting the development of effective learning environments, which provide the conditions necessary for teaching and learning. Likewise, the right to quality education never refers to exclusive excellence, but rather inclusive learning. In short, without equity, there can be no quality, and thus no guarantee of effective access to this basic human right. Guaranteeing the full realization of the right to education, therefore, means suppor ting the comprehensive development of each and every child and young person in Mexico.
What Would Education Oriented towards the Right to Learn Look Like? Towards a True “School” The defining elements of the right to learn have been (and remain) a topic of debate. In this
chapter, we follow a line of international work that seeks to identify the characteristics of a learning environment that promotes the full exercise of the right. The question that guides us is: from the point of view of the rights of children, what and how should a school be? Beyond a building with certain infrastructure or a Work Center Code (Clave de Centro de Trabajo, CCT)1 with particular administrative arrangements, a true school, oriented towards the full exercise of the right to learn, should be a learning community characterized by social relationships and material conditions that enable the people participating in it to develop fully, beyond what would be expected given their social, economic and cultural background. A school is formed by people (students, teachers, and parents) who develop relationships and social processes in the context of physical conditions that support them in their efforts to teach and learn (see Figure 2.1). This school is situated at the intersection of a local community, a national school system, and a global world; as such, it should develop as a space apart from and, at the same time, part of these multilayered contexts, able to withstand the pressures and navigate the opportunities they present. We propose three classifications for current CCT´s: 1) “Non-school”: fails to ensure the minimum necessary to undertake the process of teaching 1
The current mechanism for identifying schools in Mexico, a payroll distribution center, even if it does not have walls or a ceiling. THE STATE OF EDUCATION IN MEXICO 2013
MEXICANOS PRIMERO
7 FIGURe 2.1 School
and learning. Does not provide opportunities for students to overcome their current condition. The “non-school” is a mere simulation of education. 2) “School in development”: features the minimum characteristics necessary for the task of education, but does not yet consistently guarantee the right to learn. A “school in development” encompasses some of the relationships and conditions necessary for people to teach and learn, but there is more work to be done to guarantee the realization of the right. 3) “School”: has features that clearly support the exercise of the right to learn. In “schools,” in the true meaning of the word, we see THE STATE OF EDUCATION IN MEXICO 2013
comprehensive and full development of all members of the learning community. Within these classifications, although we can establish a minimum, there is no maximum; every school can – and should – aspire to be even better.
The School People: Students, teachers, and parents in the center.
MEXICANOS PRIMERO
8
One of the main ingredients in the development of children are other people. Our conception of school, therefore, begins with people, the participants in the teaching and learning process: children, teachers, and parents. It is clear that without the regular and positive presence of these people, we will have no effective learning. Relationships: processes, structures, activities, and a climate that support learning. Learning, thinking, and knowledge grow out of relationships between people who collaborate together on specific activities and tasks in the social world. Learning occurs best when done within a community with high standards for learning and opportunities for interaction, participation, and feedback. Material conditions: infrastructure and materials at the service of teaching and learning. To be effective, people – and their relationships – should be supported by material conditions, including buildings, equipment, and supplies, that favor the work of the learning community. This dimension is critical and should always be at the service of people and their relationships and processes. Institutional framework: a system that supports the development of schools.
No school is, or should be, isolated from or completely independent of the broader education system. The system must ensure favorable conditions for people to build and maintain relationships and provide adequate material conditions for the realization of the right to learn. On the one hand, this implies extinguishing practices that distract young people, teachers, and parents from their task – teaching and learning; on the other, it requires positive action on the part of the system to promote this work. If we do not create change at the system level, the obligation of the State will remain unfulfilled; some will have access to a real school, while others will continue mired in mere simulation.
Spending for the Right to Learn The conceptualization of school that we present here has important implications for the way we spend on education. It requires strategic use of economic resources: spending oriented toward the full realization of the right to a quality education must fund people's presence and time, in addition to material concerns, so that all people can learn and develop to their full potential.
