By Luis Bonilla-Molina *
Educational change usually comes in presentations of reforms and in some cases of revolutions. Sometimes the reforms are as revolutionary as possible at a given historical moment; in other cases the reforms only try to prevent revolutions and contradict the very etymological essence of ‘action to re-form’ by reproducing the same policies and practices that they claim to change. Many reforms are actually counter-reforms that seek to eliminate or minimize the impact on capital accumulation of important social gains. Dialectically speaking, we all agree to constantly change, only some openly aspire that transformation is the way to build another possible world of solidarity and social justice in which the human being is no longer considered a simple consumer of goods.
Regarding the current educational change, Unesco (2015) states:
We live in turbulent times. The world is rejuvenating and aspirations for human rights and dignity are increasing. Societies are more connected than ever, but intolerance and conflict persist. New centers of power have appeared, but inequalities have worsened and the planet is under pressure. The possibilities for sustainable and inclusive development are vast, but the challenges are arduous and complex. The world is changing: education must change too. (p.3)
At present, the interest of globalized capitalism is growing to generate a centralization of educational reforms on a world scale that allows it to introduce in the most homogeneous and rapid way the educational changes demanded by the production model of the 21st century. In contrast, citizens and teachers understand more and more clearly, the urgency of building an alternative international agenda in defense of public education.
The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), approved by the UN member countries in September 2015, express the current tension between citizens' aspirations and interests of big capital. The SDGs or new version of the so-called millennium goals (I), incorporate in this opportunity a specific objective dedicated to education, number four, which contains ten goals (II) which require to be read, valued and worked with a clear vision politics.
Until just a couple of decades ago, the reform process had built a public pincer-image of changes “generated” from the national level, which to the extent that they were progressive would have the support of the international organizations specialized in the agenda. educational. Today, a diametrically opposite public image is being built for educational transformations. Educational reforms now appear as the result of a minimum international consensus that will guide the processes of change in national school systems.
It is not a novelty that the capitalist center imposes on the periphery the route of adaptations required by the production model and its gear systems, in this case the educational one. The variant in the present is given by the fact of legitimizing before the general public, the mechanisms for determining the change agenda from the center of global governance itself.
National Ministries of Education -or their equivalents- now appear challenged to change; either in accordance with the guidelines issued by international economic organizations or, in the convergent direction agreed upon by their governments through the SDGs, whose monitoring, supervision and evaluation - in the latter case - is the responsibility of the United Nations system .
As school systems are a substantive part of the governance mechanisms of the Nation States, this imposes dynamics of alliances and agreements between perspectives and common interests on a planetary scale on the part of those who govern; which should find a correlation among those of us who resist. The course that educational changes take in each place will depend, to a large extent, on the correlation of forces that characterizes the political world at a given historical moment and the tensions between the classes in that society.
But, what is the place of enunciation of educational reforms? Above all, it is important to highlight the role of the former USSR in the triumph of the paradigm of education for all. In 1917 the Bolsheviks seized power in Tsarist Russia and started the socialist revolution in one of the most backward countries, economically speaking, without aqueducts, electricity and with very few schools. In just decades they managed to realize a public policy that until that moment seemed to be a utopia worldwide: to bring education to the entire territory of Russia and the Soviet Union, that is, to achieve educational massification in a country. Education for all is no longer an aspiration of the enlightened, teachers, progressive sectors and radical politicians in the world, to become an emerging paradigm of public management.
At the end of the Second World War, the hope of the peoples of the world grew regarding the possibilities of education to avoid another large-scale confrontation and as a way to improve their societies. It is not bold to point out that mass education is a conquest of socialism, regardless of the bureaucratic and liquidationist degeneration of the Soviet experience since the post-Leninist period.
Therefore, the emergence of the world paradigm of mass education must be located within the framework of the tensions typical of the capitalist crisis that led to the two world wars of the 20th century and the insurgency of the Russian revolution.
In this context, at the end of World War II, the most conservative capitalist sectors were forced to accept, not only the creation of UNESCO, but the impulse of the massification of education on a planetary scale.
With the creation of the UN, a set of specialized organizations in the different areas of government and political interest were structured, which were outlined from the agreements of the United Nations monetary and financial conference (1944). In the case of education, it is assumed that the central task corresponds to UNESCO, who can establish alliances in certain cases with other agencies dependent on the United Nations system and even beyond.
