1
Catalina Murrillo, school in Totonicapán
EVALUATION
EDUCATION REFORM IN THE CLASSROOM (REAULA) PROJECT 
(2009 – 2013)
This publication was produced at the request of the United States Agency for International 
Development. It was prepared independently by Universidad Alberto Hurtado, Centro de 
Investigación y Desarrollo Educacional (CIDE). 
2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
Since 1998, Guatemala has developed an Educational Reform, aiming to improve the quality and 
equity of preschool, elementary and secondary education in the country. Supporting this long-term 
challenge, the REAULA Project, designed and implemented by USAID alongside the Department of 
Education, developed a set of guidelines to support efforts of this ambitious and comprehensive 
Educational Reform between 2009 and 2013. The main goal of REAULA (Classroom Education 
Reform Project) is to provide technical assistance to the Ministry of Education for development of 
policies and strategies, and to build skills at educational institutions in order to improve the 
efficiency of the Guatemalan education system thereby achieving equal access for everyone to 
quality education. 
In order to meet this goal, project REAULA has organized into two main areas of action: 
1. Improvement of educational institutions, training and professional development for teachers –
referring to transformation at the system level in order to impact the educational system; 2. Quality 
Classrooms – referring to pilots of models and policies in select areas of the country in accordance 
with concrete experience. On the basis of these two components, the Project designed and carried 
out a set of strategies that are described in the report. 
The purpose of this assessment is to understand and assess the processes and results obtained 
from the educational Project carried out by REAULA, investigating which goals were accomplished 
and to what extent. Furthermore, we propose recommendations in order to improve future efforts 
so that the Guatemalan public educational system can be strengthened. The methodological 
approach of this study was descriptive and evaluative, focusing on the analysis of process and 
results. The study included the review of documents and data base, and had as its goal to collect the 
perspectives and assessments of diverse key players involved in the REAULA Project. The 
evaluation team developed tools that made possible a dialogue regarding the characteristics, 
qualities and scope of the project, the country's needs in different areas, and future challenges to be 
faced. 
Main findings
1. Contributions of REAULA
1.1. General view of REAULA’s contribution: The REAULA team has gained prestige in the 
country for their contribution to education policies by means of hard work, commitment and the 
technical quality displayed. REAULA has raised awareness about the importance of educational 
quality; and has provided technical support to the design and assessment of different education 
policies and programs. Ministry of Education (MOE) officials, in particular, strongly value REAULA’s 
team expertise, collaborative work and close support. However, various University, NGO and local 
level MOE staff members point out that the overall project agenda has involved limited debate and 
participation, and that a larger conversation is required related to the Projects priorities, strategies, 
and pedagogical approach. Also, some Ex-MOE officials find that REAULA completes tasks that MOE 
should carry out, at the expense of not strengthening capacity building among MOE members. 
1.2 REAULA’S contribution to the National Human Resource Training System (SINAFORHE):
REAULA has provided valuable technical assistance in order to design regulations and proposals for 
improving teacher training and professional performance. Also, it has been widely recognized for 
its positive support and leadership in SINAFORHE bringing together in collaborative work entities 
3
that historically have not dialogued such as the Ministry, the Magisterio, the Universidad de San 
Carlos and private universities. 
1.3. REAULA’S contribution to National Coaching and Accompaniment System (SINAE): 
REAULA designed pilot implementation strategies and manuals for the SINAE personnel in two 
departments. Where the pilots were carried out, there was (and still is) a strong commitment to 
and enthusiasm about the SINAE model and to putting it into practice. However, the time of 
implementation was very short (6 to 10 months), and the pilot did not include a plan for sustaining 
the changes implemented, hence, the continuity and long-term impact of the model is threatened. 
Additionally, the model requires adjustment according to the available human resources, as MOE 
did not carry out the pilots with the initially defined number of consultants for coaching schools 
(only two to three consultants were coaching all schools in each department). 
1.4. REAULA’S contribution to the National Accreditation and Certification System (SINACE): 
REAULA provided technical assistance to SINACE, creating a conceptual framework, and 
certification and accreditation instruments and methods for data analysis. Because of legal 
restrictions, certification and accreditation is not compulsory, and it is not linked to any kind of 
incentive or sanction. Hence, REAULA invested in a policy that has little chance of impacting school 
quality in the country’s context; further alternatives must be assessed. In addition, interviewees 
from Universities and investigation agencies suggest that a larger conversation about the definition 
of educational quality is required. 
1.5. REAULA’S contribution to textbooks and materials: The creation of curriculum-aligned 
textbooks, along with MINEDUC, was a meaningful contribution. The set of books and other texts 
for school libraries are highly appreciated in order to strengthen children’s abilities to read as a 
daily routine. Yet, interviews of teachers and classroom observations showed that teachers do not 
always have a clear understanding of the aims and pedagogical uses of the books. Teachers were 
concerned that they could get torn or worn-out; in fact, in most of the classroom observations 
books were not accessible to children and they could not take out books from the library. 
2. Ministry of Education progress in EBI, Early Education and Secondary Education Reform. 
2.1. Bilingual, Intercultural Education (EBI): REAULA’s proposal highlights the importance of the 
mother tongue for children and supports the development of an EBI proposal for the country. 
Nonetheless, interviews and classroom observations evidenced that there are few schools and 
classrooms where Mayan languages are taught. Some interviewees indicated that REAULA’s 
pedagogical program does not consistently emphasize teaching these languages, for instance in the 
definition of “Quality Classrooms” poster.
2.2. Early Childhood Reform: The main contribution was the technical consultation of the early 
childhood curriculum’s implementation and the definition of the model and its implementation and 
evaluation. As a result, the implemented Early Childhood Program empowered the educational 
community, helping parents and guardians understand the importance of educational activity and 
simultaneously encouraging the entrance of 6 year-old children to primary school. Nonetheless, this 
is an initial contribution; most interviewees agree that early childhood education is an area of 
development that ought to be further strengthened, indicating that there are still massive problems 
in terms of coverage, infrastructure and a shortage of teachers. 
 
2.3. Secondary Education Reform: The contributions to the transformations in Secondary 
Education are associated with the definition of basic life needs, the development and 
4
implementation of an evaluation system, the application of CNB at the secondary school level and 
the organization of discussions regarding these issues (critical route). Despite the progress defined, 
secondary education still faces significant challenges such as increasing public coverage, 
articulating the specialized careers and country’s job demands, and improving specialty teacher 
training.
3. Evaluation of the process. Political instability is a problem that puts at risk the Project’s 
continuity from one administration to the next. However, the REAULA team achieved continuity 
despite the changes in the government and the Ministry. The continuous work with Universities, 
NGOs, and the Magisterio (Teachers National Assembly) and establishing goals for collaborating 
work were strategies key to lending stability to the REAULA Project. Also, REAULA’s team has taken 
advantage of working at several levels of MOE and strengthening the skills of work groups that will 
remain despite changes in the central government. 
4. Local organization model for support of quality classroom. At the department level, 
interviewees claim that there is a stronger awareness of and involvement in improving schools and 
creating high-quality classrooms. Particularly, accompaniment and organization of the 
Departmental Quality Education Committee has been a significant achievement, which has led to 
improvement of the planning and organizing of the activities associated with strengthening the 
quality of education. Also, the Literacy and Leadership training certificate programs (diplomado) 
have been key in training local teams and triggering changes in the daily practices of participants.
However, one of the main challenges that remains is the need to strengthen the impact of the 
project at the school and classroom level. REAULA involves several initiatives (for example, training 
certificates, SINAE and the Quality Committee) that need to be tied together in a more strategic way 
in order to produce the aimed impact at the local level and assure sustainability.
5. Opportunity Zones: The strategy, according to certain interviewees, is useful for developing a 
modality that covers different work areas and involves actors in a focused way. The evaluation of 
the work has made evident that more time and resources are required, added to collaborative and 
differentiated work with Municipalities, in order to see the true extent of the Project’s impact.
Consistent with the lack of time, the project does not have enough information to conclude at this 
moment which factors lead to either a more or less successful implementation.
RECOMMENDATIONS 
- Increase and add new strategies to empower the Ministry of Education as the leader of the 
education reform. On this matter, it is important that the REAULA team provides technical 
assistance and training for the Ministry staff, but without supplying staff that perform tasks or 
bring forth products that are the responsibility of the Ministry. 
- Continue with participative and communicative work and to move forward with different 
institutions and stakeholders, as done with SINAFORHE. 
- Collect the “voice” of local authorities, principals and teachers, in order to understand their 
visions about school quality and change; identify their concerns and concrete propositions; and 
therefore work on the basis of a more contextualized, participative and inclusive reform agenda. 
- A good, well-operationalized definition of quality education needs to be agreed upon and 
promoted in order to have all reform aspects pointing in the same direction and contributing to the 
same vision. The poster of “aulas de calidad” is a meaningful first step in this direction, yet further 
public debate and agreements are required, addressing a holistic and profound understanding of 
learning and teaching interactions. 
5
- For further implementation of SINAE, it is necessary for REAULA to design an adjusted plan 
according to the available conditions and human resources this model necessitates. Trained current 
staff can work in this direction; however new professionals must be included in order to provide 
schools with the technical support required. We also suggest establishing institutional 
commitments and agreements with MOE that guarantee the conditions for effective 
implementation, as the number of consultants per school. 
- To continue granting scholarships for certification and postgraduate studies. The central point 
it to design a training model that expands over time, impacting whole schools (not only preprimary 
and first year teachers, individually), and connected meaningfully to other reform initiatives 
(SINAE, Quality Committees). Additionally, in order to foster change in school classrooms, it is 
necessary to produce didactical documents together with classroom accompaniment programs. 
These didactic guides or manuals should be generative in nature and help the teachers to transfer 
pedagogical understanding to their classroom practices in a reflective way. 
- To continue granting scholarships for certification and postgraduate studies. Yet, currently 
only one or two teachers per school have participated, with little impact on the whole school. The 
central point it to design a training model that expands over time, impacting whole schools (not 
only preprimary and first year teachers, individually), and connected meaningfully to other reform 
initiatives (SINAE, Quality Committees). This is another key element for continuing to progress 
towards reform in the classroom. Additionally, in order to foster change in school classrooms, it is 
necessary to produce didactical documents together with classroom accompaniment programs. 
These didactic guides or manuals should be generative in nature and help the teachers to transfer 
pedagogical understanding to their classroom practices in a reflective way. 
- To define different implementation strategies according to the type of municipality, because it is 
clear that the priorities of each authority in this area are not always concordant with the goals of 
the project and work logistics are also different amongst them. 
- To continue the work of SINAFORHE and move forward on key matters such as policies in the 
systems of admission and selection of students (future teachers), teaching career progression 
(carrera docente), teacher evaluation, specialization on secondary-level education, among others.
- To explore non-legal alternatives for giving viability to the SINACE model and assure its impact 
over the educational system; and push legal reforms in order to include higher regulations over 
educational providers. 
- To analyze the progress achieved in the pilot schemes developed for pre-school education, which 
would allow MOE to spread the impact of the program in the community. It would also make 
possible the identification of positive local practices, which could be applied to other areas, and to 
identify the best work strategies for the departmental agents. 
- Provide technical assistance to MOE for fulfilling a more extensive and profound reform of 
secondary education. This reform should include the creation of a system of Education for Work 
and Labor-Technical Training, accompanied by alliances with the private sector; connections that 
will make it possible to meet the needs of the world of production and at the same time strengthen 
education by way of internships in companies. In this process, REAULA could support articulation 
between agents. 
- Emphasize EBI in all documents, textbooks, teacher continuing education, and Schools for Parents; 
stressing the importance of teaching in the children’s native language and in the context of their 
culture and community. It is especially important to design and offer certificate programs for 
teaching and learning in Mayan languages where these are children´s first language. 
- Review, enrich and offer more coherence amongst theoretical/practical documents that are 
created in accordance with EBI and reading-writing skills. 
- Maintain and expand Schools for Parents. Educating the community and helping them see the 
value of new practices translates into support for and enrichment of school efforts. 
6
- Textbooks, books and materials require further pedagogical suggestions for their productive 
use in classrooms. The Departmental Quality Committees could be channels for communicating a 
vision of how to maximize impact of text usage. 
- For further projects using opportunity zones it is necessary to develop a pilot model that makes 
replicable the experience in all the country. An experimental testing system, in which the chosen 
groups could represent the variability and diversity of the country, would allow expanding and 
replicating the strategies. 
- Conduct a second cycle of the project for the following years, especially focused on expanding 
SINAE model and teacher training required for improving quality at the school level. The building of 
capacity at intermediate and local sectors of the educational system is a key strategy for supporting 
institutions to deliver effective practices so that students can indeed reach their fullest potential. 
7
RESUMEN EJECUTIVO 
Desde 1998, Guatemala ha desarrollado una reforma educativa, con el objetivo de mejorar la 
calidad y equidad de la educación preescolar, primaria y secundaria en el país. El Proyecto REAULA, 
diseñado e implementado por USAID junto con el Departamento de Educación, desarrolla un 
conjunto de directrices para apoyar los esfuerzos de este ambicioso e integral reforma educativa 
durante 2009 y 2013. El objetivo principal del Proyecto Reforma Educativa en el Aula, REAULA, ha 
sido el de entregar asistencia técnica al Ministerio de Educación en el desarrollo de políticas y 
estrategias, y en el fortalecimiento de la capacidad de las instituciones, para mejorar la eficiencia 
del sistema educativo de Guatemala, y con esto lograr el acceso equitativo a una educación de 
calidad. 
Para alcanzar este objetivo, el proyecto REAULA se ha estructurado en dos grandes campos de 
acción: i. Fortalecimiento institucional, formación y desarrollo docente -referido a transformaciones 
a nivel sistémico para lograr impacto en el sistema educativo; ii. Aulas de Calidad -referido a 
pilotaje de modelos y políticas en zonas seleccionadas del país para adecuarlas a partir de la 
experiencia concreta. Sobre la base de estos dos componentes del Proyecto una serie de estrategias 
se han diseñado e implementado las cuales se describen en el informe. 
El propósito de esta evaluación es comprender y evaluar los procesos y los resultados obtenidos 
con el Proyecto REAULA, indagando en el cumplimiento de sus objetivos y en qué medida. Además, 
se plantearán recomendaciones para el fortalecimiento del sistema de educativo de Guatemala. El 
enfoque metodológico de este estudio fue descriptivo y evaluativo, incluyó la revisión de 
documentos y bases de datos, y tenía como objetivo recoger las perspectivas y evaluaciones de los 
diversos actores involucrados en el Proyecto REAULA. El equipo de evaluación diseñó herramientas 
que hicieron posible investigar las características, cualidades y alcances del Proyecto, las 
necesidades del país en diferentes áreas, y los futuros retos que hay que afrontar. 
Principales Hallazgos
1. Contribuciones de REAULA
1.1. Visión general de la contribución de REAULA: El equipo REAULA ha ganado prestigio en el 
país por su contribución a las políticas en educación por medio de un trabajo riguroso, 
comprometido, y de calidad técnica. REAULA ha sensibilizado a diversos actores sobre la relevancia 
de la calidad de la educación y ha brindado asistencia técnica al diseño y evaluación de los distintos 
programas y políticas en el área de la educación. En particular, los funcionarios del Ministerio de 
Educación (MINEDUC) valoran en forma muy positiva la capacidad técnica del equipo REAULA, su 
trabajo colaborativo y acompañamiento. Sin embargo, varios entrevistados de Universidades, ONGs 
y funcionarios departamentales del Ministerio de Educación señalan que el Proyecto ha dejado 
poco espacio para el debate y la participación y que se requiere mayor discusión sobre las 
prioridades, estrategias y enfoques pedagógicos. Asimismo, algunos ex - funcionarios del Ministerio 
indican que REAULA lidera y realiza tareas que le competen al MINEDUC, lo que implica que se 
limita el desarrollo de capacidades entre los funcionarios del Ministerio. 
1.2 Contribución de REAULA al Sistema Nacional de Formación del Recurso Humano 
Educativo (SINAFORHE): REAULA ha proporcionado una valiosa asistencia técnica para diseñar 
regulaciones y propuestas que apuntan a mejorar la capacitación de los profesores y el desempeño 
8
profesional del personal que trabaja en educación. También ha sido ampliamente reconocido por su 
apoyo positivo y liderazgo en SINAFORHE, aunando entidades que históricamente no tenían 
relación, tales como el Ministerio, el Magisterio, la Universidad de San Carlos y universidades 
privadas. 
1.3. – Contribución de REAULA al Sistema Nacional de Acompañamiento Escolar (SINAE): 
REAULA diseñó estrategias para la implementación de pilotos y manuales para los funcionarios de 
SINAE en dos departamentos. En los lugares donde se realizaron los pilotos hay un gran 
compromiso y entusiasmo en relación al modelo SINAE y su puesta en práctica. Sin embargo, el 
tiempo de implementación fue muy breve (6 a 10 meses) y el piloto no incluía un plan para 
sustentar en el tiempo los cambios implementados, por lo cual la continuidad y el impacto a largo 
plazo del modelo se ven amenazados. Además, el modelo requiere ser ajustado de acuerdo a los 
recursos humanos disponibles, puesto que el Ministerio de Educación no realizó los pilotos con el 
número inicial de asesores pedagógicos y de gestión (sólo de dos a tres profesionales fueron 
contratados para asesorar a todas las escuelas en cada departamento). 
1.4. Contribución de REAULA al Sistema Nacional de Acreditación y Certificación Educativa 
(SINACE): REAULA proporcionó asistencia técnica al SINACE, creando un marco de trabajo 
conceptual, instrumentos de certificación y acreditación, y métodos de análisis de datos. Debido a 
restricciones legales, la certificación y acreditación no son obligatorias y no conllevan ningún tipo 
de incentivo o sanción. De este modo, REAULA invirtió en una política que tiene pocas posibilidades 
de tener un impacto en la calidad educativa dentro del contexto del país, por tanto es necesario 
evaluar más alternativas. Asimismo, diversos entrevistados de universidades y agencias de 
investigación sugieren que se requiere una discusión más extensa sobre la definición de la calidad 
en la educación. 
1.5. Contribución de REAULA a los libros de textos y materiales: Una contribución muy positiva 
fue la creación de libros de texto que siguieran los lineamientos del currículum, junto con el 
MINEDUC. El conjunto de libros y otros textos para las bibliotecas escolares son muy valorados 
para fortalecer las habilidades lectura de los niños y niñas como parte de la rutina diaria. No 
obstante, las entrevistas con los profesores y observaciones en sala revelaron que los docentes no 
siempre entienden con claridad los objetivos y usos pedagógicos de los libros. Los profesores 
estaban preocupados de que los libros no se dañaran; de hecho, en la mayoría de las observaciones 
en sala de clases se constató que los niños no tenían acceso a los libros y no podían sacarlos de la 
biblioteca. 
2. Progreso del ministerio de Educación en Educación Bilingüe Intercultural (EBI), Reforma 
Educacional en la Educación pre-escolar y secundaria. 
2.1. Educación Bilingüe Intercultural (EBI): La propuesta de REAULA destaca la importancia de 
la lengua nativa de los niños y apoya el desarrollo de una propuesta en EBI para el país. Sin 
embargo, en las entrevistas y observaciones a salas de clases se evidenció que hay pocas escuelas 
donde se enseñen los idiomas Mayas. Algunos entrevistados señalaron que el programa pedagógico 
de REAULA no enfatiza en forma consistente la enseñanza de estos idiomas; por ejemplo la EBI no 
estaba incluida en la definición de los pósteres de “Aulas de Calidad”. 
2.2. Reforma en la Educación Pre-escolar. Las principales contribuciones en esta materia son las 
consultas técnicas del curriculum pre-escolar, junto con la definición del Programa, su 
implementación y evaluación. Gracias a la ejecución del Programa se logró avanzar en el 
empoderamiento de la comunidad educativa, que ayuda a los padres y apoderados a entender la 
importancia de la actividad educacional y al mismo tiempo promueve el ingreso de niños de 6 años 
9
a la educación primaria. Esta es una contribución inicial, sin embargo, la mayoría de los 
entrevistados coincide en que la educación pre- primaria es un área que es necesario fortalecer 
más, y señalan que aún hay grandes problemas en términos de cobertura, infraestructura y escasez 
de docentes. 
2.3. Reforma en la Educación secundaria. Las contribuciones a las transformaciones a la 
Educación Secundaria se asocian con la definición de las necesidades básicas de la vida, el 
desarrollo e implementación de un sistema de evaluación, la aplicación de CNB al nivel de 
educación secundaria y la organización de discusiones en relación a estos temas (ruta crítica). A 
pesar del progreso establecido, la educación secundaria aún presenta desafíos importantes, tales 
como aumentar la cobertura pública, y vincular carreras especializadas con las necesidades del 
mercado laboral del país, mediante la capacitación de docentes en especialidades técnicas. 
3. Evaluación del proceso. La inestabilidad política fue un problema que puso en riesgo la 
continuidad del Proyecto de un gobierno a otro. Sin embargo, el equipo REAULA logró mantener la 
continuidad a pesar de los cambios de gobierno y de Ministerio. El trabajo continuo con 
universidades, ONGs y el Magisterio junto con el establecimiento de metas para el trabajo 
colaborativo, fueron estrategias clave para darle estabilidad al Proyecto REAULA. Además, el equipo 
REAULA supo aprovechar el hecho de trabajar en diferentes niveles del MINEDUC y fortaleció las 
habilidades de los grupos de trabajo que permanecen a pesar de los cambios en el gobierno central. 
4. Modelo de organización local para apoyar las aulas de calidad. Al nivel de departamento, los 
entrevistados indican que hay mayor conciencia y participación para mejorar las escuelas y la 
calidad de las aulas. En particular, el acompañamiento y la organización del Comité de Calidad 
Educativa Departamental ha sido un logro muy significativo, que ha llevado a mejorar la 
planificación y organización de actividades asociadas al fortalecimiento de la calidad de la 
educación. Además, los Diplomados de Lectoescritura y Liderazgo han sido claves para la 
capacitación de equipos locales y también para producir cambios en las prácticas cotidianas de los 
participantes. No obstante, uno de los principales desafíos pendientes es la necesidad de fortalecer 
el impacto del proyecto a nivel de la escuela y aulas. REAULA incluye diversas iniciativas como por 
ejemplos diplomados, SINAE, Comité de Calidad, que necesitan vincularse de modo más estratégico 
para producir el impacto esperado a nivel local y asegurar su sustentabilidad. 
5. Zonas de Oportunidad: De acuerdo a algunos entrevistados, la estrategia es útil para desarrollar 
una modalidad que cubra diferentes áreas de trabajo e involucre a los actores de forma organizada 
y enfocada. La evaluación del trabajo ha revelado que se requieren más recursos y más tiempo para 
ver el alcance real del impacto del proyecto; además de un trabajo en conjunto y diferenciado con 
los Municipios. Coincidentemente con la falta de tiempo, el proyecto no cuenta con suficiente 
información como para concluir en este momento cuáles son los factores que contribuyen más o 
menos a la implementación exitosa del mismo. 
RECOMENDACIONES 
- Aumentar y agregar nuevas estrategias para empoderar al Ministerio de Educación como el 
líder de la reforma educacional. En este aspecto, es importante que el equipo de REAULA brinde 
asistencia técnica y entregue capacitación para el personal del Ministerio, pero sin proporcionar 
personal que realice tareas o cree productos que son de responsabilidad del Ministerio. 
- Continuar con un trabajo participativo y comunicativo y avanzar con diferentes instituciones y 
actores, como se realizó con el SINAFORHE. 
10
- Recopilar la “voz” de las autoridades locales, directores y profesores, para entender sus visiones 
sobre la calidad escolar y los cambios, identificar los temas que les preocupan y concretar 
proposiciones de modo de trabajar sobre la base de una agenda de reforma más contextualizada, 
participativa e inclusiva. 
- Se necesita convenir una comprensión de educación de calidad integral y bien operacionalizado 
para que todos los aspectos de la reforma apunten en la misma dirección y contribuyan a la misma 
visión. El póster “aulas de calidad” es un primer paso significativo en esa dirección, pero se requiere 
más debate público y acuerdos, que aborden un entendimiento holístico y profundo de la 
interacción entre la enseñanza y el aprendizaje. 
-Para seguir con la implementación del SINAE, es necesario que REAULA diseñe un plan ajustado de 
acuerdo a las condiciones y recursos humanos disponibles con los que cuenta el modelo. El 
personal capacitado puede trabajar en esa dirección; no obstante, se deben incluir nuevos 
profesionales para proveer a las escuelas del apoyo técnico requerido. También se sugiere 
establecer compromisos y acuerdos institucionales con el Ministerio de Educación que garanticen 
las condiciones para la implementación efectiva, como por ejemplo, el número de asesores por 
escuela. 
-Continuar otorgando becas para estudio de diplomados y postgrados. El punto principal es 
diseñar un modelo de capacitación que se extienda en el tiempo y que impacte a toda la escuela (no 
sólo docentes de educación pre-primaria y de primer año, en forma individual) y articular esto con 
otras iniciativas de reforma (SINAE, Comités de Calidad). Asimismo, para favorecer el cambio en las 
escuelas, se requiere producir documentos didácticos, junto con programas de acompañamiento 
docente. Estas guías didácticas o manuales deben ser de naturaleza generativa y ayudar a los 
docentes a transferir la comprensión pedagógica a sus prácticas en el aula de modo reflexivo. 
- Definir estrategias de implementación diferentes de acuerdo al tipo de municipalidad, ya que es 
evidente que las prioridades de cada autoridad en esta área no siempre coinciden con las metas del 
proyecto y la logística de trabajo también es diferente entre ellas. 
- Continuar el trabajo con el SINAFORHE y avanzar en asuntos clave como son las políticas en los 
sistemas de admisión y selección de estudiantes (futuros profesores), carrera docente, evaluación 
docente, especialización a nivel de educación secundaria, entre otros. 
- Analizar opciones non-legales para darle viabilidad al modelo SINACE y generar impacto en el 
sistema educativo, y a su vez impulsar un debate sobre posibles reformas legales que aseguren 
mayor regulación de los proveedores educativos y la calidad educativa que ofertan. 
- Analizar el progreso obtenido en los esquemas piloto desarrollados para la educación pre￾primaria, que permitirán que el Ministerio de Educación propague el impacto del programa en la 
comunidad. Esto también hará posible identificar las prácticas locales positivas, que se podrían 
aplicar a otras áreas e identificar las mejores estrategias de trabajo para los agentes 
departamentales. 
- Proporcionar asistencia técnica al Ministerio para lograr una reforma más extensa y profunda en 
la educación secundaria. Esta reforma debe incluir la creación de un sistema de Educación para el 
Trabajo y de Capacitación Técnico Laboral, en conjunto con alianzas con el sector privado; 
conexiones que harán posible suplir las necesidades del mundo productivo y al mismo tiempo 
fortalecer la educación mediante pasantías en las empresas. En este proceso, REAULA podría 
apoyar la articulación entre los agentes. 
- Dar énfasis a la EBI en los documentos, textos escolares, educación continua de profesores, y 
escuela para padres, destacando la importancia de la enseñanza en la lengua nativa de los niños y 
niñas y dentro del contexto de su comunidad y cultura. Es de especial importancia diseñar y ofrecer 
programas de certificación de enseñanza y aprendizaje en lenguas mayas, donde éstas son el idioma 
materno de los niños y niñas. 
- Revisar, enriquecer y ofrecer más coherencia entre los documentos teórico/prácticos que se 
crean, de acuerdo a la EBI y las habilidades de lecto-escritura. 
11
 - Mantener y expandir las Escuelas para Padres. Educar a la comunidad y ayudarlos a ver el valor 
de las nuevas prácticas se traduce en el apoyo y enriquecimiento de los esfuerzos de las escuelas. 
- Los libros de texto, libros y materiales necesitan tener más sugerencias pedagógicas para su 
uso en clases de forma productiva. Los comités de Calidad de educación departamental pueden ser 
un canal para comunicar la visión respecto a cómo maximizar el impacto de los textos cuando estos 
se empleen. 
- Para realizar más proyectos usando las zonas de oportunidad es necesario desarrollar un 
modelo piloto que haga que la experiencia sea replicable en todo el país. Un sistema experimental 
de prueba, en los que los grupos elegidos puedan representar la variabilidad y diversidad del país 
podría permitir expandir y replicar tales estrategias. 
- Se requiere dirigir un segundo ciclo del proyecto para los años siguientes, centrado 
especialmente en expandir el modelo SINAE y la capacitación docente, con el objetivo de mejorar la 
calidad a nivel de las escuelas. El desarrollo de capacidades en los sectores locales e intermedios es 
una estrategia clave para apoyar a las instituciones, de modo que puedan generar prácticas 
efectivas que hagan que los estudiantes alcancen su máximo potencial. 
12
CONTENTS
I. CONTEXTUAL FEATURES 13
II. PURPOSE OF EVALUATION 16
III. RESEARCH DESIGN AND ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY 17
IV. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 19
1. Contributions of REAULA 19
1.1. How REAULA´s intervention is viewed 19
1.2. REAULA’s contribution to SINAFORHE 21
1.3. REAULA’s contribution to SINAE 22
1.4. REAULA’s contribution to SINACE 24
1.5. REAULA’s contribution in books and materials policy 25
2. Ministry of Education progress in EBI, Early Education and 
Secondary Education Reform 
26
2.1. Bilingual Intercultural Education (EBI) 26
2.2. Early childhood education reform 28
2.3. Secondary Education reform 29
3. Evaluation of the process 31
3.1 Adjustments to the original model 31
3.2 Unexpected opportunities, some taken advantage of and some 
not
32
3.3 Difficulties/changes that were faced and problem solving (or 
not)
33
3.4 Learning from the experience 34
4. Local organization model for support of quality classrooms 34
5. Opportunity Zones 40
V. RECOMMENDATIONS 42
VI. ANNEXES 48
APPENDIX 
13
I. CONTEXTUAL FEATURES
According to the figures of the 2011 Human Development Index, Guatemala ranks in the 131th 
position out of 187 assessed countries. In that same year the average number of schooling years in 
Latin America was 7.78 while in Guatemala it only reached 4.14. It must be noted, however, that the 
country has increased (2005-2011) the years children spend in school by 0.5 years. 
 
