1

Adult Literacy Policy in Guatemala

a case study of the functioning of field

Introduction

My doctoral research is with Adult Literacy Facilitators (ALFs) working for a municipal

programme in Guatemala, exploring how they develop their educational practice. I

have been working on and off with the municipal programme since 2011 although I

started PhD studies in 2013. Earlier this year I spent two months in Guatemala with

the intention of broadening my understanding of the adult literacy field beyond the

municipal programme. For this purpose I carried out over 20 interviews with senior

staff of the national literacy programme, representatives of NGOs, local politicians

and ALFs.

A particular policy decision taken this year has had a dramatic effect on adult literacy

provision. In this presentation I will show some of the responses to the policy

decision that emerged from the interviews and propose that they can be understood

as a case study of the functioning of field in Bourdieu’s sense. I will also look at the

impact of the decision on the work of adult literacy facilitators.

At 76% Guatemala has the lowest estimated rate of adult literacy in the Latin

America and Caribbean region after Haiti. The lowest rates of literacy are found in

poor rural communities, particularly among indigenous women. The departamento

or province of Quiché, with a majority indigenous Maya population has an estimated

literacy rate of only 65%.

The Adult Literacy Field in Guatemala

In this diagram I have

attempted to represent the field

of adult literacy in Guatemala.

The National literacy programme

is the main organisation working

in the field. They pride

themselves on the fact that

there is a literacy co-ordinator in

every municipality of Guatemala.

They are responsible for

organising literacy groups at

community level and recruiting the ALFs who will lead them. There are also

departmental or provincial offices with technical and administrative staff and a

2

national office which deals with planning, curriculum, inspection, staff training etc.

The programme is governed by a committee of 17 members drawn from ministries,

NGOs, the business sector and trade unions. But ultimately the minister of

education can give instructions that go against decisions taken by the committee.

Many of the people who work for the literacy programme as co-ordinators,

inspectors and trainers see a distinction between themselves and the administrators,

or those in political posts, who make decisions that are not based on experience in

the field. The educators travel across Guatemala visiting and observing community-

based literacy groups, supporting local programme workers and contributing to

training. The administrators are office-based.

The programme has a hierarchical structure which, as one interviewee pointed out,

permeates through the organisation even to the relationship that ALFs have with

their participants.

The trade union mainly represents Municipal Literacy Co-ordinators although other

staff are also members. Adult literacy facilitators are not eligible for membership as

they do not have formal employment contracts.

At municipal level, there are a variety of NGOs working with communities with low

levels of literacy but very few of them offer literacy education themselves. There

seems to be a perception that literacy education is best left to the literacy

programme as they are the experts. NGO staff that I interviewed expressed that

they didn’t have the relevant skills to teach adult literacy. At municipal level NGOs

collaborate with the literacy programme by organising new groups, supporting

participants and offering venues for classes. Local government departments also

collaborate with the literacy programme. This year the Ministry for Social

Development has encouraged beneficiaries of its family programmes to join literacy

groups.

Some interviewees had worked both for NGOs and the national programme. They

commented on the rigidity of government organisations in comparison to the flexible

and innovative work ethics of NGOs.

Bilingual adult literacy provision

The national programme has a Spanish section and a bilingual section which works

in 17 Mayan languages and two other minority languages. Low levels of literacy

among indigenous communities are a result of

the history of conquest and domination

3

systemic discrimination

policies of hispanisation

continued poverty and marginalisation of large numbers of Maya and other

indigenous peoples.

There are a number of issues that make delivery of bilingual programmes more

complicated. Some indigenous communities are very remote and dispersed and it is

difficult to organise viable adult literacy groups. Spanish is the only official language

of Guatemala and there are very few written texts in Mayan languages. Production

of Mayan literacy materials is more expensive because of small print runs. It is more

difficult to recruit adult literacy facilitators among Mayan communities as fewer

people have been to school and those who did were not taught to read and write

their native language so they have to learn the Mayan phonetic system as they train

to teach. Additional resources are needed to provide an adequate service to Mayan

and other ethnic communities and this is not seen as a priority.

Current strategies for the “elimination of illiteracy”

For some time the literacy programme has had a process of declaring municipalities

“free of illiteracy.” This apparently means that 96% of the population can read and

write. Last year the education minister insisted that this process should move to the

level of departmentos (provinces) and that 6 departmentos should be declared free

of illiteracy. Not surprisingly this was not achieved that year. This year therefore

nearly half the national adult literacy budget has been allocated to those 6 areas.

