Deepening Cultural Knowledge and Building
Community to Impact the Learning of
Mexican Heritage Students
By: Amy E. Laboe, M.A. ESL
Fulbright Distinguished Awards in Teaching
United States of America
Host Country: Mexico
2013-2014
Sponsored by: The U.S. Department of State and the Bureau of Educational and
Cultural Affairs
2
Table of Contents
Introduction
3
Acknowledgements
4
Outline
5
Part I. Review of Research
5
1. Diverse Students At Risk
6
2. Defining Mexican-American Students
7
3. Valenzuela´s Subtractive Schooling
9
4. Critical Race Theory and Intersectionality
11
5. Research on Proposed Solutions
12
Part II. The Mexican Education System,
Comparisons to the U.S., and an Ethnographic
Portrait of a Rural Mexican High School.
16
Video Guide: Structural and Cultural Aspects of
Education in Mexico
17
Video Guide: An Ethnographic Portrait, Welcome
to
Puebla
19
Post-Video Activities
20
Bibliography
22
3
Introduction
Project Intent:
The main purpose of this project is to provide meaningful content for educators of Mexican heritage
students that explores cultural and systemic factors of Mexican education which may cause cultural
discontinuity for Mexican students and families in the United States.
Secondly, this project intends to provide schools with a model of community building that promotes the
sharing of educational narratives and experiences in order to build understanding and relationships
between educators and Mexican families.
Project Background:
As an English language teacher to speakers of other languages for the past ten years, I have determined
that while our intentions are there to create a multicultural educational experience, we are still very far
from truly understanding one another, and revolutionizing a system which continually perpetuates past
historical, political, and social constructs that dehumanize us and keep our communities separate and
even at odds with one another.
I set out on this journey of exploration with two main interests in mind. First, as an educator, I am
interested in rethinking our philosophy of teaching in public schools. I wish for there to be a more
humanizing, whole-child approach to education. So, as you will see throughout this project, there is an
attempt to find ways for us to engage in a “humanizing pedagogy.” Secondly, knowing that change
takes time, I am also interested in what we can do right now that impacts our learners’ educational
experiences. I am particularly interested in the experiences of our Latino youth. While continuing to
explore our own methods and philosophies of teaching, we must address today’s issues, especially
related to the achievement gap and the practices of “subtractive schooling” that so many of our
students from underrepresented backgrounds experience.
These questions led me to apply to the Fulbright Distinguished Teacher program because I wanted to
explore both Mexican culture and Mexican education in order to see how I could connect those topics to
our families’ experiences in the United States. I hoped that I would find cultural attributes that
contribute to the cultural discontinuity that Mexican students and parents feel in the United States. The
project began in this vein and ended with not only new cultural knowledge, but also an interest and
exploration into sharing our educational narratives as a way to build community and understanding.
Narratives, for me, are a way that “counter-stories” are told, a way that we learn to listen and
empathize with one another, and an organic and real way to experience a humanizing pedagogy in order
to develop critical consciousness as a community.
Content
This guide has been created along with a workshop to be used as professional development for
educators. There are two phases of the workshop that consist of two segments that can be completed
in one or two sessions. It is important to note that the original design of this project is to present the
4
information in segments one and two to both educators and parents. While this project aims to support
educators in their cultural awareness of Mexican students and families, it also aims to support Mexican
parents by engaging them in discussions about current research, as well as presenting to them the
differences between the Mexican and US educational systems.
Acknowledgments
First and foremost I would like to thank the Fulbright Program for giving me this amazing opportunity,
. I would also like to thank
the COMEXUS
organization for getting me started and supporting me during my time in Mexico.
Next, I’d like to acknowledge that without
happened:
from beginning to end.
participants and friends, this project would never have
Their help and guidance supported my work
Additionally, I would like to thank
, who helped me find
housing, took me to the doctor, and acted as a guide and friend during my time in Puebla.
Also, I need to thank some very special participants:
These former U.S.
students shared candidly about their lives as Mexican students in the United States, and I am sure that
their stories will impact many educators.
I need to say a special thank you to my friend and filmmaker,
who shot interviews and
extra footage for me, gave me advice, and supported my video efforts overall.
Finally, I need to graciously thank the students, teachers, and parents of
Puebla who
welcomed me into their school, their homes, and their hearts. I will never forget their friendliness, their
openness, and their generosity.
