On September 1st, the 62nd Legislature of Congress, particularly, the Chamber of Deputies, inaugurated its session period in an extraordinary manner. After almost six hours of debate, in a practically sealed venue, the Law of Professional Teaching Service (LSPD) was approved with 390 votes in favor, 69 against and 4 abstentions. The uniqueness of the environment regarding the approval of LSPD showed the urgency to issue the education reform – be as it may – and overcoming teacher protests. A few hours from approving the draft in the Senate, groups of teachers from the National Coordinator of Education Workers (CNTE), and particularly, the majority factions coming from Oaxaca, left Mexico City’s Zócalo and returned to their places of origin (though those who stayed, including the “host” section 9, continued turning Mexico City upside down). What happened with the demands of abrogation of the 3rd and 73rd Constitutional articles? What made them change their attitude?
Certainly, the statement made by the Oaxaca Governor of not paying absent teachers their salary had something to do with the partial mobilization of CNTE. After all, a protest of half a month can be very expensive – especially when paychecks are not due in time. However, this does not completely explain what made the majority of teachers change their attitude. It is worth asking: have protestors gained something? In his State of the Union Address, President Peña announced a special program in support of teaching in those states with the highest education lags. What the Head of State didn’t explain is what it will consist and how much money will it cost to taxpayers. From the legislative side, several CNTE demands have already been incorporated – some for good, some not so much – in the final draft of LSPD, which has already passed through Senate without any changes during the early hours of September 4th. The different social and cultural contexts from which teachers come from were taken into consideration in the assessment criteria. This will be beneficial as long as it doesn’t turn into a system that produces first and second class teachers. Another positive aspect for the education system would be the establishment of mechanisms for generating incentives with the aim of attracting teachers to marginalized rural zones, something that will work as long as adequeate investment in infrastucture is made and there are frequent opportunities for teachers to update their knowledge. Regarding matters that are not quite so beneficial, the “testing” period needed to obtain a definitive teacher post was reduced from two years to six months. Nevertheless, the greatest victory of protestors as well as the center of suspicion regarding the reform’s effectiveness, is maintaing the lack of transparency of assessment results.
Regardless of what legislators ended up improving matters linked with justice in some demands of teachers/protestors, it is important to highlight that teacher protests were able to gain some victories. But in the end, does the end justify the means? On one hand, without protests, LSPD would have been voted under its original terms during the past extraordinary session period at the end of August. That is true. But, on the other hand, CNTE teachers have showed their muscle and, allegedly, their disposition to go further. Will they negotiate something additional after the “mega-protest” and strike made on September 4th or will it only be their “triumphant” good-bye? Meanwhile, citizens affected by these rampages will continue to be witnesses of the State’s incapacity to not be overwhelmed by blackmail made from the streets. Not less importantly, we should ask ourselves whether there is any link between the movement headed by CNTE and the one proposed by López Obrador with the launch of the energy reform, the next pending issue in the political and legislative agenda.
CIDAC
Comments