Analysis of the
Skills Development Sector in Mexico
The World Bank
Human Development Sector
Draft for Discussion
February 2013
Preface
This document presents a summary of a ten month process undertaken by the
World Bank to understand the disconnect between the skills development
sector in Mexico – including both the education and the training sectors – and
the needs of the Mexican labor market. It draws on existing quantitative data;
institutional assessments; legal assessments; interviews with key Ministries
and public sector Institutions, academics, and private sector employers and
their unions; and discussions and debates with a working group comprised of a
subset of the same representatives. The information was collected in the
period March through July 2012, discussed with various groups, and
summarized in this document. The document was shared with the working
group in February 2013. It also served as input to the World Bank’s Policy
Note “Labor Markets for Inclusive Growth.”
1The document was prepared by
Ms. Paula Villaseñor, who carried out the work as an independent consultant
for the World Bank.
The document does not intend to be a comprehensive review of the
skills-labor market sector. Instead, it provides ideas for discussion and debate as
Mexico begins a new phase of leadership under President Peña Nieto.
1 In the Policy Note, and earlier draft of this document was entitled: “Institutional and Organizational
Introduction
This document presents an institutional and organizational analysis of the sector of skills development in Mexico. The main goal is to identify possible barriers and organizational challenges for the effective development and certification of skills. In the economic literature, the concept of skills has a wide range of meanings, from capacities and abilities, to talent and competences. For simplicity, this document considers that skills are an important constituent of competences, in addition to knowledge and values.
In Mexico, the sector of skills development refers to several actors and formal institutions, and may be broadly divided in academic education, vocational education, training for work, and teacher training. Currently, this sector is poorly coordinated and organized, with several actors performing the same duties in terms of regulation, provision and service delivery, using different languages, and working separately. In addition, the legal framework that supports this sector presents legal discrepancies, conceptual inconsistencies, and coordination deficiencies. Thus, the motivation of this document has to do with Mexico’s multiple challenges in terms of poor quality education, school completion, low productivity, labor force dynamics, lack of training, and, at the same time, the lack of coordination between the authorities in charge of skills development. In this context, it is important to understand that skills development involve both a quantitative and qualitative challenge, in terms of the number of high-skilled workers that the economy needs today and will need in the future, and the expectations created by educational plans and contents.
Therefore, this document is divided as follows: Section II presents Mexico’s background in terms of education, labor productivity, skills formation, and sectorial coordination. Then, Section III describes the organization and coordination of actors involved in the sector of skills development, distinguishing between academic and vocational education, training for work, and teacher training. Subsequently, Section IV analyzes the legal framework that regulates the sector of skills development, including the latest education reforms that integrate a competence-based approach. Then, Section V explores the literature on skills and skills development, highlighting the most effective policies implemented in other countries. Finally, Section VII concludes and provides recommendations.
Background
Mexico faces several challenges in terms of education quality and skills development, youth employment opportunities, labor productivity, and sectorial coordination. This section presents the background for the institutional and organizational analysis of the sector of skills development.
Mexico still faces important challenges in terms of school completion... On average, Mexicans have 8.6 years of schooling, while other countries with similar development levels such as Chile have achieved over 10 years of formal education (Table 1). Indeed, in the past few decades, Mexico has carried out important efforts in terms of coverage, particularly in primary education, but still faces high dropout rates, mostly in upper
secondary. For example, while 99 percent of children aged 6 are enrolled in 1st grade or a
higher academic level, less than half of adolescents aged 15 are enrolled in school (Table
2). In other words, for every 100 children enrolled in 1st grade, only 46 of them will be able
to enroll in 10th grade (Mexicanos Primero 2011). Basically, the proportion of 25-to
35-year-old nonstudents with only primary education has diminished since 1998, but the same proportion with incomplete secondary education has actually risen over the same period (Table 3). Interestingly, the proportion of idle youth among the population aged 15 to 29 has declined since 1990 for both sexes, although this subgroup currently represents over eight million individuals excluded from education and employment opportunities (Table 4). Regarding the education level of Mexican workers, most primary sector workers either completed or abandoned their studies before the age of 14, while the majority of workers in the secondary and tertiary sector continued studying until the age of 15-17 or 18-22, respectively (Table 5). For the same reference population, the most common reasons for leaving school have to do with financial issues or school aversion (Table 6). Yet, the returns to education in Mexico are positive and high, particularly for higher education: while the difference between completing lower secondary and upper secondary, in terms of monthly income, is only 67 US dollars, the difference between completing high school and university is almost 690 US dollars (Table 7).
… and particularly in terms of education quality. Currently, Mexican students have very low achievement levels in mathematics in national standardized tests, as the overwhelming majority of them obtained either insufficient or elementary results, regardless of their education level (Table 8). At the international level, Mexican students also perform very poorly, not only in mathematics but also in science and reading, as evidenced by their latest results in the PISA test (Table 9). One of the most important contributions of PISA to student assessment is that this test not only evaluates knowledge but also the ability to use it in specific contexts (website of PISA), which means that Mexican students are not well prepared to compete with their international peers. This suggests that Mexican education authorities have managed to expand coverage, but they have done it somehow at the expense of quality.
This context poses current and future challenges to its fast-growing young labor force. Life expectancy in Mexico has increased significantly in the past few decades, situating around 73 years for men and 78 years for women. As a result, the working life of Mexicans has also increased considerably. However, the working life of skills is much shorter. Currently, the average age of the population is only 26 years (STPS 2011). In 2020, the proportion of the population aged 14 to 64 will reach it maximum, offering an appealing “window of opportunity” for the country in terms of human resources (STPS 2011). Mexico’s economically active population includes 44 million individuals, or 40 percent of the total population, out of which 67 percent are men and 52 percent work in the informal sector (STPS 2011). This suggests that women may be facing different types of barriers to access
labor markets. The total unemployment rate is rather low, reaching 5 percent approximately, but the youth unemployment rate is almost 10 percent due mainly to legal rigidities and coordination failures between the education and productive sector (STPS 2011).
Mexico also faces productivity stagnation and labor rigidity. In the past three decades, labor productivity has stagnated, particularly in commerce activities, mainly due to a matter of skills and low wages (STPS 2011). For example, the average working income is approximately 7,500 Mexican pesos per month, or approximately 600 US dollars (STPS 2011). The most important economic activities, in terms of the gross value added per worker and their contribution to total labor productivity, are mining and electricity, followed by banking, finance and professional services, as well as transport and communications (Tables 10 and 11). The tertiary sector accounts for 61 percent of the total labor force, while the primary and the secondary sectors cover 14 and 24 percent respectively (Table 12). That is, 6 in 10 Mexican workers perform in service activities, mostly in wholesale and retail trade (Table 11). The majority of primary sector workers have lower levels of educational attainment, in comparison to the other two sectors, as 66 percent of them have only primary education, or no education at all (Table 13). In addition, as their education level increases, workers tend to perform in larger firms, suggesting that low-skilled workers are typically concentrated in micro and small enterprises (Table 14). On this matter, Mexico has experienced an important increase in the share of low-skilled services in employment, in contrast to a clear decline in primary sector activities (Figure 1). This evidence seems to support the hypothesis that low labor productivity in Mexico is strongly related to low levels of skills. Finally, firms operating in Mexico face considerable barriers to hiring and layoff, which jeopardizes productivity and competitiveness (STPS 2011).
