Second meeting of ministers of education

Conclusions and Challenges Facing the PRIE

Download 0.58 Mb.

Page	7/10
Date	20.10.2016
Size	0.58 Mb.
	#5386

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Conclusions and Challenges Facing the PRIE

An analysis of the 25 indicators covered by the PRIE reveals three issues of particular importance as regards the region’s education situation.

First of all, a couple of matters relating to coverage and schooling levels should be addressed. Schooling levels in Latin America are low, beneath the minimum level of 12 years that, according to ECLAC, is required for people to escape from poverty. Similarly, high levels of absolute illiteracy still exist.
While universal access to primary education has practically become a reality, major additional efforts are still needed to ensure attainment of the goal, set by the Summit of the Americas for the year 2010, of universal access and permanence, ensuring that every member of the population manages to complete that level of education and receives quality services in doing so.
In turn, the goal that at least 75 percent of young people should progress to quality secondary education, with rising levels of successful conclusion, will demand major efforts, consistency over time, and sustainability since drop-out rates in primary schools and the supply of secondary education — generally concentrated in urban areas — means that secondary school is only attended by 54 percent of Latin Americans of eligible age. Finally, offering lifelong educational opportunities for the general population is a more challenging goal for all the region’s countries.
Secondly, particular emphasis must be placed on the fact that the progress made in education is spread out very irregularly across the region. This inequality is associated both with the differences in our countries’ relative levels of development and with the massive internal social inequalities that characterize the Americas and, in particular, Latin America.
Countries with high incomes, better coverage (in secondary education), and longer average periods of formal education exist alongside poor countries with high dependency indexes and low levels of per capita wealth. The latter group face massive limitations in the availability of the resources needed to undertake the substantive changes required to raise coverage and quality levels to the extent needed to overcome the high rates of absolute illiteracy found among their populations. Failing to address this situation would further heighten the differences between countries and keep some of them from attaining the goals set for 2010.
Thirdly, we must stress the fact that there are countries that have performed admirably in the field of education in spite of severe constraints in terms of their relative development. For example, Bolivia is one of the region’s poorest countries but still achieves coverage levels in both primary and secondary education that are similar to those of such relatively richer countries as Brazil and Uruguay. Similarly, Bolivia has attained levels of juvenile literacy that are comparable to those of Argentina and Chile.
Jamaica is notable among the nations of the Caribbean subregion, with coverage rates similar to those of The Bahamas (one of the richest countries in the Caribbean). Like Bolivia, Jamaica has low illiteracy levels among its young people.
Both countries have focused their efforts and priorities on the education sector and, in spite of serious economic constraints, have invested a large portion of their GDP in education (5.6% and 7.3%, respectively), levels which are higher than the regional average. Jamaica and Bolivia’s better education results in some way reflect the fact that these two countries have a more equitable distribution of income than the remaining countries in the region. Thus, Jamaica is the second most equitable country in the Americas (after Canada), with a better Gini coefficient than the USA. Meanwhile, Bolivia’s figure is close to that of the USA. Better income distribution has allowed progress with greater equality.
This poses a major challenge for those countries that have the economic wherewithal for improving their education systems but still do not advance, or do so only slowly, thereby endangering the future of the generations that are to come.
What has been described above sets two types of challenges: one related to the goals set by the Summit of the Americas, and another related to the development of comparable indictors under the aegis of the PRIE.
In pursuit of the Summit goals, it is necessary and vital that we make a collective effort to narrow the gaps that exist both within our countries and between them. This challenge involves governments and international cooperation and finance agencies, which can support regional strategies aimed at bringing about greater equality in the region.
As regards the creation of comparable indicators, the experience earned during the first year of the PRIE’s work underscores a set of tasks in different fields. One first line of action would be to improve the design of the 25 indicators originally provided for the project. There have been difficulties in measuring these, caused either by lacks of information, failures to understand definitions and concepts, and problems in gathering data, and all this hinders international comparability.
In addition, the technical assistance provided to the countries also needs to be strengthened. It should be aimed at the countries with the most serious weaknesses in data collection, and it should respond to the countries’ specific demands and needs. In addition, this also requires strengthening the joint work underway with UNESCO’s Institute for Statistics.
Also necessary will be the design of new indicators to better reflect progress in education and the pursuit of the commitments acquired at the Summit of the Americas.
Last but not least, one great challenge facing the PRIE involves encouraging the region’s countries to make greater use of information and indicators in setting and assessing education policy.

