Basic education in Mexico : trends, issues and policy recommendations

, . , A1Np 39 iYIO ~~~~M%pi , , . , , , - - az.~~~~~~~~~~ rewha ueaioe4 se S e eNa ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~111le9Mw> VW~ ~ ~~~~~~u's^qiole an.uun rE ~ ~~',,'''' ''"'' ,'-,, suc>lep AMuo9 vldP;;sn5 suS ff7 ~:(3!8 0 !BnP .5si ~~~~~~~17~~~}EW*N*'" 04.~~*,  I p Ii J[III 168 .3 ii 'III t"'I em Ii 111111 liii,' iii' ii Kiln hip. q5  TABE OF CQNT nl LIST OF TABE IV LIST OP FIGURES v Lsr OF Tr BOXES vI LIST OF ANNEX TABLES vU EXECUTIVE SUMMARY vui-z PAON M. SOQQC10ECNOSC ONT A. Backgrund - Mhe Economy I B. Economic Reform I C. Socil Wefa ad Standards of IUving 2 D. Reorientaton of Socia Sector Spending 3 PART TWO: OVEttIW OF TH EDC-O BM 1. Hir Background S B. Deion and Analysis of the Education Sector A. 'Me Student Body 8 1. Basic Education 10 a. Preschool 10 b. Pimary Education 11 c. Lower Secondary Education 14 2. Post-Basic Education 1S a. Higher Sonday 15 b. Superir (UnIest) 16 3. Open Education 17 B. The Teachers 17 C. Education Infrastrcture 18 E. Public Expenitur in Education A. The Sector 21 B. Expenditur by Educatiotal Level 24 C. Composition of Educational Expenditures 26 1. Recurrm versus lnvestmen 26 2. Unit Expeditures 27 IV. Structr and AmIn,tn of the Education Sector 28  L low 1: _DtmD BNcy 30 A. Prmay Scool 30 D. Low Secondary Education 35 IL IBM 22: Qua:tave Achlvemen 37 A. Culdculum 39 I. Tetbooks 39 m. Iou3: Ah 40 A. Vaiabflity by Stt 40 S. EM to Imam Acceu 42 iV. Isuo 4: nfastrue4 V. IssueS: Qualty of Teaching 46 A. Teachwr Tining 46 S. Tear Allocaton 47 C. Toacher SalaIs 47 VI. Iou 6: SducIaftl AalSysm 48 VI[. ow 7: Sytm of SupvsIon 49 VM. I su Resouco Alocaton 50 A. Preool 52 D. Prmary 52 C. lowr Seondary 53 D. Teacher TriIg 53 E. and comt P 54 1. D on 54 2. SueviI and Evaluaon 55 3. Community Patipatn 56 A. Pdorkies fo Action: Isu, Levels 57 andR ROM L ss 1: Inted Effiiency s8 VOw Ratlnalis Teacher 58 Trani Picies  in~~~~~~~~~~~~- S S s W W B S S $ S B iEEd  Iv !&KLDUrOF Table 1.-0 M oIca Soc4a dIiCaors, 1940-198G 2 lo 1.1: SocIl Sector Share of Govenmen 4 1982-1988 Table 2.0: Bas ducation Enrollmet Ratos, 1959- 1989 5 Table 2.1: Trends I Primy Education, 1972-1982 6 Table 2.2: Std Ditbn, 1989/90 8 Tabl 23: Bak B Eucation Enrollment by Authority, 10 1988 Table 2.4: Prmay Erollmnt by Gender and Se, 198/89 13 Table 2.S: Teaher Distribution, 1989/90 17 Table 2.6. School Distribution, 1989 18 Tabloe 2.7: Red Federal Per Pupfl Expe_ditues for 22 Baoi Education, 1979-1988 Tb 2.8: PublIcRecurrt Expeitu per 23 Prmay Student as Pa of GNP per C*ata, 196S-1985 Table 2.9: Federal, Ste and Priva Speding 23 in EducCaon, 1971-1988 Table2.10:F FoeaEducation Expediureby 24 Educatona Leve, 1979-1988 Tablo 2.11: Educaona cre Ex es, 1979 - 1988 27 Table 3.1: Compost Ranking of Meicods Stas Based 32 on an Efficeq In of Primry Educao, 198849 Table 3.2: Pimay School Teminal Efficiley Rate, 33 Cohort 1981-86 Tabl 3.3: 1complete and Utary Pay Scols, 198889 34 Table 3.4: Composite Raking of Mxico's 36 of Secndr Education, 1988 TWblo 3.5: Averg Student Sor on 5 _ 38 Tes in the Four Main Subjects Table 3.6: Lower Secondary School Absorpti Rats ad the 41 Pobability of Primy Studet' Aces to Highr Educaton, 1988189 Tabl 3.7: Aveap Leve of Schooling Among the 43 Popultin Oler han 14 Year Table 3.8: Number of arooms Ned to be Built 45 or Rdeabilitatd by Educational Level and Stat, 1990 Table 3.9: Monthly Salaries for Teachers and School 48 A_, 1983 and 1988  v Figu 1: Soda Stor Pereage Of Fedral 4 Expindim Figu 2: Eno h_tby Eduai n Lel 9 FIgu 3: Presco Enllment by Autory 10 Fig 4: Primary Scho Enrollmeat 11 Fige S: Prmy Enrlmet by Typ 12 FIPg 6: Lower Sond*y Enioilmmt by Type 14 Figu 7: High Schod-Vocadonal vs. 1S 15 FiPg 8: Tsachr Colleg, by SpecIaty 16 Figur 9: Number of Basic Educaton School 19 by ducatona Leved Fige 10: Number of Pdmay Schools by Type 19 Figue 11: Number of Post-Basic Educaon So 20 by Educaia Lw!d Figue 12: Education Spending as Pecet of 21 ational GDP Figure 13: EducaIon