Improving Schools: Strategies for Action in Mexico - OECD Online ...

Improving Schools 

STRATEGIES FOR ACTION 

IN MEXICO


Strategies for Action in Mexico

ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION 

AND DEVELOPMENT 

The OECD is a unique forum where governments work together to address the economic, social 

and environmental challenges of globalisation. The OECD is also at the forefront of effor ts to 

understand and to help governments respond to new developments and concerns, such as corporate 

governance, the information economy and the challenges of an ageing population. The Organisation 

provides a setting where governments can compare policy experiences, seek answers to common 

problems, identify good practice and work to co-ordinate domestic and international policies. 

The OECD member countries are: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, the Czech Republic, 

Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Korea, 

Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, 

Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the Un ited States. T he 

European Commission takes part in the work of the OECD. 

OECD Publishing disseminates widely the results of the Organisation’s statistics gathering and 

research on economic, social and environmental issues, as well as the conventions, guidelines and 

standards agreed by its members. 

ISBN 978-92-64-08703-3 (print) 

ISBN 978-92-64-08704-0 (PDF) 

Also available in Spanish: Mejorar las escuelas: Estrategias para la acción en México 

Photo credits: Cover © UNESCO/José Gabriel Ruiz Lembo. 

Corrigenda to OECD publications may be found on line at: www.oecd.org/publishing/corrigenda 

© OECD 2010 

This work is published on the r esponsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD. The 

opinions expressed and arguments employed herein do not necessarily reflect the offi cial 

views of the Organisation or of the governments of its member countries. 

You can copy, download or print OECD content for your own use, and you can include excerpts from OECD publications, databases and multimedia 

products in your own documents, presentations, blogs, websites and teaching materials, provided that suitable acknowledgment of OECD as source 

and copyright owner is given. All requests for public or commercial use and translation rights should be submitted to rights@oecd.org. Requests for 

permission to photocopy portions of this material for public or commercial use shall be addressed directly to the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) 

at info@copyright.com or the Centre français d’exploitation du droit de copie (CFC) at contact@cfcopies.com.

Foreword 

Education is fundamental to the future of any country, to provide equal opportunities for our citizens and to the 

well-being of our societies as a whole. Better and more diversified skills contribute to strengthening economic 

growth, development and social cohesion. Thus, it is of central importance for governments to look for the right 

mix of policies to improve the quality and equity of their public education systems. This report proposes an 

education reform strategy for Mexico based on comparative analysis of the key policy levers for successful schools 

and school systems that can also be used to support policy development across OECD and partner countries. 

In Mexico as in many other countries the need for education reform has been reinforced by high unemployment 

and lower participation rates following the financial and economic crisis. Education reform, although ongoing 

over the past decades, has now become a particular policy priority both in economic and in social terms. 

Improving Schools: Strategies for Action in Mexico aims to reform and improve quality and equity aspects in 

the education system by putting schools at the centre of education policy. The report provides a diagnosis of 

the Mexican situation and the underlying key challenges by comparing it with OECD and partner countries. 

Improving student attainment, reducing drop-out rates (66% of young people aged 15-19 are not in school) and 

avoiding inequalities are key to the country’s social and economic progress. In Mexico, structural conditions 

and processes do not favour schools being at the centre of education policies. School days are short, effective 

teaching time is insufficient, and there is a need to ensure quality teaching and leadership in schools. A complex, 

decentralised education system requires focus on a small number of clear, high priority, measurable goals to 

improve students outcomes. 

The report proposes a comprehensive school strategy for Mexico. It includes recommendations to improve 

the quality and the potential of teachers through clear national standards and a strengthened focus on training 

and professional development, recruitment and evaluation processes. It also makes recommendations to 

improve school effectiveness through school management and leadership by setting national standards, school 

autonomy, stable and adequate funding and professional hiring and training procedures. 

Improving Schools: Strategies for Action in Mexico is part of OECD’s efforts to support reform across OECD and 

partner countries and follows our agreement with the Mexican Ministry of Education (Secretaría de Educación 

Pública, SEP) to improve the quality and equity of the education system in Mexico (2008-2010). 

The document has been prepared by the members of the OECD Steering Group on School Management and 

Teacher Policy in Mexico, a selected group of experts and OECD analysts, chaired by Sylvia Schmelkes. The 

authors include Inés Aguerrondo, Francisco Benavides, Cristian Cox, Ulf Fredriksson, Andrew Hobson, Ben Levin, 

Peter Matthews, Hunter Moorman, Beatriz Pont, Sylvia Schmelkes, Robert Schwartz, Diana Toledo Figueroa and 

Margarita Zorrilla with assistance from Elvira Berrueta-Imaz. Caroline McLaughlin edited the report. 

I hope this analysis will be a useful reference for Mexico and other OECD member and partner countries in their 

quest to improve student outcomes for a better and more equitable future. 

Angel Gurría 

Secretary-General, OECD 

Improving Schools: Strategies for Action in Mexico © OECD 2010 

3

4 


Foreword 

Acknowledgements 

This report is the result of a two-year process of analysis of Mexico’s context, policies and relevant international 

best practices in teaching and school leadership and management policies. This has involved not only analytical 

reports and working papers but also workshops, seminars, meetings, review visits and consultations with many 

different experts and stakeholders across Mexico and internationally. More specifically, the report has benefited 

from analysis and discussions with many Mexican actors during different events: 

• A set of review visits by the members of the OECD-Mexico Steering Group and OECD in Aguascalientes, 

Chiapas, Guanajuato, Mexico Federal District, Nuevo León and Puebla between March 2009 and July 2010; 

• Eight OECD-Secretaría de Educación Pública (SEP) workshops and several working sessions in Mexico 

between December 2008 and November 2010; 

• The OECD-Harvard Seminar for Leaders in Education reform held in Chile, Ontario (Canada) and Mexico. 

The OECD Mexico Steering Group on School Management and Teacher Policy are indebted to Minister Alonso 

Lujambio and different departments of the Ministry of Education (SEP) for their engagement in this initiative and 

their support during its different stages. Particular acknowledgement needs to be made to Francisco Ciscomani, 

Head of the Unit of Planning and Evaluation of Education Policies (UPEPE) and his team, especially Lourdes 

Saavedra and Silvia Ojeda for their organisation, support and careful guidance during these two years of joint 

collaboration. Many other high-level officials supported the process, among them: Fernando González, Deputy 

Minister of Basic Education and Rodolfo Tuirán, Deputy Minister of Tertiary Education; the General Directors: 

Ana María Aceves, Marcela Santillán, Leticia Gutiérrez, Juan Martín Martínez; as well as Diana Antillón and 

Daniel Hernández from SEP; and Sylvia Ortega, Dean of the Pedagogical National University. We also would 

like to extend our gratitude to former Minister Josefina Vázquez-Mota, Jorge Santibáñez, former Head of UPEPE, 

and their teams for their support and launch of this initiative. 

We are also grateful to all those Mexican policy makers and stakeholders who took the time to participate and 

engage in discussions with the OECD Mexico Steering Group on School Management and Teacher Policy in 

the different activities and consultation processes mentioned above. We have had the opportunity to meet and 

consult with representatives from SEP and from many states, and key stakeholders such as representatives from 

legislators, the National Union of Education Workers (SNTE), civil society organisations, directors, teachers, 

students, parents and academics across Mexico. These discussions and contributions have allowed us to develop 

and refine the strategy presented in this report and adapt it, as much as possible, to the reality of Mexico. We 

are extremely grateful to them for their time, help, advice, engagement and contributions. 

In addition to the work carried out in Mexico, the OECD-Harvard Seminar for Leaders in Education Reform 

in Mexico fostered important dialogue opportunities for high-level Mexican representatives. This high level 

seminar combined two country visits with applied training, and was held in Chile, Ontario (Canada) and 

Mexico. We are grateful to Mexican participants for their complete engagement during the three modules of the 

Seminar; to the Chile Ministry of Education, Cristián Cox and his team from the Catholic University Center for 

Education Policy Studies (CEPPE); to the Ontario Ministry of Education, and Louis Lizotte, as well as Ben Levin 

and his team at the Ontario Institute for Education Studies (OISE). Fernando Reimers, Robert Schwartz from 

Harvard University and Inés Aguerrondo had a leading role in the organisation of the Seminar. 

We would like to thank Ambassador Agustín García-López, Permanent Delegate of Mexico to the OECD and 

Luisa Solchaga, Education Counselor, and their team for their valuable help and support throughout this project. 

Improving Schools: Strategies for Action in Mexico

Acknowledgements 

Within the OECD, the author team acknowledges Barbara Ischinger, Director of Education, and especially 

Bernard Hugonnier, Deputy Director of Education, and Project Leader of the OECD-Mexico Co-Operation 

Project. The Secretary-General, Angel Gurría, the Deputy Secretary-General, Aart de Geus, and the Chief of 

Staff of the Secretary-General, Gabriela Ramos, have also provided constant support and guidance. Deborah 

Roseveare, Head of the Education and Training Policy Division, and Paulo Santiago, Sr. Analyst, contributed 

richly throughout the development of the project, as did the team of the Directorate Support Unit. The OECD- 

Mexico Steering Group on Evaluation and Teacher Incentives, chaired by Carlos Mancera and its OECD staff 

also enriched the work. Vania Rosas and Cheryl Ruschke have provided key support in the final stages of this 

report. Finally, the staff based at the OECD Mexico Centre and its Head José Antonio Ardavín, have provided 

important support to our staff and to the development of the work. Beatriz Pont (project manager), Francisco 

Benavides and Diana Toledo Figueroa are the analysts who have worked on this project, with the support of 

Elvira Berrueta-Imaz. 

Information on all the events and relevant reports produced under the OECD-Mexico Agreement to Improve the 

Quality of Education in Schools in Mexico can be found on the website: www.oecd.org/edu/calidadeducativa. 


5

Table of Contents 

Foreword ...................................................................................................................................................................................3 

ACknowledgemenTs ..............................................................................................................................................................4 

exeCuTive summAry .............................................................................................................................................................11 

ChApTer 1 Conditions for suCCess in eduCation reform ............................................................................................17 

Introduction ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................18 

High-performing countries show that improvements are possible ...................................................................................................18 

What are the guiding principles for high-performing education systems? ..................................................................................24 

Characteristics of Effective Schools ......................................................................................................................................................................32 

Conclusion .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................34 

References ..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................35 

ChApTer 2 Working toWards eduCation improvement in mexiCo .....................................................................37 

Education can foster social and economic progress .................................................................................................................................39 

Progress and challenges facing the Mexican education system .......................................................................................................41 

A large system with potential for improvement ............................................................................................................................................44 

Conditions and principles for reform in Mexico ..........................................................................................................................................56 

Conclusion .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................58 

References ..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................61 

ChApTer 3 teaCher Career paths: Consolidating a quality profession .......................................................63 

Teachers and teaching in Mexico ...........................................................................................................................................................................64 

Recommendation 1: Produce and implement a coherent, aligned set of standards for teachers ..............................70 

Recommendation 2: Attract better candidates and raise the bar for entry into the teaching profession, 

especially at the Teachers’ Colleges (Normales) ..............................................................................................................................76 

Recommendation 3: Create a reliable accreditation system for all initial teacher preparation institutions, develop 

specific standards for those who teach teachers and put in place strong quality assurance mechanisms ..........80 

Recommendation 4: Revise, improve and expand the processes for assessing the suitability of teacher 

candidates and in-service teachers to teach (teacher licensing) ...........................................................................................85 

Recommendation 5: Progressively open all teaching posts to competition, and revise the process of initial 

appointment to teaching posts to allow more selection choice for both candidates and schools .................92 

Recommendation 6: Establish a probationary period for beginning teachers with intensive mentoring and 

support, followed by a performance evaluation before appointment to a permanent post. Create a 

cadre of excellent mentor teachers to provide such support ...................................................................................................94 

Recommendation 7: Build a more relevant system of integral professional development that combines 

school-based development options with the course-based options in the National Training Catalogue .......98 

Recommendation 8: Develop and implement a rigorous teacher evaluation system focused on 

improving teaching .................................................................................................................................................................................................102 

Conclusion ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................110 

Annex 3.1 teaCher aCCreditation meChanisms used in seleCted Countries ............................................113 

References ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................115 


7

8 

tAble oF contents 

ChApTer 4 improving sChool effeCtiveness in mexiCo: the role of leadership, 

management and soCial partiCipation ..............................................................................................................................121 

Schools and school leadership in Mexico ....................................................................................................................................................122 

Recommendation 9: Develop a framework of occupational standards for school leadership and management 

focused on improving school outcomes.............................................................................................................................................127 

Recommendation 10: Professionalise the training, selection and recruitment of school leaders based on the 

leadership standards .......................................................................................................................................................................................137 

Recommendation 11: Build instructional leadership and teaching capacity within schools and groups of 

schools, encouraging schools to work together in partnerships or groups .................................................................141 

Recommendation 12: Enhance school autonomy and encourage innovation ....................................................................146 

Recommendation 13: Reduce inequities in school funding and rationalise the programmes to achieve a 

flexible programme that is adaptable to schools’ needs .......................................................................................................150 

Recommendation 14: Strengthen social participation by giving school councils greater responsibilities in 

relation to the school and the school greater responsibilities in relation to the community ..........................153 

Conclusion .........................................................................................................................................................................................................................161 

References ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................165 

ChApTer 5 strategies to improve sChools in mexiCo: guidanCe on implementation .................169 

Conditions for success in implementing these strategies .....................................................................................................................170 

A suggested way forward with the recommendations ...........................................................................................................................170 

Recommendation 15: Create an Implementation Working Committee and look for broader support across 

other sectors of society ...................................................................................................................................................................................171 

References ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................176 

Annex A authors’ Biographies ...............................................................................................................................................................177 

Tables 

Table 1.1 Key characteristics of effective schools .....................................................................................................................................33 

Table 2.1 Relative progress in social indicators across OECD countries, 2000-2006 .....................................................40 

Table 2.2 Some of the key school programmes in Mexico.................................................................................................................43 

Table 2.3 Size and structure of the Mexican education system, 2000-2008 .........................................................................45 

Table 3.1 The National Teacher Examination results, 2009/10 ......................................................................................................87 

Table 4.1 International examples of areas of competence for school directors ................................................................134 

Table 4.2 Leading teaching and learning: National Standards for Headteachers in England (NPQH) ..............136 

Figures 

Figure 1.1 The relationship between socio-economic background and performance in science, PISA 2006 20 

Figure 1.2 Cross-country comparison of 15 year-old students’ performance in science, PISA 2006 ....................21 

Figure 1.3 Proportion of 25-34 year-olds who did not complete education to upper secondary level, 2008 22 

Figure 1.4 Percentage of the population attaining at least upper secondary education, 2008 ..................................23 

Figure 1.5 Education spending per student compared to 15 year-old students’ performance, PISA 2006 ........24 

Figure 2.1 Performance of 15-year-old students in Mexico compared with the OECD average, 

PISA 2006 (science) ...........................................................................................................................................................................................46 

Figure 2.2 Behaviours that directors report hinder schools’ instruction across countries, 2007-2008.................48 

Figure 2.3 Demographic pressure compared to education coverage, 2006 ..........................................................................49 

Figure 2.4 Distribution of current expenditure on educational institutions for primary, secondary and 

post-secondary non-tertiary education, 2007 ....................................................................................................................................50 



tAble oF contents 

Figure 2.5 Mexican education expenditure by level of government, 1990-2009 ..............................................................51 

Figure 3.1 Age and gender of teachers and school directors in lower secondary education across 

participating countries in TALIS 2007-2008 .......................................................................................................................................65 

Figure 3.2 Professional development taken by teachers in lower secondary education ................................................68 

Figure 3.3 A professional career path for teachers of basic education.......................................................................................70 

Figure 3.4 Performance standards for effective schools ......................................................................................................................76 

Boxes 

Box 1.1 A new OECD methodology to support education policy implementation across countries .....................19 

Box 1.2 Defining goals to guide educational improvement: selected examples ...................................................................25 

Box 1.3 Aligning policies and actors with the education strategy in Ontario, Canada ....................................................27 

Box 1.4 Institutions supporting large-scale improvement across selected OECD countries .........................................29 

Box 1.5 The Austrian Leadership Academy .....................................................................................................................................................31 

Box 2.1 A portrait of Mexico’s schools ..............................................................................................................................................................47 

Box 2.2 Selected school improvement programmes in Mexico .......................................................................................................52 

Box 2.3 Enhancing capacity for reform: the OECD-Harvard Seminar for Leaders in Education Reform..............55 

Box 3.1 Classroom teaching performance standards for basic education – preliminary proposal by the Ministry ..71 

Box 3.2 Professional standards for teachers in Chile, the United States and England .......................................................73 

Box 3.3 The need for teaching standards in Mexico, prepared by selected stakeholders from Mexico during 

the OECD-Harvard Seminar for Leaders in Education Reform, January 2010.............................................................75 

Box 3.4 Finland’s process for selecting candidates for initial teacher preparation ..............................................................79 

Box 3.5 Inter-Institutional Evaluation Committees for Higher Education and the evaluation 

of initial teacher education.............................................................................................................................................................................81 

Box 3.6 Measures in the Alianza to strengthen teacher training institutions (Normales).................................................82 

Box 3.7 Examples of how initial teacher preparation programmes are evaluated in selected countries ..............84 

Box 3.8 Modalities of the National Teacher Examination .....................................................................................................................86 

Box 3.9 Induction and probation for beginning teachers .....................................................................................................................95 

Box 3.10 Teacher evaluation and its links to Carrera Magisterial .................................................................................................103 

Box 3.11 Teacher evaluation systems in Chile and England ............................................................................................................104 

Box 3.12 Areas covered by teacher evaluation systems ......................................................................................................................106 

Box 3.13 Proposals for a path to develop in-service teacher evaluation in Mexico ........................................................110 

Box 4.1 School management standards for basic education – preliminary proposal by the Ministry .................128 

Box 4.2 Principles of “leadership for excellence” ...................................................................................................................................130 

Box 4.3 The core purpose of the director ......................................................................................................................................................135 

Box 4.4 Competence certification for school directors in the state of Jalisco ......................................................................140 

Box 4.5 School clusters for primary education in Portugal ...............................................................................................................144 

Box 4.6 Clustering in Aguascalientes, the creation of school development centres 

(Centros de Desarrollo Educativo) ..........................................................................................................................................................146 

Box 4.7 The programme of “self-managing schools” in Guanajuato .........................................................................................149 

Box 4.8 Models of school governance ............................................................................................................................................................155 

Box 4.9 Professional school boards in British Columbia, Canada ...............................................................................................157 

Box 4.10 School councils in selected countries .......................................................................................................................................158 


9

executive summAry 

executive summary 

The report Improving schools: strategies for action in Mexico aims to help education authorities in Mexico 

and other OECD countries to strengthen their education systems. It focuses on policies to improve teaching, 

school management and leadership across schools so as to improve children’s attainment in basic education. 

The report develops a comparative framework of the key policy levers for successful schools and school systems 

and adapts it to the context and reality of Mexico. 

Placing Mexican schools and students’ success at the centre of education policy making, the fifteen 

recommendations in the report set out an action-oriented policy agenda for schools, directors and teachers to 

receive better support to accomplish their tasks in Mexico. The recommendations propose the following: 

• Enhancing the role of teachers requires setting clear standards of practice; ensuring high quality initial teacher 

preparation (ITP) programmes; attracting better candidates; professionalising the recruitment, selection and 

evaluation of teachers; and linking teachers and their professional development more directly to schools’ needs. 

• Strengthening leadership and management requires setting clear school director standards; providing 

training; professionalising recruitment; supporting school autonomy; and ensuring social participation. 

Schools also need to be better supported with stable sources of funding that respond to their specific needs. 

Conditions for success in education reform: Countries can substantially improve educational outcomes in a 

relatively short period of time – from a few years to a single generation. Yet making significant improvements 

to system-wide educational outcomes is a complex task that requires a multi-faceted approach. At the core are 

policies that focus on improving teaching and learning, including curriculum, teaching skills, leadership and 

assessment. At the same time, policy design must take into account the context and possibilities for implementation. 

The analysis of high performing education systems’ policies and practices shows that there are some core 

assumptions that can guide governments: clear goals, with public understanding and support; a strong focus 

on recruiting, developing and retaining excellent people (teachers and leaders) in the system; institutions and 

infrastructure to support educational improvement: accountability and reporting systems that support the 

government goals and provide professional and objective information on outcomes; and a focus on the work of 

individual schools, which is where teaching and learning take place. 

To address these conditions is a challenge in any country. Improvements across an entire education system can 

only come with strong, consistent political support and leadership sustained over time. It requires years, but 

examples from successful countries show that with persistence and thought it can be done. 

Working towards education reform in mexico: Improving the quality of education is a political and social 

priority in Mexico, especially in recent times, with higher poverty rates, high inequality and more criminal 

activity. While there has been educational improvement and an increased focus on education policy in recent 

years, 66% of young people aged 15-19 are not in school and student achievement is not sufficient to provide 

the skills Mexico needs, with one in two 15-year-olds not reaching the baseline level 2 in PISA (OECD average 

of 19.2% in 2006). School days are short, with insufficient effective teaching time, and teaching and leadership 

quality and support are weak in many schools. 

Structural challenges remain: a lack of capacity, unclear distribution of responsibilities across a decentralised 

system, and structural conditions and processes that do not favour schools being at the centre of education 

policy. Schools operate with sparse resources that need to be distributed better and more effectively across 


11

12 



schools, and a complex interaction between different actors within the education system requires more 

institutionalised ways to ensure discussions and consensus-building. 

Mexico needs to develop a long-term education strategy to ensure higher levels of skills and knowledge 

to facilitate economic growth and better living conditions for many Mexicans. One of the first conditions 

should be to establish a small number of clear, high priority, measurable goals focused on: improving student 

attainment, reducing drop-out rates, ensuring timely graduation (egreso oportuno) and reducing inequalities 

across the education system. The key initial point of reform is the need to place Mexican schools and students 

at the centre of education policy making. Improving Mexican schools will require a rethink of the governance 

of the system and the roles of school leaders and teachers, to enable them to focus on supporting all children 

and young people to achieve their full learning potential. 

To ensure progress in policy design and implementation, it can help to: provide venues for ongoing dialogue 

and communication among all relevant stakeholders; ensure the alignment of actors and policies; revise the 

structures that will be delivering reforms; match the focus on educating, training, developing and supporting 

the educator workforce with policy decisions and resources; address the development of national, regional and 

local capacity building for better school management; and continue developing reliable sources of information 

for evaluation and improvement. 

The following 15 recommendations propose an action-oriented strategy for schools, directors and teachers to 

receive better support to improve school and student results. 

RAISE STUDENTS’ ACHIEVEMENT THROUGH ... 

BETTER TEACHING 

Standards 

for teaching 

1. Define effective teaching 

2. Attract the best recruits 

3. Strengthen initial teacher preparation 

4. Improve initial teacher assessment 

5. Open all posts to competition 

6. Create induction/probation periods 

7. Improve professional development 

8. Evaluate to help improve 

Improving Schools: Strategies for Action in Mexico 

Attainment 

standards !" 

EFFECTIVE 

SCHOOLS 

Standards 

for school 

leadership 

AND 

BETTER SCHOOLS. 

9. Define effective school leadership 

10. Professionalise training and 

appointment of directors 

11. Build instructional leadership 

capacity in and across schools 

12. Enhance school autonomy 

13. Ensure funding for all schools 

14. Strengthen social participation 

15. Create an Implementation Working Committee


teacher career paths – consolidate a quality profession: The single most important policy reform Mexico can make 

to improve education outcomes for its young people is to build a powerful system to recruit, prepare, evaluate and 

develop the best teachers for its schools. Eight recommendations for better teaching suggest a comprehensive 

strategy both to improve the conditions under which many teachers work and to attract, prepare and develop a 

higher quality teaching force. They follow a teacher’s trajectory from initial training through to permanent status as 

a full professional, when professional development and evaluation become important elements. 

1. Define effective teaching: Mexico needs to develop and implement a clear set of coherent aligned 

teaching standards that signal to the profession and to society at large the core knowledge, skills and 

values associated with effective teaching. 

2. Attract best recruits into teaching: If teaching is to acquire the status of a fully-fledged profession in 

Mexico, the first step must be to improve the calibre of applicants to initial teacher education institutions, 

especially, but not exclusively, at the Teachers’ Colleges (Normales). One way to achieve this is to raise 

the bar for entry into initial teacher preparation (ITP) programmes and to establish a national entrance 

screening exam and other assessment tools. 

3. Strengthen initial teacher preparation: Public and private Teachers’ Colleges (Normales) and other 

institutions running programmes of initial teacher preparation (ITP) need to be substantially improved if 

they are going to remain the country’s principal vehicle for preparing its teachers. The first step should 

be to put in place a set of rigorous accreditation standards for all Normales and other teacher training 

institutions. 

4. Improve initial teacher assessment: Mexico should further develop and improve the new teacher licensing 

examination (Concurso); continue introducing the use of more authentic and performance-based means 

of assessing the knowledge and skills of teachers; ensure a minimum level of attainment for all candidate 

teachers; and improve the governance structure and, in particular, the operation of the Independent 

Federalist Evaluation Unit (Organismo de Evaluación Independiente con Carácter Federalista, OEIF), while 

looking for an efficient long term strategy. 

5. Open all teaching posts to competition: All teacher posts (including vacancies) should be open for 

competition, given that at present some are allocated through the mixed commissions and others 

through the licensing examination (Concurso). The system for allocating teachers to schools, currently 

based on teacher choice, should be improved so that there is a better match between schools and 

teachers. The Sistema de Corrimiento should be kept and improved. 

6. Create induction/probation periods: As the first years of practice are key to teaching quality, and there 

are concerns about ITP and the initial selection of teachers, it is important to implement a formal 

induction period with substantial support for all beginning teachers (including those with non-permanent 

posts) and a probation period for beginning teachers to demonstrate in practice that they are capable of 

effectively facilitating student learning and successfully undertaking other aspects of their teacher roles. 

7. Improve professional development: The current supply of professional development is dispersed across 

a range of different providers and organisations and teachers say that the courses offered to them may 

not be relevant to their needs. Many teachers fund their own choices beyond the courses offered by the 

government and the states. Development options should be diversified and made more coherent and 

relevant to school needs. Current efforts to make the National Training Catalogue more relevant should 

continue; and school-based training opportunities should be increased and supported. 


13

14 



8. Evaluate to help improve: A standards-based teacher evaluation system is urgently needed in 

Mexico. This should be a purely formative system in its first years with adequate professional support 

opportunities. Once it is implemented and its rules are socialised, it can include formative and 

summative consequences, including rewarding excellent teachers and supporting less well-performing 

teachers. Teachers who are persistently poor performers should be excluded from the education system. 

improve school effectiveness: leadership, management and social participation: Together with teaching, the 

quality of school leadership and management is key in raising the attainment of students. But instructional 

leadership and appropriate support to schools is not a prominent feature of Mexican schools. Directors do 

not have appropriate training, development, incentives and support to focus on improving the quality of 

instruction and schools’ results, and on strengthening the school’s links to the community. The following six 

recommendations for better schools suggest a strategy for schools in Mexico to provide adequate learning and 

teaching environments for students and teachers. They focus on building a leadership profession, reducing 

inequities between schools serving richer and poorer communities, simplifying funding arrangements, and 

providing greater accountability and responsiveness to the community. 

9. Define effective school leadership: As with teachers, Mexico needs to define clear leadership and 

management standards to signal to the profession, and to society at large, the core knowledge, skills, 

and values associated with effective school directors. 

10. Professionalise training and appointment of directors: Leadership development needs to be seen as a 

continuum. This implies encouraging leadership initial training; organising induction programmes; and 

ensuring in-service training to cover need and context. Having a framework of leadership standards 

will make it possible to use the evaluation of directors to diagnose what key skills may be required in 

individual cases and find suitable opportunities to acquire them. Appointments for directors should, 

where possible, be made from a shortlist of selected candidates, all of whom are qualified in terms of 

meeting the standards. 

11. Build instructional leadership capacity in and across schools: Mexican schools generally work as 

independent units and therefore many have only limited capacity to undertake high quality schoolbased 

professional development, among other management tasks. Schools where good and high quality 

practice exists need to share with schools that have limited capacity for self-improvement. Otherwise, 

schools will continue doing only what they already know how to do and will have very limited chances 

of improving. 

12. Enhance school autonomy: To professionalise and hold leaders accountable, school leaders need also 

to participate in the key decisions that take place at their school, such as hiring or dismissing teachers. 

Decision structures that are adapted to schools’ contexts can also have a positive impact on their 

achievement. 

13. Ensure funding for all schools: In practice, schools have virtually no autonomy and no funds to allocate, 

and there are differences between the resources available to schools in rich and poor communities. 

Distribution of resources should be more equity-based, and should avoid imposing unaffordable 

bureaucratic burdens on schools. 

14. Strengthen social participation: School councils can be an important asset to improve school quality, 

but merely creating them will not result in effective social partnerships. School councils need real 

influence over things that matter, as well as information, training and transparency. 

guidance on implementation: To ensure that these recommendations complete the transitions from OECD to 

Mexico, it is necessary that a national group of stakeholders reflects on and takes ownership and adapts them. 

It is critical to engage all key players as full partners in implementing these recommendations. For example, 

different states can take the lead on various aspects of the recommendations, and build mechanisms to learn 



from one another rather than each having to start from the beginning. Additionally, the recommendations 

are consistent with the goals outlined in the National Educational Sector Plan 2007-2012 and the Alliance 

for Quality Education. The Ministry and other education stakeholders have a strong stake in creating a much 

stronger professional teaching culture in Mexico. Making the best use of current initiatives to align with these 

recommendations can provide extra leverage for change. 

15. Create an Implementation Working Committee: To reflect on and propose implementation strategies, 

a committee should be composed of relevant policy makers from the Ministry of Education, and also 

include highly respected members from academia, representatives from teachers and civil society. 

Its main tasks should be to develop a specific plan of implementation, taking into consideration the 

priorities and existing initiatives in Mexico and in coordination with the states. The OECD Steering 

Group recommends that the Ministry empower the Working Committee to establish work groups, for 

example in the following initial areas, each with a clear charge to develop a work plan with timelines 

and budget: 1) Standards for teaching and school and system leadership; 2) The Teachers Colleges 

(Normales) and other ITP institutions; 3) Teacher development and evaluation; 4) School directors and 

mentor teachers; 5) Autonomy, School funding, school partnerships and social participation. 

Education reform is too important to the future of Mexico to be left to educators alone. The OECD encourages 

also the creation of a broader “guiding coalition” of top political, corporate, university and civil society leaders 

that will step forward and take responsibility for championing these reforms in the public arena, advocating for 

adequate and equitable funding, and holding key education stakeholders accountable for results. 

Without a highly skilled and motivated workforce of teachers and school leaders capable of dramatically 

improving outcomes for Mexico’s young people, the nation’s ability to increase economic opportunity and 

social mobility will be severely compromised. Failure to invest in the comprehensive reforms the Steering 

Group is recommending in teacher policy and school leadership would, in the long run, be much more costly 

to Mexico’s future than the investments it is recommending now. 


15

chApter 1 

Conditions for success 

in education reform 


17

18 


chapter 1 Conditions for suCCess in eduCation reforms 

During the last ten years, international comparisons of the performance of different education systems 

have become increasingly prominent. Data show that countries can substantially improve educational 

outcomes in a relatively short period of time – from a few years to a single generation. At the same time, 

there is compelling evidence that quality and equity are not mutually exclusive and that it is possible for 

nearly all students to achieve excellent results. 

Making significant improvements to system-wide educational outcomes is a complex task that requires 

a multi-faceted approach. This chapter identifies some of the core principles that have guided the 

development of high-performing education systems across the OECD. It describes the factors known 

to be related to better school performance and analyses policies and practices in the best-performing 

countries and in those that are rapidly improving. While there is no single template that all high-achieving 

countries follow, these conditions can provide useful guidance for governments aiming to implement 

changes that will bring about real and lasting improvements in educational outcomes. 

IntroductIon 

The aim of this report is to help education authorities in Mexico and other OECD countries to strengthen their 

education systems. The report focuses on policies to improve teaching, leadership and social participation across 

schools so as to improve the attainment of children in basic education. It develops a comparative framework 

of the key policy levers for successful schools and school systems and adapts it to the context and reality of 

Mexico. Box 1.1 reviews the new OECD methodology undertaken to support the government of Mexico by 

providing comparative analysis, advice and communications to support their education reforms. 

This introductory chapter places Mexico’s request in the broader context of educational improvement around 

the world, outlining the principles that are common to high-performing education systems. It thus provides a 

background for the proposed strategy that follows. Chapter 2 of the report describes the need for education 

improvement in Mexico in more detail, while Chapters 3 and 4 provide specific analysis and recommendations 

on how to consolidate a quality teaching profession and how to improve school effectiveness through school 

leadership, management and social participation. Chapter 5 ends by suggesting some guidelines on how to 

implement these recommendations. 

HIgH-performIng countrIes sHow tHat Improvements are possIble 

In the last ten years, international comparisons of the performance of different education systems have become 

increasingly prominent. The OECD’s Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) has played an 

important role in creating this focus. National myths about results have, in some countries, been shattered, 

and deficiencies in quality and equity have been exposed. At the same time, there is compelling evidence 

that quality and equity are not mutually exclusive and that it is possible for virtually all students to achieve 

excellent results (Figure 1.1). Countries such as Finland, Poland, Korea, Sweden, Canada and Ireland have all 

achieved high student attainment and low drop-out rates; they have increased the proportion of adults who are 

educated to upper secondary level, and have a low proportion of students who struggle in school (see Figure 

1.2, which shows the percentage of 15 year-old students who perform at each proficiency level in science). 

Among the lower performing countries in the OECD, Mexico and Turkey have a particularly high proportion of 

low performing students, as well as high drop-out rates from secondary education (Figure 1.3). 


Conditions for suCCess in eduCation reforms chapter 1 

Box 1.1 A new oecd methodology to support education policy implementation 

across countries 

The OECD-Mexico project follows increasing efforts by the OECD to support education reforms across 

OECD and partner countries. More specifically, an agreement between the OECD and the Mexican 

Ministry of Education (Secretaría de Educación Pública, SEP) was established to support the design and 

implementation of education policy reforms to improve the quality and equity of the education system 

in Mexico (2008-2010). Support was requested specifically in the areas of teacher career paths, school 

management, leadership and social participation. 

A specific methodology has been designed to promote effective policy design and implementation. Three 

types of contributions include comparative analysis, communications (workshops, conferences and 

country visits) and recommendations (presented in this report), delivered by the OECD Mexico Steering 

Group on School Management and Teacher Policy. 

the OecD Mexico Steering Group: To develop and deploy knowledge for Mexico, the OECD has established 

a body of experts to guide the work (see annex A for their biographies). The OECD Mexico Steering Group 

on School Management and Teacher Policy combines international education policy expertise with 

Mexican policy and implementation knowledge. With the analytical and organisational support of the 

OECD Secretariat staff, the Steering Group provides advice and support on ways to adapt lessons from 

international experience to the Mexican context and in the design and successful implementation of related 

policies. Its main tasks are to provide analysis, advice, support and liaison with relevant stakeholders in their 

areas of expertise. It is composed of eight members, all of them senior representatives of the international 

education community and three OECD analysts. Specific deliverables include: 

• Comparative analysis: A set of reports and publications have been developed to provide valuable 

comparative analysis of relevant education policy issues such as teacher training and development, 

teacher selection and recruitment, teacher evaluation and school leadership. 

• Communications and workshops: A series of workshops have been designed to develop the necessary 

knowledge on which to base recommendations, and to consult and engage with stakeholders of 

education reform in Mexico. These workshops also serve to disseminate key messages and international 

practices in Mexico to encourage further reflection and change. 

• the oeCd-harvard seminar for leaders in educational reform: This seminar was organised to 

develop and enhance the participants’ capacity for policy reform, using the OECD recommendations 

as background. This capacity-building seminar for high-level Mexican policy makers combined an 

active training programme with country visits to Chile (January 2010) to study teacher policy, to 

Canada, Ontario (May, 2010) to study school leadership and a final module on implementation in 

Mexico (June 2010). The objective is for participants to work together to develop an implementable 

plan of action to adapt to their own context. 

• Specific recommendations for Mexico: The project has developed specific recommendations 

for Mexico, based on study visits to Mexico, comparative and specific analysis of teacher and 

school management issues in Mexico and expertise in the area. This report presents the set of 

recommendations. A parallel report concentrates on the topic of teacher evaluation and assessment 

policies in a comparative perspective. 

Information, reports and documentation can be found at www.oecd.org/edu/calidadeducativa. 


19

20 




Figure 1.1 

The relationship between socio-economic background and performance in science, PISA 2006 

Average performance of countries on the PISA science scale and the relationship 

between performance and the index of economic, social and cultural status 

Score 

600 

550 

450 

400 

350 

Strength of the relationship 

between performance and 

socio-economic background 

above the OECD average impact 

Above-average level of student performance in science 

Above-average impact of socio-economic background 

OECD mean 

500 

Bulgaria 

Hong Kong China 

Chinese Taipei Canada 

New Zealand 

Estonia 

Liechtenstein Netherlands 

Japan 

Australia 

Germany Czech Republic 

Slovenia 

Korea 

Macao-China 

United Kingdom 

Hungary 

Austria 

Belgium Switzerland 

Ireland 

Poland Sweden 

France United States Denmark 

Latvia 

Lithuania Croatia 

Iceland 

Spain 

Norway 

Luxemboug Slovak Republic 

Russian Federation 

Greece 

Italy 

Portugal 

Chile 

Turkey 

Uruguay Thailand 

Romania 

Mexico 

Argentina 




not statistically significantly 

different from the 

OECD average impact 

Brazil 

Above-average level of student performance in science 

Below-average impact of socio-economic background 

Serbia 

Colombia 

Jordan 

Indonesia 

Tunisia 

Finland 

Kyrgyzstan 

Montenegro 

Azerbaijan 

Below-average level of student performance in science 

Below-average level of student performance in science 

300 

Above-average impact of socio-economic background 

Below-average impact of socio-economic background 

30 

20 

10 

0 

percentage of variance in performance in science explained by 

the pISa index of economic, social and cultural status (r-squared X 100) 

OECD mean 




below the OECD average impact 

Note: For example, all countries in the upper right quadrant combine above-average student performance in science with 

high equity (as measured by the low impact of student socio-economic background on results). On the other hand, a group of 

countries in the bottom left quadrant combine below-average performance with low equity (high impact of socio-economic 

background on results). 

OECD mean used in this figure is arithmetic average of all OECD countries. 

Source: OECD (2007a), PISA 2006 Science Competencies for Tomorrow’s World, Vol; 1: Analysis, OECD, Paris. 

Nevertheless, caution should be exercised before expressing too much dissatisfaction with public education. 

Despite the frequent rhetoric of crisis, public education has been a considerable success in much of the world: 

in most OECD countries virtually everyone has had access to at least 12 years of formal education. 1 The 

proportion of young people completing secondary education has risen steadily for decades (Figure 1.4), as has 

the proportion entering post-secondary education. Groups who were previously denied any formal education 

now participate: the educational situation of women has improved dramatically, and many people with 

disabilities receive vastly better education than used to be the case. Illiteracy has decreased greatly. Although

% 

100 

80 

60 

40 

20 

0 

20 

40 

60 


Figure 1.2 

Cross-country comparison of 15 year-old students’ performance in science, PISA 2006 

Percentage of students at each proficiency level on the science scale 

Below Level 1 Level 1 


canada 

korea 

Japan 

Australia 

netherlands 

new Zealand 

hungary 

germany 

ireland 

Level 2 

czech republic 

switzerland 

Austria 

sweden 

Level 3 

Level 4 

united kingdom 

poland 

belgium 

denmark 

spain 

iceland 

norway 

France 

Level 5 

Level 6 

Note: Countries are ranked in descending order of percentage of 15 year-olds at Levels 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. The six proficiency 

levels represent groups of tasks of ascending difficulty, with Level 6 as the highest and Level 1 as the lowest. Students whose 

maximum score is below Level 1 were unable to utilise science skills in the situations required by the easiest PISA tasks. 

At Level 5, for example, students can develop and work with models for complex situations, identifying constraints and 

specifying assumptions. 

Source: OECD (2007a), PISA 2006 Science Competencies for Tomorrow’s World, Vol; 1: Analysis, OECD, Paris. 

luxembourg 

russian Federation 

greece 

united states 

portugal 

italy 

chile 

turkey 

mexico 

there remain many low-skilled, low-paid jobs, a number of studies show that demand for literacy and numeracy 

skills in advanced economies has increased on average (Chiswick, Lee and Miller, 2002; Levy and Murnane, 

2004). Much has been accomplished. 

Yet more remains to be done. We now know that the development of human and social capital is closely linked 

to productivity, economic growth and social welfare, and that one additional year of schooling can contribute to 

an increase in GDP per capita of 0.58% per year (Hanushek and Woessmann, 2007). Recent evidence indicates 

that improvements in skill levels have increased economic growth across countries, and that education policy can 

make a big difference in improving school results (Hanushek and Woessmann, 2009; OECD, 2010a). Therefore, 

while further improvement in education systems is important, even the most successful systems face challenges, 

and changing economic and social conditions continually place new pressures on public education. 

Current data also show that countries can make dramatic improvements to educational outcomes in a relatively 

short period of time – from a few years to a single generation. Figure 1.4 shows the impressive improvement 


21

22 

% 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 




Figure 1.3 

Proportion of 25-34 year-olds who did not complete education to upper secondary level, 2008 1 

korea 

slovak republic 


poland 

slovenia 

canada 

sweden 

russian Federation2 switzerland 


united states 

Austria 

germany 

hungary 

denmark 

estonia 

ireland 

chile 

norway 

belgium 

France 

Australia 

netherlands 

OECD average 

new Zealand 

luxembourg 


greece 

iceland 

italy 


brazil 

portugal 

turkey 

mexico 

1. Excluding ISCED (International Standard Classification of Education) 3C short programmes. 

2. Year of reference 2002. 

Source: OECD (2010b), Education at a Glance 2010: OECD Indicators, OECD, Paris, Table A1.2a. 

in educational attainment of the younger population of some OECD countries, such as Australia, Belgium, 

Chile, Finland, Ireland or Korea, compared with the adults aged 55 to 64, all above the OECD average. Greece, 

Portugal and Spain have also achieved important improvements but still remain below the OECD average. 

In many of these cases, education has become a national priority for the government. This is the case in Korea, 

which in a generation has moved from being one of the lowest to one of the highest performers on many 

educational indicators. Its strategy has been to prioritise human capital development, support a life-long learning 

strategy and ensure a strong curriculum by selecting and supporting quality teachers. In Finland, a qualitative leap 

in education results has been made by focusing on the quality of teaching and by improving the equity of results 

by providing immediate support for those falling behind. Secondary education has been made comprehensive; 

and although national curriculum frameworks and standards are in place, municipalities and schools are allowed 

considerable autonomy to adapt these to local context. Schools also provide many support services to students. 

A further important finding is that, beyond a certain basic level, student outcomes do not seem to be related strongly 

to national expenditure (Grubb, 2009; OECD, 2007a). Evidence from PISA shows only a modest association 

between expenditure and scores in mathematics, although when lower performing countries are considered the 

relationship is stronger, suggesting that expenditure levels may matter more for lower performers (Figure 1.5). 

One important result that emerges from the analysis of PISA data, a range of policy studies and research is that 

single policy measures of any kind are unlikely to produce the desired results. Real improvement in outcomes

% 

100 

90 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 


Figure 1.4 

Percentage of the population attaining at least upper secondary education, 2008 1 

Percentage, by age group 

25-34 year-olds 55-64 year-olds 

korea 



poland 

slovenia 

canada 

sweden 

russian Federation2 switzerland 


united states 

Austria 

denmark 

germany 

hungary 

estonia 

ireland 

chile 

norway 

belgium 

France 

Australia 

netherlands 

OECD average 

new Zealand 

luxembourg 


greece 

iceland 

italy 


brazil 

portugal 

turkey 

mexico 

1. Excluding ISCED (International Standard Classification of Education) 3C short programmes. 


Countries are ranked in descending order of the percentage of 25-34 year-olds who have attained at least upper secondary 

education. 

Source: OECD (2010b), Education at a Glance 2010: OECD Indicators, OECD, Paris. 

depends on comprehensive strategies that consider many aspects of the system at the same time (Barber, 2007; 

Levin, 2008; Fullan, 2010; Hopkins, 2006; Hopkins, 2007). While not all of these elements require, or can 

possibly receive, the same level of attention at once, efforts to improve outcomes for entire systems do require 

multi-faceted strategies. This idea is developed more fully later in this report. 

These findings have raised the bar for all countries and put a premium on making the right policy choices. No 

country can be complacent about its current level of education performance, and everyone must recognise that 

no matter how well a country is doing, more is possible. As a result, countries have become more sensitive to 

their relative success and are interested in learning more about how they can create higher levels of achievement 

as well as reducing inequities. 

Two main sources of knowledge inform our understanding of these issues. As noted, international data from 

studies such as PISA have been important (Schleicher, 2009), as have the comparative analyses of policy and 

practice undertaken by the OECD and other organisations (OECD, 2005; Barber and Mourshed, 2007; Pont, 

Nusche and Moorman, 2008a). In addition, a growing and increasingly sophisticated research literature has 

examined many improvement initiatives using a variety of research methods, from case studies to quantitative 

analyses of large databases (Hargreaves and Fullan, 2008; Leithwood, Harris and Strauss, 2010; Levin and 

Fullan, 2008; Chapman, 2006; Townsend, 2007). There is still much to learn and plenty of room for improvement 

in the education research enterprise worldwide (OECD, 2007b). At the same time, there is more robust knowledge 

about education than ever before, so the increasing interest in how countries can improve performance is to some 

degree matched by increasing knowledge about how to do so. This report aims to introduce some of that knowledge. 

Learning about policy making and policy implementation across countries is a complex business. On the one 

hand, the growing evidence base does offer some clear conclusions about what is required for improvement. 


23

24 




Figure 1.5 

Education spending per student compared to 15 year-old students’ performance, PISA 2006 

Synthetic PISA score 1 

560 

540 

520 

500 

480 

460 

440 

420 

400 

380 

BRA 

RUS 

CHL 

POL CZE 

HUN 

SVK 

MEX 

EST 

FIN 

KOR 

NZL 

JPN 

NLD BEL 

IRL 

DEU 

GBR 

ESP 

PRT 

GRC 

SVN 

CAN 

AUS 

SWE 

FRA 

ITA 

DNK 

AUT 

ISL 

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 

cumulative education spending per student, 1000 USD ppp 

1. This figure shows the PISA synthetic score, which combines the scores on the reading, mathematics and science scale 

through factor analysis. 

Source: OECD (2009), OECD Economic Surveys: Mexico, OECD, Paris. 

On the other hand, the adoption of policies and practices inevitably takes place in and is influenced by the local 

context, which has its own institutional structures, labour markets and incentive structures, history, values and 

beliefs. Context is important in policy design. The practices and policies that are successful in one context may look 

somewhat different in another; one cannot adopt education policies from other places in an unthinking way and 

expect success. 

wHat are tHe guIdIng prIncIples for HIgH-performIng educatIon systems? 

Improving system-wide educational outcomes is a complex task, requiring an approach that addresses many, 

if not all, major components of the system. No single element is sufficient in itself because all elements within 

the school system are interconnected. For example, while effective teaching practices may be the single most 

important element in getting better student outcomes, these in turn are shaped by leadership, curriculum, facilities, 

school autonomy and system governance, school culture, accountability, teacher education and others. It may not 

be possible for any country to address all of these issues at the same time or in the same way, but all of them must 

be considered at some point. 

While a comprehensive strategy is necessary, it is equally true that there is no single template that all highachieving 

countries follow. Korea’s path to educational improvement has been different from the path taken by 

Finland or Ireland. Even so, the analysis of policies and practice shows that there are some core principles and 

assumptions that can guide governments that are aiming to make real and lasting improvement in an efficient way. 

NOR 

CHE


The suggestions here encompass matters of both policy substance and process. It is important to have the 

right policies, but just as important to have well-developed means for making those policies real across large 

numbers of schools. Policy design must take into account the possibilities for implementation; there is no point 

in adopting policies that cannot realistically be put into place. Similarly, policy is rarely entirely correct at the 

first attempt, so implementation should involve feedback loops that allow adjustments to be made to reflect 

changing circumstances or learning. 

As an essential first step, successful systems establish a small number of clear, highest priority and measurable 

goals focused on student outcomes. These goals focus attention and provide benchmarks for progress. They must 

be related to student outcomes – not just to inputs or processes – and should be expressed in terms that are both 

easy for the public to understand and which resonate with professional educators. They should be ambitious 

but also clearly within the realm of possibility: a fine balance to achieve. For example, goals might involve an 

increase of x% in completion of secondary education; an outcome related to improvements in national tests; or 

a significant reduction in identified inequities in student outcomes. These goals should be widely publicised in 

the system and with the public to build commitment towards improvement. For example, a number of OECD 

countries have set goals for completion of upper secondary education; England has established goals for literacy 

and numeracy at the end of elementary schooling and Ontario’s recent improvement was guided by goals for 

elementary level literacy and high school graduation (Box 1.2). 

Box 1.2 defining goals to guide educational improvement: selected examples 

The european Union agreed on a strategic framework for European cooperation in education and training: 

Education and Training 2020. The benchmarks set in 2009 include the following: 

• At least 95% of children between the age of four and the age for starting compulsory primary education 

should participate in early education. 

• The proportion of 15-year-olds with insufficient abilities in reading, mathematics and science should 

be less than 15%. 

• The proportion of early leavers from upper secondary education and training should be less than 10%. 

• The proportion of 30-34 year-olds with tertiary educational attainment should increase to at least 40%. 

• The proportion of adults who participate in life-long learning should increase to at least 15% of 

25-64 year-olds. 

In Ontario, canada, an initiative called Energising Ontario Education focused on three key priorities for 

all players in the public education system: 1) high levels of student achievement – defined as 75% of 

students achieving provincial standard in Grade 6 and reaching 85% graduating rates; 2) reducing the 

gaps in student achievement; and 3) increasing public confidence in publicly funded education. These 

targets were set in 2004 but have continued for a second mandate in 2008 to ensure sustainability and 

focus on the core purpose of schooling. This has set a vision that most participants in the system have 

embraced and are working towards, providing clear focus and stability. 

Source: European Commission, ec.europa.eu/education/life-long-learning-policy/doc28_en.htm. 


25

26 


Goals must focus on equity as well as quality, with a commitment to ensuring that all groups of students make 

steady progress. Wilkinson and Pickett (2010) found that greater inequality is associated with a whole range 

of negative effects on the economy and society, so the pursuit of greater equity must itself be an important 

policy goal in education. It has been demonstrated that the costs of unequal educational attainment and dropout 

are high for the economy and for society over the long run (OECD, 2007b; Lyche, 2010). History tells us 

that societies tend to underestimate their overall potential for learning, and that where appropriate support is 

provided almost all people can achieve higher than expected levels of performance. Figure 1.1 shows that some 

countries are able to attain high quality education outcomes with less inequity in secondary education. 

It is also desirable to choose goals that will not distort practices within the school system. For example, if a 

goal is based on a measure taken at a single point in time, such as the proportion of students scoring above a 

certain benchmark on a national test, and especially if this is attached to sanctions for failure to perform, there 

is a danger that it will inevitably generate undesirable practices such as manipulating the population writing 

the test, replacing good teaching with narrow test preparation, or even outright cheating. As March pointed out 

many years ago, “a system of rewards linked to precise measures is not an incentive to perform well; it is an 

incentive to obtain a good score” (March, 1984). 

It is also important to ensure that goals do not result in too narrow an approach to education. Successful systems 

recognise that the goals of education must be broad and inclusive. Literacy skills are of little use if students have 

no appreciation of the pleasure of learning and no sense of the breadth of human knowledge and interest. In 

successful systems, the arts and sciences, citizenship, health and physical activity are seen as complementary to 

and supportive of the so-called basic skills rather than being a distraction from them. Such systems are careful 

to avoid narrowing the curriculum or teaching practices. 

Goals are important but are by themselves insufficient. To achieve them, systems must develop an overall strategy 

that deals with all the relevant components over time. Depending on the circumstances, changes in legislation, 

financing, curriculum, accountability systems or public reporting may all be required. However, the starting point 

for improvement should always be changes in teaching and learning that will yield better student outcomes, with 

other components following as necessary. We have learned over time that changes in governance or other policy 

systems alone do not lead to better performance; they may be a necessary condition to support changes in teaching 

and learning but they are not by themselves sufficient. For example, countries such as Sweden, the Netherlands 

and Flemish Belgium have introduced more competition between schools, but this may not have improved overall 

outcomes over time, nor have shifts in the balance between local and central financing led to better outcomes. 

One danger of a multi-component strategy is the perception that there are too many unconnected initiatives 

and actors without enough specification of priorities. To be successful, the main elements and players of the 

education system need to be coherently aligned to support the overall strategy. This includes aligning the 

curriculum, the criteria for selection, the appointment and evaluation of teachers and school leaders, the 

accountability system, financing schemes, and also aligning the roles of the key actors involved (Box 1.3). 

The organisation’s culture must be consistent with its rhetoric. No amount of rhetoric about student achievement 

will matter if the real pressures on leaders are about complying with rules or managing problems. As the 

aphorism has it, “what gets attention, gets done”, and in many organisations, as in the political arena, trivial 

matters of administration and paperwork often get more attention than the organisation’s espoused goals. In 

high-performing systems or countries there is an intensive focus on student achievement, and all resources and 

actions are aligned in support of policies and programmes designed to support the learning of all students. 

Everyone understands that student learning is the most important task of the organisation, in reality as well as 

in rhetoric. 




Box 1.3 Aligning policies and actors with the education strategy in ontario, canada 

From 2004, with the election of a new government, the provincial government of Ontario designed and 

implemented an education improvement strategy focused on three main goals (see Box 1.2). Within this 

framework, Ontario has developed a coherent leadership strategy, adequate support frameworks and 

concerted actions to include all key actors in dialogue and in the reform process, such as school boards, 

teacher unions, academics and practitioners, to achieve consensus and develop alignment. Through this 

reform, educational attainment has improved and long-term capacity has been built across all levels of 

the education system. 

• The leadership strategy focuses on attracting good candidates to the posts and preparing and supporting 

them to improve the quality of instruction. 

• Within the strategy, a leadership framework has been defined to provide five key domains that can be 

adapted to context: 1) setting direction; 2) building relationships and developing people; 3) developing 

the organisation; 4) leading the instructional programme; 5) securing accountability. These are well 

known by all actors, adapted to local contexts as needed, used in a new principal appraisal system and 

used for training and development. There are many examples of school boards and schools that have 

adapted the framework to their needs. 

• requirements to become a principal are high, demonstrating the high calibre they are looking 

for. Potential candidates need to have: an undergraduate degree; five years of teaching experience; 

certification by school level (primary; junior; intermediate; senior); two Specialist or Honour Specialist 

additional qualifications (areas of teaching expertise) or a master’s degree; and completion of a 

Principal’s Qualification Program (PQP), offered by Ontario universities, teachers’ federations (unions) 

and principals’ associations, which consists of a 125-hour programme with a practicum. 

• there is an overt effort towards leadership succession planning in school boards, in order to get the 

right people prepared and into the system. Therefore, the process starts before there is a vacancy to 

be filled. 

• Mentoring is available during the first two years of practice (for principals, vice-principals, supervisory 

officers and directors). 

• a new performance appraisal model for leaders focused on results has been introduced. In the 

Principal/Vice-Principal Performance Appraisal (PPA) model, principals set goals focused on student 

achievement and well-being in a five-year cycle. They are also required to maintain an annual growth 

plan which is reviewed in collaboration with the supervisor annually. 

Source: OECD (2010d), “Seminario OCDE-Harvard para líderes en reformas educativas en México: gestión escolar y 

reforma escolar en Ontario”, OECD, Paris. www.oecd.org/edu/calidadeducativa. 

The allocation of resources is a particularly important and often neglected element in this alignment (Grubb, 

2009). If budgets do not reflect the priority given to better teaching and learning then the message to those in the 

organisation is that these things do not matter very much. For example, the deployment of staff to ensure that the 

most capable people are working where they are most needed is an often-neglected aspect of resource allocation. 

Given a focus on student learning, improvement requires, in all settings, recruiting, educating, training, 

developing and supporting the educator workforce. High-performing systems take account of the growing 


27

28 


body of international evidence that supports what most parents have always assumed: that the quality of the 

teacher is the single most important school-level predictor of student learning (OECD, 2005). So building the 

capacity of educators (Fullan, 2007; Elmore, 2004) is the single most important element in a school improvement 

programme. High-performing countries place considerable emphasis on making teaching an occupation that 

attracts young people with high skill levels. However, careful recruitment is not enough: mastering teaching is 

a life-long task, which means there must be strong programmes of professional learning throughout teachers’ 

careers. To be effective these programmes must be linked to the day-to-day work of schools; just providing onetime 

development workshops has been shown to have very little effect on subsequent practice (Timperley et al., 

2007; Musset, 2010). The development of focused, research-informed standards for teaching, recommended later 

in this report, is one important way to signal and support a clear commitment to excellence in teaching, because 

these give specific form to the desired approaches. These issues are developed more fully later in this report. 

Large-scale educational improvement requires adequate institutional capacity and structures. One can assume 

that where new approaches are not being implemented, it is for one or both of two reasons – lack of desire 

(“will”), or lack of capacity (“skill”). To change will and skill in large organisations takes sustained effort. Issuing 

policy direction or providing professional development is entirely insufficient. The need for infrastructure exists 

at several levels. To begin with, in most countries ministries of education play a powerful role in setting agendas 

and determining the focus of the system as a whole; that is certainly the case in Mexico. Yet developing and 

implementing a comprehensive improvement strategy is not something that most education ministries are 

organised or equipped to do. So high-performing countries have increased the capacity of their education 

ministry and associated organisations to support large-scale improvement. This may require changes in the 

culture, leadership and structure of these organisations so that they are focused on leading and supporting 

improvement at all levels across the entire system. In federal systems, such as Mexico, both national and state 

education ministries require new capacities and ways of working that move them away from regulation towards 

capacity building. 

District or regional organisations, where they exist, need similar attention. It is a mistake to assume that an 

organisation can take on a new and very different task with the same skills, functions and structures that were 

used for the old tasks. Sometimes intermediate agencies or structures, independent of government, can also 

play a useful role in promoting reform, especially in a large and diverse country such as Mexico. An example 

of this is the district approach, which is recommended later and illustrated in Box 1.4. 

Successful systems recognise the necessity of engaging all partners in developing improvement. The prospect of 

achieving long-term and sustainable improvements in education systems is better if political consensus amongst 

the key stakeholders can be reached regarding the need for reform and the specific nature of the reforms to 

be introduced. Changes in education policy will not necessarily lead to immediate improvement. It takes time 

both to achieve improvements in the knowledge and skills of the workforce and for such improvements to 

subsequently affect students’ learning. In order for the proposed reforms to bear fruit, policy needs to move in a 

consistent direction over a number of years and sometimes through changes of government. 

