✍️ Introductory Note to the Reader      I am not entirely sure how I came across the article AI Can Revolutionise Education but Technology Is Not Enough: Human Development Meets Cultural Evolution. Yet, as I read through it, I was struck by the comparison between Uruguay’s forward-looking integration of AI in education and the slower pace that Costa Rica is likely to experience—perhaps over decades.      This contrast left me with a sense of sadness, especially as an English teaching professional who witnesses daily how students often misuse AI. Many use it to bypass homework, avoid thinking in the target language, or escape the cognitive effort of practicing English. As I often remind my students: you will not have subtitles or “zapping” in a real job interview. AI can indeed be a powerful educational tool, but the critical question remains—who truly knows how to use it responsibly and effectively?

The Risks of Misusing AI in Costa Rican Education 

	Abstract Artificial Intelligence (AI) is reshaping education worldwide, offering personalized learning, automated assessment, and expanded access. In Costa Rica, these opportunities intersect with a strong national commitment to human development and equity. However, the misuse of AI threatens to undermine rather than enhance educational outcomes. This essay examines the risks of uncritical AI integration in Costa Rican universities, language institutes, and public high schools. Key dangers include student overdependence on AI tools, algorithmic bias and cultural mismatch, widening digital inequality, weak teacher preparation, and ethical concerns related to data privacy. Drawing on Muthukrishna et al. (2025), Darvishi et al. (2024), and others, the essay argues that technology-first approaches replicate past failures, while successful strategies must embed AI in systems that prioritize infrastructure, pedagogy, cultural adaptation, and teacher empowerment. Without these safeguards, AI could erode autonomy, equity, and cultural relevance in Costa Rican education.	Keywords: Artificial Intelligence, Education Policy, Costa Rica, Digital Inequality, Algorithmic Bias, Teacher Training
	Resumen La inteligencia artificial (IA) está transformando la educación global, y Costa Rica no es la excepción. No obstante, el uso inadecuado de estas tecnologías puede generar efectos negativos en lugar de potenciar el aprendizaje. Este ensayo analiza los principales riesgos de la implementación acrítica de la IA en universidades, institutos de idiomas y colegios públicos costarricenses. Se identifican como peligros centrales la dependencia excesiva de los estudiantes en las herramientas de IA, el sesgo algorítmico y la falta de adecuación cultural, la brecha digital entre zonas urbanas y rurales, la escasa preparación docente y las preocupaciones éticas relacionadas con la privacidad. Con base en Muthukrishna et al. (2025) y otros autores, se concluye que el éxito depende de una integración centrada en el ser humano, con infraestructura sólida, formación docente y adaptaciones culturales que garanticen equidad y pertinencia.
	Resumo A inteligência artificial (IA) está remodelando a educação em todo o mundo e a Costa Rica enfrenta o desafio de sua integração. Contudo, o uso inadequado dessas tecnologias pode prejudicar o desenvolvimento educacional. Este ensaio examina os riscos do mau uso da IA em universidades, institutos de línguas e escolas secundárias públicas costarriquenhas. Entre os principais problemas estão a dependência excessiva dos estudantes, o viés algorítmico e a falta de adequação cultural, a desigualdade digital entre regiões urbanas e rurais, a falta de preparação dos professores e as questões éticas de privacidade. Com base em Muthukrishna et al. (2025) e outros pesquisadores, argumenta-se que a IA deve ser integrada dentro de um marco centrado no ser humano, com investimentos em infraestrutura, capacitação docente e adaptações culturais. Só assim poderá contribuir para uma educação mais equitativa e relevante.

The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into education has generated significant optimism in a country like Costa Rica, a nation that has long emphasized human development as central to its educational policies. From universities in San José to public high schools in rural Guanacaste, AI promises personalized tutoring, automated assessment, and expanded access to knowledge. However, as Muthukrishna, Dai, Panizo Madrid, Sabherwal, Vanoppen, and Yao (2025) caution, “technology alone is not enough” (p. 483). When deployed uncritically or without the necessary systemic support, AI can constrain rather than expand learners’ capabilities, leading to unintended harms that exacerbate existing inequalities and undermine the quality of education students are part of.

