The CNB in Guatemala: centralized education at the service of international ideological agendas

Education is one of the most powerful tools for shaping a society's thinking and values. Therefore, what is taught in the classroom It is never a merely technical decision, but a profoundly political one. In Guatemala, the National Base Curriculum (CNB)—the document that defines the minimum content at all educational levels—has been reformed multiple times under the direct influence of international organizations and foreign agencies such as USAID, which promote a vision alien to the cultural and ethical values of the majority of Guatemalans.

Far from guaranteeing the right to a quality education, the CNB has become a channel for introducing foreign concepts and visions, particularly on topics such as sexuality, family, gender, and human rights. This is not speculation: the CNB's own official website recognizes its alignment with the 2030 Education Agenda, promoted by multilateral organizations that foster cultural transformation from the classroom. One of the pillars of this agenda is Comprehensive Sexual Education, which, more than providing information, seeks to reconfigure, from an early age, the way children understand their identity, their relationships, and their role in society.

Now, the role of agencies like USAID has been key in this process. Through funding for educational materials, training, and pilot programs, USAID has promoted approaches that often directly contradict the beliefs of Guatemalan families. This interference is not minor, as it directly affects what is taught in schools—even in private institutions—which are required to be based on the CNB. This is not a suggestion, but an obligation, as all public schools, as well as private schools, must align their teaching with the CNB. Regardless of their institutional ideology, pedagogical approach, or religious beliefs, they are subject to an official curriculum imposed by the Ministry of Education. This drastically reduces the scope of educational freedom and leaves no alternative for those who wish to educate their children according to their principles. This brings us to the underlying problem: the state monopoly on education. When the state—in alliance with foreign interests—assumes the exclusive power to define what all the country's children should learn, it imposes a single worldview.

While USAID has played a key role in promoting ideological approaches within the Guatemalan education system, it is important to emphasize that the CNB itself has adopted many of the frameworks and approaches of the 2030 Agenda, not necessarily linked to USAID programs. This demonstrates that such ideological content in Guatemalan education is not only imposed from outside, but has also been assimilated and promoted from within the national education system.

The  CNB not only centralizes teaching, but also legally shields ideological content. In other words, if a teacher decides to widely implement programs on gender identity, sexual diversity, or family deconstruction, they can do so with official support, without parents having effective mechanisms to object.

This asymmetry of power between the State—along with its international allies—and Guatemalan families is deeply alarming. Parents are left unprotected in the face of an educational machinery that promotes values outsiders, while teachers have carte blanche to indoctrinate, as long as they do so under the protection of the CNB. Therefore, it is not enough to point out controversial content. It is urgent to question the model itself; a centralized education, controlled by the State and financed in part by international agendas, is not a free education. It is a system of indoctrination that undermines the country's cultural sovereignty and the primary right of parents to educate their children according to their beliefs.

If Guatemala seeks a high-quality and truly free education, it is essential to move toward a decentralized system that recognizes families' right to choose the type of education they want for their children. Only in this way can we guarantee an education that educates, not indoctrinates.

Education, in its purest essence, is a moral and practical responsibility which falls on families, not on the State. However, centralization education has become an instrument to impose ideological agendas, weakening the self-determination of communities and dismantling individual freedom. Instead of fulfilling their educational function, the State has turned public schools into a means of political, ideological, and moral indoctrination. Guatemala is no stranger to this problem, especially when looking at the content of the CNB itself.

The CNB constitutes the official framework that defines what teachers should teach. at the different levels of the Guatemalan education system. In practice, this

instrument has become a vehicle for indoctrination. It turns out particularly worrying is the deep interference of international agencies, such as the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), which has financed, designed, and promoted curricular materials now integrated into the CNB. The aim is to demonstrate the incorporation of sexually explicit content.

explicit and ideological elements have been introduced into Guatemala's public education system through materials promoted and funded by USAID. This information is particularly relevant for Guatemala, as these contents have not only been introduced but have also been officially integrated into the CNB, affecting both public and private schools. Therefore, education, even in private schools, is always controlled by the state and is not free.

USAID's Role in Education in Guatemala

USAID has implemented various educational projects in Guatemala, including the Read and Learn program. The project is executed by Juárez & Asociados, Inc. (2014–2019), which was integrated into the official CNB website that remains active today. as the main contractor, with Plan International and Child Fund as subcontractors. Through this initiative, educational guides, modules, and materials have been created and funded, and these have been officially adopted by the National Base Curriculum (NBC). In 2014, the Minister of Education was Cynthia del Águila, with a background linked to USAID-funded projects. She also worked at ASIES and at Universidad del Valle de Guatemala. The director of USAID's “Leer y Aprender” project, Fernando Rubio, was also the project director at the contracting firm Juárez & Associates and had also worked at Universidad del Valle de Guatemala.

However, several of the documents generated in this context have raised serious concerns due to its explicit sexual content and its content ideological. Below are some of the most representative materials:

1. Youth for Equality: Practical Guide to Alternative Masculinities

This guide redefines the concept of gender, presenting it as a construction social unrelated to biological sex. In addition, it introduces notions such as "alternative masculinities," sexual diversity, and fluid sexual orientation. It is argued that it is difficult to find a positive definition of what "man" means, and that to justify the privileges granted at birth, men must constantly reaffirm their difference from women.

