Introduction

In school education, the importance of establishing a link between the family and the school is valued as way of ensuring learning of all students. In fact, the family-school relationship is defined as an indispensable link, as family and school are considered fundamental for the upbringing, care, and education of children (MINEDUC, ²⁰⁰⁹ ). In this way, the family-school relationship is constituted as one of the essential elements, to develop the teaching and learning processes, facilitating the academic and educational success of students (Arias-Ortega, ²⁰²² ). This link is co-constructed through reflective processes, which emerge from reciprocal interactions among the subject, the educational context, and their culture (Marín, ²⁰²¹ ). Thus, if there are no processes of participation and linkage between family and school, it is difficult to build a positive educational relationship.

In indigenous educational contexts, in general, the school-family-community relationship has historically been strained. Families claim not to be taken into consideration for educational input, while school administrators claim that indigenous parents are poorly concerned about the education of their children, usually disengaged them from school activities (Arias-Ortega, ^2020b ). These tensions between both institutions undoubtedly have a negative impact on the schooling of indigenous children, collateral problems such as lack of communication and eventual as school dropout. In this perspective, the research question that guides our study is: what are the challenges of the family-school relationship in a Mapuche context, from the teachers’ perspective who work in two rural schools in La Araucanía, Chile?

Experiences of the family-school relationship at global and local level

Literature review on the family-school relationship in indigenous contexts in countries such as Australia, Spain, Venezuela, Colombia, Peru, Mexico, and at local level (Chile) shows that family-school link is of the utmost importance for the orientation of the teaching and learning process (Rodríguez et al , ²⁰²⁰ ; Hernández, ²⁰¹⁷ ; Razeto, ²⁰¹⁶ ). However, research on family-school relationship in indigenous contexts shows that, in general, these relationships are strained. For example, studies conducted by Müller ( ²⁰¹² ) and Macdonald et al . ( ²⁰¹⁸ ) argue that there are gaps that hinder the establishment of a family-school bond in an indigenous context in Australia as: 1) indigenous parents feel isolated from the educational community; when they attend school assemblies the logic of the discourse is predominantly ‘European’ (Müller, ²⁰¹² ); 2) indigenous families recognize that educational policies do not consider indigenous episteme in the school curriculum, therefore, the interaction between family-school is conceived as scarce or detached from their reality (Macdonald et al ., ²⁰¹⁸ ).

Studies carried out in Spain show that, in general, the gypsy and culturally diverse families are left aside in the educational process by teachers. This is problematical as families are made invisible, even though they symbolize a fundamental pillar in the teaching and learning processes (Simon; Giné; Echeita, ²⁰¹⁶ ). In Venezuela, studies developed by Rodríguez et al ., ( ²⁰²⁰ ) and Hernández ( ²⁰¹⁷ ) argue that the family-school relationship can be viewed as beneficial and contradictive. The benefits refer to the transmission of values, habits, and parental support, which allows students to achieve better school performance (Rodríguez et al ., ²⁰²⁰ ). Contradictions refer to the relationship of early parental abandonment, aggressive parental upbringing, and migration, which lead to detrimental behavior in school performance (Rodríguez et al ., ²⁰²⁰ ). Likewise, it is also revealed that in general, the teacher rarely fosters conditions that promote spaces for reflection to involve family members into the learning process, which might give way to a family-school-community alliance (Hernández, ²⁰¹⁷ ). The authors maintain that the family-school linkage is relevant because if a collaborative relationship is established, opportunities provided by each institution would complement each other for an integral educational development of indigenous students.

In the Colombian experience, the family-school relationship in indigenous territory has historically had a tense logic. Indigenous families do not agree with the curriculum, due to the fact that their ancestral sense is lost, and their culture minimized by a Westernized approach (Pacheco, ²⁰²¹ ). Indigenous families regard this an “attack on the collective memory”, so they carry out strategies to achieve their own education that connects with their culture. Castillo ( ²⁰¹⁶ ), argues that the lack of teacher training in terms of pedagogical management on the incorporation of indigenous communities’ own knowledge into the school curriculum, hinders the teaching and learning processes. This is expressed in the fact that indigenous children generally have a low academic performance due to the lack of “adaptability” in the teaching and learning processes based on a centralized logic. In Peru, a study by Saqui ( ²⁰²⁰ ) argues that, if a school promotes active participation of the indigenous family at all educational levels, children will have more chances of academic success as opposed to schools that do not. This has the potential of closing existing gaps between indigenous and non-indigenous students in the school system. In addition, Silva ( ²⁰²⁰ ) points out that for a better family-school linkage in an indigenous context, it is of vital importance to consider indigenous culture and a pedagogy that incorporates native language and their own teaching ways in the educational processes.

