Colombia is home to an Indigenous movement that has become a reference point for various social organization processes across Latin America. According to the most recent population census conducted in 2018, 4.4% of the country’s population identifies as Indigenous—that is, 1,905,617 people out of a total of 48,258,494 inhabitants. This population comprises 115 unique Indigenous Peoples, and 65 Indigenous languages that are grouped into 13 language families and still spoken across the country. The department with the largest Indigenous population is La Guajira, with 394,683 inhabitants, followed by Cauca, with 308,455.

It is precisely in Cauca where the Indigenous movement has grown strongest. Its development dates back to the founding of the Regional Indigenous Council of Cauca (CRIC) in 1971, in the context of broader popular struggles—especially agrarian ones. The movement was founded on the principles of Unity, Land, and Culture, with Autonomy added later. The council’s early objectives included recovering land within Indigenous reserves, strengthening Indigenous councils (cabildos), refusing to pay rent (terraje), raising awareness of Indigenous laws, demanding their fair application, defending Indigenous history, language, and traditions, and “training teachers to educate in accordance with the Indigenous context and in the corresponding Indigenous languages.”

Within these struggles, education was defined as a core component of broader organizational process: doing education was doing politics, and doing politics was doing education. Today, more than 50 years later, the Indigenous movement has solidified a concept developed by the communities themselves: Educación Propia (Self-determined Education). This concept has guided the development of the Indigenous Self-Education System (Sistema Educativo Indígena Propio, SEIP), a national public policy designed by and for Indigenous Peoples—something unequaled elsewhere in the region. It is this journey, which began with the CRIC, to which we turn our attention now.

The Path Toward Self-Determined Education

In the organization’s early days, educational efforts and training were focused on land recovery. The goal was for communities to recognize their situation, defend their rights, and gain support to legitimize their organizational actions. Training sessions explored the realities of communities and territories, their different forms of organization, the history of the country and of Latin America, national and international Indigenous legislation, and the dominant structures implicated in land ownership. At the same time, a literacy program took place, as many community members could neither read nor write. Education was not directed at children, but rather at building the community’s collective capacity for political organizing.

A few years later, in 1978, CRIC’s Bilingual Education Program was formally established. The project was grounded in a critical approach to the role of the official school system, which Indigenous communities viewed as an external institution that undermined their language and culture in order to reshape them. From this perspective, communities reclaimed the borrowed school and transformed it into a community-based one—turning it into a space of resistance, a platform for imagining and creating an education from within. The school was not seen as an end in itself, but as a tool for strengthening the political fabric of the entire community.

In addition, the first CRIC schools were established in communities already engaged in land recovery processes, with the aim of strengthening the path of collective organization. A central focus of these self-managed schools was the training of community-based teachers—individuals who emerged from the early seeds of leadership and who would later become the first bilingual educators. These individuals had not received formal training as teachers, but they were respected leaders, knowledgeable and deeply committed to the struggles of their peoples. For the organization and its goals, they were the most suitable people—pillars of resistance capable of shaping new ways of doing education.

This alternative education project, developed from within Indigenous communities, was identified more than 40 years ago as Educación Propia (Self-Determined Education). It was part of broader Latin American initiative aimed at affirming Indigenous cultures and languages. What distinguished it was the centrality of its political character and the guiding principle of autonomy in all educational processes. Educación Propia was defined not so much in terms of ownership, but through the concepts of relevance and self-determination. It was considered “propia” (their own) because Indigenous peoples had control over the frameworks and content of an educational project aligned with a specific vision of society—one committed to recovering Indigenous cultures and identities, and to advancing political struggles for Buen Vivir (Collective Well-Being).

The First Country in the Americas to Recognize the Right to Self-Determined Education

Another key element that contributed to the advancement of Educación Propia in Colombia was the Proyecto Educativo Comunitario (PEC, or Community-Based Education Project), which was extended not only to Indigenous communities but also to other ethnic groups such as the Romani people and Afro-descendant communities. The PEC involved the development of educational guidelines rooted in a community-based perspective and reoriented education to reflect the worldviews of local cultures and communities. When it was introduced in 1996, it focused on formal schooling, as this was the most visible educational setting for communities. However, its main objective was to go beyond schools as the sole spaces for learning and to link education with the life projects of the communities.

By the late 1990s, the Regional Indigenous Council of Cauca (CRIC) began developing the Sistema Educativo Propio (Self-Determined Education System), which acknowledged the diverse learning processes of Indigenous communities beyond formal schooling. At the same time, the system identified the levels of guidance and action needed to implement Educación Propia, with the active participation of authorities, organizational structures, and the broader community. Nationally, the system gained formal recognition in 2009 through participation in the Comisión Nacional de Trabajo y Concertación para la Educación de los Pueblos Indígenas (CONTCEPI, or National Commission for Dialogue and Cooperation on Indigenous Peoples’ Education), which was created in 2007 as a space for jointly developing public policy guidelines for Indigenous education in Colombia.

In this context, the system was renamed Sistema Educativo Indígena Propio (SEIP, or Indigenous Self-Determined Education System) to distinguish it from other sistemas propios (self-managed systems) that might emerge but were not necessarily Indigenous. From that point on, work began on developing a clear profile of the SEIP based on the diverse perspectives of the Indigenous peoples involved. This work led, later, to the drafting of a legal framework to guarantee the fundamental right to Educación Propia for the 115 Indigenous peoples officially recognized in Colombia. In 2024, with the formal adoption of this legislation, Colombia became the first country in the Americas to recognize the fundamental right of Indigenous peoples  to an education that respects their social, cultural, linguistic, and territorial specificities.

Recognition by the Colombian State

One of the defining characteristics of the organizational and educational dynamics of the Indigenous movement in Colombia has been the relative openness of the State, which has led to the formal recognition of a range of Indigenous rights. These recognitions are the direct result of grassroots struggles, legal advancements, and initiatives developed by Indigenous organizations themselves. This process has been reflected in differentiated policies and legal frameworks that support the autonomy and rights of Indigenous peoples across various sectors—territory, education, health, and Indigenous justice systems.