This requires multiple venues for ongoing dialogue and communication among all parties – all levels of 

government, teachers, school leaders, union leaders, students, parents and other key civil society groups. The 

social partnership model in place in many European countries is an example of this approach. Education is a 

project of the entire society and improvement can only be sustained when all parties have a commitment to it. 

As shown in OECD work on the implementation of reform generally (OECD, 2010c), in democratic societies 

the consent of those involved is essential and cannot be obtained by fiat or assumed based on an election result. 

Countries have developed various vehicles for this kind of political engagement, usually involving some structure 

that includes all the social partners in open discussion of education policies, practices and proposed reforms. 




Box 1.4 institutions supporting large-scale improvement across selected oecd countries 

Across the OECD, countries have developed different structures to promote improvement in education. 

Some may be specialised units within the education ministry; others may be intermediary agencies. These 

organisations play varying roles, but all have some connection with increasing the capacity of the system 

to implement effective policies and practices. 

In england, the National Research and Development Centre for Literacy, Numeracy, ESOL and ICT 

(NRDC) was created as part of the Skills for Life strategy in 2002. This aimed to improve the literacy and 

numeracy of 750,000 adults by 2004, rising to 1.5 million by 2007. Originally created by the government, 

the NRDC is a consortium of universities and development organisations working as an independent 

centre to improve practice and inform policy through research and development. Its five areas of study 

are: 1) Economic Development, Impact of Basic Skills and Social Inclusion; 2) Motivating Learners to 

Succeed – Increasing Participation, Retention and Achievement; 3) Raising Quality – Effective Teaching 

and Learning; 4) Professional Development and the Quality of the Skills for Life Workforce; and 5) The 

Context, Infrastructure and Impact of Skills for Life on Provision and Learners. 

Since 2008, australia has started an “Education Revolution” strategy to improve the quality of its education 

system. As part of it, the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) established a Productivity Agenda 

Working Group. This working group’s main task is to develop National Partnerships proposals to foster 

reforms in: early childhood development; addressing education disadvantages; improving the quality of 

teaching at schools, and; fostering a market design of the vocational education and training sector. To 

support the implementation of the working group’s actions, the COAG and Commonwealth government 

have fostered a new financial framework that links funds to outcomes. It will include a clear statement of 

objectives, roles, responsibilities and outcomes to which both levels of government will have to commit. 

In schooling, the agreement will include non-government school sectors, and in training it will extend 

to industry. 

In Ontario, canada, the Ministry of Education created special-purpose structures, staffed by distinguished 

educators from across the province, to support its key improvement strategies. A Literacy and Numeracy 

Secretariat was organised to support improved practices in elementary schools, and a Student Success 

leadership system was created to support efforts to increase high school graduation rates. In both cases, 

ministry staff worked closely with schools and districts to support an aligned approach to better practices 

and results. 

Source: www.nrdc.org.uk; www.deewr.gov.au/Ministers/Gillard/Media/Speeches/Pages/Article_081008_160501. 

aspx; Levin (2008). How to Change 5000 Schools, Harvard Education Press, Cambridge, MA. 

Education councils in most European countries present one structured way to bring together all the key education 

stakeholders to provide advice on important issues. Often, countries create special consultation commissions 

on specific reforms or issues. For example, when undertaking a reform to provide more opportunities for lifelong 

learning, the Danish parliament established a special commission to interview specialists, practitioners 

and others in order to formulate recommendations but also to build support for those ideas. Many of these 

strategies ensure that multiple views are sought and respectfully heard, not just during the policy development 

process but all through implementation as well, so that adjustments to policies can be made as required. 


29

30 


Wherever possible, this can contribute to ensuring that differences are worked out through ongoing dialogue. 

The result is greater commitment and more effective implementation of improvements. 

School systems are multi-level enterprises. Individual schools, and classrooms within schools, are the key sites 

where formal education takes place, but the success of each school also rests on an appropriate support and 

monitoring system. This means that school systems must strike the right balance between local initiative and 

central efforts at improvement. Neither a top-down command system nor a system that turns over all decisionmaking 

to individual schools is the right model. Local knowledge and initiative are vital, and systems that place 

too many controls on individual schools may stifle that spirit of enterprise. Equally, it is important to ensure 

that every school is performing well and that parochialism does not have undue sway or that an excessive 

competitiveness among schools does not undermine overall system improvement. PISA results indicate that 

schools with more autonomy in some key areas tend to have higher levels of performance, but only when aligned 

with accountability measures. One cannot assume that thousands of schools will easily have the capacity to 

do the requisite local planning and monitoring. More autonomy requires more support for schools to perform 

(Pont, Nusche and Moorman, 2008a; 2008b). The larger system should provide support for schools and must 

also take action where schools, for whatever reason, are unable to take the necessary steps themselves. 

Countries currently employ different structures for creating this balance. In many countries municipal 

governments are deeply involved in the management and operation of schools. In the United States and 

Canada, school districts play a key role in directing and supporting schools within larger policy frameworks. 

In other countries, networks of schools develop either spontaneously or in a planned way to bring schools 

together without excessive bureaucracy. This has been happening in the Netherlands and Flanders, Belgium 

with the development of communities of schools (Pont, Nusche and Moorman, 2008b), and in Barcelona with 

the development of education zones. In Denmark, Local Government Denmark (Kommunes Landsforening, 

KL), the association of the 98 municipalities in Denmark, set up a partnership on lower secondary education 

to improve the learning outcomes of students. This initiative is intended to provide teachers and school leaders 

with technical assistance and guidance for the purpose of developing assessment and evaluation practices in 

the classroom and at the level of the school that will help educators better identify students in difficulty, to better 

diagnose the sources of their problems, and develop personal education plans accordingly (OECD, 2010c). 

However, in general, the key factor is not the particular structure, but the spirit or culture that animates the 

system to value both school autonomy and system performance. 

Improvement in any system or service requires good data on current levels of performance. Educators, parents 

and policymakers need timely and accurate data if they are to make informed decisions about how best 

to enhance the learning and development of children and young people. In high-performing systems, the 

availability of appropriate data is an essential condition for building and maintaining public support for the 

continuous improvement of their schools. 

For schools, this means accountability and reporting systems that support the goals and provide professional 

and public information on outcomes, and do so without demotivating teachers or making unfair comparisons 

between schools. Appropriate accountability has been the most contentious policy area in education in many 

jurisdictions. Every person or organisation wants to be judged on a basis seen as fair (and this includes students 

of all ages in their classrooms), but all measures, including value-added assessments, have an inherent degree 

of error and uncertainty. All measures produce a certain number of false positives and false negatives. One 

way to address this tension is to use multiple sources of data and invite different parties to analyse and draw 

conclusions. When different data elements and different analyses run on similar tracks, one can have much 

more confidence in the results. A second requirement is to ensure that any interventions or sanctions for poor 

performance are put in place only on the basis of several measures, including informed judgment. Thus poor 




performance on a measure can and should be cause for further investigation but should not, in itself, be the 

cause of sanctions. Programmes of improvement themselves need good data and feedback. It is inevitable 

that initial plans will require modification as things develop. There must be willingness to assess progress and 

adjust activities as required. The leadership of a reform strategy cannot expect others in the system to make 

adjustments based on data if there is no willingness to do so at the system level. This can be a problem where 

a strong political commitment has been made to a particular course of action; but without the willingness to 

learn and adjust to changing circumstances, a reform programme will alienate supporters and lose momentum. 

All of these components depend on effective leadership at all levels of the system (Pont, Nusche and Moorman, 

2008a; 2008b). Without good people in place, no policy framework will produce results, and good people will 

make any policy framework more effective than it would otherwise be. leadership development for schools 

and at the system level must therefore be a key component of any effort to improve education. With teachers, 

leadership development involves much more than careful recruitment or extensive professional development; 

it must be embedded in all aspects of the organisation. Leadership also needs to be seen as a function that 

extends across large numbers of people, not just those in formal positions. Schools operate best when many 

staff members see themselves as playing some leadership role in the overall organisation, and the same is true 

for school systems. A strong sense of collective responsibility, in which people feel a commitment beyond 

their own particular role, is also an important element. The Austrian Leadership Academy provides an example 

of a holistic focus on leadership development, targeted towards moving the system players from the concept 

of school management, which is more bureaucratic in nature, to that of instructional leadership, focused on 

professional roles looking towards school improvement (Box 1.5). 

Box 1.5 the Austrian leadership Academy 

In 2004, austria created the Austrian Leadership Academy – a two-year programme that combines the 

principles of learning, structure and curriculum content. It consists of four two-to-three-day forums on 

partnerships, coaching teams, regional networks and virtual networks. Participants in these courses are 

those involved in leadership and school management in regional and national departments of education, 

besides school leaders. About 25% (6,000) of potential participants have voluntarily participated and 

graduated from this programme by 2008. 

Source: Pont, Nusche and Moorman (2008b). Improving School Leadership: Volume 2 Case Studies on System 

Leadership, OECD, Paris. 

Other elements of the system must support these central priorities. For example, a high quality curriculum with 

appropriate standards is important to guide teaching and learning. However, curriculum and standards alone 

do not result in improvements in teaching; there is much evidence showing that such documents are largely 

ignored in classrooms unless they are supported by additional elements such as professional development, 

good materials and the integration of standards into monitoring and accountability systems. 

Finally, something should be said about the role of resources. It was noted earlier that among OECD countries 

overall levels of spending do not predict student achievement levels. In education, the understanding of the 

relationship between resources and outcomes is often weak. Use of resources is dominated by conventional 

ideas about how a school system should be run, not by evidence of where resources really matter (Grubb, 

2009). It is clear that resources do matter, so the key thing is a deeper understanding of how best to use them. 

For example, class sizes are often smaller in secondary schools than in elementary schools, even though there 


31

32 



is more evidence supporting smaller class sizes in elementary education. Technology has been a significant 

source of spending with little improvement to show for it (Grubb, 2009; Wiliam, 2009). 

cHaracterIstIcs of effectIve scHools 

The previous sections have discussed education policy at the system level, either within a whole country or a 

province. However, the real work of education takes place in classrooms and schools. System level policies are 

crucial enablers, but it is just as essential – if not more so – to give attention to the features that make individual 

schools effective places of learning for all students. 

In the last 40 years, there has been a vast amount of research into what makes an effective school. Effective 

schools have been defined in different ways, with a common theme being the progress made by the children 

and young people who attend them. Many reviews of this research have summarised key characteristics, but 

there is wide agreement on main features of school effectiveness. The list from a review of research by Sammons, 

Hillman and Mortimore (1995) stands the test of time and is summarised in Table 1.1. 

These features are a reminder of the central importance of teaching and learning practices in shaping student 

outcomes, and of the elements, such as home-school trust, that support improved teaching and learning. They 

are also a reminder that changes in structural aspects such as size or timetabling or the organisation of grades, 

while frequently adopted, are less powerful. 

These features seem to apply in many international contexts. Murillo (2007) reviewed school effectiveness 

studies in Latin America and concluded that “the factors highlighted in those studies share many features 

with the Sammons review (Sammons, Hillman and Mortimore, 1995). Elements such as school and classroom 

climate, leadership, shared goals, high expectations, methodology and teamwork appear repeatedly in studies 

not only in Latin America but also in the rest of the world.” However, two additional aspects feature in Murillo’s 

review – resources and teacher preparation. In Latin American studies, unlike in some other regions, the quality 

and management of material resources, including finance, are directly related to student achievement, as are the 

quality of initial and continuing education of teachers and their working conditions. These findings reflect the 

very large inequalities in resources, including finance and teacher quality, in many countries and even within 

the same state or city. Nevertheless, other factors which feature most often in Latin American studies of school 

effectiveness include: school climate; shared goals; classroom climate; planning and instructional methods; 

high expectations and involvement (Murillo, 2007). These aspects relate very closely to school leadership, in 

which there is growing interest and research in some Latin American countries. 

As Stoll and Sammons (2007) point out, “school effectiveness research has consistently drawn attention to 

the [principal’s] leadership in promoting and maintaining school effectiveness and as a key characteristic of 

effective schools”. There is a very strong association between the quality and effectiveness of schools and the 

quality of their instructional leadership. Recognition of the importance of leadership led to the major OECD 

project on Improving School Leadership (ISL) (Pont, Nusche and Moorman, 2008a; 2008b), that has led to 

several countries reforming their policies. The Sammons review (summarised in Table 1.1.) found that “almost 

every single study of school effectiveness has shown both primary and secondary leadership to be a factor”. 

Research has found no evidence of effective schools with weak leadership (Gray, 1990), which means that 

improved leadership is essential if underperforming schools are to improve (Matthews and Sammons, 2005). 

Applying these principles has implications for the management of the education system at all levels. They 

reinforce some of the elements defined earlier, such as an appropriate balance of local autonomy and central 

direction, as well as the focus on building instructional skills and capacity among all who work in the system. 


leadership 


Table 1.1 

Key characteristics of effective schools 

professional leadership Firm and purposeful 

The participative approach 

The lead professional 

high expectations High expectations all around 

Communicating expectations 

Providing intellectual challenge 

shared vision and goals Unity of purpose 

Consistency of practice 

Collegiality and collaboration 

a learning organisation School-based staff development 

a learning environment An orderly atmosphere 

An attractive working environment 

teaChing, learning and assessment 

Concentration on teaching Maximisation of learning time 

and learning 

Academic emphasis 

A focus on achievement 

purposeful teaching Efficient organisation 

Clarity of purpose 

Structured lessons 

Adaptive practice 

monitoring performance Monitoring pupil progress 

(accountability) 

Monitoring school performance 

pupils and parents 

positive reinforcement Clear and fair discipline 

Feedback 

pupils’ rights and Raising pupil self-esteem 

responsibilities 

Positions of responsibility 

Control of work 

home-school partnership Parental involvement in their 

children’s learning 

Source: Sammons, Hillman and Mortimore (1995), Key Characteristics of Effective Schools: A Review of School Effectiveness 

Research, Institute of Education, London and the Office for Standards in Education. 


33

34 

conclusIon 



There are some essential conditions for the improvement of school outcomes. Making significant improvements 

in system-wide educational outcomes is a complex task, which requires a multi-faceted approach that addresses 

many of the major components of the system. No single element may be sufficient for progress, but most 

are necessary. At the core are policies that focus on improving teaching and learning, including curriculum 

teaching skills, leadership and assessment. 

At the same time, while it is vital to have the right policies, it is just as important to have well-developed means 

for implementing those policies across school systems. Policy design must take into account the context and 

possibilities for implementation; there is no point adopting policies that cannot realistically be put into place. 

The analysis of high performing systems’ policies and practice shows that there are some core assumptions that 

can guide governments that are aiming to make real and lasting improvement in an efficient way. These can be 

grouped as follows: 

• Clear goals, with public understanding and support, related to student outcomes, that focus not only on 

quality but also on equity; guided by a comprehensive strategy that aligns the necessary elements, resources 

and levels of governance in pursuit of these goals; 

• A strong focus on recruiting, developing and retaining excellent people in the system; this also involves 

leadership development that supports capacity for the strategy and for teaching and learning; 

• Institutions and infrastructure to support improvement: this implies processes and institutions to engage 

all relevant partners in dialogue; an appropriate balance of central direction and local flexibility; and 

infrastructure at all levels to provide support for improvement across systems and schools; 

• Accountability and reporting systems that support the goals and provide professional and public information 

on outcomes, without demotivating teachers or making unfair comparisons between schools. 

While system goals are important, it is also necessary to pay attention to the work of individual schools, which is 

where teaching and learning take place. Research on effective schools has revealed a set of characteristics that 

need to be supported by system level policies, and which also focus on the quality of teaching and learning in 

each school and for all students. System and school level approaches must be aligned and mutually reinforcing. 

To address these conditions is a challenge in any country. Improvements across an entire education system can only 

come with strong, consistent political support and leadership sustained over time. It requires years of consistent 

effort to create improvement, but country examples show that with persistence and thought it can be done. 

In the case of Mexico, a country with relatively weak capacity across the system, large regional variations and high 

levels of poverty, the challenges are considerable. The following chapters focus on three aspects that are key to 

system improvement: teachers and teaching; school and system leadership; and social participation in education. 


objeCtives of teaCher inCentive sChemes and systems chapter 1 

references 

Barber, M. (2007), Instruction to Deliver: Tony Blair, the Public Services and the Challenge of Achieving Targets, Politico’s 

Publishing Ltd, London. 

Barber, M. and M. Mourshed (2007), How the World’s Best-Performing School Systems Come Out on Top, McKinsey & 

Company, London. 

chapman, c. (2006), Improving Schools through External Intervention, Continuum, London. 

chiswick, B.r., Y.L. Lee and p.W. Miller (2002), “Schooling, Literacy, Numeracy and Labour Market Success”, IZA Discussion 

Paper, Vol. 450. 

elmore, r. (2004), School Reform from the Inside Out: Policy, Practice, and Performance, Harvard Education Publishing 

Group, Cambridge, MA. 

Fullan, M. (2007), The New Meaning of Educational Change, Teachers College Press, Teachers College, Columbia University, New 

York. 

Fullan, M. (2010), All Systems Go: The Change Imperative for Whole System Reform, Corwin Press Inc, a Joint Publication 

with the Ontario Principals’ Council, Toronto. 

Gray, J. (1990), “The Quality of Schooling: Frameworks for Judgement”, British Journal of Educational Studies, Vol. 38, No. 

3, pp. 204-233. 

Grubb, W.N. (2009), The Money Myth: School Resources, Outcomes, and Equity, Russell Sage Foundation Publications, New York. 

hanushek, e. and L. Woessmann (2007), “The role of education quality for economic growth”, Policy Research Working Paper 

WPS 4122, The World Bank, Washington, DC. 

hanushek, e. and L. Woessmann (2009), “Do Better Schools Lead to More Growth? Cognitive Skills, Economic Outcomes, 

and Causation”, National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper N. 14633. 

hargreaves, a. and M. Fullan (eds.) (2008), Change Wars, Solution Tree, Bloomington, IN. 

hopkins, D. (2007), Every School a Great School, Open University Press/McGraw Hill, Maidenhead, Berkshire. 

hopkins, D. (2006), Every School a Great School – Meeting the Challenge of Large Scale, Long Term Educational Reform, 

a lecture in the iNet series published to celebrate the launch of the London Centre for Leadership in Learning, Institute of 

Education., Specialist Schools and Academies Trust, London. 

Leithwood, K., a. harris and t. Strauss (2010), Leading School Turnaround: How Successful Leaders Transform Low-Performing 

Schools, Jossey Bass Wiley, San Francisco. 

Levin, B. (2008), How to Change 5000 Schools, Harvard Education Press, Cambridge, MA. 

Levin, B. and M. Fullan (2008), “Learning about System Renewal”, Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 

Vol. 36, No. 2, pp. 289-303. 

Levy, F. and r.J. Murnane (2004), “Education and the Changing Job Market”, Educational Leadership, Vol. 62, No. 2, pp. 80. 

Lyche, c. (2010), “Preventing Drop-out: Policies that Work”, paper prepared for the OECD activity Overcoming School 

Failure: Policies that Work, OECD, Paris. 

March, J.G. (1984), “How We Talk and How We Act: Administrative Theory and Administrative Life”, in Leadership and 

Organizational Culture: New Perspectives on Administrative Theory and Practice, University of Illinois Press, Urbana, IL, pp. 18-35. 

Matthews, p. and p. Sammons (2005), “Survival of the Weakest: The Differential Improvement of Schools Causing Concern in 

England”, London Review of Education, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 159-176. 


35

36 

chapter 1 referenCes 

Murillo, J. (2007), “School Effectiveness Research in Latin America”, in T. Townsend (ed.), International Handbook of School 

Effectiveness and Improvement, Springer, Netherlands, pp. 75-92. 

Musset, p. (2010), Initial teacher education and continuing training policies in a comparative perspective, OECD EDU 

Working paper n. 48, OECD, Paris. 

OecD (2005), Education and Training Policy Teachers Matter, OECD, Paris. 

OecD (2007a), PISA 2006: Science Competencies for Tomorrow’s World. Volume 1: Analysis, OECD, Paris. 

OecD (2007b), Education and Training Policy No More Failures: Ten Steps to Equity in Education, OECD, Paris. 

OecD (2009), OECD Economic Surveys: Mexico, OECD, Paris. 

OecD (2010a), The High Cost of Low Educational Performance: The Long-RunEcon omicImpact of Improving PISA Outcomes, 

OECD, Paris. 

OecD (2010b), Education at a Glance: OECD Indicators, OECD, Paris. 

OecD (2010c), Making Reform Happen: Lessons from OECD Countries, OECD, Paris. 

pont, B., D. Nusche and h. Moorman (2008a), Improving School Leadership: Volume 1 Policy and Practice, OECD, Paris. 

pont, B., D. Nusche and h. Moorman (2008b), Improving School Leadership: Volume 2 Case Studies on System Leadership, 


Sammons, p., J. hillman and p. Mortimore (1995), Key Characteristics of Effective Schools: A Review of School Effectiveness 

Research, Institute of Education and the Office for Standards in Education, London. 

Schleicher, a. (2009), “International Benchmarking as a Lever for Policy Reform”, in A. Hargreaves and M. Fullan (eds.), 

Change Wars, Solution Tree Press, Bloomington, IN, pp. 97-116.] 

Stoll, L. and p. Sammons (2007), “Growing together: school effectiveness and school improvement in the UK”, in T. Townsend 

(ed.), International Handbook of School Effectiveness and Improvement, Springer, Netherlands, pp. 207-222. 

timperley, h., a. Wilson, h. Barrar and I. Fung (2007), Teacher Professional Learning and Development: Best Evidence 

Synthesis Iteration, Ministry of Education, Wellington, New Zealand. 

townsend, t. (ed.) (2007), International Handbook of School Effectiveness and Improvement, Springer, Netherlands, 

Dordrecht, Netherlands. 

Wiliam, D. (2009), “Assessment for Learning: Why, what and how?”, Institute of Education. London. 

Wilkinson, r. and K. pickett (2010), The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better, Penguin, London. 



Notes 

1. In Belgium, France, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden and the partner 

country Estonia at least 90% of students are enrolled in education for 14 years or more. Enrolment rates for a period of 11 years 

exceed 90% in Greece, Korea, Mexico and the United States.

chApter 2 

working Towards 

education improvement 

in mexico 


37

38 


chapter 2 Working toWards eduCation improvement in mexiCo 

Improving the quality of education needs to be a political and social priority in Mexico. Higher levels of 

skills can contribute to strengthening social cohesion, development and economic growth. This chapter 

reviews the main achievements in the system, but also the challenges currently facing Mexico and the 

main reforms the country has fostered in basic education to overcome them. The last section reviews 

some of the conditions and pathways that can contribute to success in implementing much-needed 

reforms in Mexico. 

Its main conclusion is that in order to ensure all children and young people achieve their full learning 

potential and improve their results, there is a need to place Mexican schools and students at the centre 

of education policy making. Therefore schools, directors and teachers need to be better supported and 

prepared to accomplish their tasks and key education stakeholders need to align all their resources 

towards this goal. 

Improving education is challenging for any country and Mexico is no exception. Reforming a large education 

system such as Mexico’s is a complex task and it is difficult to find a set of prescriptions that will guarantee 

success. Furthermore, education reforms take time to be implemented and need strong public support. 

The Mexican population is one of the largest in the OECD, and its socio-economic characteristics make Mexico 

one of the OECD countries facing the biggest educational challenges. However, it also has strong potential for 

improvement. Despite its multiple challenges, the OECD Steering Group on School Management and Teacher 

Policy in Mexico is convinced – and has sufficient evidence to confirm – that Mexico has the political and 

social will and capacity to respond to the need to improve education for all Mexican children. 

Improving the quality and equity of the Mexican education system and helping all students to succeed should 

be the national priority for society. There are several arguments – social, economic, legal and strategic – that 

support this goal. Many of these will be analysed in this and the following chapters. There are also some 

important issues to consider. Several indicators show that growing inequity, increasing outbreaks of violence 

and limited economic growth render Mexico’s development processes vulnerable. In this context, a well 

planned, long-standing strategy to improve the education system, to which all actors are aligned, is not only 

essential, but also urgently needed. 

This chapter summarises the analysis of the Steering Group regarding the current situation, context, key actors 

and policy reforms currently in progress, together with the guiding conditions and principles for long-standing 

education improvement in Mexico. While not pretending to be a road map for policy implementation, it presents 

some of the key conditions within the education system that need further development to bring about improvement 

in both the mid and long term. Two main overriding principles can be kept in mind throughout this report: 

1. In spite of the multiple challenges and numerous existing strategies to respond to these, Mexico’s efforts need 

to focus on a single goal: that all children and young people achieve their full learning potential. In fact this 

should be the main goal of any education system. To achieve this in the complex Mexican education system 

described in this chapter, the OECD Mexico Steering Group recommends establishing a small number of 

clear, highest priority and measurable aims focused on improving the learning of all students, and directing 

all efforts towards achieving these. The specific aims should be to improve student attainment, reduce dropout, 

ensure timely graduation (egreso oportuno) and reduce inequalities across the education system. 

2. The need to recognise that the implementation of any policy is embedded in a complex environment. 

Many of these changes are about education conditions, but others are related to the more general political, 

economic, and social national (and international) dynamics. The OECD Mexico Steering Group recognises 

that the authorities and key educational players face multiple challenges. 


Working toWards eduCation improvement in mexiCo chapter 2 

This chapter presents the context and progress of reforms in Mexico and concludes that to support all children 

and young people to improve their educational attainment, there is a need to place mexican schools and 

students at the centre of the education policy making. Policies need to concentrate on how to improve and 

support teachers, directors and schools in contributing to this goal, and key Mexican education stakeholders 

need to align their resources towards it. 

educatIon can foster socIal and economIc progress 

Mexico is a country with much potential to provide improved living conditions for its population. In recent 

decades it has taken its place among other industrialised countries in the OECD. However, with a GDP per 

capita of 14 500 USD in 2008, Mexico has one of the lowest per capita incomes in the OECD. It has the highest 

percentage of people living in poverty among OECD countries (more than 25% of the total population), and 

is only in 53rd position in the International Human Development Index (OECD, 2008; OECD, 2009a; OECD 

Statistics Portal, 2010; UNDP, 2009). In addition, Mexico’s population is comparatively young, with children 

accounting for around half of all those living in poverty, and this may have lasting consequences. 

In the past 20 years, Mexico’s economy has not performed according to its potential compared to the activity 

and dynamism of other emerging economies. Efforts have been made to address this and need to be continued: 

if Mexico does not succeed in raising its long-term growth rate, it will take many generations to reach a 

standard of living comparable to other OECD countries. Some of the improvements need to focus on improving 

productivity growth. This involves different policy measures, such as those targeted at encouraging competition, 

improving the regulatory framework, and improving human capital by strengthening educational outcomes. 

These measures can increase the potential for productivity growth and improve the environment for investment 

(OECD, 2009d; OECD, 2010a). 

In addition, in recent years, higher poverty rates, high inequalities and more criminal activity have made it even 

more of a priority to develop good quality public education by placing the school at the core of the system 

and supporting teachers to develop as professionals who believe in their work and have the tools they need to 

carry it out. 

It is also true that education policy reforms can have only limited success if they are not accompanied by greater 

equity in income distribution or access to other opportunities for social development. Table 2.1 presents a 

comparative overview of social progress. It shows that, while there have been some improvements in reducing 

child mortality, improving health, raising skills and school attainment, there are still issues that need to be 

targeted, such as an increase in crime levels and the worsening well-being of the population. Education can 

not only contribute to economic growth, but also to improving equity in society and reducing poverty over the 

long run, and has also been associated with lower crime rates (OECD, 2007a; OECD, 2007b; OECD, 2008; 

OECD, 2009e; OECD, 2010a). 


39

40 




Table 2.1 

Relative progress in social indicators across OECD countries, 2000-2006 

Self-sufficiency equity health Social cohesion Income 

employment 

to 

population 

ratio, total 

change 

2007/2003 

Share of 

students 

with 

insufficient 

reading 

competences 

change 

2006/2003 

Gini 

coefficient 

of income 

inequality 

change 

2004- 

05/2000 

Gender 

wage gap 

change 

2006/ 

early 2000s 

Life 

expectancy 

at age 65, 

men 

change 

2006/2000 

Infant mortality 

change 

2006/2000 

Subjective 

well-being 

change 

2006/2000 

crime 

Victimisation 

change 

2005/2000 

Australia 

Austria - 

belgium 

canada 

- - 


denmark 


France 

germany 

- 

greece - - 

hungary - 

iceland - - - - 

ireland - - 

italy - 

Japan - 

korea - - 

luxembourg - 

mexico 

netherlands 

- 

new Zealand - 

norway - 

poland - 

portugal - - 

slovakia - - - 


sweden 

- - 

switzerland - 


turkey - - - 

united states 

real GDp 

per capita 

change 

2006/2000 

Note: The arrows describe changes in performance over time. The dark blue arrows pointing up denote countries in the top 

three deciles of performance, grey arrows pointing down denote those in the bottom three deciles of performance, and light 

blue arrows pointing to the right are those in the middle four deciles of performance. 

Source: OECD (2009), Society at a Glance 2009: OECD Indicators, OECD, Paris.


To further support economic growth and improve the living conditions of the population, one of the key 

areas to focus on in Mexico is the strengthening of basic education provision. Often, in times of crisis it is 

social expenditure that is sacrificed to support expenditure in other public sectors. However, from a longterm 

development perspective it is important to continue with social investments such as nutrition, health and 

education to promote social mobility and allow citizens to move out of poverty and towards a high skills growth 

path. Cuts in these expenditures during crises have had a negative impact on educational and health outcomes, 

leading to lower growth (OECD, 2009c). Public support in these areas is especially important, as vulnerable 

households cannot be protected against the consequences of crisis and these can have permanent losses in 

the human capital of the poor, as has been demonstrated. Therefore education reforms targeted on improving 

children’s attainment need to continue, even more so in the current economic environment of low growth, 

when it becomes more important to continue investing in education. 

progress and cHallenges facIng tHe mexIcan educatIon system 

Many economic and social factors make it necessary to improve Mexico’s education system, and progress has 

been made in the right direction. 

The Mexican education system has grown rapidly from less than one million students in 1950 to more than 

30 million students by 2000. Today’s enrolment rate of children aged 5 to 14 is almost universal (Aguerrondo, 

Benavides and Pont, 2009; OECD, 2010b). Mexico has also seen some progress in ensuring that young people 

leave school with strong baseline qualifications. The proportion of students graduating at upper secondary 

level has risen from 33% in 2000 to 44% in 2008, reducing the upper secondary attainment gap between 

Mexico and other OECD countries. This progress has been achieved despite a context of tight budgets, rapid 

growth of the school-age population, great linguistic diversity, sizable internal and cross-border migration, and 

a considerable proportion of the population – 15% – living on less than 2 USD per day. 

Some progress has also been made at the state level: over the last ten years, the gap has narrowed between 

rich and poor states on the numbers of students that drop-out or repeat a school year, but also regarding 

students who complete their education without dropping out. Yet because progress was concentrated in primary 

education, differences in achievement and enrolment remain large between states in secondary education. 

Education reform activity has taken place in the last 20 years, much of it starting with the National Agreement 

for Modernising Basic and Normal Education (Acuerdo Nacional para la Modernización de la Educación Básica 

y Normal) signed in 1992 between federal and state authorities. This agreement was built mainly upon three 

lines of action: the reorganisation of the education system, the reformulation of curriculum and education 

materials, and the revaluation of the teaching profession (Zorrilla, 2008). This agreement was the beginning 

of a decentralisation process for education and was mainly considered as a strategy to improve efficiency and 

efficacy in educational expenditure by reducing costs and diversifying financing sources (Fierro Evans, Tapia 

García and Rojo Pons, 2010). 

Decentralisation meant that the states took over the operation of those basic education services that were 

previously conducted by the central government. This included operation of the federal pre-school, primary 

and secondary levels, and the Teachers’ Colleges (Normales), indigenous and special education. Therefore 

each state had to add these federal services to those state-based ones that were already their responsibility 

(Zorrilla and Villalever, 2003). By 2009, 28 of the 31 Mexican states had an Education Ministry or Department 

(Secretaría de Educación Estatal) to manage their education systems, and another three states – Aguascalientes, 

Oaxaca and Quintana Roo – created decentralised institutes. The education services in the Federal District 

were not decentralised and they continue to be managed at the federal level, with its “minister” of education 

appointed by the federal Minister of Education. 


41

42 



The decentralisation of education services has not, however, evolved into a completely consolidated 

institutionalised education system. While formally the different functions are clearly defined, in practice federal 

and state-level institutions sometimes overlap or interact in uncoordinated ways. In ten states, there is still a 

ministry and a decentralised institute that takes care of the different parts of the system (the state system and the 

former federal services). 

It appears that resources are therefore not used efficiently, for instance regarding school funding or teacher 

professional development. Local governments have uneven roles throughout the country and schools still have 

very little autonomy. The system continues to be very much teacher-centred (as opposed to student/learningcentred). 

This is partially, but not exclusively, due to the active role of the main education trade union (Sindicato 

Nacional para los Trabajadores de la Educación, SNTE) at every level of the system, and in almost every policy 

issue, not just those related to labour. 

The General Law of Education, approved in 1993, regulates the education provided by the state (federal 

government, the states and local governments), as well as decentralised entities and private education (Secretaría 

de Educación Pública, 1993). It strengthened the role of the federal government as the main decision-maker of 

the national education system; in exchange, the states became responsible for operating the education services. 

Further progress was made with the Sectorial Education Programme 2007-2012 (Programa Sectorial de 

Educación 2007-2012), the main educational route map of the current government. This national programme 

defined the need to introduce large-scale education reform targeting a set of basic objectives, including the need 

to raise the quality and equity of education (Secretaría de Educación Pública, 2007). Its main objectives are: 

1. Improving the quality of education; 

2. Providing greater equity in education opportunities; 

3. Achieving a didactic use of information and communication technologies; 

4. Performing public policy according to the Third Article of the Mexican Constitution; 

5. Providing relevant and pertinent education that fosters sustainable development, productivity and employment; 

6. Aiming for a full democratisation of the education system. 

In parallel, the Alliance for Quality in Education (Alianza por la Calidad de la Educación), a national pact 

on education, was signed in 2008 by the Presidency1 and the SNTE, and later supported by most of the 

governments of the states. The Alianza has been an important political agreement that also drew from the 

guidelines established in the Sectorial Education Programme 2007-2012. The Alianza has helped to shape 

education policy since its creation. It focuses on five areas that aim to foster change in the education system: 

1. Modernisation of schools; 

2. Professionalisation of teachers and education authorities; 

3. Students’ well-being and personal development; 

4. Students’ preparation for life and work; 

5. Evaluation to improve the quality of education. 

The Alianza defined relevant goals and has made important progress in the right direction (such as implementing 

the National Teacher Examination), but still presents important challenges. Many are not well known and have 

not been subject to sufficient consultation. Some groups of educational researchers have openly opposed several 

of the outputs of the Alianza and some states have not supported it. Teachers in classrooms seem far from the 

political decisions taking place. For some, it seems as if the Alianza is associated with political strategies rather 

than educational ones. 



Table 2.2 

Some of the key school programmes in Mexico 

Scientific Research and Technological Development (Investigación Científica y Desarrollo Tecnológico) 

Design and Application of Gender Equity Policies (Diseño y Aplicación de Políticas de Equidad de Género) 

Schools of Quality (Escuelas de Calidad) 

Support Scholarships for the Basic Education of Young Mothers and Pregnant Youngsters (Becas de 

apoyo a la Educación Básica de Madres Jóvenes y Jóvenes Embarazadas) 

Basic Education for Boys and Girls of Internal Migrant Agricultural Families (Educación Básica para 

Niños y Niñas de Familias Jornaleras Agrícolas Migrantes) 

Full-time Schools (Escuelas de Tiempo Completo) 

Safe School (Escuela Segura) 

“Always Open to Community” School (Escuela Siempre Abierta a la Comunidad) 

Education Support to Groups in Vulnerable Situations (Atención Educativa a Grupos en Situación vulnerable) 

Enciclomedia 

Promotion and Encouragement of Books and Reading (Promoción y Fomento de Libros y la Lectura) 

National Reading Programme (Programa Nacional de Lectura) 

Strengthening of Telesecundaria services (Fortalecimiento del Servicio de la Educación Telesecundaria) 

Digital Abilities for All (Habilidades Digitales para Todos) 

Strengthening of Special Education and Education Integration (Fortalecimiento de la Educación Especial 

y de la Integración Educativa) 

Strengthening of Early Education and Child Development (Fortalecimiento a la Educación Temprana y 

el Desarrollo Infantil) 

Technical Pedagogical Advisor (Asesor Técnico Pedagógico) 

Strengthening of Actions Related to Indigenuous Education (Fortalecimiento a las acciones asociadas a 

la educación indígena) 

Emergent Programme for the Improvement of Educational Achievement (Programa Emergente para la 

Mejora del Logro Educativo), developed with the Alianza. 

In addition to these larger policy frameworks or strategies, there has been much investment in education in 

recent years. This has included increased spending on school infrastructure, with a programme set up for this 

purpose (Programa de Fortalecimiento de la Infraestructura Educativa). At the national level, the Ministry of 

Education has introduced the National Evaluation of Academic Achievement in Schools (Evaluación Nacional 

de Logro Académico en Centros Escolares, ENLACE), a diagnostic test to measure student results at different 

grade levels and subjects, and these results are made available to schools and parents. 

The Ministry has developed a variety of programmes to address educational needs in schools. In fact, there are 

many programmes that guide education in Mexico, at the federal and state levels, as this is one of the main ways 

in which the education system operates. Table 2.2 provides an overview of some of these programmes. Many 

of the programmes were originally developed for specific population groups and have become consolidated 

permanent structures. More recently, new programmes that aim to improve quality in the education service 

have been strengthened. Among these, the Schools of Quality Programme (Programa Escuelas de Calidad) is 

one of the relevant ones (Box 2.2 introduces its main components). More recently, the Ministry has introduced 

a strategy to improve educational achievement in low performing schools, based on ENLACE results, called 

the Emerging Programme of Education Achievement (Programa Emergente para la Mejora del Logro Educativo). 


43

44 



A major accomplishment has been the National Teacher Examination, introduced in 2008 by the Alianza to 

assess the suitability of teacher candidates and in-service teachers to teach. This process of teacher licensing 

contributes to the selection of a higher quality teacher workforce and makes the process of teacher allocation 

to posts and to schools more transparent (further information and recommendations related to this can be found 

in Chapter 3). The national Congress has also been considering major education and labour reforms that can 

have positive impact. In particular, in spring 2010 they passed an initiative to establish a national teacher census 

(Padrón Nacional de Maestros) to clarify the number of teachers, something urgently needed in Mexico. 

In addition, decentralisation has brought about a larger role for state education policy making. Many states 

have introduced innovative changes and there are rich experiences across the country in different areas, such 

as teacher professional development, supervision, schools networks and peer-to-peer tutoring initiatives. Many 

organisations from civil society, universities and research centres have also contributed to these initiatives and 

some build bridges between state, federal or even international initiatives. 

a large system wItH potentIal for Improvement 

This section gives a global overview of the dimensions, operation and results of the Mexican basic education 

system and emphasises some of its main challenges. It explains why the OECD’s recommendations focus on 

teacher professionalisation and school management and leadership. 

A large and varied school system 

In the 2007/08 school year, around 25 million students were enrolled in basic education and around 90% were 

enrolled in public schools. Four million were enrolled in upper secondary and three million in higher education. 

Teachers and school directors account for about 1.7 million education workers (among these 1.1 million are 

in basic education) organised in 32 jurisdictions (31 states and one federal district) (Instituto Nacional para la 

Evaluación de la Educación, INEE, 2009) (see Table 2.3). 

The education services are organised into three main levels: a) basic education includes pre-school education 

(three years; 3 to 5 year-olds); primary education (six years; 6 to 11 year-olds) and lower secondary education 

(three years; 12 to 14-15 year-olds), as well as initial, special and adult education (for those who are illiterate); 

b) upper secondary; c) and higher education, which includes initial education for basic education teachers. 

School attendance is mandatory until the completion of lower secondary education, at age 14-15. 

In 2002 it was decided that pre-schooling would be compulsory for 3 to 5 year-old children, and from 2004/05 

to 2008/09 this measure was gradually implemented. Compulsory pre-schooling has raised some concerns. 

Pre- school is a powerful tool to address learning inequities that result from children’s social background, but 

the legal obligation to provide three years of compulsory pre-school education may divert scarce resources from 

secondary education, where the number of students is rising rapidly and attainment standards are unsatisfactory. 

Mexican students can improve their performance 

Despite today’s almost universal enrolment rate of children aged 5 to 14, too few students continue to upper 

secondary education, and the quality of education is too low in many parts of the system (see Figure 1.3 in 

Chapter 1, Figures 2.1 and 2.2 and (OECD, 2009b)). In Mexico, almost 3.6 million of 15 to 19 year-olds (66.4% 

of the total population of this age group) are not in education, which is by far the highest figure among OECD 

and partner countries. From this group, more than 2.3 million of them (43.2%) are employed, 1.1 million 

(20.4%) are not in the labour force and 150 000 (2.8%) are unemployed (OECD, 2009b). Labour market 

access and high employment seem to be a key reason why young people do not stay in school, linked to the 



Table 2.3 

Size and structure of the Mexican education system, 2000-2008 

Students teachers Schools 

total 2000-2008 total 2000-2008 total 2000-2008 

education modalities 2008/2009 change 2008/2009 change 2008/2009 change 

pre-school 4 634 412 35.4 218 206 39.6 89 395 24.4 

basic 

education 

(3-14) 

primary 

secondary 

14 815 735 

6 153 459 

0.2 

15.0 

568 752 

369 548 

3.7 

19.5 

98 575 

34 380 

-0.4 

21.3 

subtotal 25 603 606 8.6 1 156 506 14.1 222 350 11.6 

general 

Bachillerato 

2 378 655 34.9 173 952 39.6 10 100 61.7 

upper 

secondary 

education 

(15-17) 

technological 

Bachillerato 

professionaltechnical 

1 178 203 

366 964 

41.7 

1.5 

69 903 

28 962 

31.3 

-10.1 

2 577 

1 426 

37.1 

-12.7 

subtotal 3 923 822 32.8 272 817 29.9 14 103 44.5 

normal 131 763 -34.4 15 462 -11.0 487 -25.6 

higher 

education 

(18-24) 

university and 

technological 

degrees 

postgraduate 

2 387 911 

185 516 

39.0 

43.9 

238 911 

36 895 

36.8 

121.9 

3 420 

1 653 

48.7 

51.1 

subtotal 2 705 190 32.1 291 268 39.6 5 560 37.3 

total 32 232 618 12.8 1 720 591 20.1 242 013 13.6 

Source: Zorrilla and Barba (2008), La federalización educativa: una valoración externa desde la experiencia de los 

estados, SEP, Mexico.VII, VIII, IX, X, XI, y XII Censos de Población y Vivienda (1950; 1960; 1970; 1980; 1990; 2000), 

tabulados básicos, Proyecciones de la población de México 2005-2050, Conapo. Data provided by INEE. 

need to support their families and themselves. If young people are not at school or formally working, it is very 

likely that at least a significant percentage of them are working in the informal sector (non-regulated commerce, 

for example). 

In terms of achievement, results from the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) show 

that far too many students do not have a high level of skills and knowledge in Mexico in comparison with 

other OECD countries (Figure 2.1). In Mexico, one in two 15-year-olds did not reach the baseline level 2 in 

PISA, while the OECD average was 19.2% in 2006. Only 3% of Mexican students achieved the top levels 5 

and 6, which require students to demonstrate that they can consistently identify, explain and apply scientific 

knowledge in a variety of complex life situations. In comparison, 9% of 15-year-olds reach levels 5 and 6 across 

other OECD countries (OECD, 2007a; Hopkins et al., 2008). 

The performance of Mexican students can be improved. In spite of the multiple challenges and numerous 

existing strategies to respond to these, Mexico needs to focus its efforts on this goal: that all children and 

young people achieve their full learning potential. To achieve this in the complex Mexican education system, 

the OECD Steering Group recommends establishing a small number of clear, highest priority and measurable 

aims focused on improving the learning of all students and align all efforts towards their achievement. These 

specific aims are to improve student attainment, reduce drop-out, ensure timely graduation (egreso oportuno) 

and reduce inequalities across the education system. 


45

46 


Schools and teaching need to take centre stage 

The education system has around 220 000 schools in basic education with 194 121 public schools catering to 

23.1 million students and 26 200 private schools with 2.3 million students. Box 2.1 describes the types and 

structure of Mexico’s schools. 

In basic education, children attend school either in the morning or in the afternoon, except in those schools that 

have introduced full time education or some private schools. On average, the regular school day is from 9:00 

to 12:00 in pre-school, 8:00 to 12:30 in primary school, 7:00 to 13:30 in lower secondary school, and 8:00 

to 14:00 in Telesecundarias. In the afternoon, primary schools have about four and a half hours of instruction, 

which can be between 14:00 and 18:30. This implies that many school buildings are used twice for different 

groups of students and teachers and that one school building may have two different directors: one for the 

morning and another for the afternoon. In addition, there is some evidence that the quality of the schools varies 

much between the morning and the afternoon shifts. 

In addition to the fact that in most schools the Mexican school day is limited to either morning or afternoon, it 

seems that not enough is done to make the best use of time available. In Mexico, intended hours of instruction 

are compulsory. The 800 hours per year (200 days in 41 weeks = 4 hours average per day) of intended instruction 

time for primary-age pupils is just above the OECD annual average for 7 to 8 year-olds (759 hours) and just 

below the OECD average for 9 to 11 year-olds (802 hours). In lower secondary education, at 1 167 hours 

(200 days in 41 weeks = 5.8 hours average per day), Mexico’s intended hours of instruction are high compared 

to OECD average (918 hours), and at 1 058 hours (in 173 days in 36 weeks = 6.1 hours average per day), 2 it 

has the fourth longest intended instruction time for 15-year-olds (OECD, 2010b). But these intentions are not 



Figure 2.1 

Performance of 15-year-old students in Mexico compared with the OECD average, PISA 2006 (science) 

% 

35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

18.2 

32.8 

OECD Average Mexico 

30.8 

Source: OECD (2007), PISA 2006 Science Competencies for Tomorrow’s World, Volume 2, OECD, Paris, Table 2.1a. 

14.8 

3.2 

0.3 0.0 

Below level 1 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6


Box 2.1 A portrait of mexico’s schools 

Regular schools (Escuela General) at the pre-school and primary levels are complemented by special 

community schools that take care of students in marginalised, dispersed and small areas (Escuela Comunitaria) 

or those with important indigenous populations (Escuela Indígena). However, many schools may have only 

one or a few teachers to teach two or more levels – as is the case in 44% schools for primary education – or do 

not teach all levels of education. 

Lower secondary level is also divided in General and Comunitarias schools. These are complemented 

with schools that provide lower secondary learning via television in remote areas (Telesecundarias), and 

technical lower secondary education (Secundaria Técnica). 

“Basic education” schools 

education level type of school 

general (16%) 

pre-school (18%) 

primary (58%) 

lower secondary 

(24%) 

community (1%) 

indigenous (1%) 

general (54%) 


indigenous (3%) 

general (12%) 

telesecundaria (5%) 

technical (7%) 


The size of these schools varies widely depending on whether they are found in urban or rural areas and 

the type of population they are catering to. In primary education, the average class size is 20 students in 

public schools and 21 students in private schools. In secondary education, the average class size is about 

30 students in public schools and 25 in private schools. 

Source: Instituto Nacional para la Evaluación de la Educación (INEE) (2009), Panorama Educativo de México. 

Indicadores del Sistema Educativo Mexicano, INEE, Mexico and Santizo Rodall, C. (2009), Mejorar el Liderazgo 

Escolar: Reporte del Contexto Mexicano, Analytical Paper; www.oecd.org/edu/calidadeducativa, OECD, Paris. 

necessarily realised in practice; for example, in Mexico, an “hour” of secondary education is not calculated as 

a period of 60 minutes. Each federal state defines the time of its “pedagogic hour”, and these can range from 

40 to 50 minutes each. 

This is compounded by extensive absenteeism and late arrival of teachers, with the result that pupils do not 

have the amount of taught time they are entitled to with their regular teachers. This is a significant management 

challenge at all levels of the system. At the primary level, the net teaching load in Mexico – 800 statutory hours 

per year – is slightly above the OECD average of 786 hours. By contrast, a lower secondary teacher in Mexico is 

required to teach 1 047 hours per year, the highest number of statutory teaching hours among OECD countries 

except the United States (OECD average = 703 hours). However, while these long working hours are statutory, the 

reality does not match this. Figure 2.2 below shows that Mexico has to deal with issues concerning teacher quality, 


47

48 

% 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

mexico 



absenteeism or late arrival at school, and that these issues may be hindering the effectiveness of the long working 

hours per year in Mexico. 

The teacher workforce operates in a culture of sparse resources. Many teach in one school in the mornings 

and another in the afternoons, or in a different type of employment, or in small schools where there are few 

opportunities for teamwork and learning from each other. This raises concerns about the training, selection and 

allocation of teachers to schools; the professional careers of teachers; and the quality of support to schools and 

teachers from school directors, supervisors and others who lead and manage the system. 

Additionally, the system lacks clearly defined standards to guide virtually every aspect of its work, beginning 

with what students should know and be able to do in each subject at each grade level. Mexico also lacks clear 

standards of professional practice that define good teaching, standards that directors should be expected to 

meet, and clear school standards. However, as explained further in this chapter, and in Chapters 3 and 4, there 

are currently some initiatives to develop standards in all these areas. 

A new assessment tool, the National Evaluation of Academic Achievement in Schools (Evaluación 

Nacional de Logro Académico en Centros Escolares, ENLACE) was introduced in 2005 to measure student 

performance across the country. In basic education, this test is applied to students from primary and 

lower secondary in the following areas alternately each year: mathematics, Spanish and civics and ethics. 

In upper secondary, all students take the ENLACE test in their last year of studies in order to evaluate the 

language and mathematic skills they acquired during their school career. ENLACE’s results are public and 

have become an important tool to give feedback to schools, families, students, teachers and authorities that 

can contribute to measuring progress and ensuring that support is provided to the schools that need it most. 


Figure 2.2 

Behaviours that directors report hinder schools’ instruction across countries, 2007-2008 

italy 

Lack of pedagogical preparation Arriving late at school Absenteeism 

turkey 


lithuania 

Australia 

brazil 

korea 

ireland 

malaysia 

taLIS average 

Source: OECD (2009), Creating Effective Teaching and Learning Environments: First Results from TALIS, OECD, Paris. 

hungary 

portugal 

malta 

Austria 

slovenia 

iceland 

denmark 

norway 

belgium (Fl.) 

estonia 


bulgaria 

poland


Schools in Mexico have much to gain by focusing more strongly on students and their improvement. This can be 

achieved by investing in quality leadership teaching and by providing the right framework for teachers to be more 

effective. Recent efforts have centred on this need, but more needs to be done to place schools at the centre. 

Continued investment can be distributed more effectively 

Mexico has consistently increased educational investment, not just in absolute terms but also in terms of a rising 

share of GDP being devoted to education. In fact, at 21.7% the share of public spending invested in education3 is the highest among OECD countries (13.3% is the OECD average). Indeed, based on these measures, Mexico’s 

economic commitment to eductaion appears higher than that of most other OECD countries, but the size of 

its young population means the amount spent per student is lower. Expenditure per student remains low by 

international standards: spending per primary student in Mexico, at 2 111 USD (adjusted for differences in 

purchasing power parities), is still very low and is approximately one third of the OECD average (6 741 USD). 

Spending per student in lower secondary education (1 814 USD) is approximately one quarter of the OECD 

average of 7 598 USD. Although this partly reflects Mexico’s age structure, which is younger than in most OECD 

countries (Figure 2.3), there is an urgent need to analyse how to optimise expenditure to increase the efficiency 

of investment in education (OECD, 2010b). 

Figure 2.3 

Demographic pressure compared to education coverage, 2006 

IRL 

JPN 

FIN GBR 

NLD NOR 

CZE 

SVK AUS 

ISL 

SWE 

% of age group 

in education High coverage High coverage 

Low demographic pressure High demographic pressure 

100 SVN HUN 

CHE 

ESP 

DEU POL 

AUT 

FRA 

DNK 

NZL 

90 

ITA 

GRC 

USA 

KOR 

80 

70 

60 

PRT 

RUS 

Low coverage 

Low demographic pressure 

LUX 

Low coverage 

High demographic pressure 

16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 

Share of population under 15, % of total population 

Source: OECD (2009), OECD Economic Surveys: Mexico, OECD, Paris. 

CHL 

BRA 

TUR 

MEX 


49

50 


It seems that there are weaknesses in the distribution of resources and the productive use of these resources. 

Compensation for staff absorbs a very high proportion (92.2%) of education spending at primary, secondary 

and post-secondary non-tertiary levels compared with other OECD countries while other current expenditure, 

such as on teaching materials, accounts for a very small share of total spending (7.8%) (Figure 2.4). Also, total 

current expenditure accounts for 97.5% of Mexico’s total expenditure and capital expenditure accounts for 

only 2.5%. This is the second highest share of current expenditure – after Portugal – among OECD countries 

(OECD, 2010b). The reliance on parental donations means that schools serving more prosperous communities 

receive more money, while schools that provide for children from poor families receive less. This has resulted 

in endemic inequity being embedded in the system. 

Also, there is an uneven distribution of inputs to schools, with schools in low income areas having poor public 

infrastructure and less qualified teachers. Current allocation of resources leaves little room for improvements 

in the schooling infrastructure. In fact, Mexico devotes a much smaller share of total spending to the schooling 

infrastructure and to educational materials than other countries, even if this expenditure is important for Mexico. 

At the primary level, only 1.9% of spending is devoted to capital spending, compared with an OECD average 

of 7.8%. At the secondary level it is 3.2% compared with an OECD average of 7.4% and at the tertiary level it 

is 4.8% compared with an OECD average of 9.3% (OECD, 2010b). 

% of total expenditure 

100 

90 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

portugal1 mexico1 © OECD 2010 


Figure 2.4 

Distribution of current expenditure on educational institutions for primary, 

secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education, 2007 

chile 1 , 2 

belgium 

Compensation of all staff 

Japan 3 

luxembourg1 switzerland1 ireland1 spain1 netherlands 

italy1 germany 

hungary 1 

denmark 3 

Other current expenditure 

united states 

France 

slovenia 

canada3 , 4 

Australia 

iceland3 Austria 

1. Public institutions only. 


3. Some levels of education are included with others. 


Note: Countries are ranked in descending order of the share of compensation of all staff in primary, secondary and post-secondary 

non-tertiary education. The chart shows the distribution of current spending on educational institutions by resource category. 

Spending on educational institutions can be broken down into capital and current expenditure. Within current expenditure, one 

can distinguish between spending on instruction compared to ancillary and research and development services. 

Source: OECD (2010b), Education at a Glance 2010: OECD Indicators, OECD, Paris. 

norway 


brazil1 poland 1 

sweden 

korea 

slovak republic 3 


czech republic


In 1993, the General Law of Education established that, with the decentralisation of the educational services 

to the states, national educational resources would be transferred to the states and financing would be done 

concurrently. The central government would also provide specific resources for the most disadvantaged states 

(Articles 25 and 34) (Secretaría de Educación Pública, 1993). There remain many challenges in this regard. Full 

devolution and support did not materialise, and there remains a centralist tradition. As Figure 2.5 shows, with the 

decentralisation of the educational services, the reduction of federal public spending was not compensated for 

by an increase in state spending. The revision of the formula of resource allocation to states, 4 , which appears to 

have created great inequities in the amount of resources that states receive for education, seems to be pending. 

% 

100 

90 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

1990 

1991 

1992 

1993 

1994 

1995 

1996 

1997 

1998 

Figure 2.5 

Mexican education expenditure by level of government, 1990-2009 

Federal expenditure States and local level (municipal) 

1999 

Note: The figures show only public spending on education. The difference between these and total expenditure (100%) is 

accounted for by private spending on education. Years 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 are based upon preliminary data. 

Source: Data provided by the Secretaría de Educación Pública (Dirección General de Planeación y Programación). 

As mentioned previously, a significant part of education services and funding is provided through programmes. 

These programmes are structured interventions, with specific goals and activities, and to which a budget is 

usually attached (Table 2.2). They can be federal or state programmes, and in any given year there could be 

several running at the same time in a particular state (the Steering Group was informed that at any given point 

it could be around 200 programmes). Box 2.2 presents examples of some of the programmes focused on school 

improvement. The programmes have not solved the problem of financial inequity, since only about 50% of 

schools actually have access to them. Many schools in the poorest or isolated regions are unable to access these 

programmes and their human, capital and financial resources. 

Despite its economic efforts, Mexican schools operate with sparse resources that need to be distributed among 

a young population. As shown previously, Mexico faces structural challenges, such as the need to increase the 

number of schools that offer long school days and to provide adequate learning environments for all students. 

There are also challenges related to everyday processes (such as those shown in Figure 2.2), which indicate 

that school directors in Mexico view teachers’ lateness, absenteeism and lack of pedagogical preparation as 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

2005 

2006 

2007 

2008 

2009 


51

52 



Box 2.2 selected school improvement programmes in mexico 

The Schools of Quality programme (Programa Escuelas de Calidad, pec) is intended to reduce the gap 

in quality between schools through allocating grants to finance school improvement plans. It aims to 

give autonomy to schools and encourage shared decision-making among directors, teachers and parents 

through Social Participation Councils. The project started in 2001 and in 2008/09 it covered about 40 790 

schools, 296 478 teachers and 34 688 school directors. Between 2006 and 2009, it obtained financing 

from the World Bank, which has been renewed for 2010-13. 

To participate in the programme, staff and parents prepare a plan which outlines steps for improving 

the school. The school receives an annual grant that can be provided for a maximum of five years if the 

school is elected each time to implement the activities included in the plan. During the first four years, 

PEC requires schools to spend 70% of the grant on supplies, infrastructure and other physical goods. In 

the final year, schools must only spend 50% of the grant on such goods, and much of the grant should be 

directed to fund teacher training and development. Parent associations are involved in designing school 

improvement plans, purchasing supplies and carrying out the plans. School directors also receive training 

through PEC, as there are no formal training requirements for directors. 

This programme could provide five-year grants of up to 15 000 USD through federal, state and social 

participation resources to about 21% of Mexican basic education schools. The resources allocated to 

schools have decreased, since the total amount of resources has remained stable and the number of 

participating schools has increased. Despite the fact that every Mexican primary school can participate 

and that PEC targets mainly disadvantaged schools, some experts have underlined the risk of fostering the 

gap between “poor” mainly rural schools and urban schools with more resources. 

