jueves, 31 de agosto de 2017

La Princesa Diana y la globalización

Diana: princesa de Gales, reina del globo. La familia real británica como icono sociocultural difundido bajo el fenómeno de la globalización; caso de estudio de Diana, Princesa de Gales
Por
Luis Guillermo Rodríguez

Introducción
“El mejor ejemplo de lo que es globalización lo tenemos en el caso de la princesa Diana: Una princesa británica, con un novio egipcio, que usa un celular sueco, que choca en un túnel francés, en un auto alemán con motor holandés, manejado por un conductor belga, que se empedó con whisky escocés. A ellos les seguía de cerca un paparazzi italiano, en una motocicleta japonesa, que tomaba fotos con una cámara taiwanesa, para una revista española. Ella fue intervenida por un medico ruso y un asistente filipino que utilizaron medicinas brasileñas....”   

Foto de 1995
Autor: Nick Parfjonov
La globalización ha agudizado la atención internacional hacia la monarquía británica.  La monarquía británica es una institución que se le conoce por ser, según Robert Lacey, la esencia de la cultura en el Reino Unido.  Un soberano, que reina y no gobierna, con la institución que lo acobija -el establishment o la casa real-, hacen contrapeso en la política publica establecida al dar estabilidad jerárquica al sigiloso sistema parlamentario que caracteriza la democracia británica. Si la monarquía ha sobrevivido a cambios políticos y sociales durante mil años, ¿cómo se interrelacionan la monarquía y la globalización? ¿Cómo se proyecta la monarquía en la villa global con la caída del segundo mundo? ¿Quién es Diana, princesa de Gales? ¿Qué pertinencia tiene la figura ésta para un estudio iconográfico del fenómeno monarquía-globalización?

La caída del sistema bipolar mundial -capitalista versus marxista- trajo avances en la tecnología a nivel global dando acceso a la información a todos los confines del mundo. La tecnología logró que el icono llamado monarquía británica se perciba como un fenómeno más personal y accesible; no solamente a los constituyentes de la misma si no al mundo entero.

En la era de la globalización -era donde el primer mundo dicta las pautas políticas- Estados Unidos se antepone como líder hegemónico del mundo. Su compañera, Gran Bretaña, ofrece una institución de contrapeso al republicanismo estadounidense; la familia real británica. Al insertar la globalización con la iconografía de la realeza, se da la percepción que, en el nuevo orden mundial, mientras los Estados Unidos gobierna -como el primer ministro del mundo- Gran Bretaña reina con la familia real. Las bodas, las muertes y los nacimientos de herederos ya no solo competen a los súbditos de la mancomunidad de naciones, sino que trascienden a niveles globales de tal magnitud que la muerte súbita de una princesa británica se convierte en un evento mundial tan relevante como para que las cadenas de CNN entre otras estuvieran semanas completas lanzando una intensa campaña periodística comparada con el comienzo de una guerra o la caída de algún régimen en cualquier país. Diana, Princesa de Gales se convierte en el icono quasi perfecto de la globalización debido a los factores que hicieron que se convirtiera de Princesa británica a “Princesa del Globo”. 

En este estudio se pretende entrelazar el efecto que ha tenido el fenómeno globalización dentro de la institución de la monarquía británica. Se conducirá un caso de estudio utilizando libros de textos específicos, revistas profesionales y documentos audiovisuales sobre el protagonismo, la vida y la relación de Diana, Princesa de Gales con los fenómenos de la globalización. La hipótesis resulta veraz pues la globalización sí ha tenido un impacto de difusión publicitaria para la familia real británica, transformando la monarquía de un sistema protopolítico en Gran Bretaña a un fenómeno de interés sociocultural a un nivel mundial.

Este estudio encuentra limitaciones en los siguientes aspectos. En primer lugar, los autores no vinculan los dos fenómenos, el de la globalización con el estudio de un protagonismo de Diana, princesa de Gales, como icono del fenómeno antes mencionado. Hay pocos estudios profesionales sobre el tema, la mayoría tienden a medir el efecto sociológico de perdida colectiva que causo la muerte prematura del personaje estudiado. Al verse vinculada directamente la prensa con el fatídico final de la princesa, esta como fuente primaria resulta académicamente contaminada para un estudio serio. Con todo y esto veamos lo siguiente.

La Dianamanía y el tacherismo
Cuando las corrientes neoliberales en Gran Bretaña y los Estados Unidos andaban en todo su apogeo, Diana se convierte en la esposa de Carlos Alberto Felipe Jorge, Príncipe de Gales y heredero de lo que quedó de un imperio británico. En 1981, Diana se compromete en febrero con Carlos, creando gran expectativa en una institución débil, la monarquía, que para muchos expertos en la materia, en esos momentos estaba sufriendo los embates de ser una institución demasiado ortodoxa, vista como inapropiada para los cambios generacionales en la sociedad británica. Políticamente, Estados Unidos había tomado la batuta imperial en el mundo bipolarizado que provocó la Guerra fría, Gran Bretaña solo era un rastro de lo que fue hasta la primera mitad del siglo XX. Ya no existía el imperio británico, solo una crisis económica dejada por el programa de estado benefactor de los laboristas durante y después de la segunda Guerra mundial.[1]

El historiador John A. Taylor argumenta que la princesa de Gales se convierte en una especie de primera dama para la figura política de Margareth Thatcher. Thatcher impacta los británicos políticamente; moviendo el país con una fuerte virazón a la derecha neoliberal cónsone con su homologo norteamericano Ronald Reagan. Diana se convierte en el carisma necesario para la frivolidad política del movimiento. Al casarse con el príncipe Carlos e integrarse a la monarquía británica, Diana crea en los británicos un efecto enternecedor que domina la psiquis del país. La princesa se convierte en lo que Taylor llama “the bluest of the blues” (la mas azul de los de sangre azul) y su figura es literalmente adorada en todos los confines del reino. A tal punto que a este efecto se le llama la dianamania. Un efecto sicosocial que le resultó maquiavélicamente perfecto al movimiento tacherista para continuar en el poder por largos años. El tacherismo -modelo neoliberal británico- sirvió como una antesala a los eventos políticos y sociales que darían paso a la globalización que se crea durante la década de los 1990’s.[2]

La monarquía británica simbolizó aquellos valores que representaban balance y equilibrio social.  De acuerdo con el historiador Charles Anderson, la sociedad británica cambio de valores sociales en el periodo correspondiente de 1980 a 1990. La monarquía británica representaba los intereses afectivos de las iglesias litúrgicas de la comunión anglicana, una postura moderada con dirección hacia la derecha conservadora.[3] Mientras la institución monárquica se mantenía en estas tendencias afectivas, la sociedad británica -principalmente con la llegada de la tecnología que sirvieron como llave de la villa global- completó una descomposición social de los valores moderados propugnados por la corona. El nuevo consenso deconstructor de valores comenzó con el neoliberalismo que ofreció la incumbencia de Margareth Thatcher. Por otro lado, Diana se convirtió en el icono nacional que resentía las políticas frívolas del tacherismo. El estoicismo protestante del estado benefactor que cargaba la sociedad británica era anhelado por medio de la proyección carismática que ofrecía Diana ante los súbditos ingleses. La sociedad no estaba preparada para abandonar aquellos valores de ayuda mutual y de asistir al desamparado que aprendieron en la primera y segunda guerra mundial.

Cuando cae el poder conservador en Gran Bretaña, y la dama de hierro -Margareth Thatcher- así como su política neoliberal fue rechazada en la conciencia política de los británicos, Diana se convirtió en un símbolo nacional del neocarisma protestante que habría unido a los bretones en las guerras mundiales. De acuerdo con Anderson, el símbolo proyectado a través de los medios globalizados de comunicación donde se exhibía a Diana explotando su carisma en trabajos de servicio a los enfermos de Sida y las victimas de esta pandemia en la India fue lo que de llamo el “fenómeno Diana” y que influyo indirectamente el contexto de la elección de Tony Blair como primer ministro del Reino Unido de Gran Bretaña.[4] Este sentimiento se difunde alrededor del mundo asociando a la princesa Diana con la Madre Teresa de Calcuta y su gesta estoica en la India.[5]

La tecnología y la monarquía.
La monarquía constitucional británica se ha nutrido de los avances de la tecnología desde la época de la reina Victoria. El jubileo de diamante de dicha monarca fue uno de los primeros eventos en ser grabado en video en 1900.[6] Su hijo, el Rey Eduardo VII, incursionó en el uso de los medios de comunicación para difundir el carisma de la institución de la corona, proyectándose en videos grabados de las ceremonias hechas en Londres y difundiéndolo por todo el imperio británico. Sin embargo, fue la monarca, Isabel II, la que explotó el uso de la televisión y la radio en sus viajes hacia los diferentes confines de la mancomunidad de naciones británica. Sus viajes a la India, Malasia y Tailandia, donde se proyectaba a la reina asimilando actividades culturales como montarse en elefantes dieron poder a la institución monárquica luego de la segunda guerra mundial.[7]

Los peritos en historia y sociología entienden que los monarcas del siglo XX y XXI necesitan usar los medios de comunicación para influenciar la vida de sus sociedades súbditas, así como la manera de como la corona se proyecta y es percibidas.[8] Entre los métodos de manipulación de los medios tenemos los mensajes dirigidos en los eventos importantes, por ejemplo, aperturas al parlamento y el mensaje de año nuevo a la mancomunidad de naciones por parte de la reina de Inglaterra.

