Department for Democratic and Political Affairs
General Secretariat
Organization of American States
Washington, DC 2004
Acting Secretary General
Luigi R. Einaudi
Director of the Department for Democratic and Political Affairs
John Biehl del Río
Director of the Office for the Promotion of Democracy
Jacqueline Deslauriers
Coordinator
Program for the Promotion of Democratic Leadership and Citizenship
Pablo Zúñiga
Seminar on Democratic Values and Practices in
the Educational System of Uruguay
Montevideo, Oriental Republic of Uruguay
June 23-25, 2003
OAS Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Seminario sobre educación en valores y prácticas
democráticas en el sistema educativo del Uruguay
[realizado en] Montevideo, República Oriental del Uruguay
23, 24 y 25 de junio de 2003 / [organizado por la
Secretaría General de la Organización de los Estados
Americanos (OEA) ..., el Ministerio de Educación y Cultura
(MEC) y la Administración Nacional de Educación Pública
(ANEP) de la República Oriental del Uruguay y el Center for
Civic Education].
p. ; cm.
Bibliography.
ISBN (pending)
1.
Democracy--Study
and
teaching--Uruguay.
2.
Citizenship--Study
and
teaching--Uruguay.
3.
Education--Uruguay--Aims
and
objectives.
I. Organization of American States. II. Uruguay. Ministerio
de Educación y Cultura (MEC).
III. Uruguay.
Administración Nacional de Educación Pública (ANEP). IV.
Center for Civic Education
LC1091.U7 S4 2004
Cover design: Alvaro De la Cueva
Translation from Spanish to English: Francisco Susena
Copyright © 2004 by the Organization of American States. All rights
reserved.
General Secretariat
Organization of American States
1889 F Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
This publication is part of the series published by the Department for
Democratic and Political Affairs of the General Secretariat of the
Organization of American States. This publication can be reproduced
provided credit is given to the source.
The ideas, statements, views, and criteria expressed in this publication do
not represent the position of the General Secretariat or the member states
of the Organization of American States. The activities and contents
included in this publication were developed with the financial assistance
of Civitas Latin America: Civic Education Exchange Program (Civitas Latin
America). Civitas Latin America is administered by the Center for Civic
Education and funded by the U.S. Department of Education under the
Education for Democracy Act approved by the United States Congress. For
more information, please visit: www.civiced.org. The contents of this
publication do not necessarily represent the policy of the U.S. Department
of Education or the approval of the Federal Government.
CONTENTS
(Page numbers are pending.)
FOREWORD .................................................................................................................................
PREAMBLE .....................................................................................................................................
CHAPTER I: TRAINING ON DEMOCRATIC VALUES AND PRACTICES WITHIN A CONTEXT
OF SOCIAL, POLITICAL, CULTURAL AND EDUCATIONAL TRANSFORMATIONS
CHAPTER II: TRAINING ON VALUES AND EDUCATION FOR DEMOCRACY
CHAPTER III: SEMINAR PROCEEDINGS .....................................................................................
A. THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS ON TRAINING ON VALUES AND EDUCATION FOR DEMOCRACY
1.
2.
The new conceptualization of democracy in the region, and its impact on
education …………………………………………………………………..
The bond between education and values:
universality and pluralism .....................................................................................
B. THE APPROACH OF EDUCATIONAL ACTORS ............................................................
C.
CASE STUDIES: COLOMBIA, MEXICO, AND THE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC
.................................................................................................................
1. Colombia.................................................................................
2. Mexico.....................................................................................
3. Dominican Republic.................................................................................
4. The analysis of Uruguayan educators on the Colombian, Mexican and
Dominican experiences ......................................................................................
D. THE URUGUAYAN EXPERIENCE: THE EDUCATION PROGRAM ON VALUES (PEVA FOR ITS
ACRONYM IN SPANISH) OF THE NATIONAL ADMINISTRATION FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION (ANEP
FOR ITS ACRONYM IN
SPANISH).......................................................................................................................
1. The Foundations of the PEVA program...........................................................
2. Characteristics of the PEVA design and implementation............................
3. Considerations of the Seminar participants on the PEVA experience........
4. Workshop Reports on the analysis of the PEVA
experience.............................................................................................................
5. Proposals or recommendations .........................................................................
6. Closing session .....................................................................................................
CHAPTER IV: FOLLOW-UP PROPOSAL FOR THE SEMINAR...............................................................
A. PRODUCTION OF MATERIALS.......................................................................................
B. TECHNICAL SUPPORT FOR THE FOLLOW-UP AND MONITORING OF THE
URUGUAYAN EXPERIENCE..........................................................................................
C.
EXCHANGE OF EXPERIENCES.............................................................................................
D. TRAINING SUPPORT TO PROFESSORS FROM ANEP TRAINING CENTERS AND TO PRIMARY AND
SECONDARY EDUCATION TEACHERS...............................................
BIBLIOGRAPHY..................................................................................................................
ANNEX...................................................................................................................................
Seminar Agenda........................................................................................................
ACRONYMS...........................................................................
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.................................................................................................
FOREWORD
”Education is key to strengthening democratic institutions, promoting the development of
human potential, and alleviating poverty and fostering greater understanding among our
peoples.”
~ Article 16, Inter-American Democratic Charter ~
During the last three decades, the Latin American and Caribbean political systems
have experienced a democratic expansion process. However, there are several issues of
concern in the regional scenario. Special mention should be made of the recent
institutional crises in several countries, a prevailing dissatisfaction of the population with
the performance of democracy and traditional political actors, and a weak-rooted
democratic culture.
The consolidation of democratic systems in the countries in the Hemisphere
requires training on and for democracy as a way of life in order to support the political
system and citizenship participation. Training on and for democracy implies the teaching
and learning of values and practices that are characteristic of a democratic culture such
as, among others, tolerance, respect, justice, solidarity and peaceful settlement of
disputes. The current particular situation requires fostering and promoting the
development of democratic values and habits in both the formal and non-formal
education systems for the purpose of strengthening representative democracy and the
spirit of participation of the youngest generations in the hemisphere in the democratic
political processes.
Teaching democratic practices and values in the formal and non-formal
education systems is crucial. This is not just the work of one day or another pending
assignment. Providing people with the knowledge, skills, values and attitudes that are
required in a democratic society is a long-term endeavor that calls for action by the
society as a whole. Government agencies, political parties, civil society entities, the
media, and academic institutions, among others, have a teaching dimension and a
socializing role to play in education for democracy.
The member states of the Organization of American States (OAS) have assigned
the promotion of a democratic culture through education a special significance within
the hemispheric agenda, as part of the creative and ongoing work undertaken by the
Organization to consolidate democratic systems in the region. The Inter-American
Democratic Charter, the OAS General Assembly, the Summits of the Americas and such
specialized meetings as the Inter-American Conferences of Ministers of Education, are
the major sources of the political mandates which govern the programs to be developed
in this area. Article 26 in the Inter-American Democratic Charter highlights the
importance of this issue by describing democracy as a way of life that may have an
incidence on the effective participation of citizens in democratic processes. Article 27 in
the Charter emphasizes that “...Special attention shall be given to the development of
programs and activities for the education of children and youth as a means of ensuring
the continuance of democratic values, including liberty and social justice.”
Based upon the recognition by the OAS member states of education as a key
instrument for the promotion, development and strengthening of democracy in the
region, the General Secretariat of the Organization has fostered for several years a series
of initiatives aimed to promoting a democratic culture by means of education, in a joint
and coordinated effort of various departments in the General Secretariat and related
institutions. Such initiatives have included the development of technical cooperation
programs with ministries of education and organizations working on the education area
for the purpose of facilitating the analysis and exchange of information and experience
on education policies, curricula and methodologies available for teaching democratic
values and practices, as well as on advanced training and continuing education for
professionals and educators on new teaching methods.
In 2003 and at the request of the Ministry of Education and Culture (MEC) and
the National Administration of Public Education (ANEP) of the Republic of Uruguay, the
General Secretariat of OAS, and the Center for Civic Education organized the “Training
Seminar on Democratic Values and Practices in the Uruguayan Education System” which
was held on July 23, 24, and 25, 2003 in the city of Montevideo, Uruguay. This Seminar
provided for dialogue, experience exchange and concrete recommendations aimed to
strengthening Uruguayan processes of education on democratic values. The Seminar was
attended by authorities of the education system, members of their technical teams,
teachers, representatives of civil society entities, universities and international
organizations. Discussions focused on the consideration of democratic values and
practices, new methodologies for education on and for democracy, the experience of the
ANEP Education Program on Values (PEVA), other Uruguayan developments, and related
experiences in Colombia, Mexico and the Dominican Republic. Education macro policies
were also discussed during the Seminar, as well as curricular proposals, teaching
materials, training of educators, codes of conduct, and research and evaluation
programs.
The Seminar report –prepared by the national coordinator and specialized
consultant– includes a summary of presentations, debates and recommendations, as well
as an action plan for their follow-up. The discussions that took place at the Seminar show
that Uruguay has made a significant progress in including education for democracy as a
cross-sectional curricular topic within the education system to be applied in various pilot
centers, as well as in training educators on the teaching contents and tools that enable
them to create a democratic environment in the classroom, thus raising in the students a
greater political interest and civic responsibility. Challenges that are yet to overcome
include, among others, curricular rigidity and scarcity of teaching resources, which to a
great extent are shared by other political and education systems throughout the
Hemisphere.
There is no doubt that democracy needs to be taught and learned. Citizens should
be educated to exercise democracy as a way of life. Education is the “master key” in
developing a democratic culture and strengthening democracy as a political system. The
virtues of education consist in fostering a better understanding of democracy, promoting
the participation of well-informed citizens from an early age, and counteracting the
prevailing anti-political feelings in favor of a system of values, practices, habits, skills
and rules that privilege democratic governance.
John Biehl del Rio
Director
Department for Democratic and Political Affairs
General Secretariat, Organization of American States
PREAMBLE
This publication is a result of the “Training Seminar on Democratic Values and
Practices in the Uruguayan Education System” that was held in Montevideo, Uruguay, on
23-25 July, 2003. The Seminar was organized by the General Secretariat of the
Organization of American States (OAS) –through its Office for the Promotion of
Democracy (OPD) of the Department for Democratic and Political Affairs (DADP) and
the Office of Education, Science and Technology (OECT) of the Department for Integral
Development (DDI)–, the Ministry of Education and Culture (MEC) and the National
Administration for Public Education (ANEP) of the Republic of Uruguay, and the Center
for Civic Education.*1
The report is divided into four parts. The first part is an introduction containing
some current social, political and cultural considerations of the region on which to
construct a framework for education on values. The second part addresses the theoretical
discussion on the relationship between democracy and democratic education. The third
part contains the seminar proceedings and the approach of Uruguayan educators on the
various topics dealt with during the Seminar. The purpose of this section is to convey to
the reader the climate of reflection and open debate, as well as the proposals and
recommendations that resulted from discussions. The fourth part includes the proposal
on the Seminar follow-up.
* The report on the Seminar was prepared by Uruguayan consultants, Gerardo Caetano and Gustavo De Armas.
Gerardo Caetano is a historian and political analyst, and the Director of the Political Science Institute of the
Universidad de la Republica. Gustavo De Armas has a masters degree in Political Science from the Universidad de la
Republica, where he is also professor and researcher.
1 In accordance with the reorganization of the OAS General Secretariat that took place on September 2004, the Unit
for the Promotion of Democracy (UPD) was replaced by the Office for the Promotion of Democracy of the Department
for Democratic and Political Affairs. Similarly, the Unit for Social Development and Education was replaced by the
Office for Education, Science and Technology of the Department for Integral Development. As the results of the
Seminar are published after these changes came into force, references to the various Offices in the text will be in
accordance with such reorganization. The Center for Civic Education is a United States non governmental and non
partisan organization devoted to the promotion of democratic values and principles by means of civic education and
international exchange.
CHAPTER I
TRAINING ON DEMOCRATIC VALUES AND PRACTICES WITHIN A
CONTEXT OF SOCIAL, POLITICAL, CULTURAL AND EDUCATIONAL
TRANSFORMATIONS
For more than two decades, worldwide education systems –and Latin American
systems in particular– have faced a series of deep transformations that have redefined
their social meaning, contents and formats.2 The democratization of access to education
(not always associated with an improvement of education-oriented resources and
pedagogic-didactic programs and models) has not only increased the levels of education
but also has had a profound impact on the socio-cultural profile of students. This new
scenario can be observed particularly in secondary education. The region has shifted
from an education restricted to mid or high income sectors, to an education that reaches
–and yet is often unable to retain– the whole universe of children and adolescents. As
noted by Emilio Tenti Fanfani,3 a series of demographic transformations (such as the
increased life expectancy and the postponed family emancipation of new generations),
social changes (modifications in family structure,4 greater inequity gaps, the emergence
of new social exclusion processes), economic changes (instability of the labor market, the
increasingly late incorporation of youth into the workforce), as well as cultural changes,
have redefined the meaning of education in general and secondary education in
particular.
Within this context we have witnessed several controversies on the objectives that
education should pursue and on its justification or recognition in “media societies”
which seem to attach an increasing value to knowledge but nevertheless question the
sense and usefulness of formal education.5
See on this issue: Braslavsky, C. and Filmus, D. (1988): Respuestas a la crisis educativa. Editorial Cántaro, Buenos
Aires, Argentina; Braslavsky, C. (1999): Re-haciendo escuelas. Ediciones Santillana, Buenos Aires, Argentina;
Braslavsky, C. and Cosse, G. (1996): Las actuales reformas educativas en América Latina: cuatro actores, tres lógicas y
ocho tensiones. Programa de Promoción de la Reforma Educativa en América Latina y el Caribe (PREAL) -Diálogo
Interamericano, Santiago, Chile; Carnoy, M. and De Moura Castro, C. (1997): ¿Qué rumbo debe tomar la educación
latinoamericana? Propuesta Educativa, Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales (FLACSO), N. 17, Buenos Aires,
Argentina; Hopenhayn, M. and Ottone, E. (1999): El gran eslabón: educación y desarrollo en el umbral del siglo XXI.
Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) /Fondo de Cultura Económica, Buenos Aires,
Argentina; Rama, G. (1986): Desarrollo y educación en América Latina y el Caribe. Editorial Kapelusz, Buenos Aires,
Argentina; Tedesco, J. C. (1995): El nuevo pacto educativo. Editorial Anaya, Madrid, España; Tedesco, J.C. (2000):
Educar en la sociedad del conocimiento. Fondo de Cultura Económica, Buenos Aires, Argentina; United Nations
Education, Science and Culture Organization (UNESCO), (2002): Education for All- Is the world on track? Paris,
France.
3 Tenti Fanfani, E. (2000): "Cultura escolar y culturas juveniles", mimeo, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
4 See, among others: Filgueira, C.H. (1996): Sobre revoluciones ocultas: la familia en el Uruguay, Economic
Commission for Latin American and the Caribbean (ECLAC), Montevideo, Uruguay.
5 See on this issue: Lyotard, J.F. (1989): La condición postmoderna, Editorial Cátedra, Barcelona, Spain (already a
classical reference).
2
Beyond the still unfinished and endless debate on the social role that education
systems can and should play, there is no doubt that they have historically contributed to
the education of the youngest generations on a relatively consensual or shared catalogue
of moral, ethical and political values, as well as on a set of practices that govern
coexistence –and especially conflicts– within communities. 6 Notwithstanding the
transformations that affect current education systems, in theoretical terms it is almost
impossible to think of educational processes which do not seek –either explicitly or
implicitly– to educate youth on a repertoire of values and practices. Although democratic
regimes have a radically different concept than authoritarian or totalitarian regimes
concerning the social role of education systems, this does not preclude formal education
from representing a key element in the replication of democratic practices and their
supporting ethical-political values.
Training on democratic values and practices is one of the major themes in the
new teaching model, which education systems throughout the world –and particularly in
the region– should build up as a response to the profound changes faced by
contemporary societies: economic regionalization processes, redefinition of the
traditional welfare state approach, cultural globalization, and recovery of family
structures. This statement is based on three assumptions: in the first place, it is not
possible to conceive a teaching-learning process without moral or ethical values; thus,
any educational practice necessarily involves a set of values that are defined by societies
within a framework of disputes and consensus; in the second place, the strengthening of
democratic institutions and political culture (including tolerance, respect for human
rights, citizens’ commitment and civil responsibility) requires the active role of education
systems in their capacity as leading actors within the process of formal socialization of
the youngest generations; finally, the formal education system (schools and high schools)
continues to hold a central position in contemporary societies.
Why is it relevant or pertinent to consider the leading role of educational systems
in the development of democratic values and practices of the younger generations? This
question requires a two-fold analysis: political and educational.
First of all, in spite of political-institutional ups and downs, a trend towards the
progress of democracy can be observed inside and outside the region. The transitions
from authoritarian to democratic regimes that occurred in Latin America in the last
twenty years, as well as the expansion of polyarchic regimes in Eastern Europe, are an
irrefutable sign of such trend. However, this process of extension of democracy –which is
both qualitative (such as the emergence of the last generation of human rights) and
quantitative– is not free from tensions and its success is not ensured a priori.
Consequently, it is necessary to cultivate, replicate and strengthen democratic values and
practices. As far as democratic values and ideals are concerned, almost two decades ago
the well known Italian philosopher and political scientist Norberto Bobbio warned about
some pending assignments or debts or, as he defined them, “unfulfilled promises” of the
From several theoretical perspectives, education sociology has analyzed the various roles performed by the modern
education systems: replication of power relations and institutional practices; conveyance of cultural and value-based
guidelines; generation of labor force; selection of future elites; increasing dynamism of upward social mobility
channels; creation of human capital, and social modernization. See on this issue: Brunner, J.J. and Flisfich, A. (s/d): Los
intelectuales y las instituciones de la cultura, Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales (FLACSO), Santiago, Chile.
6