One of the most pressing risks is student overdependence on AI tools, which can weaken independent thinking and authentic learning. Muthukrishna, Dai, Panizo Madrid, Sabherwal, Vanoppen, and Yao, H. (2025) note that if AI “spoon-feeds children solutions,” it may erode critical reasoning skills and promote passivity in learners (p. 485). In Costa Rican universities, for instance, students may rely on generative AI to draft essays or complete assignments without engaging deeply with sources and information. Language learners in private institutes often turn to AI translators instead of practicing productive skills, leading to superficial rather than meaningful acquisition and true language practice and production. Darvishi, Khosravi, Sadiq, Gašević, and Siemens (2024) demonstrated that GPT-based tutors can improve short-term performance but simultaneously create dependence, impairing student agency when AI is not available. Long-term mastery is not achieved by overdependent users of AI tutors.

A second major challenge concerns algorithmic bias and cultural mismatch. Because most large language models are trained on Western-centric data, they reproduce values, examples, and idioms that do not align with Costa Rican social and cultural realities. Muthukrishna, Dai, Panizo Madrid, Sabherwal, Vanoppen, and Yao, H. (2025) warn that such bias can “subtly shape values, norms and aspirations” (p. 485) that are alien to the country’s idiosyncrasy. For high school students in Guanacaste or Puntarenas, AI-generated learning materials that reference holidays like Thanksgiving or other contexts unfamiliar to their everyday lives can create disengagement and boredom. Brinkmann, Baumann, Bonnefon, Derex, Müller, Nussberger, and Czaplicka (2023) describe this as the problem of “machine culture,” in which digital systems reinforce dominant cultural narratives at the expense of local knowledge. In Costa Rica, this risk could potentially weaken the role of education in preserving national identity and fostering civic engagement.

The digital divide poses another serious concern in student learning and education. While private universities and international schools in the Central Valley of Costa Rica are well positioned to implement AI, rural schools face persistent deficits in connectivity and access to modern and appropriate digital devices. Muthukrishna, Dai, Panizo Madrid, Sabherwal, Vanoppen, and Yao, H. (2025) emphasize that successful innovations require “reliable electricity, fast internet connectivity, functional and modern computing devices” as preconditions for effective AI integration (p. 487). Without such infrastructure, Costa Rica risks replicating the failures of the One Laptop Per Child initiative, where devices were distributed without systemic support, resulting in little educational gain (UNESCO, 2023). Instead of narrowing learning gaps between private and public education, AI could widen inequalities between urban and rural learners and between students from low-income families and economically advantaged ones.

Equally concerning is the lack of teacher readiness and pedagogical integration. As the article “AI can revolutionise education but technology is not enough: Human development meets cultural evolution” stresses, Estonia and Uruguay succeeded in digital transformation because they invested in teacher training and curricular adaptation, while technology-first approaches failed (Muthukrishna, Dai, Panizo Madrid, Sabherwal, Vanoppen, and Yao, H., 2025). In Costa Rica, if educators are not trained in AI literacy, they may misuse the tools, either delegating too much of their role to technology or rejecting it altogether without giving it a chance. Selwyn (2019) argues that the role of teachers remains irreplaceable: human educators provide the socio-emotional support, cultural interpretation, and moral guidance that AI cannot replicate. Let us always keep in mind that AI has no feelings nor does it care how it is being used for, like cheating for a test. Treating AI as a substitute for teachers could damage the mentoring relationships that are vital in both language learning and adolescent development.

Finally, ethical concerns regarding data privacy and surveillance cannot be ignored when AI is being used. AI systems that track student keystrokes, learning times, or behavior may create a culture of monitoring that “stifles the freedom to fail and learn” (Muthukrishna, Dai, Panizo Madrid, Sabherwal, Vanoppen, and Yao, H., 2025, p. 485). Without clear data governance frameworks, Costa Rican schools in general risk exposing sensitive student information to misuse by private companies. Such practices not only undermine trust but also contradict Costa Rica’s long-standing commitment to human rights and democratic education.

In conclusion, while AI holds transformative potential for Costa Rican education, its wrong use risks undermining student autonomy, deepening inequalities, eroding cultural relevance, weakening teacher roles, and violating privacy. As Muthukrishna, Dai, Panizo Madrid, Sabherwal, Vanoppen, and Yao, H. (2025) argue, successful adoption depends not on the technology itself but on “embedding AI within systems that prioritise infrastructure, teacher training and cultural fit” (p. 490). For Costa Rica, a nation that has historically invested in human-centered development, the lesson must be clear: AI must be guided by ethical safeguards, equitable access policies, and pedagogical strategies that empower rather than displace teachers and students. Otherwise, the promise of AI may become another instance of technological optimism yielding educational disappointment.