In the same logic, a study developed in Mexico on the involvement of Ch’ol families in the educational process show that it is characterized by a high level of parental participation in consultative and decision-making contexts (Bastiani; Bermúdez, ²⁰¹⁵ ). However, families are a scarcely involved in aspects related to vocabulary and reading. In relation to the above, Bastiani and Bermúdez ( ²⁰¹⁵ ) argue that there is a direct relationship between low parents’ involvement and their school background. Parents do not feel empowered to support their children if their schooling level is low.

In Chile, on the one hand, the family-school relationship in the indigenous context in particular is restricted to nominal family participation in the teaching and learning processes (Arias-Ortega, ²⁰²⁰ ; Castillo et al ., ²⁰²⁰ ). Thus, indigenous family participation is limited only to attendance to school meetings, individual interviews involving the head teacher and parents to talk about problems faced by students in class (Cárcamo; Méndez, 2019). Both the school and the family do not recognize their reciprocal importance in the educational process. It is maintained that indigenous knowledge might foster development of the socio-cultural identity of the students (Arias-Ortega, ²⁰²¹ ). On the other hand, Pacheco ( ²⁰²¹ ) argues that parents often place the responsibility of lecturing students and teaching them manners on the school, without taking into consideration that they are responsible for maintaining their role of monitoring and supporting their children’ learning progress.

Research by Webb, Canales and Becerra ( ²⁰¹⁶ ) have found that a close family-school link has not been established in an indigenous context, due to the fact that schools make students responsible for their own learning, under the excuse that their personal and family difficulties have an impact on their low academic success. Likewise, geographic isolation makes it difficult for families to attend their children’s schools and to actively participate in their children’ education. In addition, there is a lack of teacher training on how to implement pedagogical strategies based on an intercultural approach that might make teachers more aware of the cultural and territorial reality of their students (Torres; Friz, ²⁰²⁰ ). In coherence with the above, Torres and Friz ( ²⁰²⁰ ) state that the family-school relationship in an indigenous context is influenced by elements such as: 1) geographical access to school or 2) and the nature of the educational projects of the school that is not usually linked to the needs of the indigenous families and communities. From this point of view, the school is disarticulated in relation to the real needs and characteristics of the Mapuche territory.

Methodology

The current study used a qualitative methodology, which proposed a way of constructing knowledge based on subjectivity and intersubjectivity, thus allowing a global vision of the challenges of the family-school relationship in a Mapuche context from the teachers’ perspective (Salgado, ²⁰⁰⁷ ).

The study involved two schools in Mapuche communities of La Araucanía in Chile. The inclusion criteria for the schools were: 1) municipal and/or private subsidized schools with single and/or multi-grade classes with an enrollment of students of Mapuche ancestry and non-Mapuche students; 2) schools located in rural or semi-rural Mapuche communities in each territory with more than 20 years of existence in the territory. The participant selection technique was non-probabilistic, in which participants were selected according to the inclusion criteria and interests of the researchers (Fortin, ²⁰¹⁰ ). The participants were teachers working in these schools, who voluntarily agreed to participate in the study.

The data collection instrument was a semi-directed interview, during which direct conversation was engaged, conducted on the basis of a previously written script (Fortin, ²⁰¹⁰ ; Gauthier; Bourgeois, ²⁰¹⁶ ). The contents addressed by the interview were: 1) the meaning of school in an indigenous context; 2) facilitating factors in the family-school-community relationship; 3) hindering factors in the family-school-community relationship; and 4) improvement actions that could strengthen the family-school-community relationship in an indigenous context.