According to the document, traditional masculinity is built on a “triple “denial”: not being a woman, not being homosexual, and not being a child. This perspective presents male identity as an oppressive construct that inevitably leads to misogyny, homophobia, and contempt for vulnerability.

Instead of promoting a balanced and positive vision of masculinity – which Include values such as responsibility, leadership, and protection—the text conveys to young people a perception of guilt and distrust toward their masculine identity. This approach, far from promoting critical reflection, seems to lead to a systematic devaluation of the traditional masculine role, without offering a clear or constructive alternative.

In section 6 of Topic 2, entitled “A more complete man”, of the Guide practice of alternative masculinities, says that “the characteristics that allow Defining what it means to be a man is learned and not innate, biological, or natural.” This statement contains one of the most central aspects of gender feminism and queer theory: that masculine identity is completely constructed by society and is therefore a synthetic, constructible, and redefinable construction, denying any biological assignment.

Youth for Equality: A Practical Guide to Alternative Masculinities.

http://www.usaidlea.org/images/Alternative_Masculinities_2019_F.pdf

CNB Link:

https://cnbguatemala.org/wiki/Educar_para_la_igualdad/J%C3%B3venes_por_la_igualdad_-_Gu%C3%ADa_pr%C3%A1ctica_de_masculinidades_alternativas

2. Module 2: Basic concepts about gender

This module includes a glossary that addresses terms such as transgender, transsexual, transvestite, intersex, homophobia, patriarchy, and empowerment. It also presents the LGBTQ movement as a legitimate and necessary social struggle and incorporates a feminist perspective into its content.

Particular attention is paid to the inclusion of Simone de Beauvoir's The Second Sex as a reference reading. It features the famous phrase, "One is not born a woman, one becomes one," which takes on considerable prominence within the module. This work, more than a neutral exposition of the history of feminism, constitutes one of the pillars of radical feminist thought. It is worth noting that in 1977, Simone de Beauvoir, along with Michel Foucault, Jean-Paul Sartre, and other French intellectuals, signed a public letter published in Le Monde calling for the decriminalization of sexual relations between adults and minors. The manifesto criticized French laws that criminalize all sexual acts with minors under 15, even when "consensual." This precedent raises serious doubts about the appropriateness of promoting this work as a pedagogical reference in the Guatemalan school context.

Another activity in Module 2 of the CNB, "My First Kiss," is designed to introduce the topic of gender and sexuality through students' own experiences. In this activity, students must work in pairs and share what their first kiss was like: with whom, under what circumstances, whether they liked it or not, how they felt, etc. They are then invited to answer questions such as, "Did you know a lot or a little about sexuality when you had your first kiss?" and "Had you received comprehensive sexuality education?" These types of activities force students to recall and verbalize intimate situations that can lead to confusion, vulnerability, or social pressure, especially in a group setting.

Module 2: Basic Concepts on Gender http://www.usaidlea.org/images/MODULO_2_CONCEPTOS_BASICOS_SOBRE_GENER

CNB Link: https://cnbguatemala.org/wiki/Educar_para_la_igualdad/M%C3%B3dulo_2_Conceptos_b%C3%A1sicos_sobre_g%C3%A9nero

3. Module 5: Sexual and reproductive health

This module incorporates content and activities that are highly questionable from a pedagogical and ethical perspective. One of the module's first statements presents masturbation as a healthy practice from an early age, promoting its normalization in education. Based on this premise, students are invited to share their experiences, sexual fantasies, and emotions related to their sexuality. The definition included in the material describes masturbation as "the caressing of a man or woman, primarily using their hands, with the purpose of feeling pleasure and even reaching orgasm." This formulation, presented without age-specific warnings or adequate contextualization, is highly inappropriate because it introduces intimate notions in an explicit, normalized, and institutionalized manner. This violates parents' right to decide when and how these topics should be addressed.

One of the proposed activities, called "Photos That Tell Stories ," asks students to observe images that reflect different expressions of sexual diversity, such as "two men kissing," "two women getting married," "a trans woman," and "children with their two mothers or two fathers." From these images, students must create a story that explores "what their life and sex life have been like." This activity exposes adolescents to forced introspection about deeply intimate aspects, based on visual stimuli that take neither their emotional maturity nor family consent into account. Furthermore, it equates all categories of relationships and family structures as equivalent, consolidating an ideological conception of diversity with no room for criticism or discernment.

A second activity, entitled “Thoughts, Feelings, Discourses and Practices” , requires students – in mixed or same-sex groups – to construct human silhouettes and write, on different parts of the body, answers to questions such as: “What is most important to you about sexuality?”, “What fantasies do you have?”, “Who do you dream about?”, “What ideas come to mind when you think about sexuality?”, “How do you feel about that experience?”, “What actions do you take related to sexuality?”, “What mistakes or blunders have you had to suffer in the exercise of sexuality?” They are also asked to identify emotions such as fears, doubts, affections and desires, as well as to make a list of sexual activities.