📚 References

Brinkmann, L., Baumann, F., Bonnefon, J.-F., Derex, M., Müller, T. F., Nussberger, A.-M., & Czaplicka, A. (2023). Machine culture. Nature Human Behaviour, 7(11), 1855–1868. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-023-01742-2

Darvishi, A., Khosravi, H., Sadiq, S., Gašević, D., & Siemens, G. (2024). Impact of AI assistance on student agency. Computers & Education, 210, 104967. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2023.104967

Muthukrishna, M., Dai, J., Panizo Madrid, D., Sabherwal, R., Vanoppen, K., & Yao, H. (2025). AI can revolutionise education but technology is not enough: Human development meets cultural evolution. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 26(3), 482–492. https://doi.org/10.1080/19452829.2025.2517740 or https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/epdf/10.1080/19452829.2025.2517740?needAccess=true

Selwyn, N. (2019). Should robots replace teachers? AI and the future of education. Polity.

UNESCO. (2023). EdTech tragedy: Lessons from One Laptop per Child. https://www.unesco.org/en/digital-education/ed-tech-tragedy

Potential Policy Brief

Responsible AI Integration in Costa Rican Education: Avoiding Risks, Maximizing Potential Prepared for: All interested stakeholders Date: August 2025 Context Costa Rica is at a crossroads in adopting Artificial Intelligence (AI) in education. Universities, language institutes, and public high schools are experimenting with AI-powered tools for tutoring, grading, and content generation. While these technologies promise personalized learning, increased teacher productivity, and expanded access, misuse or poorly planned implementation risks widening inequalities, eroding student agency, and misaligning with local culture. Key Risks Identified 1.    Overdependence on AI: Students may bypass critical thinking and language production by over-relying on AI-generated answers. 2.    Algorithmic Bias & Cultural Mismatch: Foreign-trained AI models may promote content irrelevant to Costa Rican contexts, weakening cultural relevance in learning. 3.    Digital Inequality: Unequal infrastructure access between urban private institutions and rural public schools could deepen educational divides. 4.    Weak Teacher Training: Without AI literacy and pedagogical integration, teachers may misuse or underuse AI tools. 5.    Privacy & Surveillance Concerns: AI platforms collecting student data without transparency risk legal and ethical violations. 6.    Technology-First Policies Without Pedagogy: Hardware rollouts without curriculum redesign or teacher support lead to wasted investments. 7.    Erosion of Teacher Roles: Cutting human instruction in favor of AI could harm language learning and student motivation. Recommendations for Costa Rica 1. Adopt a Human-Centred AI Framework: Define national AI-in-education goals beyond “access to tools” — focus on critical thinking, creativity, and socio-emotional learning. 2. Guarantee Equity of Access Invest in connectivity, devices, and AI tools for rural and underserved schools. Support multilingual AI tools and culturally adapted content. 3. Strengthen AI Literacy for Teachers & Students Integrate AI training into teacher professional development. Include AI ethics, critical use, and bias awareness in national curricula. 4. Implement Ethical & Privacy Safeguards Establish clear regulations for data collection, algorithm transparency, and student consent. Prohibit commercial use of student data collected through educational AI. 5. Co-Design and Pilot Programs Involve teachers, students, and parents in AI tool selection and adaptation. Pilot in varied regions before nationwide implementation (“fail locally, learn globally”). Conclusion AI can enhance Costa Rica’s educational quality and equity if integrated with infrastructure, teacher empowerment, cultural adaptation, and ethical safeguards. The nation must act deliberately to ensure AI strengthens — not weakens — the capabilities of all learners. Created by Prof. Jonathan Acuña Solano August 2025 Based on Muthukrishna, M., Dai, J., Panizo Madrid, D., Sabherwal, R., Vanoppen, K., & Yao, H. (2025). AI can revolutionise education but technology is not enough: Human development meets cultural evolution. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 26(3), 482–492. https://doi.org/10.1080/19452829.2025.2517740

Risks of Wrong AI Use in Education

Risks of Wrong AI Use in Education by Jonathan Acuña

The Risks of Misusing AI in Costa Rican Education by Jonathan Acuña

 

