APROXIMACIÓN NUMÉRICA PARA EL PUNTAJE POR VALOR DE LA PROPUESTA

In 1930, Nazi-sympathizing fascist León Cortés functioned as the Minister of Education, and under his oppressive presence, radicalized teachers began to organize and negotiate reform. One major point of contention between radicalized intellectuals and the Ministry under Cortés was the implementation of a new obligatory course for fifth grade students: Patriotic History. The purpose of this course, as reported in the April 1930 issue of El Maestro, was not to promote a great deal of information, but rather only information for eras and characters that exercised an

effective, contemporary influence.144 Cortés writes, “The only things that we should worry about are things that essentially and definitely influenced the march of history.”145 The class, which was designed in Mexico in 1929, included themes such as “When there were no railroads yet,” “Wars and battles in the outskirts of our city,” “The resurrection of the Church,” “The Greeks, founders of European culture,” “The Germans, founders of the state,” “Imperialism and the World War, the problem with Italy,” and “The victory of England over Russia and Germany in the War.”146 Clearly aligned with regional liberal nationalist historical narratives, these lesson plans brought discourses of progress and nationalism.

However, teachers actively resisted these ideas, and instead continued to focus their didactic and pedagogical work on the “social question,” that is the preoccupation with the agro- export industry’s socio-economic oppression. The struggle between the state and teachers

prompted the founding of the Sociedad de Protección Social, or the Society of Social Protection, and in June 1931, in El maestro, edited by Joaquín García Monge and communist Carmen Lyra, published their manifesto, which, among other things, declared that the Society would cooperate fully with the Costa Rican school to ensure that teachers were protected by the fullest extent of laws designed for their welfare.

The next month, Justo A. Facio published a pamphlet to circulate among teachers where he cited the 1920 Ley Orgánica del Personal Docente, which legally defined acceptable and unacceptable behaviors for state educators. Facio contended that teachers were banned from

144 _{Cortés, León “História Patriotica” El maestro, 8 April 1930, 259.} 145 _{Ibid, 259.}

146 _{For more information on the cultural politics of education in Mexico, see Mary Kay Vaughan,} Cultural Politics in Revolution (1997).

involving themselves in private or public affairs that would “violate the neutrality of education and compromise the harmony that should exist within the school and society.”147

Tensions between radicalized teachers and the state continued to grow as the government continued to resist pedagogical reform and the teachers refused submission. Finally, in 1935, at the request of the state, the Misión Pedagógica Chilena, or the Chilean Pedagogical Mission, came to Costa Rica to evaluate the public school system. Their primary critique for Costa Rican education was a lack of any clear pedagogical organization and, most programs failed to meet children’s developmental needs. They echoed the same complaints teachers had been making for several years. But, the Mission also criticized educators for not understanding the psychology of the child and for failing to appropriately connect children to their social realities. Despite ten years of active advocacy for the Montessori Method and other modern pedagogies by the radicalized teachers, which theoretically would have addressed all the major problems of the Mission evaluation, because of the major financial crises and contemporary political instability, congress was no more ready to adopt the reforms in 1935 than they were in the 1920s. Therefore, none of the Mission-designed reforms passed congress. Thus, though elite and popular memory may remember a peaceful and democratic recovery from the depression, failed reforms, political censorship, and increasing tension between teachers and the state suggest otherwise.

The post-depression state was not interested in creating active, engaged children, connected with their social realities. In fact, in 1942, Minister of Education Virgilio Chaverrí wrote, “Do not forget that what matters is that the child carries from the school a notion of the progress of the Patria. . . . The child should admire the virtues and ideas of our great men and

147  _{Justo A. Facio, “Circular de la Secretaria de Educación Pública” quoted in El Maestro, 8} April 1930, 269-270.  

particularly the benefits that we owe our illustrious presidents.”148 This trend continued through to the Civil War and beyond in official curricula. Carmen Lyra, in “Reseña de libros, Educación y lucha de clase” pubished in Trabajo on November 12, 1938, criticized this trend and compared it to the fascist trends in Germany and Italy that made education increasingly aristocratic and inaccessible.149 Carmen Lyra argues in favor of the USSR pedagogical system, which she understands to be more equitable.150

In 1936, the Association of Kindergarten Teachers, inspired by the legacy of San Selerín, started the publication of Triquitraque, which represented a space for negotiation in the context of chaos and failed leadership from state.151 This periodical did not represent a monolith, but Luisa Gonzalez’s political convictions are evident during the production she oversaw. Indeed, various teachers and voices helped construct Triquitraque into a space for negotiation.