SCHOOL-BASED EDUCATIONAL PROJECTS IN PERU:
STRENGTHENING THE LOCAL EDUCATION
COMMUNITY
Lilian Hidalgo1
This case study describes three pre-primary and primary schools
as models for the implementation of a nation-wide programme of
local school-based education management and primary education
improvement in Peru. By enhancing the participation of the local
community, this programme has been successful in developing
Peru’s primary education system.
BACKGROUND___________________________________________________
I
n 1932, the Peruvian educator, Jose Antonio Encinas, wrote the book; An
Attempt At a New School in Peru. In this book he pointed to the educational
problems of the time: “Educational management distances itself from the
purpose of renewal, the child remains ignored, and school inspectors
continue to suffer a life of heavy bureaucracy.” Sixty-six years later, these
obstacles have not yet been overcome. Furthermore, according to studies
sponsored by the Ministry of Education in 1993 (in co-operation with the World
Bank, UNDP, UNESCO and GTZ), the public education system in Peru is at a
critical point of deterioration due to diverse factors which hinder significant
progress in public education throughout the country. A number of these are
beyond the sphere of influence of the school. Despite constraints, however,
change is still possible. There are various school strategies to overcome many of
these difficulties.
One strategy which accompanies and gives shape to current reform initiatives in
Peru is the School-based Educational Projects (SBEPs – in Spanish the
acronym is PEI), in which educational communities introduce changes with
regard to the educational needs of learners. SBEPs are linked to the
strengthening of the management capacity of schools and the transfer of
Original Spanish version published as “Proyectos Educativos Institucionales: Aprendiendo en el
camino,” Revista TAREA, no. 39, Lima, January 1997. Translated by Margaret Stuart.
1
1
functions previously in the hands of the intermediate administrative bodies which
are part of the current educational structure.
In 1995, the Ministry of Education organised a competition; “Towards Excellence
in Education,” promoting the elaboration of SBEPs in schools throughout the
country. In 1996, it was decided that all schools would formulate SBEPs.
THE
INNOVATION_____________________________________________________
The three schools described here are the Centre of Pre-primary Education 551
“Leoncio Prado” in Alta Pamplona; the Educational Centre “Jose Olaya” (preprimary and primary), and the Educational Centre “Stella Maris” (primary and
secondary). The two latter schools are in Talbada de Lurin. These schools were
selected because of certain characteristics which were considered favourable in
developing the experiment: a focus on
different educational
The establishment of SBEPs and above all their
levels
(pre-primary,
implementation were sustained by the convicprimary and secontion, action and capacity of the people involved.
dary), initial interest in
forming
SBEPs,
healthy
human
relations within the institutions, and the commitment of the dir-ector and his team
to implement the experiment.
The way the process developed confirmed that these requirements are
fundamental for any educational community considering a similar experiment.
The essential conditions are: participant interest and co-operation, a favourable
school-based climate (good human relations), and a management team which is
committed to the task of implementing the innovation on an school-based level.
The establishment of SBEPs and above all their implementation are sustained
by the conviction, action and capacity of the people involved.
THE PROCESS
Contact was made with the schools to establish arrangements in order to
implement the project, with the Training Programme for Educational
Management providing technical assistance and orientation. The arrangement
2
helped to formalise the decision and commit the entire institution (not only top
management) to develop the project.
In the second stage, there was discussion with management and teachers on the
issue of who would participate in the construction of SBEPs. It was much simpler
to obtain the participation of management, teaching, administrative and service
staff and somewhat more complicated to obtain the participation of parents and
pupils.
Teachers and management in each educational centre decided that a key
criterion in implementing the project was the participation of all staff. As a result,
different forms of participation were designed for teachers, management,
administrative and service staff, as well as parents and pupils of the institution. In
the three centres participation of management, administrative and service staff
was done in an integrated manner with the teachers; constituting the school’s
educational community.
The work done with educational communities highlights differences which are
related directly to the level of the school and the number of staff it employs. In
the case of pre-primary and primary schools, there were no major difficulties
since it was relatively simple to co-ordinate schedules and timetables for a group
of 10 to 16 people, and get a consensus. The situation changed significantly
when working with larger numbers. This was the case of the Stella Maris School
which employed eighty people (primary and secondary). In this centre, working
commissions were established so that each person could participate through the
internal work of a commission. A ‘generator’ team was formed, composed of
commission leaders, which could be consulted on crucial decisions and
constitutes, as it name indicates, the ‘engine’ which drives the process,
particularly in difficult moments.
This type of organisation was a result of a search for participatory strategies
which involved as many people as possible. It is based on the value of collective
teamwork and the need for each participant to believe that results are the
product of individual contributions while sharing a commitment to the group work.
