Reforma Educativa Ley no 1565: “It is written by neoliberals”

According to Reforma Educativa, the object of the educational system is to construct an

intercultural and participatory educational system that permits access for all Bolivians to education without discrimination (MECD, 1994, Art. 3: 5). In order to combat discrimination, Reforma Educativa was the first educational reform to remove the division between rural and urban

education (Taylor, 2004). Thus, on paper, the indigenous peoples were no longer discriminated by being exposed to a rural education of lower quality. Moreover, the indigenous peoples were also given the right to co-determination through popular participation, which was encouraged in the reform (Taylor, 2004)38. In addition to national and departmental councils, four indigenous educational councils have been established, each from the main indigenous groups: Aymara, Quechua, Guarani and the indigenous peoples in the Amazon. These councils were invited to participate in the educational, linguistic and cultural policy making, especially policies focused on members of the indigenous pueblos (MECD, 1994, Art. 6: 5). This was in line with Freire‘s (1970/1996) argument for dialogue and not monologues found in liberatory education. The indigenous peoples were now given the opportunity to create an education more in line with their needs and values, an education that would help them develop but without being assimilated, hence in line with what Champagne and Abu-Saad (2006) argue for. One way of assuring the inclusion of the indigenous languages and culture was through the promotion of intercultural and bilingual education (EIB) in the reform.

Reforma Educativa states that Bolivian education is intercultural and bilingual and it assumes the socio-cultural heterogeneity of the country (MECD, 1994, Art. 1: 5). Nonetheless, it does not bring about a definition of intercultural and bilingual education nor does it concretize how to include these aspects into the teaching (Taylor, 2004). Thus, the reform promotes verbalism rather than intercultural and bilingual praxis, as the reflections are not accompanied by binding and concrete action (Freire, 1970/1996). Another problematic aspect is the uneven treatment of religions and world views. According to Anaya (2002a cited in Taylor, 2004: 18), interculturality within the reform is understood as ―a relationship of respect and appreciation for different Bolivian cultures that transcends regional and national borders‖. In her article, Taylor (2004) problematizes this

38

This is in accordance with another important law for the Bolivian people: the Popular Participation Law from the same year.

64

definition by calling attention to the continued provision for Catholic religious instruction in schools. The hegemonic position of the colonizer‘s religion in Bolivian society may thereby be prolonged by the cultural invasion (Freire, 1970/1996) upon non-Catholic learners through religions indoctrination in the classrooms. Another critique when it comes to the authenticity of the

intercultural aspect of the reform is the fact that the books developed for the EIB were not contextualized and adapted to the local knowledge of the indigenous peoples (Navarro, 2009). Instead, they contained the national, hegemonic knowledge translated into indigenous languages. Thus, the reform did not really promote any radical changes in the educational sector, only apparent changes (Navarro, 2009). The purpose of education was still assimilation, however now it was done in the indigenous peoples‘ own languages. This is not only a Bolivian phenomenon. The same situation has also been identified in other Latin American countries who claim to have implemented EIB. An example would be Guatemala:

Bilingual and multicultural39 education has become ghettoized, taught only to those who are considered to be ―multicultural‖ (that is, the indigenous peoples), who are then taught in their mother tongue about ladino40 rather than indigenous culture. The ladino population learns almost nothing about the indigenous peoples of Guatemala, and what they do learn largely revolves around the Mayans and indigenous peoples of the past, not the current situation of Guatemala‘s indigenous population (Dupuy, 2008: 42).

The discrepancy in the reform between the apparent participation and inclusion, and the de facto continued alienation and assimilation of the indigenous learners is also evident when it comes to bilingual education. In the Reglamento sobre organización curricular (Regulation for the curricular organization), it is said that the national curriculum shall assume an intercultural perspective and bilingual teaching (MECD, 1995, Art. 9 and 11). The curriculum also opens up for local adaptation, and promotes acquiring and developing a content related to the ethnic, socio-cultural and

sociolinguistic specificity of each department and municipality (MECD, 1995, Art. 9). Thus, there are two alternative ways of teaching in the Reforma Educativa; either monolingual in Spanish with some teaching of indigenous languages, or bilingual with the indigenous language as first language and Spanish as a second language (MECD, 1994, Art 9: 2). The different modes are used according

39 _{Dupuy uses the term ―multicultural‖; however, the Peace Accord promotes an intercultural and bilingual education:}

http://www.usip.org/library/pa/guatemala/guat_950331.html. As argued by Postero (2004; 2007), in Latin America the term interculturalism is preferred over multiculturalism, as the former promotes an interactive process.

65

to the predominant language of the school area. The pedagogical justification for bilingual education is, however, unclear:

The national curriculum is bilingual in the whole educational system, starting in primary education gradually and progressively advancing to the rest of the system. The curriculum is bilingual principally in the districts and areas where the learners speak an indigenous

language and require an educational attention in another language than castellano41. Bilingual education pursues the preservation and development of the indigenous languages at the same time as the universalization of the use of castellano (MECD, 1995, Art. 11, my translation)42.

