山陽論叢 第 24 巻 （2017）
山陽論叢 第 24 巻（2017）

論文

Is this the road Japan is taking?
A case study of childhood education in Mexico
relating educational gap and household income
Yukari Eto1)
Key words: childhood education, family resources, achievement gap, public vsprivate schools, MexicoI.

Introduction
The standard of living rose and reduced inequality due to the steady economic

growth that followed World War Two. The national census of 1970 (Cabinet Public
Relations Office, 1970) indicates that 91% of Japanese considered themselves as
belonging to the middle class. And “ichioku sou cyuryu (all middle-class society),”1 theJapanese buzzword starting at the late 1960s, symbolizes their cognition. Even
approximately a decade later, after Japan’s economic bubble burst, the national census
of 2005 (Cabinet Public Relations Office, 2005) indicates that about 89% of Japanese still
consider themselves in the middle class.
Education has long been considered the best opportunity for upward social
mobility in Japan as well as many other countries. However, education no longer serves
as the great equalizer for the low-income sector. A study which was organized by Hiroaki
Mimizuka of Ochonomizu University as a part of Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports,
Science and Technology (MEXT, 2008) in Japan shows that there is a gap in achievement
according to family income. Students from affluent families perform higher in national
standardized tests compared to students from lower-income families. A similar case wasreported by Sean F. Reardon (2011) of Stanford University in the United States.
Moreover, Reardon, Baker and Klasik (2012) detail that students from high-income
sector compose an increasing number of the enrollment at highly selective colleges anduniversities.
As the result of Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA),
Japan’s low achievement on the PISA was considered problematic. What we called“yutori kyouiku” in Japanese, a Japanese government education policy which reduced

1) Department of Preschool Education at Sanyo Gakuen College1- 97 -

Eto ： Is this the road Japan is taking?
Is this theroad relating
Japan istaking? gap and household income
A case study of childhood educationin Mexico
educational
A case study of childhood education in Mexico relating educational gap and household income

the hours and the content of the curriculum in primary education since 2002, is seen as
the major problem. But I questioned the opinion. I lived in Mexico for almost eleven years
from 2001 to 2012. From my experience as a volunteer worker at a Mexican public
elementary school and as a mother of children at the age of attending compulsory
education, I learned that clear social stratification exists depending on one’s family
income in Mexico. Firstly, these socioeconomic differences cause differences in
educational access. Secondly, gaps in student accomplishment. And then, consequently,
effect their work opportunities as well as their income. The educational gap between therich and the poor seems to be self-perpetuating in Mexico. The above-mentioned
researches and my experiences in Mexico suggest that the income inequality may be at
the root of the problem. Here, in this paper, the focus will be on connection between
income inequality among parents and the social mobility of their children. I will
introduce the differences between public and private schools in Mexico, and also theachievement gap between students in public and in private schools. Recent statistics
show that income inequality exists in Japan. And Japan is no longer an “all middle-classsociety.” I’m afraid Japan is walking in the same direction as Mexico. Education will nolonger serve as an equalizer; but rather, will serve to increase inequality. The privileged
families become more privileged, but unprivileged families will suffer in thissocioeconomic system.
II. The Mexican educational system
In general, there are three educational stages in Mexico (Secretaría de

Educación Pública, 2017): Educación básica (basic education), educación média superior(secondary education), and educación superior (higher education). Education at allstages is regulated by Secretaría de Educación Pública (Secretariat of Public Education)

which was founded in 1921 and is known to be by its abbreviation as SEP.