Speding as Percentag of 21 Feder Expendius FIgue 14: EpedItr by Basic Educatonal Level 25 Figur 1S: Expa_ by PostBasic Educaon 25 Levd Fue 16: Basic Education In-tructure Exp_dtu 26 Figure 17: Unit ExpedIturs, 1984-1988 27 FWi 18: PrImy Enrollmen by Grade 31 Figr 19: Lowe Secondary Enrollmet by Grafe 35 Fiu 20: Index of Real Federal ExpIes, SO Basic vs. Higher Educaon, 1979-1988 Figure 21: Real Per Pupi EdIture, 51 Basic vs. Higbr Eucaton, 1983-1988  VI Tom Ron 1: NurUnu RMIo Ana* Lath 7 Amwkm Ckm Tet Boxa 2 CONAPE - Commnky Sdao Pogm 12 Te Boa 3: Td.6o% y Edn 14 TatB a S4: Textbook POdcOa 39  vii A_pndice IA -10: Mexican Scho nlmean, 1979 - 19 AppJndix 2: Net Prtehool Enomet by State, 1976 vs. 19 Appul 3: RnkI of Mews Sta Bsed on an Eficincy I"ofu PdPa Sdwo, 1988S ApedIx 4: Co Rain of MEios States Baed on an Eiiency Inded of Lowe Seonday School, 198889 Appalx 5: ,ibCompsi Rankn of Medoos tates Bae an Efficin IJdes of Pimry ad Lower Seondary Edu , 1988189 Appeod 6: Lowr Seconday Stu Tmn Efficiency Rates by State, 1976M vs. 1988/89 Appendi 7: PW bIlty of Accs to Low Seonary ad Tetiay Edcto, 19W89 Appendi 8: InopeeadUiaySdcools at the Primay Lwve and Bankin by stae 1988189 9: Educaton Spenin ReaI to QDP, 1982 - 88 (in current price) Appnd 10: Educato Spending Relatve to G DP, 18 - 88 On eonotat 198 price) 11: Socia Sect Sbir of Fda p I 1982 - 88 Appendix 12: Rea Fedal Per Pupi In Baic Educatin 1983 - 1988 13 - A: Podea Eqmnft,lts by Educationl Lev, 1979 - 988 (n curm prics) Appendi 13 - B Fedea Exrealte by Edclat Le , 1979 - 1988 (n constn pric) Appendix 14- A: Expendiue for Aduaton Seco nfaructur, 1979 -1988 (in current pie) AppendIx 14 - B: Expenditusfor Educw Sto , 1979 - 1988 On contant pices) ppe IS 15- A: Unit Expeoditu Per Stt by ducan Level, 1984 -1988 (in curret pces) pdi 15 - B: Unit Expendt Per Studet by E,dona Lee, 1984 - 1988 (in conot prie) Apnie16A - H: CompWAave Edaonal Dat: Meoco with Other Lati Aalecn Counrs Appendi 17: Enrollment, Pus, Pailure, REeto and Dropout Rates by Grade t the Pimay Leel, 1987 - 1988  Viii CUX1VE SUMMARY PART ONE: _ =i 1. During the period of rapid econoidc growth in Mexico (19501974), socW wefr and s _ta of ling imprved consday, a In an unven =ma Iltacy, in moray, malutrition ad morbidity all declined, although regiona and income dispaes mained, leving lar pocke of tho population uneducated aIh livg in poverty. From 1974 unti the eonomic cisis ben in 1982, soca indicators and swudards of living conted to impove, but more slowly dm befoe With the onet of the crisi, howe soci wdr and the poor, in pardcula, have suffered. Real wages have decliled by 40% and Income has ben rdtbed in for of the well- off. Socl sctr s n hs deledied as a sbare of total govermet exped om 20% In 1982 to arund 12% curly, remaining signlficantly below COMParator counies in LAt America. Unles in sed efficiency and equity are achieved, spending cutbacks and financial osaints in the ner fe are likely to threateh e gains made dufing the slzdes and seventies in mpoving social .cato. 2. In recent years, two successive administatons have sought to softeO the blow of reductions in socW expndit . Emphasis is now placed on: () new ddeivy mt to reach the truly nedy; (u) cosHdretveiss and improved cost-revery to strtch the scarce resources; and Oii) institutional streamling wierever possible. New inments in the social sectors being made, with education a bigb priority. Accordinly, this rqwo desv"bes and analyzes the eucaon sector, with a particular fou on basic education, highlighting maor issues and offerag policy recom ions for the resolution of those issues. INotw: Basic Education is composed of prchool, pray rades 1-6) and lower seconday (Grdes 7-9).] he Mdom n theme throughout this report is the need to VImove th quality of primary education most of all, with spei emphask placed on the efficient delivery of basic educational services to Mexicoes rual aras. PART TWO: QRIB OF 31 MDCA=ION S1 I. lstcal Bae4wnd. 3. Seion I of the report prvides a historical oveview and documn the