En el caso de la Princesa Diana, los medios de comunicación abrumaron a esta figura desde el principio de su matrimonio con el heredero de la corona británica. Sin embargo, concurrente con el desarrollo de la globalización, el avance tecnológico y la hegemonía estadounidense luego de la primera guerra de Irak en el 1990, la princesa de Gales -al igual que la reina de Inglaterra- aprendió a utilizar los medios de comunicación a su favor. El dominio de los medios de comunicación, el enfoque a proyectar un carisma mundial y la mezcla de estos últimos dos con la formación de la villa global dio paso a una incandescente popularidad internacional. Tan potente y posteriormente abrumadora resultó la misma en los medios de difusión, que muchos aseguran que la pasión por cubrir una historia de este personaje emanado de la corona terminó con la vida de ella misma.[9]

Junto a la caída del imperio Ruso, la hegemonía norteamericana en el mundo con la primera guerra de Irak y la eficiencia política de los gobiernos neoliberales de Margareth Thatcher-John Mayor en Gran Bretaña, Ronald Reagan-George Bush en los Estados Unidos y Helmut Khol en la Alemania unida; surgió el escándalo de separación matrimonial de los príncipes de Gales. La magnitud del escándalo de una separación estribaba en el hecho de que el Príncipe de Gales, como heredero a la corona británica, se convertiría en la cabeza nominal de la comunión eclesiástica anglicana.  Por ende, un divorcio no era permisible hasta entonces en la figura de un futuro monarca británico.[10]

En el ámbito de la globalización como fenómeno se dio lo que el Dr. Luis Ángel Ferrao destaca en su cátedra como el fenómeno CNN. Luego de los eventos de la plaza de Tiannamen, los reporteros destacados en aquel evento lograron una atención mundial sin precedentes, lo que comenzó una subcultura de acceso a la noticia inmediatamente surge. De la misma manera esto ocurre con los periodistas que cubrieron la primera guerra de Irak, en donde informaban minuto a minuto todo lo acaecido en aquella guerra que marcó en el ámbito mundial la hegemonía estadounidense, lo que políticamente dictó lo conocido como el efecto cónsone de la villa global.

El escándalo de la casa real británica junto al hambre periodística del fenómeno tecnológico de CNN comenzó a tener un efecto inexorable en la vida de la princesa de Gales. Una vez separada de su marido, siendo madre del futuro rey del Reino Unido, el príncipe Guillermo de Gales, causaba gran sensación ver la vida de una princesa que como describieron los medios mundiales, se había caído de los cuentos de hadas. Los medios de comunicación, tanto profesionales como aquellos de prensa rosada pagaban una horda de paparazzis para seguir paso a paso los movimientos de la princesa de Gales. En definitiva, Diana significaba un jornal económicamente suculento para el efecto de continuidad de noticia inmediata que perpetuó el fenómeno de CNN.

Los medios de comunicación comenzaron a depredar en el posible evento de un divorcio desde que se vislumbró la separación de los príncipes. La tecnología había hecho a los príncipes, en particular a Diana, figuras pertinentes a niveles internacionales.[11] La globalización cambió lo que se conoció como la dianamanía a un ente mundial demasiado lucrativo, y el escándalo de que los príncipes de Gales se separaban por líos de falda acrecentaba el apetito de las grandes corporaciones de medios de comunicación que se lucrarían con esta historia.[12]

Los rumores de otoño de 1992 de que una separación entre los príncipes era inexorable, vino con el hecho de que ambos cónyuges habían tenido relaciones extramaritales durante sus últimos años del matrimonio. Escritores como periodistas comenzaron una industria multimillonaria que se logró gracias a la rápida difunción que trajo la tecnología de la era de la villa global -engendrada por la tecnología armamentista que provocó la guerra fría-.[13]

Uno de los eventos de medios de comunicación que revolucionó el fenómeno de separación de los príncipes de Gales, convirtiéndolo en un verdadero espectáculo fue la biografía de la princesa Diana escrita por el autor Andrew Morton. La biografía, rápidamente difundida a nivel mundial daba una explicación maniqueísta de los motivos de la separación, poniendo a Carlos de Gales como el malo -príncipe infiel y frívolo que nunca quiso a su esposa- y victimizando por completo a la princesa Diana. Este libro tomó mas credibilidad que cualquier otro por el hecho de que-según lo estipulo la revista americana Newsweek, las revelaciones eran muy especificas sobre los eventos que narraba, haciendo perfecto sentido con lo poco revelado en publico sobre la vida de los príncipes de Gales.

Diana se convirtió de reina de los medios a una presa de la prensa internacional, que con avances tecnológicos y los acontecimientos entre ella y su marido, la situación llego a costar millones para la prensa internacional. La prensa buscaba cualquier cosa para explotar la imagen de los príncipes de Gales. En 1990 un gerente retirado de un banco de Londres contactó el periódico amarillista The Sun para ofrecer grabaciones en cinta entre supuestamente la princesa Diana y un amigo de esta James Gilbey en la que implicaban relaciones sentimentales entre estos. Los medios también resucitaron noticias sobre otros hombres que alegaron tener vínculos y menesteres personales con la princesa de Gales, como el tutor ecuestre de esta, James Hewitt. Las sumas ofrecidas por la prensa eran tan onerosas que los periódicos compraban a los testigos fácilmente.

¿Cuál era el factor que hacía que las noticias de las princesas tomaran tanto valor adquisitivo y monetario? El interés internacional por la figura de la princesa de Gales catalizado por la tecnología de la nueva era de la villa global.[14]

La separación y la “Guerra de Gales”
Los príncipes de Gales se separan en 1992, evento que lo anuncia el primer ministro John Major al parlamento británico. Aún cuando la corona ya había tomado la determinación de anunciar la separación, los miembros del partido conservador y su líder político le preocupaba la imagen negativa que se pudiese generar sobre la decisión en la opinión dentro y fuera del suelo británico. A favor de la princesa de Gales, el primer ministro John Major aseguró que la separación no implicaba que Diana se convirtiera en la reina de los británicos algún día.[15]

En el año de 1993, la princesa anuncia que debido al clima abrumante que le provoca el constantemente ser asediaba por los medios de comunicación se retira de la vida publica, aunque continuaría con su trabajo de obras de caridad. La princesa logra mantener un bajo perfil por lo menos en dos años, en este momento, la princesa negocia con el gobierno un puesto de embajadora con el gobierno británico, pero las negociaciones quedan en nada.

Tratando de usar la misma estrategia de su esposa, el príncipe Carlos se hace entrevistar por el periodista Jonathan Dimbleby, y se publica un libro sobre la versión del príncipe sobre los hechos. Era la primera vez en la historia de la familia real británica que se utilizaba los medios de comunicación como entes de apología para la proyección de imágenes ante el mundo. La globalización convirtió a la realeza en una institución que tendría desde entonces que luchar por el prestigio benefactor que antes aparecía en la casa real como algo inherente. El escándalo del conflicto Carlos-Diana lleva a ambos cónyuges a una lucha por el dominio de las comunicaciones a su favor, no solo ante el Reino Unido, sino ante el mundo. De príncipes en cuna de oro Carlos, tuvo que proyectar su supuesta inocencia por el bien de su futuro como rey y el de las instituciones que algún día representaría: la mancomunidad de naciones y la comunión anglicana.[16]

En noviembre del año siguiente, Diana responde a la acción de Carlos con una entrevista no autorizada por las debidas instituciones británicas en el Panorama Program de la BBC. La entrevista resultó aparte de controversial, muy llamativa debido a que la princesa de Gales le informa a Su Majestad, La Reina Isabel II de dicha entrevista luego de haberla realizado, rompiendo con todo el protocolo de la corona inglesa. La entrevista logró el mayor record de audiencia en la historia del programa televisivo; con más de veintiún millones de espectadores registrados como televidentes, eso solo en el Reino Unido.[17] Los medios de comunicación declararon a Diana como la ganadora del acervo periodístico al ser comparadas la entrevista con la de su marido.

Las reacciones publicitarias no se hicieron esperar, en la Portada del periódico londinense de The Daily Telegragh, se reseñó: “su compostura y su fluidez estuvo a la altura de cualquier hombre o mujer de estado”.[18] Mientras que la BBC afirmó que Diana no fue editada durante la entrevista, se denotaba que la princesa de Gales estaba dispuesta a manipular los medios de comunicación a su favor repostando excelentemente las preguntas. Todo se hizo de manera espontánea, hasta la famosa frase aludiendo al romance de su esposo con Camilla Parker Bowles: “habemos tres personas en este matrimonio por lo que me resulta abrumante”.[19]

Divorcio y Muerte
Las últimas acciones de la princesa Diana ante la BBC pusieron fin a cualquier posibilidad de una reconciliación entre los príncipes de Gales. En una acción sin precedente, la reina de Inglaterra, cabeza de la familia real le pide a la pareja que peticionen el divorcio de una vez y por todas. El 29 de febrero del 1996, Diana dio su consentimiento para el divorcio. Se anunció que el divorcio sería efectivo a partir de julio de 1996, la princesa tendría palabra en lo que respectaba a sus hijos y la custodia sería compartida. Diana ya no ostentaba el título de Su Alteza Real, sino que se le conocería como Diana, Princesa de Gales.[20]

La princesa divorciada, la cual estableció un precedente en la casa real, siendo esta ahora una madre soltera, no vería una aminoración de su popularidad con la salida de la casa real. Al contrario, esto la convirtió en mujer símbolo de la sociedad moderna de la globalización. Diana continuó con su rol diplomático como princesa de Gales luego de divorciada. Comenzó a enfocarse en personas con enfermedades terminales y a las victimas de la guerra de los Balcanes. En 1997, su carisma vio acrecentarse al tener una reunión privada en Nueva York con la Madre Teresa de Calcuta. 