THE STATE OF EDUCATION IN MEXICO 2013
MEXICANOS PRIMERO
9
3. T
he Design of Education Spending in Mexico: Obstacles and Limitations
México Evalúa
T
he Mexican government must currently provide its population over 15 years of instruction, from preschool and primary through to lower and upper secondary education. The compulsory-schoolaged population (from 3-19 years) accounts for about 33% of the total population in the country, although almost one in four young people does not receive formal instruction. The national education system caters to 33.5 million students, is comprised of around 250,500 schools, and manages a staff of 1.8 million teachers (SEP, 2012). The greatest demand is concentrated at the basic education level (pre-, primary, and lower secondary school), representing more than 75% of spending, over 90% of schools, and 65% of teachers. The education spending that supports this system comes mainly from the public sector, specifically the federal government, which contributes around 62% of financial resources. Federal government spending has presented an increasing trend in the last two decades in both absolute and comparative terms. Mexico leads the countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in terms of spending as a percentage of total public expenditure. However, this figure presents only a partial picture of education funding: the country ranks second to last in terms of per student spending.
A substantial disconnect exists between the goals of education spending and its impacts.The logic of increased funding is that the allocation of additional resources would improve educational services, and that these, in turn, would have an effect on the quality of education. In the Mexican case, this simply does not happen.
The Route of Spending in Basic Education The current structure of education spending is the result of the decentralization process implemented in Mexico in the nineties. The federal government transferred the administration of schools, including teacher training, to state governments. The General Education Law (Ley General de Educación, LGE), formulated in 1993, defined the new educational functions of each order of government and established shared responsibility for public education funding and services among the Federal Government, the states, and municipalities. However, these regulations did not establish to what extent each order of government should participate. The structure of educational funding is concentrated in three budget items (Ramos): • Ramo 11: grants funding to the Ministry of Public Education to provide education services
Source: Ministry of Public Education (SEP, 2012). “Sistema educativo de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos,” Principales cifras del ciclo escolar 2011-2012, Mexico. Available at: http://www.sep.gob.mx/work/models/sep1/Resource/1899/2/images/principales_cifras_2011.pdf [consulted: February 2013] THE STATE OF EDUCATION IN MEXICO 2013
MEXICANOS PRIMERO
10
and carry out the operational, regulatory, and compensatory functions of the federal education authority. • Ramo 25: has two components: 1) basic education ser vices in Mexico City; and 2) estimates to cover cost increases based on teacher salary negotiations. • FAEB: resources for personnel costs for early childhood, basic, indigenous, and special education, as well as normal education and local teacher training. Distribution is based on: the common registry of schools, staffing, budgetary resources of the preceding fiscal year, and operating expenses (other than personnel and maintenance). After the 2007 Tax Reform, allocation depends on: (1) a compensatory component for those states in which per student spending is beneath that of the national average, (2) an enrollment index, which seeks
to link resources with education demand, (3) an education quality index, which has yet to be published as of 2013, and (4) local effort to contribute state or municipal resources to education financing. Planning, programming, and budgeting of these resources is the responsibility of the federal government, through the Ministry of Finance and Public Credit (SHCP) and the Ministry of Public Education.The Federal Executive delivers a draft budget to the legislature for discussion and approval. During months of negotiations in the legislature, the education budget is immersed in a constant process of lobbying and fighting for resources by various interest groups and state governments. In this process, it is clear that legislative decision making about the education budget does not follow a strategic logic that emphasizes the quality of education.
THE STATE OF EDUCATION IN MEXICO 2013
MEXICANOS PRIMERO
11
After lawmakers approve changes and increases in federal government spending, the Executive issues an official Decree of the Expenditure Budget of the Federation, and delivery schedules and spending responsibilities are published.The Federal Budget and Fiscal Responsibility Law establishes evaluation procedures for federal resources and requires that states and federal dependencies that receive federal funds submit quarterly reports on the application, destination, and outcomes of public expenditure to the SHCP. Finally, control of these budget items is the responsibility of the State Control Organs, the Internal Control Organ of the Ministry of Education, and the Superior Audit Office of Mexico (ASF, Auditoria Superior de la Federaci贸n).