4

The map on the left shows the linguistic diversity of Guatemala. The map on the

right shows the 22 departamentos of Guatemala; the circled departamentos are

those selected for the target of “free from illiteracy”. As can be seen they are mainly

in Spanish speaking areas. They were chosen on the basis that they had the best

chance of achieving full literacy: small populations, high levels of literacy and large

numbers of Spanish speakers. In other words the funding has gone to those areas

with the least need.

The remaining 16 departamentos had their funding slashed. Numbers of groups to

be funded was halved. All third level courses that lead to a primary-equivalent

certificate were cut. Groups that had already enrolled students were told to close

and the programme was shortened from 8 to 5 months.

I have grouped the responses to the decision, gained from the interviews, under

four headings: acceptance, resignation, criticism and resistance.

1. Acceptance

There was quite wide acceptance of the idea that targets for zero illiteracy were

important and could and should be achieved. This did not mean that all those who

accepted this strategy supported the funding decision. Those who did support it,

appeared to be people who were aligned to the government, gaining their social

capital from their political links.

There was an interesting interpretation of the benefits of the decision for the areas

that had suffered severe funding cuts from a senior manager, proposing that having

a smaller number of classes would improve the quality of provision:

Donde están trabajando pues están volcando su mejor esfuerzo ¿verdad? y tal vez

el que tenga menos meta o menos grupos va a tener más atención. (…) Que no

vayan haber desertores, no vayan a haber ausentes. Que los resultados sean lo

máximo. (…) Esa es una de las grandes ventajas que se puede ver y es obvio. A

mayor meta más esfuerzo… A menor meta, menos esfuerzo pero calidad de

atención. Entonces eso se va a ver en los departamentos que no están entre los

seis.

Where they are working they are using their best effort. And perhaps those that

have a smaller target and fewer groups will get better attention (...) They won’t

have drop outs or absence. They could have maximum results. That’s one of the

advantages you can see and it’s obvious. With higher target numbers, more

effort, with lower target numbers less effort but quality of provision. So we’ll see

that, in the departmentos that are not included in the six.

5

The benefits in the target areas were also overstated by another senior manager.

Creemos que eso en cierta manera cambiara el departamento porque podrían

entrar otras dependencias del estado a efectuar un mejor trabajo. Por ejemplo en

salud. No es lo mismo capacitar a una comadrona que no sabe leer o escribir a

una comadrona que sabe leer y escribir.

We believe that somehow this will change the departamento because other public

sector organisations could come in and work better. For example in health. It’s

not the same to train a midwife who can’t read or write as one who can read and

write.

It is unrealistic to suggest that attendance at a three month basic literacy course

where the focus is on memorising letters and syllables, will enable a traditional

midwife to read training materials or make notes during training sessions.

Something that also became apparent was the idea that literacy is somehow finite,

that once a short course in literacy is run, and participants are classified as literate,

the problem is solved and the programme can move on and deliver targets in the

next area. This comment came from a local government manager.

Creo yo que las decisiones que se han tomado son buenas porque son 5

departamentos que van a estar en cero de analfabetismo, y luego vamos a poder ir

creciendo. (…) Yo creo que la política es buena ¿verdad? pero que hay que

fiscalizar el resultado.

I think the decisions that have been taken are good because if it’s 5 departmentos,

that’s 5 with zero illiteracy and then we can continue to grow. I think it’s a good

policy but we need to monitor the results.

2. Resignation

There were those I spoke to that indicated that the decision had nothing to do with

them. One was surprised that I asked about the budget as this was not part of their

brief. These were people who had worked for many years in the literacy programme

and accepted the limitations of their role. Many were committed to making

improvements within the areas they had responsibility for but were resigned to the

fact that they had no influence on decisions taken further up the hierarchy. The

following comments came from technical staff.

Eso para nosotros fue un golpe bastante duro. Pero... somos una institución al

igual que muchas con jerarquía en donde vienen las directrices de arriba. Entonces

nosotros en el nivel técnico en el que estamos lo que nos toca es sentarle con lo

6

poco que tengamos y entrarle con muchas ganas ¿verdad? porque eso es lo que

nos queda, ¿no?

This was a severe blow for us. But... we are an institution like many others with a

hierarchy where the directives come from above. So those of us working at the

technical level have to accept the little that we have and work willingly because

that’s what is left to us.

There was a sense of helplessness in relation to these decisions

Son situaciones políticas que no están al alcance de nosotros. [No tenemos] ningún

tipo de injerencia en esto… Tristemente así es.

These are political situations which are not within our reach. We don’t have any

say in the matter... Sadly that’s how it is.

3. Criticism

Naturally there was a lot of criticism. These comments show the divisions between

those who work directly in the education process and those that they see as desk

workers or political decision-makers. They also indicate the anger that the decision

generated.