Basic education is made up by four different levels: Inicial (Introductory),

preescolar (preschool), educación primaria (primary school), and educación secundaria(junior high school). Introductory, ages range from 6 weeks to 5 years old, and serves
children whose parents work. Preschool has three phases with ages ranging from 3 to 5

years. Primary school runs from grade one through grade six, ages range from 6 to 12
years. Junior high school is considered part of basic education in Mexico. It has threephases and it is for children from 13 to 15 years.
After completing basic education, students are required to continue theirstudies in secondary education which normally lasts for three years. There are two main

tracks: Bachillerato and Preparatoria/ Preparatoria Profesional Técnico. Students who

enroll in the bachillerato are in the academic track, which is designed to further theirhigher education. The other track emphasizes technical and vocational training
programs. Students in the latter track enter work after completing their studies.

Higher education offers different levels of diplomas: Licenciatura (Bachelor’s
2- 98 -

山陽論叢 第 24 巻 （2017）
山陽論叢 第 24 巻（2017）degrees), Maestría (Master’s degrees), and Doctorado (Doctor’s degree). A part from them,Técnico Superior (Technical institutes) train people to be technicians in specialized fields

such as engineering.
Table-1: The Mexican educational system in 2015
Educational Stages

Student

Level

Age Range

Inicial(Introductory)

Preescolar

45 days ~ 5 years
3 ~ 5 years

Educación Básica

(Preschool)(Basic Education)

Educación Primaria(Primary school)

Educación Secundaria(Junior high school)

Bachillerato
Educación(Academic track)

Média Superior

Preparatoria/(Secondary Education)

Profesional Técnico

6 ~ 12 years
13 ~ 15 years
16 ~ 18 years

Compulsory
Education

16 ~ 18 years(Technical/ Vocational track)

Técnico Superior(Technical)

Educación Superior(Higher Education)

Normal/Licenciatura(Undergraduate)

Posgrado: Maestría y Doctorado

19 years ~(ages vary)(Graduate: Master’s andDoctor’s degree)

Note.
Data is adapted from Sistema Educativo de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos, Principales Cifras Ciclo

Escolar 2015-2016 by Secretaría de Educación Pública, 2017, p. 11.

As you can see from the Table-1: The Mexican educational system in 2015,
currently, education from preschool until high school (darkened) is compulsory by federallaw. However, it became compulsory at a different time. Primary school is the first one
to be mandatory since 1935. Secondly, junior high school became mandatory as well in
1992. Then, preschool became mandatory in 2002. And Finally, high school became
mandatory in 2012 (Cámara de Diputados, 2017). The compulsory educational system,
SEP standardizes curriculum content and gives free text books for students in bothpublic and private schools. Education at state schools is free, but students may have torepeat grades if necessary. Social promotion by age or by seat time is not practiced in3- 99 -

Eto ： Is this the road Japan is taking?
Is this theroad relating
Japan istaking? gap and household income
A case study of childhood educationin Mexico
educational
A case study of childhood education in Mexico relating educational gap and household income