Obstacles and Limitations of Public Education Spending in Mexico a) Openings in the education spending budget cycle permit the capture of resources. The institutional framework of the education sector is not solid enough to warn of improper practices in the management and implementation of the education budget or to avoid opening spaces for resource capture. b) There is little flexibility in the use and application of education spending. Any increase in resources directed toward education is almost entirely absorbed by teacher payroll, yet education authorities do not have proper control over teacher hiring, training, or promotion. c) Limited responsibility of local governments for financing education.The current system of federal transfers to support state education generates a high level of dependence; it is a worn out system of coordination and decentralization that does not satisfy any party. d) Limited resources for improving school infrastructure, equipment, operation, and maintenance. Not only are schools faced with the problem of operating with insufficient THE STATE OF EDUCATION IN MEXICO 2013
resources, they do not participate in the planning process. e) Current allocation mechanisms increase education gaps. Resource allocation does not consider the type of school, its conditions, or the cost of education in each region; a small group benefits from this distribution. The current structure of education spending in Mexico is onerous for both federal and state authorities, unbalanced, and unlikely to produce positive effects on learning. The persistence of an inertial budget and inflexible education spending offers very limited leeway to the actors responsible for exercising this fund of resources. Education finance requires a spending design that breaks the cycle of inefficiency, capture, and deviation from the objectives of education policy. A paradigm for improving education must not only involve the provision of greater resources, but must direct them towards priority areas.
MEXICANOS PRIMERO
12
4. T
he Budget Cycle and Recurrent Misspending
David CalderĂłn
A
mong the many ills that characterize education spending in Mexico is the fact that the majority of the stages in the Budget Cycle used by the Federal Public Administration (see Figure 4.1) are not successive, but rather simultaneous, while others are delayed or even omitted. As a general rule, one stage does not feed into the next, with grave real world consequences.
The circle in Figure 4.1 supposes that, in Phase 2, education authorities have relayed a forecast of their needs to the Ministry of Finance and Public Credit (SHCP), and that this forecast comprises an initial budget for the Executive to submit to the Legislature – taking into account the amount of income available (from Phase 1) and the results of evaluation and accountability (Phases 6 and 7). The Executive, for its part, adds new programs of its own or additional spending amounts to this projection. During the approval process (Phase 3), the House of Representatives tends to further increase the amount of certain items and to make changes in implementation rules.
FIGURe 4.1
Budgetary Cycle according to the Federal Public Administration
1 Income/revenue 7 accountability
2 budget preparation
6 evaluation
3 approval
5 monitoring
4 implementation (spending and control)
Source: SHCP, 2012: 13.
THE STATE OF EDUCATION IN MEXICO 2013
MEXICANOS PRIMERO
13
Implementation (spending and control; Phase 4) is delayed for many programs, and disruptions are common in payment accounts. Monitoring (Phase 5) is conducted through quarterly reports produced by implementing entities (primarily the states), which generally simply record the progress of actual expenditure against defined indicators and seldom receive feedback.
function as a virtuous cycle, but rather a vicious one.
Evaluation (Phase 6) tends to be produced long after funds are spent, and in the case of the education sector has little substantive grounding, especially with regard to the relation between expenditures and the quality and equity of learning conditions.There is generally a two-year time lag between implementation and accountability (Phase 7).The contradictory result is that the next cycle has already begun without rectifying the problems identified by the auditors; as a result, needed corrections are not applied.
The yearly reports of the ASF expose a litany of abuses in education spending across the country: more than three billion pesos in irregularities were identified in 2010 (see Table 4.2). We are confronted with practices that are not occasional, but recurrent and widespread: we face a systemic problem that requires an equally structural solution.