The Full-time Schools programme (Programa Escuelas de Tiempo Completo, petc) is mainly focused 

on populations living in urban-marginalised contexts, or with large proportions of indigenous, migrants, 

or students with low educational achievement. This programme proposes the gradual increase of the 

school day to 1 200 hours per year, based on a six-element pedagogic proposal: 1) fostering learning 

of curricular contents; 2) didactic use of ICT; 3) learning additional languages; 4) art and culture; 

5) recreation and physical development; and 6) healthy life. Created in 2007, this programme had 500 

basic education schools participating across the country. During 2009/10, it reached 365 269 students, 

2 000 school directors and 13 271 teachers for 2,214 schools in 30 federal entities. 

Among the programme’s main achievements are: 1) the improvement in students’ results in schools that 

have participated in three consecutive years of the programme (about 40 points in Spanish and mathematics 

on the ENLACE test at the national level); 2) better learning environments, which provide children with 

a “safe environment, stimuli for learning and competence development”; and 3) greater synergies with 

other programmes and different administration levels (federal, state and local-level governments). 

The emergent programme for Improvement in education achievement (Programa Emergente para la 

Mejora del Logro Educativo, peMLe) is focused in providing support for around 7 395 schools that 

had the lowest achievement levels in the ENLACE tests of 2007, 2008 and 2009. Launched on a threeyear 

plan (November 2009 to December 2012), this programme is composed of two key elements: 

a) training networks of teachers, and b) personalised capacity-building at schools and for school staff 

through tutorships. 



In addition to improving education results, the objectives of the programme are to: 1) encourage an 

understanding of topics beyond the lessons taught or the mere teaching of content; 2) help teachers 

have a better knowledge of the main basic education topics beyond levels or grades; 3) develop tutoring 

networks of continuous training; and 4) foster a better pedagogic exchange between teachers and their 

students, both inside and across regions, in order to build local capacities. 

The training strategy has six main elements: a) personalised tutoring; b) working groups aiming to 

professionalise their education practices; c) the creation of networks of these groups; c) providing 

participants with educative materials to facilitate a better understanding of the subjects that are 

most difficult for students; d) working with parents; e) providing specific thematic support catalogues; 

f) implementing additional social and educative development initiatives to fight against unfavourable 

situations that hinder educational achievement. These elements are organised in a strategy known as 

“Complete Modules of Specific Academic Strengthening” (Módulos Integrales de Fortalecimiento 

Académico Específico – MIFAE). 

Sources: Skoufias and Shapiro (2006) Evaluating the Impact of Mexico’s Quality Schools Program: The Pitfalls of 

Using Non Experimental Data, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 4036, The World Bank, Washington, DC. 

basica.sep.gob.mx/pec; basica.sep.gob.mx/tiempocompleto/start.php?act=oportunidades; 

basica.sep.gob.mx/dgdgie/cva/sitio/start.php?act=notapp111. 

important factors hindering education reform in Mexico. Thus, it appears that Mexico’s greatest challenge has 

to do not only with increasing or optimising the redistribution of resources, but also ensuring that these are 

used efficiently. 

Engaging a wide range of stakeholders 

The complexity of interaction between different stakeholders in the Mexican education system has grown over 

the last 30 years. This has been due to the process of growing pluralism within the country as well as to the 

process of decentralisation. While the federal government still has the greatest share of responsibility for setting 

the direction of education policy in Mexico, a variety of actors have become increasingly involved. 

The Secretaría de Educación Pública (SEP or Ministry of Public Education) is responsible for the formulation of 

the main education policies of the country. With the 1992 agreement (Acuerdo Nacional para la Modernización 

de la Educación Básica y Normal), the SEP kept its responsibility for setting the national character of education, 

including basic education and the initial training and continuing education of basic education teachers. It has 

the following powers: a) to decide on national syllabi and curricula, set the national school calendar, prepare 

free text books and regulate private institutions; and b) to regulate a national system of teacher training and 

professional development, plan and programme different measures in the educational system, determine the 

general limits of evaluation and make evaluations that are coordinated with the states. 

At present, each state is responsible for administering the education system in its territory and for nominating 

the team responsible, except in the Federal District, which was not decentralised in 1992 and is still part of the 

Federal SEP, run by an administrator named by the national Minister of Education. The states hold key administrating 

responsibilities, including the provision of some teacher training (Article 13) (Secretaría de Educación Pública, 1993). 

To ensure a greater scope in national decision-making by state authorities, governors and ministers have engaged in 

two forums in recent years: the National Governors’ Conference (CONAGO) and the National Council of Education 

Authorities (CONAEDU). These ensure that federal and local education policy makers meet periodically to analyse 


53

54 


and exchange opinions about the development of the national education system and to formulate recommendations 

and actions to strengthen education (Article 17 of the General Law of Education). CONAEDU was constituted in 

2004 for state ministers and the federal authority to discuss issues of common interest and to take collegial decisions 

and actions. At present, CONAEDU has more of an advisory role when called for by the federation and its influence 

does not seem to be on aspects of policy design, but rather limited to implementation aspects. 

The 1992 agreement also extended the scope of the local authorities’ jurisdiction and at the present time 

the building, renovating and equipping of school spaces are also operated in a decentralised manner. Their 

involvement in education programmes and in school councils is also a confirmation of the way their role is 

expected to increase. However, until now, local authorities have had uneven roles: in some regions, such as 

rural and isolated areas, local school authorities may have a relevant role, while in other areas, such as urban 

regions, their role has been weaker. 

An important player in education is the National Union of Education Workers or SNTE (Sindicato Nacional de 

Trabajadores de la Educación), 5 to which between 1.3 and 1.5 million education workers are affiliated. This figure 

includes: basic school teachers, school leaders, supervisors (inspectors), heads of zones and departments and 

administrative and technical personnel at all levels. It also includes many staff from initial teacher preparation 

institutions (for example Normales), those in charge of continuous education, and personnel working at the 

state ministries and SEP. Workers in the public sector who have a permanent, interim or transitory contract 

may also be union members, as well as pensioners or retired persons who have worked in education and who 

contribute economically to supporting the organisation. For its support, the SNTE deducts for its discretionary 

use 1% of the wage of the workers belonging to it (Santibáñez, 2002). 

Representatives of civil society are slowly occupying an important space in Mexico, raising awareness of the 

need to strengthen public education and providing important bridges between parents, society, education 

and schools. In addition to parents’ associations, in recent years new and active civil society organisations 

and networks have emerged at the state and national levels. Their demands seem to be gaining attention from 

education authorities and other stakeholders. Among these, the OECD Steering Group has seen and received 

contributions from an active set of organisations such as Mexicanos Primero and Suma por la Educación, 

Observatorio Ciudadano and Empresarios por la Educación Básica. Yet there do not seem to be formal 

channels for representing their views on education policy matters. The National Council for Social Participation 

(CONAPASE) was created to reflect the interests of these special interest groups and representatives of different 

institutions, but there has not been much progress in its formal development in the past decade. 

At the school level there is a key group of stakeholders that play a role in education, including supervisors, school 

directors and school councils. School directors in Mexico are considered the maximal education authority in 

the school by Mexican regulations. Their main task is to define the goals, strategies and policies for school 

operation, which includes pedagogic guidance for teachers and other school staff, and also administrative tasks. 

The role of supervisors is to enforce with the director the link between the school and the education system. 

Technical pedagogical advisors (Asesores Técnico-Pedagógicos, ATP) do not have a clearly defined task as their 

post does not officially exist within the legal structure, but they have a transversal presence across the different 

levels of the system, providing support in different types of tasks. Further analysis of these key stakeholders is 

undertaken in Chapter 4, which reviews the governance and management structure of schools in Mexico. 

All of these groups and institutions play a key role in the education system and also in policy development. 

Many are engaged in policy processes, but there are no institutionalised ways of ensuring capacity across the 

system or formal channels of communication for consensus-building in a process of decentralisation that has 

not been fully achieved. Often, there is not enough coordination or consultation among them and this may 




lead to inefficiencies. Many actors have different levels of responsibility, and capacity to define and act upon 

reforms. Yet there do not appear to be institutional frameworks that promote clear and permanent engagement 

of different groups. The results obtained by bringing together different key Mexican education policy actors 

in the OECD-Harvard Seminar for Leaders in Education Reform, held in Chile, Ontario and Mexico in 2010, 

revealed the value of discussion and consensus-building for them. In particular, participants valued the process 

of bringing together many of the key actors described above to engage in discussions about what their priorities 

are and how to move forward (Box 2.3). 

Box 2.3 enhancing capacity for reform: the oecd-harvard seminar 

for leaders in education reform 

As part of the OECD-Mexico Agreement to Improve the Quality of Schools in Mexico, the OECD-Harvard 

Seminar for Leaders in Education Reform was designed for training and capacity building and to explore 

the topics of school management; and teacher professionalisation in relevant and good practice countries. 

This modular seminar for high-level policy makers has combined country study visits to Chile and Ontario 

(Canada) with an active training programme to enhance reform capacity in Mexico, using the OECD 

recommendations presented in this report to underpin the seminar. Through study visits to Chile and 

Ontario, participants in the seminar improve their skills in reform by: 

• Developing a comparative perspective on school leadership and on teacher professionalisation issues; 

• Visiting, exchanging with local actors at different levels of a different educational system, and 

analysing best practices in designing and implementing policies in school management and teacher 

professionalisation; 

• Working together to develop an implementable plan of action for their own context. 

The study visit is an active training programme for policy makers. Its key objective is to develop the skills 

of participants promoting and engaging in reforms based on evidence. It does so by engaging participants 

in the study of qualitative and quantitative knowledge and analysing practical experiences that present 

different options for education policy reform. This methodology has demonstrated value where reforms 

are needed and there are divergent interests and actors. 

Participants developed a strategy suitable to their own context based on the knowledge acquired 

throughout the seminar. This seminar is an active learning process based on a double interaction: on 

the one hand between theory and practice; on the other hand between the different actors engaged in 

specific reforms. Throughout the seminar, participants actively engage in the following: 

• Joint decisions on the concrete elements that will be analysed; 

• Site visit observation of all the elements that have been agreed; 

• The preparation of reports of results for exchange among all participants; 

• Active discussions on the possible application of what has been learned to the own context; 

• The preparation of a written report with the conclusions agreed by the whole group. 

Source: www.oecd.org/edu/calidadeducativa 


55

56 


condItIons and prIncIples for reform In mexIco 

As this chapter has shown, Mexico’s education system needs to implement structural reforms, given the need 

to strengthen the quality and equity of education in a complex environment. This section discusses the key 

conditions for successful education reforms presented in Chapter 1 in the context of the current situation in 

Mexico reviewed in the previous sections. 

Perhaps the first element in establishing a path for improvement is the need to make education a key national 

priority. A former Mexican Education Minister once explained that there is a tension in the Mexican education 

system between what is urgent and what is important. While he recognised that the “important” could not be 

solved without attending to the “urgent”, he considered that the urgent (issues that are generally of a political 

nature, such as strikes, political agendas or conflicts of interest within states) did not leave enough time for 

those issues that are really important, such as application of studied and well matured political decisions. 

The usual order of priorities for an education minister in Mexico is: 1) political aspects; 2) communication matters; 

3) administration and management; 4) management of resources; and finally, 5) education issues (Latapí, 2007). 

Therefore, the definition of a policy strategy that is educational per se should be seen as the core business by 

policy makers and other stakeholders, with the learning and well-being of all students as its maximum goal. 

In terms of establishing clear goals, over the last few years, Mexico has increasingly emphasised the importance 

of ensuring that children go to and learn at schools, for example by providing almost universal enrolment of 

students aged 5 to 14, or by implementing measures to analyse the progress of students’ learning (for example 

ENLACE) or by developing full time education for some schools (Box 2.2). The Mexican Constitution (Third 

Article) that determines the right of all Mexicans to receive education defines many of the core educational 

goals. The Educational Sector Plan (2007-2012) establishes specific educational goals for this government, and 

the Alianza (Alliance for Quality in Education), signed between the Presidency and the SNTE, also establishes 

objectives and priorities. The governments of each state also set their priorities and allocate budgets. The Senate 

and Congress legislate according to these plans and what they consider are the main priorities and allocate 

available resources. 

Yet there are different strategies, priorities and programmes, and the key basic objectives are not clearly permeated 

through the system. As Chapter 1 suggested, the OECD Steering Group considers it important to establish a small 

number of clear, highest priority and measurable goals focused on student learning, focusing on equity as well as 

quality, with a commitment to ensuring that all groups of students make steady progress. Taking account of these 

priorities, actors need to fully understand the rationale for specific reforms and plans. Why are these initiatives 

being promoted? What can be achieved through them? Why is it important for all actors to support them through 

time? Knowing this will help actors establish basic points of consensus that will be sustained over time. 

As goals are important but insufficient, systems must develop an overall strategy that deals with all the relevant 

components over time. Any strategy starts with setting objectives, and how these are defined is essential. The 

design of the strategy is the key intermediate stage between the setting and implementation of objectives. Indeed, 

Mexico can draw many lessons from its own past strategies. 

In setting up objectives or goals, it is important to engage in discussion with all stakeholders, in particular state 

authorities, and ensure that the key objectives allow for coverage of the specific needs of national and regional 

jurisdictions. States need to be given the opportunity and capacity to assess their own particular situation with 

regard to their accomplishments and challenges. If generated through a top-down dynamic, without engagement 

from those who have to deliver education services, the results will not be effective, as this will lead to isolated and 

disarticulated visions. The national goals and strategy should therefore be based on an assessment of what can be 

done with the existing national and local capacities to respond to local needs. Since it is easy to get lost among 




many different interests and needs, the main overall goal of children’s educational improvement has to be clear in 

the mindset of all participants. 

Building consensus means creating structured processes to define the national goals, based on democratic, 

participative and evidence-based principles so that they are credible and long-lasting. The main elements and 

players of the education system need to align coherently following the overall strategy. This requires overcoming 

one of the challenges that face countries carrying out reforms, which is to make the strategy consistent with the 

goal so that the actors involved commit to it and the pathway taken leads to the objective. There needs to be 

much stronger coordination and alignment between SEP and the state authorities, and within SEP itself, for this 

to happen. The empowerment of actors such as CONAEDU and CONAGO can be a strategy, in addition to the 

engagement of the Ministry of Economy (Secretaría de Hacienda y Crédito Público), as success will also depend 

on the resources available and how they are used. Mexico needs venues for ongoing dialogue between all relevant 

stakeholders. 

Striking a balance between central efforts at improvement and local and regional initiatives is a key issue in 

Mexico. Appropriate distribution of responsibilities and capacity building between the national, regional and local 

levels can ensure all actors assume the appropriate roles and make decisions on what affects them directly. The 

effective and efficient operation of the education system can only be achieved with the correct alignment of actors 

and the means to a common objective. 

Another condition for success is the need to focus on educating, training, developing and supporting the educator 

workforce, including teachers and school directors, who are the key actors in promoting improvement in schools. 

In Mexico, the need for a high quality teacher workforce has encountered economic, political and pedagogic 

difficulties. This has not been due to a lack of projects or programmes, but is mostly because of lack of capacity, 

coordination and efficiency in the distribution of resources. This issue is analysed further in Chapters 3 and 4. 

Furthermore, it is important to develop evaluation approaches that result in effective learning, the professional 

development of educators and transformation of their practices. Schools need to appropriate the process by 

understanding that it will benefit schools and teachers rather than stigmatise them. 

Up-scaling improvement at the different levels of the education system also requires adequate infrastructure and 

capacity. Capacity building needs to permeate all levels of the system (federal government, the states, local 

governments and educators). For reforms to be implemented, it is important not only to design them but to revise 

the structures that will be delivering them. Bureaucratic structures (both of the union and the ministries) have 

remained untouched and even strengthened, but have not been subject to evaluation or accountability processes. 

While low performing schools have been identified, the structures to support improvement have not been modified. 

Fostering collaborative approaches and clusters to improve the work of intermediate school management, as 

suggested in Chapter 4, could be useful to increase information and accountability and improve productivity, 

efficiency and efficacy at this level. 

This also involves encouraging the continuous development of local capacities for creating, managing and 

evaluating policies. Staff operating at the intermediate levels of local education systems are not adequately 

professionalised. Among the reasons for this are the changes of government and the intermittent change of 

personnel that is associated with this process. There is also a “lack of institutional memory” regarding previous 

successful experiences and projects. The objective is therefore to develop the skills of middle management 

staff and to develop mechanisms that foster stability at the state systems through: policy analysis, the study of 

successful innovations, or the design and monitoring of small scale improvements, among others. As discussed 

in Chapter 4, it is also important to enhance and support the decision-making capacity at the most fundamental 

level: the school, which in Mexico has low levels of resources and decision-making power. State and federal 


57

58 



programmes have created fragmented experiences to encourage new school management based on leadership, 

participation and collegial work. A positive example is the PEC programme, which has the potential to be adapted 

to better serve more schools in Mexico. 

In Mexico there is growing capacity for evaluation and improvement, as a result of the development of an increasing 

number of reliable sources of information. In recent years, there has been growing interest in developing these, 

as they can help to identify difficulties and establish priorities. Mexico measures students’ performance nationally 

with instruments such as ENLACE, EXCALE and PISA, but there are also local and state efforts to evaluate and assess it. 

Despite the relative increase in the information available, some challenges persist. The main one is how to 

use this information in a balanced way to achieve a better quality of education. There can be a risk that they 

are seen as means of pressure and lose their role as a tool for improving achievement. This can lead to some 

schools manipulating tests and not concentrating on improvement. Another challenge may be the interpretation 

of the information available in the education system. Education results include not just those of standardised 

examinations; examinations are only part of a more complex process of appraisal of the quality of education and 

what it provides for students. 

Finally, reforms cannot be implemented without considering the central role of the actors involved and enabling 

them to take ownership and leadership of the reforms. The coordination of their knowledge, motivation, vision 

and competencies will help create and maintain the necessary consensus that will achieve benefits with time. An 

intelligent leader will put together the right working teams to design strategies. With the team, he/she will aim 

to understand the different timescales that a policy can involve and the processes required, and will anticipate 

how other actors may react and foresee options to respond. Finally, five ingredients can be quoted for leaders 

of reform: humility, pragmatism, courage, conviction and initiative. Experience in implementing policy reforms 

internationally and in Mexico shows that “reforms must be done walking towards people and talking face to face 

with them” (Zorrilla, 1999). 

conclusIon 

The development of Mexico’s human and social capital is a necessary condition for improving the living conditions 

of its population and for sustained social and economic progress. In addition, in recent times in Mexico, higher 

poverty rates, high inequality and more criminal activity are making the development of good quality and 

equitable basic public education even more of a priority. To respond to this need, there has been an increased 

focus on education policy in recent years and Mexico will need to continue to do this in a more systematic, 

consistent and efficient manner. 

Some of the key structural challenges identified in Mexico that policy needs to take into consideration are 

the following: 

• A wide range of reforms in the past 20 years have led to improvements in enrolment and to strengthening the 

quality of education; yet 66% of young people aged 15 to 19 are not in school and student achievement is 

not sufficient to provide the skills Mexico needs, now and in the future. 

• Reform processes have not yet ensured appropriate capacity and distribution of responsibilities across the 

decentralised system, with unfinished decentralisation and low school autonomy. 

• Structural conditions and processes do not favour schools being at the centre of education policies: school 

days are short, with insufficient effective teaching time, and teaching and leadership quality and support are 

weak in many schools. 



• Schools operate with sparse resources that need to be distributed better across schools. Resources are 

allocated mostly to staff compensation and schools receive funding mainly through a large number of 

programmes. One of Mexico’s challenges is to optimise the distribution of resources, and to ensure that 

funding structures and programmes are designed to be used efficiently for schools. 

• The complexity of the interaction between different actors within the Mexican education system (for example 

government at the national, state and local levels, the teachers’ union and civil society) has grown. This 

requires greater capacity and building more institutionalised ways to ensure discussions and consensusbuilding. 

Develop a long-term education strategy 

Mexico needs to develop a long-term education strategy to ensure a generally higher level of skills and 

knowledge that will facilitate economic growth and better living conditions for all Mexicans. One of the first 

conditions should be to establish a small number of clear, highest priority and measurable goals focused 

on improving student attainment, reducing drop-out rates, ensuring timely graduation (egreso oportuno) and 

reducing inequalities across the education system. 

The OECD Mexico Steering Group on School Management and Teacher Policy suggests a set of guiding 

conditions that can ensure progress in developing this strategy: 

• To provide venues for ongoing dialogue and communication among all relevant stakeholders. 

• To ensure the alignment of actors and policies through coordination and distribution of responsibilities 

between the national, regional and local level, and the availability of resources and their efficient use to 

reach schools. This may also require revising the structures that will be delivering reforms. 

• To match the focus on educating, training, developing and supporting the educator workforce with policy 

decisions and resources. 

• To address the development of national, regional and local capacity building for better school management. 

• To continue developing reliable sources of information for evaluation and improvement, such as ENLACE, 

EXCALE, PISA and also local efforts of assessments at the state level. 

Place schools and students at the centre of education policy making 

The key initial point of reform is the need to place mexican schools and students at the centre of education 

policy making. Although improving Mexican schools requires action on a number of fronts, research strongly 

underscores the importance of school leadership and the quality of teaching and learning, and these areas 

are the central focus of this report. Improving Mexican schools will require a rethink of the governance of the 

system and the roles of school leaders, school supervisors and teachers. 

This requires enhancing the role of teachers; setting clear standards of practice; professionalising their 

recruitment, selection and evaluation; and linking teachers more directly to school needs. For this to be achieved, 

teachers need strong initial teacher preparation programmes and continuous professional development based 

on the needs of the schools where they are working. Chapter 3 proposes a set of recommendations towards 

consolidating a quality teaching profession in Mexico. 

It also calls for redefining and supporting excellent school leadership and management; strengthening the role 

of school directors by setting clear standards, providing training, professionalised recruitment and autonomy 

with support. For this to be achieved directors and schools can be helped by working together in partnerships, 

to share individual excellence and institutional best practice and build capacity. They also need to have a 

stable, equitable and rational source of funding that responds to the needs of their individual schools and their 


59

60 


students. And they need to have the support and provide accountability to the parents and the community that 

surrounds them. Chapter 4 proposes a set of recommendations to make school management and leadership 

more effective in delivering education. 

The recommendations proposed require the definition of priorities and a strategy for implementation in the 

short and long term. Chapter 5 proposes guidance on the short term policy steps so that Mexico can develop 

a strategy to place schools and students at the centre to support all children and young people to achieve their 

full learning potential. 




references 

aguerrondo, I., F. Benavides and B. pont (2009), School Management and Teacher Professionalization in Mexico: Context, Challenges and 

Preliminary Policy Orientations, OECD, Paris. www.oecd.org/edu/calidadeducativa. 

Fierro evans, c., G. tapia García and F. rojo pons (2010), “Descentralización Educativa en México: Un Recuento Analítico”, Analytical 

Paper, OECD, Paris. www.oecd.org/edu/calidadeducativa. 

hopkins, D., e. ahtaridou, p. Matthews, c. posner and D. toledo Figueroa (2008), “Reflections on the Performance of the Mexican 

Education System”, Analytical Paper, OECD, Paris. www.oecd.org/edu/calidadeducativa. 

Instituto Nacional para la evaluación de la educación (INEE) (2009), Panorama Educativo de México. Indicadores del Sistema Educativo 

Mexicano, INEE, Mexico. 

Latapí, p. (2007), La SEP por dentro. Las políticas de la Secretaría de Educación Pública comentadas por cuatro de sus secretarios (1992- 

2004), Fondo de Cultura Económica, México. 

OecD (2007a), PISA 2006: Science Competencies for Tomorrow’s World. Volume 2: Data, OECD, Paris. 

OecD (2007b), Understanding the Social Outcomes of Learning, OECD, Paris. 

OecD (2008), Growing Unequal? Income Distribution and Poverty in OECD Countries, OECD, Paris. 

OecD (2009a), Creating Effective Teaching and Learning Environments: First Results from TALIS, OECD, Paris. 

OecD (2009b), Education at a Glance 2009: OECD Indicators, OECD, Paris. 

OecD (2009c), Latin American Economic Outlook 2010, OECD, Paris. 

OecD (2009d), OECD Economic Surveys: Mexico, OECD, Paris. 

OecD (2009e), Society at a Glance 2009: OECD Social Indicators, OECD, Paris. 

OecD (2010a), Economic Policy Reforms 2010: Going for Growth, OECD, Paris. 

OecD (2010b), Education at a Glance 2010: OECD Indicators, OECD, Paris. 

OecD Statistics portal, (2010), OECD. Available: www.oecd.org/statsportal/0,3352,en_2825_293564_1_1_1_1_1,00.html (accessed 

2010, 03/10). 

Santibáñez, L. (2002), “¿Están mal pagados los maestros en México? Estimado de los salarios relativos del magisterio”, Revista 

Latinoamericana de Estudios Educativos, Vol. XXXII, No. 2, pp. 9-41. 

Santizo rodall, c. (2009), “Mejorar el Liderazgo Escolar: Reporte del Contexto Mexicano”, Analytical Paper, OECD, Paris. www.oecd. 

org/edu/calidadeducativa. 

Secretaría de educación pública (1993), Ley General de Educación, SEP, Mexico. 

Secretaría de educación pública (2007), Programa Sectorial de Educación 2007-2012, Secretaría de Educación Pública (SEP), Mexico. 

Skoufias, e. and J. Shapiro (2006), Evaluating the Impact of Mexico’s Quality Schools Program: The Pitfalls of Using Non Experimental Data, 

World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 4036, The World Bank, Washington, DC. 

UNDp, (2009), Human Development Report 2009 Overcoming barriers: Human mobility and development, UNDP. Available: hdr.undp. 

org/en/reports/global/hdr2009/. 

Zorrilla, M. (1999), “¿Cuál es la aportación de la escuela secundaria mexicana en el rendimiento de los alumnos en Matemáticas y 

Español? “, Revista Electrónica de Investigación Educativa, Vol. 11, No. 2. Available: redie.uabc.mx/vol11no2/contenido-zorrilla2.html 

Zorrilla, M. (2008), La escuela secundaria mexicana. Un estudio multinivel de los efectos escolares y sus propiedades científicas. Ph.D. 

Thesis, Universidad Anáhuac, Mexico. 

Zorrilla, M. and B. Barba (2008), La federalización educativa: una valoración externa desde la experiencia de los estados, SEP, Mexico. 


61

62 


Zorrilla, M. and L. Villalever (eds.) (2003), Políticas Educativas. La investigación Educativa en México 1992-2003, Volume 9, Consejo 

Mexicano de Investigación Educativa, Mexico. 



Notes 

1. The President heads this agreement on behalf of the Executive Power, but the main partner was the Ministry of Education. The 

Ministries of Health, Finance and Social Development also were partners of the agreement. 

2. This is calculated according to the number of weeks and days of instruction allocated to upper secondary education general 

programmes (OECD, 2010b). 

3. In 2000 Mexico invested 23.4% of its total public spending on education. 

4. Fondo de Aportaciones para la Educación Básica. 

5. This makes it the biggest union in Mexico and one of the biggest teacher unions in the world. On average, around one in every 

100 Mexicans is affiliated to the SNTE.

chApter 3 

Teacher Career paths: 

Consolidating a Quality 

profession 


63

64 


chapter 3 teaCher Career paths: Consolidating a Quality profession 

This chapter argues that the single most important policy reform Mexico can make to improve education 

outcomes for its young people is to build a powerful system to recruit, prepare, develop and evaluate 

the very best teachers for its schools. It addresses the challenges of recruiting, preparing, developing 

and evaluating a top-flight teaching force, and sets out eight major recommendations in a sequence that 

follows a teacher’s trajectory from initial training through to permanent status as a full professional, when 

professional development and evaluation become important elements. 

This chapter begins with a general overview of teachers and the teaching profession in Mexico. It then 

presents eight recommendations in a sequence that follows a teacher’s trajectory from initial education 

through to permanent status as a full professional. Each recommendation is presented with the same 

structure: the context for the recommendation is described, followed by relevant international research 

evidence of what works, and then the recommendation. 

teacHers and teacHIng In mexIco 

In Mexico there are around 1.7 million teaching staff (1.1 million in basic education) serving more than 245 500 

(more than 220 000 in basic education) educational establishments. In the 2007/08 school year, over 33 million 

students (76.5% or 25.5 million in basic education) were served by Mexican teachers (Table 2.3) (Instituto 

Nacional para la Evaluación de la Educación (INEE), 2008). 

Who are teachers in Mexico? 

The importance and role of teachers and teaching are topics that are often publicly debated in Mexico. However, 

the scarcity of information regarding “real” teaching practices has indicated a lack of interest in this topic from 

policy makers and, with a few exceptions, researchers (Goodson, 2003). For example, official statistics on 

the number of registered teachers are based on the number of teaching posts (plazas docentes) – a figure that 

does not coincide with the number of teachers who are actually working in schools. In fact the exact number 

of teachers in the country is unclear. 1 As mentioned in Chapter 2, in order to respond to these challenges, the 

national Congress approved in spring 2010 an initiative to begin the consolidation of a National Teacher Census 

(Padrón Nacional de Maestros). However, at this early stage the initiative does not apply to all teachers. 2 

Recent studies have provided a characterisation of Mexican basic education teachers. In 2008, the Teaching and 

Learning International Survey (TALIS), developed by the OECD, showed that across the 23 countries surveyed, 

69.3% of teachers were women, while in Mexico this proportion was 53.2%. 3 Results from the survey also 

supported the “glass ceiling” theory, meaning there were fewer women in director positions in schools than men: 

44.6% of the TALIS directors were women, while in Mexico this figure was even lower, at 34.7% (See Figure 3.1). 

In common with most of the other countries in the TALIS survey, the education workforce in Mexico is ageing 

and older teachers will soon have to be replaced. Figure 3.1 shows that the 40 to 49 age group is the largest 

category of teachers in Mexico. While the average age of Mexican teachers is lower than in the other TALIS 

participating countries – consistent with the fact that Mexico’s population is generally younger – it would be 

desirable to increase the entry of young teachers to the profession to counterbalance the ageing workforce. 

TALIS data also show that just over 86% of lower secondary school teachers in Mexico have reached a level 

of education equivalent to a university or Master’s degree (ISCED 5A) 4 – a figure close to the average of other 

countries. However, the proportion of teachers educated to postgraduate level is three times higher elsewhere 

than in Mexico. 

Tenti (2007) found that the proportion of older teachers in Mexico who come from homes with low levels of 

education 5 was greater than that of younger teachers. More than 62% of the Mexican teachers who participated 


teaCher Career paths: Consolidating a Quality profession chapter 3 

Figure 3.1 

Age and gender of teachers and school directors in lower secondary education 

across participating countries in TALIS 2007-2008 

% 

80 

70 

60 

50 

TALIS Average Mexico 

40 

37.3 

30 

25.8 

18.7 

20 

11.7 

10 

0 

3 

3.5 

Under 25 25-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60 years old 

years old years old years old years old years old or more 

Female 

teachers 

Source: OECD, (2009), Creating Effective Teaching and Learning Environments: First Results from TALIS, OECD, Paris. 

in the survey did not consider themselves poor, and a significant number of them – 61% – thought that their 

financial situation was better than that of their parents, suggesting that the teaching profession has been a factor 

in boosting social mobility in Mexico. Tenti also investigated the role of teachers in the home and found that 

almost 57% of the teachers interviewed in Mexico were the head of their household, compared to 37% and 

35% in Brazil and Argentina, respectively. 

Part of the relative attractiveness of the teaching profession to certain individuals is related to the income levels 

of teachers in Mexico, together with the benefits and the job security that come with a permanent post (Nieto de 

Pascual Pola, 2009). In a study conducted in 2002, Santibáñez (2002) concludes that, in comparison with other 

public servants and even some other groups of professionals, teachers are relatively well paid. “A teacher makes 

more, on average, for the working hours, than other individuals in the economy. In other words, if teachers 

worked a full 40-hour work week with the salary they receive today, they would be on a comparable level 

with other professionals or individuals with similar levels of education and experience in the private sector.” 

Teachers with two jobs would earn 25% more than a mid-level professional. Nevertheless, in absolute terms, 

Santibáñez admits that the salary level of young teachers with just one job is below that of most professionals or 

technicians as the duration of the school day is short, often not more than four or five hours per day. Studies on 

teachers’ working conditions and income and their impact on teaching performance and personal satisfaction 

levels would also be of use. 

Being a teacher in Mexico 

Mexican teachers operate under difficult conditions. Many teach in one school in the morning and a second 

one in the afternoon, or hold a second job unrelated to teaching. Many others work in very remote or small 

schools, operating in isolation with few opportunities for teamwork or learning from colleagues. Resources are 

generally sparse. 

53.2 

34.7 

Female 

school 

directors 


65

66 



There is substantial evidence that the quality of the teaching force in Mexico is highly uneven. In TALIS, school 

directors were asked to identify teacher behaviours that impeded good quality instruction. Lack of pedagogical 

preparation, absenteeism and lateness were cited by 70% of directors in Mexico – a far higher percentage than 

in any other country in the survey, shown in Figure 2.2 (OECD, 2009). 

According to many of the interviews conducted by the OECD Mexico Steering Group in 2009, the teaching 

profession in Mexico has lost its former status. It is not always recognised as a profession, but more as technical/ 

vocational job. This may partly be because there is no formal framework of professional standards to guide 

teaching practices and teachers’ work. It may also be because in recent decades teachers have been blamed for 

systemic deficiencies in the education system and for unpopular decisions and actions taken by the authorities 

and union leaders. It is also possible that the results of national and international education surveys have had a 

negative effect on the image of the teaching profession. 

One additional element to take into account is that the current promotion mechanisms for educators the 

teachers career ladder (Carrera Magisterial) and to a lesser extent career progression programme (Escalafón) 

may not be effective in evaluating teachers’ performance, as different studies confirm (Nieto de Pascual Pola, 

2009; Santibáñez, 2002; Guevara and Gonzalez, 2004). This suggests that Mexico does not have an adequate 

evaluation system for in-service teachers or the means to identify and reward outstanding teachers. In addition, 

because the Mexican system does not have the capacity to identify low-quality teachers, they often stay in the 

classrooms. This may contribute to the negative perception of teachers and also to low student results. 

Preparing to become a teacher and entering the teaching profession 

The majority of teachers in Mexico have received some initial teacher preparation. As in many other countries, 

teacher education in Mexico is organised by level: one for teachers in basic education (this includes pre-primary, 

primary and lower secondary schools), and one for teachers in upper secondary education (Aguerrondo, 

Benavides and Pont, 2009). 

Most basic education teachers receive their initial preparation in special higher education institutions for 

teacher education, known as Teachers’ Colleges (Escuelas Normales). In total, there are 493 Normales, of which 

267 are public and 226 private (Nieto de Pascual Pola, 2009). These institutions enrol approximately 170 000 

students annually with around 70% in public institutions and the rest in private ones (Aguerrondo, Benavides 

and Pont, 2009). Presently, students in Normales spend about one third of their education on general pedagogy, 

one third on subject-specific training and one third in school placements. Normales became institutions for 

higher education in 1984, but did not adopt a research focus. In 2005 the Normales that were part of the Under- 

Secretariat of Basic Education became part of the Under-Secretariat of Higher Education. The aim was to reduce 

their isolation and improve their quality. 

Upper secondary school teachers are prepared in universities in their subjects, often without any specific 

professional training to develop teaching skills (OECD, 2005). Generally, they enter the teaching profession not 

as a first but as a second or third choice of career. Many apply when they have no other alternative and mainly 

because it represents the only or the best job available. 

In global terms, Mexico seems to be preparing more teachers than are actually needed, given the decline in the 

number of students in basic education. Taking account of both this and the current demographic composition 

of teachers in the country, it seems that Mexico can renovate its teaching force in relatively few years without 

harming the labour rights of current teachers (Nieto de Pascual Pola, 2009). 6 This is a historic opportunity that 

Mexico should not miss. 


Entry to the profession and the first years 


Until very recently, Mexico did not have a national licensing mechanism for teaching. In 2008, the first national 

examination for teachers was implemented in 29 states (out of 31) and the Federal District. This examination aims to 

identify beginning teachers, teachers with no permanent positions and teachers aiming to have a second permanent 

post (doble plaza) who are suitable to teach in a classroom. The results of the examinations in the 2008/09 and 

2009/10 cycles were discouraging, however: only around 30% of the teachers successfully passed the test. 

Teacher allocation to schools has been a state responsibility since 1993. In reality, this task has been shared 

by states’ authorities and the teacher union (SNTE) in most of the country. Since the National Teacher 

Examination was introduced, the goal has been to allocate all new teaching posts to those teachers who passed 

the examination. Most of the vacant existing posts (created due to resignations, death or retirement of other 

teachers) are still not open for competition. Schools and school directors do not have a say in teacher allocation. 

Mexico does not have formal induction programmes for beginning teachers, and teachers do not have adequate 

support and mentoring or a probationary period before obtaining a permanent post. 

Professional development and evaluation 

Since 1992, Mexico has provided continuing professional development for a large number of teachers. 

According to TALIS, 92% of Mexican teachers participate in training and professional development (Figure 3.2). 

This is one of the highest participation rates among TALIS countries: the average is 89% (OECD, 2009). 

Most teachers have had opportunities to engage in professional development while in post. Most of the 

courses are offered to individuals through the National Training Catalogue (Catálogo Nacional de Formación 

Continua). The focus of the catalogue has, in recent years, shifted from more general courses in pedagogy 

to more content-oriented courses. 7 The general strategy of teacher professional development is also moving 

towards more structured and professional options, giving teachers the opportunity to complete specialisations 

(diplomados), Master’s and PhD programmes. Participation in these courses can, together with other criteria, be 

used by teachers to increase their salaries through the Carrera Magisterial. The National Training Catalogue is 

the key pillar of a broad national strategy that aims to develop the National System of Training and Professional 

Improvement for In-service Teachers. 8 

States’ education authorities also provide professional development for teachers, and some of these options 

give credit for Carrera Magisterial. In addition to the supply of training through the National Training Catalogue 

(Catálogo Nacional de Formación Continua) and the states, there is a wide range of different activities organised 

by universities and private organisations. However, these activities do not seem to be credited in Carrera 

Magisterial (Aguerrondo, Benavides and Pont, 2009). 

Mexico has also the highest percentage of teachers reporting that they would have liked to have received more 

professional development than they did (80%). TALIS shows that the percentage of Mexican teachers whose 

school director reports a lack of qualified teachers as a factor hindering learning is almost twice the average 

of other participating countries (64%, compared to 38% for the TALIS average) (Figure 3.2). The percentage of 

Mexican teachers who had to pay for the whole cost of their professional development is twice the average 

across TALIS countries (19%, compared with the TALIS average of 8%). To summarise, Mexican teachers and 

the government do invest in professional development, but the resources do not seem to be used efficiently 

and the professional development options do not seem to have the desired results. In general, school(s)-based 

professional development options in Mexico are rare and are not incentivised. 


67

68 

% 

100 

90 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 



Mexico does not yet have a clear national set of teaching standards. The current Sectorial Education Programme 

2007–2012 aims to “apply systemic mechanisms and operation rules, based on clear criteria, to certify the 

competencies of teachers” (Secretaría de Educación Pública, 2007). As part of the Alliance, the government 

and the union agreed on the need to establish standards for teachers, students, parents and tutors, as well as 

for schools. The Steering Group was informed that there are different initiatives that aim to develop teaching 

(as well as student and school) standards. One of the main ones is led by the Under-Secretariat of Basic 

Education in collaboration with the Organisation of Ibero-American States and research teams from four 

Mexican organisations (for more information, see Recommendation 1 in this chapter). However, one of the 

main challenges the Education Ministry (Secretaría de Educación Pública, SEP) faces regarding this particular 

issue is how to build a proposed set of standards based on genuine consultation with, and supported by, those 

who are in the classrooms: teachers. 

There are few available teacher evaluation instruments in Mexico. Evaluation has usually been the responsibility 

of school directors and, to a lesser extent, of supervisors or other educational authorities. Most of the evaluation 

is done by the director without any specific guidance or instruments. However, some related mechanisms 

are in place, which aim to support the promotion of teachers already working in the profession, most notably 

the career progression programme (Escalafón) and Teaching Career Ladder (Carrera Magisterial). The latter, 

created in 1993, is a voluntary programme by which basic education teachers can apply for promotion and 

higher salary levels. The programme aims to link promotion and salary progression to teachers’ professional 

performance. A formal evaluation of Carrera Magisterial concluded that the programme has had little or no 

impact on student achievement (Santibáñez et al., 2006), and Nieto de Pascual Pola (2009) argues that it does 

not allow the best teachers to be identified or rewarded. 


Figure 3.2 

Professional development taken by teachers in lower secondary education 

91.5 

TALIS Average Mexico 

Source: OECD (2009), Creating Effective Teaching and Learning Environments: First Results from TALIS, OECD, Paris. 

85.3 

Took some prof. dev. Wanted more prof. dev. Paid for some or all the cost 

56.8

Teachers are vital for student learning 


As early as the 1970s, Husen, Saha and Noonan (1978), in a review of 32 studies from less developed countries, 

concluded that trained teachers do make a difference and that teachers’ knowledge, education, qualifications and 

experience are positively correlated with student achievement. More recent studies in industrialised countries 

have also shown that high quality teaching has a substantial positive effect on student learning outcomes 

(Darling-Hammond, 2000; Rockoff, 2004; Rice, 2003; Sanders, Saxton and Horn, 1997), while similar findings 

have been reported in Brazil (Harbison and Hanushek, 1992), Indonesia (Ross and Postlethwaith, 1989), 

Pakistan (Warwick and Reimers, 1992) and India (Bashir, 1994). 

In its 2005 report Teachers Matter: Attracting, Developing and Retaining Effective Teachers, the OECD 

noted that “of those variables which are potentially open to policy influence, factors involving teachers 

and teaching are the most important influences on student learning” and the report concluded that there 

is a broad consensus “that teacher quality is the single most important school variable influencing student 

achievement” (OECD, 2005). 

Therefore, building a workforce of highly skilled professional educators is central to a country’s ability to 

improve the outcomes of schooling for its young people (OECD, 2005; Barber and Mourshed, 2007; OECD, 

2008; Sclafani and Manzi, 2009). Furthermore, the positive impact that a good teacher can have in attaining 

learning goals, even under adverse conditions and deficiencies in materials and infrastructure, which is the case 

in many Mexican schools, has been pointed out on repeated occasions (OECD, 2005; OECD, 2008). 

Taking into consideration the important role of teachers for schooling, it is crucial to recognise teaching as a 

profession. The role of the teacher has to be defined as that of a high level professional within the framework 

of a school, rather than as an individual teacher with a post. This was already highlighted as early as 1966: 

“Teaching should be regarded as a profession: it is a form of public service which requires of teachers expert 

knowledge and specialised skills, acquired and maintained through rigorous and continuing study; it calls also 

for a sense of personal and corporate responsibility for the education and welfare of the pupils in their charge” 

(ILO/UNESCO, 1966). This sense of personal and corporate responsibility sets a high standard for teachers’ 

behaviour and practices in schools. 

For these reasons, for decades, different programmes and initiatives in Mexico have been created and directed 

towards improving teachers’ capacities and providing them with the materials they need to perform their job 

satisfactorily. However, there is still more to be done. 

A professional career path for teachers of basic education 

The following sections propose and develop eight major recommendations to make teaching a more attractive 

profession and create the kind of professional teaching force needed to improve student outcomes. The 

recommendations are presented in a sequence that follows a teacher’s trajectory from initial education through 

to permanent status as a full professional (Figure 3.3). They have been developed after careful analysis of 

the challenges, of quantitative and qualitative data, empirical research and relevant country practices and 

contextualised to ensure they are feasible in Mexico. 


69

70 

Pre-selection 

2 



Teachers 

Colleges 

(Normales) 

Other 

institutions 

recommendatIon 1: Produce and implement a coherent, aligned set of standards for teachers 

Mexico needs to define clear teacher standards to signal to the profession, and to society at large, the core 

knowledge, skills and values associated with effective teaching. 

Context 

Given the challenges outlined in the previous sections, it is critically important that Mexico develops 

a comprehensive strategy both to improve the conditions under which many teachers work and to attract, 

prepare and develop a higher quality teaching force. The first step in the process should be to develop and 

implement a clear set of standards that define what good teaching looks like, and specify the knowledge, 

skills and dispositions that all teacher candidates should be able to demonstrate before being licensed to teach 

(see Recommendations 4 and 5 in this chapter). Both the Sectorial Education Programme 2007-2012 and the 

Alianza establish the need to create teaching standards. 

The federal Under Secretariat of Basic Education (SEB) has recently started relevant work on classroom teaching 

standards. The Steering Group was informed that in coordination with some research teams from different organisations, 

and with the supervision of the Organisation of Ibero-American States (OEI), SEB has started to consolidate a proposal 

for classroom teaching standards. They are also developing proposals for school standards and curricula standards. 

During the school year 2008/09 a pilot project of the “Standards for Basic Education” was conducted in 480 primary 

schools and 128 lower secondary schools. Box 3.1 summarises the preliminary proposal, which has still not had 

broad dissemination or discussion with teachers or the general public and is not being used systematically yet. 


Figure 3.3 

A professional career path for teachers of basic education 

Licensing 

Allocation to schools 

1-8 

1 

Schools 

Teacher Standards 

Induction 

Probation 

Exit 

OECD recommendations on teacher policy 

School leadership 

Network of excellent teachers 

Continuous professional development 

In-service teacher evaluation 

Accountability Salary/incentives 

3 4 5 6 

8 

7 

Retirement


The preliminary version of the teaching standards is focused on self assessment of teachers and appraisal of their 

practice by colleagues within schools. To be useful for multiple purposes – such as guiding teachers’ practice, training 

or external assessment of teachers’ performance – these standards need to include the knowledge and skills expected 

from teachers, and their professional responsibilities and commitment. 

Box 3.1 classroom teaching performance standards for basic education – 

preliminary proposal by the ministry 

Recent efforts by SEP to develop a set of teacher standards for basic education in Mexico have led to a 

preliminary proposal that includes five main areas: 

• planning: content selection; goal selection; design of didactic strategies; selection of evaluation 

mechanisms. 

• management of classroom environment: interpersonal relations; group management. 

• Curricula management: content knowledge; interrelation among courses; interrelation between 

courses and contexts. 

• didactics: presentation of the curricula content; adequate attention; group organisation; students’ 

peer-to-peer relationships; didactic resources; space resources; time management; indications; 

explanations; questions; guided activities; non-guided activities. 

• evaluation: self-evaluation; appraisal among students; teacher appraisal of students; knowledge feedback. 

Source: Secretaría de Educación Pública (2010), Communication with the Steering Group, Mexico. 

The standards were developed observing actual Mexican teachers in effective schools. This appears an 

interesting approach and a good start, but still requires consultation with teachers and different stakeholders. 

As professionals, teachers – those who understand the challenges of being teachers and promoting students’ 

learning – need to get more involved in the development of these standards and to provide feedback. Particularly, 

states that may have already developed their own set of teaching standards should be part of this process, 

as should those Ministry departments which may be potential users for different purposes such as training or 

evaluation. Finally, it is important to stress that the final version of these standards needs to describe explicitly 

and clearly what is expected from teachers in each dimension considered. 

Research and international evidence 

Teachers’ roles have changed in recent years. Selected evidence points towards a different type of profession, 

in which teachers are no longer just delivering the curriculum, but also have the broader task of educating 

children to acquire the different types of skills required for the labour market. Learning has become more 

personalised, and teachers have to be well prepared to take on different kinds of roles to motivate students to 

learn, manage classrooms, assess and evaluate their students and provide personalised support. When looking 

at teaching practices in “alternative schools”, which aim to have teachers responding better to students’ needs 

“with varying degrees of intervention, the teacher role ranges from being a coach on the side that students 

can draw on (but do not have to) to a provider, organiser and manager of customised learning in experiential 

learning environments” (OECD, 2008). 

Often, these are not roles for which teachers have been prepared, as their training focuses on content but 


71

72 


offers limited preparation for pedagogical and social support. It is important to highlight to the professionals 

and to society as a whole the key roles that are expected from teachers. 

An OECD report defined five dimensions of teacher quality: a) knowledge of substantive areas and content; 

b) pedagogic skills, including the acquisition of and ability to use a repertoire of teaching strategies; 

c) reflection and ability to be self-critical – the hallmark of teacher professionalism; d) empathy, and 

commitment to the acknowledgement of the dignity of the other; and e) managerial competence, as teachers 

assume a range of managerial responsibilities within and outside the classroom. The report stressed that these 

dimensions should not be seen as independent; the integration of competencies across these dimensions of 

teacher quality is a mark of the outstanding teacher (OECD, 1994). 

More recently, the OECD has analysed research on how people learn and how teachers can facilitate students’ 

learning. The report Innovating to Learn, Learning to Innovate (OECD, 2008) defines more demanding skills for 

teachers: “To align with the innovation economy, teachers will require more autonomy, more creativity, and 

more content knowledge. These teachers should be highly trained professionals, comfortable with technology, 

with a deep pedagogical understanding of the subject matter, able to respond in an improvised manner to the 

uniquely emerging flow of each classroom. To foster collaborative and authentic learning, they will lead teams 

of students – much like a manager of a business or the master in a workshop – rather than controlling students 

autocratically, as the factory bosses of old.” 

Teaching standards can provide systemic coherence and consolidate the vision of what the country considers 

to be a good teacher: a common set of competencies that “good teachers” may have and/or develop. They can 

identify what skills and knowledge a teacher needs in order to provide high quality teaching. In fact, in a review 

of the evidence of teaching standards, research has shown that well-developed standards provide a basis for 

the profession to support student learning, and contribute to the quality of teacher education and continuous 

professional development options (Kleinhenz and Ingvarson, 2007). 

A standard can be seen as a tool for rendering precise the making of judgements and decisions in a context 

of meaning and shared values. This definition is a useful reminder that a complete set of standards needs the 

following three components: a) content standards (what are we measuring?); b) rules for gathering evidence 

(how will we measure it?); and c) performance standards (how good is good enough and how will we judge the 

evidence?) (Kleinhenz and Ingvarson, 2007; Cox and Meckes, 2010). 

Research has shown that teaching standards and methods for assessing performance are essential for career 

structures that reward improvements in the quality of teaching and retain effective teachers. “Writing standards 

provide an opportunity for the profession to build stronger bridges between research and practice. Standards 

support the development of a professional community in educational settings. They give teachers something 

about which to be collegial. Standards provide clear, long term goals for professional development. They 

indicate what the professional community thinks its members should ‘get better at’. Profession-wide standards 

provide a more valid basis for teacher accountability than performance management schemes and standardised 

tests of students’ outcomes” (Kleinhenz and Ingvarson, 2007). 

Some people do not support standards for teaching because of concerns that they could be used against 

teachers, especially when they fail to express fully the nature of teachers’ work. Such standards, it has been 

claimed, could de-skill teachers and intensify their work. To avoid a situation where professionalism under 

the guise of standards becomes a tool that enables employers to demand more of teachers (Sachs, 2001), 

stakeholders argue strongly that standards should be owned by the teaching profession, and not by employers. 

Another relevant consideration is that well developed standards do not prescribe or standardise the means by 

which the standards are brought to life in practice (Kleinhenz and Ingvarson, 2007; Cox and Meckes, 2010). 




Teaching standards open up a range of opportunities for teachers to have a stronger and more credible voice in 

decisions that affect the quality of teaching and learning: 

• Who gains entry to teacher preparation courses; 

• Who trains teachers and how; 

• Who gains registration and enters the teaching profession; 

• Who defines what new teachers should know and what experienced teachers should get better at; 

• Who sets the standards for good teaching; 

• Who assesses and gives recognition to teachers who attain high standards. 

Countries such as Australia, New Zealand, England, Scotland and the United States have defined teaching 

standards, including the broader areas that teachers should know about and the skills they should have. Some 

countries organise standards by school level (for example for primary, secondary and upper secondary) and/or 

by different stages in a teacher’s career, as in the examples presented in Box 3.2. 

Box 3.2 professional standards for teachers in chile, the united states and england 

In chile the Framework for Good Teaching (Marco para la Buena Enseñanza) summarised national teaching 

standards. These are organised in four core areas: 1) preparation for teaching; 2) creation of an adequate 

learning environment; 3) teaching for the learning of all students; and 4) professional development. These 

standards are set out in 20 criteria and 70 descriptors. The framework is used for the accreditation of 

beginning teachers, accreditation of professional development programmes, teachers’ evaluation and 

support, teacher selection and promotions, and to identify excellent teachers. 

The National Board for Professional Teaching Standards in the United States (NBPTS, 2009) defines five 

core propositions, which are: 1) teachers are committed to students and their learning; 2) teachers know 

the subjects they teach and how to teach those subjects to students; 3) teachers are responsible for 

managing and monitoring student learning; 4) teachers think systematically about their practice and learn 

from experience; and 5) teachers are members of learning communities. These propositions are then used 

to develop and elaborate more specific standards for 25 certificate areas. 

The Training and Development Agency for Schools (TDA) in england talks about professional standards 

for teachers as a framework that defines the characteristics of teachers at each career stage (TDA, 2009a). 

The TDA document states that “professional standards are statements of a teacher’s professional attributes, 

professional knowledge and understanding, and professional skills. They provide clarity of the expectations 

at each career stage”. The professional standards identify different career stages which are referred to 

as: qualified teacher status, core standards for main scale teachers who have successfully completed 

their induction, post-threshold teachers on the upper pay scale, excellent teachers and advanced skills 

teachers. The standards are arranged in three inter-related sections referred to as attributes, knowledge 

and understanding, and skills (TDA, 2009b). The standards show clearly what is expected at each career 

stage. Each set of standards builds on the previous set, so that a teacher being considered for the next 

stage has already met the standards at the previous stage. 

Source: www.mineduc.cl; www.nbpts.org/the_standards/the_five_core_propositio; www.tda.gov.uk/teachers/ 

professionalstandards/standards.aspx 


73

74 



Standards may be used for different purposes, and in many countries are the basis for teacher evaluation 

systems, as shown in Santiago and Benavides (2009), who summarise teacher evaluation systems in Ontario 

(Canada), Chile, England, Singapore and Portugal. 

How to produce and implement a coherent, aligned set of standards for teachers 

Mexico needs to develop and use a common and coherent set of standards that define what teachers need 

to know and be able to do to improve academic achievement for all students. These standards would signal 

to the profession, and to the wider society, the defining core of knowledge, skills and values associated with 

effective teaching. 

The purpose of developing teacher standards is to provide systemic coherence and consolidate a common set 

of competencies that “good teachers” may have and/or develop. These standards should be the reference for 

teacher initial education institutions, continuous professional development programmes, teacher evaluations 

and teacher certification. For example, these standards should serve as the foundation for the National 

Teacher Examination (see Recommendation 4 in this chapter) for assessing a candidate’s readiness to attain 

permanent status (see Recommendation 5 in this chapter), and for any further teacher evaluation scheme (see 

Recommendation 8 in this chapter). 

Based on international experiences and pertinent literature, a good starting point for Mexico would be to describe 

the elements of good teaching performance. These qualities or attributes can be expressed as expectations of 

how teachers should perform and teach; they define the expected teacher performance needed for students 

to learn in Mexico. The current proposal of classroom teaching standards is a good start. These will need be 

clearly defined and completed by other “non-classroom” standards that include other relevant issues, such as 

relationships with other teachers, parents and the community. 

The Steering Group agrees that teaching standards in Mexico should have the following characteristics as a 

minimum (Mancera and Schmelkes, 2010): 

• Be understandable and aligned with the tasks involved in teaching, the functioning of schools and student 

learning standards. Standards should reflect what teachers identify as good teacher performance. 

• Cover all of the teaching domains defined. Every one of these domains must be subdivided into components 

and indicators. 

• Establish different levels of competency for each specific aspect that defines the domains of teacher and 

school work. Standards should be used as a framework to guide teachers in the right path. The association of 

a teacher with a certain standard indicates the level of achievement regarding that standard. When standards 

are too high they become unattainable and lose their purpose for teacher guidance. Conversely, if standards 

are set too low, they no longer present a challenge for teachers, and therefore lose their value. Ideally, all 

standards should have different levels for every domain of teacher performance: the highest level would 

represent what expert teachers do; the lowest level would reflect the work of a beginner. 

• Reflect a nuclear group of performances that should be observable in all teachers and all schools, 

irrespective of their conditions and circumstances. If every group of teachers or every kind of school had a 

specific group of standards, then this would be contrary to the very nature of standards and the existence 

of attributes of teaching that pertain to this profession. This, however, does not mean that standards have 

the intention or the effect of homogenising teaching. What it does imply is that standards must refer to the 

more abstract nature of the domain expected for all teachers. The standard is defined in a way that allows its 

adequate application in different contexts and situations. 

• Define and operationalise intended goals and outcomes of good teaching, while not prescribing specific 



practices for teachers to attain these goals. Indeed, standards should allow for creativity and individuality in 

the classroom. For example, there is no guaranteed way to motivate students to participate in the classroom 

and learn. This depends on the characteristics of students, on the subject that is being taught, on the time of 

the day when the lesson takes place, on the closeness to the vacation periods, and on many other factors. 

This is why teachers must know how to use their knowledge and skills on a day-to-day basis. The goal, 

however, is constant: the motivation and participation of students. This is what a standard must state and scale. 

• Word the standards in such a way that they include and take into account very diverse contexts. In Mexico 

teachers have strongly differentiated functions due to the diversity among regions and schools. For example, 

a teacher in a one-teacher school does not carry out the same tasks as a teacher in an urban school, nor does 

a teacher in an indigenous community do exactly the same things as a teacher in a rural non-indigenous 

school. Standards should be included relative to teacher performance for innovating and adapting to specific 

contextual and cultural situations in order to better engage students in learning activities and thus produce 

higher learning outcomes. Standards relative to teacher performance for attending to the special needs of 

diverse students should also be part of the set of standards that are being defined. 

• Be dynamic. Periodic revisions with the participation of teachers should be carried out in order to ensure that 

the standards are properly scaled, and that all aspects of good teaching are being considered, as the teacher 

evaluation system is fine-tuned and broader educational changes take place. 

If standards are to have a real impact on teachers’ skills and knowledge, there is a need to have real broad 

agreement on these standards. It is essential to design participatory mechanisms so that the main stakeholders, 

particularly teachers who work every day in the classrooms, can contribute to the initial definition and further 

Box 3.3 the need for teaching standards in Mexico, prepared by selected stakeholders from Mexico 

during the OecD-harvard Seminar for Leaders in education reform, January 2010 

Taking into account the Chilean experience, the progress already achieved in Mexico regarding standards 

and the international evidence presented by the OECD, the Steering Group suggests the possibility of 

exploring some of the following initiatives and their potential convenience for Mexico: 

• Set up a mechanism for bringing the standards together into one set of proposals. One option is 

establish a collegial group (with key social and academic actors) to consolidate the proposals and 

their final design. 

• Develop a strategy for national consultation to ensure that the standards are understood and approved 

by the majority of teachers. 

• Once agreed, use these standards as a reference for in-service teacher evaluation; they can also be 

used as a reference in the certification mechanisms of initial teacher education. 

• Ensure the standards indicate clearly the roles of teachers and directors, as well as technical pedagogical 

advisors (ATPs) and supervisors. 

