Journal of Educational Change

, Volume 14, Issue 1, pp 1–27 | Cite as

Recipients, agents, or partners?: The contradictions of teacher participation in Mexican secondary education reform

  • Bradley A. Levinson
  • Janet Blackwood
  • Valerie Cross


The countries of Latin America have been no exception to global calls for educational transformation and teacher professionalization at the secondary level. One of the newest of these reforms is Mexico’s Reforma de la Educación Secundaria (RS) (Reform of Secondary Education), launched in 2006. This article examines portrayals by various actors of the nature and extent of the participation of both teachers and the teachers’ union in the different phases of the RS, beginning with the initial formulation of the reform through the implementation and the “follow-up.” Findings indicate that in spite of efforts to provide more transparency and opportunities for teacher participation, for the most part secondary teachers in Mexico neither felt like agents nor partners in the RS, nor did they function as such in the reform process. As in previous reform efforts, teachers mostly felt that they were recipients of plans formulated by government officials, and as a result many have evidenced neither complete compliance nor full commitment to the reform. The national teachers’ union, meanwhile, claims to represent teachers’ voices and thus a form of teacher participation, but this claim is denied in the findings. The discussion and conclusions emphasize the multiple significations of teacher “participation” and the need to overcome system-wide contradictions, while drawing on theory about the conditioned state, bureaucracy, and democratizing civil society to help situate and explain the findings.


Education reform Latin America Mexico Policy implementation Secondary education reform Teacher participation Teachers’ union 