democratic political systems. 7 Among them, Bobbio noted the ambition of having
“educated citizens”. According to this philosopher, contemporary democracies, far from
reaching such objective, are increasingly supported by poorly informed masses, apathetic
and hardly interested in “res publica”. As a counterpart, Bobbio said, we are witnessing
the increasing influence of corporations, “the persistence of oligarchies” and “the
government of technicians.” Nevertheless, Bobbio argues that it is possible to identify
clearly the essential differences that exist between democratic and totalitarian or
authoritarian regimes, specially their dissimilar –or rather opposed–value foundations.
Bobbio completed one of the most frequently quoted texts on democratic political theory
in recent years with references to the values that inspire democratic life: the ideals of
“tolerance”, “resolution of social conflicts without resorting to violence”, “free debate of
ideas” and “fraternity”. Thus, the expansion of democracy requires the ongoing
revitalization of the political culture that supports it. In such sense, the role of education
systems is undisputable.
In second place, focusing on education for democracy is also justified by the
increased scope and internationalization of human rights. The adoption of international
juridical instruments on human rights (such as the International Convention on the
Rights of the Child adopted in 1989 by the United Nations General Assembly or the 2001
Inter-American Democratic Charter of the Organization of American States) is an
unequivocal expression of that process. Recalling the Nobel Prize on Economics, Amartya
Sen, we might say that the articulation between human rights and human development is
one of the major keys of democratic construction.8
In third place, the regional political integration processes under the common
denominators of democratic expansion and progress of the human rights perspective
close a circle that favors the ongoing development of efforts oriented to strengthening the
democratic values and practices within the education systems.
In the education area it is also possible to observe some key signs that allow for
focusing on training on democratic values and practices.
First, societies still assign a great deal of trust to education in general and to
educational institutions (schools and high schools) in particular.
Second, beyond some concerning trends that affect the exercise of the teaching
profession inside and outside the region (due to its relative devaluation vis-à-vis new
professions), contemporary societies assign scientific knowledge and information an
increasing value, thus appreciating –at least on this field– the actions that education
systems are able to develop.
Third, educational institutions represent one of the few state niches that still
preserve the social prestige and accrued capital (such as human resources and
knowledge) of what used to be a strong welfare state.
Bobbio, N. (1986): El futuro de la democracia, Fondo de Cultura Económica (FCE), Mexico, DF, Mexico.
United Nations Development Program (UNDP), 2000: Report on Human Development 2000, UNDP, Editorial Mundi
Prensa, Madrid, Spain, Chapter I.
7
8
Fourth, educational institutions still show some ability for the social integration of
underprivileged sectors; in several countries in the region (Uruguay is an example in this
sense) they have acted as buffers when facing economic and social crisis.
Lastly, some education systems in the region (especially in the Southern Cone)
have a heritage of traditions and practices that allow for facing the challenge of
designing, implementing and evaluating curricular, teaching and educational
innovations.
CHAPTER II
TRAINING ON VALUES AND EDUCATION FOR DEMOCRACY
Training on democratic values and practices is based on two assumptions: one
relates to teaching and the other to political theory. As far as the first one is concerned, it
is impossible to think of a value-deprived teaching practice; there is a series of moral,
ethical and political values which are present or involved in the teaching-learning
process. Otherwise, education should be thought of as a meaningless exercise. The
second assumption consists of recognizing the progress of democracy in the 20th and 21st
centuries (especially in the last two decades) as well as the gradual expansion and
internationalization of human rights. These processes have generated a sort of consensus
on a set of values and ideals (such as liberty, equity, tolerance, peaceful settlement of
disputes, participation) within a framework of irreducible political and cultural
pluralism.
In connection with the teaching-oriented assumption that should guide any
rigorous and methodical exercise of training on values (the application of values
involved in every educational practice) the ANEP “Document of Reference for an
Experience of Education on Values” notes:
“If education is supposed to prepare for life, according to the purpose that is
commonly assigned to it…it cannot dispense of preparing (students) for exercising
such discerning ability and…provide them with the competences required to be
“oneself”, that is, the builder of a morally autonomous life project (…) Ethics is not
an external regulator of educational action but a characteristic of its nature, one of
its constituent dimensions”.9
On the other hand, training on democratic values and practices not only implies
educating students on a universe of shared principles and ideals but also –and even
mainly– on a series of social competences that relate to the active exercise of citizenship.
In such sense, the ANEP document also warns:
Administración Nacional de Educación Pública (ANEP) – Consejo Directivo Central (CODICEN) / Programa de
Modernización de la Educación Media y la Formación Docente (MEMFOD), (2003): Documento de referencia para
una experiencia de Educación en Valores, Montevideo, p.4.
9
“… the construction of moral personality cannot occur without a set of
procedural acquisitions (…) those personal abilities for dialogue, discussion,
judgment, understanding and self-regulation that will enable the individuals to
face autonomously the conflicts of value and the unresolved resulting
controversies that arise in their lives and in the groups that are part of open,
plural and democratic societies.” 10
Training students on these competences (such as the ability to formulate an
autonomous judgment of value, to express their views and to recognize –in the words of
Jurgen Habermas– the “alleged validity” of the statements made by the participants in a
dialogue) implies to pledge for a Kant-rooted universal communication ethics that should
govern the coexistence among individuals, that is, between students and professors in the
case of education. On this issue, Habermas points out:
"Only communication ethics ensures the universal nature of accepted standards
and the autonomy of acting individuals, and therefore it exclusively resorts to the
discursive confirmation of the alleged validity of such standards: validity can only
be claimed by those standards on which all stakeholders agree (or might agree),
without coercion, as participants of a dialogue, when they initiate (or might
initiate) a discursive creation of will (...) Only communication ethics is universal
(...) it is the only that ensures autonomy..."11
As we are able to justify training on democratic values and practices from a
teaching perspective, it is possible as well to support this pledge by resorting to strictly
theoretical-political arguments. In the first place, as mentioned above, the progress of
democracy in various regions in the world and the gradual expansion and
internationalization of human rights (especially children’s rights pursuant to the
Convention on the Rights of the Child –CRC–) has created a space of shared values, a
hardly disputable but not necessarily insubstantial catalogue of ideals. The ANEP
document states:
10
Op.cit. p.15.
Habermas, J. (1975): Problemas de legitimación en el capitalismo tardío, Amorrortu editores, Buenos Aires,
Argentina, p.111.
11
“… nobody –or almost nobody– wishes to do without a guide of values such as
justice, liberty, equality or solidarity, neither to drop out the democratic spirit and
forms upon which the organization of coexistence is intended; thus, we must base
upon the contents of value in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”12
Certainly, to pledge for an education based on this common heritage of
democratic ideals and practices does not imply to evade controversial matters in the
classroom; on the contrary, it implies educating, from a platform of shared values,
autonomous individuals who will be able to state critical judgments on controversial
issues within a framework of tolerance and respect for the various approaches, for the
different “comprehensive religious and philosophical doctrines” as argued by John
Rawls. Training on democratic values and practices must particularly address this
difficult equilibrium or balance between the shared heritage of democratic ideals and the
respect for the pluralist nature of the social fabric. In this connection, Robert Dahl’s
warning concerning the polytheistic nature of the world of values and the modern
democratic state appears to be relevant:
"...the world of values is not governed by one single and absolute purpose, but it is a
“pluralist universe” in the words of William James... (and he adds) In many
countries (organizations) actually are so different to each other as far as religion,
education, culture, ethnic group are concerned…(that) such diversity unavoidably
disrupts the harmony dreamt of by the Greeks when they thought of their ideal
democracy: the distinctive mark of the modern democratic state is not harmony but
political conflict."13
The tolerance ideal to which Bobbio appeals –one of the basic values of the
democratic doctrine with deep liberal roots– is one of the pillars around which the training
on democratic values and practices should be shaped in contemporary societies, while it
also represents one key for the success of the democratic reconstruction and consolidation
processes in the countries of the region, as stated by Norbert Lechner:
12
Op.cit. p.15.
13
Dahl, R. (1991): La democracia y sus críticos, Editorial Paidós, Buenos Aires, Argentina, p. 29 and 59.
"At present, to re-establish politics as a negotiation ambit…seems to be imperative
for democratic consolidation. In order to generate a climate for transaction it would
be essential to relieve politics from the ethical-religious commitments that gave rise
to previous intransigence and disproportionate expectations."14
The recognition of the irreducible pluralist mold of the world of values does not
imply to give up the process of educating the young generations on values, but it does
indeed imply to stand back from two dangerous extreme postures on this issue: on one end,
the dogmatic imposition of a given moral, religious or political approach of the world (a
comprehensive doctrine of what is good, as Rawls would say); on the other end, an alleged
–an in any case, artificial– neutrality vis-à-vis the pluralism of conflicting concepts which
will ultimately validate the prevailing or hegemonic approaches that have a more
successful dissemination through extra-educational means. On the contrary, a democratic
and pluralist concept of education on values should focus on a renewed notion of
consensus that should simultaneously be ambitious in its possible scope or democratic
outcome, and pragmatic as to its philosophical assumptions. As Lechner himself notes:
"Rather than a “crisis of consensus”… it is a crisis of our notion of consensus.(...)
This means that we lack a theory of modernity recognizing the existence of
diversity..."15
The recognition of the pluralist nature of contemporary societies and democracies
requires our understanding of the political and educational praxis as a demanding
negotiation exercise –through dialogue and persuasion- aimed to reach an agreement.
Likewise, it takes us to conceive training on democratic values and practices as a key
element in the creation of cognitive and social competences that are essential for the full
exercise of citizenship, as well as a fundamental tool for the conveyance of ideals that
ensure and regulate pluralism, particularly the values of tolerance and respect for the
diversity of conflicting views and interests.
The generation of a public space with a pluralist and liberal nature can neither be
founded on one single omni-comprehensive moral concept of the world, nor on a general
theory intending to keep the citizens’ debate informed, should any public scenario with
such profiles deal with infinite moral and religious approaches and pledges. Along these
lines, Rawls comments:
"... When discussing... basic justice affairs, we cannot resort to comprehensive
religious and philosophical doctrines –which we, as individuals or members of
associations, believe to be the global truth-... As far as possible, the knowledge and
reasoning that support our statement of justice principles…should lie upon simple
truths that at present can be widely accepted or accessed by common citizens."16
Rawls also notes in a different text:
Lechner, N. (1988): Los patios interiores de la democracia. Subjetividad y Política, Fondo de Cultura Económica (FCE),
Mexico, DF, p. 109.
15 Op.cit. p. 135.
16 Rawls, John (1994): "La idea de una razón pública", Isegoría N. 9, Madrid, p. 14.
14
"... no general moral concept can offer, within the ambit of practical politics, the
grounds for a public concept of justice in a modern democratic society (...) such a
concept should encompass a diversity of doctrines and a pluralism of conflicting –
and actually incompatible– notions of what is good, like those stated by the
members of current democratic societies. "17
Not being able to resort to universal and immutable truth for conflict resolution in
a pluralist public ambit has clear implications on the educational practice. The difficult
tension between universality and particularity that Modernity implies from its very origin
cannot be simply solved by deleting one of the terms. Training on democratic values and
practices requires undertaking at the same time the advocacy of diversity and the
promotion of universal ideals.
Rawls, John (1985): "Justice as fairness: political not metaphysical" Philosophy and Public Affairs, N. 14:3 (summer
of 1985): 223-251, New York, NY. The contingent nature of the “truths”on which our democracies are founded
determines the public ambit to be a plural ambit. According to Richard Rorty: "The truth, understood in the platonic
sense as the understanding of what Rawls calls “a preceding order that has been given to us” is simple irrelevant for
political democracy. For the same reason, philosophy is neither an explanation of the relations between a given order
and human nature. When they conflict with each other, democracy has a priority on philosophy.” Rorty, R. (1991):
Contingencia, ironía y solidaridad, Editorial Paidós, Madrid, Spain, p. 261.
17
CHAPTER III
SEMINAR PROCEEDINGS
A. THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS ON TRAINING ON VALUES AND EDUCATION FOR DEMOCRACY
1. The new conceptualization of democracy in the region and its impact on education
The training seminar on democratic values and practices in the Uruguayan
education system was intended as an arena for considerations and exchange of views on
the concept of democracy particularly focused on its impact on education. For such
purpose, two working groups were established with the participation of prominent
academicians who discussed the concept of democracy from the viewpoints of political
philosophy, political science and education theory. Precisely from the viewpoint of
political theory and science, Romeo Pérez, professor and researcher from the Political
Science Institute of the University of the Republic, addressed the complexity and the
multiple dimension of the concept of democracy:
“Democracy does not appear as one simple idea, a strictly unitary orientation, but
rather as a combination. It is a combination of processes, regulatory frameworks,
values and rules. As a construction, democracy is a compound that in my view
encompasses at least the following elements: first, it is an open catalogue of basic
liberties; in other words, of basic or human rights. Why is it open? Because, as we
are aware of, it is evolutionary and it actually evolves (…) The second component
is people’s sovereignty, that is, people’s sovereignty both as a principle and in its
projection over all the practices and institutions that serve as a frame for practices
in democratic life. By people’s sovereignty we mean that people’s mass is the
origin of all authority mandates, of all regulatory competences that arise from the
state and from the political ambit in general, from the political institutions. Thus,
we are merging the great adventure of human rights with the great adventure of
people’s sovereignty. But I think that two elements are still missing to reach the
minimal democratic compound. One of them is pluralism. People’s sovereignty
and human rights –when they are actually established and enforced– can only
produce pluralism, complexity, and –why not? – debate, dissidence, discrepancy.
And finally, after human rights, people’s sovereignty, plurality and pluralism, I
should like to mention self-government as one further component of the
contemporary democratic compound. Although we may think of democracies
where people’s sovereignty translates into competence delegation and power
assignment to certain authority centers, even if we think of representative
democracy which to some extent simplifies itself freely, even so we should not
forget that democracy implies a wide margin of self-government, of the people’s
government by the people’s mass, of a coincidence that is not merely theoretical
or on paper but reflects in the political relationship between those who govern
and those who are governed. Self-government is implied in The Catalogue of
Fundamental Liberties.”
As clearly noted by Romeo Pérez, the notion of democracy is naturally complex
and evolutionary; it has been subject to a permanent and conflicting expansion. Out of
the four pillars which according to Romeo Pérez are the basic elements of the democratic
compound (open catalogue of basic liberties and human rights, people’s sovereignty,
pluralism and self-government), three of them are fundamental for designing a training
program on democratic values and practices. It would be difficult to imagine a
substantial and successful exercise of democratic education without addressing the
principles of pluralism, protection of human rights and the gradual and educational
application of mechanisms aimed to the expression and participation of students (“selfgovernment”).
The notion of pluralism, of coexistence of different values, of coexistence of
different people, was highlighted in several presentations by the panel members who
participated in the seminar. In such connection, the following quotation of the
presentation by Gerardo Caetano, Director of the Political Science Institute of the
University of the Republic, states the need for creating a new definition of the notion of
democracy on the grounds of the diversity that characterizes contemporary societies and,
consequently, on the grounds of the ongoing negotiation between interests and values.
“...democratic consensus consists, by definition, of covenants between different
people; covenants between those who do not think alike, and are therefore very
demanding and should be strongly rooted because they have not been reached by
those who think similarly or alike...”
On the other hand, and as far as the procedural and formal nature of democracy
is concerned, Romeo Pérez notes that after several decades where simplistic criticism and
questioning of democratic formality prevailed, there is nowadays very few people who
ignore or underestimate this formal value, that is, democracy as a set of rules that allow
for conflict management and the generation of consensus.
“I think that political philosophy and citizens’ debate in general have recently
made a great progress in leaving aside easy criticism so to speak, which comes
from either rightist or leftist sectors and questions the essence of democracy for
being a mere form; we now know that, other than a mere form, it is a great
form.”
Along the same lines, Javier Bonilla, the Uruguayan National Director for Public
Education, noted:
“(there is a) concept which we might call the procedural concept of democracy
(according to which) the essence of democracy lies, besides knowing who the
constituents are, upon the existence of a very formal set of rules that apply to the
establishment of the legitimate authority.”
To be more precise, the exercise of the citizens’ rights to expression and
participation in democracy and its promotion through education cannot do without a set
of formal rules and agreements which are the ultimate guarantee of their enforcement.
In such sense, Caetano mentioned in his presentation the need for articulation between
the notions of participation and representation in democratic life and stressed the value
of claim intermediation channels in such ambit:
“The utmost participation we may aspire to occurs within representative
democracy, not against representative democracy. In my view, this is extremely
valid in the present Latin American context as in our countries..., representative
bonds are being questioned. In several countries there are even authors who talk
about the breach of representation, which lends weight to…diseases that Latin
American people are well aware of (...) the so-called “movements” that precisely
consist of other mediating actors who are supposedly free of the opacities and
counterweights of political parties, which among other things must be supported
from time to time by the citizens’ consent, the only one that grants legitimate
power in a democracy, (...) precisely overwhelming and taking advantage of this
crisis of politics or this anti-political reaction (movements) promote “alternative
options” for participation that will finally consume representation which is the
ultimate guarantee of democratic legitimacy, but at the same time also consume
participation and turn it into the monopoly of a few people who –by means of a
participating rhetoric– generate an action scope that is deeply opposite to
participation.”
Following the presentations by Romeo Pérez and Gerardo Caetano, democracy
should be defined on the basis of a catalogue of values and ideals, as well as of a set of
forms and a compound of rules that make it up as a political system.
One further dimension of analysis that emerged from the theoretical
considerations of the seminar relates to democratic culture as the basis for practices and
rules that govern democratic life, and particularly the contribution that education
systems can make for the promotion of these political culture guidelines. That was the
issue addressed by Pablo Zúñiga, Senior Specialist of the Office for the Promotion of
Democracy of the Department for Democratic and Political Affairs of the OAS General
Secretariat:
“The efforts to strengthen democracy in our hemisphere have shown that it is
essential to promote a democratic culture supporting the participation of citizens
and the major political actors in the consolidation of democratic institutions,
values and practices. Thus, the fundamental element for promoting a democratic
culture in the countries in the Americas is the education and training of citizens –
particularly of the new generations– on democracy. Democracy is experienced
