Mexico’s parties and education: teachers, schools, social media

In 2013, Mexico’s Constitution established that anyone who wanted to teach in a public school, and anyone already doing so, had to pass mandatory evaluations to get in, move up and stay in the service (DOF, 26 February 2013). Six years later, another constitutional amendment kept selection processes for hiring and promotion, but added that those processes shall “in no case” affect teachers’ tenure (DOF, 15 May 2019).

That is where the first of the three statements of the topic “Education, children and family” that count in the test begins. The other two deal with schools with a longer day and with teenagers’ access to social media; a fourth, on a family institute, is used to break ties.

A note before starting: in this topic, more than half of the positions (19 of 32) carry an asterisk (*). It means the party has not spoken on that question, and its position has been worked out from what it does say on related matters. SOMOS and Partido PAZ became national parties in 2026 and have never had a caucus; their founding documents have been used instead, and everything may shift when they file their first platform with the INE in January 2027.

Evaluating teachers, from 2013 to 2019

The 2019 reform did three things with evaluation. First, it changed Article 3: hiring, promotion and recognition of teachers, principals and supervisors are decided through public “selection processes” on equal terms, without touching the tenure of anyone who already holds a post. Second, its transitional articles repealed the 2013 Professional Teaching Service Law, suspended all evaluations until a new law was passed and voided any acts under the old law that had affected a teacher’s tenure. Third, it abolished the National Institute for Educational Evaluation.

The new law came in September 2019: the General Law on the Career System for Teachers, which created the Career System Unit (USICAMM), a body within the Ministry of Public Education (SEP) that runs hiring and promotion processes. According to the Chamber of Deputies’ compilation of laws, it has not been amended since.

How the 2019 vote went

The Chamber approved the constitutional amendment in its session of 8 May 2019: 396 deputies voted yes, 68 voted no and one abstained (Record of Debates). It was a different legislature, with different groups:

Vote in general; there was also one abstention in the PES group. The only group that voted against was the PAN. The PRI, the party of the president who had signed the 2013 reform into law, Enrique Peña Nieto, voted almost as one to replace it, as did Movimiento Ciudadano and the PVEM. SOMOS and Partido PAZ did not exist yet.

Where each party stands today

The test asks whether teachers ought to pass an evaluation both to obtain their post and to hold on to it. In other words, it proposes going back to what was removed in 2019.

Only the PAN strongly agrees, and it is also the only party with a document that says so outright: its program of action calls evaluating teachers “essential” for entry, tenure and promotion. In 2019, no other group opposed the reform.

Four parties agree, but none of them mentions tenure. The PRI wants merit and continuous improvement to weigh in teachers’ careers and to deepen educational evaluation. Movimiento Ciudadano proposes bringing back a system that evaluates students, teachers and schools, with accountability. SOMOS ties teachers’ incentives to their performance and, in its 2026 program, their pay as well. Partido PAZ (agrees*) calls for consolidating evaluation in basic and upper-secondary education, without referring to teachers’ posts.

The PT disagrees: its 2024 platform celebrates the cancellation of the 2013 reform, which it calls the “so-called ‘education reform’,” and welcomes the 2019 one as a way of giving teachers their due. Morena also disagrees*, in this case as an estimate: its documents defend teachers’ professional autonomy and training without mentioning evaluation, although its group voted for the 2019 reform as a bloc. The PVEM is neutral*: it supported both the 2013 reform and its replacement, and its platform talks about training teachers, not evaluating them.

Full-day schools

For years, the federal government had a program, Escuelas de Tiempo Completo (Full-Time Schools), that funded longer hours in public basic-education schools and, in many of them, students’ meals. The SEP’s operating rules for 2023 already called it “the defunct Full-Time Schools Program” (DOF, 29 December 2022).

What remains of it sits inside another program, La Escuela es Nuestra (“The School Is Ours”), which gives the money straight to a committee at each school (the CEAP). Under those rules, since 2022 the committee decides, in an assembly, whether to spend it on repairing or equipping the school, on feeding students or on extending the school day to between 6 and 8 hours. It may use at most 21% of what it receives for longer hours; for works, equipment or food, up to all of it. There is no longer a national network of long-day schools: it depends on each school community.

The test asks whether these schools should come back, and it also does so in its quick version.

Two parties strongly agree. The PRI says it in almost the same words in its 2024 platform and in its program of action: bring back the program for basic-education students. SOMOS proposes reviving it “with a decentralized approach” and adding extended-hours schools to a national care system. The PAN agrees: the platform it signed in 2023 with the PRI and the PRD proposed a national network of these schools, offering meals plus cultural and sports activities. Because that proposal belongs to the coalition and not to a PAN document of its own, its position has been set one point lower.

Movimiento Ciudadano and Partido PAZ agree*, without mentioning these schools: Movimiento Ciudadano wants a comprehensive care system and to rethink schooling so that working mothers carry less of the load, and Partido PAZ wants to expand education programs that show results and to make it easier for families to combine work and child-rearing.