  1. Acuerdo 384: Plan y Programas de Estudio para Educación Secundaria. (2006, May 26). Diario Oficial de la Federación. Mexico City.Google Scholar
  2. Akiba, M. & LeTendre, G. (2009). Improving teacher quality: The U.S. teaching force in global context. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  3. Aksit, N. (2007). Educational reform in Turkey. International Journal of Educational Development, 27, 129–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aviles, K. (2005, August 18). Genera rechazo el programa piloto. La Jornada. Retrieved March 9, 2009 from
  5. Bañuelos, C. (2004, June 25). Reyes Tamez niega que hubiera exclusión en reforma a secundaria. La Jornada. Retrieved March 9, 2009 from
  6. Bjork, C. (2003). Local responses to decentralization policy in Indonesia. Comparative Education Review, 47(2), 184–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Conley, S., & Bacharach, S. (1990). From school-site management to participatory school-site management. Phi Delta Kappan, 71, 539–544.Google Scholar
  8. Cuervo, A., Mora, C. & García-Salcedo, C. (2009, January). Análisis de la Reforma Educativa en la Educación Secundaria en México e implicaciones del nuevo plan de estudios en la materia de Ciencias II. Latin American Journal of Physics Education, 3, 158–166.Google Scholar
  9. Dagnino, E. (2006). Sociedad civil, participación, y ciudadanía: ¿De qué estamos hablando? In E. Isunza Vera & A. Olvera (Eds.), Democratización, rendición de cuentas, y sociedad civil: Participación ciudadana y control social (pp. 223–242). Mexico City: CIESAS, M.A. Porrúa.Google Scholar
  10. Datnow, A. (2000). Power and politics in the adoption of school reform models. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22, 357–374.Google Scholar
  11. de Cerreno, A. L. C. & Pyle, C. (1998). Educational Reform in Latin America. Occasional Paper from the Latin American Program study group, Educational Reform in Latin America. The Council on Foreign Relations. Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  12. De Sousa Santos, B., & Avritzer, L. (Eds.). (2005). Democratizing democracy: Beyond the liberal democratic canon. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  13. del Valle, S. (2004a, June 20). Tildan de caprichoso cambio de estudios. Reforma. Retreived April 13, 2009 from
  14. del Valle, S. (2004b, June 25). Aprueban cambios. Reforma. Retrieved April 13, 2009 from
  15. del Valle, S. (2004c, July 7). Instalan mesa SNTE y SEP. Reforma. Retrieved April 6, 2009 from
  16. del Valle, S. (2005a, August 18). Instala la SEP tutorías para evitar la deserción. Reforma. Retrieved March 18, 2009 from
  17. del Valle, S. (2005b, August 23). Alista la SEP nuevos textos de secundaria. Reforma. Retrieved April 13, 2009 from,SEP,ArticulosGC_Reforma.
  18. del Valle, S. & Appendini, M. (2004, June 24). Está a discusión reforma. Reforma. Retrieved April 13, 2009 from
  19. Dozier, T. (2009). Involved and empowered teachers are the keys to education reform. Retrieved December 4, 2009 from
  20. Dreeben, R. (2005). Teaching and the competence of occupations. In L. Hedges & B. Schneider (Eds.), The social organization of schooling (pp. 51–71). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  21. Elizondo Huerta, A. (n.d.) La reforma de la secundaria al debate: Una nueva reconfiguración de la política pública? Anuario Educativo Mexicano, Mexico: UPN-La Jornada. Retrieved May 5, 2009.Google Scholar
  22. Demanda SNTE debatir reforma (2004, July 5). Reforma. Retrieved April 6, 2009 from
  23. En fase de prueba. (2005, December 8). Reforma. Retrieved March 19, 2009.Google Scholar
  24. Gomez Buendia, H. (2001). Conceptions of the state and education. In H. Gomez Buendia (Ed.), Education in Latin America and the Caribbean: An Agenda for the coming century (pp. 101–132). Bogota, Colombia: United Nations Development Program and TM Editores.Google Scholar
  25. Grindle, M. (2004). Against all odds: The contentious politics of education reform. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Guevara Niebla, G. (2004, April). La reforma de la secundaria: Una mesa redonda. Educacion 2001.Google Scholar
  27. Gvirtz, S., & Beech, J. (Eds.) (2008). Going to school in Latin America. Santa Barbara, CA: Greenwood press.Google Scholar
  28. Hammerness, K. (2001). Teachers’ visions: The role of personal ideals in school reform. Journal of Educational Change, 2, 143–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hargreaves, A. (1996). Revisiting voice. Educational Researcher, 25(1), 12–19.Google Scholar
  30. Helsby, G., & McCulloch, G. (1996). Teacher professionalism and curriculum control. In I. Goodson & A. Hargreaves (Eds.), Teacher’s professional lives (pp. 56–74). Oxford: Routledge Falmer.Google Scholar
  31. Hernández López, J. (2004, June 10). Más de la reforma educativa foxista. La Jornada. Retreived March 1, 2009 from
  32. Herrera Beltran, C. (2004a, June 26). La reforma a la secundaria, planeada desde los escritorios, afirma el SNTE. La Jornada. Retrieved March 9, 2009 from
  33. Herrera Beltran, C. (2004b, August 7). Foro magisterial rechaza la prisa en las reformas a secundaria y preescolar. La Jornada. Retreived March 9, 2009 from
  34. Herrera Beltran, C. (2004c, August 18). En el olvido, la reforma a la enseñanza y el pacto por la calidad, señalan investigadores. La Jornada. Retrieved March 18, 2009 from
  35. Herrera Beltran, C. (2004d, November 26). Renueva la SEP ofensiva para reformar el plan de estudios del nivel secundaria. La Jornada. Retrieved March 1, 2009 from
  36. Herrera Beltran, C. (2005, January 26). Acepta la SEP impartir dos años de historia en nivel secundaria. La Jornada. Retrieved March 2, 2009 from
  37. Hiatt-Michael, D. (2001). Schools as learning communities: A vision for organic school reform. The School Community Journal, 11, 113–127.Google Scholar
  38. Levinson, B. (2005). Programs for democratic citizenship education in Mexico’s Ministry of Education: Local appropriations of global cultural flows. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, 12(1), 251–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Levinson, B. (2012). Reduciendo brechas entre cultura juvenil y cultura escolar docente en América Latina: El desafío institucional para crear una secundaria con sentido. In E. Tenti (Ed.), La escolarización del adolescente. Buenos Aires: IIPE, UNESCO.Google Scholar