and enhanced by working on it, the quality of democracy depends upon its
institutions and especially upon the democratic values and practices that you, as
educators, convey to our new generations.”
Another aspect that was highlighted during theoretical considerations on
democracy was the creation of fora for regional and supra-regional political integration
as instruments for preserving national democratic institutions and disseminating a
democratic culture throughout the Hemisphere.
Lastly, it was mentioned that one of the major challenges for the consolidation
and expansion of democracy in the region is the achievement of basic conditions for
human development, social integration and equity. It is practically impossible to think of
democracy in societies that are characterized by extreme inequality, increasing poverty
and social exclusion. Romeo Pérez pointed out on this issue:
“Democratic problems in our continent are of various kinds and different nature.
There are problems of enforcement of fundamental rights, and problems related
to the economic conditions of democracy. Democracy does not arise from
economic wealth but there is no doubt that it is far more difficult to achieve stable
democracies in the absence of minimal economic wealth. And this certainly
results in problems, problems of marginality, economic marginality that has an
undoubted impact on the effectiveness of the components of the democratic
compound.”
2.
The bond between education and values: Universality or Pluralism
Part of the seminar was devoted to consider training on democratic values and
practices from the perspective of education philosophy. One of the major lines of such
considerations was the philosophical concept of the educational praxis that should
support this kind of program. Along that line, Bonilla underscored the bond between
reason and liberty as the basis for the development of training on democratic values and
practices:
“I think that (the) two closely interconnected fundamental pillars (that) are
essential in any education for democracy (are): reason and liberty. Furthermore, I
think that the deep bond between both should be made explicit (...) The value of
reason as the core of educational activity only applies reasonably in the field of
liberty and, inversely, liberty as the essential element of democratic life only
works within the limits established by reason. From such perspective this pair of
values... constitutes the foundation of any democracy-related education; the way
how we conceive it will result in our ability to understand other determining
values of any democratic education: the values of equity, pluralism, tolerance…”
The Director for Education of the Ministry of Education and Culture, Helena
Costábile, also emphasized reason as one of the fundamental legacies of national
philosophical thinking:
"What is the legacy of Vaz Ferreira? What is the contribution…of his prolonged
and powerful influence on education exercised at the university, secondary
education, conferences, during his various terms of office as rector, as the dean of
the School of Arts and at the Council for Secondary Education? What did he
provide for? He provided for the backbone of his philosophy, the notion of
reason.”
Without giving up the legacy of Illustration, in the words of Habermas –and
especially this pair of values (the notions of reason and liberty) that Bonilla identified as
the philosophical foundation of education for democracy– it is necessary to recognize the
transformations that affect education at the time of reconsidering its curricular,
pedagogic and didactic strategies. Accordingly, Bonilla addressed the need for conceiving
education in general, and the training on democratic values and practices in particular,
in the light of the crisis suffered by the notions of certainty and immutable truth.
“It is necessary to acknowledge that a certain notion of culture, a certain idea of
progress and a certain concept of morals (which made up the so-called school of
certainty) have undergone deep and to some extent even radical transformations,
(…) whenever we faced the dilemma of thinking of a different trend…that to
some extent is pushed to become an institution for the management of
uncertainty.”
Education for democracy should be therefore positioned within a context of
redefinition of the world of values, crisis of certainties and immutable truths. Once again
the notion of pluralism appears to be the starting point and the horizon for training on
democratic values and practices. In such sense, Daniel Corbo, member of the ANEP
Central Directing Council (CODICEN) identified the exercise of reason as one of the
elementary competences for the development of citizenship in a pluralist universe.
“The exercise of human reason within the framework of free institutions results
in a structural pluralism that is part of democratic cultures (…) pluralism is not a
circumstantial occurrence, but clearly a parameter of democratic culture, and a
structural parameter…”
The recognition of pluralism as the result of reason exercising and a parameter of
democratic culture does not imply to abdicate the educational responsibility of education
systems on the field of values; on the contrary, it means that such task should be
undertaken on the basis of the liberal foundations of democratic theory: the respect for
the diversity of opinion, tolerance and, in a certain way, a notion of contingency on
immutable truths. Any way, the question remains of how to address at the same time the
goal of training on values and the respect for their plural nature.18 One issue that was
repeatedly mentioned during the seminar was the notion that the education system
cannot assume an aseptic attitude vis-à-vis value plurality which would result in schools
or high-schools devoid of reflection or debate on the most relevant aspects of human
existence and social life. On this issue Corbo noted:
“… sometimes we have considered that the public space of our classrooms should
only receive what constitutes a common fund, a shared fund, a series of values
which all of us can validate, and quite often this controversial area has been kept
aside and restricted to the private ambit. We think that this also involves a
reduction, it is not a positive approach of reality, because it implies leaving aside
Along this line Corbo made the following question as a benchmark for analysis: “How can we make the need for
providing students with a series of value foundations –without which education would practically not exist, would be
void and incompatible with its own definition– consistent with the respect for the plurality of meanings, approaches,
family beliefs and education?”
18
significant life experience, relevant elements of social reality so to speak, without
including them to some extent in the foundation of students’ experience.”
Costábile, resorting to the philosophical legacy of José Enrique Rodó, noted as
well:
“…Rodó discovered that society is not a value-devoid ambit, but that it should
include the presence of every great experience of human beings which should be
recovered, incorporated and respected as non-dogmatically established
inspirations for the way ahead. Otherwise –Rodó says- it would mean that all the
great achievements, all the great virtues of mankind should withdraw into the
secrecy of forbidden things. Quite often this tension has been perceived in the
classroom; this tension that means that there are things that should not be
mentioned, that there are deep experiences of human kind that must be kept
outside the classroom. As far as the respectful and scientifically subordinate
conscience of the educator make it possible, the great experience of human beings
should enter the classrooms, not as an imposition or proselytism of any sort, but
invited to cooperate in the upbringing of those souls.”
The entry of these matters, topics or debates into the classroom does not
necessarily involve a risk to laicism or pluralism, as it results from the open, rigorous and
impartial attitude of the educator concerning the various approaches or arguments that
may be used in a debate on a controversial issue. Education on values in increasingly
fragmented societies that are at the same time increasingly integrated into a global
culture requires the educator to assume a “procedural neutrality as a form of secular
teaching"; 19 otherwise, there is a risk of falling into some of the above mentioned
extremes: the dogmatic imposition of the official truth or a comfortably passive neutrality
in front of the chaotic pluralism of stories, of “language games” in the words of Lyotard,
or “living worlds”. On the other hand, introducing the world of values and its resulting
natural controversies into the classroom favors the educational process of youngest
generations, especially on the ability for dialogue required by the exercise of citizenship.
As Corbo noted:
"If we intend students to choose freely, they should obviously do it in an informed
manner, and if they have not been able to reflect on or analyze certain areas of
reality and experience, then it will be very difficult for them to build up their
options from a void. Thus, we are not proposing neutrality as an end in itself, in
the sense of creating neutral beings, which would be a contradiction. What we
mean is that the procedure, the educational methodology in those areas where
positions are controversial or plural, where there is no frame of reference
allowing for a consensual definition of what is most valuable, (enabling) to work
on such controversies the purpose of which is precisely the working process
accomplished by the students to construct their own arguments, their own
reasons, their own judgments, instead of the result they may reach. That is, we
are not so concerned about the position they may adopt as on the process they
follow to assume their own well-founded and advocated positions.”
19
ANEP-CODICEN/MEMFOD, Op.cit. p. 26
In this regard Costábile pointed out:
“There is the fear that the program be delayed, or that the classroom become
disorganized, but youth must necessarily learn to discuss. My time is over but I
must say this anyway: learn to discuss, learn to develop that democratic
conscience, because if children and youth do not learn to listen to each other, to
found their views and to seek for a common solution to the problem in the
classroom, where else are they going to do it? (...) that pupil, whom we turn into
a silent observer of things he/she does not understand and does not care for,
becomes a silent receiver. Why should we be surprised when they turn their back
to society problems?”
Training on democratic values and practices basically address two objectives: in
the first place –and not necessarily the easiest one– to educate students on a repertoire of
ideals, principles and goals that are shared by most part of the society and expected to be
shared by the youngest generations; in the second place, to establish a set of teaching
procedures and instruments that allow for processing in the classroom the debate and
dissent on controversial topics and values. On this issue Corbo stated:
“When dealing with shared universal values that we define as those which may
be deemed as suitable because they meet universal interests that everybody
intends to satisfy, supported by impartial reason and universally alleged as
valid…the educational institution has (to assume) an attitude of promotion; it
must assume an active position in order to leave the students, to some extent, this
set of shared universal values. (On the other hand) when dealing with a
controversial situation of values, where such values compete with each other, we
suggest that the educator should provide objective information on that issue and
facilitate the access to interpretation sources which may in some way clarify it.
The educator should work on the possible arguments at stake but leaving the
discussion open for the students to reach their own personal judgment.”
Truly, the performance of the educator as a mediator between the student and the
universe of conflicting values, this exercise of procedural neutrality, is in itself an
expression of values, of a substantial pledge for the type of democratic, pluralist, and
human rights and basic liberty-advocating society that we aspire to. Within this context,
Corbo commented:
“.... although this procedure (to be applied by the educator in case of
controversies) is neutral, it is not deprived of values; on the contrary, behind this
procedure there is obviously a democratic ideology. To some extent, it is a value
option for democracy, a liberal democracy that implies individual autonomy, the
use of reason, the recognition of others as valid counterparts, the tolerance for
different views, the respect for other positions and the advocacy of their own, the
creation of a public reason, that is, a reason not only referred to personal
concerns but also to social perspectives, to shared approaches, to common
interests.”
Whenever the educator is aware of his/her position of power in front of the
student and does not use it to promote his/her vision of the world, that is, the
comprehensive doctrines of common good he/she adheres to, then we face an active
exercise of neutrality and laicism.
The last issue considered by the panel members concerning democratic education
was the strengthening and necessary systematization of the classroom experience
developed by educational centers, organizations and educators:
“...a lot is done in our classrooms, in our institutions, on information for
democracy as well as on education on values. This is because those issues are
included in the curricular program. In primary and secondary education and
training for educators there are…chapters on ethics and disciplines under the
titles of “Education for Citizenship” or “Social and Civic Education” (...) so,
conceptual contents actually exist, but it is also clear that everyday teachers and
professors work in the classroom on situations that unequivocally involve ethical
matters or perspectives…and this has been noted by several (...) in educational
institutions there is fragmentation between discourse and practice, between the
arguments of professors A and B, which does not provide for enough consistency
to build up personalities, as such personalities and the realm of values are not
merely created on the grounds of discourse but mainly on the basis of experience;
that experience must be structured because otherwise, if they are not consistent,
they will not be able to contribute to the adequate generation of personalities. It is
therefore important to leave individual actions aside, even if they are well
inspired, in order to build up an ambit of meaning and sense in the institutions
that allows for strengthening within its strictly educational role. The educating
community must assume such role as a whole, so that all its actions in every
aspect and at all times in the institution will be guided by a shared vision
providing consistency and meaning to its work..”
In brief, the consideration of the position that training on democratic values and
practices holds within the Uruguayan education system allowed for identifying some
areas for consensus, as well as the challenges to be faced by education. In the first place,
the panel members share a vision of education inspired on the legacy of Illustration and
Modernity (that is, resorting to reason, liberty and the creation of thoughtful and
autonomous individuals). In the second place, they recognize the need for adapting
education objectives to a social scenario characterized by pluralism, diversity, and
perspectives of value that often conflict with each other. In the third place, they propose
as the objectives of training on values to educate young generations on a shared heritage
of democratic ideals and principles, as well as to introduce in the classroom controversial
issues or topics and to adopt a renewed definition of laicism, a “procedural way of
teaching”. They finally suggest as a strategy for the implementation of an integral
program, the strengthening, systematization and application of the experience that
educators have developed for years at the various education levels in Uruguay.
B. THE APPROACH OF EDUCATION ACTORS
Part of the discussions at the seminar focused on the approach on training on
democratic values and practices of some academicians working in that particular area, as
well as of some well known educators. Within such context, the Director of the Training
Program on Values of the Uruguayan Catholic University, Javier Galdona, and the head
of the teachers’ union, the Federation of Uruguayan Teachers (FUM), Héctor Florit,
presented their views on the linkage between ethics, democracy, participation and
education.
One of the first issues that were dealt with was the definition of the applicable
conceptual categories. In such sense, Galdona used as a starting point a definition of
ethics related to the actual practice of individuals, to the interaction among actors and to
the notion of historicity or contingency.
“... ethics is praxis, is referential, is always (based on) ideals, parameters, models,
and some collectively established benchmarks (...) It is also relational (...) and it is
historical as well, which means that it always occurs at one place and time.”
This definition of ethics may have points in common with or be related to the
theoretical framework on which the action of the ANEP Commission on Training on
Values is founded, particularly the common questioning of an absolute or unique
approach of the moral values which education should promote. It is also possible to
detect a common concern –of a humanist nature– about the possibility of applying such
values to community life. Finally, the Training Program on Values of the Uruguayan
Catholic University, presented by Javier Galdona, addresses the objective of training
autonomous individuals by means of educational praxis, thus providing them the ability
to produce critical judgments vis-à-vis the pluralism of values. In such connection,
Galdona stated:
“What do I understand as ethical education? I conceive it as a deliberately,
methodically and pedagogically conducted support aimed to develop personal
and collective structures that make the ethical praxis actually possible. We may
say, then, that the purpose of ethical education is to make ethical praxis actually
possible. When I say “actually” I mean “humanly”, that is, a condition involving
autonomy, intelligence, affections, spiritual capabilities and the concept of being
a person.”
In turn, Héctor Florit stated the position of Uruguayan educators on the training
on democratic values and practices within the context of the teaching traditions of the
national education system, with particular reference to the political and educational
approach of José Pedro Varela:
“(the) teaching of equality and laicism has strongly pervaded and still pervades
Uruguayan teachers and school culture.”
He also proposed a definition of participation that is clearly associated to the
collective concept, the notion of a community that shares a set of values, a universe of
representations, and an identity:
“participation (implies) availability, resources and space required for exercising
democratic practices. This demands involvement and representation, (both)
individual and group behavior, (a) group of individuals who share one situation,
one problem and certain images, approaches or representations of the world.”
On the other hand, Florit emphasized some social phenomena (such as inequity,
poverty, marginality and social exclusion), institutional factors or cultural processes
(endogenous or exogenous to the education system) which impede, hinder or make it
difficult to effectively develop the democratic values and practices that public
educational institutions propose in Uruguay; in particular, he highlighted the adverse
social conditions under which public education must perform:
“The reality of marginality and residential segmentation is an obstacle for social
mobility and integration, especially when educational circuits are stratified as
well. School drop out from public institutions in middle and high classes turns
such ambits homogeneous and forces the education system to design specific
strategies to revert that process of drainage, desertion and fragmentation (...)
What kind of national identity and democracy can be achieved when in the same
country high Internet connection rates coexist with 50 percent of children who
are born and live in poverty? What common representations can be created when
primary socialization involves such dissimilar actors as new technologies and
slums? What spontaneous solidarity can exist, what mutual respect can arise
when there is no room for citizens’ socialization, coexistence and participation?
Neither regional nor global integration can occur without a national identity.
Today, national identity and collective conscience are at stake."
Florit identified a series of factors or variables related to the institutional design of
Uruguayan public education facilities which affect the enforcement of democratic values
and practices in daily life, especially those mechanisms oriented to promote the
participation of families and communities in schools and high schools. On this issue, he
noted:
“The school of the people is far more than a school for the people. At times when
pluralism and diversity are proclaimed, the educational center must really be a
participation ambit. This implies the assumption that the regulatory framework
and proposals of institutions not always facilitate participation, neither of parents
nor of collective entities. Participation in children’s learning, contributory
economic participation, volunteer participation and participation in the general
school guidelines require resources from families and a more open school, more
willing to take advantage of what each community may offer. It requires an
education which does not mistake autonomy with either exclusion or
exclusivity.”
Finally, Florit advocated the position held by public education in general and
public schools in particular as one of the few institutional spaces that are still available
for social integration, for turning social mobility channels more dynamic, for conveying
democratic values and ideals and for gradually training children and adolescents to
exercise them:
"Only public school can assume the huge responsibility of recreating common
visions and the knowledge of others, organizing the space and time to learn on
values, to accept what belongs to someone else, to understand other worlds that
appear to be so remote even when they are two blocks away. Mayor Zaragoza
used to stress that “the democratic culture must be learned, taught, practiced,
experienced and disseminated at school.” Those are the goals we should pursue in
order to ensure the validity and definite rooting of democracy in the future.”
For Florit, however, this advocacy does not imply to ignore the conditions that
should be available at school or high school institutions for the successful
implementation of any educational innovation, in this case the application of methodical
training programs on values. In such sense he warned:
“In every school, high school and technical school the best possible programs are
nothing but dead letter when they are not collectively implemented by teachers,
by communities, by directors and supervisors. The discussion of democratic
practices and the implementation of activities developing autonomy and moral