En el verano de 1997, Diana paso tiempo con su amigo Dodi Fayed, ambos fueron perseguidos por la prensa sin discreción ninguna. Diana continuaba siendo una noticia ambulante. El 31 de agosto de 1997 los paparazzi’s siguieron a la princesa luego de una cena de la pareja en el hotel del padre de Fayed, el Ritz Carlton de Paris. Según las investigaciones hechas por el gobierno francés: la combinación de la rapidez del vehiculo debido a la persecución de los paparazzi’s y un estado de embriaguez legal del chofer del carro de Diana hicieron que se diera un fatal accidente de trafico que provocó horas después el deceso de Diana. Según Robert Lacey, muchos testigos oculares reportaron que mientras ocurrió el accidente, en vez de ayudar, la prensa continuo con la toma de fotos de los sucedido, obstruyendo el trabajo de las autoridades francesas y violando con la ley del buen samaritano, que requería a todo testigo a ayudar en un accidente de dicha índole.

Si la vida de Diana ya se había convertido en un icono de la villa global, su muerte fue un shock colectivo para todo el mundo. En su declaración oficial el primer ministro declaró que la muerte de Diana no solo conmocionó a Gran Bretaña sino al mundo entero.
 She was a wonderful and warm human being. Though her own life was often sadly touched by tragedy, she touched the lives of so many others in Britain - throughout the world - with joy and with comfort. How many times shall we remember her, in how many different ways, with the sick, the dying, with children, with the needy, when, with just a look or a gesture that spoke so much more than words, she would reveal to all of us the depth of her compassion and her humanity. How difficult things were for her from time to time, surely we can only guess at - but the people everywhere, not just here in Britain but everywhere, they kept faith with Princess Diana, they liked her, they loved her, they regarded her as one of the people. She was the peoples princess and thats how she will stay, how she will remain in our hearts and in our memories forever.”[21]
El mundo despidió a lo que el primer ministro en su mensaje enmarcó como la princesa del pueblo con flores y llanto a un nivel colectivo. Las personas esperaron horas en fila para firmar el libro de condolencias que tuvo que darse en todas las embajadas británicas del mundo. En Gran Bretaña nada más pasaron cien mil personas al día para firmar dicho record histórico.[22] 

Ante este fenómeno, la misma reina de Inglaterra, Isabel II tuvo que hacer un boletín televisivo en el que pagó tributo a la princesa fenecida. Era la segunda vez en sus cuarenta y cinco años de reinado aparecía en la televisión fuera de su mensaje anual de navidad. La primera vez era por asuntos extremadamente importantes de la guerra fría. La reina tuvo que ensalzar las virtudes de Diana siguiendo el consejo de nuevo gobierno, liderado por el primer ministro, Tony Blair.[23] El no haber seguido tal rompimiento del protocolo, han señalado muchos expertos en los estudios sociales, historias y ciencias políticas hubiera dado un estocado final a la institución ortodoxa llamada la monarquía británica. La muerte de Diana terminó modernizando los viejos cimientos de la casa real británica y acoplando a dicha institución hacia la era de la globalización.[24]

El Funeral de la Princesa Diana se llevó a cabo en consenso del gobierno, de la casa real y de la familia Spencer. Aunque Según el historiador Robert Lacey, Diana prefirió, luego de divorciada, un funeral privado en el palacio de la familia- el palacio de los Condes Spencers-, se concluyo que debido a la popularidad creada por los medios de comunicación y el shock que provocó su muerte hacia la nación y al mundo esta ceremonia se hiciera publica con el aval de todos los honores de una mujer de estado. El evento se llevó a cabo en la abadía de Westminster el 6 de septiembre. Sus dos hijos, los Principes Guillermo y Harry (Enrique), su hermano, El Conde Spencer, la familia real, entre celebridades de la televisión y la música se dieron cita. El sequito que flanqueó el cadáver fue escogidos de las ciento diez caridades y patronatos que la princesa presidía. Como clausura de la ceremonia, el famoso cantante Sir Elton John le dedicó la canción “Candle in the wind” (vela en el viento), cambiando la letra por “Adiós, Rosa de Inglaterra.”

Conclusión
Según Robert Lacey, el legado de Diana fue hacer a la monarquía mas sensible a los súbditos, así como sirviendo como el icono que preparase a la Casa Real como institución protopolítica a entender los cambios en el mundo, la tecnología y la sociedad. Las personas querían ver una reina que de vez en cuando mostrara sus sentimientos ante el ojo público. El acecho de los medios de comunicación y las empresas publicitarias no terminaron con el entierro de Diana en el Parque del condado de Spencer, el Althorp Park. Estampas, sellos y una infinita cantidad de memorabilia se puso a la venta. Diana sirvió como un icono de la realeza para la prensa, pero no terminó el entrelace de medios y corona con la fenecida. El efecto Diana se transfirió a la corona, en especial a sus hijos, los futuros protagonistas de la familia real.

Aunque en un principio los británicos y el mundo señalaron a la prensa y al hambre por el precio que costaba una primicia sobre la princesa, los mismos medios de comunicación se encargaron de amonestar a la familia real británica por no compartir el sentimiento colectivo de perdida que sentía el mundo. Diana era un fenómeno que se hizo común en todos los confines del globo, aunque políticamente no estaba vinculada con nadie en países como Japón, EEUU y Brasil, las personas hicieron las mismas filas que aquellos países donde sí Diana tocaba un somero protagonismo por ser de la mancomunidad de naciones como: la India, Australia y Canadá. Gales dejó de ser un termino para un país integrado del Reino Unido para convertirse en un termino populista global, en cierto aspecto Gales era la villa global y la familia real británica con el icono de Diana se convirtió en la familia real del mundo entero.[25]

Bibliografía
Fuentes Primarias
Electrónicas.
CNN “ Queen’s tribute to Princesa Diana” Disponible en http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9709/05/queen.address.2p/. Internet acezado marzo 31, 2007.

Ten Downing Street. The Prime Minister’s Constituency.  “Statement by the Prime Minister following the death of Diana, Princess of Wales.” Disponible en http://www.number10.gov.uk/output/Page1050.asp ;internet, acezado el 13 de  Mayo del 2007.

Ferrao, Luis A. Estados Unidos y la globalización. Seminario Doctoral.  Universidad Interamericana de Puerto Rico, Recinto Metropolitano. 2007.

Fuentes Secundarias:
Aitchison, Jean and Diana M. Lewis, eds. New Media Language. London: Routledge, 2003.

Allison, Lincoln. "Britain's Crisis of Identity." World and I, August 1998, 326.

Childs, Peter and Mike Storry, eds. Encyclopedia of Contemporary British Culture. London: Routledge, 1999.

Danet, Brenda. Cyberpl@Y: Communicating Online. Oxford: Berg, 2001.
Evans, Margaret. "The Diana Phenomenon: Reaction in the East Midlands." Folklore 109 (1998): 101.

Hitchens, Peter. The Abolition of Britain: From Winston Churchill to Princess Diana. San Francisco: Encounter Books, 2000

Jackson, Peter, Philip Crang, and Claire Dwyer, eds. Transnational Spaces. New York: Routledge, 2004.

Kear, Adrian, and Deborah Lynn Steinberg. Mourning Diana: Nation, Culture, and the Performance of Grief. London: Routledge, 1999.

Lacey, Robert . Monarch: The Life and Reign of Elizabeth II.  New York: Free Press, 2002

Macarov, David. What the Market Does to People: Privatization, Globalization, and Poverty. Atlanta: Clarity Press, 2003

Mirzoeff, Nicholas. An Introduction to Visual Culture. London: Routledge, 1999.
Nye, Joseph S. Power in the Global Information Age: From Realism to Globalization. New York: Routledge, 2004.

Rothkopf, David J. "Cyberpolitik: The Changing Nature of Power in the Information Age."Journal of International Affairs 51, no. 2 (1998): 325

Rutherford, Kenneth R., Stefan Brem, and Richard A. Matthew, eds. Reframing the Agenda: The Impact of NGO and Middle Power Cooperation in International Security Policy. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2003.

Taylor, John A.  Diana, Self-Interest, and British National Identity. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 2000.

Thomas, James. Diana's Mourning: A People's History. Cardiff, Wales: University of Wales Press, 2002.

Tonn, Mari Boor. "Princess Diana and Baseball: Encouraging the Critics of Culture to Play Fair." Women's Studies in Communication 22, no. 1 (1999): 112.

Walter, Tony, ed. The Mourning for Diana. New York: Berg, 1999.

Wang, Georgette, Jan Servaes, and Anura Goonasekera, eds. The New Communications Landscape: Demystifying Media Globalization. London: Routledge, 2000.

Wober, Mallory. Media and Monarchy. London: Nova Science Publishers. 2000

Wood, Juliette. "Diana Memorabilia: Mail Order Values in Popular American Magazines." Folklore 109 (1998): 109.

Fuentes Electrónicas
The Queen. Producido por Stephen Frears. Miramax, Nov 7, 2007. DVD.

Nota de agradecimiento del autor:
Mis más profundos agradecimientos son para: Dios, primer motor en el orden teleológico de mi vida y del sentido de las cosas; para mi madre, Nora E. Figueroa y mi abuela Esperanza Díaz Vda. De Figueroa. Me quito el sombrero ante los bibliotecarios de la Universidad Interamericana de Puerto Rico, la Universidad de Puerto Rico, Recinto de Río Piedras y la Pontificia Universidad Católica de Puerto Rico. A la Dra. Luz I. Pérez Quiñones y al catedrático que imparte el curso, el Dr. Luis Ángel Ferrao, por inculcar una disciplina académica de excelencia y fomentar la integración curricular en nuestros cursos de historia.  Dedico esta humilde aportación a la Profesora Luz Celenia Torres, para mí simplemente Lucy, una segunda madre y veraz maestra de las humanidades como fuentes del humanismo que encontramos en el calor fraternal.