Because of this situation, during the last fifteen years governments have carried out efforts to 
increase school enrollment which impact a large number of Guatemalan children and young people 
who now remain out of the school system. Significant progress has been made in this transition, 
especially in terms of primary and secondary education enrollment (basic cycle). 
The data reflects this progress in student enrollment. However, they also reveal important 
differences within education cycles. It can be observed that the country has extensive enrollment in 
primary education, yet the pre-primary and secondary-basic cycles numbers show that half of the 
population is not enrolled. In the case of secondary-diversified education, the numbers are even 
more critical. It is important to specify that the data provided by UNESCO show that the gross 
enrolment rate for tertiary (university) education is 18% (2011). 
Along with increased enrollment, the number of both schools and students increased. This created 
the need to guarantee the efficiency of the processes, i.e. the fulfillment of related goals, and 
assurance of expected learning outcomes. Alongside this concern, interest in pre-primary education 
increased due to the impact a good pre-school education has on the future learning outcomes of 
children. This attention sought to build the basis for the development of the country and the paths 
chosen, alongside expectations for the future quality of life of children and young people. 
In terms of equity, as presented on the following website, the indicators reveal important 
differences according to the place or geographic area, ethnicity, and level of poverty. 
School Rate
(2006)
Urban Rural Indigenous Non -
Indigenous
Extreme 
Poor
Poor Not 
Extreme Not Poor
80.8 63.6 62.9 74.5 51 66.1 82.1
Source: Equity in Education in Guatemala. 2006 
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/GUATEMALAINSPANISHEXT/Resources/500796 
1166830633691/6.EmilioPorta.pdf
14
In the same vein, and as an example, a recent test applied to first to third grade students on the 
Jalapa and Quiché departments reveals that the results in terms of quality are not satisfactory for 
the general population, but in addition showed that there are differences between boys and girls of 
indigenous and ladino ethnicities. 
Educational Reform and USAIDs Response 
Following the context and problematic, since 1998 Guatemala has developed an Educational 
Reform, aiming to improve the quality and equity of preschool, elementary and secondary 
education in the country. Supporting this long-term challenge, the REAULA Project, designed and 
implemented by USAID alongside the Department of Education, develops a set of guidelines to 
support efforts of this ambitious and comprehensive Educational Reform during 2009 and 2013. 
The main goal of REAULA (Classroom Education Reform Project) is to provide technical assistance 
to the Ministry of Education for development of policies and strategies, and to build skills at 
educational institutions in order to improve the efficiency of the Guatemalan education system 
thereby achieving equal access for everyone to quality education. 
In order to meet this goal, project REAULA has organized into two main action areas: 
1. Improvement of educational institutions, training and professional development for 
teachers – referring to transformation at the system level in order to impact the educational 
system; 
2. Quality Classrooms – referring to pilots of models and policies in select areas of the country 
in accordance with concrete experience. 
In the first action area, REAULA proposed working on two components: a) Institutional 
Improvement and b) Professional Development of human resources. For each of these, different 
specific goals were set with different steps to take toward their completion. For component a) 
REAULA has proposed a goal of contributing more institutional training to MOE - its main directors 
and officials - for the design, planning, implementation, delivery and quality assessment of 
classroom education. To this end, they have carried out plans to lend support to the updating and 
defining of a model of quality education, have contributed technical assistance to Ministry of 
Education (MOE) for the development of an internal communication strategy at all levels and 
created awareness at a local level about quality education. Additionally, they have worked with 
MOE in creating a communication, socialization and literacy awareness strategy with the parents in 
15
“Opportunity Zones”, and in furthering quality classroom education by way of a variety of strategies 
(audiovisual, radio, physical presence, posters, etc.). 
With relation to component b), REAULA has set a goal of contributing technical assistance for the 
SINAFORHE (National Human Resource Training System) strategy in order to achieve a negotiated 
and implemented reform system for human resources in education, and designing pilot 
implementation strategies and manuals for the SINAE (National Coaching and Accompaniment 
System) district personnel. They have also collaborated technically in the creation of higher 
education teacher training programs – degrees such as Masters, Specialties and Certificate 
Programs (diplomado)– in conjunction with MOE and through the creation of alliances with a 
variety of universities (Universidad del Valle, Universidad de San Carlos de Guatemala (USAC), 
Escuela de Formación de Profesores de Enseñanza Media (EFPEM), Panamericana, Rafael Landivar) 
and other cooperative agencies, as Agencia de Cooperación Internacional Alemana Gesellschaft für 
Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ), and Agencia de Cooperación Internacional de Japón (JICA). 
The REAULA project itself has economically supported training by way of Frank Fairchild 
scholarships for Masters in Educational Leadership and Management. The project has also favored 
the creation of a University Consortium made up of the Universidad del Valle de Guatemala (UVG), 
Universidad de San Carlos (USAC), Universidad Panamericana (UPANA) and Universidad Rafael 
Landívar (URL), through which it has been possible to research, propose and socialize curriculum 
models for the training of secondary schools and college educators. 
In a second action area, the REAULA project has worked in two areas: c) learning goals, life skills, 
curriculum, materials and assessment in order to acquire efficiency in the areas of Communication 
and Language in mother tongue (as first language, L1) and Communication and Language, Spanish 
as a second language (L2) and effective learning by students; and d) Learning Opportunities for 
which goals and action items have been defined. 
With regards to component c), the project has set a goal of proposing and establishing national 
policies and models with which to provide standards frameworks and references for the 
development of curriculum materials, programs which implement the new national curriculum and 
learning assessment efforts. To achieve this, they have done things like support the development of 
an early-childhood and pre-primary education models and researched the basic level and 
diversification of secondary education and career studies. Furthermore, by way of technical 
assistance to MOE members and technical personnel from the Departmental Boards, master 
teachers, and the Specialists Committee and Editorial Committee in charge of the design and 
development of teacher texts and guides for the series “We Live in Harmony”, they have supported 
the creation and use of educational texts and materials for teachers and students – big books, flip 
chart books (rotafolios) and best practice manuals from EBI. Also, they have prompted the creation 
of a National Textbook and Educational Materials Policy, supporting MOE in the polishing of action 
steps for the development, publishing and alignment of the national curriculum; technical 
assistance and in-classroom validation of educational materials in Spanish and the main Mayan 
languages. Additionally, they have worked to develop a work plan (ruta crítica) to implement 
bilingual, intercultural education that serves as a base for creating action items over the coming 
years. Finally, they have supported MOE in the creation of proposals for a literacy model for native 
Mayan languages. 
For the framework of component d), REAULA has proposed to improve learning opportunities in 
specific municipalities known as Opportunity Zones. In order to achieve this, they have developed a 
series of steps for the municipalities of Jalapa, Chiquimula, Quiché, Totonicapán and San Marcos. 
These actions are focused on involving the municipalities and the local educational department in 
16
delivering educational services. Through the cooperation of these institutions the specific training 
of some local quality education management groups, and the coordination of service efforts, they 
have moved along municipal level quality-education planning. This has led to the development of 
municipal environments conducive to literacy, baseline and post-baseline studies, procedures for 
delivering results to departmental education authorities, CTA, and local directors in order that they 
become aware of pending challenges. Finally, they have worked with members of the municipality 
to strengthen strategic information management skills for the use of an integrated social 
information strategy (PSI) and the development of municipal education plans. 
II. PURPOSE OF EVALUATION 
The purpose of this assessment is to analyze the performance of the REAULA Program carried out 
by USAID in Guatemala. The key questions that lead the study are: 
1) How did REAULA contribute to the development and implementation of the following systems 
and policies: 
- Sistema Nacional de Formación del Recurso Humano en Educación- (SINAFORHE) 
- Sistema Nacional de Acompañamiento Educativo- (SINAE) 
- Sistema Nacional de Acreditación y Certificación- (SINACE) 
- Textbooks and Educational Material Policy? 
2) To what extent has the MOE adopted the reforms related to IBE Model, Initial and Pre-primary 
Education, and Secondary Education? What are the underlying challenges that prevent the full 
adoption of these reforms? 
3) How did the project adapt to a changing political landscape to accomplish its goals? Were there 
missed opportunities? 
4) To what extent did the inclusion of local structures (municipalities, MOE’s supervisors, local 
professional staff, local development councils, and parents’ boards) contribute to the 
implementation of the Quality Classrooms Model? What are the lessons learned for the bottom-up 
approach? 
5) What opportunity zone characteristics most enabled successful project 
Our assessment of process and product accomplishments was based on the goals proposed by the 
Project. Additionally, their appropriateness for the educational needs of the country was evaluated. 
Furthermore, the study also presents a deep analysis of key aspects associated with the internal 
management of the Project, especially those related to capacity to insure the achievement of the 
expected results in each of its components. In addition, we provide specific recommendations for 
strengthening and deepening the redesign of the program. 
It is worth mentioning that the perspective we bring to this assessment is one that seeks to 
contribute key ideas that can assist future decision-making in relation to the continuity of this 
program or other programs of this type. In that regard, we approach the evaluation as a process 
that is close to conclusion to -based on extant and newly collected evidence-, make possible to 
describe and characterize the progress, its achievements and quality as illustrative of processes of 
change from which multiple lessons can be derived. These lessons should prove important for 
future design and implementation of Education policies and strategies in Guatemala. 
Overall Objective 
To deeply understand and assess the processes and results obtained from the educational program 
carried out by REAULA, investigating which goals were accomplished and to what extent. We will 
17
furthermore propose recommendations in order to improve in the future so that the Guatemalan 
public educational system can be strengthened. 
Specific Objectives 
1. Assess the performance, processes, and results obtained by the project REAULA to date. 
2. Provide recommendations, based on the results and conclusions of the assessment, to be 
included on the design of future projects in the Guatemalan education area. 
3. Identify USAID strategic support areas on the education area in Guatemala. 
III. RESEARCH DESIGN AND ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY 
To attain the aforementioned goals, the methodological approach of this study is both descriptive 
and evaluative, focusing on the analysis of process and results. This methodological strategy 
integrates techniques and procedures that are quantitative and qualitative, and pay special 
attention to the diverse context in which the Project is being implemented. Three reasons guided 
our decision to apply this mixed methods approach: 
 First, in general terms, the descriptive research purposes are diverse. Such purposes must 
be undertaken under the most exacting conditions. The multiplicity and variety of 
conditions entails the use of a range of methods. 
 Second, if used for with the same purpose in mind, and in coherent ways, these two 
approaches can reinforce each other to provide impressions that neither of the methods 
could yield on their own. Finally, as quantitative and qualitative methods usually have 
different biases, it is possible to apply each of them to submit the other to verification 
through the respective triangulations developed by the researchers. 
Given the characteristics of the study, the design was based on different research principles, which 
aim to assess and understand the results of the implementation of USAID/REAULA. The proposed 
process included the following phases: 
a) The First phase focused on a thorough review of documents and data base (see appendice 
nº1). From this analysis, project implementation data was analyzed, along with features of the 
progress and transformation of the educational indicators. 
It should be noted that the initial design looked analysis of different databases that includes: 
outcomes of learning achievement of students participating in initiatives developed by 
REAULA, contextual and educational data coverage and progress of actions related to teacher 
training. Given that these indicators had already been processed and systematized by the 
project, we analyzed those documents and incorporate the information into the analysis of each 
component. This decision was consulted and agreed in advance with the technical counterpart. 
b) The Second phase had as its goal to assess perspectives and assessments of diverse people 
involved in the REAULA Program. For the development of these components we developed 
tools that made possible a dialogue on the characteristics, qualities and scope of the Project, the 
country's needs in different areas, and future challenges to be faced. We tried to understand 
accomplishments and perceptions of participants in the Project from all sides involved. 
Prior to starting fieldwork, we established a preliminary list of institutions and organizations 
(public, private and educational institutions) possible to be interviewed, which was developed 
taking into account the links established by the program during execution REAULA. This list 
was reviewed by the technical counterpart, which from that first definition, developed a 
detailed list and names and institutions needed to be contacted. They were contacted via email 
and about ten days was possible to arrange a get-together with each of them. The number of 
people who could not be reached, that is, who did not respond to the request was small. Almost 
all of the contacts were interviewed during the first visit of the evaluation team. Given the large 
18
number of interviews and the complexities of several interviewees agenda, it was decided, in 
some cases group interviews in character, to effectively manage the agendas of some 
respondents , such is the case of the heads of the ministerial departments and some actors 
linked to campus. The criteria for defining the group interviews, was defined by the type of 
links established with the program. The remaining interviews were coordinated for the second 
visit, to finally, interview the 90 % of people planned 
Fieldwork consisted of individual and group interviews; all selected interviewees were 
convened by the evaluation team coordination and in the technical counterpart. We 
interviewed about 50 people during the month of June in the year 2013 (see appendice nº2 for 
list of interviews). Each of the activities was guided by a core team investigator, who later on 
supported the analysis of information. 
For purposes of analysis, all material collected was recorded and transcribed. Then, through a 
process of reading and re-reading the material, we built a matrix that organized information, 
which in a second stage of analysis allowed us to identify the units of meaning, an exercise that 
was designed to characterize the dominant discourse. Through this process we developed a 
synthesis of the findings, which describes the results of field analysis. 
According to this aspect of in-depth qualitative methodology, each of the key dimensions of the 
study was addressed, starting from a relatively fixed list of questions. The dimensions 
referenced to: the dynamics in the Project organization, practices, achievement of goals, as well 
as the participants’ perception of the management, implementation, limitations and strengths 
of the model, and possible future adjustments that will strengthen both the ongoing design and 
results. 
c) The third phase was focused on the collection of other data that allowed developing deeper 
knowledge in other areas such as: 
 The understanding of the persons regarding the pedagogical, linguistic and cultural aspects 
of the tools and processes proposed by the project (educational material, evaluations, 
communication strategies, etc) 
 The consistency of the proposed system and the professional needs, from the teaching staff 
perspective. 
 The perception of the awareness campaigns developed by the project on different levels. 
This phase of the study was developed in educational institutions considering as source: teaching 
staff, students, and parents. The principal strategy used was interviews and focus group, techniques 
that allowed knowing the practices and perceptions of educational practitioners through a 
conversation. In terms of the operative development to guarantee an appropriate dynamic aiming 
to a better approach and triangulation, each of the interviews was conducted by a professional 
experienced on work field. In addition, to understand the pedagogical dynamics in which the 
assessment is based, we carried out a classroom observation on some of the visited schools: 5 
classrooms in 2 municipalities in Jalapa, 3 classrooms in Totonicapán and 4 classrooms in Quiché 
(see appendice nº3 for school names). 
The initial list of educational institutions was developed by the team REAULA and USAID, selection 
that was subsequently worked directly with departmental teams. The criteria considered: 
establishments that had been part of some of the project's initiatives, schools that met the 
characteristics of urbanity / rurality and localities that present suitable conditions for the execution 
of the activities planned for fieldwork. 
d) Finally, the Fourth Phase consists of the integrated analysis of the material collected on the 
previous phases as well as the formulation of conclusive hypothesis destined to meet the research 
19
objectives. On this phase, the team responsible for the study carried out a cross reading of the main 
results obtained through the investigation process. This iterative analysis put particular attention 
to the development of an analytical exercise to assess the performance and results obtained by the 
REAULA project to date, as well as provide technical recommendations based on the results and 
conclusions of the assessment, and identify USAID strategic support areas on the education area in 
Guatemala. 
In operational terms we can say that the fieldwork could be done in the proposed timeframe, being 
able to interview many of the people considered preliminary. Additionally, it should be noted that 
the material provided by REAULA was provided quickly and efficiently. 
In terms of weaknesses we can indicate that the execution time of the study was reduced, limiting 
the possibility of deepening certain themes that emerged as relevant in the inquiry. Moreover, the 
difficulties of access to remote rural educational institutions, did not allow a depth account in these 
areas. 
IV. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 
1. CONTRIBUTIONS OF REAULA
1.1. HOW REAULA´S INTERVENTION IS VIEWED 
Achievements and Positive Results 
Establishing a quality agenda: REAULA has raised awareness about the importance of 
educational quality in teacher training among people from different institutions such as 
government officials, politicians, labor unions, the private sector and other cooperation agencies. 
More notably, in spite of multiple changes in government and ministers, REAULA has given 
continuity to educational projects, assisting in the country’s establishment of priorities and their 
institutionalization. 
“[REAULA] evolves independently from the changes in the Ministry. It has adapted to those changes.” 
(Government employee, central level, Ministry of Education) 
“They are leaders within the educational field”: The REAULA team has gained prestige in the 
country for their contribution to education policies by means of hard work, commitment and the 
technical quality displayed. 
Technical Assistance provided to the Ministry: The interviewees from the Ministry of Education 
(MOE) highlighted one particular aspect of the REAULA team: their expertise and support to the 
design and assessment of different education policies and programs. The REAULA team has trained 
and advised the Ministry employees in different areas, such as reading, curriculum, standards and 
preparation of textbooks. This is truly appreciated, as a Ministry employee, central level, explains: 
"The truth is that the Ministry values the international cooperation, as it is very important. I have 
received support and expertise, which is what REAULA has basically provided. It is a professional 
assistance in … the preparation and revision of textbooks, the training of staff…”
Ability to summon different stakeholders: The interviewees appreciated the ability of the 
REAULA team to gather and bring together different stakeholders and institutions, such as the 
Magisterio (Teacher National Assembly), Universities, NGOs and the private sector, in order to get 
them involved with the quality in education, coming to important agreements at the national level. 
20
“(USAID) has positioned itself, it has a voice. That’s why they can go, negotiate, coordinate, they have 
the capacity to work with the Ministry and politicians from different sectors so they can be included or 
take part on the decision making process directly” (University professor). 
International cooperation style. The REAULA team emphasizes that the work style differs from 
traditional cooperation in which one is told “what has to be done”. Consultants come from without, 
but the solutions come from within. They also value the fact that an agreement was reached 
amongst the main players regarding the country’s needs and the “path to take”. International 
cooperation, from REAULA´s team point of view, is understood that this path needs to be supported, 
such cooperation has “come on board” and has not imposed; in the words of a REAULA team 
members, 
“(…) it is not the typical international assistance model where an expert shows up for 10 days, 
presents something amazing and leaves. In this case rather, the person is part of the process and 
accompanies the process over several years. Then, relationships based on trust are developed, a 
relationship of support, and when it’s done right, the people from the Ministry pick up the phone or 
they send an email, and there’s a more direct exchange.” (Director, REAULA).
"(...) And we are very respectful of how far we can take things, although we are not always 
completely in agreement or we want to do things differently, we respect their structures and their 
decisions, because they are the ones who make the decisions" (REAULA team member). 
Along the same line, the consulting process and the development of abilities have been 
accomplished through continuous support as part of a long-term process. Most of all, the respect 
and ability to work as a team is valued, as is the ability to coordinate and communicate fluently to 
guide the work planning process. In this regard, the emphasis given to the ongoing meetings and 
the willingness to engage in dialogue are appreciated. This allows for more consistent and 
articulated work, based on closed relationships, trust and direct communication so that the 
professional support runs its course and so that the different parties are open to acceptance. 
Lack of Progress and Pending Challenges
The interviewees, especially the ones from the Ministry and Magisterio, mentioned that REAULA 
has contributed with technical support and has allowed the establishment of abilities within the 
institution. However, there are mixed points of view. Various ex-Ministry officials mentioned that, 
while they mostly appreciate REAULA´s technical assistance, they also feel that REAULA usually 
completes tasks that MOE should carry out, at the expense of strengthening skill-building among 
MOE members. The production of textbooks, SINAE standards and national evaluations tests are 
examples of tasks that although may be developed together with MOE, it is through that MOE 
officials should carry out a stronger leadership in these tasks. As an ex-Ministry official comments, 
“USAID is three steps ahead of the Ministry, this might be good, but it’s also bad because they have 
everything done already” (Ex-member of the Ministry of Education). 
In addition, various interviewees from local governments, universities and the private sector 
criticized the lack of debate and discussion of the Project. In some cases, they recognize efforts from 
REAULA to involve people from the Ministry, professionals from MOE and from NGOs, like in 
SINAFORHE. But, it is expressed that REAULA team has not always been able to respect the time 
required to transform the participation into results. 
21
“It’s a pity they’re trying to do a reform in the classroom without social participation, for me that is 
moving towards failure (…) they haven’t been open to suggestions based on social consensus”. 
(Member of an NGO) 
Moreover, members of NGOs and Universities criticize that they have had little possibilities of real 
participation in the definition of the Project, its respective programs and theoretical approach. For 
example, one academic talked about this situation with regards to the diplomas and the definition 
of the teaching approach to reading and writing, and s/he said the following: 
“During the second stage, a pre-primary expert did a specific project with this focus. It had nothing to 
do with the constructivism required by the national curriculum; this work centered on counting words. 
The assessment based on the curriculum for example, asked that nonsensical syllables be decoded such 
as por, ps, ar, ur. These had nothing to do with real learning and even less to do with the K’iche 
language. So, I think that it is worth mentioning because it is one of the areas for which no agreement 
through negotiation was achieved. They [USAID/REAULA] just said they were responsible for the 
project” (University Academic).
At a local level, the assessments are similar. In the interviews to the stakeholders from the 
departments and from the visited schools, the low level of participation at a base level, the lack of 
consultation about several topics, especially the need for teacher training, training modalities, most 
requested teaching materials, among others things, are a common denominator. 
“I believe they don’t consider us that much, because USAID is an entity that finances and gives support, 
but they bring their basis, they bring their own guidelines and say you do this and do that (…) it’s like 
being in a straitjacket, whether you like it or not (…) There is no educational perspective including the 
cultural, linguistic and social aspects, there is no moment when we can participate and decide certain 
things” (Totonicapán Department)
“The projects always arrive entirely complete and only need to be executed… Often times, we knew 
about them only after the project was underway and was being implemented. It would be ideal, 
perhaps, to be able to put together a project with the people, particularly the teachers, directors and 
Technical Administrative Coordinator (CTA), and that it be a literacy project. This project would 
respond to their methodological necessities in terms of how to work with a linguistic, diverse, cultural, 
truly ethnic text and how to respond to it given the economic and political context. I think that if the 
teachers and directors participate in the creation of what they are going to implement, they are going 
to much more readily accept it because they have ownership of it, because it is something that they 
have been consulted about, it contains their ideas and it takes into account the educational 
requirements that they have to respond to at the local, national and international level regarding 
what girls and boys ought to be learning…” (Quiché Department).
1.2. REAULA’S CONTRIBUTION TO SINAFORHE 
The National Human Resource Training System (or SINAFORHE in Spanish) is a strategic platform 
to design regulations and proposals to improve teacher training and professional performance of 
the education staff. This includes teachers, directors and technical staff among others. This system 
has five subsystems: initial training, continuous training, accreditation, certification, innovation and 
research, and “human resources dignity”. In this framework, REAULA has provided technical 
assistance to MOE and member institutions to design, negotiate and implement reform system for 
human resources in education. This has required concrete actions such as assisting with the 
creation of the proposal, its viability, implementation and sustainability strategies and planning for 
the SINAFORHE strategy.
22
Achievements and Positive Results 
Encouraging opportunities for dialogue to occur: As has been mentioned before, REAULA has 
been key to SINAFORHE’s coordination, and this is widely recognized (although there may be 
criticism with reference to other programs). Amongst those interviewed, there is particular value 
for the creation of a collaborative workspace amongst Universities and institutions. This network 
has made meaningful progress, achieving accords and common proposals regarding teacher 
training, continuing education and pedagogical careers. These proposals have been put together by 
all of the players, paying close attention to the context in which they will be realized and created 
“from within” not imposed “from outside”. 
It was indicated that previously Universities worked quite independently. Additionally, leadership 
was weak at the Ministry of Education in the area of higher education. For this reason, this 
cooperative work time has been so valuable, especially the dialogue between the public and private 
sectors. Also, it made possible the formation of the University Consortium, which moved forward 
and created a common platform for teacher training, establishing minimum requirements for 
training and credits earned. 
Particularly, REAULA did a great job dialoguing with the Magisterio (Teachers National Assembly). 
Several of those interviewed indicate that previously relationships between the Ministry of 
Education and the Magisterio were “broken”, while USAID was perceived to have close work 
relationships with the Ministry and some private Universities (especially the Universidad del Valle). 
However, SINAFORHE’s framework indicates strategic work on the part of REAULA’s team to bring 
together in collaborative work entities that historically have not dialogued such as the Ministry, the 
Magisterio, the Universidad de San Carlos and private universities. 
Also highly esteemed, was the creation of the technical panel – with Ministry representatives, 
teachers, unions, parents of students, students of escuelas normales, among others; a project that 
took almost three years. In this way, agreements were generated regarding teacher training, such as 
design of the PADEP (in Spanish Programa Académico de Desarrollo Profesional Docente), which 
has lent viability and protection to the training program in addition to great legitimacy. 
Lack of Progress and Pending Challenges
According to the collected data, REAULA´s contribution to this program is the most widely 
appreciated. Pending challenges are related to goals that REAULA could continue to push and 
promote in SINAFORHE; such as, legislating and putting into operation the teacher career 
progression (Carrera Docente); the debate about teacher assessment; the move towards more 
selective entrance systems for entering the teacher training career. Also, empowering leadership at 
the Ministry of Education is mentioned. In order for this to happen, the importance of REAULA to 
assist the creation of a management structure for teachers in the MOE has been emphasized. The 
goal of this structure would be to strengthen policies and follow up in this area. 
1.3. REAULA’S CONTRIBUTION TO SINAE
The goal of the National Coaching and Accompaniment System (SINAE in Spanish) is to strengthen 
the quality of education in schools, providing permanent support in the improvement of teaching 
practices in the classroom, along with consulting services to the director management. This model 
aims to become a structural change because it transforms the traditional model of supervision 
focused on administrative affairs to focus now on pedagogical aspects. To achieve this, the new 
23
model design of school assessment includes three key participants: a district education 
coordination authority, a management consultant and technical advisor. REAULA designed pilot 
implementation strategies and manuals for the SINAE district personnel. The pilots were 
implemented by MOE in San Bartolo Aguas Calientes, within the department of Totonicapán, and in 
Concepción de Tutuapa, within the department of San Marcos. 
Achievements and Positive Results 
 