For the labor market, experience is currently more relevant than skills. During a series of personal interviews about the demand for skills in Mexico (Table 15), the majority of the private sector representatives that participated in this exercise mentioned that firms tend to favor experience over educational attainment when hiring workers. Typically, firms prefer reference based recruitment, or short-term contracts to prove workers’ competences. The reason is that most education certificates or diplomas provide evidence that the student took the training program or completed an education level; however, they do not necessarily guarantee that the student possesses the necessary competences for the employment position. Interestingly, the percentage of workers who perceive a better matching between their previous experience and current employment is much higher than the proportion of workers who consider that their current employment is consistent with their studies, regardless of their education level (Tables 16 to 19). Actually, some careers have a rather low percentage of graduates working in their corresponding field of studies, such as communications, marketing, and certain specializations in engineering (Table 20). In addition, workers find experience useful for acquiring the appropriate skills for their occupation, developing self-confidence at work, preserving employment and earning more (Tables 21 and 22).
The overwhelming majority of workers have not participated in training programs, particularly in the primary sector. While an important fraction of workers can only certify
their last education level attained with a report card (Table 23), only approximately 37 percent of workers have received work training (Tables 24 and 25). These results are similar considering either the population that works and studies (PWS) or the population that only works (POW). The three main reasons for not receiving training have to do mostly with financial issues, lack of information, or simply the perception that initial training is sufficient (Tables 26 and 27). Typically, the type of workers that reported participating in training has to do mostly with education and with-collar workers, despite their sector of activity (Table 28).
When trained, most workers are not certified. Typically, training takes place in the classroom, and tends to last less than 20 hours, regardless of the type of activity (Tables 29 to 31). Similarly, it is a colleague or supervisor, or the internal training, which regularly provides training (Tables 32 and 33). Usually, it is the supervisor who decides that the worker needs training, followed by the employee or human resources division (Tables 34 and 35). The government plays a very limited role in this matter in the secondary and tertiary sector. Among the main benefits of training, workers identify the ability to improve or certify their skills, as well as the possibility to improve the quality of their services or products (Table 36). However, most workers who receive training are not evaluated or certified at the end of the training course, particularly in the primary sector (Table 37). And, when given a printed proof, this is usually a simple diploma, not a competence-based certification (Tables 38 and 39).
Actually, Mexico spends poorly in skills development... Typically, in the secondary and tertiary sectors, firms provide the most important financing source for training, while government participation only represents a small fraction (Tables 40 and 41). Indeed, the government only plays a relevant role in financing in the primary sector. Yet, training is rather expensive for firms, as the average cost of training per employee is approximately 381 US dollars, ranging from 112 US dollars in commerce activities to over 1,170 US dollars in financial services (Table 42). On the other hand, the annual budget for training in public work training centers (Centros de Formación para el Trabajo) has remained rather constant per student since 2007, at 4,963 pesos or 397 approximately US dollars (Table 43). Taking into account the federal budget (Presupuesto de Egresos de la Federación, or PEF)
for education (Ramo 11), the public expenditure for skills development has increased
considerably since 2007, particularly with respect to the Competence-Based Human Resources Training Program (Programa de Formación de Recursos Humanos con base en Competencias, or PROFORHCOM), and significantly in 2011 (Table 44). Still, public expenditure for teacher training in basic education has varied notably in the past five years, reaching its maximum in 2009. In contrast, considering the federal budget for labor and social welfare (Ramo 14), the public expenditure for skills development in training and productivity programs has diminished significantly, by approximately 75 percent since 2007, while the expenditure associated to the Employment Support Program (Programa de Apoyo al Empleo, or PAE) has been rather constant over the same period (Tables 45). Finally, the federal budget assigned to CONOCER has increased by over 40 percent since 2007, reaching 135 million pesos in 2012, which is roughly equivalent to 11 million US dollars(Table 46).
… and also ineffectively. It is worth mentioning that the totality of the expenditure on teacher training is purely administrative, without any focus on quality (Table 44). Similarly, the expenditure on adult education only represents approximately 1 percent of the whole education budget, regardless of this sector’s needs (Table 47). In addition, the expenditure on vocational education, directly related to the National College for Technical Professional Education (Colegio Nacional de Educación Profesional Técnica, or CONALEP), is only linked to entry enrollment, not to continuous enrollment, posing challenges in terms of school completion (Table 15). Currently, public spending on CONALEP represents approximately 2 percent of the total budget for education, reaching 4 thousand million pesos, or 300 million US dollars (Table 48). Finally, most of programs associated with this sector do not have clear or specific goals, jeopardizing the effectiveness and transparency of public expenditure (Table 49).
Mexican workers lack proper training in socio-emotional skills, especially in terms of working in teams. Basically, socio-emotional skills refer to the workers’ ability to lead, interact with their colleagues, adapt to different contexts, use their emotional intelligence, organize their work, and mostly to live according to a certain set of values, such as honesty and integrity. In Mexico, according to the different actors interviewed for this project (Table 15), the three most important yet difficult to find competences demanded by the private sector are the ability to work in teams, the ability to execute, and the capacity to solve problems. Other important skills mentioned refer to the ability to adapt, learn, and interact with others. However, for the poorest workers, the most important abilities identified by employers are mostly cognitive, such as basic mathematics and written skills, but also related to technology. Some studies conclude that Mexican workers need to improve their skills in issues such as customer service, service delivery, technology, and particularly in risk prevention (CONOCER: Reports 1 to 7). In Latin America, in general, the three most important competences for employers are teamwork, interpersonal communication, and interpersonal relationships, while the three hardest to find in labor markets refer to leadership, innovation and decision-making (Tables 50 and 52). Yet, these results correspond only to the opinions of large firms. In turn, the general opinion is that small and medium enterprises (SMEs) have not always a clear understanding about their needs in terms of abilities.