However, with the arrival of educational neoliberalism in the eighties of the twentieth century, global economic organizations such as the World Bank (WB) the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) , among others, decided to strengthen their education offices and assume a greater role in the proposals, designs and orientation of global educational reforms. From that stage to the present, they have evolved, acquiring a central role that threatens even the continuity of convergence of the educational agenda at UNESCO.
It is necessary to point out that UNESCO continues to be - for lack of another similar or similar world space - the privileged place to express the tensions between the economic, the political, the pedagogical and the social; for this reason, it maintains its progressive character with respect to the economic instances indicated. The increasing prominence in the educational agenda of global economic organizations threatens to deprive UNESCO of its leading role in the sector, leaving it only a leading role in culture and communication.
Today in almost all the educational systems of the world, the quality of education is spoken of as a central concern of the reforms and the hegemonic mechanism that is being used to determine its course is the model of the International Program for the Evaluation of Students or PISA (for its acronym in English). PISA is designed and implemented by the OECD, making its proposal the paradigm of educational measurement and standardization at a global level. The strategic directionality of educational policy is usually decided by the power center of the world system derived from the Bretton Woods agreement (1944) (III).
The log of educational reforms begins at the G7 (or G8) meetings; its memorandum activates the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which outlines the solution path to the “problems” and transformations that national educational systems require to satisfy the demands of the production model. These recipes generate concrete demands for school systems, seen as places where the specialized and / or qualified workforce required by capital is formed in the situation.
The World Bank (WB), Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), among others, structure and coordinate economic and social policies, as well as financial budgetary scenarios by regions and countries, for education systems based on the agreements of the G7 (or G8) and the IMF.
Then, these decisions and guidelines are legitimized before the general public, through documents, speeches, books, statements, news, studies, which circulate profusely in the organization and development of international, regional, special, sectoral conferences organized according to the magnitude of the required transformation, in the web of institutions belonging to:
(1) the United Nations system (UNESCO, FAO, UNICEF, UNEP, among others);
(2) many international and national non-governmental organizations;
(3) the increasingly influential Philanthropic Foundations belonging to great industrial and financial magnates.
The debates, agreements and resolutions that accompany this operation are widely disseminated in news formats, specialized studies, opinion articles, special TV and radio programs, bibliographic collections, videos, even in songs and films by the cultural industry . The purpose is to build cultural hegemony that fosters the foundation of social consensus, regarding the imminent need to undertake changes in a certain direction and sector, in this case education.
This dynamic permeates national debates and builds “political viability” to undertake changes: The presentation narrative in each country, used to be that of a clamor from local citizens, hiding –in most cases- their place of enunciation real, the teleology of proposed change and national dependence on centers of world economic power. These initiatives that were previously imposed under the initial format of “National Curriculum Commissions” and “State Commissions for Educational Reform”; Today they are usually presented as "Commissions for Educational Quality" and the narrative that feeds them is that of the standardization of learning.
Reforms, counter-reforms and public education
The educational reforms and counter-reforms became the mechanisms that expressed the tensions between education for elites and education for all. From the perspective of the interests of big capital, an attempt was made to mortgage the educational reforms to the requirements of the mode of production; From the resistance to the capitalist model, the reforms were considered opportunities to advance the concept of public, free, popular education and inclusive quality.
When analyzing the educational reform processes generated since the emergence of the United Nations System, we can identify three major cycles, a similar number of destination control operations and five trends.
The first cycle was the massification of education. This appears linked to the restructuring of the capitalist world after World War II; which demanded a more specialized labor force, a government bureaucracy capable of absorbing and communicating the new codes of world governance and, the generation of a massive immigration of sectors of the population from the countryside to the city in the countries of the capitalist periphery that would make possible the industrialization of agriculture.
The second cycle is that of neoliberal educational reforms that began in the eighties with the foreign debt crisis, the revolution in Communication and Information Technologies and the global economic restructuring. The purpose of this cycle is to promote privatization and educational commodification as mechanisms to free the public sector from the budgetary “burden” that public education implied.
The third cycle begins at the end of the nineties and the beginning of the XXI century; This being the cycle of the standardization of the evaluation of teachers and students, the accelerated expansion of commercialization, the virtualization of education and the Global Pedagogical Blackout (GPA).
In this cycle, the abandonment of the higher or university education agenda by a large part of the international educational organizations takes place, leaving the fate of the sector at the mercy of the market and university rankings. UNESCO, for example, once the first World Conference on Higher Education (CMES, 1998) has ended, paradoxically closes its higher education department.