Several key organizational achievements are embodied in the development of comprehensive systems designed to guide public policy and address the specific needs of Indigenous communities. Among these are the Sistema de Salud Propia Intercultural (SISPI, Intercultural Indigenous Health System), the Sistema de Autoridad Territorial Económica Ambiental (ATEA, Territorial, Economic, and Environmental Authority System), the Sistema de Administración y Gestión Propia (SAP, Self-Managed Administration and Governance System), the Sistema de Gobierno Propio (SGP, Indigenous Self-Government System), and the Sistema Educativo Indígena Propio (SEIP, Indigenous Self-Determined Education System). All of these are supported by differentiated public policies that acknowledge and protect Indigenous autonomy.

Indigenous Self-Determined Education (Educación Propia) acknowledges the existence of multiple ways, moments, and spaces for learning—many of which do not necessarily take place within the School, even though the School remains a vital path embraced by Indigenous organizations. Today, Colombia is home to a special-status Indigenous university: the Universidad Autónoma Indígena Intercultural (UAIIN). Across Indigenous territories, diverse educational processes are flourishing, including the training of women and youth, the strengthening of the Indigenous Guard, cultural and linguistic revitalization initiatives, seedbeds for language learning, centers for training and research, political education schools, programs for young people and adults, and networks that weave together ancestral knowledge. This complex educational fabric has been made possible by decades of struggle—struggles that have expanded the meaning of education into a political project guided by the principle of Buen Vivir (Living Well, or collective well-being rooted in harmony and balance).

As such, the Indigenous Self-Determined Education System (SEIP) has played a key role in cultivating numerous essential achievements for Indigenous organizations in Colombia: the search for and reconnection with cultural roots; the recognition, appreciation, and active use of ancestral languages; the research and implementation of community-based pedagogies rooted in territory; the recovery of collective governance structures; the understanding and experience of knowledge from within Indigenous languages and ways of thinking; and, above all, the recognition that it is possible to build education from within—education that is aligned with the struggles, identities, and political visions of Indigenous peoples and their organizations.

The post Self-Governed Education in Colombia: An Educational Policy Shaped by Indigenous Communities and Their Organizations appeared first on Debates Indígenas.

Since 2021, they are taught subjects in Language and Culture of the Ancestral Indigenous Peoples programs from 1st to 6th grade, maintaining enrollment conditions for the four previously mentioned Peoples. However, for the peoples that were later added to the program—the Lickanantay, Colla, Diaguita, Kawésqar, and Yagán—no enrollment percentage is required for its implementation. Additionally, the subject can also be taught as part of the Intercultural Study Program, developed alongside specific programs for each Indigenous people.

The EIB experience extends to urban areas in schools that offer the Language and Culture of the Ancestral Indigenous Peoples subject in the city. This will contribute to the revitalization of languages, as the program’s focus on language, oral traditions, iconography, and reading and writing practices allows learning to be adapted to the sociolinguistic context of the school. In this sense, language teaching can be approached through awareness-raising, recovery, revitalization, and the development and strengthening of the Indigenous language.

The Indigenous Population in Chile

According to 2017 Census data, the Indigenous population in Chile represents 12.8% of the national population. This group includes the Aymara, Quechua, Rapa Nui, Likan Antay, Colla, Chango, Diaguita, Mapuche, Yagan, Selknam, and Kawescar peoples. The Mapuche constitute a majority, representing 79.8% of the Indigenous population, with 1,745,147 individuals. While many Indigenous children live in rural areas, an increasing migration to urban centers has diversified their geographical distribution.

In terms of the Indigenous population that speaks its own language, the 2013 National Socioeconomic Characterization Survey shows that only 10.9% of the population speaks an Indigenous language. The 2016 survey by the Center for Public Studies reveals that only 6% of respondents in the regions where data was collected speak Mapuzugun alongside Spanish. The survey also notes an increase in the percentage of people who do not speak the language, rising from 56% in 2006 to 67% in 2016.

Despite undeniable progress in Bilingual Intercultural Education (EIB), significant challenges remain, requiring in-depth analysis and renewed commitment from the Chilean state to Indigenous peoples and their languages. At the same time, persistent limitations date back to the early stages of the program. Below, we highlight some of the problems and challenges of EIB for Indigenous languages.

The Role of the Traditional Educator

Although the General Education Law (LGE) mandates Bilingual Intercultural Education in schools with an Indigenous population exceeding 20% of enrollment, its implementation has remained largely voluntary for families. This is because the 2020 Curriculum Bases Decree No. 97 for the subject of Language and Culture of Ancestral Indigenous Peoples allows parents and guardians to decide whether they want the subject for their children or wards.

Due to the shortage of teachers fluent in Indigenous languages, the system has introduced the role of the traditional educator, who can work alongside a classroom teacher. These educators are members of Indigenous communities with in-depth knowledge of their language, culture, and philosophy, although these qualifications are not always met. Their role includes teaching Indigenous language, transmitting cultural values, and reinforcing Indigenous identity among students.

Despite their importance in the development of EIB, traditional educators often face challenges such as a lack of formal pedagogical training, low salaries, and limited recognition within the school system. Currently, due to Decree No. 301, traditional educators may work solo in the classroom without a pedagogical partner. This is already happening in many cases.

Lack of Training and State Racism

Interculturality is not a transversal principle in the Chilean education system, despite being established by General Education Law. Efforts have been made to include elements of Indigenous Peoples’ cultures in subjects such as History, Geography, and Social Sciences, but this integration is often superficial and depends on the teacher’s interest and training. The Textbooks that have been produced do not always reflect the cultural particularities of local communities and lack follow-up for their implementation.

In some schools, materials are discarded on the grounds that they do not reflect the local territorial variant. It is also true that teachers often lack the methodological skills to apply them effectively. Moreover, the EIB program lacks robust evaluation and monitoring mechanisms to validate these materials or measure the actual impact of the program, such as an increase in the number of Indigenous language speakers or improvements in students’ appreciation of Indigenous culture.

On the other hand, the discourse and practices of EIB schools regarding the revitalization of Indigenous languages and cultures are threatened by state racism and media stigmatization. In Chile, stigmatization and prejudice against Indigenous peoples persist. Children and teachers witness daily mistreatment of the Indigenous condition in the media, which discourages efforts, particularly among younger generations, from valuing, learning or using the languages.

Demands, Challenges, and Proposals to Strengthen Indigenous Languages

Addressing the problems outlined here requires a perspective rooted in cultural and linguistic rights, social justice, and reparations. It was not the Indigenous peoples who voluntarily abandoned their languages and cultures; it was the Chilean education system that led to this abandonment. The state must strengthen the Bilingual Intercultural Education program and enable the normalization of Indigenous language use in society, so that schools and state institutions no longer participate in cultural dispossession.