• Promote the standards to the media and other key stakeholders (for example civil society and parents). 

Participants emphasise that creating the standards is a process that will require sufficient time and will 

need to take into account the relevant political, technical and socialisation variables. 

Source: OECD (2010b), “Reflexiones finales del Seminario OCDE-Harvard para líderes en reformas educativas para 

fortalecer la profesionalización docente en México”, OECD, Paris. www.oecd.org/edu/calidadeducativa. 


75

76 



periodic revisions of the standards. Teachers should also be trained in the framework and how it translates into 

teaching practices in the classroom. It is essential that teachers receive sufficient feedback based on rubrics 

connected to the standards-based framework. A support system that can be reached by individual schools 

and teachers also needs to be set up. Teachers know that simply judging their strengths and weaknesses is not 

enough to change behaviour: feedback and support are also needed. 

A “working” version of these standards could be prepared in the short term through a combination of: revising and 

adapting existing frameworks of standards for teachers from another country; taking forward the current initiatives 

being developed in Mexico; and adapting frameworks used in some states. The framework could then be developed 

further over a longer period. The different phases of this process have to be very coherent and well organised. 

As explained in Chapter 4, teaching standards can be visualised as one element of a trio, all of which combine 

in effective schools: standards of attainment for students; standards for effective teaching; and standards for 

effective leadership and management (Figure 3.4). 


Figure 3.4 

Performance standards for effective schools 

Teaching 

standards 

Curriculum 

standards for 

students !" 

EFFECTIVE 

SCHOOLS 

Leadership 

and management 

standards 

The development of standards for teaching and leadership recommended in this report complements work 

being undertaken in Mexico to develop new curriculum standards from pre-school to secondary levels. “This 

has been done by initiating a very wide consultation in 11 pilot states and then building up a model with their 

participation that will be put into effect in the 11 states (three pilot schools in each state) from January 2011. 

It is then intended to roll out the programme for all schools in the 2011-2012 school year. The teachers’ union 

and the Ministry are both closely involved. Each state has a project team and support is provided by two teams 

from the University of London” (Posner, 2010). 

recommendatIon 2: Attract better candidates and raise the bar for entry into the teaching 

profession, especially at the Teachers’ Colleges (Normales) 

If teaching is to acquire the status of a fully-fledged profession in Mexico, the first step must be to improve the 

calibre of applicants to initial teacher education institutions, especially, but not exclusively, at the Normales.

Context 


The 2008 teaching examination figures show that of the 8 239 posts open for competition for the 2008/09 

school cycle, only 2 847 were available to recently graduated teachers (Nieto de Pascual Pola, 2009). If we 

take into consideration that the number of graduates is approximately 28 700 a year, we can see that those who 

manage to enter the teaching profession represent less than 10% of the potential candidates. A first conclusion 

is that there are no efficient mechanisms for regulating entry to the Teachers’ Colleges (Normales) so that it is 

aligned with the available teaching posts. On the other hand, the fact that more than 65% of the vacancies 

(5 932 of more than 8 000) were covered by teachers who were already in-service teachers (most of them with 

no permanent posts) indicates that the initial education system is inefficient. This is even more serious if we take 

into account that of more than 5 300 in-service teachers hired in that year, 3 000 came from universities, 1 500 

from private teachers’ colleges (Normales) schools and only 800 from public Normales (Nieto de Pascual Pola, 

2009). Nonetheless, these figures only relate to posts open for competition. In fact, it is difficult to know the real 

percentage of graduates who enter the education system each year as non-permanent teachers. 10 

In the coming years, the demand for teachers will decrease due to the smaller number of students in the first 

grades of primary education (Aguerrondo, Benavides and Pont, 2009). The 5-14 year-old population is expected 

to decrease by 13%, but the population will only increase by 2.5% among the 15-29 year-old population by 2015 

(Partida Bush, 2006). 

There may be a slight increase in demand for teachers due to retirement, but generally the average age of 

Mexican teachers is lower than in many other countries (Nieto de Pascual Pola, 2009). Overall, it can be 

expected that a decreasing demand for teachers will gradually have an impact on all parts of the education 

system. If the number of teachers graduating from Normales and other initial teacher education institutions does 

not decrease, there is a risk that many young people will spend their time getting an education that they will not 

be able to use for the purpose intended. 

In fact Mexico as a whole has already been training many more teachers than it can employ (Nieto de Pascual 

Pola, 2009; Guevara and Gonzalez, 2004), which represents an inefficient use of scarce resources. At the 

same time, it has been shown that as many as 70% of schools suffer from a shortage of qualified teachers 

(OECD, 2009), while evidence of a relatively high rate of absenteeism and late arrival at school (ibid.) can 

suggest a lack of motivation or commitment to teaching on the part of many current teachers. It can also show 

the difficulties teachers encounter in reaching schools in rural areas or difficult urban sectors, as well as the 

necessity of keeping second jobs to increase their income. 

As in other Latin American countries, in Mexico the majority of the students applying to enter Normales and 

other initial teacher preparation (ITP) programmes have low-quality secondary education. Normales students 

with whom the Steering Group met complained that they had already forgotten what they learned in upper 

secondary education and that they had never received sufficient subject knowledge. Furthermore, for many of 

them teacher education was not their first choice but rather their second, third or fourth after they had been 

refused entry to other tertiary programmes. 

The over-supply of students preparing to be teachers is compounded by the fact that nearly 70% of applicants fail 

the National Teacher Examination (see Recommendation 4 in this chapter), which is further evidence of both the 

low entry bar into teacher education and the quality of preparation offered by the Normales. This situation creates 

an extraordinary opportunity to improve the quality of the teaching force by reducing the numbers of people 

allowed into initial preparation programmes and restricting entry to candidates with the greatest potential. 


77

78 



Barber and Mourshed’s study of the world’s best performing school systems (the McKinsey Report) found that 

such systems tended to be more successful than lower performing ones at recruiting more capable people for 

the teaching profession: “The top performing systems we studied recruit their teachers from the top third of each 

cohort graduat[ing] from their school system” (Barber and Mourshed, 2007). 

High performing systems ensure that they select and recruit the most effective trainee teachers by restricting 

entry to teacher training while at the same time attempting to ensure that the pool of candidates for teacher 

training is as large and strong as possible. Failing to control entry into ITP has a detrimental effect on teacher 

quality because, for example it tends to lead to an oversupply of candidates, resulting in a situation whereby 

some newly qualified teachers are unable to secure teaching posts. This in turn makes teacher training less 

appealing to potential new recruits. Making ITP more selective is considered to make teaching more attractive 

to high performers. OECD (2005) notes that: 

“Too great a supply ... is not necessarily a blessing. Some countries with teacher surpluses find it hard to 

ensure that talented people choose to enter teaching. And surveys find that school directors in countries 

with a teacher surplus worry more about teacher morale and enthusiasm than do those in countries 

without such a surplus.” 

When it comes to selecting candidates from the pool of applicants to ITP, the world’s best performing school 

systems employ rigorous checks designed to assess applicants’ potential to become good teachers. Such checks 

tend to work on the assumption that: “for a person to become an effective teacher they need to possess a 

certain set of characteristics that can be identified before they enter teaching: a high overall level of literacy and 

numeracy, strong interpersonal and communications skills, a willingness to learn, and the motivation to teach” 

(Barber and Mourshed, 2007). 

The checks or selection criteria employed by those acting as gatekeepers for entry into teacher training vary 

according to the model of ITP that is followed and, in some cases, the age group the candidates are training 

to teach. Across the world, ITP programmes generally fall into one of two models – the consecutive model 

and the concurrent model (OECD, 2005; Eurydice, 2002; Musset, 2010). The first involves students receiving 

degree-level education in a particular subject (or subjects) before they enrol on a programme of teacher 

education; the second combines the study of a particular subject with theoretical and practical elements of 

teacher education and training. The minimum entry requirements for concurrent ITP programmes normally 

include the successful completion of secondary school qualifications, while those for entry onto a consecutive 

model of teacher training normally include the successful completion of some form of undergraduate study 

at university level. 

In some countries, including ones which have both concurrent and consecutive models of ITP, potential 

candidates have to pass an examination in order to demonstrate their suitability for teaching and gain entry to 

teacher education. For example, in Malaysia, Singapore and China secondary school graduates take a national 

examination, whilst in France, New Zealand and Canada individual teacher training institutions set their own 

examinations (Cobb, 1999). In many cases, such examinations take the form of tightly timed multiple-choice 

tests, sometimes referred to, due to their relative simplicity, as “pencil-and-paper” or “tick-box” tests. Most 

countries do not rely entirely on examinations as a means of screening entry to ITP; however, many employ 

multiple selection criteria which often include previous academic achievement and satisfactory performance 

at the interview. 

The screening procedures of two of the world’s higher performing education systems, Singapore and Finland, 

are held up as exemplars by the authors of the McKinsey Report, notably because both systems “place a strong 




emphasis on the academic achievement of candidates, their communications skills, and their motivation for 

teaching” (Barber and Mourshed, 2007). The Finnish selection process is described in Box 3.4. 

Box 3.4 Finland’s process for selecting candidates for initial teacher preparation 

Finland employs a multi-stage process of teacher selection which begins with a national screening process 

involving a 300-question multiple choice assessment which tests literacy, numeracy and problem-solving. 

This is followed by university-based tests that evaluate candidates’ ability to process information, think 

critically and synthesise data. The selection continues with university-based interviews which assess 

candidates’ motivation to teach, motivation to learn, communication skills and emotional intelligence. 

Source: Ministry of Education and Culture of Finland, (2010), Available: www.minedu.fi/OPM/. 

To ensure that the pool of candidates from which selection takes place is as large and strong as possible, some 

education systems have sought to remove obstacles to entry into the profession by introducing additional 

or alternative routes into teaching, an approach also used by those seeking to address teacher shortages. 

Examples include the Graduate Teacher Programme (GTP) and flexible Postgraduate Certificate in Education 

(PGCE) programmes in England, and the Boston Teacher Residency programme and Chicago Teaching Fellows 

programme in the US. In the GTP programme, which typically lasts for one academic year, trainees take up a 

salaried teaching post and, if successful, achieve qualified teacher status (certification) while in post. This means 

that more mature entrants do not have to be without a salary while they negotiate their prospective career 

change. Those systems that have introduced such alternative routes into teaching have found that, in general, 

the quality of applicants is at least as good, if not better, than more traditional teacher training programmes 

(Barber and Mourshed, 2007). 11 

There are a large number of different factors that influence young individuals who decide to become teachers. 

Research on the reasons for becoming a teacher indicates that many teachers choose the profession because 

they want to deal with children or they want to teach (OECD, 2005). Although important, salary may not be the 

major reason for young people wanting to become teachers, but it does influence the choice of professional 

career. It seems that teacher salaries, relative to those in other occupations, have a greater influence on teachers’ 

decisions to return to teaching after a career interruption, and to remain in the profession, than on the decision 

to become a teacher (OECD, 2005). Attractive salaries may, from this perspective, be important in motivating 

good teachers to remain in the profession, attracting potential new recruits (although this may not be the most 

important factor), and persuading those who have left teaching to return to the profession. 

How to attract better candidates and raise the bar for entry into the teaching profession, 

especially at the Normales 

In order to improve teaching, Mexico needs better teacher candidates. Therefore ITP institutions must raise the 

bar for entry into teacher preparation programmes. This is key to making teaching a more respected profession 

and ultimately building support for improving the working conditions of teachers. 

If teaching is to acquire the status of a fully-fledged profession in Mexico, the first step must be to improve the 

calibre of applicants to initial teacher education institutions, especially, but not exclusively, at the Normales. 

The second step is to improve substantially the quality of these institutions, as suggested in Recommendation 3. 


79

80 



One way to improve the calibre of applicants would be to establish a national screening exam as a gateway 

into initial teacher preparation programmes. Such an examination would be designed to ensure that candidates 

have solid content knowledge in the subjects they intend to teach, as well as the requisite aptitude for, and 

commitment to, teaching as a career. This could be complemented with other evaluation tools such as interviews. 

In those regions in which there are insufficient well qualified candidates, compensation strategies can also be 

implemented. One option is to accept unqualified students into a “remedial year”; upon successful completion 

of this they can continue with the standard programme. 

In an effort to ensure that the pool of candidates from which selection takes place is as large and strong as 

possible, some education systems have sought to remove obstacles to entry into the profession by introducing 

additional or alternative routes into teaching. This is another relevant option for Mexico. One way is to use 

the screening examination suggested above (or a version of it) to identify professionals from other fields who 

would like to enter the teaching profession. Normales and other ITP institutions can offer short programmes (for 

example one year long) to prepare them as teachers. 

More generally, adequate financial and non-financial incentives during the initial preparation are essential to 

attract and support good candidates. Adequate working conditions, a professional environment, professional 

guidance and services from the authorities and the union, and adequate salaries are also essential to increase 

the attractiveness of the teaching profession in general. 

recommendatIon 3: Create a reliable accreditation system for all initial teacher preparation 

institutions, develop specific standards for those who teach teachers and put in place strong quality 

assurance mechanisms 

Public and private Normales and other institutions running programmes of initial teacher preparation need to be 

substantially improved if they are going to remain the country’s principal vehicle for preparing its teachers. The 

first step should be to put in place a set of rigorous accreditation standards for all Normales and other teacher 

training institutions. 

Context 

Although some Normales and other ITP institutions provide sound initial preparation for teacher candidates, 

there are large variations among them. Far too many students leave ITP without sufficient skills and knowledge 

to become good teachers. There are reasons to believe that too many teacher candidates in the Normales are 

not provided with sufficient opportunities to improve and develop their subject content knowledge or subject 

pedagogical knowledge. 

Results of the 2008/09 and 2009/10 examination for entrance to the teaching profession suggested that the 

knowledge of applicants from Normales and other ITP institutions was weak. In 2008/09, 70% of those who took the 

examination did not pass (new and in service teachers), and only 28% of new teacher candidates passed (Aguerrondo, 

Benavides and Pont, 2009). For the 2009/10 examination, three categories were used to classify the candidates, 

depending on their results: a) acceptable (25% of all candidates); b) needs academic support/levelling (70.8%); 

c) unacceptable (4.1%). Only 23% of new teacher candidates were classified as acceptable (see Table 3.1). 



Another example which reflects the same challenge are the examinations that the Centro Nacional de 

Evaluación para la Educación Superior, A.C. (CENEVAL) introduced in 2003 to test the general knowledge of 

students towards the end of their teacher preparation courses. Only 39% of the students achieved results that 

were judged to be satisfactory or better in these exams (Aguerrondo, Benavides and Pont, 2009). Because the 

exams were mainly theoretical, these results indicate weaknesses in subject matter preparation. The General 

Directorate for the Higher Education of Professionals of Education has confirmed there is a linear correlation 

between the results achieved by students in the CENEVAL examinations and those achieved by students from 

the Normales in the National Teacher Examination. In other words, the students who obtained high results in 

the CENEVAL test also obtained high results in the National Teacher Examination, and the same applied to the 

students who did not perform well. 

Many Normales suffer from weak connections with other parts of the education sector, in particular with 

schools and universities. They have developed a closed structure with little interaction with other academic 

institutions or research centres (Aguerrondo, Benavides and Pont, 2009). The rules for appointing teachers to 

the Normales are vague and not transparent. There do not seem to be strong mechanisms in place to guarantee 

that the best teachers and/or those most academically qualified will be appointed. Normales students also 

indicate that there are problems related to the school placement during their in-school practice. They have far 

too few opportunities to observe excellent teaching during their periods of school placement. “For the most 

part, it has to do with anachronistic institutions, which do not respond to current needs preparing professional 

teachers or for those needs of the communities in which they are located” (Nieto de Pascual Pola, 2009). There 

are a large number of Normales. Many of them have fewer than 100 students in total and some have serious 

infrastructure problems with very scarce resources for materials, maintaining the buildings and library facilities. 

This also means there are insufficient human resources and not enough resources for developing research 

capacity (Aguerrondo, Benavides and Pont, 2009). 

Over the years many different programmes have been developed to improve the quality of the Normales and 

ITP institutions. Whether these measures have led to substantial changes is far from clear. Many academics and 

stakeholders still refer to the lack of quality and the lack of sufficient infrastructure in some Normales. Different 

experts continue to ask for reforms in teacher education including improving the curriculum to increase 

Box 3.5 Inter-Institutional evaluation committees for higher education and the evaluation 

of initial teacher education 

A main focus of the Mexican Sectorial Education Plan 2007–2012 is to develop and foster a planning 

and evaluation culture for high quality education in higher education institutions. For this purpose, since 

1991, the CIEES were created as part of the National Evaluation System of Higher Education to foster an 

evaluation culture and improve the efficiency of tertiary education institutions. 

In 2008, some Normales were asked to participate in the evaluation processes. The national evaluation 

authorities (DGESPE) and the education authorities of the different states have launched, through the 

CIEES, external procedures for the evaluation of some initial teacher education programmes. This process 

has three phases: 1) to establish tripartite arrangements; 2) to organise an induction seminar for directors 

of institutions that will participate in the evaluation process and discuss objectives and methodology; 

3) after the institutions have carried out a self-evaluation and sent the reports, to organise meetings 

and evaluation visits. Of 493 teacher training institutions, 268 participate and 708 programmes are 

being evaluated. 

Source: Secretaría de Educación Pública (2007), Programa Sectorial de Educación 2007-2012, SEP, México. 


81

82 



the relevance of practical experience, improve the quality of teacher training institutions, and implement 

independent evaluations. Teachers do not receive enough pedagogic preparation and, in the case of secondary 

education, they do not receive enough preparation in the subject they intend to teach. 

Normales and other ITP programmes do not have a strong certification mechanism based on standards. The 

current external evaluation implemented by some public Normales, Inter-Institutional Evaluation Committees 

for Higher Education (CIEES in Spanish), is a good step forward and should continue. However, this seems 

insufficient if quality is to be assured in all Normales and other ITP programmes. 

The Alliance for Quality in Education (Alianza por la Calidad de la Educación) includes seven measures for 

strengthening Normales schools, all of them very relevant. However, the Alianza does not formally propose the 

introduction of a specialised accreditation mechanism, potentially rendering the seven proposals to be without 

consequences. A quality accreditation system would reinforce the measures outlined by the Alianza (see Box 3.6). 

One of the main challenges Mexico faces is the lack of strong professional education colleges or associations 

(such as the Ontario College of Teachers, or other associations of professional bodies existing across the world). 

Any potential accreditation system would need to clearly define who will lead the accreditation process. 

Box 3.6 Measures in the Alianza to strengthen teachers colleges (Normales) 

1. Improve the profile and performance of the academic personnel of teachers colleges (normales). This 

includes measures to: 

• Support and recognise full time teachers that meet desirable profiles, and incorporate new 

full time teachers. 

• Introduce scholarships for teachers to enable them to carry out high quality postgraduate studies 

in Mexico or abroad and promote the production of academic texts among the teaching staff 

in schools. 

• Improve the teaching skills and knowledge of all school teachers in mathematics, history and 

reading. 

2. Improve students’ performance by supporting them with scholarships. 

3. Extend assessment practices to improve the quality of institutions, programmes and students . On July 

2010, 9% of the 1 335 programmes of Normales were already assessed and the remaining 91% had 

already started the assessment process. 

4. Revise and update the curricula and the general knowledge examinations for degrees in pre-school, 

elementary, secondary and physical education. 

5. Continue to strengthen the infrastructure, installations and equipment. 

6. Strengthen the bodies responsible for planning the enrolment of normales. 

7. Improve regulation of the operation of private normales. 

Source: www.alianzaconcursonacional.sep.gob.mx 




Teacher education in almost all countries contains at least four elements: 

• knowledge about the subjects the teacher is supposed to teach; 

• knowledge and skills about how to teach the particular subject (sometimes called pedagogical 

content knowledge); 

• knowledge about how children learn and develop; 

• the opportunity to practice teaching under the supervision of an accomplished teacher (Fredriksson, 2010). 

Professional ethics and teachers’ social responsibility should cross-cut the teacher training curriculum so that 

teachers are made aware of: a) their role in achieving equivalent learning outcomes among children from 

different cultural and socio-economic backgrounds; and b) the need to analyse the consequences of being 

absent, arriving late or leaving early, abandoning children in the middle of the school year to change workplaces, 

and not taking advantage of time allocated to classroom instruction. Research also shows the importance 

of training teachers to face diverse languages and cultures and to make teaching relevant to these children 

(OECD, 2010a). It is also essential to make teachers aware of the ways that inequality can be combated from 

within the classroom, developing their abilities to deal with diversity. 

International evidence and empirical research can provide valuable material to help understand the key 

challenges and solutions in improving the quality of initial teacher preparation institutions. In a review of 

reforms in teacher education in the United States, Darling-Hammond (1997) identifies a number of features 

shared by teacher education institutions that are successful in preparing teachers to teach diverse learners 

effectively. These institutions have: 

• a clear vision of good teaching that is apparent in all coursework and clinical experiences; 

• a curriculum grounded in substantial knowledge of child and adolescent development, learning theory, 

cognition, motivation, and subject matter pedagogy, taught in the context of practice; 

• extended clinical experiences (at least 30 weeks) that are carefully chosen to support the ideas and practices 

presented in simultaneous, closely interwoven coursework; 

• well-defined standards of practice and performance that are used to guide and evaluate coursework and 

clinical work; 

• strong relationships, common knowledge, and shared beliefs among school- and university-based faculty; 

• extensive use of case study methods, teacher research, performance assessment, and portfolio evaluation to 

ensure that learning is applied to real problems of service. 

Research has also shed light on ITP quality and performance. Even with effective mechanisms for assessing 

the developing competence and potential of student teachers, the likelihood of individual trainees’ successful 

completion of ITP will depend significantly on the quality of the institution and/or the relevant course of teacher 

preparation. Given the inevitable variation in the content and quality of teacher training programmes (Boyd et 

al., 2007), different educational systems seek to quality assure their ITP through the use of external examiners 

and/or arrangements to secure external accreditation of the institution or the programme. 

In the United States, for example, the National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) 

performs this latter function (Fox and Certo, 1999). The governments of other countries, such as England, 

have attempted to overcome or minimise the perceived problem of variable content and quality in ITP by 

introducing a national curriculum for initial teacher preparation and/or by ensuring periodic inspections of 

training providers and programmes. Such procedures are intended to validate course content and certification 

procedures, and thus quality assure the assessment of trainee or newly qualified teachers’ readiness to teach, a 


83

84 



function performed in England by the inspection body Ofsted (the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s 

Services and Skills). 12 Box 3.7 summarises different approaches to ITP evaluation. 

Box 3.7 examples of how initial teacher preparation programmes are evaluated in selected countries 

• In england, institutions that administer teacher education programmes are monitored by Ofsted 

(the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills). All teacher training providers 

have to implement the standards for qualified teacher status (QTS) and the requirements for initial 

teacher training (RITT) set by the Training and Development Agency for Schools (TDA). Ofsted, a nongovernmental 

agency which is accountable to Parliament, inspects providers of ITP by: examining a 

range of documentation, including a self-evaluation form provided by the ITP institution, plus trainees’ 

assignments; observing and evaluating training sessions; interviewing personnel involved in the 

programme; and observing ITP tutors when they assess trainees in school settings. All ITP providers are 

examined at least once every six years. 

• In the usa, individual states administer their own evaluation systems, although most agree to be 

monitored by the non-governmental organisation, the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher 

Education (NCATE). NCATE examines the quality of ITP provision and the standards achieved by the 

trainees in much the same way as Ofsted does in England. In addition, course providers can volunteer 

to submit their programmes for evaluation by the Teacher Accreditation Council (TEAC). 

• In new Zealand, any institution providing ITP must submit its programmes to the New Zealand 

Qualifications Authority (NZQA). All newly developed programmes must be visited and evaluated 

by representatives from NZQA; if they are recommended for approval, visits are repeated on a 

five-year cycle. 

• In Brazil all ITP programmes must be accredited by the National Council of Education or the Ministry 

of Education. A similar accreditation system is used in argentina, where ITP providers are regulated by 

the Federal Teacher Education Network (Avalos, 2000). 

Source: Hobson, A. J. (2009), “On being bottom of the pecking order: beginner teachers’ perceptions and experiences of 

support”, Teacher Development: An international journal of teachers’ professional development, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 299. 

How develop specific standards for those who teach teachers and put in place strong quality 

assurance mechanisms 

An important barrier to attracting more talented young people to the teaching profession is the perceived quality of 

Mexico’s teacher preparation institutions. Public and private Normales and other institutions running programmes 

of ITP need to be substantially improved if they are going to remain the country’s principal vehicle for preparing 

its teachers. Therefore a set of rigorous accreditation standards that all Normales and other ITP institutions must 

be expected to meet should be put in place. The Steering Group welcomes the current external evaluation 

implemented by some Normales (CIEES, see Box 3.5). However, it considers that an accreditation system specific 

to Normales and other ITP institutions, which is grounded in standards, is urgently needed in Mexico. 

Accreditation standards for ITP should address: the qualifications of faculty members and the processes for initial 

appointment, evaluation and promotion based on standards; the quality of the curriculum and its alignment with 

the curriculum of the schools; the mechanisms to ensure high quality placements for student teachers; links with 

universities to ensure access to current research on teaching and learning; and the quality of facilities, including 

the library. The accreditation standards should also give special rating to the school’s pass rate on the National 

Teacher Examination. The accreditation system should be run transparently and with a clear governance structure. 



A clear and independent governance structure for this accreditation system is essential, and has to clearly 

define who will be the main interlocutor of Normales. Some key stakeholders have suggested to the Steering 

Group that the following options should be explored: 

• creating a structure such as the Mexican Sciences Academy; 

• creating an organisation led by civil society organisations; 

• “reviving” the Consejo Nacional de Educación Normal; 

• creating a system of school accreditation similar to the National Council on Science and Technology (Consejo 

Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología – CONACYT). 

Every institution should be reviewed cyclically – perhaps every five years – beginning with the smallest schools. 

Those that are weak should be given support to improve. Those that ultimately cannot meet accreditation 

standards should be merged or closed, since keeping them open is an inefficient use of resources and unfair 

to those young people who want to become quality professional teachers. The initiatives that aim to regulate 

private institutions (similar to the one currently being set up in the Federal District to improve the regulation and 

supervision) should continue. Progress has to be made in developing consistent high quality criteria for both 

public and private normal schools (Nieto de Pascual Pola, 2009). 

The development of future teacher demand and the whole Normales and ITP system should be assessed in order 

to predict the number of teachers needed in the future and to see whether the current number of institutions is 

needed. If necessary, the intake of students to Normales should decrease. In areas where a surplus of Normales 

is identified, measures should be taken to help them merge or transform into institutions for other types of 

higher education or upper secondary education. Some of them could become specialised research or training 

centres for in-service teachers. In this context, the development of the Padrón Nacional de Maestros, mentioned 

in the first section of this chapter, is of much relevance. 

One specific suggestion to reduce the isolation of Normales and other ITP institutions is to create state-level 

academic councils that would bring together staff from the Normales, ITP institutions, universities, schools 

and representatives of stakeholder groups and civil society. Such councils could provide a venue for ongoing 

dialogue and exchange of views among those with an interest in teacher education, as well as identifying 

potential avenues for better collaboration among the various educational institutions within each state and 

the federation. Conformation of these councils should nevertheless be considered carefully (for example 

representativeness, qualification, relevance and neutrality, among others). 

recommendatIon 4: Revise, improve and expand the processes for assessing the suitability of 

teacher candidates and in-service teachers to teach (teacher licensing) 

Mexico should further develop and improve the new teacher licensing examination (Concurso); continue 

introducing the use of more authentic and performance-based means of assessing the knowledge and capabilities 

of teachers; and improve the governance structure and, in particular, the operation of the Independent Federalist 

Evaluation Unit (Organismo de Evaluación Independiente con Carácter Federalista, OEIF), while looking for an 

efficient long term strategy. 


85

86 

Context 



One of the main pillars of Alianza por la Calidad de la Educación is to raise teacher quality in all Mexican 

schools by developing better mechanisms for teachers to access permanent teaching posts (Secretaría de 

Educación Pública, 2008b). This aims to increase transparency and give a clear structure to processes that have 

historically been rather shadowy, unequal and sometimes corrupt. 

The Alianza agreement stipulates that a national certification examination for teacher education graduates will 

be implemented to determine who will access permanent posts. This licensing exam aims to identify the best 

candidates among the teacher education graduates. It is also for teachers who are already working in school but 

who do not have a permanent post, and for those who want to have an additional post (doble plaza). Box 3.8 

summarises the main characteristics of this examination. 

There are two basic modalities of this exam: 

Box 3.8 Modalities of the National teacher examination 

1. for “new entries” (nuevo ingreso): for newly graduated teachers from teacher education preparation 

programmes at tertiary-level institutions (for example Normales or universities) who apply for a 

permanent post (plaza); 

2. for “in-service” teachers: those who are already working as school teachers but who do not have a 

permanent post, and those teachers who aim to have a second permanent teaching post (doble plaza). 

Lower secondary education teachers can also take the test to qualify for more teaching hours, as part 

of the “hour-week-month” (H-W-M) system. The H-W-M system gives (some) teachers the possibility of 

applying for teaching contracts of a certain number of “hours” per week and per month (as opposed to 

full time posts). 

Candidates applying for the examination may have to have graduated from an official teacher preparation 

institution (this includes public or private Normales, National Pedagogical University, other universities, 

among others). States can establish particular requirements for candidates (for example to born in the 

state, or to speak an indigenous language). 

Since in Mexico there are no national teacher standards, the institution in charge of the exam (OEIF) 

uses norm-based pass marks based on minimum scores calculated according to a dual method (Hofstee 

Method), which also takes into consideration the available posts in each state. During the 2009/10 

National Teacher Examination, applicants were classified as “acceptable”, “needing levelling support” 

or “not acceptable”. The differences in the minimum scores between the different states were significant. 

Several versions of the National Teacher Examination exist depending on the education level and 

specialisation that is to be evaluated. Among these versions are: general and indigenous pre-school, 

general and indigenous primary, technical, general and distance lower secondary, special education, 

artistic education and physical education. It also includes versions for the H-W-M system, mainly in lower 

secondary, in areas such as: English, mathematics, history and biology. 

Source: Aguerrondo, I., F. Benavides and B. Pont (2009), “School Management and Teacher Professionalization 

in Mexico: Context, Challenges and Preliminary Policy Orientations”, Analytical Paper, OECD, Paris; 

www.alianzaconcursonacional.sep.gob.mx. 



As mentioned before, the pass rates in the first two teacher examinations for entrance to the teaching profession 

(2008/09 and 2009/10) were very discouraging. Table 3.1. summarises the latest examination results. 

Table 3.1 

The National Teacher Examination results, 2009/10 

results 

Global General results 

taking the examination acceptable Needing levelling support Not acceptable 

total 123 856 31 086 87 741 5 029 

% 100 25.1 70.8 4.1 

results 

Global results: new teachers 


total 81 490 18 661 59 277 3 552 

% 100 22.9 72.7 4.4 

results 

Global results: in-service teachers 


total 42 366 12 425 28 464 1 477 

% 100 29.3 67.2 3.5 

Source: www.alianzaconcursonacional.sep.gob.mx. 

In 2004, Mexico formally reported to the OECD that only 13 states in Mexico used licensing mechanisms to 

select teachers for teaching posts. In five of these 13 states, new and vacant posts were allocated through a teacher 

examination. In another three states, posts were allocated following the recommendations of mixed commissions 

(with participation from the State Education Authority and from SNTE). In the other five states there were examination 

mechanisms only for some types of teaching post. In the other 19 states, no formal licensing strategy was applied, other 

than obtaining the graduate certificate from a Normal or other ITP institution (Guevara and Gonzalez, 2004). In those 

states where no formal licensing mechanisms for teachers existed, teacher posts were de facto given in agreement with 

and mainly controlled by the union. While the SNTE itself formally followed the internal rules stipulated in their norms 

(estatutos) to allocate posts (based mainly on factors such as length of time in the profession and teacher training), 

the mechanisms were not transparent and were sometimes perceived as unequal and highly politicised. Under these 

schemes, in some states in Mexico, teachers were able to “buy” their posts; therefore, some had the right to “sell” or 

“offer in heritage” their permanent posts to whomever they chose, including their relatives. 13 

The new licensing mechanism proposed by the Alianza is associated with the creation of an independent “assessment 

unit of a federalist nature”. Its main role is to decide the implementation process, design the examination and supervise 

its correct execution (Secretaría de Educación Pública, 2009). Defined as a transitional strategy, the licensing exam was 

applied for the first time for the period 2008/09 with the agreement and surveillance of SEP and SNTE. A transitional 

body, the Technical Independent Unit (OTI), 14 was created to design and survey the 2009/10 examination. All states 

participating in the examination and the federal SEP were represented, but since the union was not represented, the 

OTI was transformed into the Independent Federalist Evaluation Unit (Organismo de Evaluación Independiente con 

Carácter Federalista,OEIF). The OEIF is a collegial unit of 70 members, half selected by states and federal education 

authorities; the other half selected by the union. The OEIF was responsible for the 2010/11 examination. 15 


87

88 



The Steering Group considers that the introduction of the national public examination for teachers (Concurso), 

in particular, represents a major breakthrough in Mexico´s education system, and signifies a new culture of 

meritocracy, transparency and accountability. It provides important foundations for the advancement of teacher 

quality and capacity-building within the education sector, with the ultimate goal of improving student learning 

and achievement. 

Despite this progress, the new procedures have a number of limitations. For example, not all states have signed 

up to the test; the failure rates in both 2008 and 2009 were high; and a lack of transparency remains with 

regard to the precise mechanisms for teacher appointment in some states (Nieto de Pascual Pola, 2009). In 

addition, it is not clear that the strategies to support those needing levelling support (70% of the total who took 

the test), result in improving teacher quality. These courses, implemented for the 2010/11 cycle, are provided 

by the state authorities, in coordination with SEP, and it seems that candidates in this category only need to 

pass some courses to be able to obtain a post. It also seems that many of the teachers needing levelling support 

are in-service teachers and some of the beginning teachers in this category still obtain posts as non-permanent 

teachers. Some in-service teachers, working as non-permanent teachers or applying for a second permanent 

post, did not reach an acceptable minimum the exam but remain teaching within the classroom. 

The existing mechanisms for developing the national examination through the Organismo de Evaluación 

Independiente con Carácter Federalista (OEIF), which appear to combine both technical development work and 

an (important) political legitimation function, are very cumbersome and inefficient, making the development 

process extremely time-consuming and onerous for a large number of stakeholders. 


A number of education systems apply tests or examinations to those who have recently completed programmes 

of initial teacher preparation. They do this for a number of reasons: the first is to define or ensure a “minimum 

standard for the profession” (Larsen, with Lock and Lee, 2005), which also serves to reassure the public, and 

parents in particular, about the quality of the teachers in charge of the education of their children. This is 

especially important in contexts where there is a lack of trust in the rigour and content of teacher preparation 

programmes (D’Agostino and Powers, 2009). 

Second, it is argued that tests can “provide future teachers the opportunity to learn a broad set of skills and 

an expansive knowledge base” (D’Agostino and Powers, 2009) through their influence on the curriculum of 

teacher preparation programmes whose graduates will be required to take the test before they can take up a 

teaching post. Third, research suggests that testing designed to ensure that teacher candidates have adequate 

subject knowledge is particularly beneficial. Kennedy (2008), for example, found that content knowledge has 

an important influence on teacher performance (Angrist and Guryan, 2008). More specifically, tests that can 

effectively measure potential new teachers’ literacy skills are said to be advantageous, since “a teacher’s level 

of literacy, as measured by vocabulary and other standardised tests, affects student achievement more than any 

other measurable teacher attribute” (Barber and Mourshed, 2007). 

Some education systems use competitive examinations as part of a centralised procedure to control the 

number of candidates with access to public employment as teachers and to allocate new (and more rarely 

in-service) teachers to particular teaching posts. In Spain, for example, a combination of pre-service teacher 

training coursework and competitive examinations (both written and oral) are used to control access to 

teaching posts in the public sector. In Greece the weighted results of a written examination are used to 

allocate vacancies, with the first choice of schools going to the most successful candidates, judged by their 

national ranking in the test. 



Related to the arguments set out above, tests (and competitive examinations in particular) are one method by 

which countries may seek to raise the status of the teaching profession and thus raise the quality of applicants 

(Barber and Mourshed, 2007). 

Despite the existence of these various arguments for testing, however, the empirical evidence to support them 

is thin and it is clear that there exist alternative means of achieving most of their claimed benefits. For example, 

regarding the influence of standardised examinations on the curricula of initial teacher preparation (ITP) 

programmes, we have seen that some countries seek to achieve similar goals through alternative strategies, such 

as the validation and inspection of ITP providers. It may also be argued that alternative methods of assessing 

teacher candidates’ subject knowledge (such as the subjects studied and grades/classifications gained in high 

school or on undergraduate degrees) might be equally or more valid, although there is not always a good and 

consistent match between the content of (for example) undergraduate degrees and the content knowledge 

candidates are deemed to require for teaching. (Hobson et al, 2009) 

One of the main arguments against the use of tests or examinations as a form of assessing beginner teachers’ 

competence or readiness to take up teaching posts is that “the assumption that effective teaching can be ensured 

by isolating sets of skills that can be measured through the use of multiple choice tests, check-lists or schedules 

of competence statements ignores the complexities and highly contextualised nature of teaching” (Larsen, 

with Lock and Lee, 2005). In particular, commonly used examinations such as multiple choice and paper-andpencil 

tests cannot “meaningfully measure such crucial teaching qualities as dedication, leadership, sensitivity, 

reflective thinking, ability to communicate and social awareness” (Glassford, 2005). As a result, testing can “fail 

to distinguish good teachers from bad” (Loeb, Rouse and Shorris, 2007). One US panel of experts concluded 

that “there is currently little evidence available about the extent to which widely used teacher licensure tests 

distinguish between candidates who are minimally competent to teach and those who are not” (Committee on 

Assessment and Teacher Quality, 2000, cited in Larsen, with Lock and Lee, 2005). Similarly, a meta-analysis by 

D’Agostino and Powers (2009) found that “tests reveal little about [teaching] performance”. The same authors 

reported that test scores tended to be “less related to teaching performance than students’ success levels in 

the pre-service programmes the tests were designed to hold accountable”, and that “pre-service teachers’ 

performance in college, especially during student teaching, predicted performance better than teacher tests”. 

They concluded that those involved in hiring and selecting teachers ought to focus as much or more on 

candidates’ performance during ITP as “on their scores in the tests used for licensure purposes”. 

Contrary to the argument presented above about the potential positive effect of testing on the content of 

ITP programmes, it may also be argued that testing, especially in high stakes competitive examinations, is 

disadvantageous insofar as it may encourage ITP programme providers to “teach to the test” – that is, to seek 

to maximise trainees’ performance in the examinations rather than focus on helping them to develop their 

capability as teachers. 

As might be expected, given the evidence set out above, it is clear that while most of the world’s best 

performing school systems do use some form of testing (for example literacy and numeracy tests) as a method 

of screening potential entrants to the teaching profession, they do not rely too heavily on this method. 

Rather, they tend to employ testing alongside other, more authentic, methods of assessing teacher candidates’ 

competence, such as portfolios of evidence and the assessment of student progress. As Brodsky and Woods 

(2000) noted: “While traditional forms of documentation, such as tests and term papers, are still used to 

evaluate [candidates’] knowledge, more authentic instruments are used to evaluate what they are able to do.” 

Another crucial consideration in selecting and recruiting the most able teachers or potential teachers relates 

to the means of assessing whether or not those selected to undertake a programme of ITP are judged to have 

successfully completed such a programme. In many countries around the world, student teachers face a range 


89

90 



of types of assessment throughout the duration of their ITP programmes. These usually incorporate assignments, 

observations of their teaching in school, portfolios 16 and examinations. In France, trainee teachers have to 

complete a dissertation based on six weeks’ practical experience in a school as well as a further six weeks of 

teaching practice in another school (Asher and Malet, 1999). 

In England, all prospective teachers must meet a prescribed set of standards relating to aspects of teaching 

competence to achieve qualified teacher status (QTS). Evidence that these standards have been met takes a 

range of forms, including observations of teaching and professional conduct in school settings, a portfolio of 

evidence, and oral and written assignments. In recent years prospective teachers have also had to successfully 

pass online tests in numeracy, literacy and information and communication technology (ICT). Trainees are 

allowed to retake the tests as many times as needed for success but will only be recommended for the award of 

QTS on successful completion of all three. 

In some systems, a threshold test during ITP is employed to determine which candidates are allowed to 

continue with their training. In Germany, there are two levels or phases of ITP. The first (university-based) phase 

– in which candidates study two (secondary school) or three (primary school) subject disciplines, along with 

courses in pedagogy and other aspects of education – is assessed by an examination, success in which leads 

to the second (practicum or internship) phase of ITP (Ostinelli, 2009). During the two-year internship phase, 

at least 25 lessons are observed and evaluated as part of the assessment (Cobb, 1999); this is followed by an 

examination designed to evaluate trainees’ ability to reflect critically on professional practice, the results of 

which are fed into a classification system used in assigning teaching posts. 

Not all countries make use of examinations to assess prospective teachers’ abilities. In Australia, assessment 

systems differ from state to state but there is no standardised examination. Instead, trainees are assessed 

by a range of “performance-based assessments” which are principally related to prospective teachers’ 

experience in school on the “practicum” (Larsen, with Lock and Lee, 2005). Some universities require an 

extended reflective action research project, while others encourage trainees to set their own goals during 

their practicum; goals which are subsequently examined through a blend of self-assessment and school 

mentor assessments (Ingvarson et al., 2006). 

Beyond the entry-to-ITP phase, qualifying to teach in Finland is also not examination-based. Instead, alongside 

other methods of assessment, including essays, investigation tasks and evaluations of their ability to take an 

active part in discussion seminars, trainee teachers have to produce a Master’s level dissertation. The thesis topic 

for this is usually pedagogical or psychological for those wishing to teach primary-aged children, and subject 

discipline for those wishing to teach secondary-aged children. According to Ostinelli (2009), this type of ITP 

leads to a highly motivated teaching profession where attrition rates are low. 

How to revise, improve and expand the processes for assessing the suitability of teacher candidates 

and in-service teachers to teach (teacher licensing) 

The Steering Group considers that Mexico should continue to improve the strategies to assess the suitability of 

teachers to teach and in the short term should aim to do the following: 

• further develop and improve the teacher examination (concurso); 

• continue introducing more authentic and performance-based means of assessing the knowledge and 

capabilities of teachers; 

• improve the governance structure and, in particular, the operation of the OEIF, while looking for a more 

efficient long-term strategy. 



The OECD Steering Group considers that Mexico needs to strengthen existing mechanisms for assessing 

whether or not student teachers successfully graduate from ITP, in order to ensure that all potential entrants 

to the teaching profession meet minimum standards, particularly in relation to their practical teaching skills. 

At present, for many providers of ITP, the completion and successful validation of the programme appear to 

be largely one and the same, and in many institutions the mechanisms for assessing and confirming teacher 

candidates’ practical teaching capabilities are weak. 

Given the current situation in Mexico, in which the quality of ITP remains weak or variable, the OECD Steering 

Group believes that it will be efficient to continue to employ the National Teacher Examination to help make 

judgments about the suitability of: in-service teachers for appointment to permanent positions or second 

teaching posts (doble plaza); and newly qualified teachers for appointment as teachers. This would mean 

continuing to use an improved version of the examination to assess the knowledge of all newly certificated 

prospective teachers. Measures to achieve this could be: 

• The present (four-section) broad structure of the examination should be retained and strengthened through 

increasing the number of questions overall and introducing some open-ended questions to supplement 

existing multiple choice or “tick box” questions. 

• Pass marks of the examination should progress towards systems based on standards rather than normreferenced, 

and should be defined at national level and consistent across states (see Recommendation 1). 

• Introduce, in the short term, a minimum level in the exam that all candidate teachers should reach, independently 

of the availability of teaching posts. This will allow to differentiate among those that are currently classified as 

“needing levelling support” between those candidates that are eligible for a teaching post and those candidates 

that need further support and would need to retake the test. This would allow to choose the candidates among 

those who reach the minimum standard, and assign the posts to those who obtain the best results of this group. 

In this way the exam would combine a criterion reference approach (establishing a cut score) with a norm 

reference approach (assigning posts according to the scores obtained by candidates). 

The Steering Group would also encourage the use of more authentic and performance-based means of 

assessing the knowledge and capabilities of teachers. The interviews, portfolios and psychometric 

examinations already requested or being explored in some states can be adequate complementary tools 

(if quality and transparency are assured). For new prospective teachers, some of these more authentic tools 

could be linked to their in-school teaching practice during their initial preparation programme (for example 

in order to apply for the examination they can present a portfolio of work prepared during the last year of 

practice evaluated by an independent certified evaluator). For those already working as non-permanent 

teachers but seeking permanent posts, these more authentic assessments could be based on their actual 

performance as teachers (for example a teacher can provide a portfolio of his/her work during the last couple 

of years, commented on by his/her director). 

The Steering Group considers that those applicants who do not successfully complete the examination but 

who score above a certain level which indicates the potential to achieve a minimum level should have the 

opportunity to undertake additional training. Therefore it strongly supports the decision of the OEIF to request 

those classified as “needing levelling support” to follow a remedial course. These courses could be an excellent 

opportunity for teachers to catch up on those areas/topics that were weak during their ITP. However, in order 

to achieve this goal, the extra preparation should be carefully designed and adapted as much as possible to 

real teachers’ needs. Furthermore, teachers that stand below the minimum acceptable level and have taken the 

additional training, would need to pass the teacher examination before obtaining a teaching post. At the same 

time, more authentic assessment tools could be used to give them feedback and improve their practices (for 

example interviews, peer support, portfolios). 


91

92 



The Steering Group considers that the quality of Mexican education would improve if teachers are strongly 

supported to become better. However, in order to improve Mexican education it is also necessary to prevent 

incompetent teachers from entering or remaining in the education system teaching Mexican children. Therefore 

it suggests that: 

• Newly qualified teachers who do not reach the minimum acceptable in the examination (for example after 

a second or third attempt), should no longer be eligible to become teachers. 

• In-service (non-permanent) teachers who do not reach the minimum acceptable in the examination (for 

example for a second or third time) should no longer be eligible for a permanent post. 

• Those who are applying for a second teaching post (doble plaza) and do not reach the minimum acceptable 

of the examination should not obtain the second post, and should enter into a carefully designed support 

and evaluation scheme. 

The Steering Group considers in the short term that the aims, governance and operation of the OEIF should 

be revised. The technical and political functions, which are currently combined, should be separated. A more 

streamlined working group should be established in order to effectively undertake technical development work 

in a more efficient manner, and should include representatives of ITP providers and independent academic 

experts. CENEVAL, or an alternative body chosen to administer the national examination, should be (re-) 

commissioned to develop the examination for a minimum (for example two-year) period, in order to provide 

some continuity and enable them to plan ahead; this should be done as soon as possible in order to give the 

organisation sufficient time to consult widely, develop questions and prepare examinations that are fit for 

purpose, and to design additional instruments. This may also improve the information teachers have available 

and facilitate their preparation for the examination. A different structure, comprising state and national 

representatives, can be responsible for approving the main domains of knowledge and skills to be assessed, 

the timetable and ground rules governing the administration of the tests in the different states, and the public 

communication strategy. 

If Mexico wants to consolidate a professional teacher licensing mechanism in the medium term, it would need 

to continue working towards establishing more efficient, transparent and fair permanent structures. This means 

that the current OEIF structure and functioning may need to evolve. It is important to separate technical from 

political tasks. However, teachers’ examinations and certification will have only limited success in improving 

the quality of teaching and learning in schools if these measures do not come with effective strategies designed 

to improve the quality of – and confidence in – initial teacher preparation. 

recommendatIon 5: Progressively open all teaching posts to competition, and revise the 

process of initial appointment to teaching posts to allow more selection choice for both candidates 

and schools 

All teacher posts (including vacancies) should be open for competition, given that at present some are allocated 

through the mixed commissions and others through the licensing examination (concurso). The system for 

allocating teachers to schools, currently based on teacher choice, should be improved so that there is a better 

match between schools and teachers. The Sistema de Corrimiento should be kept and improved. 17 

Context 

Mexico formally reported in 2004 to the OECD that the allocation of teachers to new posts was the exclusive 

responsibility of state authorities in 11 states; a shared task between SNTE and the state (50% each) in 18 

states; and an independent SNTE decision in three states. Regarding vacant posts (open posts created due to 

resignation, death or retirement of other teachers) the report signalled that, in 13 states SNTE independently 



allocates these posts; in seven states the state authorities independently take this decision; and in the other 12, 

this is a shared task between SNTE and the state authorities (50% each) (Guevara and Gonzalez, 2004). Nieto 

confirms that, until a short while ago, education authorities had in practice the right to assign only half of the 

newly created posts; the SNTE took part in the allocation of almost all of them (Santibáñez, 2008). 

The Steering Group emphasises that, since the introduction of the new National Teacher Examination (see 

Recommendation 4 in this chapter), all new posts have had to be filled by means of competitive examination. 

However, most of the vacancies (around 70% of available posts each year) are not yet open for competition. The 

media has recently cited a report called Incidencias de Personal 2001–2006, which concludes that during that 

period eight out of ten teaching posts in Mexico were decided by or in agreement with the SNTE. 18 

The 2008 Alianza por la Calidad de la Educación, established that the candidates ranked highest in the 

examination would be given the first choice of schools with available posts that they would be allocated to. 

The examination, administered for the first time in 2008, was designed primarily to strengthen the quality 

of teachers, using performance as a basis for teacher appointment and promotion, and to achieve greater 

transparency and accountability. 

While the new system has, to some extent, brought greater transparency and fairness, the new procedures have 

a number of limitations. For example: while 50 000 teaching posts were available, only 8 000 were open for 

competition; some candidates who failed the examination nevertheless still obtained a non-permanent teaching 

post; and a lack of transparency remains with regard to the precise mechanisms for appointing teachers to 

schools in some states (Nieto de Pascual Pola, 2009). 

In addition, requiring in-service teachers to undertake examinations, especially those who feel they have already 

demonstrated their competence as teachers, can be damaging to their morale and commitment. Furthermore, 

assuming that there exists some correlation between performance in the examination and teacher quality, 

the likelihood that those teachers who score most highly in the examination will choose to work in the most 

desirable schools, means that existing inequities between schools and regions may be exacerbated. 


A comparative study carried out by the OECD shows that in countries with a more centralised approach (including 

those applying competitive entrance examinations, for example France, Korea and Italy), as well as those more 

decentralised countries (where schools usually follow “open recruitment” to hire teachers, for example Canada, 

Denmark, Finland and the United Kingdom), all teaching posts are open for fair competition (OECD, 2005). 

Regarding centralised procedures for appointing teacher candidates more generally, the OECD (2005) notes 

that in countries where schools have little direct involvement in appointing teachers, the process of teacher 

selection is not merely “highly impersonal”, it is also “hard for teachers to build a sense of commitment to the 

schools where they are appointed” and very difficult if not impossible to ensure that “schools have the teachers 

that fit their particular needs”. From their review of the evidence, these authors conclude that “greater school 

involvement in teacher selection … helps to improve educational quality” and should be encouraged. School 

leaders’ ability to select their teaching staff is central to their ability to establish a school culture and capacity 

that are conducive to better student performance (OECD, 2008). We would add that teachers are likely to be 

more effective in schools they have affirmatively chosen to join. 

In those (most) countries in which schools (or their directors or governing bodies) are responsible for appointing 

their own teaching staff, a range of selection procedures are used. These procedures usually include one or more 

of the following: face-to-face interviews with applicants (often by a panel); observation of candidates’ teaching 


93

94 



(for example of a “sample lesson” in the school to which they are applying for a post) and/or completion of 

other set tasks; examination of applicants’ portfolios of evidence; evidence of previous academic performance 

(for example, degree classification); and references (for example from ITP tutors and teachers in schools in 

which the applicants trained or taught). In the case of hard-to-staff schools, incentives may be needed to 

promote a minimum stability of the teacher body for two or three years. This measure would allow a sense of 

ownership of the school by the teacher, and would foster equity. 

How to progressively open all teaching posts to competition, and revise the process of initial 

appointment to teaching posts to allow more suitability and choice for both candidates and schools 

The Steering Group suggests that all teaching posts should progressively be opened to competition; this includes 

new and vacant posts. The current system of allocating teachers to schools, linked to the results of the teacher 

examination, should be improved to achieve a better match between schools and teachers. At the same time, 

the Sistema de Corrimiento should be kept but improved. 

The decision to use ranking on the examination as a principal means of allocating teachers to schools has been 

an important step forward for Mexico in increasing transparency in the teacher appointment process. However, 

results in the examination should not be the exclusive source of information upon which such judgments 

are made, and ought to be used alongside additional methods of establishing candidates’ competence and 

suitability or “fit” for the specific needs of the particular school. If well implemented, this can make the system 

of teacher allocation to schools more transparent and merit-based. 

If Mexico intends to hold schools more accountable for student performance, it is critical that they be given a 

stronger role in selecting teachers. The next chapter of this report argues that one of the principal roles of school 

leaders is to help build a positive and distinctive school culture. Central to accomplishing this goal is the ability 

of directors to recruit staff who understand and fit that culture. It is also important in the teacher allocation 

process that the schools with the greatest need be given priority to select teachers they believe can be most 

effective in their specific context. This may require Mexican officials to create incentives to persuade talented 

young teachers and directors to choose and/or remain in rural, hard-to-staff schools. 

From the candidate’s perspective, it is also important to build some flexibility into the appointment system, 

since teachers are more likely to be effective in schools they have chosen, and where they believe there is a 

good match between their strengths and interests and the school’s needs. The Steering Group believes there are 

ways to introduce more choice into the system without undermining the progress that has been made through 

introducing the national examination and ranking system. One suggestion, already in place in at least one state, 

is to allow the top three candidates to interview for a given vacancy, and then to allow the school to choose 

between them. As long as vacancies are filled at the schools with the greatest need first, giving schools and 

candidates more opportunity to choose one another should not neccessarily undermine the equity goals of the 

system. 

recommendatIon 6: Establish a probationary period for beginning teachers with intensive 

mentoring and support, followed by a performance evaluation before appointment to a permanent 

post. Create a cadre of excellent mentor teachers to provide such support 

As the first years of practice are key to teaching quality, and there are concerns about ITP and the initial 

selection of teachers, it is important to implement a formal induction period with substantial support for all 

beginning teachers (including those with non-permanent posts) and a probation period for beginning teachers 

to demonstrate in practice that they are capable of effectively facilitating student learning and successfully 

undertaking other aspects of their teacher roles. 


Context 


What most higher performing countries have learned is that no matter how good their initial teacher preparation 

institutions are, a fraction of their graduates will not make a successful transition into teaching. They have also 

learned that they must provide substantial on-the-job support for even well-prepared beginning teachers to 

enable them to make a successful transition from student to fully-fledged teacher. Therefore in countries such 

as Mexico where initial teacher preparation is uneven and many teachers have received a weak education, 

adequate professional development for beginning teachers is key for their future and that of their students. 

Presently, induction programmes in general do not seem to be very common, either for those beginning teachers 

who obtain a permanent post or for those hired as non-permanent teachers. It seems that in most schools there 

is no formal structured support or mentoring programmes for teachers. Furthermore, there does not seem to be 

much discussion at the federal and state level about the need to develop mechanisms to support new teachers 

and help them to develop their professional skills 

In contrast to the situation in many educationally high performing countries, in Mexico there is no probation 

period at the end of which beginning teachers must demonstrate their competence in facilitating student learning 

and undertaking other aspects of their teacher roles. In fact, beginning teachers who obtain a permanent post 

immediately after their studies can keep it de facto for their whole life, even if they are unable to prove they 

can be good teachers. A distinction should be made in this context between induction and probation (see the 

definitions in Box 3.9). 

Box 3.9 Induction and probation for beginning teachers 

Many countries have two different parallel processes for beginning teachers in their first years of service. 

• Induction: normally understood as a programme designed to support new teachers. Mentoring is 

usually part of the induction programmes. Mentoring can be defined as the one-to-one support of a 

novice or less experienced practitioner (mentee) by a more experienced practitioner (mentor), designed 

primarily to assist the development of the mentee’s expertise and to facilitate their induction into the 

culture of the profession (in this case, teaching) and into the specific local context (here, the school). 

• Probation: usually defined as a kind of “on the job” qualifying phase that must be successfully 

completed before the teacher is eligible for a permanent position. 

Those responsible for assessing beginning teachers during the probation phase are usually not the same 

people (such as mentors) as those who support their induction. 

Source: Eurydice (2002), The teaching profession in Europe: Profile, trends and concerns. General lower secondary 

education. Volume 1: Initial training and transition to working life. Eurydice European Unit, Brussels. Hobson, A. J. 

et al (2009), “Mentoring Beginning Teachers: What We Know and What We Don’t”, Teaching and Teacher Education: 

An International Journal of Research and Studies, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 207-216. 

There do appear to be education professionals working within and across schools who would potentially 

be well placed to undertake both the assessment function associated with new teacher probation and the 

corresponding support function of new teacher induction. These are supervisors (who work across schools) 

and technical pedagogical advisors (Asesores Técnico-Pedagógicos, ATPs) (who already hold support 

roles within schools but also across schools) respectively. Unfortunately the ATPs’ posts and tasks are not 

clearly defined in most of the states and, as with teachers, their work, career progression, professional 


95

96 



development and evaluation are not guided by clear standards and guidelines. The tasks of supervisors are 

better defined, but they do not seem to be given the adequate support and resources to undertake their 

tasks which are de facto mainly administrative. The Steering Group was informed that many ATPs and 

supervisors are not appointed according to their capacities or merits, but for many other reasons including 

non-transparent practices or because, despite their negative performance, it was difficult to take them out 

of the education system. 


The experiences of teachers during their first years are of crucial importance for their future development of the 

skills and knowledge needed for good teaching. Many countries offer different support mechanisms for new 

teachers during their first years of service (Eurydice, 2002; see also Box 3.10). 

Recent research has found that beginner teachers can profit a great deal from mentoring, but not all mentoring is 

good. Selection and preparation of mentors influence the quality of mentoring. One problem is that sometimes 

not enough time is given to the mentors to carry out their tasks. In order to make sure that mentoring works it 

is necessary to see that mentors are carefully selected, given sufficient time to carry out their tasks and have the 

opportunity to participate in good preparation programmes (Hobson et al., 2009). In cases where, for whatever 

reason, it is not possible to offer mentoring for beginner teachers, they might be offered early professional 

development programmes as an alternative (McIntyre, Hobson and Mitchell, 2009). 

In several higher-performing education systems, beginning teachers are required to undertake a period of 

probation, by the end of which they must have confirmed their capability or competence in order to secure their 

license to teach. While such probationary and induction periods normally (for example in England and New 

Zealand) last for one or two years, in some systems (for example in Boston and Chicago in the US) they can 

last for as many as three or four. However long they last, such approaches normally provide a mechanism by 

which those who are judged to be ineffective may be removed from their posts and from the profession, while 

those who are able to demonstrate their competence may be given or become eligible for a permanent position. 