On the other hand, in recent decades, three major destination control operations have been distinguished, characterized by: (a) the growing international centralization of the reform agenda of national school systems, (b) the homogenization of citizen and government narratives regarding to education and, (c) the determination of the use of GDP resources and the public budget in education through the imposition of the so-called "trends" of change.
In the first case, it is possible to build a logic by which the World, Regional and / or Sector Conferences constitute the privileged space to agree on the framework routes of national educational reforms. In this sense, the role of the economy in the strategic orientation of the reforms is hidden, endowing some international organizations of the education sector with a kind of aura of "neutrality" that empowers them to prepare base documents, permeated by the economic agenda in education , which are presented with the language of educators and the education sector.
In the second, it is possible to build a common sense of education whose distinctive rank is to “depoliticize” the debate in the sector. De-politicization seeks to hide the dependence of educational systems on agendas of global political domination. If these are hidden, the possibilities for alternative proposals to emerge to the hegemonic model of domination, of neo cultural colonization and - as Henry Giroux warns - of the formation of political zombies as substitutes for critical citizenship are more limited. A clear indicator of this are the dynamics by which the school systems gradually and rapidly abandoned - the purposes, tasks and strategies linked to the full development of the personality that characterized them at the beginning.
In the third, a consensus is reached on the determination of a minimum amount of GDP (6%) and of the public budget (20%) for the education sector. Let us dwell briefly on this last point. This progressive achievement, which synthesized a historical aspiration of the teachers and their union organizations to guarantee the functioning of robust national school systems and the expansion of the coverage of public education, began to be seen as an important portion of the public budget by of the large transnational companies in the sector and for local entrepreneurs.
More and more economists, administrators, computer specialists, begin to occupy the positions of Ministers of Education or their equivalents; In many cases, neither the vice ministers of the sector are educators, nor do they have minimal classroom experiences in school systems.
The World Education Forum held in Incheon, Korea (2015) - where the goals and the 2030 Framework for Action for the sector were agreed upon - had almost zero presence of teachers compared to the leadership of the directors of global economic organizations , representatives of corporate philanthropy and large transnational companies in the education sector (IV). In this sense, the most important achievement of this Forum, which was to agree on a minimum amount of GDP and the budget to achieve goals in EPT 2030, turned out to be a privileged scenario to pave the way for large transnational companies in the technology sector and standardized measurement , who understand 6% GDP and 20% of the public education budget, as a global market to dispute.
Today a good part of this amount –of the GDP and the public budget in education- is being invested in the purchase of rapidly obsolete technological scrap, which goes to the finances of the large IT transnationals. Another portion is destined to the application of standardized tests (PISA and University Ranking, as examples) whose results are pre-designed with guidelines for educational public policies. Increasing amounts of the educational budget are allocated to purchase bibliographic materials from large publishing consortiums, as well as food corporations that invade the market for so-called compensatory policies and social programs that are made viable through education. Finally, another important portion of the GDP and the Public Budget of the sector is used in infrastructure and updating of the physical plant conditions to house technological platforms. All in the name of the necessary educational change.
Paradoxically, at moments in which a minimum investment floor in education is agreed, a disinvestment is generated in salaries and working conditions of teachers and, in requirements that emanate from the determination of needs, priorities and aspirations from the schools themselves .
After analyzing the cycles and remote control operations, let's now look at the last of the elements: educational fashions. They become a central discursive element on which educational reforms gravitate in each of the cycles and control operations.
Educational fashions that fragment pedagogy
The fragment is capitalism's favorite ontological and epistemological tool for imposing its dominance. For its part, the analysis of reality as a totality and the dialectic between the global and the local, emerge as the antithesis of this epistemic process of domination. By paths different from those of other professional fields, pedagogy was self-constituted in science or the convergence of sciences that study the human being in their learning process, not limiting themselves to the cognitive, but relating the school organization to the historical, political reality , economic and social concrete.
This understanding of the relationship between the whole and the parts endows pedagogy with political perspectives that are not always compatible with the system. For this reason, a process induced from economic spheres, both in the teaching profession and in public policies, of rupture with the possibility of holistic interpretation of reality begins. The fashions and "discursive novelties accompany and make" credible "for the general public, the educational counter-reforms that weaken the previous progressive advances.