5
Outline
Part. I. Research and Statistics in the Education of Mexican-American Youth in the United States
A. Review of Research:
1. Research on Cultural Dissonance for Nondominant Students
2. Research on Solutions to Address the Achievement/Culture Gap
3. Humanizing Pedagogy
Part II. Facts, Comparisons, and an Ethnographic Portrait of Mexican Education in a Rural Community
A. Structural Information on the Mexican Education System
B. Video: Structural and Cultural Aspects of Education in Mexico
Sections:
1. How Do You Become a Teacher in Mexico?
2. Describe a Typical Elementary Class
3. What is a Typical High School Class Like?
4. What is the Role of the Teacher?
5. Describe Your Educational Experience
6. Comparing the Systems
7. Bicultural Experiences
a. What propelled you towards finishing your college degree?
b. Racial challenges
c. Advice for U.S. teachers and Mexican-American students
8. An Ethnographic Portrait (Video) “Welcome to
Puebla”
Part I. A. Review of Research
Introduction
As an opening quotation and as my own caveat in this project I would like to share Lisa Delpit’s
words (1991),
6
“Even though we are talking about culture, it is important to remember that children are
individuals and cannot be made to fit into any preconceived mold of how to create the perfect
“culturally matched” learning situation for each ethnic group, but rather how to recognize when
there is a problem for a particular child and how to seek its cause in the most broadly conceived
fashion. Knowledge about culture is but one tool that educators may make use of when
devising solutions for a school’s difficulty in educating diverse children” (p. 237).
Almost as soon as I began my research project in Mexico, I realized that there would be no way for
me to say “this is how education is in Mexico.” The diversity in Mexico in terms of communities,
cultures, and schools is as substantial as it is in the United States. While on the surface it may seem that
the United States is more diverse, this is only because most people do not know the history of Mexico.
Seeing the interplay of different cultures and communities within Mexico affected my perspective on
doing cultural research in education because it brought home the fact that cultural research is filled with
historical, political, and economic complexities that are still impacting us each and every day in every
community around the world. Therefore, I realized that while cultural knowledge opens a person’s
awareness and what they are able to see and learn about others, it is not the answer, but rather a step
along the way to building community with others.
The purpose of this project was to explore the Mexican education system and the cultural values
held in schools in order to find ways to better connect with and understand our Mexican parents in the
U.S. so that students of Mexican heritage can feel that their two worlds are better aligned. After
arriving in Mexico things began to evolve quickly for me. Upon realizing that exploring cultural values
would be difficult given the diversity within Mexico and the time limit I had, I shifted my focus to ways to
build mutual understanding and community. Thus the research question that guided my work became:
Could sharing educational narratives between parents and teachers that explore cultural values and
experiences support Mexican heritage students in their education by bridging communication and
understanding gaps? However, I wanted to remain true to my proposal and to also support educators
with basic information about the system in Mexico. Therefore, I created three parts to this project with
the use of narratives as the final aspect.
1. Diverse Students At Risk
To begin this review of research, it is important to note that research on cultural discontinuity
for students overlaps across cultures because as Concha Delgado-Gaitan (1991) states: “When a student
from a culture or social group different from the white mainstream group enters school in the US,
schooling becomes a discontinuous process for a number of reasons, including language, values, and
practice differences” (p. 20). However, it is also important to state that while experiences for nondominant students may be similar, they are not the same for all students, which will be discussed later
(Ogbu 1992).
According to Delpit (1991): How do schools place diverse students at risk?
1) “There is a failure to recognize and address problems that arise when there is a marked cultural
difference between students and the school, especially in regards to:
7
2)
3)
4)
5)
a) misreading of students’ aptitudes, intent, or abilities as a result of differences in cultural
learning styles, of language use and patterns;
b) and utilizing styles of instruction and/or discipline that are at odds with community norms.
stereotyping
assuming that the failure of the child to thrive intellectually is due to a deficit in the child rather
than a deficit in the teaching, and subsequently teaching less when one should be teaching
more
maintaining ignorance about community norms of parenting and child-rearing, which can lead
to adversarial relationships with parents, and the development among school people of the
Messiah complex- that is, the view that schools must save the child from their communities
rather than work with communities towards excellence
making invisible the histories and realities of children and communities of color in the
curriculum and in educators’ minds” (p. 238).
Focused Conversation
•
•
•
•
What stands out from Delpit’s list?
What reactions or feelings do you have about it?
When have you experienced what you thought was a cultural misunderstanding with a student?
What reflections or thoughts have come to you that you will take away with you? Or what are
two things you feel you could do differently as a teacher?
2. Defining “Mexican-American” Students
We cannot and should never generalize the “Mexican” experience in schools. (Valdés 1996)
Valdés (1996) and Valenzuela (1999) reference Matute-Bianchi’s work when discussing different
categorizations for Mexican heritage students, a complex list which makes researching Mexican student
experiences a challenge:
1) Recent Mexican immigrants arriving within the last 3-5 years and perhaps have schooling in Mexico,
2) Mexican-oriented students who are bilingual but retain a Mexicano identity
3) Mexican-American students, who are born in the US and highly acculturated.