Mexico. Therefore, the age as it appears in Table 1 is the general age at which students
do not repeat grades at the beginning of their academic year.
III. Childhood education in Mexico relating educational gap and household income
Both Mexico and Japan are member countries of the Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development (OECD). Japan joined the organization in 1964, andMexico joined it in 1994. The OECD releases statistics, data, and publications such as
income inequality and poverty among participant countries. According to its database,the OECD Income Distribution Database (2012), both Mexico and Japan are below
average when they were measured by the Gini coefficient in 2012: Mexico occupied theworst place and Japan was tenth among member countries. If I just mentioned numbers
as the mass media does; at a glance, both countries seem to have considerable unfair
income distribution. In the case of Mexico, people may better understand if I mention
that Mexico is classified as “upper-middle-income economies,” and the majority member
countries of the OECD are defined as “high-income economies” by the World Bank.2 In
addition, there were only 34 members countries in the OECD in the year 2012, and theNordic countries which participated in the census are known to have low unemployment
rates and the highest standard of living in the world. However, many countries were
excluded that were not members of the OECD. Currently, there are 193 members in the
United Nations. The order and average might be otherwise if more countries had beenmeasured by the Gini coefficient.
The World Bank estimate involved more countries. The Mexican data isavailable since 1992. However, Japan’s data is only available in the year 2008, not 2012
like Mexico. The comparison between OECD’s data and that of the World Bank appears
not to be the best. But the data from OECD suggest that Japan’s Gini coefficient has notfluctuated much from 0.333 in 2009, which actually comes from the data based on 2008
Japanese income, to 0.330 in 2012. So, I believe this is a fair comparison. According to
the World Bank, in the worst category, Mexico placed 23rd and Japan 120th of the 154
participant countries in 2008. In this case, Mexico is estimated below average, but Japanis no longer considered below average. The Gini coefficient is the most commonly used tomeasure income distribution, but we have to be careful how to interpret it. In Gini
coefficient, zero (0) manifests perfect equality; on the other hand, 1 or 100% is maximum
inequality. Mexico has not fluctuated much in its Gini coefficient since 2006 until today,
and in both data from the World Bank and OECD, there is a big difference in Gini
coefficient between Mexico and Japan. Mexico estimated to be 0.457 while Japan was
estimated to be 0.330 in 2012 by the World Bank. Thus, it illustrates that Mexico’s
income inequality is more severe.
From my experience and what I have seen both in Mexico and in Japan, it isappropriate to say that Mexico is much greater in income inequality than Japan as
indicated by the Gini coefficient. Most Mexican privileged families in the large cities in4- 100 -

山陽論叢 第 24 巻 （2017）
山陽論叢 第 24 巻（2017）

gated communities with maids, gardeners and security guards in contrast to the lower
classes. Some complexes even have common areas such as a park, a swimming pool, anda guest house or an event house for parties. In their houses, there is a tiny room (it isactually smaller than owner’s kitchen) for a maid with a toilet and a shower. During
weekdays, the maid does all the housework such as cleaning and cooking in place of thehousewife while the owner leaves for breakfast with her friends or to attend Yoga class,for example. The maid might able to go home during weekends. The living conditions for
low-income families like the maid are harsh to say the least. They live in a small housemade out of blocks which sometime have only one room to be shared with a family ofeight, for example. The number of persons living in a house is normally greater than theaffluent family; yet, the size of their house is so much smaller, not adequate for thenumber of people. They construct their houses in stages. Their walls are unpainted andone can see the exposed building materials. Generally, an elegantly tiled floor issomething to admire. I have seen homes without gas and with earthen floor. These people
who can’t afford blocks use wood scraps and whatever material they can get their hands
on, which offer little protection from the elements.
Affluent families send their young to private schools from early childhood
education. They reason that public school education is inadequate, which isunderstandable. I worked in a public primary school in the state of Mexico for two years.
There, I saw teachers working without having finished their credentials. In some cases,
I even saw teachers abandon their responsibilities to their students. And the students
were playing in the playground all day long while the school principal could have taken
the place of the absent teacher. I was astonished to see secured teaching positions (“plaza”
in Spanish) advertised for sale. These secured positions can be purchased or inherited
without academic preparation.
On the other hand, private school teachers are well prepared. I know of a private
school chairman who dispatched teachers as observers to Finland that has a model
educational system when the country received several highest positions in the first PISA
tests. Although curriculums vary and the pedagogy that they apply is also different, it iscommon in private schools to provide English classes throughout the early educational
years and beyond while public schools offer them only through junior high school.
English is the major communication skill that promises a high income. This is especiallytrue in the case of Mexico for geological reasons. The above-mentioned private schools
implement bilingual education. It means in bilingual education, half of the curriculum
is offered in each language, Spanish or English. Students are already able to makesimple sentences like, “He is my father.” at the kindergarten. The private schools alsooffer advanced math classes. Japanese students learn multiplication in the second yearof primary school. This is possible because two well-prepared instructors assist a
maximum of 25 students per class.
I traced some significant characteristics of both public and private school in
5- 101 -