In this context, the needs and demands of Indigenous peoples are clear:  to expand coverage and funding for EIB to ensure that all schools with Indigenous students have access to the subject of Language and Culture of Ancestral Indigenous Peoples; to address the needs for the training and recognition of traditional educator and to provide EIB teachers with intercultural and Indigenous language training; to produce relevant materials that not only reflect the cultural and linguistic particularities of Indigenous communities but are also appropriate to the students’ language proficiency levels; and to strengthen community participation in the design, implementation, and evaluation of EIB actions to ensure their relevance and effectiveness.

The power dynamics between languages are unequal. Spanish is the only language with social prestige, and this does not contribute to the recognition of Indigenous peoples or their languages. Society, as a whole, needs to value Indigenous languages.

Spanish is the only language with social prestige, and this does not contribute to the recognition of Indigenous peoples or their languages. Society, as a whole, needs to value Indigenous languages.

An additional program outside of education is necessary to stop the loss of Indigenous languages because the school system alone is insufficient to instill their value in society. Currently, the power dynamics between languages are unequal. Spanish is the only language with social prestige, and this does not contribute to the recognition of Indigenous peoples or their languages. Society, as a whole, needs to value Indigenous languages. A campaign to enhance the prestige and legitimacy of Mapuzugun and other Indigenous languages in society is needed, reaching beyond Indigenous communities, combined with their integration into public spaces and the media.

This involves creating standards in collaboration with the communities, ensuring respect for the linguistic reality of the territories, and making decisions on writing systems, dialectal diversity, and the strengthening of unified, distinctive, and robust languages. These elements would not only improve the impact of Bilingual Intercultural Education (EIB), but would also contribute to the cultural and linguistic empowerment of Indigenous peoples. Furthermore, the full integration of Indigenous languages into both formal and informal spaces of daily life remains an ongoing challenge. In the case of Mapuzugun, which lacks standardization, there have been internal debates within the Mapuche community about which variant should be taught in schools and used in official documents. Therefore, a national literacy campaign would help facilitate these decisions.

Conclusion

Although Bilingual Intercultural Education represents a step forward in the recognition of the educational and linguistic rights of Indigenous peoples in Chile, its implementation still faces numerous challenges including learning to read and write in Indigenous languages, establishing their public use in society to foster intercultural skills among non-Indigenous Chileans, and overcoming the denial and racism that have persisted for centuries through colonialism, hate speech, and the fear generated towards Indigenous peoples.

Consequently, a more comprehensive, intercultural, and collaborative approach to education for all of Chilean society remains necessary. Both the state and civil society must ensure, not only the teaching of Indigenous languages, but also their legitimization as an essential part of the country’s cultural and educational fabric.

Bilingual Intercultural Education offers an opportunity to build a fairer and more inclusive educational system that values the cultural wealth of Indigenous peoples. Through sustained state and social commitment it is possible to transform education into a tool of empowerment for Indigenous communities and their future generations. Indigenous languages are not just forms of communication; they are also vehicles for ancestral knowledge, philosophies, and unique traditions. The loss of each language represents a cultural and spiritual loss for all of humanity.

The post The State of Bilingual Intercultural Education in Chile: History, New Challenges, and Current Scenarios appeared first on Debates Indígenas.

Several key policy documents were developed during those years: the Intercultural Bilingual Education Pedagogical Proposal (2013), the Sectoral Policy on Intercultural Education and Intercultural Bilingual Education (2016), and the National Plan for Intercultural Bilingual Education to 2021 (2016). The Ministry also expanded its capacity to serve the Indigenous population: between 2013 and 2019, the number of recognized IBE schools grew from 21,832 to 26,862, and the number of students rose from 832,159 to 1,238,329. Additionally, three key databases were created: the National Registry of Educational Institutions, the Registry of Indigenous Languages and Ethnolinguistic Map, and the Registry and Evaluation of Indigenous Language Proficiency among Bilingual Teachers in Peru.

Furthermore, educational materials were developed in 18 Indigenous languages, and the Intercultural Pedagogical Support Program was implemented. However, with the arrival of a new government, the focus shifted away from political decisions toward measurable and standardized learning outcomes. By the end of that decade, political instability had severly affected the sector: from 2016 to 2024, Peru saw 15 Ministers of Education. Combined with the rise of conservative sectors opposed to the reforms, the rights-based approach—particularly its emphasis on interculturality—entered a period of marked regression, which continues to this day.

Intercultural Bilingual Education (IBE) from 2020 to 2024: Setbacks from a State Failing to Uphold Rights

Since 2020, we have witnessed a series of regressive measures promoted by the Ministry of Education itself—policies which, if enacted, would have represented significant setbacks. In 2022, the State launched two initiatives aimed at scaling back Intercultural Bilingual Education. First, the Ministry requested that Regional Education Directorates submit lists of schools to be “exempted” from the application of IBE. These schools would be removed from the National Registry of IBE Institutions and, as a result, would no longer require bilingual teachers, culturally relevant materials, or dedicated funding.

A few months later, the Ministry issued another regulation eliminating the requirement for school principals to speak an Indigenous language in IBE institutions focused on cultural and linguistic revitalization; that is, schools serving Indigenous children who are heritage bilinguals, as well as urban IBE schools. If enacted, this policy would have allowed school principals to direct IBE institutions without any connection to their students’ language or cultural background. In both cases, Indigenous organizations and civil society responded with strong criticism and mobilization. As a result, the Ministry of Education (MINEDU) withdrew both measures.

In 2022, some sector of the teaching profession began to view positions in IBE schools as employment opportunities, regrdless of wether they met the necessary qualifications.

At the beginning of 2024, over 600 teachers who did not meet the established requirements were appointed to IBE positions in the Amazon region.

In 2022, the National Federation of Education Workers of Peru (FENATEP)—a grassroots base of the administration of the then-president Pedro Castillo— requested that proof of proficiency in an Indigenous language no longer be required for teaching positions in Intercultural Bilingual Education (IBE) schools. They also proposed that Indigenous languages be treated as just one curricular subject. As a result, some sectors of the teaching profession began to view positions in IBE schools as employment opportunities, regardless of whether they met the necessary qualifications.