The temporal break in the budget cycle translates into incongruity: the Superior Audit Office of Mexico (Auditoría Superior de la Federación, ASF) identifies gross irregularities that are repeated year after year. The budget process does not
Irregularities in FAEB detected by the ASF
The rules regarding the use of FAEB funds, in place since 1998, were more recently reinforced by Agreement 482, published in 2009. There is, therefore, no legal pretext for deviations from the stated purpose of this fund, but the fact that state officials prefer to incur “observations” from the ASF about misuse of funds rather than put a definitive end to such practices,
Table 4.2 Summary of illegal payments detected in the ASF’s 2010 Report of Results (in thousands of pesos)
Union commission
1,474,188.7
47%
Payment to personnel assigned to AGS Centers
584,737.4
19%
Transfers to the National Education Workers Union (SNTE)
841,400.1
27%
Payment to personnel assigned to AGD Centers
200,818.1
6%
Commission to perform duties of popularly elected office and in other government dependencies
22,721.4
1%
Leave of absence with undue pay
25,791.1
1%
3,149,656.8
100%
TOTAL
Source: Compiled by author with information from ASF, 2012.
THE STATE OF EDUCATION IN MEXICO 2013
MEXICANOS PRIMERO
14
gives us much to think about. It seems that, at the state level, the existing dynamic of public discredit has done little to curb misspending. To think that the role played by the Superior Audit Office of Mexico should be reduced to that of a mere pen pusher, registering each year the severe embezzlement that characterizes education spending, would be disheartening for citizens, at best. Instead, we are convinced that the ASF is endowed with legal powers that go beyond simply recording irregularities or preparing statements of observations and general recommendations.
Accountability and the restoration of the budget cycle
destination, becoming salaries for those to whom they do not correspond, or used to pay for goods and services that do not serve children, but rather use them as a pretext. Questioning inefficiency and asking to punish the misuse of funds does not imply a call to decrease taxpayer contributions to free public education: rather, what we demand is precisely that those funds be allocated effectively and distributed equitably and that the patent illegality within the system be punished so as to prevent repeated offense. Evaluation without improvement, detection without consequences, reports without serious accountability are no longer an option. If the circle continues to be broken, it will continue to be a vicious cycle.
The human right to quality education is violated when public funds are diver ted from their
THE STATE OF EDUCATION IN MEXICO 2013
MEXICANOS PRIMERO
15
5.T
he Political Economy of Education Spending in Mexico
Marco A. Fernández
E
The National Education Workers’ Union (SNTE) and Education Decentralization
ducation decentralization in Mexico fr agmented government authority, without doing the same to the teachers union. In this way, the staunchest opponent of decentralization reform became its primary beneficiary.
Contrary to what is claimed by SNTE leaders, the economic benefit for Mexican teachers of the 1992 decentralization of the education system has been substantial. Over the past two decades, teachers’ revenues have grown in real terms every year, with the exception of 1995 (see Figure 5.1).
FIGURe 5.1
Annual Salary of a Public Primary School Teacher, 1972-2012
10
Prior to decentralization
9.8
After decentralization
9 8 7
6.7
6
5.1
5 4
4.3
3.6
3 2
2.7
2.5
2.2
2012
2010
2008
2006
2004
2002
2000
1998
1996
1994
1992
1990
1988
1986
1984
1982
1980
1978
0
1976
1
1974
Presidential Election Years
7.9
1972
Annual Minimum Wage in Mexico City
Minimum wage in Mexico City
Source: Author calculations, based on information from Arroyo Garcia, 2011; Banxico; National Minimum Wage Commission; OECD, 2011; and an exhaustive review of national and state periodicals for the period 1992-2012.
THE STATE OF EDUCATION IN MEXICO 2013
MEXICANOS PRIMERO
16
To this we must add the additional revenue teachers obtain: yearly bonuses, vacation pay, bonus days and subsidies, as well as the additional salary received by a teacher belonging to the incentive program Carrera Magisterial (CM). Teachers who belong to the first level of CM, for example, receive a salary bonus of 36%, while those who make it to level five earn 294% more. On average, considering salary and benefits, public school teachers in Mexico receive the equivalent of 513.6 days of wages for 200 days actually worked.
a) Disruptive actions, such as marches, sitins, strikes, building seizures, roadblocks, and even the lynching of authorities.
The strength of the SNTE lies in its extensive territorial presence, its sizeable number of affiliates, the influence that many teachers have in their communities, and the economic resources it receives (member dues plus government transfers).