Eto ： Is this the road Japan is taking?
Is this theroad relating
Japan istaking? gap and household income
A case study of childhood educationin Mexico
educational
A case study of childhood education in Mexico relating educational gap and household income

early childhood education at below.
Table-2: The comparison between “general” public and private school in early childhood
education in a case of the state of Mexico
PUBLICPRIVATE

Entrance Exams

Not required

Required

Uniform

Additional

Required

TuitionNot required

Required

Textbook Fee

Not required

Required

Number of Students/ class

~403

~30

Number of Teachers/ class1

2

Not applied

AppliedEnglish classes

The different quality in education transmits to the cost of education. Whileattending public school in a compulsory education system, parents do not pay for books
or any tuition. The SEP provides free textbooks for both public and private schools. In
contrast, a private school requires costly tuition, extra textbooks and uniforms in
addition to inscription fee. The monthly tuition varies depending on private schools.
However, it was about 2,150 Mexican pesos (about 170 dollars or 13,800 yen) and theannual inscription fee was about 1,500 pesos (about 119 dollars or 9,650 yen) for a private
kindergarten while the monthly starting salary of the public primary teacher in the stateof Mexico was about 7,000 Mexican pesos (about 553 dollars or 44,850 yen). The publicschools have adopted uniforms before; but, since 2009, the powers that be moved theuniform requirements in effort to lessen the economic burden. The higher theeducational level, the higher the fee due to the increase of subjects and educational hours.
One of the most prestigious and expensive institutions of Mexican Higher Education
requires a tuition of 164,000 Mexican pesos per year. That amounts to about 13,670
monthly Mexican pesos (about 1,080 dollars or 87,600 yen). It is almost double thestarting salary of the public primary teacher. Therefore, children from low-income
families cannot possibly be inscribed into private schools. The percentage of enrollment
number in private schools at the basic education level is 9.9% (Secretaría de Educación
Pública, 2017).
As a matter of course, the difference in educational cost and in educational
quality between public schools and private schools affect the educational achievement.
Mexico implements a national standardized academic test in order to measure quality ofnational education each year. The exam is called “Evaluación Nacional de Logro
Académico en Centros Escolares” in Spanish, and it is commonly abbreviated as
6- 102 -

山陽論叢 第 24 巻 （2017）
山陽論叢 第 24 巻（2017）

ENLACE. Assessments are given most frequently in mathematics and Spanish, fromthird grade students to six grade students of primary and all grades of junior high schoolfor both public and private schools. The test is also given to the senior year students atthe secondary educational level. SEP reports test results by different demographic
groups: states, grades, school classifications (public vs private).４ We can use these test
results to compare the achievement gaps.
The public schools are further subdivided into three categories for the ENLACE

results: General (general), CONAFE, and indígena (indigenous). General is the mostnumerous and the most common public schools where ordinary student attend. On theother hand, CONAFE, an abbreviation of Consejo Nacional de Fomento Educativo(National Council for Educational Development) is an organization under the Mexican
federal government with the World Bank-supported compensatory education
projects

designedtoexpandtheeducational

services

in

rural

and

marginalized areas that regular schools traditionally lack. Also, many
indigenous people live in rural areas, but the areas where there are large concentrationsof indigenous people have schools for educating (to be able to speak and understandSpanish) indigenous people. The official number of indigenous people varies from one
source to another (Delgado Santoveña, 2017). The Instituto Nacional de Estadística yGeografía (INEGI; National Institute for Statistics and Geography) is
responsible for compiling the population census. In 2015, INEGI noted a national
average of 21.5% is indigenous whereas the Comisión Nacional para el
Desarrollo de los Pueblos Indígenas (CDI; National Commission for theDevelopment of Indigenous Peoples) stated 10.1% in the same year based on
self-identication. The percentages vary because each census defines“indigenous” differently. The CDI defines “indigenous” people as persons who
self-identified as indigenous, and or persons who live in a household where
an indigenous language is spoken by one of the family members including
spouse and parents-in-law. That means if one does not speak an indigenous
language, but if one lives with someone who speaks the language they are
considered “indigenous.” The percentage drops to 6.5% when the INEGI asks
if they speak indigenous languages 5 (INEGI, 2015). Traditionally, since thechildren in rural areas were considered an important source of labor for thefamily, children stayed home helping their parents instead of attending
school. However, the recent government enforcement of the aim to “improve”
national average score, they are supposed to attend school. As a result, thenumber of indigenous people who are able to speak their native languages isgetting smaller each year.
In order to have a better comparison between public and private
schools, I will only use the data from “general” public schools to comparewith private schools. According to the ENLACE results that SEP made public from7

