| This study contains an analysis of the contents of legal and policy texts of Bolivia and Mexico (2000-2012). The content of these texts provides a rationale for the national education agenda and evidence of the directionality of national reform strategies. The study looks at two nations in different stages of development with administrations that have diverse influences to understand how national interpretations of the universal basic education norms may have been constructed. National political commitment to the Education for All (EFA) agenda is demonstrated by the incorporation of these norms into national policy frameworks, specifically the national education sector plan. In Bolivia and Mexico, reforms of the education system are given similar rationales, for example, education is considered to be the backbone of socioeconomic development, low levels of education are said to have caused inequities, higher levels of educational attainment are seen as a potential engine for social progress. These rationales are similar regardless of national political agendas or differences in endogenous factors. Nonetheless, the reforms that align to universal basic education norms pursue different strategies indicating that the spread of universal basic education norms is uneven.;The narrative approach adopted in this study is grounded in the contents of national policy texts. An analytical framework was constructed through engagement with the policy texts. The policy texts included in this study are national constitution(s), education laws, national development plans, education sector plans, and related ministry of education texts. In Bolivia and Mexico, the policy texts that tend to have the greatest influence on the contents of other national texts are the constitutions and national development plans. The education plans of Bolivia and Mexico elaborate national reform agendas, yet it is not apparent that education plans construct policies independent of other policy texts. International reform agendas such as EFA may or may not complement national reform priorities as elaborated in the constitution or national development plan. |