[1] Peter Childs and Mike Storry, eds., Encyclopedia of Contemporary British Culture (London: Routledge, 1999), 103.
[2] John A. Taylor, Diana, Self-Interest, and British National Identity (Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 2000), 75.
[3] Iden.
[4] Ibid, 117.
[5] Mari Boor Tonn, "Princess Diana and Baseball: Encouraging the Critics of Culture to Play Fair," Women's Studies in Communication 22, no. 1 (1999): 112.
[6] John A. Taylor, Diana, Self-Interest, and British National Identity, 47.
[7] Mallory Wober. Media and Monarchy (Nova Science Publishers (2000)), 56.
[8] Ibid, 57.
[9] Jenny Kitzinger, "4 The Moving Power of Moving Images: Television Contructions of Princess Diana," in The Mourning for Diana /, ed. Tony Walter (New York: Berg, 1999, accessed 17 May 2007), 65.
[10] John A. Taylor, British Monarchy, English Church Establishment, and Civil Liberty (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1996), 25.
[11] Mari Boor Tonn, "Princess Diana and Baseball: Encouraging the Critics of Culture to Play Fair," Women's Studies in Communication 22, no. 1 (1999): 112
[12] John A. Taylor, Diana, Self-Interest, and British National Identity, 51.
[13] Ibid, 67.
[14] Tony Walter, ed., The Mourning for Diana (New York: Berg, 1999), 19.
[15] John A. Taylor, Diana, Self-Interest, and British National Identity (Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 2000), 25
[16] Tony Walter, ed., The Mourning for Diana, 123.
[17] Esto de un total de 58 millones de habitantes del Reino Unido.
[18] John A. Taylor, Diana, Self-Interest, and British National Identity, 54
[19] Adrian Kear, and Deborah Lynn Steinberg, Mourning Diana: Nation, Culture, and the Performance of Grief  (London: Routledge, 1999), 155.
[20] John A. Taylor, Diana, Self-Interest, and British National Identity, 25
[21] Ten Downing Street. The Prime Minister’s Constituency.  “Statement by the Prime Minister following the death of Diana, Princess of Wales.” Available from http://www.number10.gov.uk/output/Page1050.asp ;internet, accessed 13 May 2007.
[22] Tony Walter, ed., The Mourning for Diana (New York: Berg, 1999), 98.
[23] Adrian Kear, and Deborah Lynn Steinberg, Mourning Diana: Nation, Culture, and the Performance of Grief  (London: Routledge, 1999), 98
[24] Robert Lacy, Monarch: The Life and Reign of Elizabeth II (New York: Free Press, 2002), 34
[25] Adrian Kear, and Deborah Lynn Steinberg, Mourning Diana: Nation, Culture, and the Performance of Grief (London: Routledge, 1999), 155

lunes, 21 de agosto de 2017

Retos y desafíos en el desarrollo de la educación: Una reflexión

RETOS Y DESAFÍOS EN EL DESARROLLO DE LA EDUCACIÓN: 
UNA REFLEXIÓN
Por Pablo L. Crespo Vargas

Adquirir mediante amazon
Luego de la gobernación de Roberto Sánchez Vilella (1964-1968), único gobernador que logró un superávit en la economía gubernamental puertorriqueña, la Isla pasó bajo una serie de administraciones que se dedicaron a fomentar un sistema burocrático politizado. El cual llevó a desarrollar políticas económicas enmarcadas en solicitudes de préstamos y créditos sin poder establecer maneras efectivas de pago que, a su vez, promovieron una sociedad donde la dependencia social era la orden del día. La misma se reflejó en una educación descuidada y con falta de sentido para un gran sector de nuestra población.

A partir de 1968, la política gubernamental hacia la educación en Puerto Rico tiene un cambio de paradigma dejando a un lado las innovaciones educativas y fortaleciendo los modelos tradicionales de enseñanza. Esto a su vez llevó al estado a concentrar sus esfuerzos en el desarrollo administrativo y burocrático del sistema educativo, acción que resultó en detrimento a una educación de excelencia y promovió la visión partidista sobre la educación. Pasaron 22 años sin que se estableciera una nueva reforma educativa pública.

En 1990 se aprueba la Ley 68, una reforma educativa dirigida a descentralizar el sistema y en 1993 se establecen las llamadas Escuelas de la Comunidad. Éstas tenían un fin: el desarrollo de escuelas con autonomía docente, administrativa y fiscal que atendieran las necesidades de su comunidad minimizando la burocracia establecida en el sistema tradicional. También se pretendía que con este grado de autonomía los recursos disponibles en el nivel central fueran utilizados con mayor agilidad y efectividad para atender los problemas de cada comunidad escolar. En 1999 se establece una nueva ley orgánica (la Ley 149), la cual es la que está aún vigente en la actualidad (2017). En la misma se continuó con el concepto de escuela de la comunidad; sin embargo, de manera práctica se perpetúa un sistema centralizado y altamente politizado que provoca tensiones entre sus componentes.

No debemos olvidar que, durante la segunda mitad del siglo XX, se reflejó un patrón constante de aumento en la matrícula escolar, producto del crecimiento poblacional que ocurrió en la Isla y Lajas no fue la excepción. Con la llegada del siglo XXI, la situación demográfica cambió; primeramente, porque los índices de natalidad se estancaron, y porque el número de puertorriqueños emigrantes hacia los Estados Unidos creció luego de iniciado el periodo de crisis económica de 2006. Como si esto fuera poco, la educación puertorriqueña enfrentó, antes y aún ahora, el reto de políticas neoliberales impuestas por nuestros gobernantes en las últimas dos décadas.

En la visión neoliberal, la escuela se convierte en una mercancía más, lo cual relega a un segundo plano su función de centro de desarrollo sociocultural de nuestro estudiantado. El objetivo primordial del neoliberalismo es integrar la escuela al desarrollo industrial y económico guiado por principios que en algunos casos pueden ser considerados clasistas y elitistas, dirigidos a la formación de ciudadanos y trabajadores con actitudes dóciles ante el poder del estado y los patronos.[1]

A mediados de 2017, la situación educativa de Lajas es reflejo de lo que está ocurriendo en todo Puerto Rico. Escuelas de la Comunidad que en algún momento fueron modelos de desarrollo educativo, social y cultural, como es el caso de la Escuela Antonio Pagán, son cerradas luego de realizado un análisis donde los factores económicos son de mayor peso que los sociales.

Los educadores lajeños (y puertorriqueños) en la actualidad tienen una serie de retos por cumplir con su misión; no solamente luchan contra un sistema neoliberal opresivo que no cree que el educador es esencial en nuestra sociedad sino que tienen el gran desafío de seguir desarrollando seres humanos con pensamiento crítico y analítico, capacidad creativa e innovadora, y destrezas emocionales y cognoscitivas, que se interese por la preservación ambiental y que esté dispuesto al trabajo cooperativo y colaborativo. También es importante promover seres empáticos a la inclusión social, que dejen a un lado el desinterés y la apatía a resolver situaciones que afectan a la comunidad; así mismo, que puedan desarrollar un sentimiento humanístico y ético que los lleve a buscar soluciones a los problemas diarios y a dar buen uso a los adelantos tecnológicos.

¿Cómo se desarrollan todas estas destrezas? La educación debe ser holística. Las materias, aunque separadas, deben integrarse unas a otras. Las bellas artes, la música, los estudios sociales y la historia son esenciales y no deben descuidarse. El español como idioma de los puertorriqueños debe ser fortalecido para que el estudiante desarrolle una base lingüística sólida que pueda ayudar a que aprenda, no solamente inglés, sino un tercer y cuarto idioma. Las ciencias y matemáticas, de tanta importancia en la actualidad, no pueden dejarse a un lado. Los cursos vocacionales deben ampliarse para darle una mayor oportunidad competitiva a los estudiantes y que estos tengan las herramientas necesarias para un mundo de constante cambio. Además, como se busca un ser humano íntegro de cuerpo y mente, la educación física y los cursos de salud debe siempre estar presente.

Por último, exhorto a todos los puertorriqueños (pero en especial a los lajeños) y demás residentes de esta nación a seguir luchando para mejorar nuestra condición de vida, desarrollar nuestras comunidades y ser ejemplo digno para seguir. Es nuestro interés que el puertorriqueño del siglo XXI sea uno con la capacidad crítica y analítica necesaria para enfrentar cada uno de los problemas que se avecinan. También deseamos una sociedad democrática donde cada uno de sus componentes sea escuchado, atendido y valorizado por ser parte integrar de la misma. Se acercan tiempos difíciles y debemos estar orgullosos de lo que somos, para ello es menester conocer nuestro pasado. Es en ese acervo histórico y cultural que se encuentran las respuestas a las situaciones que enfrentaremos y así se evitará repetir los mismos errores que en un momento se cometieron.





[1] Jurjo Torres Santomé: “Michael Apple: El Trasfondo ideológico de la educación”, Cuadernos de pedagogía, Año 1998, Núm. 275, págs. 36-44.

jueves, 10 de agosto de 2017

A Critical View to the English Curriculum Alignment Process: Implications and Future Perspectives

A Critical View to the English Curriculum Alignment Process: Implications and Future Perspectives
By
Rubén Lebrón León
© Rights Reserved, 2015

Reunión de facultad (s. XVI)
“Capitalism is the astounding belief that the wickedest of men will do the wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone” (Keynes, n.d.).  Capitalism does definitely reshape the meaning of democracy. Instead of justice for all, into justice to the few that can pay the price of total control.  This reality also impacts one of the most lucrative business of our times, which is education. It is from this perspective that we will direct our thoughts by using a critical scope to understand certain realities. A critical scope within Freire’s Critical Theory that unquestionably restructured the concepts of a true democratic education. Paulo Freire’s ideas of praxis, dialogic, and oppression will provoke questioning to begin a humanistic analysis beyond the technicalities of today’s technological curriculum prescription trends.