Technical Assistance. All interviewees, including central government, departmental and school 
actors, agreed on the diagnosis that there is a need to reform the model of supervision and to 
transition it towards a pedagogical consultation model. REAULA, along with other international 
cooperation institutions (GIZ), have contributed by providing technical assistance to MOE as it 
designed the model and the pilot implementation. This assistance included the elaboration of 
instruments, manuals about educational accompaniment, validation and the system pilot, which 
will allow the new model to expand to other departments. 
Local commitment. In general terms, in both department staffs (Totonicapán and San Marcos) 
where the pilots were carried out, there was a strong commitment and enthusiasm with SINAE 
model and with putting it in practice. In both places people highly appreciated the experience and 
wanted to continue with the new model; moving from an administrative-bureaucratic focus and 
task-control to a management and technical-pedagogical assistance. 
Especially in San Marcos this model was carried out successfully. The departmental team showed 
great commitment to the reform, and they explained that most of them completed the certificate 
program for Leadership for providing classroom support to teachers. The program is positively 
assessed, and it is claimed that it was a key input for putting SINAE into practice. In effect, in the 
case of San Marcos, after the pilot had finished, the Supervisors and CTAs continued practicing the 
new model of school technical assistance. As a member of the department expressed, 
“As a result of this intervention in the department of San Marcos we were able to design a 
Departmental Plan for Educational Accompaniment into the Classroom. Consequently we decided that 
all of us were going to participate in coaching since with the training we received we could follow 
teachers to the classroom to assist them. We focused on some schools and we are orienting the 
coaching process not as monitoring, nor control, but rather accompaniment that is geared to 
strengthening the academic leadership of the principal and an effective learning process for the 
teachers.” 
Lack of Progress and Pending Challenges
Adjusted plan to available human resources. The model was carried out with three consultants 
in each School District, which was clearly insufficient for coaching all schools. Due to the lack of new 
personal for implementing the model, CTAs were involved in this task having to coach schools in 
management and pedagogical issues. Although, most CTAs had received special training through 
the Leadership certificate program they did not fulfill the requirements of having a University 
degree, and had to continue with all their bureaucratic work. The model requires technical￾pedagogical leaders, in charge of a small ratio of schools in order to visit schools continuously and 
establish an effective coaching. If these conditions do not change, the model is bound to fail. The 
lack of school consultants per school and the fact that the pilot did not continue is not REAULA’s 
responsibility; however, these are the issues that must keep REAULA alert in the design of the 
model. 
24
Continuity. Although most of the staff were enthusiastic about continuing its implementation, they 
were at the same time frustrated as it was interrupted and they could not continue with it. In 
Totonicapán (San Bartolo Aguas Calientes), the Supervisors and CTAs have gone back to using the 
traditional Supervision system; and in San Marcos there are local initiatives attempting to maintain 
aspects of the model. Another issue highlighted by the interviewees from departments was that the 
model was implemented during a very short period of time, six months in Totonicapán and ten in 
San Marcos. This is another key point as continuous assistance in a long period of time is 
fundamental in order to achieve profound changes in schools daily practices. In this sense, the fact 
that the model did not continue in the piloted municipalities restricts the possibility of providing 
richer and more insightful evidence for future expansion of the model. 
1.4. REAULA’S CONTRIBUTION TO SINACE
The National Accreditation and Certification System (SINACE in Spanish) defines, assesses, 
accredits and certifies the technical competences of institutions, programs and individuals in order 
to ensure educational quality. 
Achievements and Positive Results 
Technical assistance. REAULA provided valuable technical assistance to SINACE, creating a 
conceptual framework, and certification and accreditation instruments and methods for data 
analysis; this assessment is positively appreciated by Ministry members. Now the Ministry 
Department is working on a second stage with educational centers that volunteer to undergo the 
process, as a pilot. 
Lack of Progress and Pending Challenges
Lack of clear and concrete consequences. To date, the system has been voluntary and there have 
been a low percentage of institutions participating in the process. The aim of SINACE is not clear as 
certification and accreditation is not compulsory, and at least until now, it is not linked to any kinds 
of incentives or sanctions. REAULA team, as part of a technical assistance, identified the legal 
restrictions for establishing these kinds of consequences. In consequence, it is an incomplete model 
that makes little sense without clearly defined benefits or consequences for completing or not 
completing the certification and accreditation. Although, this is because of legal restrictions, it does 
imply that REAULA has invested in a policy agenda that has limited possibilities to impact school 
quality in the country’s context.
Lack of participation in the definition of quality standards. It is indicated that there was a low 
level of participation in the creation of the SINACE. Interviewees from Universities and 
investigation agencies suggest that a larger discussion, led by MOE, was necessary including 
reflections and debates about what quality is, what elements constitute good educational programs 
and practices, and what the key indicators are in observing them. In addition, it was stated by an ex￾official of the Ministry of Education that this work was done by REAULA, in spite of the fact that the 
Ministry had already made progress on defining quality standards. 
“Why do we need someone to come from the outside and tell us what quality is?... besides, the Ministry 
has made headway on this… in any case, it is helpful, to get the ball rolling, the public sector is not used 
to working quickly here, they have all the time in the world…” (Ex-member of the Ministry of 
Education). 
This situation, according to the speaker, implied the duplication of work and a certain disdain from 
REAULA towards the initial work developed by the Ministry. 
25
1.5. REAULA’S CONTRIBUTION IN BOOKS AND MATERIALS POLICY
REAULA has prompted the creation of a National Textbook and Educational Materials Policy, 
supporting MOE in the polishing of action steps for the development, publishing and alignment of 
the national curriculum; technical assistance and in-classroom validation of educational materials 
in Spanish and the main Mayan languages. 
Achievements and Positive Results 
CNB-aligned textbooks. The creation of curriculum-aligned textbooks, along with MOE, was a 
meaningful contribution. REAULA’s participation in the integration of national textbook policies is 
seen by various MOE departments to be a positive and necessary technical support. These 
textbooks were created with the support of specialists from a variety of subject areas. REAULA has 
directly supported the Ministry in aligning the textbooks with the National Curriculum (CNB), 
which was born out of the previous program for Educational Standards and Evaluation. 
Set of Books. REAULA has supported the creation and use of educational texts and materials for 
teachers and students – big books, flip chart books (rotafolios) and classroom library boxes. The set 
of books and other texts for school libraries are highly appreciated by principals and most school 
teachers in order to strengthen children’s abilities to read as a daily routine. As a Quiché teacher 
said, “This library has helped and made it possible for each child to look forward to reading. Before, 
they didn’t like to read; I would have them read and they didn’t enjoy it. Now they want to read every 
day.” 
In various schools in Jalapa, Totonicapán and Quiché the assessment team observed boys and girls 
enjoying reading literary texts and asking their teacher to read these texts to them. Also, the 
implementation of the “reading hour” was observed (MOE initiative). This consists of spending 15 
to 30 minutes at the beginning of the day with students and teachers reading in their chairs a text of 
their choice. They use distributed texts, especially those taken from the classroom library. 
Maya Languages. Some texts, like the Big Books (Megalibro), have been written in four major 
Mayan languages -K’iche’, Kaqchikel, Mam and Queqchi—, eight titles per language. Additionally, 
four flip chart books (rotafolios) were also written in these four Mayan languages. Both sets of texts 
have been adapted for pre-primary and first grade students. In this sense, the texts are widely held 
in high esteem, as one NGO member says, this makes textbooks “richer and more valuable”. 
Lack of Progress and Pending Challenges
Use of books and materials. Interviews of teachers and classroom observations showed that 
teachers do not always have a clear understanding of the aims and pedagogical use of the books. 
Unfortunately, teachers were concerned that they could get torn or worn-out; in fact, in most of the 
classroom observations, books were not accessible for children and they could not take out books 
from the library. Some teachers for example, stated that the materials had been inventoried and 
they were warned that economic costs must be paid by teachers if the materials were lost or 
damaged. Therefore, the books and materials do not accomplish their main aim, i.e. to be used in 
classrooms and therefore promote reading skills (See 5.2.). 
Distribution. The MOE distribution of textbooks is a critical issue. The books are distributed 
behind schedule especially in the western and less accessible parts of the country. Although, 
26
distribution of textbooks is MOE responsibility, this issue should be reviewed in the Textbook 
Policy. 
2. MINISTRY OF EDUCATION PROGRESS IN BILINGUAL INTERCULTURAL EDUCATION, EARLY 
EDUCATION AND SECONDARY EDUCATION REFORM
2.1. Bilingual Intercultural Education (EBI)
REAULA has developed best practice manuals for EBI, and provided technical assistance and in￾classroom validation of educational materials in Spanish and the main Mayan languages. 
Additionally, they have worked to develop a work plan (ruta crítica) to implement bilingual, 
intercultural education that serves as a base for creating action items over the coming years. 
Finally, they have supported MOE in the creation of proposals for a literacy model for native Mayan 
languages. 
Achievements and Positive Results 
As expressed in the 2013 REAULA document on models of bilingual education, EBI should have a 
national focus beyond an orientation to the needs of indigenous populations. As a national 
educational model, EBI is oriented to the accomplishment of the educational needs of a multiethnic, 
pluri-cultural and multilingual society, and to the development of a positive self-image for all 
students. The reality the assessment team was able to observe is still distant from this ambitious 
and important goal. 
National Consensus. Among interviewees it is made evident that there is a strong consensus about 
the importance of EBI, especially at first grades of elementary school, functioning as a bridge 
between children’s home and education. A director at the department level, for instance, stated that 
native language literacy to build a bilingual future based on students’ resources, as presented 
during the certificate, is important: “ …we need to take advantage of this resource to teach students 
first in their native language and then to gradually teach them a second language. In this way, when 
the student is in third or fourth or fifth grade there is an equilibrium, there is real bilingualism, and the 
certificate has supported us a lot in this regard.” Yet, there were fewer consensuses to maintain EBI 
throughout school, after year three. 
Textbooks. REAULA and MOE have designed and distributed excellent education materials in the 
main Mayan languages. These materials are for students and consist of Communication and 
Language textbooks from grades 1 to 6, flip chart books and big books in four languages. The 
quality of these materials is appreciated by all education system actors: principles, teachers, 
students and families (see 1.5). 
Schools for Parents. Parents and grandparents interviewed expressed a very positive impact of 
the workshops on their parenting skills. They were mostly illiterate, but in spite of this, they had 
learned to support their children in, for example, their homework assignments. Especially, in the 
case of those workshops delivered in parents’ mother tongue (implemented by Akebi) were highly 
valued by parents. They were grateful for this validation of their ancestral resources and requested 
the project continue, emphasizing these lines of work. Teachers and school principals mentioned 
that parents who had taken part in the workshops are now more involved in school activities than 
they were before. On the other hand, those parents who did not take part of the Parents’ Schools did 
not understand the new teaching strategies that teachers were using and reacted negatively 
towards changes. 
27
Lack of Progress and Pending Challenges
Limited EBI in schools1. The implementation of bilingual education in the Guatemalan context is 
extremely complex. Given the wide variety of linguistic contexts, one model will not satisfy all 
situations. In some places students arrive in school speaking mostly Spanish. In some other 
contexts there is more widespread use of the native language. Independent of the linguistic context, 
the educational model to be offered needs to strengthen linguistic abilities brought by the students, 
and it must deepen and accelerate them through literacy practices that build pupils’ abilities to 
work with multimodal texts with understanding. The visit to the three educational departments 
(Jalapa, Totonicapán, and Quiché) made it evident that EBI had an almost imperceptible presence in 
schools. In fact, in only one of the rural schools visited in Totonicapán and Quiché, the Official Rural 
Coeducational School Cantón Santabal II in San Pedro de Jocopilas, teaching in students’ mother 
tongue was observed. We did not observe lessons taught in students’ native language in the Aldea 
Nimasac, in the municipality of Totonicapán, nor in the Official Rural Coeducational School Aldea El 
Infiernito (in the Quiché Department). Only one teacher was identified, in Santabal II school, in the 
first grade, who taught her Communication and Language Arts class in K’iche, although she did not 
use this language to teach other disciplinary areas. During meetings with other teachers at the 
school we were informed that in other grades, classes in K’iche were conducted in the area of social 
studies. 
Interviews with officials at the departmental and district offices indicated that there is a national 
shift to abandon teaching in native languages. Although, they pointed out that within some schools 
a few bilingual classes can be found. (There was no statistical data available about the number of 
schools where classes were carried out in K’iche in the area.) As a CTA comments, 
“Things have changed, but not for the better. Before, after workshops intended to promote teaching in 
students’ L1 some teachers followed, especially after we distributed materials. Those who believed in 
bilingual education felt strengthened by our work, and teachers who did not, taught in native 
languages because they felt the pressure to do so.”
This reality runs counter to the statement that “The development of linguistic self-esteem, i.e., 
children’s ability to read and write with assurance in their own languages, is the goal of this 
application in practice of this literacy model” (Modelo Nacional de Educación Bilingüe Intercultural, 
2008). 
Absence of EBI in classroom poster. A useful impact was observed in the use of posters and other 
materials that had been distributed in support of the Project. The poster listing 9 elements 
associated with educational quality is not just displayed in classrooms, but teachers continuously 
refer to it. In this regard, many offered the suggestion that value and use of student’s mother 
tongues should be added to the list. They considered this addition to be essential in Guatemala, a 
country characterized by cultural and linguistic diversity. These interviewees felt that the addition 
would support those teachers who already believe in EBI, would serve as a reminder to those who 
are non-committal, and would help those who are detractors rethink their position. Some teachers 
felt very strongly about this, as can be appreciated in the following statement: 
“with regards to bilingual education, almost nothing. USAID had the audacity to publish a poster 
outlining 9 basic aspects of a quality education, and among those nine there was no bilingual 
 
1
In order to review classroom situations, illustrative of the generalized patterns we observed throughout our 
classroom visits, see appendix 6: Three Classroom Visit Vignettes. They are presented both to highlight 
central aspects of instruction that need to shift in order to give way to substantive opportunities to learn.
28
education. My determination was to ask that Bilingual education be included, but nothing happened. 
In terms of bilingualism there is nothing.”
Literary certificate and EBI. Although in Totonicapán the Literacy training program was initially 
taught in K’iche’, later on it was continued exclusively offered in Spanish. The message that is sent is 
not as strong as if the certificate programs were offered in the indigenous languages for teaching all 
curriculum content, at least during the first years. (And there was no certificate offered the Quiché 
Department).
Teachers’ bonuses. One other feature that increases the complexity of applying EBI in schools is 
the haphazard distribution of bonuses for teachers teaching in bilingual programs. The team was 
told that sometimes a teacher received a bonus for teaching in a program designated as bilingual 
although the teacher was monolingual, other times teachers taught bilingually but received no 
bonus because they were not hired as bilingual teachers. Obviously these situations trigger 
discontent among teachers. As a department director stated: 
“There are about 3,800 teachers with bilingual positions, and when people speak about bilingual 
positions we need to analyze what exactly they are talking about. Sometimes a bilingual class refers to 
classes really taught in two languages, bilingually. Other times people occupy a bilingual position 
because of political connections, but they do not speak an indigenous language as K’iche, this is true 
for about 35% of cases. In Guatemala politics plays a big role, whether in academic matters or not, yes, 
I think perhaps 35%.”
Even though MOE has a regulation referenced to teaches bonuses, this regulation has not been 
applied correctly. 
2.2. EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION REFORM
In keeping with current trends, which suggest the importance of the implementation of preschool 
programs for the scholastic success of children and young people, as well as their contribution to a 
country’s social development, health and economics, REAULA has supported the implementation of 
some initiatives promoting early childhood and pre-primary education. 
According to some statistics, there are significant problems in the country with regards to coverage 
and quality of education for children between the ages of 0 and 6. As the data show, percentages of 
coverage at the Early Childhood Education Level is 47.59% at the Pre-Primary Level (MOE, 2013). 
REAULA’s Early Childhood and Pre-Primary Education Reform had two stages including the 
creation of a document in conjunction with MINEDUC that synthesized the Primary Education 
Model and the implementation, follow-up and evaluation of the pilot pre-primary program. The 
model for education of children at the Early Childhood Education Level and the Pre-primary 
Education Level “Caminemos Juntos” (Let’s Walk Together), was founded upon the ideal of an 
education based on rights, which makes use of child-centered learning, recognizing children as the 
recipients of rights and as members of the society. It proposes an integrated vision, centered on the 
children’s needs, fostering the active participation of families and based on the referential 
framework of the National Curriculum at the Early Childhood and Pre-Primary Levels. 
Achievements and Positive Results 
In terms of the implementation of the Program, the pilot stage began execution during the second 
semester of 2012 in the communities of Sololá (a K’iche-Spanish bilingual community) and Jalapa. 
As announced in the document that summarizes the evaluation, the pilot implementation sought to 
29
validate the model by establishing whether or not it functioned in accordance with its original 
principles of rationality and implementation, by documenting its achievements and by identifying 
the aspects that needed to be modified for future use in other communities. 
Definition of a Pedagogical Approach. The model’s foundation and documents establish the 
paradigmatic focus, the quality criteria and the key elements upon which it is based, as well as the 
implementation strategies, work materials, human resources necessities, responsibilities of 
different persons and implementation, follow-up and evaluation processes. Some attributes and 
responsibilities for different Ministry technical teams (DIGECADE, DIGECUR, DIGEBI, DIGEESP and 
DIPLAN - which were supported by the REAULA team) are defined for putting the model into 
operation. As these departments indicate, there is wide recognition of the program’s efforts at the 
institutional level, efforts, which have sought to contribute by way of technical consultation of the 
early childhood curriculum’s implementation and the definition of the model and its 
implementation and evaluation. 
Stronger community awareness of the importance of Pre-school. Regarding the impact at a 
local level, in the departments, professionals from the Ministry of Education indicate that 
achievements have been linked to the empowerment of the educational community, helping the 
parents and guardians understand the importance of educational activity and simultaneously 
encouraging the entrance of 6 year-old children of primary school. 
Regarding this issue, it should be mentioned that even when the Program is positively evaluated, 
several interviewed indicate that they don’t know what has been done in the area of Early 
Childhood Education and several agree that this is an area of development that ought to be further 
strengthened, indicating that there are still massive problems in terms of coverage, infrastructure 
and a shortage of teachers: 
"(...) a lack of professors trained in pre-primary education, they are concentrated in the urban areas 
and many are in the capital city, so we don’t have pre-primary teachers…” (REAULA team member).
Lack of progress and Pending Challenges
Ministry Delay. Another problem perceived has to do with delays in execution timeframes. As 
REAULA’s Technical Director indicates, the model could have been implemented starting in the 
beginning of 2012. The number of teachers required was already determined, the community 
diagnostic had been carried out and teachers had already been identified. However, there was a 
great delay stemming from the central government that impeded contracting and starting of the 
implementation. From the REAULA team’s point of view, one of the most important pieces at this 
stage was timing of the execution, which, as indicated, was influenced by a change in government: 
“(…) we have been working since 2010 on the design of this model and it was finished at the end of 
2011. The work was presented in its entirety to the Ministry. As I have said, there it sat with the 
Ministry’s agreements and with the ministers and upon the change of government the process of 
implementation slowed down greatly” (Technical Director, REAULA).
Various Pending Challenges. Most interviewees agree that early childhood education is an area of 
development that ought to be further strengthened, indicating that there are still massive problems 
in terms of coverage, infrastructure and a shortage of teachers. 
2.3. SECONDARY REFORM
Secondary education in Guatemala is divided into two cycles: the basic cycle and the diversified 
cycle. The latter is named for the variety of available careers (220 different careers, not all of which 
30
offer codes approved by the Ministry of Education), that permit studying at the university level or 
entering the workforce. Currently, students that enter the basic cycle enter at about 13 years of age, 
while for the diversified, they enter at 16. Statistics of MINEDUC (2013) indicate that only the 
37.93% of the population of that age is signed up for this cycle. In the Diversified Cycle. It can be 
said that there is a significant fall in enrollment of young people during the transition between the 
basic and diversified cycle of secondary education, accompanied by low attendance of the 
diversified cycle in urban areas and vast social divisions. (Report design Study of the situation 
standard level in Guatemala in preparation for processing: (Draft for discussion), REAULA 2011). 
As the statistics demonstrate, Secondary Education has experienced a progressive increase in 
coverage since the year 2008, which has been accompanied by the creation of new institutions at 
the secondary education level. Simultaneously, efforts have also been oriented towards the creation 
of a national curriculum, with the goal of creating a common foundation and currently refining the 
career catalog in order to organize and systemize a high-quality educational package. 
Achievements and Positive Results 
Critical Route: One of the main initiatives along these lines has been the definition of a critical 
route of implementation of the Secondary Education Reform. An important work group has been 
established that highlights the country’s situation dialogue takes place regarding concepts and 
ideas that allow for the consideration of institutional strategies and initiatives for achieving high￾quality education. This Critical Route considers general and specific curricula, delivery methods and 
administrative diagnostics, designing guidelines in the areas of: covering the offer and demand, 
transitions between cycles, graduation, curriculum, financing and administrative and institutional 
issues. 
Social Dialogue: The critical route of implementation has been created by way of a long process in 
which some conceptual frameworks have been discussed, instances at which a variety of 
interviewed have come together like: educational institutions, researchers, experts, private sector 
agents and social organizers, amongst others. These agents have been invited to reflect in instances 
that given their frequency, enabled the strengthening of the early reflections, making agreements 
and making commitments collectively, thereby establishing a basis for improving the design and 
implementation of the critical route: 
“…we’ve been doing this for several years and it’s been quite a process (…) I would say that just a week 
ago the Ministry understood the extent of this and the need to work in a much more structured and 
organized way to define an implementation strategy, conducting research related to secondary 
education.. (…) a number of consultations were done and quite a bit of information was generated. 
This year a transformation proposal was already prepared that was presented to the Ministry and to 
actors at the central and departmental levels…” (Technical Director, REAULA) 
Lack of progress and Pending Challenges
Education for Work and Labor-Technical Training: Along this line, some of MOE’s departments, 
specifically the Extra Curricular Education Department, feel that it would be quite valuable to 
receive support to create a system of Education for Work and Labor-Technical Training. For this, 
studies regarding the needs of the labor market, amongst others, would be necessary: 
"our vision is that in the Ministry of Education we might have our own INTECAP, I don’t know if you 
have heard of it… but it is an institution that specifically offers Labor – Technical training courses like 
carpentry, mechanics, electricity” (member of MOE, central level). 
31
Deepening the changes: Widening of coverage also requires improvements in the area of specialty 
teacher training, and this requires an institutional change. As some REAULA professional indicate, 
the Ministry of Education does not have the authority to impose on the universities an articulation 
of the offer and demand for educational careers. This has resulted in, for example, insufficient 
suitable material in the new curriculum. In this sense, it is thought that in the future it will also be 
important to promote the knowledge of English and use of technologies, given that work 
opportunities increase with the development of these two abilities. 
Lack of articulation. It is indicated by several interviewees of different institutions that the 
specialized careers lack articulation with the country’s job demands. Everything suggested so far 
should be accompanied by alliances with the private sector, connections that will make it possible 
to meet the needs of the world of production and at the same time strengthen education by way of 
internships in companies. 
"… if only we had the dual German system, I don’t know, that combines practical educational 
internships with work, because the majority, being very realistic, are not going to go to university, but 
should have an educational offer that allows them to enter the working world with some advantage” 
(Research agency). 
3. EVALUATION OF THE PROCESS
3.1. Adjustments to the original model
During the implementation of the REAULA project some changes and adjustments, the majority of 
which are minor, have been made to the original model. These have occurred in the application of 
SINAFORHE, SINAE and in the definition of Opportunity Zones. 
SINAFORHE. From training trainers to masters and certificate programs: Originally, 
SINAFORHE aimed at the training of trainers through a cascade process for which international 
experts were the first trainers who would train teachers in order that those teachers would train 
applicants. However, the majority of this System has been implemented with national experts at 
participating universities in a simultaneous process with the direct training of applicants by way of 
Masters and certificate programs. Thanks to this change teachers have been able to participate 
directly of training courses carried out by University, assuring a better quality of the courses. 
SINAE. Unexpected importance of the CTAs: Originally, SINAE was to consist of a district 
coordinator, a pedagogical consultant and a management consultant, but during the pilot only a few 
pedagogical consultants and a few management consultants were assigned. Additionally, the 
original accompanying system documents described the professional profile of the pedagogical and 
management consultants as having had a certain number of years work experience and experience 
as teachers. However, in the end, CTAs were chosen to occupy these positions and not all of them 
have a professional profile, therefore an adaptation was made in the area of SINAE consultants and 
instead of meeting certain requirements, consultants’ skills were developed. 
Finally, given that the CTAs have worked as pedagogical and management consultants in the SINAE 
pilot, REAULA proposed to take advantage of this human resource (since their skills had already 
been developed to take on different consultant positions during the implementation of SINAE). 
However, MOE decided to “…start with a clean slate and have none of these people occupy those 
positions, but rather other new professionals, whomever necessary to fill the seats…” (REAULA 
team member). Hence, there is a lost opportunity of human resources that attended leadership 
training courses and had the experience of assessing schools, and therefore could continue with 
that work. 
32
 
Changes in the definition of Opportunity Zones: The Opportunity Zones that were originally part 
of the project were separated from the evaluation areas, “… but we deeply believed that they ought 
to be the same and that there shouldn’t be any Opportunity Zones where certain initiatives and 
interventions were tried out and in other areas only educational achievement evaluations and 
therefore they were combined into one where interventions were developed and, at the same time, 
evaluations took place” (REAULA member). 
Additionally, the Opportunity Zones changed from the original plan due to USAID requirements and 
REAULA had to gradually move out of Jalapa and Chiquimula – areas where training strategies such 
as the Masters in Leadership for Accompaniment Education were underway – because action was 
called for in the west. 
3.2. Unexpected opportunities, some taken advantage of and some not
Throughout the development of the REAULA project, several unexpected situations arose. The 
majority of these were very well taken advantage of, but for others, a lack of initiative kept REAULA 
from reaping benefits from them. 
Local ownership taking and project approval: Focusing on the strengthening of skills at the 
departmental level resulted in unexpected positive results. One of these was approval of the project 
at a local level, because some municipalities are now carrying out projects of their own volition. 
Getting the community to take ownership and empower itself was advantageous. This also had to 
do with the local authorities’ attitude with regards to the project and they were able to involve the 
community in the project, thereby encouraging the continuity of it. 
"(...) we have seen many initiatives in some places. And that is part of the process, the same people 
start to create. In Jalapa we saw how teacher organize groups and learning communities in order to 
develop mathematical game fairs, reading days. We saw how in San Marcos materials designed for 
them were reproduced, much like what was done with the project books in the local language, 
contextualized. Because they always validate work with the Ministry personnel. In Totonicapán we 
saw a very strong push by the departmental director to encourage professionalization programs 
with professional development for primary teachers and for the supervisors, too. Last year, 
Totonicapán had the largest decrease in student failure of first grade” (Education Official, USAID). 
An event that appears to have favored local action and initiative is the ministerial agreement 
submitted in December of 2012 about “…deconcentration of some of the Ministry’s programs at a 
departmental level…” (REAULA team member). This made more action possible, autonomous and 
quick in terms of local decision-making and thereby strengthened approval of the project in several 
municipalities. 
Universities’ interest in development: When work began with the Universities, the program ran 
into some unexpected technical deficiencies that had not been budgeted for. However, these were 
overcome thanks to the interest the universities demonstrated to improve and develop. Structures 
external to MOE were strengthened, allowing work to continue. Regarding this, the universities 
have seen advantages to continuous updating and they have become open to new ideas and 
possibilities. For example, during the implementation of the certificate program, during its first 
stage, concern arose from the universities to, 
33
"(...) finish strengthening the process and that seemed ideal to us because it hadn’t started with the 
school year. They took advantage of the opportunity and created a second stage, the teachers were 
very interested in being involved; and the universities have also had the flexibility to go along 
incorporated these new procedures” (REAULA team member).
Work with the National Council of Education (CNE): Perhaps one opportunity which was not 
taken advantage of was not working in depth with CNE. Although there is no direct mandate to 
work with that council, REAULA supported CNE in a specific request submitted by them regarding a 
long-term education plan framework. This relationship could have been taken advantage of into the 
future in terms of the volume of technical support REAULA could offer this institution. 
"The council required having the documents from the start and making a diagnosis of the situation 
(…) an analysis of performance at the educational level, and its level of meeting requirements for 
different areas established in the education reform document. So, the project was in a position to 
offer financial support by way of technical consultation and this was the perfect answer in response 
to the council’s request. But our project was not aimed at working with the council. (REAULA team 
member). 
3.3 Difficulties/changes that were faced and problem solving (or not)
During its implementation, the REAULA project faced a variety of difficulties and some changes. In 
the majority of cases, the project was able to find a way to adapt itself flexibly to unexpected 
scenarios. However, there were also instances for which there was no way to move forward. 
Very diverse and unexpected work dynamics: REAULA anticipated timeframes according to its 
own expectations and according to what it thought could be done given prior experiences and 
considering the characteristics and skills of the work teams with which it works. Despite being able 
to adapt itself to work dynamics in the majority of MOE departments, the project faced unexpected 
difficulties related to a difference in work speeds between MOE and the REAULA team. On occasion, 
these differences generated feelings of tension and frustration. 
"(...) it turns out that the contexts in which we set out to work are not as we expected them to be 
and this created some delays; not everything we wanted to achieve was possible" (MOE member, 
central level). 
Political instability: This problem robs the programs of continuity from one administration to the 
next. With changes in the government – at the ministerial and local levels – coordination systems 
created over time are weakened and in some cases, groups of professionals are relocated according 
to the government change. This results in the need for additional work just to recover that, which 
was done before. However, international cooperation, in general, and that of USAID, in particular, 
has achieved project continuity despite changes in the government and the Ministry. 
The continuous work with Universities, NGOs, and the Magisterio were key strategies to give 
stability to the REAULA Project. Also REAULA discovered a specific strategy – which is called 
electoral strategy – to face changes in administration, which are very common in Guatemala. 
"(...) one solution we have discovered is to involve campaign political figures in a strategy which we 
call electoral strategy (...). This strategy essentially serves us in the following way: to define the 
country’s priorities, attempt to convey them and to promote those we feel need continuity. And 
generally we have had a lot of success above all because it is a technical issue, it is a question of a 
technical order, not of a political order. Therefore, when technical questions make sense to 
34
technical people, there is nothing else to discuss beyond the form they will take” (Education Official, 
USAID). 
Having encountered this strategy does not exclude the possibility of delays and setbacks in the 
implementation of proposals. This is the case for the early childhood and primary education model 
which, although it has advanced quite a bit, 
"... an entire project was worked out with the ministry and there it stayed because, as I said, these 
were ministry agreements and with the change in government a much slower process in terms of 
implementation came about (…) in spite of having completed the entire initial process that required 
a community diagnostic and identification of teachers, this had already been done, there was a 
delay with the go ahead from the central government to do the hiring (...)" (REAULA team member). 
3.4 Learning from the experience
Establishing appropriate goals for collaborating work teams: Despite having been able to face 
issues with different work modalities and adapting successfully to them in most cases, REAULA’s 
work together with MOE head team of Bilingual intercultural Education (DIGEBI) faced more 
difficulties in achieving the desired results. For this reason, whenever a program is being planned, it 
might be useful to establish goals that are appropriate to particular characteristics of collaborating 
work teams, in order to avoid failure to achieve goals. 
"... last year (...) an agreement was reached to present the Minister with how to implement the 
bilingual intercultural education focus. This was presented to her, the Ministers and the DIGEBI 
people. More than three months went by saying yes, then no, then let’s go (…) it has been very 
difficult and assistance has been offered for bilingual education strategies, but it hasn’t been 
possible to move ahead with the bilingual education authorities and Ministry” (REAULA team 
member). 
Working at different levels: REAULA’s team has taken advantage of working at several levels and 
strengthening the skills of work groups that will remain despite changes in the central government. 
This learning experience coincides perfectly with a constantly changing context due to changes in 
government and administrations. It ought to be continued to explore for future projects. 
"(...) Sometimes, leaders are involved in so many processes that they lose some interest. There, you 
have to seek support from other social players, but these people pass sustainability off to the next 
level, and then to the central level and then to the departmental… the challenge and advantage is 
that we worked on so many different levels and therefore when there is a change, for example, in 
the vice-ministry, if the technical groups have been strengthened in those areas, those people are 
often the ones who continue to push the process along” (REAULA team member).
4. LOCAL ORGANIZATION MODEL FOR SUPPORT OF QUALITY CLASSROOMS
Since 2011, the REAULA Program has offered technical assistance to the Ministry of Education in 
the creation and implementation of a Quality Management Model, based on quality education, 
which cannot be administered on its own and, therefore, requires integration between policies 
defined by the government and that which occurs in classrooms and educational centers across the 
country. In order to implement the Quality Management Model in operative terms, a management 
structure that starts at the national level and extends to the district level will be needed to 
coordinate a strategy. This structure should have an upper level called the Quality Management 
Group, supported by the National Quality Education Executive Coordinator (in accordance with the 
35
indications of the Ministry of Education), which is in charge of processes related to the design, 
integration, monitoring and evaluation of educational quality. Additionally, it must have an 
executive coordinator at the departmental level and a district-level quality education unit. 
Following these tenets and structures, the onsite work of REAULA has sought to strengthen skills 
and a sense of educational responsibility at the local level. The strategy focuses on the 
municipalities and local authorities who take responsibility for their roles as safeguarders of the 
municipality’s educational quality. In order to instill a greater sense of responsibility, a variety of 
different people and institutions have worked, seeking to adopt certain tools defined by the 
program and providing motivation to move ahead with the proposed activities. 
In terms of a work model, REAULA has supported the development of technical skills at the local 
level, especially by strengthening the pedagogical accompaniment. In areas such as San Marcos, 
Chiquimula, Totonicapán, Quiché and Jalapa “accompaniment departmental plans” have been 
developed, with units responsible for quality education and educational supervisors. 
Concrete actions developed by the Program were designated to work directly with local 
organizations. Given that these organizations best know local realities, their knowledge and 
experience make support programs more effective. Work was organized using the following 
sequence of actions: an approach, a diagnostic, a social capital study and the identification and 
mapping of social actors and organizations that could help implement or see other means of 
support for those issues. 
Achievements and Positive Results 
The concept of quality learning opportunities. In reference to the concept of quality learning 
opportunities, consistent with the name Reforma Educativa en el Aula (Education Reform in the 
Classroom), there is a tremendous advantage with setting the quality of education on elements such 
as the design of classroom space, enabling all stakeholders to express at the present time (on a 
discursive level) that the key aspects in a reform focused on quality opportunities to learn refer to 
quality teaching that demonstrate practices which are appropriate, especially on the first years of 
school. Nevertheless, the concept of quality is still unclear for some stakeholders. Some of them 
believe it is connected to educational materials, others relate it to teacher training, but at least the 
term has made possible the change of focus from coverage to concern about more complex and 
urgent issues such as the provision of significant learning opportunities to read with understanding 
by all Guatemalan boys and girls. The concept of equity associated with quality also implies 
progress in terms of richer conceptualization. However, this level of understanding with regards to 
educational quality is still little understood by teachers and parents. For them, the concept of 
quality is defined by student attendance, the availability of a teacher, the assignment of homework 
and other tasks, the provision of school materials and a modest meal for boys and girls.
Change in local perspectives: REAULA’s main work group has recognized that at a local level the 
processes have been adopted: “They have contracted educators in order to be able to carry out the 
education processes. Therefore, I think that this is very interesting to see, at some point we can say 
that the initiatives, the interventions and the innovations that the program has conducted at a 
national level still have not completely taken hold or been made use of, but we can see that in one way 
or another Totonicapán and San Marcos are implementing the SINAE. Perhaps it’s not done in a 
formal way, but at a departmental level they are taking their own decisions that allow them to move 
that model forward and focus” (REAULA team member). 
36
Local level approval and involvement also seeks to instill demand for better schools and high￾quality classrooms. In parallel, this has translated into a change in perspective: from “we had 
nothing and if we have something now, that is good” to “we want everything we have to be of a certain 
quality.” In both of these cases, demand has changed dramatically, above all with the secondary 
students who are demanding high quality schools and teachers…” (REAULA Director).
Quality Education Committee: One initiative of REAULA that was valued by the departmental 
teams, is associated with the accompaniment and organization of the Departmental Quality 
Education Committee. This committee focuses on the debate and identification of local educational 
necessities in order to create a Municipal Education Plan. At the Departmental Head’s judgment, 
said Committee motivated technical teams at the departmental level, which led to implications in 
the definition of actions to improve planning and organizing of the activities associated with 
strengthening the quality of education. 
In Jalapa’s case, the Committee created the Pinotec Cultural Center opened and the Art School was 
created to offer young people opportunities to learn and play a variety of different musical 
instruments. Additionally, “Story Hour” was implemented. All of these actions have contributed to 
different local communities taking on certain principles that constitute quality education reform. As 
noted to a certain degree in a conversation with the Deputy Mayor of San Pedro Pinula, there has 
been a transformation in perception of the teaching and learning processes in the intermediate 
agencies (departmental authorities): 
“….these actions have resulted in the children’s education being so “blah, blah, blah…” where one 
listens and the other one copies, but rather the children build, do and participate. This is part of what 
we understand to be education reform in which the child no longer just listens and obeys but rather 
participates and builds” (Deputy Mayor of San Pedro Pinula).
Local coordination. Concrete actions developed by the Project were designated to work directly 
with local organizations. Given that these organizations best know local realities, their knowledge 
and experience make support programs more effective. Work was organized using the following 
sequence of actions: an approach, a diagnostic, a social capital study and the identification and 
mapping of social actors and organizations that could help implement or see other means of 
support for those issues. 
"(...) at a local level, when we began, what we did was, after initial approaches, a diagnostic, but this 
diagnostic was coordinated with local teams, hence there were leaders who said: “fine, ask over here, 
over there, these teams can come” and they oriented us. Therefore, a point comes where the same 
people are so interested in the issue that they help the process to become more sustainable. (…) when 
work is going to start in a municipality, the first thing we do is to approach the municipal authorities 
and the education authorities because we need their endorsement in able to work with their teams. I 
think that there is a lot of openness, a lot of openness at the central, departmental and level towards 
taking the actions” (Director of Quality Classrooms, REAULA). 
This coordination amongst the international cooperation organizations and local departments took 
place to divide up tasks. Consequently, it has allowed avoidance of “redundancy of work”. In the 
case of Totonicapán, departmental technical department planned meetings with UNICEF in which 
they discussed the actions that needed to be taken and the need to not duplicate efforts. A member 
of the Technical-Pedagogical Department tells his experience here:
“ (…) often times we duplicate efforts, but we must bring everyone together to come to an agreement 
and in a meeting like that, I will stay here and you stay there and there were no problems and we took 
advantage of the resources that each institution offered”. (Totonicapán Department).
37
Continuity of some initiatives: In some areas, the work carried out at the local level has had 
implications that are evident in conversations amongst some interviewed. Totonicapán, for 
instance, has made clear that they have kept many of the initiatives started by the REAULA work 
team. Even the short time, they have kept the Departmental Quality Education Committees. That is 
to say, that these committees continue to hold monthly meetings to define projects for the teams. 
They also note that community libraries continue to operate and the departmental team 
participates in the planning of activities for these organizations. Additionally, they mention that 
periodic work occurs between some teachers and the educational communities that benefited from 
the reading-writing degree: 
“(with the teachers) we said we would have at least 5 meetings throughout the year, (…) we chose a 
specific school and classroom to observe the innovative techniques of the teacher in that classroom, we 
met as a learning community and each teacher shared their experiences. We chose schools voluntarily 
and the teachers offered to share the techniques that have been using in their classrooms, weaving 
together the agenda we covered that day (…)” (CTA Totonicapán).
 