✍️ Introductory Note to the Reader      I first encountered The Curious Case of Benjamin Button not through F. Scott Fitzgerald’s text, but rather when I found my wife watching David Fincher’s film adaptation. The story, at that point, was completely unfamiliar to me. Later, while browsing through my Kindle tablet, I stumbled upon Fitzgerald’s original version and decided to read it. Only after finishing the story did I begin to wonder, in literary terms, whether there was an underlying morality or ethical dimension behind its strange premise.      Interestingly, the film and the novella are quite different in narrative scope and characterization. Yet, at their core, both seem to aim at the same effect: to make the reader or viewer reflect on the meaning of life, the passage of time, and the values that guide human existence. This paper, then, is the result of personal curiosity transformed into a moral-humanistic exploration of Fitzgerald’s text, with attention also given to Fincher’s interpretation.

Time in Reverse: A Moral-Humanistic Reading of The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

	Abstract This paper offers a moral-humanistic literary analysis of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (1922), examining the ethical questions raised by its protagonist’s reverse aging. Through the lens of human dignity, moral agency, and the tragedy of disconnection, the study highlights how Fitzgerald critiques societal rigidity and the denial of authenticity to those who do not conform to conventional norms of age and identity. The analysis draws on scholars such as Wayne Booth, Martha Nussbaum, Viktor Frankl, and Paul Ricoeur to explore themes of meaning, temporality, and narrative closure. The paper also compares Fitzgerald’s satirical short story with David Fincher’s 2008 film adaptation, noting how the latter humanizes Benjamin’s character by granting him agency, love, and moral choice. The contrast reveals how literature and film offer distinct moral visions of human life, mortality, and dignity. Keywords: Benjamin Button, moral-humanistic criticism, Fitzgerald, David Fincher, ethics, temporality, human dignity
	Resumen Este trabajo presenta un análisis literario humanista y moral de The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (1922) de F. Scott Fitzgerald, explorando los dilemas éticos que surgen a partir del envejecimiento inverso de su protagonista. A través de los ejes de la dignidad humana, la agencia moral y la desconexión afectiva, se muestra cómo Fitzgerald critica la rigidez social y la negación de autenticidad hacia quienes no se ajustan a las normas convencionales de edad e identidad. El estudio se apoya en autores como Wayne Booth, Martha Nussbaum, Viktor Frankl y Paul Ricoeur para abordar los temas del sentido, la temporalidad y el cierre narrativo. Asimismo, se compara el relato satírico de Fitzgerald con la adaptación cinematográfica dirigida por David Fincher en 2008, subrayando cómo esta última humaniza al personaje al otorgarle agencia, amor y capacidad de decisión moral. El contraste revela cómo la literatura y el cine ofrecen visiones morales distintas sobre la vida, la mortalidad y la dignidad.
	Resumo Este artigo propõe uma leitura literária humanista e moral de The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (1922), de F. Scott Fitzgerald, analisando os dilemas éticos gerados pelo envelhecimento reverso do protagonista. A partir das noções de dignidade humana, agência moral e desconexão afetiva, argumenta-se que Fitzgerald critica a rigidez social e a negação da autenticidade diante daqueles que não se enquadram nas normas convencionais de idade e identidade. O estudo dialoga com autores como Wayne Booth, Martha Nussbaum, Viktor Frankl e Paul Ricoeur para discutir sentido existencial, temporalidade e fechamento narrativo. Além disso, compara-se o conto satírico de Fitzgerald com a adaptação cinematográfica dirigida por David Fincher em 2008, que humaniza o protagonista ao lhe conferir agência, amor e escolha moral. O contraste evidencia como literatura e cinema constroem visões éticas diferentes sobre a vida, a mortalidade e a dignidade.

Introduction

F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (1922) presents a bizarre premise: a man born old who grows younger with time. While this reversal of aging is scientifically implausible, its literary value lies in the rich moral and humanistic questions it raises about identity, love, family, dignity, and what it means to live a “normal” human life. Through a moral-humanistic lens, an approach that explores literature for its ethical values and its portrayal of human potential, this story becomes a vehicle for reflection on societal expectations and the dignity of human experience, regardless of chronological order. As Abrams (1971) notes, humanistic criticism seeks to evaluate literature based on “the relevance of its vision to our moral and spiritual life” (p. 24), a standard that Fitzgerald’s tale both fulfills and complicates.