judgment require the analysis of the concrete tensions experienced by schools and
teachers (...) This core element has not only to do with organizational or
regulatory aspects, but mainly with the daily life of parents, students and
teachers, with the uncertainties and contradictions that prevail in school-related
legislation.”
C. THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE COLOMBIAN, MEXICAN AND DOMINICAN EXPERIENCES
One of the purposes of the seminar was to put Uruguayan educators in contact
with some projects for training on democratic values and practices developed by
countries in the region, in order to make them acquainted with their experience and
lessons learned, especially on the assessing of their impact and the study of their
strengths and weaknesses. The dissemination of these projects among Uruguay educators
did not intend, by any means at all, to show them as models for replication; on the
contrary, their inclusion in the seminar was intended to enrich considerations and debate
on various strategies for training on democratic values and practices. Therefore, the
selected experiences reflect different social and educational realities, as well as a
diversity of options applied to the implementation of this type of education programs (by
the state, the organized civil society, and with entrepreneurial participation and
cooperation, among others). This chapter intends to reflect and systematize the views of
Uruguayan educators on such projects for the purpose of determining to what extent
some of their lessons may contribute to the experience of training on values that the
Uruguayan education system has developed for two years through ANEP.
1. The Colombian experience
The Colombian experience was presented by Susana Restrepo, Executive Director
of the Presencia Foundation, and started by analyzing the social and political context of
her country. This is a very relevant approach in order to be clearly aware on the
importance of a project aimed to promote democratic values and commitment as citizens
of the youngest generations. Susana Restrepo noted:
“In Colombia (…) we have problems of political violence, drug trafficking,
displacement, kidnapping, child maltreatment (...) which took society... to hit its
bottom, (so that) in 1991 the need for changing the country’s course was such
that the National Constituent Assembly was created through the vote of ten
million people and the 1991 Constitution was further passed. (This) Constitution
is the major agreement… The need was perceived in some key articles of that
Constitution for education to become a priority matter in Colombia, providing for
the teaching of the Constitution and citizens’ participation mechanisms in
schools; (the teaching of the Constitution) should be compulsory and aimed to
open a space for citizens’ participation.”
Although the social, political and institutional situation in Colombia is quite
different from that of Uruguay, both countries share a concern on the education of
children and adolescents on democratic ideals and the exercise of their rights as citizens.
This is due to the fact that in both countries there is evidence of a global process of
political lack of legitimacy, absence of interest on public matters and a questioning of the
moral values of Modernity, such as effort, austerity and civic commitment, among others.
Precisely along this line Restrepo stated:
“How can you educate on values when…corruption exists and it is easier to earn
one peso without any hard work (...) when society tells that life is worthless, that
death can reach all of us?”
One further factor that allows for understanding the increasing Colombian
concern on the promotion of training of democratic values and practices is the
development of civil society entities.20
This process took Colombia to include in the Constitution one chapter focused on
the promotion of the expression and participation of children and adolescents in the
educational ambit, thus intending to educate the youngest generations in the active
exercise of citizenship and the appraisal of democracy since their school age. According
to Restrepo:
On this issue Resptrepo also noted: “Besides the Constitution and the Law, there are other factors that have led civil
education to perform a key role; one of them, quite well known, consists of the numerous acts of violence that are
committed in Colombia and the existence of outlaw groups; as I said before, this takes Non Governmental
Organizations (NGOs) to assume a significant role within society.”
20
“The General Education Law provides for a series of formal participation
mechanisms in the classroom and in the educational institution which have led to
students’ participation. One of them is called “School Government” and counts on
“spokespersons” who are students of the last grade elected by the whole
educational community. The Coexistence Manual has turned into a collective
production of the educational community. (...) school autonomy is developing
that responds to the characteristics of each institution and we work on that
framework, on an autonomous educational institution.”
Within this social and political context, the Presencia Foundation started working
in Colombia on two projects that converge in the promotion of a culture of respect for
human rights, democratic participation and citizens’ responsibility. In the Colombian
case –probably to a greater extent than in other countries in the region (although none
can consider itself exempt of this obligation) – the issue of human rights lies at the very
heart of the debate. Thus, one of the projects implemented in Colombia focused on the
education of students on a culture of respect for human rights by means of material
produced by the Center for Civic Education and adapted to the Colombian reality and the
various levels within the education system. In this connection Restrepo informed:
“The Foundation started working on two projects: one is called “The Foundations
of Democracy and Human rights” (and is based on the publication of) original
texts from the Center for Civic Education which have been adapted to Colombian
circumstances, although basically preserving its extraordinary methodology. The
reference to Human Rights is a Colombian addition because this issue is a matter
of great concern and relevance in our country, (and therefore) we decided that all
the principles dealt with in those texts should relate to human rights. These texts
cover three different levels and are not part of the curriculum (...) We offer the
educators a wide range of exercises and possibilities to work at the level they
consider suitable for their pupils. The purpose of (disseminating) this material –
Foundations of Democracy and Human Rights– is to provide educators with
practical tools in order to promote the advocacy and preservation of human
rights and citizens’ responsibilities, both for themselves and their students. The
other project is called the “Citizen Project” and is intended for children to start
becoming involved in public policy issues on the grounds of problems in their
own community or location. It is aimed to raise a participatory awareness in
children and make then show their interest on their community and its problems.
Children must develop public policy proposals, design action plans for their
implementation and propose them to the local authorities.”
The mechanisms that were used for developing these projects focused, on one
hand, on decentralizing their management and privileging the participation of local
educational and social actors, and on the other hand on the integration of educators from
different educational levels in order to reflect the various realities. As noted by Restrepo:
“We started by organizing what is called the Basic Group (formed by) one
member from the Secretariat for Education and another from a civil society entity.
Thus, if at any time the delegate from the Secretariat for Education was removed
there should always be someone else who could retain the information and make
it possible to move forward (...) we selected five regions in the country, two and a
half in conflict areas and two and a half in cities without major problems, and we
started working on the lowest population strata. We also selected five average
full-cycle educational institutions in each city and trained seven primary
education teachers, seven in secondary education and seven at the intermediate
level, in order to ensure at least the presence of three or four in primary
education, four in secondary education and four at the intermediate level in case
of rotation or resignation. The second (reason for this integration) is that this
must be a team work, otherwise nothing could be accomplished.”
As Restrepo shows, one of the distinctive features of these projects consisted of the
support and ongoing and rigorous follow-up of the educational and social actors who
developed this experience at local level:
“We made materials available to the educational institutions and started a very
rigorous and thorough follow-up on the educators. We also appointed a qualified
educator in each institution to act as Project coordinator in his/her own section,
so as to be in permanent contact with the educational institution... and count on
highly motivated people, as well as to start creating a strong social fabric and
networking among educators, Basic Groups and the Presencia Foundation based
in Bogota.”
Lastly, the report of the Presencia Foundation mentions the importance for the
follow-up and assessment of the impact of the implemented projects on the local level.
According to Restrepo:
“Right now (we are trying to) assess their impact as far as possible. Impact
(assessment) when trying to evaluate skills and capabilities is not that easy in
such a short period of time. (Nevertheless) there are some indicators that will
allow us to perceive a direction, (make a) stop and start adopting corrective
measures. (...) The assessed impact reflected the participation, of 12
municipalities in Colombia, the involvement of 30 educational institutions, the
training of 420 educators, a direct effect on 25,432 children divided into preschool, primary, secondary and intermediate education, as well as indirect
beneficiaries (additional 29,000 students and 1,400 educators).”
The first evaluation conducted by the Presencia Foundation on both projects
resulted in some lessons and conclusions on the difficulties that this type of project may
encounter; it is worthwhile analyzing such obstacles from the perspective of other
experience, such as the Uruguayan one. Restrepo noted:
“Our major obstacles have basically consisted of reorganizing the education
sector (the authorities) started reassigning teachers and re-distributing personnel,
which was detrimental to the original Project structure. This will force us to train
people once again… One further issue is that (for the purpose of) reducing
administrative costs some schools and high-schools merged…a large number of
small schools merged with large ones and (this) complicated things even further
because these types of programs cannot operate unless there is a commitment of
all levels, from the rector downwards. That was also an obstacle, the appointment
of new rectors.”
As we can see, the limitations often imposed by the institutional and bureaucratic
design of education systems reduce innovation and affect a large part of transformation
capability in these projects. This conclusion arising from the preliminary evaluation of
the Colombian experience may be applicable to the challenges to be faced by similarly
oriented experiences, like the one in process in Uruguay.
2. The Mexican experience
The presentation of the Mexican experience in recent years on training on
democratic values and practices was delivered by Marlene Romo, an official of the
Electoral Federal Institute (IFE) of Mexico. The inclusion of this experience is particularly
interesting for two reasons: in the first place, because this country only recently started
enjoying a fully democratic system characterized by the actual and transparent
competition among parties; in the second place, because training on democratic values
and practices is carried out by the public agency that is responsible for electoral matters
(IFE). As far as this second issue is concerned, Marlene Romo noted:
"... according to Article 41 in the Mexican Constitution, we (the Electoral Federal
Institute) are responsible for preparing civic education programs for the whole
population.”
IFE has developed education and awareness campaigns in the formal and
informal sectors since the beginning of the last decade. In the area of formal education,
its actions are coordinated with public education authorities, thus giving place to an
innovating model of public inter-institutional coordination. The actions developed by IFE
and the Secretariat for Public Education (SEP) has implied a change as compared to the
traditional civil education model applied in Mexico. According to Romo:
"SEP has had a great number of achievements but training on values for children
was not present in the basic education curriculum until that year. Until 1970
there used to be a class on basic education under the name of Civism, which was
awful as it had to do with Revolutionary Nationalism. Children learned how to
salute the national symbols, the flag and the shield, to sing the national anthem.
When a constitutional mandate established our Institute we became responsible
for designing the plans for our children and basically started working on primary
education by means of two programs: "Civic Day" and "Educating for Democracy"
(...) On the “Civic Day” a member of the Institute asks the teacher for
authorization and starts working with the children on democratic values from the
perspective of daily life: respect, dialogue, tolerance, equality. "
One of the characteristics of the Mexican experience that Uruguayan educators
considered to be most innovating was the coordination between IFE and educators, as it
implies the interaction of knowledge and logics which to some extent may be different.
Likewise, Marlene Romo informed that wage and institutional conditions under which
educators must accomplish their task are quite often detrimental to the possible success
of this type of projects:
"We have started to involve teachers (...) who are terribly underpaid in Mexico
and must even cover two or three shifts."
Beyond such obstacles, IFE and SEP intend to revise the curriculum in order to
introduce these issues and the corresponding training of educators. In this connection,
Romo pointed out:
"(IFE) has worked together with a group of experts at the Secretariat for Public
Education (academicians, pedagogues, experts from various countries) on the
new civic education curriculum that will effectively be introduced in primary
education as from next year. Primary education teachers are being trained and
“Educating for Democracy” is already a career course. The members of the
Institute should be trained to deliver these classes in the teaching career."
One further innovation developed in Mexico is the “Project Citizen” based on
materials produced by the Center for Civic Education. Its purpose is to raise the
awareness of adolescents on their status as citizens, that is, to demand from public
authorities the full exercise of their rights to participate in the decision-making process
(policymaking and execution). As Romo noted:
"The most interesting thing that we noted when we became acquainted with the
material produced by the Center for Civic Education –once we adapted it to our
reality and started developing this activity on the basis of the very concrete needs
of Mexican adolescents– was the creation of trust of the new generations in their
authorities."
The “Project Citizen” is intended to make adolescents assume their status as
citizens and become aware of the instruments available for public authorities to listen to
their demands and proposals; in other words, as reflected in the project’s title, its purpose
is to educate citizens. Romo’s comments on this issue were:
"(The “Project Citizen” tried to show adolescents) that there were alternative ways
to be listened through the use of law, beyond marches, sit-ins and strikes; that
those are ways of political expression that may be right if necessary but are not
the only ones, that there are laws which may be used and mechanisms that may
be created to build up efficient policies. But (this project) is not just that, it is not
only a political program or a project of political culture for adolescents; it is
also…a project helping adolescents at intermediate education levels to develop
their knowledge, skills and capabilities."
This project develops into six phases or stages involving the sequential
achievement of the above mentioned objectives. According to Romo:
"What is the Project Citizen about? In Mexico it has been developed in six stages.
It is a program… that enables adolescents between 12 and 16 years old to: first,
identify what a public policy is; second, identify a problem of public policy
(which is often quite difficult and rather complicate in our work with adults in
Mexico); third, -and this stage encompasses a series of significant skills- to seek
for information on the problem;21 fourth, to prepare a folder on the problem, an
information file; fifth, to submit their work to school authorities and in some
cases to other authorities (municipal presidents, trustees, NGOs, local deputies)
actually looking for…the solution of the problem of public policy; finally, once
this work is submitted, to consider from this experience: what did I learn on
public policy, but also what did I learn as a citizen and as a child. I learned that it
was embarrassing to stand in front of the audience but I had to do it and it quite
positive; I realized that I really do not know how to write, that my wording is
wrong and I learned how to do it."
The application of the “Project Citizen” among Mexican adolescents not only
allowed for training them in the exercise of their citizenship, in the theoretical and
practical –live– awareness of their rights, but it also contributed to the development of
their communication skills and capabilities. As Romo noted:
"When children apply the “Project Citizen” they are not only learning about
public policies, about laws, or how to enforce a public policy; they are also
learning to write, to research, to count, to spell, to participate in a group, to listen
to others, to speak in public (quite difficult at their age) and to do it in a limited
time. These are a series of rules that at least allowed us for having an easier access
to schools and to working with adolescents."
Romo adds: "We send the youth to investigate, to look in libraries, to check newspapers, to browse in Internet, to
conduct interviews, to make phone calls, to learn how to draft a written request for an interview with authorities, to
conduct formal visits (who should talk, how and with whom). (Then they must) prepare a group folder including all
the information they found, classify it, design charts, count the material, draft once more, get pictures and press
clippings. "
21
3. The Dominican experience
The Dominican experience was presented by Frieda Pichardo de Villamil from the
Consorcio group in that country. In the Dominican Republic, as in the case of Colombia,
the momentum for the development of projects addressing the education on values of the
youngest generations arises from the organized civil society. Pichardo describes the
Consorcio group as follows:
"(It is) a group of institutions and individuals (who are) concerned about integral
development. We have several projects (…) we sponsor public schools, we help
one public school and adopted another. Right now we have 570 adopted schools
at national level."
This group has worked for the last ten years in the promotion of forms of civic
education that allow for generating a new citizenship. According to Pichardo:
"Since 1994, with the support of the Project for Democratic Initiatives and the
Center for Civic Education, we have worked as volunteers to develop civic
education with the expectation of generating a new citizenship."
Consorcio’s action is clearly focused on the awareness, training and education of
the various actors associated to the process of training on values and practices for
strengthening Dominican democratic life. Pichardo notes:
"What we have done throughout the country is to offer training to educators,
directors, educational technicians (supervisors within the educational field),
fathers, mothers, community leaders and students by means of programs,
projects, summer camps and national and international seminars."
The work accomplished has allowed for reaching a wide coverage of the various
target groups or populations:
"As of today, this effort has involved 7,000 teachers, more than 200,000 students,
875 directors, more than 6,000 fathers and mothers, 6,904 community leaders
and other people."
The absence of democratic institutions in the Dominican Republic for most part of
the last century restricted the space assigned to civic education in the formal system. As
Pichardo states:
"Under Trujillo’s regime, Civic Education consisted of an indoctrination handbook
(...) After Trujillo there was a void, nothing at all. Later on (it was included) as a
cross-sectional issue within curricular transformation, but I used to say that it
was “crossed out” rather than cross-sectional because nobody had been told how
to manage a cross-sectional topic…What happened then? When nobody knows
how to use something you just ignore it or don’t do anything at all because you
don’t know how."
Notwithstanding the differences between the Dominican and Mexican histories in
the last century, some similarities may be observed which restrict the development of
initiatives aimed to the democratic education of youngest generations, particularly the
absence in both countries of a long-standing democratic history allowing for the
establishment of this type of educational processes on solid grounds. As it can be
concluded from the presentations delivered by Frieda Pichardo and Marlene Romo, to
some extent the democratic education of youngest generations implies questioning
legacies and habits opposed to the intended democratic culture and arising from older
generations that were educated under authoritarian, non competitive or “hegemonic
party” political regimes. Beyond the differences that several seminar participants
detected between the Dominican Republic and Mexico on one side, and Uruguay on the
other, some common aspects were also observed such as, in particular, the challenge
faced by all countries in the region to train children and adolescents on democratic
values and practices in often adverse scenarios marked by, among others, political
discredit, the loss of legitimacy of public institutions and the increasing participation of
mass media in culture.
Facing the decision adopted by the educational authorities to include a curricular
space for students’ civic education, the Consorcio group tried to cooperate in the
description of such proposal. On this issue, Pichardo stated:
"The Secretariat of Education decided that Civic Education should account for one
hour every week. But there were no programs, nothing at all. Then, when they
announced the design of a program we said that we could help to do it."
As in the other analyzed countries, the Dominican Republic adapted the material
produced by the Center for Civic Education:
"In this project we counted on the support of the Center for Civic Education in Los