At the beginning of 2024, over 600 teachers who did not meet the established requirements were appointed to IBE positions in the Amazon region. The Interethnic Association for the Development of the Peruvian Rainforest (AIDESEP) publicly denounced this and demanded the appointments be annulled. To date, the Ministry of Education (MINEDU) has not issued a response. In October 2024, the Ministry modified various aspects of IBE schools, including the criteria used to classify an institution as part of the IBE system. While the inclusion of ethnolinguistic criteria and cultural self-identification represents a positive step forward, the regulation also states that the request to be designated as an IBE school must come from the school itself, signed by both the principal and the president of the Parents’ Association (APAFA). The issue is that IBE is a fundamental right and should not be subject to the discretion of individuals or dependent on such requests.

Regulatory Framework, Qualified Teachers, and Decentralized Management

The National Plan for Intercultural Bilingual Education (IBE) concluded in 2021 and, to date, has not been replaced with a new one. As a result, IBE continues to operate de facto without a guiding framework to define its objectives. Meanwhile, the National Education Policy initially framed Intercultural Education (IE) as a policy for the entire population and IBE specifically for Indigenous Peoples. This distinction drew criticism, as it effectively segregated Indigenous populations from the rest of society. In its most recent update—valid through 2040—the policy promotes an intercultural and bilingual model for everyone. However, some voices have raised concerns that an “IBE for all” approach could end up diluting the presence of Indigenous students within the broader national student population, thereby undermining their right to an educational model that specifically addresses their cultural characteristics.

Ensuring an adequate supply of teachers trained in IBE remains an unresolved challenge. According to data from the Directorate of Intercultural Bilingual Education, there are 72,701 IBE teaching positions, but only 52,253 of them (72 %) are filled by teachers who are formally trained in IBE. The remaining 20,448 positions (28 %) are occupied by individuals who are bilingual but have not completed pedagogical studies, hold degrees in other specializations, or have no professional qualifications at all. Among them, approximately 11,736 teachers (57.4 %) are Spanish monolinguals who do not speak the language of the children they teach and also lack formal teacher training or a degree. This situation directly affects the effective implementation of the Intercultural Bilingual Education model.

IBE management in Peru remains highly centralized in the Ministry of Education, based in Lima. However, some regional governments are advancing their own initiatives.

IBE management in Peru remains highly centralized in the Ministry of Education, based in Lima.

To close the teacher gap, 3,656 new educators are needed. However, only 33 Intercultural Bilingual Education (IBE) programs are available across 104 public higher education institutions, and only 11 universities offer programs covering two of the four Andean languages. When it comes to the 38 Amazonian languages, only seven institutions provide specialized training. The 2023 Teacher Development Plan for IBE—designed to address these disparities—is still awaiting approval. Anthropologist and education expert Lucy Trapnell warns: “The civilizing and Spanish-assimilationist nature that shaped schools throughout the 19th and 20th centuries still lingers in the system and in the mindset of many officials, blinding them to issues as self-evident as those raised here.”

IBE management in Peru remains highly centralized in the Ministry of Education, based in Lima. However, some regional governments are advancing their own initiatives. Since 2023, the regions of Ucayali, Loreto, Huánuco, San Martín, Amazonas, and Madre de Dios have been working together to build a common agenda aimed at reversing low learning outcomes and fostering intergovernmental dialogue with the central government. Nora Delgado, Regional Director of Education in Ucayali, points out that teacher placement, the development of educational materials, and pedagogical support could be managed at the regional level—provided there is a new allocation of funding.

The Loss of Budget and the Micropolitics of the Classroom

One of the most evident signs of the regression of the rights-based approach is the ongoing reduction of resources allocated to Intercultural Bilingual Education (IBE). In 2016, the 142 million soles spent on IBE represented 0.6 % of the total education budget, with 75 % directed towards pedagogical support and 25 % towards educational materials. By 2024, the budget allocated to IBE-related activities had dropped to 47,536,745.45 soles, representing only 0.13 % of the total education expenditure—about one-third of the 2016 budget. These funds were distributed across three areas: educational materials to meet learning standards (74.18 %), the development of Intercultural, Bilingual, and Rural Education (25.73 %), and teachers with in-service training and pedagogical support (0.09 %).

At the same time, the IBE student population accounts for 14 % of all students in Peru. Of the country’s total Basic Regular Education institutions, 32.4 % are IBE schools. A school is considered to offer an IBE program when it meets three requirements: 1) It has bilingual teachers trained in IBE; 2) It implements a pedagogical approach based on IBE principles; and 3) It provides materials in both the students’ native language and Spanish. According to the May 2022 implementation report of the National IBE Plan, only 19.5 % of indigenous students in early childhood education and 21.6 % in primary education attend a school that meets all three criteria.

When the necessary conditions are in place and a bilingual intercultural pedagogical practice is developed, Indigenous students learn. For this reason, it is essential that 100 % of IBE schools meet the required conditions for learning.

When the necessary conditions are in place and a bilingual intercultural pedagogical practice is developed, Indigenous students learn.

These components are crucial for determining the learning opportunities of children from Indigenous societies, as evidenced by the results of the 2014 student census evaluation, in which the percentage of students reaching the expected level in reading comprehension in IBE schools increased. This shows that when the necessary conditions are in place and a bilingual intercultural pedagogical practice is developed, Indigenous students learn. For this reason, it is essential that 100 % of IBE schools meet the required conditions for learning.

On the other hand, there is a need to generate updated information, especially qualitative data, on what is happening inside the classrooms. Unfortunately, some institutions are not free of discrimination and do not provide a safe space, particularly for girls. The Ombudsman’s Office has intervened to oversee their implementation in student dormitories (which suffer from inadequate infrastructure, food, and security conditions) and to investigate reports of aggression and sexual abuse of minors in the Amazonian province of Condorcanqui. In response to its recommendations, the Ministry of Culture established the “Pact for Indigenous Amazonian Children” to eradicate violence against Indigenous children and adolescents in the region.

In conclusion: the experience of the Wampis people

Finally, one dimension that deserves to be mentioned is the experience of the Territorial Autonomous Governments (GTA) of various Indigenous Societies in the Amazon region. One such experience is that of the Wampis people. Kefren Graña, the education officer of the GTA Wampis, explains that the autonomous government has developed its own curricular proposal, a process led by a special commission of Indigenous sages and teachers, with the support of mestizo specialists (local non-indigenous specialists), and involving various community actors, such as youth, authorities, and professionals.