sigficant IDVMV P P I, in the quality of and access to public educato in Mexico. It soWs that between 1950 nd 1980 illiteracy aes dropped from 40% to 18%, the number of schools tripled, the number of eachers qntupled and school snollmens incre sevenfold. While the sector developed less tapidly between 1972-1982, enollments, teaching staff and school facilities all coinued to improve, ad by 1988 the illiteracy rate ws just 9%. Since 1982, however, progess in the provision of educational services has slowed consideraly, and in sevaeral aspets educationa services have wosened. While emollments remain relatively high, the quality of education has sufferd.  lx 11. DesritIo ad Anaysis of tge dueation Secto. 4. SOcton 1 desribes education sstem In Mexico, considering both fml ad noofomal rsyms. t stresses the overwhehmng Iaportnce of primary educaton wbhA seaves 15 million ChUdr ad saure s ney 60 percent of tot eolulmet. It documnos te limited and dnhing rdoe played by the priv sectr (oldy 7 prce of tota enrolment In 1988), and the predminat ad increasing defor made by th Federal goveaen (ative to Sta authoddes). Fedel ahrits now povide 75% o- all basic educatonl sevic (ver 65% in 1970). S. h sactio also provides detailed nfomaon for each levd of basic education, such as enrlmn trends, tp of programs offr (geral, indigus and community school), the availab y and distribution of teachers, and exstg school uc Among oter notable featus, hihighs: M the damadc cras in preswol enrolln over the las ten yes (to be creditto Federa authorities); (H) the slow but progweve IMProvem In nt eollmnt raio at to pmary levvd (98 permnt In 1988); and 011) the reladvely low nollment aio at the levd of bger educadon (around 15 percent). Intertingly, Mexico's enollment rat are well above ages for Ladn America and the Caribbean at the prescol levd, and compar favorably with couties like Costa Rica, Brazu and Chile at the priry and secondary leves. For higher oducation, howver, Mexios ratios are 8siifcantly lower. m. Pubie Expedidtr In Eduawn 6. Secon M exminies the evolution of public education spending over dme, as well as change in the dbution of exdurs by loves of education and ty of expeaditues. It I shown that feda spending for the educadon sector grew in real tem by 14.1% bee 1970-1982, at double the gowt ate of ONP. Following the onse of tie eonomc crisis, however, for education decreasd in real terms a an aveag annual rate of 2.1 %, four dmes aster than the decline in GNP and almost tre m faster than the declne in overal public spending. By 1987 the edcaio budgetreented Jut 7.5% of overall public spendtng, down from 17.8% in 1976, and as a prcentap of GDP total educaton spending declined from 5.5% In 1981 to 3.5% in 1989. Given tat ths decline occured whUi, tot enrollmens. taching staff and the number of schools were all Inraing, his ulted in an ev more dsti 1 educton In per pupil re expend . fact, thse cuts have been wen more s e than hose in othe Lat Ameican counties (Cosa Ric, Chilo and Venruzda) eonatg fisal austi measur. 7. Secton M also poit to the declin in educaton edin ae I ta1t lel, at an average annual rate of 11.6% betweon 1982-1987. k b dear that the decentraliaon prgm which begn in th eary 1980s bas not yet brought abot an inace In the responibilty and padcipation of the tes In edcti finaing. It g s show to have increwd whil eanomenu decined, restig in increasing rea expenirs per student and therefore, an increasing divegence betwee public and privat schools. Lasy, the balance of spending bwen recut and investm expndit has choged. Almost 95% of fedeal spending now goes to tecurr costs (personnld and opeati cos), up from 81% in 1970.  