These dynamics violate the boundaries of students' privacy, age, and emotional development, subjecting them to inappropriate psychological and sexual exposure. Furthermore, they violate the boundaries of respect for children's innocence, exposing them to premature sexualization and denying them the opportunity to develop in an alternative way. Far from promoting comprehensive education, these proposals institutionalize children's sexuality from an ideological perspective, marginalizing the role of parents as the primary and most important educators in this area.

In addition to personal reflection activities, the module includes a section dedicated to "sexual and reproductive rights," defined as part of human rights and supported by national and international commitments. Within this framework, the idea that a State must guarantee access to sexual health care, family planning, and comprehensive sexuality education is normalized. This ideological conception displaces sexuality from the private and family sphere to the State, presenting it as an autonomous right from childhood and adolescence. This positions the State above parents when it comes to sexuality education, violating their right to raise their children according to their values and beliefs.

Module 5: Sexual and reproductive health

http://www.usaidlea.org/images/Modulo_5.pdf

CNB Link: https://cnbguatemala.org/wiki/Gu%C3%ADas_para_j%C3%B3venes_tutores/M%C3%B3dulo_5_Salud_sexual_y_reproductiva

4. Guide for integrating the gender approach into educational texts and materials

This guide aims to establish guidelines to ensure that all educational materials incorporate the so-called "gender perspective." Far from being limited to a neutral or technical review, this guide is presented as a tool for transforming school content in accordance with a specific ideological vision, one that openly questions the traditional roles of men and women.

Among the most notable elements is an assessment instrument that rates whether textbooks and educational materials include illustrations and content depicting men performing domestic tasks, working in non-traditional professions such as "nurse" or "secretary," or displaying characteristics such as tenderness and sensitivity.

Although in principle it would seem positive to recognize the freedom of each person to develop according to their talents and preferences, the guide's approach promotes a critical and systematic reinterpretation of traditional roles, presenting them as essentially oppressive or undesirable. Thus, the role of a mother in the home or a breadwinning father is displaced by "new" models that, paradoxically, impose their own vision of what should be considered acceptable.

The problem lies not in allowing a woman to become an engineer or a man to dedicate himself to the home—which is legitimate and should be respected—but in conveying, from an institutional and mandatory perspective, that the roles traditionally assumed by men and women are socially constructed and, therefore, must be overcome. True freedom does not consist in rejecting tradition as a system, but in allowing each person to choose their own path, without the State telling them that one role is preferable to another.

Cultural change is also being imposed through language. The guide promotes the systematic use of inclusive language, such as "alumnado" instead of "alumnos," the use of formal forms, such as "los y las estudiantes," and even suggests eliminating common expressions it considers stereotypical. This approach not only alters the naturalness of language, but also forces content to be rewritten according to the criteria of a particular ideology about how gender differences should be discussed and understood.

One of the aspects promoted in this guide is the explicit inclusion of women's role in history, culture, and science, which, in principle, represents a welcome opportunity. However, in practice, this demand is often accompanied by a biased selection of female figures who not only lack social consensus but, in some cases, represent political and ideological positions that have generated controversy in the country's recent history. For example, alongside renowned scientists and educators, activists and strongly ideological figures are included who have polarized Guatemalan society. This biased selection, far from fostering respectful dialogue, runs the risk of instrumentalizing history and education for educational purposes aligned with external agendas.

Thus, this guide does not limit itself to promoting respect and equality, but rather seeks to redesign school materials as instruments of social reengineering, eliminating any reference that does not align with a specific gender perspective. Thus, what should be an open and respectful education ends up being a uniform process of cultural "correction," which, instead of expanding educational freedom, imposes new dogmas, now under the guise of "inclusive" and "non-sexist."

Guide for integrating a gender perspective into educational texts and materials

http://www.usaidlea.org/images/Guide_to_Gender_Integration_in_Bn_Materials.pdf

CNB Link: https://cnbguatemala.org/wiki/Educar_para_la_igualdad/Gu%C3%ADa_para_la_integraci%C3%B3n_del_enfoque_de_g%C3%A9nero_en_textos_y_materiales_educativos

In conclusion, the analysis of the National Base Curriculum reveals that, far from being a neutral pedagogical document, it constitutes an ideological tool that responds to foreign interests and globalist models. Under the guise of inclusion and human rights, concepts of gender, sexual diversity, and reproductive health have been introduced that blur traditional values, parental authority, and the right to educational freedom. The interference of international organizations such as USAID in national education, especially through supposedly "scientific" materials, reveals a systematic strategy of indoctrination. Rather than fostering critical thinking that respects diverse worldviews, the CNB stands as an instrument of cultural homogenization. This research proposes the urgent need question the CNB, reclaiming the right of families to decide on their children's education and respect the values of our society, and our freedom. Parents cannot — and must not — delegate to the State the responsibility of educating their children. This is especially true when it comes to sensitive topics like sexuality. That’s why this is also a strong reminder to all parents: they must stay actively involved in every aspect of their children’s education.