This curricular proposal, aimed at addressing the needs and demands of the people, starts from a matrix of indigenous learning and knowledge and then seeks to align with the national curriculum. The curriculum is organized from a holistic perspective of the Wampis people’s knowledge, based on major teachings organized by age and that respond to life in the territory. Although this proposal is still in a validation stage, it faces resistance from some groups within the same community. The next step will be to initiate dialogue with national authorities from the Ministry of Education, in order to formally integrate it with the national curriculum.

In summary, we can observe that in Peru, Bilingual Intercultural Education (EIB) is still a major pending task. Despite a period of growth, in recent years the deterioration of political conditions for better management and implementation of EIB threatens and hinders the fulfillment of Indigenous children’s right to relevant and quality education. The fulfillment of this right still faces, even today, a colonial and racist mentality that has characterized the country’s history. The defense of the progress made remains a pending task.

The post The Challenge of Ensuring the Right to Education for Indigenous Peoples: Intercultural Bilingual Education in Peru appeared first on Debates Indígenas.

Building on milestones such as the First Inter-American Indigenist Congress held in Pátzcuaro in 1940, the signing of international treaties in the second half of the 20th century, the Zapatista uprising of 1994, and the demands of Indigenous organizations in the 1990s, intercultural bilingual education has gained national prominence. This is evident in the establishment of the General Directorate of Intercultural and Bilingual Education and the creation of several Intercultural Teacher Training Colleges (Escuelas Normales Interculturales), all under the oversight of the Ministry of Public Education.

Within this context, two main currents shape the actions aimed at advancing intercultural and bilingual education: those driven by the Mexican State and those developed by civil society actors. While these initiatives may at times be in opposition, they also offer opportunities for dialogue, convergence, and mutual transformation. As such, they can involve both direct confrontation with state education policies and ongoing critical reflection on them.

The New Mexican School

A compelling example can be found among the teachers of Section 22 of the National Coordinating Committee of Education Workers (CNTE) in the state of Oaxaca. Although they are state employees and teach in schools under the Ministry of Education, many of the intercultural and bilingual educational practices they implement are based on their own pedagogical model. This Plan for the Transformation of Education in Oaxaca (PTEO) is not philosophically grounded in interculturality, but rather in communality—the Indigenous way of life in Oaxaca, which encompasses cultural and linguistic diversity as a central axis.

Intercultural bilingual education policies promoted by the State have shifted from being mere instruments of cultural assimilation to embracing a critical intercultural perspective, as reflected in what is known as the New Mexican School. The current national curriculum explicitly positions critical interculturality as a core principle: “An ongoing dialogue with reality beyond the classroom, within school spaces and in the community.” In this framework, interculturality refers to the interaction, dialogue, mutual questioning, and co-construction of knowledge among diverse linguistic, cultural, social, and territorial identities—within contexts marked by structural inequalities.

Despite the many challenges that persist in applying an intercultural bilingual approach to classroom practice, the current Mexican curriculum urges teachers to “develop formative processes and pedagogical relationships that enable students, throughout basic education, to understand the colonial logic embedded in our everyday human experience.” Established in 2019, the National Collective of Intercultural Bilingual Teacher Training Colleges is working on a curriculum proposal for initial teacher education grounded in interculturality. This initiative is aligned with the principles of the Mexican Constitution and the foundational goal of the New Mexican School: to close historical gaps in equity and ensure recognition of the educational rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Intercultural Universities and Community-Based Practices

At the higher education level, intercultural universities supported by the Mexican State began to emerge in 2003. While official discourse emphasizes their academic quality and cultural and linguistic relevance, in practice, these institutions often reflect a convergence between neoliberal multiculturalism and experimentation with intercultural and decolonial educational innovations. Each university’s educational experience is distinct, highlighting tensions and contradictions, but also generating diverse responses that allow for differentiated approaches to intercultural education.

Alongside these institutions, there are important efforts led by cultural organizers, Indigenous communities, academic researchers, civil society organizations, and Indigenous educators who promote practices aligned with intercultural bilingual education. These initiatives foster territorially-grounded knowledge and pedagogies that are culturally relevant and centered on Indigenous languages. Particularly noteworthy is the intergenerational transmission of knowledge within Indigenous communities, which has sustained native languages, traditional rituals, systems of self-governance, sociopolitical organization, and relationships with ancestral territories.

Although such community-based practices often go unrecognized in academic discourse, they represent some of the most robust and meaningful efforts toward culturally and linguistically relevant education. Additionally, there are more widely known experiences—such as the autonomous Zapatista education system in Chiapas, community-based education in Cherán (Michoacán), and education initiatives in the Sierra Norte of Oaxaca—that are more structured and involve broad participation from a range of educational actors. In some cases, they have formed alliances with scholars and activists interested in supporting and strengthening local educational models.

Intercultural Universities and Community-Based Practices

At the higher education level, intercultural universities emerged in 2003 as initiatives promoted by the Mexican State. While official discourse emphasizes their academic quality and cultural and linguistic relevance, in practice these institutions reveal a convergence between neoliberal multiculturalism and experimentation with educational innovations grounded in intercultural and decolonial approaches. Each university’s experience is distinct, exposing both tensions and contradictions, as well as diverse responses that contribute to differentiated forms of intercultural educational practices.

In parallel, there are significant efforts led by cultural organizers, Indigenous communities, academic researchers, civil society organizations, and Indigenous educators who develop educational practices aligned with intercultural bilingual education. These initiatives promote knowledge and pedagogies that are territorially rooted, culturally relevant, and conveyed through Indigenous languages. Particularly vital is the intergenerational transmission of knowledge within Indigenous communities, which sustains native languages, ceremonial practices, self-governance systems, sociopolitical organization, and relationships with their ancestral territories.

Although community-based educational practices often go unnoticed by mainstream academic research, they represent some of the most consistent and grounded efforts toward culturally and linguistically appropriate education. Moreover, there are well-known cases such as the Zapatista autonomous education system in Chiapas, community education in Cherán (Michoacán), and similar initiatives in the Sierra Norte of Oaxaca. These efforts are more systematized and involve broad participation from various educational actors. In some cases, they form alliances with academics or activists interested in supporting and strengthening local educational practices.

Four years after the signing of the Declaration, it is clear that the situation of Mexican Indigenous languages has not improved. Their displacement continues to progress, and there are still no concrete, targeted actions addressing each language individually. On the contrary, the genuine efforts are still being led by the speakers themselves, most often without the financial support necessary to strengthen these processes.