APPENDIX VI:

HORIZONTAL COOPERATION MECHANISMS AMONG COUNTRIES

SECOND MEETING OF MINISTERS OF EDUCATION OEA/Ser.K/V.5.1

24-25 September 2001 CIDI/RME/doc.6/01

Punta del Este, Uruguay September 2001

Original: Spanish

HORIZONTAL COOPERATION MECHANISM AMONG COUNTRIES

HORIZONTAL COOPERATION MECHANISM AMONG COUNTRIES
An Effective Way to Use Educational Funds and Resources in the Hemisphere
Sofialeticia Morales Garza

José Salgado

Introduction
The purpose of this document is to explain how horizontal cooperation among countries will permit better use of resources through the sharing and acquisition of knowledge regarding the educational best practices in the Hemisphere, and, in so doing, will ensure the participation of all member countries through cooperation strategies.
To that end, emphasis will be placed on the importance of developing a horizontal cooperation mechanism among countries, pursuant to the mandate of the Third Summit of the Americas and the guidelines of the Inter-American Council for Integral Development (CIDI). A brief analysis will be done of the use of the funds in the education account of the Special Multilateral Fund of the Inter-American Council for Integral Development (FEMCIDI) from 1996 to date. This information will demonstrate the need to establish a new mechanism that will permit optimization of the resources allocated by the countries to education, through the sharing of educational best practices. Following this, a description will be provided of the criteria used for the selection of these practices and the need to implement systematization and evaluation strategies that lead to the establishment of a "Permanent Portfolio of Consolidated Programs."
The proposed horizontal cooperation mechanism is based on the identification and transfer of best practices, and, above all, on the capacity to develop in other contexts, taking into account the lessons learned, other activities that are based on previous activities and are aimed at addressing a number of the points included in the Plan of Action for Education of the Third Summit of the Americas.
Education in the context of the Summits of the Americas
The development of education at all levels has been the central focus of the Summits. At the Second Summit of the Americas, the countries stated that:
The Hemisphere's commitment to education is reflected in the sweeping reform processes encompassing all levels of educational systems, and is based on broad consensus with respect to the problems confronting education and the shared commitment and effort of societies as a whole to overcome them. These processes are based on the principles of equity, quality, relevance and efficiency. Equity is defined as the creation of conditions that ensure that all people have the opportunity to receive quality education services, thereby significantly reducing the effects of inequalities based on socio-economic status, disability and ethnic, cultural and gender discrimination. Quality implies the achievement of high levels of cognitive development, skills, capabilities and ethical attitudes. Relevance is defined as the ability of an educational system to meet the needs and aspirations of society as a whole, taking into account its social, cultural, ethnic and linguistic diversity. Lastly, efficiency is defined as the provision of adequate resources, used optimally, in order to enhance educational achievements.^⁴
In addition, in the Plan of Action of the Third Summit of the Americas the countries recognized that:
.. education is the key to strengthening democratic institutions, promoting the development of human potential, equality and understanding among our peoples, as well as sustaining economic growth and reducing poverty.^⁵
These commitments in the Hemispheric Plan of Action on Education of the Third Summit of the Americas contain mandates that are to be executed by the countries with the assistance of the Organization of American States, acting as the Technical Secretariat.
Furthermore, the countries pledged to implement the Plan of Action:
… which constitutes a body of concrete initiatives intended to promote the overall development of the countries of the Hemisphere and ensure access to and improve the quality of education, promote and strengthen democracy and the respect for human rights, deepen economic integration and free trade and eradicate poverty and discrimination. We have adopted this Plan of Action conscious that all the initiatives are inter-related and equally important to the attainment of our common endeavor.^⁶
Key substantive areas that set forth the educational commitments of the Third Summit of the Americas
The educational priorities contained in the Plan of Action of the Third Summit of the Americas set forth five key areas that encapsulate the work to be performed. The objective is not to simplify the work to be done but rather to find a way to systematize the best educational practices in the Hemisphere. Some of the programs contributed by the countries as best practices correspond to more than one key area, and while their ordering provides us with an indication of the emphasis placed on the program, it in no way diminishes the importance of the action to be taken.
Key Area 1: Quality and Equity
This key area provides a synthesis of the points contained in the Plan of Action that address the commitments to equity that are aimed at meeting the educational needs of the poorest sectors, through action designed to improve the quality of education. The principles of equity and quality are inextricably linked, and are necessary to minimize the risk of providing substandard educational options. The commitment to equity can be genuinely addressed only if it is based on models that permit quality education to be offered to everyone. Furthermore, the recent effort to develop quality indicators and standards must focus on socio-cultural and economic differences in order to meet the commitments to improve the quality of education in an equitable manner.
Key Area 2: Management, Decentralization, Social Participation, and Updating of Teaching Skills
The management of schools, together with the processes of decentralization of educational systems, has strengthened social participation strategies in educational activities and is providing educational institutions with new opportunities. The updating of teaching skills seeks to transform the educational sphere from one that is authoritarian and hierarchical into one that is composed of genuine communities of learning, where the use of information and communication technologies serves as a tool that fosters education and where equity with quality and quality that incorporates equity are a priority.
Key Area 3: Youth, secondary education, and certification of job skills
While the efforts of the past two decades--- to achieve universal primary education in the 1980s and universal basic education in the 1990s--- have permitted a greater number of young people to complete their basic education, it is unfortunate that very few of these people have access to higher education. The two cycles of secondary education (the one that usually corresponds to the last phase of basic education and the one that constitutes the preparatory phase for higher education) should be redefined not only as a preparatory phase for higher education but as a preparatory phase for employment.
Job-related training is providing an opportunity for the certification of skills acquired in the empirical sphere and for building learning processes. These processes should be reinforced through training in civics and ethics, while providing the skills needed in the working world, thereby facilitating incorporation into productive life.
Key Area 4: Higher education, science and technology, and academic mobility
In recent decades, priority has been given to basic education, while the strengthening of higher education from a financial and technical standpoint has been neglected. Public universities are facing severe crises that call for a redefinition of their role. Financing, the need to improve the quality of education, and the establishment of mechanisms that permit poorer students to have access to university are the challenges, in terms of equity and quality, faced by the universities of the region. Moreover, it is very important to promote science and technology at all educational levels. To that end, there is a critical need to strengthen these areas in the higher education sphere through research and innovation. Academic mobility would permit the establishment of ties among nations and encourage job-related certification in a Hemisphere where information is shared and generated.
Key Area 5: New technologies serving education
The Third Summit of the Americas is stressing connectivity as a cross-sectional area. New information and communications technologies are becoming instruments for offering quality educational services to the more scattered and poorer population sectors. Persons involved in the educational system (students, parents, teachers, directors, and supervisors) can receive pedagogical and teaching assistance through the computer, CD ROM, television, satellite transmission, and radio. These tools help improve the educational quality of the teaching and learning processes.
New technologies are proving to be valuable educational tool. However, consideration must be given to the manner in which these new technologies are narrowing the technological gap and responding to the commitment to equity in education, particularly in light of the fact that at the moment, only a very small percentage of students has access to these technologies. While guaranteeing equity through investment in the technological infrastructure of schools is very important, it should be borne in mind that education budgets require investment in other priority areas such as updating teaching skills, building learning communities, and new pedagogical strategies.