In other words, to understand that participation in an educational community is
both a right and an obligation.
THE PARENTS
3
Through actions with the parents, two strategies were developed; direct contact
with parents and the distribution of a survey. Direct contacts are called
workshops for members of the association of parents and teachers. The goal of
these workshops was to start a dialogue on the child as a priority for parents and
for teachers, and the shared responsibility in the child’s education. This
insistence on a common objective enabled the parents, who had been indifferent
and often resistant to the school, to accept the logic of working together.
However, the meetings were not totally harmonious nor tension-free.
A second goal of the workshops was to ensure that the parents knew and
understood the importance of the development of the project for the school.
They debated among themselves the role of the parents, of the teaching staff
and
management,
and their vision for the
The goal of these workshops was to start a
fu-ture of the school.
They discussed these
dialogue on the child as a priority for parents
issues in order to unand for teachers and the shared responsibility
derstand what the
in the child’s education. This insistence on a
school could contricommon objective enabled the parents, who
bute to the parents
had been indifferent and often resistant to the
and vice-versa. The
school, to accept the logic of working together.
workshops were interesting and parents
comfortably discussed themes on which they had never before been consulted.
This opened up a space where the parents and the school could communicate.
However, they did not only debate and discuss these issues. The intention was
also to formulate solutions and alternatives which could help create the ‘ideal’
school. They did this by defining the role of the parent in the school as a
fundamental element in making the project succeed.
The parents who participated in the workshops were only a small group but
nonetheless representative. It was necessary, however, to have a wider range of
opinions. Given that it was difficult to talk with all parents in the initial stage,
surveys were drawn up by the steering teams and the parents who participated
in the workshops. The workshop participants were responsible for conducting the
surveys with the other parents in their sections. Thus, it was possible to have the
written opinion of a large percentage of parents in the school and at the same
time maintain dialogue directly with the workshop groups.
4
Mothers made up 85-90% of the participants in the workshops. This leads to the
observation that matters related to children’s education continue to be the
concern of women - despite changes in roles assumed within the family. This
lack of involvement by fathers in the workshops, with regard to what happens in
school, was identified as a problem to be resolved.
THE PUPILS
The importance of participation of pupils in the project was stressed. In the three
schools, there were initial discussions with teachers to estimate the possibility of
such participation. Both in the Centre of Pre-primary Education 551 “Leoncio
Prado” and in the
primary and secondIt was observed that the teachers considered the
ary schools, they
children as subjects with the capacity to contriconsidered this parbute, to have opinions, and to criticise. This conticipation to be imcept of the child was fundamental for the work of
portant, although indefining SBEPs.
itially – as was the
case with the process developed with
parents – they defined the participation as being of a consultative nature:
diagnosing needs and interests and collecting points of views.
In the case of consulting with pupils, there were important education level
specificities to consider. To accept that pre-primary school children would be
able to participate was to some people questionable – do young children have
something to say? The teachers thought so and developed, in the space of
several days, conversations with the children in the classrooms. The children
had opinions and made drawings. It was observed that the teachers considered
the children as subjects with the capacity to contribute, to have opinions, and to
criticise. This concept of the child was fundamental for the work of defining
SBEPs.
With pupil involvement, different strategies were developed. The first strategy
was direct dialogue between the teacher and all the pupils in the class. There
was an informal discussion to explain to the children about SBEPs. This method
was used both in the pre-primary centre and in the primary school. Another
strategy was the participation of the representatives of each class (in primary
school) in a plenary session. A third strategy was to conduct surveys covering all
children from the third grade of primary school upwards.
5
The themes which were covered with the children in the sessions concerned
their vision of the future of the school; their perceptions and proposals
concerning pedagogical and management processes; their expectations,
interests and needs as a specific group; and the role of the pupil in the
construction of the SBEPs. With the secondary school pupils, the strategy
developed was to conduct a survey on a sample of pupils. A meeting was held
with pupil representatives to clarify the questions of the students and to seek
their opinion. As was the case with the parents, this established a way for
students to contribute valuable input to the project.
THE ADMINISTRATION
One of the first actions in the actual development of the project was to clearly
establish for the school teams what was meant by a school-based educational
project. There was a dialogue with the administration about team-building and
the transformations which needed to be made in the pedagogical processes of
the school. There were also discussions about how SBEPs required the help of
each officer participating in the school and that the fundamental result was not
only to produce a well-written document prepared for a commission but also to
succeed in identifying the actual requirements for change, the relevance of the
proposed solutions and what SBEPs meant for them.