Similarly, formal education, centered on memorizing, does not currently promote entrepreneurial abilities among students. Most actors interviewed identify a cultural problem regarding entrepreneurial abilities: in Mexico, the general perception is that being an entrepreneur is equivalent to being rich and somehow associated to exploiting workers. That is, the idea of being an entrepreneur has a rather negative connotation in social terms. Interestingly, according to the same interviews, street sellers do not perceive themselves as entrepreneurs, but rather as simple informal workers. As long as the formal education system does not adopt new pedagogical contents that promote entrepreneurial abilities or the vision that entrepreneurs play a key role in terms of employment creation, private sector representatives argue, this misconception will prevail. On this matter, considering that entrepreneurial activity accounts for Mexico’s most important source of wealth, some private initiatives have tried to redefine the concepts of businessman, entrepreneur, enterprise, and entrepreneurship, such as the campaign named “Pepe and Toño” (Pepe y Toño) launched by the Communication Council (Consejo de la Comunicación). The goal of
this campaign is to change the general perception that only large companies are enterprises, and to create awareness that small and medium entrepreneurs generate 83 percent of Mexico’s GDP and 8 in 10 jobs. The website of Pepe and Toño also provides guidance for enterprise creation.
Indeed, education authorities and businessmen tend to work separately. One of the most interesting conclusions from the interview process with business sector representatives and government authorities is that both sectors speak different languages and have different goals (Table 15). While the government makes decisions at a slow pace, partly due to its institutional structure and administrative rigidity, the private sector is constantly evolving and adapting to new circumstances and technologies. In other words, while the sector of skills development is self-absorbed and lost in politics, the business sector has to deal with an extremely globalized and competitive world. Finally, the dialogue between both sectors has been intermittent and inconsistent over the years, resulting in coordination and information failures.
Thus, Mexico has not managed to define a sectorial, regional and national skills development strategy depending on its most productive sectors. According to the different actors interviewed, because the business sector and the government tend to work separately, Mexico has not defined a regional or national development strategy aimed at identifying the sectors that offer the largest development potential, and investing in the appropriate skills to boost these sectors (Table 15). As a result, the sector of skills development has not adopted a regional vision for the promotion of specific abilities. Currently, in Mexico, the four sectors with the largest share in national GDP are tourism, logistics or transports and communications, construction and mining (Table 52). Construction, for example, has the largest share in total employment but the lowest level of employee productivity, while mining has one of the lowest shares in total employment but the highest level of employee productivity in the Mexican economy (Tables 53 and 54). Tourism shows high productivity in comparison to the other sectors at the national level (Table 53) but poor performance considering the results of developed economies (Figure 2), as the sector of information technologies (Figure 3). On this matter, the Boston Consulting Group (2011) identifies several strategic sectors where Mexico has a clear competitive advantage, such as medical tourism, aeronautical industry, automobile industry, and electrical appliances manufacturing, and recommends aligning efforts towards the development of highly-skilled human capital based on labor market needs.
These arguments suggest that the Mexican labor market faces a skills mismatch, both in quantitative and qualitative terms. On the one hand, some of the actors interviewed for this project believe that, with the exception of certain profitable sectors such as mining, Mexico is not producing high-skilled jobs due mostly to the international financial crisis (Table 15). On the other hand, businessmen complain about the lack of highly skilled workers who can use their abilities effectively to make decisions, solve problems and interact socially. In fact, Mexican authorities and businessmen do not have a clear idea about the number of high school, vocational and university graduates that the labor market will require in the near future nor about the type of competences that the sector of skills development needs to promote. The only evidence available shows that there is a clear skills mismatch in four relevant sectors (tourism, business process operations, software development, and
automobile industry), particularly at low and high education levels, and that these trends will prevail in the next few years (Table 55). For example, only in the sector of business process operations, or BPO, there is excess supply of labor at low levels of education, but excess demand of labor at high levels of education.
This section described Mexico’s challenges in terms of schooling, skills, productivity, training, and collaboration between the education and productive sectors. The next section analyzes the organizational structure of the sector of skills development in Mexico.
Organization
of
the
Sector
of
Skills
Development
This section describes the organization of the actors involved in the sector of skills development (SoSD) in Mexico, differentiating between academic education, vocational education, training for work, and teacher training. Yet, skills development also deals with skills certification and thus this section considers as well the role of Mexico’s certifying agency.
In Mexico, the sector of skills development may be divided into academic education, vocational or technical education, training for work, and teacher training. Basically, academic education refers to general education, from initial education and preschool to university, and deals essentially with cognitive abilities. On the other hand, vocational or technical education refers to the different modalities in upper secondary that combine both academic and non-academic contents and prepare students for specific types of jobs or careers. Similarly, training for work refers to educational schemes that provide remedial education for disadvantaged individuals or training courses for workers that have completed lower secondary. Finally, teacher training has to do with the different institutional structures aimed at training teachers for different education levels.
While the provision of academic and vocational education only depends on the Ministry of Education, the provision of training for work depends on several actors. Indeed, SoSD can
also be divided into three main actors: the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Labor,
and the Business Sector. Interestingly, these actors group as well several small actors or operating divisions, and participate in different education schemes (Figure 4). For example, three different actors currently provide training for work, while only the Ministry of Education can provide or regulate general and education. Basically, the Ministry of Education participates in general and vocational education, training for work, teacher training and certification, while the Ministry of Labor only does in training for work and certification. Similarly, firms can only participate in training for work and certification. The Ministry of Education (Secretaría de Educación Pública, or SEP) is the only authority responsible for the regulation of general and vocational education in Mexico.
Organizationally, SEP is divided into five main operational areas: (i) basic education, (ii) upper-middle education, (iii) higher education, (iv) decentralized bodies, and (v) de-concentrated bodies (Figure 5). The Under Ministry for Basic Education (Subsecretaría de Educación Básica, or SEB) is responsible for initial education, preschool, primary and lower secondary school, and therefore the basis for academic education (Figure 6). SEB has three general divisions (Direcciones Generales or DG) in charge of curriculum development, indigenous education and education innovation respectively. Then, the Under Ministry for Upper-Middle Education (Subsecretaría de Educación Media Superior, or SEMS) deals with both academic and vocational education, but also with training for work. For example, within SEMS, the General Division for High School (Dirección General de Bachillerato, or DGB) is responsible for the provision of academic education, while the General Divisions for Training Centers (DGCFT) has to do with training for work. On the other hand, Marine Science (DGECyTM), and Industrial and Technological Education (DGETI) deal with vocational education. In addition, the Under Ministry for Higher Education (Subsecretaría de Educación Superior, or SES) is in charge of the coordination of tertiary education, and that of the National Council of Education Authorities (Consejo Nacional de Autoridades Educativas, or CONAEDU), which is responsible for the development of the national education system. SES is supposed to work closely with the National Association of Universities and Higher Education Institutions (Asociación Nacional de Universidades e Instituciones de Educación Superior, or ANUIES), a non-governmental organization aimed at improving teaching, research and education at the university level. Finally, the education system benefits from the information provided by the National Center for Higher Education Evaluation (Centro Nacional de Evaluación de la Educación Superior, or CENEVAL), a non-governmental association aimed at developing and applying evaluation tools for knowledge, abilities and competences assessment, at all education levels.
