• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
 
Center for Immigration Studies
Backgr
 
ounder
April 2008 
“Jimmy Hoffa in a Dress”
Union Boss’s Stranglehold on Mexican EducationCreates Immigration Fallout
By George W. Grayson 
George W. Grayson, who is the Class of 1938 Professor of Government at the College of William & Mary, is a member of the Cen-ter for Immigration Studies Board of Directors. He is also a senior associate at the Center for Strategic & International Studies and an associate scholar at the Foreign Policy Research Institute. He may be reached at gwgray@wm.edu or (757) 221-3031. William& Mary student Gabriela Regina Arias helped edit and proof-read this essay.
Introduction 
During a ve-day visit to the United States in February 2008, Mexican President Felipe Calderón lectured Washington on immigration reorms that should be accomplished. No doubt he will reprise this perormance whenhe meets with President George W. Bush and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper in New Orleans or theannual North American Leaders Summit on April 20-21, 2008. At a speech beore the Caliornia State Legislaturein Sacramento, the visiting head-o-state vowed that he was working to create jobs in Mexico and tighten bordersecurity. He conceded that illegal immigration costs Mexico “a great deal,” describing the immigrants leaving thecountry as “our bravest, our youngest, and our strongest people.” He insisted that Mexico was doing the UnitedStates a avor by sending its people abroad. “Americans benet rom immigration. Te immigrants complementthis economy; they do not displace workers; they have a strong work ethic; and they contribute in taxes moremoney than they receive in social benets.”
1
While wrong on the tax issue, he ailed to address the immigrants’low educational attainment. Tis constitutes not only a major barrier to assimilation should they seek to become American citizens, but also means that they have the wrong skills, at the wrong place, at the wrong time. Oursis not the economy o the nineteenth century, when we needed strong backs to slash through orests, ploughelds, lay rails, and excavate mines. Te United States o the twenty-rst century, which already abounds in low-skilled workers, requires men and women who can ll niches in a high-tech economy that must become morecompetitive in the global marketplace.Most newcomers rom south o the Rio Grande have had access to an extremely low level o education,assuming they have even received instruction in basic subjects. Poverty constitutes an important actor in theircondition, as well as the ailure o lower-class amilies to emphasize education in contrast to, say, similarly situated Asian amilies. Tese elements aside, Mexico’s public schools are an abomination — to the point that theoverwhelming majority o middle-class parents make whatever sacrices are necessary to enroll their youngsters inprivate schools where the tuition may equal $11,000 to $12,000 annually.Te primary explanation or Mexico’s poor schools lies in the colonization o the public-education systemby the National Union o Education Workers (SNE, according to its initials in Spanish), a hugely corrupt1.4 million-member organization headed by political powerhouse Elba Esther Gordillo Morales. Rather thanlecture American lawmakers on what bills to pass, Calderón would do well to devote himsel to eliminating thisHerculean barrier to the advancement o his own people within their own country.Tis
Backgrounder 
 will (1) examine Mexico’s educational levels, (2) discuss the enormous inuence o theSNE’s leader Elba Esther Gordillo Morales, (3) ocus on corruption in the educational sector, and (4) indicatereorms that the administration o President Calderón should consider.
I. Educational Levels 
Mexico’s educational system teems with ugly acets, none more alarming than the high dropout rate. Roughly 10percent o those who nish elementary school never complete middle school, either because their amilies cannotaord to send them, they drop out to earn money, or there is simply no room or them.
2
 
Center for Immigration Studies
“Tere is a bottleneck in the system,” saysEduardo Vélez Bustillo, education specialist on Latin America at the World Bank. “Quality is bad at every level, but middle school is a crisis point because that’s where the demand is highest,” he adds.
3
AlthoughMexico has made signicant strides in recent years by increasing overall enrollment and boosting investmentin education, the country still trails other developednations in most prociency standards.In 2006 the Organization or EconomicCooperation and Development (OECD) conductedits triennial Programme or International Student Assessment (PISA) among ninth-graders.
4
As indicatedin ables 1, 2, and 3, Mexican students placed at thebottom in reading and mathematics among youngstersin the 30 OECD member nations. O the 27 non-OECD countries assessed, Mexico ell below Chile,China (aipei), Croatia, Estonia, Hong Kong, Israel,Romania, Russia, and Slovenia in three areas. Othermeasures, including student hours in class, show Mexicoas an underachiever.Te elementary school day provides or only ourhours o instruction in an outmoded curriculum thathas been handed down rom generation to generationand is zealously guarded by the change-averse SNE.In lieu o creative approaches to stimulate students,teachers stress rote learning and harsh discipline asevinced in their mantra: “Be Quiet, Pay Attention, and Work in your own seat!”
5
In indigenousareas, instructors sometimes use studentsto perorm menial chores or them. Tissame ethos o submissiveness to strong,hierarchical control characterizes theteachers’ relationship to their union.
6
 Although the Mexicangovernment could do more, its expenditureon education shot up 47 percent rom1995 to 2004. Spending per student roseonly 30 percent because o expandingenrollments.
7
Educational spending asa percentage o gross domestic product(GDP) exceeds the OECD average at 5.4percent, including 26.8 percent o theederal discretionary budget. When privatesector outlays are added, total educationalspending came to 7.1 percent o GDP in2006.
8
In 2004 Mexico’s disbursementson education as a percentage o nationalincome (6.4 percent) surpassed that o allother OECD nations with the exception o Denmark, Iceland, Korea, New Zealand,and the United States.
9
Some 95 percento expenditures are or teachers’ salaries.Inadequate resources have prompted theMinistry o Public Education (SEP) to seek unds rom the private sector to rehabilitate3,200 deteriorating schools.
10
U.S. taxpayers pick up the bill orpoorly educated Mexicans who cross intothis country unlawully. All told, ederal,state, and local governments in 2004 spent$12 billion annually or primary andsecondary education or children residingunlawully in the ve states with the mostillegal immigrants.
11
Table 1. Reading Scores Among 15-Year-Olds in OECD Countries (2006)
Source:
OECD PISA 2006 database. Figure 6.8b,
PISA 2006 Science Competencies for omorrow’s World.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/142046885031
Country 
KoreaFinlandCanadaNew ZealandIreland AustraliaPolandSwedenNetherlandsBelgiumSwitzerland JapanU.K.Germany Denmark  AustriaFranceIcelandNorway Czech Rep.Hungary LuxembourgPortugalItaly Slovak Rep.SpainGreeceurkey 
MexicoReading Score
556547527521517513508507507501499498495495494490488484484483482479472469466461460447
410Range of Rank Standard Error
(3.8)(3.6)(2.4)(3.0)(3.5)(2.1)(2.8)(3.4)(2.9)(3.0)(3.1)(3.6)(2.3)(4.4)(3.2)(4.1)(4.1)(1.9)(3.2)(4.2)(3.3)(1.3)(3.4)(2.4)(3.1)(2.2)(4.0)(4.2)
(3.1)UpperRank 
12334566689911101112141716161720222323252528
29LowerRank 
12456710101013141616171720212122222222252526272728
29
 
