The National Union of Parents, in coordination with various lawyers and civil organizations, will file injunctions on behalf of more than two million parents.
Parents in 60 cities across the country will seek legal protection against the modification of the school calendar that shortened the 2025-2026 school year by more than a month, alleging the violation of various educational rights, as well as a lack of technical criteria, stated Israel Sánchez, president of the National Union of Parents.
“The truth is that there is total disagreement, so we will take the appropriate measures. We are organizing the legal cases and analyzing the social causes, and in this regard, we will act accordingly to see what the scope is. We will file for legal protection very soon,” said Sánchez.
This Thursday, the Secretary of Public Education, Mario Delgado, announced that, due to the World Cup and the intense heat, the 2025-2026 school year will conclude on June 5, instead of July 15.
Sánchez argued that it is illegal not to strictly adhere to the educational plans and programs presented at the beginning of the school year.
“We want them to know that there is a legal contradiction, because the plans and programs cannot be canceled. That’s why there’s a schedule and a program. When you cancel something, it might be due to a natural disaster, but to do it because of an event and then claim it was at the request of who-knows-who is, well, that’s terrible,” she emphasized.
She asserted that families want their children to receive a good education, so the decision affects not only the students but also the mothers.
“The most affected are mothers, who are heads of households and many of whom are also employed, and with this, they will have to make adjustments; they won’t have vacations anymore. There are many consequences,” she concluded.
Yesterday, during the National Palace press conference, Mayor Claudia Sheinbaum said that bringing forward the end of the school year was a proposal made by the state education secretaries, but a schedule had not yet been finalized.
“It was a proposal made yesterday (Thursday) by Mario (Delgado), which came from the states themselves; it wasn’t Mario’s decision. The education secretaries from the different states met, and teachers also requested that the vacation be brought forward, mainly because of the World Cup. So, this proposal was adopted. There isn’t a set schedule yet, because it’s important that the children don’t miss any classes,” the mayor commented yesterday at the National Palace.
Later, during his visit to Hermosillo, Sonora, the Secretary of Public Education confirmed that the last day of classes will be June 5 (a week before the start of the World Cup), and they were still analyzing when the 2026-2027 school year would begin.
“Yes, we’re going to start on the 5th because many states have high temperatures, and there’s also the World Cup. So, we’ll start on the 5th, teachers will finish on the 12th for administrative work, but we’re going to review the return date,” he said.
Separately, the governments of Jalisco and Guanajuato expressed their rejection of the decision to move up the end of the school year to June 5th.
In a statement, the Jalisco Ministry of Education reported that it never requested the federal government to modify the school calendar, and therefore seeks to maintain the official end date of June 30th.
The state administration maintained that the priority should be the well-being and comprehensive development of children and adolescents, and therefore insisted that any modification to the calendar must be done with sufficient planning and taking into account the conditions of the school communities.
For her part, the governor of Guanajuato, Libia García Muñoz Ledo, requested that the state not be included in the announced changes for the school year because it does not Guanajuato will host the World Cup.
“From Guanajuato, we invite reflection on the proposed agreement and, if deemed necessary, a differentiated proposal as we presented yesterday (Thursday). Our state is not a World Cup host, and our educational facilities are ready to handle the high temperatures.”
Another organization that expressed its rejection of the measure was the Network of Women United for Education, questioning who will supervise the students during the holidays.
The Network indicated that bringing forward the holidays is not a minor administrative measure, but a political decision that will have profound consequences for millions of children, adolescents, and especially for women.
It stated that the invisible cost falls on women. Therefore, it questioned the lack of a gender perspective in making this decision, as well as the absence of any evaluation.
“Where was the gender perspective when this decision was made? Who assessed the impact it will have on working mothers? Who thought about women who live paycheck to paycheck and lack support networks? Who thought about the teachers who are also mothers?” the statement reads.
Martha Tagle, a former legislator and gender consultant, pointed out that taking away a month of classes from children and adolescents not only harms their right to education but also threatens the job security of mothers.
“During the Covid-19 lockdown, when classes were first suspended and then online learning began, it was primarily women who lost their jobs because they are the first to have to resign in order to stay home and care for their children,” she said in an interview.
The president of the Parents’ Union of southern Tamaulipas, David Hernández Muñiz, stated that “every year there is a different excuse to shorten the number of days students spend in the classroom, and this negatively impacts their learning, since that time cannot be made up and the curriculum becomes increasingly less comprehensive, thus diminishing the quality of education for young people and children.”