Human Dignity and the Right to Difference

From the moment Benjamin is born, society reacts with discomfort and rejection. His father, Roger Button, initially cannot accept his son’s appearance: “You’re my son!” he cried. “You’re my son!” and he looked with eyes that were frightened rather than loving (Fitzgerald, 1922). This moment in the plot of the story reveals a deep moral issue: the denial of dignity to those who are different and who do not fit social standards. As Nussbaum (2001) asserts, a core element of humanistic ethics is “the capacity to recognize each human being as an end” (p. 74). However, Roger Button fails this test, prioritizing social conformity over his son’s humanity.

In this novella, Benjamin’s ostracization reflects a broader cultural rigidity and social conventions. Scholars like Bryer (1996) emphasize that Fitzgerald’s neglected stories often critique “the tyranny of convention and social expectation” (p. 19) in the early 20th Century society in the United States. Benjamin, as the central character in this story, embodies this social tension: his unique condition (growing “younger” after being born old) exposes society’s discomfort with nonconformity.

A Life Without Moral Agency?

The humanistic tradition values the development of moral agency, our ability to choose and act responsibly. But does Benjamin truly develop such an agency? His life seems passive, as he is continually acted upon by others. He enlists in the war not out of patriotic fervor but because his appearance matches the role of a soldier: “The officers were so delighted with Benjamin's appearance that they made him a lieutenant within three days” (Fitzgerald, 1922). And then he marries Hildegarde not out of deep connection, but because their apparent ages align and her delight in much older men.

Benjamin thus appears morally neutered, unable to act authentically due to external perceptions, which he is not able to fully understand because of his “young” age. Yet, as Booth (1988) reminds us, moral growth often emerges through conflict between the inner self and the outer world. Benjamin’s increasing frustration and vexation with roles imposed on him suggests a slow moral awakening. Here, Erikson’s (1959) model of psychosocial development is useful: each life stage is meant to cultivate identity and responsibility. Benjamin’s reverse life distorts this “natural” sequence, creating a poignant commentary on how social categories (child, adult, elder) dictate moral expectations even when they no longer fit.

The Tragedy of Disconnection

Benjamin’s reverse trajectory denies him the opportunity to build lasting relationships, one of the most profound moral concerns in the story. His disconnection from wife and son signals an erosion of his place in the moral fabric of family and tapestry of society: “His son Roscoe, now eighteen, began to be ashamed of him” (Fitzgerald, 1922) because Benjamin looked much younger than him. For Fitzgerald biographer Bruccoli (2002), this detachment reflects the author’s recurring concern with “the impermanence of bonds in a world ruled by appearances” (p. 311). Benjamin in trapped in a “world of appearances” eroding his few bonds with people whom we normally feel attached to wife, children, parents, etc.

Humanistic criticism emphasizes the value of intergenerational understanding and continuity, which Benjamin’s life disrupts. Butler’s (1963) classic study of “life review” underscores that aging normally involves reflecting on one’s past to achieve a sense of integrity. Benjamin’s regression into infancy tragically denies him this moral closure. As he gets younger and younger, Benjamin starts losing dexterity achieved by age and world understanding acquired through social interactions. His persistent forgetfulness of the kind of person he used to be does not allow him to reflect on his past that as he is getting much younger becomes effaced from his memories.

Mortality and the Search for Meaning

In moral-humanistic terms, the awareness of death often defines the intensity and integrity of human life. However, Benjamin’s trajectory subverts the usual arc of gaining wisdom with age. As he becomes an defenseless infant, he loses his ability to use language, his long-term memory, and ultimately his consciousness: “Then it was all dark, and his white crib and the dim faces that moved above him, and the warm sweet aroma of the milk, faded out altogether from his mind” (Fitzgerald, 1922). And this was the end of Benjamin’s existence, when the light went off.

This quiet fade is tragic because it denies the usual moral culmination of life, a moment of reflection, of legacy to others. According to Frankl (1959), meaning is forged in how we confront limitations. Benjamin’s life denies him this final humanizing act. As Ricoeur (1984) argues in Time and Narrative, our lives gain coherence through temporal emplotment, telling a story of beginnings, middles, and ends. Benjamin’s inverted temporality erases narrative closure, leaving only fragmentation, isolated events that can make up a life if placed chronologically.

