Mexico recently underwent a curricular reform that incorporates progressive ideals into the educational discourse. The reform advocates for the recognition of interculturality, gender equality, the inclusion of vulnerable social sectors, critical thinking, well-being and healthy living, artistic and aesthetic experiences, and the appropriation of cultures through reading and writing. It proposes a curriculum organized by areas rather than subjects, eliminating the approach of national standards or predefined plans. Instead, schools are expected to design a curriculum based on local contextual problems, guided by general curricular purposes and a list of essential content. The reform promotes a deliberative curriculum, encouraging teachers to collaborate and collectively design the program (DOF, 2022). In essence, the new curriculum incorporates multiple curricular debates to make it avant-garde and innovative (Connelly et al., 2007; Wise et al., 2015).

The law mandates that the Ministry of Education provide training in the new curriculum for 1,231,733 basic education teachers nationwide (SEP, 2024). Any educational reform entails significant organizational and financial costs, especially in a country as large and complex as Mexico.

To introduce the new curriculum to teachers, the Ministry of Education devised a novel and relatively cost-effective strategy. This approach was school-centered, integrating specific activities into the monthly teachers' meetings known as the School Technical Council (Consejo Técnico Escolar [CTE] in Spanish). The CTE consists of the school principal and teaching staff from each basic education institution (preschool, primary, and secondary). It functions as a collegial body responsible for technical-pedagogical decision-making within each school (DOF, 2024). Mexico has 231,534 basic education schools (SEP, 2024), meaning that throughout the school year, all schools reviewed the new curricular proposal in their CTE sessions. The CTE operates autonomously, without facilitators or curriculum specialists to lead the sessions.

The curriculum was introduced one year before its official implementation. During this period, the CTE meetings focused on discussing and familiarizing teachers with the new curriculum, making curriculum development a collective task. This approach can be described as school-based curriculum development (Skilbeck, 1998) or collaborative curriculum development (CCD), a model that fosters active learning and promotes reflection (Drits-Esser & Stark, 2015). It was not a formal teacher training program but rather a process in which discussing the curriculum was considered part of the professional development itself. The aim was not merely adaptive compliance but rather to persuade educators of the reform’s merits and the benefits of engaging in a school-based educational change initiative (Bolívar, 2004).

The reform incorporated multiple recommendations from educational research, positioning it as a potentially exemplary large-scale project. But “whether or not a policy works is not an inherent property of the program or intervention itself. Rather, its outcomes depend on interactions between that policy, people who matter to its implementation and conditions and places in which people operate” (Honig, 2009, p. 333).

Given the scale of this national initiative, a key question arises: What was teachers' perception of the curriculum reform? The answer to this question was sought at the school level, in the very act of deliberation for the design of the new curriculum, in the context of the CTE. This study aimed to identify if a sample of schools considered that the national strategy of collaborative curriculum development defined by the Ministry of Education was as an opportunity for professional development. The results of this study will serve as a foundation for a large-scale evaluation of a professional development program (Main & Pendergast, 2016).

This qualitative study (Lichtman, 2023) involved 11 schools in Baja California, northern Mexico, including a center for children with learning disabilities, two preschools, five primary schools, and three secondary schools. The schools were situated in rural, peri-urban, and urban areas, with both multigrade and non-multigrade structures. Supported by the Ministry of Education of Baja California, the study aimed to explore diverse educational contexts, offering insights into the implementation of curricular reforms in varied settings. The primary research method was non-participant observation. In the 11 selected schools, we observed eight School Technical Council (CTE) sessions and 15 school workshop days between August 2022 and July 2023. Additionally, interviews with school principals complemented the observational data, providing further insights into the implementation of the new curriculum. Observation records were transcribed and analyzed using qualitative content analysis. A total of 193 documents were compiled and subjected to data reduction, involving organization, selection, and categorization. The process followed these steps: 1. Organization of Records: Observation records were classified by school, assigned unique identifiers, and arranged chronologically. 2. Initial Coding: Repeated readings allowed for inductive coding of relevant data segments, forming the first version of the codebook. 3. Systematization: Data analysis was structured using MAXQDA software (version 2022). 4. Inter-Coding Reliability: Two rounds of inter-coding ensured reliability, involving four coders with expertise in qualitative analysis and the study’s subject. 5. Codebook Refinement: Feedback from coding, reliability tests, and research team discussions enriched the codebook. Key connections were identified, following Schettini and Cortazzo’s (2015) recommendations. This process resulted in 27 codes and 3,904 classified data segments. This paper focuses on two key codes: implications of the new plan for teaching practice and perceived challenges for teaching work.