Investing in Human Resource (Diplomas): The Literacy and Leadership training certificate 
programs (diplomados) have been key in training local teams and triggering changes in the daily 
practices of participants. The University Certificate Programs are valuable because they offer 
profound learning experiences, led by experts in the field; in contrast to those programs done en 
masse and under pressure, in 2 or 3 days, which are not very effective. Additionally, the new 
learning and teaching methodologies –especially games—are looked upon favorably as they are 
attractive to teachers and produce positive learning results. Also, teachers have been encouraged to 
share their new knowledge and so much interest has been generated by them, that these trainings 
are held outside school hours. 
“(The Diplomas promote) research and take it to the next level, (…) provide the tools and look and 
when they go to the school they ask “What do you do in this case, for example?” I think that this is how 
learning takes place because listening to theoretical explanations has no basis in reality. As for the 
professional practice, over 6 months it was clear that the person who was teaching this course was 
truly experienced and really knew what they were talking about” (Member of Jalapa Department).
In some cases, teachers were visited and mentored by university facilitators so as to be able to 
incorporate new teaching practices in reading and writing. This was definitely appreciated by the 
teachers, in spite of the fact that these were isolated cases: 
“It is very important that those in charge of the training of teachers know how to motivate them (…) to 
research and go further, (...) to provide the tools and when visiting the schools ask “what do you do in 
cases like this one, for instance?” I think that this is the way to learn because theory has no purpose 
unless during the 6 months of professional internship you can see that the expert delivering the course 
has experience and really knows the subject”. (Authority of Technical Pedagogical Department) 
The teachers observed in Jalapa and Totonicapán, and who had received coaching from the 
universities where they were studying the training certificate program in reading and writing 
(Panamerican University, and Rafael Landívar University) affirmed that having been visited in their 
classes had been immensely helpful to understand deeply and in transferable ways the orientations 
they had received in their courses. They also indicated that their level of assurance in the 
implementation of new pedagogical practices had increased. Unfortunately, and for reasons not 
explained, the training certificate program was not offered in the Quiché Department. 
Lack of progress and Pending Challenges
38
Impact into schools and classrooms. One of the main challenges that remain is the need to 
strengthen the impact of MOE policies at the school and classroom level. REAULA involves several 
initiatives that need to be tied up together in a more strategic way in order to produce the aimed 
impact at the local level and assure sustainability. Some meaningful points to consider are: 
- Training courses and expanding to all. An important number of Supervisors, CTAs, and teachers 
have participated in training courses; however, they had no clear instructions about their tasks and 
responsibilities after the courses. The certificates (diplomados) were not linked to further steps in 
order to assure that what is learned is put into practice and shared with other colleagues. Hence, in 
almost all schools visited those teachers who attended the training courses did not transfer their 
new knowledge to the rest of the school staff. As a School Principal explains referring to a school￾teacher that attended a Literacy certificate, “I have not asked her to share what she learned in the 
master’s course because I feel that that should come from her. The reason she has not shared is 
because no space has been created for it.
This situation was particularly confusing and contradictory for Supervisors and CTAs; while they 
expected that they would be soon fired because of the new SINAE model, they were attending a 
Certificate Program in Leadership2, and also many where reassigned to other municipalities. 
- Follow up and continuity in the process. In addition, programs as the training certificates 
programs and SINAE pilots were not followed up after finishing; subsequently, REAULAs training 
initiatives can be easily diluted, putting at risk its future sustainability. This is also increased when 
the local institutions have scant participation in the design of the reform (see 1.1.). As a member of 
the Quiché Department explains keenly: 
“I think that something like this is important or a second round or maybe that REAULA’s presence be 
less constant in the schools, but that there always be a closeness with the directors so that they don’t 
feel like REAULA left and the ideas left along with it, but rather be aware of all that REAULA left 
behind and that the connection still exists, maybe even an evaluation… because in Quiche and at a 
national level, there have been large, good projects and when the project ended, the idea ended and 
the whole thing died. Then, along came another project with good ideas, and it is like a vicious circle. 
A project ends, everything ends. (…) If we knew about the intervention, we could learn important 
things to help extend them to other municipalities and we could tell the CTA to allow us to be in charge 
of follow up” (Quiché Department).
- Teaching practices: The assessment team only observed 3 out of 14 classes where teachers do 
not dictate their lessons from the front of the class all the time or who did not write texts on the 
board for children to copy. Quite the opposite, in these classes, teachers used more active and 
participatory strategies. In many classrooms we saw walls with texts written by the children, where 
sounds were being studied in context and connected to other texts meaningfully. Unfortunately, 
these cases were the exception, not the rule. 
- Teachers’ conceptual confusions. A rich conceptualization of reading appears partially in some 
documents prepared or distributed by REAULA/USAID. An example of this is on the document 
“Modelo de la EIB”, “Aprendizaje de la lecto-escritura” (especially pages 19, 20, 29, 30, 31). There, 
Linan-Thompson’s presentations stress the importance of understanding and offer methodological 
strategies to develop these aspects in the classroom. However, the emphasis given in these 
documents and proposals to the development of decoding strategies and related phonological 
awareness ends up confusing teachers. Teachers believe that boys and girls must be able to identify 
 
2
This situation has been aggravated as there has been staff reassignment in the whole country, so several of 
the people who were trained were not been able to work in the departments where implementation was 
taking place. For example, in Quiché almost all the CTAs that were trained were later moved to other 
department.
39
all phonemes and graphemes in the linguistic code, and decode quickly, and then, only after 
children achieve these “basic skills”, teachers can start teaching comprehension skills. For example, 
one first-grade teacher –who teaches in K’iche- says: “The flip chart books (rotafolio) is very useful 
and the Violet book is, too, because the letters I have to teach are presented in an orderly way in them. 
The first-grade book Kemon ch’ab’ai is not useful because students must learn to read first; in 
September I intend to show this book to the students to see if they can read it”. The teacher is 
convinced that first she must teach the letters and at the end of the year, time permitting, develop 
understanding skills with complete texts, such as the big books. 
Learning to decode and developing phonological awareness are necessary skills but they do not by 
themselves define the reading act. Learning to read is a process where children from very early 
stages activate their ability to look for meaning in their environment, i.e. understand the world. In 
the REAULA proposal, and more importantly, during its implementation in classes, that 
introduction to reading interesting and meaningful texts is usually confused with stressing only 
phonological awareness skills and knowledge of the alphabet. This involves a linear and fragmented 
notion of the process of learning, reducing the first stage of reading and writing to learning sounds 
and letters, leaving aside the understanding of texts, enjoying the communicative action of reading, 
and producing meaningful connections. 
Similarly, a principal in a school stated that: as a concession she decided that students should first 
learn in Spanish and then have the same class taught in K’iche: “What I do is that, if I teach in 
Spanish, tomorrow I’ll do it in K’iche’ and in Spanish.” Unfortunately this misinterpretation of 
guidelines provided in classes has principals and teachers engage in a pre-teach, re-teach model 
that has proven to be ineffective. 
Agreements and coordination: According to accounts, the committees’ work was hindered by 
difficulties with coordination. This was particularly true when it came to institutional commitment, 
indicating that some actors’ participation was not consistent because there was no clear mandate 
indicating the prioritization of these activities: 
“(…) I would have gone directly to the authorities and suggested and told them (…) let’s make an 
agreement, a commitment between us. Because when it is time to make a commitment, the mayor 
doesn’t show up, the committee head doesn’t show up. This is because they have other priorities, the 
CTAs have meetings with the Ministry and they don’t show up, they delegate to another person. A 
direct commitment needs to have been made from the start”. He explains that if there is a meeting and 
at the same time one of the president’s social projects comes up, “everyone goes to that meeting”. 
There is “no coordination” amongst the activities, they have other priorities “even though we plan it 
well in advance” (NGO team member).
Different implementation according to the type of municipality and management skills of the 
Mayors: Although there have been several achievements, according to the Quality Education 
Committee’s original plan, prioritized concrete actions were set to begin in municipalities in 2013, 
according to the needs and resources available, however not every municipality was able to define 
the proposed actions. According to the interviewed, this problem is due to great disparity in terms 
of support, financing, commitment and participation, according to the management skills of the 
mayors in each area: 
“…there are many differences in terms of support, financing, level of commitment and participation 
according to each mayor. This is because there is no clear direction and it is not regulated. This means 
that some municipalities have more resources due to tax collection. A financial support system must be 
established to continue supporting the municipalities in their work…” (NGO team member).
40
Because priorities of each authority in this area are not always concordant with the goals of the 
project and work logistics are also different amongst them, it is necessary to define different 
implementation strategies according to the type of municipality,: 
"(…) I think that, for example at a local level, one thing that has to be made very clear is that even 
when it you implement, or you are planning to implement the same interventions, the work is very 
different from one municipality to the next; the population’s characteristics, the authorities’ priorities, 
the leader’s coordination strategy make the work and the results in one case very different from 
another. (REAULA team member) 
Misunderstanding of the impact (information): Given the results of this evaluation, it is possible 
to confirm that there is still a lot of ignorance on the part of several person regarding the strategies 
and results of the work developed by REAULA in the area of quality classrooms. Specifically, people 
associated with the business sector suggest that it might be necessary for the National Education 
Council to distribute more information at the local level regarding quality classrooms. This would 
make it possible for a variety of agents related to the education sector to come to a deeper 
understanding of the advances in this area: 
“(…) Those things (quality classrooms) should also be brought to the attention of the National 
Education Council (NEC) because issues regarding secondary education have been raised at the 
council. (…) the professionalization of teachers that worked with the NEC, all of the support lent to 
training quality teachers, the importance of developing skills, all of that, has been distributed, but 
quality classrooms, no, I am not familiar with that…(NGO team member). 
5. Opportunity Zones
REAULA efforts on the promotion of equitable access to quality education, were held in various 
regions of the country, called "opportunity zones". In these geographic areas the project support the 
Ministry of Education in teacher training, implementation of Intercultural Bilingual Education 
model, evaluation and applied research, development and validation of educational materials, and 
promotion of "reading-friendly cities". The Education Departmental DIDEDUC, was responsible of 
proposing and implementing policies, plans, programs, projects and activities of the Ministry of 
Education in the departments, building the departmental education agendas, planning, organizing, 
and supervising technical and administrative activities and teachers; and applying guidelines 
dictated by DIGEBI educational support and DIGECADE. 
The so-called “Opportunity Zones” included six departments: Jalapa, Chiquimula, Quiché, 
Totonicapán, Sololá and San Marcos, considering the municipalities of San Pedro Jocopilas, Joyabaj, 
San Pedro Pinula, Jocotán, Chiquimula, Monjas, San Luis Jilotepeque, Jalapa, Concepción Tutuapa, 
Santa María Chiquimula, Santa Lucía la Reforma, Momostenango, Chiquimula, Totonicapán, San 
Bartolo Aguas Calientes, Concepción Chiquirichapa, Quetzaltenango.The work of REAULA was 
focused in four specific municipalities (Jocopán, San Pedro Pinula, Joyobaj, San Pedro Jocopilas) 
from the Quiché, Chiquimula and Jalapa departments. 
In these geographical areas, REAULA support MOE in the training of teachers, implementation of 
the Intercultural Bilingual Education model, evaluation and applied research, development and 
validation of educational materials, development of campaigns for awareness and promotion of 
“reading friendly municipalities” material, amongst others. Once a communication diagnostic was 
conducted, the need to promote an interchange of information and communication regarding 
quality education was defined. This is to include community members within the municipality so 
that the educational quality of the classroom will increase by way of an interchange of information 
and community dialogue. 
41
Factors for a Successful Implementation
REAULA Holistic Approach. The strategy, according to certain interviewed, is useful for 
developing a modality that covers different work areas in a focused way: human resource 
preparation, follow-ups on practices – observing the teacher at work, making the opportunity for 
professional growth possible through teaching courses made available via e-learning, the 
development of leadership skills amongst departmental management, including CTAs and direct 
work with educational communities, by way of work with parents.
“it is a strategy that allows education to be improved at different points and educational levels, in a 
coordinated way, not just the departmental director, but also the Mayor, in an integrated way, so that 
the two institutions don’t appear to be separated” (Ex-member of Ministry of Education). 
Teacher Monitoring. Work in the Opportunity Zones also allowed direct monitoring of the 
teachers. This has been useful in complementing the supervisors’ work, who traditionally were in 
charge of about 150 teachers. The union network that was formed with the accompaniment plan 
translated into more direct contact with the schools, allowing for more efficient supervision. 
"(…) In that sense, the Magisterio is a thousand times more effective because it has a network that 
extends from the national level to the department, from the municipality to the schools…” (REAULA 
Director). 
Small scale first (testing strategies) According to the Ministry of Education, designs like 
Opportunity Zones have the strength to try out programs, define the necessary adjustments and 
then expand the programs. Additionally, at the governmental level, it is believed that by way of 
strategies such as these, fewer resources are spent and in the event that goals are met, the Ministry 
of Education has sufficient background to replicate them on a grand scale. 
Additionally, from the point of view of proposal efficiency, it is believed that by way of these types 
of initiatives it is possible to develop contextualized interventions that effectively meet the 
townspeople’s needs:
“…working in a particular place allows for a more contextualized approach to take place that is based 
on the experience of a specific place”. (REAULA team member).
Difficulties and Limitations
Too narrow. Despite the fact that the strategy that was used appears to be the only way to test a 
program without investing too many resources, there is consensus among interviewees that in this 
case the strategy used was too narrowly focused. Specifically, the work is criticized by MOE for 
having been carried out in only a few municipalities and in only a few schools, limiting the 
possibilities to recognize its achievements and extent. From this point of view, the strategy utilized 
should have been oriented towards a progressively widening set of cases. 
“I think that maybe it should be conducted in stages. We could begin here and if worked out we could 
move into two new areas and take on at least all of the schools in one specific area so that when the 
time comes to evaluate we can see the diversity. But, again, the more it is expanded, the more 
resources we need. As for this, which is so focused, if everyone is there on top of it waiting for the 
results, they are going to have to be more positive. So, we have to evaluate whether or not at the 
moment of expansion that tension dissolves or if it will still have the same results. It’s that same pilot 
or no pilot discussion (…)” (Member of the Ministry of Education).
42
 
Time. The REAULA team recognizes that the interventions carried out in different municipalities 
for Opportunity Zones varied – following a strategy of development across sectors –according to 
the needs of each community. Because of this, the evaluation of the work has made evident that 
more time and resources are required in order to see the true extent of the project’s impact.
Consistent with the lack of time, the project does not have enough information to conclude at this 
moment what were the factors that contributed more or to a less successful implementation. 
"(...) having so many different areas using different strategies is something that needs to be thought 
over, how far can it be extended; not because it hasn’t had results, I think that achievements have 
resulted, but the processes are longer, each area has different characteristics, the needs of each 
community are different and require, I would say, more time and maybe more resources so that in the 
end you might be able to see results” (Member of REAULA team) 
Strengthen institutionalism at the departmental level: Regarding challenges, once again, the 
need to strengthen institutionalism at the departmental level is pointed out. Regarding this, 
REAULA’s director thinks that the decentralization model required in order to apply the 
Opportunity Zones model is in conflict with the municipalities’ attributions which are limited in 
their ability to hire teachers, a restriction which directly limits their ability to improve the quality of 
education in the establishments. 
"(...) we are all learning how to work with municipalities (…) The law should allow the municipalities 
to take charge of education, but this has not happened. This reveals that the teachers have the most 
powerful union in the country and that the municipality cannot hire nor fire teachers; teachers are 
forced upon the municipality” (Director, REAULA).
Additionally, the implementation and results of the Opportunity Zones have been subject to the 
abilities and interests of the mayors. The current institutionalism does not insure the possibility of 
change unless the mayor of his own volition wants to make changes in the educational sector. 
V. RECOMMENDATIONS
MOE officials and local practitioners share a high level of enthusiasm for the work that REAULA is 
carrying out in Guatemala. This support needs to be capitalized on and channeled in coherent, well￾operationalized ways in order to bear the fruits intended. Some good steps have been taken; they 
can serve as the basis for refining lessons learned. With this purpose in mind we offer 
recommendations that we hope will strengthen current work in some cases, and will redirect it in 
others. 
EMPOWER THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AS LEADERS OF THE REFORM. The program 
must increase and add new strategies to empower the Ministry of Education as the leader of the 
education reform. Ex Ministry officials expressed that REAULA team developed tasks, such as 
production of manuals, curriculum material, and assessment tools that made a meaningful 
contribution. Although these tasks were developed together with MOE officials, they argue that 
REAULA team carried out a central role, at the expense of building capacity in the (national) 
Ministry team. On this matter, it is important that the REAULA team provides technical assistance 
and training for the Ministry staff, but without supplying staff that perform tasks or bring forth 
products that are responsibility of the Ministry. This is a crucial point in order to install technical 
capacities, strengthen government members and promote national experts in education. Even 
though this path may imply a delay in the achievement of goals and less productivity on the 
43
fulfillment of concrete objectives, it establishes a notion of international cooperation that prioritizes 
by giving support “from the inside”. 
STRENGHTEN PARTICIPATIVE PROCESSES. The recommendation is to continue with a 
participative-communicative work and to move forward with different institutions and 
stakeholders, as in SINAFORHE. However, various University, NGO and local Ministry staff members 
point out that the overall reform agenda has involved limited debate and participation. Special 
attention must be given to the development of specific products (planning, model proposal) in 
order to include different stakeholders from the beginning instead of presenting a ready-made 
product. This may imply more time, but to achieve effective international cooperation it is 
fundamental to lead, but also move together with the stakeholders and their processes. In addition, 
we particularly recommend collecting the “voice” of local authorities, principals and teachers, in 
order to understand their visions about school quality and change, identify their concerns, and 
collect ideas and concrete propositions; and therefore work on the basis of a more contextualized 
and inclusive reform agenda. 
CONCEPTUALIZING SCHOOL QUALITY. A good, well-operationalized definition of quality 
education needs to be agreed upon and promoted in order to have all reform aspects pointing in the 
same direction and contributing to the same vision. The poster of “aulas de calidad” is a meaningful 
first step in this direction, yet further public debate and agreements are required, addressing a 
holistic and profound understanding of learning and teaching interactions. Because we live in a 
vertiginously changing world the goals of quality education will have to be based on the 
development of key core understandings, potent literacy skills, transferable knowledge, and the 
ability to learn how to learn (see, for example, Pellegrino & Hilton, 2012.3) Similarly, notions of 
academic rigor, high expectations for all students, the need to engage them in quality interactions, 
evidentiary thinking and metacognitive skills would be emphasized. This definition would not only 
serve a possible revised continuation of REAULA, but would inform other future tasks, as may be 
for example, work in secondary schooling. 
LOCAL ORGANIZATIONAL MODEL TO SUPPORT QUALITY CLASSROOMS. 
 SINAE. Local staff strongly values the SINAE model; it is appreciated as an essential element 
for achieving classroom reform. However MOE did not provide the standard conditions for 
its implementation, including sufficient Management and Technical Consultants for 
coaching all schools. In fact, CTAs had to (partially) implement the model as they visited 
schools. For further interventions, it is necessary for REAULA to design an adjusted plan 
according to the available conditions and human resources this model counts with. Trained 
current staff can work in this direction; however new professionals must be included in 
order to provide schools with the technical support required. We also suggest establishing 
institutional commitments and agreements with MOE that guarantee the conditions for 
effective implementation, as the number of consultants per school. 
 CERTIFICATION AND MASTER DEGREES. The idea of developing local capacity through 
certificates is excellent, and it is one that transcends the duration of any project or program 
because once deep capacity is developed, it can be recreated and used across diverse 
contexts. That is precisely the goal of any educational enterprise. With a few modifications 
the certificate can begin to show powerful impact. The recommendation is to continue 
granting scholarships for certification and postgraduate studies. Yet, currently only one or 
 
3
Pellegrino, J. and Hilton, M. (Eds.) (2012). Education for life and work. Developing transferable knowledge and 
skills in the 21st century. Washington, DC: National Research Council of the National Academies.
44
two teachers per school have participated, with little impact on the whole school. We 
therefore recommend training local leaders who then continue to develop workshops for 
training principles who then lead the pedagogical model in their own schools. A critical 
mass of early implementers in order to trigger significant change at a site. Furthermore, if a 
whole school begins to shift in the right pedagogical direction, it can serve as observational 
sites for others to learn new skills, to be inspired, and to reflect and problematize practice. 
It is expected that this will establish a comprehensive, network-based professional 
development model that is sustainable over time. 
Additionally, a model of professional training needs to be predicated through a 
coherent portfolio of strategies that include workshops, coaching, demonstrations, 
reading circles, video reflections, and other Professional Learning Community 
opportunities. In this way capacity will be built at the intermediate level of 
organizations, capacity that because it was theoretical, principled, and coherent in 
practice, can keep reinventing its work as the contexts and organizations change. 
The central point it to design a training model that expands over time, impacting whole 
schools (not only preprimary and first year teachers, individually), and articulated with 
other reform initiatives. 
 MUNICIPALITIES: The reform achievements involve great local disparity in terms 
of support, financing, commitment and participation, that response to the management 
skills of the mayors in each municipality. It is necessary to define different implementation 
strategies according to the type of municipality, because it is clear that the priorities of each 
authority in this area are not always concordant with the goals of the project and work 
logistics are also different amongst them. 
SINAFORHE. REAULA´s contribution to this network is one of its most well-recognized 
achievements, valued widely by different actors interviewed. It is important to continue the work of 
SINAFORHE and move forward on key matters such as policies in the systems of admission and 
selection of students (future teachers), teaching career progression (carrera docente), teacher 
evaluation, specialization on secondary-level education, among others. 
SINACE MODEL. This system of Accreditation and Certification made progress in the design and 
installment of the model, yet it has a restricted impact due to legal restrictions in order to define 
consequences for non-accreditation and/or non-certification. The recommendation is to analyze 
legal (or alternative) options for giving viability of the model. It is also recommended to 
include quality entry requirements for the creation of new institutions. 
EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION REFORM. Although there is wide recognition of the
program’s efforts at the institutional level, efforts, which have sought to contribute by way of 
technical consultation of the early childhood curriculum’s implementation and the definition of the 
model and its implementation and evaluation, it is necessary to analyze the progress achieved in 
the pilot schemes developed for pre-school education, which would allow MOE to spread the impact 
of the program in the community. It would also make possible to identify the positive local 
practices, which could be applied to other areas, and to identify the best work strategies for the 
departmental agents. Furthermore, it is believed that a communicational strategy ought to be 
created that will allow for more knowledge to be shared amongst influential players in the area of 
early childhood education and the educational communities. The data and feedback produced in the 
pilots and generated in this exchange should give a clear and specific account of advances along 
these lines, specifically regarding the acts developed by this program in particular. 
45
SECONDARY EDUCATION. The contributions to the transformations in Guatemala’s Secondary 
Education System are associated with the definition of basic life needs, the development and 
implementation of an evaluation system, the application of CNB at the secondary school level and 
the organization of discussions regarding these issues. However this results the development of the 
reforms is still reduced. In this respect, we suggest that would be quite valuable to MOE to receive 
support to create a system of Education for Work and Labor-Technical Training. This reform 
should be accompanied by alliances with the private sector; connections that will make it possible 
to meet the needs of the world of production and at the same time strengthen education by way of 
internships in companies. In this process REAULA could support the articulation between agents. 
 
In order to increase the quality and coherence of professional technical education and to strengthen 
education permanently, mechanisms should be created that connect educational experiences for 
professionals, creating itineraries and professional modules that will help people move from one 
system to another (for both work and education). These should be in addition to evaluation 
processes and identification of skills for each person. The creation of a “National Qualification and 
Competencies System” might be considered, responsible for bringing together all of the different 
options for professional education in a National Catalogue of Professional Qualifications. In order to 
identify and update the need for qualifications and required training, collaboration and 
consultation processes should be established with different sectors and social actors, like for 
example, executive boards (for the private area). This System could answer to the Ministry of 
Education in collaboration with another ministry that works with labor issues, like the Ministry of 
Labor or Economy. During said collaboration qualifications should be identified in addition to 
insuring the quality of educational programs (formal and informal), certifying the achievement of 
competencies and tending to the articulation of different training opportunities in the country. 
BILINGUAL INTERCULTURAL EDUCATION. 
During interviews and school visits, there was great interest in and motivation for implementing 
Intercultural Bilingual Education programs. Didactic materials that MOE and REAULA had designed 
and distributed in several Mayan languages were also appreciated. However, despite this high level 
of interest and formal agreements, progress in practice has been very weak. 
 
For this reason, we think it is important to design and offer certificate programs for teaching and 
learning in Mayan languages. If certificate programs continue to be offered exclusively in Spanish, 
including contexts encouraged by EBI, the message that is sent is not as strong as if the certificate 
programs were offered in the indigenous languages for teaching all CNB content, at least during the 
first years. These continuing education opportunities should include teaching regarding second 
language learning. Additionally, the following should be considered: making pedagogical, didactical 
documents to accompany courses, certificate programs and classroom accompaniment programs. 
These didactic guides or manuals should be up to date and offer pertinent methodological 
strategies in line with current sociocultural and linguistic considerations. These materials should be 
generative in nature and should help the teachers’ transfer didactic understanding to their 
classroom practices in a reflective way. Put more emphasis on all documents: posters, flyers, 
teacher continuing education and the importance of teaching in the children’s native language and 
in the context of their culture and community if you want to achieve quality in their learning. 
Include recommendations about the relevance of teaching Spanish with second language learning 
strategies. 
46
THEORETICAL-PEDAGOGICAL FOCUS4. 
Review, enrich and offer more coherence amongst theoretical/practical documents that are created 
in accordance with EBI and reading-writing skills. As evidenced, teachers have conceptual 
confusions, and particularly difficulties understanding and making compatible phonological 
awareness skills and knowledge of the alphabet, with the development of reading comprehension 
and writing (and oral) expression. Similarly, teachers conceptually disconnect children’s learning of 
reading and writing in Spanish and in their native language, as two liner and sequential processes. 
The presence of documents like “Modelo Nacional de Educación Bilingüe Intercultural enfocado en 
la Lectoescritura para Preprimaria hasta Tercer Grado de Primaria, Basado en Estándares” (USAID, 
2013) could end up being an important part of EBI policies and programs in the country. 
Nonetheless, the first part of the document develops a socio-constructivist paradigm regarding EBI, 
and later on the document uses a recently released behaviorist based product founded on “reading 
maturity” ideas. This important document should be reviewed and discussed with Guatemalan 
specialists (MOE, NGOs specializing in EBI) before it is socialized. 
SCHOOLS FOR PARENTS. Maintain and expand Schools for Parents. Educating the community, 
helping them see the value of new practices, translates into support for and enrichment of school 
efforts. As was observed during the visit to the AKEBI program, when illiterate adults are invited to 
use their oral skills to support their children or grandchildren’s learning through critical 
questioning, they advance the literacy development of their children and themselves. In the 
observed classes, books that children read in class and could take home were read to adults and 
they learned how to ask “good” questions in reference to the reading. In this way adults were not 
only motivated to engage in academic activities at home, but they also learned what to expect from 
school. If these classes are not offered, parents just demand that their children be assigned as 
homework the same mind-numbing exercises they themselves were asked to carry out once upon a 
time to no benefit. 
TEXTS AND MATERIALS. This contribution is highly valued by experts and teachers. This task, 
however, requires further pedagogical suggestions for using the materials in classes in productive 
ways. Perhaps the Educational Departments of Quality committees could be channel for 
communicating a vision of how to maximize impact of texts when in use. 
ZONES OF OPPORTUNITY. Even though the strategy developed covers different work areas 
(human resource preparation, practices – observing the teacher at work-, develop of leadership 
skills and direct work with educational communities), for different actors the strategy was too 
narrowly focused. Specifically, the work is criticized for having been carried out in only a few 
municipalities and in only a few schools. Although the implementation team is not responsible of 
this decision, for further projects it is necessary to develop a pilot model that makes replicable the 
experience in all the country. An experimental testing system, in which the chosen groups could 
represent the variability and diversity of the country, would allow expanding and replicating the 
strategies. Another problem is that the current institutionalism does not insure the possibility of 
change unless the mayor wants it of his own volition. It is necessary to complement efforts in 
educational area with support of the development of new policies aimed at institutional 
strengthening the departmental level. 
 