Upper middle education offers different modalities that provide either general or vocational education, but also training for work. Indeed, in Mexico upper middle education includes (i) general education provided by general upper secondary schools (DGB) and the National Autonomous University of Mexico (Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, or UNAM); (ii) vocational education provided by DGETA, DGETI, DGECyTM, and the National College for Technical Professional Education (Colegio Nacional de Educación Profesional Técnica, or CONALEP), with mixed curriculum; and, (v) training for work offered by DGCFT. The last modality does not provide access to higher education. Before 2008, upper middle education was severely fragmented and lacked identity. Then, the Comprehensive Reform for Upper Middle Education (Reforma Integral de la Educación Media Superior, or RIEMS) allowed for the creation of a common high school graduate profile (Perfil del Egresado), regardless of the type of modality, whether general or vocational. Now, all high school students in Mexico receive a competence-based education through general and diversified courses. In the case of vocational education, the different modalities offer the possibility of lateral exits per semester that provide competence-based certificates even if the student did not complete the whole program. For example, a student may take two semesters of CONALEP, then abandon school, and still obtain a certificate for these two semesters. Training for work in upper middle education (DGCFT) is not part of the high school graduate profile but also provides a competence-based education.
In practice, the National Union of Teachers (Sindicato Nacional de Trabajadores de la Educación, or SNTE) intervenes in the decision making about teacher training and education plans and programs. Established in 1943, SNTE is compriesed of permanent, transitory, and interim workers at the service of education, from SEP, state or local governments, private firms, or decentralized/de-concentrated organizations. Its legal mandate is to study, protect and improve the common interests of education workers. Basically, the organizational structure of SNTE includes education workers from formal school, work training centers, and member organizations, and has municipal, regional, sectional and national representation. Currently, SNTE has over one million members, constituting the largest union in Latin America. The organization’s power is not limited to protecting workers’ rights; it also intervenes in the decision making of education policy. For example, SNTE has the right to appoint school principals at the basic education level. Therefore, basic education in Mexico depends directly on SNTE (Figure 6). However, at the upper middle education level, teachers may belong to different unions.
SEP is also in charge of several decentralized and de-concentrated bodies that promote skills development by providing academic and vocational education or training, such as Industrial and Technical Learning Centers (Centro de Enseñanza Técnica e Industrial, or CETIs). For example, the National Council of Education Promotion (Consejo Nacional de Fomento Educativo, or CONAFE) provides education schemes, such as community education, to individuals with no access to formal education; similarly, the CONALEP offers a vocational scheme for basic education graduates. In addition, the National Institute for Adult Education (Instituto Nacional de Educación para Adultos, or INEA) and the National Council for Standardization and Certification (Consejo Nacional de Normalización y Certificación de Estándares de Competencias, or CONOCER) are decentralized bodies of SEP (Figures 5 and 7). The National Council for Science and Technology (Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología, or CONACYT) is responsible for science and technology policy in Mexico. Finally, it is worth highlighting that, although every federal entity in Mexico is responsible for providing its own education services, the education system of the Federal District depends directly upon SEP, as a de-concentrated body.
In particular, the National College for Technical Professional Education (CONALEP) focuses on vocational education based on competence certification. In the past thirty years, CONALEP has contributed to the formation of technical personnel through six-month modules, each of approximately 35 hours per week. Although it has managed to increase its annual budget in the past few years, CONALEP has not been able to increase its enrollment, keeping it at 7 or 8 percent of students in upper-middle education (Table 15). Similarly, the National Institute for Adult Education (INEA) provides remedial education for the population aged 15 and over. INEA offers several types of education programs, from literacy teaching to lower-secondary school, as well as several educational modules for the unschooled, aimed at providing students with primary or secondary school diplomas and improving their performance at work, taking into account students’ age-related preferences and need. These modules belong to the Educational Model for Life and Work (Modelo Educación para la Vida y el Trabajo, or MEVyT), that also offers training for students aged 10-14, and bilingual education for indigenous people. Although MEVyt is
part of the agreements between INEA and the National Council of Education for Life and Work (Consejo Nacional de Educación para la Vida y el Trabajo, or CONEVyT) and supposed to promote education and training, it does not offer competence-based certificates. Thus, INEA’s main objective is to reduce educational lags and improve learning abilities in adults. However, its annual budget is still very limited, representing approximately 1 percent of the total budget for education (Table 47).
Two main divisions in SEP are worth mentioning in terms of educational contents: the General Division for Curriculum Development (Dirección General de Desarrollo Curricular, or DGDC), for basic education, and the Sectorial Coordination for Academic Development (Coordinación Sectorial de Desarrollo Académico, or COSDAC), for upper-middle education, including vocational education and training for work (Figures 5 to 7). Any attempt to reform academic contents and management has to pass through these divisions. For example, COSDAC is in charge of designing and implementing the general framework for the establishment of a National Baccalaureat System (Sistema Nacional de Bachillerato, or SNB), and teacher training in upper secondary school. Currently, COSDAC is in charge of developing common curriculums based on the Competence-Based Human Resources Training Program (PROFORHCOM), which contributes to the implementation of RIEMS. COSDAC works with the Inter-institutional Committees for Vocational Education (Comités Interinstitucionales de Formación Profesional, or CIFPs), formed by SEMS, firms and teachers, to promote portability between existing modalities in upper secondary. Similarly, DGDC deals with the development of a common curriculum in basic education that promotes flexibility, at least in theory. In the past few years, the education system has developed a common curricula framework that promotes diversity, which means that each federal entity may decide its educational content; however, the Federation, represented by SEP, is responsible for approving state contents. Thus, the key challenge is to coordinate these divisions to integrate curricula decisions at different education levels.
The Ministry of Labor and Social Welfare (Secretaría del Trabajo y Previsión Social, or STPS) also participates in the regulation and coordination of training for work.The mission of the STPS consists of strengthening labor policy and promoting labor conciliation for labor peace, which suggests that this ministry focuses on labor relations, not necessarily on skills development. STPS has two main divisions that deal with training regulation and coordination in Mexico: the Under-Ministry for Employment and Labor Productivity (Subsecretaría de Empleo y Productividad Laboral) and the Under-Ministry for Labor Inclusion (Subsecretaría de Inclusión Laboral). The first headship takes care of the administration of the National Service for Employment (Servicio Nacional de Empleo, or SNE), while the second is in charge of providing certain training programs for work, and registering training programs in Mexico (Figures 7 and 8). Every single training program in Mexico has to be registered by STPS, even if SEP has its own registry. STPS is also in charge of providing training certificates. However, the STPS does not use a competences framework to guide its program design, registration, or certification award processes. The 58 e-learning programs offered by Labor Inclusion are not based on a skills approach. The STPS training certificates only account for the number of hours that the student participated in the program, not the abilities he/she developed.
