ARGENTINA & MEXICO: School Management, an alternative for decentralized
education systems
Executive Summary
Context
The new demands within and outside the education system have forced the reflection upon old practices, and the
implementation of new models that can better serve these new needs. During the 90s, many countries in the
Hemisphere enacted structural reform processes that affected their education systems. Following global trends,
they put into effect decentralization processes, and renewed and updated education management. Simultaneously,
a more open dialogue was initiated with civil society in response to the growing needs of involving the in the
discussion. Different actors and representatives of civil society were invited to actively participate in education
activities. All these changes forced the need to rethink and update teachers’ practices so that they would be able to
respond to the new contextual demands. Even though the reform seemed to be one unique and homogenous
process, the cases throughout the continent indicate the opposite. The motivations behind the change vary among
countries. Some changes are framed within a global reform of the social sector, where the main goal is to transfer
administrative and economic responsibility from central governments to local ones. Other reforms, are based on
the assumption that better quality and efficiency of the educational system can be achieved through
decentralization and greater school autonomy in decision-making. On the other hand, many countries started an
administrative decentralization while curriculum design and pedagogical goals are still highly centralized. Once
the restructuring processes were put into effect, the challenges that arose were the training of teachers under the
new system and the incorporation of civil society in education management. Again, this was dealt in different ways
by every country.
The government of Mexico City has developed two different models to respond to these challenges, framed in the
national reform undertaken by the Public Education Secretariat. On the other hand, Argentina developed a
National Program of Education Management to prepared school actors to better served the new context.
Objectives
The main objectives of the three experiences were to update teachers, principals and supervisors’ practices; reflect
on the new roles and responsibilities demanded to each of these actors; and restructure interactions within the
schools. The two countries have restructured the education system into a more decentralized one, given more
managerial responsibilities to local governments and schools.
Challenges
The context of reforms throughout the Hemisphere demands capacity building of management teams at school,
municipalities, provinces, regions and nations. It also needs an in-depth analysis of the impact of the changes in the
school curriculum and in the school community as a whole; as well as teacher training to effectively respond to
these processes.
The main focus of the decentralization processes as well as the implementation of new school should be put on
identifying the impact this restructure has on the quality of teaching and learning. These processes should be tools
for a better education for all, and not goals in and of themselves. Hence, the challenge is how to decentralize to
improve learning and classroom interactions.
General Description
Case I: Dirección General de Servicios Educativos de Iztapalapa - DGSEI (General Office of Education Services
of Iztapalapa)
In Mexico, different states have experimented in these areas since 1992. The Dirección General de Servicios
Educativos de Iztapalapa - DGSEI is an office created in 1993 in response to the 1992 reform. It serves the
community of Iztapalapa, one of the 16 delegations of Mexico City1. Its main innovations are the implementation
of an independent decentralized system within the capital city, and capacity building mechanism. Under this
1 This experience was presented by Prof. Susana Justo Garza, Director of the DGSEI, in the seminar offered by Mexico and
Argentina in February 2003. The goal of the seminar was to look at different experiences on management
___________________________ ____________________________ _____________________________ ____________
1
______
UNIT FOR SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND EDUCATION
ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES
program, the definition of school and education management is based on a set of processes to guide education
activities in all pedagogical, administrational, personal and political dynamics that are present within the school
and the local government. It involves all actors of the education systems, from teachers to headmasters, supervisors
and policy makers. The processes in education management can be both vertical and horizontal; they bring
together theory and practice and provide permanent support to the schools’ management responsibilities in order
to achieve their educational goals.
Case II: The Mexican City Experience
While the delegation of Iztapalapa within the city developed its own pilot project, the rest of the city underwent a
different process. Nonetheless, they both co-exist within the same system. In this case, there is no decentralization
at school level through the 1992 reform. The system is more hierarchical, and many promised changes did not
happen. In 1998, a more school-centered program is established, promoting self-management and a more
horizontal working atmosphere.
Case III: Programa Nacional de Gestión Institucional (National Institutional Management Program),
This program, developed by the Ministry of Education of Argentina in 1999, was developed to improve
management practices in all education and governmental levels providing training seminars, technical assistance
and articulation of national initiatives within the school. The main goals were to improve learning capacities of all
students, and address equity and quality issues in educational activities, promote greater autonomy and
interdependence among institutions, and encourage higher professionalization of schools’ headmasters.
Paticipating Individuals and Institutions
The actors involved in the Mexican Experiences were the school supervisors, while the Argentine programa was
based in training school principals.
Budget and Financing
The main source of financing for the programs have always been the Ministries of Education, as they were framed
on the structural reforms delineated by the governments.
Strengths, Lessons Learned and Future Challenges
Strengths
Lessons Learned
 The three models have a strong focus on
training of different actors
 Collective Professional Development,
changing school and education management
at the same time
 Change from a top-down structure to a
collaborative work within the school, the
local governments and the national ministry
 Strengthened interdependence among the
different governmental levels.
 Link school management with the
governmental education management
 Restructuring of the education system
should be accompanied by constant
training of the actors involved in
education, school and class management
 Greater autonomy of local government
brings along social participation and new
responsibilities. Who? How? Why?
When? For what purpose should civil
society be involved? are questions that
need to be addressed before undergoing
any change
 The generation of substantive
information for management,
policymaking, and teaching activities at
all levels of the education system
(national, provincial, municipal, and
school)) also strengthens the capacity of
local governments.
 It is important for the program to ensure
coordination between the various areas of
the Ministry of Education and provincial
teams and international organizations.
Challenges
 Strengthening local capacities to avoid
deepening regional inequalities inside a
country through a decentralization
process)
 Train all actors at the same time, so that
the process can be absorbed at different
governmental levels without resistance
 Include teachers in the re-structuring
process
 Systematize the process, evaluate
successes and shortcomings
 Offering a more efficient service though
greater participation, without leaving aside
the search for equity and quality of
education is the core challenge when
democratizing the system through
decentralization
 How to make the two Mexican
experiences compatible and develop into
one system
___________________________ ____________________________ _____________________________ ____________
______
UNIT FOR SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND EDUCATION
ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES
2
Responding to the Challenges of the Summit
The Plan of Action of the III Summit of the Americas calls on the need to strengthen education systems by
encouraging the participation of all sectors of society in order to obtain a consensus on policies that are viable and
that guarantee the appropriate and continuous distribution of resources; decentralizing their decision-making and
promoting the participation of civil society, especially parents; and promoting transparent school management in
the interest of securing an adequate and stable allocation of resources so that educational institutions can play a
leading role as agents for change.
___________________________ ____________________________ _____________________________ ____________
______
UNIT FOR SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND EDUCATION
ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES
3