Since the fifties of the twentieth century, reforms have stopped talking about pedagogies, replacing them at different times with some of their components as the epicenter of educational change activity. They talk about the importance of working on a certain fragment of pedagogy and the potential of all of them acting in everyday educational life is discredited. I am not unaware that behind any pedagogical approach there is an ontology and a political epistemology that conditions its teleology. What I intend to underline is the development of educational counter-reforms that are based on educational trends to break any possibility of interpretation of reality as a whole.
First it was the fashion of didactics (´50s), followed by the fashion of the training of directors, supervisors and planners (´60s), later the fashions of managerialism and qualitative evaluation (´70s). In the eighties of the last century, the longest-lasting educational trend arrived, that of the curriculum, which was installed in school systems for almost thirty years, also with separatist curricular conceptions of pedagogical policies and practices.
In each of these fashions, we were told that the fragment was the epicenter of pedagogical activity and the most important element for educational reforms. The common identifier of educational fashions is the nomothetic conception of the human being, the invisibility of the context-teacher-student triad in interaction, and especially, the break with the interpretation of the relationship between the general and the particular, of the whole with the parts, of the school with the context, that is to say of the totality with the everyday of the educational fact.
This dynamic managed to permeate the structure and organizational design of many Ministries of Education, which have departments of planning, curriculum, evaluation, supervision, among others, but do not have an organizational body that integrates them; worse still, they appear administratively separated into different vice ministries that do not articulate with each other. The objective of breaking with the integral and integrating look of the educational fact was carried out through the imposition of fashions from fragments of pedagogy.
The most recent fashion is that of the evaluation of educational systems (first two decades of the XXI century) with two central edges: that of the performance of learning; limiting it to four areas (reading and writing, mathematics, technology and notions of science) and, of teachers (use of school time, student achievement, mechanization of the teaching career). In the case of higher education, the rankings model is imposed. It is now intended to say that what is important are the results of these evaluations and classifications.
To such an extent they have managed to build hegemony for their purposes that a good part of the educational reforms and / or counter-reforms that are being generated gravitate and are determined by the results of the PISA / OECD tests and the university rankings arising from the fabric of international statistical systems promoted by the World Bank and the OECD.
Parallel to educational trends, and with the purpose of destroying any resistance to the educational regression underway, a renewed offensive has been generated against the teaching profession and the idea of schools. These mechanisms seek to undermine and destroy the space of public education. Let's see the expressions of each of them.
Teaching a profession at risk of disappearance
Domination and resistance are objective and subjective processes, which are expressed in social reality, in this case educational. Teachers are fundamental actors / authors in the construction of undomesticated citizenship, scientific interpretation of the world, learning to learn and the development of critical thinking. If it is investigated with precision, we will find that behind each collective emancipatory project the presence of teachers has been notorious, who helped to open the way - based on ideas and the example of their positions. This is why capitalism despises teachers so much.
Capitalism has wanted to snatch even identity from those who teach. Apologists for capitalism have pointed out, at different times and regions - even from apparently progressive paradigms - that, for example, it is not correct to call oneself a teacher or professor. This discursive line is complemented by the one that states that "anyone can teach and no more professional training is required than that of the transfer of knowledge" - as if teaching and pedagogy were simple technologies for teaching content - or that " Teaching is a pseudo profession in passing, that is, to exercise it while mastering another long-term profession ”.
What is happening in many countries where the new generation neoliberal counter-reforms (21st century) are presented, is nothing more than a gigantic trial by big capital to apply the fiercest educational involution in the field of public education with a special chapter in the elimination of the profession that has characterized him: teaching. If they manage to impose it in some countries, they will try to generalize them as a new model for Latin America and the world.
These counter-reforms underway in different latitudes of the planet, are for the capitalism in education of the present, what in the nineties was Pinochet's Chile. The core of the new generation neoliberal reforms aim at the destruction of the teaching profession by attacking:
(to) The prestige, tradition and social recognition of vocational training centers, especially those characterized by their critical profile, such as the normal ones and many pedagogical institutes;
(b) job security, which in the preceding decades had achieved a unique status in a large part of national legislation; The Trojan Horse they use for this are teacher evaluations, the imposition of new models of entry and promotion systems, the diffuse horizon of teacher retirement and pension systems, many of them generated on the border of the extra-legal.
Parallel to this, in many places an “teaching reserve army” is being created that would work for short periods of 1 to 6 years, for which they are prepared through Fast Track models of teaching basic knowledge transfer techniques. . Finally, by promoting educational virtualization models.