The information analysis technique used was content analysis in complementarity with grounded theory. In this regard, Parra et al. ( ²⁰¹⁷ ) state that content analysis is a procedure for analyzing textual material which allows the identification of explicit and latent contents that emerge from the participants’ discourse. The purpose of grounded theory is to understand how individuals define a phenomenon or event through their social interaction (Vivar et al ., ²⁰¹⁰ ). The process of information analysis from grounded theory involved an open and axial coding of the participants’ testimonies (Charmaz, ²⁰⁰⁷ ; Hernández, ²⁰¹⁴ ). This process ended once theoretical saturation had been achieved, i.e., a process during which no new data from which further questions can be developed are found (Hernández, ²⁰¹⁴ , p. 94). The interviews were coded according to the following nomenclature: 1) I: Interview. 2) T: Teacher. 3) F or M: Female or Male Gender. Similarly, the interviewees will be identified by ATLAS.ti software as follows: (I1TM [121:121]). The ethical safeguards considered were informed consent and the Singapore Declaration, both aspects ensured a voluntary and active participation of informants in the study (Mondragon-Barrios, ²⁰⁰⁹ ; Taboada, ²⁰¹⁷ ).

Results

The results obtained in this research were organized around the central category “Family-school relationship in an indigenous context” which was then divided into three sub-categories ( Table 1 ).

Tensioning factors of the family-school relationship in an indigenous context

The first subcategory – “Tensioning factors of the family-school relationship in an indigenous context” – referred to obstacles that hinder development and maintenance of the family-school relationship in the teaching-learning process. The subcategory included: extracurricular activities of students, sense of culture, cultural stigmatization, sociocultural context, school dropout, territorial contextualization, and curricular modification.

Extracurricular activities of the students were defined as activities performed by students that fell outside the realm of the normal curriculum of school. In relation to this, a testimony pointed out that: “[At home] children keep an eye on animals, on pigs, with everything, chopping firewood, bringing it in. They are relieved of other responsibilities except homework. Homework come at last” (I4TF [115:115]). This testimony shows that, in addition to carrying out school activities, students must do house chores and random errands. This lead teachers to perceive little parents’ interest on their children’s schooling. Thus, to fulfill their obligations in the family environment, children had to spend most of their time on household activities.

Sense of culture referred to how indigenous families had lost their ancestral practices of oral tradition, which had a negative impact on the teaching-learning process. In this regard, a teacher noted that:

The importance [of indigenous knowledge for children’s education] lies in the fact that they will know their origins; it is important that we all know our origins. I consider myself to be completely ignorant of my origins. Knowing one’s origins would make us more engaged on our daily lives; it would make us value what we have and project ourselves in that sense. (I2TF [85:85]).

When it came to Mapuche historical background, it was inferred that teachers’ appreciation varied according to the degree of knowledge they had of it. This lack of knowledge could be somehow associated to their initial teacher training process, which had historically erased indigenous knowledge. This is worrying if we consider that nowadays there is a significant number of indigenous students in the Chilean school system who deserve contextualized and culturally relevant education. Indeed, the fact that teachers do not have the necessary tools to understand the culture of origin of their students is a limitation that hinders the family-school relationship. This is because there is little effective communication between schools and indigenous families. In the same sense, the lack of knowledge of indigenous knowledge makes it difficult to offer education that reinforces the socio-cultural identity of the students, an element of vital importance to form indigenous students with a sense of belonging. In this regard, a teacher pointed out: “[Incorporating Mapuche knowledge at school would help] them feel their own identity, that they belong to a proud culture. We have pupils who are ashamed of their cultural background. They do not even speak the language [ Mapudungun ], they just cannot” (I4TF [71:71]). In relation to the story, it is inferred that, although there is a large percentage of students of Mapuche origin, there is no continuity in the teaching process, neither among the students and their families. This cultural discontinuity is a factor that strains the family-school relationship, due to the contradiction between the desire to consider Mapuche culture as part of the curriculum or at least as supplementary contribution.

Cultural stigmatization referred to the way in which teachers deemed indigenous students’ families and the rural territory in which they lived. Teachers, in general, pictured indigenous territory as a place of ‘backwardness’. Teachers considered that the rural environment in which students and their families made their living lacked ambition and maintained ‘mediocre’ expectations of their children’s future. In this regard, a teacher remarked that:

They [the students] are raised in an environment in which the only thing they think about is working. They do not have thoughts of their own, they do not open their minds to the fact that. if they study hard, they could achieve better job opportunities and eventually a better standard of life. So, they are locked running in an endless circle, so it is difficult for them to get out of there. (I1TM [82:82]).

In this way, preconceptions about rural-indigenous environment are marked by “mediocrity” or by the idea that student’s success is determined by the place they come from, and these persist over time. Consequently, prejudice fosters tension in the family-school relationship. From the teachers’ point of view, it is assumed that parents see school as a means for their children to acquire certain knowledge that will allow them to have a better economic situation. Thus, teachers see school as a ladder for social mobility. Nevertheless, teachers see the benefits of education from a centralized perspective that comprises only educational training and economic welfare.