We educators create a sense of awareness, by seeing how education has become one of the most profitable business of our times. It is within this critical perspective where we position our reflections by establishing important concepts that will impact education beyond curriculum perspectives. Recently, Puerto Rico’s Department of Education passed through a curriculum revision due to the requirements of the so called Flexibility Plan. According to the USDE (United States Department of Education) (2014), Puerto Rico’s Department of Education made a pact with the USDE to receive an extension of funds to be able to comply with the requirements of school high academic performance. In order to comply with the USDE and the federal government conditions, all the academic subject programs must have a complete revision to be aligned to the initiative program called the Common Core. The National Governors Association and the Chief State School officers (2010) define the Common Core as a movement that promotes literacy skills and understanding required for college and career readiness in multiple subjects.

This notion of Common Core is the one that provoke many questions regarding the true motives of this initiative. It is no secret that the Gates enterprises are the ones behind the funding of the Common Core movement (Murphy, 2014; Reutzel, 2012; UNESCO, 2014). This leaves educators with many uncertainties regarding whether or not this reality is a step forward in education. Is this new trend in favor of students’ wellbeing for a well-educated and democratic society? We can prefer to assume that this is the true intention behind the Common Core initiative, but the facts are unavoidably obvious. To acknowledge that the Gates family enterprise is in top of every educational movement will lead us to understand the true motives of the Common Core. We contemplate the truth about how companies will not provide funds out of mere altruism, in a world where education is a political act of oppression (Freire, 1970). Inside our capitalist reality economic gain is the principal motive to any enterprise. If one dare to scrutinize into the meaning of Common Core we can deduce that the goal is to prepare students to be assembly line workers rather than critical thinkers with a highly evolved sense to truly have the freedom to choose to go to college or contribute to their society.

We believe that we have to establish what the curriculum alignment process is. This definition will be in relation with one of the subject matter of English. Then we will analyze the possible implications from the philosophical, psychological, and sociological educational foundations from a critical perspective.

Curriculum alignment is essential to the development and improvement of a program of study and “can be broadly defined as the degree to which the components of an education system such as standards, curricula, assessments, and instruction work together to achieve desired goals” (Case, Jorgenson & Zucker, 2004, p.5; Ornstern & Hunkins, 2009). Alignment activities provide partners and stakeholders with the opportunity to work together to identify when, where, and how extensively the standards and curricular content associated with a program of study will be addressed. According to Mausbach & Mooney (2008), foundational concepts inherent in curriculum alignment efforts are opportunities for educators to participate in professional development. Such efforts that enhance the opportunities for instructors and content experts to work in teams to plan, review, and improve instruction and work with instructional leaders. Engaging in both of these efforts enhances the quality of alignment results and communication across institutions involved in curriculum alignment process.     

Alignment is also the process of solving instructional problems that often require contextual flexibility and openness to diverse sources of insight (Christensen & Osguthorpe, 2004). Practicing designers must be versatile, it is commonly noted, readily adapting to the demands of complex design situations by borrowing from a variety of conceptual resources such as instructional theories, design principles, process models, and larger philosophical frameworks (Christensen & Osguthorpe, 2004). It presents a challenge when it is constituted by the diversity of early learning environments that have different traditions, values, and norms (Feldman, 2010). This challenge is clearly visible when there is a presentation of academic contents.

Reigeluth & Carr-Chellman (2009, p.20) define content as, ‘‘The nature of what is to be learned, defined comprehensively to include not only knowledge, skills, and understandings, but also higher order thinking skills, metacognitive skills, attitudes, values, and so forth’’. For instructional designers, this research suggests that using instructional theory as an approach for instructional design has benefits. One benefit is that it helps designers effectively judge the usefulness of methods for a given situation. This leads to better instructional design decisions (Case, Jorgenson & Zucker, 2004). Another benefit is that it can help designers defend their design decisions. This leads to a more efficient and enjoyable design process (Reigeluth & Carr-Chellman, 2009). Managers of instructional designers should use instructional theory’s core principles to assess the quality of their designers’ decisions. Designers can defend their decisions based on the principles of instructional theory, and guarantee a great learning experience (Honebein & Honebein, 2014).

To achieve worthwhile instructional outcomes, instructional designers must make good decisions regarding the methods they use in their learning experiences. (Honebein & Honebein, 2014). One way to expedite the alignment process is to build on the curriculum that is already in place. However, defining the specific curriculum is not always easy because the written curriculum outlined in curriculum guides often is not what is being taught in classrooms. Curriculum guides define what should be taught, but in many cases, they do not affect what actually happens in classrooms. Jacobs (1997) describes curriculum guides as usually "well-intended fictions." She concludes that curriculum guides may actually encourage teachers to teach what they like to teach. Individual teacher decisions about what to emphasize, made in isolation and with good intentions, can actually contribute to a school's poor test scores. In other words, the ultimate goal of the curriculum alignment process is to ensure a process of refinement and depuration that will make educational instruments attainable and appropriate both working and reference instruments.

It is in the working instruments that we should focus our discussion. We have to refine our curriculum normative documents by examining not just the instructional part, but the psychological, social, and philosophical aspects should be a matter of constant analysis and revision as well. This should be done in the service of a useful and practical English curriculum and not merely as a requirement to comply with an economical pact. This reexamination is crucial to constant academic improvement and modifications (Jacobs, 2007). Furthermore, it is in this reflection that we truly consider which is the future citizen profile that our educational practices are pursuing to develop inside our school classrooms.

The process of curriculum development must be viewed as a constant reformation of normative practices (Kumaravadivelu, 2006; Whorthen & Sandler, 1987; Ornstein & Hunkins, 2009). To align curriculum is clearly a collective action that responds to the interests of the students in a true democratic education that it is web of social relations (Dewey, 1938; Freire, 1994). Once this process is forced by other interests, we begin to question education motives. This is the point where an intellectual emancipation must happen. Not with violence nor with immobility, but to open dialogical debate spaces (Freire, 1970) among educators to question if these new prescribed curricula and how these curricula will improve the school teaching process. Thus, knowledge emerges from a constant invention and reinvention process (Freire, 1970).  It is through direct contact with students, as curriculum is delivered, implemented, and assessed that educators become fully aware of the extent of the responsibility in shaping the country’s future citizen. This responsibility cannot be taken lightly, it requires a knowledge and empowerment action. This empowerment involves a social consciousness of teachers to avoid the repetition of the prescribed curriculum that will eventually reduce the teaching practice turning it into a banking teaching model (Freire, 1970). Curriculum alignment process must not be static, but rather be flexible to changes, and not abide by dates or systematic structures as an element of the praxis of domination discourse (as defined in Freire, 1970). Once teachers abide in and are controlled by systematic agendas they become clerks, by reproducing someone else’s knowledge (Ayers, 1992, p. 1; Freire, 1970).

By establishing what curriculum alignment is, we can realize the importance of the implications that considering curriculum will have in our students learning. We will propose psychological implications that must be considered when we are aligning curriculum. However, at this stage of the process, we are just beginning to understand the great repercussions and responsibility that educators have in revising and analyzing the implications of the possible psychological factors, to be considered in an English curriculum alignment process.

Psychological Factors
There are many implications when we begin to consider psychological factors in education. In this case, not just theorizing about education in general, but specifically when we are about to engage in constructivist curriculum alignment.  The essence of constructivism is the development of dynamics where the individual is responsible of elaborating his own knowledge in a progressive manner (Vygotsky, 1962). According to Vygotsky (1977), the learning process is also a cultural development where groups of learners are able to contribute to elaborate ideas and construct new knowledge. This notion of group knowledge development automatically results in our first psychological implication. When we first conceive curriculum, we accept that nature of teaching strategies and methods must aim to develop collaborative and cooperative teaching strategies and techniques. Although this is one assumption of developing teaching strategies that involve group work, we are still considering individual tests, and keep using assessment measures that will ultimately try to prepare the students to face a test. Then we deeply reflect upon collaborative and cooperative teaching practices and their relationship with testing.

Testing is one of many tools of assessment and measurement (Richard & Rogers, 2001), but not the only means to determine either student progress or knowledge (Vygotsky, 1978). Yet, we rely on individual tests as the only criterion to determine the success in terms of academic achievement. This educational trend goes beyond intellectual deceitfulness. Deceitfulness in terms of learning skills when students are encouraged to function as a group, but at the same time struggling to obtain an individual high test score. However, we pretend to prepare students in a constructivist group environment, when at the end the individuality of a test score prevails, just measuring the actual development, but not the potential ability of improvement (Vygotsky, 1978). This is the point where we must carefully reflect and question testing purposes from education companies, that hold the ultimate control on what is to be tested and how it is tested. Thus, those who view education mainly as a profitable business, create and manipulate data so they can justify the development of the remedial programs and initiative for schools and teachers. Once again, they prescribe curriculum remedies based on these tests scores, but at a very high price to the school systems, both in terms at the resulting economic bonanza for the private sector, expense of the public systems, and educational costs in terms of students’ lack of learning. At the end, education becomes the new free market of services and not the democratic and humanistic institution to serve us all, but the powerful, the one in control of the systematic altruistic lie (Freire, 1970) of improving curriculum.

This reality does certainly change the way that educators conceive curriculum.

When we refer to language this is not different. Seliger & Long (1983) Interaction Hypothesis states that constant interaction and interpersonal communicative dynamics are the foundations to develop linguistic rules through modified interactions (Brown 2007, p.305). Students in classrooms possess different abilities and backgrounds, and then language instruction activities should be developed using social interaction activities. These activities must also be carefully designed by the teacher in order to immerse the learner in a language social learning process (Brown, 2007).

Even when assessment has a great impact in the teaching process (Brown, 2004), testing still remains an important part in educational trends. Thus, this reality is present and constant, English language teaching process emphasize in the efforts of the groups and collective hands on instruction, but at the same time we must also develop measures to prepare students to cope with individual testing processes like a summative or standardized test.