The SNTE uses its mobilization capacity effectively to express labor demands without their confrontational behavior resulting in negative consequences. Given the number of children and young people they serve, the disruptive effect of teachers’ actions immediately place parents in a difficult situation.
This strategy has been effective for the union during both the era of one-par ty rule and during the more recent period of democratic competition. Between 1992 and
The SNTE: A Strategic Actor in the Definition of Education Spending The SNTE has managed to act strategically to influence education policy and the definition of spending in this area, making use of three instruments:
THE STATE OF EDUCATION IN MEXICO 2013
MEXICANOS PRIMERO
17
2008, basic education teachers engaged in more than 4,800 disruptive actions. Such acts, condemned for their negative effects on student achievement, have been profitable for those who carry them out.
Despite the existence of a formula for the distribution of federal funds to the states, their allocation has been determined more by political criteria than technical guidelines; with each disruptive action, the amount of FAEB funds states receive per student rises.
b) Colonization of the institutional education apparatus, both federally and in the states.
The SNTE has gained control of multiple positions in the official structure of education systems across the country. At the school and district level, it has been stalwart in its resistance to competitive selection processes for school directors and supervisors, ensuring that they are instead rewarded for their loyalty to the union. In several states, union control extends from the directorates of basic education to the coordination of Carrera Magisterial, the primary teacher incentive program, as well as teacher promotion systems, and even into the state secretariats or institutes for public education.
c) Incorporation into the politicalelectoral sphere, in its own political party and through legislators that represent union interests in other parties.
The union’s collective action capacity has converted it into an effective agent of electoral mobilization. Where once their services were provided to the only potential buyer in the electoral market, increasing political competition has allowed the union to diversify, forming political and electoral alliances with various political forces in the country. The electoral capital commanded by the SNTE allowed it to create its own political party in 2005.
THE STATE OF EDUCATION IN MEXICO 2013
Final Thoughts The continuance of the negative status quo in public education in Mexico is the result of the ability of the SNTE to influence education policy in the country, coupled with the inability of federal and state authorities to coordinate their actions. Education authorities, both federal and state, have made concessions and granted generous benefits to teachers in the country due to political pressure, threats of strikes, demonstrations, sit-ins, and, in extreme cases, violence. The political incentives arising from the terms of education decentralization hinder the collaboration needed between levels of government in order to curb union pressure on education spending. As long as the funding responsibilities of each level of government are not clearly established, authorities will continue to blame each other, and their inability to coordinate effectively opens spaces in which the union can maintain its influence over education policy decisions. Conflict between government and teachers is not unique to Mexico. Countries such as Ecuador and Peru were also confronted with recurring teacher protests, but the governments of these countries have taken decisive steps to confront resistance to key proposals to improve education quality head-on. Mexican authorities could consider similar routes. One of the main challenges in implementing constitutional education reform – and its corresponding secondary legislation – will be to dismantle the current structure of capture and replace it with mechanisms that promote education quality. The right of teachers to demonstrate and maintain job security has taken precedence over the right of Mexican children to a quality education.
MEXICANOS PRIMERO
18
6. I
n Support of Schools? Spending and Education Quality in Mexico
Jennifer L. O’Donoghue
I
n Mexico we face not just a gap, but a yawning chasm in our knowledge about how the current education finance system impacts schools and learning.This chapter aims to contribute to closing this gap by analyzing more deeply the relationship between spending and education quality, in order to discern the effectiveness (or not) and the equity (or not) of current spending on basic education and identify potential opportunities for improvement. The goal is to spark a conversation about how our analysis of spending would change if we began in the core of education: with students, teachers and schools.