These five priority areas respond to the mandates of the Third Summit of the Americas and permit a more accurate identification of the practices, projects, and methodologies that meet the specific needs of countries.

Horizontal cooperation
With a view to the more effective achievement of the goals defined, the Third Summit provided for the need to establish horizontal and multilateral cooperation mechanisms. To that end, the Heads of State and Government proposed:
… to establish, in light of the fundamental importance of mobilizing resources to support sustained investment in education at all levels, a cooperative mechanism to promote the development of productive partnerships among governments and with regional and international organizations and the MDBs.^⁷
Also, the CIDI Strategic Plan for Partnership for Development (1997-2001) identifies the need for a system of cooperation among member countries of the Organization of American States. The objectives of the plan are:
1. To strengthen hemispheric dialogue for development.

2. To strengthen cooperation for development among institutions operating in the Hemisphere.

3. To increase the exchange of knowledge, information, and experiences.

4. To strengthen and diversify the financing for partnership for development.

5. To strengthen regional and subregional integration.^⁸
That same document states that the CIDI will function as:
… a catalyst to promote new types of cooperation among OAS member states institutions and between them and other institutions of the inter-American system, by giving preference to multilateral projects, supporting project implementation through appropriate national institutions. National projects should continue to be supported when they have a significant impact in terms of strengthening the development of the country in question, especially if they permit it to participate more actively in multinational projects or increase the chance that other international cooperation agencies, including the relevant financial institutions, will participate, or if the project also benefits other member states.
The CIDI strategy has three complementary spheres of action:

To serve as a forum for inter-American dialogue on development.
To serve as a catalyst for and promoter of programs, projects and other cooperation activities, and
To serve as a mechanism to facilitate the exchange of information, experiences, and knowledge.^⁹

Clearly, the most important mechanism for achieving the goals of the Summits of the Americas is the establishment of mechanisms for horizontal cooperation. Consequently, the Third Summit of the Americas, under the heading: Finance, Multilateral Cooperation Strategies, and Follow-up, instructs:

.. the OAS and requests the IDB, the World Bank, and United Nations Economic Commission on Latin-American and the Caribbean (ECLAC), among other institutions, to use the mechanisms within their scope to develop and strengthen regional cooperation in areas such as distance education, using, among other means, satellite technology; internships and exchange programs; the development and use of information technology for education; the updating of education statistics; and quality assessment, while striving to ensure that this cooperation is in keeping with the specific needs of each country. ^¹⁰
These documents provide an indication of permanent horizontal cooperation mechanisms, horizontal monitoring systems, and a mechanism for interagency cooperation.
The Summit also assigns to the Organization of American States responsibility for:
… through ministerial meetings and other mechanisms being developed by member States in the framework of the Inter-American Council for Integral Development (CIDI), collaboration and joint effort in the Hemisphere and, to that end, to convene, in consultation with the coordinating countries, technical consultation forums of the countries in the Hemisphere in order to contribute to the implementation of the commitments included in this Chapter of the Plan of Action.^¹¹
All these documents underscore the need to establish permanent horizontal cooperation mechanisms among the countries that permit them to define, systematize, and transfer their best practices to other countries and regions. This process also avoids the duplication of projects in different countries and during different periods. Furthermore, it ensures the most efficient use of financial resources by preventing funds from being spread too thin. Horizontal cooperation is aimed at improving educational systems and the impact that country projects have on the specific needs of countries and the entire region.
An analysis of projects funded by the FEMCIDI account in the area of education since 1996 reveals the financing trends in the different areas of the Hemisphere and the different priorities that have been financed.
Overview of cooperation through FEMCIDI
Between the time of its establishment in 1996 and the year 2000, FEMCIDI has sponsored 96 projects in the area of education, amounting to $12,722,554. These projects have been distributed among the different subregions in a manner that was not always equitable, and only rarely were efforts made to achieve horizontal cooperation among countries. When an in-depth analysis is done of multilateral strategies, this exercise is limited, in most cases, to the organization by the coordinating country of an event in which representatives of the other countries are invited to participate or to draft materials that will be later shared with several countries.
Another level of analysis involves observation of the type of projects that have been financed over the years. We note that four projects, corresponding to education for democracy projects, have been funded. Although in some instances one component of the project included the invitation of members of other countries to seminars, in general terms, it cannot be said that a great effort was made by OAS countries or responsible entities of the OAS to disseminate the results and expand the experience by involving other countries.^ⁱ The same thing happened with projects involving teacher training, the use of technologies to benefit education, and the preparation of educational materials.^ⁱⁱ
In analyzing the manner in which support was provided for the different educational priorities set forth in the Second and Third Summits of the Americas, we realize that priority was given to projects aimed at offering access and quality alternatives in the area of early and basic education to the poorest groups. Also noted was the scant attention paid to the education of young people, secondary education, and lifelong education. The lack of financing for higher education, as well as strategies involving the joint participation of the civil society in the educational process was also observed.
A more in-depth analysis (Table 3) sheds light on the areas receiving the lowest funding. Not only did the certification of job skills, social participation, decentralization, and secondary education receive a small amount of funds, but fewer projects were financed in these areas. This was not the case with new technologies projects, which received more than 1.5 million dollars.
What is alarming and to some extent significant in terms of the importance of the projects financed is the fact that the availability of total FEMCIDI funds has fallen from a high of 16 million dollars to 7 million dollars. In this same analysis, we note that the total percentage of FEMCIDI funds available for education has fallen from 29.3% to 16.37%.
This analysis demonstrates the need to establish a system of horizontal cooperation that responds effectively to the educational needs of the Hemisphere, achieves a more equitable distribution among the different subregions, and optimizes the use of the technical, human, financial, and material resources in the region, in addition to achieving horizontal cooperation among countries, thereby serving as seed funds for implementing new initiatives and mechanisms for systematizing and evaluating educational programs that are being strengthened over time in the different countries, but are not accompanied by evaluation strategies that allow their impact to be gauged.