If teachers are not needed, there is no reason in public policies to finance or start normal or pedagogical universities. For their progressive replacement, initial teacher training programs and permanent training programs for in-service teachers are designed, parallel or independent to those carried out in normal schools or pedagogical universities in the Region.
The administrators of the national educational systems are beginning to apply the North American model of Fast Track teacher training, whose most distinctive feature is the substitution of pedagogical technology for teaching technology administered for now in most cases, by and from the Ministries of Education. National Education or its equivalents, but which will surely be privatized in the short term;
(c) to the autonomous union organizations of the teaching profession. To do this, they co-opt, condition or discredit the most employer union leaderships, persecute the most combative ones and place new mechanisms and obstacles to limit unionization and the possibilities of processing union contributions. Weak or submissive unions will not be effective tools for teachers to resist;
(d) the concept of the public, opening the way to the idea of an educational market. The deepening of the initiatives of educational commodification and privatization are growing, in which the teacher is a simple wage earner condemned to work a fragment of educational merchandise, objectified in titles.
The purpose of each of these initiatives is none other than to be able to show that educational systems can be managed and carried out without teachers, without female teachers and without the teaching profession. But the offensive of the new generation counter-reforms does not stop there. The new space for the dismantling of public education is the campus and the classroom as meeting places and construction of the collective imagination of overcrowded school systems.
Educational campus or virtual screen: technology stalks the school
If the prospective planning of educational systems, from the capitalist logic, no longer requires normals or pedagogical universities because teaching ceases to be a profession, the next chapter of the neoliberal counter-reform will be the destruction of the school campus as an educational space socially constructed for the teaching-learning during the 19th and 20th centuries.
Virtualization plays a special role in this task. One piece of information illustrates this trend. During 2014, the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) promoted the “inverted pyramid” teaching model which, in essence and synthesis, suggested that given the proliferation of home and portable computers, smart cell phones and electronic tablets, as well as the expansion of the internet and Wi-Fi, the time was coming to develop a model of “home” learning based on massive and uniform teaching videos, in which the school became fundamentally a space of evaluation.
Obviously, this is fueled by the trend to replace investment in school infrastructure by technological services - hardware and software - to maintain the economic expansion of the information and communication technology industry on a global scale. La disputa por las partes del PIB y el presupuesto público en educación es cada vez más feroz y como en los demás campos confronta al capital nacional con el trasnacional.
Apagón Pedagógico Global (APG)
Todos los procesos descritos anteriormente nos han permitido señalar, desde hace ya varios años, el riesgo cierto, que en el marco de las transformaciones del capitalismo mundial del siglo XXI se genere un Apagón Pedagógico Global (APG). En la carta que el 9 de julio de 2015 doscientos treinta y seis educadores e investigadores educativos de todo el mundo le entregáramos a la señora Irina Bokova, Directora General de la UNESCO, así lo alertamos. Esta tendencia a generar un APG se expresa en:
(a) la fragmentación de la pedagogía, en el impulso de modas temporales de algunos de sus componentes (didácticas, planeación, gerencialismo, evaluación, currículo, sistemas de evaluación escolar) que terminan generando una despedagogización de la educación y especialmente de la escolaridad;
(b) una desvaloración institucional y social de la profesión docente que conlleva a impulsar la idea que cualquier titulado puede ejercer la docencia, rompiéndose la noción de profesionalidad en el sector y de carrera docente e, incluso cuestionando la existencia de normales y universidades que forman docentes;
(c) un creciente discurso de desvaloración de la escuela, del centro educativo, con alternativas que golpean la noción de educación pública, como lo son la virtualización, la educación en casa o el concepto de espacios de aprendizajes como sustitutos permanentes de plantel y aula;
(d) la evaluación de aprendizajes en dos áreas cognitivas (pensamiento lógico matemático / lectura y escritura), una informativa (conocimiento sobre ciencias) y una instrumental (uso de tecnología) creando la noción que el resto de los aprendizajes son de segundo orden. Todo aquello que apunte al desarrollo integral del ser, individual y social, y la construcción de ciudadanía pasa a ser accesorio y prescindible. La estandarización de los criterios y valores de estas cuatro áreas de aprendizajes se presentan como equivalentes a la calidad educativa como aspiración ciudadana colectiva.
No es osado ni delirante plantear que de continuar esta tendencia al APG capitalista en educación, en las próximas décadas podría desaparecer la escuela y la escolaridad como las hemos conocido en los últimos siglos. El sustituto de los sistemas educativos pareciera ser una especie de apartheid educacional que llevaría la exclusión educativa a un nivel inimaginable en el presente, conduciendo a la humanidad a una barbarie civilizacional sin precedentes.