Angeles, and several textbooks on Civic Education have already been adapted. We
already have “Citizens’ Education” for the intermediate level (last four years),
“Education for Democracy” for fifth to eighth grades (basic or primary
education), and “Learning to Coexist” from first to fourth grades. The project was
based on the official program for Moral and Civic Education (...) we just came in
(and said) “we wish to help, if you don’t mind”, and so we did."
Besides adapting the texts of “Education for Democracy” and “Citizens’
Education” to the Dominican reality and disseminating them among the students of Basic
and Intermediate Education, the Consorcio group has worked on the ongoing monitoring
and training of the educators responsible for this experience. According to:
"The second component is ongoing education: we are conducting 170 civic
education workshops for the basic level, an international seminar and two
regional fora on civic education; at the intermediate level we are developing 62
workshops and systematic courses on civic education, a high degree course on
civic education and a post-graduate course on civic education, with the
participation of all teachers, directors and technicians."
Finally, there is a component of follow-up and supervision of teaching work:
"The third component consists of supervision and follow-up. (We have) assigned
some space to self-assessment where educators adopt new paradigms that bring
about the qualitative enrichment of their teaching performance."22
In brief, the experience of the Dominican Republic shows us how the organized
civil society (in this particular case by means of the coordination between various actors
and several institutions within the Consorcio group) is able to develop different actions
for training on democratic values and practices, in a joint work with the authorities of
the education system including the adaptation and dissemination of material for students,
the ongoing training of educators and the supervision of experience developed at the
local level.
4. The analysis of Uruguayan educators on the Colombian, Mexican and Dominican
experiences
In the light of the Colombian, Mexican and Dominican experiences, the seminar
participants reviewed the strengths and weaknesses of their different strategies for
training on democratic values and practices, as well as their potential and limitations.
The following pages include an analysis of some conclusions arising from the exchange
between the Uruguayan educators and the foreign lecturers. The participants were
specifically asked to analyze in their workshops which were, in their views, the major
strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats involved in the experiences submitted
by these three countries.
Among the strengths observed in the three cases, and notwithstanding their
differences, the Uruguayan educators highlighted the following:
“The fact that all projects showed a strong conviction on the reliability of the
projects, the fact that actors…showed a firm conviction as to the expected
outcome… One further strength was the emergence, as in the case of Colombia,
of school governments which provided for local representation and discussion at
the level of such institutions.”
The recognition of the educators’ commitment as one of the key factors for the
success of this type of experience was repeatedly mentioned during the workshop
discussions. Likewise, emphasis was placed, as another key factor of success, on the
This self-assessment of educators usually takes place when facing a series of institutional or organizational obstacles
directly related to their working conditions. According to Pichardo: "On some occasions students themselves take over
22
the civil education class in order to allow for the teacher’s attendance to the Committee and for the subsequent selfassessing dialogue (with other teachers) after class hours. That is, there is no dedicated space for this activity. Besides,
it would be practically unfeasible because, in order to subsist in the Dominican Republic, teachers have to work at the
school in the morning, at a different school in the afternoon and must study on Saturdays: they must go to the
University; if they already are professors they will try to graduate, and later on they will try to obtain a Master degree."
creation of community networks as the support or basis of such experience. In this sense,
one educator who participated in the workshops pointed out:
"I think that networking is a Colombian strength, which seems to be quite
promising."
Although the educators identified a series of common strengths in the experience
of the three countries, they noted some nuances or differences as well: particularly
between Colombia and Mexico on one side, and the Dominican Republic on the other.
One participant stated:
"... I think there is a greater strength in the Mexican and even in the Colombian
proposal (than in the Dominican one) in a constructive, collective and dialogueoriented sense. I do not believe in democracy as simply a model to be applied, I
rather think it must be lived and thoughtfully experienced, not as a discourse, and
I think that experience is the enriching element, not the discipline with which the
topic is addressed."
Among the weaknesses, mention was made to the weakness of state institutions in
Colombia and the Dominican Republic as well as on the prevailing role that civil society
entities, foundations or companies may ultimately play under such conditions. In other
words, the Uruguay educators stated their concern about preserving the state as the
governing entity for the design, execution, follow-up and assessment of educational
innovation. In their own words:
“Weaknesses gave rise to a passionate debate; in general we addressed (in the first
place) the finite nature of resources; we think that the scarce allocation of
resources to these projects is a weakness; (in the second place) we considered the
fact that these projects, in most cases, are marginal to the education systems,
(that) they had to take advantage of small niches…and conduct direct and hard
negotiations to obtain a space of their own (...) This also has to do with a certain
state fragility which (implies) positioning in small niches or marginal places, and
to what extent it depends upon the will of some people…and what is its impact
on the success of these projects.”
One further weakness noted by Uruguayan educators in these experiences is the
existing tension between the indisputable quality of several pedagogic proposals and the
material produced outside the countries, as well as the need for the processes of training
on democratic values and practices to respond to the characteristics of each society.
Another observed weakness was the fact that in some cases it was not clear to what
extent the materials uses for students’ education and for educators’ awareness and
training actually responded to the real situation in each country. As the Rapporteur of
one workshop noted:
“One further weakness noticed by my fellow participants (was) the fact that some
material or projects were directly instructed and to what extent that had to do
with a rather rigid structure or some “mandate” to implement them (the
projects); notwithstanding the fact that in all cases (their) adaptation…to local
realities was requested (...) the proposal was actually pre-established."
Finally, when considering possible threats, the Uruguayan educators underscored
once again the state weakness in some experiences and the resulting leading role played
by society or market actors. It should be noted that Uruguayan educators did not table a
doctrinaire rejection of the participation of civil society entities in the design and
implementation of this type of experience, but feared the eventual replacement of the
state by these actors in the conduction of educational policies. In this connection, the
Rapporteur of one group noted:
"When considering threats mention was made of the lack of state support, or
rather (...) the notion of a state withdrawal from these policies which might result
in other actors…such non state organizations as NGOs taking over policies or the
creation of democratic values."
As a methodical summary of the considerations made by the Uruguayan
educators on the Colombian, Dominican and Mexican experiences, Pablo Zúñiga stated:
“There is no doubt that strengths exist in the people who work on this issue, that
is, the strategic actors in each country who are strongly committed, both
personally and institutionally; this strength is present in each case and each
country (...) As far as weaknesses are concerned, the lack of resources, of
alternatives (...) It is very interesting to note the analysis made on the role of the
government; observations were made on whether or not the government plays a
significant role in different cases, and if not, who are the actors who replaced it.
The analysis on the role played by actors outside the country was also very
interesting: they appear to constitute a threat as well as an opportunity,
depending on how they are used by national actors, that is, on whether they use
external opportunities to build up a national approach and strategy or as a work
plan.”
D. THE URUGUAYAN EXPERIENCE: THE EDUCATION PROGRAM ON VALUES (PEVA) OF THE NATIONAL
ADMINISTRATION FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION (ANEP)
1. The foundations of the PEVA program
On December 26, 2001 ANEP/CODICEN decided to “undertake a methodical
experience for education on values at primary and intermediate level public educational
centers, as well as “to approve in general terms the proposed strategy for developing an
education on values within the Uruguayan education system.” The same resolution
provides as well for the establishment of a “Commission for implementing an experience
on education on values at schools, high schools and technical institutions, (the
organization of) awareness-raising actions and training of educating teams, (designing)
supporting material and educational guidance and (implementing) follow-up and
evaluation mechanisms for such experiences.” Lastly, the resolution recommends the
Commission to prepare “a draft framework document addressing the conceptual
approach and regulatory criteria that will govern the experience of education on
values…”
Reading the CODICEN resolution allows for assessing to what extent the
educational authorities are aware of the need to adopt measures and foster actions –
through the PEVA program– tending to the strengthening and systematization of
practices for education on values that have been developed for years at the public
educational centers. The purpose of CODICEN is not creating from “the void”, so to
speak, an experience on education on values, but to compile, systematize and strengthen
those actions that have already been implemented while ratifying at the same time the
tradition of the Uruguayan education system in this area. In such sense, the PEVA
framework document provides for its following working guidelines:
“Reaffirm the traditional guidelines on public education that exist in the country
and which allow for conceiving the educational centers as privileged places for
the rational and autonomous development of personality and the generation of a
democratic citizenship, as a way to accompany the role of the families”23
The PEVA proposal is founded on a conceptual framework that defines what is
understood by education on values. This conceptual framework is based on what should
be the definition of individuals who aspire to develop the Uruguayan education system,
emphasizing a series of qualities related to the ability of exercising an active and
responsible citizenship:
“To build up a moral way of thinking with justice and solidarity (...) The purpose
is… to enable (students) to become aware of their own interests and reasons, to
position themselves in someone else’s place from a perspective of empathy and,
on such basis, to reach judgments with increasing justice and solidarity and
reasons on controversial socio-moral issues.” 24
The purpose of the education on values promoted by the PEVA program is to
make students assume the creation of coexistence rules, the definition of standards as a
process where they can participate, thus identifying such standards as the parameters for
organizing peer interaction and ensuring the exercise of their rights. As provided for in
the PEVA conceptual framework:
“To understand, respect and create coexistence standards regulating collective life
(...) Creating coexistence standards within educational institutions positions the
student as an active and innovating individual who learns within the true context
of psycho-social relations. This allows him/her for recognizing previously
established standards as well as other designed by his/her own class group and,
above all, to gradually assume his/her quality of autonomous subject” 25
Op.cit. s/p.
Op.cit. p. 7.
25 Op.cit. p. 9
23
24
Education on values is not conceived as an exercise aimed to convey universal
truths or absolute principles; on the contrary, it is defined as a process that will enable
students to gradually acquire a moral comprehension of the world, a vision that will
make them capable of approaching the conflicts in the present world in general, and
those in the closest educational ambit in particular, in a critical and responsible manner.
According to the PEVA document:
“No attempt is made to define absolute values or resort to relativism. Some
valuable principles of an abstract and universal nature can be determined
through dialogue and reason (to formulate criteria) and turn them into material
standards that are applicable to actual and historically identified behaviors.” 26
As per the above paragraph, the PEVA program assumes a theoretical approach of
dialogue, discussion, recognition and creation of principles which may regulate the
interaction between the students and the adult world.
Educators have a key role to play in this thoughtful process marked by their
interaction with students, and they should therefore contribute for adolescents to
generate their own ability to question –objectively and rigorously–the aspects established
in their own and other’s cultures. The PEVA program establishes:
“… the work of educators, their contribution, would be…to create problems
where there is none in the specific culture, to open students’ minds to more plural
considerations than those provided by the specific culture or to compare the
legality and legitimacy criteria of such specific culture with other historical and
socio-cultural realities. In such case, the educator action would be guided…by
procedural neutrality.” 27
The conceptual framework of the PEVA program assigns educators a key role
within the value-creation process of adolescents from a perspective called “procedural
neutrality”, as opposed to what it calls “passive neutrality”:
“(in education) there is a type of passive neutrality implying an attitude of
abstention or inhibition by the teaching institution or the educators (in front of)
various thematic situations which are excluded from the classroom and on which
the treatment of certain conflicts of value or controversial human situations is
silenced. This concept of what is natural has prevailed on some occasions in
public education in our countries due to that eagerness for considering that their
institutional ambits should only include those issues that can be publicly ranked
in the category of common issues, thus consigning to the private life all those
particular versions which constitute the raw material of pluralism. The element
that used to unite us all, democratic citizenship, is what should be taught at
school. This implies a denial of everything that is particular as no process was
allowed for the analysis of the diverse voices coming from the social ambit.
Perhaps in a national society in process, where one part of the particular side of
26
27
Op.cit. p. 13
Op.cit. p. 20
culture was foreign or represented an occasion for radical confrontation that
caused a deep community division, this attitude was intended to preserve
classrooms as a space for encounter where irreconcilable opposition could not be
expressed. At present, on the contrary, references have substantially shifted to an
increasing pluralism and consequently, as noted by Juan Carlos Tedesco. Director
of the International Institute for Education Planning of the United Nations
Education, Science and Culture Organization (UNESCO): “The current situation
makes it necessary to reformulate what the school neutrality should or should not
be addressed to. Vis-à-vis this denial of what is particular, even religious, of
ethical options, it would seem that school neutrality levels cannot be the same as
in the past (...) the school should process this discussion and help every youth to
define his/her corresponding option. Democratic values, which should be
introduced in the creation of personality, cannot be maintained as neutral and
purely defensive values.”28
As seen from the initial chapters, contemporary society is subject to a series of
tensions, conflicts and disputes between diverging and even opposed concepts of value.
Within such context it is difficult to think of an educational practice that abstains from
analyzing these conflicts without necessarily taking sides in favor of one of the general
concepts of common good (either ethical, religious or political) in dispute.29 The issue
here is simply to provide the necessary room for the treatment of the moral issues stated
by these concepts, thus promoting problem assessment and critical approach in students.
For such purpose, students are required to be capable of reflecting critically on these
topics, to listen, to recognize –in Habermas’ words– the “alleged validity” of peer
statements, to argue and finally to conclude agreements.
Certainly, the role to be played by educators in the training process of students in
the area of value education is not an easy one. They will often have to face strongly
controversial topics or issues subject to substantially opposed ideological concepts. In
such situation, educators should exercise –as proposed by the PEVA conceptual
framework– a “pedagogy of laicism”, the “procedural neutrality.”
“When facing such controversial situations, educators should act according to an
active or procedural neutrality criterion, a pedagogic strategy of laicism. The
educator’s procedural neutrality should generate the learning conditions required
to enable the students to know and understand the conflict, to critically appraise
the various approaches that support it, and to promote the creation of an
28
29
Op.cit. p. 23-24
On this issue the PEVA document further elaborates: “The disregard of values…the abstention to deal with some
issues or teach some topics in the classroom is not, as some wrongly argue, an expression of laicism but a denial of it.
There is no autonomous creation of a person when such person has been deprived by silence of decisive human
experience on the field of values (...) Laicism may be failed by action when pupils are indoctrinated or imposed beliefs,
but it can also be failed by omission when pupils are deprived of life knowledge and experience of significant
dimensions. Not mentioning certain topics is not aseptic, is rather to imply that such topics do not matter, that they are
irrelevant. As noted by Professor Helena Costábile, this type of concept has led “our education to a colorless neutrality
that has deprived it from personality-forming elements and tends to expel the values of educational action’.” Op.cit.,
pp.24-25.
autonomous option, of their own judgment on the values involved and the
situation in dispute.” 30
Another particularly interesting dimension of the PEVA conceptual framework is
what we might call its concept of teaching ethics. Educators should be careful not to be
tempted by imposing their authority on the student in debates where revealed truths do
not exist:
“Educators are basically mediators and should avoid the inclination to assume a
position of ‘expert’ that can bias the solution of controversial issues according to
their authority and the psychological dependence of the... (...) their ‘authority’
should not necessarily be greater than the authority of any other citizen or
parents (...) on value-related controversial issues they cannot put forward social
legitimacy to exhibit themselves as experts or authorities on such matters, which
is neither epistemologically nor ethically justified. On the contrary, extending the
professor’s authority to those ambits implies abusing of the asymmetric nature of
their professional role.” 31
The PEVA conceptual proposal addresses one of the major issues that are the
object of debate on value education, that is, the position that it should hold in the
curriculum: whether it should be a rather conventional subject that to some extent could
be assimilated to other subjects, or whether it should be a cross-sectional subject. The
position of the PEVA program in connection with this issue reflects a flexible approach
and acknowledges the risks involved in the dogmatic and rigid adoption of one of both
options. As provided for in the document:
“Education on values should never be considered as a curricular subject, as one
more “subject” in the curriculum; in such case it would even lose… ‘the multiple
connections with concrete educational situations in school life, either when
considering the contents of other areas, or when facing problems that pertain to
the school itself or that reflect the social context. There is a risk for the specific,
isolated course to fall in an empty theorization’ (…) But also, … education on
values, when ‘exclusively considered as a cross-sectional contents, might totally
dilute, and, in the best of cases, specific cognitive contents would be lost (and it
would remain)…void of a conceptual analysis and ignorant of historical
development and fundamental ethical theories’…”32
The above paragraph allows for concluding on the need for coordinating
education from a conceptual perspective (“specific cognitive contents”) through the
pedagogic exercise of helping students to identify problems and to recognize, upon the
basis of their experience and concrete situations, the values and principles in dispute; the
31
Op.cit. p. 26
Op.cit. p. 27
32
ANEP-CODICEN, MEMFOD, 2003: 39
30
PEVA conceptual framework seems to take sides, so to speak, for a wise dosage of theory
and reflection in practice. The PEVA conceptual framework addresses the need for
insertion in “curricular niches” where the exercise of education on values can develop:
“Any mention of education on values with a space of its own is not intended
either to encapsulate its contents or to qualify it as a subject. On the contrary, the
curricular significance of education on values arises from curricular niches
which should be understood as ‘points of articulation, centers for innovating
irradiation and the site of what is established’…” 33
Finally, the PEVA conceptual framework addresses the assessment of education on
values. The proposed approach is consistent with the position taken by this document in
the debate between the “specific subject” and the “cross-sectional” concepts. The PEVA
document argues that it is necessary to evaluate the achievements of students along the
process of education on values, but not for the purpose of qualifying their performance;
the purpose of evaluation is contributing to the students’ educational process by
identifying their failure and success:
“In the concrete case of education on values, evaluation has a basically