4
See appendix nº 5 for successful models in other countries.
47
TIME FOR CHANGE. We would like to recommend that a second cycle of the program be conducted 
for the following years. Although the impact in classrooms has been focalized, we think that the 
seeds for change have been planted. A second application of classroom reform, especially focused on 
expanding SINAE model and teacher training, is required for improving quality at the school level. 
The building of capacity at intermediate and local sectors of the educational system is a key strategy 
for supporting institutions to deliver effective practices so that students can indeed reach their 
fullest potential. In order to achieve this goal REAULA´s team should not only be responsible for 
designing changes at the local level, but also work hand in hand with MOE officials, departments 
and municipalities in the implementation and assessment of the reform. In other words, carrying 
out the reform strategies at the local level is crucial for achieving real change, thus REAULA should 
participate and support this complex process. A good design can fail because of unpredicted events 
and a weak implementation. Therefore, an effective reform requires close monitoring, in order to 
reflect upon the initial design, and adjust and redirect strategies during the process, to attain the 
desired reform at the classroom level.
48
 VI. ANNEXES . 
49
ANNEX Nº1: DOCUMENTS ANALYZED 
1. REAULA, “Estructura de Análisis y Funciones”, Guatemala, Febrero 2012
2. REAULA, “Modelo Conceptual la Calidad Educativa”, Guatemala, Diciembre 2011
3. REAULA, “Modelo de Gestión la Calidad Educativa ”, Guatemala, Julio 2012
4. REAULA, “ODA para Guatemala ”, Guatemala, Junio 2009
5. REAULA, “Análisis de ODA”, Guatemala, Mayo 2013
6. REAULA, “Educación Inicial y Pre-primaria, síntesis evidencia internacional”, 
Guatemala, Marzo 2011 
7. REAULA, “Evaluación modelo educación inicial y preprimaria”, Guatemala, 
Noviembre 2012 
8. Modelo de educación inicial y preprimaria”, Guatemala, Octubre 2011
9. REAULA, “Propuesta del diseño de validación del modelo de educación inicial y 
preprimaria”, Guatemala, Septiembre 2011 
10. REAULA, “Diseño del estudio sobre el estado actual del nivel medio en Guatemala”, 
Guatemala, Marzo 2011 
11. REAULA, “Estrategia discusión Nivel Medio”, Guatemala, Febrero 2013
12. REAULA, “Ruta crítica elaboración propuesta de la reforma educación media en 
Guatemala”, Guatemala, Febrero 2011
13. REAULA, “Asistencia técnica en zonas de oportunidad”, Guatemala, Julio 2012
14. REAULA, “Estrategia relacional reforma educativa”, Guatemala
15. REAULA, “Informe actividades realizadas en zonas de oportunidad”, Guatemala 
16. REAULA, “Informe intervenciones zonas de oportunidad”, Guatemala, Septiembre 
2010
17. REAULA, “Informe resultados evaluación docentes diplomado Jalapa”, Guatemala, 
Marzo 2013 
18. REAULA, “Matriz Intervenciones zonas oportunidad”, Guatemala, 2012
19. REAULA, “Reportes de Estudio de Linea Base”, Guatemala, Octubre 2010
20. REAULA, “Resultados de la prueba de matemática”, Guatemala, 2010
21. REAULA, “Resultados de lectura segundo y tercero”, Guatemala, 2010
22. REAULA, “Resultados de pruebas de lectura”, Guatemala, Julio 2010 
23. REAULA, “Comunidades de aprendizaje_2011
24. REAULA, “Datos Información del recurso humano formado”, Guatemala, 2013
25. REAULA, “Base de Datos Desempeño en lectura y matemáticas estudiantes primero, 
segundo y tercer grado”, 2012
26 Equity in Education in Guatemala. 2006 
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/GUATEMALAINSPANISHEXT/Resources/500796-
1166830633691/6.EmilioPorta.pdf
27 Sistema Nacional de Indicadores Educativos: MINEDUC Guatemala 
28 PNUD, Informe sobre Desarrollo Humano, 2011, 
http://hdr.undp.org/es/informes/mundial/idh2013/
50
ANNEX Nº2: INTERVIEWEES 
Institution Position
USAID Educational Officer
Members of the 
professional REAULA 
team
Director
Technical Vice-director
Administrative Vice-director 
Coordinator of Institutional Strengthening
Coordinator of Quality Classrooms
Teacher National 
Assembly
Representative from the Teacher National Assembly in the 
National Education Council(CNE)
High Office, Ministry of 
Education
Education Minister
Technical Vice Minister
Vice Minister of Design and Control of Educational Quality
Vice Minister de of Bilingual Intercultural Education
Local Ministry of 
Education (MOE)
Director of the Education Department, Totonicapán
Chief of the Technical Pedagogical Department, Totonicapán
Vice-director, Department of Education, Quiché
Education Department Director, San Marcos
Chief of the Department for Ensuring Quality in Bilingual 
Intercultural Education, San Marcos
Chief of the Technical Pedagogical Department, Jalapa
51
Institution Position
MOE Supervisors
Technical Administrative Coordinator (CTA), Santa María 
Chiquimula, Totonicapán
CTA Totonicapán, Totonicapán
CTA San Bartolo Aguas Calientes, Totonicapán
CTA Momostenango, Totonicapán
CTA San Pedro de Jocopilas, Quiché
Members of 
nongovernmental 
organizations
PRODESSA
Coordinator for implementation, CDRO
Head of AKEBI
Representatives “la Gran 
Campaña por la 
Educación”
Member CNE, Episcopalian Conference, International and 
National Cooperation Consultant from MOE
President of the Social Research and Studies Association (ASIES)
Business People for
Education
Director of Business People for Education and compliment of 
CACIF for the National Education Council CNE
Representatives “Grupo 
Promotor de la 
Educación”
Director of USAID/HEPP
Coordinator of Education ASIES
Político de la Adm. Otto 
Pérez
Vice-Director of Bilingual Intercultural Educational Development, 
DIGEBI
Local Authorities 
Ex. Vice-Mayor San Pedro Pinula, Jalapa
Mayor, Momostenango, Totonicapán
Mayor, San Bartolo Aguas Calientes, Totonicapán
Ex members of MOE
Ex Vice Minister of Design and Assessment of Quality Education
Ex director of DIGECADE
Universities 
Head of Universidad del Valle de Guatemala
Director of Education Universidad Rafael Landívar
52
Institution Position
Representative CNE de la Universidad del Valle de Guatemala
Director, Secondary School Teacher Training Program EFPEM
Dean Faculty of Education U. Panamericana
Heads of the Ministry of 
Education Department 
level.
Director, General Accreditation Department (DIGEACE)
Director, General Curriculum Department (DIGECUR)
Director, General Bilingual Education Department (DIGEBI)
Vice-Director of Curriculum Development for indigenous 
population DIGEBI
Director, General Educational Development Department 
(DIGECADE)
Director, General Department for Quality Monitoring and
Assessment (DIGEMOCA)
Director, General Department for Educational Evaluation and 
Research DIGEDUCA
Assistant Director of Educational Tools DIGEDUCA
DICOMS Consultant 
General Director for Extracurricular Education DIGEEX
53
ANNEX Nº3 
Departments and Municipalities visited 
Department Municipality Rural Urban
Jalapa
Jalapa 2 0
San Pedro Pinula 1 1
Totonicapán
Totonicapán 1 1
Momostenango 1 0
Quiché
Joyabaj 1 1
San Pedro Jocopilas 1 1
Total School 7 4
Educational establishments visited 
Department Municipality School
Nº of 
classrooms 
observed
Jalapa
Aldea el 
Chaguite, 
Municipio de 
Jalapa.
Escuela Oficial 
Rural Mixta, El 
Chaguite.
Rural
1
Municipio de San 
pedro Pinula.
Escuela Oficial 
Urbana Mixta, 
San Pedro Pinula. Urbana
2
Aldea San María 
Xalapan, 
Municipio de 
Jalapa.
Escuela Oficial 
Rural Mixta La 
Monaña.
Rural
1
54
Aldea 
Guisiltepeque del 
Municipio de San 
pedro Pinula.
Escuela Oficial 
Rural Mixta 
Guisiltepeque.
Rural
Reading 
Activity with 
the entire 
school
Totonicapán
Municipio de 
Totonicapán.
Escuela Oficial 
Urbana Mixta de 
Párvulos “Celia 
Dalila de León". Urbana
1
Municipio de 
Momostenango.
Escuela Oficial 
Rural Mixta, 
Paraje Panictacaj, Rural
1
Aldea Nimasac, 
del Municipio de 
Totonicapán.
Escuela Oficial 
Rural Mixta 
Nimasac. Rural
1
Quiché
Municipio de 
Joyabaj.
Escuela Oficial 
Urbana Mixta “La 
libertad", barrio 
la Libertad.
1
Municipio de San 
Pedro Jocopilas.
Escuela Oficial 
Urbana Mixta 
San Pedro 
Jocopilas. Urbana
1
Aldea El 
Infiernito del 
Municipio de 
Joyabaj.
Escuela Oficial 
Rural Mixta 
Aldea El 
Infiernito. Rural
1
Cantón Santabal 
II del Municipio 
de San Pedro 
Jocopilas.
Escuela Oficial 
Rural Mixta 
Cantón Santabal 
II.
1
55
ANNEX Nº4: Disclosure of Conflict of Interest for USAID Evaluation Team Members 
Disclosure of Conflict of Interest for USAID Evaluation Team Members 
Name Alejandra Andrea Falabella Ambrosio
Title  Doctor (PhD) in Education, Institute 
of Education, University of London. 
 Master degree in Social Anthropology 
and Social Development, Universidad de 
Chile. April, 2005.
 Bachelor in Education, Early 
Childhood Teacher, Pontificia 
Universidad Católica de Chile.
Organization Universidad Alberto Hurtado
Evaluation Position Team Leader
Evaluation Award Number No
USAID Proyect (s) Evaluated No
I have real or potential conflict of interest to 
disclose
No
I certify that I have completed this disclosure form fully and to the best of my ability and that I will 
update this disclosure from promptly if relevant circumstances change. If I gain access to 
proprietary information of other companies, then I agree to protect their information from 
unauthorized use or disclosure for as long as it remains proprietary and refrain from using the 
information for any purpose other than for which it was furnished. 
Signature
Date 4/15/13
56
Disclosure of Conflict of Interest for USAID Evaluation Team Members 
Name María José Valdebenito Infante
Title  Master degree in Politics and 
Government, Flacso Chile Chile. 
 Sociologist, Pontificia Universidad 
Católica de Chile
Organization Universidad Alberto Hurtado
Evaluation Position Team Member
Evaluation Award Number No
USAID Proyect (s) Evaluated No
I have real or potential conflict of interest to 
disclose
No
I certify that I have completed this disclosure form fully and to the best of my ability and that I will 
update this disclosure from promptly if relevant circumstances change. If I gain access to 
proprietary information of other companies, then I agree to protect their information from 
unauthorized use or disclosure for as long as it remains proprietary and refrain from using the 
information for any purpose other than for which it was furnished. 
Signature
Date 4/15/13
57
Disclosure of Conflict of Interest for USAID Evaluation Team Members 
Name Viviana Galdames Franco
Title  Master in Applied Linguistics
 Master in Special Education
 Bachelor of Arts in French Language
Organization Universidad Alberto Hurtado
Evaluation Position Team Member
Evaluation Award Number No
USAID Proyect (s) Evaluated No
I have real or potential conflict of interest to 
disclose
No
I certify that I have completed this disclosure form fully and to the best of my ability and that I will 
update this disclosure from promptly if relevant circumstances change. If I gain access to 
proprietary information of other companies, then I agree to protect their information from 
unauthorized use or disclosure for as long as it remains proprietary and refrain from using the 
information for any purpose other than for which it was furnished. 
Signature
Date 4/15/13
58
Disclosure of Conflict of Interest for USAID Evaluation Team Members 
Name AÍDA WALQUI
Title  Ph.D., Education, Language, Literacy 
and Culture Program, School of 
Education, Stanford University
 Master in Sociolinguistics
 B.A. in Literature
Organization Universidad Alberto Hurtado
Evaluation Position Team Member
Evaluation Award Number No
USAID Proyect (s) Evaluated No
I have real or potential conflict of interest to 
disclose
No
I certify that I have completed this disclosure form fully and to the best of my ability and that I will 
update this disclosure from promptly if relevant circumstances change. If I gain access to 
proprietary information of other companies, then I agree to protect their information from 
unauthorized use or disclosure for as long as it remains proprietary and refrain from using the 
information for any purpose other than for which it was furnished. 
Signature
Date 4/15/13
59
ANNEX Nº 5: Bilingual Intercultural Education: Which models have been successful in 
countries that face similar challenges to those of Guatemala? Is there a methodological 
approach that could be applied to the Guatemalan context?
It is not possible to state that Intercultural Bilingual Education (EBI) has enjoyed on-going success 
in contexts where linguistic minorities have constituted the target population. There have been 
temporary successful projects in Latin America and in the United States that rendered good results 
as they were supported, but languished once the internal or external support that made them 
possible was reduced or retired. Are we to derive then that this type of education is doomed to 
failure? We propose that instead, it is time to undertake a review of key features of these projects. It 
is now essential to reanalyze successes and limitations of EBI in light of current research in second 
language acquisition and pedagogy, the goals and plans of these projects, and the evolving nature of 
the world economy and 21st century educational demands. 
Pedagogically some of the features that need to be reconsidered include: 
 The presupposition that skills (such as reading, writing, and oral abilities), conceptual 
understandings, and the language required to express them, develop in a linear and 
sequential fashion in students’ L1 and L2 . Recent work (see, for example, Shavelson, 2013; 
Shavelson et al, 2008). Instead, proposals have emerged that propose the spiraling and 
gradual simultaneous development of these skills, understandings, and the language 
required by all students at different paces, depending on where these students begin, and 
the interaction of background factors with instruction. Those who have the most to learn 
are the ones that advance the most rapidly provided a high challenge/high support 
pedagogy (Walqui & van Lier, 2010). 
 A concomitant idea is that each phase of language or literacy learning should lead to 
“mastery” of a component before students advance. Multiple proposals instead suggest that 
students can engage in rigorous academic practice with less than perfect command of the L2 
and with diverse levels of literacy attainment (see, for example the Understanding Language 
Initiative, at ell.stanford.edu) 
 Grade retention: promoting students only after they have “mastered” skills hurts students, 
who already think and act critically outside of school. Instead students need to be invited 
and supported with rich texts and intellectually engaging tasks as they are gradually 
apprenticed into academic practices. 
Recent developments in second language acquisition go further, to challenge deep-seated beliefs in 
the field. It would be healthy to consider these ideas in the Guatemalan context of EBI 
implementation. One of the most important ideas relates to the goal of L2 proficiency. For example, 
formal, functional, and sociocultural theories have 
60
assumed that the end-state of the second language acquisition process involved acquiring the 
implicit linguistic system of the monolingual “native” speaker. Such native-like, ultimate attainment, 
though seldom achieved by most L2 learners (Han 2004), was nevertheless established as the goal 
of L2 instruction, and learners were evaluated primarily in terms of their acquisition of forms, 
structures, or communicative behaviors thought to be characteristic of educated speakers raised 
from birth in a monolingual environment. Monolingual competence and monolingual performance 
were seen as the norm, and deviations from this norm were labeled using terms such as incomplete 
acquisition, fossilization, and interlanguage. 
In the last decade, work carried out by various researchers on the nature of bilingualism (Grosjean, 
1997, 1998) as well as the roles of socialization (Duff & Talmy, 2011), interaction (Kasper & 
Wagner, 2011), and language variability (e.g., Larsen Freeman, 2006, de Bot, 2007) in second 
language acquisition has raised many questions about a number of these and other commonly 
accepted views about SLA and bilingualism. For the most part, such views have not yet begun to 
influence mainstream L2 teaching, but they have great potential to do so and are therefore 
fundamental to L2 professionals’ knowledge and preparation, particularly as they re-evaluate their 
roles in the new world context. 
Primarily due to scholarship on bilingualism from sociolinguistic, linguistic and sociolinguistic 
perspectives (e.g. reviewed in the Handbook on Bilingualism (Bhatia & Ritchie 2013), it is now 
generally accepted that bilinguals are specific speaker-hearers (Grosjean, 1985, 1989) who are not 
two monolinguals in one. Rather, they use their multiple linguistic repertories in a variety of ways 
in order to meet their communicative needs. Bilinguals do not normally have the same levels of 
proficiency in all language modalities (speaking, listening, reading and writing) in each of their 
languages, and as a result there is increasing concern about the construct of language proficiency as 
it has been used to measure bilingualism by researchers (Hulstijn, 2012). As Wei points out in the 
book Multilingual Norms (2010), it has become increasingly obvious that bilinguals should be 
compared only to other bilinguals and not to monolinguals in any one of their languages. 
May (2014) refers to these changes in perspective as the “multilingual turn” in applied linguistics 
that is a natural consequence of the increasingly globalized world in which the teaching of L2s is 
now taking place. According to May (2014) and Ortega (2014), dissatisfaction with and concern 
about the tendency to view individuals acquiring a second language as failed native speakers has 
been present in SLA profession for some time. Bley-Vroman (1983), for example, pointed out the 
comparative fallacy of using monolingual competence as a benchmark for L2 learning. Cook (1992, 
2002, 2001) argued for a multi-competent view of language learners and questioned the tendency 
to refer to individuals who acquire an L2 perpetually as learners rather than users, and Beacco 
(2005) offers the term plurilingualism to describe individuals’ capacity to use more than one 
language in social communication even as they have varying commands of those languages. A 
61
number of other scholars have also criticized monolingual assumptions and the narrow views of 
language experience they imply, beginning in the early 1990s?? (Canagarajah, 1999; Davis, 1991, 
2003; Doerr, 2009; Doer & Kumagai, 2009; Kramsch, 1997; Nuzhat, 2004, ), but Ortega 
(forthcoming, 2014) contends that mainstream SLA research communities still do not fully 
understand the ideological or empirical consequences of the native-speaker norms and 
assumptions they rely upon in their work. Ortega (2013) suggests that Usage Based Linguistics, 
which emphasizes the language which learners experience rather than the goal of obtaining “a 
monolingual-like command of an additional language” (Ortega, 2009, p. 5) can help to inform the 
multilingual (and inherently more social) turn in SLA. 
In addition to the multilingual turn, developments in alternative SLA theory have introduced new 
perspectives for L2 professionals to consider that, while often rooted in functional and sociocultural 
theories to some degree, offer new insights. Language socialization theories of SLA (Duff & Talmy, 
2011), for example, suggest that students’ learning of language is inseparable from socialization 
into the values, identities, ideologies, stances, and practices of communities. Socialization is, 
however, a contested and often bi-directional process for learners and teachers, and one that 
involves more than the learning of language structures and forms. Discourse-focused alternative 
theories, such as the conversation-analytic approach to SLA (Kasper & Wagner, 2011), suggest that 
language competence can only be seen through interaction with others, which is therefore the 
venue for both the development and demonstration of SLA. In a third recent SLA theory 
development, scholars drawing from chaos and complexity theory (Larsen-Freeman, 2008, Larsen￾Freeman & Cameron 2008) and dynamic systems theory (de Bot, 2007), on the other hand, have 
argued that L2 acquisition is an inherently non-linear variable process that will not result in native￾like end states. Rather than viewing second language acquisition as a uniform or linear process, 
Larsen-Freeman suggests that language should be seen as a “complex adaptive system,” in which 
language is inherently variable and language capacities change as a result of being used. The 
implications of this approach are clear: in a provocatively subtitled article “Second language 
acquisition and the issue of fossilization: There is no end and there is no state,” Larsen-Freeman 
(2006) argues that by focusing on errors in relation to a supposedly stable “end state,” we may 
overlook what students are already doing successfully and assume a linear progression that will not 
materialize. 
So, it may be productive to rethink the linguistic goals of L2 and L1 learning in EBI, as well as 
processes and tools that have characterized ineffective pedagogies. 
References 
Bhatia, Tej K., & Ritchie, William C. (2013). The handbook of bilingualism and multilingualism (2 ed.). 
Oxford: Wiley Blackwell. 
62
Bley‐Vroman, Robert. (1983). The comparative fallacy in interlanguage studies: The case of sustematicity. 
Language Learning, 33(1), 1-17. 
Beacco, Jean-Claude. (2005). Languages and language repertoires: Plurilingualism is as a way of life in 
Europe. Strasbourg: Language Policy Division:Council of Europe. 
Canaragarajah, Suresh. (1999). Interrogating the "native speaker fallcy": Non-linguistic roots, non￾pedagogical results. In G. Braine (Ed.), Non-native educators in English language teaching (pp. 77-92). 
Mahwah NJ: Erlbaum. 
Cook, Vivian. (1992). Evidence for multi-competence. Language Learning, 42(4), 557-591. 
Cook, Vivian. (2002a). Portraits of the L2 user. Clevedon ; Buffalo: Multilingual Matters. 
Cook, Vivan. (2002b). Background of the L2 user. Portraits of the L2 user, 1-28. 
Davies, Alan. (1991). The native speaker in applied linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. 
de Bot, K, Lowie, W., & Verspoor, M. (2007). A dynamic systems theory approach to second language 
acquisition. Bilingualism language and cognition, 10, 7-21. 
Duff, Patricia A., & Talmy, Steven. (2011). Language socialization approaches to second language 
acquisition: Social, cultural, and linguistic development in additional languages. In D. Atkinson (Ed.), 
Alternative approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 95-116). New York: Routledge. 
Grosjean, Francois. (1997). Processing mixed language: Issues, findings and models. In A. M. G. de Groot & J. 
F. Kroll (Eds.), Tutorials in bilingualism: Psycholinguistic perspectives (pp. 201-224). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 
63
Grosjean, F. (1998). Studying bilinguals; Methodological and conceptual issues. Bilingualism: Language and 
Cognition, 1, 131-149 
Han, ZhaoHong. (2004). Fossilization in adult second language acquisition. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Hulstijn, Jan H. (2012). The construct of language proficiency in the study of bilingualism from a cognitive 
perspective. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15(02), 422-433. doi: 10.1017/S1366728911000678 
Kasper, Gabriele, & Wagner, Johannes. (2011). A conversation-analytic approach to second language 
acquisition. In D. Atkinson (Ed.), Alternative approaches to second language acquisition (pp. 117-142). New 
York: Routledge. 
Koelsch, N., Chu, H., Rodríguez, G. (forthcoming). What develops and how as a result of sustained 
professional development for teachers of English Language Learners. In Special Issue of TESOL Quarterly: 
The new standards and the education of English Language Learners. 
Larsen-Freeman, Diane. (2010). Having and doing: learning from a complexity theory perspective. In P. 
Seedhouse, S. Walsh & C. Jenks (Eds.), Conceptualizing “learning” in applied linguistics (pp. 52–68). New 
York: Pallgrave. 
Larsen-Freeman, Diane. (2012). Chaos/Complexity Theory for Second Language Acquisition The 
Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 
Larsen-Freeman, Diane, & Cameron, Lynne. (2008). Complex systems and applied linguistics: Oxford 
University Press. 
Lortie, D. (1975). School teachers: A sociological study. Chicago: Chicago University Press. 
May, Stephen. (2014). Disciplinary divides, knowledge construction, and the multilingual turn. In S. May 
(Ed.), The multilingual turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL and Bilingual Education (pp. 1-xxx). New York: 
Routledge. 
64
Ortega, Lourdes. (2009). Understanding second language acquisition. London: Hodder Education. 
Ortega, Lourdes. (2014). Ways forward for a bi/multilingual turn in SLA. In S. May (Ed.), The multilingual 
turn: Implications for SLA, TESOL and Bilingual Education (pp. xxx-xxx). New York: Routledge. 
Shavelson, R., R. J., Black. P. J., Wiliam, D., & Coffey, J. (in press). On linking formative and summative 
functions in the design of large-scale assessment systems. Draft available from 
http://www.stanford.edu/dept/SUSE/SEAL/
Shavelson, R.J., Yin, Y., Furtak, E.M., Ruiz-Primo, M.A., Ayala, C.C., Young, D.B., Tomita, M.K., Brandon, 
P.R., & Pottenger, F. (2008). On the role and impact of formative assessment on science inquiry 
teaching and learning (Chapter 2). In J.E. Coffey, R. Douglas, & C. Stearns (Eds.), Assessing Science 
Learning: Perspectives from Research and Practice. Washington, DC: NSTA Press. 
Walqui, A. (2010). The growth of teacher expertise for teaching English Language Learners: A 
socioculturally-based professional development model. In 
Lucas, T. (Ed.). (2010). Teacher Preparation for Linguistically Diverse Classrooms: A Resource for Teacher 
Educators. Oxford, UK: Taylor & Francis. 
Walqui, A. & van Lier, L. (2010). Scaffolding the academic success of English Learners. A pedagogy 
of promise. San Francisco, CA: WestEd.
Wei, Li. (2013). Conceptual and methodological issues in bilingualiism and multilingualism research. In T. 
K. Bhatia & W. C. Ritchie (Eds.), The handbook of bilingualism and multilingualism (2 ed., pp. 26-51). 
Oxford: Wiley Blackwell. 
65
ANNEX Nº 6: Three Classroom Visit Vignettes 
The first two vignettes are both specific to classroom situations, and illustrative of the general 
patterns we observed throughout our classroom visits. They are both presented to highlight central 
aspects of instruction that need to shift in order to give way to substantive opportunities to learn. 
The third vignette focuses on a more promising class. Only two of the classes we observed 
demonstrated this positive pedagogical trend. One of them was in Spanish, and the other one –
which we describe- was the only class observed that was conducted in the indigenous language, in 
this case, in K’iche. 
Vignette 1. From whole school engagement to a focus on second grade 
The whole school is engaged in an activity called “Cuenta Cuentos.” About 120 students are 
gathered in the courtyard, which is muddy and cold. There are six different lines of students, 
standing by grade level. They all face a stage where the teaching staff stands and take turns leading 
the event. The first teacher reads aloud a story called The Hare. Once finished, she asks the audience 
a couple of textual questions, a few answer chorally. Many students are getting distracted, they talk 
to each other or play a bit. A second teacher takes the stage to read Little Red Riding Hood, reading 
is followed by four textual questions that create little interest in the students. Next the principal 
shows a number of objects she has produced with recycled materials. They include a flower, a 
turtle, a box. She asks the students questions about what these objects may be used for, but gets few 
answers. The event continues with three other teachers reading or narrating stories –neither 
exciting nor well told- the students are increasingly distracted and disruptive. Cuenta Cuentos lasts 
for two hours. 
A brief passing time marks the transition between activities. We are told that next writing will be 
modeled and then carried out. For that purpose, a few tables and chairs are brought out to the 
courtyard from different classes. We decide to focus on the second grade class. The modeling of 
writing consists of four students –selected by the teachers because they write better- sitting down 
at the tables and beginning to write their summary of Little Red Riding Hood. They are told that 
after they finish writing, they should draw, and they are given colored pencils to illustrate their 
scenes. All other children watch the activity, standing around, as it unfolds. This is not a very 
stimulating activity for anybody, not even for the students who are sitting writing. They get no 
direction for composing their text, and on close observation, their products are limited to one or 
two isolated phrases or sentences. They get a little bit more excited when they have to draw and 
color, but for the student observers, the activity –which takes about an hour- is a painful experience 
that has taught them nothing. 
66
A number of pedagogical issues come to light through this extended three-hour activity. In the 
following chart we list on the left hand side some practices and presuppositions that guide some 
negative practices, and on the right hand side we discuss their theoretical and practical validity. 
Ideas teacher 
misunderstands
What we know about deep learning
Performances are 
important to assist 
students in their 
motivation and learning
Performances are indeed important, but they need to represent 
students’ culmination of a well-scaffolded cycle of learning. These 
performances need to represent students’ understanding of the 
subject matter (what constitutes a story, structure of the story, 
typical language expected to move events in a story) and their 
ability to transfer it to novel contexts. In this sense, having teams 
of students create their own stories based on their understanding, 
and read them dramatically in front of others could be a good 
performance. This should be done on a rotating basis. 2 or 3 
stories for display are enough for one event. More than that is too 
taxing on the ability to pay attention and enjoy.
Modeling is important Modeling is essential. It means having somebody who 
understands the process, outline it for observers, and then apply 
it. Then students are invited to follow the process and are 
assisted as they implement it. Teachers assess students’ evolving 
productions formatively and provide additional scaffolding as 
needed.
Modeling is conducted 
with a selected group of 
students
Modeling is indispensable for all students. This means all 
students need to be actively engaged in their implementation of 
practices that they are beginning to appropriate. Heterogeneous 
grouping in this sense is ideal to get students to productively 
contribute to joint products that will pave the way to future 
autonomous productions.
Students must change 
environments in order to 
get motivated
This may be a true statement in general, but it must be 
thoughtfully applied in the particular. Changing classroom 
arrangements is a change in the learning environment. Rotations 
of groups, for example, provide as much novelty and interest for 
67
Vignette 2, a 5th grade class 
The class begins with choral reading of a story about two parrots that were too talkative. The 
purpose of the lesson is to work on synonyms, defined by the teacher as “words that have the same 
meaning but are written differently.” Teacher then writes a list of words taken from the story, on 
the blackboard. House, face, wide, small, wet are part of the list, and she asks students to provide 
synonyms for them. There is some confusion, reinforced by the teacher, that some words mean the 
same, i.e. ‘wet’ and ‘humid’, ‘old’ and ‘ancient.’ This activity takes place for about 45 minutes and 
focuses on isolated words that are not discussed in terms of the theme of the narrative. 
students. Just moving them out of the classroom into a setting 
that is less hospitable is not a good application of the premise.
Writing summaries of 
stories is a valuable 
experience for students
Summarizing is a very complex activity. It means that the writer 
has to isolate crucial information from many details presented in 
the text. The writer must have a schema of what the essentials of 
the genre are. In the case observed, it is a narrative. Teachers 
should have shorthand understandings of what a story is: The 
focus of the text is on a sequence of actions. There is a character, 
specific characteristics of the character which are important (to 
the story), a problem emerges, that problem is resolved, 
character changes. (Derewianka, 2011). In this case, the teacher 
could have gone back to the story and had the students analyze 
its component elements. Then, the teacher could read a second 
story and go through the same analysis. Then, students, working 
in heterogeneous groups, could create their own story, following 
guidelines. 
The more content 
covered, the better 
Trying to walk through several stories in two hours seems to be 
based on an understanding that coverage is important. However, 
we know that less is more;well-selected pivotal ideas and 
processes, woven and interconnected through meaningful 
relationships, provide students with generative knowledge. The 
bits and pieces approach develops superficial and inert 
knowledge, recalling, not transferring.
68
Ideas teacher 
misunderstands
What we know about deep learning
The exploration 
of language 
needs to be 
based on text
Ideally the exploration of language patterns is based on the reading of 
enticing, challenging texts. This means that first a text needs to be 
discussed and understood. If the focus is going to be synonyms, then it is 
important that first students understand the concepts they are going to 
find other names for. Beginning with the whole picture first, to then focus 
on parts, is not only more enticing to students, but it actually helps them 
construct powerful, interrelated meanings that they begin to own and can 
thus apply across contexts. 
Common 
concepts can be 
easily explained 
to students
Even the simplest of terms require practice in order to be explained to 
students in powerful and succinct ways. Ideally this practice is learned by 
teachers working together in workshops, and after multiple practices and 
reflection, it is appropriated by the individual to use in classroom 
practice. 
In both vignettes we observe teachers who lack subject matter knowledge (Shulman, 1995), and 
who need to develop it, and learn to apply it, through sustained professional development 
opportunities. Even the understanding of key elements in a short story for children require a 
sophisticated understanding by the teachers, if this understanding is not in place, the class will 
flounder and will not accomplish its desired objectives. (Tharp & Gallimore, 1998). Besides that, key 
knowledge about the genre, and the ability to teach it (Shulman’s pedagogical subject matter 
knowledge), effective teaching will be elusive. 
Vignette 3. A first grade vignette 
This classroom vignette shows the exceptional case in our sample, a class taught in the students’ 
native language, which demonstrates some robust and productive literacy and language 
development practices, while at the same time displaying weaknesses that need to be strengthened. 
The teacher started class showing the students a picture from the flip chart book (rotafolio) which 
showed a wolf. As she shared the pictures with the students, she created a story using language that 
presented onomatopoetic sounds related to the grapheme and phoneme “q” in K’iche, displaying 
sounds the animals made, which was going to be one of the class objectives. Students actively 
participated in the activities, reproducing the animal sounds. They then cut and pasted in their 
notebooks a human figure using materials the teacher provided. Their designs showed an arrow to 
the wolf’s neck, and a word produced by the animal. The rest of class time was spent tracing capital 
and small letters using highly interactive games. 
69
This vignette shows the incorporation of materials provided by REAULA in the native language of 
the students, although not used to their full potential, in combination with very traditional 
methodology. However, the teacher was able to coherently weave new and old practices and invite 
students into reading and writing activities. Teacher declared she does not like to use the Kemon 
Ch’ab’al text, and she will put them away until the students can read in their L1. Her rationale was 
that these books do not clearly focus on key phonemes, which is where she likes to start when she 
develops students’ abilities to decode a text (the observer acknowledges the teacher was correct). 
This is why the teacher prefers to use DIGEBI-made materials. 
From the point of view of the 
teachers in the event
What we know about deep learning
Materials provided by REAULA Current approaches to the development of literacy coincide 
on the importance of situating decoding skills within 
contextualized situations, specifically, departing from a 
brief text that contains the sounds to be worked on. In this 
case, the flip chart book fulfilled this purpose although it 
may have been more appropriate to use a big book through 
which the students could have followed the story while 
observing the words printed on the text. In order to 
develop initial reading and writing skills, especially in 
contexts where oral culture is more present than reading 
and writing, children require multiple experiences with a 
variety of texts so that they can develop awareness of the 
functionality of written language. In this way, they will also 
be motivated to read autonomously. This interest serves as 
the basis to gradually learn about the written code modeled 
in texts.
Active participation by the 
students is essential for learning 
Indeed, children who are offered ample opportunities to 
engage in challenging and well supported activities, learn 
deeply and become conscious of the strategies they use to 
learn, metacognition, especially if they work 
collaboratively. However, not every participatory activity is 
appropriate. Quality interactions require both challenge 
and the support offered by participation structures that 
have been deliberately planned and which allow for 
student active and stimulating engagement. In the observed 
class participation was almost always choral, all children 
responded at the same time. Instead the activity could have 
been turned into dyadic interactions to maximize each 
student’s ability to engage meaningfully.
70
Practicing writing repetitively 
enables students to acquire good 
handwriting 
Children become aware of the importance of what they 
learned when they are invited to apply newly gained 
knowledge to new situations, or to the solution of novel 
problems. This also helps them realize what they do not 
quite understand yet, and thus, what they need to work on. 
Consequently, it is important to differentiate activities 
where students are asked to make mechanical use of 
information from those that stimulate the creative transfer 
of ideas. 
In the case of handwriting, just to copy individual letters 
creates boredom and no learning. In fact, it has been 
observed in such cases that as the exercise proceeds, the 
quality of the letters diminishes, which is precisely the 
opposite of the desired outcome.
Children learn better if they 
learn by playing.
Playful activities can have an important role for motivating 
students and assisting them in learning. To make ludic 
tasks advantageous, these must be cognitively challenging, 
well structured, and they should maximize the opportunity 
every child has to participate, and thus gradually learn. In 
this class we observed the teacher engaging students in two 
games that enabled them to practice what they had learned 
through a novel situation played through a familiar 
structure.
Quality learning opportunities 
begin in a language that the 
child knows well. 
Evidence has accumulated in the field with regards to the 
importance of conducting learning in students’ mother 
tongue while a second language is being developed. MOE 
and USAID wrote the “Modelo Nacional de Educación 
Bilingüe Intercultural Enfocado a la Lectoescritura para 
Preprimaria hasta Tercer Grado de Primaria, Basado en 
Estándares” which clearly states this position. However, in 
the observed class the teacher used only the time allotted 
to Language and Communication for working in the L1. 
This is clearly not sufficient to merit the label of bilingual 
education, nor to reap its advantages.
71
ANNEX Nº 7: Work-plan 
REPORT Nº1
RESEARCH PROPOSAL FOR: 
FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF EDUCATION REFORM IN THE CLASSROOM (REAULA) 
PROJECT
July 3, 2013 
72
RESEARCH PROPOSAL FOR: 
FINAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF EDUCATION REFORM IN THE CLASSROOM (REAULA) 
PROJECT
CONTEXT
Since 1998, starting from the Peace Accords, Guatemala has developed an Educational Reform, 
aiming to improve the quality and equity of preschool, elementary and secondary education in the 
country. Supporting this long term challenge, the REAULA Program, designed and implemented by 
USAID alongside the Department of Education, develops a set of guidelines to support efforts of this 
ambitious and comprehensive Educational Reform during 2009 and 2013. 
The main objectives of REAULA take into account, as the reform does, that Guatemala is a country 
rich in linguistic, ethnic and cultural diversity, with the presence of Mayan, Ladino, Garifuna and 
Xinca populations. This diversity needs to be strengthened and developed. As the Educational 
Reform document states "Education is one of the key factors that will promote the strengthening of 
the cultural identity of each of its four nations as well as the affirmation of the national identity” 
(Diseño de Reforma Educativa, Comisión Paritaria. 1998:33).
Curriculum reform, Intercultural Bilingual Education programs, the improvement of teachers’ 
initial development, the preparation of quality linguistically and culturally appropriate educational 
materials, the participation of families and the community, the follow-up and monitoring of 
specialist from MINEDUC, etc., all of these are aspects that demonstrate these concerns. Key among 
these concerns is the special attention paid to the provision of effective opportunities to learn in 
classrooms to all children. 
As in any educational reform, progress towards ambitious goals take a long time, and the process 
faces a myriad of problems that hinder its development. The purpose of this assessment is to 
provide and account of accomplishments and tensions found in the design and implementation of 
the program with the goal of proposing responses which are increasingly appropriate to the needs 
of the Guatemalan educational system. 
Documents prepared by REAULA USAID reveal the willingness to articulate actions to build 
coherence. Among them are “Resúmenes de Políticas 1 y 2”, outlining approaches and concepts 
regarded as central in program development. These documents also show the different synergy 
levels expected on the guidelines aiming to improve the quality, equity and participation proposed 
by the educational reform. Salient terms that communicate these efforts include “communities of 
73
learners”, “opportunity zones”, “ongoing development of educators”, “situatedness in the 
sociocultural realities of the communities involved”, “educational councils”, “dialogic learning”, the
“zone of proximal development”, “literacy development in the mother tongue”. These foci signal the 
intended coherence of the program. 
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
The educational perspective the team brings to the evaluation of the REAULA program weaves 
together ideas drawn from sociolinguistics, cognitive psychology, and sociocultural learning theory 
to analyze the development of academic skills, conceptual understandings, and the languages 
required to express them in students who are studying in intercultural bilingual programs in the 
program. 
From sociolinguistics comes the notion that language is primarily social — a tool that human beings 
use to get things accomplished in the real world. This is a seemingly self-evident proposition until it 
is contrasted with another common way of thinking about language, primarily as syntactic, lexical, 
and phonetic systems. Human beings use those — and other — systems when we communicate, but 
these systems are not what we focus on as we engage in interactions with others. In schools 
students apprentice how to present ideas, agree or disagree with others’ points of view, summarize, 
compare, contrast, critique, suggest, and carry out other verbal interactions in ways that 
successfully accomplish what they intend, in ways that are appropriate to the social moment. 
Understanding language, therefore, is primarily a matter of understanding actions (utterances) 
based on an understanding of the contexts in which they are expressed: who said what, what 
relationship the speakers have with each other, where the expression is uttered, when, for what 
purposes, using what perspective, intending what goals. Language users focus on the social role of 
language: action and communication. A focus on the code of a language (e.g., grammar), while also 
important, is secondary. Consequently, students need to be invited to participate in academic 
activities that assist them in apprenticing these practices, and as they gain practice, they also gain 
accuracy, fluency, and complexity in the L1 and the L2. Furthermore, as they participate in action 
that is successful, they gain autonomy and agency. 
From cognitive psychology, we build on the extensive research carried out to understand the nature 
of learning: the importance of building on prior knowledge, establishing relationships between and 
across ideas, and focusing learner attention on the processes of knowing — thinking about thinking. 
This last aspect, metacognition, is extremely important for second language acquisition because it 
helps learners take control of their own learning and decide what to do when they do not 
understand the text at hand, whether it is oral or written (Bransford, Brown, and Cocking, 2000). 
From sociocultural theory we bring in the assumptions that learning, especially in the early stages, 
is essentially social in nature. Ideas are initially acquired in interaction with others, and only later 
are they owned conceptually. Language interactions between teachers and students, and among 
students, play a pivotal role in mediating the construction of knowledge. Students are socialized 
into the academic practices of adults through invitations to engage in activity with others, by 
74
receiving models of how that engagement is enacted, and by being provided with the support and 
opportunity to practice and eventually own, or “appropriate” those practices (Lantolf and Thorne, 
2006). 
Sociocultural theory underlies and structures the learning and pedagogical framework we will use 
to analyze the opportunities to learn that are offered students in the REAULA program, both to 
assess the quality of the design and implementation, but more importantly, to offer suggestions for 
strengthening it in the future. They will also guide our evaluation of the opportunities teachers are 
offered to develop their expertise to carry out their work. We strongly feel that our orientation is 
coherent with the proposed work and therefore would provide the theoretical framework for a fair 
and productive evaluation. 
SCOPE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this assessment is to analyze the performance of the REAULA Program carried out 
by USAID in Guatemala. The goal is to develop an understanding of the program that will enable the 
researchers to assess the appropriateness of its design as well as the implementation strategies 
followed. We will also assess the program attainments using along the way extant results as well as 
newly collected data. In addition, we will provide specific recommendation for strengthening and 
deepening the unfolding and recreation of the program. We understand that both Guatemala and 
USAID need to build on tested successes, as well as refine aspects that did not work as intended to 
be able to sustain reform efforts. 
The study will gather information related to the design, implementation, perspectives from key 
players, and the progress accomplished so far, as well as ways of deepening and accelerating future 
development of the program. We will also focus on evaluating resources developed. 
Our assessment of accomplishments on processes and products will be based on, the goals 
proposed by the Program, evaluating as well their appropriateness for the educational needs of the 
country. Furthermore, the study will also present a deep analysis of key aspects associated with the 
internal management of the program, especially those related to capacity to assure the achievement 
of the expected results in each of its components. 
It is worth mentioning that the perspective we bring to this assessment is one that seeks to 
contribute key ideas that can assist future decision-making in relation to the continuity of this 
program or other programs of this type. In that regard, we will approach the evaluation as a process 
that is close to conclusion to -based on extant and newly collected evidence -, will make possible to 
describe and characterize the progress, its achievements and quality as illustrative of processes of 
75
change from which multiple lessons can be derived. These lessons should prove important for 
future design and implementation of Education policies and strategies in Guatemala. 
 