Comparison with David Fincher’s Film Adaptation

David Fincher’s The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008) expands and reinterprets Fitzgerald’s story with greater emotional depth and humanistic richness. While the short story is satirical and ironic, the film is romantic and existential. Brad Pitt’s Benjamin is a gentle soul who reflects deeply on love, loss, and the fragility of time. The addition of Daisy provides a moral center, enabling Benjamin to experience authentic connections with other individuals.

Film theorists have noted how cinema uniquely portrays time. Mulvey (2006) argues that film’s treatment of mortality often captures the “tension between stillness and becoming” (p. 39), a principle Fincher exploits by showing Benjamin aging backward through digitally manipulated imagery. Elsaesser (2009) highlights that temporality in film often conveys existential themes; in Benjamin Button, time’s reversal becomes a metaphor for the impossibility of permanence in love.

In contrast to Fitzgerald’s Benjamin, Fincher’s protagonist actively seeks meaning. His moral agency is highlighted by decisions like leaving Daisy when he realizes he cannot father a child responsibly. As Kearney (2003) notes, the ethics of imagination allow us to envision alternative futures and take responsibility even in non-normative lives. Fincher’s adaptation embraces this moral potential.

Conclusion

Viewed through a moral-humanistic lens, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button challenges the reader to consider what makes a life worth living. Fitzgerald’s story critiques society’s treatment of the “other,” questions our reliance on chronological identity, and warns against the moral dangers of conformity. While the short story’s Benjamin is denied full moral development, Fincher’s adaptation restores human depth, portraying a life lived with dignity despite its unconventional course. Ultimately, both versions remind us that the essence of morality lies not in our age, but in our ability to love, choose, and remain true to our humanity.

📚 References

Abrams, M. H. (1971). The mirror and the lamp: Romantic theory and the critical tradition. Oxford University Press.

Booth, W. C. (1988). The company we keep: An ethics of fiction. University of California Press.

Bruccoli, M. J. (2002). Some sort of epic grandeur: The life of F. Scott Fitzgerald. University of South Carolina Press.

Bryer, J. R. (1996). New essays on F. Scott Fitzgerald’s neglected stories. University of Missouri Press.

Butler, R. N. (1963). The life review: An interpretation of reminiscence in the aged. Psychiatry, 26(1), 65–76.

Elsaesser, T. (2009). Film theory: An introduction through the senses. Routledge.

Fincher, D. (Director). (2008). The curious case of Benjamin Button [Film]. Paramount Pictures.

Fitzgerald, F. S. (1922). The curious case of Benjamin Button. In Tales of the Jazz Age. Charles Scribner’s Sons.

Frankl, V. E. (1959). Man’s search for meaning. Beacon Press.

Kearney, R. (2003). Strangers, gods and monsters: Interpreting otherness. Routledge.

Mulvey, L. (2006). Death 24x a second: Stillness and the moving image. Reaktion Books.

Nussbaum, M. C. (2001). Upheavals of thought: The intelligence of emotions. Cambridge University Press.

Ricoeur, P. (1984). Time and narrative (Vol. 1). University of Chicago Press.

Character Chart: Moral-Humanistic Dimensions in The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

Moral-Humanistic Dimensions in the Curious Case of Benjamin Button by Jonathan Acuña

Moral-Humanistic Dimensions in Fincher’s Benjamin Button

 

✍️ Introductory Note to the Reader      As someone who has carefully observed Costa Rica’s attempts to achieve bilingualism across different administrations, I cannot remain silent. From the very beginning, when President Figueres Olsen announced his ambitious bilingual dream, I knew we were headed nowhere. Why? Because the Ministry of Education immediately began recruiting people who had English proficiency but no background in pedagogy. That signaled the start of an ill-conceived project.      Later administrations, instead of correcting the course, fell into the same pattern of promises and slogans without strategy. Under President Alvarado’s government, the “Costa Rica Bilingüe 2040” plan was promoted, but as we say in Costa Rica, it was pura paja—an empty discourse without substance. Now, as President Rodrigo Chaves Robles’s administration approaches its end, hindsight shows us the bitter truth: Figueres Olsen’s dream of bilingualism was not only poorly designed but also politically unsupported. It was, in essence, another piece of pura paja from a politician who failed to make others embrace his idea.