Neither the PVEM nor the PT takes a side (neutral*). The former promises to recover lost learning and a universal scholarship for basic-education students; the latter, free school cafeterias and early-childhood centers. Neither mentions these schools, which were closed under a government they are allied with. Morena, which disagrees*, is the party of that government, and its 2024 platform pledges to keep La Escuela es Nuestra.

Under-16s and social media

No Mexican law sets a minimum age for opening a social media account; the platforms themselves set one in their terms.

In 2026 the issue reached Congress and the government. In March, Deputy Ernesto Sánchez Rodríguez, of the PAN group, introduced a bill that bans under-16s from using social media unless a parent or guardian gives express authorization and supervises directly, and that requires platforms to verify age and record that consent (Parliamentary Gazette, 23 March 2026). In April, the Chamber passed without a single vote against an amendment to the General Law on the Rights of Children and Adolescents on digital environments, cyberbullying, digital violence and personal data: 449 votes in favor, from every group (vote of 29 April 2026).

Finally, on 14 October 2026, President Claudia Sheinbaum signed a decree on “safe digital environments” (DOF, 14 October 2026). It bars platforms from letting minors reach content involving harassment, sexual violence, hate, pornography, suicide, self-harm or eating disorders; it requires them to identify users’ age by more than what each user declares, to offer supervision tools to parents and guardians, and to switch on the strictest privacy settings by default for new accounts. It sets no age for opening an account and does not require parental permission. It does, however, task the Office of the Legal Counsel with drafting regulatory proposals.

Here no party disagrees, and the eight positions sit closer together than anywhere else in this topic: between neutral and agree. The PAN agrees, because of its deputy’s bill; it does not reach strongly agree because the bill is a parliamentary initiative signed by a single deputy, not a party document. Morena is neutral: in August 2026, Ricardo Monreal, who leads its deputies, said the president would send the Chamber a proposal on how under-16s use platforms during school hours, and the October decree does not shut them out of social media. SOMOS is also neutral: it calls for protecting children online through digital education, but rejects bans.

The other positions are estimated. The PVEM (agrees*) rejects violent propaganda in the media in its program of action because of the harm it does to children. Partido PAZ (agrees*) gives families responsibility for minors and wants platforms to protect privacy. The PRI, the PT and Movimiento Ciudadano (neutral*) talk in their documents about online safety, dialogue with young people or their autonomy, but not about ages.

A family institute

The last statement is a tie-break question: it only appears if, at the end of the test, your result leaves parties almost tied, and it does not move your compass. It asks about a new body devoted to promoting the family. Mexico already has the national DIF system (Integral Family Development), but it focuses mainly on social assistance.

The proposal has an author: Partido PAZ, which strongly agrees, includes in its program of action a new body it calls the National Family Institute (INFAM), to plan family development. The PRI, neutral, wants public policy to take the family into account, which it calls the founding community of society, but does not propose a new institution.

The other six positions are estimated, because no other party talks about such an institute. The PAN (agrees*) supports protecting and promoting the family through all kinds of policies. For the PVEM and the PT (neutral*), the answer lies in a care law or a care system. Morena, Movimiento Ciudadano and SOMOS (disagree*) also talk about care and stress that families come in many forms.

Since the tie-break only takes questions where each tied party has a sourced position, in practice this question can only come up to break a tie between the PRI and Partido PAZ.

The positions in one table

The documents behind each sourced position can be opened from each party’s page or from the topic page.

What separates the parties

On the first two statements, the topic splits almost the same way: five parties in favor (the PAN, the PRI, Movimiento Ciudadano, SOMOS and Partido PAZ) and, on the other side or in the middle, the three that make up the governing bloc. But the line is less firm than it looks. Of the three positions against on those two statements, only one has a source: the PT’s on evaluation. Morena’s two are estimated, as are the PVEM’s neutral positions and the PT’s on schools.

On social media, by contrast, there are no blocs: the PAN and the PVEM*, which sit on opposite sides in the Chamber, both agree, as does Partido PAZ*; the other five are neutral.

Adding up the differences across the three statements that count in the test, out of a possible 12 points, the widest gap is between Morena and the PAN: 6 points (our own calculation from the positions in the table), although two of Morena’s three are estimated. The PRI and SOMOS have identical positions on all three, although one of the PRI’s is estimated.

The topic also counts toward the social (progressive-conservative) axis of the political compass, together with rights, the environment and migration.

Further reading

• Take the test: full-day schools appear in both the quick and full versions, evaluation and social media only in the full one, and the family institute in the tie-break.
• All the positions in the topic, with their sources: “Education, children and family”.
• Compare two parties: Morena versus the PAN, PRI versus SOMOS or PAN versus PAZ.
• Other analyses: the parties and rights and the parties and social programs.