Once we explore the psychological implications, we are able to take our thoughts beyond the psychological domain and provoke further reflection. To align curriculum has not only have individual or group repercussions, but also social implications. It is during this exploration process that we pass from the mind to the society effects and consequences when postulating curriculum platforms, especially when these curricula creations are forced by the Common Core initiative.

Social Factors
We should admit that the curricula alignment processes that are taking place in our school systems are not originated from a genuine action to improve our education. Those that advocate the Common Core State Standards assume that high, uniform academic standards are essential to improving American students’ academic performance to prepare them better for college or career and to enhance our nation’s ability to compete in the global marketplace (Murphy, 2014; Reutzel, 2012; McGuinn, 2015). However, surveys of teachers and the public revealed growing opposition to the Common Core as it entered its first year of implementation in 2014 (McGuinn, 2015). These same surveys also show that most people do not know much about the Common Core and that much of what they think they know is incorrect (Murphy, 2014; McGuinn, 2015). The opposition to the Core does not emerge from a single source and is not confined to members of one political party. According to McGuinn (2015) people dislike the Common Core for different reasons. Yet, the most important reason goes beyond like or dislike postures of different government sectors, but economic interests that are creating unusual political alliances that have emerged from the Common Core implementation and how they may play out longer term (Edwards, 2014).

The U. S. business community has been one of the most vocal supporters of the Common Core, arguing that higher academic standards are imperative to ensure that the American economy has the high quality workforce necessary to compete in the global marketplace (Mcguinn, 2015; Hacker in Edwards, 2014). The Business Roundtable, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and major corporations such as ExxonMobil, Intel, and Time Warner Cable have funded Common Core advocacy campaigns (Murphy, 2014; Edwards, 2014). This reality has triggered the fear of many Americans, the fear of a powerful elite who dictates government policy over the masses (Mcguinn, 2015; Murphy, 2014; Hacker in Edwards, 2014).

Another social implication is the enormous funding that is suddenly invested to the Common Core.  This issue has also become a major concern, where the government is spending resources in the Core rather than addressing learning related issues such as poverty, safety, health, and other out of school factors, affecting student achievement. However, there are other concerns among teachers. There is a belief that teachers are not being given sufficient training and resources to effectively instruct disadvantaged students (Mcguinn, 2015; Murphy, 2014).

There must be a sense of criticism regarding our curriculum platforms and these forcedly created educational laws. We cannot stop wondering how our educational trends are financially originated from the most powerful and dominant sectors of our society (Murphy, 2014). There is no doubt that there are other powers that are influencing the government and their Common Core creation that will have a great impact in our future society. Education is certainly not a matter of developing citizens that could critically think, learn and contribute to their society anymore, but the Common Core tries to create an assembly line of workers that will serve the interest of a small group of government people that are deciding what is to be learned, and not certainly in the best interest of the students (Hacker in Edwards, 2014). 

The process of revising our curricula to be coherent to the Common Core initiative is definitely a worrying situation for us educators. All of the sudden there is an initiative that tries to encourage one set of standards that will measure all the students. This one standard principle of the so called “race to the top” (Obama in Edwards, 2014) campaign surely responds to Bill Gates and small group of investors that are undoubtedly funding the government.

However, we have to wonder that there is a plan to align education curricula in a way that the wellbeing of society will no longer be the goal of educating for life (Ornstein & Hunkins, 2006; Dewey, 1938; Freire, 1970). Instead we will educate to work and to serve the government and economic interests.  

Here in Puerto Rico we reluctantly abide by the Common Core adoption. This is so because, we have also become dependent of funding in a desperately need it to keep our school system alive. This reality makes us feel vulnerable to imposed educational trends. There is no longer a genuine curriculum revision to improve education, but a fast paced approval of a so called alignment process disguised as the best intention to get our students ready for career and college. Certainly, we need another type of school reform. It is inside this turmoil of Core demands that educators must empower ourselves with our education, and lead a reconstruction resistance to our prescribed curricula (Freire, 1970). Thus, schools should become more than centers of academic content transmission, but centers of deeper dialogical discussions (Freire, 1970), regarding whether the type of curricula that we are receiving is the best for our students.

Schools should be sanctuaries where teachers group together to discuss and plan by themselves how to solve the school problems both academic and social. In terms of curriculum alignment, the invitation is to receive the material, get together, and discuss how curricula can be modify, adapted, having the power to produce changes, as free as possible from laws, pacing calendars, and circular letters. This is real empowerment; this will indeed constitute an emancipation of the intellect (Freire, 1994).

After examining both psychological and social implications of aligning curriculum process, we realize the great importance of a true academic reform. A reform that can receive changes from inside the classrooms teachers.  This implication surpasses the simple thought of predicting educational goal outcomes, but it is the process of vital decisions that will impact the future of that citizen from the classroom, and school community. It is in this way that we can begin to recognize the oppressive discourse of accepting curricula reforms as they are prescribed (Freire, 1970). We should understand that real change comes from our communities, from our classroom (Freire, 1970).  Thus, assent our capacity of resetting our minds and get solutions in a genuine collective way.

During our third implication, we will be examining the philosophical implications that will determine the course of our future educational system. By understanding our philosophical implications, we will be able to assume a critical posture regarding the prescribed Common Core curriculum alignment process that already took place in our educational school system. .

Philosophical Implications
We should accept that education is a constant revising and inclusion process to incorporate philosophies, experiences and teaching practices (Dewey, 1938; Kumaravadivelu. 2006). Since the creation of the No Child Left Behind Act, educational companies have acquired lucrative contracts offering professional development services. Based on this reality we must critically question the quality of this professional development, and wonder how these companies train our educators. This is a very valid concern, when we meditate on education companies and their intentions of improving teacher practices, but at the same time keep offering the same services, and managing to perpetuate their rewarding existence. Tragically, educators are immersed in a type economic control turmoil in which the government plays an oppressive role (Freire, 1970). Trapped within these neo-liberalistic realities, teachers are in the obligation of developing a critical sense beyond prescribed curriculum education (Freire, 1970). This type of development requires more than formal training, but dialogical spaces for educators to develop and use the best from each educational philosophy, teaching approaches and experiences (Freire, 1970).

This necessity of a new refocusing of philosophies responds to many realities inside each classroom scenario. In the case of language, we cannot visualize our classrooms as the optimum teaching setting (Kumaravadivelu, 1994). Teachers certainly need a sense of knowledge empowerment to first understand the essence of each educational philosophy and be able adapt to teaching techniques beyond prescribed tasks or content. To be able to understand educational philosophies to create methods, resources, and use them effectively. To be capable of modifying, respond to each teaching solutions to each particular and unique school reality (Tarone & Yule, 1989; Kumaravadivelu, 1994).

Many teachers reflect on how language teaching methods are not based on the realities of their classroom, but are artificially transplanted into their classrooms (Kumaravadivelu, 2006, pp. 162, 166). Teachers are in a state of partial or no instructional autonomy, in a situation where curricula are already traced and planned from the approach to the daily class technique implementation. Due to this reality teachers are forced to elicit teaching techniques that adjust their daily practice and in some way, comply with the state curriculum demands. There are other educators that try to comply with the prescribed planning, and keep questioning themselves if they are providing authentic and significant learning experiences (Kane & Bejar, 2014; Nunan, 1991). Pennycook (1989) believes that current language pedagogy is a matter of different interpretation configuration depending on teachers’ capabilities, experience, social dynamics, political, and philosophical factors. However, teacher interpretations are indeed valuable but not useful in isolation. It is by sharing and consulting these experiences that educators will not only be empowered with their own knowledge corpus, but will design unique teaching procedures to be applied in their own schools (Kumaravadivelu, 2006).  It is within this reality that educators must embrace an eclectic posture of practice in education (Kumaravadivelu, 2006).

According to Brown (2002, p. 13), the teaching process essentially consists in three basic principles of diagnosis, treatment, assessment, and determine proper curricular practices for learners. This principle is a tad far from reality where there is no diagnostic, but pre and post-tests to gather data about students’ cognitive competences. Teachers surely are the most indicated professionals to diagnose (Kumaravadivelu, 2006). However, the capacity to diagnose demands well-trained teachers. To be able to diagnose, to adapt to each situation, to be eclectic in their practice, teachers must realize how education philosophies have a significant impact in everyday classroom instruction decisions (Tarone, Yule, 1989; Weideman, 2001).  Not just to understand constructivism, behaviorism or pragmatism, but to understand curriculum schools as well. From Spencer and Hostos Academic curriculum to Tyler’s Technological curriculum, teachers will be able to better understand how curricula has become a totally prescribed and imposed implementation with no power of receiving modifications nor to evaluate its effectiveness. However, we should understand that there are virtues in each curriculum school and their place in education history and evolution, but at the same time to understand their disadvantages. This knowledge will capacitate educators to better comprehend today’s education imposed oppression status (Freire, 1970). This level of reflection will make educators realize the necessity of developing the best of judgments when using prescribed curriculum materials in their classrooms. All of this curriculum insights will capacitate teachers to select the best from the given curricula to have a better teaching practice reflections, becoming more capable to be eclectic (Kumaravadivelu, 1994).

Eclecticism can be a way of teachers selecting what works within their own dynamic contexts based on sound theories and research knowledge (Brown, 2002). Principled eclecticism challenges teachers in that any decision making must be based on a thorough and holistic understanding of all learning theories and related pedagogies, in terms of the purpose and context of language learning, the needs of the language learners, how language is learned, and how and what teaching is all about (Brown 2002; Kumaravadivelu, 2006). To be eclectic demands commitment of becoming a constant self-regulated researcher as well as good transmitter, to share, and understand teaching practice knowledge concepts (Kumaravadivelu, 2006; Richard & Rogers, 2001). This knowledge sharing and peer transmission will also create a critical awareness to teachers in acknowledging that educational changes and teaching practices must be in constant discussion to determine teaching practice effectiveness (Kumaravadivelu, 2006). Thus, approaches and methods cannot be distant theory of possible application, but the essence of daily reflection and practice.