IMPACT_________________________________________________________
DEFINING A VISION OF THE SCHOOL
Progress was achieved with the teams of each centre in formulating a ‘Future
Vision of the School,’ collecting expectations, dreams, desires and evaluating the
possibility of translating them into reality. First, teams formulated the desirable
future and then the possible future and finally designed a proposal to achieve it.
This was a vision of the school which could serve as a framework. It was a way
of working differently from the traditional style of identifying problems. This
allowed the integration of the views of the parents, the pupils and the educational
teams. It was a starting point to value the participation of the local community
and to discuss the rationale for the establishment of SBEPs. These two elements
were essential in an effective transformational planning process.
DEFINING A VISION OF THE GLOBAL CONTEXT
6
There was also progress in formulating a vision of SBEPs in the global context.
This discussion took as its central theme the current international and national
situation. It was not possible to establish the project while supposing that nothing
was happening in the world and the challenges this potentially represented for
local education. It was
necessary that the
school team be aware
There is a need to position SBEPs in the
of and consider global
broader context of society in order to formulate
events which may
proposals which consider the type of school
influence its actions.
capable of meeting the challenges and deThere was a need to
mands of current times.
position SBEPs in the
broader context of
society in order to formulate proposals which considered the type of school
capable of meeting the challenges and demands of current times. The majority
of the teachers were not very familiar with this theme. There was a lack of
knowledge of international events, emphasis was placed on a school-focused
view and the external perspective was lost. This was a difficulty for innovation
and for the relevance of educational actions.
DEFINING A SCHOOL IDENTITY
Another task of the team was the formulation of a school identity. Historical facts
as well as socio-cultural elements were identified which defined the school and
differentiated it from other educational institutions. Also defined was the school’s
mission, which was understood to be the fundamental reason for the institution’s
existence. In this respect, schools positioned their mission within the framework
of the integral education of the individual. This concept of integrality was not
new: on the contrary, it is an old aspiration of Peruvian education which has not
been translated into concrete terms so far. The fact that it was recast in the
formulation of these schools meant that the schools faced a challenge of making
it real by the application of appropriate strategies. This was an old wish
transformed into a new challenge.
LESSONS LEARNED______________________________________________
7
Parallel to the construction of SBEPs, more specific projects were developed.
Most important was the Educational Improvement for School Projects which were
short-term management strategies. They enabled the provision for participation
and dialogue on problems which existed within each school. Their objective was
to confront any difficulty which the teaching staff considered of
This was a learning process for each teacher
importance and which
involved; learning to make projects, learning
would significantly afto design working sessions, learning to work
fect the quality of
in a team, and above all, assuming reteaching in the school.
sponsibility for one’s own development.
Working sessions took
place to identify and
analyse problems which the group selected from each educational situation.
Issues related to the quality of basic training for teachers, opportunities to
upgrade their skills and access to innovations were identified as priorities. This
was because of the direct connection to the quality of teaching as a determining
factor on pupils’ learning. The teachers of Centre of Pre-primary Education 551
“Leoncio Prado” and Colegio Stella Marios both identified the same issues. In
both cases, teachers’ access to training was selected as an Educational
Improvement for Schools Project.
In the Colegio Jose Olaya, the priority problem reported was the weak
relationship between the school and the parents. The question was how to
intervene in an active way in the children’s education in order to improve parents’
actions and to strengthen families. In this instance, relations between parents
and the school became an Educational Improvement for Schools Project.
In all cases, these specific projects presented two elements: a strategy to
overcome the identified problem and a group of teachers which assumed a task
within the framework of shared management.
The schools formed teaching teams to develop projects which could respond
effectively to concrete problems. This was a learning process for each teacher
involved: learning to make projects, learning to design working sessions, learning
to work in a team, and above all, assuming responsibility for one’s own
development.
As with any experiment there were difficulties. One such difficulty was that a
percentage of the teachers had low motivation and commitment. It was difficult
for this group of teachers to integrate shared work and they constantly rejected it.
The other major difficulty was time. Finding a suitable time and day when all
8
participants or members of a commission could meet was particularly difficult,
especially considering that the teachers worked on different shifts and in different
schools. In many cases, meetings took place on Saturdays or outside the normal
working day.
Clearly evident was the need for advice to schools which decide to initiate an
experiment of this nature. It is vital to provide information which guarantees
positive results. The assistance of the intermediate units of the system becomes
all the more relevant. It is urgent to establish the actions of specialists, to
organise networks with teams of directors and to set in motion different
strategies to provide sustainability and to articulate SBEPs in the schools.
The experiment is on-going and the programme has been able to identify
successes and shortcomings which are presently being consolidated and
corrected respectively. What this experiment has demon-strated is that the public
schools of Peru need and deserve School-based Educational Projects.
9