The SEP, co

It can probably be considered unethical and disrespectful for supervisors, principals, teachers, and teachers, for the Ministry of Public Education (SEP), headed by a teacher, such as Leticia Ramírez, to provide progress on the Synthetic Programs, of phase 1 to 6 (version of December 26), last Friday, December 30, just one day before saying goodbye to 2022 and two days before starting 2023, with a view to starting the Intensive Continuing Training Workshop on 2 to January 6 of this year.

Did the SEP expect supervisors, directors, teachers and teachers to start reviewing these materials on December 31 or January 1 when, it is known, it is Saturday and Sunday, but they are also days in which Mexican families traditionally Do they meet to bid farewell to the year and welcome the next one? Could they not have made this information known long, long in advance so that, on weekdays, supervisors and directors could be organized with the aim of start preparations for the Continuing Training Workshop before January 2? Does the SEP think that everyone should be at their entire disposal without allowing them to share living spaces with the family? Is this a sign of the “organization”? that prevails in that Secretariat that just fails to develop an effective work scheme and, on the contrary, continues to give blind strokes towards the implementation of the 2022 Study Plan? Is this sample? Contra to the empathy that teachers demand so much for their students, when the SEP itself is not empathetic with the Mexican teachers? Who is behind such a terrible organization? And what is worse, how does the SEP expect the various educational actors to understand the conformation of the analytical programs if the inputs that are vital for this are under construction and are delivered a couple of days before the Training Workshop starts? Continue? What kind of “training” is being offered to the Mexican teachers? Anyway.

As you will remember, last week I published a text titled What are the supplies for the intensive training workshop used for?; In it, he raised the urgent need to have all the inputs so that, in some way, the purpose pursued by the SEP could be achieved by developing the Continuous Training Workshop related to a reflective process to understand the co-design process based on the problematization, reflection and dialogue about the central components of the study plan and the synthetic programs (SEP, 2022); however, they were not yet available, so said training process was incomplete, in terms of the materials that should be considered for it.

And well, now that they are available, it will be possible to observe that co-design, as it is being proposed, based on synthetic programs that, in some way, They allow to understand, interpret, but above all to build strategies to work with students in specific situations, according to the context where they carry out their work, (providing) the central elements for teaching work (SEP, 2022), is that the statement that I have been making and that I have published in this and other spaces, about the incompetence of the SEP to organize processes of formation of a project of such magnitude, makes sense.

Now, in general, I will say that the synthetic programs (I will refer particularly to those of phase 3, first and second grades of primary school), contain substantial changes from the version known in January 2022; For example, in the January 2022 proposal, the document (under construction) contained 177 pages, while in the December 2022 proposal (under construction), 77 are observed (SEP, 2022); both proposals continue to consider the Languages, Knowledge and Scientific Thought, Ethics, Nature and Societies, Of the Human and the Community; In the one of December 2022, the introduction is broader and 8 didactic principles were included, in the one of January 2022 it was not observed, nor was it contemplated that related to formative evaluation, which is integrated in the one of December 2022. 2022; in the latter, an overview of the contents of phase 3 is offered, in 2022 it was not available or, if it was available, it was not explicit as now observed; in terms of training fields, for example, Idioms, in the December 2022 proposal, the purposes of said field are expanded, the dialogues disappear and the contents and learning progressions are maintained, with their variations and with a wording in the verb different from the one proposed in the January 2022 proposal. 2022; In the January 2022 version, didactic guidelines and evaluation suggestions were contemplated, in the December 2022 version they are no longer observed and, on the contrary, a section called the didactic approach is included: contextualization processes and situated learning .

So, what explains the changes observed in these documents? Why publish, for example, in January 2022, a version that has had substantial changes as shown in the December 2022 proposal? True, there will be those who can point out that a construction process is that, a process that, after being analyzed, can be modified depending on the various considerations that can be made from the observations, however, what is the foundation that sustains Those changes? What studies, forums, tables, or work sessions were held with various actors to substantially modify the information presented in January 2022? Who are these actors and why is information about them not provided? Wow, in whose hands, or who, is the direction of the implementation of the curriculum? I ask these questions because, if we start from the idea that this government no longer acts as the previous ones did, isn’t the same thing being repeated? Anyway.

With the synthetic programs in hand, the task of the teaching groups in the coming days, as has already been said, will be to initiate a reflective process that allows understanding the co-design process; It is not an easy matter if we consider that, for the conformation of the analytical program, four moments or planes must be considered (as the SEP itself has defined them): 1. Analysis of the socio-educational context, 2. Contextualization, 3. Co-design, 4. Didactic (SEP, 2022).

Regarding the plan Analysis of the socio-educational contextit should be noted that it allows: a) Reading reality (problematization: about the characteristics of the school, learning processes and difficulties, challenges for teachers and insertion of parents) and, for this, the elements of the PEMC diagnosis can be useful.

So it corresponds to the plane called Contextualizationthis refers to: a) Treatment of synthetic programs to start them up (degrees-phases)b) Retakes the plane of the reading of reality to trace the horizon of action (purposes by group, grade, phase and school), c) Identifies the national strategy or strategies that the school resorts to for the treatment of the contents of learning, d) The work in the CTE is fundamental to define the strategies according to the general map of contents (work horizon), e) Builds and selects situations/problems, d), Selects the methodology to be developed (ABP, EG, CI, etc.), e) Fill out the program format/document with the above elements.

Regarding the plane called codesign refers to the possibility of: a) Incorporate contents that are not included in the synthetic programs and that, due to the reading of reality, it is necessary to incorporate them, b) The contents respond to the specific needs of the school, c) Once the strategies have been selected (previous plan), the contents (local/school) are incorporated with a justification and approximation to the learning development processes, d) In the CTEs, They can review to make adjustments according to the teaching groups.

Finally, the plane DidacticConsider one: a) Structuring of didactic planningb) Taking care that the sequence of activities of the situation-problem is articulated with the analyzed contents and those of co-design, attending to their succession and gradualness, c) Establishing the activities to work with students according to the selected methodology and processes of learning development, d) Anticipate the provision of materials (textbooks, videos, interviews, etc.), to fulfill the task that the project demands, e) Promote collaborative work between students, f) Establish a way of apply the formative evaluation, considering that some deliverables will be the basis of the qualification.

Up to here, in a general way, I address an analysis of what the teaching groups would be addressing in each of their school spaces in the coming days; As can be seen, the task is not easy, especially if we consider that in schools: a) there are teachers with different initial training, diverse professional and academic trajectories, experiences and years of service; b) Supervisors and managers will have a single day of “training” to assimilate the above and other issues that, although they are not part of this “training” moment, will have to be incorporated given the needs of their groups, such as others. teaching materials and/or resources; c) the process of organizing the teaching work, generally responds to the “cascade” effect since, what the SEP itself determines, is what is started in most schools, regardless of whether the guides have changed to Orientations, what kind of autonomy are we talking about then? Only that of co-design but not in terms of the structure of a “training” workshop?

We will see what happens during the week of January 2 to 6 and, of course, the only thing that could be asked of the SEP in this whole process, I repeat, “formative”, is a little seriousness and formality in the organization for the work that the teachers and teachers will develop in the future.

Can the SEP with it?

to time.


The SEP, co-design and disorganization for the continuous “training” workshop | profelandia