The curriculum construction proposal begins with identifying social problems. Once a problem is selected, teachers must determine the order and sequence of content, select materials and resources, and develop an evaluation plan. This process integrates content from multiple subjects into a classroom project that may extend to the school or community. The Ministry assumed that teachers’ experience, commitment to student learning, and community engagement would be sufficient for them to take on this curriculum designer role. However, the results indicate that teachers face multiple challenges in adopting this progressive approach. They perceive various costs (Brown & Wilson, 1983), particularly an increased workload. The greatest challenge is becoming curriculum designers, as they must define the problems and select relevant knowledge areas. Since curriculum design was not part of their training, teachers recognize that they have always executed pre-established plans rather than creating their own. Responsibility for the school program now rests with school leaders, who no longer receive external guidance. Consequently, teachers do not view this shift as an opportunity for professional growth, and under these conditions, schools do not function as professional learning organizations (Milton et al., 2020). A proposal initially aimed at fostering professional learning (Sutherland et al., 2023) overlooked a fundamental issue: teachers lack the necessary expertise in curriculum design and its political-academic management. A critical omission in the project was the absence of a support network—experienced teachers who could guide their peers through curriculum innovation (Groothuijsen et al., 2018).

Brown, C. & Wilson, A. (1983) Support for School Based Curriculum Development: The Cumbria Primary Science Project, Journal of In-Service Education, 9:3, 162-167, DOI: 10.1080/0305763830090305 Bolívar, A. (2004). Formación permanente del profesorado y desarrollo del currículum. Revista Colombiana de Educación, 47: 1-15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17227/01203916.5513 Connelly, F. M., He, M. F. & Phillion. J.A. (2007). The SAGE Handbook of Curriculum and Instruction. SAGE Diario Oficial de la Federación (DOF) (2022). Plan de Estudio para la educación preescolar, primaria y secundaria. https://www.gob.mx/cms/uploads/attachment/file/792397/plan_de_estudio_para_la_educacion_preescolar_primaria_secundaria_2022.pdf Diario Oficial de la Federación (DOF) (2024). Lineamientos para la integración, operación y funcionamiento de los Consejos Técnicos Escolares de Educación Básica. https://www.dof.gob.mx/nota_detalle.php?codigo=5722476&fecha=08/04/2024#gsc.tab=0 Drits-Esser D. & Stark, LA. (2015). The Impact of Collaborative Curriculum Design on Teacher Professional Learning. Electron J Sci Educ.19(8):15129. Groothuijsen, S. E. A., Prins, G. T., & Bulte, A. M. W. (2018). Towards an empirically substantiated professional development programme to train lead teachers to support curriculum innovation. Professional Development in Education, 45(5), 739–761. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2018.1510427 Honig, M. (2009). What Works in defining “What Works” in Educational Improvement. Educational Policy, Implementation research, Directions and Future research. In Sykes, G., Schneider, B., Plank, D. & Ford, T. Handbook of Educational Policy Research. (p. 333- 347). Routledge. Lichtman, M. (2023). Qualitative Research in Education. A User's Guide. Routledge. Main, K., & Pendergast, D. (2016). Evaluating the effectiveness of a large-scale professional development programme. Professional Development in Education, 43(5), 749–769. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2016.1241817 Milton, E., Daly, C., Langdon, F., Palmer, M., Jones, K., & Davies, A. J. (2020). Can schools really provide the learning environment that new teachers need? Complexities and implications for professional learning in Wales. Professional Development in Education, 48(5), 878–891. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2020.1767177 Schettini, P. & Cortazzo, I. (2015). Análisis de datos cualitativos en la investigación social. Procedimientos y herramientas para la interpretación de información cualitativa. Editorial de la Universidad Nacional de La Plata (EDULP). Skilbeck, M. (1998). School-based curriculum development. In Hargreaves, A., Lieberman, A., Fullan, M. & Hopkins, D. (1998). International Handbook of Educational Change. (pp. 121-144). Kluwer Secretaría de Educación Pública (SEP) (2024). Principales cifras del Sistema Educativo Nacional. 2023-2024. https://www.planeacion.sep.gob.mx/Doc/estadistica_e_indicadores/principales_cifras/principales_cifras_2023_2024_bolsillo.pdf Sutherland, L., Markauskaite, L., & Cruickshank, K. (2023). A complex systems framework for examining the impact of school-based professional learning initiatives: emerging agentic practices in a collaborative curriculum redesign. Professional Development in Education, 49(6), 1087–1102. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2023.2217432 Wise, D., W., Hayward, L. & Pandya, J. (2015). The SAGE Handbook of Curriculum, Pedagogy and Assessment. SAGE