x S. By ducational levd, prima eductlon expendltur have suffw Oh mA t D. Between 1979 and 1988 fedal spenig fo prmary educatioodecreased in real s at an avago anum r of 6.3%, while eroment increo by 3.9%. In conta 1980 peso, aca spedin per pupfl decad by 46.5% betwee 1981 and 1988. Lower secondary educato has as sufered; between 1979 and 1988 real expenditures declined at an average anual ra of 2.1%S, whil ollments ncad at an avea aua we of 5%. This trwlated a decline In r spending per puplt of 42.7%. Viewed as a whole, basic education (preschool, prmary and lower seconday) ependitu decreased In re tem by an average of 3.8% per year bewe 1979-1988. Considerin h pupls at the basic education levd make up approximatel; 90% of all Mxilcan student (more hn 22 million in 1988), both the severty and breadth of the cutba in educaon xpndWiures can be appreciated. 9. By contrast, education leves reciving ra aveage annual ln-as In e btwebna 197941988 Include: ntial educaton coveing ages 0-4 (11.4%); special educato (26%)6; pcool education (7.5%); higher secoary (10.4%); and pot-graduae education (7.9%). Utvidty education, adult educalon and Indigenous educaton suffered small declines. In summy, education spending over the last ten ye has favored childre under the age of six ad stude who haw bee able to continue thei studios beyond basic educaion. TV. Stucue and Adnton of the Education Sector. 10. Section TV briefly describes the aminstave structu of the secor, stuiag the predominant role of the centl agency, the Sereart of Educatio, and the ptentialy Ireasg finctions perfomed by the statlevel divisions. PART THRE : _ Issu 1: Intenal Efficiency A. Priama Educaton I1. Mexicos primary school terminal efficiency rte of 55% is low, tesulig in a Mor wast of rescr. Ileffciency is the raet of high rqetion ad dropout rates, which can be asocated with incomplet (or unitry) schools, poor taching, insufficient didactic matras, latw entc, and various nonrsol factors. The atonwide primary school repetition rat of over 10% (17-18% in first grade) is unchanged from 1980; and alough the drpout rate has lecread somewhat from 8.0% (1980) to 5.3%, it is s1lhigb. 12. At t stte level, sriking differences In school hefficiencies a found. For ample, in Chapast he tna eflicy rt is just 27%, while in the Fedeal Disict it is over 80%. By region, k is clear e f outemn stat ar in the worst condition, wit eight of the ten least officient Stat. Theso are the tates with the gre problems in terms of access, as well. Not sudsingly, termind offcieny rates a (in genera) inversely aociated wih regional sco- coomic developmen the lower the level of development the higher the likely temia efficncy rate  id B. Lwer Secondary dution 13. The lower seconry levd's term efficiency rae of 75% means t about teepatm of those studens beginning secondaly school actually graduae. Tis is significantly better t primary schoo. Howvr, the lower secondary svel's dropout and repetition ates we both wer ta thos, of prmary school, averagIng 9.1% and 26%, respcIvely. Indeed, the higher temdna efficiency rate is due to the fc th lower seondary swhool comprises only three grades (cooprod to six for primary); adjusted for the number of grades, secondary school effciency is actuly worse than that of pimary sdhool. 14. A number of facrs explain the exremely high repetition re for lower seconday education, both int and etmal to the school system. Inrally, the shortage of well-trained teachers b critical; at the lower seconday level a higher percentage of teaches lack normal school training ta at the primary level. Padoxically, the long study dme and extensive certification requiemoets at the secondary level bave dissaded sudents from pursuing such a career. lhe lack of divear educational materals, necessary to cover a wider range of subjects, is also imporant Extenally, the need to work, especially among poor families, means high student absenteeism and poor test scores which lead to increased repetition. 