The challenge facing the OAS is to use the funds of the FEMCIDI education account in such a way that this account responds to national priorities and serve as seed funds for promoting greater horizontal cooperation. This can be achieved only if the persons making decisions regarding the use of resources are the ones representing the Ministries of Education, and if they agree to use these funds to strengthen hemispheric horizontal cooperation. In addition, consideration must be given to the fact that financing needs to be based on the ability of projects to be applied, after adjustment, in other regions and the ability of the executing agency to share lessons learned with persons from other countries.
A Horizontal Cooperation Mechanism among Countries: Permanent Portfolio for Consolidated Programs
The need for educational programs that meet the objectives of the Second and Third Summits of the Americas, which have been proven effective and are measurable, and which, above all, address the priorities expressed by the Ministers of Education of the Hemisphere and foster cooperation among countries, leads us to seek the most effective way of creating a system which, in addition to reorienting use of the FEMCIDI education account, provides us with a strategy for enhancing the quality of the educational programs in the region. It is against this backdrop that the horizontal cooperation mechanism based on the Permanent Portfolio of Consolidated Programs is being proposed.
What is being proposed, therefore, is the implementation of a horizontal cooperation mechanism that seeks to identify, in each country, what have been called "Consolidated Programs." This mechanism will permit Ministers and their technical groups to identify, at any time, those countries in the Hemisphere with experience in a specific area and to establish dialogue and a working and cooperative relationship with them.
There is an awareness that no program can be copied from one context to another. This is not the objective of horizontal cooperation; what is being sought is information regarding the experiences of other countries rather than information regarding the things that have gone wrong in each case, and the reinvention of these practices, methodologies, and educational strategies, their selective acquisition, and their adaptation to needs and requirements.
Despite the fact that in the past decade an effort has been made to identify "innovative and successful or 'best practices' programs," this has been done through international organizations and NGOs but almost never through the ministries themselves, using a process of discussion intended to share these programs with other ministries of education, based on a desire to strengthen horizontal cooperation strategies among countries.
Consolidated Programs are educational programs that have been developed in the national sphere and which: respond to the challenges identified at the Third Summit of the Americas, have been proven effective from both a qualitative and quantitative standpoint in terms of fulfillment of their objectives, have been strengthened over five or more years of operation and have lasted beyond one government's term in office, have generated educational materials for all the different actors involved in the educational process, have been evaluated internally and externally or have actors who are willing to engage in process of systematization and participatory evaluation, and have persons running these programs who are willing to offer technical assistance to the interested countries.
Consolidated Programs can, in addition, generate proposals or guidelines for comparative research in countries. Using an empirical basis, they will support the formulation and evaluation of policies and programs. They will also permit integration and collaborative work among the different sectors and actors (the different Ministries, academic groups, trade unions, parents' associations, NGOs, etc.).
The following elements support the selection of consolidated programs:
1. They are effective in terms of responding to a number of educational challenges expressed at the Second or Third Summits of the Americas and their effectiveness can be demonstrated over time.
2. They are conducted at the national level; that is, they do not represent a "micro" experience applicable to two or three schools; instead, they were developed and implemented based on the challenges faced by each nation.
3. They are integrated into the national education system and do not represent a marginal educational experience that would be very difficult to incorporate at the different educational levels and by the actors involved (supervisors, directors, teachers, etc.).
4. They have withstood the test of time, not only from an evaluation standpoint, but have been in operation for more than five years and have demonstrated their ability to withstand turbulent political and economic times and have developed strategies for addressing the different types of problems encountered.
5. They are sustainable, that is, although they have received external financing initially, they are currently maintained through funds provided by the Ministry of Education and it is unlikely that economic crises would cause them to fold.

6. They are flexible, that is, they can be transformed and improved upon internally, when this is deemed necessary, and externally, in order to respond to different needs and contexts.