4) Chicanos- who are US born, generally second generation, and frequently alienated from mainstream
society.
5) Cholos – who dress in a distinct style and are perceived to be gang-affiliated (Valdés 1996 p. 25).
Valenzuela (1999) adds another category:
6) Rural, Mexican youth with pre-literate skills or poor schooling who find it hard to make friends
outside of ESL classes, and are at greatest risk of dropping out.
These distinctions become important because as Valdés (1996) states, it is difficult to find clear causes of
school failure for “Mexican” or “Latino” students when there are clear differences in ethnic identity and
orientation for students, as well as the experiences they have which can be based on family history, time
spent in the United States, and language usage.
8
Another important distinction for working with nondominant and Mexican students is made by Valdés
(1996) who references Ogbu’s (1992) work when discussing “immigrant and caste minorities.” Ogbu
classifies two main orientations for students from non-dominant backgrounds. He claims that school
experiences depend entirely on the relationship the minority culture has with the white, mainstream
culture, and also upon the student’s self-orientation. The two classifications are:
Immigrant minorities: immigrants, recent arrivals and those who still are oriented towards Mexico who
measure their success using Mexican nationals as their reference group.
Caste minorities: Mexican-Americans whose lives are primarily lived and oriented to the United States,
and who:
•
•
•
become conscious that they are no longer like Mexican nationals or feel little
identification with Mexican nationals
self-identify as Americans
become aware that as persons of Mexican origin they have a low status among
the majority society, and realize the permanent limitations they will encounter
because of this
(p. 26).
Valdés (1996) uses these distinctions as a further example for why it is difficult to narrow down the lack
of success for Mexican students when both of these orientations exist within the population.
Additionally, students may cross from one orientation to the other as more time is spent within US
schools and students begin to feel their “otherness” (Valenzuela 1999).
According to Ogbu (1992), “the critical issue in cultural diversity and learning is the relationship
between the minority cultures and the American mainstream culture” (p. 5). While both caste
minorities and immigrant minorities “face similar problems in interpersonal/intergroup relations due to
cultural misunderstandings, conceptual problems due to absence of certain concepts in their ethnicgroup cultures, lack of fluency of standard English, and conflicts in teaching and learning styles” (p. 9),
ultimately, it is the relationship of each groups’ relationship with the white mainstream that is what
needs to be addressed.
Below you find how Ogbu defines the relational differences between “caste” and “immigrant” minorities
and the white mainstream.
Ogbu (1992) p. 5-6
Caste minorities – involuntary minorities
“Involuntary minorities experience more difficulty
in school learning and performance partly because
of the relationship between their cultures and the
mainstream culture. They have greater difficulty
with learning and performance partly because
they have greater difficulty crossing the
Immigrant minorities – voluntary minorities
Their identity and background is established
before contact with white, mainstream culturetheir differences are additive; they adopt a
strategy of “accommodation without assimilation”
which is worth the trouble for future success.
They expect to have to overcome language and
9
cultural/language boundaries in school than
voluntary minorities with primary cultural
differences.”
Differences for involuntary minorities arose to
“serve boundary-maintaining mechanisms, coping
mechanisms under oppressive conditions, and
(they) have no strong incentives to give them up as
long as they believe that they are still oppressed;
they view differences as markers of their collective
identity to be maintained, not as barriers to
overcome.”
“School learning tends to be equated with the
learning of the culture and language of white
Americans, that is, the learning of the cultural and
language frames of reference of their “enemy” or
oppressor”
cultural barriers. Their problems are specific
enough to be more easily identified through
ethnographic research so it is easier to eliminate
negative impacts.
From Valenzuela (1999)
Ogbu argues that students often, after extended
contact with and opposition to the dominant
culture, shift to develop their identities as
“otherness.” The students tend to develop
characteristics like withdrawal and apathy in
school, aggression towards school authorities –
“cultural inversion” where they consciously or
unconsciously oppose the cultural practices and
discourses associated with the dominant group. (p.
17)
(switch to be more like a “caste minority”)
“May see school learning as a displacement
process detrimental to their social identity, sense
of security, and self-worth.
Focused Conversation
1. What caught your attention in this section?
2. What concerns you or affects your thinking?
3. What does this mean for how you interact with or perceive your students and their
experiences?