In Morelos, the president of the Parents’ Association, Mauricio Miranda, asserted that bringing forward the end of the school year does not help combat the educational gap that has persisted since the pandemic.
“The World Cup is indeed a distraction; it is having an impact, and perhaps it’s the main reason for the adjustment. The less time they spend in the classroom, the less they’ll be able to acquire knowledge,” he noted.
Óscar Montaño, president of the Association of Parents of Basic Education Students in Baja California Sur, acknowledged that the measure is divisive. He believes the impact varies depending on each household’s circumstances, although in many cases the adjustment complicates families’ internal organization.
“Parents have to find other options for their children: where to leave them for so long. They won’t just have them for half a day; they’ll have them alone for the entire day. They have to look for relatives, grandparents, aunts, uncles, whoever. And if they don’t have anywhere to leave them, they’d have to pay someone or take them to extracurricular activities or something to keep the child occupied, because leaving them alone isn’t a very good idea either,” Montaño said.
For Javier San Agustín Velasco, president of the National Union of Parents in the State of Mexico, the measure represents “a very serious mistake,” especially in a context where students are still struggling with learning gaps resulting from the Covid-19 pandemic.
“In Mexico, we have one of the highest rates of educational underachievement, and performance is practically always deficient in national and international assessments. These seven weeks being removed from the school year could seriously harm students’ knowledge and learning.”
MOMS AND DADS SEE DISADVANTAGES
Parents say that having their children at home for up to three months will mean more work and expenses at home.
“It affects me a lot financially because that’s when we spend the most, when they’re home because they want to eat all the time. If we have enough food in the fridge for a month, they want to finish it all in no time,” said Rosi, the mother of a girl in third grade at an elementary school in the Iztacalco borough of Mexico City.
Jazmín, the mother of a girl who also attends a school in Iztacalco, indicated that expenses with her daughter at home for three months will increase, mainly due to food. “I hope they offer longer courses, I don’t know.”
Jazmín, who works from home, pointed out that the workload will also increase because, in addition to focusing on her job, she will have to pay more attention to her daughter.
“While they’re learning, you’re working, and now that won’t be possible.”
In Celaya, Guanajuato, parents believe the measure will negatively impact both student learning and household organization.
“Education is already bad, and now they want to cut even more,” lamented Sergio López, a father.
Liliana Quezada, the mother of a first-grade student in Morelos, stated that this decision will affect her financially, since “I’ll have to pay the person who used to help me pick him up more; now I’ll have to pay them to watch him from early morning until I get back to work.”
In the city of Puebla, Mariana Campo, who has a daughter in middle school, indicated that she disagrees with the early vacation announced by the Ministry of Education (SEP), as there won’t be enough time to assess the students.
For Alma Hernández, also a resident of Puebla, it was a mistake on the part of school authorities, given that schools have had “too many long weekends” in recent weeks, such as those on May 1st, 4th, and 5th.
In Fresnillo, Zacatecas, Óscar Iván Solís Gutiérrez, whose children attend the Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz School, expressed his opposition to the measure: “I am against it because we have already failed; there have been many strikes for different reasons; it sets students back. The adjustment is not justified because of soccer.”
He explained that, since both he and his wife work, they will have to enroll their children in summer courses starting in June, which will represent “a considerable economic and logistical effort for the family.”
In Tlaxcala, Aracely Ávila, who has children in preschool, elementary, and middle school, acknowledged that due to the high cost of summer courses, it will be better to keep them at home.
Rosangel, a mother from Mexicali, commented that she will have to adjust her work schedule since she works while her son is in school.
“We have to adjust because we hadn’t planned for this. As parents, we already have a very established routine in our work and personal lives, and it was a very sudden change,” she said.
Victoria, a mother in Michoacán, complained that by bringing forward the end of the school year, the expenses for graduation celebrations are also brought forward.
But “what worries me most is the academic aspect because I feel that (my son) isn’t well prepared for the secondary school entrance exam.”
In Chilpancingo, Karla Carreto, a member of the third-grade parent committee at the Emperador Cuauhtémoc Elementary School, noted that some parents are unhappy about the extended vacation, mainly because of the amount of time their children will be out of school.
“Working at home is not the same as working at school; there, the children pay more attention to the teacher. You can support them, but not all parents have the time because they work,” she said. With information from Montserrat Maldonado and OEM Publishers
Source: oem