More generally, a probationary period typically takes place, as is the case in England, alongside or as part 

of a new teacher induction programme which includes mentoring support, thereby creating opportunities 

for formative as well as summative assessment and for teacher development (Larsen, with Lock and Lee, 

2005). However, some studies suggest that the assessment of beginning teachers should not be carried out 

by the same people who support their induction and early professional development, since (for example) 

in such circumstances beginning teachers are less likely to admit to areas of weakness and thus to identify 

their professional development needs (Hobson, 2009; Abell et al.; 1995, Heilbronn et al.; 2002; Williams and 

Prestage, 2002). 

In accordance with the advice of Roelofs (2007), who argued that “all evidence of competence should be 

registered and interpreted within specific teaching situations”, teacher evaluation in most systems which have 

probationary periods for new teachers normally involves various forms of performance-based assessment. 

These typically include direct observation of the candidate’s teaching and/or assessment of documentary 

evidence through which beginning teachers need to demonstrate their teaching capability against a set of 

standards. In England, for example, beginning teachers are observed six times (normally during the first 

three terms of their first teaching post), while their professional attributes in and out of the classroom are 

also monitored. In many parts of the world, including the USA, documentary evidence is increasingly being 

presented in teacher portfolios. In Connecticut, for example, decisions about whether to license beginning 

teachers are based largely upon the assessment of a portfolio which contains a range of evidence relating to 

the first two years of teaching: 



“The portfolio requirements are highly structured and subject-specific. The portfolio is comprised of documentary 

evidence of a unit of instruction on a significant concept, including lesson logs, videotapes of classroom 

teaching, teacher commentaries, samples of student work, and reflections on their planning, instruction, and 

assessment of student progress. Teachers are asked to demonstrate how they think and act on behalf of their 

students. In doing so, teachers are able to show their skills and knowledge in a […] nuanced manner, speaking 

to their experiences in the use of specific classroom teaching strategies with particular groups of students” 

(Larsen, with Lock and Lee, 2005). 

Portfolios are regarded by many as effective mechanisms for facilitating not only the assessment but also the 

professional learning of probationary and other teachers. It is argued, for example, that the process of putting 

together a portfolio can enhance teaching by promoting (or further encouraging) reflective practice. Portfolios 

are useful to evaluate real teaching practices, which are the most elusive component for traditional evaluation 

methods (Sun Figueroa, 2010). 

How to establish a probationary period for beginning teachers with intensive mentoring and 

support, followed by a performance evaluation before appointment to a permanent post, and 

create a cadre of excellent mentor teachers to provide such support 

Induction and probation schemes during the first year(s) of a beginning teacher’s career are fundamental 

processes that Mexico should implement. The Steering Group recommends implementing a formal induction 

period with substantial support for all beginning teachers and a probation period in which beginning teachers 

are expected to demonstrate in practice that they are capable of effectively facilitating student learning and 

successfully undertaking other aspects of their teacher role. 

An important step in establishing teaching as a respected profession is to put in place a process for requiring 

teachers to demonstrate that they can meet professional standards of practice at a reasonably high level before 

awarding them a permanent post. However, in order to put in place a meaningful probation period coupled with 

an effective final evaluation, it is necessary first to create an induction and support system for beginning teachers 

so they can have ready access to experienced, accomplished professionals to guide their on-the-job learning. 

In the view of the Steering Group, teaching is fundamentally a craft, and a first year teacher should be viewed 

more as an apprentice than a fully formed teacher. For this reason it is important to structure schools so 

that beginners can have the opportunity to observe and work under the tutelage of mentors who can model 

exemplary teaching practices. 

Creating and training a cadre of mentor teachers is not only key to putting in place a fair system for supporting 

and evaluating probationary teachers, it can also be a powerful strategy for recognising and rewarding 

outstanding teachers and extending their influence to other schools and districts. If Mexican schools are to 

become learning organisations, teaching practice needs to become more public and more subject to scrutiny 

by peers, and every school will need teachers who can lead such ongoing inquiry into the improvement of 

practice. Mentor teachers can be an important vehicle for distributing leadership in schools, an idea that will 

be further developed in Chapter 4. Some experienced teachers should be trained to become mentors (for 

induction), others to become evaluators (for probation). 

In the view of the Steering Group, Mexico should offer induction schemes to all beginning teachers who work 

in classrooms (including those who passed the National Teacher Examination and are expecting a permanent 

post (see Recommendation 4) and those who failed the examination but are hired as non-permanent teachers). 

At the same time, it considers that all teachers should complete a probation period to a satisfactory standard 

before obtaining a permanent post. In order to reinforce teachers’ induction support, Mexico can redirect part 


97

98 



of the professional development options and resources (see Recommendation 7) to beginning teachers. These 

professional development opportunities could be proposed by the federal authorities or by the states. 

Those who fall short of the standards and do not demonstrate sufficient potential for meeting them in the 

foreseeable future should be released from the classroom. Those who do not meet the standards at the end of 

their probation period but who are judged to have the potential to do so within 12 months should have their 

probationary and induction programme extended (for example into a second year), although if they do not 

reach the relevant standards by the end of this period they too should be released from the education system. 

Only when teachers have successfully met the standards should they become eligible for permanent status. 

The Steering Group does not have a fixed view on the ideal length of the probation period for beginning 

teachers, but we think it should be at least one or two years. We understand that under Mexican labour law a 

six-month probation period would be possible. This is short by international standards, but it suggests a place 

to begin while pushing for a more extended period in the future. 

recommendatIon 7: Build a more relevant system of integral professional development 

that combines school-based development options with the course-based options in the National 

Training Catalogue 

The current supply of professional development is dispersed across a range of different providers and 

organisations and teachers say that the courses offered to them may not be relevant to their needs. Many 

teachers fund their own choices beyond the courses offered by the government and the states. Development 

options should be diversified and made more coherent and relevant to school needs. Current efforts to make 

the National Training Catalogue more relevant should continue; and school-based training opportunities should 

be increased and supported. 

Context 

Since 1992 Mexico has provided continuing professional development for a large number of teachers. 

According to the OECD’s Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS), Mexican teachers have one 

of the highest rates of participation in training and professional development (92%, with an average across 

TALIS countries of 89%). About 66% of the professional development days are compulsory in Mexico, which 

is higher than the OECD average of 51%. Mexico also has more than twice the TALIS average number of days 

of professional development for teachers (34, compared to the TALIS average of 15). The most common type of 

professional development that Mexican teachers participated in was “courses and workshops” (94%) (OECD, 

2009). TALIS also shows that Mexico has the highest percentage of teachers reporting that they would have 

liked to have received more professional development than they did (80%). The main professional development 

needs identified by the teachers concerned deal with heterogeneity in the classrooms, such as teaching students 

with special learning needs, teaching in a multicultural setting and student counselling. 

The percentage of Mexican teachers whose school director reports a lack of qualified teachers as a factor 

hindering learning is almost twice the average of other participating countries (69%, compared to the TALIS 

average of 38%). TALIS results also indicate that in Mexico there is a pronounced difference in the participation 

rates of teachers in professional development courses according to their previous qualification level: teachers 

with higher initial qualifications have higher participation rates. Those with at least a Master’s degree or higher 

received almost twice the number of days of development courses than those with less than a Bachelor’s 

degree. Teachers in village schools took an average of eight days fewer than those living in a small town or a 

large city. Furthermore, despite the fact that all the courses offered by the federal government and the states 

are free, Mexican teachers were more likely to report cost as a barrier to taking more (about half the teachers 



reported not being able to take more professional development courses because they were too expensive). The 

percentage of Mexican teachers who had to pay for all the costs of their professional development was twice the 

average across TALIS countries (19% compared with the TALIS average of 8%). Mexico has one of the highest 

percentages (25%) of teachers having to pay for the full cost of their professional development. 

Teachers can take up to 200 different courses offered for teachers in the National Training Catalogue (Catálogo 

Nacional de Formación). The focus of the catalogue has, in recent years, shifted from more general courses 

in pedagogy to more content-oriented courses, with a particular focus on mathematics, sciences, language, 

history, civics and ethics. Many teachers and directors argued that the courses in the Catalogue were not always 

relevant to their needs or were not offered when needed in their states. It should be noted, however, that the 

needs identified by TALIS (responding to students with special learning needs, teaching in multicultural settings 

and student counselling) do not seem to be emphasised sufficiently in the Catalogue. 

Participation in the courses offered in the catalogue can, together with accreditation of other activities and 

professional experience, be used by teachers to increase their salaries through Carrera Magisterial. The courses 

are usually organised by the Ministry of Education in special organisations referred to as “Teacher Centres” 

(Centros de Maestros). The courses are free of charge for the teachers, so long as they receive a passing grade. 

Even though these centres exist all over the country, many teachers must travel long distances to participate, 

taking them away from their students. Another option for states or communities where there are no centres is to 

take the courses in the SEP offices across the states. 

To open up supply, in the most recent catalogue, there are courses provided by a wider range of institutions, 

especially tertiary education institutions. The goal is to offer more structured professional development options 

and to give teachers the opportunity to complete diplomados (specialisation), Master’s and PhD programmes. 

The states’ education authorities provide other professional development for teachers. Some of these are 

organised in collaboration with the federal government; others are organised directly by the states. In addition to 

the offer of the National Training Catalogue and the states, there is a wide range of different activities organised 

by universities, the states or by private organisations. Some of these activities get public support or funding. 

However, since these activities are not considered training courses that are part of the Catalogue (Cursos de 

Actualización), teachers who take them do not obtain credits in Carrera Magisterial (Aguerrondo, Benavides 

and Pont, 2009). As explained previously (Recommendation 6), it seems there is not sufficient and structured 

sustained support programmes for beginning teachers – either for tutors or for teachers who would like to 

become directors (see Chapter 4). There are very few opportunities to offer collective training in schools based 

on schools’ needs and realities. 


Even with an excellent system for initial teacher preparation and induction it will always be necessary to provide 

continuous professional development for teachers throughout their career. Continuous professional development 

includes a range of tasks such as to “update, develop and broaden the knowledge of teachers acquired during 

the initial teacher education and/or provide them with new skills and professional understanding” (OECD, 2005). 

Nearly 90% of the teachers in the countries participating in TALIS reported taking part in a structured 

professional development activity during the 18 months preceding the collection of data. The most common 

forms of teacher participation in continuing training are informal dialogue to improve teaching, courses and 

workshops and reading of professional literature. Most teachers also reported that they would have liked 

more professional development, but the views varied widely. Most teachers requesting further professional 

development seem to need support on issues related to teaching students with special learning needs, ICT 


99

100 


teaching and student behaviour. When teachers were asked about the reasons why they might not participate 

in professional development the most common, given by 47% of all teachers in the study, was “conflict with 

work schedule” (OECD, 2009). 

According to Villegas-Reimers (2003), evidence shows that continuous professional development has an impact 

on teachers´ beliefs and behaviour, but the relationship between teachers´ beliefs and their practice is far from 

simple. Scheerens (2000) observes that studies of unusually effective schools in developed countries agree that 

opportunities for professional development are one of the relevant factors that can have an impact. A World 

Bank review of education in Africa reported that in-service training of teachers can have a positive impact 

on educational quality if it is appropriate, well-organised and competently delivered (World Bank, 1988). 

Darling-Hammond (1999) concludes: “Teachers who participated in sustained curriculum-based professional 

development reported changes in practice that, in turn, were associated with significantly higher student 

achievement scores on state assessment”. 

In around half of the countries that participated in TALIS, teachers who had received more professional 

development reported significantly higher levels of self-efficacy. TALIS also suggests that teachers’ participation 

in professional development goes hand in hand with their mastery of a wider array of methods to use in the 

classroom, even if it is not clear to what extent professional development triggers or responds to the adoption 

of new techniques. The great majority of teachers reported that the professional development they took part in, 

across a range of activities, had a moderate or high impact. The greatest perceived impact is in teacher research 

and qualification programmes. Yet relatively few participate in this type of activity and those who do often feel 

frustrated by the lack of sufficient time to devote to it (OECD, 2009). It seems safe to assume that the impact of 

continuous professional development varies a great deal. To what extent it has an impact on students’ learning 

depends on whether or not it meets the needs of students, teachers and schools. In that context, the way it is 

organised and its content seem to be crucial. 

Some studies, almost experimental in design, have shown that teachers who have been given in-service training 

in a specific topic manage to produce better results in this topic in their classes than teachers who have not 

received the same training (Good, Grouws and Ebmeier, 1983; McCutchen et al., 2002). Research also shows 

that traditional in-service training organised through seminars and courses often has a very limited impact on 

the quality of education (Feiman-Nemser, 2001; Schwille and Dembélé, 2007). 

There are indications that school-based professional development in many cases is more efficient as a tool to 

improve teaching than traditional in-service courses (Musset, 2010; OECD, 2009; Villegas-Reimers, 2003; Hill, 

2007). In some countries a clear link has been developed between continuous professional development and 

the needs of the schools and the students. This approach can be found in decentralised education systems such 

as those in Iceland, Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands and Sweden (OECD, 2005), but also in more centralised 

systems such as the province of Ontario (Canada). The director of the school decides, in consultation with the 

teachers, about the content and structure of the professional development. Closely linked to this approach is 

school self-evaluation, where schools themselves identify their needs and what to do to meet them (McBeath 

et al., 2000). Such school self-evaluation can be organised in many different ways, ranging from “spin-offs” of 

external evaluations to entirely internally determined evaluations (Scheerens, 2000). 

The providers of professional development vary between countries. In some countries professional development 

is provided mainly by government agencies, universities and teacher education institutions. In other countries, 

mainly those with decentralised systems, the schools decide themselves between different providers on the 

market. The extent to which the market is regulated varies between countries (Eurydice, 2002). 




How to build a more relevant system of integral professional development that combines schoolbased 

development options with the course-based options in the National Training Catalogue 

The Steering Group considers that there is general agreement on the need to strengthen teachers´ professional 

development in Mexico and this is one of the priorities of the Alianza. However, Mexico still needs to target the 

right type of professional development, and identify the best ways to offer this and how better to coordinate the 

offer. A more relevant system of professional development needs to include more school(s)-based professional 

development. 

As the previous section emphasised, school-based professional development is the most efficient way to provide 

teachers with the support they need to improve their teaching. At the same time there is a need for a mix of 

different types of continuous professional development that meet different demands. Furthermore, the supply of 

training needs to be aligned with national teacher standards (Recommendation 1) and the national curriculum 

over the long run. 

As the courses in the National Training Catalogue seem to play such a crucial role for teachers’ professional 

development it seems to be most urgent to continue current efforts to improve the range of courses on offer. It 

is important to continue to emphasise the skills and knowledge of teachers in key subjects such as language 

and mathematics. In order to ensure that these courses lead to improvements, it is important to find ways to 

follow up how teachers take advantage of their new skills and knowledge. Such follow-up studies could be 

organised by universities and/or Normales and could also help to make teacher education a more recognised 

area of research. 

The closer collaboration in recent years between the SEP General Directorate of Continuous Education of In- 

Service Teachers and tertiary education institutions is also a move in the right direction. In order for Normales 

and universities to provide courses that focus on how to teach the subjects, there is a need to provide resources 

to these institutions so they can develop more research in this field. 

The other priority in continuous professional development is to create space for more school-based activities. 

At present, in general schools do not have the resources, capacity or autonomy to organise relevant training 

activities. Using the network of supervisors and technical pedagogical advisors (ATP) and providing additional 

guidance to schools and their directors as to how to understand needs and find the appropriate training is key. 

Some states, and those schools involved in the PEC programme, have had experience in school-based training. 

To gather experience, one option could be to start to pilot school-based training in some states where the 

possibilities for doing this are better and more advanced than in others. Careful evaluation of these experiences 

can be used to develop this approach further and to see how good experiences can be transferred from one 

state to another. 

It will therefore be key to revise the current strategies at national and state levels for providing professional 

development for teachers. These also imply rethinking how time and resources can be reorganised to free 

teachers so they can undertake these options. This implies: 1) completing the revision of the National Training 

Catalogue for relevance to teacher pedagogical and curricular practices; 2) developing approaches for schools 

and their teachers to define and formalise the specific professional development they need for their schools; 

and 3) ensuring that these additional professional development programmes are supported and accredited as 

part of their professional careers (in the teacher career ladder Carrera Magisterial for example) and linked to any 

formal evaluation system (see Recommendation 6 on the creation of a probation period and Recommendation 

8 on the creation of an in-service teacher evaluation system). Recommendation 13 suggests the development of 

networks of schools focused on developing learning communities for teachers and schools. 


101

102 



recommendatIon 8: Develop and implement a rigorous teacher evaluation system focused on 

improving teaching 

A standards-based teacher evaluation system is urgently needed in Mexico. This should be a purely formative 

system in its first years with adequate professional support opportunities. Once it is implemented and its rules 

are socialised, it can include formative and summative consequences, including rewarding excellent teachers 

and supporting less well-performing teachers. Teachers who are persistently poor performers should be excluded 

from the education system. 

Context 

Mexico does not currently have an effective system for evaluating teachers, fairly rewarding teachers whose 

practice is outstanding, or effectively supporting teachers whose practice needs to be improved. Teachers in 

Mexico are typically evaluated by their directors, and seldom by a person not within the school. Schools are 

not evaluated at all. Some states use students’ results in the National Evaluation of Academic Achievement 

in Schools (Evaluación Nacional de Logro Académico en Centros Escolares or ENLACE) examination as the 

only means of recognising individual teachers; a strategy that is discouraged by research (Manzi, 2009) and 

by the Steering Group. This issue is further discussed in the OECD report on in-service teacher evaluation 

and incentives (OECD, 2010c). 

As above mentioned, the current Carrera Magisterial programme and Escalafón are not efficient mechanisms 

for evaluating, supporting and rewarding teachers but rather promotion mechanisms for in-service teachers. 

The programme aims to link promotion and salary progression to teachers’ professional performance. However, 

“performance” is measured largely in terms of examination performance and attendance on courses, which are 

unlikely to reflect teachers’ effectiveness in facilitating student learning accurately (Santibáñez, 2002). A formal 

evaluation of Carrera Magisterial by the Research and Development Corporation (RAND) concluded that the 

programme has had little or no impact on student achievement (Santibáñez et al., 2006) while Nieto, (2009) 

argued that “as it works today, the CM does not allow the best teachers to be identified or rewarded”. It should 

also be mentioned that, in the current system, progression through the levels of Carrera Magisterial does not 

require evidence of improved teacher performance, as measured by evidence of improved student learning. 

Box 3.10 reviews the links between teacher evaluation and Carrera Magisterial. 

The Sectorial Education Programme 2007-2012 defines the goal of creating a systematic teacher evaluation 

system based on standards (Secretaría de Educación Pública, 2007) and the OECD was asked to provide some 

guidance and recommendations as to how to design a teacher evaluation system in Mexico. A specific report 

was drafted for that purpose and this recommendation draws on and summarises the key proposals presented 

(Mancera and Schmelkes, 2010). 

• The recommendation on teacher evaluation is presented within the teacher career paths strategy because the 

Steering Group believes that teacher evaluation is not an end in itself but should be part of a broader teacher 

policy strategy to raise student learning outcomes and overall school performance as well as to ensure 

that teachers have opportunities for improvement. Teacher evaluation can contribute to improve teacher 

performance and underlies the importance of teacher motivation and feedback mechanisms to teachers. 

• An important part of success depends on developing a good understanding of how to evaluate teachers 

and also of what can motivate teachers to maintain and improve quality. Teacher motivation is understood 

to embrace multiple dimensions, including an attractive work environment, career perspectives, access to 

professional development, efficient school management and opportunities to learn from and model effective 

teaching practices from other Mexican teachers. 




Box 3.10 teacher evaluation and its links to Carrera Magisterial 

A reliable teacher evaluation system must lie at the foundation of teacher incentive programmes as a 

means of measuring the quality of teaching accurately. 

Making Carrera Magisterial rely on a solid teacher evaluation system would help the programme revamp 

the factors upon which its evaluation lies today. The tests on “Preparación Profesional” and “Acreditación 

de Cursos de Actualización y Superación del Magisterio” measure some of the areas of teacher competence 

– disciplinary and pedagogical content – but cannot assess many other areas of the professional practice 

of teachers. Training courses may lead to improved teacher performance but this is not necessarily the 

case. “Desempeño escolar”, which relates to teacher performance as judged by directors or supervisors, 

does not rely on external evaluation methods that require judgement by independent evaluators. 

The instruments to enter the programme are the same as for promotions. An evaluation system that ties 

financial incentives to promotion should also demand more from those that reach the higher levels. 

Carrera Magisterial is well liked by teachers – not surprisingly, since it has led to salary increases for a 

majority of those who have applied. The federal government is investing over 40 billion Mexican pesos in 

the programme annually. The size of Carrera Magisterial and its impact on the teaching profession make 

it necessary to ensure that participating teachers are evaluated using the criteria and methods of a robust 

teacher evaluation system like the one proposed above. This is a major reason to accelerate the design 

and implementation of a solid teacher evaluation system. 

Source: Mancera and Schmelkes (2010), “Specific Policy Recommendations on the Development of a Comprehensive 

In-Service Teacher Evaluation Framework”, Analytical Paper, OECD, Paris. 

In order to have a reliable means of identifying and supporting teacher progress and improvement, individual 

schools or (in more centralised countries) education systems can have mechanisms in place to undertake 

evaluations of teachers on a regular basis. With regard to the wider aims of schools and the ultimate goal of 

maximising opportunities for student learning, the most effective systems of teacher evaluation are those that 

also link to and provide opportunities for continuing professional development and improvement (formative 

evaluation) and which serve to identify and reward effective teaching (summative evaluation), although these 

two goals may have sometimes conflicting implications (Santiago and Benavides, 2009). 

In addition, given the negative impact of retaining ineffective or low-performing teachers on student results 

(Barber and Mourshed, 2007), it is not surprising that however effective selection processes at entry to ITP, 

completion of ITP, and teacher appointment stages are, many education systems recognise the need for a means 

of removing from post those teachers who turn out to be ineffective. 

The first question to respond to is why to evaluate: in order to improve teaching practices, these have to be evaluated 

and a system put in place to support teachers for the improvement of student learning. To do this effectively, it is 

necessary then to address what to evaluate; that is, to describe the attributes of good teaching performance and to 

define an evaluation framework (Mancera and Schmelkes, 2010; see also Recommendation 1). The main purpose of 

teacher evaluation is to improve teaching and thus the students’ results. Therefore, teacher evaluation should always 

have formative purposes; that is, it should supply proper feedback to teachers on their needs for improvement. In 

addition, it should identify the support and teacher training mechanisms needed to ensure improvement. 


103

104 



The next question to respond to is how to evaluate. Among the different options for teacher evaluation countries 

use are: some measures of student performance, classroom observations, teacher interviews, teacher portfolios, 

teacher tests or questionnaires and surveys. Within this range of methods, the evidence suggests that alternative 

and more authentic methods of performance-related assessment, notably those that generate evidence relating 

Box 3.11 teacher evaluation systems in chile and england 

In chile, the System of Professional Teacher Performance Evaluation for teachers in public schools 

(Sistema de Evaluación del Desempeño Profesional Docente administradas por las municipalidades) aims 

at the improvement of teaching and consequently also of students’ results. It is designed to stimulate 

teachers to further their own improvement through learning about their strengths and weaknesses. 

It is based on explicit criteria of what will be evaluated, but without forcing a prescriptive model of 

teaching. Other aims have also been defined by those in charge of designing and implementing the 

evaluation system: a) recognition of professional merit; b) improvement of the status of the teaching 

profession; c) training opportunities to overcome deficiencies; and d) contribution to the discussion of a 

new professional development model. Since 2005 it is mandatory for the totality of teachers working in 

schools administrated by municipalities (the public sector). 

Teacher evaluation is based on a set of national teaching standards summarised in the Framework for 

Good Teaching (Marco para la Buena Enseñanza; See Box 3.2). The evaluation is carried out at the school 

level and follows a mixed internal and external approach. It includes different tools: self-evaluation (10% 

of final score); supervisor evaluation (10% of final score); peer evaluation (20% of final score); and 

portfolio (60% of final score). Evaluation criteria do not include students’ academic results. However, 

Chile uses student performance data to ‘validate’ the evaluation system. 

In england, School Teacher Performance Management is part of the development of the new 

professionalism for teachers. This system includes: a) developing a culture where teachers feel confident 

and empowered to participate fully in performance management; b) the acknowledgment of teachers’ 

professional responsibility to be engaged in effective, sustained and relevant professional development 

throughout their careers and to contribute to the professional development of others; and c) the creation 

of a contractual entitlement for teachers to effective, sustained and relevant professional development 

as part of a wider review of teachers’ professional duties. The Performance Management Regulations 

apply to teachers covered by the School Teachers’ Pay and Conditions Document. The evaluation is 

differentiated according to the career stage. Teacher evaluation is carried out at the school level and 

follows on the whole an internal approach mostly based on evaluation by the peers. 

Professional standards, established in September 2007, provide statements of good teaching for each 

of the five stages of the career (See Box 3.2). Statements of professional duties and responsibilities of 

teachers, the job description and the School Teachers’ Pay and Conditions Document are also considered. 

The system includes an Annual Review for: a) objective setting; b) planning and review statement; c) 

classroom observation according to an established school protocol; d) individual interviews; and e) other 

evidence at the discretion of the teacher evaluated. Student results are not directly used to assess the 

performance of individual teachers. 

Source: Santiago, P. and F. Benavides (2009), “Teacher Evaluation: A Conceptual Framework and examples of Country 

Practices”, Analytical Paper, OECD, Paris. 



to teachers’ success or otherwise in fostering student learning, are the most appropriate and effective. Barber 

and Mourshed (2007) thus note that the teacher evaluation mechanisms employed by most top-performing 

school systems are “based on the evidence of [teachers’] classroom practice”. Box 3.11 summarises some key 

aspects of the Chilean and English teacher evaluation systems. 

The results of an international review of teacher policy found that seven out of 26 countries reported using 

student performance measures as a component of their teacher evaluation mechanisms (OECD, 2005), while 

evidence from Brazil suggests that student results on standardised tests are used to identify effective teachers 

and promote teacher development and school improvement (OECD, 2009b). In Chile, England and Ontario 

(Canada) students’ results are not used directly for teachers’ appraisal. In Portugal the evaluation criteria 

originally included students’ academic results and school drop-out rates (as well as assessments by students’ 

parents). But these criteria were eliminated from the model (Santiago and Benavides, 2009). 

There are many frameworks that can be used internationally to evaluate teaching practice (Perrenoud, 2004; 

Rewards and Incentives Group, 2009; Ontario Ministry of Education, 2009; OECD, 2009b; Kelly et al., 2008; 

Singapore Ministry of Education, 2006). Typically, they propose that at least four main areas be covered in 

professional performance, as outlined in Danielson and McGreal (2000) 19 and summarised in Box 3.12. 

The quality of teacher practice should always be evaluated with reference to equity; that is, to the ability of the 

teacher to plan, create an environment, differentiate instruction based on individual student needs, and strive 

for positive learning outcomes for all students. 20 Teachers should strive to achieve desired learning results with 

all students, and this requires routinely giving special attention to each student or subgroup of students. Each 

of the domains defined should address the issue of equity and provide a definition of good teaching practice 

regarding equity, with progressive levels of achievement for each domain. 

In some countries, such as Mexico, where evidence suggests that the time allotted for teaching is not used 

optimally by teachers, criteria for judging teacher performance should include attendance and punctuality, as 

well as time on task. These criteria, like others, can be modified as the system progresses and average levels of 

teacher performance improve substantially. 

A very important question in every evaluation system is how to assess impact on students’ learning. Gathering 

multiple sources of evidence about teaching practice meets the need for accuracy and fairness in the 

evaluation process, and takes into account the complexity of what a good teacher should know and be able 

to do (Santiago and Benavides, 2009). A standards-based approach with multiple sources of evidence offers 

guidance on how to replicate teacher effectiveness. Complementary student-performance-based systems can 

identify teachers who are associated with improvements in students’ learning, but these need to take into 

account other sources of information in order to yield insights into the reasons why the individual teachers 

are effective (Sclafani and Manzi, 2009). 

Systems based on student performance, although useful to identify teachers associated with learning 

improvement (if based on value added information), do not give information about the reasons for teachers’ 

effectiveness or failure. This represents a serious limitation from an education policy perspective, because it 

does not offer guidance on how to replicate teacher effectiveness. Manzi (2009) suggests that a standards-based 

evaluation system is only useful as long as the standards reflect performance dimensions that are connected 

with student learning. If standards are conceptually or empirically dissociated from learning, support for the 

evaluation system immediately erodes. In order to ensure this connection, there are two options: one is to 

combine student performance data and teacher performance indicators in the evaluation system; the other is to 

use student performance data to validate the evaluation system. 


105

106 



Box 3.12 areas covered by teacher evaluation systems 

planning and preparation. This domain has several components that describe how a teacher organises 

the content that students are to learn; that is, how a teacher designs instruction. Components include a 

deep understanding of content and pedagogy and an understanding and appreciation of the students and 

what they bring with them. The content must be transformed through instructional design into sequences 

of activities and exercises that are accessible to the students. This area also covers assessment plans. 

Assessment techniques must reflect instructional outcomes and document student progress. Assessment 

must be used for formative purposes and provide diagnostic opportunities for students to demonstrate 

their level of understanding. This domain is based on the principle that a teacher’s role is not so much to 

teach as to arrange for learning. The plans and the students’ assignments may be included in a teacher’s 

professional portfolio. The plan’s effects must be observed through action in the classroom and reflected 

in student learning outcomes. 

the classroom environment. These are aspects that set the stage for all learning. Components have to do 

with the way a teacher establishes a comfortable and respectful classroom environment that cultivates 

a culture for learning and creates a safe place for risk-taking. This must lead to student behaviour that 

is cooperative and non-disruptive, and to a physical environment that is supportive of these purposes. 

Caring, high expectations and teachers’ commitment to students are included in the components. Master 

teachers in this domain are able to create an atmosphere of excitement about the importance of learning. 

The skills are demonstrated through classroom interaction and through interviews with or surveys 

of students. 

Instruction. The components of this domain are at the heart of teaching and refer to the engagement of 

students in content. What matters is to get children to develop a complex understanding and to participate 

in a community of learners. It refers to the implementation of plans designed in the first domain. Good 

teachers in this domain have finely honed instructional skills. Their work in the classroom is fluid and 

flexible. Their questions probe student thinking and serve to extend understanding. They are attentive 

to different students in the class. Skills in this domain are demonstrated through classroom interaction, 

observed either in person or on videotape, as well as through student learning outcomes. 

professional responsibilities. These include roles assumed outside and in addition to those in the classroom. 

They involve professional engagement with families and the communities, as well as their work for the 

school as a whole. They also include professional growth. Teachers that excel in this domain contribute 

to the general well-being of their institutions. The skills in this domain are demonstrated through teacher 

interaction with colleagues, families, other professionals and the larger communities. 


In-Service Teacher Evaluation Framework”, Analytical Paper, OECD, Paris 

The last question is who should evaluate. The availability of sufficient numbers of trained and competent 

evaluators is a further requirement for the successful evaluation of teachers based on teaching standards. 

Evaluators should have, as a minimum: 

• knowledge of the work teachers carry out. It is not uncommon for well-known and experienced teachers to 

become evaluators beyond the boundaries of their own districts or states. 



• training in making the expected observations in accordance with established teacher standards and 

procedures for evaluations. 

• autonomy in relation to the evaluated teacher. This is necessary in order to avoid conflicts of interest. When 

an evaluator has a personal relationship with the teacher he/she is evaluating, it is possible to foresee a 

conflict of interest that could damage the objectivity the evaluation needs. 

Finally, the design of an evaluation system requires considering both processes and results. Knowing the results 

of teacher evaluation, mechanisms to foster improvement in teaching practices need to be in place. If teaching 

practices are not transformed, it will be difficult to achieve substantial improvements in student learning 

outcomes. In order to improve teaching practices, these have to be evaluated and a system put in place to 

support teachers for the improvement of student outcomes. 

Teacher evaluation can also be summative in nature; that is, it can lead to positive or negative consequences for 

the teacher, or both. It is important for good teachers, and particularly for teachers that show improvement in their 

practices and results, to be recognised by receiving monetary and/or non-monetary incentives as a consequence 

of good performance. It is also important for an education system to have solid means of identifying teachers who 

show no interest in or capacity for improving their teaching practices and results in spite of support and training 

received as a consequence of formative evaluation, and to make the necessary decisions. 

In Chile, the consequences for teachers obtaining the two lowest performance levels include the opportunity 

of professional development offered by the employer (municipality), with funding provided by the Ministry of 

Education. Since the final results of the evaluation are based on the national standards, it is easy to identify 

relative strengths and weaknesses of teachers and these aspects guide professional development decisions. 

Initial teacher preparation institutions receive regular information about the average performance of their 

former students, which enables them to adjust their education. This information is also useful for the creation of 

specific incentives. The initial agreement about teacher evaluation did not specify monetary incentives for high 

performing teachers and only included negative consequences associated with persistent negative evaluations. 

After the evaluations started and the law regulating the evaluation was approved, the government added a 

voluntary incentive for teachers receiving positive evaluations. In order to obtain the incentive, teachers who 

are evaluated as “competent” or “outstanding” have to pass a test measuring their knowledge in their subject 

area. Depending on the scores in the test, teachers can receive a raise in their basic salary ranging from 5% 

to 25% for up to four years (when they are re-evaluated). Currently about two thirds of eligible teachers take 

the test, and about 50% of them receive some monetary incentives. Teachers who receive the lowest rating – 

unsatisfactory – have to be evaluated once a year. Following the first “unsatisfactory” evaluation, teachers retain 

their regular duties, but have to participate in professional training programmes offered by their employers. 

Following a second negative evaluation, they have to work under the supervision of another teacher and receive 

additional training. If they receive an “unsatisfactory” evaluation for the third time, they are dismissed. 

In Portugal, schools take responsibility for establishing individual professional development plans taking 

account of the annual school training plan. It is assumed that opportunities for feedback with formative 

purposes will be provided, in particular through: self-evaluation; training plans for teachers rated “regular” 

or “insufficient”; and planned meetings between the teacher evaluated and the evaluator. The awarding of 

“excellent” for two consecutive periods reduces the time required to access the rank of senior teacher by 

four years. The attribution of an “excellent” and a “very good” reduces that time by three years and two 

ratings of “very good” grants a reduction of two years. “Regular” or “insufficient” ratings imply that the 

evaluation period is not counted for progression in the teacher’s career. Evaluation is also used for obtaining 

a permanent post at the end of the probationary period, contract renewal for contract teachers, or the 

opportunity to apply for a post in a school, including when it involves the mobility of permanent teachers. 


107

108 



If the teacher holds a permanent post, the awarding of two consecutive or three non-consecutive classifications 

of “insufficient” determines the non-distribution of teaching duties in the following school year and, while 

keeping his/her status as a civil servant, the teacher has to move to another career in the same year or the 

following school year. The awarding of “regular” or “insufficient” is also accompanied by a plan for in-service 

training for the improvement of practice. 

How to develop and implement a rigorous teacher evaluation system focused on improving teaching 

The Steering Group encourages Mexico to develop and implement a rigorous teacher evaluation system that 

gradually evolves from a purely formative system to one that combines formative and summative aspects. 

The purpose of evaluating teachers is to improve their practice in order to improve student learning: the main 

goal of the system should be formative in nature. Teacher evaluation should give feedback to each teacher 

on how to improve his or her practice, and the system should support mainly school-based professional 

development mechanisms to ensure that improvement is possible (see Recommendation 7). But distinguishing 

between good and bad teachers, and particularly recognising good teachers, is undoubtedly important for 

motivating teachers and for making the teaching profession attractive (Recommendations 1 and 2). Therefore, 

in the mid-term, both formative and summative objectives of teacher evaluation should be sought. 

However, since summative evaluations are generally resisted by teachers because of the important consequences 

for their professional lives, the OECD Steering Group recommends that the formative evaluation system be well 

established, accepted and valued by teachers before introducing consequences of significance to individual 

teachers’ conditions. 

In order to be able to describe and improve teaching practices, it is necessary first to define what is understood 

by good teaching in Mexico. The first task in the development of a teacher evaluation system is to develop 

a framework of good teaching (as explained in Recommendation 1). The Steering Group reinforced its 

recommendation that this framework should be based on standards of teaching practice, which have to be 

developed by a technical unit and submitted to wide consultation with many stakeholders, but particularly with 

teachers who work under a vast array of circumstances. Once these standards are defined, teachers should be 

trained in the framework and on how to implement it in the classroom. 

The evaluation framework in Mexico should define standards in at least the following domains: 

• use of instructional time (attendance, punctuality, time on task); 

• planning and preparation (the design of instructional activities and evaluation procedures for all students); 

• classroom environment (making the classroom a safe place for risk-taking); 

• instruction (adapted to different students, engaging and challenging); 

• professional responsibilities. 

Special care should be placed on the ability of teachers to strive for equity; that is, to attend to the needs of 

different students in order to achieve learning outcomes for all. 

Once the evaluation framework has been defined and agreed upon, it should be piloted in different contexts. 

Since the framework defines teaching practice, evaluation procedures should emphasise gathering evidence on 

each of the domains of teaching practice defined in the framework. The instruments for gathering this evidence 

have to be defined, tested, calibrated, and their validity and reliability must be ensured. 



Taking account of international research, teachers should be evaluated on the basis of a wide array of instruments, 

including: classroom observation (either direct, or with videos, or both); teacher portfolios (planning, critical 

reflection on the work carried out, classroom discussions); teacher self-evaluation (self-reflection on their 

practice vis-à-vis the standards); evidence of student learning (samples of student work and student performance 

data), teacher interviews, reports from the director and supervisors; teacher knowledge tests; and other teachers, 

parents and student information (based on surveys or focus groups). The specific weight given to each instrument 

has to be defined by the technical group that designs the standards. 

Student results are important. Mexico has developed an important evaluation programme (ENLACE) that is carried 

out on an annual basis with all students from the third to the twelfth grades. ENLACE has many limitations and 

the direct use of these results to evaluate individual teachers is highly discouraged. Nevertheless, student results 

can be used immediately by the teachers as a motive for critical reflection on their practice, and evidence of this 

should be included both in teachers’ portfolios and in interviews with teachers when possible. Also, student results 

can be used to check the results of teacher evaluation. If large discrepancies exist, this is enough reason to look 

into the evaluation procedures in depth. In its present state, ENLACE is suitable for school summative evaluations. 

It is central to the quality of the evaluation process for evaluators to be well selected and adequately trained. 

Evaluators must have knowledge of the work teachers carry out, and be trained to gather the required evidence 

and autonomy in relation to the evaluated teachers. Retired teachers, ATPs, professors in Normales and the units 

of the Universidad Pedagógica Nacional could all provide personnel for this purpose. The grading and ultimate 

judgement and improvement rubrics fed back to the teachers should be collectively decided on. 

A central aspect of teacher evaluation is its effect on improving teaching practices. For this to occur, it is 

necessary to develop, in parallel with the evaluation system, a complex but indispensable school-based 

professional development system that can support the in-service training processes needed for teachers to reach 

the higher levels in the domains tested in the evaluation (see Recommendation 7). Broader school autonomy 

seems a necessary complement for effective formative evaluation to happen in schools (see Recommendation 

12). It implies, among other things, identifying, selecting and training mentor teachers and coaches; reducing 

the administrative load of the school director, and training them to become instructional leaders involved in the 

development of the teachers in their schools. It also requires re-training supervisors so that they can mentor and 

monitor classroom practice improvement. This is a major reform in itself and a key factor in improving student 

learning in Mexico. 

Defining and putting into operation a teacher evaluation system, such as the one described above, demands 

a long-term and complex process capable of navigating across government administrations. This has delicate 

political implications and implies technical as well as legislative and regulatory requirements. 

In order to progress as soon as possible to constructing a teacher evaluation system in Mexico, the Steering Group 

agrees with the directions identified by Mancera and Schmelkes (2010). Some of the main recommendations 

are summarised in Box 3.13. 


109

110 

conclusIon 



Box 3.13 proposals for a path to develop in-service teacher evaluation in Mexico 

1. Establish a leadership structure and clear rules for the governance of the evaluation system. 

2. Establish a technical unit that will be responsible for the implementation of the evaluation. 

3. Develop standards for teaching (in agreement with Recommendation 1). 

4. Design an in-service teacher evaluation model that gradually evolves from a purely formative system 

to one that combines formative and summative aspects. 

5. Define the instruments for the in-service teacher evaluation system. 

6. Develop a support system for school-based professional development that leads to the improvement of 

teacher practice, and a system that monitors this improvement (in agreement with Recommendations 

6 and 7). 


In-Service Teacher Evaluation Framework”, Analytical Paper, OECD, Paris. 

This chapter has argued that the single most important policy reform Mexico can make to improve education 

outcomes for its young people is to build a powerful system to select, prepare, develop and evaluate the very 

best teachers for its schools. Eight recommendations suggest a comprehensive strategy both to improve the 

conditions under which many teachers work and to attract, prepare and develop a higher quality teaching force. 

They follow a teacher’s trajectory from initial training through to permanent status as a full professional, when 

evaluation and professional development become important elements. 

Establish teaching standards 

The first step in the process should be to develop and implement a clear set of coherent aligned teaching 

standards that define what good teaching looks like, and specify the knowledge, skills and dispositions that all 

teacher candidates should be able to demonstrate before being licensed to teach. 

The current proposal of teaching standards developed by SEP seems a good start, but still needs to be improved. 

Some of the main challenges include: establishing authentic consultation mechanisms to engage teachers in the 

development of these standards; establishing more effective and transparent collaboration within the different 

units within SEP concerned with the future use of the standards; and creating useful and applicable standards. 

Attract better candidates into teaching 

In order to improve teaching, Mexico needs better teacher candidates. Therefore ITP institutions, and in particular 

Normales, need to improve the calibre of applicants who want to become teachers. A stronger student force is 

key to making teaching a more respected profession and ultimately building support for improving the working 

conditions of teachers. One way to achieve this is to raise the bar for entry into ITP programmes and to establish 

a national entrance screening exam and other assessment tools. 

Strengthen initial teacher preparation 

To attract and retain talented young people, the quality of the ITP institutions needs to be improved. Many 

Mexican students leave ITP without sufficient skills and knowledge to become good teachers and many Normales 

suffer from weak connections with other parts of the education sector, in particular with schools and universities. 



Therefore a set of rigorous accreditation standards that all Normales and other ITP institutions must be expected 

to meet should be put in place. Accreditation standards for ITP should address: the qualifications of faculty 

members and the processes for initial appointment, evaluation and promotion based on standards; the quality 

of the curriculum and its alignment with the curriculum of the schools; the mechanisms to ensure high quality 

placements for student teaching; among others. The accreditation standards should also give special rating to the 

school’s pass rate on the National Teacher Examination. The accreditation system should be run transparently 

and with a clear governance structure. Every institution should be reviewed cyclically beginning with the 

smallest schools. Those that are weak should be given support to improve. Those that ultimately cannot meet 

accreditation standards should be merged or closed, since keeping them open is an inefficient use of resources 

and unfair to those young people who want to become quality professional teachers. 

Improve initial teacher assessment 

The OECD Steering Group believes that at present, it will be efficient to continue to employ the National Teacher 

Examination as a licensing scheme to help make judgments about the suitability of in-service teachers applying 

for permanent positions, second teaching posts (doble plaza); and newly qualified teachers for appointment 

as teachers. However, Mexico needs to revise, improve and expand this licensing process in order to ensure 

that all potential entrants to the teaching profession meet minimum standards, particularly in relation to their 

practical teaching skills. This would mean continuing to use an improved version of the examination to assess 

the knowledge of all newly certificated prospective teachers. In particular, the examination should progress 

towards systems based on standards rather than norm-referenced. In parallel, Mexico needs to progress towards 

more performance-based means of assessing the knowledge and capabilities of teachers. The interviews, 

portfolios and psychometric examinations already requested or being explored in some states can be adequate 

complementary tools, if quality and transparency are assured. 

The Steering Group suggests introducing a minimum level in the exam that all candidate teachers should reach, 

independently of the availability of teaching posts. Applicants who do not successfully complete the examination 

but who score above a minimum level should have the opportunity to undertake additional training. Beginning 

teachers who do not reach the minimum in the examination several times should no longer be eligible to 

become teachers, and in-service (non-permanent) teachers who do not reach the minimum several times should 

no longer be eligible for a permanent post. Those applying for a second teaching post (doble plaza) who do not 

reach the minimum level should not obtain the second post, and should enter into a carefully designed support 

and evaluation scheme. In the short term, governance and operation of the OEIF should be revised. If Mexico 

wants to consolidate a professional teacher certification mechanism it needs to continue working towards 

establishing a more efficient, transparent and fair permanent governance structure of a technical nature, rather 

than political, focused on better quality of teaching. 

Open all teaching posts for competition 

The Steering Group also suggests that all teaching posts should progressively be opened to competition; this 

includes new and vacant posts. The new system has brought greater transparency and fairness, but it has a 

number of limitations. Among them that only less than 20% of posts have been open for transparent competition 

(through the National Teacher Examination); some candidates who failed the examination nevertheless 

still obtained a teaching post (non permanent); and lack of transparency remains with regard to the precise 

mechanisms for appointing teachers to schools in some states. The current system of allocating teachers to 

schools, linked to the results of the teacher examination, should also be improved to achieve a better match 

between schools and teachers. 


111

112 



Support, mentor and evaluate beginning teachers before appointment to a permanent post 

The Steering Group recommends implementing a formal induction period with substantial support for all 

beginning teachers so they can have ready access to experienced, accomplished professionals to guide their 

on-the-job learning. A meaningful probation period coupled with an effective final evaluation should also 

be created. In this period beginning teachers are expected to demonstrate in practice that they are capable 

of effectively facilitating student learning and successfully undertaking other aspects of their teacher role. all 

teachers should complete a probation period to a satisfactory standard before obtaining a permanent post. 

Creating and training a cadre of mentor teachers is not only key to putting in place a fair system for supporting 

and evaluating probationary teachers, it can also be a powerful strategy for recognising and rewarding 

outstanding teachers and extending their influence to other schools and districts. Mexico can redirect part of 

the professional development opportunities and resources to beginning teachers. 

Provide more relevant and coherent professional development of in-service teachers 

There is general agreement among key actors on the need to strengthen teachers´ professional development. 

The current strategies at national and state levels for providing professional development for teachers need 

to be revised by: 1) completing the revision of the National Training Catalogue to ensure it is relevant to 

teacher pedagogical and curricular practices; 2) developing approaches for schools and their teachers to define 

and formalise the specific professional development they need for their schools; and 3) ensuring that these 

additional professional development programmes are supported and accredited as part of teachers’ careers 

(in Carrera Magisterial for example) and linked to any formal evaluation system (see below). This also implies 

rethinking how time and resources can be reorganised to free teachers so they can undertake these options. 

A more relevant system needs to include more school(s)-based professional development, which is the most 

efficient way to provide improve teaching. It should be a priority to create space for more school-based activities 

and to provide schools with more resources, capacity or autonomy to organise relevant training activities. Using 

the network of supervisors and ATPs and providing additional guidance to schools and directors as to how to 

understand needs and find the appropriate training is key. 

Evaluate in-service teachers to improve teaching 

Mexico needs to develop and implement a rigorous teacher evaluation system that gradually evolves from a 

purely formative system that identifies professional development needs to one that combines formative and 

summative aspects (for purposes of career advancement, award performance rewards or to establish sanctions 

for underperforming teachers). Its purpose should be to provide feedback and guide teachers to improve their 

practice in order to improve student learning. The formative evaluation component should be well established 

first, accepted and valued by teachers before introducing consequences of significance to individual teachers’ 

conditions. 

The evaluation should be based on standards of teaching practice. It is central to the quality of the evaluation 

process for evaluators to be well selected and adequately trained. A fundamental aspect of teacher evaluation 

is its effect on improving teaching practices. For this to occur, it is necessary to develop, a complex but 

indispensable school-based professional development system as the one described before, which can support 

the in-service training processes needed for teachers to reach the higher levels in the domains tested in the 

evaluation. 

Chapter 5 gives some guidance on how to implement the recommendations of this chapter and those on school 

management, school leadership and social participation analysed in Chapter 4. 


Annex 3.1 

teacHer accredItatIon mecHanIsms used In selected countrIes 

aNNeX 3 

The main challenge Mexico is confronted with in the short term on this issue can be summarised as follows: how to create a 

permanent (federal) teacher licensing mechanism, responsible for the design and implementation of nationwide teacher licensing 

exams from 2010/11 onwards, that works efficiently, transparently and fairly and that is supported by all key stakeholders. 

In the mid-term, strong policies are needed in order to improve the quality and coherence of the processes of teacher education, 

certification, licensing, allocation of posts, teacher deployment to schools and teacher re-certification. 

country Accreditation authority Websites 

Brazil Higher Education Institutions (HEI): All ITP programmes 

must be accredited by the National Council of Education or 

the Ministry of Education. 

portal.mec.gov.br/index.php 

argentina HEI: ITP providers are regulated by the Federal Teacher 

Education Network. 

www.me.gov.ar/ 

australia REGION: Individual states are responsible for 

accreditation. 

www.dest.gov.au/ 

canada REGION: Provincial departments take responsibility for 

accreditation. 

www.cmec.ca/Pages/default.aspx 

china STATE: ITP students must pass a national examination 

www.moe.edu.cn/english/ 

administered by the Ministry of Education before beginning ITP. www.unescobkk.org/fileadmin/user_upload/apeid/ 

Documents/status_of_teachers/China.pdf. 

Denmark HEI: The teacher training institutions are quality assured by 

external examiners appointed by the Ministry of Education. 

www.eng.uvm.dk/ 

england STATE: Training and Development Agency for Schools (TDA). www.tda.gov.uk/ 

Finland HEI: Ministry of Education. www.minedu.fi/OPM/?lang=en 

France STATE: Ministry of Education. www.education.gouv.fr/ 

www.iufm.education.fr/connaitre-iufm/plaquettes-documents/en_IUFM2.html 

Germany REGION: Federal state accreditation mechanisms run by www.bmbf.de/en/6595.php 

the Lander. 

Greece STATE: Ministry of Education. www.ypepth.gr/en_ec_home.htm 

hong Kong STATE: Education Ordinance. www.edb.gov.hk/index. 

aspx?nodeID=268&langno=1 

hungary HEI: The Hungarian Accreditation Committee, 

www.okm.gov.hu/main.php?folderID=137 

an independent body, accredits all ITP courses. 

Italy HEI: There is some confusion as to whether there is a state www.pubblica.istruzione.it/ 

mechanism for accreditation or if accreditation is linked to 

successful completion of ITP. There is a surplus of teachers 

and not enough teaching positions at the present time. 

“Those wishing to take the teaching exam (cattedre) must 

have this designation. Teachers must pass another exam 

(concorso) to obtain professional teaching status” from the 

Ministry of Public Education website: 

education.stateuniversity.com/pages/722/Italy-TEACHING- 

PROFESSION.html#ixzz0OoMbCgT4 

Japan HEI: ITP has to be approved by “Monbukagakusho”, www.mext.go.jp/english/ 

Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and 

Technology. 

Korea STATE: National Ministry of Education. english.mest.go.kr/ 

Malawi STATE: Malawi National Exam Board. www.malawi.gov.mw/Education/Home%20 

%20Education.htm 


113

114 


aNNeX 3 

country Accreditation authority Websites 

Malaysia STATE: Ministry of Education and Ministry of Higher Education. www.moe.gov.my/?lang=en 

www.educationmalaysia.gov.my/ 

N Ireland HEI: From 2010 GTC Ireland will have a greater role in 

accrediting and registering teachers. 

www.deni.gov.uk/ 

Netherlands 

New 

Zealand 

HEI: Ministry of Education, Culture and Science approve 

ITP courses. 

HEI: ITP course approved by the New Zealand 

Qualifications Authority. 

poland HEI: ITP has to be approved by the University 

Accreditation Committee meeting standards asset by the 

Ministry of National Education and Sport. 

portugal HEI: ITP course is sanctioned by a Licenciado em Ensino 

or a Licenciatura – Ramo de Formação Educacional, 

according to the issuing institution. All courses have to 

meet accreditation standards set by the independent body, 

INAFOP (National Institute for Accreditation of Teacher 

Education). Teaching positions are allocated according to 

ranking in a national competition. 

romania HEI: ITP courses accredited by National Center for Teacher 

Training. Successful completion of ITP leads to qualification 

of teacher status. But new teachers need to pass a 

competitive examination to be assigned a permanent 

position. 

russia The State Attestation Commission accredits the ITP courses. 

Primary teachers may be trained in non-university 

institutions (technikums). 


www.minocw.nl/english/ 

www.minedu.govt.nz/ 

www.teachercouncil.govt.nz 

www.poland.pl/education/structure.htm 

www.min-edu.pt/ 

www.edu.ro/ 

www.wes.org/eWENR/05dec/practical.htm 

Scotland STATE: GTC Scotland. www.gtcs.org.uk/ 

Singapore STATE: Ministry of Education approves all teacher 

applications. 

www.moe.gov.sg/ 

Slovenia STATE: Ministry of Education and Sport. www.mss.gov.si/en/ 

Spain REGION: Comunidad Autónoma. www.mec.es/cesces/inicio.htm 

USa REGION: Individual states are responsible for 

accreditation. Some states administer a licensing exam 

which is a commercially produced test. 

www.ed.gov/teachers/landing.jhtml

eferences 

referenCes chapter 3 

abell, S. K., D. r. Dillon, c. J. hopkins, W. D. McInerney and D. G. O’Brien (1995), ‘’Somebody to count on’’: mentor/intern relationships 

in a beginning teacher internship program”, Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 173-188. 

aguerrondo, I., F. Benavides and B. pont (2009), School Management and Teacher Professionalization in Mexico: Context, Challenges and 

Preliminary Policy Orientations, OECD, Paris. 

angrist, J. D. and J.Guryan (2008), “Does Teacher Testing Raise Teacher Quality? Evidence from State Certification Requirements”, 

Economics of Education Review, Vol. 27, No. 5, pp. 483-503. 

asher, c. and r. Malet (1999), “Initial Teacher Training in the Post-reform Period: A Sample of Student Opinion in England and France”, 

Compare, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 71-83. 

Barber, M. and M. Mourshed (2007), How the World’s Best-Performing School Systems Come Out on Top, McKinsey & Company, London. 

Bashir, S. (1994), Public Versus Private in Primary Education: Comparisons of School Effectiveness and Cost in Tamil Nadu, Ph.D. 

dissertation, London School of Economics, London. 

Boyd, D., D. Goldhaber, h. Lankford and J. Wyckoff (2007), “The Effect of Certification and Preparation on Teacher Quality”, Future of 

Children, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 45-68. 

Brodsky, M. and h. Woods, (2000), Connecting Teaching and Learning in Teacher Preparation and Licensing, Presentation made at Taking 

the Next Step to America’s Future: A National Conference on Teacher Quality-Exemplary Practices in Contextual Teaching and Learning, 

Washington, D.C. Available: www.ed.gov/inits/teachers/exemplarypractices/c-5.html (accessed 2009, 30/12). 

cobb, V.,(1999), An International Comparison of Teacher Education. Eric Digest. ERIC Clearinghouse on Teaching and Teacher Education 

Washington DC. Available: www.ericdigests.org/2000-3/teacher.htm. 

cox, D. and L. Meckes (2010), “Definiciones sobre desarrollo de estándares para evaluar el desempeño docente en México”, Analytical 

Paper, OECD, Paris. 

D’agostino, J. V. and S. J. powers (2009), “Predicting Teacher Performance with Test Scores and Grade Point Average: A Meta-Analysis”, 

American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 46, No. 1, pp. 146-182. 

Danielson, c. and t. L. McGreal (2000), Teacher Evaluation To Enhance Professional Practice, Association for Supervision and Curriculum 

Development, Alexandria, VA. 

Darling-hammond, L. (1997), Doing What Matters Most: Investing in Quality Teaching, National Commission on Teaching & America’s 

Future, Kutztown, PA. 

Darling-hammond, L. (1999), “Target Time toward Teachers”, Journal of Staff Development, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 31-36. 

Darling-hammond, L. (2000), Solving the Dilemmas of Teacher Supply, Demand, and Standards: How We Can Ensure a Competent, 

Caring, and Qualified Teacher for Every Child, National Commission on Teaching & America’s Future, Kutztown, PA. 

eurydice (2002), The teaching profession in Europe: Profile, trends and concerns. General lower secondary education. Volume 1: Initial 

training and transition to working life. Eurydice European Unit, Brussels. 

Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001), “From Preparation to Practice: Designing a Continuum To Strengthen and Sustain Teaching”, Teachers College 

Record, Vol. 103, No. 6, pp. 1013-55. 

Fox, J. e. and J. certo (1999), Recruiting and Retaining Teachers: A Review of the Literature, Metropolitan Educational Research Consortium, 

Richmond, VA. 

Fredriksson, U. (2010), “Teachers and Their Situation in Europe” in Education and Development in the Context of Globalization, ed. H. 

Daun and Strömqvist, Nova Science Publishers, Inc., Hauppauge NY. 

Glassford, L. a. (2005), “A Triumph of Politics over Pedagogy? The Case of the Ontario Teacher Qualifying Test, 2000-2005”, Canadian 

Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, No. 45, pp.1-21. 


115

116 


Good, t. L., D. a. Grouws and h. ebmeier (1983), Active Mathematics Teaching. Research on Teaching Monograph Series, Longman, Inc., 

Broadway, New York, NY. 

Goodson, F. (2003), “Hacia un desarrollo de las historias personales y profesionales de los docentes”, Revista Mexicana de Investigación 

Educativa (RMIE), Vol. 8, No. 19, pp. 733-758. 

Guevara, M. r. and L. e. González (2004), “Reporte sobre la Situación en México”, Analytical Paper, OECD, Paris. 

harbison, r. W. and e. a. hanushek (1992), Educational Performance of the Poor: Lessons from Rural Northeast Brazil, World Bank, 

Washington, DC. 

heilbronn, r., c. Jones, S. Bubb and M. totterdell (2002), “School-Based Induction Tutors: A Challenging Role”, School Leadership & 

Management, Vol. 22, No. 4, pp. 371-87. 

hill, h. c. (2007), “Learning in the Teaching Workforce”, Future of Children, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 111-127. 

hobson, a. J. (2009), “On being bottom of the pecking order: beginner teachers’ perceptions and experiences of support”, Teacher 

Development: An international journal of teachers’ professional development, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp. 299. 

hobson, a. J., p.ashby, J. McIntyre and a. Malderez, “A review of the international evidence base on the nature and effectiveness of 

methods of teacher selection and recruitment”, Analytical Paper, OECD, Paris. 

hobson, a. J., p. ashby, a. Malderez and p. D. tomlinson (2009), “Mentoring Beginning Teachers: What We Know and What We Don’t”, 

Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 207-216. 

ILO/UNeScO (1966), Recommendation concerning the Status of Teachers, UNESCO, Paris. 