4. What appears to be the most important take-away in this section?
3. Valenzuela’s “Subtractive Schooling” (1999)
Valenzuela (1999) argues that schools are “organized formally and informally in ways that fracture
students’ cultural and ethnic identities, creating social, linguistic, and cultural divisions among the
students and between the students and staff” (p. 5). This gap between students and schools sets them
up for a “subtractive schooling” experience. In her study she addresses the following areas and
consequences of this cultural discontinuity: the definition of education (and its cultural implications),
caring theory, and social capital.
To begin she states that “schools need to be acknowledged as places that significantly influence the
direction and form that ethnic identities take” (p. 4). Therefore schools can be “subtractive” if they
diverge from students’ cultural norms and specifically for Mexican students by 1) dismissing Mexican
students’ definition of education (educación), and 2) practicing assimilationist policies that “divest
students from their culture and language” (p. 20).
10
Let’s begin with the definition and understanding of the word education in Spanish for Mexican students
(Valenzuela 1999):
“Educación has cultural roots… it is a conceptually broader term than its English language
cognate. It refers to the family’s role of inculcating in children a sense of moral, social, and
personal responsibility and serves as the foundation for all other learning. Though inclusive of
formal academic training, educación additionally refers to competence in the social world,
wherein one respects the dignity and individuality of others” (p. 22-23).
Valdés (1999):
un niño bien educado (a well-educated child) requires the education of the whole being in
relation to family and community, including teaching the expectations of the roles they would
play in life and the rules of conduct that have to be followed in order to be successful in them
(p. 125).
Therefore, for most students of Mexican and Latino heritage, to be “bien educado” or “well-educated”
refers to their entire upbringing and developing respectful relationships within their community. “This
person-orientation further suggests the futility of academic knowledge and skills when individuals do
not know how to live in the world as caring, responsible, well-mannered, and respectful human beings”
(Valenzuela p. 22-23).
In Valenzuela’s ethnographic study of the “subtractive” experience of schooling for students in a
high school in Texas, she looks at students’ experiences through theories on caring and social capital.
She heard many students repeatedly say that teachers “don’t care” about them or their education, so
why should they? In her study she defines caring theory as “an emotional exchange or emotional
displacement and that one is seized by the other with energy flowing toward his or her project or
needs.” This reciprocal relationship is complete when the student is able to open up and reveal herself
in the exchange. What is essential, therefore, is that the teacher’s “attitudinal predisposition” opens up
and establishes the interchange through both “acceptance and confirmation” of the student’s world (p.
21).
In Valenzuela’s (1999) observations she noted that the teachers in the study were generally
concerned first with academics and secondarily with students’ experiences. This action is precisely what
supports the students’ perception that teachers don’t care because it invalidates their cultural definition
of educación by placing academics above their person. “And since this definition is thoroughly grounded
in Mexican culture, its rejection constitutes a dismissal of their culture as well” (p. 23). Therefore, this
lack of care or interest in a student’s well-being affirms the notion for Mexican students that school is
“impersonal, irrelevant, and lifeless” (p. 22). Furthermore, students then reject the idea that they
should care about school as they themselves do not feel cared for.
Valenzuela (1999) also examined the social capital of Mexican students, which is defined as: a
student’s exchange network of trust and solidarity which consists of goals that cannot be attained
individually (p. 27-29). Social capital therefore consists in a person’s network of support in order to
11
achieve success. The idea is that through relationships people are able to attain goals that they would
not be able to achieve alone. Academic achievement relies on one’s social capital because it includes
positive social relationships which bring access to resources and opportunities. Also, it creates a
network of peer support in which students can share common goals or pathways in school.
In her study, Valenzuela (1999) highlights the poor social capital of many 2nd, 3rd, and 4th
generation Mexican students who have been tracked in their high school, and have felt “subtractive”
actions on their culture and language. They do not have a network of high achieving friends, or the type
of “esprit de corps” that would help them overcome the barriers that have been put into place.
Furthermore, their lack of social capital along with their “subtractive” experiences leads them towards
what Ogbu calls “cultural inversion” (Valenzuela 1999), which means that students “consciously or
unconsciously oppose the cultural practices and discourses associated with the dominant group” (p. 17).
The result of which is a lack of understanding from teachers who tend to perceive students’ behavior
issues and apathy towards school as a lack of care from the students, or a rebelliousness, instead of
recognizing the possibility that the student’s culture and identity have been devalued and “subtracted”
to the point of complete disengagement.
In summary, considering all three aspects (educacion, caring, social capital), it can be seen that
“individual progress is lodged in relationships” (Valenzuela, 1999, p. 21). Teachers must attend to the
moral authority they have been given to “actively promote respect and a search for connection between
teachers and students and the students themselves” (p. 21).