To attain the aforementioned goals, the methodological approach of this study is both descriptive 
and evaluative, focusing on the analysis of process and results. This methodological strategy 
integrates techniques and procedures that are quantitative and qualitative, and it will pay special 
attention to the diverse context in which the program is being implemented. Three reasons guided 
our decision to apply this mixed methods approach: 
 First, in general terms, the descriptive research purposes are diverse. Such 
purposes must be undertaken under the most exacting conditions. The multiplicity 
and variety of conditions entails the use of a range of methods. 
 Second, if used for with the same purpose in mind, and in coherent ways, 
these two approaches can reinforce each other to provide impressions that neither of 
the methods could yield on their own. 
 Finally, as quantitative and qualitative methods usually have different biases, 
it is possible to apply each of them to submit the other to verification through the 
respective triangulations developed by the researchers. 
The multidisciplinary team that is proposing this evaluation brings immense and complementary 
experience in intercultural and bilingual education, social research methodologies, and assessment 
of educational policies and programs. Our team of professionals is deeply experienced in qualitative 
and quantitative research, their multiple strengths will translate into quality data collection, 
analysis, and interpretation. 
OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
Overall objective 
To deeply understand and assess the processes and results obtained from the educational program 
carried out by REAULA, investigating which goals were accomplished and to what extent. We will 
furthermore identify recommendations in order to improve in the future so that the Guatemalan 
public educational system can be strengthened. 
Specific Objectives 
1. Assess the performance, processes, and results obtained by the project REAULA to date. 
2. Provide technical recommendations, based on the results and conclusions of the assessment, to 
76
be included on the design of future projects in the Guatemalan education area. 
3. Identify USAID strategic support areas on the education area in Guatemala. 
PRODUCTS
The team undertaking this evaluation, based on their research, will develop the following 
documents: 
(a) A first report, starting from the formalization of agreements with the counterpart. 
This report will consolidate the initial proposal and will present the work plan. Such plan 
will include details of the organization, assessment design, procedures for the analysis, and 
integration of results as well as the schedule of activities and visits. This report will be 
submitted 5 days after the signing of the contract. 
(b) A second report that will present the findings and results of the research. This 
report will unpack strengths and weaknesses of the technical assistance; specific 
recommendations for future projects; suggestions for technical assistance or support 
required by the educational sector. This report will include appendixes that will contain 
instruments used during the research, all charts and graphs, and any other requested 
materials. This report will be submitted 40 days after the signing of the contract. 
(c) A third and final report, incorporating recommendations and suggestions of the 
counterpart, USAID, to the results report. This report will have the following structure: an 
Executive Summary; Description of the Problem and USAID Proposal; Assessment Proposal; 
Methodological Design and Strategies of the Evaluation Study; Findings and Conclusions, 
and Recommendations for Future Implementations. This report will be submitted 50 days 
after the signing of the contract. 
(d) A face to face presentation of the results to the USAID office in Guatemala, to 
elaborate on the study, discuss the recommendations and findings, and answer queries. 
METHODOLOGICAL DESIGN AND STRATEGIES 
Given the characteristics of the study, we have decided to design four research phases. Although 
each phase has similar features, they are based on different research principles, which aim to 
understand and assess the results obtained by REAULA in the fulfillment of its technical assistance. 
Other areas addressed will include capacity development, design of goals, and the identification of 
areas, which seek to support the Guatemalan educational system in the future. 
Based on this, the proposed process includes the following successive phases5: 
 a) The First phase will focus on a thorough review of documents. From this analysis, project 
implementation data will be systematized and analyzed, along with features of the progress and 
transformation of the educational system and the economic and socio-cultural context in 
Guatemala. The purpose will be to explain and assess the implementation of USAID/REULA. It 
should be pointed out that documents to be revised will include those stated in the request for 
 
5 The phases are organized in a logical sequence; however, overlapping of tasks may occur temporarily.
77
proposals, including some other documents which may be suggested by the counterpart and other 
relevant players. 
Tentatively, at this moment the list of documents considered for review include: 
 Reports and documents describing the Guatemalan context, such as the 
UNDP report. 
 Proposals and studies developed by REAULA. 
 REULA work methodology reports. 
 REAULA evaluative reports. 
 Other meaningful reports and documents suggested by USAID and REAULA 
team. 
b) The Second phase has as its goal to assess perspectives and assessments of diverse key players 
involved in the REAULA Program. We will seek to understand accomplishments and perceptions of 
participants in the program on all sides. This analysis will also include a review of the institutions 
that direct and manage the program. Lastly it will assess the principles and framework that guide 
the action of the involved players. To accomplish these purposes we will develop semi-structured, 
in-depth interview protocols which will ensure the process is rigorous and renders the best 
assessment data. The flexibility offered by semi-structured interviews will allow us to capture rich 
data through evolving social interaction with participants. The essential advantage of the interview 
is that key players themselves are those who provide relevant data related to their behavior, 
opinions, practices, attitudes and expectations. 
According to this aspect of in-depth qualitative methodology, each of the key dimensions of the 
study will be addressed, starting from a relatively fixed list of questions. This will enable an 
ecological and quick gathering of information, covering all significant topics referred to the design, 
management, and implementation process of the Program. 
 As mentioned before, the dimensions to be addressed will make reference to: the dynamics 
in the Program organization, practices, achievement of goals, as well as the participants’ perception 
of the management, implementation, limitations and strengths of the model, and possible future 
adjustments that will strengthen both the ongoing design and results. 
From these interviews, other relevant players worth interviewing will be designated. 
c) The third phase will focus on the collection of other data that will allow the team to develop 
deeper knowledge of areas such as: 
78
 The understanding of the players regarding the pedagogical, linguistic and cultural 
aspects of the tools and processes proposed by the project (educational material, 
evaluations, communication strategies, etc) 
 The consistency of the proposed system and the professional needs, from the 
teaching staff perspective. 
 The perception of the awareness campaigns developed by the project on different 
levels. 
To this end, focus groups will be formed strategically choosing among educational players. Focus 
groups make possible to establish a conversation with a group of participants, where a common 
reality is talked about and discourses and codes are gathered. The relationship with the 
interviewees is semi-structured and is based on the goal of entering into the world of the 
interviewees or assistant to the group techniques. The main difference between discussion groups 
and focus groups resides mainly on the direction and role taken by the researcher during the 
conversation. In the case of the focus groups, the direction is commanded by the researcher; 
therefore, the interaction dynamics are not completely free. Even though the gathering of 
information is pre-defined by the researchers, it may be possible that the participants providing 
information expand on the topics covered, depending on their ideas and interests. Thus the 
richness of the data will enable the evaluators to gain deeper insights into the unfolding of the 
Program. 
 
Three focus groups will be fulfilled in 16 educational institutions (case studies), considering the 
teaching staff, students and parents. To make the selection of establishments, the evaluation team 
will make a consult to experts in educational materials, local development councils and technical 
counterpart. Preliminarily, the selection of the institutions will take into account the following 
criteria and distribution: 
In addition, we expected to carry out a classroom observation on 6 of the visited schools, to 
understand the pedagogical dynamics in which the assessment is based. After all, at the center of 
any educational enterprise is the nature of learning. For classroom observations we will use 
protocols designed and tested in programs of intercultural and bilingual education. 
In terms of the operative development of these phases, it is important to mention that to guarantee 
an appropriate dynamic aiming to a better approach and triangulation, each of the interviews will 
be conducted by a professional experienced on work field. The focus groups will be motivated/ 
encouraged simultaneously by 2 professionals of the team, with plenty of experience in such 
activities. 
The evaluation team will coordinate this phase and will have an active role in all the activities. 
These actions will be supported by Guatemalan professional experts in educational research and 
Mayan speakers. To achieve coordination between the actions, all staff will be trained, with special 
79
emphasis on study characteristics, dimensions and bilingual character of important part of the 
activities. Also, will be requested the support of Ministry of Education, departments territorial 
selected and technical counterpart, in order to have effective coordination of the activities. 
All audio material coming from the interviews and focus groups will be recorded using digital 
media and will be studied and selectively transcribed by the same professional or professional team 
developing the activity on field. Classroom observations will be carried out by experts on 
pedagogical issues with validated tools. 
Table. Summary of Collected Qualitative Data 
Data Collection Policy Level Number 
Document Analysis Central level 10-15 documents approx.
Interviews to professionals 
involved in REAULA at 
national and local level 
Central / Department / 
Municipality Level 
50 interviewees approx. 
Focus Group to teachers School level 9 schools (50 interviewees 
approx.)
Focus Group to parents School level 9 schools (50 interviewees 
approx.)
Focus Group to students School level 9 schools (50 interviewees 
approx.)
Classroom Observation School level 6 schools 
 