educational nature. It is intended to interpret to what extent students have
assumed the promoted values and attitudes through their various strategies. Its
role does not consist of granting a qualification but planning and deciding what
new educational actions should be adopted to enhance learning.” 34
2.
Characteristics of the PEVA design and implementation
From its very beginning, the ANEP program for education on values was oriented
to a gradual work, more focused on the consolidation of current processes than in a fast
quantitative expansion of experience. As above mentioned, it first proposed creating a
conceptual or theoretical framework allowing for basic consensus on what should be
understood as education on values, the scope it should and can have, the strategies that
should be applied to foster such an experience and the working methodology.
Secondly, ANEP decided to establish a technical team by convening all those who
were interested in participating in this experience from the Primary, Secondary and
Technical-Professional education sub-systems.
In the third place, the PEVA program decided to start small-scale actions in 2002
at a limited number of educational centers (a total of 37), thus allowing for a true,
rigorous and methodical follow-up of the experience developed by such institutions
within the program framework. Institutions were selected with the participation of the
technical bodies in the sub-systems (inspectors and directors).
33
34
Op.cit. p. 40
Op.cit. p. 46
In the fourth place, the PEVA program has tried from the start to compile the
already existing experience of educational centers in order to systematize, strengthen
and reinforce them. This experience was never intended to “implant” or to “insert”
artificially a pre-established and closed model in educational centers.
Lastly, the ANEP experience privileged the qualified training of its technical
resources as one of its main action lines.
The methodical and theoretically founded nature of this experience is clearly
reflected in the following statement made at the seminar by Inspector Ana Cossio,
delegate of CODICEN to the corresponding Coordinating Commission:
"The initial decision consisted of working by small steps on a proposal that should
be supported, on one hand, by a philosophical viewpoint, a theoretical
framework, and on the other by the existing working methodology at the
different centers: it should be a real offer to the centers on which it would be
possible to work on actual terms, not in theory."
Another member of the PEVA technical teams informed the seminar on the
proceedings of this experience:
"In December 2001 CODICEN resolved to develop a limited experience on
Education on Values for the purpose of extending later on this project to other
cycle objectives. Consequently, in February 2002 a public call to Secondary
Education professors was published in the press (...) More than 500 people from
the three systems (Primary, Secondary and the Uruguayan Technical University
(UTU) from all over the country submitted their applications (...) A list was
created and finally the Technical team was formed by 19 people (...) Then the
members of that Technical team distributed their work by assigning two centers
to each technician: two high schools for Secondary educators, two schools for
Primary teachers and two technical schools to UTU professors. The inspectors
selected the centers for this experience taking into consideration some criteria
proposed by the members of the Technical team, for example (that high schools
were using) the “1996 Plan” (...) In the interior of the country –with the
exception of the Canelones department– the centers were selected by the
directors. In Canelones and Montevideo they were selected by the Office for the
Inspection of Institutes and High Schools. It should also be noted that directors
selected those high schools that had already submitted projects on Values or that
had previously stated their interest."
The PEVA technical team was finally made up of 19 educators: ten from Primary
Education, seven from Secondary Education and two from Technical-Professional
Education. Each technician was assigned two centers, except for one case where only one
center was assigned. Throughout 2002 this work involved the participation of about 850
educators from the three sub-systems. Estimates show that this experience will reach
16,500 students, 6,500 in Primary Education and 10,000 in Intermediate Education
(Secondary and Technical-Professional Education). At present this experience covers 12
out of the 19 departments in the country, as shown in the following table.
Table 1
Number of educational institutions covered by the PEVA program,
by ANEP sub-system and department, 2002
Departments
Canelones
Colonia
Durazno
Flores
Florida
Maldonado
Montevideo
Río Negro
Rivera
San José
Soriano
Tacuarembó
Sub – total
Total
Primary Education
Council
Secondary Education
Council
5
2
1
1
1
4
2
5
TechnicalProfessional
Education Council
1
1
2
1
3
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
19
14
37
4
Source: PEVA Coordinating Commission, ANEP.
3. Considerations of the seminar participants on the PEVA experience
In the afternoon of the second day of the seminar the participants became
acquainted with and analyzed in detail the PEVA experience on the basis of the report
delivered by the members of the technical team. The experience developed at the
Primary, Secondary and Technical-Professional centers were examined by three working
groups.
The working groups or workshops that analyzed the PEVA experience repeatedly
underscored as one of the outstanding features in the program’s work guidelines the fact
that at all times the members of the technical team tried to work on the basis of previous
experience on values developed by the centers in a less methodical or structured manner.
In such connection, one member of the technical team, who is also the Director of a
Technical Education center in a countryside town, noted:
"We insisted on joining the work (of the institutions); we did not come in with an
imposed methodology or a pre-established system; we visited institutions that
already have a history of their own, (an) institutional culture coming from
previous years; thus, our purpose was to determine what did the institutions
know about the practice of education on values. Then we identified the moments
when such practice took place in the institutions, where those values were
experienced according to their views; this provided us a guidance to become
acquainted with the places where we were supposed to act."
Along the same line, another member of the PEVA technical team, also a Director
of a Technical School in the countryside, made the following comment:
"One of our major objectives was to join the processes which were in principle
being developed at the institutions or, if such was not the case, to join those that
were related to education on values… The main issue (was) to target our work on
the institution itself,…on the curricular project, and later on…on the classroom
project."
A key element in the PEVA strategy to make educators be confident on the project
was precisely an open and permanent dialogue. This process of dialogue implied
dismantling the vision or image of the technicians who arrive to work in the centers as
the holders of the absolute truth, of a well-finished and infallible method for the
“education on values” of children or adolescents from any socio-educational context.
According to another member of the PEVA technical team:
"...this is a construction and a two-way process…in a permanent interaction with
(educators). Nothing is definitely finished… we are not conveying any absolute
truth at all (...) we only carry some tools with us and share them with the group,
and we also need to receive their input so as to enrich each other."
The open dialogue, a key element in the PEVA strategy, also included families and
the community:
"(We) reached the conclusion that we should not only take into consideration the
views of the educators but also the views of the parents (...) we consider that our
work with the family is of great value, and we have benefited from such events as
parents’ meetings in order to learn what they expect the school to offer their
children. Surveys have also been conducted in order to ascertain what are the
values which they think their children should learn about."
On the curricular and classroom fields the PEVA program also applied its strategy
of compiling previously developed experiences in order to systematize, qualify and join
them. The PEVA conceptual framework clearly defines the three areas where this
experience should take place. In the words of another member of the PEVA technical
team and Director of a high-school in a countryside town:
"As Mr. Corbo said, we must intervene at three levels: the center, the curricular
projects and the classroom. The project for the center…includes such activities as
the election of delegates, the agreement on coexistence guidelines, and the
relationship with the community. The curricular project implies enabling the
educators to find a new meaning in their curriculum, to be able to read it,
reflect…and compare it with the contents of Education on Values. (Finally) we
should try to build up concepts that are common to all the students."
Another member of the PEVA technical team emphasized that their purpose was
not to add up new contents but, based upon the platform provided by the existing
curriculum, to assign the teaching practice a new meaning with the support of the
conceptual perspective of education on values:
"(last year) we respectfully reached the educators with our first awareness stage,
and this year we moved to a different phase of extreme importance: becoming
acquainted (with the experience) which does not imply different contents but, on
the basis of the prescribed programs that already include all the contents on
which we have always worked, to provide a different perspective, a different
intention… related to education on values."
The concrete “anchoring” of the value education approach in the curriculum
involves working with the programs for each subject, identifying the contents and
subject-matter areas that allow for working with the students on values. According to
one of the members of the PEVA technical team:
"You have the programs (for each subject); thus, based upon the objectives of
value that we have already discussed with the educators, (you should) define
what (part) in that program, what (part) in that thematic unit, can be
axiologically approached. Some programs may adapt easily, as Education for
Citizenship in third grade, History or Biology… Mathematics would be more
difficult. Then, what should be the right way of working on mathematics with an
axiological approach? There is where dialogue and participation come in. The
conceptual part is not everything: you may work on a conceptual basis, on
procedural terms or on attitudes; there are different levels for working on values."
Educators who participated at the workshops where the PEVA concrete
experiences were presented, especially appreciated the openness shown by the members
of the technical team since the beginning of this experience in receiving the input of
teachers and professors in educational centers, as well as families and neighborhood
communities. On this issue, a professor from the Southern Regional Professor Center
noted:
"(the analysis of the PEVA experience) allows for reiterating what we perceived in
foreign teams in the past and what we personally feel today: commitment and
devotion are extremely important as they are further conveyed to the group.
There is no doubt about the importance of the collective construction of the
process…..."
4. Workshop Reports on the analysis of the PEVA experience
The workshops held by the seminar participants allowed for reaching a series of
conclusions concerning the progress or strength of the Uruguayan experience, as well as
its weaknesses or shortcomings. To some extent, the summaries presented by the
Rapporteurs by means of the methodology of strengths, opportunities, weaknesses and
threats showed some coincidence with the conceptual approach of the PEVA technical
team. In connection with the major strengths or progress achieved, the following part in
one of the reports should be noted:
"As far as progress is concerned, we first detected the significant awareness that
they raised in each community where they worked (...) One further progress was
the generation of dialogue where listening, arguing and decision-making were
assigned a great importance (...) The fact that this project arises from the
institution itself was perceived as something very productive, a very significant
progress. This was not something brought from outside, implanted or inserted,
but something arising from the people who are already there.”
On the same direction, another Rapporteur stated:
“A major strength of the project is the openness to suggestions and demands from
the institutional actors, from the place where projects will be developed, as well
as from other external actors.”
Among the main obstacles detected by the participants in the report submitted by
the members of the PEVA technical team mention was made to such organizational
problems as the mobility of educators from one year to the next, and the absence, in
some cases, of spaces or time provided for the coordination of activities among them. In
this connection, we quote another report:
“Later on we considered the obstacles. In the first place, mention was made of the
reluctance of educators (…) that reluctance of educators (responded) to the lack
of a specific time for reflection (...) The mobility of educators was also mentioned
as one further obstacle (…) they worked in raising awareness during a whole
year, and they had to start all over again on the next (...) Continuity represents a
major challenge: the continuity and extension of the project as well as its
dissemination.”
Another Rapporteur deepened on the organizational obstacles that some curricula
involve for the development of innovating projects, as follows:
“As far as difficulties are concerned… one of them is working with some
curricula, like the ’86 Plan, which do not provide for room enough for
coordination (…) it is data from reality that hinders time organization.”
As it can be seen in the quoted reports, the seminar participants showed a positive
appreciation of the conceptual approach and methodological strategy that inspired the
work accomplished by the PEVA program. On the other hand, the Uruguayan educators
made a positive evaluation of the implementation of this experience in the 37 primary,
secondary and technical-professional educational centers, while also identified the
bureaucratic or organizational obstacles which might affect its development.
5.
Proposals or recommendations
During the last stage of the seminar the educators met in small groups in order to
consider the action lines that should be followed in the future and made concrete
proposals concerning the various working fields or areas: training, material production
and research.
The first group made a positive evaluation of the definition of the PEVA
conceptual framework established by the CODICEN-appointed Commission as a starting
point for the program’s development. In this connection, the first group highlighted the
need for reaching an agreement on a conceptual framework supporting education on
values:
“Training on democratic values and practices in the Uruguayan education
system is based on the need for strengthening the democratic system by means of
responsible practices of citizenship. Responsible practices are understood as the
exercise of rights and responsibilities on equal terms. Our public education has a
long history of education on values and the challenges posed by current society
impose the need for the methodical recovery of practices and methodologies that
used to be applied in an isolated manner. It is necessary to agree upon minimum
ethical elements that ensure the possibility of reaching maximum levels in such a
plural and democratic society as ours. (We propose) as objectives: to promote
self-construction and self-appraisal; to build up a moral way of thinking with
autonomy, justice and solidarity; to develop the critical and responsible
comprehension of personal and social reality; to become acquainted with morally
relevant knowledge; to recognize and assimilate universally desirable values; to
create behaviors consistent with moral judgment and to understand, respect and
generate coexistence standards regulating collective life.”
In the same sense, the second working group proposed translating this shared
conceptual framework into the concrete practices of educators by means of the mass
awareness of the whole teaching community, the inclusion of this topic in the training of
educators and the joint work on experiences already developed by the centers. An
interesting proposal was to work on some curricular and teaching subjects, particularly
in the intermediate education sub-system: “Education for Citizenship” and “Space for
Adolescents”. Likewise, one further recommendation to be noted referred to the active
participation of students at the intermediate level in the definition of the proposed
actions. As a summary of the above contributions, we quote a section of the report of the
second group:
“Based upon the recognition of experiences already accomplished, to seek for a
common, institutional and systematized framework for education on values by
means of the following actions: first, to continue raising awareness on values at
every educational center, taking into account the context and the work being
done in that center on curricular projects and providing a new meaning to the
curriculum and the classroom project. For example, we think that a very concrete
action to develop in Secondary (education) through the educational centers and
using currently available resources, would be working with the professors of
Education for Citizenship who already deal with this contents in their own
programs, with the professors of Space for Adolescents, obviously with the
directors, other professors, pedagogic counselors and members of the interdisciplinary team, among others. Together with these institutional actors, a
concrete action plan should be prepared for that particular center and then
training could be requested from the PEVA program as an assistance in designing
the various activities to be conducted at the center; students should be included
by means of surveys containing very simple questions but related to their daily
educational activity: for example, what problems do they have in the classroom
and what solutions do they propose. That would be a way of including students in
these actions.”
Other proposals made by educators for the purpose of consolidating the process
that started at the intermediate education, which may extended to the other educational
sub-systems, aim to:
“(Develop) a training course for educators including strategies for addressing this
issue in a thoughtful way. (Also) presenting this issue at the Directors’ level to
make it part of networking among the various high-schools.”
This group also recommended working on raising public awareness on this
matter through an alliance with the media, so as to strengthen the role they have often
played in disseminating the values of democratic culture.
“We think that outreaching and dissemination promotion through the media is
important in order to have an impact on society.”
Finally, this group emphasized the need for coordinating the efforts made by the
educational center with the input from other actors, especially those in the neighborhood
community, but also the university technical teams who carry out extension activities at
the educational institutions:
“Likewise, we propose to improve communication among the various social
actors by creating community networks (...) Also, to include in educational
centers the extension projects developed by the various university schools.”
One of the groups made the innovating proposal of systematizing the relevant
surveys and research that already underway, both those produced by academicians
(university or private research centers) and those generated by the educators themselves.
One further proposal consisted of suggesting the school and high-school educators who
participate in the development of “research-action projects” to allow for the qualification
of the work accomplished:
“We focused on the need of exploring research background in Uruguay because
we understood that the findings of the research made in recent years were not
adequately disseminated. We intended to encourage and strengthen the
implementation of research-action projects in educational centers in order to
study whether current social conditions were suitable for education on values
and to determine what variables may affect education on values at the
institutions. We also intended to join the research being developed by the centers
(…) providing materials…and training.”
6.
Closing session
During the seminar’s closing session the authorities of the organizing institutions
recognized the academic and political relevance of this event and they stated their
commitment to deepen this line of work. In the first place, the National Director for
Public Education, Mr. Javier Bonilla, expressed the recognition of his organization to the
OAS for having promoted this possibility of awareness and reflection on the education on
values:
“I wish to express the recognition of the Central Directing Council to the OAS for
introducing this idea which, although coinciding with what we already had in
mind, was submitted at its own initiative. Our appreciation as well to the various
OAS bodies involved: the General Assembly and the OAS Office in Uruguay
headed by Mr. Roberto Casañas, as well as to the Center for Civic Education.”
The Director of the OAS Office in Uruguay, Mr. Roberto Casañas, underscored
the substantial objectives that guide the OAS action on this field and stated the need for
moving ahead in the introduction of training on democratic values and practices for
youngest generations within the formal education system:
“The major purpose underlying all these efforts and initiatives consists of
identifying…an agenda of educational issues related to democratic values and
practices with a view to the future…which should be conceived within a
continuity framework of 20 or 25 years and within the context of continental
actions. The main goal of this activity is to promote democratic citizenship in the
Americas on the basis of a set of such universal values as liberty, pluralism,
tolerance and coexistence, as the grounds required for the exercise of democratic
citizenship.”
On behalf of the Center for Civic Education, Oscar Cruz summarized some of the
main conclusions or lessons learned at the seminar, such as that value education projects
to be developed in Uruguay should be created by national educational actors and arise
from autochthonous traditions and heritage, notwithstanding the valuable contributions
of other countries’ experience or the input provided by international agencies,
foundations or research centers. Oscar Cruz noted:
“During these three days of work I have noticed something on which we strongly
believe whenever we act at international level: any process, any program on Civic
Education must be created by Uruguayan people for Uruguayan people.”
Finally, the Minister of Education and Culture, Leonardo Guzmán, outlined a
series of topics or issues that should be the object of reflection for the purpose of
