SEP, 2023: change study plans and programs

Change the plan and the programs study of the basic education (preschool, primary and secondary), it is a task necessary in any country in the world, but it is at the same time a task arduous Y complex because many factors, processes, resources and social actors are involved in it.

The most recent occasion that Mexico A project of this caliber was carried out in 2016-2017 when the Ministry of Public Education (SEP) released the new Educational model, key or central piece of the public politics of those years in the context of the educational reform of the government of Enrique Pena Nieto (2012-2018).

If we take into account the above initiative of curriculum transformation (with respect to the one already mentioned), which was designed and operated by the SEP for the basic education subsystem, (I am referring to the one from 2011, called “Articulation of Basic Education”conceived and carried out during the government of Felipe Calderon), we could arrive at conclusion that a change of these educational dimensions is induced by the federal government institution every 5-6 years approximately.

Today’s most read columns

Today and for a year, that is, at the beginning of 2022, the SEP of the government of President Lopez Obrador launched a proposal for curriculum renewal for basic education. Although it is worth pointing out that since 2021 this government has shown more concern about changing the contents Y graphic designs from free textbooks (which are just teaching aids) than the plan and syllabi.

Which are the items Y means What are required to effectively carry out a transformative project of this nature? At least the following must be considered six elements or resources to arrive at a good port in curricular change, which in the medium and long term could impact favorably on the training integral of the girls, boys and young people.

1. Based on critical comments made by teachers Y observers external, related to the training workshop express carried out last week on the plan and study programs for basic education, aimed at teachers and school administrators (January 2-6, 2023), among other figures, it is observed non-communicability and technical disabilities to operate the curricular transformation.

Therefore, they are needed idioms either communications clear and less tangles that generate confusion in the process of curricular change for the professional figures that work in basic education. The theoretical and methodological discussion, on the other hand, must be clear, intelligible.

Regarding the above, how to call him to what has been identified as a phenomenon inherent to communication failures and technical deficiencies in the context of curricular change? “Curricular dispragmatism” “Operational indisposition” of the school curriculum? Or simply “divorce between theory and curricular practice”?

2. Regarding the comprehension of the documents released by the SEP, and as our dear friend and colleague rightly pointed out Abelardo Carthese official documents of the curricular transformation need a glossary of terms. And if we get more ambitious, I suggest designing and operating a diplomat on the new proposal for curricular change for basic education 2022, of 120 hours minimum, for teachers, school directors and pedagogical technical advisors, who are the key educational figures to carry out the desired curricular transformation.

3. It must be remembered and recognized that the main motivations of curricular change are given by social, economic, scientific, technological, political and cultural changes. The school could not be left behind in front of those transformationswhich are also permanent and in certain cases vertiginous.

4. What will be the role of Pedagogical Technical Advisors (ATP) in the task of communicating and giving operational clarity to the theoretical and methodological apparatus of curricular transformation for basic education? will they be the translators of baroque language of the curricular proposal? Their work is essential, especially if we link the social needs associated with the curricular change with the characteristics or professional profiles and experience that these iimportant figures.

I pause for a moment on this point, to comment that the new curricular proposal will face a serious problem: In the contests to obtain either develop the function as ATP of basic education profiles are designed based on training fields formerly constitutedthat is to say, language Y communicationY Mathematical Thinkingmainly.

Given that the new study plan and program propose the fusion from the field “Mathematical Thinking” with something called or called training field “Knowledge and Scientific Thought”there is doubt about how to achieve the adaptation or reconversion of these figures due to their scope of work and the announced curricular changes.

Finally, it seems that the dubious determination about how and why the aforementioned merger came to fruition is rather a desktop decision that of consensus with the teachers and the teachers of basic education.

5. Along with the above, it will be convenient to change the orientations and the contents of the professional preparation of the teachers of basic education, in process and for the future. It is clear that a strong work is coming for the redesigners of plans and study programs of the normal schoolsTeaching Update Centers (CAM) and the National Pedagogical University (UPN). Institutions that, by the way, need to put into practice mechanisms of curriculum update more frequently and expeditiously, since the educational system demands to clearly incorporate the theoretical and methodological apparatus of curricular transformation for basic education, and to form technical tables for your operation.

6. Finally, a point that should not be lost sight of is the reflection on the model of curricular design built from above, that is, from the high bureaucracya fact that obscures the gaze of daily work, the knowledge and experience of the magisterium. It will be desirable that in future exercises, the general approach of the school curriculum is made, in a consensualsince the formulation of the document frame-base and don’t hand it over at the end as a fait accompli.

It’s useless “co-design” when only teachers are allowed to carry out the actions operational either executive.

The tasks of the change of plan and study programs they are not simpledemand the imagination, knowledge and experience of the specialists in the teaching and learning processes, as well as the scholars of curricular transformation, but above all they require the political will to generate adequate working conditions so that this type of macro processes be carried out in a coordinated and consensual manner.

For this, something more than the rhetorical revaluation of teaching work and educational and school management is needed.

PS: What can the SEP tell us about the legal process that the lawsuits against the pilot test of the study plan and programs (2022) for basic education?

Twitter: @jcma23 | I email:

SEP, 2023: change study plans and programs