In recent years, many have stated that here never was and probably never will be a method for all classroom teaching procedures (Nunan, 1991, p. 228; Pennycock, 1989; Kumaravadivelu, 1994). In other words, there is no such thing as a teaching method that provides absolute effectiveness in all language skills, but instead revising, modifying and evaluating teaching strategies (Kumaravadivelu, 2006).

This premise in time has been called Language Post Method Era. According to Kumaravadivelu, (1994, p. 29), Post Method can be defined as the construction of classroom procedures and principles by the teacher based on his/her prior and experiential knowledge and/or planned teaching strategies and techniques application. The post method also creates awareness that as long as we are caught up in the web of method, we will continue to get entangled in an unending search for an unavailable solution, awareness that such a search drives us to continually recycle and repackage the same old ideas (Kumaravadivelu, 1994, p. 28). There are also limited spaces for teachers to consult one another. The isolation and lack of consulting periods among colleagues has caused the reliance on recycling of teaching techniques to solve the immediate situation of planning and delivering teaching sessions (Kumaravadivelu, 2006). To embrace a true eclectic philosophy there must be other spaces for teachers to create study groups and coordinate genuine strategies according to students’ needs. Curriculum fixed designed material is too insufficient and restricted to successfully explain the complexity of language learning and teaching as its application and principles are also said to be obscure and exaggerated respectively (Kumaravadivelu, 2006).

The eclectic nature of the Post Method trend can help educators to reconsider their practices as a consequence of many years accepting prescribed language curriculums, instead of criticizing them in order to get the best of them, assuming a critical posture to create our own educational reforms to achieve a genuine perspective of our teaching realities (Freire, 1994). Language teachers need to elaborate their own construction of reality and create their own literature, instruments of teaching within their own school reality (Zembylas, 2005; Kumaravadivelu, 2006). It is within this assumption that many educators receive professional development separating theories from applicability, and sharing an enormous repertoire of teaching techniques yet to be applied in each classroom. However, this practice of sharing sometimes is a desperate call to ignore the essence of each language teaching approach, design and procedure (Richards & Rogers, 2001). It is also the flaw of many professional development topics which only emphasize on possible teaching techniques, not explaining which method or which approach, or how to theorize about the applicability and the implications of the given seminar or workshop (Zembylas, 2005; Newman, Samimy, & Romstedt, 2010).

Beyond adopting an educational philosophy, it is certain that the eclectic model welcome most of the educational philosophies. Even so, to be able to understand and use the best of each philosophies implies a vast knowledge of each theory. In this venture of developing and capacitating teachers’ minds to be able to theorize about their practices beyond prescription is more than an implication, but empower educators to build a sense of educational hope (Freire, 1994). It is with this sense of hope that we look up to the future and elaborate curriculum considerations that must be present in curriculum revisions.

Considerations, Future Perspectives
After examining the postulated implications, we are able to consider and formulate future perspectives that must be present when conceiving curriculum; future considerations, and possible reflections that must be contemplated when engaging in curriculum creation and alignment. In our case and reality, the term revision and consideration could be a symbolic hypocritical and deceitful act to educators. The motives of our curriculum alignment efforts are based on a requirement to comply with the government demands to align our framework, our standards, and expectations to be as similar as possible to those established by the Common Core initiative. Even when the process of standard creation and alignment could be full of restrictive conditions, there is a unique experience to collectively reflect and benefit from the alignment process; in this case, the revision of the English language curriculum. During the process of considering, reflecting, and working with curriculum material, we should recognize the vital importance of social interactions and collective function of the learning process. In a more academic reflection, we can refer to acknowledge the significance of Vygotsky’s ZPD when conceiving teaching approaches, and procedures (Richard & Rogers, 2001; Hayes, 1997; Brooks & Brooks, 1993).

In the function of acquiring a second language, Vygotsky’s ZPD will definitely give us the cognitive realities of our learners. The learners’ capacity of developing their cognitive capabilities through the interaction with their peers, adults, and environment stimuli (Vygotsky, 1978), is surely the principal thought that educators should first have in their minds when considering instruction. Once we recognize this reality we can understand that every instructional approach and assessment process must follow the ZPD principle. Classroom activities must be designed to be interactive, promoting constant interaction (Hayes, 1997; Zembylas, 2015; Honebein & Honebein, 2014; Bruner, 1966).

There is also a mediation process that occurs during the interaction learning process (Bruner, 1966; Bandura, 1986). The mediation of meaning happens when the student is engaged in constructing new meaning schemas, thus these mediation is a negotiation of understandings that happens when the learner is engaging in both direct and indirect instruction. Thus, when mediation is happening there is a cognitive accommodation that serves the learner to build his/her own linguistic concepts and be able to understand them (Bruner, 1966).  Hence, the student with this new formed language knowledge is ready to build more knowledge over that acquisition that already happened during the mediation process (Vygotsky, 1978). This negotiation does not only happen in the language classroom, but all around the learner. This is the time where the scaffolding guiding instruction process (Bruner, 1966), has the greatest importance in language teaching, not just guiding, but providing the appropriate classroom atmosphere so the language learning process can truly take place (Vygotsky, 1978; Bruner, 1966).

There is much to ZPD, that there is an imperative responsibility to specify in our frameworks regarding how we must guide our students to think and develop language knowledge beyond memory or knowledge corpus prescription, but to be able to apply that knowledge in multiple situations, to adapt, and to create new knowledge (Vygotsky, 1978). Once educators acknowledge ZPD as pillar principle to cognitive development, we will be able to examine new curriculum material. This includes teaching strategies and assessment measuring.

However, we refer to ZPD and the social nature of language teaching and learning process, we direct our reflection to the use of testing as an absolute measure instrument. Yet we keep responding to train our students to respond to the absolute standardization, but more seriously, we are at mercy of the Common Core and its intentions to dictate what to know and what is to be learning, and prepare students to become the best working force ever. But one thing remains, in this pursuing of excellence, if we are compromising the humanistic aspect of education. We should question if there is a national mandate to align curricula and standards to become ready for career, but are we aligning and developing standards in the best of the students’ interests or somebody else’s? It is in this questioning that we aim our future perspectives and thoughts. It is necessary to reflect upon possible consequences of having businesses ruling the destinies of our people rather that education curriculum creation as an equal pact with the government.

Conclusions
After examining the psychological, social, and philosophical implications we were able to realize that our immediate education future is certainly submitted to economic interests. More specifically, the notions of creating and aligning curricula that are reduced to accountability exercise to justify standard revisions and curricula alignment. It is indeed worrying, the way that the Common Core initiative has become a forcing action of dominant business classes to control what is to be taught to our children. This imposition of the Core campaign should raise the most serious questions regarding how democratic our education has become. It is a responsibility that goes beyond a mere revision and constantly revise curriculum instruments as the conceptual essence of what is to happen in our classrooms. Even so, revising and aligning curriculum will become a fake process far from the academic prominence that these processes demand. Both Freire and Dewey reminded us that education is a political act, but beyond this foundation, modern days politics are summited by a sovereign monarch called neoliberalism control. This control is the one that it is not own by the government, but by the enterprises that are financing the political parties in the United States of America. Instead of the land of the free which we can assume that education is included, the concept of democracy and democratic government in the service of the people is a long passed dream.

There is a sense of hope regardless of these thoughts about the Common Core and educational reforms like curriculum alignment. Durable and significant changes do not come from the top of the government or any other place, but from our communities and schools (Freire, 1994). The classroom teacher has the most powerful influence in students’ lives. This is the starting point from which many of our changes should come from. Instead of waiting for the system to indoctrinate our schools, it is time to get organized, and begin our mind emancipation (Freire, 1970). We can surely empower ourselves with our own educational reforms that will certainly suit the needs of our students to contribute to society, rather than prepare them to race to the top manipulative slogan.

Our race should be to guide and edify honest human beings, citizens that are able to collectively serve their society. Yet, we have recognized the importance of social interaction as a benefit, but at the same time forced to training our students to take a standardized test to enter in the free market race of the Common Core goals.

Our first psychological implication, made us realize the importance of how learners do not only learn by receiving direct academic input, but the interaction with others is also a vital complement for them to develop their intellect. We can also state that our education should evolve beyond testing and individual measuring. We should reflect upon the effectiveness of that collective and collaborative work in our instruction versus the imminent reality of competence and individuality included in our English and other subjects’ curricula. This represent a double discourse on how our students keep perceiving instruction as a cooperative and collaborative process vis a vis the individual test score outcome significance. Tests are one of the many elements of the assessment process (Hayes, 1997; Brooks & Brooks, 1993; Honebein & Honebein, 2014; Brown, 2004), but modified, and not be considered testing as the only decisive mean of evaluation as in our education system. For example, in our current English Curriculum document most of the assessment measure instruments are stated to document and monitor students’ improvement. This same document contains beautiful explanations of these assessment instruments intentions and how they should be applied. This is a point in which the English Curriculum source is a deceiving working instrument. It ends to be a mere book full of suggestions and ideas that summarize the idea of tests, but emphasize in peer and group dynamics. If we take our thoughts to the deepest of reflections, we realize that there is indeed an education dichotomy about teaching the informational content for the standardized test or develop literature and include a more humanistic part to our instructional venture.

Inside our social factors, we were able to dismantle the essence of the Common Core intentions and how it is perceived by the communities. However, we unraveled the small groups of the U.S. corporate sector that are behind the finance of the Common Core, and how this initiative is the motive behind our curriculum alignment process. The most powerful and disturbing argument is the essential question of what is the long term goal of the Core, and alignment revisions. The forced implementation and the vast amount of money owns the government policies to create and conceive plans to tell the people what to know and to become drones rather than educated citizens. There is also the notion of democracy that U. S. promotes behind basically in all courses of actions, in this case education. It is in this argument when we evaluate the role of the “stakeholder” when we are considering standards and curriculum alignment. We should accept that stakeholders are not a real part in the decision making when aligning curriculum, but witnesses to reluctantly comply with the already paid education reform.