Sociocultural context referred to the teacher’s general notion of the social and cultural environment of the territory in which the school was located. Geographical location, social and economic vulnerability, and decontextualized educational planning were considered, among others. With respect to social vulnerability, one teacher claimed:

I would say that a high percentage of parents who send their children to school because they often do not have enough food for their children. In fact, children go to school to have a decent meal. The other thing is that there are many parents who work and have nowhere to leave their children, so they are forced to send their children to school every day. (I4TF [29:29]).

This teacher considered that parents sent their children to school for economic reasons. This prejudiced view leads to think that parents are “disengaged” from their responsibilities. Teachers, in general, thought that it was the parents’ duty to provide food and personal care for their children. This type of prejudice directly affected the family-school relationship since erroneous thoughts as families were not seen as providers but as dependent of school support.

School dropout means a school-age student who is served by a public school district and enrolled in any of elementary or secondary grades who does not attend school. This may be due to geographic isolation, family pressure or low economic income. One teacher pointed out that:

Students don’t finish school and, on top of that, they take care of their family business because their parents have grown old. So, they assume the role of protector, the role of provider. Most times they prefer to take care of the family’s business rather than “wasting” five years in school. There are others who enter university and realize that they cannot go on because of their family business so they drop out [...]. (I2TF [126:126]).

In this regard, it is inferred that many times students abandon their studies in order to get a stable job and be able to contribute to their household income. This has a negative impact on the family-school relationship, since teachers perceive that families give greater priority to obtaining immediate income at home than to the formal continuation of their children’s studies.

Territorial contextualization referred to how teachers made subjects more flexible to students’ cultural background to facilitate understanding. In this regard, a teacher said:

(Teaching is contextualized), for example, you tell students: “you have ten chickens, and the fox will eat three, how many chickens do you have left?” You must put it down to what they see in their everyday lives, you don’t talk about flying sources, I doubt they have seen a Martian in the flesh. (I1TM [187:187]).

According to this testimony, it is inferred that teachers try to understand and adapt contents imposed by the school curriculum. However, teachers’ testimonies reveal that there is notorious territorial decontextualization. This strains the family-school relationship, as school education is alien to indigenous culture.

Curricular modification referred to teachers’ perceptions about students’ needs which should lead to better intercultural teaching practices. In this regard, a teacher added:

To lay the ground for the curriculum, maybe making it change, to focus more on the cultures so that everything comes together, because we are allegedly working now for a more inclusive curriculum, and inclusion also has to do with culture. How are you going to integrate, for example, an Aymara, Mapuche, or Rapa Nui child who speaks their language and you don’t... you don’t even know what their culture is about? (I5TF [273:273]).

In relation to the testimony, it is possible to glimpse that there is a problem in the official school curriculum as it obstructs the work of teachers. This is due to the distance between the learning contents imposed by state policies and students’ needs in the rural-indigenous territory. There is an explicit need for teachers to update the curriculum to consider the demands of the school without leaving out the voice of parents. This would make it possible to generate instances where the family-school relationship by finding common ground and objectives. Thus, promoting family-school relationship in an indigenous context for academic and cultural purposes is socioculturally pertinent.

Facilitating factors of the family-school relationship in an indigenous context

The subcategory “facilitating factors of the family-school relationship in an indigenous context” refers to effective communication, active participation, and family involvement. In this subcategory there are four codes: extracurricular closeness, teacher’s contribution, transgenerational school, and benefits of schooling.

Extracurricular closeness referred to interaction among students, family, and teachers in a natural context. Extracurricular closeness implied creating interpersonal relationships, bringing students to a closer perspective. A testimony pointed out that “many times we have given out food to our (indigenous) students, we have even delivered those supplies in person [...]” (I4TF [53:53]). From this testimony, it could be inferred that the teachers’ initiative aimed to contribute beyond the curricular content. Within this same line of argument, it was reported that: “We do clothing campaigns […] we collect clothes, we give away clothes, because as I was saying, there are many families with very limited resources” (I4TF [119:119]). Consequently, teachers’ concern goes beyond school.

Teacher’s contribution referred to how teachers perceived their own work. In this regard it was reported that:

My task is to generate strategies to help them, especially children who are having a hard time. The idea is to help them understand. Many of them know how to read, but they don’t know how to take it in. The idea is to make them understand, to take in experiences and to socialize. Relating to other people will help them learn. (I2TF [57:57]).