Center for Immigration Studies
President Calderón’s secretary o publiceducation, Josena Vázquez Mota, has championedmajor reorms o her country’s schools. Gordillo loyalistand SNE Secretary-General Raael Ochoa Guzmánsaid that the PISA ndings “afrm the diagnostics thatsustain the SNE’s proposal or a new educationalmodel or Mexico in the XXI century and indicate how much we must do to achieve the objective o quality education that we have identied and upon which weare embarked.”
12
Such soaring rhetoric aside, Gordilloand Ochoa have mobilized their political allies to block changes, insisting that the real solution lies in pouringeven more money into a ailed system.
II. SNTE and its Leader 
Te Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI)dominated Mexican politics or 71 yearsater its ounding in 1929. Te presidentbestrode the apex o an iron triangle:one side consisted o the PRI, which wassynonymous with the government, and theother side depicted an economy dominatedby the state. Tis authoritarian regimeimposed top-down control through threesectors to which party members belongedaccording to their occupations: peasants,blue-collar union members, and publicemployees. Among public employees, theSNE constituted the strongest orce. Ater all, teachers, who are in classroomsrom the U.S. border to the Guatemalanrontier, were oten considered leadersin rural communities because o theirsuperior education. In compliance withdirectives rom their honcho, they workedassiduously on behal o PRI candidates.Ater Carlos Salinas de Gortaribecame president in late 1988, hundredso thousands o angry, placard-wavingteachers stormed into Mexico City’s
zócalo
 central plaza, protesting the losses incurredduring the previous years when educationalexpenditures ell 40 percent and teachersalaries plummeted by 50 percent.
13
WhenSNE Secretary-General Carlos JonguitudBarrios, a ormer governor o the state o San Luis Potosí, could not restore order, thechie executive removed him. In his place,Salinas installed Gordillo, who has becomeknown as “
la Maestra
” — a respectul termor a teacher. She showed no remorse atconniving to oust her mentor and patron. When askedabout the transition, she said: “I am at peace with my past.” Te president gave Gordillo a at and juicy bunch o carrots with which to molliy disgruntled union activists— namely, tens o millions o dollars (498 million pesos)to nance a eachers’ Housing Fund (VIMA), whichcould buy land and construct apartments and homesor members o her proession. Ricardo Raphael de laMadrid, a political analyst who has written a book,
Los socios de Elba Esther 
(
Te Partners of Elba Esther 
), claimsthat the president later directed deposits totaling 81.5billion pesos into housing-related trusts or the union.He observes that an additional 10.82 billion pesos
Table 2. Math Scores Among 15-Year-Olds in OECD Countries (2006)
Source:
OECD PISA 2006 database. Figure 6.20b,
PISA 2006: Science Competencies for omorrow’s World.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/142046885031
Country 
FinlandKoreaNetherlandsSwitzerlandCanada JapanNew ZealandBelgium AustraliaDenmark Czech Rep.Iceland AustriaGermany SwedenIrelandFranceU.K.PolandSlovak Rep.Hungary LuxembourgNorway SpainU.S.PortugalItaly Greeceurkey 
MexicoMathScore
548547531530527523522520520513510506505504502501496495495492491490490480474466462459424
406Range of Rank Standard Error
(2.3)(3.8)(2.6)(3.2)(2.0)(3.3)(2.4)(3.0)(2.2)(2.6)(3.6)(1.8)(3.7)(3.9)(2.4)(2.8)(3.2)(2.1)(3.2)(2.8)(2.9)(1.1)(2.6)(2.3)(4.0)(3.1)(2.3)(3.0)(4.9)
(2.9)UpperRank 
113334566910111011121215171617182019242425262729
30LowerRank 
22566991091114151617171722212123232323252627282829
30
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...