After the psychological implications and social factors, we examined the necessity of at empower ourselves with educational reforms. We realize that curriculum changes belong to classroom teacher as a vital component of his/her community. To beginning this process, we must have the tools to critically modify and adapt the received prescribed curricula material. In the case of language teaching, we should embrace an eclectic philosophy. The understanding of this posture is hugely reasoned by Kumaravadivelu and his Post Method ideas of practical teaching. Kumaravadivelu’s ideas transcend the necessity of becoming eclectic, but invites all educators to aspire to become experts in their own disciplines.

English curriculum must also be abided from the eclectic perspective. Those educators responsible of reforming, revising, and aligning curriculum must be prepared beyond the teaching procedures; they must be highly knowledgeable of the educational philosophies, curriculum principles and English language teaching procedures (Richard & Rogers, 2004; Kumaravadivelu, 2006). This knowledge will empower and justify pedagogic decisions that later will directly have repercussions to the student learning process.

Once we consider all these implications we are able to rethink and search for instructional solutions from the very beginning. Here in Puerto Rico English teaching implementation has seen as forcedly chaotic to implement language policies (Pousada, 2008). We should formulate solutions from the very establishment, but always having the capacity of critical view to face prescription discourses, and develop a true sense of criticizing and constructing our own realities (Freire, 1970; Foucault, 1980). Not just proposing and implementing policies, but before implementing, start to think in long terms. To include authentic instructional material, created in the same school scenarios (Zinkgraf, 2003). There are so many implications in wrong educational decisions that it is imperative to plan and implement curriculum by properly aligning curriculum and considering all its components. Not just elaborating expectations, or standards, but considering and realign the curriculum framework all over again. Taking our thoughts and reflections into the ultimate educational goal, is to consider the type of citizen that we need.

Regardless of the proper procedures of deep reflection to elaborate curriculum, there are due dates when trying to elaborate curriculum. There is also the existence of educational institutions to certify curriculum processes, making very difficult to take a long time before considering establishing new curricula. There is also politics involved and other interests in education (Freire, 1970) with strict agendas that elaborate and establish curriculum in fast haste without even considering a necessary model for implementation or curriculum evaluation process (Whorthen & Sandler, 1987). It is in this reality where teachers should imperatively develop the best possible curriculum to understand many realities, but at the same time be able to design teaching strategies that better serve their school communities.

Language teaching follows this same type of educational situation, in terms of developing operational perspectives to better choose from the prescriptions that they are meant to use. To be able to consult other professionals, to grow and learn from their collective interpretations and experiences (Freire, 1996), to develop proficient language users that could contribute to our society. This idea cannot be formed within our school’s organizations. To have the opportunity of discussing curriculum, we have to provide meetings where our own colleagues are the ones in charge of their own professional development. This critical view is meant to understand that to own knowledge is to have the capacity to conceive real venues of opportunity beyond the curriculum boundaries.

There are many thoughts that comes to our minds when facing education realities. One is the sense of duty and commitment to education and the other is how to do the best to our profession inside a monstrous static education system. Instead of the education system truly improving education, there are these economic interests behind every decision. We teachers have no other venue but to use the eclectic approach as a very pragmatic practice. To accept eclecticism as an approach that lives us space to critically analyze curriculum and use the best of what we received from alignment processes and somebody else’s ideas of delivering instruction as standard as the Core and local educational systems attempt to implement. However, this education point of view is not just for our teaching practices but to constantly examine and question the usefulness of everything that is given from the educational system. All of the sudden we start to think if this situation will have a solution, or if it is a part of our capitalist system where money dictates and everybody follows. Follows the government, follows the education system, and at the end teachers obey with no question or critical capabilities.

There is no doubt that Freire invites us to act beyond Dewey’s notion of education and democracy. Instead of idealizing education we can open the spaces to reconstruct our own educational scenarios and assume a posture of self and collective professional improvement. Then we will be able to use what is best for our classrooms and deal with curriculum prescription. It seems that it will be a long time before our educational policies change to truly serve student’s needs. We educators can do the next best task, which is to elaborate the best leaning experiences possible inside our schools scenarios.

References
Ayers, W. (1992). The shifting ground of curriculum thought and everyday practice. Theory into practice, 31(3), 259.

Bandura, A. (1963). Social learning and personality development. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Bandura, A. (1969). Principles of behavior modification. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

Bandura, A. (1965). Influence of models' reinforcement contingencies on the acquisition of imitative responses. Journal of personality and social psychology.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: WH Freeman.

Kane, M. T., & Bejar, I. I. (2014). Cognitive frameworks for assessment, teaching, and learning: A validity perspective. Psicologia Educativa, 20(2), 117-123. doi:10.1016/j.pse.2014.11.00

Brooks, J., & Brooks, M. (1993). The case for the constructivist classrooms. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Brown, H. (2002). English language teaching in the ‘post-method’ era: Toward better diagnosis, treatment, and assessment. In J. Richards and W. Renandya (Eds.), Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice (pp. 9-18). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511667190.003

Brown, H. (2004). Language assessment principles and classroom practices San Fransisco: Pearson Longman

Brown, H. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching (5nd ed). San Fransisco: Pearson Longman.

Bruner, J. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. New York: W. W. Norton.

Case, B. J., Jorgenson, M. A., & Zucker, S. (2004). Alignment in educational assessment. Retrieved from www.pearsonassessments.com

Christensen, T. K., & Osguthorpe, R. T. (2004). How do instructional design practitioners make instructional-strategy decisions? Performance Improvement Quarterly, 17(3), 45–65.

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Collier Books.

Edwards, H. S. (2014). Core Crash. Time, 184(7), 40-41

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.

Freire, P. (1994). Pedagogy of hope. New York: Continuum.

Foucault, M. (1980) Questions de la meâthode. In Michelle Perrot (ed.)L'impossible prison: Recherches sur le systeáme peânitentiaire au xixe sieácle. Paris: Editions du Seuil.

Hayes, H. (1997). Mapping the big picture: integrating curriculum & assessment K–12. Alexandria, VA: Association for supervision and curriculum development

Honebein, P., & Honebein, C. (2014). The influence of cognitive domain content levels and gender on designer judgments regarding useful instructional methods. Educational technology research & development, 62(1), 53-69. doi:10.1007/s11423-013-9322-5

Keynes, M., J. (n.d.). Brainyquote.com. Retrieved from BrainyQuote.com web site:http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/j/johnmaynar137774.html

Kumaravadivelu, B. (1994). The post-method condition: Emerging strategies for second/foreign language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 28(1), 27-48.

Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). Understanding language teaching: From method to post-method. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

McGuinn, P. (2015). Complicated politics to the Core. Phi Delta Kappan, 97(1), 14-19. doi:10.1177/0031721715602229

Mooney, N. J., & Mausbach, A. T. (2008). Align the design: A blueprint for school improvement. Alexandria, VA: Association for supervision and curriculum development.

Murphy, T. (2014). Tragedy of the common core. Mother Jones, 39(5), 36-68.

National Governors' Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers (NGA/CCSSO). (2010). Common core standards for English language arts &• literacy in history, social studies, science, and technical subjects. Washington, DC: Authors. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/the-standards/english-language-art-standards

Newman, K. L., Samimy, K., & Romstedt, K. (2010). Developing a training program for secondary teachers of English language learners in Ohio. Theory into practice, 49(2), 152-161. doi:10.1080/00405841003641535\

Nunan, D. (1991). Language teaching methodology. Sydney: Prentice-Hall.

Ornstein A.C. & Hunkins, F.P. (2009). Curriculum foundations, principles and issue. (5th ed). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Pousada, A. (2008). Functions and valorization of language in Puerto Rico: Introduction. Centro journal, 20(1), 4-11.

Pennycook, A. (1989). The concept of method, interested knowledge, and the politics of language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 23, 589- 618. doi:10.2307/3587534

Reigeluth, C. M., & Carr-Chellman, A. (2009). Understanding instructional theory. In C. M. Reigeluth & A. Carr-Chellman (Eds.), Instructional-design theories and models: Building a common knowledge base (Vol. III, pp. 3–26). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Richards, J. & Rodgers, T. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching 2nd Ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Reutzel, D. R. (2012). Globalization, flattening the world and the common core standards: Coincidental convergence. Retrieved from http://earlychildhoodeducation.usu.edu/files/uploads/Globalization.pptx.pdf

Seliger, H. W., & Long, M. H. (1983). Classroom oriented research in second language acquisition. Newbury House Publishers, Inc., Rowley, MA 01969-1599.

Tarone, E. & Yule, G. (1989). Focus on the language learner. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (2004). Cooperation agreement between United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization and Microsoft corporation. Retrieved from   http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/CI/CI/pdf/strategy_microsoft_agreement.pdf

US Department of Education (2014). Flexibility plan: Puerto Rico.  Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/esea-flexibility/flex-renewal/prrenewalreq2015.pdf

Vygotsky, L. S. (1977). The development of higher psychological functions. Soviet Psychology. Original work published 1929.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

Weideman, J. 2001. Designing language teaching: On becoming a reflective professional. MS. Bellville: University of the Western Cape.

Whorthen, B. & Sandler, J. (1987). Educational evaluation: Longman: New York & London.

Zembylas, M. (2005). Teaching with emotion: A post-modern enactment. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

Zinkgraf, M. (2003). Cuando se vuelve necesario desarrollar una conciencia lingüística crítica en la enseñanza de un idioma extranjero. (Spanish). Educación, lenguaje y sociedad, 1(1), 315-333.