It can be inferred that teachers’ comprehension skills are essential as they lead academic process. Therefore, this contribution should be linked to the voices of parents, thus strengthening family-school-indigenous community participation strategies.

Transgenerational school referred to appreciating how previous generations of parents had undergone schooling. A teacher said: “Many grew up together and were former students who later had their children, currently their grandchildren, so it is like schools have received generation after generation.” (I3TF [21:21]). According to the testimony, the family-school relationship is favored by the construction of a sense of belonging.

Finally, benefits of schooling referred to how teachers perceived that, through formal education, students had access to advantages and opportunities that otherwise they would not have obtained. For example, psychosocial support from the school to students’ families, the opportunity to become professionals, and preparation for working life. Consequently, it was reflected in the teachers’ testimonies that the family usually perceives the school precisely as an opportunity for academic and future success. In this sense, one teacher said:

It has done them a lot of good to belong to a school, to go to classes, because it opens more possibilities for them, you see now lawyers who are Mapuche and who have great social positions. So that has helped them, to become part of it and to realize that they are not going to be excluded just because they are Mapuche. (I2TF [51:51]).

With respect to the testimony, it was possible to appreciate the importance that the teacher attributes to the schooling process, since, from her point of view, indigenous children who have access to education would have several advantages. Among them, access to food benefits because the school was in the same rural area where the indigenous students lived, which made it easier for them to go to school. Likewise, having the opportunity to access education allowed indigenous students to expand their knowledge both professionally and personally. This promotes upward social mobility, that is, indigenous students achieve better levels of social welfare and economic growth.

Challenges of the family-school relationship in indigenous contexts

The subcategory “Challenges of the family-school relationship” referred to the academic and personal challenges experienced by teachers in their professional work. It was made up of three codes: 1) Family expectations; 2) Family participation; and 3) Teacher aspiration.

Family expectations referred to the positive practices that the family-school relationship should have, in which teachers stated how they would strengthen this bond in their schools. Emphasis was placed on the ideal contributions of families in the teaching-learning process. In this regard, a teacher mentioned that:

Contributing with their own knowledge, for example, something that happened to me years ago was that suddenly some parents would go the school and they made their contribution. In one of my classes I came up with a recipe and a mother said “hey, look. Next week we can make some dessert”, or in the garden some mother said once “hey, but you know I can get some worm – I don’t what’s it called – that helps for the issue of decomposition”. (I2TF [124:124]).

In relation to the above, it was observed that teachers expected greater commitment and interest from the families of indigenous students in the teaching and learning process. This implied that the family should not become a passive entity in the academic process of their children. Rather, parents should be able to contribute their Mapuche knowledge and traditions so that indigenous and non-indigenous students could become familiar with and identify themselves with their culture. In this way, ties would be strengthened not only with their children, but also with the entire educational community.

Family participation referred to the teachers’ perception of the degree of interest and participation of the families of indigenous students in their educational process. In relation to this code, one teacher commented:

There are different kinds of families everywhere, there are parents who care a lot, who are aware of everything, who read for example all the teacher’s messages and who are aware of all homework one sends; and there are others who unfortunately are not so involved, for various reasons as I was saying. Maybe they work, there are many others who are willing, but unfortunately, they do not have the tools to help their children. (I3TF [41:41]).

Regarding this story, it could be pointed out that the teacher understood the various factors that could influence family participation, taking into consideration the socio-cultural context of the students. Many times, parents are not present not by their own decision, but by the need of providing home. Likewise, the low participation of parents could be explained because of the ineffective communication that existed between the families and the schools of indigenous students.

Finally, Teaching Aspiration code referred mainly to teachers’ forward-looking view of what they expect at the academic and from the school administration so that they can positively influence students through changes that are in line with student and family demands. Thus, there was a wish for structuring the school and to add up to the lack of territorial and cultural contextualization. In agreement with this, a teacher remarked:

If there had been a ruka type room, if there had been another type of window, another type of space, if they had all been sitting around an imaginary bonfire… if that atmosphere had been generated, I think that children, in my opinion, would have learned much more and would have found it much more interesting. (I2TF [41:41]).