Historical Efforts and Limitations Across Administrations: A Pattern of Hope Without Strategy

To understand why Costa Rica will not become a truly bilingual nation by 2040, we Costa Ricans must look beyond the promises of any one administration. The seeds of this unfulfilled dream were planted decades ago, in moments filled with political optimism but lacking in long-term planning. Each administration from Figueres Olsen to Alvarado added its own layer to the narrative about bilingualism, but too often these were chapters of underfunded ambition and “hot air” rather than concrete, scalable action for the sake of Costa Rican education. As the newspaper Diario Extra recently put it, “The goal of turning us into a bilingual nation by 2040… reveals today as what many of us suspected from the beginning: an aspiration more ambitious than realistic, a victim of improvisation and the absence of a holistic vision that characterizes Costa Rican public management” (Diario Extra, 2025).

Figueres Olsen (1994–1998): The Pioneer of the Promise

It was José María Figueres Olsen who first captured the public imagination with the idea of a bilingual Costa Rica. Under his government, English was introduced “supposedly” more formally at earlier educational levels, and significant investments were made in technology for schools. The intention was clear: prepare Costa Rican youth for a globalized, tech-driven future, something we can see now in 2025. But good intentions met limited follow-through. Infrastructure was uneven across the country, teacher training programs were inconsistent and poorly designed, and the idea of bilingualism became more of a slogan than a structured policy; the dream was beginning to fade away. It was an important first step, but one that lacked the legs to carry the country forward.

Miguel Ángel Rodríguez (1998–2002): Global Vision, Local Gaps

President Rodríguez, whom got elected from a different political party from the one Figueres was part of, continued promoting Costa Rica as an outward-facing, business-friendly nation, but bilingualism as envisioned in 1994 was never a centerpiece of his agenda. The focus shifted toward economic liberalization, leaving education, particularly language education in Costa Rica, adrift. The absence of strong national policies during this time allowed disparities between public and private schools to widen more than what they used to be. English instruction continued, but mostly in name, not in substance. Four more years passed by and the dream was not effaced from the fragile Costa Ricans’ collective consciousness.

Abel Pacheco (2002–2006): A Pause in Progress

Pacheco’s administration faced mounting social pressures and growing fiscal constraints inherited from Rodríguez’s administration where social protests were all over the country due to neoliberalism political ideas and policies. Though education remained a national priority in speeches before getting elected, concrete action on language policy stalled. Teacher training programs were not expanded, and curriculum reforms did not prioritize English in any way. Students in rural or low-income schools continued receiving limited exposure to the target language, reinforcing a system in which bilingualism was a privilege, not a right. And at this very point in history the idea of a bilingual country ready for the challenges of a digitized and interconnected world through the Internet was a vague idea in the mind of a few people who really wished for a bilingual country.

Óscar Arias (2006–2010): Economic Growth, Educational Inertia

Returning to power, Arias Sánchez brought renewed energy to Costa Rica’s global positioning, but bilingualism remained an indirect and deprioritized concern. Economic growth and foreign investment were key themes of his term, yet they were not matched by a strong push to create a bilingual workforce through systemic educational change and who could fill in the positions multinational companies were opening in Costa Rica. Though private initiatives grew, and business-sector demand for English surged, the public education system remained under-resourced and structurally unprepared to provide the foreign companies with a bilingual labor force. At this point in history, it was not just that the unprivileged got none or minimal bilingual education but the ones who studied English in private schools or institutions were the ones who could apply for these positions.

Laura Chinchilla (2010–2014): Political Will Without Structural Reform

Chinchilla spoke of educational reform, and her term coincided with increased pressure to modernize the primary and secondary school curriculum. However, no major breakthroughs were achieved in bilingual policy during her administration. During her time, teacher strikes and public sector discontent overshadowed reform efforts, what Arias did not address simply “burst” into social vexation and displeasure. And while some pilot programs in bilingual education were introduced, they were isolated, poorly monitored, and unsustainable on a national scale. Their impact was not quantified, and these efforts were as futile as the ones previous administrations had. The opportunity to link economic development goals with meaningful language training was missed once again, and multinational corporations were waiting for a bilingual workforce that was never prepared in our high schools.