Teachers Who Show up, Know How, Can, Want to, and Are Supported • Mexico heads the international list in terms of teacher absenteeism and tardiness. Of the more than 200,000 public schools at the basic education level, about 26,000 (13%) are closed more than one scheduled school day each month as a result of union activities. (The states of Michoacan, Guerrero and Oaxaca are the most affected, losing one, two, and three months of school in the 2012-13 academic year). • Teacher turnover poses a serious problem for the development of relationships and processes that foster learning. In Mexico, more than one in 20 teachers, or almost 68,000 people, changed schools between the first and second quarter of 2011, and more than three
out of four teachers who did so moved towards an urban school, leaving students in some of the most vulnerable conditions without teachers. • Seven out of ten principals in Mexico report that the lack of adequate educational preparation of teachers impedes student learning. • For many years Mexico has lacked a standardized evaluation that would allow us to diagnose teacher professional competencies and to build an effective continuous development program.The limited information available from the Universal Evaluation applied in 2012, points to alarming trends, including the inequitable distribution of teacher competence between general and indigenous schools. • The lack of relevant and effective professional development represents an additional challenge for Mexican public education. Mexico leads OECD countries in terms of unmet demand for ongoing teacher training.The country continues to promote a “standardized” teacher development model – centralized and based on generic courses and irrelevant workshops, rather than involving teachers in the types of development that they report most impact their professional practice. In addition, investment in professional development is inequitable, with teachers in rural schools, for example, receiving significantly less than their urban counterparts.
Material Learning Conditions • The Mexican educational system falls short (severely) in its financing of the infrastructure, equipment, operation, and maintenance needs of schools. THE STATE OF EDUCATION IN MEXICO 2013
MEXICANOS PRIMERO
19
• Access to basic services in Mexican schools is plagued by inequities. Almost one out of every two rural primary schools has no bathroom, and more than half of indigenous preschools have no running water. • Investment in academic infrastructure, the material factor most associated with learning, is insufficient and (again) inequitable. Four out of ten Telesecundarias lack any “learning support” area (computer room, laboratory, library, or multipurpose room). • Access to technology is still far from being widespread and presents significant gaps. At the national level, about 50% of primary and 70% of lower secondary schools report having at least one computer for educational use; coverage is less than 20% in indigenous and community schools.
(In)equity in the Distribution of Resources at the System Level • Most schools in vulnerable contexts – indigenous, community, and multigrade schools, as well as those in highly marginalized communities – lack the minimum necessary for the development of quality education. • The distribution of education resources does not follow a logic of equality or equity. Great variation exists in per student spending; in 2011, seven states spent more than 25,000 pesos per student per year, considerably more than another eight that invested less than 18,000 pesos. • This variation has its roots both in federal government resources as well as those that come from the states. Some states make a notable effort to invest more state resources in education, and contrary to what we might think, a state’s level of development does not always determine its financial contribution. • An analysis of school-level spending shows the limitations of aggregated data, which hides troubling discrepancies in funding based on school and community characteristics (see Figure 6.4). THE STATE OF EDUCATION IN MEXICO 2013
Working Conditions: Injustice for Mexican Teachers • Our study of teachers’ salaries finds significant variation depending on their geographic location, employment status (number of teaching posts, participation in Carrera Magisterial), and the characteristics of the schools in which they work. Some teachers earn less than 10,000 pesos per month, while others take home more than ten times that. • The current system rewards non-educational factors – seniority, loyalty, and the accumulation of teaching posts and other benefits – with brutal results in terms of inequity both for teachers and for the right of children to learn. • The structure of opportunities for teachers to advance economically in their profession almost requires that they abandon schools with the greatest needs; the system drives teacher turnover, leaving behind children and communities in the most vulnerable contexts.
Towards Spending for Education Quality Given the current structure of education finance, we cannot expect the consistent development of schools oriented towards the right to learn. Instead, we identify a system riddled with corruption, irregularities, and injustice that does not provide even the basic conditions necessary for teaching and learning in every school. More effective education spending, directed towards the creation of true learning communities, would finance the presence and time of education actors, in addition to material conditions. To do so requires an honest and complete diagnosis of where we are at the present moment. Our analysis represents only a first step in what we hope will be a movement of increasing participation by teachers, parents, and students to identify whether or not we have schools – in the true sense of the word – in Mexico.