Former president Andrés Manuel López Obrador’s discourse has brought Indigenous peoples and languages into the national spotlight. However, his approach has often been diluted with folkloric elements, and despite good intentions, cultural and linguistic aspects have been trivialized, used merely as symbolic gestures for national celebrations or political events. This situation has exposed the racist undertones of Mexican society, evident in discriminatory comments directed at Indigenous cultures on social media. It underscores the urgent need to interculturalize education and institutions in order to foster a more dialogical society.

Building Bridges to Revitalize Languages

While progress has been made both in discourse and practice, particularly in relation to intercultural educational practices, much remains to be done to strengthen Indigenous languages. Bilingualism still tends to favor Spanish at the expense of the dozens of Indigenous languages and their variants. It is crucial that both state-led efforts and individual initiatives build bridges for collaboration and dialogue, in ways that are considered appropriate, with a common goal in mind: the strengthening and revitalization of our Mexican languages and cultures.

Furthermore, it is important to highlight the role played by teachers working in Indigenous contexts, particularly those who take an autonomous, self-managed approach. An example of this is the graduates of the Bilingual and Intercultural Teacher Training College of Oaxaca. During the 25th anniversary of the educational institution, they reflected on their teaching trajectories and emphasized the lack of educational materials in Indigenous languages. However, they also pointed out various strategies they had developed on their own, such as puppet shows, bingo games, audiovisual materials, books, games, and songs. This reflects a deep commitment from the teachers to Indigenous children.

Finally, we must acknowledge that the efforts at the primary school level to implement intercultural bilingual education are often hindered because at the secondary level, there are virtually no educational models with an intercultural bilingual perspective (except in some cases, such as Indigenous community secondary schools). The same situation applies at the higher secondary education level. For this reason, there is a need to develop an integrated education system in which an intercultural framework prevails, ensuring the reinforcement of these practices throughout the students’ entire academic journey.

The post A Look at the Current State of Intercultural Bilingual Education in Mexico appeared first on Debates Indígenas.

This explains why IBE has been a central demand of the political agenda of Indigenous organizations, and why it has consistently played a key role in political negotiations with the Ecuadorian state. This was especially evident during the Dialogue Tables held in 2022, following the major Indigenous uprising in June of that year.

Historical Trajectory of Intercultural Bilingual Education

The emergence of Intercultural Bilingual Education in Ecuador dates back to the 1940s, when the Clandestine Schools of Cayambe were established by Dolores Cacuango and the Ecuadorian Federation of Indians, with the goal of teaching literacy to children and youth from communities working on local haciendas. In the decades that followed, various educational initiatives sprang up across the Highlands, the Amazon, and even parts of the Coast.

A defining feature of these initiatives was their autonomous nature: they were created and operated independently of the state and managed directly by the communities themselves. Another important aspect was their commitment to creative and innovative educational approaches—both in terms of content and methodology—aimed at addressing the needs and aspirations of Indigenous communities.

In 1988, as a result of pressure from the Indigenous movement and negotiations with the government of the time, Indigenous education was officially recognized by the Ecuadorian state through Executive Decree 203. Thismilestone led to the creation of the National Directorate of Intercultural Bilingual Education (DINEIB), with the aim of enabling Indigenous peoples and nations, through their organizations, to lead, plan, and manage Indigenous education comprehensively at the national level.

Over the course of more than three decades of institutional life, Intercultural Bilingual Education (IBE) has made significant progress in several areas, including teacher training, curriculum development, and the production of educational materials. However, it has also faced serious challenges and setbacks. The vitality and progress of IBE have depended not only on the priority Indigenous organizations assign to it within their political agendas, but also on the vision and political will of successive governments.

The Current Landscape: Limited Presence in Urban Areas

There is no available data on the quality of Intercultural Bilingual Education in Ecuador, as reports from the National Institute for Educational Evaluation (INEVAL) do not differentiate learning outcomes between the two educational jurisdictions: intercultural (formerly “Hispanic jurisdiction”) and intercultural bilingual. Furthermore, there are no specific criteria for assessing the quality of IBE.

In terms of coverage, IBE currently serves 131,282 students across the three educational levels—early childhood, primary, and secondary—which represents only 3.12% of the country’s total student population. This figure is a cause of concern, particularly in a country where 7.7% of the population identifies as Indigenous.

While 80% of students enrolled in IBE identify themselves as Indigenous, the remaining students identify themselves as mestizo, Afro-descendant, montubio, or white. Among Indigenous students, the majority belong to the Kichwa and Shuar nations (64.73% and 24.12%, respectively), the two largest Indigenous groups in Ecuador. They are followed, in smaller numbers, by students from the Chachi, Achuar, and Awa nations, with other groups represented in minimal percentages.

A related issue is that most IBE students in Ecuador live in rural areas—70.49%. This reflects the fact that 73.87% of the Indigenous population resides in rural areas and also points to one of the current weaknesses of IBE: its limited presence in urban areas.

One notable characteristic that distinguishes Ecuador from other countries in the region is that IBE has a nationwide reach: it operates in 23 of the country’s 24 provinces, including the Galápagos Islands, where sustained Indigenous migration has occurred over several decades. Most IBE students are concentrated in the Amazon and the central Highlands.

Finally, it is important to note that to attend its students, the IBE program currently employs 9,146 teachers working in 1,710 educational institutions of various types (early childhood, primary, secondary, and mixed), sizes, and conditions. The majority are located in rural areas.

Structure of the Educational Proposal

In Ecuador, Intercultural Bilingual Education is based on the Intercultural Bilingual Education System Model, developed by Indigenous peoples and approved in 1993—five years after the state recognized Indigenous education. This model clearly defines the principles, goals, foundations, and strategies of IBE, as well as various criteria for organizing and implementing the educational process, including the academic calendar, language use, classroom methodology, and learning assessment.

IBE is organized into two levels: intercultural bilingual basic education and intercultural bilingual secondary education. The basic level includes two stages: the non-formal stage, which involves family- and community-based early childhood education; and the formal stage, comprising the first ten years of schooling. The formal stage is structured around four sequential processes: introduction to semiotic systems; cognitive, emotional, and psychomotor development; development of academic and technical skills; and investigative learning. The secondary level, or intercultural bilingual high school, includes the final three years before entry into higher education.