- 103 -

Eto ： Is this the road Japan is taking?
Is this theroad relating
Japan istaking? gap and household income
A case study of childhood educationin Mexico
educational
A case study of childhood education in Mexico relating educational gap and household income

2006 to 2013 (SEP, 2014), the difference between the “general” public schools and private
schools is quite notable although the gap between them is getting narrow since 2013,
especially in mathematics. On the national level in mathematics in 2006, the differenceis 74.3 points at grade three: the public students scored a national average of 497.7 points
while the private students scored a national average of 572.0 points; 69.5 points indifference at grade four: the public students scored a national average of 497.8 points
while the private students scored a national average of 567.3 points; 72.5 point differenceat grade five: the public students scored a national average of 497.5 points while theprivate students scored a national average of 570.0 points; 66.8 point difference at grade
six: the public students scored a national average of 497.2 points while the private
students scored a national average of 564.0 points. The year 2008 seems to have the mostdifference in gaps. Each grade has approximately 78 point difference on average from2006. However, the gaps between public and private schools got narrower in 2013 by anaverage of 95 points in each grade in mathematics. It is probably because the federal
education law of 2013 mandates that people cannot have the teaching positions without
their having to pass the federal professional qualifying exam. The same tendency toward
academic improvement can be noted in the Spanish assessments from 2006 to 2013, but
the gaps between them didn’t improve nearly as much as mathematics in 2013. In
addition, the state of Oaxaca which has one of the lowest levels of student achievement
and the highest dropout rates in Mexico, and has not participated in ENLACE since 2010.
The teacher’s union in Oaxaca had rejected the 2013 education law and has failed to
conduct the federal exam for teachers. Overall, attending private schools will definitely
guarantee a better education and of course better socioeconomic status in a later life.
IV. Conclusion
In Mexico, a clear stratification exists based on family income, a cycle ofinequality in wealth and education appears to be self-perpetuating. As the figures on the
right

show;

firstly,socioeconomicthese(family

FamilyResources

resources) differences cause a
differenceineducational

A Cycle ofaccess. Secondly, it translates
into gap in student academic
outcome.

And

then,

Children’s
incomeInequality
in Wealth &Educationconsequently, it affects theirwork opportunities as well as
their income. And when they
becomeparents,

continues.