  40. Levinson, B., & Casas, C. (2009). From curriculum to practice: Removing structural and cultural obstacles to effective secondary education reform in the Americas. Organization of American States Working Papers for the Sixth Meeting of Ministers of Education.Google Scholar
  41. Levinson, B., Gross, J. P., Heimer Dadds J., Hanks, C., Kumasi, K., Link, J., & Metro-Roland, D. (2010). Beyond critique: Exploring critical social theories and education. Boulder, CO: Paradigm.Google Scholar
  42. Levinson, B., Sutton, M., & Winstead, T. (2009). Education policy as a practice of power: Theoretical tools, ethnographic methods, democratic options. Educational Policy, 23(4), 767–795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. López, E. (2004, June 22). Descartan sea al vapor la propuesta educativa. La Reforma. Retrieved April 13, 2009 from
  44. McEwan, P. J., & Benveniste, L. (2001). The politics of rural school reform: Escuela Nueva in Colombia. Journal of Education Policy, 16(6), 547–559.Google Scholar
  45. Murphy, S. (2010). The pull of PISA: Uncertainty, influence, ignorance. The Inter-American Journal of Education for Democracy, 3(1), 27–44.Google Scholar
  46. Offe, C. (1984). Contradictions of the welfare state. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  47. Ornelas, C. (1995). El sistema educativo mexicano. Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Económica.Google Scholar
  48. Ornelas, C. (2008). Política, poder y pupitres: Crítica al nuevo federalismo educativo. Mexico City: Siglo XXI.Google Scholar
  49. Ornelas, C. (2012). Educación, colonización, y rebeldía: La herencia del pacto Calderón-Gordillo. Mexico City: Siglo XXI.Google Scholar
  50. Pinelo Sansores, F. (2004, June 23). Published interview. Retrieved March 2, 2009 from
  51. Poy Solano, L. (2007, August 19). Rechazan profesores la reforma educativa en 2º de secundaria. La Jornada. Retrieved March 10, 2009 from
  52. Raphael, R. (2007). Los socios de Elba Esther. Mexico City: Editorial Planeta.Google Scholar
  53. Rendón Solares, G. (2004a, June 25). Aprueban mandos estatales la reforma a la secundaria. La Crónica de Hoy. Retrieved March 2, 2009 from
  54. Rendón Solares, G. (2004b, December 15). Urgen paterfamilias a implementar reforma educativa en secundarias. La Crónica de Hoy. Retrieved March 2, 2009 from
  55. Rockwell, E. (2009). Hacer escuela, hacer estado: La educación posrevolucionaria vista desde Tlaxcala. Mexico City: CIESAS, Colegio de Michoacán.Google Scholar
  56. Sahlberg, P. (2007). Education policies for raising student learning: The Finnish approach. Journal of Education Policy, 22(2), 147–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sandoval Flores, E. (2006, October–December). Para pensar la reforma a la educación secundaria. Revista Mexicana da Investigación Educativa, 11, 1423–1462.Google Scholar
  58. Santibañez, L., Vernez, G., & Razquin, P. (2005). Education in Mexico: Challenges and opportunities. Santa Monica: CA: RAND Corporation. Retrieved December 8, 2009 from
  59. Schmitter, P. C. (1974). Still the century of corporatism? The Review of Politics, 36, 85–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Secretaría de Educación Pública. (2005a). Consulta nacional sobre reforma a la secundaria. Mexico City.Google Scholar
  61. Secretaría de Educación Pública. (2005b). Equidad, calidad e innovación en el desarrollo educativo nacional. Mexico City.Google Scholar
  62. Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  63. Smylie, M. (1992). Teacher participation in school decision making: Assessing willingness to participate. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 1992, 14(1), 53–67.Google Scholar
  64. Somech, A. (2010). Participative decision making in schools: A mediating-moderating analytical framework for understanding school and teacher outcomes. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(2), 174–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Steiner-Khamsi, G. (Ed.). (2004). The global politics of educational borrowing and lending. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  66. Sutton, M., & Levinson, B. (Eds.). (2001). Policy as practice: Toward a comparative sociocultural analysis of education policy. Stamford, CT: Ablex.Google Scholar
  67. Tatto, M. T. (1997). Reconstructing teacher education for disadvantaged communities. International Journal of Educational Development, 17, 405–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Tatto, M. T. (Ed.). (2007). Reforming teaching globally. Oxford: Symposium Books.Google Scholar
  69. Torres, R. M. (1999, December). Reformadores y docentes: El cambio educativo atrapado entre dos lógicas. Documento de trabajo preparado para el foro Los docentes, protagonistas del cambio educativo, organizado por el Convenio Andrés Bello.Google Scholar
  70. Torres, R. M. (2000a). De agentes de la reforma a sujetos del cambio: La encrucijada docente en América Latina. Perspectivas, XXX(2), 1–21.Google Scholar
  71. Torres, R. M. (2000b). En Los docentes, protagonistas del cambio educativo. Bogotá: CAB/Editorial Magisterio Nacional. Retrieved October 4, 2009 from
  72. Vaillant, D. (2005). Education reform and teachers’ unions: Avenues for action. Paris: UNESCO: International Institute for Educational Planning.Google Scholar
  73. Weiss, C. (1995). The four “Γs” of school reform: How interests, ideology, information, and institution affect teachers and principals. Harvard Educational Review, 65(4), 571–592.Google Scholar
  74. Wright, E. O., & Fung, A. (2003). Deepening democracy: Institutional innovations in empowered participatory governance. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  75. Zurita, U. (2010). La educación para la vida democrática a través de la participación social: Puntos de encuentro entre la escuela y la familia. Revista Interamericana de Educación para la Democracia, 3(2), 171–194.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bradley A. Levinson
    • 1
  • Janet Blackwood
    • 1
  • Valerie Cross
    • 1
  1. 1.School of EducationIndiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations