Intercultural Bilingual Education in Latin America: Balance and Perspectives1

Luis Enrique Lopez and Wolfgang Küper2

December 2000

____________________________

1. The points of view issued in this document are exclusively of the responsibility of their authors and not of the institution to which they belong, nor of the projects they advise, and even less so of the counterparts.

2. L.E López, since 1996, is Principal Consultant of PROEIB Andes (Training Program in Intercultural Bilingual Education for Andean Countries), of a network of Universities, ministries and indigenous organizations of the Andean sub-region with headquarters in the Universidad Mayor de San Simón de Cochabamba, Bolivia. W. Küper is Principal Assessor of PROFORMA (Teacher Training Project), which supports the reform of teacher training centers from within the Ministry of Education of Peru.

1

CONTENTS

Executive Summary

Introduction

I. Multilingualism in Indo-Latin America and the Education of the

Indigenous Population

II. Indigenous Presence and Vitality and Education

III. Intercultural Bilingual Education

IV. Results of the Application if IBE

V. IBE and its contribution to the Pedagogy of Latin America

VI. An Agenda for the Future

Bibliographical References

Notes

2

Bilingual Intercultural Education in Latin America

Assessment and Prospects

Luis Enrique López and Wolfgang Küper

Executive summary 1. This document presents a synthetic view of lessons learnt and of the results of diverse

experiments carried out in the region, above all, in the last two decades, in the framework of what is now known as bilingual education, intercultural education, or intercultural bilingual education. The aim is to bring into focus the strategies which the State, as much as civil society have been implementing, in order to satisfy the basic learning needs of indolatinamerican students, men and women, belonging to some of the indigenous peoples living in Latin American countries.

2. The text begins with a review of the presence of the indigenous peoples in Latin America, starting with the multiethnic, pluricultural and multilingual situations, which characterize the region. Socio-linguistic and demographic data are offered on countries and indigenous peoples of the region, determining that we are faced with, at least, 400 to 500 different Amerindian languages and up to 40 or 50 million indigenous people in the region.

3. Also presented is a general summary of the educational situation characteristic of the areas of indigenous concentration in Latin America, which still shows serious deficits in terms of coverage and of the internal efficiency of the educational system, as in the quality of the services offered to indigenous students.

4. From this starting point the report identifies the appearance of policies and proposals in bilingual education throughout the 20th century. Such bilingual policies and proposals were directed to achieve, first, the assimilation of the indigenous populations and, secondly and more recently, their inclusion in the actual socio-political construction of the Latin American States, and this from a pluralistic recognition of the ethnic, sociocultural and linguistic diversity of the region.

5. Intercultural Bilingual Education (IBE) is identified as the result of this reflection on the political and socio-pedagogical advances in Latin America, as well as, and often together with the advance of indigenous organizations and movements in the region. It is considered that their involvement in the administration of the programs of this nature,

3

as well as in their planning and implementation is increasing and contributes in a decisive way to the quality of the programs.

6. IBE, or any of the other forms that share similar principals and points of view (bilingual intercultural education, ethno-education or indigenous education), is currently in progress, as far as we know, in 17 countries, and in general, under the auspices of a new and progressive educational, and generally national legislation that recognizes the diverse linguistic and cultural rights of indigenous peoples. Within this framework, 11 Latin American nation-states have modified their constitutions to embrace their culturally diverse and heterogeneous character. They now recognize themselves as pluri or multiethnic, in clear recognition of the indigenous peoples inhabiting the territory, a situation which issues a true challenge to the educational systems.

7. IBE at the present time is being reinforced by legislation and international agreements that endorse it in the framework of a growing democratic affirmation in the region and, together with the equally innovative currents of political and administrative decentralization, favorably affect the development of the educational programs directed at oppressed/disadvantaged populations, such as the indigenous peoples.

8. IBE is not applied as a monolithic model or a single homogeneous strategy directing educational development in indigenous areas. Rather it comprises projects and programs of a diverse nature and coverage, in practice just as much in the ministries of education and their regional dependencies or sites, as in non-governmental and indigenous organizations. The specific forms that the IBE generally takes on keep a direct relationship with the socio-linguistic and socio-educational characteristics of the communities in which they are applied, as well as with the needs of the students and the expectations of the parents and with the greater or lesser sensitivity developed towards the indigenous peoples, their needs and demands.

9. IBE can take on the form of a focalized project, directed to a specific population, implemented by a non-governmental organization (NGO) with or without the participation of an indigenous organization. It can also be part of a regional or national program in one or more indigenous territories and under the direction of the State, as part of their compensatory programs. In exceptional circumstances, it can also constitute a sub-system or a type of parallel educational system, as in the case of Mexico and Ecuador.

10. There is now enough empirical evidence to demonstrate the advantages of IBE, as much as it contributes to the cognitive and affective development of the students. Such results are a product of the evaluation of projects and programs developed in the last three decades, particularly in programs carried out in the countries with the greatest indigenous presence in the region: Mexico, Guatemala, Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia. This perspective is now complemented with information from an evaluation recently carried out in Colombia.

11. The results obtained in this investigation coincide with or corroborate the findings of similar studies in other parts of the world, in which bilingual students have obtained

4

better results when compared with their peers studying under traditional submersion scheme which is still applied in many areas -that is, education in the homogenizing dominant language. Such discoveries also attest to fundamental concerns present in the planning of Latin American IBE: the close relationship between the development of the students’ dominant language and their achievements in learning a second language. Such findings corroborate that better results are obtained in second language learning when more school time invested in the development of the first language. They also provide evidence as to the existence of a threshold of linguistic development in bilingual subjects of 7 or 8 years in order to consolidate the linguistic competencies in both their languages. They also attest to the importance of the involvement and participation of parents in their children’s bilingualization process.

12. The report considers that IBE, together with popular education, constitutes one of the important contributions made in recent times, to Latin American educational development and contends that its proposals and strategies should go beyond indigenous settings and impregnate Latin American education as a whole.

13. The document identifies certain contributions that the application of IBE has made to Latin American education as a whole. Amongst these it is fitting to highlight: the emphasis on the recognition of the basic learning needs of specific collectives, the drive towards curricular diversification or decentralization, the relationship between the reinforcement of the first language and the learning of a second in a bilingual context, the application of the concept of interculturality in curriculum development, the orientation towards practice, the orientation towards the student and the role of community participation.

14. Seen from the perspective mentioned in the previous paragraph, it is imperative for IBE to also involve the majority of Spanish speaking populations as well as the members of other foreign ethnic minorities in the region. That way the educational system could keep abreast of its time and will be coherent with the changes that the continent experiences geared to the construction of more democratic societies respectful of its linguistic, cultural and ethnic diversity. Fortunately, this has already begun to occur, at least at the level of legislation and of the recognition of indigenous linguistic and cultural rights, as well as through the implementation of specific projects and innovations conducted generally by private institutions (private educational centers, university projects and NGOs).

15. The document concludes by reiterating the need to also extend the benefits and coverage of IBE to the students of the dominant Latin American societies and beginning this by establishing a perspective of interculturality for all that many countries have already adopted in their legislation, as it is considered that only in this way will it be able to contribute to a greater indigenous participation and to an equally great democratization of the region. From this perspective it is recognized that, in contrast to the historically intercultural attitude of the indigenous populations, resulting from their own subjection and from their need to survive in a still adverse context, the dominant classes in Latin American have been characterized more by an exclusionary

5

vocation, hostile towards diversity, particularly when this pertained to oppressed/disadvantaged populations and cultures like the indigenous peoples. For this reason it is imperative to search for or create mechanisms in the education systems that contribute to a profound change in thinking by the dominant sectors of Latin America.

16. The document concludes with a minimum five point agenda to which IBE must focus its attention, with a view to increasing the quality of these kinds of programs, as well as to highlight their advantages. These include:

• advancing the implementation of already existing educational policies favoring IBE, translating them into programs that integrate public education planning with those that assign the necessary national resources for their realization and development;

• advancing the proposal of interculturality for everyone and also moving to a pedagogical implementation of this proposal;

• attending to the education of a team of professionals capable of implementing the proposed tasks, particularly of indigenous teachers, planners and researchers.

• consolidating the application of IBE, from a perspective of decentralization, maintenance and development of the subordinate languages and cultures;

• promoting the indigenous languages and cultures, creating appropriate conditions to also assure their reproduction and development beyond the school setting.

17. We believe that it is only to the extent that Latin American societies as a whole are respectful of ethnic, cultural and linguistic differences and succeed in overcoming the intolerance and racism that characterizes them, that the survival of the indigenous and other ethnic-cultural minorities inhabiting the continent can be assured. Only then will the diversity that has always characterized the region be made creative use of and become a resource capable of contributing to the sustainable development of the region. We regard IBE as an instrument capable of contributing to such a vital aim, having evolved from a transitional compensatory education aimed at making up for certain deficiencies and based on a supposed homogeneity and an ideal of a student which are nonexistent to become an education of quality and equality, constructed from the recognition and positive acceptance of the ethnical, socio-cultural and linguistic heterogeneity.

6

Introduction The following work aims, on the one hand, to situate IBE in the present context of education, and on the other, attempts a balance in its continent-wide application, with a view to contributing to the formulation of educational policies in multilingual, pluricultural and multiethnic contexts. We rely on both contextual and historical information. Based on this we identify a set of challenges the Latin American systems of education are faced with in their attempt to construct an education of higher quality and equality.

The document consists of six parts. The first one presents a general characterization of indolatinoamerican multilingualism, upon which the second part, a short presentation of the indigenous situation in the region, is founded. In part three, we attempt to characterize IBE starting with a brief historical review of Latin American education, vis-a-vis the indigenous populations. The fourth part, on the other hand, approaches some of the principal results achieved by the application of bilingual education programs of this type, in order, in the fifth part, to focus on some of the principal contributions that IBE has made to Latin American pedagogy in general. By way of conclusion, the sixth part identifies some of the principal problems still in need of resolution.

As one might suppose, it is not easy to attempt an overall balance of an educational innovation that, like IBE, on the one hand, enjoys a certain tradition on the continent and, on the other, resulting from several decades of application, takes diverse forms and modes according to the socio-historic and socio-linguistic contexts in which it has developed. That is why this document frequently steps back from particular situations in order to attempt to trace the broad contours that make sense of and characterize this new way of developing education in the region.

In the preparation of this document we have taken advantage of some of our previous works published both regionally and further afield. Chapters I to IV are founded upon articles published in the last three years by L.E López whilst chapters V and VI stem fundamentally from ideas of W. Küper. The extracts from already published works used in this report have been thoroughly updated and supplemented.

As will become apparent, in each chapter we have opted to present the arguments and points of view on IBE by arranging them in successive themed sequences. Also, we have felt it convenient, with only pedagogical aims in mind, to guide the reader by underlining those phrases or segments of each text that, in our judgement, best summarize the argument in question.

Our purpose in developing this document is no other than contributing to the discussion on the evaluation of the decade following the World Conference on Education for All and in this way propitiating the inclusion of the indigenous theme and of the IBE on the agenda of such an important debate. Two first drafts of this document were delivered as working papers in Santo Domingo, in the Dominican Republic, on the 10th and 12th of February, at the Meeting of the Americas of Education for All, and in Dakar, on the 25th and 28th of April 2000, occasion being the World Forum of Education that took place in Dakar/Senegal. A first revised version of this document appeared in Number 20 Revista

7

Iberoamericana de Educación (pages 17 – 87). After this publication, the mentioned conferences as well as comments and suggestions received in various forums in which the points of view presented here were shared, we now give out this new version.

Finally we invite readers to contribute to the enrichment of this document with any information or complementary points of view, for, as will be understood, it is not easy to report on a situation so diverse and complex as characterizes the region as a whole.

Cochabamba and Lima, November 2000

Luis Enrique López Wolfgang Küper

Lelopez@proeibandes.org wkueper@minedu.gob.pe

8

I. INDOLATINOAMERICAN MULTILINGUALISM AND THE

EDUCATION OF THE INDIGENOUS POPULATION1

“The school of the past silenced us, never allowed us to express ourselves or communicate our ideas. We were afraid of making mistakes. It punished us, as much morally as physically and never treated us with care or affection. In all the schools the teacher spoke in a language that we didn't understand, those who knew a few Spanish words could understand a little…. There were teachers of rural origin… who, whilst in class, did not, speak their own languages: some out of shame, others because, little by little, they had forgotten them”

Confederación Sindical Unica of Bolivian Rural Workers, 19912

"The education system of which we have been servants for so many years has weakened us, making us seriously vulnerable to various risks and provocations. [That is why] the Regional Indigenous Council has for the past 18 years, been formulating a proposal for an education that would be our own. Our model of education is an invitation to peace; it is a way of living together. The strength of our enthusiasm and conviction lies in the fact that our curriculum has been developed by the sages of five centuries of resistance, and who are now in the sacred mountains, in the stars, in the lakes, in the night fogs, in sunny mornings or in the afternoons with their setting suns, in the animals, and, above all, in the earth, which explains or interprets these events"

Jesús Enrique Piñacué, Colombian Nasa senator3

Since schools arrived in the rural, mountainous zones, on the altiplano and in the forests and plains, in general redoubt of the indigenous populations, the prevailing educational system in the majority of Latin American countries gave free rein to the civilizing and reproductive work of hegemonic Creole rule that had been entrusted to it, and consequently ignored the institutions and socio-economic, cultural and linguistic expressions of the populations they claimed to be attending to. In fact, the Hispanization campaigns that took place during the first decades of the twentieth century in various countries of the region, looked to contribute to linguistic-cultural homogenization as a mechanism that would assist in the constitution and/or consolidation of the Latin American nation-states. For such a

9

project, diversity was considered a problem that was necessary to overcome or eradicate.4 So certain was this approach that, in the ‘30s and the '40s these campaigns were executed through the so called indigenous ”culturization” brigades, as if only what was imposed deserved to bear the term “culture”. And initially, in fact, the establishment of an ad hoc educational method for the indigenous population of the region was characterized by a paternalistic spirit and a compensatory and homogenizing approach.

The current situation is different. On the one hand because, despite the processes of accelerated acculturation and the progress of a standardizing educational system in the indigenous territories and indigenous languages areas, the persistence of the indigenous people is such that their presence is not only undeniable but even more obvious than before, even in countries in which it was not at all recognized, and relegated to a virtual invisibility. This situation has led to a growing number of countries in the region recognizing their multiethnic character and alluding to the historic debt that the Creole nations have to the first nations to populate the continent and upon whose subjection the current nation-states were founded. This has led to the constitutions of at least 11 countries of the region (Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, Guatemala, Mexico, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru and Venezuela) now recognizing and accepting their pluri or multiculturality and to some, as in the Ecuadorian case, even postulating the "multinational" character of their country. To these are added another four (Chile, El Salvador, Honduras and Panama) with less extensive applications that also recognize these rights and their relation to a distinct education.

In this new stage, IBE appears to be entering a new phase, from a compensatory modality only for indigenous people, it is turning into an educational alternative destined to enrich the official education systems. This seems to be occurring at least in the sense in which a larger number of countries appeal to interculturality in education as a notion and a mechanism capable of bestowing greater quality and equality to national educational proposals, and this at a time when democracy in the region appears more assured.

Given this context and with a view to reviewing the situation of IBE in the region, it is fitting to formulate some socio-linguistic requirements that help determine the character that this educational proposal takes in the areas in which it is implemented, as well as, in general, in the business of regional education.

1. Firstly, Latin American multilingualism is related to the presence of about 500 indigenous or native languages, secondly to the existence of Creole languages and, thirdly, to the presence of diverse foreign languages, products of the African, European and Asian migrations. In a country such as Peru, for example, it is estimated that the vernacular speaking indigenous population borders 25% of the total population of the country5 (approximately 6,5 million inhabitants). Of these, nearly half a million is Aymara; approximately five and half million speak Quechua and some three to four hundred thousand one or more of the 41 languages spoken in Peruvian Amazon basin (Pozzi-Escot 1998). Foreign language speakers on the other hand, scarcely make up a hundred thousand. The number of Peruvians of European, African or Asian origin is obviously much greater than that, but almost all of them now have Spanish as their

10

mother tongue or as their dominant language. For its part, Guatemala, in addition to the complexity produced by the contact and conflict between Spanish and 22 Amerindian languages6, there is also the existence and use of two Creole languages on the Caribbean coast: the Garífuna or Afro-Caribbean and Creole English (Academy of Maya Languages 1999). Guatemala shares this characteristic with neighboring countries, like Belize, Honduras and Nicaragua.

Dealing with just the Amerindian languages, there are between 450 and 500 different indigenous languages spoken and a much greater number of dialects or variations of these languages. In Colombia, a country in which the indigenous population constitutes only 1.7% of the total population, there are between 64 and 68 different languages; while in Bolivia and Guatemala, countries with an indigenous population bordering on 60%, we find 32 and 23 different languages, respectively. For its part, Brazil has more than 170 different languages whereas their indigenous population does not exceed 300,000 or 1% of the total population (OPAN-Operaςao Anchieta 1989).

It should be pointed out, however, that discrepancies exist in the classification of Amerindian languages. A certain variety may by some be considered as a language and by others as a dialect of a greater entity. Derived from this is the existing tension between more descriptive and more normative approaches and the veiled desire of some linguists and institutions to exacerbate the dialectal differences within the same variety. In Mexico, for example, while governmental institutions, such as the Ministry of Public Education, speak of 56 different languages, certain specialists refer to more than 100 or even 200. In another case, in Guatemala, the majority of the people, including the specialists, identify 21 different Mayan languages within their borders, when, strictly, some of the varieties classified as independent languages are mutually intelligible and therefore can be considered as dialects of a single language. Something similar occurs in Peru, a country in which, until very recently 60 to 65 different languages were said to be spoken and today the existence of only 41 or 42 indigenous languages7 is recognized.

2. The current situation of the indigenous languages varies so much if you take into account demographic criteria as sign of linguistic vitality. Some languages, like Quechua, have millions of speakers (10 to 12 million in six or seven different states: Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, Chile, Argentina and perhaps Brazil) or like Guaraní in Paraguay with 4,5 millions, or Aymara with 2,5 millions of speakers; others have thousands, hundreds and some even only a few dozen, as in the cases of Guaraní-chiriguano in Bolivia, with between 60 and 70 thousand speakers, Wichí in Argentina with some 6,000 speakers, the Bororo and Tapirapé languages in Brazil each with less than 700 speakers, and the Guarasugwe from Bolivia, with about only 46 in 1996.

If it is true that the Amerindian languages, in their majority (with the exceptions of Aymara, Maya, Mapuche, Nahuatl, Quiché and Quechua) and particularly when dealing with languages spoken in ecologically vulnerable contexts such as in the case of the Amazonian plains and forests, are not characterized by large numbers of people that speak them, but rather for their often reduced number, it is also must be

11

recognized that this low number is now also due to the fact that many indigenous languages are in serious danger of extinction (around 33 in 1989). Such extinction is as much to do with the reduced number, as with, above all, the fact that many of these languages no longer have members younger than 40 or 50 years of age. So, for example, in Bolivia only two people between 70 and 80 years old speak Uru of the Iruitu, as monolinguals, in a community near Lake Titicaca. And in Brazil, for example, the latest figures record only 6 Arikapu speakers amongst the Jaboti, 25 Torá speakers of Txapakura and 34 Makunas speaking a language of the Tukano family (Ricardo 1996).

Brazil is not an isolated case. Something similar occurs in other countries of the region; according to recent studies, in South America alone, 33 languages are in a vulnerable situation or at risk; of these, 8 have 50 speakers or less; 21 have 225 speakers or less and 4 have 600 or less.

Related to this vulnerability, or derived from it, are the cases of language shift, where the indigenous population no longer speaks the ancestral language but a regional variety of the dominant language. For example, amongst the Ramas of Rama Key, on the Caribbean coast of Nicaragua, children and the young now have as their mother tongue a variety of English, marked by the Amerindian substrate language, while only a few older adults, men and women, conserve the ancestral language. To complicate matters, a growing number of children, youth and adults now have Spanish as a second language of communication, and use it as much in school as outside of it.

In not taking pertinent measures, loss of these indigenous languages will lead to a consequent loss of ancestral knowledge and know-how, one of humanity’s intangible heritage that could contribute to new and better conditions of life for all, and this at a time when we face one of our most critical challenges, due to the crushing and over-exploitation of nature. It should be remembered that when a language dies, not only do a part of history and a part of the patrimony of the humanity die, but so too does the collective knowledge and developed know-how accumulated and transmitted through thousands of years. Such knowledge is a product of human beings that learned to coexist with nature and to survive in particular ecosystems that are today, in many cases, critical to the survival of our species.

Indigenous peoples possess knowledge and know-how in various fields such as botany, medicine, agriculture, astronomy, etc. Such know-how has been acquired by means of oral transmission and, lacking a written systematization, it runs the risk of being lost together with the extinction of the languages that bore it. Should such extinction take place, then humanity would lose incalculable resources, products of the development of human knowledge through the centuries. Unfortunately, there is no comparative sensitivity towards linguistic death as there is towards the death of animal and plant species in the framework of growing concern for the importance of biodiversity for a sustainable development.

3. Another fact that must be borne in mind is the condition of plurilinguals or polyglots that many indigenous Americans display, a product of the knowledge and use of two

12

or more indigenous languages, as well as of the dominant language of the region. Cases of trilingualism and plurilingualism are more frequent than we imagine, particularly on the plains and in the forests of the Amazon basin and of the Orinoquia. For example, the existence of multilingualism and polyglotism in children and adults in the area of Vaupés, in Colombia, has been widely documented in the specialized literature. There a child might come to school knowing and speaking more than 5 or 6 different languages, and then meet with a teacher that, instead of valuing such linguistic diversity and knowledge insists upon the learning and use of an only language: Spanish (María Trillos, personal communication). There are also cases of plurilingualism in villages of the Indigenous Territory of Xingú in Brazil; here the use of two or more indigenous languages can be added to the use of Portuguese.

The plurilingual characteristic of linguistic border zones can go even further with the addition of one or more foreign languages. This is the case, for example in Ciudad del Este in Paraguay where it is common for an individual to speak Guaraní, Spanish and Portuguese, to which, for needs of international trade, English, Korean or any other language of local landholders are frequently added.

Even if in radically different contexts, in the rural areas of Bolivia, Ecuador and Peru we can find the same phenomenon, but involving the indigenous population and Amerindian languages. This occurs, for example, in farming communities in the departments of La Paz, Oruro and Potosí, in Bolivia, as well as in rural communities in the department of Puno, in Peru, that lie on the linguistic borderline between Aymara and Quechua. It can also be seen in Jibaro communities of the Ecuadorian Amazonia and border regions of Shuar-Quechua and Achuar-Quechua.

4. If, as we have mentioned, multilingualism and polyglotism appear to have been relatively common in at least some parts of the American continent, the ideal of monolingualism as a natural condition appears to have taken form in the meta-linguistic perception of indigenous Americans. This situation, a legacy of the colonial regime seriously affects linguistic development in itself, as well as the acquisition and learning of languages. And, apart from the rare cases of out-of-touch, isolated communities (generally in tropical forest zones such as in the Amazon basin), indigenous languages survive and develop in a situation of constant contact and conflict with the European languages spoken by the dominant group: those self-designated “national languages”8. In most cases these would be Spanish, and to a lesser extent, Portuguese, although it is possible to find situations of contact and conflict between an Amerindian language and French, as in French Guyana, and even with English as on the Atlantic coast of Nicaragua, Honduras, Guatemala and Belize, or with Dutch, as in Surinam. The subordination of the indigenous peoples, a product of the colonial situation, has led to a conflictive linguistic regime that has had serious effects not only upon socio-linguistic functioning, but also above all, upon the meta-linguistic perception and mindsets of the speakers themselves.

In this situation we are faced with a context in which bilingualism, apparently natural and necessary for the social functioning of plurilinguistic communities, has become, in

13

most cases, a transition phase, from a vernacular monolingualism, or a bilingualism of two Amerindian languages, to another monolingualism, this time of the dominant language. This change could affect the life of one individual, just as it could affect one or two generations of speakers of a certain population. However it seems that the last word has not yet been said.

5. Recent developments together with the effects of growing democratization of the region (also characterized by an opening up towards diversity and by a consequent recognition of indigenous linguistic and cultural rights) appear to situate us in a different context. There is a relative renewal of confidence in the ancestral languages, and an equally relative confidence in their survival. Within this process, indigenous people have come to regard the school as a potential ally and as a space that can contribute to the recuperation and revitalization of their own languages. Such is the case, for example, of the Cocama-Cocamilla of Peru, the Guarani in Bolivia, the Wichi in Argentina, the Mapuche and Aymara in Chile, and the Miskitu and the Sumu of Nicaragua. In all these cases, IBE, as we will see, often includes strategies to allow the gradual, and progressive “re-learning” of the ancestral language as a second tongue, since it is the hegemonic language which is now their mother tongue amongst people such as these that are experiencing linguistic shift or substitution.

6. As will be understood, the relation between the dominant language of a given country or region and the indigenous languages, even when these are preferentially written and used by large numbers of speakers, is ruled by an asymmetrical system, which is detrimental to the ancestral Amerindian languages. This diglossic relationship means that, in general, indigenous languages are used in closed informal contexts, and that Spanish, Portuguese or another dominant language performs the remaining social functions, primarily the formal and institutional ones.

The existing diglossia weakens the indigenous languages, gradually taking up more and more of their functions, for, amongst other reasons, the processes of self-negation that this very situation generates amongst speakers of these languages. Despite this, we must point out, and as we will see further on, that many indigenous languages have now been incorporated as the educational medium in IBE programs. It is also important to point out that in the last few years among the concerned peoples revitalization and recuperation initiatives have appeared for languages considered to be under particular threat. An example of this are the 40 or 50 thousand Peruvian Cocama-Cocamillas who have begun initiatives to recover their ancestral language, using the state school, through those older than 50 who still have something of their maternal tongue. Something similar took place in Nicaragua, during the Sandinista period, when the imminent death of Rama was halted. Which the help of an elderly woman of 70, Rama began to be taught again, both outside of the school environment as well as within it. Today some 700 people define themselves as Ramas.

Last, but not least, we must be conscious that Paraguayan bilingualism is both atypical and at the same time paradigmatic. The majority of the Paraguayan population is bilingual without this meaning that they all belong to a given class or social stratum.

14

On the contrary, Guaraní crosses distinct social strata and is used as much in middle class homes as working class ones. The Paraguayan case is also sui generis because it is a case of a Hispanic Creole society appropriating an indigenous language, making the language its symbol of national identity, as well as a language of daily personal communication since being Paraguayan implies speaking Guaraní. This situation is now reinforced by the use of Guaraní as the language of education, in the framework of the new education reform that is being implemented in Paraguay.

7. The majority of indigenous languages now have a written form. However, in many cases interminable debates persist over what is the “best” alphabet for a particular language. An example of this is the ongoing dispute amongst the Chilean Mapuches who write their languages with at least three different alphabets. The Guarani of Paraguay have their own debate, despite the widespread diffusion of this language and the fact that the majority of the Paraguayan population speaks it. It should be observed, however, that the dispute in these two countries is minor compared to the one that persists in Peru over the representation of vowel-sounds in Quechua.

In general, the discrepancies have arisen as a result of the written tradition of Spanish and its alphabet, and the influence of this language upon the incipient development of a written form that would be in line with the spirit and character of the Amerindian languages. The position of bilinguals who first learned to write in Spanish has a strong influence on the discussion, as does that of diverse, often religious, institutions. Such influences seem to be stronger than the needs and points of view of the indigenous people themselves, who are beginning to appropriate the written codes, starting from their ancestral languages. In such situations often some teachers working in programs of IBE experience certain difficulties in handling the writing of the vernacular, resulting from the experience accumulated in the writing of Spanish orthography. Their students, on the other hand, not having been conditioned to the writing tradition and practice of Spanish, do not face the same problems and manage to learn the written language by means of the vernacular.

8. With regard to the current state of writing, the eminently oral character of indigenous societies must be borne in mind, as well as the fact that the school is the institution that, as a rule, introduces the written alphabet to these societies. But, given the history of oppression regarding the learning of reading and writing, for the great majority of indigenous people, learning the dominant language amounts or is equal to learning to reading and writing. More than often no difference is established between the process of learning a new language and that of becoming familiar with the written code. This fact greatly complicates the scenery and hinders the introduction of innovations attempting to use the indigenous languages as preferred media of education, both at the oral and written levels.

With respect to this point, we must take into account that education in indigenous areas must not only promote in students the appropriation of the written language where it has only a limited social functionality. It must also create the conditions for a sweeping

15

social change: the literalization of these societies, through the creation of a literate environment.

9. The level of study and systematization varies from language to language, and is often related to the greater or lesser development of linguistics and with the greater or lesser tradition of research and training of professionals in descriptive linguistics. In certain multilingual countries there is, even today no academic training being offered in this field. Despite this, there are a growing number of experiments in the training of teachers for an education partially administered in indigenous languages. Such innovations often focus their attention on the training of teachers actually belonging to the indigenous communities. The development of teachers in the region would be greatly enriched if the study plans of Latin American teachers were to include competencies and content related to multilingualism and its complexities, characteristics and advantages.

In this sense, universities in the region should also increase their efforts and initiatives to include training and research programs in psycholinguistics as well as in sociolinguistics and applied linguistics. It is ironic that in those situations where this kind of program exists, the learning, teaching and use of foreign languages are taken as a reference point, whilst the languages of a large number of Latin Americans who, in certain countries, constitute true national majorities are ignored.

It must be recognized, however, that in the last two decades university initiatives supporting the development of IBE have been organized and implemented in various countries in the region. Such are the cases, for example, of the university programs of training and research of: the Universidad de los Andes, in Colombia; the Universidad Nacional del Altiplano, of Puno; the Universidad Nacional de la Amazonia, of Iquitos, and of the Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, of Lima, all in Peru; the Universidad de Cuenca and the Universidad Politécnica Salesiana, in Ecuador; the Universidad Rafael Landívar, in Guatemala; the Universidad Arturo Prat, of Iquique, and the Catholic University of Temuco, in Chile; the Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores de Antropología Social (CIESAS) and of the Universidad Pedagógica Nacional, in Mexico; and, from 1996, also of the PROEIB Andes, in the Universidad Mayor de San Simón, of Cochabamba, Bolivia. In the last few years other initiatives of professional education and research are under way at several Colombian universities, a consortium of three Chilean universities, two Paraguayan universities and also at some other Bolivian Ecuadorian and Peruvian universities.

10. It must also be recognized that the growing bilingualism, which characterizes the indigenous societies, means that the indigenous presence, or what we call the indolatinamerican is also present in the dominant languages of the region. Whether we speak of Spanish, Portuguese, or any other regionally dominant language, it is equally necessary to take note of the processes of internal differentiation in these languages, because of their secular coexistence with certain Amerindian languages. An example of this is Spanish, the most widespread European language in Latin America, which,

16

for five centuries, has coexisted with languages of distinct cultural and linguistic origin.

Belonging more to speech than to writing, and to working class Latin Americans, the oral variants of Spanish often reflect this ancient contact and are a by product of it. Such is the case, for example of what in the Peruvian case (Escobar 1978 and Escobar A. 1990) has been denominated “interlect” or “bilingual Spanish”. Such Spanish varieties reflect phonological, morphosyntactic, textual and even pragmatic traits of Quechua or Aymara and pose serious challenges both to description and to the very language teaching and use in the educational system. This also affects native speakers who for a generation or more might speak a different kind of Spanish than the national standard one9. The national education systems have not accounted for this variation in their curriculum proposals and it remains to be seen how, and to what extent this oversight will jeopardize the permanence, progress and academic success of peasant and working class students.

11. In addition to the relative linguistic hybridization mentioned above, bilingualism as such has arisen together with the subordination and consequent marginalization of all indigenous traits. It has brought with it negative attitudes towards indigenous languages and cultures which are often internalized in the indigenous societies themselves, even when the latter are in control and manage the everyday business of men, women and children young and old alike. This leads to resistance (explicit or otherwise) to any teaching program that proposes the use of the indigenous languages in school. There is the fear, certainly valid, that the use of the subordinate languages in children’s education would hinder the learning of the dominant language, which not only enjoys greater social prestige, but also allows access to the institutions, rights and benefits which the “other world” now recognizes and grants. It must be pointed out, however, that such resistance is the product of a lack of information and understanding with regards to the programs and projects being carried out. Neither is their functioning understood, nor the benefits that they bring in learning the dominant language. The actual results of IBE in the region allow us to state that once the required information is made available to parents, their resistance diminishes or disappears altogether, even changing into support, and sometimes fervent or militant support. At this point (and as we will see later) these programs, perhaps more than any other innovation, must include the necessary component of social and community participation for their development.

12. With regards to the legal statutes on the Amerindian languages, it must be recognized that until very recently, Peru was a regional exception, in that its national legislation since 1975 has given official language status to an Amerindian language. Today several indigenous languages share this status with Quechua, a result of legal and institutional changes that have taken place in the last two decades. In the decade of the 80s, Paraguay also recognized Guaraní as an official language. In 1991 Colombia’s new constitution recognized each and every one of the native languages spoken in its territory, along with Spanish, as official languages. This also took place with the new Peruvian constitution in 1994 and the Ecuadorian constitution in 1999: in these two

17

countries all of the indigenous languages are languages of official use in the regions in which they are spoken. So too are the indigenous languages of Nicaragua’s autonomous Atlantic Coast area, north and south, as is Guaraní in Paraguay, although the country’s remaining indigenous languages do not share this status.

Although indigenous languages have not managed to achieve this status in all countries, and in some such as Guatemala it remains under discussion, legislation in the majority of American countries recognizes that indigenous people have the right to be taught in their ancestral languages. This is the case in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Guatemala, Mexico, Panama and Venezuela amongst others. Despite this, there has been little progress in the realization of this ideal, or in compliance with the new legislation. At most, official status has taken form as the partial use of indigenous languages in the formal educational arena and in certain communications media, primarily oral in character10. Little or nothing has been done to move beyond the educational sphere or the radio, to incorporate the indigenous languages into other walks of life where they would be in permanent interaction with the dominant languages. In this way official status would evolve, take shape in the collective imagination of Latin America and become something concrete and official that would allow indigenous men and women to participate in the social, political and economic life of their country, while making use of their ancestral languages in both written and oral form.

18

II. INDIGENOUS PRESENCE AND VITALITY AND EDUCATION

The fact that various different Amerindian languages still survive and that these could be used in education is a sign of the indigenous presence that clearly marks the multiethnicity characterizing what we call Latin America.

1. In one way or another we must recognize indigenous presence from south of the Rio Grande to Tierra del Fuego, with the sole exception of Uruguay and the Caribbean sub-region. We point out this situation because it is a solid fact that is often forgotten or at least overlooked, even when it’s a question of around or more than 10% of Latin America’s total population, that is to say, at least 40 or 50 million people”.11

The political discourse of the Spanish speaking countries, although unifying a great majority of Latin Americans passes over another aspect of the socio-cultural, linguist, political and economic reality of the region. Without the facts pertaining to this it is not possible to understand the area’s present, its past or even its future. And this true not only of the isolated regions of the subcontinent but in practically the whole of Latin America, as we will appreciate in the following map.

2. As you might expect the indigenous presence is not uniformly spread throughout the states and sub-regions of Latin America. In certain countries, like Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, French Guyana, Venezuela and Paraguay, the current indigenous population does not exceed 5% of the total of each country. However, in others such as Guatemala, Bolivia, Peru and Ecuador, in this order, the indigenous people constitute true national majorities, although they are still seen as integrating minority communities. It is clear that the situation determining such an interpretation is of a political, more than demographical or numerical nature. So in Guatemala and Bolivia the indigenous population makes up around 60%12 of the total population of these countries and their presence is generally ubiquitous both in rural and urban areas. Even in Peru and Ecuador where the indigenous proportion is less than this (between 25 and 35%)13, their presence is heavily felt and it would be difficult to imagine the existence of these two countries without them.

The Republic of Mexico can also be added to this latter category given the indigenous preponderance, at least in ideology and discourse, in the construction of the national Mexican identity, as well as the vitality of the indigenous presence in various areas of the country. The Mexican situation also allows us to touch upon another aspect of transcendence when we analyze Latin America’s socio-linguistic problematic. When we try to describe the situation of a given country we generally lose sight of two crucial concerns which are relevant to the socio-cultural problematic in general, and the educational problematic in particular. We refer, firstly, to the relation between the indigenous population and the “national” population, and secondly to the need to see the situation of a native people in relation to it natural or ethnic frontiers and not with the current nation-states which are a product of history and Colonialism.

3. The indigenous presence can be small compared with the total population of a country, but it obtains a different importance when analyzed from a regional perspective. This is

19

the case when we considered the indigenous Mexican population in relation to the whole country. It looks very different when we refer to specific regions or zones. For Mexico as a whole, even when we are speaking of 8 to 10 million individuals, it is estimated that the indigenous people make up only 10% of the total population. But when we analyze a state, such as Chiapas, we can see that these figures differ drastically, demonstrating an indigenous presence that exceeds 50 or 60 per cent of the population of that region. The same is true of Peru. Here it is estimated that indigenous people make up between 25 and 35% of the national total, but in regions like the Collao plateau and around Lake Titicaca the indigenous people easily make up 90% of the population.

4. However, there is no question of a rural-urban dichotomy, since in the last two decades, the indigenous presence has become more visible in various capitals such as the Federal District of Mexico, as well as Lima, Santiago de Chile, Quito and Guayaquil and even Buenos Aires. Product of internal or external migration, as in the case of Argentina,these cities are home to growing numbers of indigenous people who often bring their languages and cultures and continue to use them in an urban context. If, given the size of these cities, the indigenous people can sometimes pass by unnoticed, their visibility appears greater in certain neighborhoods and satellite-cities of these huge urban agglomerations. For example, there are more than half a million Mapuches living in various communes in Santiago de Chile, and on the outskirts of Lima and Guayaquil there are more than 600,00 and 300,000 Quechuas respectively.

This phenomenon is not restricted to the above mentioned cities. Rather it is representative of the every reality of virtually all the Latin American capitals, with very few exceptions. It is worth noting in this respect the particular situation of the Mapuche living on Chilean territory, of whom 75% settled in towns and villages of that country, while only 25% of them now live in traditional rural areas (J. San Miguel, personal communication). The indigenous presence in urban zones does not only modify the classical imagery and scenery of the Latin American cities, but also brings with it unexpected challenges for the education systems in the very heart of centralized power.

Amongst the challenges for the education system is the one that EIB must tale: the challenge of attending the needs of students who live in an urban environment and speak two languages when this innovation arose in the rural environment as a means of attending to children who were primarily monolingual in the local language.

5. In addition to this we must also point out that the reduced condition of a given indigenous group, can deteriorate even further when we ignore the fact that its ancestral lands don’t necessarily correspond to the territories they now occupy in a given country. For example, the situation of the Quechua people of Colombia looks different when we consider it in relation to other fragments that remain with relative vitality in Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, Argentina, and even in Chile and Brazil. When we look within any one of these countries, and only in relation to that one country, we lose sight of the fact that this is a population of some 10 million people speaking Quechua. As the Quechua stretch across the current borders of seven States, the Aymara and Maya do so in four and the Mapuche in two States. Our perception of the Mapuche also changes, when we see

20

through the colonial barrier erected between Chile and Argentina in the South. This also the case of the Miskitu or Sumu, in southern America, when we look past the border separating the Atlantic coast of Nicaragua and Honduras.

6. From these points we also derive questions regarding the education service, which, until now, has been considered as ”national”, without taking into account the fact that one people can inhabit two different states. From this perspective, certain neglected possibilities for inter-sate collaboration arise. This is especially so given the changing political situation and the gradual withering of nationalism and chauvinism that would have made Latin American collaborations unlikely particularly in border zones. As an example we could consider an educational proposal for the Aymara living between Chile, Peru and Bolivia or for the Quechua living between six different states. This could also generate little explored opportunities for exchange which would also contribute to the realization of a true Latin American integration based upon the indigenous people. Some steps have been taken in this direction, as for example, amongst the Awas who live an either side of the Colombian-Ecuadorian border, or with the Wayuu inhabiting Colombia and Venezuela. In this respect we must draw attention to a bi-national EIB project to meet the needs of the Jibaroana (Shuar-Achuar-Achual-Awajun-Huambisa) that is anticipated with the final peace accord between Peru and Ecuador, home to this group.

7. It is also important to point out that being indigenous in Latin America generally means being situate on the lowest rungs of society and living in the poorest and most neglected zones, with education equally affected (cf. Patrinos and Psacharopoulos 1995, D’Emilio 1995). One could take issue with the indicators used in the studies on poverty since above all, they overlook cultural considerations and are often based on indicators relevant to the urban context and given social sectors. However, it must be taken into account that even when we compare the indigenous rural environment with that of the creoles, the figures show a number of disadvantages for the indigenous people. These disadvantages tend to be related to health and nutrition (cf. D’Emilio 1994). It is on this basis that we consider the condition of the indigenous people to be a condition of poverty.14 So, in Bolivia, for example, we find that more than half the population is poor, as are more than two thirds of the bilingual indigenous population and more than three quarters of the monolingual indigenous population (ibid). For its part Guatemala’s statistics show that 66% of the population is poor and that this poverty is even greater amongst the indigenous peoples. 87% of the latter exist below the poverty line, and 61% below the line of extreme poverty (ibid). And in Peru it was found that 79% of the indigenous population is poor.15 The situation is so serious that indigenous poverty is now considered as an indicator for the respect or violation of human rights.

Conditions of poverty such as those mentioned are related to the peculiar educational situation and educational backwardness found in indigenous areas. In Bolivia, for example, a student speaking an aboriginal language has twice the chance of failing to make the grade compared with his peer who only speaks Spanish (ETARE 1993).16 This means that the average time in which a student completes his first six grades is 12 years, eight months (ibid). The same occurs in Guatemala, a country in which a student

21

takes 9 years and 5 months to complete his first four grades of formal education (cf. Psacharopoulos 1994). Situations like these are a product of the fact that the education system fails in not taking account of the peculiar linguistic condition of the students and the learning needs that arise from them.

As you will note in the following map, with the exception of Brazil and one other country, the areas of greatest illiteracy generally coincide with the areas of indigenous concentration and it is these same zones that are generally characterized by high levels of repetition and dropout. (cf. Amadio 1995). The fact is that in the rural areas, where it is the indigenous languages that are the preferred means of interaction and socialization, and where the School ignores this, the students are denied a formal education system from an early age, due to their inability to comprehend what is happening and what is being said.

With regard to formal education, the indigenous situation is generally characterized by an acute educational lack, due, amongst other things, to the insensitivity of the education systems. These have, until recently, taken no account of the linguistic peculiarities of students who speak other languages than the dominant one in which (and from the perspective of which) the School curricula are prepared. This lack is also a product of the inability of the Latin American education systems to take into account the experiences, knowledge and know-know of the students in their case. This happens despite the existence of a generalized discussion on basic learning needs and the often uncritical adoption of constructivist perspectives on pedagogy. It is also a result of the homogenizing and universalizing tendency, which has marked, and still marks, Latin American education. The latter has always taken as its model the lifestyle and worldview of the middle and upper classes (those speaking predominantly or exclusively, a European language) and European cultural standards as its references. All of these factors have led to the development of an educational model that is defective in both design and outcome.

8. The indigenous populations, however, have long demanded their right to education and have even contributed decisively to the establishment of schools in their communities, whether actually building them themselves or initially covering the wages of the teacher. This would then act as a mechanism to oblige the State to take on board its responsibilities. On occasions, the demand for access to education as well as for the inclusion of indigenous people in the education service has led to tense and ever violent situations as happened toward the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th in various indigenous areas of Bolivia and Peru. But it must be pointed out that certain episodes in this struggle were carried out legally, appealing to the existing legislation that had been developed by the ruling creole class (cf. Conde 1993 for the Bolivian example).17

As is well known, the main claims of that period were directed towards the dominant curriculum on offer, as well as towards the adoption of writing and the language with which they could defend their individual and collective interests. Possessing the dominant language, and being able to read and write in it, became the principal

22

demands. All of this took place at a time when the marginalization of the indigenous population was greater than ever and when the building of the “nation” and national “unity” were founded upon this reality. Any recognition of diversity was considered to be a threat to this situation.

With the passing of time and the development of community organization, the indigenous people began to realize that the homogenizing monolingual education system did not cater to their interests nor contribute to the survival of their cultures nor facilitate the acutely felt need for progress and social charge. They also found that it was not enough to read, write and speak the dominant language since the mechanisms of exclusion were so strong, and that discrimination and racism persisted, even against literate, Spanish speaking Amerindians. By the 1970 indigenous movements and organizations appeared in places such as Ecuador and Peruvian Amazonia and began to demand the use of their language and the presence of their culture in formal education. Within this context bilingual education and then later, EIB,18 became the demand of the indigenous organizations; demands which would obtain a better quality education and facilitate the adoption of the communicative tools (the literary, oral and scriptural uses of the dominant language) required in order to take part under more favorable conditions in the life of these countries.

Under these circumstances, important native-language adult literacy programs were carried out in the 1980s in Ecuador, Bolivia and Nicaragua. These became true precedents for what, today, is EIB as well as important tools of the indigenous movement to consolidate and further the aims of the various political and ethnic organizations. From its beginning, EIB made a decisive contribution to these aims in various areas around the continent and many indigenous leaders were the product of these focused, developed, but experimental programs. It is from this perspective that so many of us recognize the empowering character of EIB.

9. Today the continent wide indigenous movement constitutes one of the most dynamic and innovative social movements of recent decades. Together with this, or perhaps a result of it, one can see a greater openness and sensitivity on the part of governments, towards linguistic and cultural diversity in Latin America. One result of this opening is the modification or reform of the fundament laws of more than 10 Latin American countries.

It is important to understand that in some countries the recognition of diversity and of the subordinate condition of the indigenous peoples, as well as their consequent reinforced presence in social and political life have occurred with the return (or the strengthening) of democracy. This was the case in Bolivia, as well as in Chile and Colombia. In Bolivia the debate on interculturalism and bilingualism arose during the Popular Democratic Unity Government between the years 1982 and 1985, when the country returned to the democratic process after a long history of dictatorial government and de facto dictatorships. This was also the case with Chile. With the return of democracy in 1990 a debate began on the need for a law for the indigenous people and ideas began to be drawn up for an alternative education for the indigenous peoples. In Colombia the acceptance of diversity and the recognition of the indigenous and Afro-

23

Colombian people was a strong element in the debate on the new constitution, which, in 1991, granted important rights to the indigenous peoples. Here it must be pointed out that this recognition would not have taken place without the organizations and key indigenous individuals (whether ethnic, political, union or intellectual leaders) pushing the indigenous presence into mainstream awareness.

Changes such as those outlined have also led to Amerindians deciding to participate in the political life of their countries and forming political movements. As a result, there are now indigenous candidates and or senators in various countries. This is true of Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador and Guatemala and has even led to an Indigenous Latin American parliament, which brings together these new representatives. The case of Colombia illustrates this new situation. The 1991 constitution recognized the right of Amerindians to have two senators under a special criterion; at the moment, however, there are three in the Colombian senate (a Nasa, an Embora and a Kamtsa) who also received support from progressive, non-indigenous sectors of the population. One of these, senator J.E. Piñacué of the Nasa people, is the third most popular senator by votes in the whole country. To understand this situation, it helps to recognize the existence of three indigenous political movements and under indigenous leadership, which have a national or regional profile: the Indigenous Social Alliance (ASI), the Movement of Indigenous Representatives of the Colombian Southwest (MAICO) and the Colombian Indigenous movement (MIC) (A. Almendra, personal communication).

10. Since the 1970s the Latin American indigenous movement has flourished in various countries, and has gone from being a valid interlocutor to taking on the additional role of the State’s interrogator, and in terms that go beyond the indigenous question and the initial claims to land and education. This has been the case, for example, in Colombia, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Guatemala. In Guatemala things have advanced to extent that twin government-indigenous commissions have been set up to look at the formation of government projects. These include state reforms, educational reforms and discussions on indigenous autonomy. This latter solution was a factor in the ending of the political conflict on Nicaragua’s Atlantic Coast, and facilitated a new set of relations between the dominant sectors of the Nicaraguan population and the indigenous and creole peoples. We have recently seen how the indigenous movement in Ecuador has come to represent that country’s most diverse sectors, following the decline of the traditional political actors. The Ecuadorian experience has echoes in the events taking place in Colombia over the last two decades. Despite the relatively tiny indigenous presence (between 1.5 and 2% of the population) the Colombian indigenous movement has been in constant and permanent dialogue with the state, and has managed to institute many of its claims, such as territorial rights in the 1991 constitution, and in various laws. One result of this has been the granting of indigenous land titles, made up of 84 reserves and covering some 27 million hectares, or more than a quarter of the national territory.

11. The current situation is also marked by an international opening without precedent in human history and by an equally important and growing attention towards indigenous affairs, particularly in the educational sphere, on the part of international bilateral and multilateral agencies and bodies. A result of this greater concern was Act 169 of the OIT

24

favouring the indigenous peoples and encouraging their integration. This has received legal reinforcement from the congresses of various countries, and passed into national law. It is in this context that various declarations have also been inscribed into law. Amongst these are the United Nations Decade of Indigenous peoples, the Project on the Universal Declaration of Indigenous Rights, and the Universal Declaration of Linguistic Rights of Barcelona in 1996. In the same way various ministerial conferences of education and/or conferences of Latin American presidents were concerned with the right of all children to an education in their own mother tongue. To add to this, a declaration of indigenous rights is in process in the Organization of American States (OEA). In the bilateral perspective we must point out the policies of Northern countries towards indigenous peoples and the relevant document on this matter, from the German Ministry of Development and Economic Cooperation in 1996.

12. Both the advances of the indigenous movement and the greater international openness are the result both of progress in the democratic processes of the region and of a process of ethnic rediscovery and reaffirmation taking place not just regionally, but worldwide. It may appear ironic, but this has been due to the twin processes of globalisation and the telecommunications revolution.

These processes bring us face to face, on a daily basis, with the realities of diversity, and of linguistic and cultural heterogeneity, even bringing it into the intimacy of our homes, and this is particularly the case for the globalisation of communications. We are all now conscious of the world’s diversity, and that multilingualism, far from being an exception, is the norm in social relations throughout the world, and this is verified on television. It is also through this medium that we have realized the strength of the indigenous movement in various countries and how it has become the spokesperson for a new understanding of the regional, national and international problems afflicting modern society. There is a good example of this in the defence of human rights as when Rigoberta Menchú received the Nobel Peace Prize.

Global communications together with the global economy have led to the costs of communications technology, which aids in more widespread and better intercommunication in the world, falling greatly, so that even the most limited budgets, such as those of the indigenous peoples, can afford its products. The internet is beginning to be used by indigenous organisations are beginning to use the internet to share experiences, exchange points of view and articulate platforms to defend their interests on an international level. As an example, if it had not been for the Internet, we would not have been aware of the extent and gravity of the events of Chiapas nor of the extremely precarious situation of the Uwa in Colombia, faced with the possibility of collective suicide. Indigenous languages have also found a new space for their diffusion and for the exchange of information between both the users of those languages and the scientists and specialists who study them.

25

III. Intercultural Bilingual Education Historically, in regard of its inherent diversity, Latin America’s option for the indigenous peoples has, from the beginning of the Republican era of the 19th century until very recently (and perhaps even still) been one of cultural and linguistic homogenisation. The new states were based on and inspired by, early liberal ideals and the principle of equality coming from France, as well as the rights of everyone to certain civil and citizens’ guarantees. They perhaps did not realize that in so doing, they necessarily implied the linguistic and cultural rights of the indigenous populations, then constituting genuine majorities in almost all countries of the region.

The requirements of progress and modernity, on the other hand, and of nation building on the other, necessitated the abandoning of anything suspected of atavistic links to a reality tied to the earth or to the ancestral traditions, which were now to be left behind. It was at this time that, in the Andes, for example, traumatic events began to take shape: the appropriation and theft of ancestral territories which the Amerindian communities had managed to hold on to even under colonial rule, and the onset of an authoritarian, feudal order.

With regards to education, and the education of the indigenous population, it is, in broad historical terms, important to realize that in Latin America:

1. The indigenous languages were used in education from an early date, almost since the beginning of the European invasion when the peninsular forces set up schools for the children of the caciques and indigenous nobles. Here Latin was taught, along with Spanish and one of the indigenous languages, regarded by the colonial regime as “common languages”. This occurred in colonial Mexico and Peru where children learned to read and were instructed in Christian doctrine in schools based in Tlatelolco, Quito or Cuzco. They would be taught in their primary language, Nahuatl or Quechua, as well as in Spanish and Latin.

Later, with the advent of the liberation movements, and when indigenous languages were proscribed by the Spanish Crown towards the end of the 18th century, this incipient bilingual practice was dropped in favour of Spanish as the education system was extended to the indigenous peoples.

2. For the larger part of the republican era the government authorities, and in particular the education sector turned its back to multi-ethnicity and multiculturalism and was deaf to the plurality of voices and languages all around, although there were honourable exceptions. School in the areas of vernacular speech was seen as an institution for the cultural and linguistic homogenizing of the indigenous students. The emphasis was always on Hispanization, and the fact that children would have to pass through the same grade for two or three consecutive years had no importance. For indigenous students there was a double challenge: appropriating the contents of each grade and, simultaneously, without any help, learning Spanish, the language of the school and its evaluations.

26

3. Faced with situations like these, teachers in various parts of Latin America who were sensitive to the problems faced by indigenous students, began setting out bilingual methodologies (particularly focused on reading and writing) from the 1930s onwards. Primers were designed to aid both children and adults read and write in their mother tongue, in Cayambe, Ecuador, by an indigenous teacher called Doña Dolores Cacuango and in Puno, Peru, by Doña Maria Asunción Galindo, a mestiza teacher who also spoke Quechua and Aymara. These were designed to facilitate reading and writing in Spanish and led to innovative precedents for indigenous children, teenagers and adults alike (cf. Rodas 1989 and López 1988 respectively). The renowned example of Avelino Siñani and Elizardo Perez in Warisata, Bolivia must also be mentioned. They placed major emphasis on institutional problems and school organization in order to achieve better and stronger links between school and community. They took indigenous social organization (Aymara in this case) as their starting point, to work out a more culturally sensitive education system (cf. Perez 1963).

We must also be aware that in some, if not in majority of all cases, these experiences were preceded or accompanied by growing demands from the incipient indigenous movements looking to appropriate the school and the dominant language. Some of these experiences relating to Spanish have been documented as in the Peruvian and Bolivian cases (cf. López 1988, Claure 1989, Choque et al. 1992, and Conde 1993). As pointed out in the previous chapter these movements demanded the right to school, and school education, institutions through which the indigenous population, in many cases forming a majority, would take up the dominant language and its writing. This was considered to be the tool, which would aid their recognition as citizens and result in their enjoyment of the same rights and benefits as the rest of society. These demands for inclusion were met with repression (sometimes violent) from landlords and certain clergymen who opposed the education of the indigenous people. This occurred in the department of Puno in Peru in 1913 (cf. Lopez 1988) and in Bolivia as late as 1940 (Bauer-Stimmann, cited in Schroeder 1994). Situations such as these have often led indigenous leaders and intellectuals to claim, for example, that IBE is not a state or government concession, but rather the result of the pressures and demands of the people themselves.

4. Little more than six decades ago the Latin American states, under the influence of the indigenist current then affecting diverse countries in the region (Mexico and Peru in particular) collectively adopted a relatively common discursive perspective on the education of the Indians, and the need to incorporate and assimilate them into the life of the nation, even when this would require, initially, the use of their ancestral languages.19 In Peru, for example, the indigenist currents of the 1930s left a mark on the social and political life of the nation as well as upon its culture where painting and literature, amongst other fields, were strongly influenced. It was in just such a context that the possibility of using Quechua and Aymara in indigenous education was proposed.

It was during a meeting of Latin American nation-states in Patzcuaro, Mexico at the beginning of the 1940s, early on in the formation of the Interamerican Indigenist Institute, that the need to use indigenous tongues at the start of the literacy process was first recognized. But the urgent need to assimilate the Amerindian peoples into the

27

dominant languages and cultures was also kept in mind. In this way, the option of bilingual education arose as a compensatory method capable of equalizing them in a given time period. This would take place in such a way that their education could be realized exclusively in the dominant language from the third or fourth grade upward. Under this influence specific legal decrees appeared and bilingual, state education was initiated in countries like Mexico and Peru.

5. Some years earlier in the United States, the protestant Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL) had been founded. This came to be the State’s most important ally in the assimilation cause, and in whose framework these initial bilingual education processes were developed. This was the situation in Mexico and Guatemala, for example, from the second half of the 1930s and the beginning of the 1940s, from the mid 1940s in Peru and Ecuador and in Bolivia from 1955. In this latter country SIL was summoned in the wake of the 1952 National Revolution, which, aside from other structural changes, sought and achieved the widening of educational coverage in the rural zones, with a view to incorporating the Indian into the life of the nation. The SIL, under contract from the Bolivian government, assumed the basic responsibility of taking education into the Amazonian regions.

This initial bilingual education proposal introduced in Latin America created the conditions for reading and writing in the vernacular languages, and for the adoption of spoken Spanish as a second language during the first two or three school years (which would later be managed exclusively in Spanish). Coming at a time when bilingual pedagogy prioritised linguistic principles and criteria almost exclusively, this proposal could not be extended to all the peoples who needed it, except where there were limited linguistic profiles, of the languages in question. It must also be recognized that in the case of the Andean countries for example, the nation-state and linguistic missionaries were most interested in working with the far-flung territories of the tropical Amazonian rainforest. For the state it was a matter of consolidating boundaries and national territory, subjugating and incorporating a people with whom it had had very little contact. To the missionaries it was an opportunity to preach, convert and “save” a people who, in contrast to highland Amerindians, had often had no contact with the Catholic missionaries of previous centuries.

6. This situation meant that whilst some territories were experiencing bilingual education, with a linguistically transitional and culturally assimilationist use of the vernacular languages, in most regions the direct and unmediated use of the dominant language was imposed, using what would now be called submersion. These processes were considered, almost up to the 1960s as national policies, and in the Spanish-speaking countries were defined as “Hispanization”. It must be reiterated that in Latin America, school generally came to the rural zones hand-in-hand with Spanish. This fact stood out, and still does, in the conceptions that indigenous people have about this institution, and about the roles and functions that the various languages occupy in it. For many people, their language still does not belong to the school, nor can it be used in it. It is believed that Spanish alone is the language of reading and writing, and many parents still believe

28

that learning to write means learning Spanish, the language required to operate more fully and exercise their citizenship rights.

7. It was only in the 1960s, and developing further in the 1970s, that alternative educational programs arose, divested of neo-evangelist criteria, distancing themselves from the official policy of Hispanization, and beginning to explore new paths for bilingual education. In the case of Peru, the Universidad Mayor de San Marcos was the first to initiate a pilot program in the research and development of bilingual education, working with Quechua-speaking people from the area of Quinua in the department of Ayacucho. This took place within the framework of the Linguistic Development Plan, which the university had promoted since 1960. Years later, this same university, taking its experiment as a reference, influenced the outlining of a National Policy on Bilingual Education, in the framework of the Peruvian Educational Reform of 1972.

In a parallel development in Mexico in 1973 the General Board of Indigenous Education (DGEI) was founded. This was a part of the Ministry of Public Education (and therefore of the national education system) and became a kind of educational subsystem specifically for indigenous people of bilingual speech, and it incorporated the use of 56 officially recognized native languages. In the case of both Peru and Mexico bilingual education contributed to the establishment of Spanish as a language common to the whole national territory, and as expressly stated in the Mexican Federal Education Law of 1973 without this being detrimental to the languages and cultures of indigenous students.

In this new atmosphere there were bilingual education projects of diverse coverage in Bolivia and Guatemala as well, and these generally enjoyed international support. The latter two countries, however, developed a subtractive bilingualism. That is to say, they prioritised Spanish to the detriment of the indigenous languages. At this point bilingual education was transitional and used indigenous languages only for the minimum time required (thought to be two or three years) so that children could learn Spanish or the dominant language in question, an objective that was rarely, if ever, achieved.

Except in the case of Mexico, a country in which the services of public bilingual education enjoy national coverage under the direct responsibility of the education sector under the General Board of Indigenous Education, bilingual teaching is, in the majority of countries, being carried out in projects and programs of an experimental character, of limited coverage and duration, and often in a compensatory way, thanks to international support.

8. With the intervention of SIL in various indigenous Latin American territories at the end of the 1930s there was a link established between the foreign aid agencies and EIB in the region. In fact the history of indigenous education is closely tied to the participation and intervention of diverse agencies across several countries. Such intervention occurred at distinct levels, from the technical to the financial. In fact, various programs would not have been possible without the technical and financial contributions of outside agencies. Examples of this include the National Bilingual Education Project for Guatemala (PRONEBI), the EIB project on Nicaragua’s Atlantic Coast, Ecuador’s EBI project, and

29

the EIB project in Bolivia, funded by the Agency for International Development (AID), Terra Nuova, an Italian NGO along with the European Union, German Technical Cooperation (GTZ) and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) respectively.

9. With the emergence of the indigenous movement in the 1970s, with the progress and development of these same transitional bilingual projects, and with the greater academic attention and scientific understanding of bilingualism in general, and second language acquisition in particular, a new model of bilingual education arose: one of maintenance and development, which distanced itself from the compensatory approach that preceded it and looked towards a more equal, superior quality education. By a bilingual education of maintenance and development we mean an educational focus, which would consolidate mastery of the students’ mother tongue while simultaneously furthering the adoption of the second language. In this way, education would be carried out in two languages and further the development of those two languages, with the understanding that extended school practice in the mother tongue, or language of predominant use, would also aid the understanding and use of the second language. This was the framework within which several of the aforementioned projects were developed, such as those of Bolivia (the EIB project), Puno in Peru (the Experimental Project on Bilingual Education – Puno), and of Ecuador (EBI Project) as well as various national bilingual policies such as those of Peru.

This consideration almost simultaneously led to another: the need to go beyond the purely linguistic terrain and modify study plans. In other words, from this new perspective of maintenance, the need was seen for a substantial modification of the school curriculum, so that this would then take account of traditional knowledge and values. In addition to responding to basic learning needs, this approach aimed to bring the school even closer to the daily life and community of the people it served. In this sense, education in indigenous areas was becoming more than a bilingual education (Trapnell 1984) and began to take on an ever greater quality, a result of both methodological and curricular revision and the participation of the parents and communities, in its formation and development.

10. From the end of the 1970s, and more markedly in the 1980s, Latin America began to speak of a bilingual, intercultural education or EIB. EIB is, in general, an education that is rooted in the culture the students refer to, but is open to the incorporation of elements from other cultural horizons, including the predominant one (cf. Zúñiga, Pozzi-Escot and López 1991). It is also an education given in Amerindian and European languages, which furthers the students’ communicative competence in both simultaneously. This applies to both the oral and written field, to the maternal language and to the second language (cf. Mosonyi and González 1974; Mosonyi and Rengifo 1986; Gigante, Lewin and Varese 1986; Zúñiga, Pozzi-Escot and López 1991).

Bilingual education now sports the denomination “intercultural” in explicit reference to its cultural dimension and to a significant, socially and culturally situated learning process. Through interculturalism a proposal is sought that responds to the basic learning needs of students whose primary language is different from the dominant one.

30

The intercultural dimension of education also refers to the curricular relation that develops between the indigenous society’s knowledge and values, or those appropriated by the latter, and those that are unknown or alien. In this regard, a dialogue is sought, as well as a permanent complementarity between the traditional culture and the western one, with a view to satisfying the needs of the indigenous population and contributing to a better quality of life.

11. The inclusion of this new dimension also coincides with the return of the democratic process in many countries and also with the recognition and acceptance of the indigenous movement demanding its cultural and linguistic rights. It equally coincides with the evolution of classical indigenist currents which, since the historic meetings in Barbados in 1979 and in San José in 1992, are now committed to indigenous development, from a critical perspective, that of ethno-development and resistance to ethnocide (cf. Various 1982). These conferences brought together Latin America’s most highly recognized anthropologists and many concerns were debated that had a determining impact on the configuration of IBE.

All of this has led to legal resolutions in a great number of countries which recognize linguistic and cultural rights that, as we mentioned earlier, have even led to constitutional reforms as in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador and Mexico, amongst others. Eleven Latin American constitutions, and a larger number of laws and decrees, recognize the right of indigenous peoples to education in their own languages. Such reforms are motivated and/or legally backed by a growing international legislation, as we have pointed out. These have a particular impact upon ongoing educational reforms (cf. Moya 1998).

At the current time, even when there are less projects in national education policy, there is some kind of bilingual education, intercultural bilingual education, bilingual intercultural education, or ethno-education in 17 Latin American countries: Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama, Colombia, Venezuela, French Guiana, Surinam, Brazil, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, Chile, Paraguay and Argentina. In some countries, such as Mexico, Colombia, Ecuador, Bolivia, and soon in Guatemala bilingual education embraces all students of native languages. In Paraguay, in recognition of the country’s predominantly bilingual character, bilingual education has national reach on all levels, and in all modalities, of the education system. In Mexico and Ecuador IBE is a kind of subsystem running parallel to the one aimed at the Spanish-speaking majority. In this last mentioned country the administration of IBE is in the hands of the concerned themselves, due to negotiations and agreement between the State and the indigenous organizations.

12. From what we previously highlighted, certain fundamental changes can be inferred in the understanding of IBE. Up until a few years ago, bilingual education was seen as a uniform proposal looking to transcend, and opposing, the equally uniform approach of submersion in the dominant language. Whether this was a transitional bilingual proposal, or one of maintenance and development, the understanding of bilingual education as a sole alternative only reflected, although in another way and from another

31

perspective, the standardizing, homogenizing will that has historically characterised the education systems. Fortunately, after having taken stock of the great diversity of socio-linguistic situations, there is now a greater awareness of the need to think up differentiated, strategies for intercultural bilingual education. It is also recognized that these should respond to the specific socio-linguistic characteristics of each region, to the expectations of its people and learning needs of its students, whether these are indigenous monolinguals, bilingual beginners, advanced bilinguals, balanced bilinguals, or even monolingual Spanish speakers. One is also becoming conscious of the necessity to transcend the rural regions to involve certain urban or more precisely urban marginal areas, which accommodate vernacular speaking migrant populations.

Due to the growing urbanization, IBE is faced with the challenge of attending to students living in an urban environment and who speak two languages simultaneously, while initially this innovation was developed in the rural environment and as an alternative for children who were, in their majority, monolingual in the vernacular. In some countries, however, one has begun to take note of this concern, due to the direct claims of the concerned themselves or the organizations that present them on the one hand, and the decentralized administrations of the education sector on the other. This is the result of the implementation of strategies aimed at diversifying the curriculum and, in this context, at bringing about parent involvement in the activities of education. Out of this, for example, sprang initiatives of attention to urban indigenous students, carried out with Mapuche population in Santiago de Chile, and with Quechua speaking population in Bogotá, within the framework of the implementation of the new education policies that incited the development if institutional projects.

We also must point out that some countries have begun IBE initiatives that recognize that indigenous children and/ or adults now speak only a variation of Spanish, Portuguese, or the dominant language in question, and therefore attempt to teach the “lost” indigenous language using second language methodology with a view to recuperating it. This has begun to take place amongst indigenous peoples whose organizations have voluntarily decided to claim their ancestral language and create the conditions for its re-adoption and social reinsertion. This normally takes place in a context in which the elderly still have this language and are willing to aid its reinsertion into the life of the school and the community. Particularly interesting in this respect were the experiments carried out by the Rama and the Garifuna in Nicaragua, the Cocamama-Cocamilla in Peru, the Guarani of Bolivia, the Aymara of the northern Chile and various Mapuche groups in both Chile and Argentina.

However, there are few examples of a native language being taught to Spanish-speaking students from other social sectors. Despite this, there are ongoing efforts to this effect in certain countries such as Bolivia and Guatemala. In Bolivia, certain private schools in La Paz and Cochabamba offer Aymara and Quechua courses, with the consent of the students’ parents, as a second language at primary level. In Guatemala, in certain towns and cities of the interior, a creative program has been organized with the aim of making first grade, primary school children aware of the Mayan culture, through the so-called Fringe of Mayan Language and Culture. This is a school program in which students

32

have the chance to learn the rudiments of the Mayan tongue through poems, songs and diverse games and activities, so that there develops an openness and understanding towards the country’s indigenous population. To these experiences can be added that of the Colegio Pukllasunchis, a private institution of the city of Cuzco, in Peru, which has as a goal that all its students, starting in the first grade of primary school, learn Quechua by means of second language methodology.

13. The paradigmatic models (of transition or maintenance and development) are no longer seen as closed proposals or straight-jackets, but as orientations toward teaching that has aims and goals, but must translate into specific and differentiated strategies and methodologies in order to respond to the equally differentiated learning needs and situations that IBE programs are developed within. This recognition reflects and important evolution and also contributes to IBE’s constantly growing progress in quality.

In the light of this evolution, there is a greater opening with respect to the different times in initiating bilingual education. It is no longer thought that this must begin with education itself or with the first grade of primary school, and it is now considered both possible and desirable to start this in the last years of primary school, or even in secondary school, once parents and students have satisfied the need to adopt the written and oral forms of Spanish, Portuguese, or the dominant language in question. In this kind of situation, the learning and use, in school, of the students’ indigenous language would be sustained by the language learning achieved through the second language. In short, the flexibility is constantly increasing and so are the aims at catering as much for a wide spectrum of existing socio-linguistic realities, as for the demands and expectations of the parents.

14. It is also indispensable to keep in mind that the importance assigned to IBE does not in any way imply a denial of the need to promote the learning of foreign languages. On the contrary, achieving competence in a foreign language is considered crucial at the current time, even for indigenous children. This said, it is important to recontextualize language learning, including foreign languages. Rather than looking for opposition between native languages, Spanish, Portuguese, the other dominant languages, or foreign languages, complementarity must be found amongst them, given that we live in world that requires an ever greater number of communication skills for individuals to function appropriately and efficiently in different communicative situations. This has led to, in one example, the Regional Indigenous Council of the Cauca (CRIC) in Colombia planning the introduction of English alongside Spanish and Nasa Yuwe (Graciela Bolaños, personal communication).

33

IV Results in the Application of Intercultural Bilingual Education

As we have observed, there has been bilingual education, to a greater or lesser extent, for more than five decades in the region. The application of these programs, especially from the beginning of the1970s, has been accompanied by research and evaluation that has tried to establish its efficiency and validity.20

These studies, although still scarce and insufficient, coincide with other, similar studies in socio-linguistic contexts as different as those of the United States, Canada and even Nordic countries (with linguistic-cultural minority students).

1. In studies carried out in the region, it has generally been discovered that through IBE

educational performance has improved, and particularly:

a. Indigenous students whose education is bilingual, compared with their peers who were only taught in Spanish, have a generally better school performance (Bolivia, Guatemala, Paraguay and Peru), develop a superior ability in solving mathematical problems (Peru and Guatemala) and show a greater spontaneity and assurance in speaking that language (Guatemala and Peru).

b. A bilingual education helps girls increase their academic level (Guatemala

and Peru). It has been observed that girls’ participation increases and at the same time, leads to greater attention to aspects of gender in education (Ecuador).

c. Bilingual education manages to equalize the performance of boys and

girls in language and mathematics, even in children in remote communities as compared with their peers who live in areas with generally better access to Spanish (Peru).

We also consider that certain national programs, or programs of near universal coverage amongst the indigenous people of a given country, suffer from deficiencies in their implementation and/or funding (as in Mexico and Guatemala). This the case even when they subscribe to the postulates of IBE, and leads to their results not yet exceeding those of traditional, homogenizing Spanish language school. This does not change even in cases when there is an improvement in other kinds of situations relevant to the level of social participation and appropriation in the indigenous communities, as is seen in Ecuador for example. But it must be seen as an achievement when children coming out of bilingual education at least match the performance of their peers in traditional Spanish schools, since the time spent in that language was less. Furthermore, we must also remember that the bilinguals also managed to develop linguistic and communicative

34

competence in the ancestral language, something that those educated in the dominant language did not.

2. The above developments are accompanied by an invigoration of socio-communicative

relations in the classroom, the result of the children’s greater and more active participation the learning process (Bolivia, Colombia, Paraguay and Peru). This has also contributed to cases where the students have dared to point out teachers’ orthographic errors when writing in the native language (Paraguay and Peru). Testimonies like these evidence a greater assurance in children’s learning when they are taught in the primary language, the preferential language of their parents, if not their grandparents (cf. Gottret et al. 1993). All this leads to an increase in the students’ self-esteem, a factor that is crucial to their learning and growth.

3. From this, we deduce that, contrary to what was once thought, the use and systematic

learning of indigenous languages in school is not detrimental to the learning of a second language, nor does it hinder the general progress of the students. Rather, in accordance with research carried out in various parts of the world (cf. Dutcher 1995), there is an interdependence in linguistic development, which means that with greater learning and use of the maternal language, there is an equally greater learning and use of the second language, in which the latter is nourished by the students’ previous learning experiences (cf. Cummins 1979, 1981, 1986).

These results have been obtained even in situations still requiring better pedagogical conditions for the programs, and for the learning of the second language. On the one hand, it is important to recognize the role in these results, of the development of the students’ mother tongue or predominant tongue, given the continuing deficiencies in the teaching of the second language. And on the other hand we must also accept the effects of greater self-esteem and higher confidence that IBE students develop, a result of their use of these languages and the resulting recognition of their socio-cultural specificity. There cannot be any doubt, given the positive results, that an increase in the quality of second language teaching will lead to an equal or greater increase in the rate of learning of the indigenous children.

4. But, aside from the affective and cognitive aspects just mentioned, it has also been found

that communities with bilingual education programs have greatly improved parent participation:

a. There is a greater involvement of the parents in the school and its

management, above all in what pertains to community control over the teachers and a greater concern for the children’s learning (various countries). This greater involvement, as the Guarani in Bolivia report, is a direct result of the use in school of a language the parents share and understand.

35

b. There is a growing desire, on the part of the parents, for a better quality education, which leads to greater demands being put to the school (Bolivia).

c. The use of the indigenous language also contributes to a better social and

even political organization amongst the peoples concerned (Ecuador and Bolivia).

5. Results such as these influence the design and application of new IBE projects and

programs. These are all based on findings to which international research has contributed in the development of bilingual, educational processes, throwing light on the latter, and upon the acquisition of second languages in educational contexts (cf. Dutcher 1995, López 1988). Such is the case with the discovery of a threshold of linguistic development which supposes a minimum of 7 to 8 years of bilingual schooling, with the strengthening and use of the students’ maternal language or their predominant language. In this way, the investment in bilingual schooling yields the fruits of the students’ efficient use of each of their languages (cf. Cummins op cit). The conclusion on the close relationship between the learning and use of the first and seconds language is similarly founded. That is, the time required for the student to learn his or her first language.

In this region one has become conscious of the need to pay attention to the second language, its competence in both the social and academic field, since the former differs seriously from the latter in its decontextualized nature (cf. Cummins op cit and the summary in Dutcher 1995 and López 1998). In this respect we must mention that in a recent investigation carried out in Peru (cf. Zúñiga et al 2000) it was established that vernacular speaking children of the rural environments of Peru studying in the 5th and 6th grades of primary school had greater difficulties in understanding and reproducing a short text in Spanish of an academic nature than other pieces in a more colloquial Spanish.

6. Moreover, given the changes in Latin American Education, a result of the ongoing reforms

that have accented quality over coverage, IBE also needs to review its pedagogical components in order to better capitalize on the positive results obtained from the use of native languages in the classroom. We must now take a step forward, and alongside linguistic change, initiate a pedagogical-didactic change that raises the quality of the programs. This was one of the main results of a two-year study carried out in Colombia.

One of theses changes is related to the treatment and management of the multi-grade school, and of a new pedagogical organization, which allows work on different levels within the same classroom. This is often necessary due to the fact that the school is now comprehensive or multi-grade in the locations in which IBE is carried out, and the instances in which a rural bilingual school has a teacher for each grade are rather rare. Given that the region is now successful in these subjects (as in the case of the Escuela Nueva de Colombia) it is imperative to take advantage of this in order to generate the changes the current IBE proposal needs to increase its quality and capacity to respond.

36

Adopting these measures will also require the review of the educational materials in use, and of the mechanisms of initial and ongoing formation of the teachers.

7. As highlighted by studies carried out in various parts of the region, and particularly in

Bolivia, it is absolutely necessary to focus on the aspects concerning the teaching and learning of the dominant language, as a second language, whether this is Spanish, Portuguese, or any other language of European origin. In certain areas there has arisen some reticence towards the application of programs making use of native languages. This is due to the delays in the identification and application of the methodological proposals, which would assure a more rapid and efficient adoption of the second language. In general, indigenous parents are not opposed to IBE when it truly facilitates the learning and use of two languages instead of just one.

8. Another, less tangible contribution, but which should be taken into account in some form,

is derived from the effects the application of IBE has on the consolidation of democracy and concerning the quest for harmonic co-existence of the different socio-cultural sectors comprising a certain country in question. Reiterating what was mentioned in previous sections of this document, this can be achieved on the one hand either through the social participation in the management and activities of education, or as a result of the influence the projects and programs of IBE have shown to have in the social and political organization of indigenous societies. On the other hand this can be done through the influence exerted on the system of education as a whole, as well as on the various social sectors concerning the higher presence the indigenous peoples have claimed, presence which demands the establishment of a regime of co-existence, if not initially harmonious, at least respectful of ethno-cultural and linguistic differences.

9. Finally, given that the question of costs is brandished, whether to question IBE’s

application or its feasibility, we see the need here to include information on the finance aspects, and from three different angles: the cost of not implementing IBE where it is needed, the investment required for IBE programs, and the cost-benefit analysis of the two.

With regards to the first, we must remember what was discussed in chapter two, that is, the costs of repetition in indigenous contexts when education is only carried out in the dominant language and pays no systematic attention to the linguistic and cultural differences of the students. We pointed out that the chances of repetition and dropping out in Bolivia and Guatemala were greater amongst the indigenous people than they were amongst the non-indigenous. It was also noted that, according to the estimates of UNESCO, Bolivia annually lost US $30 million due to school repetition.

When it comes to investment in the special programs of IBE, it is necessary to take into account a variety of diverse aspects which range from research to evaluation, and that touch on different elements of preparation and implementation of the bilingual education proposal (cf. Dutcher 1995). So it is anticipated that resources will be needed for socio-linguistic studies examining the use and functionality of the indigenous languages in

37

question and well as the expectations, attitudes and interests of the parents and the communities looking to implement IBE. Decisions will also have to be made about the strategies of IBE, upon which rests the need to also elaborate educational materials for each area of the curriculum, including those dealing with the acquisition of the second language. In the same way, teachers must be empowered and systems of monitoring and evaluation developed, along with the putting in practice of the program, and all of these imply a specific investment (ibid). It must be pointed out, however, that such investment is an initial requirement, and once the program is under way it faces the regular costs of traditional education. Moreover, it must be remembered that every innovation, including educational reform programs, require an initial investment to make the change possible, and that one of the highest expenditures in education comes from the teacher’s salaries, something which must be covered whether the program is of the IBE or traditional, monolingual education.

With regards to the cost-benefit analysis of these programs, we should refer to a study carried out in Guatemala by World Bank specialists, looking at the possible generalization of the PRONEBI proposals. The study, carried out in 1991 by G. Patrinos and E. Velez, came to the conclusion that, in implementing PRONEBI money would be saved, as a result of the lower repetition and the increase in salaries of the program’s beneficiaries due to the longer time spent in school (cf. Dutcher 1995). The results obtained from Guatemala show a 22% reduction in the rate of school repetition and an increase in school attendance resulting from the implementation of IBE. Whilst the rate of repetition for indigenous students is 47% in the traditional Spanish system, this comes down to 25% with PRONEBI. The dropout rate in primary school is 13% for PRONEBI and 16% for traditional education. These two factors, and especially the first one, would lead to the Guatemala state making a yearly saving of 32 million quetzals.

Studies carried out in other parts of the world also lead to the conclusion that the changes from an education in a European language to a bilingual education is sustainable when the latter finances itself by savings made in a lower rate of repetition and early school drop-outs. In the same way the impact of investment into the program diminished over the years once there are adequately trained teachers and materials that have been developed and certified. Otherwise, it is worth keeping in mind that if this occurs with limited schooling, resulting from the still limited offer in many indigenous communities of the region, in which basic education is restricted to only the first three, four or six grades, and in which the “impertinence” of the system of education expels children from school very early, the rendition of IBE could be much greater in the sense that more students complete the number of grades offered in the area and their parents as well as the community leaders demand that they attend, at least, the 8 or 9 grades of a complete basic education.

One would also have to take into consideration the fast that, with a greater number of years of a better school education, the indigenous students would be better equipped for competition in the labour market and thus to contribute to the economic and social development of their country. This could occur from within formal economy and not, as

38

before, solely from the informal sector or from ethnic economic practices which are not taken into account when developing and assessing the respective indications. In this sense it is therefore probable that consequently, following results of investigations on the matter, a greater female workforce with longer and better schooling would contribute to the diminution of the alarming rates of child and mother mortality still characterizing the indigenous areas of the region. In consequence, due to an appropriate education of better quality and equality, the quality of life in indigenous areas will improve considerably.

39

V. Intercultural Bilingual Education and its contribution to Latin-American Pedagogy.21 From a reading of the topics approached in this document, we can infer that the influence of IBE on Latin American pedagogy can be seen in two dimensions. On the one hand, as a result of the focus on social groups with different languages and cultures, using specific pedagogical approach implying the development and application of a number of new principles and strategies. Or on the other hand as a result of the new overall vision for pedagogy in multi-cultural and multilingual societies, or in the enriching of existing general concepts in Latin American pedagogy. It should be clear that IBE, exceptions aside, developed within the Latin American education system as a search for answers to the maladjustments of the formal education system when implemented in multilingual areas. This occurred through the implementation of IBE, whether a s pilot schemes or as programs and activities with national coverage, generally on a private level. Recently, however there have been an ever greater number of adult education projects also adhering to the principles guiding the development of intercultural and bilingual educational processes, like those implemented in the sphere of public education (cf. Küper and Valiente 1999). Given the reasons that, up until now, were considered and derived from IBE’s contribution to the political, social and cultural development of Latin America, we can state that intercultural, bilingual education, together with popular education, constitutes one of the continent’s most important innovative educational contributions to the increase in coverage and the permanent search for better quality and equality in the education service. We consider that this, in turn, is a result of the focus on a specific section of society which, despite its subordinate status (or perhaps because of it), is looking to appropriate the school and turn it to the service of its social and economic development. We are also looking at an innovation that not only seeks to solve a specific aspect of the education system’s functioning in a specific territory, but rather, claims to contribute its fundamental transformation, both in a pedagogical and institutional sense. This occurs from a new political and pedagogical vision that takes as its starting point the actual characteristics of the social sectors it attends to, interpreting them, giving them a theme, and upon this foundation, formulating and operating a set of principles and strategies for pedagogical activity both in and out of the classroom. This is possible due to the fact that, in the context of educational reforms and the search for as better quality of education in the region, various countries’ reform proposals have decided to adopt or incorporate IBE as an integral part of their suggestions (cf. Moya, 1998). It is recognized in this project the absorption and re-absorption of influences and innovations, which can be adopted in the reform process through mechanisms of reception, processing, selection, and tailoring to national priorities. This has taken place in diverse countries throughout the region, as recently in Bolivia and Guatemala for example. In these two countries, focussed experimental projects have led to national policies based on their results. (cf. Munoz 1993 for the Bolivian example).

40

However, it remains to be seen in what degree this absorption by the national education system does not also bring risks, risks that must be anticipated to ensure that the advantages and positive results obtained are not only maintained, but go on to enrich and impregnate the national education system as a whole. This is possibly one of the biggest current challenges for the IBE experiments that, up until now, developed with a generally greater control over the many variables that impact upon its development. Summarizing a part of the discussion advanced in this document, the following constitute IBE’s main contributions to a new Latin American pedagogy: 1. It’s attention to the learning needs of specific populations. From its inception EIB had to

find mechanisms to detect the educational needs of specific socio-cultural groups. This resulted from the fact that it did not involve articulating a national education proposal, except in certain instances, but rather in finding answers to the reeds and problems of a specific people. If you would, it claimed to elaborate a specific education proposal that was made to match.

Given that it involved social group with different languages and cultures, the analysis of requirements began with the identification of the particular character inherent in the languages and cultures in question and with the similarities and differences between these and those of the respective dominant society. It also started from detection of the expectations, interests and needs which the populations in question had regarding formal education, as well as from the nature of the ancestral languages and the use that could be made of the latter in educational development. That is to say that from its beginnings its implantation supposed grassroots research, and it is for this reason that the academic sector participated from an early stage on in its development and implementation. It is known that every innovation in IBE starts from a socio-linguistic diagnosis, which takes into account the concepts of the population, with respect to its language and culture, and the relation established between these and those of the dominant culture. It also begins with the assembling and systematisation of the linguistic and anthropological studies on the people in question, with the aim of determining whether or not there is a need for complementary studies to enrich the socio-cultural and pedagogical perspectives. Tools such as these later become resources for pedagogical planning and implementation.

2. The emphasis on decentralization or curricular diversification. Throughout its evolution,

the projects and programs of IBE have gone through various stages, until arriving at its current perspective in which, to implement an educational modality in a different language and culture, it is not enough to tailor or adapt the national curriculum. Rather, it is necessary to allow curricular diversification, without this necessarily implying a total removal from the national curriculum, since what is sought is interculturalism. Initially, when the perspective was a transitional one, focussed on the linguistic aspect, curricular work was more to do with adaptation, with its evolution in perspective and the generation and adoption of the proposal for interculturalism, every bilingual education program or project in the region has, for at least the last decade, considered the need for diversification, founded on the diagnostic studies mentioned. Detecting the needs and

41

expectations of the people concerned, through the very mechanisms of community participation was determinant for the development of these projects and for a decentralized or diversified curriculum.

3. Bilingualism and a new relationship between the pupils’ mother tongue and the teaching of

a second language. IBE is based on the notion than in language learning in bilingual contexts a complementarity exists between first and second language development (cf. Cummins op. cit., Collier 1992). If such a conception arose as a postulate of a practical nature, aimed at minimizing the communication barriers in the classroom and at enabling the education, of students speaking a different language than that taken as official in education, the application of programs of IBE with the implementation of teaching of and in two languages has evidenced the fact that the learning of one language facilitates the learning of another, and that the better the development of the mother tongue, the better is the learning and usage of a second language. Among other reasons, this was also due to the fact that, in spite of that which was desired or planned, generally and for some reason or other, the emphasis given to the mother tongue in the programs of maintenance and development was greater than expected.22 This emphasis, however, was not to the disadvantage of the second language. On the contrary, as we have seen, the results are favourable to IBE, even when speaking of the knowledge of the second language. Furthermore, as international studies demonstrate bilingualism or plurilingualism brings with it advantages for the child such as greater cognitive flexibility, creativity and openness to change as well as an increased knowledge and better usage both of the first and the second language.

In this realm and in order to foster the development of bilingualism it becomes particularly important to pay attention to the learning and usage of the second language in school and in the community, particularly in contexts in which the Amerindian languages are the languages most socially used and where the hegemonic language fulfills only limited functions. In this respect a central question arises regarding the forms taken on by the teaching of a second language. If this remains one of the problems that has to be looked into, there are proposals based on the importance the mother tongue has as a medium of communication and teaching for the learning and acquisition of communicative competencies in a second language. In any case, he children should start learning their second language at a very early stage, first orally, and gradually also through writing, once they have learned to read and write in their mother tongue, in the case of monolinguals or incipient bilinguals, or developing biliteracy when the children are simultaneous bilinguals (López and Jung 1998). This approach is based on the language competencies first learned by the pupil, which become necessary prerequisites for learning a second language. The first language is thus regarded as both a necessary medium for communication and secondly the foundations on which to build new learning. In the teaching of both languages one has to bear in mind the close relationship between the processes of acquisition of these. Given that the learning of the new language relies on the idiomatic competencies developed by the students through their mother tongue, as well as due to the different status and social appreciation the two languages enjoy, it is

42

not fitting to organize the teaching of a second language as if it were the mother tongue of the children, except, of course, in the context where the children come to school already bilingual. In this case they acquired two instead of only one. Similarly, it is also convenient to keep in mind the useful categories established by Cummins in 1984 to differentiate the use of language in social settings vis-à-vis its use in an academic environment, such as the primary school classroom. Establishing such pedagogical differences allow teachers and curriculum planners to organize second language teaching and to make decisions regarding the use of language in the classroom when teaching non-linguistic subjects (math, social sciences, natural sciences, arts, etc.). It is necessary to bear in mind that the communicative requirements and the complexities of language vary when one moves from a social to an academic setting. It is not the same, for example, for an indigenous Brazilian to use Portuguese when shopping at the nearest market as when participating in a training workshop where Portuguese is the only language of communication. Nor would it be the same to tell about something that happened to him the day before when he meets with his friends as it would be to describe the use of a specific tool or to explain the causes of a certain fact. Such a distinction is fundamental when the decision has to be made regarding the length of a bilingual program and to the time devoted to first language learning, although there really should be no reason to formulate this question if in fact speaking about a truly bilingual education. Research (Cummins 1984, Collier 1989 and 1992) has proved that for social language skills development in a second language a child needs between one and two years whilst five to seven of systematic instruction are needed for academic language competencies, in contexts where effective bilingual teaching has taken place with specially prepared professional teachers and where there is a favorable environment for learning and using two languages, which includes a parent’s positive attitude towards bilingualism. It may be the case in Latin America, and particularly in rural contexts with a limited second language functionality and in multigrade schools or schools where only one teacher must teach the two languages, that this threshold implies a minimum of 7 to 8 years of bilingual instruction. What we have learnt with IBE in the region and beyond, concerning the learning of a second language, could certainly help also to increase the quality of foreign language teaching in the region. The latter suffers from deficiencies that often discourage students of public schools concerning the advantages of learning languages. Improved relations and the exchange of experiences between those responsible for foreign language teaching and those in charge of bilingual education in ministries of education of the region could certainly contribute to this end.

4. The application of the notion of interculturalism. This is another important contribution of IBE to Latin American pedagogy. As it has been explained in previous sections of this document, interculturalism is the essence underlying the pedagogical model of IBE. Through interculturalism education seeks to respond to the specific political, social and cultural conditions of a plurilingual society. Reflecting upon the existing relationship

43

between “the alien”, “the strange” and the “other which is different” becomes fundamental for curriculum decisions. In order to try to construct from this starting point a pedagogy able to contribute to achieving a more harmonic interrelation between “the own” and “the alien”.

In Latin America, in a first phase, the concept of interculturalism was introduced on the basis of the strategy employed by the indigenous peoples to know the other as well as to defend their traditional ancestral cultures in a context in which it was mandatory for them to achieve a positive co-existence within a society dominated by a language and culture with which they were not familiarized (cf. the works in Godenzzi 1996, as well as in Zúñiga, Pozzi-Escot and López 1991). Nonetheless it is necessary for this concept and its application to transcend the indigenous settings in which it originated in order to influence society as a whole (cf. Moya 1998, López 1996b and 1999).

An intercultural pedagogical approach strengthens the development of an open attitude and fosters dialogue in a complex society; bridges are built between cultures on the basis of the knowledge one acquires regarding the practices and knowledge of other peoples. In this context one should also learn to cope with problems and conflicts and attempt to solve through dialogue and common understanding. In this sense interculturalism is a matter that concerns all sectors of society. Gradually this approach has earned a growing recognition in the reality of Latin America (cf. Moya 1998). As mentioned before, 11 countries constitutionally acknowledge the pluricultural character of its societies and several others consider interculturalism to be a common denominator of their educational systems (cf. Díaz-Couder 1998, Moya 1998). The cultural diversity is beginning to be seen as a resource empowering a society, and not as a problem better solved. The opening up towards interculturality also stands in close relation to the advancement and strengthening of democracy in the region. From this new perspective, linguistic pedagogy finds itself in a broader social and political context, no longer witnessing assimilation or integration, which in the Latin American political discourse were completely synonymous, but rather an articulation between distinct peoples and societies of the same country, accepting and recognizing linguistic and cultural plurality. For this reason an additive bilingualism is being proposed, and a parallel development in the local and dominant languages. That is the contribution from the linguistic realm. On the other side, interculturality is posited as an indissoluble counterpart to the language dimension. And this leads to bilingual education dropping its transitional approach in exchange for the maintenance and development of the indigenous tongues, without this supposing a denial of the need for a common language. At the same time, it is modifying its monocultural curricular understanding in order to base itself on the necessity to construct proposals and a pedagogy that use the values, knowledge and worldview of each people, to build bridges and spaces of dialogue: between the indigenous particular and the surrounding Creole, between the subordinate and the dominant, and between the local and the universal.

44

5. The orientation towards the child. Another basic principle of the EIB is that it is oriented towards, and committed to, the child. This assumes that the child is a person first; that each one is unique. To recognize and admit this difference involves opening our minds and understanding and taking responsibility for the children in order to arouse a sense of responsibility in them. A pedagogical perspective based on and directed towards the child implies a compromise and a necessary respect for the particular characteristics of the child’s development and socialization, which, in the case of the indigenous societies, is defined by a learning process oriented toward the concrete requirements of daily life in their rural communities.

Understanding how society and the world appear to the child as it grows up, as well as understanding how this child gains experience in the world is still a significant challenge. In this process children construct their relationships with society based not only on the workings of society, or those of their relatives or parents i.e. adults. This opening and experiencing of the world reinforces in the child the development of, and right to, their own needs and interests.

For instance, in the Andes, observation and imitation are learning strategies that allow the individual to integrate into the social and family group, which takes place through a relationship structure and the development of a feeling of responsibility and obligation. The tasks carried out early on in life, such as tending to the animals, agricultural and domestic chores, the adopting and internalization of roles through imitation and role play activities, are all teaching and learning resources. These learning methods are defined by the daily requirements of life in the rural community, which demands flexible relations and attitudes from all the people involved. Some of these have only a temporary function similar to that of the teacher and the student. Its main aim is the reproduction of knowledge, that is, the product of whole succession of experiences and transmission of traditions, customs, knowledge and beliefs.

6. An orientation towards practice. Closely related to the intercultural perspective is the practical orientation of IBE, which is also reflected in various movements of modern pedagogy. On general terms it can be said that the human being is in constant interaction with the world, otherwise characterized by the fact that he is in constant movement and transformation. This interaction constitutes a learning experience that can be observed in actions, opinions, behaviour expectations, emotions and attitudes. A central idea of a pedagogical approach with practical orientation consists precisely of the use of reason and the ability to reinforce this learning experience in the development of creative forces in the solution of concrete problems in everyday life.

In this context the importance of learning is not to have registered and accumulated knowledge, but having acquired the ability to put them into practice, as reasonably and

45

realistically as possible, in the world that surrounds us. Pedagogy should thus contribute to the education of the human being and in converting him into a mature being of responsible, reasonable, rational and emotional actions within his environment. This also implies the necessity of a process of change in the internal dependencies in favour of a process marked by the responsible treatment of the others and in an environment, which is the socio-historically generated space for all. One of the consequences of this approach for the teachers is the revitalization of the importance assigned to the role of the teacher, almost to the extent of being unnecessary, or rather assuming the function of moderator. That is to say we are trying to achieve the fact that the help given by the teacher to the children is transformed onto a tool for the children to handle automatically.

IBE goes out from the acknowledgement that this intrinsic disposition of learning should be stimulated and challenged. That is to say we are dealing with arousing and maintaining the students’ interest, their attention and motivation to learn. This means that they understand the significance and importance inherent of that which they are learning. Through this act of understanding a process of conscience taking and of making sensitive towards the problem are achieved, as well as of creating reflection in order to solve it.

In the above proposal the pedagogical project considers the idea of how to guide the child so that not only does he learn something, but that he is taught in such a way that he develops the capacity to learn by himself. From the perspective of a practically oriented pedagogy, the learning process is not understood as the student merely accepting and becoming used to the way he was taught with a regular teaching method. The learning process is understood as a mental act through which the child understands and adopts the structure of knowledge or a skill, and applies it to real life situations.

A practically oriented teaching method considers some aspects of the conflict that arises from the relation established between the human being and his social reality, and presents it in a way that caters to the child’s stage of development. For instance, in direct experiences, explanations, tours, open talks, observations, the characterization and use of a methodology and practice that come from their own cultural tradition. At the same time, this idea is useful for socially oriented teaching: individual work, group work, class work, etc. A starting point in the IBE is the belief that the pinnacle of all learning process (and work) is the inner satisfaction that comes from problem solving through reasoning, the discovery of ideas, and a successful outcome at the end.

7. Community participation. EIB always refers to the importance of the involvement of the community in the organization of a successful educational and learning process for the children. This enthusiasm for participation can be achieved when the parents and the community in general feel affected and committed to their rights. In the current educational systems, study plans and the elaboration of the curriculum are generally carried out outside of the community, and the local region.

46

This leads to the interests and expectations of the children, the parents and the community not being reflected in these official documents. Moreover, these curricula are implemented more or less without taking into account matters that are practical and useful to local development. One of the IBE’s contributions has been its recognition of the need for community participation in the educational process, in respect of community development. One of its achievements has been the parents expressing their rights to participate in the educational formation of their children.

In the Latin American educational reforms, the need for community participation in the educational process is now recognized, and there are also spaces for curricular diversification even within the limits of the school. However, these concepts have still not been put into practice. There is still a lack of ideas and experience to contribute to their realization, and as a consequence, many parents feel inhibited in their right to express what they want for their children. One of IBE’s most successful mechanisms to date, is the setting up of educational councils composed of parents and community leaders, based on traditional forms of organization and conforming to native system of role-rotation. Where these councils exist, there is not only a greater involvement of the parents, but also greater community control, which leads to a more efficient and effective education. Unfortunately it is sometimes the teachers who don’t look kindly on such participation, fearing the loss of benefits and prerogatives that they had previously enjoyed. An interesting experiment of this kind, at a national level and coverage, is the one being implemented in Bolivia in the framework of the Educational Reform and through the four Councils of Native Peoples installed by law, autonomously organized and ratified by the Bolivian president. The Aymaran, Quechuan, Guarani, and multi-ethnic Amazonian councils are not only assuming the new role that the law recognizes for them, but are also openly demonstrating for, and even fighting for, participation in aspects not foreseen in the legislation. Equally valuable experiences are being carried out in Colombia as a result of the need to elaborate community education projects, which incorporate the proposal of ethno-education in that country (cf. CRIC/ONIC/PROEIB Andes, in printing).

Despite the existence of councils like these, many parents in both Bolivia and Colombia, as well as in other countries in the region, are still inhibited about a more appropriate education reflecting their own way of life and given in their language of predominant use, instead wanting their children to be educated only in the dominant language. For this reason there are paradoxical reactions against the use of indigenous languages in school. This rejection is a product of the secular oppression experienced by indigenous people, both individually and collectively, and of the desire to appropriate the more widespread language in order to meet real needs. As a result, and as we have continually reiterated, it is imperative to work side by side with the parents, even at the moment of the education programs’ planning and design, so that they understand the reasons that underlie the use of indigenous languages in school.

Parents must understand that initial teaching of reading and writing skills in a practically unknown language, does not produce good results. A premature and overly complex

47

experience with a second language hampers the main objective, which is to achieve communicational competence in this language. Therefore, parents should understand that their children can benefit from a basic understanding of their own language in order to achieve a greater competence in the second language, rather than following a superficial method in only the second language.

Keeping the parents and the community as a whole informed must be a permanent activity and must take place throughout the development of the education process, socializing the principles, experiences and results that are achieved with the implementation of every innovative education program. For this reason we must look towards the establishment of long term communication and consciousness raising campaigns and workshops which demonstrate the importance of the mother tongue as a basis and support in the acquisition of new knowledge.

To work on the misunderstandings that many parents frequently have about educational transformations in general, and about IBE in particular, and above all, learning to listen to the “beneficiaries” of the new pedagogical activity, is one of the best ways to promote social participation in both the management and the very business of education. The origin of misunderstandings generally reside in the inadequate application of the proposals, as occurs with EIB when, for example, there is an unnecessary delay in the teaching of Spanish as a second language or when frontal, authoritarian methods relying on memorization and repetition are applied.

On the other hand, rural communities in general must also participate in the educational process in order to assure the inclusion and integration of their own traditional knowledge in the teaching and learning processes. This supposes the direct participation of people experienced in traditional knowledge and technologies in areas such as handcrafts, botany, agricultural techniques, oral history, medicine, music, astronomy, religious practices and arts, amongst others.

The role of the teacher in this process is crucial. Teachers must promote development in the community, maintain a close relationship with it, participate in its workings and promote the participation of those communities in the school, share their experiences, develop initiatives in the management of resources of the area in teaching and learning, maximize the content of the different materials for the needs of the community, and within this context mange the communicative language of the community, and above all, of the children. The attitude of the teacher towards learning becomes a determining factor in its quality, above all in indigenous contexts where they not only have to learn to read reality in a different way (and through the eyes of the community), but also because they have to unlearn the prejudices that, until recently, informed any reading of the indigenous reality. In this way, and with an open and flexible attitude, teachers can contribute to the community perceiving the usefulness of the school and that of its methods, contents and knowledge for the life of the community, thereby creating the enthusiasm to participate in the educational process.

In this chapter we have tried to present seven contributions that IBE makes to the improvement of the quality of education in the region, as well as to the construction of a

48

renewed Latin American pedagogy. As might be expected, we are dealing with seven closely interrelated aspects; thus, even if we have tried to present each one of them in an isolated and linear manner, it is obvious that we are dealing with factors that between them and in synergy give sense and significance to IBE. On the other hand there is proof of a concern for the rights of the indigenous peoples, as such rights could only be exerted in the measure that the whole Latin American population changes its mentality concerning its ethnic, cultural and linguistic diversity and abandons the ideal of uniformity, which mattered in other realities. Therefore IBE now also seeks to project itself into society as a whole and tries to impregnate the global education systems of Latin American countries. In this project and oriented towards the level of rights, IBE evolves from a compensatory modality aimed at the solution of “shortages” towards a permanent education of quality and equality, as much for the indigenous peoples as for the society as a whole, particularly and in the first place in those societies that are strongly marked by multiculturality and multilingualism.

This occurs at a point in time in which Latin America is experiencing a strong educational transformation process that aims for an increase of quality in its systems of education. This process can be reinforced by the application of new strategies of IBE in various social and pedagogical realities, as well as by the complete putting into operation of the ideal of interculturalism present today in the majority of educational legislations. In this way IBE can contribute to reform to an even greater extent the global Latin American education system concerning the characteristics and necessities of a culturally differentiated society and with reference to the demands of a globalized world that presents itself as an intercultural space par excellence.

VI. An Agenda for the Future If, as we have seen, IBE has advantages for the cognitive and affective development of the students to whom it was so far directed, i.e. the indigenous students, it is necessary to pay special attention to a number of aspects that may contribute to renew and also enrich the bilingual education proposal, as well as to set higher quality standards for such programs.

1. From projects to State policies. Even though the advance, both conceptual and operational, of IBE is important in the region, the programs of this kind with very few exceptions have not yet gone beyond the level of experimentation and of the logic of focalized projects and programs of limited duration and often depending on international cooperation and financing. This very fact determines that IBE is not yet developed in all its potential in many Latin American countries, although the present legislation rules its implementation. It must also be remarked that IBE, as the form public education often takes when applied in indigenous settings must receive public funds for its implementation and development. It is important to remember that in this sense IBE does not turn out to be more expensive than traditional education, even if it may be true that in the beginning, as in every innovation, a higher effort is required. The fruits of this initial investment allow important savings in fields such as school repetition and desertion.

49

2. Interculturalism for all, not only in legislation and educational discourse but also in the classroom. As it was stated in the previous chapter, IBE was initially designed for students from minoritized peoples, cultures and languages and aimed at contributing to the revival of these students’ lost confidence in themselves, their peoples and their cultural and linguistic institutions. Nowadays, however, IBE has gradually gone beyond indigenous settings in order to exert influence in the overall educational system in the region with its ideas, proposals and utopias. This occurs in a moment in which, like never before, mankind is faced with the challenge of learning to live together, accepting each other in a world of multiple differences, building consensus and common projects in order to guarantee the survival of our species. Nonetheless it is necessary to accept that we are still far away from a true realization of all these proposals and utopias, particularly in so far as the already formulated and apparently accepted policies do not enjoy, in all cases, a real implementation which impinges on the meaning and senses of Latin American education as a whole. The proposals of interculturalism for all remain at the discoursal level and they hardly influence, for example, the level of the classroom and of pedagogical operations in general. It is mandatory to identify and design strategies and instruments that allow for an effective incorporation of the principles and ideals of interculturalism both regarding curriculum design as well as classroom management. This could be achieved through the implementation of activities and practices which modify the daily functioning of classrooms and the social relations that occur in them.

3. The call for a two-way bilingual education. In spite of all the good wishes and efforts, unfortunately, the bilingual dimension of IBE still relates to only one direction: from the indigenous languages to the European dominant one. We have not yet been able to transcend the boundaries of the dominant societies in order to direct our attention not only to the needed hegemonic national language but also to strengthening the indigenous languages, involving also in this process children and youths of non indigenous origin who want to learn a native language of their country. For this task to be possible it would be wise to attain the commitment of society as a whole and in particular of the State institutions that should promote indigenous language learning in all of society (by means of mass communication media, for example) as means of rapprochement of the indigenous peoples in search of understanding and mutual respect.

Even more progress could be made in this sense if the Latin American education systems and the societies they serve were more daring and brought themselves to put into practice a two-way IBE which would generate in the members of the dominant sectors a better understanding, acceptance and respect towards the indigenous peoples, due to the equally higher understanding resulting from the learning of the language of a people.

4. Educationalists and their responsibility towards IBE. Although in its beginning IBE was not an endeavor of pedagogues but of linguists and anthropologists, for a better and more adequate development of IBE it is required that more educationalists, indigenous or not, become involved in its implementation. They could contribute to the

50

transformation of IBE into a more valid and powerful pedagogical tool that could also aid in solving the problems faced by Latin American education in general, and of the indigenous peoples specifically. Such is the case of the emphasis made today in the whole of the continent in the importance to the learning process, one the one hand, of the experience and foreknowledge of the students, and on the other hand that the learning be significant, fitting and co-operative. In this context, teacher education and training, from an intercultural and bilingual point of view, are converted into a neuralgic aspect to which it is important to pay more attention as has been done so far. This is even more peremptory since in the application we have learnt that the fruits of training turned out to be limited and limiting to a better advancement of innovation. Therefore, for the advancement of IBE, more and better indigenous initially trained teachers are required, as much as a continuous training of these teachers from a perspective of professional development.

5. The effective decentralization of educational systems. The context in the majority of countries is favorable as all the education systems seem to be going in this direction in the framework of modernization of the State. In this context it is also worth noting that in some countries the indigenous organizations are in the process of negotiating models of self-government, in the ongoing processes of deepening their projects of self-determination and their new relations with the State. There are, however, still only few bridges between the different processes to bring into effect the educational decentralization, even though it is important to acknowledge advances from which can be learnt, like, for example, those that mark the relationship State-indigenous peoples in educational matters in Nicaragua, Ecuador, Colombia, Bolivia and Chile. An effective decentralization represents at the same time a condition for a better IBE and the space from which a real curricular diversification can be put into practice.

6. The making official of indigenous languages and its implementation. Spanish continues to be used in important institutional social spaces, such as in commerce, industry, communication, judicial administration etc., while the indigenous languages still remain refuges fundamentally in the intimate and everyday activities, and thus result in being politically less important. Therefore, and even though the indigenous languages have been made official, the conditions still have to be created for this officialdom to become reality. In this effort the indigenous peoples and the rest of society should work together in collaboration; the former in demanding the enforcement of the laws currently in effect and the society as a whole in supporting such demands and do what is in their power that the officialdom transcends the level of legislation and discourse. The State institutions, for their part, should take on tasks of a diverse nature, starting in many cases by the regulation of the respective article of constitution or of the law in question. The making official should be in close link with policies of standardization and modernization in order for the languages to have a global applicability. But first of all mechanisms should be established that ensure its respect in practice. For this purpose it will be necessary that the official use of these languages transcend the sphere of the school (Cunningham 1996).

51

7. The necessity for a mental “decolonization”. Faced with the ethnic and cultural multiplicity especially in the Andean countries, a multiplicity of the political and economic phenomena does not exist. The acknowledgement of a cultural pluralism and its political, economic and social consequences cannot be achieved without a previous “mental decolonization” of the leaders of the dominant sectors of society and without constructing a bridge between modern civilization and indigenous rationalization.

Modern Civilization, with its scientific-technological aspects, demands a high level of abstraction, while the indigenous rationality, generally, is based essentially in the concrete and empirical. To close up these breaches more interaction is required between these two ways of thinking: the scientific western way of thinking and the technological capacities of the western modernity, and the indigenous rationality with its traditional knowledge and skills of technology. To mobilize the traditional alternative technologies one has to turn to the potential of local and regional resources and this in turn demands a process of social, cultural and technological learning and re-learning from all sides. Education should mobilize the creative potential of application and development of traditional technologies and not the simple transfer and reproduction, and even less so the simple imitation, of an imported technology.

8. Creative diversity and the future of human relations. In the times of globalization, it is the creative diversity and not cultural homogenization, which seems to lead our path into the future as the report of the World Commission of Culture and Development informs us. In such a context there seems to be no other educational alternative than the intercultural bilingual education, geared to the maintenance and development of indigenous languages and cultures; thus it does not seem necessary to postulate a return to transitional bilingual education in Latin America. Nonetheless, the indigenous languages maintenance and development model will only reach its objectives if the following conditions are satisfied:

• A greater support from the indigenous families and communities for this proposal, alongside an equally greater and more decisive intervention of indigenous organizations in the design and implementation of IBE proposals. This implies, on the part of the State and the supporting organizations the previous communication and socialization of the proposals and a permanent communicative accompaniment. It also implies an opening up of the State to intensified communication with the organizations of indigenous peoples and the installation of models and practices of co-management.

• A sustainable IBE professional development at different levels, so as to count on a larger number of teachers and indigenous and non-indigenous quality leaders and experts contributing to the strengthening of the technical and organizational basis of the IBE proposals.

• A methodological and didactic strengthening aiming at the incorporation of active methodologies promoting cooperative learning as well as the adequate attention of unitary or multigrade schools. In this task it will also be necessary to work more

52

with IBE teachers so that they understand the importance of interacting with the children’s parents and community leaders and experts in order to strengthen the model and complement the task of the teacher, regarding particularly the incorporation of traditional knowledge and practices into the model.

• A much greater effort to attain the financial resources necessary for ensuring the functionality of bilingual schools as well as new linguistic, pedagogic and cultural research projects. In so doing both the State and the indigenous organizations must also look for the involvement and participation of universities and research centers.

In spite that these recommendations may at times sound universal it must be clearly remarked that it is almost impossible to arrive at homogenous solutions for situations of such great diversity as these derived from Latin American multiethnicity, multiculturalism and multilinguism. Therefore, the intention of such recommendations is no other than identifying key common issues that must be looked into, according to the specific conditions and possibilities. It is also worth remembering that even though one subscribes the principles of the maintenance and development model, one must then analyze in detail each of the specific situations in which such a model is to be implemented, in order to design the most adequate implementation strategies. It is the responsibility of each specific project to design the specific strategies allowing them to work towards those ends. In so doing a careful analysis is needed of the given political and economic situation and the sociocultural and sociolinguistic settings in which the projects are to be implemented.

It is for this reason, finally, that one should insist that school in the 21st century should consider the Amerindian languages and cultures valid media for richer and more significant learning, as well as resources that illuminate the construction of more democratic societies that correspond to the current context of globalization. Only by making use of their specificity and by re-categorizing their heritage as valid in these times will the Latin Americans also be in keeping with the process of globalization with an own pattern and with the participation of all. An intercultural bilingual education can very well contribute to the creation of this pedagogy of and in the diversity Latin America requires in current times.

53

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL REFERENCES

Academia de las Lenguas Mayas 1999 Presentation in the Seminario Internacional Linguapax sobre el Informe

de las Lenguas del Mundo: el Caso de las Lenguas Amerindias. Cochabamba, 3 – 7th of March.

Amadio, Massimo

1995 La repetición escolar en la enseñanza primaria: una perspectiva global. Documento de trabajo. Ginebra: BIE/UNICEF.

Amadio, Massimo and Luis Enrique López 1993 Educación bilingüe intercultural en América Latina: guía bibliográfica.

La Paz: CIPCA / UNICEF.

Brice-Heath, Shirley

1973 La política del lenguaje en México. México, D.F.: Instituto Nacional Indigenista.

Claure, Karen

1989 Las escuelas indigenales: otra forma de resistencia comunitaria. La Paz: Hisbol.

Cojtí, Demetrio

1992 Idiomas y culturas de Guatemala. Guatemala: Universidad Rafael Landívar.

Collier, Virginia

1989 “How long? A synthesis of research on academic achievement in a second language”. In TESOL Quarterly. 23/3.

1992 “A synthesis of studies examining long-term language minority student data on academic achievement”. In Bilingual Resarch Journal. Vol. 16: 1&2.

Confederación Sindical Única de Trabajadores Campesinos de Bolivia (CSUTCB)

1991 Hacia una educación intercultural bilingüe. La Paz: Jayma.

World Commission of Culture and Development of UNESCO

1997 Nuestra diversidad creativa. Madrid: Fundación Santa María - UNESCO.

54

Consejo Regional Indígena del Cauca (CRIC), Organización Nacional Indígena de Colombia (ONIC), Programa de Formación en Educación Intercultural Bilingüe para los Países Andinos (PROEIB Andes)

In printing Aprendiendo entre todos. Memoria del Seminario Taller sobre Educación y Comunidad en los Pueblos Indígenas de los Países Andinos. Cochabamba – Popayán: PROEIB Andes.

Conde, Ramón

1993 “Lucha por la educación indígena. 1900-1945”. En Data No. 5. Revista del Instituto de Estudios Andinos y Amazónicos. Número monográfico: Reformas educativas en la historia republicana boliviana. 97-124. (Sucre, Bolivia)

Cummins, Jim

1979 “Linguistic intederpence and the educational development of bilingual children”. In Review of Educational Research, Nº. 49, 222-260.

1981 “Bilingualism and Minority Children. Language and Literacy Series. Toronto: The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.

1984 “Language prociency, bilingualism and academic achievement”. In J. Cummins Bilingualism and Special Education: Issues and Assessment and Pedagogy. San Diego, California: College-Hill.

1986 “Empowering minority students: a framework for intervention”. In Harvard Educational Review, Vol. 56/1. 18-34.

Cunningham, Myrna

1996 La educación intercultural bilingüe dentro y fuera de las escuelas. Políticas lingüísticas y legislación sobre lenguas indígenas en América Latina. II Congreso Latinoamericano sobre Educación Intercultural Bilingüe. Sta. Cruz de la Sierra, Bolivia.

Choque, Roberto and others

1992 Educación indígena: ¿ciudadanía o colonización?. La Paz: Ayuwiri.

D'Emilio, Lucia

1994 "Pobreza de la educación y propuestas indígenas: Lecciones aprendidas". In Educación y pobreza: de la desigualdad social a la equidad. Zinancatepec, México: El Colegio Mexiquense / UNICEF. 489-530.

Deruyterre, Anne

1997 Pueblos indígenas y desarrollo sostenible: El papel del Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo. Washington, DC: BID.

55

Díaz-Couder, Ernesto

1998 “Diversidad cultural y educación en Iberoamérica”. In Revista Iberoamericana de Educación, Nº 17. 11-30.

Dutcher, Nadine

1995 The Use of First and Second Languages in Education. A Review of International Experience. Pacific Islands Discussion Paper Series, Number 1. East Asia and Pacific Region, Country Department III. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.

Enciso Patiño, Patricia, Serrano Ruiz, Javier y Nieto Gómez, Jairo

1996 Evaluación de la calidad de la educación indígena en Colombia (MEN-GTZ), Ministry of National Education, Bogotá, Colombia, 5 tomes.

Escobar, Alberto

1978 Variaciones sociolingüísticas del castellano en el Perú. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos.

Escobar, Anna María 1990 Los bilingües y el castellano en el Perú. Lima: Instituto de Estudios

Peruanos.

ETARE (Equipo Técnico de Apoyo a la Reforma Educativa)

1993 Reforma Educativa. La Paz: Ministry of Human Development, National Department of Education

Gigante, Elba, Pedro Lewin and Stefano Varese

1986 Condiciones etnolingüísticas y pedagógicas para una educación indígena culturalmente apropiada. Documento de trabajo. Taller regional sobre elaboración de curriculum intercultural y preparación de material didáctico para la enseñanza de y en lengua materna. Buenos Aires. UNESCO.

Gleich, Utta von

1989 Educación Primaria Bilingüe Intercultural. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH. Eschborn.

Godenzzi, Juan Carlos (ed.)

1996 Interculturalidad y educación en los Andes y la Amazonia. Cuzco: Centro Bartolomé de las Casas.

56

González, María Luisa

1994 "How Many Indigenous People?". In Psacharopoulos, G. & H.A. Patrinos (eds.) Indigenous People and Poverty in Latin America. An empirical analysis. World Bank Regional and Sectorial Studies. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank. 21-39.

Gottret, Gustavo and others

1995 Proyecto de Educación Intercultural Bilingüe. Evaluación longitudinal. La Paz: UNICEF. Mimeo.

Hornberger, Nancy

1989 Haku yachaywasiman: La educación bilingüe y el futuro del quechua en Puno. Lima-Puno:PEEB-P.

Hornberger, Nancy and Luis Enrique López

1997 “Policy, possibility and paradox: Indigenous multilingualism and education in Peru and Bolivia". In J. Cenoz and F. Genesee (eds.) Beyond Bilingualism: Multilingualism and Multiculturalism in Education. Clevendon: Multilingual Matters. 206-42.

Jung, Ingrid; Javier Serrano and Christiane Urban (eds.)

1989 Aprendiendo a mirar: una investigación de lingüística aplicada y educación. Lima-Puno: PEEB-P/UNA-P.

Küper, Wolfgang and Teresa Valiente (comps.)

1999 Educación de los adultos en Africa y Latinoamerica. Experiencias interculturales en un encuentro multicultural. Quito, Abya Yala

López, Luis Enrique

1988 “La escuela en Puno y el problema de la lengua: excurso histórico (1900-1970)”. In L.E. López (ed.) Pesquisas en lingüística andina. Lima, Puno: CONCYTEC / UNA-P /GTZ. 265-332.

1996a “No más danzas de ratones grises. Sobre interculturalidad, democracia y educación”. In: J.C. Godenzzi (editor) Interculturalidad y educación en los Andes y la Amazonia. Cuzco: Centro Bartolomé de las Casas.

1996b "La diversidad lingüística, étnica y cultural latinoamericana y los recursos humanos que la educación requiere”. In H. Muñoz and P. Lewin (eds.) El significado de la diversidad lingüística y cultural. Mexico, D.F. UAM-INAH. 279-330.

57

1998 “La eficacia y validez de lo obvio: lecciones aprendidas desde la evaluación de procesos educativos bilingües”. In Revista Iberoamericana de Educación. 17. 51-90. Madrid.

1999 Interculturalidad y educación en América Latina. Ms. Cochabamba.

López, Luis Enrique and Ingrid Jung

1998 Sobre las huellas de la voz. Sociolingüística de la oralidad y la escritura en su relación con la educación. Madrid: Ediciones Morata, PROEIB Andes.

Federal Ministry of Economic Co-operation and Development

1996 Concepto relativo a la Cooperación para el Desarrollo con Poblaciones Indígenas en América Latina. Bonn/Alemania

MERCATOR. Bulletí del Centre Mercator: dret i Legislació Lingüistics. 23-24.

1996 Declaración Universal de Derechos Lingüísticos. Barcelona: CIEMEN (Centre Internacional Escarré per les Minories Etniques i les Nacions). 25 gener-juny de 1996.

Mosonyi, Esteban y Omar González

1974 “Ensayo de educación intercultural en el zona arhuaca del Río Negro (Venezuela)”. In Various Lingüística e indigenismo moderno en América Latina. XXXIX International Congress of Americanists. Lima: Instituto de Estudios Peruanos. 307-314.

------------------------ and Francisco Rengifo

1986 “Fundamentos teóricos y programáticos de la educación bilingüe intercultural”. In N. Rodríguez, E, Masferrer and R, Vargas. Educación etnias y descolonización en América Latina. Una guía para la educación bilingüe intercultural. Vol. I. 209-230.

Moya, Ruth

1998 “Reformas educativas e interculturalidad en América Latina”. In Revista Iberoamericana de Educación, Nº 17. 105-187.

Muñoz, Héctor

1993 De proyecto a política de estado. La educación intercultural bilingüe en Bolivia. Oaxaca-Cochabamba-La Paz: UPN, PROEIB Andes, UNICEF.

1998 “Los objetivos políticos y socioeconómicos de la Educación Intercultural Bilingüe y los cambios que se necesitan en el currículo, en la enseñanza y en

58

las escuelas indígenas”. In Revista Iberoamericana de Educación, Nº 17. 31-50.

OPAN-OPERAÇAO ANCHIETA

1989 A conquista da escrita. Encontros de educaςao indígena. San Pablo: Iluminuras.

Organización de Estados Iberoamericanos (OEI)

1996 Revista Iberoamericana de Educación. Nº 13. Educación Bilingüe Intercultural. Madrid.

1998 Revista Iberoamericana de Educación. Nº 17. Educación, Lenguas, Culturas. Madrid: OEI.

Patrinos, Henry and George Psacharopoulos

1994 Socioeconomic and Ethnic Determinants of Grade Repetition in Bolivia and Guatemala. World Bank Working Papers. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.

Pérez, Elizardo

1963 Warisata. La escuela ayllu. La Paz: Editorial Burillo.

Plaza, Pedro 1999 Evaluación del 2do grado 1992. Resultados provisionales. La Paz: UNICEF-

MEC. Ms.

Plaza, Pedro y Luis Enrique López

1997 La enseñanza del castellano como segunda lengua en el marco de la Reforma Educativa. Informe de Investigación. Cochabamba: PROEIB Andes-UNICEF. Ms.

Piñacué, Jesús Enrique 1998 “Editorial”. In C’ayuce. Revista de Etnoeducación. Publicación trilingüe

del Consejo Regional Indígena del Cauca- CRIC. Programa de Educación Bilingüe. Nº. 1, April de 1997: 12.

Pozzi-Escot, Inés

1998 El Multilingüismo en el Perú. Centro de Estudios Regionales Andinos “Bartolomé de las Casas”, PROIEB Andes, Cuzco and Cochabamba

Psacharopoulos George and Henry Patrinos

59

1994 Reducing poverty in Latin America among indigenous people: An enhanced Role for Education. World Bank Working Papers. Washington D.C.: The World Bank.

1994 Indigenous People and Poverty in Latin America. An Empirical Analysis. Washington: The World Bank.

Ricardo, Carlos Alberto (ed.)

1996 Povos indígenas no Brasil 1991-1995. Sao Paulo: Instituto Socioambiental.

Rockwell, Elsie y otros

1989 Educación bilingüe y realidad escolar. Un estudio en escuelas primarias andinas. Lima y Puno: PEEB-P.

Rodas, Raquel

1989 Crónica de un sueño. Las escuelas indígenas de Dolores Cahuango. Una experiencia de educación bilingüe en Cayambe. Quito: Proyecto EBI/ MEC-GTZ.

Romaine, Susanne

1989 Bilingualism. London: Basil Blackwell.

Sainz, Susana and Luis Enrique López

1999 De alguna forma están picoteando con la L2. Informe de investigación. Cochabamba: PROEIB Andes-UNICEF-MECyD. Ms.

Schroeder, Joachim 1994 Modelos pedagógicos latinoamericanos. De la yachay wasi inca a

Cuernavaca. La Paz: Ediciones CEBIAE.

Sichra, Inge

1992 Informe final de evaluación. Test de salida primer grado. Area Andina del Proyecto de Educación Intercultural Bilingüe (PEIB). La Paz: Ministry of Education and Culture / UNICEF. Ms.

Stewart, Stephen

1983 The Guatemala Bilingual Education Project: An Evaluation. Guatemala: USAID. Mimeo.

Trapnell, Lucy

1984 “Mucho más que una educación bilingüe”. In Shupihui Nº. 30. 230-246. (Iquitos, Perú)

Trillos, María (comp.)

60

1996 Educación endógena frente a educación formal. Bogotá: Universidad de los Andes - CCELA.

UNICEF/TACRO

1992 Educación y población indígenas en América Latina. Ms. Bogotá

Valiente, Teresa y Wolfgang Küper

1997 Lengua, Cultura y Educación en el Ecuador 1990-1993. El Proyecto de Educación Bilingüe Intercultural. Pueblos Indígenas y Educación 43-44, Quito.

Various

1982 América Latina: Etnodesarrollo y etnocidio. Colección FLACSO 25º Aniversario. San José: EUNED.

Zinssen, Judith

1990 Una nueva alianza: los pueblos indígenas y el sistema de las Naciones Unidas. Estudios y Documentos de educación 62. París: Ediciones UNESCO.

Zúñiga, Madeleine; Inés Pozzi-Escot and Luis Enrique López (eds.)

1991 Educación bilingüe intercultural: reflexiones y desafíos. Lima: Fomciencias.

Zúñiga, Madeleine; Liliana Sánchez; Daniela Zacharías

2000 Demanda y necesidad de educación bilingüe. Lenguas indígenas y castellano en el sur andino. Lima: Programa Especial MECEP/GTZ/KfW

61

NOTES

1 This chapter, as well as the two following ones, are based on the text of the conference “Multilingualism and education in Latin America” read by L.E. López in the International Seminar on Compensatory Policies in Education, organized by the Ministry of Culture and Education of Argentina, and held in Buenos Aires in November 1998. Various paragraphs have been literally reproduced from the written text of this conference. Others have been complemented and brought up to date. 2 Quote taken from CSUTCB 1991, hacia una educación intercultural bilingüe. 3 Quote taken from the editorial Cayuce Programa de Educación Bilingüe, PEB-CRIC Nº1, J.E. Piñacué is currently senator of the Repiblic of Colombia. 4 A quote of Luis Cabrera, Mexican philologist of the ministerial cabinet, illustrated this situation when he specified in 1935: “Here, the problem lies in making the Indio languages and dialects disappear, and diffusing Spanish as the only language. The only way to achieve this is to teach Spanish to the Indios and prohibit the use of the indigenous languages” (quoted in Brice Heath, 1973:143). 5 Estimations by institutions such as the Instituto Indigenista Interamericano (III), the Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo (BID) and the World Bank consider the indigenous population to be greater and to comprise some 35 or 40% of the national total. 6 To the 21 Maya languages spoken in this country must be added tha language Xinca, of Nahuatl origin (Cojti 1992). 7 This situation, however, is not exclusive of the Amerindian context. In other parts of the world difficulties exist as well in differentiating between language and dialect, as often considerations of political nature exceeding the technical criterion of mutual intelligibility interfere in such a differentiation. Such is the case with Norwegian and Swedish variants

62

that, for reasons of national affirmation, consider themselves separate languages while they could well be considered dialects of one same language (cf. Romaine 1989). 8 Except, of course, the dominant Paraguayan society, which, given the state of Guarani as a language of national identity, some few exceptions apart, is bilingual of Guarani and Spanish. It is important to note, however, that even in this case a diglossic condition exists that is to the disadvantage of Guarani. 9 It is not the aim of this document to lay out our points of view on this matter. We want to specify, however, that the interlectal or “bilingual” character of such variants does not persist over more than two or three generations, being the last to be assimilated for the standard use. It must nevertheless be pointed out that the spoken language, of some few remaining traits of the Quechua-Aymara substrate. Such is the case of the use of the past perfect tense to express surprise or indirect knowledge, following the Quechua-Aymara canons of syntax and semantics, as in “It had been Tuesday” instead of “It was Tuesday”. 10 One has to acknowledge, however, in different areas efforts aimed at the exercising of officiality in written press as well, as in Guatemala, by the newspaper El regional, or in Bolivia, by Jayma, or in the Atlantic Coast of Nicaragua by the bulletins produced by the Government of the Autonomous Region of the North Atlantic. Recently and including when in Bolivia no language demands official status, from the beginning of August onwards, the newspaper Presencia, of national coverage, includes on a daily basis two whole pages in Quechua and Aymara, in the west of the country, and two in Gruarani in the east, as acknowledgement of the multiethnic character of Bolivia. 11 We take as reference estimations such as those of the III-FAO (Jordán 1990) and those of the Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo and the World Bank (González 1994). We point out, in this respect, that such calculations, for their part, rely on data of national population censuses, which, in majority, include one or two questions concerning the language or languages spoken by the interviewed. Remember as well that often those same instruments collect secondary information like the linguistic data only from people older than 5 or 6 years and that among the indigenous peoples, this influences numerically in an important manner the total population of a certain community. What also has to be remembered is how, owing so situations of greater or lower social prestige, often those counted in the census hide their linguistic affiliation. Therefore the recorded data should be understood as conservatory and minimal tendencies rather than a true reflection of reality. Furthermore, the definition of who is indigenous or not is a subject of intense debate and in this the self-definition represents a fundamental criterion. 12 The figures offered are estimates and are not always based on information gained by the national population censuses. For reasons such as those included in the previous note these are considered minimal figures. So, in the case of Guatemala for example, the census acknowledges the existence of only 41% of indigenous people, but a simple look across the majority of regions of the country will suffice to understand the limited nature of this figure. Situations such as these have induced diverse specialists and institutions to make other estimates that correct the distortions to which the population censuses, in their nature are subject.

63

13 Estimations of the World Bank refer to some 40% of indigenous population in these two countries (cf. González 1994). 14 This affirmation is, however, disputed, if not rejected by many indigenous leaders and intellectuals who argue that the parameters used in the measuring of poverty ignore aspects inherent as much to the indigenous way of life, as to the economic, social and cultural patterns in which this is based. 15 In agreement with Patrinos and Psacharopoulos 1994, in Guatemala, 86,6% if the indigenous people are poor, whereas 53,9% of non indigenous people are poor; in Mexico the same relation exists between 80,6% of indigenous and 17,9% non indigenous people; in Peru there are 79% poor indigenous people while among the non indigenous poverty reaches 49,7% and in Bolivia the relation is 64,3% to 48,1% respectively. 16 The Equipo Técnico de Apoyo a la Reforma Educativa (ETARE) determined, based on integration surveys of homes, that even in the urban areas of the country in which such surveys were applied, indigenous students had a 40% probability of academic repetition compared with 23% probability in non indigenous students (ETARE 1993). Such estimations could well have been even more dramatic had the information about the rural areas been counted. 17 Conde 1993:89 quotes a memorial written by the leader Santos Marka T’ula in 1924 which not only illustrates the way in which the indigenous people appeal for their rights in pure legality, but also the eagerness to appropriate the Spanish language, as a tool for individual and collective defense: “Santos Marka T’ula del cantón de Sampidro de Curaguara de la Probincia de Pacajis… rispitusaminti pedi se franquie y la Copia del testimonio que la Compaña hucurro anti Ud. In bosca de su halto divr… mis reclamos esta Prisintado anti las autoridadis de Alta Gusticia pidiendo la revista di Disnlindi en tallado asi pedindo la Escoela fiscal normal...” 18 For the evolution of the concept of bilingual education to bilingual interculatural education the works of López (1996b and 1999), Moya (1998) and Muñoz (1998) can be consulted. 19 Various years, however, and in some cases decades, had passed with isolated experiments, focalized on the use of the vernacular languages as a vehicle for education, product of the motivation of some rural teachers. 20 Among the consulted investigations and evaluations are the following: studies carried out in Guatemala by Stewart (1983), commissioned by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID); studies carried out in Puno, Peru, by Hornberger (1989); Jung and a team of professors and students of the Universidad del Altiplano (1988); and by Rockwell and a team of mexican professionals of the DIE (1989), commissioned by the GTZ; those carried out in Bolivia commissioned by UNICEF by Plaza and Sichra with a team of Bolivian teachers (1992); Muñoz (1993) and a team directed by Gottret (1993); as well as those also carried out in that country by a team of Masters students in Bilingual Intercultural Education of the Universidad Mayor de San Simón, directed by Sainz and López (1999) and by Plaza and López (2000).

64

21 We thank Teresa Valiente for her support in the elaboration of a first version of this chapter. 22 In the past years we have seen that, among other reasons due to the higher complexity that the teaching of a language as a second language implies and due to a lack of tradition in this field, in many projects and programs of IBE, teachers have preferred to teach an indigenous language in and by this language, relegating the formal teaching of the dominant language with second language methodology. This has in fact determined that in many areas IBE is being converted into a monolingual education in an indigenous language and that the second language is used only sporadically and not systematically. Such a situation has generated, above all, unfavorable reactions by the parents, afraid that their children will not achieve the appropriation of the dominant language during their stay in school. 23 PROEIB Andes, in co-ordination with CRIC and ONIC, organized in September 1999, on request of the representative of the indigenous organizations in his board of directors, a seminar for indigenous leaders of Bolivia, Colombia, Chile, Ecuador and Peru aimed at exchange of experiences about community participation in education as well as about negotiation processes that have taken shape in the context of educative concern, between indigenous organizations and ministries of education and other State dependencies. The memorials of that meeting are in printing and will be distributed in near future among indigenous leaders and organizations of the Andean sub-region, as well as at the occasion of a second meeting in this series that will take place in Cuzco in the last trimester of the year 2000.

65