Ingvarson, L., a. eliot, e. Kleinhenz and p. McKenzie (2006), Teacher Education Accreditation: A Review of National and International 

Trends and Practices. ACER. Australian Council for Educational Research, Australia. 

Instituto Nacional para la evaluación de la educación (INEE) (2008), ¿Avanza o Retrocede la Calidad Educativa? Tendencia y Perspectivas 

de la Educación Básica en México?, Informe Anual. INEE, México. 

Kelly, K. O., S. Y. a. ang, W. L. chong and W. S. hu (2008), “Teacher Appraisal and Its Outcomes in Singapore Primary Schools”, Journal 

of Educational Administration, Vol. 46, No. 1, pp. 39-54. 

Kennedy, M. M. (2008), “Contributions of Qualitative Research to Research on Teacher Qualifications”, Educational Evaluation and Policy 

Analysis, Vol. 30, No. 4, pp. 344-367. 

Kleinhenz, e. and L. Ingvarson (2007), Standards for teaching, theoretical underpinnings and applications, New Zealand Teachers Council. 

ACER, New Zealand. 

Larsen, M., c. with Lock and M. Lee (2005), Professional Certification and Entry-to-Practice Assessments: A Report for the Teaching Policy 

and Standards Branch, Ontario Ministry of Education, Ontario, Canada. 

Loeb, S., c. e. rouse and a. Shorris (2007), “Introducing the Issue-The Future of Children”, The Future of Children, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 3-14. 

Mancera, c. and S. Schmelkes (2010), “Specific Policy Recommendations on the Development of a Comprehensive In-Service Teacher 

Evaluation Framework”, Analytical Paper, OECD, Paris. 

Manzi, J. (2009), “Individual Incentives and Teacher Evaluation: The Chilean Case”, Analytical Paper, Universidad Católica de 

Chile, Santiago. 

McBeath, J., L. Jakobsen, D. Meuret and M. Schratz (2000), Self-Evaluation in European Schools: A Story of Change, Routledge, London. 

Mccaffrey, D. F., J. r. Lockwood, D. Koretz, t. a. Louis and L. hamilton (2004), “Let’s See More Empirical Studies on Value-Added 

Modeling of Teacher Effects: A Reply to Raudenbush, Rubin, Stuart and Zanutto, and Reckase”, Journal of Educational and Behavioural 

Statistics, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 139-144. 

Mccutchen, D., r. D. abbott, L. B. Green, S. N. Beretvas, S. cox, N. S. potter, t. Quiroga and a. L. Gray (2002), “Beginning Literacy: Links 

among Teacher Knowledge, Teacher Practice, and Student Learning”, Journal of learning disabilities, Vol. 35, No. 1, pp. 69-86. 



eferenCes chapter 3 

McIntyre, J., a. J. hobson and N. Mitchell (2009), “Continuity, Support, Togetherness and Trust: Findings from an Evaluation of a 

University-Administered Early Professional Development Programme for Teachers in England”, Professional Development in Education, 

Vol. 35, No. 3, pp. 357-379. 

Milanowski, a. t., S. M. Kimball and a. Odden (2005), “Teacher accountability measures and links to learning” in Measuring school 

performance and efficiency: Implications for practice and research, eds. L. Stiefel, A. E. Schwartz, R. Rubenstein and J. Zabel, Eye on 

Education, Inc., NY, pp. 137-159. 

Milanowski, a. and S. Kimball (2003), “The Framework-Based Teacher Performance Assessment Systems in Cincinnati and Washoe”, 

CPRE-UW Working Paper Series TC-03-07, Washington, D.C. 

Milanowski, a. (2004), “The Relationship between Teacher Performance Evaluation Scores and Student Achievement: Evidence from 

Cincinnati”, Peabody Journal of Education, Vol. 79, No. 4, pp. 33-53. 

Ministry of education and culture of Finland, (2010), Available: www.minedu.fi/OPM/. 

Murillo, J. (2007), “School Effectiveness Research in Latin America” International Handbook of School Effectiveness and Improvement, ed. 

T. Townsend, Springer Netherlands, Netherlands, pp. 75-92. 



NBptS (2009), The Five Core Propositions, National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. Available: www.nbpts.org/the_standards/ 

the_five_core_propositio (accessed 2009, 11/19). 

Nieto de pascual pola, D. M. (2009), “Análisis de las políticas para maestros de educación básica en México” (comisionado por la 

Universidad Iberoamericana para la OCDE), Analytical paper, OECD, Paris. 

OecD (1994), Quality in teaching, OECD, Paris. 

OecD (2005), Teachers Matter: Attracting, Developing and Retaining Effective Teachers, OECD, Paris. 

OecD (2008), Innovating to Learn, Learning to Innovate, OECD, Paris. 

OecD (2009), Creating Effective Teaching and Learning Environments: First Results from TALIS, OECD, Paris. 

OecD (2010a), Educational Research and Innovation Educating Teachers for Diversity: Meeting the Challenge, OECD, Paris. 

OecD (2010b), “Reflexiones finales del Seminario OCDE-Harvard para líderes en reformas educativas para fortalecer la profesionalización 

docente en México”, OECD, Available: www.oecd.org/edu/calidadeducativa. 

OecD (2010c), Establishing an In-Service Teacher Evaluation and Incentives Framework: Considerations for Mexico, OECD, Paris. 

Ontario Ministry of education, (2009), Available: www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/teacher/teachers.html. 

Ostinelli, G. (2009), “Teacher Education in Italy, Germany, England, Sweden and Finland”, European Journal of Education, Vol. 44, No. 

2, pp. 291-308. 

partida Bush, V. (2006), Proyecciones de la Población de México 2005-2050. Consejo Nacional de Población. Mexico. Available: www. 

conapo.gob.mx/00cifras/proy/Proy05-50.pdf 

perrenoud, p. (2004), Diez Nuevas Competencias para Enseñar, Graó, Barcelona. 

posner, c. (2010), Communication to the Steering Group, Paris. 

rewards and Incentives Group,(2009), Teachers’ and Head Teacher’s Performance Management: Guidance, Available: www.teachernet. 

gov.uk/management/payandperformance/performancemanagement. 

rice, J. K. (2003), Teacher Quality: Understanding the Effectiveness of Teacher Attributes, Economic Policy Institute, Washington, DC. 

rockoff, J. e. (2004), “The Impact of Individual Teachers on Student Achievement: Evidence from Panel Data”, The American Economic 

Review, Vol. 94, No. 2, pp. 247-252. 

roelofs, e. (2007), “Teacher Competence: assessment for Quality”, Keynote-paper presented at the Conference of the Association of 

Educational Assessment-Europe, November 9th 2007, Stockholm. 


117

118 


ross, K. and t.N. postlethwaith (1989), Indonesia. Quality of Basic Education, Ministry of Education and Culture, Jakarta. 

Sachs, J. (2001), “Curriculum control: the cost to teacher professionalism”, Paper presented at the Australian Association for Research in 

Education Conference, Australia. 

Sanders, W. L., a. M. Saxton and S. p. horn (1997), “The Tennessee Value-Added Assessment System (TVAAS): A quantitative, outcomesbased 

approach to educational assessment.” in Grading Teachers, Grading Schools, ed. J. Millman, Corwin Press., Thousand Oaks, CA, 

pp. 137-162. 

Santiago, p. and F. Benavides (2009), Teacher Evaluation: A Conceptual Framework and examples of Country Practices, Analytical paper, 


Santibáñez, L. (2002), “¿Están mal pagados los maestros en México? Estimado de los salarios relativos del magisterio”, Revista 

Latinoamericana de Estudios Educativos, Vol. XXXII, No. 2, pp. 9-41. 

Santibáñez, L. (2008), “Reforma educativa: el papel del SNTE”, RMIE, Vol. 13, No. 37, pp. 419-443. 

Santibáñez, L., J. F. Martínez, a. Datar, p. Mcewan, c. Messan-Setodji and r. Basurto-Dávila (2006), Haciendo camino: análisis del 

sistema de evaluación y del impacto del programa de estímulos docentes Carrera Magisterial en México, RAND Education, Secretaría de 

Educación Pública, USA. 

Scheerens, J. (2000), Improving School Effectiveness, UNESCO: International Institute for Educational Planning, Paris. 

Schwille, J. and M. Dembélé (2007), Global Perspectives on Teacher Learning: Improving Policy and Practice, UNESCO International 

Institute for Educational Planning, Paris. 

Sclafani, S. and J. Manzi (2009), “In-Service Teacher Evaluation and Development Practices in a Comparative Perspective”. Paper prepared 

for the work of the OECD Steering Groups on Evaluation and Teacher Incentives and School Management and Teacher Policy, OECD, Paris. 

Secretaría de educación pública (2007), Programa Sectorial de Educación 2007-2012, Secretaría de Educación Pública (SEP), México, D.F. 

Secretaría de educación pública (2008a), Convocatoria Nacional: Examen para Nuevo Ingreso al Servicio Docente. Ciclo Escolar 2008- 

2009, SEP. Available: www.alianzaconcursonacional.sep.gob.mx. 

Secretaría de educación pública (2008b), “Goals of the Alliance”, Analytical Paper, OECD, Paris. 

Secretaría de educación pública (2009), Acuerdos Aprobados, Document prepared by the working group responsible for the 

implementation of the agreements of the regional meetings of the Alliance held on November 2008, SEP, Mexico City, Mexico, D.F. 

Secretaría de educación pública (2010), Communication with the Steering Group, Mexico. 

Singapore Ministry of education (2006), Singapore Staff Appraisal (Education Service), Ministry of Education, Singapore. 

Sun Figueroa, Y. (2010), El Portafolio como instrumento de evaluación de profesores: La experiencia del Sistema de Evaluación del 

Desempeño Profesional Docente en Chile, Analytical Paper, OECD, Paris. 

tDa, (2009a), Professional Standards for Teachers in England from September 2007 . Available: www.tda.gov.uk/upload/resources/pdf/i/ 

introduction_to_standards.pdf (accessed 2009, 11/19). 

tDa, (2009b), What are the professional standards? Available: www.tda.gov.uk/teachers/professionalstandards/standards.aspx (accessed 

2009, 11/19). 

tenti Fanfani, e. and c. Steinberg (2007), Hacia un mayor conocimiento de los docentes en América Latina. Características sociodemográficas 

y posición en la estructura social de los docentes en Argentina, Brasil y México, IIPE-UNESCO, Sede Regional Buenos Aires, Argentina. 

Villegas-reimers, e. (2003), Teacher professional development: An international review of the literature, UNESCO: International Institute 

for Educational Planning, Paris. 

Warwick, D.p. and F. reimers (1992), Teacher Training in Pakistan: Value Added or Money Wasted?, Harvard Institute for International 

Development, Cambridge, MA. 

Williams, a. and S. prestage (2002), “The Induction Tutor: mentor, manager or both?”, Mentoring & Tutoring: Partnership in Learning, Vol. 

10, No. 1, pp. 35. 

World Bank (1988), Education in Sub-Saharan Africa: Policies for Adjustment, Revitalization, and Expansion. A World Bank Policy Study, 

World Bank Publications, Washington, DC. 



Notes 


1. Numerous teachers hold two teaching posts (doble plaza). The inaccurate number of teachers reported in official statistics is also a result 

of, for example, teachers who have been “commissioned” by the union or state education authorities and consequently are not teaching a 

group. In parallel, some teachers become directors but, due to a lack of official promotions or director posts, they keep their teaching posts. 

Corruption is also a factor that contributes to artificially increasing the number of teachers: for example, people whose names appear on 

the payroll but who do not receive a salary. The extent of these phenomena is unknown (Nieto de Pascual Pola, 2009). Several civil society 

organisations have requested a census and for this to be made open to the public. See for instance: www.dondeestamimaestro.org. 

2. It only covers those teachers who are employed at the formally federal schools: the so-called “federalised schools” (escuelas federalizadas). 

3. This figure coincides with data in a comparative analysis of the professionalisation of teachers in Brazil, Argentina and Mexico by 

the International Institute for Education Planning (IIPE-UNESCO). Of the three countries considered in this study, Mexico has the best 

“feminisation” index of its teaching body for lower secondary (Tenti Fanfani and Steinberg, 2007) 

4. ISCED is the International Standard Classification of Education designed by UNESCO and universally used. The latest version of this is 

known as ISCED 1997. 

5. Understood as the parents’ level of education. 

6. For more details, see Recommendations 3 and 5 in this chapter. 

7. In fact, 80% of the courses focus on mathematics, sciences, language, history, civics and ethics. The Alianza also stipulates that these courses 

will be offered in coordination with higher education institutions. 

8. The creation of a Sistema Nacional de Formación Continua y Superación Profesional de Maestros en Servicio is one of the aims of the 

Alianza por la Calidad de la Educación and of the Plan Sectorial de Educación 2007-2012. 

9. These are: Centro de Estudios Educativos, Servicios Integrales de Evaluación y Medición Educativas, Universidad Pedagógica Nacional and 

Heurística Educativa. 

10. See Recommendation 5 in this chapter, where the OECD recommends that all posts (newly created as well as vacancies) should be open 

for competition. 

11. A broader discussion of methods of making teaching a more attractive career choice, and of recruiting, selecting and employing teachers, 

can be found in report: Teachers Matter – Attracting, Developing and Retaining Effective Teachers (OECD, 2005), Chapters 3 and 5, 

respectively. 

12. This issue and associated recommendations are discussed further in Chapter 4. 

13. However, the agreement also stipulates that the “buyer” or recipient of this “heritage” must have satisfied all the formal requirements that 

the Mexican education system requires to become a teacher. This means that a retiring teacher could offer her post to her son or nephew if 

he had graduated (or would soon graduate) from a formal ITP institution. 

14. In Spanish: Organismo Técnico Independiente (Technical Independent Unit). 

15. More than 145 000 candidates took the examination in July 2010. 

16. A description of a portfolio tool is included in Recommendation 6 in this chapter. A portfolio (or portfolio of evidence) has been defined as 

“a tool for the organised collection of teaching documents and artefacts” (Larsen, with Lock and Lee, 2005, p. 21). Broadly, there are three 

basic types of portfolio: learning portfolios, used primarily to document progress and learning; credential portfolios, mainly used to evidence 

achievement of predetermined standards for assessment purposes; and showcase portfolios, used to demonstrate “best” achievements (for 

example for job applications), though some portfolios seek to serve more than one of these functions. 

17. The Sistema de Corrimiento is the “cascade” mechanism that allows in-service teachers (those who already have a permanent post) to be 

re-allocated to other schools. When there is a vacant post, in-service teachers can request it. The longer teachers have been in the system, 

the better their chances are of obtaining the posts. Only after this process is complete are the remaining vacant posts (not all of them) open 

to new teachers and teachers soliciting a doble plaza. The recommendation of the OECD is to open all new and vacant posts to competition 

while keeping the Sistema de Corrimiento and improving it (for example allowing school directors and staff to choose among those inservice 

teachers who want to move into their schools). 

18. See, for example, the article: “Controla SNTE 8 de 10 plazas”, published by Reforma on 19 February 2009. 

19. Evaluation studies of the use of the Danielson model in the US have demonstrated that the system is both valid and reliable, with the group 

of teachers who scored well on the evaluation system also showing greater student growth on tests than teachers in the control groups 

(Milanowski and Kimball, 2003, Milanowski, 2004, Milanowski, Kimball and Odden, 2005). 

20. In Mexico many classes have students from different cultures with different native languages (Mancera and Schmelkes, 2010). 


119

chApter 4 

improving school 

effectiveness in mexico: 

The role of leadership, 

management and 

social participation 


121

122 


chapter 4 the role of leadership, management and soCial partiCipation 

This chapter focuses on how changes in the way schools are led and managed in Mexico could improve 

their effectiveness. Research evidence shows that the quality of school leadership is fundamental in 

raising the attainment of students. But instructional leadership is not a prominent feature of Mexican 

schools. Directors do not have appropriate training, development and incentives to focus on improving 

the quality of instruction and schools’ results, and on strengthening the school’s links to the community. 

The chapter analyses the role of school leadership and the financial and governance structures that 

support schools. It examines the balance between the leadership, management and administrative 

functions of school directors and argues for greater local decision-making and accountability. This 

would involve the development of leadership within the teaching profession, among directors, ATPs and 

school supervisors and a greater clarity about the role of school directors and other leaders and higher 

expectations of their contribution to improving teaching and the performance of schools. Without further 

delay, a national framework for school leadership which sets out the criteria for effective leadership and 

establishes performance standards is needed. This framework should be used as the benchmark for 

selecting, training, appointing and developing school and system leaders. The chapter points to ways 

in which schools can share expertise, good practice and, where necessary, have access to effective 

leadership from beyond the school. It suggests that the arrangements for funding schools could be 

reviewed to make them more clear, equitable and transparent. The chapter also discusses how schools 

could be more accountable to and involved with parents and the community. 

scHools and scHool leadersHIp In mexIco 

Schools and their leadership 

In Mexico, the director is the person in charge of the functioning, organisation and management of the school. 

The school director’s main tasks are to define goals, strategies and school operation policies; to analyse and 

solve pedagogical problems that may arise; and to review and to approve the work plans elaborated by teachers. 

An important part of the director’s job also includes managing educational programmes, one of the main ways 

through which Mexican education is provided. Programmes may have a budget attached, have requirements 

and there may be time-consuming administrative processes involved in responding to them. Nevertheless, 

Ornelas (2008) notes that the functions of school directors suffer from imprecise job expectations that lead to 

excessive routines. According to him: 

“[…] The directors, besides managing the (limited) resources of their schools, are in charge of ensuring the 

functioning of the Technical Councils (Consejos Técnicos) and the School Councils of Social Participation 

(Consejos Escolares de Participacion Social), or their equivalent. They have the authority – but not the power – 

to make teachers attend their classes, comply with official programmes and perform students’ evaluations. Also, 

in Carrera Magisterial, they evaluate the performance of their teachers, manage the relationship with the parents’ 

association and are the schools’ representatives regarding the higher authorities. The school director also fills in 

the Form 911 that contains the school’s statistics for each cycle, submits information; fills out forms – sometimes 

with the same data asked for in a different format by another state body. This may mean the completion of more 

than 100 documents per year. Also, he is responsible for the infrastructure and the arrangements for the tasks of 

maintenance and cleaning of the school[…]” (Ornelas, 2008). 

The roles and responsibilities of directors were strongly focused on administrative issues rather 

than improving school outcomes until the National Evaluation of Academic Achievement in 

Schools (Evaluación Nacional de Logro Académico en Centros Escolares or ENLACE) test was 

introduced recently and students’ performance started to be systematically taken into account. 

Despite this, school directors still tend to see themselves as administrators, not as instructional leaders. 


the role of leadership, management and soCial partiCipation chapter 4 

The delegation of management responsibility from the federal government to the states has not progressed 

significantly to schools, with some exceptions. As one Ministry witness stated: “It is difficult to delegate 

management decisions and responsibilities down to the directors. Schools are isolated and we have not built a 

management system that is efficient for schools.” 

The director is not necessarily the only person who could be expected to undertake a leadership role. At the 

secondary level, there is also an assistant director. Larger primary schools and secondary schools also may have 

technical pedagogical advisors (asesores técnico pedagógicos) known as ATPs. They do not have a teaching 

workload but are supposed to provide support at different levels, for example in pedagogical leadership, in 

administrative roles, as school deputies or in other capacities. The ATP post does not exist officially; most ATPs 

hold a teaching post but carry out “ATP functions”, whatever they are. There is an opportunity to incorporate 

the ATP role into the leadership structure of schools, with appropriate responsibilities and accountabilities. The 

OECD Steering Group was informed that there are about 50 000 ATPs in the school system, but they do not 

have a common profile or remit. Relevant professional standards would provide this. 

Some administrative functions in schools are undertaken by teachers who do not have formal responsibility for 

these functions. As a result, their hours of work on administration are not recognised by a performance standard 

or tangible rewards. It is an improvised system that lacks defined standards of work, a recognised profile or job 

specification and pay that rewards responsibilities. In its general development plan for this presidential period 

(Plan Nacional de Desarrollo), the Government of Mexico has acknowledged as one of its main challenges the 

need to move towards “real school leadership”. 

technical Councils (Consejos Técnicos) are established in schools with at least four to five teachers. Their 

functions include making recommendations on: plans and training programmes, teaching methods, programme 

evaluation and teacher training, among others. These councils are chaired by the director, and include as 

appropriate the assistant directors, heads of class or subject, ATPs, presidents of the students’ council, and 

representatives of the parents’ association, the school cooperative and the school garden plot (where this exists). 

school Councils of social participation (Consejos Escolares de Participación Social) have administrative, pedagogic 

and relational roles. In general terms, these councils’ attributions are limited. For example, they can provide a 

social perspective but cannot participate in matters related to school staff or their performance. Santizo (2009) 

points out that although the General Law of Education provides councils with responsibilities, there have been no 

further instruments to implement the law. Parents’ Associations mainly participate to support the school authorities 

in the collection of funds and the organisation of voluntary work for tasks related to school maintenance. 

school supervisors are the main communication channel between the education authorities and the schools. 

Supervisors are intended to visit and supervise the functioning of schools, provide advice to schools and the 

authority, and perform diverse administrative and pedagogic tasks. However, administrative tasks take up most 

of their time. 

The appointment and promotion of school and system leaders 

The appointment of school directors, teachers, supervisors and ATPs is done according to the career progression 

(Escalafón), which has been in place since 19731 . Only former school directors are eligible for the post of 

supervisor; ATP appointments are given only to former teachers. The appointments are permanent. Applications 

are assessed and posts allocated in each state by the Comisión Nacional Mixta de Escalafón composed of 

the Secretaría de Educación Pública (SEP) and representatives of the National Union of Education Workers 

(Sindicato Nacional de Trabajadores de la Educación or SNTE). These commissions evaluate candidates 

according to several criteria, such as: time in service, academic credentials, participation in education projects, 


123

124 



participation in projects to support the community, publications, the design of didactic material, participation 

in teacher training activities, and previous recognition for teacher performance. This mechanism is, however, 

influenced by union and political criteria. 

Despite candidates having to meet a certain set of formal requirements, the Steering Group learned that school 

leaders have often been nominated by the SNTE or by the joint Escalafón commission SEP-SNTE through nontransparent 

procedures and criteria. Efforts are currently under way to change this process and make it more 

transparent. For example, it was announced as part of the Alliance for Quality in Education (Alianza por la 

Calidad de la Educación) that a test for the selection of school directors of basic education would be introduced 

in 2009, although this has not yet been instituted. A test could lead to more open and objective procedures for 

the appointment of directors, but appointment should not be based entirely on a test. School leaders should be 

appointed with due care, equitable procedures and based on merit, not length of service. 

Promotion of directors, like teachers, is done through the programme of teacher career ladder (Carrera 

Magisterial), which was originally designed as an incentives system for the teaching workforce. This has one 

strand for teachers and another for directors. The case of ATPs and supervisors is unusual as their appointments 

depended traditionally on the growth of the education system. Currently the education system is stable and 

the number of students has fallen in some states. Those teachers and school directors that are not needed are 

provided with other tasks. In some cases, school directors may become ATPs. 

Policies that encourage leadership of schools 

The Steering Group is aware of a number of policy initiatives at federal, state or school level that focus on the 

management and leadership of schools. School directors participate in the individual evaluation of teachers at 

schools as part of the programme of Carrera Magisterial. However, because those who participate in this process 

(as well as in the Escalafón evaluation) belong to the union, the process is not necessarily very objective. 

School management has been the focus of one of the national programmes targeted at improving the quality 

of education. The Schools of Quality Programme (Programa Escuelas de Calidad, PEC), introduced in 2001, is 

one of the initiatives that has most emphasised the development of school-centred leadership in Mexico (see 

Box 2.2 in Chapter 2). It has covered 21% of all schools by 2010. Its main objective is to promote achievement 

and training in schools and to develop a culture of evaluation and transparency. To this end, the programme 

promotes the development of strategic management within the administration, organisation, pedagogy and 

social participation of the school. Technical councils are seen as evaluators that are related to the school, as 

they organise pedagogic aspects within them. Although these councils review school results periodically, no 

mechanisms have been defined for them to influence teacher practices in the classroom. 

Another of PEC’s objectives is the promotion of accountability and transparency in schools. Some studies show 

that these objectives are promoted by SEP through encouraging parents and community representatives to 

participate in school activities. The PEC programme brings schools and their parents together to make decisions 

about the school and plans for its improvement. It also provides some training for school directors. Evaluations 

of the PEC programme have expressed some reservations about its ability to promote autonomy, or schoolcentred 

decision-making, in the Mexican context. Reimers and Cárdenas (2007) argue that: 

“High levels of inequality in the institutional capacity of different schools and in the financial capacity of 

different communities minimise the likelihood that this school-based management programme might, in the 

short term, contribute to closing the gaps in educational opportunity for students from different socio-economic 

groups who are segregated in different types of schools. The heterogeneity in school and community resources 



and capacities conditions the way in which teachers and principals respond to the incentives provided by the 

programme, with the least changes observed in the least-endowed schools. We posit three key mechanisms 

that explain why school-based management (SBM) does not close equity gaps in educational opportunity in 

Mexico: 

• first, selection mechanisms, which make entry into the programme more likely for the schools with greater 

capacity and resources, principally urban schools; 

• second, organisational mechanisms at the school level, which make school-based management work better 

for schools that have adequate leadership and coherence of vision among school staff; 

• third, management mechanisms and politics at the system level which undermine local initiative in the most 

vulnerable schools.” 

Besides the PEC programme, schools and school directors have to work with a multiplicity of programmes 

in order to receive additional support from the Ministry and from the states, as discussed in Table 2.1 in 

Chapter 2. Examples of these include Safe School (Escuela Segura), “Always Open to Community” Schools 

(Escuela Siempre Abierta a la Comunidad), Enciclomedia, or the National Reading Programme (Programa 

Nacional de Lectura). Many of these programmes require school leaders to focus their schools on specific 

targets or problems and provide specific resources in return. Accounting for the correct use of these resources, 

however, means that the programmes carry a heavy administrative burden. 

Training, development and certification of school directors 

Training and development are not mandatory but are incentivised by allocating training points to advance 

up the promotion ladder, as reviewed in Recommendation 7. Some witnesses have expressed to the Steering 

Group their doubts about the usefulness of the courses, and described the courses in the Escalafón and Carrera 

Magisterial as a way to get points but with little relevance to practice. In addition, most of the courses focus on 

teaching and pedagogy; until recently few have focused on school leadership and management. Points to move 

up the Escalafón do not consider whether training is focused on school leadership. Until now, the preparation 

and training of school directors has not been a priority in Mexico. Efforts are under way to provide more 

specific training in school leadership, and the new national catalogue for teacher training includes an important 

section of courses offered by different institutions focused on school management and leadership in 2010 

(formacioncontinua.sep.gob.mx). 

One of the key education and training institutions for school leaders in Mexico is the National Pedagogical 

University (Universidad Pedagógica Nacional, UPN). The UPN offers the Specialisation in Teacher Education 

and Management (Especialidad en Formación Docente para la Gestión) in several states. The First National 

Course for Managers of Primary Education, named “The Director as a School Leader” (El Director como Líder 

Académico) (50 hours) was offered in 2000. It was organised through the National Programme for Permanent 

Training for in-Service Teachers (Programa Nacional de Actualización Permanente para Maestros en Servicio), 

targeted at primary school directors. It was a distance learning course with the support of the teacher centres 

(Centros de Maestros). The accreditation of this course is taken into account in the Carrera Magisterial. 

Also, in 2010, at the upper secondary level (a non-mandatory level of education in Mexico and run by a separate 

division within the Ministry), the Secretary of Public Education (SEP) will launch the Training Programme for 

Upper Secondary Education Directors (Programa de Formación de Directores de Educación Media Superior) 

for all 7 500 directors of schools of secondary education and 5 000 directors of private schools. The programme 

consists of a Diploma of Training Directors (Diplomado de Formación de Directores) for that level. From 2011, 

everyone who has successfully passed it may take the test for a director position. 


125

126 



In the case of school directors in basic education, some steps have been taken to develop certification for directors 

within the realm of the PEC programmes. Director certification involves creating a set of standards that describe 

the competencies or levels of performance required of directors. The objective is to prepare a Technical Norm 

of Labour Competency for School Directors of Basic Education (Norma técnica de competencia laboral para los 

directores de educación de básica), currently being developed. The Technical Norm is to include three types of 

competencies that the school director should have to coordinate: elaboration; execution; and follow-up and 

evaluation of the five-yearly strategic plans of schools (Plan Estrategico de Transformacion Escolar, PETE). This 

approach is used increasingly across countries, for example in the United Kingdom, Netherlands, Austria, or 

Australia (Santizo Rodall, 2009). For 2012, the government’s goal is to certify 50 000 school directors through 

collaboration with SNTE and civil society, although these developments are slow and have not yet been introduced. 

The challenge: building leadership capacity and culture across the system 

There are real challenges in terms of developing the leadership capacity needed to ensure school progress. This 

is so because there has not been much investment in ensuring effective preparation and selection of school 

leaders or clarification of the roles that they are expected to play in combining administrative and pedagogical 

tasks. If the school is to be the focus of education, it is necessary for schools to be well led and managed. For 

this to happen consistently in every school, clarity is required about the about the role and expectations of the 

director as school leader. 

The Steering Group learned about intentions to develop or articulate a set of occupational standards for school 

leaders, aligned with the process of development of standards which was piloted in 2008/09 across Mexico. 

There is a need to define the role of school directors and other leaders and to set occupational standards 

in terms of instructional leadership and performance-focused management to improve school outcomes. The 

current draft standards define five basic categories: school leadership; collective performance of the teaching 

team; management of the learning process; functioning of official units supporting schools (school councils and 

technical councils); and social participation. 

Overall, there is a compelling case for building leadership capacity. This means defining school leadership as 

distinct from management, identifying teachers with leadership potential, providing leadership opportunities, 

training leaders and ensuring that the teachers who become directors have demonstrated their leadership 

knowledge and competence. The goal should be to create a system-wide culture of leadership. This will only 

be achieved when there are clear improvements in leadership capacity across the system. Defining the role of 

school directors in terms of leadership and management and setting occupational standards is an important first 

step for school improvement. 

In addition, schools and school leaders need support to obtain the knowledge, tools and strategies necessary 

to assure the quality of education provided by their schools. Schools cannot work as isolated islands, but need 

to work within a recognised network where problems and solutions can be shared so that all schools progress. 

In Mexico, the main avenue of support for schools is through school supervisors employed by each state and 

sometimes through ATPs. Supervisors’ roles were described to the OECD Steering Group as “firstly – political, 

secondly – managerial, and thirdly – educational”. Witnesses stated that “supervisors do not exert control 

mechanisms because the teachers are fellow unionists. They don’t provide pedagogical support because they 

are not prepared to. Both control and support are needed.” 

The use of supervisors, advisors or inspectors is common in the administration of education in many countries. 

While many supervisors in Mexico have good professional credibility and sound understanding of effective 

practice, their expertise is often limited to curriculum leadership rather than school leadership. Since they no 

longer work from a school, they may also lack the ability to show or demonstrate good practice or draw upon 



other expertise which resides in good schools. Supervisors nevertheless have an important role in arranging or 

brokering the kind of school-to-school support that will help in particular cases. 

After a careful review of the circumstances in which schools and school directors currently operate in Mexico, 

through the analysis of data, through interviews and study visits in Mexico, the Steering Group finds that there 

is a set of clear challenges related to the leadership and management of schools: 

• The need to focus on improving school performance and identify, use and share best practice and 

new developments; 

• The need to build leadership capacity and establish a leadership culture; 

• The need to define the role of school directors in terms of leadership and management and to set 

occupational standards; 

• The need to train and develop school leaders and ensure that they are appointed on professional merit; 

• The need to reduce inequities between schools serving richer and poorer communities, providing 

comparable resources for learning; 

• The need to provide greater accountability and responsiveness to the community; 

• The need to maximise the use of information, data and new technologies to support learning. 

Having taken account of relevant features of the school system in Mexico, together with the factors that 

most contribute to improving school effectiveness described in Chapter 1, the Steering Group offers six 

recommendations for improving the support for leadership and management of schools. 

recommendatIon 9: Develop a framework of occupational standards for school leadership 

and management focused on improving school outcomes 

As with teachers, Mexico needs to define clear leadership and management standards to signal to the profession, 

and to society at large, the core knowledge, skills, and values associated with effective school directors. 

Context 

In Mexican schools, the balance of the school director’s role currently weighs heavily in favour of administration 

rather than professional leadership. Directors claim that their administrative load includes extensive 

bureaucratic demands: excessive completion of forms and responding to central programmes. Participation 

in national programmes brings extra funding and other resources into the school, and for many schools this 

is essential in remaining financially viable. This burden of administration is due to a school system that is 

largely micromanaged from the federal or state centre. Curriculum programmes and school supervisors are 

the instruments of control. This infrastructure is not working effectively to improve performance, as the Alianza 

recognises. It is necessary to redefine the role of school directors so that they are clearly the lead professionals 

in the schools for which they are responsible. To improve results, school leaders must be leaders of instruction, 

focused on raising the effectiveness of every teacher and the achievement of every child. A framework of 

occupational standards would clarify the role of directors and what is expected of them. 

Until recently, attention to school leadership has not been a high priority in Mexico, except for the efforts of the 

PEC programme, as well as the recent efforts to develop standards by the Under-Secretary of Basic Education 

to which the Steering Group refers in Recommendation 1 in Chapter 3. In the case of school management 

standards, the main elements that comprise the preliminary proposal are described in Box 4.1. 


127

128 



Box 4.1 School management standards for basic education – preliminary proposal by the Ministry 

Recent efforts by SEP to develop a set of school management standards for basic education in Mexico 

have led to a preliminary proposal that includes five main areas: 

• school direction: Effective leadership; environment of trust; teaching commitment; shared decisions; 

institutional planning; self-assessment; performance communication; and school networks. 

• Collective performance of the teaching team: Fostering pedagogic improvement; and shared 

pedagogic planning. 

• learning management: The centrality of learning; learning commitment; and equity in 

learning opportunities. 

• Official support organisations: Effective functioning of the school’s technical council; and effective 

functioning of the school’s social participation council. 

• social participation: Participation of family parents; and support for learning at home. 

Source: Secretaría de Educación Pública (2010), Communication with the Steering Group, Mexico. 

The definition of the role of school directors, their selection and recruitment, their training and development, 

as well as their career perspectives, have been limited in many OECD countries beyond Mexico (OECD, 2008). 

In Mexico, as cited earlier, school directors’ jobs fall under a regulation from 1973 (Escalafón), which may 

not recognise the new roles they need to play. There are ongoing efforts to define a norm or standard for basic 

education, and for school leadership and management, but with little urgency and few tangible results. It has 

only been recently that the important role of school leadership has been raised as a policy issue. 

The issue is not confined to school directors. Other educational staff who work with or in schools have unclear roles 

in school leadership. ATPs are said to play different roles in schools, including acting as vice-directors, pedagogical 

leaders, evaluators or providing administrative support. For example, one ATP spent the morning in an elementary 

school with no classes to teach, then taught four classes in the afternoon in a second school. He had no desire to 

become a director, since his earnings would be less. In the morning school, he appeared to be a more important 

figure than the new temporary director, promoted from among the staff. ATPs appear to be an under-recognised 

resource. There is little evidence of the contribution – if any – they make to improving the schools they work in. 

Their role could be strengthened and recognised as part of the leadership structure of schools. The system cannot 

afford to support ATP posts that are lacking a clearly defined role in the leadership of schools. 

The changes that are required to bring about the continuous and sustained improvement which the country 

seeks cannot happen overnight. They require a guiding vision, an effective strategy, good communications and 

the concerted efforts of leaders who subscribe to the mission and have the courage and conviction to carry it 

forward. This is necessary at system level, but also applies to the leadership and management of each and every 

school. The guiding vision must put the child, the school and the family at the heart of the education system. 


Reference has been made earlier to the role of leadership as described by research into school effectiveness. A 

recent OECD report (OECD, 2008) on the impact of school leadership on improving school outcomes found 

that school leadership can make a difference to student outcomes by creating the right environment for teachers 

to improve classroom practice and student learning. Research evidence shows that there are specific leadership 

roles that have a greater influence on teaching and learning than others. In practice, however, school leaders 



can only have an impact on student outcomes if they have enough autonomy and support to make important 

decisions and if their major responsibilities are well-defined and focused on teaching and learning (Pont, 2010; 

Toledo Figueroa, 2010). 

The definition of core leadership responsibilities should be guided by existing research into the leadership 

practices most likely to improve teaching and learning, taking account of the Mexican context. In many other 

countries there is a lack of clarity about the core tasks school leaders should dedicate their time to. Improved 

definitions of core leadership responsibilities can provide a firm foundation for the profession and constitute a 

key point of reference both for those who consider entering the profession and for those in charge of recruiting, 

training and evaluating them (OECD, 2008). 

Sammons (1995) suggests that the quality and role of leaders, who they are and what they do, is more important 

than the style in which they do it. Her review identifies “three characteristics which have frequently been 

associated with successful leadership: strength of purpose (firmness), involving other staff in decision-making 

(a participative approach) and professional authority in the processes of teaching and learning” (or pedagogic 

leadership – the school director as the leading professional). Outstanding leaders tend to be proactive. In 

effective schools, directors place great emphasis on the selection and recruitment of staff, the development of 

staff in post and the importance of consensus and consistency in the quality of teaching and consistency of staff 

behaviour and practices (Barber and Mourshed, 2007). Firm leadership challenges unhelpful changes and has 

a key role in initiating and maintaining the school improvement process. 

The participative approach is shown through sharing of leadership responsibilities with other staff (see Hargreaves 

and Fink (2006) for a discussion of distributed and sustainable leadership). An effective director should also be 

the leading professional in the school. As Sammons finds, “this implies knowledge about what goes on in the 

classroom, including the curriculum, teaching strategies and the monitoring of pupils’ progress”. It involves the 

director projecting a high profile, through actions such as frequent movement through the school, visits to the 

classroom and informal conversations with staff. It also requires assessing how well teachers are functioning. 

The director has a very important role in ensuring that there are positive expectations of pupil achievement 

among teachers, pupils and parents. It is well established that if teachers set high standards for their pupils, let 

them know that they are expected to meet them, and provide intellectually challenging lessons to correspond 

to these expectations, then the impact on achievement can be considerable. It is particularly important to 

discourage attitudes which use the disadvantaged backgrounds of some children to excuse slow progress and 

low achievement. Recent studies (such as Matthews, 2009a; Matthews, 2009b; Matthews, 2009c) have shown 

that leadership which sets high expectations and aspirations is among the factors that enable schools in very 

challenging circumstances to become consistently excellent. 

A review of the literature on school leadership (Leithwood et al., 2006) made “seven strong claims” about 

successful school leadership. These claims are all supported by “quite robust empirical evidence, the first two 

having attracted the largest amount of such evidence”. The paper challenges those in leadership roles with the 

responsibility for acting on this knowledge. 

1. School leadership is second only to classroom teaching as an influence on pupil learning. 

2. Almost all successful leaders draw on the same repertoire of basic leadership practices. 

3. The ways in which leaders apply these basic leadership practices – not the practices themselves – 

demonstrate responsiveness to, rather than dictation by, the contexts in which they work. 

4. School leaders improve teaching and learning indirectly and most powerfully through their influence on 

staff motivation, commitment and working conditions. 


129

130 



5. School leadership has a greater influence on schools and students when it is widely distributed. 

6. Some patterns of distribution are more effective than others. 

7. A small handful of personal traits explain a high proportion of the variation in leadership effectiveness. 

To illustrate one perspective of effective school leadership, a practising superintendent in the USA wrote that 

“the role of leadership is to maintain the school community’s energy and nurture the core purpose of increasing 

the ability of all children and preparing students for the future” (Box 4.2.) 

Box 4.2 principles of “leadership for excellence” 

Middleton (2001) offers some principles for “leadership for excellence”, shown here with brief 

explanations or examples. 

• Focus on instructional leadership: A head’s first role is to engage teachers in determining and articulating 

a vision of excellence for all students. 

• Value connections: Where teachers and directors consider themselves to be a community, they 

engage in dialogue and discussion about teaching and learning. 

• Understand the ground: The leaders must develop awareness of what is going on both inside and out 

of the school’s community, have good knowledge of the working relationship of staff and understand 

how others view the school. 

• Envelop a problem: Leaders must internalise a “map” or vision for the school community and be able 

to anticipate problems, interruptions and changes to the school’s instructional programme. 

• Be resilient: leaders in schools must have the passion necessary to always be reliable for others and 

tirelessly persistent to the goal. 

• Encourage leadership: A vital role for leaders is to mentor peers as potential leaders. By sharing with 

each other, leaders develop support groups and “think tanks” to explore new ideas. 

• Enjoy the challenge: To be an effective school leader, one must truly have a passion for helping people 

learn and must be convinced that teaching can make a very real difference to all groups of students. 

The point of instructional leadership is that it is focused on the processes of teaching and learning and how 

effective they are. Southworth (2009) found that, ultimately, school leaders influence through three related strategies: 

• Modelling, which is all about the power of example. Good directors are strong believers in setting an example 

because they know this influences students and colleagues alike. Good leaders must be prepared to do what 

they ask others to do. Effective leaders are ‘on show’. Leaders who do not take an interest in learning and 

classrooms are quickly judged by their colleagues to be uninterested in teaching. By contrast, leaders who 

visit classrooms, encourage colleagues to talk about their teaching successes and concerns, and ensure that 

meetings of teachers focus on learning, demonstrate that they remain strongly connected to classrooms. 

• Monitoring, which includes analysing and acting on data and other evidence of students’ progress and 

outcomes (for example, assessment and test scores, evaluation data, school performance trends, parental 

opinion surveys, student and staff attendance data and student interview information). Leaders should 

discuss the meaning of these data with those who are responsible for it, and should act on it. 

• Dialogue, which is about creating opportunities for teachers to talk with their colleagues and leaders about 

learning and teaching. There is a lot of talk in schools, but often too little conversation about learning and teaching. 



Leadership standards should therefore be written so as to require the sort of behaviour described above. They 

should not be simply about tasks but about processes, responsibilities and accountabilities. Standards should 

set high expectations for leaders and promote good leadership practice. They should encourage leaders to lead 

the development and improvement of their colleagues. Teachers do not arrive in schools as the finished article. 

They need to be lifelong learners, and good leaders ensure that they are. 

The OECD Improving School Leadership report (Pont, Nusche and Moorman, 2008a; Pont, Nusche and 

Moorman, 2008b) has identified four core responsibilities of school leadership based on the empirical analysis 

of which roles make a difference in improving school outcomes. 

1. Supporting, evaluating and developing the expertise of teachers 

Improving the quality of teaching and learning is central to school improvement, raising the academic 

achievement of all pupils and reducing attainment gaps both within and between schools. The evidence points 

to the roles and tasks of directors regarding teachers. For example, the key role of a director that makes the most 

difference in improving school results is to support, evaluate and develop teachers as part of the development 

of the school. Within this role, the OECD identifies four important components: 

a. managing the curriculum and teaching programme: Most countries establish a core curriculum at the national 

level. National policy is often further specified at regional or municipal level. It is the leader’s job to implement 

the school curriculum within these policy boundaries in a manner that achieves the intended curriculum 

objectives for their specific context. School leaders generally have a measure of discretion in how they design 

curriculum content and sequencing, organise teaching and instructional resources and monitor quality. In 

Mexico, curriculum decisions are taken by central government and implemented via defined programmes 

throughout very diverse social and cultural realities that predominate in the country. Giving schools a greater 

say in curricular decision-making allows for tailoring education and making it significant to different cultural 

and regional groups, and thus seems to be positively related to student performance, provided schools have the 

confidence and capacity to make this type of decision. 

b. teacher monitoring and evaluation: The Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) (OECD, 2009) 

survey showed that of 18 countries reporting on teacher monitoring and evaluation, there were formal provisions 

for teacher evaluation in 14 countries, including Mexico, although the form, rigour, content and consequences 

of teacher evaluation varied widely. Most of the countries indicated that teacher monitoring and evaluation are 

important responsibilities carried out by school leaders. Several research studies indicate that school leader 

involvement in classroom observation and feedback seems to be associated with better student performance. 

c. supporting teacher professional development: School leadership also plays a vital part in promoting and 

participating in professional learning and development of teachers. The balance between school-based and outof-school 

professional development has moved strongly in favour of school-based professional development 

in recent years (Musset, 2010). The OECD (2005) report Teachers Matter noted that school-based professional 

development activities involving the entire staff or significant groups of teachers were becoming much more 

common, and teacher-initiated personal development probably less so. Most countries now link professional 

development to the developmental priorities of the school and coordinate the in-service education in the 

school accordingly. The most persuasive evidence of the impact of school leaders’ involvement in promoting 

and participating in teacher learning and development is probably that of Robinson’s 2007 meta-analysis of six 

research studies (Robinson, Lloyd and Rowe, 2008). She identified the participation of the school leader as the 

“leading learner” in staff development as being strongly associated with improved student outcomes. 


131

132 



d. supporting collaborative work cultures: This is an increasingly important and recognised responsibility of 

school leaders in several countries. It involves fostering teamwork among teachers and creating environments 

in which student learning is the central focus. Policy makers can promote and encourage teamwork among 

school staff by explicitly recognising the core role of school leaders in building collaborative cultures and 

disseminating and sharing best practice in this aspect. 

2. Goal-setting, assessment and accountability 

School leadership that is focused on goal-setting, assessment and evaluation can positively influence teacher 

and student performance. School leaders play a key role in ensuring the accountability of the school by 

supporting their teaching staff in aligning instruction with agreed learning goals and performance standards. 

Equally, schools that have systems for monitoring pupils’ progress against their personal targets are better placed 

to give the individual support and intervention that may be needed if progress falters. 

In most countries there is a tradition of external evaluation or school inspection, increasingly complemented 

by school self-evaluation or the use of measurements of student performance. Recent research emphasises high 

learning standards and strong accountability systems as key to improving student learning and achievement 

(Hanushek and Raymond, 2005). In Mexico, there is little evidence of real accountability attributed to school 

leaders. School administration over-rides instructional leadership and teachers are secure in their jobs for life. 

One of the expectations of a school director should be that they have the authority and the experience to 

challenge the under-performance of a teacher. If a teacher repeatedly arrives late, is not punctual in arriving 

at lessons or cuts them short, does not plan teaching and learning and does not assess the work of pupils 

adequately, the director must talk to the teacher about such matters and say what must be done. There seem 

to be no ultimate sanctions in Mexico, however – not even for teachers who have improper relationships 

with children. The Steering Group was told that neither incompetence nor unprofessional behaviour result 

in dismissal. 

Research shows that schools are more effective when staff build a consensus on the aims and values of the 

school and put these into practice through consistent and collaborative ways of working. The director is key to 

setting these school norms and thus reducing variation in the quality of teaching of different groups which has 

been shown to be a direct cause of underperforming schools. For all the reasons above, the Steering Group is 

convinced that there needs to be a clear national definition of the role and expectations of school directors and 

other leaders in the system, which takes account of the diversity of schools and contexts and which underpins 

everything they do. 

3. Strategic financial and human resource management 

Policy makers can enhance the financial management skills of school leadership teams by providing training to 

school leaders, establishing the role of a financial manager within the leadership team, or providing financial 

support services to schools. In addition, school leaders should be able to influence decisions on teacher 

recruitment to improve the match between candidates and their school’s needs. 

A wealth of research shows that school effectiveness is highly dependent on effective classroom teaching; 

the quality and quantity of teaching and learning. There are positive correlations between learning time – or 

time on task – and pupil outcomes (and behaviour). There can be little doubt that the erosion of learning time 

through “shortened hours”, teacher absenteeism and poor punctuality in Mexican schools contributes directly 

to inadequate learning outcomes. Therefore, the key role of directors should be to focus on human resource 

management. In some countries where there is more autonomy, this may require selecting staff for the school. In 



Mexico, staff selection may not be possible in the short term, but an adequate management of staff to improve 

their performance is still vital. 

4. Working beyond the school borders: other schools, school councils and parents 

This new leadership dimension needs to be recognised as a specific role for school leaders. It can bring benefits 

to school systems as a whole rather than just the students of a single school. But school leaders need to develop 

their skills to become involved in matters beyond their school borders. In addition, they have to work with 

the representatives of community around them and also with parents, to strengthen ties between parents and 

the schools. There has been little high value research into social participation in schools. Sammons found that 

“effective schools research generally shows that supportive relationships and cooperation between home and 

school have positive effects”, and there are benefits of schools that encourage parents’ involvement in their 

children’s learning (Coleman and Others, 1993). When considering forms of social participation in schools 

more widely, there is little direct evidence of the contribution of school councils, boards or governing bodies 

to school improvement. Where such bodies make important decisions, like selecting the school director, their 

choice can be the most important decision they make. But in countries like England where governing bodies 

have this power, there is still a need to ensure that they only appoint candidates who have achieved the 

National Professional Qualification for Headship. 

How to develop a framework of occupational standards for school leadership and management 

focused on improving school outcomes 

School leadership is among the keys to effective schools and there are specific leadership responsibilities 

that lead to improving school results across OECD countries. In Mexico, a clear definition of the roles and 

responsibilities of school leaders is needed to ensure that the wide variety of schools in Mexico have a shared 

and common understanding of what it means to be a school leader. Any definition of school leadership 

responsibilities should be informed by: 

• Those parts of the school leader’s role that research and international practice have shown to have greatest 

impact on the quality of teaching and learning, which are those focused on supporting, evaluating and 

working with teachers in doing their job and challenging underperformance; 

• An evidence-informed view about the professional role of leaders in the Mexican school system, including 

how much autonomy they have to make decisions; 

• A strategic vision of how the Mexican school system should evolve. 

It is sensible to adopt a systematic approach to creating standards for school leaders, based on consensus and 

on work already done in other countries or within Mexico. Examples are given from other countries that may 

be used as a basis for developing leadership and management standards in Mexico (Table 4.1). The Steering 

Group understands that there has been some work in Mexico on developing standards for school directors and 

believes that completion of this work should be an urgent, short-term objective. The process of defining a set of 

standards for directors calls for different stages. It is important first that Mexico works to reach a common and 

shared perspective on what is the core purpose of a director. Next, this core purpose needs to be translated into 

core areas of competence, and then be made into clear actionable statements for directors. 

The important step is to agree on a leadership framework quickly. It does not have to be perfect; it just has to be 

in place. The OECD Steering Group encountered examples of strong school leadership while in Mexico. Ideally, 

the development of a leadership framework should take account of the best existing practice in Mexico, if this 

is known. It is also advisable to take account of best international practice by adapting an existing framework 

of standards for school directors. When this preliminary framework is put in place, it should be accompanied 


133

134 



with feedback mechanisms. These will help to gradually adapt the framework through its socialisation, so it 

corresponds to the schools’ and teachers’ needs and creates consensus. The examples of Chile and Ontario 

show the importance of implementing standards throughout a process of dialogue among local and national 

stakeholders. 

1. What is the role or core purpose of the school director? 

The first question for Mexico is about its vision for school leaders. What should school leaders be doing in order 

to help schools improve? In order that Mexico can define competencies or standards for its school leaders, it 

is necessary that there is absolute clarity about the core purpose of school leaders. The system needs to agree 

on this. School directors need to know exactly what is expected of them. One definition of the core purpose of 

school leaders is found in the National Professional Standards for Headteachers in England, UK (Department 

for Education and Skills, 2004). Once there is a clear understanding about the school director’s role, it is 

necessary to decide the key areas of competence which are required if school leaders are to undertake their 

role effectively. 

2. What competencies does a school director need? 

Several countries have specified the role of the school leader in terms of areas of competence and these 

present common patterns (Table 4.1). Middleton’s (2001) description of these formal areas is included in Box 

4.2. Two examples are the content areas of Austria’s leadership academy (Schratz, 2009) and the National 

Professional Qualifications for Headteachers (NPQH) in England. Note the similarities between the two. In 

Latin America, Chile has developed the Marco para la buena dirección (Good Directors’ Framework), and has 

been using it for at least the last five years. At present they are validating the Good Supervision Framework. 

In Ontario, the School Leadership Framework presents five clear and succinct key areas of competence, based 

on those used in England. These are well known by all actors, adapted to local contexts as needed, used in a 

new director appraisal system and used for training and development. 

Leadership academy, austria 

Strategic leadership 

Instructional leadership 

Human resource management 

Organisational development 

Change management 

Aspects of lifelong learning 

Administrative 


Table 4.1 

International examples of areas of competence for school directors 

examples of areas of competence for school directors 

Ontario School Leadership 

Framework 

Setting direction 

Building relationships and 

developing people 

Developing the organisation 

Leading the instructional 

programme 

Securing accountability 

National professional Qualification for 

headteachers, england 

Shaping the future (strategically) 

Leading learning and teaching (see Table 4.2) 

Developing self and others 

Managing the school 

Securing accountability 

Strengthening community 

In England, the standards have a range of uses. They “assist in the recruitment of headteachers and in performance 

management processes. They provide guidance to all school stakeholders in what should be expected from 

the role of the headteacher and are also used to identify threshold levels of performance” (Department for 

Education and Skills, 2004).


Box 4.3 the core purpose of the director 

The core purpose is to provide professional leadership and management for a school. This will promote 

a secure foundation from which to achieve high performance in all areas of the school’s work. To gain 

this success a director must establish a high quality of education by providing instructional leadership, 

effectively managing teaching and learning and using personalised learning to realise the potential of all 

pupils. Directors must establish a culture that promotes excellence, equality and high expectations for 

all pupils. 

Source: Department for Education and Skills (2004), National Professional Standards for Headteachers, Ref: 

DfES/0083/2004, Department for Education and Skills, London . 

2. What competencies does a director need? 

An approach to analysing the work of directors as a lever for managing and improving schools is to look at each 

area of their work in terms of: 

• Actions: what they may be required to do, which dictate the 

• Knowledge, understanding and skills, they require, and the 

• Personal and professional characteristics needed. 

This classification is similar to many others used in defining occupational standards. An example is the key area 

“leading learning and teaching”, which is commonly found in leadership standards (often termed “instructional” 

leadership, “pedagogical” leadership and so on). School directors have a central responsibility for raising 

the quality of teaching and learning and for pupils’ achievement. This implies setting high expectations and 

monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of learning outcomes. The framework for standards for directors 

(headteachers) in England also sets out in each key area the knowledge requirements and professional qualities 

headteachers should bring to the role, as illustrated below, together with examples of the “actions” expected of 

a school headteacher (Department for Education and Skills, 2004). Table 4.2 illustrates the knowledge, qualities 

and actions expected of the area “Leading teaching and learning” in the English standards. 


135

136 




Table 4.2 

Leading teaching and learning: National Standards for Headteachers in England (NPQH) 

Knowledge of: professional qualities: actions: 

Strategies for raising achievement and 

achieving excellence 

Theories and models of learning and 

teaching; personalised learning 

Effective teaching and assessment for 

learning 

Behaviour and attendance management 

Curriculum management 

Data gathering and analysis 

Excellence as a practitioner 

Development of effective teachers 

Inclusion and special needs 

Consistently helps others to improve 

as teachers and learners, based on 

assessment of identified learning 

needs and barriers to learning. 

Demonstrates personal enthusiasm 

for and a commitment to the learning 

process as a highly effective 

practitioner. 

Establishes creative and innovative 

approaches to effective learning and 

teaching. 

Ensures a culture of challenge and 

support where all pupils and staff 

can achieve success and become 

engaged in their own learning. 

Monitors, evaluates and reviews the 

quality of teaching and learners’ 

progress, promotes improvement and 

follows up the action taken. 

Expects excellence and challenges 

individual underperformance. 

A leadership framework can thus be developed which identifies key areas of leadership competence, then specifies 

for each area the leadership actions that are expected and the knowledge and professional qualities the leader is 

expected to have, taking account of best practice in Mexico and internationally. Another example is the Northern 

Ireland National Standards for Headteachers, developed in 2005. This framework informs objectives, provides 

guidance on the role that is expected for a school director and identifies threshold levels of performance for 

assessment. It is not only used by directors, but is also a reference for the professional development of senior and 

middle managers who may wish to become headteachers. As a result, it is increasingly being used to create job 

descriptions for school leaders. It serves also as an instrument for self-evaluation of school leaders at an individual 

and school level, providing a continuous professional development record established by the Regional Training Unit. 

Other important leaders in the Mexican system are the ATPs and the supervisors. Their roles should also be 

clearly described, and what is understood as good leadership at each level included in the framework of 

leadership standards. There are international examples of such standards. For example, there are standards in 

England for educators working as “school improvement professionals” (National Association of Educational 

Inspectors, Advisers and Consultants, 2005). These education workers have similar functions to those of school 

supervisors in Mexico. In England, they have been defined as follows: 

• Professional leadership to build capacity; 

• Promoting learning; 

• Developing self and others; 

• Working with and developing organisations; 

• Accountability – evaluating practice; 

• Developing and sustaining partnerships.


We see many advantages to Mexico building a leadership culture that seeks to identify, develop and promote 

teachers with leadership qualities. School ATPs could join directors, supervisors and inspectors as part of the 

vertical career progression (Escalafón). It is desirable that ATP posts have a clearly defined function in the 

leadership structure of the Mexican education system. 

Leadership standards can be visualised as one element of a trio, all of which combine in effective schools: 

standards of attainment for students; standards for effective teaching; and standards for effective leadership and 

management (Figure 3.4). 

The development of standards for teaching and leadership advocated in the recommendations contained in this 

publication complements work being undertaken in Mexico to develop new curriculum standards from preschool 

to secondary levels already referred to in Chapter 3 (Posner, 2010). 

recommendatIon 10: Professionalise the training, selection and recruitment of school leaders 

based on the leadership standards 

As the skills a school director needs are different from those required by a teacher, the system needs to grow 

leaders using standards as their starting point. Leadership development needs to be seen as a continuum. 

This implies encouraging leadership initial training; organising induction programmes; and ensuring in-service 

training to cover need and context. Having a framework of leadership standards will make it possible to use 

the evaluation of directors to diagnose what key skills may be required in individual cases and find suitable 

opportunities to acquire them. Appointments for directors should, where possible, be made from a shortlist of 

candidates, all of whom are qualified in terms of meeting the standards. 

Context 

Defining the role of school directors in terms of leadership and management and setting occupational standards 

are central to school improvement in Mexico. The system is far from having a school leadership culture, but this 

must be one goal. It will only be achieved when there are clear improvements in leadership capacity across 

the system. At present, training and appointments to posts at all levels in the system are not consistent with 

a concept of schools and school leadership that responds to today’s needs. Appointments, for example, are 

based on length of service rather than on merit and too often have an element of patronage. This is a particular 

issue when appointing directors – who need to have the qualities, skills and integrity to take the key role as 

instructional leaders of their schools, and supervisors who should bring successful school leadership and a 

wider perspective to their work in developing staff and helping schools to improve. 

There have been few formal requirements for teachers wishing to become school directors. The Escalafón sets 

the conditions required to get a promotion to school leader, but in practice the procedures for promotion to 

managerial positions are not transparent. We learned that often school leaders have been nominated by the 

SNTE or by the joint Escalafón commission rather than appointed on merit against clear criteria. A new test for 

the selection of school directors has been proposed as part of the reforms promoted by the Alianza. We are 

concerned, therefore, about lack of transparency in the appointment of directors. 