Son decisiones tomadas desde un escritorio. O sea, nosotros las conocemos ya

cuando están tomadas. Eso ha sido siempre, las personas que hacemos el trabajo

de campo, la decisión nos llega de último. Ya solo para que demos seguimiento a

las decisiones que ellos toman.

These are decisions taken from a desk. We only hear about them when they’ve

been taken. It’s always like this. Those of us who work in the field, the decision

reaches us last.

Interviewees also talked about the policy as a farce, saying that it could not really be

achieved and pointing out that declaring an area free of illiteracy was just an

opportunity for a public event that would attract ministerial visits and TV cameras.

Whether people would be taken in by these public events was an open question.

Hay mucha mentira, hay mucha falsedad porque no se preocupan por que se

mejore la educación en nuestro país sino solamente que se baje el índice.

There are a lot of lies and falsification because they are not interested in

improving education in our country but only in improving the statistics.

7

4. Resistance

In Guatemala City, the dismay at the decision led to action. Participants, ALFs,

municipal co-ordinators and technical staff at departmental level worked together to

organise a protest. A letter demanding an explanation was written and about 100

ALFs and participants marched on the national office which padlocked its doors and

called the police. Eventually 5 people were allowed into the office to meet the

director. The demonstration was reported in the national press. One of the

organisers described what happened:

Tenían cerrado todo y tenían allí a los policías… porque pensaban de que iba a

haber algún relajo o algo así por el estilo. Pero nosotros íbamos de buena

voluntad a ver si daban marcha atrás. (…) Al final nos dejaron entrar. (…) cuando

nos entrevistamos con ese [director] y otras personalidades que estaban allí con él,

cuando yo empecé a hablar, empezaron a cortar y se levantaron. Yo lo que le dije

fue que como era posible que a nosotros, que somos los que damos las clases en

todo el departamento se nos esté haciendo esto y no nos avisaron y a última hora.

Pues “no, hijo, pero ya está hecho” y se levantó “nos vemos” y se fue.

They had everything closed and they had got the police because they thought

there would be some kind of disturbance. But we were going with goodwill

hoping that they would change their minds... Eventually they let us in. When we

met the director and the other people who were there with him, when I started to

speak, they cut us short and got up. What I said to him was how is it possible that

you do this to us who teach classes all over the departmento,(…)and you didn’t

give us any warning until the last moment. “No, son, it’s done” [he said] and he

got up, “see you” and left.

In addition, municipal co-ordinators took the issue to the Human Rights Commission

who ruled that they had a right to an explanation of why their funding had been cut.

The national director was obliged to write to all Municipal Literacy Co-ordinators in

the Guatemala City area with an explanation but this was not sent to anyone in

other areas of the country. In the area where I am working nobody knew that this

challenge had taken place nor the result. The Guatemala City workers seem to have

gained their strength through their experience of other struggles and solidarity. One

of those who was involved in the action told me:

Aquí en el departamento de Guatemala, realmente, la delincuencia, donde

tenemos nuestros grupos y todo hemos aprendido a ser como un poco más

guerreros en el buen sentido de la palabra ¿verdad? (…) Aquí es muy difícil que

quieran engañar a los compañeros. La mayoría casi son profesionales. Apoyan a

8

otras instituciones de forma gratuita (…) Se apoyan mucho en lo legal también. O

sea ellos no hicieron nada que no estuviera dentro de la constitución el mismo

reglamento [del programa] los derechos universales. Entonces se estudió todo eso,

inclusive aquí había carteles de los decretos, que la educación es gratuita y todo;

en la coordinación había carteles pegados

Here in Guatemala City because of gang violence where we have our groups we

have learned to be fighters in the best sense of the word (...) It’s difficult for them

to deceive our colleagues. Most of them are nearly professionals. They support

other organisations for free (...) And they use the law. They didn’t do anything

that was not in the constitution and the regulations [of the literacy programme],

universal rights. We researched all that and here in the office there were posters

up about the right to education.

The workers in Guatemala City were also working through the organisation’s

planning procedures to bring back the third level courses and longer programmes for

next year.

There was also at least one senior manager who worked very hard to persuade the

committee and the Minister that this was not a good policy. However the decision

was not revoked.

Bourdieu’s field

What I have been able to show here is only a glimpse of the range of responses and

actions taken by those affected by the decision. I find it useful to think of these in

terms of Bourdieu’s concept of field. Those whose social capital is based on their

links to the government party are unlikely to be critical of this policy decision, while

in the case of those who organised protest action, their social capital comes from

their experience of rights campaigns and social or political solidarity. The field

workers are embattled with the administrators who reluctantly or willingly carry out

the instructions of the political class. Those who have worked for years in this

context limit their manoeuvres to those sections of the field where their cultural

capital of educational experience is acknowledged and valued. They are complicit in

the hierarchical structures that limit their ability to act.