Each level of education has its own specific curriculum, approved in 2017. These are adapted versions of the national curriculum. For the basic level, there are 14 specific curricula—one for each Indigenous nation. For the high school level, a unified proposal called Curricular Extension for the Intercultural Bilingual Unified General Baccalaureate was developed to complement the contents of the national curriculum.

The Challenges of a Self-Determined Education

The most pressing challenge today is the issue of autonomy: the right and power of Indigenous nations to define their own education according to their needs and political visions. This is a basic condition for the development of an education that is culturally, linguistically, socially, and politically relevant. Indigenous organizations are working to restore the status they held until 2008, when they had control over appointing authorities, designing curricula, managing the educational process, and training their own teachers. Achieving educational autonomy is a key component of the plurinationality recognized in the Ecuadorian Constitution.

A second major challenge is the need to rethink the curricular proposals. Although there are curricula specifically for IBE, they are ultimately adaptations of what is misleadingly called the “national curriculum,” which in reality reflects the worldview and context of the urban, white-mestizo, middle class. The Confederation of Indigenous Nations of Ecuador (CONAIE) advocates for the development of curricula that respond to the current needs and realities of Indigenous peoples and that support the realization of their political projects.

In recent years, several promising curricular proposals have emerged from different areas in the Highlands and the Amazon. These experiences could serve as valuable references for and contributions to the current process of reform. Naturally, any curriculum reform initiative must be sufficiently flexible to incorporate both core areas of shared learning and the specific needs of Indigenous peoples and nations. This goes beyond language and culture—it also includes organizational, territorial, and political dimensions.

A third major challenge relates to teacher training. Although significant progress has been made over the past three decades, much remains to be done. The challenge lies not only in increasing the number of teachers with specific intercultural profiles, but also in expanding representation from all Indigenous nations. Currently, the majority of teachers in the Intercultural Bilingual Education (IBE) system are from the Kichwa nation (70.95%), followed by Shuar teachers (18.76%). However, there are very few teachers from the other nations.

Inter-institutional coordination and the production of educational materials

Addressing the challenge above requires coordinated efforts among Ecuadorian universities, the Intercultural Bilingual Education System, and Indigenous organizations. The goal is to develop a strong, sustainable teacher training program that acknowledges the internal diversity of Indigenous populations, with special attention to nations with fewer educators.

Closely linked to this is the challenge of producing educational resources and materials. Despite the work carried out over the past thirty years, there is still a shortage of materials in Indigenous languages that reflect the unique cultural, social, and political realities of each people and nation.

Last—but certainly not least—is the challenge of reaching new generations of Indigenous people living in urban areas. The IBE currently being offered in urban contexts is limited, while the rural-to-urban migration trend continues to grow. Addressing the needs of urban Indigenous youth calls for a rethinking of many of the principles that originally shaped and sustained IBE, and for adapting the system to the new educational demands of these populations.

It is also important to consider Indigenous populations living abroad. Migration is an ongoing and increasingly widespread phenomenon that appears to be irreversible. The advances in virtual education in recent years—particularly following the pandemic—could offer significant opportunities for delivering education to Ecuadorian Indigenous communities living outside the country.

The post In Search of Autonomy: History, Current Realities, and Challenges of Intercultural Bilingual Education in Ecuador appeared first on Debates Indígenas.

To this day, EIB has exposed poverty, land scarcity, discrimination, and racism perpetuated by the traditional education system. It has even uncovered situations of near-slavery experienced by some Indigenous communities, such as those in the Guarani region. By connecting with sociocultural realities, it has helped reclaim historical memory, revive Indigenous languages, and achieve their recognition as official State languages — a significant victory for those involved at the time.

With the passing of Educational Reform Law 1565 in 1994, the Bilingual Intercultural Education Program, initially developed in Aymara, Guarani, and Quechua regions, became State policy. Indigenous peoples and their organizations played a decisive role in its implementation through the Educational Councils of Indigenous Peoples (CEPOs). Although their initial intentions were good, the quality gradually faded, reverting to traditional method of teaching, much like today’s system. The most notable achievement was the recognition of Indigenous languages within schools — though this was mostly limited to the primary level.

Intracultural, Intercultural, and Multilingual

In 2010, Law 070 “Avelino Siñani and Elizardo Pérez” was enacted, stating: “Education shall be intracultural, intercultural, and multilingual throughout the education system.” The bilingual model was replaced by a multilingual one, meaning that, in addition to an Indigenous language and Spanish, a foreign language — English — would also be taught. However, in curriculum planning, the Indigenous and foreign languages were merged into a single “Language and Communication” subject area.

In many cases, teachers do not speak the native language, let alone English. One teacher explains: “I am a Guarani speaker, so I have no problem teaching this language. However, I don’t speak English, so I ask a colleague who knows a little for help.” Similarly, another teacher shares: “I don’t speak the native language, so I teach crafts — that’s how I manage. I know a bit of English; I have no other choice because I need to keep my subject and class hours.” As a result, multilingual education is failing to develop properly.

Strictly speaking, schools are failing in their role to support the recovery, learning, and revitalization of native languages. This affects students, who show more interest and attention in learning English.

Strictly speaking, schools are failing in their role to support the recovery, learning, and revitalization of native languages.

In Article 7, Education Law 070 states that “the teaching of a foreign language begins gradually and mandatorily from the early years of schooling, with appropriate methodology and specialized personnel, continuing across all levels of the Plurinational Education System.” This requirement does not apply equally to the teaching of native languages, as their mandatory inclusion is not established across all levels of the system.

In practice, the time they are allocated is insufficient, contributing to their deprioritization — especially when teachers neither speak nor use the language in the learning process. Strictly speaking, schools are failing in their role to support the recovery, learning, and revitalization of native languages. This affects students, who show more interest and attention in learning English. There is also a risk that students may start to believe native languages are less valuable than Spanish or English, especially since there are no bilingual teachers dedicated exclusively to teaching indigenous languages. This stems from the forced unification of three languages into one “Language and Communication” subject area, which ultimately undermines native languages and their cultural elements.

In Theory, but Not in Practice

Local and national education authorities often emphasize that all languages spoken in the country are official languages of the Plurinational State. However, this is not reflected in practice. Law 269 on Linguistic Rights and Policies is also not being upheld, as there is no specific body providing technical support and follow-up for the development of native languages at different levels of the education system.