Additionally, the professional ladder of promotion to become a director or a supervisor is based on courses 

included in a national catalogue, 80% of which refer to curriculum contents and do not focus specifically on 

school leadership. Many witnesses expressed doubts about the usefulness of the courses, and described the 

courses in the Escalafón and Carrera Magisterial as a way to get points but with little relevance to practice. 

Indeed, the training that school directors have received until now is very limited and narrow, such as training 

focused on provision for vulnerable groups. Participants in the PEC programme have had greatest access to 


137

138 



such development opportunities. Professional development is still mainly focused on the teacher rather than the 

director or the supervisor. School leaders need to receive special training in order to exercise the roles required 

of them to achieve the school quality that Mexico needs. 


International evidence supports the principle that the school system benefits from professionalising school 

leaders by providing them with better training, and by selecting and recruiting them in a professional manner 

based on merit. It is widely recognised that school leaders may not be well prepared to exercise their role 

directly after being a teacher. Being a school director or leader requires a set of skills and expertise that teaching 

experience alone may not provide. There is evidence from directors across OECD countries that when taking up 

their posts school directors do not feel that they are ready or have had the appropriate training for it. 

There is a growing body of evidence demonstrating the impact of leadership training and development on leadership 

effectiveness. There is consensus among practitioners, researchers and policy makers that professional training 

and development have an impact on participants by improving leaders’ knowledge, skills and dispositions. This 

can contribute to more competent and effective leadership behaviours and eventually lead to improvements in 

teaching and learning (Moorman, 1997; Evans and Mohr, 1999; U.S. Department of Education, National Institute 

on Educational Governance, 1999; Davis et al., 2005; Darling-Hammond et al., 2007). 

For example, research commissioned by the National College for Leadership of Schools and Children’s Services 

(NCSL, the National College in the United Kingdom) into the impact of its leadership development programmes 

(attended by 120 000 participants since 2000) shows that schools engaged with the College’s leadership 

development programmes have improved more quickly: 

• Results at age 11 in schools that have engaged with at least one of the College’s development programmes 

increased by 2.7% between 2005 and 2009, compared with a 1.9% improvement in schools that had 

not engaged. 

• Results at age 16 of schools that had engaged increased by 8.1% between 2005 and 2009, compared with a 

5.8% improvement in schools that had not engaged. 

In England, since 2009 all aspiring headteachers must pass the National Professional Qualification for Headship. 

To prepare for it, they need to follow a preparatory training for school leadership based on six areas of national 

standards, as well as on current policy and research. This course, which has changed recently, had a typical 

duration of 15 months and was provided by the NCSL. The methodology is varied: face-to-face tutorials, residential 

meetings, self-study, in-school work, peer and tutor support, online learning and online communities. The new 

programme includes an internship in another school. The following NCSL evidence shows that the differential 

impact is greater for schools led by a director who has been awarded the National Professional Qualification for 

Headship (NPQH). 

• 43% of schools led by an NPQH graduate showed an improvement in the leadership and management rating 

in their Ofsted inspection between 2005 and 2008, compared with only 33% of non-NPQH led schools. 

• 43% of schools led by an NPQH graduate showed an improvement in their overall Ofsted rating between 2005 

and 2008, compared with only 37% of non-NPQH led schools. 

• 48% of schools led by an NPQH graduate from the point of entering special measures2 came out within one 

calendar year during 2004-08, compared to only 38% of non-NPQH led schools. 

• 67% of primary schools led by an NPQH graduate throughout the period 2004-08 saw an improvement in their 

results for 11 year-olds compared with 59% in all other schools. 



• 76% of schools led by an NPQH graduate throughout the period 2005-08 saw an improvement in their results 

for 16 year-olds compared with 72% in all other schools. 

How to professionalise the training, selection and recruitment of school leaders based on the 

leadership standards 

The leadership standards framework defined in the previous recommendation will have considerable benefits for 

human resource management in the school system. It will provide a national benchmark for what is an effective 

director, and a guide for aligning various leadership strategies. The standards will provide an important guide 

to building leadership capacity. This means defining school leadership as distinct from management or administration, 

identifying teachers with leadership potential, providing leadership opportunities, training leaders and ensuring 

that the teachers who become directors have demonstrated their leadership knowledge and competence. 

The system needs to grow leaders. Applying the leadership framework involves: 

• Providing a basis for training of new school leaders and the professional development of existing ones; 

• Supporting schools in encouraging, growing and developing leadership skills within the staff; 

• Providing a basis for the equitable appointment of directors on merit; 

• Using the framework when assessing or appraising the performance of school leaders; 

• Demonstrating to the profession and the public what is expected of school leaders. 

Training and developing leaders 

In school leadership development programmes, effective training and preparation for directors usually involves 

both on-the-job training and joint events for a group of leaders. The workplace element requires a mentor, 

normally the director, who would ensure that the aspiring director gained experience in the main elements 

of the school leadership role set out in the Standards. The off-site aspect would bring trainees together for 

development sessions in which good practice is shared and technical aspects explained. 

There are already some promising training initiatives for school leaders in parts of Mexico, including the states 

of Aguascalientes, Jalisco (see Box 4.4) and Yucatán. The issue is how to know which training initiatives are 

most relevant to schools and how to ensure funding to support the training for directors not included in Carrera 

Magisterial or Escalafón. It is important for Mexico then to decide where to invest more: in initial director 

training or in continuing training of its current school directors. An estimation of the age and number of school 

directors and a diagnosis can help understand which of the two would have broader results across the system. 

The continuing professional development of school leaders 

Leadership development needs to be seen as a continuum. This implies: 1) encouraging leadership initial 

training; 2) organising induction programmes; and 3) ensuring in-service training to cover need and context. 

Having a framework of leadership standards will make it possible to use the evaluation of directors to diagnose 

what key skills may be required in individual cases and find suitable opportunities to acquire them. The 

objectives should be to: 

• Ensure coherence of provision by different institutions; 

• Ensure appropriate variety for effective training; 

• Ensure that all leadership development programmes are of the highest possible quality and relevance. 


139

140 



Appointment of directors 

Box 4.4 competence certification for school directors in the state of Jalisco 

The Education Ministry of Jalisco has created a programme at the state level focused on fostering three 

dimensions of school directors’ work: 

• organisational-administrative 

• pedagogic-curricular 

• social-community. 

The programme has developed an approach of “combined training” (formación por alternancia) that 

allows directors to combine participation in a formal course of 36 sessions (formación presencial) 

distributed along the school year, with six tutoring sessions received at the place of work, virtual advising, 

and other training activities created according to their specific contexts. 

The first stage of the programme was the selection and preparation of trainers. During the second stage, 

about 800 school directors have received a formal training course since the implementation of the 

programme in 2007, and 21 training centres have been created for this purpose. A mid-term objective 

is the establishment of a three-year follow up of those school directors having taken the course, for their 

certification. The Education Ministry of Jalisco expects this programme to eventually cover the population 

of 3 500 school directors within the state. Other goals are the standardisation of fundamental processes 

taking place inside the school, and the generalisation of the use of the School Education Projects (Proyecto 

Educativo Escolar) as a tool for school improvement. 

Among the positive elements observed by school directors in this programme is that relevant training 

courses are now available in their region of work. They also considered useful the support received from 

tutors, as otherwise they “tend to feel alone”. However, they also considered that more support to attend 

courses should be provided from supervisors. 

Source: Secretaría de Educación de Jalisco (2007), Programa de Formación de Directivos por Competencias, Executive 

Summary, Gobierno del Estado de Jalisco, Guadalajara, Mexico. 

The OECD Mexico Steering Group believes that appointments for directors should, where possible, be made 

from a shortlist of candidates, all of whom are qualified in terms of meeting the standards for school leadership. 

All shortlisted candidates are therefore presumed capable of doing the job of school director. There should 

be objective procedures to find suitable candidates, which take account of tests, portfolios and their track 

record. It should be the responsibility of the states to ensure that each school is led by a properly qualified 

and trained director. Where there is a vacancy, they should convene an appointment panel. It is desirable that 

the school community is involved in choosing the director, possibly through representatives of parents or the 

school council. The appointment panel has the job of deciding which candidate will be best for the school and 

its needs. The Steering Group suggests that the appointment panel includes representatives from: i) the regional 

administration; ii) teachers at the school; and iii) parents of pupils attending the school. 

Regarding the need to create a leadership culture, the OECD recognises that changing perceptions of the work 

of school directors from a largely administrative to a professional leadership role will require a significant 

change in the culture of the school system. At present there is considerable teacher autonomy but schools are 

in effect units of delivery for the highly centralised range of programmes provided for them. It is important to: 



• Explore ways to provide greater autonomy for school leaders, reduce the administrative burden imposed by 

a vast number of centrally directed programmes (PEC and others) and give real scope to exercise pedagogic 

leadership (of the curriculum, teaching and learning) as well as take managerial decisions. 

• Give incentives, support and training to build the capacity and motivation to exercise the school leadership role. 

The aim must be to create a culture in which school leadership is valued as the key to school improvement. 

As Kotter (1996) says, however, the culture is the last element to develop after all the other pieces are in place. 

Supervisors have an important role in providing leadership and both supporting and challenging the leaders of 

their schools. They should be able to demonstrate their effect in raising school performance and not simply use 

their power as administrators. 

recommendatIon 11: Build instructional leadership and teaching capacity within schools and 

groups of schools, encouraging schools to work together in partnerships or groups 

Mexican schools generally work as independent units and therefore many have only limited capacity to 

undertake high quality school-based professional development, among other management tasks. Schools 

where good and high quality practice exists need to share with schools who have limited capacity for selfimprovement. 

Otherwise, schools will continue doing only what they already know how to do and will have 

very limited chances of improving. 

Context 

The best conditions for schools to be successful are found where they have a relatively stable, well-qualified 

group of teachers who work together as a team, together with leadership that provides strategic vision and is 

focused on the development and well-being of both students and staff. These conditions are exceptional in many 

schools in Mexico. It is difficult to create a team approach when many teachers work in more than one school, 

or are part-time and paid by the hour. Some of the challenges of the Mexican school system arise because 

many schools have limited capacity for self-improvement. This is a consequence of insufficient instructional 

leadership, the limitations of some teachers, insufficient resources for learning and the relative professional 

and often geographical isolation of many schools. It is important to strengthen the link between teachers’ inservice 

training courses and school practice. Where good and high quality practice exists, whether in classroom 

teaching or school leadership, it needs to be shared so that others can learn and students can benefit. 

School-based professional development has proven to be an effective way of improving the quality of teaching 

and effectiveness of learning in other countries, but is very limited in Mexico. There are logistic difficulties 

because of teachers working in more than one school, school buildings being used for split shift schools and 

so on. The aim of re-professionalising teachers and school leaders is hard to achieve in these circumstances. 

New system-wide solutions to this challenge will all make a contribution. These include the examination 

for new teachers, the accumulation of points which recognise teachers’ commitment to in-service training 

and professional development, and a prospective examination for directors. Such measures are important in 

moving towards meritocratic pay and promotion systems. But it cannot be assumed that such measures will 

automatically improve the quality of teaching and learning in schools. 

One difficulty of making school-centred professional development effective is that there may not be sufficient 

expertise in individual schools to contribute significantly to development sessions. What can be done to improve 

mathematics, for example, when some of those who teach mathematics are unable to complete the assessments 

used for PISA level 5 3 (OECD, 2004). Another challenge, experienced by many other countries, is that there may 

not be enough highly effective school leaders to provide one for every school. It may help to solve both of these 

problems if schools cooperate in formal or informal groups or partnerships, and share teaching and leadership 

expertise across schools. 


141

142 



Research and international practice 

Many models of inter-school collaboration have been adopted by different administrations in England. Some 

are more effective than others, as shown by the following examples. 

Beacon schools: One approach is to identify very effective schools from which others can learn. The intention is 

that teachers will visit these schools, observe the school’s practice, and go and reproduce it in their own school. 

“Beacon” schools were identified in England and received additional funding to act as hosts to teachers from 

other schools and disseminate their good practice. Unfortunately, teachers did not find it easy to reproduce in 

their own school approaches they had seen in another school. The Beacon Schools programme, established in 

England in 1998, had limited impact for this reason, and the policy was discontinued after five years. A better 

way is to link such excellent schools with a few other schools so as to build an ongoing relationship. 

leading edge schools: The concept of a “Leading Edge” school reflects a government aspiration to encourage 

schools in England to innovate collaboratively and share practices that “tackle some of the most intractable 

barriers to raising standards”. The Leading Edge Partnership Programme (LEPP) was launched in 2003 as a 

successor to the Beacon schools programme. The programme grew to link about 200 Leading Edge schools with 

about 800 partners. Lead schools received funding for school leaders and other staff to work with other schools, 

covering the costs of replacement staff in the Leading Edge school. A study of five Leading Edge partnerships 

(Higham, Hopkins and Matthews, 2009) has identified a range of benefits, summarised below. The benefits for 

professionals from Leading Edge work include: 

• Improved professional support, with the majority of teachers reporting the benefits of an extended network of 

curriculum-relevant assistance, and heads of department finding a means to overcome isolation, particularly 

when they have been given the task of boosting the results in a low-achieving department; 

• Increased opportunities to gain inspiration and pool ideas for practice with colleagues in an informal setting 

and based on professional dialogue and judgement; 

• High quality professional development in the workplace with the opportunity to generate wider professional 

learning communities among staff, and support and coaching for leaders at a variety of levels; 

• The collaborative development of new practice, sharing and refining current good practice, and jointly 

engaging in research and innovation to develop responsive teaching techniques, resources and/or wider 

learning opportunities. 

These benefits are characteristic of the key elements of commitment, trust, support, professional development 

and time for collaborative enquiry which research has associated with effective partnership working, 

summarised as the creation of “collaborative advantage” (Huxham and Vangen, 2005). It is apparent in several 

countries with “high stakes” school accountability that ineffective (low-achieving) schools, especially those 

in challenging circumstances, require external support to improve (Harris, Brown and Abbott, 2006). Elmore 

(2004) summarised the issues as follows. 

“Teachers were generally doing what they knew how to do, rather than doing what was necessary to produce 

the results they were trying to produce. In the absence of specific guidance [...] they would continue to do what 

they regarded as ‘good teaching’. In order to get different results they would have to learn to do something 

different they didn’t know how to do, and in order to do that they would have to have access to skills and 

knowledge that would help them to understand and enact those practices in their classroom [...] The systems 

exhort schools and localities to provide support and professional development for the schools in need of help, 

but don’t actually invest in the infrastructure required to make sure that the help gets to the right schools at the 

right time with the right technical expertise.” 



In Mexico, the main avenue of support is through school supervisors employed by each state. The use of 

supervisors, advisers or inspectors is common in the administration of education in many countries. While many 

supervisors have good professional credibility and sound understanding of effective practice, their expertise is 

often limited to curriculum leadership rather than school leadership, unless they have been successful directors. 

Since they no longer work from a school, they may also lack the ability to show or demonstrate good practice 

or draw upon other expertise which resides in good schools. Supervisors nevertheless have potentially an 

important role in arranging or brokering the kind of school-to-school support that will help in particular cases. 

school partnerships and federations: In England, schools are held rigorously accountable through their 

academic results and regular external inspections of their quality and standards. Schools facing difficulties have 

frequently received informal support from other schools, often brokered by local authority school improvement 

staff. In the last ten years, the value of inter-school partnerships has been recognised by legislation (Department 

for Education and Skills, 2004) which has allowed these to become formalised through schools being led and 

managed jointly as “federations”. Higham, Hopkins and Matthews (2009) describe “a common federation 

model” which “involves a lead school working to support and improve a partner school or schools”. 

In the USA, Sweden and England, other groupings of schools are known as “chains”, in which groups of schools 

work to the same principles and philosophy. The schools have individual directors, but are led overall by an 

executive director and governed by a board or council. In Latin America, such chains generally involve private 

or religious schools. 

school clusters: School clusters are organised groups of schools serving a locality, which may be a wide 

geographical area. One exceptional example of the widespread organisation of schools into clusters 

can be found in Portugal (See Box 4.5). It started with a nationwide programme for closing very small 

primary schools, many of which were hard to staff, had low standards and had high pupil retention 

(holding back) rates. 

To increase the effectiveness and quality of primary schools, the government determined that, by law, small 

schools showing higher rates of retention than the national average must be shut down during 2005/06 and 

“fostering” schools must be identified to receive the pupils from the schools that were closed down. The closure 

of small schools needs expanding or building other schools to accommodate the displaced students. The 

government’s objective has been to improve provision for primary-age students by accommodating them in 

larger “school centres” which provide a range of enhanced provision. The ideal school or centre should provide 

for a minimum of 150 students at more than one level. 

Implementing the school closure policy involved collaboration between the five regional directorates and the 278 

municipalities of continental Portugal. The government has the final decision on the construction of new schools. 

This process is criterion-based, using measures such as numbers of students and schools, geographical factors and 

demographic indicators. The programme for modifying and enlarging existing schools and creating school “centres” 

was supported by 400 million Euros from the European Structural Fund (ESF). This allowed municipalities to augment 

their own capital spending through matched funding from the ESF, which ranges from 50 to 75%. 

The feasibility studies produced for the Portuguese Ministry of Education that showed a relationship between 

school size and student success also found that pupils at schools with low attendance rates and with few 

resources have much lower educational success. While these results are not surprising, they provide a researchbased 

approach to policy making. The feasibility studies led to protocols to improve school conditions – in 

terms of the physical environment, learning support materials and information technology – by creating school 

centres to receive the students formerly taught in small rural schools. As well as traditional classrooms, these 

centres provide school facilities that include: 


143

144 



• More than one level of education, in order to maximise common infrastructure – the most common example 

is the integration of first cycle and pre-school establishments in the same or neighbouring spaces, but there 

can also be integration with other levels of education; 

• Common or multi-use areas, such as libraries, computer rooms, canteen, multi-functional areas for meetings/ 

cultural and PE activities, staff room and parents’ reception areas; 

• Classrooms modernised for computer use and experiments; 

• Outside areas with fences and security, covered areas and sports areas, whenever possible. 

An international evaluation of the policy for the reorganisation of primary education concluded that “from the 

evidence received and experience of visits to see at first hand school centres and schools within clusters, we consider 

the cluster system a highly appropriate, pragmatic and durable solution to the challenge of providing universal, high 

quality basic education” (Matthews et al., 2008). 

Box 4.5 School clusters for primary education in portugal 

The main organisational entity for schools in the first cycle is the school cluster. Clusters may provide 

for two or more levels of education, from kindergarten to secondary education, integrated into one 

organisation. The structure of the clusters varies, but typically a cluster may consist of one school of the 

second and third cycle with a number of schools (typically five to ten or more) with first and pre-school 

cycles. A school cluster is “an organisational unit, with its own administrative and management bodies, 

made up of pre-school establishments and one or more education cycles, with the following objectives: 

• To facilitate a sequential and coordinated path for the pupils covered by compulsory education in the 

particular geographic area and to facilitate the transition between levels and cycles of teaching; 

• To overcome the isolation of establishments and prevent social exclusion; to consolidate the 

pedagogical capacity of the establishments that are part of it and the rational use of its resources; 

• To guarantee the application of a system of autonomy, administration and management in terms of the 

current legislation.” 

Source: Ministry of Education (2008), Policy Measures Implemented in the First Cycle of Compulsory Education in 

Portugal: Country Position Report, Ministry of Education, Portugal. 

How to build instructional leadership and teaching capacity within schools and groups of schools, 

encouraging schools to work together 

Evidence suggests that schools in Mexico generally work as independent units, many of which have only 

limited capacity to undertake high quality school-based professional development, among other management 

tasks. Where this is the case, there is much to be gained by schools building partnerships with other schools so 

as to pool the expertise of their teachers, ATPs and directors. It is possible to undertake effective professional 

development as well as make better use of human and other resources in partnerships of schools than in schools 

separately. For this and other reasons we believe that there would be great advantage in examining various ways 

in which the most talented teachers and leaders in schools can have the greatest effect, not only on their own 

pupils and colleagues but more widely. Examples of possible strategies could include: 

• Identifying a leading teacher in each “core” subject (such as Spanish and mathematics) within the group of 

schools, and allowing them some time to work with teachers in schools other than their own; 


• Local training for teachers from across the group; 


• Shared planning and evaluation with the aim of improving teaching; 

• Building the allegiance of teachers who work in more than one school to a group or partnership of schools. 

Much depends on the size and geographical distribution of schools in the group, the quality of communications 

across the cluster and the facilities for pupils and staff to travel between schools and centres. Some schools have 

imaginative programmes in which children periodically visit centre facilities like a swimming pool even though 

their own school is some distance from the centre. 

In Portugal, England and other administrations, it is clear that policy makers recognise the vital importance 

of effective leadership in making clusters work effectively and efficiently. Portugal has changed the system of 

appointing school and group (or cluster) directors from election by staff to appointment on merit by the school 

council. Criteria are based on curriculum vitae, school management experience and the quality of the project 

plans proposed by applicants for this position. 

Some administrations have grouped schools in formal partnerships, with an executive director/director to lead 

each group cluster and be responsible and accountable for its improvement and performance. All primary 

schools in Portugal, for example, are grouped. Each of the constituent schools of a group in Portugal is led by 

a coordinator; and there is one director for the group or “cluster”. In England individual schools are led by a 

“head of school” or “associate headteacher”. School leaders still have an important role in taking responsibility 

for the individual schools and assuring the quality of the core education and curriculum enrichment provision 

on that school site. There is also an opportunity for the governing body of the school, for example school 

boards, to become group boards of the community. In Mexico, where a large number of schools do not have 

tenured directors, the identification of “coordinating directors” who take responsibility for two or more such 

schools deserves serious analysis. 

Some states in Mexico are already experimenting with school grouping arrangements. The following example 

illustrates large clusters of schools in Aguascalientes (Box 4.6), but there is also scope for smaller, more compact 

clusters or partnerships. 

It is most unlikely that one type of infrastructure will be appropriate across the different contexts in which schools 

in Mexico operate. A broader range of infrastructure is needed – what has been termed “infrastructure of reform”. 

This infrastructure would include clusters, partnerships federations and other school-to-school collaborations, but it 

would also include the operation of some schools as special centres of teacher development, special programming, 

training and consultation as well as the establishment of a National Programme of Leadership that would regulate the 

supply of existing and needed courses with a formative emphasis for school leaders and supervisors. 

This programme could be managed by a working group in cooperation with universities, the UPN and its 

state units and some Normales. This would avoid creating new structures that could eventually be politicised 

or bureaucratised and would instead take advantage of the “installed capacity”. In the short term, a set of 

core courses could be installed that every school director should take. In the mid-term, a more flexible model 

could be installed in which states and schools can use a different combination of strategies to respond to 

professional development for directors. States should be grouped according to the level of progress of their 

current experiences of leadership training. The different options of school improvement would then be defined 

according to the state and schools’ needs. Thinking in these terms would steer educators in Mexico towards 

a concept of system leadership in which leaders take responsibility for education beyond the boundaries of 

their own school or organisation. The starting point is to commence building real leadership capacity, in terms 

defined by the new framework of leadership standards for Mexico. 


145

146 



Box 4.6 clustering in aguascalientes, the creation of school development centres 

(Centros de Desarrollo Educativo) 

Since 1993, the state of Aguascalientes has engaged in an ongoing process of reforms. It started mainly 

with the re-organisation of its supervisors’ geographic areas of work into 22 clusters known as Zonas 

de Educación Básica (ZEB) that cover all the state’s territory. Each ZEB is led by a zone coordinator 

(Coordinador de Zona) named by the state’s Education Institute. In 2007 zone coordinators had in charge 

a total of 158 supervisors across the state (for a population of about 1 211 school directors and 10 800 

school teachers). This re-organisation of the state’s education system allowed, for example, better cohesion 

between pre-school, primary and lower-secondary education. Following the idea that supervisors have a 

central role in delivering education services and in supporting schools in their education planning, other 

actions were taken to support their work. Supervisors received training to create and interpret information 

useful for evaluating the work of their schools (school project). 

Additionally, in each ZEB, a working centre, currently known as CDE, or Centro de Desarrollo Educativo, 

has been created to encourage the professionalisation of the different actors of the state’s education 

system. From these centres, a zone coordinator designated by the Institute of Education of Aguascalientes 

(IEA, equivalent of a state Education Ministry), leads a team of supervisors of pre-school, primary and 

lower-secondary education, as well ATPs and administrative support to: 

• allow a better pedagogic articulation for the activities carried out by these teams; 

• be used as a space for activities of professional development for teachers and school directors; 

• facilitate staff from schools affiliated to that CDE to carry out administrative processes without having 

to do it in the central office of the IEA (Gobierno del Estado de Aguascalientes, 2009). 

Supervisors are meant to approach the education authorities in the places where education happens, and 

to adapt policies to the local context and specific realities and needs of the schools in each of the ZEBs. 

For this, they also follow the standards established in 1997 at the state level for teachers, school directors 

and supervisors. Local actors perceive as adequate the decision taken to focus the reform on supervisors, 

but their professionalisation still needs further development. 

Source: Zorrilla, M. (2005), “A diez años de distancia, una mirada crítica a la reforma de la supervisión escolar en Aguascalientes, 

Mexico”, paper presented at the XVIII International Congress on School Effectiveness and Improvement, ISCEI, Barcelona. 

recommendatIon 12: Enhance school autonomy and encourage innovation 

To professionalise and hold leaders accountable, these need also to participate in the key decisions that take 

place at their school, such as hiring or dismissing teachers. Decision structures that are adapted to the schools’ 

contexts can also have a positive impact on their achievement. 

Context 

Mexico has one of the lowest levels of autonomy in schools among countries participating in TALIS 

(OECD, 2009). Under the General Law of Education, the federal government, through the Ministry of Education 

(SEP), is responsible for all normative and policy-making functions, including formulating study plans and 

curricula for primary, lower secondary and teacher training education and authorising teaching materials for basic 

education and teacher training. Some consider that the reorganisation of the education system in 1993 aimed 

to bring greater democracy, autonomy and self-governance to the Mexican educational structure and process 

(Socha, 1997) and to transfer the primary responsibility for basic education with the separate states. States 



have primary responsibility for key decisions regarding primary school staffing and funding but much of the 

available funding is attached to many central programmes. The organisation and structure of education, with 

strong central control, is not very conducive to greater autonomy. The system is not ready to promote large scale 

autonomy of schools; many directors are not equipped to be autonomous, and the distribution of resources 

is too uneven. The immediate task is to equip and empower directors to take greater responsibility for the 

management and performance of their schools and teachers. 

In terms of financial resources, as shown in Chapter 2, in Mexico, a very high proportion of school budgets 

is spent on teachers’ salaries, which are not under the control of the school or school directors. Teachers also 

receive an additional amount to spend on essential materials for their work. The rest of the money for schools 

is either attached to central programmes for specific use in providing those programmes or is raised by parents 

and the community. School resources are therefore minimal and quite unevenly distributed. School directors 

can decide how money allocated to the school is spent, but in many schools there is little money and little 

flexibility. This is not a situation in which autonomy provides much opportunity. 

In terms of human resources, school directors have little autonomy to make decisions. Selection and deployment 

of teachers in Mexico is in the hands of the state authority and the union. High teacher mobility affects many 

Mexican schools badly and is bound to disrupt children’s progress. For example, changes can happen with 

little notice and in the middle of the school year. Additionally, although the implementation of the National 

Teacher Examination for allocating posts has been an important step towards greater quality in education and 

transparency in the allocation of teaching posts, in practice it can take a longer time to allocate those teachers 

who passed the test to schools, resulting in long periods when schools are short of teachers (see more details in 

Recommendations 4 and 5 on Chapter 3). 

School leaders are central to establishing a school culture and capacity conducive to better student performance. 

If they are not involved in recruiting teachers and evaluating teaching, this diminishes their leadership authority. 

It is difficult to hold school leaders accountable for learning outcomes when they have no say in selecting their 

staff. In Mexico, the lack of involvement of school directors in deciding which staff are most suitable for their 

schools not only erodes the capacity of the director to take responsibility for quality and standards in the school 

but also acts against the attempt to professionalise the role of director. 

As we have seen, teacher dismissal is apparently not an option in Mexico, even for gross professional misconduct. 

Teachers who cannot safely be allowed to work in schools report to an administrative office for the equivalent 

hours or are assigned to another school. For this and other reasons, the Mexican economy is supporting a pool 

of inactive teachers while resource levels in schools are very low. 


Greater school autonomy has become a reality across many OECD countries, with the development of 

decentralisation across education and the belief that autonomy together with local accountability can respond 

more efficiently to local needs. Yet autonomous schools need support structures that permit them to be 

autonomous, because what happens in the schools and the classrooms is affected by the decisions made 

by school directors, school boards and school district leaders. Restructuring a system can lay the necessary 

foundation to improve organisational functioning and student learning. It can be key to setting clear objectives 

for the system, for following up, evaluating and assessing performance and providing support to students, 

directors, teachers, and schools (Cuban, Usdan and Hale, 2003). 

There is no “right” solution for a school infrastructure that works in all countries. Socio-political contexts are 

important. It is equally important for regional and national governments to recognise when the system they have 


147

148 



is failing to work as it should. This should lead to a search for solutions and is the reason why the OECD steering 

group is working with key stakeholders to advise on a solution. 

In school systems with well developed and prepared school directors, clear norms and regulations for schools 

and support arrangements to ensure equitable results, a large degree of school autonomy may be a viable 

solution. But a high degree of self-management may not be a solution for school systems where capacity and 

leadership are still to be developed. 

Providing administrative arrangements that support schools is now a key issue across OECD countries. Political 

reforms aim to transform the school system by implementing new visions; creating evaluation rubrics for staff, 

administrators and teachers; bringing effective leadership; balancing the budget; and improving the management 

infrastructure. While changes to administrative structures may not act directly to transform student achievement 

and retention, good structures can positively impact on how schools achieve their organisational mission, how 

teachers teach, and what students learn, but is not the only mechanism for meaningful education reform. 

There is a continuing trend towards giving schools, either through their professional staff or school boards, discretion 

in hiring teachers and to a lesser extent firing them. The rationale for this is that if school leaders and school boards 

are to be held accountable for how well children achieve, then they should have some role in choosing the 

teachers who will help them to deliver. Local autonomy over staff appointments is total in countries such as the 

Netherlands, New Zealand, the Slovak and Czech Republics, the United States, England and Hungary, but school 

leaders have a very limited role in countries like Turkey, Greece, Italy, Portugal, Germany and Luxembourg. 

How to increase school and local autonomy 

At the local level, it is important to be clear where responsibility and accountability lies. One of the principles 

of effective delegation is to ensure that the resources needed are locally decided and managed by those 

responsible and accountable for delivery. Normally the centre for delegation of responsibility and resources is 

the individual school. A greater degree of managerial freedom for the school director should be accompanied 

by support, advice and monitoring provided by the state. This implies: 

1. Providing the training and resources for schools to act. Local management can be a hollow gesture if schools 

do not have sufficient resources to facilitate local management and decision-making. Resources should be 

allocated directly to schools instead. A universal formula should be created that allows all schools to have 

basic access to resources with minimum administrative procedures. There should be a review of whether the 

payments for educational materials which are currently made to individual teachers should instead go to the 

school. There needs to be complete clarity about where various responsibilities lie. The resources currently 

attached to central programmes should be devolved to states, for equitable distribution to schools. 

2. Providing a supportive structure within which schools operate. The creation of intermediate-level support 

and governance arrangements, which lie at the zonal or sub-state level between the state and schools or 

groups of schools could have many advantages, as seen in the case of Canadian school boards. 

3. Encouraging experiments and pilot projects in school autonomy within states, so as to find out what works 

best, and to generate knowledge and experience. 

Although many schools in Mexico are not ready for high levels of autonomy or delegation of responsibilities, 

there are examples of schools with better resource levels and high quality professional leadership where 

delegated management could be tried out. Indeed Schmelkes (2001) describes excellent schools with excellent 

learning outcomes that are “obviously” making their own decisions. She concludes that “a certain and perhaps 

an increasing degree of school autonomy is undoubtedly advisable”. We also stress that that the know-how and 

skills of school-based management must also be developed if self-management is to be really effective. 



We recommend that questions of greater autonomy, financial delegation and local management are explored 

through research and pilot projects involving a small number of municipalities, schools and groups of schools, 

keen to explore the opportunities provided by a greater measure of local determination. An example from 

Guanajuato is shown below (Box 4.7). The focus should remain strongly on the quality and improvement of 

pupils’ experience, particularly the pace, challenge and enjoyment of their learning. This will be influenced 

most directly by the quality of teaching and, second only to this, the quality of school and group leadership. 

Box 4.7 the programme of “self-managing schools” in Guanajuato 

The programme of “self-managing schools” (Escuela Autogestiva) is among the initiatives introduced in 

Guanajuato to improve the attainment and quality of its education system. The programme covers public 

and private institutions and its main objective is to foster the development of the schools’ capacities for 

self-assessment and collective reflection. As part of this strategy of school empowerment, schools are 

required to develop their own School Education Projects (Proyecto Educativo Escolar – PEE). To support 

them in this task, the Education Ministry of Guanajuato has drawn elements from PEC and PEC-FIDE that 

provide schools with a new method of developing school improvement plans. 

As part of this programme, school directors, supervisors and other staff within the school receive training, 

follow-up support or tutoring to help them identify and prioritise needs. Teacher and school directors enter 

information from the PEE into a database called SISPEE (Sistema del Proyecto Educativo Escolar). This 

database provides orientations to prepare their school project (for example, how to draw up objectives 

and strategies, and decide which goals to establish and what indicators would be useful to this end). Also, 

because the database contains historical data entered by the school, it is possible to conduct a follow-up 

analysis of the state of the school in areas such as: the curriculum, pedagogy and the security or health 

of the students. In order to maximise the information available to schools, the Education Ministry of 

Guanajuato has also set the goal of concentrating all education databases into one unique source. 

Some school directors acknowledged the value of developing the strategic plan for education at the 

school level into SISPEE. However, they also expressed the need to consider the amount of time involved 

in carrying out this administrative work. 

Source: Secretaría de Educación de Guanajuato (2009a), Instructivo para la captura en el SISPEE Ciclo escolar 2009- 

2010, Subsecretaría para el Desarrollo Educativo, Dirección General de Educación Básica, Coordinación de Gestión 

Educativa, Guanajuato, México. Secretaría de Educación de Guanajuato (2009b), “Programa de educación básica, 

reunión con expertos de la OCDE”, PowerPoint Presentation, 21 October 2009, Guanajuato, México. 

The challenge moves from government to the profession itself, in collaboration with all stakeholders. Meeting 

this challenge will be as demanding, but as important, as the reorganisation and policies that have provided the 

infrastructure for success. 

School-based management is certainly a first objective for Mexico to attain, but in the long term its main objective 

should be establishing an education-based community. Mexico needs to foster innovative approaches to greater 

autonomy and creative partnerships of schools in territorially compact areas, and reduce the burden of regulations 

and bureaucracy. States should be in a position to give effective schools greater freedom to innovate. They should 

also experiment in a real context with models of community-based education management. Thus, the territory 

could be organised on “action zones”, not unlike school boards in Canada and the USA. These new methods of 

organisation would also aim to help schools obtain more efficient financing and resource management. 


149

150 



These action zones could be important elements for Mexico, since the school or “zona escolar” (as it currently 

operates) alone cannot make significant changes in accountability or support policies for the schools. It is 

necessary to enhance leadership capacities based on priority needs of training or support, and to do this within 

a context that allows community and sub-regional stakeholders to be included where possible. These “action 

zones” would work as a base to transform the operational logic of schools, promoting education communities 

that work against the isolation of children and schools. 

recommendatIon 13: Reduce inequities in school funding and rationalise the programmes to 

achieve a flexible programme that is adaptable to schools’ needs 

In practice, schools have virtually no autonomy and no funds to allocate, and there is a discrepancy between 

the resources available to schools in rich and poor communities. Distribution of resources should be more 

equity-based, avoiding unaffordable bureaucratic burdens for schools. 

Context 

The level of resources schools receive is low and unequal, and dependant on bureaucratic procedures that 

hinder the development of good leadership. Mexico is one of many countries, typical of Latin America, in which 

the general approach to resourcing is that the state pays teachers’ salaries and parents pay for the rest; however, 

this is an unwritten practice and actually goes against the constitution, which states that basic education is free 

of charge. In reality, teachers’ pay includes an amount for professional materials and some central programmes 

adopted by schools are also supported by resources. Parents’ contributions (school funds) are often supported by 

school shops and administered by parent teacher associations. There is a real discrepancy between the resources 

available to schools in rich and poor communities, which leads to inequitable educational opportunities. Better 

resourced schools are also likely to attract and retain better teachers. The main resources that that schools can 

use for capital improvements as well as books, teaching materials and equipment are derived from three sources: 

• Parental contributions and money raised by the school and parents’ associations; 

• Money attached to particular education programmes; 

• An element added to teachers’ pay that is to be used to purchase materials for the teacher. 

In practice, schools have virtually no autonomy and no funds to allocate. A fundamental issue therefore is the 

distribution of financial resources in the system, which should be based more on needs. The uneven distribution 

of resources to schools means that schools in low income areas usually have poor public infrastructure and less 

well qualified teachers. Schools serving poor communities therefore continue the cycle of disadvantage, and 

the result is a widening of the attainment gap. 

The school fund is a combination of school fees, fundraising money and donations. It is the responsibility of 

school governing bodies to ensure that all these funds are kept and managed in one bank account. No public 

school should have more than one bank account. Each school governing body must prepare a budget of the 

estimated income and expenditure of the school for the next financial year and present it at an annual general 

meeting of parents for their consideration and approval (by a majority of the parents). In addition to the budget, 

school fees, language of instruction and school uniform are also discussed at the annual general meeting. In 

one of the Mexican schools we visited, the funds raised by the parents’ association and through the school store 

were not properly accounted for. It is important that delegation of responsibility for resource management has 

proper accountability mechanisms. 

In addition to individual school funding, much Mexican educational provision is through national programmes, 

which are structured educational interventions to which a budget is usually attached, although this is in 



different proportions and some of them operate without any funds at all. There can be as many as 120 of these 

programmes, which may come from the federal level or may have been created at the state level. 

The Schools of Quality programme (Programa de Escuelas de Calidad, PEC) has become one of the main 

funding programmes for schools, but there are many of them, such as Escuela segura, Escuela de tiempo 

completo, which schools may opt for to receive funding for their specific school arrangements. It is a major 

part of the work of school directors to bid for and manage the programmes relevant to the school. This involves 

demanding administrative processes, which, directors claim, limit their capacity to engage in instructional 

leadership. From interviews, the Steering Group learned that school programmes reach about 50% of the total 

schools in Mexico, with the rest not being able or deciding not to opt for specific additional funding beyond 

that being raised through their own means. Often, it is the most disadvantaged schools that are not able to opt 

for programme funding, because of lack of capacity and because the burden in administrative accountability 

for the programmes is too high. 

In some areas, there are efforts to increase the coherence of responses to schools’ needs and development plans, 

based on the careful analysis and design of regional transversal responses. An example is the development of 

the Centros de Desarrollo Educativo in Aguascalientes. For schools in the most vulnerable contexts, regional 

overarching responses have been articulated under a single “diagnosis and implementation” plan called the 

Integrated Plan for Attention to the Vulnerable Population (Plan Integral de Atención a Población Vulnerable). 

For schools participating in this plan, the state and the federations coordinate the different components of 

the programmes and align those that are similar. Also, to respond effectively to schools in particularly violent 

contexts, SEP and local authorities are exploring different options to coordinate education structures and 

services in Ciudad Juarez (for example, the plan “We are all Juarez: the case of Juarez City” or Todos somos 

Juarez: el caso de Ciudad Juarez), in order to simplify decision-making and respond to the needs of schools, 

families, students and teachers. This zone may become an “exception zone”, in which significant bureaucratic 

steps are simplified. 

The Steering Group was not able to investigate the full range of provision of school resources but considers that two 

matters are of particular importance. The first is the need to improve the equity of school funding and the second is 

the need to ensure that all schools have a clear funding structure that allows for the best delivery of education. 


The Steering Group is aware of other countries that have made progress in overcoming inequities in school 

provision. The usual way is to take account of social disadvantage in their mechanisms or formulae for allocating 

funding so that schools serving the most disadvantaged areas receive proportionally more money per student. 

The main principle of funding in Hungary and many other countries is the normative one: a set amount of 

funding is allocated per student. This varies according to school type, but not between the different actors 

supporting the financing of schools (these include local government and non-state supporters, such as churches, 

foundations, public beneficiary or economic organisations) (OECD, 2007). In addition to normative funding, 

the central budget also provides “targeted and addressed grants” for specific school educational purposes. 

These sources are allocated to the Ministries concerned and then channelled both to maintainers and to 

education providers/educational institutions. Over the last few years, programmes for the development of small 

community schooling, classroom and gym building projects, educational competitions, textbook publishing 

and in-service training have all been funded through such targeted grants. 

As explained in the paragraphs above, responses already taken by Mexico show that there is indeed a need 

to rationalise programmes, and that there are currently measures such as the development of “exception 


151

152 



zones” that will allow schools and the school system to respond to their challenges through a simpler and 

more practical approach, by reducing bureaucratic burdens and optimising synergies between programmes to 

address schools’ needs. 

How to reduce inequities in school funding and rationalise the programmes to achieve a flexible 

programme that is adaptable to schools’ needs 

There is a need to improve both the amount of funding for Mexico’s schools and the equity of its distribution. 

Two steps that would increase equity are: 

• Revise state funding formulas so that schools serving the most disadvantaged areas receive proportionally 

more money per student. 

• Replace the array of special programmes, each with their own requirements and application process, with 

a single, flexible improvement grant that all schools would receive and that could be shaped to respond to 

school needs and priorities. This grant should be administered by the state, which becomes the body that 

commissions education from schools. Many of the smallest and poorest schools receive no funding under 

the current programmes because they do not have the administrative capacity to complete the application 

process or handle the reporting requirements. 

There are different solutions to the need to rationalise programmes and simplify school funding, and it appears 

that SEP has already started exploring possibilities. It is desirable to reduce and simplify the many programmes, 

either to a single funding stream or to groups of programmes that are needed for different types of school. 

Examples of three alternative approaches are given below. 

One option might be to continue with the development of new programmes, allowing schools to opt for those 

that are most suitable for them, and providing them with intermediary support and guidance to help them 

choose and follow through on the administrative issues. In the short term, staff teams could be trained to guide 

and support schools (mainly those that do not have access to the programmes) to help them gain access to 

these programmes. This could be at federal and state level. However, although this would help bring together 

the relevant teams and resources, it would not reduce the bureaucracy involved in designing and managing the 

programmes at state level. 

A second option would be to rationalise and simplify the programmes to one or two that are flexible enough 

for schools to be able to choose their specific focus. This can be done successfully when the leadership and 

school management is well prepared and has the right support to make the choices and take all the managerial 

decisions required to manage the school. The PEC has already laid the ground work for one programme that 

aims to achieve greater school autonomy and more involvement of parents and school councils. Evaluations of 

this programme have been positive overall, although they have identified some deficiencies at the operational 

level and limitations in the attainment of objectives. For example, schools still deal with a great amount of 

bureaucratic burdens, and capacity building for better instructional leadership does not always takes place. In 

this important step, supervisors also still need to assure themselves as pedagogic allies of the school director. 

It would be convenient to refine the methodology and objectives of the PEC programme so that this can 

effectively serve as an example of how to develop a simple programme that reaches all schools. 

A third option would be to work towards the objective of linking funding to the number and ages of pupils 

rather than programmes, while providing safeguards for small and challenging schools. This has the greatest 

potential to begin to reduce economic inequities in the provision of education. 



recommendatIon 14: Strengthen social participation by giving school councils greater 

responsibilities in relation to the school and the school greater responsibilities in relation to the 

community 

School councils can be an important asset to improve school quality, but merely creating them will not result in 

effective social partnerships. School councils need real influence over things that matter, information, training 

and transparency. 

Context 

Mexico has adopted a policy that requires every school to set up a council for social participation to enhance 

engagement with parents and the community and ensure accountability. School councils and engagement with 

parents and society can help raise awareness of the value of education in the communities in which schools are 

embedded. But to function well and exercise their tasks they need some influence over the things that matter: 

the selection of school staff; resources and how they are acquired and used; the curriculum and other school 

organisation arrangements. 

social participation councils were formally created at the national, state, local government and school levels 

as part of the education reforms that took place during 1992 and 1993. These bodies bring together parents 

and their associations, teachers, education authorities, the union, as well as community representatives that 

are closely involved in education matters. Their main role is to provide support for education activities, to 

become familiar with and offer opinions on pedagogic issues, plans, programmes and sector evaluations, and 

to propose policies to improve quality and attainment in education (Articles 69-72, SEP, 1993). Additionally, 

social participation councils at schools (CEPS) participating in PEC are required to produce an annual working 

plan and a strategic plan for school transformation in five-year cycles. It is expected that about 50 000 schools 

have these plans in place by 2012. 

To date, it appears that the mandate has been fulfilled only to a limited extent, and quite unevenly. The social 

participation council at the national level (Consejo Nacional de Participación Social – CONAPASE) was not 

installed until 1999, and even then it was not properly operational. Efforts began in 2009 to reactivate it as 

part of the Alianza’s efforts. Social participation councils at the state and local government levels do not seem 

to have progressed significantly as participation catalysers among stakeholders, and their activities seem more 

focused on operative aspects. 

Also, at the school level, only 44% (88 000 out of 200 000) of the social participation councils have been 

installed until now in public schools. From these, as the President of Mexico pointed out, “many are not really 

effective”. Where they exist, the councils have little real influence on the school. They can provide a community 

voice, but are not involved in important decisions, for example those concerning the leadership and staffing of 

the school. The Steering Group interviewed a range of participants in education – federal government officials, 

supervisors, directors, teachers and parents, as well as representatives of civil society – and got a rich picture 

of councils for social participation as an important but under-developed and weak mechanism for improving 

education quality and social involvement. 

School directors express mixed views of the current and long-term benefits of the councils for social participation. 

On the whole, they seem to think the councils are a good idea in principle and over the long run, but that they 

are ineffective and difficult to work with in the short run. One director who seemed typical of many others told 

the Steering Group that he faced a lot of turbulence in trying to introduce a new curriculum, manage without 

a janitor and deal with a rapidly growing population. He said that he was trying to involve the parents and the 

social participation council, but their ability to help was limited because many parents did not know how to 

be helpful. Some tried, but others seemed only to want to criticise the teachers. This director also stated that 


153

154 



he did not know how to work effectively with the council. This is a role that takes training and experience. 

Another director said he found that working to convince parents to help on the social participation councils 

and helping them understand pedagogical content was almost worse than the administrative overload he had 

earlier complained of. 

Teachers’ views also varied widely. Many teachers the Steering Group talked with stated that they found parents 

uninvolved and uninterested. They seemed to find the councils removed from their school work, stating that the 

council provided no real support for pedagogy. On the other hand, teachers did note that the director and the 

council were helpful in organising the school to use the “netbooks” donated by Telmex. In one school visited, 

the parents’ association was a more concrete presence in the teachers’ lives than the council. The parents and 

teachers met at the start of the year. Teachers told parents how much money they would need to buy supplies 

and materials over the year, and the parents determined upon an amount they would contribute. Parents raise 

this money through donations and running a “school store”, a shop by the school gate that sells drinks and 

snacks and donates profits to the school. It should be noted that parent association committees are elected, but 

members of school councils are mainly designated. 

Parents interviewed at one school reported that the council was not an effective means of communication. 

At another school, however, the parents’ association and the social participation council appeared to work 

together well. This seemed to be a higher socio-economic status (SES) school with well educated, involved 

parents. When this school participated in the PEC, funds were available for the council’s operation. These 

funds are not available now as the school can no longer participate in PEC. The council relies on the parents’ 

association for the funds it needs. This parents’ association appeared to be closely involved in checking student 

performance data (at least of the parents’ own children), in meeting periodically with the teachers to discuss 

the school plan, and in educating the parent community to enhance their engagement with the school. The 

association and the council in this school seemed to have arrived at a division of labour that capitalised on the 

strengths of each. 

In another interview session, educators said that social participation councils could be helpful in exercising 

accountability over the school and system performance. There is, however, the possibility that this role creates 

conflict between teachers and parents and community. Nevertheless, interviewees argued that the councils 

need to grow strong so they can apply public pressure for improved education. 

In June 2010, the federal government presented the new General Operation Guidelines for the School Councils 

of Social Participation. These guidelines correspond to an effort by the federal government to strengthen the 

social participation mechanisms at the different levels of the education system. As part of the main tasks that 

can be drawn from the guidelines, the school councils (CEPS) will be expected to: 

• Ensure transparency in the use of resources obtained from federal or state programmes, or accumulated by 

the schools themselves; 

• Review the results obtained in regular evaluations (for example ENLACE) and encourage teachers and school 

directors to establish goals to improve the results of future evaluations; 

• Create different “thematic committees” within the school council. These “thematic committees” will be 

in charge of helping the school gain access to the resources provided by the variety of federal or states’ 

programmes (for example reading, improvement of physical structures, artistic or cultural activities, among 

others). 

The government aims to have a council installed in every school (200 000) by 2010. This goal involves the 

creation or re-activation of at least 112 000 school councils in schools where these did not exist before, or were 

not properly functional. 



It may be too soon to assess the success of the school councils. The policy is being implemented on a national 

scale, seemingly without previous experience at local levels. One question that arises is whether the aim 

of implementing these councils in all schools is viable, given that some schools are very small and isolated 

(see Box 2.2 in Chapter 2). Another issue to consider is whether the creation of additional entities within the 

school council (“thematic committees”) will result in increased bureaucracy for the school if it is not handled 

appropriately. Nevertheless, in schools where these councils work well, they can increase accountability by 

involving parents and the school community in the life of the school. 


Overall, councils or boards seem to be most effective when they have a substantive role to play and when they 

are well equipped to play that role. Glatter (2003) proposed, as shown in Box 4.8, four models of governance 

of which three, in the right proportions, apply to the governance of schools in countries like Mexico. 

Box 4.8 Models of school governance 

• institutional empowerment – stakeholders in individual institutions are empowered to make 

decisions; the focus is more on the institution itself and the way it is run than on its competitive or 

comparative success. 

• local empowerment – control and responsibility are devolved to the locality as a social and educational 

unit, specifically to local and municipal authorities and to groups of families of educational institutions. 

• quality control – educational institutions are conceived as the point of delivery. Higher authorities at 

national or regional level lay down rules and establish targets, evaluation and monitoring arrangements, 

with the aim of ensuring that education is effectively delivered. 

Source: After Glatter as depicted by Woods, P. (2005), “Learning and the External Environment” in Leadership and 

Management in Education: Cultures, Change and Context, eds. M. Coleman and P. Earley, Oxford University Press, England. 

School governance and social participation 

Levels of social participation in school governance vary considerably across the range of OECD member 

countries. In general, there is a dynamic tension between the responsibilities of different entities from national 

to local level, in which the boundaries of administrative control, responsibility and accountability shift slightly 

with each new regulation issued. 

Three inter-connected factors appear to determine the degree to which the affairs of public schools 

are influenced or controlled by their local communities: democratic evolution, politics and ideology. 

Strong central control is reflected in many European systems which have roots in imperial or monarchic 

administrations. France, Spain and Portugal remain examples of this tradition. The teachers in these 

countries are part of the civil service, as distinct from Mexico, the UK and many other administrations 

where teachers are public but not civil servants. The central direction of education in Mexico was described 

to the Steering Group as being strongly influenced by Napoleonic administrative systems, although the 32 

states have considerable administrative autonomy. Decentralisation of responsibility from federal to state 

level is almost total in the federal countries of Germany and Canada, although for very different reasons. 

The German federal system evolved as a reaction to the disastrous consequences of too much power being held 

and abused by the centre under the fascist regime. In Canada, one of the most democratic of nations, education 


155

156 



is the exclusive responsibility of each of the ten provinces and three territories, which can make laws in relation to 

education. There is no federal education system. 

It is relevant that both Germany and Canada, despite their devolution of power to constituent states, have recognised 

the need to create forums at which issues of national interest can be discussed and developed. In Canada, for 

example, the national voice for education is the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada (CMEC), established 

in 1967. This is the mechanism through which Ministers consult and act on matters of mutual interest. This 

ensures communication on issues such as funding programmes and student assessment. From time to time, CMEC 

undertakes national projects in curriculum and assessment and makes statements on its aims and responsibilities. 

Only recently has CMEC taken a more active stance toward influencing education through developing nationwide 

standardised tests and looking for ways to facilitate the mobility of students between provinces. Similar systems, 

where statutory responsibility for education is devolved to constituent states, apply in Germany, and to a lesser 

extent in Australia, both of which have national forums in which to share common issues. 

In England, although there is a strong national regulatory framework for education, schools and their governing 

bodies have a high degree of local autonomy. As a result, the local authorities which comprise the middle tier 

have a reduced role in terms of policy direction. The 153 local authorities have less direct responsibility for 

schools than before and do not make education policy. They are expected to represent their constituents by 

acting as commissioners of education and other services for children and young people, with schools being 

the providers. New Zealand has taken simplification further. It cut out the “middle-man” by abolishing local 

education authorities in the early 1990s. There is a direct relationship between schools and the Minister of 

Education to whom they are accountable. In Canada it is regional, not national, government that legislates for 

education and is the only source of policies for schools. School boards then provide local interpretation and 

contextualisation. 

Social participation: municipality level 

The long-established models of social participation are represented by European models of education in which 

local people are represented in the delivery of education by their local authorities. Hungary is an example of 

such a system. Overall responsibility for education at the national level is shared by several entities in addition 

to the Ministry of Education. The Ministry of the Interior looks after the allocation of state grants in the form of 

normative financing to local authorities and the Ministry of Finance also plays an important indirect role. At 

school level, structural decisions are made by the local (municipal or county) authority that maintains schools. 

There are more than 3 000 local authorities, which are responsible for providing basic education services for 

the local population, either by maintaining a school or by creating access to institutions maintained by other 

authorities, and more than 95% of primary and secondary schools are owned and run by local authorities. 

Local authorities are responsible for: 

• Deciding on the establishment, organisation, reorganisation or closure of schools and defining their profile; 

• Defining schools’ budgets; 

• Supervising schools financially and legally; 

• Appointing the director of the school; 

• Approving the pedagogical (teaching) programme and the operational and organisational rules of schools; 

• Evaluating the implementation of the (teaching) programme and the efficiency of teaching in schools; 

• Social participation: area school board level. 

In Canada, education is the exclusive responsibility of each of the ten provinces and three territories, which 

can make laws in relation to education. Thus there is no federal education system. Historically, each province 



is organised around locally elected school boards, whose board of trustees is responsible for appointing the 

chief superintendent, and for hiring directors and teachers to run the schools within their jurisdiction. The 

school board is the employer of administrators and teachers and is funded by a combination of local taxes and 

provincial revenues. Education and curriculum policy is formulated at the provincial level and interpreted and 

implemented at the local level, within varying degrees of autonomy depending on the area and the province in 

question (See Box 4.9, with school boards in British Columbia). 

Box 4.9 professional school boards in British columbia, canada 

The Ministry of Education is responsible for ensuring that students enrolled in elementary schools and high 

schools have access to good quality, cost-effective education. The Ministry sets the standards and overall 

direction for the education system and provides leadership to education agencies in the province. The 

Ministry’s key responsibilities are finance and facilities; programme (curriculum) direction; development 

and implementation; student access and achievement; and system evaluation and public accountability. 

British Columbia’s public education system is administered by around 60 locally elected school board 

districts, which operate under the guidelines of the School Act and regulations and ministerial orders. 

Over half a million students are taught in more than 1 600 public schools in the province. The province 

also funds around 330 independent/private schools and several special schools. Boards of trustees are 

elected for each public school district and are responsible for setting spending priorities in their district. 

Boards hire staff, deliver programmes and services and maintain buildings. 

Education in Italy has traditionally been centrally administered (Box 4.10). However, since the end of the 1950s, 

responsibilities and services have gradually been decentralised; in 1972 many of the state’s administrative 

powers over education were transferred to the local authorities – regions, provinces and communes. Education 

policy, however, remains centralised, and all schools – state, non-state public (for example, run by cities and 

communes) or private – must conform to national laws and decrees and regulations if they wish to be legally 

authorised. Teachers are also centrally recruited and paid directly by the state (although they are allocated 

to schools by the local authority). The two lower levels of Italy’s multi-layered management of education are 

communes and school boards. 

The impact of school boards, councils or governing bodies on school effectiveness 

In the United States, a number of studies have identified several characteristics associated with effective school 

boards: focusing on student achievement and policy; effective management; development of conditions and 

structures that allow the director to manage; agreement on processes to evaluate the director; communication, 

trust and collaborative relationships with the director and between board members; communication with 

outside groups and government; effective performance in policy making and financial management; evaluation 

and training; regular board meetings and long-term service of board members and heads (National Association 

of Educational Inspectors, Advisers and Consultants, 2005). In Australia, studies have also reported similar 

characteristics considered to be essential for effective governance in Australian independent schools. 

A study of English governance practices found that there are a number of ways in which governors can make 

a difference in schools. An evaluation of the performance of governing bodies in school improvement by the 

Office for Standards in Education (2001) focused on schools “in special measures” (those deemed to need 

action for serious weaknesses) and on how governing bodies had contributed to improving their performance. 

While they found many problems that had made governing bodies ineffective and also part of the problem of 


157

158 



failing schools, they found positive features that had contributed to turning around schools’ results. Particularly, 

governors can make a difference when they are clear about the school’s objectives and values; when the 

governing body has clear references and is clear about its role; when governors have a wide range of expertise 

and experience and attend meetings regularly; when meetings are run efficiently; when there is a clear school 

plan for school improvement, understood by all; when there are good relationships between governors and 

staff; when there is a rigorous system for monitoring and evaluating school performance; and when governors’ 

training is linked to school priorities and the needs of governors. 

Several characteristics are known to interfere with effective functioning of external governing or advisory bodies: 

• Not enough candidates for board positions; 

• A lack of clarity on roles and responsibilities of boards; 

• Too many responsibilities involved for a volunteer position; 

• Tensions that may exist between boards and directors; 

• Limited participation and engagement of members. 


Box 4.10 School councils in selected countries 

Participation councils in the Netherlands: All schools also have a participation council, in which parents 

can make known their views about the school’s policies. Most also have a parents’ council or a parents’ 

committee. There is a school plan. This provides an insight into the teaching and developmental objectives 

of the school, the choice of subject matter and teaching methods, the organisation of the school and the 

way in which students’ progress is assessed and reported. The school plan is submitted to the Education 

Inspectorate for its approval. 