El giro economicista de las contrarreformas educativas que se está imponiendo de manera abierta y sin medias tintas, obliga a abrir un debate mundial respecto a su impacto en el corto y mediano plazo.
No es tiempo de lecturas románticas o aparentemente “despolitizadas”. Ni las reformas educativas ni los Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible (ODS) son neutros y los resultados de su implementación dependerán en buena medida de la orientación política que alcance la sociedad mundial en el corto y mediano plazo..
Lo que está en juego, es el futuro de la educación pública de masas en el mundo. Es tiempo de revisar, analizar y proyectar el papel de las resistencias en la actual coyuntura de las reformas y contrarreformas educativas a escala global. Las reformas educativas que no se piensan, diseñan y aplican democráticamente con los y las docentes, terminan en dominación y conflictos para las sociedades.
Quizá sea tiempo de soñar con una organización de los educadores a nivel mundial que no esté atrapada por las lógicas de los partidos del status quo mundial ni por las trasnacionales económicas; es tiempo de pensarnos desde el protagonismo central de los docentes de aula. Las resistencias son la única garantía de una educación pública para todos y todas como camino para construir juntos otro mundo posible.
Lista de referencias y trabajo recientes vinculados
Bonilla-Molina, L. (2015). Calidad de la educación: Ideas para seguir transformando la educación. Ediciones CIM. Caracas Venezuela.
Bonilla-Molina, L (2016). Educación en la agenda para la elección del nuevo(a) Secretario (a) General de Naciones Unidas. Disponible en http://otrasvoceseneducacion.org/ archivos/99542
Bonilla-Molina, L. (2016). No dejemos solos a las maestras y maestros(as). (Carta a los candidatos a la secretaría general de la ONU). Disponible en http://questiondigital.com/?p=34137
Bonilla-Molina, L. La universidad Latinoamericana ¿Tiene falla de origen? Disponible en http://otrasvoceseneducacion.org/archivos/101099
Bonilla-Molina, L. Universidad, apertura, cierre de carreras y programas de formación. Disponible en http://otrasvoceseneducacion.org/archivos/108540
Giroux, Henry (2011). Zombie Politics and Culture in the Age of Casino Capitalism. Series: Popular Culture and Everyday Life – Volume 23- EEUU.
ONU (2016). Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible. Disponible en: http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/es/education
UNESCO (2015). Replantear la educación: ¿Hacia el bien común mundial? Ediciones Unesco. Paris. Francia. Disponible en http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/ 0023/002326/232697s.pdf
UNESCO (2016). Unesco Science Report: Towards 2030. Ediciones Unesco. Paris Francia. Disponible en http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002354/235406e.pdf
I Su análisis específico escapa a los propósitos y límites de extensión de este trabajo por lo que lo desarrollaré en otro artículo.
II Ver las metas en http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/es/education/
III La Conferencia de Bretton Woods deliberó en Julio de 1944 sentando las bases del sistema monetario, financiero y de gobernabilidad que rige al capitalismo mundial desde ese momento.
IV Esto generó una firme carta de rechazo de centenares de educación en el mundo, la cual me correspondió consignar el 9 de julio de 2015 ante la Directora General de la UNESCO y actual candidata a la Secretaria General de la ONU Dra. Irina Bokova. Pueden leer y firmar la carta en la siguiente dirección electrónica https://www.change.org/p/maestros(as)-as-profesoras-es-investigadores-as-en-educacion-estudiantes-familias-organizaciones-del-magisterio-centros-de-investigacion-educativa-organizaciones-y-movimientos-soci-si-compartes-el-contenido-por-favor-expresa-tu-adhesion
* Luis Bonilla-Molina
Docente con 37 años de experiencia de aula en la educación primaria, el bachillerato, el pregrado y el postgrado universitario. Trece años de su labor los dedicó al trabajo con jóvenes con dificultades de inserción social. Actualmente es el coordinador internacional del portal http://www.otrasvoceseneducacion.org . Asesor (1999-2001 /2002-2006), Director de Niveles y Modalidades del Ministerio de Educación de Venezuela (2001-2002), Presidente del Centro Internacional Miranda (2006- ) y Viceministro de planificación estratégica universitaria (2011-2013) del gobierno de Hugo Chávez.