It

the

Academic
Outcomecycle

reproduces

inequality.
8- 104 -

Children's
access to
Education

山陽論叢 第 24 巻 （2017）
山陽論叢 第 24 巻（2017）

As the Japanese buzzword, “all middle-class society,” symbolizes income
inequality does not exist in Japanese society, as in Mexico. But the Gini coefficient showsthat the standard of living in Japan is not as good as we believe. Since the condition of
public education in Japan is not as problematic as Mexico, the majority of Japaneseparents sent their children to public primary schools and junior high schools while they
are compulsory and free. However, education plays such an important role indetermining one’s income and one’s standard of living later in their life, the mostJapanese parents sent their children into private after-school institutions that help
prepare them for high school and university entrance exams. The cram schools in Japan
involve cost, and depending on the quality of education that is given, the tuition varies
as in Mexican private schools. Affluent families are able to afford to send their children
to costly yet high-quality cram schools. They have better access to prestigious
institutions and more opportunity for economic success. Thus, the socioeconomic
inequalities at large are imposed and sustained by the educational system.
Although I see Japan taking the same direction as Mexico, I believe we still may
be able to improve our educational system. I was astonished by the difference ineducational conditions between Mexican public and private schools as well as theireducational outcomes. Parenthetically, I have some ideas that may serve to improve our
educational system. If we can apply the methodology of Mexican private schools; well
prepared teachers with maximum of 25 students per class into Japanese public schools,
the educational outcome will be improved. To make it happen requires governmental
financial support. The Japanese government’s expenditure on education as a percentage
of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) was approximately 3.6% in 2014. The percentage
was actually much lower than the average of 5.2% among “high-income economy”
countries, and even below Mexico (World Bank, 2014). In addition, Japan’s expenditure
movement on education stays almost flat although the tendency of sub-replacement
fertility is common among the majority of high-income economy countries, and theirgovernmental educational expenditure is growing.
The ancient Chinese chancellor of the state of Qi during the early Spring andAutumn Period once said, “If you are planning for a year, sow rice; if you are planning
for a decade, plant trees; if you are planning for a lifetime, educate people (Endo, 1989,
pp.49-50).” Children are potential social resources. We need to ensure that all students
have equal access to well-prepared teachers as well as stimulating curriculum andinstruction.

9- 105 -

Eto ： Is this the road Japan is taking?
Is this theroad relating
Japan istaking? gap and household income
A case study of childhood educationin Mexico
educational
A case study of childhood education in Mexico relating educational gap and household income

Notes
1.

ichioku sou cyuryu/ 一億総中流: “一億/ ichioku” literally means “100 million” in English and it
symbolizes the Japanese population. “総/ Sou” means “all” and “中流/ cyuryu” means the “middle
class” in English.

2.

The World Bank (2018) classifies countries and territories by region, by income, and by lending.
There are four income levels: “Low-income economies,” “Lower-middle-income economies,” “Uppermiddle-income economies,” and “High-income economies.” Thirty-one countries and territories areclassified as low-income economies which defined as those with a Gross National Income (GNI)
per capita of $1,005 or less in 2016. Fifty-three countries and territories classified as lower middleincome economies which defined as those with a GNI per capita between $1,006 and $3,955. Fiftysix countries and territories classified as upper middle-income economies which defined as thosewith a GNI per capita between $3,956 and $12,235. Seventy-eight countries and territories areclassified as high-income economies which defined as those with a GNI per capita of $12,236 or
more.

3.

The Mexican general ley for teachers (Cámara de Diputados, 2013) indicates that the number ofstudents have to be defined by the size of a classroom. Therefore, the number of students varydepend on classroom size and its location. According to “Indicator D2 What is the student-teacher
ratio and how big are classes?” in Education at a Glance 2012: OECD Indicators (2012), there is
the national average of twenty students in each classroom in Mexico. Commonly, I have seen
approximately forty students in “general” public schools whereas “CONAFE” and “indigene”
public schools have a tendency toward fewer students because they are located in rural areas.

4.

Beside the report, an individual test score and or an average school score is also available to traceby rosters on the sight of the SEP home page. And the average school score influences the cost of
its tuition. There is a tendency to be expensive if the school has a better average school score in
ENLACE.

5.

According to INEGI (2015), indigenous people in Mexico represent approximately
70 linguistic groups. But the languages that are spoken by a small number ofindigenous people like “Tlahuicas” in the state of Mexico, are placed in the catego ry
of “other.”