The National Service for Employment (SNE) aims to provide free customer service on employment opportunities, training, and scholarship opportunities, contributing to skills development. Created in 1978 and coordinated by STPS, SNE provides free costumer service through its 147 offices nationwide, such as employment information and services, vocational guidance, training for jobseekers, job fairs, employment mediation, employment newspapers, and financing for training. It also provides information through its website
called Portal de Empleo. In particular, the program Bécate provides information and
scholarships for different types of training, such as mixed training, on-the-job training, and training for self-employment. Currently, Bécate grants approximately 225 thousand scholarships. In addition, SNE provides career advice as well as information on the probability of employment per type of career (Table 21.a).The majority of customers that use SNE have lower-secondary education only. Nonetheless, the majority of actors interviewed for this project claimed that firms barely use the information services offered by SNE, highlighting the lack of coordination between business sector representatives and government authorities (Figures 7 and 8).
According to STPS authorities, only in 2012, approximately 785,000 and 595,000 individuals have applied to a vacancy through Portal de Empleo and the 147 offices across the country, respectively (Tables 56 and 57). Among those who used the website, 56 percent are men; 47 percent are aged between 18 and 25; the majority have less than one year of labor experience; and over 25 percent have a college degree. Similarly, among those who used the services of employment bureaus, 59 percent are men; 48 percent are aged between 20 and 29; almost 32 percent have less than one year of experience; and 39 percent have only completed lower secondary. Interestingly, the number of applicants to both schemes has decreased since 2011. In both cases, the majority of vacancies registered are positions in the tertiary (service) sector, typically in medium or large firms (Tables 58 and 59). This number has also diminished since 2011.
The Employment Observatory (Observatorio Laboral, or OLA) offers free information services about the characteristics and behavior patterns of the most representative careers and professions in Mexico. Also coordinated by STPS, the OLA delivers employment indicators for 62 professional careers, 34 technological careers, 20 technical careers, and 240 occupational groups at the national level, such as average monthly income per career, type of occupations per region and state, and percentage of women employed. Its main goal is to provide updated and reliable information on labor market trends, according to the results of the National Employment and Occupation Survey (Encuesta Nacional de Ocupación y Empleo, or ENOE), and the information pool of SNE. Moreover, OLA provides a labor mobility mechanism that is coordinated by the Mexican and Canadian governments, though which Mexican workers can access temporary employment opportunities in Canada, according to their professional experience, facilitating selection, recruiting and hiring without intermediaries. Although OLA is directly related to SNE, it is not necessarily closely linked to the local education and business sector (Figures 7 and 8). The business sector also offers training options but seldom in coordination with STPS and SEP.Certain large firms or industrial sectors have promoted the creation of technological universities to contribute to the development of necessary skills that cannot be found in labor markets. For instance, the Monterrey’s Technological System (Sistema Tecnológico
de Monterrey) was created to meet the labor demands of firms and industries in Northern Mexico and currently offers different types of universities and programs, including extension schools and on-line education. Some firms have opted to provide their own short-term training programs, in order to cope with the lack of skilled workers. Yet, most of these efforts are conducted independently, without coordination with government authorities. Typically, the productive sector is organized around associations, councils, chambers and confederations, but none of these has a clear role in terms of skills development with respect to SEP or STPS (Figure 7). Some of these associations and chambers refer to the National Confederation of National Chambers of Commerce (Confederación Nacional de Cámaras Nacionales de Comercio, Servicios y Turismo, or CONCANACO), the National Chamber of Transformation Industry (Cámara Nacional de Industria de la Transformación, or CANACINTRA), the Communication Council (Consejo de la Comunicación), the Coordinating Business Council (Consejo Coordinador Empresarial, or CCE), or the Mexican Association of Directors of Human Resources (Asociación Mexicana de Directores de Recursos Humanos, or AMEDIRH). According to the different interviews carried out with private sector representatives, firms prefer using private headhunters, such as Manpower, than SNE, in order to find skilled workers.
Some non-governmental initiatives contribute to the promotion of skills development. For
instance, Mexicanos Primero, a civil organization based in Mexico City and Morelia,
Michoacán, actively advocates for quality education in primary and secondary school, contributing to improving education policy in Mexico. Another example is Inroads Mexico, a non-profit civil association created in 1996 that provides socio-emotional training for university students from low-income backgrounds, and links them to employment opportunities in large and successful firms. Finally, some initiatives aim to finance skills development, although they do it marginally, such as Bécalos, which provides financial aid for teacher training and low-income students enrolled in upper-middle and higher education.
Therefore, the institutional organization of training for work depends on several actors, in contrast to academic education. Indeed, three main actors participate in the provision and organization of training for work: SEP, STPS and the business sector (Figure 7). However, the regulation of this scheme corresponds to SEP and STPS. The main challenge is reducing the lack of coordination between actors. Two key actors in this mapping are CONALEP and INEA, although the role of the latter is very limited for financial issues. Finally, while SEP and STPS are lost in negotiations and politics, the business sector spends resources in finding and hiring high-skilled workers.
The Ministry of Social Development (Secretaría de Desarrollo Social, or SEDESOL) contributes to skills development, although marginally. SEDESOL delivers three main social programs that contribute to early childhood development, school completion, and self-employment, among the poorest of the poor. First, Oportunidades promotes school enrollment and completion in communities with extreme poverty, through conditional cash transfers. For example, since 2003, the program Jóvenes con Oportunidades provides financial incentives for upper-secondary school completion before the age of 22. So far, this program has benefited over 790 thousand youth. The program for Day-Care Centers
(Estancias Infantiles) offers financial support to working or student mothers, or single fathers, with children between the ages of 1 and 3 years and 11 months, from poor households, through subsidies for childcare. Finally, the program Productive Options (Opciones Productivas) offers financial support for the development of productive options or self-employment, as well as training and guidance. These efforts target the bottom of the pyramid specifically. However, SEDESOL does not necessarily work in coordination with SEP and STPS, particularly regarding initial education (Figures 6 and 7). Currently, the budget for Day-Care Centers and Productive Options represents approximately 3.6 and 0.6 percent of the total budget for social development, respectively (PEF 2011).
