According to OECD (2013), an urban advantage in student performance is seen nearly everywhere. Students who go to school in cities of more than 100,000 people perform better in PISA than students who attend schools in villages, rural areas, or towns with up to 100,000 inhabitants (OECD, 2013). This difference in performance represent about 20 PISA score points; what PISA considers the equivalent of half a year of schooling (OECD, 2013). Mexico’s urban populations have access to better opportunities and the levels of poverty are not as high as in the rural areas, where labour options are more limited (OECD, 2013). Urban schools tend to have better conditions and teachers than the rural schools; as a OECD (2013) shows, the majority of OECD member countries, the students attending urban schools get better results than do rural school students.
The differences between rural and urban schools do not apply to all countries in the same way;
the gap in school performance among this group of students is very clear in most OECD countries (OECD, 2013). As OECD (2013) points out, the socio-economic status families in urban populations is part of these results, their parents are better educated and have more interest in their children preparation since their perception of education is positive. In addition, urban schools are bigger, get more funding and generally have greater autonomy in the resources distribution (OECD, 2013).
According to OECD (2017), Mexico faces important economic and social challenges; the expected economy growth might be insufficient to alleviate the manifestations of inequalities in society. As pointed out by CONEVAL (2016), 43.6% of Mexico’s population faces poverty, and 7.5% live in extreme poverty. As pointed out by OECD (2017), there is a need to create policies that lead to the redistribution of opportunities, education, training, and income. México has the second biggest indigenous population in Latin America (UNESCO, 2005). The country holds a vast multicultural diversity; 62 ethnic groups are spread in 24 of the 32 states of the country, and they represent 10% of the national population (UNESCO, 2005). Most members of these ethnic groups speak another language than Spanish and live in rural areas which are inaccessible locations with low social development (UNESCO, 2005).
22
This cultural diversity is related to poverty and inequity, important factors that directly impact in education (UNESCO, 2005). Among the disadvantaged groups, the migrant children also have great educational barriers, according to UNICEF (2006), approximately 300,000 children leave their homes every year -normally in the south of Mexico- to emigrate with their families to other regions of the country to find jobs in the agriculture industry, normally in the fields.
Most of the children come from indigenous populations, therefore emigrating to different locations, like Sinaloa represents big changes in their habits, culture and language, that eventually leads them to suspend their studies (UNICEF, 2006)
As stated by OECD (2013), rural regions account for more than 80% of the land in Mexico and are home to up to 37 million people (36% of the Mexican population) and Mexico is one of the countries with a large population living in rural areas among the OECD countries. “The difficulty and costs of providing public services to dispersed localities has implications in the standards of living of the rural population” (OECD, 2007 p. 4) Therefore, less accessible localities face poor levels of infrastructure, education as well as social and health services (OECD, 2013).
In addition to this, MES has been allocating the less experienced teachers to teach in the rural communities; this in consequence, may impact in the learning outcome of many children (INEE, 2013). According to INEE (2013), rural poverty in Mexico highly differs from urban poverty; the rural environment doesn’t provide the same infrastructure and social services that an urban setting does. These differences also apply to the education context; the rural schools have limited access to resources, and the children needs are more specific (INEE, 2013). Table 2.1 shows the percentage of schools (urban, rural and national) and the type of pedagogic materials they have access to in the classrooms.
23
Materials Rural Urban National
Dictionaries and books 94.3 89.2 91.2
Maps 93.3 90.8 91.1
Mathematics materials 90.3 81.1 84.9
Didactic games 91.4 75.5 83.5
Computer 25.5 48.8 38.0
Television 18.6 53.0 37.3
Audio-visual material 26.2 43.1 34.9
Movie player 21.7 46.8 34.9
Computer software 17.2 42.5 31.4
Audio-visual equipment 8.0 22.9 16.2
Access to the internet 4.9 17.1 13.1
Table 2.1. - Percentage of schools and the use of pedagogic materials (adapted by the author)
The table 2.2. shows a considerable difference in the access to computers and internet, pupils in rural communities lack access to the benefits of IT in the schools but also in their homes.
Rural Urban National
Children with computer at home 13.30 37.2 33.5 Table 2.2.- Percentage of children who have access to computers at home
As shown in table 2.2, only 13.30% of the rural pupils have a computer at home, and the similar occurs when it comes to access to books. Table 2.3 shows that 20.6% of the children don’t have access to books at home (INEE, 2013)
24
Number of books Rural Urban National
Any 20.6 13.7 15.1
Around 10 books 27.7 19.9 21.4
Around 25 books 17.0 15.1 15.2
Around 50 books 14.9 17.7 16.7
Around 100 books 8.8 12.2 11.6
Around 200 books 11 21.4 20.0
Total 100 100 100
Table 2.3. - Percentage of children who have access to books at home and number of books per household (adapted by the author)
Lack of access to computers and books is a recurrent issue in rural settings; INEE (2013) suggests that the schooling level of the parents influence their learning outcomes. According to INEE (2013), children from disadvantaged groups lack cognitive stimulation, such as reading.
As table 2.4 shows, the children’s mothers’ years of schooling are higher in families from urban locations than those in the rural (INEE, 2013).
Level Rural Urban National
Did not go to school 8.4 4.2 5.9
Primary 43.3 18.7 24.2
Secondary 27.6 27.6 25.7
Upper secondary 8.0 14.3 12.5
Bachelor's degree 12.7 35.2 31.7
Total 100 100 100
Table 2.4. - The mother’s years of schooling shown in percentages (adapted by the author)
25
As we can see in table 2.4, only 12.7% of the mothers of rural children have obtained a bachelor’s degree. According to INEE (2013), parent’s involvement is crucial to achieve positive learning outcomes from children, but when the parent’s level of schooling is low, the school factor becomes more crucial for those children (INEE, 2013). According to the INEE (2013), the conditions of the primary education in Mexico demonstrate clear manifestations of inequity in rural and urban schools; As INEE (2013) points out, urban schools in México have acceptable conditions, materials, tools and equipment -even though they are not optimal at times- and those fulfil the basic needs of teachers and children.
The buildings and services are acceptable, teacher’s rotation is low, and school’s supervision and maintenance are very frequent (INEE, 2013). The use of technologies in the classroom is developing, especially among urban schools where at least one computer has access to the internet (INEE, 2013). Urban schools normally have a stable staff and the schools provide education supply from 1st grade to 6th grade (INEE, 2013). According to INEE (2013), those who graduate from TTI, are directly assigned to rural schools, therefore, is very common to find unexperienced teachers in rural schools. Moreover, it is believed that teachers, who teach in rural schools, try to change schools as soon as possible, normally to urban schools where life and school conditions are better. (INEE, 2013)
This might affect the teachers’ commitment, motivation and therefore, performance (INEE, 2013). There is also high mobility of teachers in rural schools; teacher’s rotation can affect negatively the students learning processes, especially if they leave during the school period (INEE, 2013). According to UNESCO (2005), even though there have been attempts of the MES to respond to the need the disadvantaged groups, the international tests such as PISA have exposed a constant association between the socioeconomic level of the families and the level of learning in Mexico’s children.