References
Cabinet Public Relations Office [内閣総理大臣官房広報室]. (2005) (1970). 国民生活に関する世論調査 日本：内閣総理大臣官房広報室
Cámara de Diputados [Chamber of Deputies]. (2017). Reformas Constitucionales por
Artículo, ARTÍCULO 3º, de 1ª Reforma DOF 13-12-1934 al 10ª Reforma DOF
29-01-2016 en Leyes Federales de Mexico. México. Retrieved fromhttp://www.diputados.gob.mx/LeyesBiblio/ref/cpeum_art.htm

10- 106 -

山陽論叢 第 24 巻 （2017）
山陽論叢 第 24 巻（2017）

Cámara de Diputados [Chamber of Deputies]. (2013). Artículo 64, CapítuloⅡ, Título
Cuarto: De las Condiciones Institucionales en Leyes Federales del Servicio

Profesional Docente. México. Retrieved fromhttp://www.diputados.gob.mx/LeyesBiblio/pdf/LGSPD.pdf
Comisión Nacional para el Desarrollo de los Pueblos Indígenas(CDI).

(2015). Niñas, niños y adolescentes indígenas. México. Retrieved fromhttps://www.gob.mx/cms/uploads/attachment/file/217532/cdi-ninias-niniosadolescentes-indigenas-encuesta-intercensal-2015.pdf
Delgado Santoveña, Alejandra (Ed.). (2017). Directrices para mejorar: la atención

educativa de niñas,niños y adolescentes indígenas. México: Instituto

Nacional para la Evaluación de la Educación (INEE).
Endo, Tetsuo [遠藤 哲夫]. (1989). 新釈漢文大系 42 官子 上 明治書院
Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía (INEGI). (2015). Encuesta Intercensal

2015. México. Retrieved fromhttp://www.beta.inegi.org.mx/proyectos/enchogares/especiales/intercensal/
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT) [文部科学省].
(2008). 全国学力・学習状況調査の追加調査結果、国立大学法人お茶の水女子大学 Retrieved from http://www.mext.go.jp/a_menu/shotou/gakuryokuchousa/1365028.htm
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2012). “Indicator
D2 What is the student-teacher ratio and how big are classes?” in Education

at a Glance 2012: OECD Indicators. Paris: OECD Publishing. DOI:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2012-30-en
OECD Income Distribution Database. (2012). Income Inequality (Gini coefficient).
Retrieved from https://data.oecd.org/inequality/income-inequality.htm
Reardon, Sean F. (2011). The widening academic achievement gap between the rich andthe poor: New evidence and possible explanations. In R. Murnane & G.

Duncan (Eds.), Whither Opportunity? Rising Inequality and the Uncertain

Life Chances of Low-Income Children. New York: Russell Sage Foundation
Press.

Reardon, S. F., Baker, R., & Klasik, D. (2012). Race, income, and enrollment patterns

in highly selective colleges, 1982–2004. Stanford, CA: Center for Education

Policy Analysis, Stanford University.
Secretaría de Educación Pública (SEP). (2017) Sistema Educativo de los Estados

Unidos Mexicanos, Principales Cifras 2015-2016. Mexico City, Mexico:
Secretaría de Educación Pública. Retrieved from11

- 107 -

Eto ： Is this the road Japan is taking?
Is this theroad relating
Japan istaking? gap and household income
A case study of childhood educationin Mexico
educational
A case study of childhood education in Mexico relating educational gap and household income

http://www.planeacion.sep.gob.mx/Doc/estadistica_e_indicadores/principales_
cifras/principales_cifras_2015_2016.pdf. (2014). ENLACE 2006-2013. Medias y Niveles de logro por entidad

federativa, Educación Básica. Mexico City, Mexico: Secretaría de Educación
Pública. Retrieved fromhttp://www.enlace.sep.gob.mx/content/ba/pages/estadisticas/estadisticas_201
3.htmlWorld Bank. (2018). World Bank Country and Lending Groups. Retrieved fromhttps://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/906519-worldbank-country-and-lending-groups. (2015). GINI index (World Bank estimate). Retrieved fromhttps://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.POV.GINI. (2014). Government expenditure on education, total (% of GDP). Retrieved
fromhttps://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SE.XPD.TOTL.GD.ZS?locations=JPMX-XD

12- 108 -