Focused Conversation
1. What seems clear in this section? Unclear?
2. What reactions do you have to this section?
3. What are some differences you can see in how white culture and Mexican culture define
education? And what implications does this have for how you interact with Mexican students
and families?
4. What are we willing to do to encompass multiple understandings of education in our school
community? What could that look like? What is our role as teachers?
4. Critical Race Theory and “Intersectionality”
In Covarrubias’ (2011) analysis and disaggregation of student achievement statistics, he
attempts to demonstrate the existence of and necessary attention on the idea of “intersectionality” of
social constructs within critical race theory, and how it affect our lives. Intersectionality is defined as
(Crenshaw 1989 1991): “ways in which interconnected systems of domination based on race, class,
gender, sexuality, and other social constructions simultaneously impact the lives of all people as they
engage in socially mediated relationships and in their interaction with society and its institutions” (p.
89). He disaggregates student achievement data for Mexican students by gender, socio-economics, and
citizenship status to show a different, but even starker example of the underachievement of our Latino
students. (See slide presentation.)
12
He states that the theory of intersectionality challenges “the notion that we live in a post colonialist
society in which these divisions no longer impact or are impacted by power” (p. 89). Additionally it
purports that our institutions continue to take advantage of vulnerable populations that exist within
these intersections of differences. He aptly states that:
“We learn to assign value to differences that serve to elevate the status of some people while
diminishing the worth of others. These differences and their value, in turn, become “natural” to us
because they become so widespread and consistently used. (In schools) we are taught to place
positive and negative values on differences that may exist among various types of students. These
distinctions then lead educators, administrators, and students themselves to perceive various
groups of students differently. Perceptions of students ultimately become so persistent and
pervasive that they can impact educational outcomes for people who are labeled by these terms, in
some cases diminishing their potential” (p. 88).
Personal Reflections:
What might be some student differences that I don’t value that I could change my perspective about?
What would it mean to be a post-colonialist educator? How could I become one?
Group Share:
What questions or comments do you have about the statistics and research in this section that you
would like to share with the group?
5. Research on Solutions to Address the Achievement/Culture Gap
Deficit-Difference Paradigm
Valdés (1996) states that over the years, programs to assist nondominant students’ success is
driven by the demands of policymakers, but generally fail to make meaningful change. Changes often
represent a deficit-difference paradigm which only acts on singular factors, applying narrow solutions to
broad problems. Programs like bilingual education, for example, attempt to address literacy and
language development, but ignore the overall structural aspects of education that “subtract” from
students.
Curricular Changes
Two specific examples of curricular movements that fail to bridge cultural gaps are analyzed by
Ogbu (1992). He discusses the overall misguided-ness of multicultural education and common core
curriculum movements. He does not dismiss their relevancy, but rather states that they are “based on
the erroneous assumption that academic achievement is primarily the result of the transaction between
the specific skills and abilities of the students and the teaching of the curriculum and the process of the
classroom environment, including teacher attitudes” (p. 7). “Core curriculum will have/does have some
results, but will be limited because it does not address the nature of minority cultural diversity” (p. 5).
13
What students bring as their values around formal education and how those values are faced within the
context of school will have more to do with student’s motivation and success than anything else.
As for multicultural education, Ogbu (1992) states that while it “fosters pride, helps students
gain new perspectives, reduces prejudices and stereotyping, and promotes intercultural understanding,
it does not directly address the question: To what extent will multicultural education improve the
academic performance of those minorities who have not traditionally done well in school? It emphasizes
a change in teacher attitude and practices, but what do kids do?” (p. 6). He states that there is not a lot
of specific research on the effectiveness of multicultural education as improving the outcomes for
students who have not traditionally done well in school, nor has there been a clear definition of what
multicultural education looks like in practice.
Parent Involvement
Another movement within the deficit-difference paradigm is that of “parent involvement.” This
deficit model has existed since Indian Boarding schools, the Home Teacher Act of 1915, (which placed
teachers into Mexico homes to assimilate the home practices of families), and more recently, Head Start
and No Child Left Behind which continue to perpetuate deficit perspectives of children and families
(Baquedano-Lopez et al 2013). Deficit based policies ultimately “construct parents as unfit for parental
roles” (p. 156), or restrict their roles “because they do not correspond to normative understandings of
parental involvement in schools” (p. 149).
Valdés (1996) highlights an NEA publication that shares four models of parent involvement “1)
parents as volunteers 2) parents as receivers of information 3) parents working at the school 4) parents
working with their own children at home” (p. 38). However, research suggests that teachers believe
parents need to be trained in how to help out at home, or to act as volunteers, and that teachers should
do their job at school and parents should do theirs at home. They do not see parents as being genuinely
involved in any restructuring efforts- rather just as volunteers, advocates, or fundraisers (p. 38).