d) Finally, the Fourth Phase consists of the integrated analysis of the material collected on the 
previous phases as well as the formulation of conclusive hypothesis destined to meet the research 
objectives. On this phase, the team responsible for the study will carry out a cross reading of the 
main results obtained through the investigation process. This iterative analysis will pay particular 
attention to the development of an analytical exercise to assess the performance and results 
obtained by the REAULA project to date, as well as provide technical recommendations based on 
the results and conclusions of the assessment, and identify USAID strategic support areas on the 
education area in Guatemala. 
80
Analysis of Qualitative Data: 
For the qualitative data, the analysis will be oriented to characterize the predominant discursive 
model on the players and contexts to elaborate a global interpretation of the information. The 
analysis of qualitative data will imply the development of the following steps: 
a) Initial categorization: This step aims to look for common properties as well as to 
record conceptual notes to serve as a general framework. The codification process induces the 
discovering of not only categories but also its properties as well as study dimensions. This step 
will focus on the gathering of the collected data, with suggested indicators in a dimension 
matrix. 
b) Integration of categories and properties. The second step consist of organize in 
ascending order the articulation of the components looking for its internal coherence and 
conceptual integration. 
c) Finally, the third step is the structuring of a comprehensive model, formed from a 
discourse of discourses. The goal is to provide interpretative answers to those relevant aspects 
summarized on the objectives and the operative plan of the study. 
Analysis of Secundary Data 
Aims : 
• Analyze the results of REAULA Program by reviewing background literature and educational 
indicators that account the progress of the educational system associated with different areas of 
study. 
• Characterize REAULA contribution to the generation, support and promotion of Guatemala's 
educational system. 
In line with the areas requiring research analysis, methods and techniques to gather information 
will be multiple. The study proposes to combine the review and analysis of information from 
secondary sources using documentary and statistical analysis. For the quantitative approach, and in 
order to organize and process information on performance indicators associated with REAULA, a 
descriptive statistical analysis will be developed. Overall, the proposed methodology is structured 
in three phases of analysis. 
• The first phase will characterize and describe generally the Program, by reconstructing the 
history of the program and the systematization of the results of previous assessments. 
• The second phase will develop a statistical analysis of indicators that account for the 
implementation of the areas of program execution. 
• And, in the third phase will be devoted to an integrated analysis of this information, which will 
allow REAULA identify the contribution of the generation, supporting and promoting Guatemala's 
educational system. 
81
Below are the methods and techniques proposed to achieve the different objectives of the study, 
including its dimensions and variables to consider, looking at the information for the various 
instruments and studies. 
Operating Model Secondary Data Análisis 
Characterization and Program Overview REAULA. 
This phase will be devoted to the reconstruction of the history of the program, and synthesize 
results from previous assessments. During this period the documents made available by the 
counterparty will be analyzed, systematized and synthesized. 
To account for the first specific objective, aimed at a general description and characterization 
REAULA Program, we propose an approach through documentary analysis reports and documents 
describing the context of Guatemala, as the UNDP report's, some studies by REAULA, reports 
REAULA working methodologies and evaluation reports of other entities. 
The analysis of this phase, will aim to release figures to characterize more specifically the Program. 
Tentatively, we propose to perform analysis on the following levels: 
• General characterization of educational indicators by area or field approach (national and 
regional coverage, student achievement level, initial and ongoing training, bilingual intercultural 
learning) 
• Temporal evolution of the indicators
For a deeper understanding in the above respects, we will develop a more detailed analysis, from 
the generation and analysis of secondary databases, to which reference will be made below. 
82
Review and Processing databases: 
This phase devoted to the review of the databases that will characterize the program's contribution 
to educational development in Guatemala in various fields: Initially data will be worked in Excel 
and then, for statistical processing, it will enter the program SPSS. 
Before starting the statistical analysis of the indicators, the variables are subject to a review 
process, which will aim to check the range of values associated with each variable, the proportion of 
missing data and the identification of internal inconsistency. 
Once this process is complete, we will proceed to adjust the data analysis plan, which is an 
estimated preliminarily analysis covering the following dimensions and variables. 
DIMENSION DEPENDENT VARIABLES INDEPENDENT VARIABLES
Developing 
students skills
 Skills Achievement Level emergent 
literacy
 Skill Achievement Level Mathematics
 Lexical Availability
 Department,
 Ethnicity,
 Gender,
 Variables related to factors 
associated or learning 
opportunities (variables of 
variables characterizing context￾relative)
Initial Training
 Coverage of initial training by 
program type
 Labor status (employed-not 
employed)
 Gender,
 Department,
 Age
 Ethnicity
Continuous￾Improvement 
Training
 Coverage of initial training by 
program type
 Labor status (employed-not 
employed)
 Gender,
 Department,
 Age
 Ethnicity
Teaching 
practice  Teaching Practice Indicators
• Teachers variables (gender, 
age, department, type of initial 
training, continuing education)
83
The sources of information are data from the IIS (Integrated Information System), which will 
provide information regarding the performance of students and studies related to the dimensions 
mentioned, as reading test indicators, lexical availability, teaching graduate study, among others. 
Analysis and Presentation of Quantitative Results 
With respect to all the variables included in the study, a descriptive analysis will be carried out, 
which will be structured broadly considering the following: 
• The study will develop a univariate statistical description for every variable, which entails 
frequency tables, with their respective histograms or bar charts. Each variable is described in detail 
in their measures of central tendency and dispersion position as appropriate to the level of 
measurement. 
• Comparative tables will be prepared on all relevant variables, which are displayed using 
percentage distributions, measures of central tendency and dispersion measurements that are 
available, so as to draw comparative conclusions and extrapolations. 
• Develop cross tables for comparing actual distributions, partial and total percentage of variables 
that intersect; contingency analysis or test to compare average results. Special attention is given to 
certain independent variables such as gender, ethnicity, administrative unit of the establishment, 
regions and localities and variables associated with learning opportunities. 
84
WORKPLAN
ACTIVITIES DAYS
3-7
Jun
10-14 
Jun
17-21 
Jun
24-
28 
Jun
1-5
Jul
8-12 
Jul
15-19 
Jul
22-26 
Jul
29-2
Ag
5-9
Ag
12-23 
Ag
STAGE ONE: FIELDWORK 
PREPARATION 
Submit Work plan X
Reception, revision and database 
processing from contacts and document 
material
X
X 
Plan Visit 1, schedule interviews X
Fieldwork tools design X X
Define school sample X 
Submit Report 1 X
Feedback of Report 1 X 
Contact schools, fieldwork schedule, 
roadmaps 
X
 X 
Prepare fieldwork team X X 
STAGE TWO: FIELDWORK 
Visit 1: Evaluation Team USAID offices X X
Fieldwork at schools X X X X
85
Document material analysis
X
X
Quantitative data analysis
X
X
Interview Analysis (Key Informants)
X
X
Visit 2: Evaluation Team
X
Transcription of the material
X
X
X
X
X
STAGE THREE: DATA ANALYSIS 
School Case study reports 
X
X
X
X
Classroom Observation Analysis 
X
X
Focus Group Analysis (intra
-case 
analysis)
X
X
Integrated Analysis: Document Material 
quantitative data
- qualitative 
information
X
X
Submit Report 2
X
STAGE THREE
Counterpart Revision
X
Reception of counterpart commentaries
X
Preparation of Report 3
X
Submission of Report 3
X
Final Presentation
86
Report Submission: 
Report 1 (research design): JUNE 19th 
Report 2 (draft of research findings and conclusions): AUGUST 9th 
Feedback of USAID Team to Report 2: JUNE 14th / 16th 
Report 3 (final version of research findings and conclusions): AGUST 23rd
Video conference meeting: To be confirmed (during last week of august 26-30)
DIMENTIONS TO STUDY 
INTERVIEWS TO KEY ACTORS 
Dimensions Sub-dimensions 
Contribución de 
REAULA a: 
Sistema Nacional de Formación del Recurso Humano en Educación 
(SINAFORHE)
Sistema Nacional de Acompañamiento Educativo (SINAE)
Sistema Nacional de Acreditación y Certificación (SINACE)
Libros y materiales educativos
Avances y desafíos 
en la
implementación
del MINEDUC de: 
Modelo Bilingüe Intercultural
Reforma de Educación Inicial
Reforma de Educación Secundaria
Modelo de 
organización 
Coordinación y grado de participación en REAULA de parte de:
- Departamentos y Municipalidades
- Supervisores Educativos
- Facilitadores Pedagógicos 
- Equipos profesionales de las escuelas 
- Padres/apoderados u otros actores de la comunidad
- Contribución del modelo de organización al logro de “Salas de Calidad”
Zonas de 
oportunidades 
- Factores de una implementación exitosa 
- Dificultades y limitantes 
- Lecciones aprendidas 
Evaluación del 
proceso 
- Ajustes al modelo y plan inicial
- Oportunidades no esperadas, y modos en que fueron aprovechadas (o no)
- Dificultades/cambios a las que se enfrentaron
- Modos de resolver los problemas 
 Aprendizajes de la experiencia 
Evaluación de 
resultados 
(síntesis)
- Logros y avances 
- No logros y desafíos pendientes
- Sugerencias para la mejorar
FOCUS GROUP TO TEACHERS 
Dimensions Sub-dimensions 
Grado de 
conocimiento de 
REAULA 
- Diagnóstico inicial a la que busca responder
- Objetivos
- Estrategias/actividades
Aportes a los 
directivos, 
docentes y 
escuela en 
general de: 
- Sistema Nacional de Formación del Recurso Humano en Educación 
(SINAFORHE)
- Sistema Nacional de Acompañamiento Educativo (SINAE)
- Sistema Nacional de Acreditación y Certificación (SINACE)
- Libros y materiales educativos
Avances y 
desafíos en la 
implementación 
del MINEDUC 
de: 
- Modelo Bilingüe Intercultural
- Reforma de Educación Inicial
- Reforma de Educación Secundaria
Modelo de 
organización
Apoyo y contribución de X para el logro de “Salas de Calidad”
- Departamentos y Municipalidades
- Supervisores Educativos
- Facilitadores Pedagógicos 
- Padres/apoderados u otros actores de la comunidad
Evaluación del 
proceso 
- Ajustes al modelo/plan inicial
- Oportunidades no esperadas, y modos de aprovecharlas (o no)
- Dificultades/cambios a las que se enfrentaron
- Modos de resolver los problemas 
- Aprendizajes de la experiencia 
Evaluación de 
resultados 
(síntesis)
- Logros y avances 
- No logros y desafíos pendientes
- Sugerencias para la mejorar
FOCUS GROUP TO STUDENTS 
Dimensions Questions 
Rutinas en la 
escuela 
En un día normal, ¿qué actividades realizan en la escuela?, ¿Cómo son 
las clases?
Grado de 
satisfacción y 
aspectos 
positivos de la 
escuela y 
docentes 
¿Qué lo que más les gusta de la escuelas?, ¿De sus maestros?, ¿Sienten 
que lo que hacen/estudian les sirve?, ¿Para qué?, ¿Les parece que 
aprenden suficiente?, ¿Qué aprendizajes más importantes les ha 
entregado la escuela?, ¿Cómo y con quiénes dirían que aprenden 
mejor?, ¿Por qué? 
Aprendizaje de 
la L1 y L2 
¿Cómo son sus clases en Comunicación y Leguaje?, ¿En qué idioma son 
normalmente?, ¿En qué idioma hablan, leen, escriben?, ¿Cómo son los 
libros/ textos que utilizan?
Aspectos críticos 
de la escuela y 
Sugerencias 
¿Qué aspectos no les gustan de la escuela?, ¿Qué les gustaría que 
cambiara?, Si tuvieran que hacer alguna recomendación, ¿qué dirían?
FOCUS GROUP TO PARENTS 
Dimensions Questions 
Participación en 
la escuela 
¿Se sienten informados de lo que ocurre en la escuela (proyecto 
educativo, organización interna, actividades de los alumnos)?; 
¿Participan en el quehacer de la escuela?, ¿De qué modo?, ¿Les 
gustaría participar más en la escuela?, ¿Cómo?
Grado de 
satisfacción y 
aspectos positivos 
de la escuela y 
docentes 
¿Qué les parece esta escuela?, ¿El director/a?, ¿Los maestros?, ¿Qué es 
lo que más les gusta?, ¿Por qué consideran que es importante que sus 
hijos asistan a la escuela?, ¿Existe algún motivo por el cual ustedes 
dejarían de enviar a sus hijos a la escuela?
Aprendizaje de la 
L1 y L2 
¿En qué idioma aprenden sus hijos normalmente?, ¿En qué idioma 
hablan, leen, escriben?, ¿Cómo son los libros/ textos que utilizan?, ¿Qué 
les gustaría?, Están conformes con el aprendizaje de su L1 y L2?
Aspectos críticos ¿Qué aspectos no les gustan de la escuela?, ¿Qué les gustaría que 
de la escuela y 
Sugerencias 
cambiara?, Si tuvieran que hacer alguna recomendación a la escuela, 
¿qué dirían?
CLASSROOM OBSERVATION GUIDE (6 PRIMARY SCHOOLS) 
Dimensiones To observe 
ENSEÑANZA DEL 
MAESTRO/A
Realiza actividades para activar los conocimientos previos de los 
niños sobre el contenido que se enseñará.
Presenta las ideas centrales del contenido con claridad y precisión.
Realiza actividades desafiantes que desarrollan el pensamiento 
(comparar, resumir, clasificar, describir, relacionar, etc.).
Ofrece apoyo a los alumnos para lograr la comprensión de todos los 
alumnos (ofrece ejemplos, modelos, aclaraciones).
Realiza actividades desafiantes que desarrollan el pensamiento de los 
niños y niñas (comparar, resumir, clasificar, describir, relacionar, etc.)
Aprovecha el tiempo disponible para instancias de aprendizaje.
MAESTRO/A EN 
INTERACCION CON 
LOS ALUMNOS
Interactúa con los alumnos, los escucha con atención y valora sus 
aportes e intervenciones, especialmente aquellas relacionadas con su 
entorno sociocultural. 
Promueve la interacción de los alumnos entre ellos (trabajo 
colaborativo).
Crea un ambiente de respeto y cordialidad entre los alumnos y con el 
maestro/a.
Formula preguntas abiertas a los niños y los estimula para que ellos 
pregunten, sin temor a cometer errores. 
ENSEÑANZA DE LA 
LECTURA Y/O 
ESCRITURA
El maestro hace buen uso del lenguaje (habla y escribe bien en la
lengua que enseña, ya sea la lengua indígena o el español).
Los alumnos tienen oportunidad para expresarse libremente en su L1 
y L2. 
El maestro/a motiva y contextualiza los aprendizajes de la lectura y 
escritura (presenta los nuevos contenidos dentro de situaciones o 
textos), en la lengua materna de los niños y niñas.
En caso de trabajar la lectura, el/la maestro/a: 
- Pide a alumnos que hagan predicciones sobre el contenido del texto 
que leerán (a partir de la observación del título o de las ilustraciones).
- Ofrece a los alumnos oportunidades de lectura en silencio o en voz 
alta.
- Realiza actividades para la comprensión del texto. Formula 
preguntas o pide identificar situaciones, personajes, argumento, idea 
central, detalles de la historia (preguntas sobre información explícita, 
información implícita o inferencial, sobre opiniones o valoración de lo 
leído).
- Pide a los estudiantes que: resuman, extraigan conclusiones, 
comparen, hagan una dramatización, completen un organizador 
gráfico con información de lo leído, hagan un dibujo basado en el texto 
leído.
- Entrega oportunidades motivantes para la lectura en L1 y L2. 
- Propone actividades contextualizadas para desarrollar conciencia 
fonológica, decodificación y otras destrezas de lectura.
En caso de trabajar la escritura, el/la maestro/a: 
- Pide escribir textos significativos (más allá de oraciones y palabras), 
como carta, receta, noticia, poema, cuento.
- Enseña ortografía y gramática de modo contextualizado y 
significativo en relación a un texto.
- Entrega oportunidades motivantes para la escritura en L1 y L2.
ESPACIO, 
AMBIENTACIÓN Y 
MATERIALES 
La organización del espacio facilita el objetivo de la clase y la 
interacción verbal. 
La ambientación de la sala promueve el aprendizaje significativo del 
L1 y L2 (ej. biblioteca en sala, posters, periódico mural, trabajos de los 
alumnos).
Existen materiales a disposición de los alumnos que apoyan el 
aprendizaje en la clase. 
Los materiales que se utilizan apoyan tanto el aprendizaje de la L1 y 
L2.
NOTA: Esta pauta tiene un carácter exhaustivo con el fin de tomar en cuenta todas 
las dimensiones de la calidad en el desarrollo de los aprendizajes y de la enseñanza, 
tanto de la L1 como la L2, según cada caso. Las actividades o situaciones de la pauta 
que no se presenten en las clases observadas se señalarán como no observadas.
INTERVIEW GUIDES 
INTERVIEW GUIDE TO KEY INFORMANTS 
**Esta pauta debe usarse de modo flexible, adecuándose al área de conocimiento y 
experiencia del entrevistado en REAULA. 
1. Preguntas Introductorias: ¿En qué trabaja?, ¿Cuál ha sido su involucramiento y 
rol en REAULA?, ¿Cuánto tiempo lleva en ello?
2. Contribución de REAULA.
- Desde su experiencia, ¿de qué modo REAULA ha contribuido?, ¿Por qué?, ¿Cómo? 
Referirse a: 
- Sistema Nacional de Formación del Recurso Humano en Educación 
(SINAFORHE)
- Sistema Nacional de Acompañamiento Educativo (SINAE) 
- Sistema Nacional de Acreditación y Certificación (SINACE) 
- Libros y materiales educativos 
3. Avances y desafíos en la implementación del MINEDUC de: 
- Desde su punto de vista, ¿cuáles son los principales avances/logros y no logros/ 
desafíos? Referirse a: 
- Modelo Bilingüe Intercultural 
- Reforma de Educación Inicial 
- Reforma de Educación Secundaria 
4. Modelo de organización 
- ¿Cómo evalúa la instalación de REAULA en el nivel local? 
- ¿Cómo evalúa la coordinación y grado de participación en REAULA de parte de:? 
- Departamentos y Municipalidades 
- Supervisores Educativos 
- Facilitadores Pedagógicos 
- Equipos profesionales de las escuelas 
- Padres/apoderados u otros actores de la comunidad 
- ¿De qué modo ha contribuido el modelo de organización del programa a nivel local para el 
logro de las “Aulas de Calidad”?
5. “Zonas de oportunidades”
- De acuerdo a su experiencia y punto de vista, ¿cómo evalúa la estrategia de las zonas 
de oportunidades? Refiérase a: 
o Factores para una implementación exitosa
o Dificultades y limitantes 
o Lecciones aprendidas 
6. Evaluación del proceso 
- De acuerdo a su experiencia, ¿Cómo evalúa el proceso de implementación del 
programa REAULA? 
- ¿Cuáles fueron los cambios y ajuste al plan inicial?, ¿por qué? 
- ¿Cuáles fueron las oportunidades no esperadas y los modos en que fueron 
aprovecharon (o no)? 
- ¿Cuáles fueron las dificultades a las que se enfrentaron y los modos de resolver los 
problemas? 
- ¿Cuáles fueron los aprendizajes de la experiencia? 
7. Evaluación de resultados
A modo de síntesis, refiérase a: 
- Logros y avances 
- No logros y desafíos pendientes 
- Sugerencias para la mejorar 
INTERVIEW GUIDE TO PRINCIPLES AND TEACHERS 
1. Grado de conocimiento de REAULA 
- ¿Cuál es el diagnóstico inicial a la que REAULA busca responder? 
- ¿Cuáles diría que son sus principales objetivos? 
- ¿Cuáles diría que son sus principales estrategias/actividades? 
2. Contribución de REAULA. 
- Desde su experiencia, ¿de qué modo REAULA ha contribuido?, ¿Por qué?, ¿Cómo? 
Referirse a: 
- Sistema Nacional de Formación del Recurso Humano en Educación 
(SINAFORHE)
- Sistema Nacional de Acompañamiento Educativo (SINAE) 
- Sistema Nacional de Acreditación y Certificación (SINACE) 
- Libros y materiales educativos 
3. Avances y desafíos en la implementación del MINEDUC de: 
- Desde su punto de vista, ¿cuáles son los princilaes avances/logros y no logros/ desafíos? 
Referirse a: 
- Modelo Bilingüe Intercultural 
- Reforma de Educación Inicial 
- Reforma de Educación Secundaria 
4. Modelo de organización 
- ¿Cómo evalúa la instalación de REAULA en el nivel local? 
- ¿Cómo evalúa la coordinación y grado de participación en REAULA de parte de:? 
- Departamentos y Municipalidades 
- Supervisores Educativos 
- Facilitadores Pedagógicos 
- Equipos profesionales de las escuelas 
- Padres/apoderados u otros actores de la comunidad 
- ¿De qué modo ha contribuido el modelo de organización del programa a nivel local para el 
logro de las “Aulas de Calidad”?
6. Evaluación del proceso 
- De acuerdo a su experiencia, ¿Cómo evalúa el proceso de implementación del 
programa REAULA? 
- ¿Cuáles fueron los cambios y ajuste al plan inicial?, ¿por qué? 
- ¿Cuáles fueron las oportunidades no esperadas y los modos en que fueron 
aprovecharon (o no)? 
- ¿Cuáles fueron las dificultades a las que se enfrentaron y los modos de resolver los 
problemas? 
- ¿Cuáles fueron los aprendizajes de la experiencia? 
7. Evaluación de resultados
A modo de síntesis, refiérase a: 
- Logros y avances 
- No logros y desafíos pendientes 
- Sugerencias para la mejorar 
FOCUS GROUP TO STUDENTS 
1. Rutinas en la escuela 
- En un día normal, ¿qué actividades realizan en la escuela?, ¿Cómo son las clases? 
2. Grado de satisfacción y aspectos positivos de la escuela y docentes 
- ¿Qué lo que más les gusta de la escuelas?, ¿De sus maestros?, 
- ¿Sienten que lo que hacen/estudian les sirve?, ¿Para qué?, 
- ¿Les parece que aprenden suficiente?, ¿Qué aprendizajes más importantes les ha 
entregado la escuela?, 
- ¿Cómo y con quiénes dirían que aprenden mejor?, ¿Por qué? 
3. Aprendizaje de la L1 y L2 
- ¿Cómo son sus clases en Comunicación y Leguaje?, 
- ¿En qué idioma son normalmente?, 
- ¿En qué idioma hablan, leen, escriben?, 
- ¿Cómo son los libros/ textos que utilizan?
4. Aspectos críticos de la escuela y Sugerencias 
- ¿Qué aspectos no les gustan de la escuela?, ¿Qué les gustaría que cambiara? 
- Si tuvieran que hacer alguna recomendación, ¿qué dirían?
FOCUS GROUP TO PARENTS 
1. Participación en la escuela
- ¿Se sienten informados de lo que ocurre en la escuela (proyecto educativo, 
organización interna, actividades de los alumnos)? 
- ¿Participan en el quehacer de la escuela?, ¿De qué modo? 
- ¿Les gustaría participar más en la escuela?, ¿Cómo? 
2. Grado de satisfacción y aspectos positivos de la escuela y docentes
- ¿Qué les parece esta escuela?, ¿El director/a?, ¿Los maestros? 
- ¿Por qué consideran que es importante que sus hijos asistan a la escuela? 
- ¿Existe algún motivo por el cual ustedes dejarían de enviar a sus hijos a la escuela? 
3. Aprendizaje de la L1 y L2
- ¿En qué idioma aprenden sus hijos normalmente?, 
- ¿En qué idioma hablan, leen, escriben?, 
- ¿Cómo son los libros/ textos que utilizan? 
- ¿Están conformes con el aprendizaje de su L1 y L2?, ¿Cómo les gustaría? 
4. Aspectos críticos de la escuela y sugerencias 
- ¿Qué aspectos no les gustan de la escuela?, ¿Qué les gustaría que cambiara? 
- Si tuvieran que hacer alguna recomendación a la escuela, ¿qué dirían? 
CLASSROOM OBSERVATION GUIDE 
PAUTA DE OBSERVACIÓN DE CLASES 
Profesor(a) observado: ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Observador(a): ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Escuela: ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Nivel: …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….……..
Número de alumnos: niños …………… niñas: ………………
Departamento: …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
CRITERIOS E 
INDICADORES
DESCRIPCIÓN COMENTARIO
1.ENSEÑANZA RIGUROSA 
DE CONTENIDOS
EL MAESTRO(A):
1.1. Realiza actividades para 
activar los 
conocimientos previos 
de los niños sobre el 
contenido (preguntas, 
organizador gráfico, 
otros)
1.2. Presenta las ideas 
centrales del contenido 
con claridad y precisión
(escribe en la pizarra, 
utiliza material didáctico)
1.3. Realiza actividades 
desafiantes que 
desarrollan el 
pensamiento (comparar, 
resumir, clasificar, 
describir, relacionar, 
etc.)
1.4. Ofrece apoyo a los 
alumnos para lograr que 
todos comprendan 
(ofrece ejemplos, 
modelos, aclaraciones, 
utiliza la lengua 
materna)
1.5. Aprovecha el tiempo 
disponible para instancias 
de aprendizaje.
2. INTERACCIONES
EL MAESTRO(A):
2.1. Interactúa con los 
alumnos, los escucha con 
atención y valora sus 
aportes e intervenciones, 
especialmente aquellas 
relacionadas con su entorno 
sociocultural. 
2.2. Promueve la interacción 
de los alumnos entre ellos 
(trabajo colaborativo)
2.3. Crea un ambiente de 
respeto y cordialidad entre los 
alumnos y con el maestro.
2.4. Formula preguntas abiertas 
a los niños y los estimula para 
que ellos pregunten, sin temor 
a cometer errores
3. ENSEÑANZA DE LA LECTURA
EL MAESTRO(A):
3.1. Contextualiza los aprendizajes 
(presenta los nuevos 
contenidos dentro de 
situaciones o textos) en la 
lengua materna de los niños y 
niñas.
3.2. Ofrece a los alumnos 
frecuentes oportunidades para 
expresarse libremente en la L1 
y la L2.
3.3. Hace buen uso del lenguaje 
(habla y escribe bien en la 
lengua que enseña, ya sea la 
lengua indígena o el español).
3.4. Pide a estudiantes que hagan 
predicciones sobre el 
contenido del texto que leerán 
(a partir de la observación del 
título o de las ilustraciones).
3.5. Lee en voz alta y/o invita a 
los estudiantes a leer en voz 
alta o en silencio.
3.6.Realiza actividades para la 
comprensión del texto, tales 
como:
- Formula preguntas o pide 
identificar situaciones, 
personajes, argumento, idea 
central, detalles de la historia 
(preguntas sobre información 
explícita, información implícita o 
inferencial, sobre opiniones o 
valoración de lo leído) 
3.7.Pide a los estudiantes que, en 
la L1 o L2, muestren 
comprensión de lo leído a 
través de actividades como: 
resuman, extraigan 
conclusiones, comparen, 
hagan una dramatización, 
completen un organizador 
gráfico con información de lo 
leído, hagan un dibujo basado 
en el texto leído
3.8.En los cursos iniciales, 
propone ejercicios 
contextualizados de lectura en 
la L1 o L2 de: oraciones, 
palabras, sílabas,
segmentación de palabras en 
sílabas o fonemas.
4. ESCRITURA
EL MAESTRO(A):
4.1. Pide escribir un texto a 
partir de lo leído (carta, noticia, 
poema, cuento) en la L1 o L2.
4.2. Pide escribir textos en L1 o 
L2 (más allá de oraciones y 
palabras) tales como-
 historias
 recetas
 noticias
 poemas
 cartas, otros.
4.3. Invita a alumnos a leer sus 
textos escritos frente a sus 
compañeros.
4.4. Pide a los niños escribir en 
la L1 o L2 letras, palabras u 
oraciones, ya sea:
 copiadas
 dictadas
4.5. Enseña aspectos 
gramaticales de la L1 o L2, tales 
como: plurales, posesivos, 
prefijos, sufijos, 
tiempos verbales, raíces de las 
palabras
4.6. Realiza actividades de 
estructuración de oraciones en 
la lengua que enseña (sintaxis), 
tales como: ordenar palabras en 
la oración, ampliar las 
oraciones, reemplazar palabras 
en la oración, suprimir palabras 
en la oración
4.7. Realiza actividades para 
desarrollar vocabulario en la L1 
o L2, tales como: encontrar 
significado de palabras, 
definiciones, sinónimos, 
antónimos, uso de palabras en 
oraciones, búsqueda de 
palabras en diccionarios.
4.8. Enseña ortografía de la 
lengua que enseña (L1 o L2):
- acentuación 
- puntuación
- uso de mayúsculas, etc.
5. ORGANIZACIÓN DEL 
ESPACIO, y AMBIENTACIÓN 
5.1. La organización de la sala 
facilita la interacción entre 
estudiantes y con el maestro
5.2. La ambientación de la sala 
promueve el aprendizaje 
significativo de la L1 y la L2. 
(hay una biblioteca de aula 
bilingüe, afiches, periódico 
mural, trabajos de los alumnos).
5.3. Existen materiales 
didácticos para apoyar los 
aprendizajes de los niños y 
niñas, en L1 y L2.
5.4. El aula está ordenada y 
aseada
FECHA: ………………………………………………………
NOTA: esta pauta tiene un carácter exhaustivo con el fin de tomar en cuenta todas las dimensiones de la calidad en el 
desarrollo de los aprendizajes y de la enseñanza, tanto de la L1 como la L2, según cada caso. Sin embargo, por razones 
obvias, es muy posible que algunas de las actividades o situaciones que contiene la pauta no se presenten en las 
clases observadas. En ese caso se señalará que esa dimensión no estuvo presente. 
Matriz: Preguntas Ejes / trabajo de campo 
Tópicos evaluados Entrevistados claves Departament
o/ Escuela 
Documentos
1. ¿Cómo REAULA contribuye al desarrollo e implementación de las siguientes políticas y 
sistemas?: 
Institución Nombre
1.1. Sistema Nacional 
de Formación del 
Recurso Humano en 
Educación 
(SINAFORHE) 
Asamblea Nacional 
del Magisterio / 
Sindicato de 
Trabajadores de la 
Educación de 
Guatemala
ANM/STEG
Rodrigo 
Hernández
“Estrategia del 
Sistema Nacional 
de Formación 
Docente y Plan de 
Implementación”
“Propuesta de 
Carrera Docente, 
parte académica, y 
técnico 
administrativa”
Joviel Acevedo
MINEDUC Local Aníbal Arizmendy 
Martínez
Juan Basilio Tahay
Roelmer Antonio 
Cardona
Edith Téllez
Supervisores 
MINEDUC
Nicolás Geovanni 
León
Gladys Pacheco
Santa Isabel 
Alvarado Par
Marvin Baten 
Ajanel
Miembros de 
organizaciones no 
gubernamentales
Federico Roncal
Autoridades Locales Santiago Pelicó
Amarildo Chun
Ex-Funcionarios del 
MINEDUC 
Grupal
Directivos en 
Universidades 
Grupal
Representantes USAC Oscar Hugo López
1.2.Sistema Nacional 
de Acompañamiento 
Educativo 
(SINAE) 
Asamblea Nacional 
del Magisterio / 
Sindicato de 
Trabajadores de la 
Educación de 
Guatemala
ANM/STEG
Rodrigo 
Hernández
“Sistematización 
del plan piloto del 
Sistema Nacional 
de 
Acompañamiento 
Escolar”
Joviel Acevedo
Despacho Superior 
Ministerio de 
Educación
Eligio Sic Ixpancoc
MINEDUC local Aníbal Arizmendy 
Martínez
Juan Basilio Tahay
Roelmer Antonio 
Cardona
Edith Téllez
Supervisores 
MINEDUC
Nicolás Geovanni 
León
Gladys Pacheco
Santa Isabel 
Alvarado Par
Marvin Baten 
Ajanel
Miembros 
organizaciones no 
gubernamentales
Federico Roncal
Ex funcionarios 
MINEDUC
Grupal
Directores de 
Direcciones 
MINEDUC
Grupal
Representantes USAC Oscar Hugo López
1.3. Sistema Nacional 
de Acreditación y 
Certificación (SINACE) 
Asamblea Nacional 
del Magisterio / 
Sindicato de 
Trabajadores de la 
Educación de 
Guatemala
ANM/STEG
Rodrigo 
Hernández
Joviel Acevedo
MINEDUC local Edith Téllez
Aníbal Arizmendy 
Martínez
Directores de 
Direcciones del 
MINEDUC 
Grupal
Directivos en 
Universidades 
Grupal
Representantes USAC Oscar Hugo López
1.4.Libros y materiales 
de programas 
Despacho Superior 
Ministerio de 
Educación
Evelyn Amado de 
Segura
MINEDUC local Edith Téllez
Roelmer Antonio 
Cardona
Alba Orozco
Supervisores 
MINEDUC
Nicolás Geovanni 
León
Gladys Pacheco
Santa Isabel 
Alvarado Par
Representantes de 
Empresarios por la 
Educación
Verónica Spross
Autoridades locales Giovani Martínez
Noé Soto
Santiago Pelicó
Amarildo Chun
Directores de 
Direcciones del 
MINEDUC 
Grupal
2. ¿Avances y desafíos del MOE en la implementación de las siguientes reformas?: 
2.1 Modelo EIB Despacho Superior 
del Ministerio de 
Educación
Eligio Sic Ixpancoc “Estrategia de 
implementación 
del Modelo de 
Educación Bilingüe 
Intercultural 
Basado en 
Estándares”
“Modelo nacional 
de educación 
bilingüe 
intercultural 
enfocado a la 
lectoescritura para 
preprimaria hasta 
tercer grado de 
primaria, basado 
en estándares”
Gutberto Leiva
MINEDUC local Alba Orozco
Roelmer Antonio 
Cardona
Supervisores 
MINEDUC
Nicolás Geovanni 
León
Gladys Pacheco
Santa Isabel 
Alvarado Par
Miembros de 
organizaciones no 
gubernamentales
Federico Ronca
Roberto Tekú
Autoridades locales Santiago Pelicó
Amarildo Chun
Ex-Funcionarios del 
MINEDUC 
Grupal
Directores de 
Direcciones del 
MINEDUC 
Grupal
Directivos en 
Universidades 
Grupal
Político 
Administración Otto 
Pérez
Luis Fernando 
Paredes
2.2. Reforma de 
Educación Inicial 
Despacho Superior 
del Ministerio de 
Educación
Eligio Sic Ixpancoc “Modelo de 
Educación Inicial y 
Pre-primaria”
MIENDUC local Edith Téllez
Miembros 
organizaciones no 
gubernamentales
Benito Terraza
Representantes de 
Empresarios por la 
Educación
Verónica Spross
Ex-Funcionarios del 
MINEDUC 
Grupal
Directores de 
Direcciones del 
MINEDUC 
Mónica Flores
Oscar Saquil
Luisa Müller
María José del Valle
2.3.Reforma de 
Educación Secundaria 
(Life Competencies)
Despacho Superior 
del Ministerio de 
Educación
Evelyn Amado de 
Segura
“Propuesta de 
transformación 
del nivel medio en 
Guatemala”
Eligio Sic Ixpancoc
Representantes de 
Empresarios por la 
Educación
Verónica Spross
Directores de 
Direcciones del 
MINEDUC 
Grupal
3. ¿Cómo el proyecto 
se adaptó a los 
cambios políticos 
para el logro de las 
Miembros del 
equipo profesional 
de REAULA
Fernando Rubio
Gabriela Núñez
Julio Estrada
Amarilys Franco
Despacho Superior Cynthia del Águila
metas? 
¿Oportunidades 
perdidas?
del Ministerio de 
Educación
Evelyn Amado de 
Segura
Eligio Sic Ixpancoc
Gutberto Leiva
Alfredo García
Representantes de 
la Gran Campaña 
por la Educación
Floridalma Meza
Raquel Zelaya
Grupo Promotor de 
la Educación
Herminia Reyes
María Ester Ortega
Políticos de la 
Administración Otto 
Pérez
Luis Fernando 
Paredes
Ex-Funcionarios del 
MINEDUC
Grupal
Directores de 
Direcciones del 
MINEDUC 
Grupal
4. ¿De qué modo el 
modelo de 
instalación en el 
nivel local (Bottom￾up model) 
contribuyó a “Quality 
Classroom Model”? 
¿Lecciones?
Miembros del 
equipo profesional 
de REAULA
Sophia Maldonado “Estrategias de 
Desarrollo de 
Capacidades 
Locales” MINEDUC local Aníbal Arizmendy 
Martínez
Juan Basilio Tahay
Roelmer Antonio 
Cardona
Alba Orozco
Edith Téllez
Supervisores de 
MINEDUC
Nicolás Geovanni 
León
Marvin Baten Ajanel
Gladys Pacheco
Santa Isabel 
Alvarado Par
Miembros de 
organizaciones no 
gubernamentales
Roberto Tekú
Victor Xicará López
Representantes de 
la Gran Campaña 
por la Educación
Floridalma Meza
Raquel Zelaya
Representantes de 
Empresarios por la 
Educación
Verónica Spross
Grupo Promotor de 
la Educación
Herminia Reyes
María Ester Ortega
Políticos de la 
Administración Otto 
Pérez
Luis Fernando 
Paredes
Autoridades locales Giovani Martínez
Noé Soto
Santiago Pelicó
Amarildo Chun
Ex-Funcionarios del 
MINEDUC
Grupal
5. ¿Qué factores de la MINEDUC local Juan Basilio Tahay
Alba Orozco
implementación de 
las “zonas de 
oportunidades” 
permitieron una 
implementación 
exitosa? ¿Lecciones?
Miembros de 
organizaciones no 
gubernamentales 
Victor Xicará López
Benito Terraza
Representantes de 
la Gran Campaña 
por la Educación
Floridalma Meza
Raquel Zelaya
Grupo Promotor de 
la Educación
Herminia Reyes
María Ester Ortega
Autoridades locales Noé Soto
Santiago Pelicó
Amarildo Chun
Directores de 
Direcciones del 
MINEDUC 
Grupal
APPENDIX Nº8: 
USAID/Education Reform in the Classroom Implemented by Juárez & Associates 
Final Performance Evaluation 
Scope of Work 
I Purpose 
USAID/Guatemala seeks to contract professional services to conduct a final performance evaluation for its 
Education Reform in the Classroom/Reforma Educativa en el Aula (REAULA) project. USAID/Guatemala will 
use the evaluation to inform future project design in Guatemala’s education sector. This performance evaluation is 
expected to comply with USAID’s Evaluation Policy (http://www.usaid.gov/evaluation). 
II Background 
In 2009 a task order was awarded to Juárez and Associates for the implementation of REAULA. The project is 
being implemented until September 2013. 
Despite improvements in education service delivery subsequent to the 1996 Peace Accords, Guatemala lags 
significantly behind most other countries in the Latin America region in nearly all education indicators. While 
overall coverage has increased markedly in recent years—reaching 96 percent net primary enrollment in 2011 (up 
from 72 percent in 1991)—too few children attend pre-primary school (55 percent), lower secondary education 
(43 percent), and upper secondary education (22 percent).
1
 Poor educational access and attainment limit the 
acquisition of skills and knowledge they need to live healthy and productive adult lives outside of poverty. While 
education policies have slowly shifted from a primary focus on extending coverage to improving quality, the 
system is still characterized by exceedingly poor quality. 
Deficiencies in educational quality and low student outcomes and performance are largely related to poor teacher 
preparation
2
, insufficient resources, inappropriate instructional strategies, children’s poor nutritional status, and 
need for children to contribute labor to their families’ livelihood. Because of these deficiencies, Guatemala has 
the lowest primary completion rate in Central America. Fifty percent of children who enter first grade do not 
finish Primary Level on time. Only 52 percent of sixth graders pass the standardized test in Mathematics and 31 
percent pass in Reading. Low levels of completion and performance, especially for rural indigenous children and 
girls, and high levels of repetition and desertion result in a labor force ill prepared to compete with other countries 
in the region. Internal inefficiencies exacerbate shortfalls in education system financing by effectively raising the 
cost for each successful school graduate. These higher costs limit availability of funds for investments that are 
required for improvements in educational quality. 
Despite clear evidence derived from research on learning, Guatemala has still not managed to adequately plan and 
implement an effective, sustainable strategy for children to learn to read and write in their mother tongue and 
Spanish. This is one of the principal causes of the high dropout and repetition rates in the early grades of primary 
education. The Ministry of Education’s (MOE) stated goal is to achieve bilingualism and bi-literacy (Spanish and 
Mayan languages) by third grade. Many pieces are already in place for an effective bilingual education learning 
and teaching model, many of which have been developed with USAID assistance in conjunction with local efforts 
and other donors. However, to make the necessary leap in quality and learning improvements, it is necessary to 
consolidate and implement an effective model for children to acquire bi-literacy. 
An important challenge for Guatemala is to ensure that reforms are institutionalized independent of 
1
Ministry of Education official data 
2
In 2013, a reform will take effect that requires 
post high school training for teachers. 
administrations. Reforms need to be effectively communicated to a broad range of stakeholders, including citizen 
groups, Ministry officials, teachers’ union representatives, the academic community, and business partners. Only 
then can we guarantee that reforms are fully implemented, monitored and systematically evaluated, and, most 
importantly, that they positively impact children in the classroom. 