Consolidated Programs will be ranked based on each substantive key area containing a synthesis of the educational mandates of the Third Summit of the Americas. To that end, a file card will first be prepared, which permits organization of the information and a description of the program, its objectives, and impact. This exercise will be conducted by the Unit for Social Development and Education of the OAS, in its capacity as the technical secretariat for the process, in order to develop a permanent portfolio that serves as a source of information for the Ministers of Education and establishes a different horizontal cooperation strategy among the countries. A supply and demand form will be prepared of the Consolidated Programs offered by each Ministry of Education and of those that are interested in acquiring more in-depth knowledge and implementing pilot projects.
Strategy for implementing the horizontal cooperation mechanism
After the initial ordering of the Consolidated Programs using the card file established for that purpose and completion of the supply and demand form, the Consolidated Programs in which the greatest interest has been shown, from the point of view of information and implementation, will be selected. The following steps will then be taken:
1. A directory of national and international specialists who work with the pertinent groups from the Ministry at the different levels of government will be prepared, in order to organize and evaluate the experience in a participatory manner. Each Ministry of Education will select, depending on the scope of the project, one or two national researchers and one or two international researchers who will work on that process for one year.
2. Two persons from the countries interested in obtaining more information about the program and adopting it as a pilot program in their country will also be selected to attend a "study and design training session." The selection of persons to be trained will be made by mutual agreement with the Minister of Education, inasmuch as the persons selected will have to enjoy political and technical support in order to coordinate the pilot experience and adapt it to conditions in their own countries.
3. The entire process will take place over the course of one year and national and international researchers will also assist the persons being trained with the analysis of the experience, critical aspects of the adaptation thereof to conditions in their countries, and the design of a pilot project that permits a brief overview to be provided of the essential components of the source Consolidated Program and the changes to be made in order to bring it in line with the needs and requirements of the context in which the pilot project will be implemented. The design of the pilot experience will have to take into account evaluation criteria and strategies for measuring the short-, medium-, and long-term impact.
4. At the conclusion of the training session and design of the pilot project, the recipient country of the Consolidated Program that will implement the project on an experimental basis will receive a small amount of seed capital for its execution.
5. One year after operation, a joint seminar will be organized in which the technical staff responsible for the source consolidated program will participate and the groups responsible for the pilot projects that are based on the source Consolidated Program will analyze and evaluate the course of action to be taken.
6. As a result of the optimal utilization of the funds in the FEMCIDI education account, this would be an ongoing strategy that could be made available to all countries, based on their interests and needs.
Through this mechanism, a study can be done of the practical aspects, a critical review done of the actions taken, the process can be reviewed and reshaped, light can be shed on obscure areas, a comparison can be done of the initial program proposal and actual accomplishments, and the different concepts and practices analysed. This mechanism permits identification of strengths and weaknesses, accomplishments and challenges, aspects that facilitate and hinder the process, favourable and unfavourable factors (benefits and disadvantages), lessons learned during the process, weaknesses of the proposal and weaknesses in terms of execution, what might and might not be expected, and research needs that are emerging in a hemispheric context.
Conclusion
The educational needs of the region are immense. Great challenges are faced in terms of providing the poorest sectors of the population with educational programs that meet the commitment of equity with quality. The training of teaching staff is a priority, as is the transformation of schools into learning communities in which school management is more transparent and committed and the participation of the entire society in the educational task is a reality. Priority should also be given to technological advances and information as a way of enhancing the quality of education of all children and young people, regardless of their socio-economic origin and geographic location.
These challenges cannot be met without a concerted effort on the part of governments, civil society, and other entities that are interested in human development through education. More importantly, there are practices that have been implemented successfully in order to address these problems.
For this reason, many comprehensive mechanisms are needed to confront effectively the challenges of the region in the area of education. Horizontal cooperation, interagency cooperation, ongoing surveillance, and consolidated programs are mechanisms which, when combined, can produce favorable results. Each of these mechanisms was derived from the Third Summit and responds directly to its Plan of Action. The Unit for Social Development and Education firmly believes that it is in this manner that we can face jointly the educational challenges of the entire region.

APPENDIX VII:

THE EDUCATIONAL PORTAL OF THE AMERICAS
SECOND MEETING OF MINISTERS OF EDUCATION OEA/Ser.K/V.5.1

24-25 September 2001 CIDI/RME/doc. 7/01

Punta del Este, Uruguay 18 September 2001

Original: Spanish

Directory: udse
udse -> Yes funded ict programs (English)

Download 0.58 Mb.

Share with your friends:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10