Additionally, working class parents’ involvement is never up to par with white, middle class
ideals. Middle-class white families have more social capital within today’s educational system which is
based on their higher educational levels, cultural continuity with schools, an experience of school and
home connectedness, and a network of people who have information about schools and school
practices (p. 39). Measured against this, working-class families will not reach the expectations set forth
by a system that excludes them and limits their power. Valdés (1996) argues that this assumes there is a
universal model of development and schooling for children. The values and ways of nondominant
families are therefore “seen as limited or deficient, rather than being based directly on the family and
community’s experience in providing their children with the competencies needed in order to survive”
(p. 36).
Focused Conversation
1. What stands out from this section?
2. What feels hopeless? What feels hopeful?
14
3. What might we need to rethink that could be perpetuating deficit-based perspectives of
teaching and/or parent involvement?
4. What ideas do you have for your own teaching or parent communication that you could
implement now or in the future?
Humanistic Pedagogy
Introduction
The study of narrow or single-faceted solutions to our vast social and systemic problems in
education led me to consider Freire’s humanistic pedagogy as a way to approach ourselves as the
human beings within an established system. “Humanization (according to Freire) is the process of
becoming more fully human as social, historical, thinking, communicating, transformative, and creative
persons who participate in and with the world” (Salazar 2013 p. 126). I have been drawn to the idea of
discovering how humanistic pedagogy could take shape in small ways in my classroom, and in broad
ways, like in addressing the achievement gap. Specifically, for this project, I wanted to investigate how a
more human approach might support students in such a way that affects their achievement levels. I
decided that reaching out to the whole family would be a way in which a Latino student might begin to
feel that their two worlds are accepted. I’m theorizing that if students from nondominant backgrounds
feel that where they come from is met with respect and understanding in the classroom, and if their
family is included in critical ways in the development of the school community, then they will feel valued
and therefore motivated to participate positively in their community because they will have a greater
sense of belonging. Also, I believe that creating stronger connections with Latino parents will build
confidence in them when working with school systems as their children grow.
Research
According to Freire, “to become more fully human, men and women must become conscious of
their presence in the world as a way to individually and collectively re-envisage their social world”
(Salazar, 2013, p. 126). For educators, Freire encourages them to “listen to their students and build on
their knowledge and experiences in order to engage in contextualized, dynamic, and personalized
education approaches that further the goals of humanization and social transformation” (p. 127).
Similarly, Delpit (1992) advises us to “learn about the brilliance the students bring with them in their
blood” (p. 248). Furthermore, she adds: “Nowhere do we foster inquiry into who our students really are
or encourage teachers to develop links to the often rich home lives of students, yet a teacher cannot
begin to understand who sits before them unless they can connect with the families and communities
from which their students come” (p. 246).
To start, how can we attempt to create a stronger community and school through our
humanness, or human connections? Freire says that a humanizing pedagogy results from the “individual
and collective process of critical consciousness that is provoked through dialogue.” “Dialogue requires
an intense faith in humankind: faith in their power to make and remake, to create and recreate; faith in
their vocation to be fully human- which is not the privilege of the elite, but the birthright of all
humanity” (Salazar, 2013, p. 132). The dialogue that we engage in will represent our lived experiences
15
and will also “reflect social and political conditions that reproduce inequality and oppression, and foster
action to interrupt and disrupt oppression.” When we engage in this process for mutual humanization
we foster the development of our shared critical consciousness.
A quest for mutual humanization is not done alone. Freire said, “our being is a being with”
(Salazar, 2013, p. 132). Therefore, the care, attention, and the mutually constructed curriculum created
with students and parents brings us together. One educational example from Franquiz & Salazar, 2004,
“found that when Mexican/Chicano students are invited to use their voices as central vehicles for
expressing their views of social issues that are relevant to their lives, students and teachers are able to
co-construct a network of mutual trust that allows them to identify problems and solutions that are
dynamic, contextualized, and inclusive of the needs of local communities” (p. 132).
Finally, Freire advocates that teachers realize that this co-construction of learning, which
“legitimizes and values student experiences” (Salazar, 2013, p. 134), should be built along with a teacher
who understands the historical, political and social constructs of today. In order to demonstrate a deep
respect for another’s cultural identity (or ethnic, linguistic, gender or sexual identity), it is necessary for
teachers to explore their own histories, their “own power and privilege, recognizing how these
constructs affect others” (p. 135). This will allow teachers to “reposition themselves alongside others
and to remain vigilant to constraining elements” (p.135) in the environment and in themselves.