But whatever the differences and struggles, what unites everybody who works in the

field, is a belief in the value of adult literacy education: that being able to read and

write is important, that everyone has the right to learn to read and write, that adult

literacy provision will enable people to learn and will make a difference to their lives.

In Bourdieusian terms, this is the illusio of the field.

9

I am not including the political decision-makers within the field as it is difficult to

imagine that they have this vision and commitment.

Impact on the work of ALFs

Although the work of ALFs is central to literacy education, they are at the periphery

of the field and the positioning that takes place within it. They are not consulted

about any aspect of the programme, not even about their own perceived training

needs. While research has been commissioned on participant needs and reasons for

drop out, no research has been carried out about ALFs’ work.

As they are excluded from the trade union they are deprived of this potential social

capital. They lack cultural capital in terms of formal education and the structures of

the literacy programme leave them disempowered. Yet they also invest in the field,

subscribe to the illusio of the importance of literacy education and in this sense are

clear participants in the field.

ALFs affected by budget cuts were faced with three choices:

To teach their groups as unpaid volunteers

To stop working for the Literacy Programme

To search for funding for their work elsewhere.

One accepted to work as a volunteer. She had already started working with a group

of 37 young people before the cuts were announced. In Guatemala, 15 is the

minimum age for joining an adult literacy class. Her group were mainly between the

ages of 15 and 20. She worked as a volunteer but didn’t accept the reasoning which

made this necessary.

En mi caso por el compromiso que tenía con los jóvenes, (…) dije no puedo ir y

decirles ya no vamos a poder dar clases ¿verdad? porque ya se había hecho el

compromiso (...) Entonces este año estoy trabajando como voluntaria con los

jóvenes pero pues por algo que no creo que valga la pena.

In my case because of my commitment to the young people (...) I said I can’t go

and tell them that we won’t be able to have classes because we had already made

the commitment. (...) So this year I am working as a volunteer with the young

people but I’m doing it because of something that I don’t believe is worth it.

This young Mayan woman comes from an area with a high literacy need. I found

her comments on why she disagreed with the policy interesting.

10

Se quitó el presupuesto y se mandó a otros departamentos para que esos

departamentos en teoría (…) se nombraron como departamentos cero

analfabetismo. Entonces a lo que nosotros siempre hemos cuestionado y decimos

es imposible porque no se va a poder ¿verdad? CONALFA no va a poder llegar

hasta los rincones más olvidados de esos departamentos y decir bueno aprendan a

leer y escribir porque las señoras, los señores ya no quieren. Muchas veces dicen

ellos ya no podemos, no tenemos tiempo, no nos sirve aprender a leer. Entonces

es algo que no se puede ¿verdad?

They cut the budget and sent it to other departmentos so that those

departmentos in theory are being declared as departments with zero illiteracy. So

for something that we have always questioned and said it’s impossible. The

Literacy Programme can’t reach all the most forgotten corners of those

departmentos and say come on, learn to read and write because the women and

the men don’t want to any more. They often say, it’s too late for us, we don’t have

time, learning to read is no use to us. So it can’t be done.

Another ALF, a single mother, whose class was closed and who was unable to

continue as a volunteer, expressed her frustration:

De verdad [me sentí] triste y defraudada porque muchas de las personas se

llevaban el entusiasmo de poder sacar su primaria y tener mejores opciones de

trabajo (…) Sentí que iba mucha de mi capacidad a la basura porque me sentía

bien capacitada para poder seguir trasladando los conocimientos a las personas

(…) Me quedé en el aire, porque… la verdad triste tanto por el trabajo como por

las personas.

[I felt] sad and disappointed because many of the people were keen to finish their

primary and have better work options. (...) I felt that my abilities were being

trashed because I felt well-prepared to continue transmitting knowledge to these

people. (...) I got left up in the air because... I was sad as much for the work as for

the people.

Conclusion

The structures of domination within the adult literacy programme reflect the power

relations and inequality of Guatemalan society. The ALFs, whose work is the most

essential aspect of the adult literacy programme do not have the right to speak or to

be listened to. Yet they are committed to the work of literacy education and to

supporting their communities. This position can be found at all levels of the

programme, where workers who are committed to the right to education use

11

whatever resources they have to carry the work forward in the face of multiple

difficulties.

Those of us working in educational provision are familiar with the dangers of

statistical targets and the negative impact they can have on the quality of education

provision. This policy decision in Guatemala is a powerful example of how this can

happen and the impact it has on people working at the grassroots level.