15. Once again, at the stae level there are large variations in teminal efficiency, dropout and repetiton ran. But where the primary level shows a clear regonal pate In efficiency, the lower secondary level does not. Applying a weighted average compoie Index of efficiency for both levels, however, ths stes most in need of efficiency improvements can be seen: Chiapas, Canpeche, Oaxaca, Guerrero, Yucatan, Michoacan and Zacatecas (in at order). Jue 2: QuaUtatlwe Adulvesuent 16. While many educational investments have been successfull in achieving their saed quantative objectives, the anticipated qualitative peformance leves have yet to be achieved. For example, an evaluation of primary and lower secondary education published in 1988 tes students in Spanish, math, natural sciences and socW sciences. Out of a possible score of 100, only students in the firt grade averaged over 50; in grades four through six, stdents' average scores were below 25. At the lower secondary level, scores averaged below 15 for all subjects, with little diffeence between general, tele-secondary and thical schools. Low educational quality can be atrite to both school-related and non-school-related tors. Among the former the most frequently cited are: (a) deficiencies in teachers' aining and/or allocation; (b) excessive emphasis on memorzation, (c) the lack of educaonal materials; (d) a short school year; (e) indequate physical facilities; and (f) an inappropriae cwiculum. The urricuum is cuenly being ovehaled and efforts ae being made to reorgie teacher taining (see next paragaph). The distnrbution of textbooks and teachers remain a major problem, however, as does finding for upgrading of school facilities. hsue 3: Accs 17. In general, at all education levels, subst variatons remain in terms of access to basic education across Mexico's 32 sates. At the level of preschool, enrollment ratios vary by state from 49% to 98%, with a national average of 63%. In pmary education, the net enrollment ratio has remaine at 98% for the last four years, but this disguises regional pockets of low matriculation. 2% of unmet demand means some 300,000 children sil lack access to prmary school. This can be  xil relatd to both demand and supply facts, mainly to: 0) exme pov and isolakon (U) eAly ory ino t worlace; (iii) sickes; and (iv) difficulties in establishing and stan schools In small, solatoe ar. This unreached group is clealy concentted in stes with large ual, indigenous and diperse populations. 18. Lower secondary school absorption rates also vary gready by state, from 67% to 100%. When this is considered in conjunction with the primary school urminal efficiency rae, the likelihood of a first grader continuing on to lower secondary school can vary from 20% (Chapas) to 88% (Federal District). By region, children from southern stat are only hadf as likely as the froom norern ates to gain access to lower secondary school (1 out of 3 versu 2 out of 3). (a averge, less than half of th children nationwide entering prinmy school wil reach the lower secondary level. 19. Major dbrs have been undertaken to increase access and reduce the disaities acrss states and educational levels. Much of this progress has been through school construction, commnity schools (CONAFE), expanded bilinguallbicultural programs, and distance oducation (tele-condry). Unfiotunately, budget cuts have made it difficult to expand these programs firther and in some cases seices have contracted. CONAFE schools find it difficult to attrct teachers becau of poor stipends and scholarships; bilingua programs need more teaching materias in more languages; and telsecondary programs (while cost-effective) suffer from serious technical and quality deficiencies. Isue 4: Infrastructure 20. In 1989 the number of classrooms and school annexes needing to be built or repired in Mexico was more than 49,000. 