Reforma Educativa clearly states that children shall develop oral, written and reading competences in both languages, yet the quote above is giving an impression that indigenous languages are mainly used as transitional languages to reach the expressed goal of universal use of Spanish. According to the Reglamento, EIB is meant to ensure that all the learners in the country have adequate and efficient mastery of Spanish since it is regarded as the language of intercultural and interethnic dialogue (MECD, 1995, Art. 30: 4). This implies a weak model of bilingual education inasmuch as the indigenous languages taught in school are given an instrumental rather than intrinsic value (Skutnabb-Kangas, 2000/2008). The indigenous languages are tools for Spanish and school subject acquisition, whereas the knowledge inherent in these languages is ignored. In addition, bilingual education for learners with Spanish as a second language is not mentioned in the Reglamento for secondary education, so the intention to achieve development and maintenance of indigenous languages through bilingual education will be hard to fulfill (Taylor, 2004).

Reforma Educativa perpetuates the unchallenged domination of Spanish as the high status language (Romaine, 2000) in Bolivian society. Hence it has assumed a language-as-problem orientation where the main goal is to make learners monolinguals in Spanish, rather than maintaining and cherishing linguistic diversity as a resource (Ruíz, 1988). Moreover, it promotes a weak form of

41 _{Due to the history of colonization by the Spaniards, many Latin Americans prefer to use the word castellano rather}

than español when they talk about the Spanish language. Therefore, to respect this need to distance themselves from the Spaniards, I chose to use the word castellano without translation when I quote my informants or other Bolivian sources written in the colonizers‘ language. Apart from that I will use the word Spanish.

42_{“El currículo nacional es además bilingüe para todo el sistema educativo, comenzando a aplicarse en la educación}

primaria, para ir avanzando gradual y progresivamente en todo el sistema. El currículo es bilingüe principalmente en los distritos y núcleos en los cuales los educandos hablan un idioma originario y requieren de una atención educativa en una lengua distinta al castellano. La educación bilingüe persigue la preservación y el desarrollo de los idiomas originarios a la vez que la universalización del uso del castellano.”

66

bilingual education, a so-called early exit program, since the bilingual education seems to cease when the learners have reached mastery of the high status language (Skutnabb-Kangas, 2000/2008). When it comes to EIB in areas where learners are monolingual in Spanish, the intentions of the reform are vague, saying that they ought to incorporate the learning and use of an indigenous language (MECD, 1995, Art.12, my emphasis). So while the model for the bilingual education of children with other mother tongues is detailed and mandatory, the model for bilingual teaching for Spanish-speaking learners is given less space and no clear strategies in the Reglamento. In addition, the implementation of EIB in Spanish-speaking areas even relies on guidance and funding from international and private organization to be sustained (MECD, 1995, Art.12), which underlines the lack of commitment from the 1994 administration. Moreover, EIB-related projects initiated by the NGOs were mainly implemented in rural, primary schools (interview: UNICEF officer, 13/08/08; interview: Plan International officer, 17/09/08), thus bilingual teaching in urban areas was under- prioritized both by the Bolivian authorities and by the donor community.

There was a concurrence among my informants from teachers, via student teachers to NGO

workers, that EIB as expressed in the Reforma Educativa was meant for rural, primary schools only and not prioritized in urban areas (interviews conducted July-September, 2008). One student teacher elaborated on this:

―Bilingual education in 1565 is only for primary school, or so they said. But in theory only, because in real life nothing has been done. They said that the education should be bilingual in Aymara and castellano. But then there were no more projects, and I don‘t think the reform was implemented in secondary school. And even less in higher education. And bilingual education was only given in rural areas, and here in the urban area, nothing, nothing‖ (group interview: Gloria, 12/09/08).

In addition to the lack of clear focus and commitment regarding EIB, another critique raised by my informants was the lack of contextualization in Reforma Educativa. Even though participation from the indigenous communities was promoted and the reform opened up for local adaptations, it was still regarded as neoliberal in its essence and part of a package of neoliberal reforms initiated in the late 80s-early 90s and funded by the World Bank (Howard, 2009; Postero, 2004). Thus, the critic towards neo-liberalism in the 2000s was also affecting the Reforma Educativa, as it was seen as a symbol of this ideology (López, 2005). Moreover, the reform was also considered foreign and not adapted to the Bolivian context according to my informants:

67

―They say that it is a copy of other countries that has nothing to do with our reality (…) It is written by neoliberals‖ (interview: Jorge, 13/08/08).

―The modules came from Spain for instance. And in Spain they live differently from us. It would be better if the teachers could have participated. Let us make the modules. Let us show the geography of Bolivia. Here you find geography from Spain, from Colombia, from

Venezuela, but we don‘t live like them‖ (interview: Norma, 26/08/08).

―The other law from the former Ministry of Education was not in accordance with our context. It was a copy from the law in Spain, I think‖ (interview: Eva, 27/08/08).

The fact that the Reforma Educativa and the development of textbooks for this reform was funded by the World Bank (2003) also intensifies its image as a neoliberal project with an intention to open for indigenous participation in the national, economic market (Navarro, 2009; Luykx & López, 2008). Thus, education was still a tool used for cultural oppression, and the de facto exclusion of the indigenous languages as languages of instruction prolonged social injustice (Dupuy, 2008). The alienation of the learners and exclusion of indigenous culture and knowledge in the school content is being combated in the present government‘s educational reform, the Avelino Siñani-Elizardo Perez (AS-EP) reform.