Skills development also deals with teacher training, which depends on several actors. Teacher training consists of initial training, or teacher-training colleges, and continuous training, or teacher training policies (Figure 9). Both SEP and SNTE have the authority to determine teacher-training policies in primary and lower secondary. In fact, teacher-training colleges prepare teachers for formal education and depend on the National Pedagogical University (Universidad Pedagógica Nacional, or UPN). Since 1978, UPN’s mission is to form education professionals to meet the requirements of the national education system, through 76 centers and over 200 academic venues nationwide. Currently, the average age of teachers in Mexico is approximately 50 years. According to some of the actors interviewed for this study, teacher-training programs are outdated and useless, lost in political struggles and interest, jeopardizing the education and training of entire generations, and the sector of skills development as a whole (Table 15). Thus, for initial training, the challenge is to redesign the contents of teacher-training colleges and teacher selection processes. However, for continuous training, the challenge has to do with Carrera Magisterial, a national program that provides economic incentives to basic education teachers through a horizontal promotion scheme, but does not incorporate the totality of teachers. Continuous training basically depends on the DG for Continuous Training at SEP (Dirección General de Formación Continua, or DGFC). In upper secondary, teacher training takes place according to the Program for Teacher Training in Upper Secondary (Programa de Formación del Docente de la Educación Media Superior, or PROFORDEMS) that is one of the strategic actions of RIEMS and focuses on adjusting teaching methodologies to a competence-based approach.
Finally, skills certification is also directly related to skills development. Ideally, certification would refer to issuing diplomas or other type of written evidence (constancias) that certifies that the student has certain abilities, but in practice, the majority of Mexico’s certification system simply certified that a student completed an academic degree or training program. For example, SEP issues certificates of completion or education diplomas, while STPS issues certificates of training program completion, including programs from a distance.These types of certificates are not always useful for the productive sector in the sense that students may have completed an educational degree or training program but not necessarily acquired the type of abilities demanded by employers. (Figure 10).
CONOCER is the Mexican agency responsible for issuing competence-based certificates, which possess high security and transparency standards (Image 1).Basically, CONOCER promotes and coordinates the National System of Competences aimed at fostering
competitiveness and economic development (CONOCER 2012). The National System of Competences (Sistema Nacional de Competencias, or SNC) represents an instrument to foster competitiveness in different productive sectors, and consists of three main efforts: (i) management committees, (ii) instruments for the transfer of knowledge and information, and (iii) evaluation and certification structure. Indeed, CONOCER was created in 1995, then suspended in 2003 and eventually reintroduced in 2005, to support SNC. Its governing body includes nine government entities, including SEP and STPS, four business-sector representatives, and five associations that represent workers’ interests. Despite some initial conflicts between SEP and STPS to obtain the presidency of CONOCER, it is the Minister of Education who holds this position. In general terms, CONOCER provides technical assistance to firms and federal entities so that these can set Management Committees (Comités de Gestión por Competencias) aimed at defining competence-based standards, as well as evaluation and certification procedures, depending on the type of productive sector. Since CONOCER belongs administratively to SEP, it has limited powers to make decisions.
Different stakeholders, from the government, the education and business sector, integrate the Management Committees assisted by CONOCER. Their goal is to set up competence-based standards in order to strengthen human capital and raise competitiveness, and to decide upon the type of organizations that will evaluate and certify workers’ competences, based on these standards. CONOCER helps these stakeholders to form the committees (Figure 10), to organize themselves, and to present a proposal to CONOCER. So far, over 10 productive sectors are included in the Competence-Based Human Resources Training Program (Programa de Formación de Recursos Humanos con base en Competencias, or PROFORHCOM), such as commerce, automobile industry, mining, telecommunications, tourism and construction. CONOCER has contributed to the expansion of management committees, and to the definition of competence-based standards (Figures 11, 12 and 13). In addition, CONOCER has three national registries that promote the transfer of knowledge and information for better labor market performance: (i) the National Registry of Competence-Based Standards (Registro Nacional de Estándares de Competencia, or RENEC); (ii) the National Registry of Individuals with Certified Competences (Registro Nacional de Personas con Competencias Certificadas, or RENAP); and (iii) the National Registry of Competence-Based Training Courses (Registro Nacional de Cursos de Capacitación Basados en Estándares de Competencia, or RENAC). The RENEC promotes national comparability between competences that can be certified by CONOCER, as well as the establishment of quality standards in the execution of labor functions in different productive sectors. So far, RENEC has registered 137 competence-based standards (Table 60). Similarly, RENAP accounts for the registration of over 320,000 individuals with at least one competence-based certification, constituting an information tool for employers. In turn, RENAC gathers the different training courses that are based on competence standards in order to facilitate information flows and access to these courses. CONOCER also promotes the accreditation of Evaluation and Certification Entities (Entidades de Evaluación y Certificación, or ECEs) from the business, labor, and education sectors aimed at evaluating and certifying competences among Mexican workers. So far, CONOCER has validated 81 ECEs, particularly from the public education sector (Figures 14 and 15). In total, CONOCER has issued 403,486 competence-based certificates since 1995 (Figure 16).
Last but not least, the Ministry of Economics (Secretaría de Economía, or SE) participates in the governing body of CONOCER but has unclear functions in terms of skills development. According to CONOCER, SE should focus on the development of strategic sectors and promote coordination between the education and productive sectors in order to determine the type of competences that Mexico needs to produce. For example, a recent study from the Boston Consulting Group (BCG) provided by CONOCER (BCG 2011) suggests that Mexico needs to focus on the creation of regional clusters in medical tourism, electrical appliances, aeronautics industry, and automobile industry. However, in practice, SE has very limited participation in the sector of skills development (Figure 7). The reason is that the organization chart of this ministry does not include a specific position for this matter. For example, while STPS has a General Division for Training, SE has not specified similar functions.
Therefore, Mexico’s skill development sector involves multiple actors with the same goal, and at the same time multiple goals within a single organization. Several conclusions emerge from the organizational analysis and the interview process:
Coordination failures: On the one hand, the sector of skills development is poorly organized and coordinated, since too many actors perform the same role, in terms of regulation, governance, service delivery, financing, and certification (Figure 17). Regarding academic education, it is not clear whether SEP or the SNTE is the governing authority, which poses several challenges for skills development and teacher training at least in basic education. Regarding training for work, the fact that STPS and SEP participate in the regulation of this educational scheme creates confusion and incertitude among firms. In practice, firms barely use the National System for Employment (SNE), as they prefer their own information sources. On the other hand, the sector of skills development is poorly related to the labor market needs. Part of the reason is that SEP has a slower reaction capacity, due to its own institutional and administrative constraints.
