The free textbooks (LTG) have become the ammunition that feeds the endless disqualification battle between Obradorismo and the opposition this week. As always, a quarrel to the grave, between good guys and bad guys, depending on how you look at it. This is not a problem for many citizens and parents. It is enough to believe the categorical and strident version that agrees with ours and the matter is settled.
But anyone who, beyond insults and disqualifications, tries to form an opinion about the success or failure of free textbooks faces a complicated challenge. First, because there are 70 titles dedicated to different subjects, from primary to secondary; something that would prevent most readers (and I include myself) from examining quite a number of them and confirming, for example, whether or not they inculcate Marxism, as their critics claim and their defenders deny. And on the other hand, it is clear that the assessment of some of the fundamental criticisms that have been made requires a minimum of pedagogical knowledge. It didn’t hurt, so many of my political analysis colleagues have decided once and for all that they are perverse instruments of indoctrination and doom future generations to backwardness.
Those responsible for the LTG, on the other hand, defend their work by, among other things, trying to contextualize the materials with the world in which the majority of the population actually lives and promoting values of solidarity and social awareness in our childhood. Some claim the mathematical content was lost and the damage was done as a result; Others counter that while the necessary mathematics is there, it is now linked to an idea of others and not exclusively to a technocratic and individualistic conception.
How to form an impression from the biased information that has been spread by both? The mass media have compiled a selection of examples that might illustrate ideological bias or pedagogical inconsistencies. For his part, Marx Arriaga, leader of the team that produced the books, praised the involvement of the experts and the years invested in their preparation. Do the quotes published by the opponents out of context justify a final judgment on a work with more than 20,000 pages? Or, on the other hand, should we assume that the defense that the affected party provides for its work is just as good?
In theory, we should resort to specialists in this field to find out what is happening, and not leave it to the reading of political columns, radio hosts and commentators, and of course politicians and militants interested in mutual disqualification.
Unfortunately, I have had little use in examining the versions put forward by most of the educators who have engaged in the debate. Polarization has caught up with them. Part of the problem lies with the media itself: it turns out there are experts on what color suits everyone. Opposition media seeks educators opposed to prevailing currents in the LTG; In contrast, pro-government media consult and quote specialists who are sympathetic to their line of thought. Both justify their respective analysis with arguments and terms that go beyond the scope of the average reader.
Unfortunately, I have not found any relatively independent attempts that have bothered to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of the current proposal, both per se and in relation to previous LTGs, and I am not saying that there are none. And I say the latter (judge it in terms of what came before) because merely looking for flaws in any version, current or prior, would result in inevitable condemnation.
I can now understand why educators, regardless of their political passions, have reasons for division, even those trying to be relatively objective. Mexico is a complex and pluralistic society which, among other things, has different ideas about the nature of the problems and how to solve them. It’s understandable that we also have different approaches to the kinds of values and priorities we want to instill in our children. To cite one of the many dilemmas involved: foster a culture of success or emphasize a community identity? A mixture? But in what proportion?
Of course, the contents of these texts have pedagogical implications; The science of learning, so to speak, has logics that are not always obvious, which is why educators and professional teaching are required. That is, regardless of the ideological orientation, textbooks must be “pedagogically” well done. In this sense, I would personally continue to await the disclosure of educated minds in this field who are able to take the trouble to analyze the scope and limits of this proposal, beyond the interest of defending or attacking it .
In the meantime, however, I maintain that by opting for a change alternative like the Obradorista, the votes of the majorities have favored and continue to favor the attempt to build a country less subservient to the market and to a public sphere a healthier life for those who have less. It should come as no surprise that the pedagogical content of this project reflects these priorities. The opposition rejects the new LTGs a priori because they contain an ideological conception, as if the previous versions did not also contain an ideological proposal. With the bombardment of market society and the commercial advertising that no child can escape, it seems to me that a balance in school that emphasizes other values is a kind of balance. A newbie opinion, I suppose in advance.
The topic is different. On the one hand, respect for the technical aspects of learning, which must be respected regardless of the ideological emphasis. On the other hand, the recognition that we are a diverse society and, accordingly, the respect that those responsible for a proposal that affects everyone must have for other visions. Beyond his capabilities, one would have to wonder whether it would be necessary to leave a militant like Marx Arriaga as spokesman and leader of this delicate task, which I think unnecessarily over-politicized the disclosure of the content; The decision to keep information about the creation of the books for five years doesn’t help either; let alone the inclusion of passages, denounced by the opposition press, that Eugenio Garza Sada, a Monterrey business leader, was an imprisonment, not an attempted kidnapping, and that his death was a death, not a Communist murder League September 23. Something that seems more like an absurd and unfounded provocation. I still think the new free textbooks deserve a deeper and more measured look than we’ve heard so far.
@jorgezepedap
Subscribe here Subscribe to the EL PAÍS México newsletter and receive all the important information about current events in this country
Subscribe to continue reading
Read without limits