School councils in Italy: Within schools, the school council is responsible for budgetary matters and for 

organising and planning non-educational school activities. Within the limits of the budget and law, it 

deliberates on the purchase, renewal and maintenance of school equipment and teaching materials and 

decides on the use of premises and equipment, on extracurricular and sports activities, on remedial and 

support courses and on cooperation with other schools. The school council is made up of representatives 

elected by teaching and non-teaching staff, parents and, in upper secondary schools, students. The 

director or headteacher is an ex-officio member. A chairman is elected from parents’ representatives. The 

school council also elects its own executive board, chaired by the director or headteacher. 

Municipal school councils in Spain (Consejos Escolares Municipales) are the local social participation 

bodies. They report on educational matters within their powers to education authorities at central 

and autonomous community level. Municipal authorities are represented on the school councils of 

autonomous communities and the school councils of (individual) education establishments. Parents are 

also represented on these councils. 

Legislation has devolved responsibilities to the governing and educational coordination bodies. In 

publicly-funded schools, responsibility for administrative and financial management lies either with 

individuals (unipersonales) or with collegiate bodies (colegiados). “Individuals” include a headteacher, 

a secretary and a head of studies (Jefe de Estudios), and “collegiate bodies” include a school council 

(Consejo Escolar) and a teachers’ assembly (Claustro de Profesores). The school council comprises 

representatives of the teaching staff, parents, students and so on. Its responsibilities include electing the 

headteacher, school discipline, student admission and financial management.


How to strengthen social participation by giving school councils greater responsibilities in relation 

to the school and the school greater responsibilities in relation to the community 

In Mexico, school councils can play an important role at different levels. On one hand, they can contribute 

to raising awareness of the value of education in parents and in the communities in which the schools are 

embedded. They can also challenge and support the school and hold it accountable. This requires capable and 

committed members, whose contribution is supported by training and other means. 

These ideals will only come about if the barriers to greater social participation are lowered. Creating the school 

councils by itself will not result in effective social partnerships. Parents and community members have no 

tradition of involvement of this sort, nor do they have the training needed to play the role effectively. There is 

no tradition that the school belongs to them and that they can demand quality; instead, there is a tradition of 

central authority and exclusion. 

To be successful, social participation must be authentic participation. School councils need real power or influence 

over things that matter: the selection of school staff; resources and how they are acquired and used; the curriculum 

and school organisation arrangements. Councils need information, data and transparency in their working. 

Moreover, the effectiveness of social participation is a function of the latitude there is for discretion at the school 

level. For example, if directors are selected through a merit process that takes place outside the school, participation 

will not have much meaning. The same goes for other conditions of schooling, budgeting and policy. 

In Mexico, the General Law of Education (Ley General de Educación) July 1993 opens the way to a council 

of secretaries of education; it states in Article 17: “The educational authorities, federal and local, will meet 

periodically with the purpose of discussing and exchanging views on the development of the national education 

system, make recommendations and agree action to support the social function of education” (Secretaría de 

Educación Pública, 1993). Consequently, the CONAEDU (Consejo Nacional de Autoridades Educativas) was 

created by at initiative of the SEP on 4 March 2004 as an organ to support the governance of the educational 

system. It is composed by the secretaries of education from each state and by the educational authorities of the 

federal government. 

Analysis of the infrastructure of education systems raises the question of where the locus of responsibility for 

education should lie. Most OECD countries have three layers of responsibility for schools: national, regional and 

local, although in many cases, only two of these layers are needed. Expressed most simply, this would amount 

to “national policy locally interpreted”. Viewed from the school’s perspective, only one extraneous coherent 

policy framework is needed. It is for the different layers of government, working in partnership, to present a 

policy framework within which schools can operate. There is evidence in administrations as different as England 

and Mexico that too much central direction can lead to initiative overload. In Mexico, this is represented by the 

large number of programmes (PEC) determined centrally by the federal or state governments, which carry their 

associated funding arrangements. School directors report that the heavy burden of administration which results 

from these arrangements reduces their capacity for exercising leadership functions. 

Many of those we spoke to in Mexico saw a range of benefits that could result from councils for social participation. 

These councils could strengthen citizen involvement and government responsiveness; promote greater accountability 

and quality at the school level; bring a greater variety of points of view and resources to bear on the schools’ 

operation; and create a better-informed and more engaged citizenry. Strong local social participation can also be an 

effective tool in supporting directors and supervisors and in reinforcing their local autonomy. 

One element of the training and development of local school councils for social participation can be provided 

by the school. That is, the school should be obliged to report regularly on such important activities and outcomes 


159

160 



as attendance, student achievement and professional development for teachers. Schools can also advise parents 

on how best to support their children’s education, and the particular school programme, at home. But training 

must go beyond this. The councils need to have an independent base of training and information as well. One 

interviewee suggested aspects which we believe could readily be incorporated into any programme of training 

and capacity-building for councils: 

• Linking with strategic programmes and in particular the quality schools programme; 

• Finding ways of demonstrating good practice and helping parents understand benchmark practices against 

which to compare their school; 

• Training in conflict resolution. 

These suggestions provide a good starting place. School councils need clear information and data to inform 

them about the quality and standards of the school. Examples include: 

• Provision of meaningful information about student achievement that can be measured against 

other similar schools; 

• Accurate information about teacher attendance and timeliness; 

• A periodic evaluative report by the director. 

It is important to remember that councils will consist of different and unequal members, where, most often, 

business leaders will be stronger and better informed than some parents. The councils will need training in 

working together and group process. 

The Steering Group heard about promising instances of community development and social participation 

during its visit. The quality programme in one school was reported to include a programme of communication 

and collaboration with the parents. This was a leadership education project that entailed collaboration at three 

levels: teachers, leaders and community. The community dimension was intended to “open the doors” to the 

community, help them learn about the school, improve their ability to communicate and collaborate and create 

a sense of belonging. The focus was to shift from a model where the school “informed” the community to one 

where school and community engaged in “construction together”. It was emphasised using the community’s 

existing resources and networks and avoiding the alienation that comes from imposing something on the 

community “from above”. 

There is apparently a large discrepancy between what has been mandated by law, the participation of school 

councils in each school, and the current reality. Moreover, there are evidently far fewer councils in operation 

that there are reported to be. This discrepancy creates public distrust. There is little information or accountability 

for the funding that has been spent on councils, and there is conflict with the union over how the president or 

chair of the school council is to be put in place and over composition of the council. The law says the president 

should be elected, but the union wants the director to be the president. The Steering Groups’s view is that this 

would be counterproductive to social participation. The director must play a collaborative role, but the powers 

of school and council must be kept separate. The union also wants all council members to be elected rather 

than to ensure that 50% plus one of the members are parents. Parents, we understand, tend not to be recognised 

as peers on councils. If they are to have a reasonable voice, they probably need a majority, at least in the early 

years of establishing the traditions of social participation and parental capacity to participate. 

Ideally, social participation can be seen as the capacity of the local unit to function autonomously and create 

its own quality processes, rather than await the actions of a higher authority. There are many school councils 

in operation but there is not much readily accessible information about where they are, how many there are, 

what they are doing and with what effect. More communication and better systems for collecting, organising 


and sharing information are needed. 


It is important not to regard community and parental involvement as a one-way street – that is, what community 

and parents can do to contribute to and support the work of the school and the efforts of their children to succeed. 

This responsibility of parents and the community is demonstrably important, but it is not the whole story. Scholarpractitioners 

like James Comer at Yale, among others, point out the responsibility of the school to reach out to the 

parents and community. They note that the most effective form of public involvement is a two-way interaction in 

which both school and community undergo a mutual cultural change. The values and behaviours of parents and 

the community need to change to become more fully supportive of school and student, but the school too needs 

to change its values and practices in order fully to engage with the parents and community. 

One way to conceive of social participation is through the three main stakeholder groups acting on behalf of 

children and young people – like a three-legged stool. They are: the central government, the union and the 

general population. Each plays a key role in the Mexican system of education; and each must develop and 

adapt to the new challenges and demands on education in Mexico. 

• The central government will maintain its central role in education policy, but it must make progress in 

completing the devolution of governance to the states and schools and it must embrace the new role of 

building national capacity for school improvement. 

• The union will continue to serve as a major social partner and representative of labour interests, but it too 

must adapt by playing a more professional and cooperative role in fostering reform. The Alianza partnership 

is a fine beginning; the full implications of the Alianza programme for the union’s emerging role in promoting 

reform must be realised. 

• Finally, social participation is a strong public value but it has been undernourished. This value must be given 

greater weight, equal length and load-bearing capacity to the other legs of the policy stool. School councils 

must be given substantive and viable duties and influence along with commensurate training and resources. 

Social participation can happen not only at the school level but at zone, state, and national government levels 

too. States now have authority over curriculum and over choice of conducting school inspections, for example. 

The state is a good policy intervention point for social participation. Social participation is taking place at the 

national level through the UPEPE (Unit for Policy Planning in Education). Reform is taking place within a context 

of long-established traditions and institutional power. Public opinion is necessary to put pressure on change. 

Social participation is an element in building effective, informed public opinion. It is also possible that stronger 

and more constant social participation at the school level would contribute continuity to counterbalance the 

change and lack of continuity some observers attribute to the change of administration every six years. 

conclusIon 

The quality of school leadership and management is key in raising the attainment of students. But instructional 

leadership is not a prominent feature of Mexican schools. Directors do not have appropriate training, 

development, incentives and support to focus on improving the quality of instruction and schools’ results, and 

on strengthening the school’s links to the community. 

Schools in Mexico can be improved to provide adequate learning and teaching environments for students and 

teachers. This requires targeting a set of challenges related to the leadership and management of schools that 

include the need to focus on improving school performance by building a leadership profession, to reduce 

inequities between schools serving richer and poorer communities, to simplify funding arrangements, and to 

provide greater accountability and responsiveness to the community. 


161

162 



Develop standards for school leadership and management focused on improving school outcomes 

School directors in Mexico perform their tasks within an improvised structure that does not provide them with 

the required preparation, development opportunities and support for their schools. A clear definition of the 

roles and responsibilities of school leaders is needed to ensure a common understanding of what it means 

to be a school leader. It should be based on the roles that have the greatest impact on the quality of teaching 

and learning, focused on supporting, evaluating and working with teachers in doing their job and challenging 

underperformance. It should take into consideration how much autonomy they have to make decisions and 

adopt a strategic vision of how the Mexican school system should evolve. 

The process of defining a set of standards for directors involves different stages. First, it is important that Mexico 

reach a shared perspective on what is the core purpose of a director. Next, this core purpose needs to be 

translated into core areas of competence, and then be made into clear actionable statements for directors. 

There has been some work on developing standards for school directors and completion of this work should be 

an urgent, short-term objective. The key is to agree on – at least – a preliminary leadership framework quickly, 

put it in place and accompany it with feedback mechanisms. These will help to gradually adapt the framework 

through its socialisation, so that it corresponds to the schools’ and teachers’ needs and creates consensus. 

Professionalise the training, selection and recruitment of school leaders 

The standards will provide an important guide to building leadership capacity. This means defining school 

leadership as distinct from management or administration, identifying teachers with leadership potential, 

providing leadership opportunities, training leaders and ensuring that the teachers who become directors have 

demonstrated their leadership knowledge and competence. Mexico also needs to decide where to invest more: 

in initial director training or in continuing training of its current school directors. 

Leadership development needs to be seen as a continuum: 1) encouraging leadership initial training; 2) 

organising induction programmes; and 3) ensuring in-service training to cover needs and context. School 

leadership development and training programmes usually involve both on-the-job – with a mentor – and offthe-job 

training to share good practice and technical support. A key issue is to ensure funding for training for 

directors that can be recognised as part of their professional development in the teacher career ladder (Carrera 

Magisterial) or the teacher progression programme (Escalafón). The objectives should be to ensure coherence of 

provision by different institutions, as well as appropriate variety and the highest possible quality and relevance 

of the training options. 

Appointments for directors should, where possible, be made from a shortlist of candidates, all of whom are 

qualified in terms of meeting the standards for school leadership. There should be objective procedures to find 

suitable candidates, which take account of tests, portfolios and their track record. It should be the responsibility 

of the states to ensure that each school is led by a properly qualified and trained director. Where there is a 

vacancy, they should convene an appointment panel. It is desirable that the school community is involved in 

choosing the director, possibly through representatives of parents or the school council. The appointment panel 

has the job of deciding which candidate will be best for the school and its needs. 

Bring schools to work and learn together to build instructional leadership and teaching capacity 

Mexican schools generally work as independent units and therefore many have only limited capacity to 

undertake high quality school-based professional development, among other management tasks. Schools 

where good and high quality practice exists need to share with schools who have limited capacity for selfimprovement. 

There is much to be gained by schools building partnerships with other schools so as to pool the 

expertise of their teachers, ATPs and directors. 



Examples of ways in which the most talented teachers and leaders in schools can have the greatest effect 

include: identifying a leading teacher in each “core” subject, and allowing them some time to work with 

teachers in other schools; collective local training for teachers; shared planning and evaluation with the aim of 

improving teaching; or grouping schools in formal partnerships, with an executive director to lead each group 

cluster and be responsible and accountable for its improvement and performance. 

The creation of clusters, partnerships and other forms of school-to-school collaboration is needed. This broader 

range of infrastructure – known as the “infrastructure of reform” – can also include the operation of some schools 

as special centres of teacher development, training and consultation. Establishing a National Programme of 

Leadership could contribute to regulating the supply of courses for school leaders and supervisors. This programme 

could be managed by a working group in cooperation with universities, the National Pedagogic University 

(Universidad Pedagógica Nacional, UPN) and its state units and some Normales, to avoid creating new structures. 

Enhance school autonomy and encourage innovation 

Directors need to be given the opportunity to exercise their leadership skills and to participate in the key decisions 

that take place at their school, such as hiring or dismissing teachers. If the degree of autonomy in a school is low 

and directors cannot participate in the key decisions that affect them, it will be difficult to render them accountable 

or to support their professional development. Decision structures that are adapted to the schools’ contexts can 

have a positive impact on their achievement. However, gradual steps towards greater autonomy should be aligned 

with strategies for capacity-building in schools, according to their specific contexts. 

At the local level, it is important to be clear where responsibility and accountability lies. Normally the centre 

for delegation of responsibility and resources is the individual school, and this implies providing the training 

and resources for the school to act accordingly. Resources should be allocated directly to schools, along with 

a greater degree of managerial freedom for the school director. This should be accompanied by sufficient 

support, advice and monitoring provided by the state and a supportive structure within which schools operate 

(such as intermediate-level support and governance arrangements), which would lie at a level between the 

state and schools or groups of schools. 

Greater autonomy, financial delegation and local management can be explored through research and pilot 

projects involving a small number of municipalities, schools and groups of schools. Innovative approaches 

can explore creative partnerships of schools and reductions of the burden of regulations and bureaucracy. 

States should experiment in real contexts with models of community-based education management to help 

schools obtain more efficient financing and resource management. 

Reduce inequities in school funding and establish more effective responses to schools’ needs 

In practice, schools have virtually no autonomy and no funds to allocate, and there are differences between the 

resources available to schools in rich and poor communities. Distribution of resources should be more equitybased, 

and should avoid imposing unaffordable bureaucratic burdens on schools. It is desirable to reduce 

and simplify the many programmes, either to a single funding stream or, in the shorter term, to groups of 

programmes that are needed for different types of school. Among the solutions to explore are: 

• To continue with the development of new programmes, allowing schools to opt for those that are most 

suitable for them, and providing them with intermediary support and guidance to help them choose and 

follow through on the administrative issues. 

• To rationalise and simplify the programmes to one or two that are flexible enough for schools to be able to 

choose their specific focus. This can be done successfully when the leadership and school management is well 


163

164 



prepared and has the right support to make the choices and take all the managerial decisions required to manage 

the school. The Schools of Quality Programme (PEC) has already laid the ground work for one programme that 

aims to achieve greater school autonomy and more involvement of parents and school councils. 

• To work towards the objective of linking funding to the number and ages of pupils rather than programmes, 

while providing safeguards for small and challenging schools. This has the greatest potential to begin to 

reduce economic inequities in the provision of education. 

Strengthen social participation 

School councils can be an important asset to improve school quality, but merely creating them will not result 

in effective social partnerships. Social participation can be a key instrument to help school directors, through 

effective mechanisms of distributive leadership. A well prepared and advised school council can significantly 

help the school director to articulate more effectively what happens in the classroom, the school and the 

community. Most importantly, school councils need to have real power over things that matter, such as the 

selection of school staff (and the school director as well), resources, curriculum and school organisation 

arrangements. To improve social participation, Mexico first needs to strengthen its participative culture and 

training for this. 

Other elements that will be needed are information, data and transparency in their working. The benefits of 

effective social participation go beyond the school itself. School councils can turn out to be effective “schools of 

citizenship”, promoting more informed and prepared citizens. This learning of democracy and accountability in 

school practices could also be useful to develop further engagement in finding solutions to systemic challenges 

faced at the community, state and national levels. 

Chapter 5 offers some guidance for Mexico on how to implement these recommendations together with those 

proposed in Chapter 3. Establishing priorities and strategies for change will then be key to Mexico’s education 

improvement in the coming years. 


eferences 


Barber, M. and M. Mourshed (2007), How the World’s Best-Performing School Systems Come Out on Top, McKinsey & 

Company, London. 

coleman, p., J. collinge and t. Seifert (1993), “Seeking the Levers of Change: Participant Attitudes and School Improvement”, 

School Effectiveness and School Improvement, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 59-83. 

cuban, M., L. Usdan and e. hale (2003), Powerful Reform: Improving Provision in Urban Schools, and Shallow Roots, 

Teachers College Publications, New York. 

Darling-hammond, L., M. Lapointe, D. Meyerson, M.t. Orr and c. chan (2007), Preparing School Leaders for a Changing 

World: Lessons from Exemplary Leadership Development Programmes, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA. 

Davis, S., L. Darling-hammond, M. Lapointe and D. Meyerson (2005), School Leadership Study: Developing Successful 

Principals, Review of Research, Stanford University, Stanford Educational Leadership Institute, Stanford, CA. 

Department for education and Skills (2004), National Professional Standards for Headteachers, Ref: DfES/0083/2004, 

Department for education and Skills, London. 

elmore, r. (2004), School Reform from the Inside Out: Policy, Practice, and Performance, Harvard Education Publishing 

Group, Cambridge, MA. 

evans, p. M. and N. Mohr (1999), “Professional Development for Principals: Seven Core Beliefs”, Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 80, 

No. 7, pp. 530-32. 

Glatter, r. (2003), “Governance, autonomy and accountability” in Strategic leadership and educational improvement., eds. 

M. Preedy, C. Wise and R. Glatter, Sage Publications Ltd, London, UK. 

Gobierno del estado de aguascalientes (2009), Centro de desarrollo educativo como eje de la transformación de la gestión 

pedagógica y administrativa, Gobierno del Estado de Aguascalientes, Mexico. 

Guevara M.r., González, L.e. (2004), “Atraer, formar y retener profesorado de calidad: actividad de la OCDE, Reporte sobre 

la situación de México”, OECD, Paris. 

hanushek, e. a. and M. e. raymond (2005), “Does School Accountability Lead to Improved Student Performance?”, Journal 

of Policy Analysis and Management, Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 297-327. 

hargreaves, a. and D. Fink (2006), Sustainable Leadership, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco. 

harris, a., D. Brown and I. abbott (2006), “Executive Leadership: Another Lever in the System?”, School Leadership & 

Management, Vol. 26, No. 4, pp. 397-409. 

higham, r., D. hopkins and p. Matthews (2009), System Leadership in Practice, Open University Press/McGraw-Hill 

Education, London. 

huxham, c. and S. Vangen (2005), Managing to Collaborate: The Theory and Practice of Collaborative Advantage, Routledge, London. 

Kotter, J. p. (1996), Leading Change, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA. 

Leithwood, K., c. Day, p. Sammons, a. harris and D. hopkins (2006), Seven Strong Claims about Successful Effective School 

Leadership, National College for School Leadership, England. 

Matthews, p. (2009a), Twelve Outstanding Secondary Schools: Excelling Against the Odds, Ofsted, England. 

Matthews, p. (2009b), Twelve Outstanding Special Schools: Excelling Through Inclusion, Ofsted, England. 

Matthews, p. (2009c), Twenty Outstanding Primary Schools: Excelling Against the Odds, Ofsted, England. 

Matthews, p., e. Klaver, J. Lannert, G.O. conluain and a. Ventura (2008), Policy measures implemented in the first cycle of 


165

166 



compulsory education inPortugal (International evaluation), Ministry of Education, Lisboa. 

Middleton, r. (2001), “Leadership in the Real World” in Leadership: What’s in it for Schools?, ed. T. J. Sergiovanni, Routledge- 

Falmer, London and New York, pp. 126-131. 

Ministry of education (2008), Policy Measures Implemented in the First Cycle of Compulsory Education in Portugal: Country 

Position Report, Ministry of Education, Portugal. 

Moorman, h.,(1997), Professional Development of School Principals for Leadership of High Performance Learning 

Communities, preliminary report of the Danforth Foundation Task Force. Available: www.e-lead.org/principles/principal.asp 



National association of educational Inspectors, advisers and consultants (2005), National Standards for Educational 

Improvement Professionals, Aspect, England 

OecD (2004), Learning for Tomorrow’s World: First Results from PISA 2003, OECD, Paris. 

OecD (2007), Improving School Leadership in Hungary: OECD Country Background Report, Performance Management 

Research Centre, Corvinus University of Budapest, Budapest. 

OecD (2009), Creating Effective Teaching and Learning Environments: First Results from TALIS, OECD, Paris. 

Office for Standards in education (2001), Making it Better: Improving school governance, Ofsted, London. 

Ornelas, c. (2008), Política, Poder y Pupitres: Crítica al Nuevo Federalismo Educativo, Siglo XXI, México. 

pont, B., D. Nusche and h. Moorman (2008a), Improving School Leadership: Volume 1: Policies and Practices, OECD, Paris. 

pont, B., D. Nusche and h. Moorman (2008b), Improving School Leadership: Volume 2: Case Studies on System Leadership, 


pont, B. (2010), “Liderazgo y autonomía del centro escolar: perspectivas internacionales”, CEE Participación Educativa, No. 

13, pp. 62-72. 

posner, c. (2010), Communication to Steering Group, Paris. 

reimers, F. and S. cardenas (2007), “Who Benefits from School-Based Management in Mexico?”, Prospects: Quarterly 

Review of Comparative Education, Vol. 37, No. 1, pp. 37-56. 

robinson, V. M. J., c. a. Lloyd and K. J. rowe (2008), “The Impact of Leadership on Student Outcomes: An Analysis of the 

Differential Effects of Leadership Types”, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 44, No. 5, pp. 635-674. 

Sammons, p.h., J. and p. Mortimore (1995), Key Characteristics of Effective Schools: A Review of School Effectiveness 

Research, Office for Standards in Education, London. 

Santizo rodall, c. (2009), “Mejorar el Liderazgo Escolar: Reporte del Contexto Mexicano”, Analytical Paper, OECD, Paris. 

Schmelkes, S. (2001), “School autonomy and assessment in Mexico”, Prospects: Quarterly Review of Education, Vol. XXXI 

(4), No. 125. 

Schratz, M. (2009), “Country Report and Case Study- AUSTRIA” in The Role of School Leadership in the Improvement of 

Learning: Country Reports and Case Studies of a Central European Project Tempus Public Foundation, Budapest. 

Secretaría de educación pública (1993), Ley General de Educación, SEP, Mexico. 

Secretaría de educación de Guanajuato (2009a), Instructivo para la captura en el SISPEE Ciclo escolar 2009-2010, 

Subsecretaría para el Desarrollo Educativo, Dirección General de Educación Básica, Coordinación de Gestión Educativa, 

Guanajuato, México. 

Secretaría de educación de Guanajuato (2009b), “Programa de educación básica, reunión con expertos de la OCDE”, 

PowerPoint Presentation, 21 October 2009, Guanajuato, México. 

Secretaría de educación de Jalisco (2007), Programa de Formación de Directivos por Competencias: Executive summary, 


Gobierno del Estado de Jalisco, Guadalajara, México. 

Secretaría de educación pública (2010), Communication with the Steering Group, Mexico. 


Socha, D.e. (1997), Perspectives on the Mexican Education System: Prejudices, Problems, Possibilities. Fulbright-Hays Summer 

Seminar Abroad 1997, Mexico. 

Southworth, G. (2009), “Learning-centred Leadership” in The Essentials of School Leadership, ed. B. Davies, Sage, London. 

toledo Figueroa, D. (2010), “La participación social en las escuelas en los países de la OCDE: aportar a los directores para 

mejorar los resultados de las escuelas”, CEE Participación Educativa, No. 14, pp. 66-78. 

U.S. Department of education, National Institute on educational Governance (1999), Effective Leaders for Today’s Schools: 

Synthesis of a Policy Forum of Educational Leadership, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC. 

Woods, p. (2005), “Learning and the External Environment” in Leadership and Management in Education: Cultures, Change 

and Context, eds. M. Coleman and P. Earley, Oxford University Press, England. 

Zorrilla, M. (2005), “A diez años de distancia, una mirada crítica a la reforma de la supervisión escolar en Aguascalientes, 

Mexico”, paper presented at the XVIII International Congress on School Effectiveness and Improvement, ISCEI, Barcelona. 

Notes 

1. This system also includes upper secondary education teachers (Carrera Magisterial only applies for basic education teachers). 

Evaluations of performance in this system are based on four factors: knowledge, skills, time in service, field of specialisation and 

punctuality. Guevara and González (2004) reported to the OECD that unlike Carrera, which applies exams to evaluate training 

and professional performance, to validate these in Escalafón only documentation is needed. Teachers can be promoted annually, 

if they meet the requirements and the commission rules favourably. Promotion in the Escalafón is conditioned by the creation of 

new posts and free vacancies. Teachers promoted to administrative functions usually cannot continue teaching within classrooms. 

2. “Special measures” are applied to schools which fail to provide adequate education. 

3. PISA measures competencies according to six proficiency levels. The six proficiency levels represent groups of tasks of ascending 

difficulty, with Level 6 as the highest and Level 1 as the lowest. In this case, the grouping into mathematics proficiency levels 

was undertaken on the basis of substantive considerations relating to the nature of the underlying competencies. Students whose 

maximum score is below Level 1 were unable to utilise mathematical skills in the situations required by the easiest PISA tasks. At 

Level 5, students for example can develop and work with models for complex situations, identifying constraints and specifying 

assumptions. They can select, compare and evaluate appropriate problem-solving strategies for dealing with complex problems 

related to these models (OECD, 2004). 


167

chApter 5 

strategies to improve 

schools in mexico: 

guidance on 

implementation 


169

170 


chapter 5 strategies to improve sChools in mexiCo: guidanCe on implementation 

The previous chapters provide a set of specific policy recommendations to support improvements in 

teacher quality and school effectiveness in Mexico based on international analysis and evidence and its 

contextualisation to Mexico. Lessons from OECD country experiences in implementing reforms successfully 

show that the quality of the analysis underlying a reform can positively affect prospects for both adoption 

and implementation, as well as the quality of the policy itself. In addition, evidence suggests that the influence 

of policy-oriented research, however diffuse and indirect, can be quite powerful over time, as it gradually 

reshapes the consensus concerning a policy regime. This is the aim of these recommendations: to provide a 

solid analytical base that can contribute to consensus building and effective reforms over the long run. 

condItIons for success In ImplementIng tHese strategIes 

The difficulties in implementing reforms in education cannot be underestimated, as the system of provision is 

large and costly and the governance is complex. There are lessons that can be learned from the analysis of the 

implementation of policy reforms across OECD and partner countries (OECD, 2010a): 

First, that the external shock of the 2006 PISA results, and other international comparative data summarised in 

Chapter 2, provides an important stimulus for change. By establishing the Alianza and commissioning the OECD 

to provide support to Mexico in its education policy reforms, the government has recognised that the status quo is 

demonstrably unsustainable. The cost of inaction would be to place Mexico at an increasing disadvantage in an 

evolving global knowledge society and have severe adverse consequences in terms of economic performance, the 

level and distribution of income, social cohesion and development. The circle of stakeholders with an interest in 

departing from the status quo, which is reflected in parts of government, many of the states and among the social 

partners, is broadening, making it more difficult for vested interests to persist in defending it. 

Second, international experience shows the importance of consensus as a precondition to educational reform, as 

reviewed in Chapters 1 and 2. Achieving consensus needs open and effective communication and consultation, 

with clarity of purpose. Reforms can be impossible to achieve when a major stakeholder opposes them. Building 

a consensus can only be done internally, although external partners can provide evidence and moral support. 

Third, the role of external actors within Mexico is important. The OECD and the World Bank are two 

complementary examples which can provide international comparisons, benchmarks and expertise together 

with access to resources in support of the reforms. There is also considerable international expertise available 

within both North and Latin America where different governments face common challenges. 

The OECD Mexico Steering Group would add a fourth point. The Steering Group has repeatedly encountered 

evidence of high levels of commitment to change within Mexico, with many examples of initiatives in the states 

which have the potential to be further developed and scaled up. This suggests a need for greater decentralisation 

through rebalancing of the relative roles of state and federal governments as communities and schools become 

increasingly the focus for change. 

Finally, reforms need to recognise and overcome capacity constraints, including lack of knowledge and 

professional know-how and inadequate institutional arrangements to support implementation. 

a suggested way forward wItH tHe recommendatIons 

The OECD Steering Group has provided analysis, recommendations and workshops to engage stakeholders across 

Mexico, but local ownership must discern what is most urgent and feasible, and how to further develop the details 

of implementation. This implies that successful reforms may require significant investment in staff development. 

For Mexico, a strategy to this effect has been the OECD-Harvard Seminar for Leaders in Educational Reform (Box 

2.3), which combines country visits with capacity building. But this is only part of the strategy. 


strategies to improve sChools in mexiCo: guidanCe on implementation chapter 5 

To complete the transition from OECD to Mexico it is necessary that a national group of stakeholders reflects 

on and takes ownership of the recommendations and adapts them. Experience from international organisations 

providing support for policy implementation shows that transfer of knowledge and strategic management capacity 

will be more effective when there is collaboration and engagement from local stakeholders (Brinkerhoof and 

Derik, 1996). Policy implementation can be improved when there is a common understanding of the diagnosis 

and the proposed policy options and ownership of the proposals. In addition, policy implementation improves 

not simply when ownership is generated for the reforms themselves, but also when ownership is fostered for 

measures to improve implementation capacity. 

Before offering more specific suggestions on organising for implementation, the OECD Mexico Steering Group 

on School Management and Teacher Policy offers the following broad advice on planning. This is done with 

some caution, knowing that the Mexican context is complex and that its knowledge of the cultural and political 

landscape is limited. That said, several Steering Group members are from Mexico and others have held seniorlevel 

governmental positions in their own countries and believe their experience might be relevant. 

The first piece of advice is that, while one cannot do everything at once, it is important to understand that these 

recommendations are interconnected and derive from a systemic view of what Mexico needs to do to improve 

the quality of teaching and learning across the country. This means that while working on any single piece of the 

puzzle, one has to keep in mind its relation to the other pieces and keep the whole picture in view. 

The second suggestion is that, as in any federal schooling system, it is critical to engage state leaders as partners 

in every stage of the reform process. This does not mean that every state should be expected to adopt these 

recommendations in exactly the same way or implement them identically. In fact, one of the advantages of 

a federal system is the opportunity it offers for different states to take the lead on different aspects of these 

recommendations, and to build mechanisms for states to learn from one another rather than each having to 

reinvent the wheel. 

The third point is that, given the focus of these recommendations on teachers and teaching, it is absolutely essential 

to engage all key players as full partners in implementing these recommendations. The recommendations are 

consistent with the goals outlined in the Alliance for Quality Education signed between the Government and 

the National Education Trade Union in 2008. The Ministry and all education actors have a stake in creating a 

much stronger professional teaching culture in Mexico. 

The fourth point is to make the best use of current initiatives to provide extra leverage for change. In particular, 

the OECD believes that a number of the recommendations align with current reforms. There is a particular 

opportunity to achieve close alignment between the objectives of the new cycle of the PEC programme 

(‘PEC 2’) and the recommendations for school leadership, management and social participation. The common 

theme is improving the quality of schools so as to raise educational standards. The PEC programme alone is not 

sufficient to improve leadership and quality in all schools, but has the continuing potential to be a powerful, 

school-focused lever for improvement within each state of Mexico. 

recommendatIon 15: Create an Implementation Working Committee and look for broader 

support across other sectors of society 

The OECD suggests the creation of a Working Committee in Mexico for knowledge transfer, to study viability, 

further contextualisation if needed and to provide guidance to SEP on potential implementation of the OECD 

recommendations. This committee should be composed of relevant policy makers from the Education Ministry 

(SEP), highly respected members from academia, the public sector, teachers and civil society. Similar structures 

can be created in those states that are willing to pursue the OECD recommendations. Feedback mechanisms 


171

172 



should be set up to guarantee an optimal coordination of action and priorities between these actors. The main 

task of the working committee should be to develop a specific implementation plan, considering the priorities and 

already existing initiatives in Mexico and with the work of the states committees, also including those related to 

the National Educational Sector Plan, the state programmes of education, the Alianza and the CONAEDU agenda. 

As response to this recommendation, in March 2010, SEP established a Working Committee to analyse these 

recommendations, and develop a plan for moving forward with implementation planning. The Steering Group 

is pleased that SEP acted promptly and that a broad-based committee with representation from the states as well 

as the Ministry is already at work. This Committee seems well structured to serve as an umbrella group under 

which a series of more focused work groups could be organised. An inmediate challenge facing the Committee 

is to be able to guide the effective implementation of some of these recommendations before the end of the 

current federal administration. A mid term challenge is to guarantee the continuity of their work after the end 

of the on-going government’s mandate. 

Organising for implementation: create working groups 

Aiming to do progress on the implementation of the recommendations, the Steering Group recommends that 

the Ministry empower the Working Committee to establish work groups, for example in the following initial 

areas, each with a clear charge and the responsibility to develop a work plan with timelines and budget: 

1. Standards for a) teaching and b) school and system leadership 

2. The Normales and other initial teacher preparation (ITP) institutions 

3. Teacher development and evaluation 

4. School directors and mentor teachers 

5. Autonomy, school funding, school partnerships and social participation. 

While these proposed work groups do not encompass all the changes the Steering Group recommends, these 

are the topics in most urgent need of attention and action. In our view the work of the Standards group should 

be at the top of the list, for everything else rests on getting the right standards in place. 

The Standards Work Group 

The Steering Group recognises that there is already work underway to develop national curriculum or learning 

standards for students. These standards would spell out what all students are expected to know and be able to 

do in the core academic subjects at key grade levels. With such standards in place, it then becomes imperative 

to ask, “What must teachers know and be able to do in order to help all students meet these standards?” 

Standards for teachers can be written at different levels of performance – what experienced teachers should be 

expected to know and be able to do in the classroom differs from what we would expect of beginners – but the 

core principles of effective teaching practice should be consistent. Without clear standards that define effective 

teaching practice it is impossible to put in place a fair and consistent process of teacher evaluation, for there 

must be clear agreement among those doing the evaluation of the standards of practice against which teachers 

are being judged. 

Similarly, developing clear leadership standards for directors is the essential first step in improving the quality 

of school leadership, for this the standards need to be applied in the recruitment, selection, training, and 

development of leaders within the school system. Although the people charged with the development of 

standards for leaders may not be the same as those responsible for the development of teacher standards, the 

underlying principles of standards development for the two roles are sufficiently similar so that the work on 

each should probably occur within the same work group. 



Fortunately, much good work has been done on standards for teachers and leaders in other countries, and it 

would be unwise not to take advantage of that work. Whatever standards Mexico decides to propose these will 

need to go through a substantial vetting process in the field and will inevitably be refined over time, so the 

OECD Steering Group recommends that the Standards Work Group move quickly to select a set of provisional 

standards for teachers and leaders and not spend inordinate time seeking perfection. 

The Normales and Initial Teacher Preparation Work Group 

The first step in strengthening the Normales must be to update and make more rigorous the accreditation 

standards for these institutions, and then to establish a regular review cycle. Given the likely resistance in at 

least some states, it is critical that the accrediting body have sufficient independence and authority to be able 

to withstand political pressure to maintain the status quo. 

Unless the weaker institutions believe there is a risk they will be forced to close if they don’t meet standards, 

they are unlikely to initiate the difficult work of raising their own teaching standards, strengthening their faculty 

appointment and review processes, modernising their curriculum, and building stronger working relationships 

with schools. Until visible reforms are underway, it will be difficult for them to raise admission standards and 

attract stronger students. We would also encourage early development of the state Academic Councils in order 

to help the Normales accelerate the reform process. 

In the short term, measures should be taken to improve opportunities for teachers in the Normales to participate 

in continuous professional development and in research projects. There is a need to upgrade and broaden the 

skills and knowledge of these faculty members so they will be better equipped to deal with both content and 

pedagogy. Further research on teacher education and professional development should be undertaken through 

funding projects that are jointly designed by faculty from the university sector as well as the Normales. 

Teacher Development and Evaluation Work Group 

The report on teacher evaluation by Mancera and Schmelkes (2010) recommends the following six steps: 

• Establish a leadership structure and clear rules for the governance of the evaluation system. 

• Establish a technical unit that will be responsible for the implementation of the evaluation. 

• Develop standards for teaching (in agreement with Recommendation 1). 

• Design an in-service teacher evaluation model that gradually evolves from a purely formative system to one 

that combines formative and summative aspects. 

• Define the instruments for the in-service teacher evaluation system. 

• Develop a support system for school-based professional development that leads to the improvement of teacher 

practice, and a system that monitors this improvement (in agreement with Recommendations 6 and 7). 

The Steering Group endorses these steps and recommends that the Work Group establish a firm timeline for 

the development of the evaluation instruments, the selection and training of evaluators, and the design of 

the support system for school-based professional development with mentor teachers and coaches. Active and 

committed states should be recruited to pilot the new teacher evaluation system. 

The Steering Group believes it is feasible by 2012 to have a formative teacher evaluation system in place with 

appropriate instruments and trained evaluators in clusters of schools in at least ten states. The goal should be 

to have formative evaluation systems in place in 25 states by 2015, and all states by 2020. The development of 

a support system for school-based coaching and mentoring and a monitoring system to assure quality should 

accompany the implementation process. Summative evaluation should follow, perhaps as early as 2015 in those 


173

174 



states that are furthest along. In order to accomplish this, the Work Group should engage key stakeholders early 

on to ensure sufficient buy-in to enable the long-term establishment of a comprehensive teacher evaluation 

system, ideally through the enactment of enabling legislation. 

Directors and Mentor Teachers Work Group 

Once school leadership standards are in place, this Work Group should develop a process and criteria for 

identifying teachers with leadership potential and work with universities and other relevant leadership development 

organisations to ensure that these candidates have access to high-quality training programmes, including 

internships under the tutelage of talented school leaders. The Work Group should also identify and promote 

programmes to upgrade the skills of incumbent directors. The Work Group should develop and promulgate a 

model process for the selection of new directors, one that engages parents and other school council members 

and ensures that candidates meet the criteria established in the leadership standards, as suggested in Chapter 4. 

The Steering Group believes it would be a significant mistake to launch a teacher evaluation programme 

without first having in place a well-trained cadre of mentor teachers and directors. The reason for focusing 

on mentor teachers as well as directors is that the first priority in putting in place a teacher evaluation system 

should be to assure that no teacher is given a permanent post who cannot meet the new professional standards. 

In order to begin there, however, it is critical for fairness and transparency that probationary teachers have 

access to mentoring and support before being required to meet the standards. Given the stakes involved, any 

new teacher evaluation programme should be rolled out slowly and carefully and take place first in schools 

where directors and mentor teacher have been identified and trained. 

Every new teacher should be given a mentor whose responsibility is to continuously support the beginner 

during his/her first year of service. The mentor should focus on coaching, advice and support and not be 

involved in the process of formal evaluation. The mentors should be selected based on their own successful 

practice and their ability and willingness to work with beginning teachers. Preferably, they should work in the 

same school as the beginner, but where this is not possible they should at least be in the same district or region. 

We would leave to a later stage the evaluation of teachers who already have obtained permanent status. Among 

the reasons it is important to have a well-developed array of coaching and other locally based professional 

development supports in place before implementing teacher evaluation programmes more broadly is that there 

is little benefit in identifying weaknesses in teacher practice if teachers don’t have access to good programmes 

to address those weaknesses. 

Autonomy, School Funding, School Partnerships and Social Participation Work Group 

This Work Group should be charged with defining a research and development agenda for school financing, 

governance, organisation, and management. More specifically, this group should be given the resources to 

support experimentation in different forms of collaboration among schools, and different degrees of schoollevel 

autonomy in selecting staff and controlling other resources available to schools. This group could also 

encourage experimentation with different forms of social participation in the governance of schools. In a 

country with thousands of small, isolated rural schools and an undersupply of well-trained, highly effective 

school leaders, it is critical to find ways to share resources across schools and extend the influence of the most 

skilled and successful school leaders. This Work Group should be tasked with supporting bold innovation to 

address these challenges, and with evaluating the success of the various experiments undertaken in response to 

its call for new forms of collaboration in school organisation, management, and governance. 



A final strategy: create a guiding coalition for education reform 

Most of the work needed to implement the recommendations outlined in the previous two chapters is technical 

in nature and can reasonably be assigned to a set of Work Groups operating under the general supervision of 

the SEP Working Committee. But education reform is inherently a political exercise, especially if it involves 

fundamental institutional change. Without powerful and sustained political leadership, the deep structural 

changes needed in the way teachers and school leaders are recruited, trained, developed and evaluated are 

unlikely to be realised. 

The early 20 th century French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau once said that war is too important to 

be left in the hands of generals. The OECD Steering Group similarly believes that education reform is too 

important to the future of Mexico to be left educators alone with this task. We therefore urge the creation 

of a broader “guiding coalition” of top political, corporate, university and civil society leaders that will step 

forward and take responsibility for championing these reforms in the public arena, advocating for adequate and 

equitable funding, and holding SEP and SNTE and other education organisations accountable for results. The 

recommendations outlined in this report will require some investment. There are costs involved in implementing 

each of these recommendations that will be new to the Ministry and the states. But without a highly skilled and 

motivated workforce of teachers and school leaders capable of dramatically improving outcomes for Mexico’s 

young people, the nation’s ability to increase economic opportunity and social mobility will be severely 

compromised. Recent studies published by the OECD show that improving student learning can have dramatic 

effects on Mexico’s GDP in the medium and long term (OECD, 2010b). Failure to invest in the comprehensive 

reforms the Steering Group is recommending in teacher policy and school leadership would, in the long run, 

be much more costly to Mexico’s future than the investments it is recommending now. 


175

176 




references 

Mancera, c. and S. Schmelkes (2010), “Specific Policy Recommendations on the development of a Comprehensive In-Service 

Teacher Evaluation Framework”, Analytical Paper, OECD, Paris. 

OecD (2010a), Making Reform Happen: Lessons from OECD Countries, OECD, Paris. 

OecD (2010b), The High Cost of Low Educational Performance: The Long-Run Economic Impact of Improving PISA 

Outcomes, OECD, Paris.

Annex A 

autHors’ bIograpHIes 

aNNeX a 

Members of the OECD Steering Group on School Management and Teacher Policy in Mexico 

Ines aguerrondo is an education policy specialist and consultant. She has been a consultant to UNESCO and carried out 

work in areas such as policy definition for educational reform, training of education planners and managers for Latin America, 

infrastructure diagnosis, systems for personnel training in education reform and assessment of the application of socioaffective 

methods in Latin America (1976-1991). She has also worked as a consultant to the Interamerican Development 

Bank in Professional Teacher’s Development (in Quito ) and in the Organisation of American States in education planning in 

Argentina, Uruguay and Peru (1976-1987). She was a member of the Argentine delegation in the negotiations with the World 

Bank, coordinator for the Argentine-World Bank Investment Project in the Education Sector, expert in assessment studies on 

the process for decentralisation of primary education in Argentina (1990-1994) and Under Secretary for Educational Planning 

at the Argentine Ministry of Culture and Education (1993-1999). 

cristián cox (Ph.D. University of London, 1984) is head of the Centre for Research on Educational Policy and Practice at the 

Catholic University of Chile. Previously he was the Director of the Curriculum and Evaluation Unit of the Chilean Ministry of 

Education (1998-2006). A researcher and policy maker, he has led the design and implementation of key programmes on the 

ongoing education reform of his country and was Tinker Visiting Professor at Stanford University in 2005. He has worked as a 

consultant for the OECD, World Bank, IADB and UNESCO. His publications include: Policy formation and implementation in 

secondary education reform: the case of Chile at the turn of the century (2006); Citizenship education in curriculum reforms 

of the 1990s in Latin America: context, contents and orientations (2002); co-author of Las Reformas Educativas en la Década 

de 1990. Un Estudio comparado de la Argentina, Chile y Uruguay (2004). 

Ulf Fredriksson is professor at Stockholm University Department of Education in Languages and was Senior Lecturer in 

Education at Mid Sweden University. He has earlier worked at the Centre for Research on Lifelong Learning (CRELL) at 

the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission in Ispra, Italy, as research coordinator at Education International in 

Brussels, as international secretary for the Swedish Teacher Union and as primary and secondary teacher in Sweden. He has 

a Ph.D. in international and comparative education from the Institute of International Education, University of Stockholm, 

and teacher education for primary and secondary education. His research has focused on reading, students of immigrant 

background, learning to learn, the use of ICT in schools and comparative and international education. 

Ben Levin is Canada Research Chair in Education Leadership and Policy at the University of Toronto’s Ontario Institute for 

Studies in Education (OISE). He has served as Deputy Minister for the Ontario Ministry of Education twice, on an interim 

basis from 2008 to 2010 and from 2004 to 2007. He has held leadership positions in a wide variety of organisations in the 

public and non-profit sectors and his career includes distinguished service in government and academia. From 1999 until 

September 2002 he was Deputy Minister of Advanced Education and Deputy Minister of Education, Training and Youth for 

Manitoba, with responsibility for public policy in all areas of education and training. Ben Levin is widely known for his work 

in educational reform, educational change, educational policy and politics. His work has been international in scope. His 

writings examine broad areas of education policy. In 2003, he was the recipient of the Whitworth Award for achievement 

in educational research from the Canadian Education Association, and in 2004 he was awarded the Lieutenant-Governor’s 

Medal for Public Administration in Manitoba. He holds a B.A. (Honours) from the University of Manitoba, an Ed. M. from 

Harvard University and a Ph.D. from OISE. He is a native of the City of Winnipeg, but currently lives in Toronto. 

peter Matthews is an education consultant and visiting professor at the Institute of Education, University of London. He is 

an expert in school and system leadership and education evaluation. He specialises in the evaluation of national policies for 

schools and works mainly for governments or national organisations in the UK and other states. In England, he is currently 

evaluating programmes including the appointment of National Leaders of Education, and is contributing the revision of 

the qualification for school principals. Recent international projects include evaluations for the OECD of improving school 

leadership in Victoria, Australia, and analysis of school performance in the light of PISA results in Mexico and a case study 

on attracting, training and retaining teachers in Germany. He has led or contributed to educational evaluation and school 

improvement projects in Portugal, South Africa, the Gulf States, Bermuda and Italy. Dr. Peter Matthews is also a Schools 

Adjudicator, appointed by the Secretary of State to take decisions on school reorganisation proposals and admissions. 


177

178 


aNNeX a 

Sylvia Schmelkes has 33 years’ experience in educational research. She is currently director of the Research Institute for the 

Development of Education at Universidad Iberoamericana, Mexico City. Her research fields are quality of basic education, 

rural education, intercultural education and education for adults. She published about 200 articles, chapters in books, and 

books. Among the latter: Hacia una Mejor Calidad de Nuestras Escuelas, OAS (1995), SEP (1995), 100,000 copies printed; 

The Quality of Primary Education in Mexico: A Study of Five Zones (1996), París IIEP-UNESCO; Educación de Adultos: Estado 

del Arte. Hacia una Estrategia Alfabetizadora para México, México: INEA (1996); La Educación de Adultos y las Cuestiones 

Sociales, a selection of her works on adult education since 1978, Pátzcuaro: CREFAL (2008). She has been consultant to 

UNESCO, UNICEF, OAS, OECD, the World Bank and the Secretary of Education in Mexico. She chaired the Governing 

Board of the Centre for Educational Research and Innovation of OECD, 2002 to 2004. She received the National Award María 

Lavalle Urbina for Education in 1998 and Comenius Medal from UNESCO and the Czech Republic Ministry of Education in 

2008. She has been a member of the National System of Researchers since 1993 (National Researcher, Level III). 

robert Schwartz currently serves as Academic Dean and Bloomberg Professor of Practice at Harvard Graduate School of 

Education. He joined the HGSE faculty in 1996 as a lecturer, and from 1997-2002 also served as the first President of Achieve, 

Inc, a national non-profit organisation founded by a bipartisan group of governors and corporate leaders to help state leaders 

improve their schools. From 1990-1996 Schwartz directed the education grant making programme of the Pew Charitable 

Trusts, one of the nation’s largest private philanthropies. Earlier in his career Robert Schwartz held a wide variety of positions 

in education and government: high school English teacher and director; Education Policy Advisor to the Mayor of Boston and 

the Governor of Massachusetts; Assistant Director of the National Institute of Education; Special Assistant to the President 

of the University of Massachusetts; and Executive Director of The Boston Compact, a public-private partnership to improve 

access to higher education and employment for urban high school graduates. Robert Schwartz has written and spoken widely 

on standards-based reform, public-private partnerships, high school reform, and the transition from school to college and 

career. He has degrees from Harvard College and Brandeis University. 

Margarita Zorrilla holds a Ph.D in Education from Anahuac University, a M.A. in Educational Research from The Autonomous 

University of Aguascalientes and a B.A. in Sciences of Education from University of Monterrey. She is currently head of the 

Instituto Nacional para la Evaluación de la Educación (INEE). From 2002 to 2008 she was a member of the INEE Technical 

Advisory Board and President of the Consejo Mexicano de Investigación Educativa, A.C. (COMIE). She has been a practicing 

academician at all educational levels, ranging from elementary school to postgraduate studies, and in different programmes 

for teacher training and refresher courses. Her academic endeavours focus mainly on educational policy studies, evaluation 

and high school education. She was the coordinator for the Master’s in Educational Research at the Universidad Autonoma 

of Aguascalientes. She also held the posts of Director of the Educational Development at the Institute of Education; Director 

of Education and Training at the Educational Development Unit at state level, a body which is part of the Public Education 

Department of Aguascalientes. She took part in the design, evaluation, planning and expert assessment of numerous 

educational plans and programmes as well as committees, academic boards and mixed funds. She is the author of the book 

La Evaluación de la Educación Básica en México 1990-2000. Una mirada a contraluz. 

OECD staff 

Beatriz pont is Senior Analyst on Education Policy Implementation in the OECD Education Directorate, where she is currently 

coordinating the project to support education reforms in Mexico. At the OECD since 1999, she has focused on education 

policy issues, except for a year that she spent in the Secretary General’s cabinet studying political economy of reform 

across OECD countries. She has managed and contributed to a range of activities, including a comparative study on school 

leadership (Improving School Leadership: Policy and Practice, and Improving School Leadership: Case Studies and Concepts 

for Systemic Action, OECD, 2008); a study on equity in education (No More Failures: 10 Steps to Equity in Education, OECD, 

2007); and a large scale study on adult learning (Promoting adult learning, OECD, 2005). She has also contributed to OECD 

reports on issues such as ICT and learning; supporting out of school youth and adults (OECD, 2006); Beyond rhetoric: 

Adult learning policies and practices (OECD, 2003); Literacy in the Information Age (OECD and Statistics Canada, 2001); or 

Education policy analysis (OECD, 2001). Previously Beatriz was a researcher on education, training and active labour market 

policies at the Economic and Social Council of the Government of Spain and worked for Andersen Consulting in Barcelona. 

Beatriz has a B.A. in political science from Pitzer College, Claremont, California, holds a M.Sc. in International Affairs from 

Columbia University, and was a research fellow at the Institute of Social Science in Tokyo University. 

Francisco Benavides is Education Policy Analyst at the OECD Education Directorate since 2004, working for the OECD 

Project to Improve the Quality of Education in Schools in Mexico, and in particular on school management and teachers and 

teaching policies. From 2006 until 2008, he was the project manager and coordinator of the Innovative Learning Environments 

and Teacher Education for Diversity projects, both developed at the OECD Centre for Educational Research and Innovation 


aNNeX a 

(CERI), and he was the co-coordinator of the OECD/CERI Spanish Speaking Seminars in 2004/05. He has also collaborated 

with other projects about innovation technologies and neurosciences. He was the co-editor of the publications Innovating 

to Learn, Learning to Innovate (OECD, 2008); the OECD The Nature of Learning: Using Research to Inspire Practice (OECD, 

2010); and co-author of Teacher Evaluation and Examples of Country Practices (Santiago and Benavides, 2009). Before 

collaborating at the OECD, he was a journalist in Mexico and he has collaborated with several development and humanitarian 

non-government organisations in Africa and Europe. He obtained a M.Sc. in Political Sciences and Development at the IEP 

Sciences-Po Paris (Rotary World Peace Scholarship Award) and B.A in International Relations at the Monterrey Tech – ITESM 

(Academic Excellence Award). 

Diana toledo Figueroa is Education Policy Analyst at the OECD Education Directorate, working for the OECD Project to 

Improve the Quality of Education in Schools in Mexico. During 2010, she was seconded to Mexico, being one of her main 

roles the analysis and liaison between the Mexican stakeholders and the OECD School Management and Teacher Policy 

Team at the OECD. Since 2007 she has collaborated on several OECD projects in Paris, such as: The PISA 2006 Initial Report 

(OECD, 2007), Measuring Improvements in Learning Outcomes (OECD, 2008), Creating Effective Teaching and Learning 

Environments: First results from TALIS (OECD, 2009), and Education at a Glance (OECD, 2007, 2008, 2009), among others. 

She is also co-author of the report Reflections on the Performance of the Mexican Education System (Hopkins et al., 2008), 

co-compiled Take the Test: Sample Questions from OECD’s PISA Assessments (OECD, 2009) and recently published La 

participación social en las escuelas en los países de la OCDE (Toledo Figueroa, 2010). Previously she also collaborated at 

the International Social Science Council (ISSC) and at the International Council of Museums (ICOM), both at the UNESCO 

headquarters in Paris. Diana holds a Ph.D. in Development Socio-Economics (Mention Très honorable) and a M.Sc. in 

Comparative Development Studies (Mention Très bien) at the Ecole des hautes études en sciences sociales (EHESS) in Paris, 

France, as well as a B.A. in Political Science from the Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México (ITAM). 

External experts 

andrew hobson is an Associate Professor in the Centre for Research in Schools and Communities (CRSC). He is course 

leader for the Masters in Teaching and Learning (MTL), teaches on the M.A. in Educational Research Methods, where he 

convenes the ‘Introduction to Designing, Conducting and Evaluating Educational Research’ module, and supervises Ph.D, 

Ed.D and Master’s level theses. He also serves on the University of Nottingham Research Ethics Committee and is external 

examiner for the Master in Education programme at Trinity College, University of Dublin. His main research interests relate 

to the experiences of and support for beginning teachers, including mentoring and coaching. He has led a range of research 

projects in these and other areas, while employed at the Universities of Nottingham and Leeds and at the National Foundation 

for Educational Research (NFER), such as A Review of the International Evidence Base on the Nature and Effectiveness of 

Methods of Teacher Selection and Recruitment (OECD Directorate for Education) and the large-scale, longitudinal Becoming 

a Teacher study (2003-2009). He previously taught social sciences and was head of department in the secondary and further 

education sectors in England. 

hunter N. Moorman provides consulting services in leadership, education reform, and organisation development to 

educational, governmental, and non-profit organisations. He has held consultancies with numerous federal agencies, state 

governments, and private and non-profit firms in the U.S. and with the OECD in Paris, France. He recently retired from the 

Institute for Educational Leadership (IEL) in Washington, DC, where he was Director, Education Policy Fellowship Program 

(EPFP) and Senior Associate, Leadership Programs for six years. Moorman is also retired from the federal civil service, following 

26 years with the U.S. Department of Education. His responsibilities there, at the National Institute of Education and then at 

the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, included directing national education research programmes, leading 

a programme of school improvement networks, and managing a national leadership development programme, LEAD. In 

collaboration with the Institute for Educational Leadership, he directed the National LEADership Network during 1987-1990. 

Moorman earned his certificate in Organisation Development from Georgetown University, an M.P.A. from The George 

Washington University, and a B.A. in Government from Harvard College. He was awarded the Secretary of Education’s 

Certificate of Appreciation in 1996, the American Psychological Association’s Presidential Award in 1996, the Institute for 

Educational Leadership’s National Leadership Award in 1991, and the National Institute of Education Director’s Award for 

Sustained Excellence in 1980. Hunter is Vice- Chair of the Board of Directors of the Foxfire Fund, Inc, and a member of the 

Middlesex School Alumni Association Board of Directors. 


179

OECD PUBLISHING, 2, rue André-Pascal, 75775 PARIS CEDEX 16 

PRINTED IN FRANCE 

(91 2010 11 1 P) ISBN 978-92-64-08703-3 – No. 57637 2010


STRATEGIES FOR ACTION IN MEXICO 

This report develops comparative knowledge for reforms in teacher and school management 

policies in the context of an OECD member country: Mexico. Mexico’s education outcomes 

can be improved by enhancing the effectiveness of its schools. The standards gap between the 

performance of students in Mexico and other OECD countries can only be reduced if schools 

become good at what they do. This report looks at key issues and challenges faced by the 

Mexican education system and provides policy recommendations on school management, 

leadership and teacher policies. These recommendations have been developed by considering the 

outcomes, quality and standards of education and schools in Mexico in terms of what is known 

internationally about effective schools, and by adapting this knowledge to the Mexican context. 

The report has two audiences: It aims to support the Mexican government and key actors in the 

education system to develop long-term vision and policy in the areas of school management, 

school leadership, social participation, selection and recruitment of teachers, teacher education, 

professional development, and evaluation policies in Mexico. At the same time, it provides valuable 

knowledge in education policy development and implementation useful for other OECD member 

and partner countries that are in the process of reforming their education systems. 

Related reading 

Evaluating and Rewarding the Quality of Teachers: International Practices (OECD, 2009) 

Establishing an Accountability Framework for Evaluation and Teacher Incentives: Considerations for 

Mexico (OECD, 2010) 

This publication is a product of the co-operation agreement established between the Government 

of Mexico and the OECD, which aims to improve the quality of education in Mexico. 

The full text of this book is available on line via this link: 

www.sourceoecd.org/education/9789264087033 

Those with access to all OECD books on line should use this link: 

www.sourceoecd.org/9789264087033 

SourceOECD is the OECD’s online library of books, periodicals and statistical databases. 

For more information about this award-winning service and free trials ask your librarian, or write to us 

at SourceOECD@oecd.org. 

www.oecd.org/publishing 

ISBN 978-92-64-08703-3 

91 2010 11 1P

Improving Schools: Strategies for Action in Mexico - OECD Online ...

Transform your PDFs into Flipbooks and boost your revenue!

Delete template?

Save as template ?