Information failures: The concept of training is used widely but does not necessarily have the same meaning in every context. For example, INEA offers training programs for adults but these do not have the same quality or goals as the programs provided by STPS. The fact that both SEP and STPS can provide training diplomas creates inefficiencies and confusion. In turn, vocational education contributes to skills development but lacks from prestige, partly due to the poor quality of programs available. Despite government efforts to inform decisions on careers and promote employment, the business sector and government authorities tend to work separately.
Communication failures: Some of the efforts to approach the business sector and government authorities have failed due to communication and cultural issues. Communication initiatives tend to fail when taking place at medium-level positions, facing cultural aversion for new methods of collaboration. Thus, any attempt to bring both sectors closer has to begin at high-level positions.
This section described the organization of actors involved in the sector of skills development in Mexico, differentiating between the different educational schemes offered. The next section explores the different laws and documents that support SoSD.
Legal
Framework
This section analyzes the legal framework that regulates and contributes to the development of the sector of skills development in Mexico.
Basically, three main laws regulate the sector of skills development, competences definition and certification: (i) the Federal Labor Law, (ii) the General Education Law, and (iii) the Organic Law of the Federal Public Administration. Yet, other documents also support this legal framework (Figure 18).
The Federal Labor Law (LFT) dates from 1970 and sets all the labor norms associated with the work relationships established in Article 123 of the Mexican Constitution. This law states that only individuals aged 16 and over can offer their labor services, as well as individuals between the age of 14 and 16 that have completed compulsory education (Articles 22-23). This means that by law training for work can only take place after compulsory education. The LFT also states in Article 153-A that employees have the right to be provided with training from their employer in order to increase their living standard and productivity, according to the training plans and programs defined by the employer, the workers’ union, and approved by the Ministry of Labor (STPS). Similarly, employers have the obligation to provide their employees with training and, in some cases, take on the corresponding expenses (Article 132 XIV and XV). Specifically, employers may outsource or provide training, within or outside the firm, or may adhere to the general systems established by the STPS (Article 153-B). However, when dealing with training for work, the LFT tends to use the concept of “adiestramiento”, which isnot a well-defined concept or set of activities. Interestingly, for the LFT, training is aimed at improving the skills of employees, without defining the concept and scope of skills.
By law, the STPS is in charge of authorizing and registering every institution or school willing to provide training for work in Mexico (Article 153-C). Other actors, such as CONOCER, keep a similar registry, but only the STPS has the legal mandate to do so. The LFT establishes that every firm shall have Training Mixed Commissions (Comisiones Mixtas de Capacitación y Adiestramiento), formed by an equal number of workers and employers’ representatives, and that the Ministry of Labor may convene the formation of National Committees for Training per type of sector or activity, formed by employers, unions and workers (Articles 153 I-K). However, these Commissions are not related at all to the Management Committees promoted by CONOCER, and their goal is not clear de jure or de facto.
The LFT also regulates the National Service for Employment (SNE), whose administration belongs to the Ministry of Labor and whose mission is to link the supply with the demand of skilled labor (Article 537) by providing free information, guidance and intermediation services, as well as financial and training support. The SNE has 165 offices all over the country (according to STPS officials) and mainly assists low educated youth.
The General Education Law (LGE) regulates the education provided by the State -at the federal, state and municipal level- their decentralized organizations, and private organizations with proper recognition or authorization (Article 1). The LGE establishes that compulsory education covers preschool, primary, lower and upper secondary school (since 2012), which means that academic education, not training, takes place throughout these academic levels. It also states that education shall contribute to the development of knowledge abilities, innovation and scientific attitudes, universal values, and positive attitudes towards work (Article 7), but it does not specify the types of abilities that the national education system should develop in Mexican students.
In addition, the LGE grants to the Ministry of Education (SEP) exclusively the ability to set the content of education plans and programs, from preschool to secondary education; plan and program the national education system; regulate a national training and skills development system for primary and secondary school teachers; regulate and coordinate the registry of students, teachers, institutions and academic centers; and, among others, regulate a national testing system that allows for student transition between types of education (Article 12). However, it is not clear how this occurs in practice. Indeed, even though, since the early nineties, the Federal Government has undertaken important decentralization efforts in the education arena, the federal entities still have limited power, if any, to determine the content of their academic programs, which means that they cannot promote the formation of certain skills that are important for their regional development.
The LGE considers, as well, the promotion of other types of education schemes, such as childhood development centers, education services for school dropouts, and distance learning systems (Article 33). Yet, most of these schemes are aimed at reducing educational lags with regards to the regular system, not at forming particular skills or competences. For example, according to the LGE, adult education is addressed to individuals aged 15 and over with no primary or secondary education, and supposed to provide certain type of training for work, although imprecise (Article 43). Article 45 does state that training for work shall promote the acquisition of knowledge, abilities or skills to perform a productive activity but it does not provides a definition for each concept. On the other hand, Article 47 establishes that the content of education plans shall include the acquisition of knowledge, abilities, capacities and skills depending upon the academic level. Thus the LGE regulates the many different education schemes that exist in the country, which are mostly intended to compensate for education inequalities in terms of access, not to provide individuals with a set of competences over their career lifespan.
The LGE also regulates the process of skill certification regarding training programs (Article 45). However, the meaning of certification in the Law is not very rigorous, as it may refer to written documents that only certify attendance or educational attainment, not necessarily competences for work (Figure 10). Thus, education institutions may issue
certificates, diplomas, academic degrees, validated by SEP in accordance with education plans and programs, that do not necessarily mean something for the labor market in terms of education quality and performance ability. Currently, the Law expects SEP to set the norms and criteria for academic validation. Therefore, the Law does not directly consider CONOCER for this matter.
However, the General Rules and Criteria for the integration of the National System of Competences define the rules for competence-based certification. Published in 2009, these Rules (Reglas CONOCER 2009) establish that CONOCER shall constitute a trusteeship aimed at developing the National System of Competences, according to the General Law of Education, Article 45 in particular, as well as the Normalized System of Labor Competences (Sistema Normalizado de Competencia Laboral, or SNCL) and the Labor Competence-Based Certification System (Sistema de Certificación de Competencias Laborales, or SCCL). Thus, this official document defines the concepts of competence-based certification, certificates, labor competences, and Management Committees, as well as other concepts. For example, a competence-based standard is a “labor competence-based technical norm, applicable nationwide, that will constitute, in terms of results, a reference for the evaluation and certification of labor competences, and that will describe the set of knowledge, abilities, skills and attitudes mentioned in Article 45 of LGE”.