Reflection
1. In your own words, write a short definition of humanization in education, or what you
understand it to be.
2. What does this section make you reflect upon?
3. In what ways could you see yourself changing to co-construct a humanizing experience with
your students?
4. What would be one thing you could start (or stop) next week?
Discussion
1. What is already “humanistic” about our school?
2. What does our school feel like?
3. In what ways could we co-construct a more humanizing experience for our students?
Notes:
16
Part II. The Mexican Education System, Comparisons to the U.S., and an Ethnographic Portrait
of a Rural Mexican High School.
A. Structural Information
United States
• Pre-school ages 2-4
• Kindergarten ages 5-6
• Elementary School ages 6-11 (grades 1-5)
• Middle School (grades 6, 7, 8) ages 11-14
• High School (grades 9, 10, 11, 12) ages 1418
• College/University and Graduate School or
other higher education
Mexico
• Educación inicial (pre-school), ages 2-4
• Educación preescolar, kinder (pre-school)
ages 4-6
• Educación primaria (elementary) ages 612, grades 1-6
• Educación media básica o secundária,
(middle school) ages 12-15, grades 6-9
• Educación media superior:
preparatoria/bachillerato, (high school)
ages 15-18, grades 10-12.
• Educación superior y de posgrado (higher
education, post-graduate) also referring to
college or university studies
Background Information on Mexican Education:
(Rosado, Hellawell & Zamora, 2011) and (WENR, World Education News and Review, June 2006
http://www.wes.org/ewenr/06jun/practical.htm)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Article 3 of the Mexican Constitution of 1917 instituted a national public education system. It
provides free and compulsory education for students from ages 3-15. (Educación media
superior or high school is not required by law)
One year of pre-school became mandatory in 2001.
The SEP (Secretaria de Educación), up until the 90s, was a centralized, federal department in the
government; meaning education was dictated by the federal government, not by the states,
although states had/have their own SEP departments.
Recently, decentralization has become a theme – too many students (23 million) have been a
challenge for the system.
This transfer to states began in 1992 with an agreement between the Mexican National
Education Teachers Union and state education agencies.
The Federal government, through SEP, still sets standards, the required subjects, and the scope
and sequence of the content for each grade level (national curriculum), which states are
required to teach.
SEP produces and distributes free textbooks for elementary and middle school students
17
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Teachers are paid by the federal and state governments directly. Unions controlled the hiring
and firing of all SEP school teachers until recently.
Teachers are paid by the number of hours they give classes and they are not paid preparation
time.
Money spent per student in Mexico is $2,378 while in the U.S. it is $9,098 per year.
Mexican schools rely on parents to manage administrative concerns, including maintenance and
improvement of the school.
Improvement projects for schools may be funded by the government.
Uniforms are required and must be paid by parents in basic education K-9. High school kids are
no longer required by law to wear uniforms.
Scholarships for books, uniforms, and inscriptions are available for students with fewer
resources.
Grading is based on a 1-10 scale. 10 is the highest and you must receive a 6 to pass in most
schools (some may require a 7).
Questions for the Group:
• Are there any systemic structures that may be difficult for Mexican parents to understand, or
that we might to better communicate about?
• What are some structural differences that you’d like to remember in order to better
communicate with parents?
**Statistics in Puebla (see slide presentation)
Notes:
18
Video Guide: Structural and Cultural Aspects of Education in Mexico
Participant List
•
Fátima
•
Dr. Verónica
, Director of Research in the Master´s of English Teaching
Program at the
Abril
English teacher and Master´s in English teaching student
, and former
transnational student.
Maria
former US student, currently working
in Puebla, Mexico
A. Alejandro
, supervisor of zone 13 high schools for the Secretaria de Educación
Pública of Puebla.
Alejandro Cinto, director of
in
Puebla.
Berenice , teacher at
in
Puebla.
Felipe Morales, parent of student at
in
Puebla.
Students
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Professor in the Master´s of English Teaching Program
Video Section Outline and Notes
Part 1
How do you become a teacher in Mexico?
Notes/Questions:
Part 2
What is a typical elementary school like?
Notes/Questions:
Part 3
What’s a typical high school class like?
Notes/Questions:
Part 4
What is the role of the teacher?
Notes/Questions:
19
Part 5
What was your education like?