qualifying the design of or association to the value education experience already
underway, while also sharing with the seminar participants the work agenda prepared
by the Ministry:
“Leadership in education has come to a crisis in the dialogue of present professors
and generations. We should collectively confess that one of the basic problems in
our present society –which not only relates to the conveyance of knowledge and
feelings at the classroom– is the loss of the regulatory notion. The loss of the
imperative nature of rules, the fall of what Greeks used to call anomia, a term
maintained in Spanish as well (…) A lot can be done but we must combat the
worst possible examples that are intensively transmitted by the media (…)
Whoever has access to the classroom and to a good family example, are able to
make significant progress; who lack such good family example and have a poor
access to the classroom are gradually left out of this dialogue (…) At a time when
it is more fashionable to discuss the relations of people with things and when
quantitative elements are more frequently mentioned that qualitative ones, it is a
matter of great joy to see a group of people who, in spite of any possible
discomfort, work on (education on values) with willingness and enthusiasm.”
The closing addresses of the seminar allow for concluding that Uruguayan public
education authorities are clearly concerned about designing a model for training on
democratic values and practices consisting, on one side, of a response to the challenges to
be faced in the next decades by the Uruguayan society and its political system, and on the
other, of a way to deepen the efforts made by educators through the systematization of
experiences, ongoing training and creation of ambits for the consideration, assessment
and design of proposals.
CHAPTER IV
SEMINAR FOLLOW-UP PROPOSAL
The following is a proposal –based upon the conclusions and recommendations of
the Seminar– containing possible cooperation actions between the OAS Office for the
Promotion of Democracy and the Uruguay education system –ANEP and MEC– in the
area of training on democratic values and practices. These working guidelines are
intended to support the experience successfully developed by the country within the
ANEP framework through the Program for Education on Values (PEVA) created in 2001
by the Central Directing Council of ANEP (CODICEN).
Since its creation, the PEVA program was intended to deepen education on values
with the Uruguayan education system by focusing on the consolidation of processes
underway as a starting point for the development of new experiences. In such sense, and
as shown in the previous chapters, the PEVA program worked in order to define a
conceptual framework on education on values allowing for reaching basis consensus on
such a complex matter, as well as on the strategy that should be promoted and the
methods that should be applied.
The outcome of the workshops held during the seminar is a basic input for
defining the possible cooperation between the OPD and the Uruguayan education
system.
Organizational problems are among the major obstacles noted by seminar
participants in the report of the members of the PEVA technical team: the mobility of
educators from one year to the next, the absence of spaces or time scheduled for
coordinating activities among educators, and others.
In general terms, the seminar participants made a quite positive evaluation of the
PEVA conceptual approach and its subsequent implementation strategy. On the other
hand, Uruguayan educators made a positive evaluation of the 2002 experience in 37
primary, secondary and technical-professional education centers that were included in
the program on that year, while also identified a series of bureaucratic or organizational
obstacles that should be overcome.
As far as the proposals or recommendations arising from the seminar are
concerned, the following should be highlighted:
(a) To keep working on the creation of a conceptual framework supporting the
experience of education on values within the Uruguayan education system.
(b) To translate such conceptual framework into teaching tools (bibliography,
guidelines for educators) allowing for guiding the practice of educators in the
classroom.
(c) To raise the awareness of educators as to the need for including the training on
democratic values and practices in every dimension of their teaching activity.
(d) To join the experience developed at educational centers through the
strengthening of the PEVA program.
(e) To explore the coordination between the PEVA experience and the work
developed under “Education for Citizenship” and “Space for Adolescents” in the
Basic Intermediate Education Cycle (1996 Plan).
(f) To extend the active participation of Intermediate Education students in the
definition of future actions.
(g) To raise the awareness of leaders and opinion makers on the great significance of
training on democratic values and practices for the strengthening of democracy.
(h) To promote cooperation among educational centers, neighborhood community
actors and the technical teams of the University of the Republic who develop
extension programs at educational institutions, for the purpose of enhancing the
education of children and adolescents on values in the off-school ambit.
(i) To systematize existing studies on this field conducted by academic researchers
(university or private research centers) or by educators themselves, for the
purpose of creating a data and analysis base allowing for the qualification of
actions underway.
(j) To promote among school and high-school educators who participate in the PEVA
program the development of small “research-action” programs.
These recommendations allow for envisaging some action lines which may be
developed for strengthening the current ANEP experience on education on values within
the PEVA framework. To that end, we have tried to summarize some of the seminar
proposals and suggest possible ways for their implementation. These proposals are
basically aimed to consolidate the PEVA activities by means of material production,
training of technical resources, and follow-up and systematization of the experiences
accomplished in the centers involved.
A. PRODUCTION OF MATERIAL
A repeatedly mentioned issue during the seminar was the need for educators to
count on teaching resources (bibliography for educators, manuals for working with the
students, guidelines for educators) allowing for the application of this new approach on
education on values in their daily practice. In such sense, several educators made a
positive evaluation of the material produced by the Center for Civic Education and noted
that it allows for a gradual discussion with students, according to their age, of several
issues related to democratic theory including concepts of justice, rights and
responsibilities. At the same time, the seminar participants noted that is was essential for
this material to be adapted to the Uruguayan reality and to national cultural patterns, so
as to avoid being considered foreign by pupils and educators.
B. TECHNICAL SUPPORT FOR THE FOLLOW-UP AND MONITORING OF THE URUGUAYAN EXPERIENCE
One further form of OPD-PEVA technical cooperation that arose from the
seminar is the technical advice or support provided to this experience, specifically by
means of workshops coordinated by experts from other countries in the region and the
publication-dissemination of the work being developed by the Uruguayan educational
centers within the PEVA framework. This chapter could also include the follow-up or
monitoring of this experience through the application of standard instruments: surveys
and discussion groups. This form of cooperation is extremely relevant considering that
this experience had a wide coverage in late 2002: 37 institutions, 850 educators and
16,500 students.
C. EXCHANGES OF EXPERIENCE
The analysis of the task accomplished by the workshops allows for identifying one
further form of supporting the PEVA program: the exchange of experience with other
education systems in the region. In this connection it should be noted that this seminar is
the starting point of such approach, as Uruguay educators became acquainted with the
experience in other countries in the region: Colombia, Mexico and the Dominican
Republic. There is a need for investigating other experiences developed in other
education systems in the region, especially those which have similar coverage levels and
quality indicators as Uruguay, such as Argentina, Chile and Costa Rica. Likewise, the
training of PEVA technical resources outside the country and their acquaintance with the
work developed in other education systems may contribute valuable input for qualifying
the Uruguayan work.
D. TRAINING SUPPORT TO PROFESSORS
SECONDARY EDUCATION TEACHERS
FROM
ANEP
TRAINING CENTERS AND TO
PRIMARY
AND
The last form of cooperation arising from the seminar refers to the training
support of educators within the ANEP system in order to achieve a more comprehensive
impact on children and adolescents. In this connection, the ANEP education system is
responsible for the regular training of educators on early, primary and intermediate
education (secondary and technical-professional education), which means that training
for professors at training centers should have a general indirect impact on the total
educational enrollment (more than 80 percent of all children and adolescents attending
schools, high-schools and technical-professional education centers).
As can be concluded in Table 2, the Training Institutes for Educators (IFD) are
responsible for training primary education teachers, and the Artigas Institute of
Professors (IPA) and Regional Centers of Professors (CERP) are in charge of training
intermediate education professors (secondary and technical-professional education); the
enrollment in ANEP includes more than 15,000 education trainees throughout the 19
departments in the country. Trainers who work directly in those centers could become
the target population for a long-term project for education on values: 1,544 trainers (see
Table 3) who train 15,237 future teachers and professors who will be responsible for
covering a population of almost 700,000 children and adolescents attending public
education institutions (see Table 4).
Table 2
Enrollment evolution of teachers and professors in Education Training,
by type of institution (1998-2001)
Year
Total
2001 1523
7
Teacher course
Institutes
Normal
for
Institutes
Education
Training
3761
1685
Professor course
Artigas
Regional
Institutes
Institute of Centers of
for
Professors Professors Education
Training
5772
1561
2301
National
Institute for
Technical
Education
157
Source: ANEP Planning Manager’s Office, based on data on education training
enrollment.
Table 3
Employees of education training centers, by type of function and institution, 2001.
Absolute figures.
Institute
Normal
institutes
Institutes for
Education
Training
Artigas Institute
of Professors
Normal Institute
of the Coast
National
Institute for
Technical
Education
Regional
Centers of
Professors
Total
Direct teaching
Indirect
teaching
Non teaching
functions
Total
223
33
29
285
708
126
133
967
337
29
37
403
24
2
1
27
14
9
13
36
238
13
22
273
1544
212
235
1991
Source: ANEP Planning Manager’s Office, based on data on education training
enrollment.
Table 4
Pupils enrolled in ANEP education centers, by sub-system (Early, Primary, Secondary and
Technical-Professional Education), 2001.
Total number of pupils enrolled in
87.155
Early Education (4 and 5-year
level)
Total number of pupils enrolled in
Primary Education
(6 to 11 years) (1)
Total number of pupils enrolled in
Secondary Education:
304.452
Total
number of
pupils
enrolled in
the Basic
Cycle
219.234
120226
Total number of pupils enrolled in
Technical-Professional Education
Total number of pupils enrolled in
Early, Primary and Intermediate
Education
Total number of
pupils enrolled
in high-school
1986 1996
Plan
Plan
56336 63890
61.327
99008
672.168
Source: INE (2003), “Uruguay en Cifras 2003,” based on ANEP data.
Note: (1) Special education is not included. .
Although the whole number of people enrolled in education training courses
(IINN, IPA, IFDs and CERPs) could be considered as the target population, in a first stage
it appears more suitable to assign a priority to those who work on curricular areas closest
to “Training on Democratic Values and Practices”, which does not imply ignoring the
cross-sectional nature of this subject. It is actually possible to think of two supplementary
strategies: on one side, to focus on the training of professors from the education training
centers in the areas of social sciences and law, thus trying to have an indirect impact on
the future teachers in primary and intermediate education (for example, on “Education
for Democracy” in the Basic Cycle of Intermediate Education); on the other hand, the
gradual awareness raising –at a larger scale– of all trainees’ trainers could also be
undertaken.
As far as the first option is concerned (the experimental training of professors
attending training courses on social sciences and law and educators responsible for
“Education for Citizenship” in the Third Year of the Basic Cycle of Intermediate
Education –1996 Plan–), we think it could have a direct impact on a significant number
of adolescents: between 15,000 and 20,000 out of the 64,000 pupils enrolled in the
Basic Cycle (1996 Plan). The proposed training through the PEVA technical team (and
with the possible support of OPD-OAS and the Center for Civic Education) of professors
attending education training who are closest to education on values as well as those who
are responsible for “Education for Citizenship” would be clearly experimental and by no
means would invalidate the work to be done with similar deepness at a subsequent stage
in other ANEP sub-systems (primary education, high-schools in secondary education,
and technical-professional education). On the other hand, the analysis of the program of
“Education for Citizenship” (given to 14-year old adolescent population in theory, but
with a true average age of 15 years or more) justifies to focus on a training process of the
educators involved, as to a great extent it addresses the same subjects approached in
training on democratic values and practices.35
This proposal, as well as any other one deemed feasible, should be based on the
following: in the first place, any type of support or cooperation to be provided by OPD
and CCE in California should serve for strengthening the valuable experience being
developed by ANEP through the PEVA program; in the second place, educators should be
the leading characters in this process and the members of the PEVA technical team
should be its main sponsors; finally, any training process to be implemented with the
support of OPD-OAS and the CCE technical assistance should respect local reality
(regions, departments, communities, education centers and educators). The application
of a standard training proposal without the participation of educators in its design will
probably fail because they would not consider it as their own; therefore, the design of
any proposal of support and technical assistance for training educators should take their
views into account and, particularly, the approach of the PEVA technical team.
ANEP, Secondary Education Council: Social Science Program of the Basic Cycle of Intermediate Education, 1996
Plan, Third Year, Program of the course on “Education for Citizenship”. UNIT 1: YOUTH AND THEIR SOCIAL REALITY.
Contents: socialization as a process of adaptation to social standards and structures. The incidence of culture. Human
aggregates: the group as a form of social organization: family, friends, high-school, the state. Behavior guidelines or
rules that make social coexistence possible. Standards: concept and different types. Consequences of non compliance in
each case. UNIT 2: PROBLEMS AND CONFLICTS. Contents: to make a distinction between both concepts. Violence and
its consequences. Possible solutions in case of problems or conflicts: (a) Mechanisms other than common justice
(mediation, negotiation, conciliation, arbitration); (b) Common justice (judges and their roles). UNIT 3: DEMOCRATIC
ACTION. Contents: democracy as a way of life: concept of democracy. Democracy on political, social and economic
affairs. Guiding principles of democratic action (liberty, equality, pluralism, tolerance and responsibility. UNIT 4:
KNOWING MY RIGHTS. Contents: definition, characteristics and classification (individual, social and economic, civil
and political). Human rights in my country, basic principles: life, honor, liberty, safety and property. The rights to
reunion and association. Social and economic rights: housing, education, labor, social security, working hours, weekly
rest, concrete notions about worker’s rights, child labor, wages, working hours, weekly rest, vacations, dismissal.
UNIDT 5: THE CITIZEN IN ACTION. Contents: citizenship, concept and types. Rights and responsibilities. The direct
exercise of citizenship. Voting. Referendum. Plebiscite. Initiative. Organized participation groups: unions, students’
associations, parents’ associations, political parties. UNIT 6: GROUPS AND THE GOVERNMENT. Contents: the relation
between both concepts. Power separation as a guarantee of the democratic system. The state powers: Executive,
Legislative and the Judiciary. Integration and major roles. Departmental government: municipality, departmental
Board. Integration and major roles.
35
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Administración Nacional de Educación Pública (ANEP) – Consejo Directivo Central
(CODICEN) / Programa de Modernización de la Educación Media y la Formación
Docente (MEMFOD), (2003): Documento de referencia para una experiencia de
Educación en Valores, Montevideo, República Oriental del Uruguay.
Bobbio, Norberto. (1986): El futuro de la democracia, Fondo de Cultura Económica
(FCE), México, D.F., México.
Braslavsky, Cecilia (1999): Re-haciendo escuelas. Ediciones Santillana, Buenos Aires,
Argentina.
Braslavsky, Cecilia and Cosse, Gustavo (1996): Las actuales reformas educativas en
América Latina: cuatro actores, tres lógicas y ocho tensiones. Programa de Promoción de
la Reforma Educativa en América Latina y el Caribe (PREAL)-Diálogo Interamericano,
Santiago, Chile.
Braslavsky, Cecilia and Filmus, Daniel (1988): Respuestas a la crisis educativa. Editorial
Cántaro, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Carnoy, Martin and De Moura Castro, Claudio (1997): "¿Qué rumbo debe tomar la
educación latinoamericana?", Propuesta Educativa, Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias
Sociales (FLACSO), Número 17, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Dahl, Robert (1991): La democracia y sus críticos, Editorial Paidós, Buenos Aires,
Argentina.
Habermas, Jurgen (1975): Problemas de legitimación en el capitalismo tardío, Amorrortu
editores, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Hopenhayn, Martín and Ottone, Ernesto (1999): El gran eslabón: educación y desarrollo
en el umbral del siglo XXI. Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean
(ECLAC)/ Fondo de Cultura Económica, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Lechner, Norbert (1988): Los patios interiores de la democracia. Subjetividad y Política,
Fondo de Cultura Económica, Mexico, DF, Mexico.
Lyotard, Jean-Francois (1989): La condición postmoderna, Editorial Cátedra, Barcelona,
Spain.
United Nations Development Program (UNDP), (2000): “Report on Human Development
2000, UNDP, Editorial Mundi Prensa, Madrid, Spain.
Rawls, John (1985): "Justice as fairness: political not metaphysical". Philosophy & Public
Affairs, N.14.3 (summer of 1985): 223-251, New York, United States.
Rawls, John (1994): "La idea de una razón pública", Isegoría Número 9, Madrid.
Rorty, Richard (1991): Contingencia, ironía y solidaridad, Editorial Paidós, Madrid,
Spain.
Tedesco, Juan Carlos (2000): Educar en la sociedad del conocimiento. Fondo de Cultura
Económica, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Tedesco, Juan Carlos (1995): El nuevo pacto educativo. Editorial Anaya, Madrid, España.
Tenti Fanfani, Emilio (2000): "Cultura escolar y culturas juveniles", mimeo, Buenos Aires.
ANNEX
AGENDA
SEMINAR ON DEMOCRATIC VALUES AND PRACTICES
IN THE EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM OF URUGUAY
Montevideo, Uruguay – June 23, 24 and 25, 2003
Ministry of Education and Culture of the Republic of Uruguay
National Administration for Public Education
Organization of American States
Center for Civic Education
Introduction
A strong democratic system requires solid institutions and political culture.
Despite the ongoing consolidation of democracy in Latin America and the Caribbean
since the early 1980s, its democratic institutions, values, and practices are not firmly
rooted. Therefore, there is a need for encouraging and promoting the development of
such values and practices in order to generate and nurture the interest, commitment, and
participatory spirit of the new generations of the hemisphere in democratic processes.
The development and strengthening of a democratic political culture that
supports citizen participation in political affairs, and the functioning of political actors
and institutions, requires an ongoing support to the formal and non-formal educational
effort. This support entails the education of citizens on democratic values and practices
from early age.
The Unit for the Promotion of Democracy (UPD) and the Unit for Social
Development and Education (USDE) of the General Secretariat of the Organization of
American States, pursuant to the mandate of its member states, and with the cooperation
of the Ministry for Education and Culture of the Republic of Uruguay, the National
Administration for Public Education (ANEP), and the Center for Civic Education,
designed the Seminar on democratic values and practices in the educational system of
Uruguay. Participants will analyze the teaching of democratic values and practices in
the Uruguayan educational system. The Seminar will provide a space for a comparative
analysis, interactive dialogue, and information sharing on educational practices,
methodologies, and techniques available on education for democracy in the hemisphere.
The Uruguayan educational system is widely known for conveying democratic
values and practices in the society. The Primary and Intermediate Education plans
explicitly include education for citizenship. In order to strengthen these plans,
theUruguayan educational authorities established a training program on democratic
values and citizenship in December 2001. The training program initially covered 37
educational centers and 850 educators.
Objectives
The Seminar has the following objectives:
General objective:
To analyze the teaching and learning of democratic values and practices in the
Uruguayan educational system (e.g., educational policies, curricula, didactic
material, methodologies, research, and evaluation).
Specific objectives:
To analyze how democratic values and practices are taught and learn in the
educational system (including education centers and training institutions for
educators).
To discuss new methodologies and instruments for teaching democratic values
and practices that have been applied in other countries of the hemisphere.
To exchange information and share experiences on the issue of democratic
values and practices for its dissemination in Latin American and the Caribbean
To submit a proposal of assistance to the program being developed in Uruguay.
Day 1
Time
Activity