Finally, the Organic Law of the Federal Public Administration (LOAPF) establishes the goals, functions and powers of every Mexican Ministry involved in skills development. Article 38, for example, indicates that the Ministry of Education (SEP) is responsible for organizing, supervising, and developing preschool, primary, secondary, higher, professional normal, urban, rural, technical, industrial, commercial, and adult education, as well as providing academic validations. Likewise, Article 40 establishes that the Ministry of Labor (STPS) is in charge of fostering work productivity, promoting training development, and setting, operating and supervising the National Service of Employment (SNE). Finally, Article 34 lays down the competences of the Ministry of Economics (SE), which have to do mainly with international commerce and industrial policy. Interestingly, the LOAPF does not foresee any type of sectorial planning regarding skills development, in terms of linking the education sector to the needs of the productive sector.
Still, other legal documents support the process of skills development in Mexico, in terms of quality in basic education. For example, the Partnership for Quality Education (Alianza por la Calidad de la Educación or simply Alianza), signed by the Federal Government and the Union of Education Workers (SNTE) in May 2008, provides a legal framework for transforming Mexico’s education system. The Alianza considers the professionalization of teachers and education authorities, and the reform of contents, approaches and subjects in primary and secondary education, including learning English since preschool. One of the agreements reached by the Alianza has to do with competences certification, but mostly in terms of improving teaching and transparency.
A crucial one is the Comprehensive Reform for Basic School (Reforma Integral de la Educación Básica, or simply RIEB), which is materialized in Agreement No. 592 (Acuerdo 592), an official document that reviews the organization of basic education in Mexico. Some of the actions related to RIEB include forming Advisory State Committees
(Coordinaciones Estatales de Asesoría y Seguimiento, or CEAS), evaluating the content of academic plans and textbooks in science and mathematics (a study conducted by New York University), or setting up skills standards for goal-oriented learning processes (following a proposal by the Institute of Education of the University of London). Above all, Acuerdo 592 manages to put an emphasis on skills development and provide a definition for competences, curriculum standards and expected learning: competences refer to response capacity and include abilities, knowledge, and values and attitudes; curriculum standards describe and assess academic performance; and expected learning has to do with students’ expected outcomes in terms of knowledge, abilities, and values. Yet, these concepts are difficult to implement in practice.
Specifically, RIEB articulates academic contents and learning from preschool to lower secondary and integrates a competence-based approach. The main goal of RIEB is to form citizens from a set of five competences for life: (i) continuous learning; (ii) information management; (iii) situation management; (iv) social interaction; and (v) social life (Table 16). These competences translate into four academic fields for basic education, namely: (i) language and communication; (ii) mathematical reasoning; (iii) understanding of the natural world; and, (iv) personal development and social interaction (Table 15). These fields are based on knowledge, abilities, and values, or competences. The advantage of RIEB is that it recognizes the importance of preschool and the need to integrate and articulate the academic curricula of different education levels. In other words, thanks to RIEB, basic education has a single academic plan. Officially, the implementation of RIEB began in 2011, which means that the first generation of students with a competence-based formation will graduate in 2023 (Table 15).
In addition, some legal documents support the process of skills development in upper-middle education. For example, Agreement No. 444 (Acuerdo 444), signed in 2008, recognizing that high-school Mexican students need to acquire a series of competences for their personal development (not professional), establishes a set of competences that the education system has to provide in high school. These competences can be classified in generics, disciplinary and professional, but only the last category is specifically conceived to meet the demands of the labor market. Even so, professional competences are defined
merely as an individual’s ability to execute. On the other hand, Agreement No. 286
(Acuerdo 286), signed in 2000, defines the proceedings to grant official validity to the knowledge and abilities that individuals can acquire through different channels, including autodidactic. In particular, this document recognizes the accreditation of the set of knowledge equivalent to upper secondary, which grants the possibility to obtain a high school certificate.
In particular, the Comprehensive Reform for Upper-Middle Education (Reforma Integral de la Educación Media Superior, or RIEMS), which consists of several inter-ministerial agreements such as Acuerdo 444, seeks to create a National Upper Secondary System (Sistema Nacional de Bachillerato, or SNB) by building a compentece-based common curriculum framework; defining and recognizing the supply of education services in upper secondary; professionalizing education services; and providing competence certification. The RIEMS highlights the advantages of a competence-based approach in education, particularly in terms of students’ ability to fully develop in different contexts during their
lifetime. On this matter, PROFORHCOM, which started in 2010 and is now in its second implementation phase, aims to support the implementation of RIEMS based on four key factors that are crucial for the development of a competence-based system: (i) the organization of curriculum for competence portability; (ii) the development of generic, disciplinary and professional competences; (iii) competence-based teacher training; and, (iv) the participation of the productive sector in the definition of competences. The coverage of PROFORHCOM is national, benefiting mostly upper-middle education students and workers in the most productive sectors of the Mexican economy. Specifically, PROFORHCOM seeks to improve the quality and pertinence of vocational education and training for work, and to consolidate the National System of Competences (NSC), highlighting the relevance of CONOCER for this matter. Yet, the missing link of RIEMS and PROFORHCOM is how to effectively link competence-based education with the productive sector, and how CONOCER can promote the development of NSC.
On the other hand, the numerous proposals for labor reform barely include issues related to training and tend to focus on labor flexibility exclusively. While labor market characteristics and dynamics have undergone a full transformation worldwide, the current labor legislation in Mexico dates from 1970, a period in which Mexico’s economically active population reached only 14 million people, and focuses on the contractual relationship between employers and workers. It neither addresses the problem of productivity, nor does it emphasize the need for proper training. For example, the LFT encourages system promotion based on seniority (escalafón ciego) instead of productivity, and ignores the notion of “decent work” provided by the International Organization of Labor (ILO), according to which workers shall receive continuous training to increase their productivity and wellbeing. None of the proposals for labor reform adopt a skill-based approach (STPS 2010 and 2011).
Finally, while the 2007-2012 sectorial program for employment includes some goals related to skills development and mismatch, the sectorial program for education does not include any specific goal on this matter. The 2007-2012 National Development Plan (Plan Nacional de Desarrollo 2007-2012) includes strategic and sectorial programs for every Ministry, including SEP and STPS. The sectorial program for STPS intends to promote labor market conditions aimed at creating formal jobs and linking efficiently labor supply and demand. The corresponding indicator for this goal refers to the number of individuals that find employment at the SNE. Yet, the sectorial program for SEP does not consider any specific type of goal or indicator related to competences, as defined by RIEMS.
Therefore, Mexico’s legal framework for skills development consists of three main laws and several official documents. The main conclusions of the legal analysis are:
o Legal discrepancies: The first legal discrepancy deals with the creation and purpose of training commissions: while the LFT promotes the creation of training commissions within firms, and training committees per economic sector, the General Rules that account for CONOCER’s raison d’être seek to encourage the creation of Management Committees aimed at developing competence-based standards. The problem is that these committees have nothing to do with the commissions and committees established by the LFT. Thus, the existing legal