In relation to the teacher’s account, it could be inferred that the ‘ideal’ school had a type of structure that was more in tune with the site and culture of the indigenous students, which would mean a much more enriching teaching-learning process. They also believed that if the position of the chairs in the classroom were slightly modified, this asymmetrical relationship between teacher-student could have been reduced. From the teachers’ point of view, this would allow greater confidence in the students, since they would feel more confident to state their points of view and have them recognized, following the logic that each one has something different to contribute.

Discussion and conclusions

The research results allow to sustain that the family-school relationship in an indigenous context, in general, is strained due to ineffective communication between families and the school. It should be noted that most parents and guardians of indigenous students speak and/or understand their native language, therefore, they have a different worldview, beliefs, and symbolisms than non-indigenous teachers have (Arias-Ortega, ²⁰²¹ ). Instead, teachers have a low command of the indigenous language and knowledge of Mapuche culture, which leads to unsatisfactory family-school communication in relation to the educational process. This is consistent with the literature reviewed at international level, which shows that, in general, there is an intercultural gap that distances the family from the school. In relation to the communication problems between the family and the school in indigenous contexts, Castillo ( ²⁰¹⁶ ) argues that this is a factor that produces distancing and tension between both educational actors. In this way, the lack of adequate communication negatively affects the sense of culture and formation of children in indigenous contexts. This contradicts the essential function of the school, this is, the closest environment for students after home that in ‘theory’ should contribute with tools such as theoretical knowledge and social and interpersonal skills to offer children and youth whole education from a perspective of social, cultural, and territorial belonging (Ortega; Cárcamo, ²⁰¹⁷ ). Reality that, according to our research results, is questionable, since the school invisibilizes the context and expectations of Mapuche families and communities, as schools follow static, centralized regulations that, historically, have been focused on an individualistic and market logic. In this way, it does not necessarily consider the local, cultural, and territorial reality in which the teaching and learning processes are situated (Arias-Ortega, ²⁰²¹ ).

In the same perspective, it was found that there are prejudices on the part of the teachers towards the Mapuche families participating in the study. These prejudices are understood as erroneous beliefs and hostile attitudes that are established before even getting to know a given individual or group (Fernández, ²⁰¹¹ ). The prejudices towards Mapuche parents are expressed as a perception of ‘mediocrity’ and ‘social marginality’ towards Mapuche families, which generates tension in the educational relationship, thus affecting the teaching and learning process. Likewise, prejudices towards Mapuche boys and girls are noted, assuming that they will obtain a lower academic performance. In the same sense, teachers blame parents for not being able to motivate their children to continue with their educational process. This also has repercussions on the interest and degree of participation of indigenous families in the teaching-learning process of their children, as they perceive this negative conception towards them. Therefore, families choose to distance themselves as they feel that there is no room for participation in the educational process and decision making. Consequently, prejudice interferes considerably in the academic performance of students, and hinders a positive development of the family-school relationship. This is consistent with the research results of Silva ( ²⁰²⁰ ), who argues the need to think about new school contents in an intercultural perspective, which implies articulating local knowledge with disciplinary knowledge, progressively reversing the prejudice towards ‘the indigenous’. To this end, we maintain that it is urgent to promote awareness processes in the school, the family, and the community, regarding the importance of linking these educational actors to collectively contribute to the school and to the students’ educational success. This poses the challenge of establishing awareness processes in the school and the family regarding the need to move towards an intercultural perspective that considers, respects, and values social and cultural diversity, indigenous knowledge, and the knowledge each educational actor has.

In conclusion, we found that there are challenges associated with the existing tension in the family-school relationship, produced by the lack of teachers’ mastery of both the language and Mapuche culture. Besides, the scarce incorporation of Mapuche cultural content in the pre-established school curriculum adds up to this tension. These shortcomings have a negative impact on the teaching-learning process of indigenous students since the learning contents are not associated with their socio-territorial reality. This lack of accommodation makes it difficult for indigenous students to understand and take contents in. As the predominant logic in the teachers’ discourse is Westernized, it has repercussions on the cultural identity of indigenous children and youth.

In this sense, it is urgent that school education in indigenous contexts should exercise intercultural strategies in practice to strengthen the family-school-community link fostering a sense of belonging to the territory, the culture, and the language in an indigenous context. Similarly, it is necessary to adjust public policies to promote communication channels, beyond nominal participation. This would allow the expansion of educational tools to respond to the demands of a society for quality and commitment in the family-school relationship which promotes in turn appraisal of diversity and incorporates indigenous parents and guardians’ opinions when deciding which learning contents should be included in the educational process of their children.