More than 40% of first graders will not complete Primary Education on time. This is the consequence of low 
quality levels starting in first grade; more than a third of first graders are not promoted. However, 100% of 
students that complete Primary Education on time (12 years old) do enroll systematically in lower secondary 
education. Low enrollment rates in secondary education are due to low completion rates in primary education. In 
order to increase enrollment rates in Secondary, continuous work to improve the education quality in Primary 
Level needs to continue. In the meantime, to increase the number of students who enroll in secondary education, 
the support of non-traditional primary completion programs for out-of-school children is needed. 
III Objectives of USAID/ Guatemala Education Reform in the Classroom 
The overall objective of REAULA is to ensure education reform in the classroom and the application of effective, 
innovative approaches to increase and improve basic education opportunities. REAULA provides technical 
assistance to improve access, quality, equity, and efficiency of basic education. For that purpose, the project 
focuses on the following aspects in the opportunity zones identified: increasing teacher effectiveness; improving 
classroom-learning environments; fostering effective first and second language acquisition and reading; extending 
access to under-served populations, women and indigenous groups; and expanding parents’, communities’ and 
stakeholders’ participation in student learning. 
Specific Objectives 
1 Strengthen teacher skills, administrative procedures, and educational products in the classroom 
throughout the education system. 
2 Increase MOE professional and teaching staff effectiveness and professional development linkages to 
ensure that classrooms provide effective learning. 
3 Improve classroom learning by developing, implementing, testing, and adapting interventions and 
innovations that are known to be effective internationally and in Guatemala. 
4 Enhance local education opportunities that support and enrich classroom learning. 
Organizing Principles 
1. Emphasize the development of reading and writing skills as the basis to improving learning. 
2. Focus on demand at the classroom-, school-, and community-levels to improve supply of services, 
rather than begin with centralized definitions of improving supply of service delivery. 
Project Information Project to be evaluated: Education Reform in the 
Classroom/Reforma Educativa en el Aula (REAULA) Agreement #: EDH-I-05-05-00033-00 
Award Dates: September 2009 - September 2013 Total Estimated Cost: USD 13,664,302 
Implementing Organization: Juarez and Associates, Inc. Contract Officer’s 
Representative: Juan Luis Córdova 
3. Strengthen management decision-making skills and leadership abilities through practical problem 
solving based on the reality in schools and classrooms. 
4. Create integrated tools and procedures that assist teachers and administrators to meet the diverse needs 
of the classroom. 
5. Use communication as a tool by which administrators disseminate information on policies, 
innovations, professional development opportunities and progress in student development, as well as obtain 
feedback on the understanding and acceptance of their decisions throughout an educational system. 
Section IV provides a more detailed description of each component of REAULA. In addition, REAULA’s 
statement of work is attached. USAID/Guatemala will provide other relevant documents upon award. 
IV Scope of Work for REAULA’s Performance Evaluation 
The purpose of this evaluation is to assess the outcomes achieved by REAULA in meeting its technical assistance 
and capacity-building objectives, and identify areas for future support of the Guatemalan public education system 
through the remainder of the Education Strategy. This evaluation will be used internally by USAID technical staff 
to assess the main accomplishments of the project and to inform future project design in Guatemala’s education 
sector. 
This evaluation should also provide a broad look at potential investments in the Education Sector. In this sense, 
the offeror will: 
1 Evaluate the performance of the REAULA project through the date the evaluation begins; and assess 
the accomplishments of the goal established for the last implementation quarter ending September 
2013; 
2 Provide technical recommendations based on the findings and conclusions to incorporate in a future 
project design in Guatemala’s education sector;
3 
3 Identify areas for strategic USAID support to the education sector in the future. 
In summary, the offeror will complete a performance evaluation that addresses all four inter-related components of 
the project as outlined in Section V below. 
V Description of REAULA Components 
1. Institutional Strengthening for Effective Quality of Education in the Classroom. 
1.1 Description 
After a previous project focusing on Educational Standards, USAID is following up standards implementation in 
the classroom. One of the objectives of REAULA is to support the MOE in the correct implementation of the 
National Curriculum, Standards, testing and monitoring of education quality. In order to improve sustainability and 
strengthen institutional capacity, this project’s approach is to empower MOE staff to promote best practices at the 
central, local and school levels. 
This component aims to integrate the above mentioned areas into the implementation of the Intercultural and 
Bilingual Education Model presented by the Alvaro Colom administration in 2009. First and second language 
literacy is a cornerstone for improving education results at the classroom level in Guatemala. Moreover, the project 
focuses on the MOE’s implementation of teacher and administrative training, good practices in the classroom, and 
educational products that enhance learning in the classroom. 
3
Recommendations for future project design are expected to align with USAID’s project design guidance: 
http://transition.usaid.gov/our_work/policy_planning_and_learning/documents/PD_Guidance_Final.pdf 
Key activities include: 
1 Assist the MOE in the consolidation of reforms and transfer of know-how to government officers. 
2 Implement standards for student learning, opportunity standards, and standards for measuring 
teacher performance. 
3 Strengthen and expand the quality assurance system to include standards for education quality from 
the central levels to the classroom using Quality Assurance Plan. 
4 Foster a public debate on educational best practices, reforms and dissemination of quantitative and 
qualitative research through formal Research Agenda. 
5 Create and increase a demand for quality education services, raising awareness on reading and the 
need of a quality education system through a Development Communication Strategy. 
2. Improved Education Human Resources Career Professional Development. 
2.1 Description 
The overall objective of this component is to improve the quality of teaching and learning in the classroom. By 
doing so, REAULA efforts are designed to strengthen the capabilities of education human resources. The 
implementation of the National System for the Professional Development of Ministry of Education Human 
Resources (SINAFORHE, Spanish acronym) is needed to guide the training of all education personnel. This 
system includes several sub-systems, one of which is the National Teacher Professional Development System 
(PADEP-D acronym in Spanish), designed to strengthen in-service training for Pre-Primary and Primary Teachers. 
The San Carlos University (USAC, Spanish acronym) and the National Teacher’s Union (NTU) proposed this 
project in April 2008. 
When fully functioned, SINAFORHE aims to reach teachers in the public education system. This system allows 
teachers to better manage and track their professional development and educational advancement, thus 
incentivizing teacher training and higher educational attainment. 
Key activities include: 
1 Provide technical assistance to design, negotiate, validate, and implement the system fostering 
alliances with a variety of stakeholders, notably USAC, NTU, MOE and development agencies 
supporting this area. 
2 Implement a Higher Education Partnership Program. The University Consortium will support teacher 
training and education courses and careers, including technical degrees, bachelors (licenciaturas) and 
master degrees. Also, it will be the space for policy and reforms discussions. 
3 Provide technical assistance for designing a Supervision Framework reform to transfer knowledge to 
MOE regional pedagogical supervisors. 
4 The Educational Leadership Program will provide scholarships to teachers that are willing to support 
the MOE upon graduation. 
5 Support development of new curriculum for Pre-Service Teacher Training. 
3. Standards, Life Competencies, Curriculum, Materials, and Testing for Effective First and Second 
Language Acquisition and Student Learning. 
3.1 Description 
This component tackles the first and second language acquisition challenge. There is great need for a concrete 
pedagogical proposal on how to get children to meet language standards considering these elements: 
a) how much time to spend on primary language (L1) and secondary language (L2) each day, 
b) how to develop oral competencies in L2 while building and consolidating L1 oral language, reading and 
writing skills, how to transfer reading and writing skills to L2, and 
c) how to assess student language skills and student learning in the classroom. 
REAULA contributes to the design and consolidation of the pedagogical model, formative evaluation into teacher 
guides, as well as develop tools to foster the discussion of results from the school level to district levels. 
This component also provides technical assistance for the production of pertinent educational materials that can be 
printed and distributed by the MOE. Big books, readers, conversational posters, and textbooks aligned with the 
National Curriculum (CNB, Spanish acronym) will promote a culture of “material availability” and facilitate the 
incorporation of a reading program. 
Key activities include: 
1 Implement the MOE’s Standards-based Intercultural and Bilingual Education (IBE) Model. 
This effort includes close collaboration between the project’s staff and members of the MOE 
and key stakeholders to consolidate, negotiate, validate, and implement a standards-based 
IBE Model. 
2 Guatemala has severe challenges in the timely provision of textbooks and educational 
materials to primary level classrooms. A Textbook and Educational Materials Policy is to be 
designed and implemented. The intention is to provide a framework in which the MOE can 
plan ahead of time the procurement and distribution of textbooks in Primary Education 
Level. In addition, the project designed and validated new materials and textbooks in 
relevant L1 and L2 languages. 
3 Providing specific tools to measure reading performance in early grades. The project 
adapted an Early Grade Reading Assessment (EGRA) to Guatemala and transfer technical 
knowledge to the MOE’s Evaluation and Research Directorate (DIGEDUCA, Spanish acronym) 
for its implementation. 
4 Two areas in need of acute reform are Early Childhood Education/Pre-Primary Education and 
Secondary Education. Both levels were diagnosed and the project proposed reforms in each 
level. Secondary Education reform incorporates a Life Competencies approach. 
4. Increasing Opportunities to Learn. 
4.1 Description 
This component is relevant for the successful implementation of all interventions mentioned above. Under this 
component, REAULA selected specific targeted zones called “opportunity zones” in several departments. These 
zones are where project interventions are implemented and necessary to improve opportunities to learn. 
The project identified and selected opportunity zones in the country and developed a cross-sector approach. This 
work was coordinated and in alliance with municipalities, central government, other USAID-projects and other 
donors to implement key development interventions that will increase opportunities to learn. 
Key activities include: 
1 Following technical criteria and after providing a detailed rationale for their selection, the project’s local 
interventions focused on several areas. In these opportunity zones, several interventions were tested. 
This implementation was carried out by both the project and the MOE. 
2 A Local Capacity Building Strategy included training of carefully selected key education stakeholders 
operating in the opportunity zones. This implied a close collaboration and a participatory approach with 
local authorities, development councils, and community leaders. 
3 Develop/strengthen/promote a model known as “Quality Classrooms” at a municipal level to improve 
learning outcomes in lower primary. The model provides reading materials and strategies to promote 
reading as well as generating family and local government involvement. This model develops and 
validates several strategies for improving student learning, including: 1) provide reading material in 
Spanish and the local language along with strategies for teachers and parents to encourage reading in 
children, and 2) a mechanism for tracking student learning results to validate effectiveness of the model. 
VI Evaluation Questions 
The following questions are the most important for evaluating the achieved outcomes in the areas described above: 
1) How did REAULA contribute to the development and implementation of the following systems and 
policies: 
o Sistema Nacional de Formación del Recurso Humano en Educación-
(SINAFORHE) 
o Sistema Nacional de Acompañamiento Educativo- (SINAE) 
o Sistema Nacional de Acreditación y Certificación-(SINACE) 
o Textbooks and Educational Material Policy? 
2) To what extent has the MOE adopted the reforms related to IBE Model, Initial and Pre-primary 
Education, and Secondary Education? What are the underlying challenges that prevent the full adoption of 
these reforms? 
3) How did the project adapt to a changing political landscape to accomplish its goals? Were there 
missed opportunities? 
4) To what extent did the inclusion of local structures (municipalities, MOE’s supervisors, local 
professional staff, local development councils, and parents’ boards) contribute to the implementation of the 
Quality Classrooms Model? What are the lessons learned for the bottom-up approach? 
5) What opportunity zone characteristics most enabled successful project implementation? What are the 
lessons learned with regard to implementation in the opportunity zones? 
VII Methods for Collection and Analysis 
To meet the objectives of the performance evaluation and successfully answer the evaluation questions above, the 
offeror should perform at least the following tasks: 
Document Review: Review the data and information necessary to answer the evaluation questions including all 
relevant implementer reports such as M&E reports, work plans, quarterly performance reports and documents 
on the Guatemalan context such as UNDP’s report (available at www.desarrollohumano.org.gt). In addition, 
the revision of the proposals and studies done by REAULA will be pertinent (some key documents can be 
found in www.reaula.com,). REAULA’s scope of work is attached to this RFQ and other relevant documents 
will be provided to the contractor once the evaluation is awarded. Formal baseline and midterm data for 
REAULA are not available; however, evaluation documents from prior USAID education projects will be 
available to provide additional background. 
Key-Informant Interviews: Interview project staff, teachers, beneficiaries, officials from the MOE, NTU and 
key personnel from local universities. Examples of important interviews include key MOE personnel, 
particularly those from the Directorate of Bilingual Intercultural Education (DIGEBI) and the MOE 
communications unit; officials from the NTU, Consejo Nacional de Educación and USAC; non-MOE 
educational institutions such as La Gran Campaña por la Educación, Empresarios por la Educación, and 
Grupo Promotor de la Educación; political officials from the Otto Pérez administration and private university 
education deans for issues on new government priorities; local authorities and technical staff from non-MOE 
bilingual education institutions; and technical staff from Juarez and Associates. Offeror should meet with the 
USAID Health and Education Policy Project, implemented by The Futures Group, to review and manipulate the 
educational data available through the IIS tool (Integrated Information System), which tracks and maps 
government education data. USAID/Guatemala will provide the contact information of the project’s staff to 
arrange the meetings and access IIS. In addition, USAID will provide the contact information of the key 
informants mentioned here. The offeror may interview any other relevant individuals necessary to answer the 
above research questions. 
Other Interviews or Focus Groups: Meet with a sample of teachers, parents, and students, to determine among 
other aspects: 
Analysis: Analyze qualitative and quantitative data obtained during field work and secondary analysis. This 
may include qualitative analysis and simple descriptive statistics. All project databases will be available to the 
offeror, in particular students’ performance baselines and subsequent measurements. The offeror is expected to 
discuss the type of analysis that will best fit this performance evaluation of both qualitative and quantitative 
data. 
The offeror should propose additional data collection and analysis methods, if needed, to answer the evaluation 
questions. 
VIII Required Staff and Qualifications Evaluation Team 
Leader/Educational Administration Specialist 
Master’s degree in social sciences with a focus on research methods and analysis, a minimum of eight years of 
experience in the education sector (at least five years of which should be in Latin America) are required. At least 
five years of experience evaluating education projects or education testing/measurement as well as written and 
a) Understanding of the language and cultural aspects of the tools proposed by the project (materials, 
evaluations, communication campaigns, etc.); 
b) Congruence of the proposed system and professional development needs as seen by teachers; 
c) Perception of awareness campaigns carried out by the project at different levels. 
spoken Spanish and English, are required. The team leader will be external to the REAULA project, as defined by 
USAID’s Evaluation Policy.
4 
While USAID envisions the following additional two members to the evaluation team, offerors can organize their 
evaluation teams to collectively meet the additional education and experience requirements below. 
Teacher Professional/Educational Human Resources Development Specialist 
Master’s degree in Teacher Professional Development, education or related social sciences, at least six years of 
experience in teacher professional development programs or human resources systems for educational personnel in 
Latin America are required. Experience with pre or in-service training strategies or teacher unions, as well as 
written and spoken Spanish are required. 
Intercultural and Bilingual Education Specialist 
Master’s degree in Bilingual Education, Linguistics, Educational Anthropology, other education program or related 
social sciences. Six years of experience with multilingual (indigenous languages and Spanish) education programs 
in Latin America are required. Experience assessing academic achievement in multiple languages or working with 
indigenous populations, as well as written and spoken Spanish are required. 
IX Evaluation Criteria 
Offerors will be evaluated on technical approach, expertise, and past performance. Quotations must address: 
9.1 Technical approach for performance evaluation (55%) 
o Proposed methods of data collection and analysis and their link to the evaluation questions 
o Timeline of proposed activities 
o Description of the roles and tasks of the evaluation team 
Note: Cost will be taken into consideration even though no points are assigned. 
9.2 Education and Technical Expertise of the Proposed Team Members 30%: 14% Team Leader, 8% Teacher 
Professional/Educational Human Resources Development Specialist, 8% Intercultural and Bilingual Education 
Specialist 
o Masters-level degree 
o Experience evaluating education projects 
o Experience in development in similar 
settings 
9.3 Past Performance (15%): The Offeror must provide the following information with regards to past 
performance: 
Demonstrated recent and relevant technical and field experience in programs of similar technical content and 
scope as described in the SOW. USAID will determine the relevance of similar past performance information. 
Demonstrated record in quality of product of service and assuring requisite coordination and collaboration among 
implementing partners. Demonstrated record of forecasting and controlling costs, including administrative aspects 
of performance. Demonstrated record of conforming to contract requirements and to standards of good 
workmanship, timeliness of performance, including adherence to contract schedules, timely delivery of short-term 
4
The team leader is an independent expert from outside of USAID, who has no fiduciary relationship to the 
implementing partner. (USAID Evaluation Policy page 4). 
technical advisors, and effectiveness of home and field office management to make prompt decisions and ensure 
efficient operation of tasks. 
The Offeror must provide information on past performance in accordance with the following table. The Offeror 
must provide past performance references for itself and each subcontractor performing 10% or more of the 
technical effort under the contract. For the Offeror and their major subcontractors (based on anticipated level-of￾effort) list up to five (5) past or current contracts for efforts similar to this requirement. To ensure uniformity of 
information for conducting the reference checks, the offeror/subcontractor will complete Part 1 (Blocks 1 through 
9) of the Contractors Performance Report-Short Form for contracts and/or subcontracts. The name, telephone 
number, and email address for all contacts are required. The list will be attached as an annex to the technical. Past 
performance information will be used for both the responsibility determination and best value decision. 
USAID will utilize existing databases of contractor performance information and solicit additional information 
from the references provided herein and contact the individual(s) indicated as well as others. If the performance 
information contains negative information on which the Offeror has not previously been given an opportunity to 
comment, USAID will provide the Offeror an opportunity to comment on it prior to its consideration in the 
evaluation. In cases where an Offeror lacks relevant performance history or information on performance is not 
available, the Offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on performance. 
NOTE: USAID relies on the prime organization’s review of partner/subcontractor institutions. However, if 
deemed necessary to ensure prudent use of USG funds, USAID may conduct its own past performance review of 
proposed partners/subcontractor institutions. 
Level of Effort, Schedule and Deliverable 
Level of Effort and Schedule 
The performance evaluation will initiate in the first semester of calendar year 2013. The level of effort will depend 
on the quotation. USAID anticipates delivery of the final reports—including all edits suggested by USAID, 50 
working days after signing of the award. It is anticipated that the bulk of the professional work will be carried out 
in Guatemala, and several field trips outside of the city are expected. USAID/Guatemala may join the evaluation 
team when traveling outside Guatemala City. 
Deliverables 
The contractor will deliver the following products to USAID/Guatemala. All deliverables are subject to revisions 
and, if needed, would have to be resubmitted addressing USAID’s comments. 
i. Work Plan: A work plan that spells out in detail the overall organization of the evaluation, a detailed 
description of the evaluation design, data analysis and integration procedures, schedule of evaluation activities, and 
schedule of key interviews and site visits. The offeror will share the evaluation design with stakeholders at the MOE 
and the implementing organization prior to submission to USAID to achieve successful collaboration in the 
evaluation process. 
The work plan will be submitted in English to USAID/Guatemala for approval no later than five working days 
after the award is made. The work plan will be reviewed and comments will be provided no later than 
SOW 
summary 
Primary 
location of 
work 
Term of 
performance 
US Dollar 
Value 
Contract 
type & 
Number 
COR 
name 
COR e-mail 
address and 
Tel. No. 
ii. 
iii. 
iv. 
SOL-520-13-000003 
Attachment No. 1 
Page 10 of 41 
three working days after its submission. A revised version must be submitted two days after receiving 
comments from USAID/Guatemala for approval. 
Draft Report: The draft report of the performance evaluation will describe REAULA’s outcomes meeting its 
stated objectives. The report should include a) findings and conclusions about the strengths and weaknesses of 
the technical assistance provision, b) recommendations for follow up project objectives, and c) 
recommendations for continued support in the education sector. Data will be disaggregated by gender and 
ethnicity where appropriate. The offeror will electronically submit to the USAID the draft report, in English 
with summary in Spanish and English, no later than 40 working days after signing the award. The report will 
not exceed 40 pages including tables and charts. This report will be reviewed by USAID/Guatemala, who will 
provide feedback. 
REAULA Performance Evaluation Report: Final report shall incorporate feedback and be submitted to the 
USAID’s activity manager no later than 50 working days after signing of the award (10 days after USAID 
comments on the draft report). The final report will be in English, and will include an executive summary in 
Spanish and English. Three copies of the complete report must be submitted to USAID, two hard copies and 
one electronic version. The report will not exceed 40 pages including tables and charts. 
The final report must comply with the USAID Evaluation Policy (http://www.usaid.gov/evaluation/) as it 
relates to performance evaluations, and should use the criteria for quality evaluation reports listed in Appendix 
I of the Evaluation Policy. In addition, these deliverables will include the following annexes that will not count 
against the total number of pages for the report: 
• a copy of this scope of work; 
• a copy of the final work plan including the written evaluation design; 
• any data collection or analysis tools used, such as questionnaires, checklists or focus group 
discussion guides; 
• all sources of information, including a list of those interviewed, properly identified and listed; 
and 
• if necessary, a statement of any unresolved differences of opinion by USAID, the 
implementing partner and/or members of the evaluation team. 
Any raw data used or developed during the course of this evaluation will also be submitted in a format deemed 
appropriate and agreed upon by the USAID Activity Manager. The final report should follow the general 
format: 
I. Executive Summary (1-2 pages) 
II. Background on Development Problem and USAID’s Response (1-2 pages) 
III. Purpose of Evaluation (1 page) 
• Research Design and Assessment Methodology (3-5 pages) 
• Findings and Conclusions (20-25 pages) 
VI. Recommendations for future activities (5-10 pages) 
Debriefs of the Performance Evaluation Report to USAID/Guatemala staff: At a time agreed upon by 
USAID and after the submission of the final report evaluation, findings will be presented in a debriefing by the 
offeror at USAID/Guatemala offices. This will provide the opportunity for USAID staff to ask questions, 
provide feedback and discuss the main findings of the evaluation. This meeting can be held in Spanish or 
English. The offeror will also provide a separate debrief for the MOE in Spanish that includes the most 
relevant findings and recommendations for this audience. 
XI Instructions for the Preparation of the Technical Quotation 
The quotation must include the information identified above. Although no specific format is mandated, the 
technical quotations should take into account the guidance below. 
Offerors will submit a quotation in response to this solicitation that is specific, clear, and complete, and that 
responds to the instructions set forth in this Section. Quotation must be written in English and typed on standard 
8 1/2” x 11” paper, single-spaced, 12 characters per inch with each page numbered consecutively. The quotation 
must be organized according to the Evaluation Criteria and must be organized as such: 
Cover Page – Title, names of organization(s) or individuals submitting the quotation, contact person, telephone 
and fax numbers, addresses and emails. 
Technical Quotation - The technical quotation must not exceed 12 pages, excluding the cover page, resumes, and 
past performance. Technical quotations that exceed this page limit will not be considered. 
The technical quotation shall include the following: 
Proposed methods of data collection and analysis Timeline of proposed activities Overall approach and 
methodology Organizational structure of the evaluation team, team members’ roles in the assessment and 
their areas of 
expertise Past 
performance 
Note: USAID reserves the right to contact all references to verify past performance as follows: 
• o How well the offeror (or proposed candidate) has performed 
• o The relevancy of the program work 
• o Instances of good performance 
• o Instances of poor performance 
• o Significant achievements 
• o Significant problems 
• o Any indications of excellent or exceptional performance in the most critical 
areas 
• o Reliable and timely home office support 
XII Method of Payment 
Payments will be made as follows: 
Deliverables DUE % of Payment 
(over PO total) 
1
Approved Work Plan 
No later than 10 days after signing 
the award. 30% 
2 Draft Report in English with summary in 
Spanish and English - 40 pages plus annexes 
40 working days after signing the 
award 30% 
3 a) Approved Final Report in English with 
summary in Spanish and English incorporating 
feedback from USAID and b) Debrief 
50 days after signing the award 
Debrief meeting will be scheduled 
no later than five days after the 
submission of the final report. 
40% 
Total 100% 
XIII Technical Direction and Support USAID Activity Manager will provide technical direction during the 
performance of this Purchase Order. The offeror will be responsible for all logistical support. 
The offeror shall understand that only the USAID/Guatemala Contracting Officer is the authorized official to make 
changes to the terms and conditions of the resulting Order. In the event that the offeror believes that he/she is 
required to perform activities outside the approved Order, he/she shall immediately contact/inform the 
USAID/Guatemala Contracting Officer before performing these tasks. 
XIV Environmental Compliance This activity falls under the Categorical Exclusion issued to those activities 
involving technical assistance, training, analyses, studies, workshops, document transfers, and others that will not 
have an impact on the environment, as stated in LAC-IEE-09-43. 
XV Organizational Conflict of Interest (Please see pages 17 to 18) PRECLUSION FROM FURNISHING 
CERTAIN SERVICES AND RESTRICTION ON USE OF INFORMATION 
(a) The resulting Order calls for the Offeror to furnish important services in support of the evaluation of 
contractors or of specific activities. In accordance with the Principles of FAR Subpart 9.5 and USAID policy, THE 
OFFEROR SHALL BE INELIGIBLE TO FURNISH, AS A PRIME OR SUBCONTRACTOR OR OTHERWISE, 
IMPLEMENTATION SERVICES UNDER ANY CONTRACT OR TASK ORDER THAT RESULTS IN RESPONSE TO 
FINDINGS, PROPSALS, OR RECOMMENDATIONS IN AN EVALUATION REPORT WRITTEN BY THE OFFEROR. THIS 
PRECULSION WILL APPLY TO ANY SUCH AWARDS MADE WITHIN 18 MONTHS OF USAID ACCEPTING THE 
REPORT, unless the Head of Contracting Activity, in consultation with USAID’s Competitive Advocate, 
authorized a waiver (in accordance with FAR 9.503) determining that prelusion of the Offeror from the 
implementation work would not be in the Government’s interest. 
(b) In addition, BY ACCEPTING the resulting Order, THE OFFEROR AGREES THAT IT WILL NOT USE OR MAKE 
AVAILABLE ANY INFORMATION OBTAINED ABOUT ANOTHER ORGANIZATION UNDER THE CONTRACT IN THE 
PREPARATION OF QUOTATIONS OR OTHER DOCUMENTS IN RESPONSE TO ANY SOLICITATION FOR A 
CONTRACT OR ORDER. 
(c) If the offeror gains access to proprietary information of other company (ies) in performing this evaluation, 
the offeror must agree with the other company (ies) to protect that information from unauthorized use, not 
to disclose that information for as long as it remains proprietary, and to refrain from using the information for 
any purpose other than that for which it was furnished. THE OFFEROR MUST PROVIDE A PROPERLY EXECUTED 
COPY OF ALL SUCH AGREEMENTS TO THE CONTRACTING OFFICER. 
XVI DISCLOSURE OF REAL OR POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST FOR USAID 
EVALUATIONS 
Instructions: 
Evaluations of USAID projects will be undertaken so that they are not subject to the perception or reality of 
biased measurement or reporting due to conflict of interest.
5 
For external evaluations, all evaluation team 
members will provide a signed statement attesting to a lack of conflict of interest or describing an existing conflict 
of interest relative to the project being evaluated.
6 
Evaluators of USAID projects have a responsibility to maintain independence so that opinions, conclusions, 
judgments, and recommendations will be impartial and will be viewed as impartial by third parties. Evaluators 
and evaluation team members are to disclose all relevant facts regarding real or potential conflicts of interest that 
could lead reasonable third parties with knowledge of the relevant facts and circumstances to conclude that the 
evaluator or evaluation team member is not able to maintain independence and, thus, is not capable of exercising 
objective and impartial judgment on all issues associated with conducting and reporting the work. Operating Unit 
leadership, in close consultation with the Contracting Officer, will determine whether the real or potential conflict 
of interest is one that should disqualify an individual from the evaluation team or require recusal by that individual 
from evaluating certain aspects of the project(s). In addition, if evaluation team members gain access to 
proprietary information of other companies in the process of conducting the evaluation, then they must agree with 
the other companies to protect their information from unauthorized use or disclosure for as long as it remains 
proprietary and refrain from using the information for any purpose other than that for which it was furnished. 
7 
Real or potential conflicts of interest may include, but are not limited to: 
1 Immediate family or close family member who is an employee of the USAID operating unit managing 
the project(s) being evaluated or the implementing organization(s) whose project(s) are being 
evaluated. 
2 Financial interest that is direct, or is significant/material though indirect, in the implementing 
organization(s) whose projects are being evaluated or in the outcome of the evaluation. 
3 Current or previous direct or significant/material though indirect experience with the project(s) being 
evaluated, including involvement in the project design or previous iterations of the project. 
4 Current or previous work experience or seeking employment with the USAID operating unit 
managing the evaluation or the implementing organization(s) whose project(s) are being evaluated. 
5 Current or previous work experience with an organization that may be seen as an industry 
competitor with the implementing organization(s) whose project(s) are being evaluated. 
6 Preconceived ideas toward individuals, groups, organizations, or objectives of the particular projects 
and organizations being evaluated that could bias the evaluation. 
Disclosure of Conflict of Interest for USAID Evaluation Team Members 
5
USAID Evaluation Policy (p. 8); USAID Contract Information Bulletin 99-17; and Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) 
Part 9.5, Organizational Conflicts of Interest, and Subpart 3.10, Contractor Code of Business Ethics and Conduct. 
6
USAID 
Evaluation Policy (p. 11) 
7
FAR 9.505-4(b) 
Name 
Title 
Organization 
Evaluation Position? Team Leader Team member 
Evaluation Award Number 
(contract or other instrument) 
USAID Project(s) Evaluated (Include 
project name(s), implementer 
name(s) and award 
I certify (1) that I have completed this disclosure form fully and to the best of my ability and (2) that I will update this 
disclosure form promptly if relevant circumstances change. If I gain access to proprietary information of other companies, 
then I agree to protect their information from unauthorized use or disclosure for as long as it remains proprietary and refrain 
from using the information for any purpose other than that for which it was furnished. 
number(s), if applicable) 
I have real or potential conflicts of 
interest to disclose.
Yes No 
If yes answered above, I disclose 
the following facts: Real or potential 
conflicts of interest may include, but are not limited 
to: 1. Close family member who is an employee of 
the USAID operating unit managing the project(s) 
being evaluated or the implementing 
organization(s) whose project(s) are being 
evaluated. 2. Financial interest that is direct, or is 
significant though indirect, in the implementing 
organization(s) whose projects are being evaluated 
or in the outcome of the evaluation. 3. Current or 
previous direct or significant though indirect 
experience with the project(s) being evaluated, 
including involvement in the project design or 
previous iterations of the project. 4. Current or 
previous work experience or seeking employment 
with the USAID operating unit managing the 
evaluation or the implementing organization(s) 
whose project(s) are being evaluated. 5. Current or 
previous work experience with an organization that 
may be seen as an industry competitor with the 
implementing organization(s) whose project(s) are 
being evaluated. 6. Preconceived ideas toward 
individuals, groups, organizations, or objectives of 
the particular projects and organizations being 
evaluated that could bias the evaluation. 
Signature 
Date