MEXICANOS PRIMERO
20
FIGURe 6.4 PeR student spending / primary / guerrero (first quarter 2012)
THE STATE OF EDUCATION IN MEXICO 2013
MEXICANOS PRIMERO
21
7. T
owards Good Spending: Conclusions and Recommendations
David Calderón
H
ow did we let ourselves get to this level of misspending? Are we trapped in a dead end with no way out? We say: no. To instill meaning into our administrative and financial maneuvers, we must see education spending as fuel for the engines of growth and equity that schools are, or could be. But where to begin? How can we put an end to the misuse of our resources?
Effective Spending The education system should be viewed as a network of learning communities, and spending should be designed from the “bottom up,” favoring the presence of people (students, teachers, and parents), providing necessary educational inputs, and anchoring the establishment, consolidation, and daily operation of schools with concrete material conditions and a corresponding support system.
Equitable Spending Public spending on education cannot fall into the contradiction of being a system that generates more inequality than already exists. Children with greater need attend “non-schools,” and this must end. THE STATE OF EDUCATION IN MEXICO 2013
Participatory Spending The solution to the capture of the funding system is participation.The Mexican State is now looking to recover large sections of education policy it had historically ceded to private interests, primarily the teachers’ union. State stewardship must be carefully protected, not just in rhetoric, but in the sense of broad accountability for eliminating private capture: the burden of proof is not on citizens, but on the federal government and the states.
Efficient Spending Spending efficiency begins with sufficiency and involves prioritization, clarity, and timeliness. Efficiency in spending involves agility, the ability to move quickly and avoid obstacles to achieving its ends.
Transparent Spending Transparency does not only mean not hiding information, but also providing enough clarity so as to allow citizens to appraise what is presented to them and to hold authorities accountable. Spending reports are relatively recent in the history of the Mexican education system, and it is fair to say that an effort has been made by the Ministry
MEXICANOS PRIMERO
22
of Finance and the Superior Audit Office to open the education sector to the light.The same cannot be said, however, for the Ministry of Education, which has shown a lack of development in this sense. At the state level, the inequality in the level of transparency is notorius.
Honest Spending Misspending in education that involves corruption is particularly outrageous, as it goes against the “best interests of the child,” which international human rights agreements state should be placed above all other considerations. The offensive misuse of money that corresponds to children and youth to provide for the development of their full potential should summon righteous indignation and be translated into decisive action.
More Research and More Action A compelling preliminary agenda for reversing misspending in education would include, at the very least: • Change to the regulatory framework for education funding, in line with Article 3 of the Constitution. • Inclusion in the 2014 budget of a designated fund to provide a minimum guaranteed level of resources to each school (effectively ensuring free education), as well as a compensatory fund for schools with the greatest need to allow them to attract and retain teachers. • Rigorous application of the law in terms of programming, approval and monitoring of spending (responsibility of the SHCP, the Legislature, and the ASF). • Diagnosis of non-schools and schools in development, to establish a plan for regularizing them.
• Reordering economic incentives for teachers upon the elimination of Carrera Magisterial and the current teacher promotion system, as part of a new Teacher Professional Service. • In a sample of full-time schools (6.5 hours/day), provide extended class time as well as time for teachers to meet with parents, work with students, plan lessons, grade student work, and collaborate with other teachers; promote the extinction of double teaching posts (doble plaza). • Establish an explicit mandate to assess learning associated with budgetary programs using guidelines established by the new National Institute for Education Evaluation (INEE). • Organize, on behalf of citizens, an independent group to monitor education spending in each state, seeking the support of the Accountability Network (Red de Rendición de Cuentas). • Establish Transparency and Accountability Days in every school in all levels of compulsory education. • Clarify the justiciability of the right to learn and its corresponding financing through research, dialogue, and strategic litigation. • Reestablish, as part of the Expenditure Budget of the Federation, the state obligation to provide regular reports on teaching posts; include provisions for the timely administration of resources, as well as for rectification of misuse, with punitive measures for officials who do not comply. • Effectively redress and penalize misuse of funds detected in the latest Review of the Public Accounts conducted by the Superior Audit Office of the Federation. There are elements within many current public policies that must be disputed and corrected in order to combat illegal or harmful patterns of behavior and move us closer to “good” spending that is: effective, equitable, participatory, efficient, transparent, and honest. We all have a responsibility for ensuring that our misspending come to an end. School should be a laboratory for a new society; our economic relations will be more just and decent in the future if we can apply ourselves fully in the present to share the conviction that we must spend to learn and we can learn to spend.