Moreover, the country’s legislative advancements — promoting the use, protection, and revitalization of indigenous languages — find little support? within the institutional and academic structure of Teacher Training Colleges. These institutions do not prioritize methodologies for teaching native languages, whether as a first or second language, nor do they focus on teaching Spanish. In short, improving teacher training is urgently needed.

Similarly, the Ministry of Education’s structures pay little attention to the need for native language teachers. Public hiring calls for teaching positions do not consider proficiency in native languages, ignoring their constitutional recognition and official status, as well as the principle of territoriality outlined in Law 269.

Regionalized Curricula and Productive Education

The “Avelino Siñani and Elizardo Pérez” Law seeks to promote intracultural education through the implementation of regionalized curricula, “in coordination with Indigenous Native Peasant nations and peoples, maintaining harmony and complementarity with the core curriculum of the Plurinational Education System.” Currently, 21 regionalized curricula have been approved by ministerial resolution. However, some Indigenous leaders argue that concrete results are still lacking in educational institutions.

The failure to implement these curricula stems from a lack of methodological training for teachers and the absence of an alignment with the national core curriculum. The problem is particularly evident in the Lowlands, where there is a shortage of local teachers who speak the native language and understand the region’s sociocultural context. Most teachers come from Aymara- or Quechua-speaking communities and are unfamiliar with local cultures. It’s paradoxical that Andean cultures are being imposed in these territories, sidelining the development of local cultures.

Interculturality is still largely addressed through folkloric activities. In this context, non-Indigenous teachers justify promoting interculturality by enabling students to learn about other cultures.

Education Law 070 also aims to connect theory with productive practice. In line with this initiative, the Socio-Community Productive Educational Model was established, proposing that education and production should not be learned in isolation. Instead, one learns by doing and does by learning. There is a skewed perception of productive education wherein some schools make efforts to establish school gardens while there is a simultaneous lack of technical support to implement the planned productive activities effectively.

Some teachers claim that productive projects help foster interculturality by introducing students to other cultures through gastronomy, dance, music, or in the making of traditional clothing. However, as is evident, interculturality is still largely addressed through folkloric activities. In this context, non-Indigenous teachers justify promoting interculturality by enabling students to learn about other cultures. The problem arises when they end up imposing their own, typically Andean, cultures on students from the Lowlands.

Dialogue, Participation, and Educational Materials

Teacher Training Colleges do not engage in meaningful dialogue with Indigenous organizations regarding the relevance, quality, and suitability of their training programs. Institutional management is strictly controlled by the Ministry of Education and the Teachers’ Union, through teacher confederations and student representation, thereby excluding Indigenous representatives who are the direct beneficiaries of intercultural education. These organizations lack presence and organizational power in decision-making processes and are excluded from both administrative and academic discussions.

The implementation of Intercultural Bilingual Education actively involved communities, parents, and Indigenous elders. Based on these experiences, Indigenous Peoples’ Educational Councils (CEPO) were established and later legally recognized by Education Reform Law 1565. The first CEPO councils officially recognized to participate in the formulation and oversight of education policies were: The Aymara Council, The Quechua Council, The Multiethnic Amazonian Council and The Guarani Council.

The implementation of EIB became nearly non-existent in many communities, and the efforts that were being made became entangled in institutional and regulatory issues. As a result, the demands and proposals were taken on by the government of the time and the Bolivian teachers’ union.

The implementation of EIB became nearly non-existent in many communities, and the efforts that were being made became entangled in institutional and regulatory issues.

These organizations were involved in the formation of parent-school boards, the support of teacher training, classroom monitoring, material production, and the organization of evaluation meetings with authorities. Meanwhile, international cooperation focused its efforts on strengthening the institutions of the educational councils by providing them with statutes, technical teams, and logistical conditions. However, the implementation of Intercultural Bilingual Education (EIB) became nearly non-existent in many communities, and the efforts that were being made became entangled in institutional and regulatory issues. As a result, the demands and proposals were taken on by the government of the time and the Bolivian teachers’ union, sidelining Indigenous representation.

In approaches of language maintenance and development, there is also a noticeable lack of bilingual materials aimed at strengthening oral and written use of Indigenous languages at the primary education level. Educational authorities fail to provide timely and appropriate follow-up and support to schools, and thus hinder their effective implementation. This has occurred despite guidelines established in Ministerial Resolution 001 and issued by the Ministry of Education at the beginning of each school year.

Pending Issues in Intercultural Education 

Indigenous languages are increasingly taught and spoken less because they do not receive the attention necessary for their development. Educational institutions that should provide the necessary pedagogical and technical conditions are not doing so, mainly because they lack bilingual teachers who are exclusively dedicated to teaching Indigenous languages and ensuring their relevance in education. Moreover, the forced unification of the three languages within the Language and Communication area has led to the invisibility of Indigenous languages, which harms both the languages and their cultural elements.

The implementation of intracultural, intercultural, and plurilingual education is still in its infancy, despite the creation of regionalized curricula, which are also not being effectively implemented due to the lack of teacher training and technical support. Furthermore, most teachers are Spanish-speaking and do not come from the region. In schools located in the Lowlands, there are teachers who are unfamiliar with Amazonian, Chaco, or Eastern languages and cultures, as most are of Aymara or Quechua origin.

Indigenous organizations and the Educational Councils of Indigenous Peoples have lost control over the implementation of EIB, allowing the historical demands and proposals from Indigenous peoples to be taken over and controlled by the government in power.

Indigenous organizations and the Educational Councils of Indigenous Peoples have lost control over the implementation of EIB.

It is assumed that Intercultural Bilingual Education (EIB) has gained a higher status or has become more radicalized under the term Intracultural, Intercultural, and Plurilingual Education at all levels of the education system. However, in practice, interculturality, and even plurilingualism are not being developed due to the lack of material conditions and human resources trained in this approach. Regarding plurilingualism, children and young people are increasingly speaking less of their native languages, neither writing nor learning English. As a result, Spanish continues to establish itself as the only prestigious language.

Due to the bureaucratization of the Ministry of Education’s structures and the transformation of Intercultural Bilingual Education into a state educational policy, Indigenous organizations and the Educational Councils of Indigenous Peoples have lost control over the implementation of EIB, allowing the historical demands and proposals from Indigenous peoples to be taken over and controlled by the government in power. This is undoubtedly bad news.

The post Intracultural, Intercultural, and Multilingual Education: An Analysis in the Plurinational State of Bolivia appeared first on Debates Indígenas.