Notes/Questions:
Part 6
Comparing the Systems (U.S. and Mexico)
Notes/Questions:
Part 7
Bicultural Experiences
Notes/Questions:
Video Guide: An Ethnographic Portrait: Welcome to Nepopualco, Puebla
Notes Page:
Differences and Similarities: (Record here your comparisons to education in the U.S. regarding students,
teachers, parents, and experiences or expectations)
Themes and Observations: (Record here what cultural themes or observations you observed.)
Questions and Reflections:
20
Post-Video Activities:
For these questions please conduct a small group discussion followed by a whole group sharing of your
group’s responses.
•
Parts 1-5
1. What stands out from these sections?
2. Were there any surprises?
3. What are the similarities and differences to the U.S. that you heard?
4. How could this information be helpful to you? To your institution?
For these questions, please do some written reflection followed by small and then large group
discussions.
•
Parts 6-7
1. What stays with you or surprises you about was said in these sections?
2. Do you agree with what the participants had to say about the U.S system? Why/Why
not?
21
3. Are there any ways that you now feel we should approach Mexican-American students
differently after hearing from these voices and reading and discussing the research?
4. What is difficult to resolve for you from what you’ve heard and read today?
5. Is there anything you feel you could do differently in the coming week? (No matter how
small!)
6. Is there anything you feel your institution should continue discussing based on what you
have learned today?
7. What is the biggest take away you have from this workshop?
Additional notes:
22
Bibliography
Baquedano-Lopez, P., Alexander, R.A., Hernandez, S.J. (2013). Equity Issues in Parental and Community
Involvement in Schools: What Teacher Educators Need to Know. Review of Research in
Education: Extraordinary Pedagogies for Working Within School Settings Serving Nondominant
Students, (37), pp. 149-182.
Clandinin, D.J., Connelly, F.M. (1990). Stories of Experience and Narrative Inquiry. Educational
Researcher, 19(5), pp. 2-14.
Covarrubias, A. (2011). Quantitative Intersectionality: A Critical Race Analysis of the Chicana/o
Educational Pipeline. Journal of Latinos and Education, 10(2), pp. 86-105
Delgado-Gaitan, C. (1994). Consejos: The Power of Cultural Narratives. Anthropology & Education
Quarterly, 25(3), pp. 298-316: Alternative Visions of Schooling: Success Stories in Minority
Settings.
Delgado-Gaitan, C. (1991) Involving Parents in the Schools: A Process of Empowerment. American
Journal of Education, 100(1), pp. 20-46.
Delpit, L.D. (1992). Education in a Multicultural Society: Our Future’s Greatest Challenge. Journal of
Negro Education, 61(3), pp. 237-249.
Huber, J., Caine, V., Huber, M., & Steeves, P. (2013). Narrative Inquiry as Pedagogy in Education: The
Extraordinary Potential of Living, Telling, Retelling, and Reliving Stories of Experience. Review of
Research in Education: Extraordinary Pedagogies for Working Within School Settings Serving
Nondominant Students, (37), pp. 212-242.
Johnson, M., Crosnoe, R., Elder, G.H. Jr. (2001). Students’ Attachment and Academic Engagement: The
Role of Race and Ethnicity. Sociology of Education 74(4), pp. 318-340.
Levinson, B.A.U. (2001). We Are All Equal: Student Culture and Identity at a Mexican Secondary School,
1998-1998. Duke University Press.
McLaughlin, J.H. (2002). Schooling in Mexico: A Brief Guide for U.S. Educators. ERIC Digest.
Ogbu, J.U. (1992). Cultural Diversity and Learning. Educational Researcher 21(8), pp. 5-14, 24.
Rodriguez, G. (2013) Power and Agency in Education: Exploring the Pedagogical Dimensions of Funds of
Knowledge. Review of Research in Education: Extraordinary Pedagogies for Working Within
School Settings Serving Nondominant Students, (37), pp. 87-120.
23
Rolwing, K. (2006) Education in Mexico. WENR, World Education News and Review.
http://www.wes.org/ewenr/06jun/practical.htm
Rosado, Hellawell, Zamora (2011). An Analysis of the Educational Systems in Mexico and the U.S. from
Pre-kinder to 12th Grade. ERIC Digest.
Salazar, M. (2013). A Humanizing Pedagogy: Reinventing the Principles and Practice of Education as a
Journey Toward Liberation. Review of Research in Education: Extraordinary Pedagogies for
Working Within School Settings Serving Nondominant Students, (37), pp. 121-148.
Valdés, G. (1996). Con Respeto: Bridging the Distances Between Culturally Diverse Families and Schools.
Teachers College Press, Columbia University: New York, NY.
Valenzuela, A. (1999). Subtractive Schooling: U.S.-Mexican Youth and the Politics of Caring. State
University of New York Press: Albany, N.Y.