9.00 AM -10.00
Opening session and institutional introduction
AM



10.00 AM 11.30 AM
Conference on democratic values and practices
11.30 AM11.45 AM
Coffee break
11.45 AM. 1.00 PM
Breakout sessions on new methodologies for
teaching democratic values and practices.
Case studies: Colombia, Mexico, and the
Dominican Republic.
Participants form three groups - one per country
(each group should have between 10 and 15
members).
1.00 PM-2.00
PM
Lunch
2:00 PM-3:15
PM
Breakout sessions on new methodologies for
teaching democratic values and practices. Case
studies: Colombia, Mexico and the Dominican
Republic.
Participants rotate among groups to become
acquainted with several case studies. (For
example, participants who were in the breakout
session on Colombia [in the previous time slot]
attend the session on Mexico).
3:15 PM-3:30
PM
Coffee break







Lecturers
Daniel Berbejillo, Assistant Secretary,
Ministry of Education and Culture
Javier Bonilla, National Director for
Public Education
Pablo Zuniga, Senior Specialist, Unit
for the Promotion of Democracy,
Organization of American States
Oscar Cruz, Coordinator of
International Programs, Center for
Civic Education
Gerardo Caetano, Director, Political
Science Institute, University of the
Republic
Romeo Perez, Professor and
researcher, Political Science Institute,
University of the Republic
Susana Restrepo, Fundacion Presencia,
Colombia
Frieda Pichardo, Consorcio, the
Dominican Republic
Marlene Romo, Instituto Federal
Electoral, Mexico
Susana Restrepo, Fundacion
Presencia, Colombia
Frieda Pichardo, Consorcio, the
Dominican Republic
Marlene Romo, Instituto Federal
Electoral, Mexico
3.30 PM-4.45
PM
Breakout sessions on new methodologies for
teaching democratic values and practices:
Colombia, Mexico, and the Dominican Republic.
Participants rotate among groups to become
acquainted with several case studies. (For
example, participants who were in the breakout
session on Mexico attend the session on the
Dominican Republic).




4.45 PM-5.30
PM
Comparative analysis of the case studies
Susana Restrepo, Fundacion
Presencia, Colombia
Frieda Pichardo, Consorcio,
the Dominican Republic
Marlene Romo, Instituto
Federal Electoral, Mexico
Gustavo De Armas, Professor
and researcher, Political
Science Institute, University
of the Republic
Day 2
Time
Activity

9.00 AM-11.00
AM
11.00 AM11.15 AM
Teaching democratic values and practices in the
Uruguayan educational system –The perspective
of the Ministry of Education and Culture and the
National Administration for Public Education


Coffee break

Teaching democratic values and practices in the
11.15 AM -1.00 Uruguayan educational system –
PM
Other perspectives: educators, academic, and
civil society
1.00 PM-2.00
PM
Lunch
2.00 PM-3.45
PM
Breakout sessions: comparative analysis of the
case studies.
Participants form three groups (each group
should have between 10 and 15 members).
One group will address teaching per workshop:
one is devoted to school experience, another to
high-school experience and the third to
technical school experience.
3.45 PM-4.00
PM
4.00 PM-5.00
PM
Lecturers
Helena Costábile Lorenzo,
Director for Education,
Ministry of Education and
Culture
Daniel J. Corbo Longueira,
Counseler, CODICEN - ANEP
Javier Bonilla, National
Director for Public
Education, CODICEN – ANEP

Nicolás Echeverry, Professor
of Law and Philosophy,
University of the Republic
Héctor Florit, Secretary
General, Uruguayan
Federation of Teachers

Workshop coordination by
the Seminar’s coordinating
technical team

Coordination: Gustavo De
Armas
Coffee break
Plenary analysis of national experience and
recommendations I
Day 3
Time
9.00 AM-11.00 AM
Activity
Laboratory I

Lecturers
Susana Restrepo, Fundacion
We the People: Project Citizen


11.00 AM-11.15 AM
Laboratory II: Foundations of Democracy


1.00-2.00 PM
2.00 PM -4.30 PM
4.30 PM-4.45 PM
Lunch
Plenary analysis of experience and
recommendations II
Coffee break
Susana Restrepo, Fundacion
Presencia, Colombia
Frieda Pichardo, Consorcio,
the Dominican Republic
Marlene Romo, Instituto
Federal Electoral, Mexico

Coordination team

Leonardo Guzmán, Minister
of Education and Culture
Javier Bonilla, National
Director for Public Education
Roberto Casañas, Director,
National Office, General
Secretariat- Organization of
American States, Uruguay
David Edwards, Specialist,
Unit for Social Development
and Education, Organization
of American States
Oscar Cruz, Coordinator of
International Programs,
Center for Civic Education


4.45 PM -06.15 PM
the Dominican Republic
Marlene Romo, Instituto
Federal Electoral, Mexico
Coffee break

11.15 AM -1.00 PM
Presencia, Colombia
Frieda Pichardo, Consorcio,
Closing session and reception


ACRONYMS
ANEP
National Administration for Public Education
Administración Nacional de Educación Pública for its acronym in
Spanish
CCE
CRC
ECLAC
CERP
Center for Civic Education
Convention on the Rights of the Child
Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean
Regional Centers of Professors
Centros Regionales de Profesores for its acronym in Spanish
CODICEN
Central Directing Council
Consejo Directivo Central for its acronym in Spanish
DADP
DDI
FCE
Department for Democratic and Political Affairs
Department for Integral Development
Economic Culture Fund
Fondo de Cultura Económica for its acronym in Spanish
FLACSO
Latin American Faculty of Social Sciences
Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales –for its acronym in
Spanish
FUM
Uruguayan Federation of Teachers
Federación Uruguaya de Magisterio for its acronym in Spanish
IFD
Teacher Training Institutes
Institutos de Formación Docente for its acronym in Spanish
IFE
IINN
INE
Federal Electoral Institute
Instituto Federal Electoral for its acronym in Spanish
Institutos Normales – Normal Institutes
National Institute of Statistics
Instituto Nacional de Estadística for its acronym in Spanish
INET
National Institutes of Technical Education
Instituto Nacional de Educación Técnica for its acronym in Spanish
IPA
Artigas Institute of Professors
Instituto de Profesores Artigas for its acronym in Spanish
MEC
MEMFOD
OAS
OECT
OPD
PEVA
Ministry of Education and Culture
Modernization Program for Intermediate Education and Educators’
Training
Programa para la Modernización de la Educación Media y la Formación
Docente for its acronym in Spanish
Organization of American States
Office for Education, Science and Technology
Office for the Promotion of Democracy
Education Program on Values
Programa de Educación en Valores for its acronym in Spanish
PREAL
Program for the Promotion of Educational Reform in Latin America and
the Caribbean
Programa de Promoción de la Reforma Educativa en América Latina y el
Caribe for its acronym in Spanish
SEP
Public Education Secretariat
Secretaría de Educación Pública for its acronym in Spanish
UNDP
UNESCO
UTU
United Nations Development Program
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Uruguayan Technical University
Universidad del Trabajo del Uruguay for its acronym in Spanish
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The design, organization, and implementation of the education for democracy
initiative with the National Administration for Public Education (ANEP) of the Republic of
Uruguay was made possible by the support of several institutions and professionals.
The Permanent Mission of Uruguay to the OAS and the authorities, officials,
technicians, and educators from the Uruguay educational system played a fundamental
role in the project. Javier Bonilla, Director of CODICEN/ANEP, as well as Daniel Corbo,
Denise Vaillant, and Helena Costábile, fully supported the project design and execution.
Gustavo de Armas and Gerardo Caetano, the consultants responsible for the project in
Uruguay, made a substantial contribution to the success of the project, and the
publication of its results, with their professionalism and commitment. The Center for
Civic Education provided valuable experience in the subject matter, and the necessary
funding to carry out the project. Oscar Cruz, Coordinator of International Programs,
Norma Wright, and Kenneth Rodríguez from the Center demonstrated a sincere affinity
to the project.
Staff members, consultants, and interns from the Office for the Promotion of
Democracy (OPD) of the Department for Democratic and Political Affairs (DADP), and
the Office for Education, Science, and Technology (OECT) of the Department for Integral
Development (DDI) of the OAS General Secretariat worked closely in this initiative. The
expertise and thrust of Rubén M. Perina on education for democracy was an example for
the personnel involved in the project. The enthusiasm, professionalism, and commitment
of Pablo Zúñiga, in his capacity as Project Coordinator, facilitated the cooperation among
the various institutions and the General Secretariat to make this initiative possible. Ana
Matilde Pérez Katz, consultant, contributed to the substantial design and monitoring of
the project implementation, as well as the review of the publication. Eduardo Jiménez,
administrative technician, efficiently ensured the necessary administrative actions for the
execution of the project. María del Carmen Palau, specialist, provided advise on the
publication of the report. Adam Hasler, intern, contributed to the editorial review of the
reports. David Edwards, specialist, and Jorge Baxter, consultant, both from OECT/DDI,
provided valuable education-related inputs, references and contacts. Roberto Casañas,
Director of the OAS National Office in Uruguay, and his team provided valuable support
in planning, monitoring, and implementing the project.
ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES
The Organization of American States (OAS) is the oldest regional organization in
the world. Its origin dates back to the First International Conference of American States
held in Washington DC from October 1889 to April 1890. The International Union of
American Republics was approved at that meeting. The OAS Charter was signed in
Bogota in 1948 and entered into force in December 1951. The OAS currently has 35
member states. In addition, the OAS has granted permanent observer status to 53 states
and to the European Union.
The essential purposes of the OAS are: to strengthen peace and security in the
hemisphere; to promote and consolidate representative democracy, with due respect for
the principle of nonintervention; to prevent possible causes of difficulties and to ensure
the pacific settlement of disputes that may arise among the member States; to provide for
common action on the part of those states in the event of aggression; to seek the solution
of political, juridical, and economic problems that may arise among them; to promote, by
cooperative action, their economic, social and cultural development; to eradicate extreme
poverty, which constitutes and obstacle to the full democratic development of the peoples
of the hemisphere, and to achieve an effective limitation of conventional weapons that
will make it possible to devote the largest amount of resources to the economic and social
development
of
the
member
states.
The OAS pursues its objectives through the following organs: the General
Assembly; the Meetings of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign Affairs; the Councils (the
Permanent Council and the Inter-American Council for Integral Development); the
Inter-American Juridical Committee; the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights;
the General Secretariat; the specialized conferences; the specialized organizations, and
other organs established by the General Assembly.
The General Secretariat is the central and permanent organ of the OAS. The
headquarters of both the Permanent Council and the General Secretariat are located in
Washington DC.