'he classroom shortage is estimated at nearly 3,700 at the preschool level, almost 29,000 it the prima level, and appoxmately 6000 at the lower secoday leve. Despite these deficits, real primary infrastructure expenditures have declined at an average annual rat of 18.3%, and in 1987 were just 17% of their 1979 level. In nra areas it is common to fid classrooms with crumbling walls, weak or nonexiste lighting, or ometims just a roof set over four olumns. Community participation via Parents Associations is import for school maintance, but in many aras these groups ae weak or nonitent. Ise 5: Quality of Teaching 21. Many teachers seem to lack the theoretical and methodological skills needed to efectvdy reach children at the basic education levd. Less than half have the qualifications to be hired today and in-service tining proams are criticized as being too short and of low quality and effectiveness. Furthermore, teachers in rural communities often cannot attend these progams beca they are offered mainly in ura areas. A major problem also remains with the overall organiation of teacher ting. The 1984 requirmen that all new teachers obtain their licenar (three yeans beyond high school, i.e. 15 yeas of schooling) has meant great conftilon and competition over budges, cerfication procedures, and authority, at the same time that teacher tr-inng enrollments are declining. 22. Teacher mWiaocation and absenteeism are also major issues. Many teachers refise to work in Isolated ral communities and lack the incentives to do so, resulting In understf in rural schools and overstaffing in some urban areas. Consequently, the least experienced achers (those with the least senority) are typically assigned to rural schools, many of which are multigrade or uniary. Those that do work In rural areas often must spend 1-2 school days each week commuting  xl tom thei hormes (at thidr own co) or travelli to cub ther biweekly paycdh . coain southen stos, stude lose an aemated averag of 56 cs days (30% of the school yea) ash ye, due to the facto and unon problems. Union problem a in tun tied to lowt laries, which have dterorated In ral tem by more hn 33% since 1983. Issue 6: Educatonal Aseen_t 23. Mm SEP and Its Nato Evaluation Servic (NES) do not have h ources or capit to monioor and evalute academic achieemem and stadads of tuching. Recontly, die NES lost much of its sff due to salay cu", and many of those who remain lack sufficient training and sill. Furthemor, wat evaluaion resarch Is conducted I typically 1imi In tem of mpleo va_, pelicity, scope, depth of analysis and acceslbilty. Finally, at the state levl hre is pracdally no asussmnm capcity, and stat authorities are dependent on the centrally-oriented, poody stfd NES. The reut i an ducational sysum in which coecvo meues cant be eay take for lak of precise knowledSo eardin the Impact of pst investments. Tsue 7: System Of Supeison 24. Weak teacher supevision refes to both tebnal pedagogical supervislont ad ovsg It rsts In (a) tachr who recee ltl or no feedback on their teaching tecne and offeetvoDos, andlor (b) high teacher absentm. Th problem i aspeolly acut inrua scwhools, which typically lack a dictor and hawo the los expeln teachers. lb prcWl cs bcto ar budgery (Insufficient resources to hie more suprvisors), bureacratic (th selectiod proeoss of per i contradictory to the objeve and needs of supervision), and polil" (s vi are alled wit tche In the union aint SEP). Ultimately, both Insructna m and educaona quaity suffer. Issue 8: Resouo AlloatiOn 25. Not oniy has overal spending on education decrased in rel tm since 1980, but ao the share of that spending for basic education has been cu. In other wod, bigher education has received prerna treatme Rea per pupil expendiures for higher educatio gr more th 15% per year betwn 1983 and 1988, and averaged fiften times per pupil spending for baic education In 1988. Meanwhile, per student expenditum for basic education decrsed at an average annual rate of 3%. GIven the greater soci retrns to Invesents at the basic education lvel and the pervaive posivo extenaltes of basic educadon, ti is an inefficiet use of scarce budgety Orces. In addition, becu (a) basic education has long been an Important means of tasfe Incoe-ening ae to the poorer segment of society, and (O) th poor have typically bsd mor fom basic education th from higher oducadon, thbis shift In resource allocai has a negatve Impac on equity in Mexico. PART FOUR: QoYN&Hh= STRAY FOR DA= EDUCATION 26. Pat Four of the report presents the sgy of the Mexican Governmt and the main lhes of Its acton pln as described in the