THE STATE OF EDUCATION IN MEXICO 2013
MEXICANOS PRIMERO
23 Good spending and misspending
Good spending is…
In Mexico we misspend…
To spend well…
Effective
Ineffective
• Oriented toward the maximum achievement of learning. • Sufficient to guarantee basic conditions necessary for full development of schools and people.
• Spending is not designed nor applied so that children learn. • Basic school needs are not met.
Equitable
Inequitable
Distribute it justly
• Give more resources to students, teachers, and schools in contexts characterized by disadvantage.
• Children with greater needs attend non-schools. • There is offensive inequity among teachers. • The distribution of resources is unjust.
• Change the formula for distribution of FAEB. • Strengthen administrative capacities in the states. • Do away with practices that produce inequity. • Align teachers’ opportunities with those of the most marginalized schools. • Strengthen the school by providing operating funds.
Participatory
Captured
Recover it as a public good
• Mechanisms to promote broad participation throughout the process.
• The SNTE and the CNTE have captured a disproportionate share of spending. • This capture concentrates benefits among union leadership and does not reach the teachers who labor day after day in schools. • Schools, teachers, parents, and citizens have no voice in the process; their participation is limited and lacks necessary orientation.
• Eliminate system capture by private actors. • Give teachers tools to audit funds designated for their wages and benefits, to prevent the diversion of resources distributed in their name. • Create spaces for and multiply the participation of parents and the general public to take part in the definition and monitoring of education spending.
THE STATE OF EDUCATION IN MEXICO 2013
Direct it towards what is central • Diagnose the problem. • Reorder the application of spending (bottom-up, not top-down). • Plan for and implement the development of non-schools. • Apply existing rules and eliminate corrupt and inefficient practices. • Evaluate the education system.
MEXICANOS PRIMERO
24 Good spending and misspending (CONTINUED)
Good spending is…
In Mexico we misspend…
Efficient
Inefficient
• Long-term budget prepared with adequate information and a transparent process. • Timely, orderly, flexible, and transparent implementation. • Monitoring and evaluation of resource use and of learning conditions in schools. • Internal and external auditing, with consequences. • Sufficient, relevant, orderly, accessible and transparent information.
• Short-term (yearly), inertial budget prepared with incomplete information and an opaque, political, and captured process. • Delayed, disorderly, rigid, and opaque implementation. • Insufficient or nonexistent evaluation conducted without public knowledge and having little consistent impact on decisions. • Delayed monitoring, not leading to correction. • Lack of reliable data.
To spend well… Establish order and follow up • Reconstitute the budget cycle. • Improve implementation. • Create effective systems for monitoring and evaluation. • Impose consequences (penalty and correction). • Collect and publish sufficient data for evaluation and planning.
Transparent
Opaque
Make it public
• Transparency in budget process and in distribution and use of resources.
• Lack of publically available, transparent data. • Citizens lack sufficient elements to intervene, and their participation is discouraged. • Lack of accountability in schools and at the state and national level.
• Disclose and develop means to contest negotiations with the union. • Publish consistent, reliable, and easily accessible information about the education and finance systems. • Develop systems and standards for accountability at each level (school, district, state, country).
Honest
Corrupt
Set and enforce clear rules
• Fair and reliable use of funds designated for the development of children and youth. • Funds are not diverted for the benefit of individuals or private groups.
• Systemic looting of education resources. • Impunity and repeated acts of corruption.
• Reinforce and clarify the legal framework. • Develop mechanisms of shared responsibility, participation, and transparency. • Create and promote a system for denouncing and investigating spending irregularities. • Advance from simply registering corruption to fully penalizing it.
THE STATE OF EDUCATION IN MEXICO 2013