Luis Guillermo Solís (2014–2018): The Missed Moment

President Solís inherited an education system in urgent need of transformation from eight years of abandonment where the focus on other areas of social need but bilingual education. The disconnect between labor market needs and educational outcomes had become painfully obvious by this time when no qualified personnel could be recruited because bilingual labor force was already employed. However, Solís’s administration struggled to implement the sweeping changes required. Though language was acknowledged as a strategic skill, few structural changes were made to teacher training, school infrastructure, or curriculum alignment. Instead, English remained trapped in the same limited time slots in primary and high school with little to no pedagogical innovation, especially outside urban areas.

Carlos Alvarado (2018–2022): The Boldest Vision, the Most Fragile Execution

Carlos Alvarado dared to dream bigger. With the launch of Hacia la Costa Rica Bilingüe 2040 and the formation of the Alliance for Bilingualism (ABi), his administration set the most ambitious bilingualism target in national history, postponing Figueres Olsen’s statement about a bilingual Costa Rica by 2025. Alvarado’s administration’s plan involved certifying students, something the barely took place, training teachers, which was not evidently in class delivery, and aligning institutions across sectors where INA (Instituto Nacional de Aprendizaje) was meant to shine but didn’t. It was a turning point in rhetoric and aspiration, but that was it.

But ambition was not enough. As Diario Extra reported, “With only three to five hours of English per week in most public schools, while bilingual schools dedicate 14 hours, it is impossible to speak seriously of forming competent citizens in a second language” (Diario Extra, 2025). When the pandemic struck, it dismantled much of the fragile infrastructure, leaving the Ministry of Public Education unable to sustain the plan. What remained was a set of goals with no engine to reach them.

A Systemic Breakdown

Across all these administrations, the same obstacles resurfaced: underfunded ministries, poorly trained teachers, lack of infrastructure, and political discontinuity. Teacher education in particular remains precarious. As the editorial notes, “Between 75% and 80% of teachers come from private universities, many of which do not meet the standards necessary to train competent educators in foreign languages” (Diario Extra, 2025).

The result? Generations of students left behind. “In 2023, there was a 142% increase in adolescents aged 15 to 17 outside the educational system, while 22,000 students abandoned classrooms” (Diario Extra, 2025). These are not just numbers, but lost futures, young people locked out of the opportunities that bilingualism could have provided.

Conclusion: Hope Without Continuity

This journey through Costa Rica’s recent history reveals a recurring pattern: administrations announcing bold ideas with limited political continuity or institutional support. Teachers were often left out of the planning process. Universities operated independently of national language goals. And bilingualism, as a concept, became more of a campaign banner than a reality in classrooms.

As Diario Extra warns us, “The failure of the plan Hacia la Costa Rica Bilingüe should not be a footnote in the history of our national frustrations. It should be a wake-up call… Our young people deserve an education system that prepares them to compete globally, not one that condemns them to underdevelopment” (Diario Extra, 2025).

📚 References

• Diario Extra. (2025, August 6). Costa Rica Bilingüe 2040: Un sueño que se desvanece. Retrieved from https://www.diarioextra.com/noticia/costa-rica-bilingue-2040-un-sueno-que-se-desvanece/

Costa Rica and the Bilingual Dream: A Post Mortem Reality Check

The dream of a bilingual Costa Rica by 2040, once a bold promise under Carlos Alvarado’s administration, now feels like a distant hope rather than an approaching reality. The frustration expressed in the recent editorial is not only understandable but warranted. For decades, political leaders, including José María Figueres Olsen, have set optimistic timelines, such as 2025 or 2040, without fully addressing the structural and systemic changes needed to achieve them.

What Went Wrong?

1	Overpromising, Underplanning:	Carlos Alvarado’s bilingualism plan was ambitious in vision but shallow in infrastructure. Announced with enthusiasm, it lacked a realistic blueprint grounded in the actual conditions of public education. It ignored chronic issues such as the limited English proficiency of many teachers, outdated methodologies, a lack of technological resources, and above all, a system that fails to serve students equitably across regions.
	While the idea of Costa Rica becoming a hub for bilingual professionals in tourism and high-tech industries was attractive, it was built on shaky foundations.
2	Pre-existing Weaknesses in the Education System:	The shortcomings of the bilingualism initiative didn’t begin with Alvarado. Successive governments have used education as a political tool, setting targets that look good in speeches but fail to translate into classroom change. There has been little continuity across administrations, no long-term investment in language policy, and limited coordination between universities, the Ministry of Public Education (MEP), and the private sector.
	The root of the problem is not a lack of desire to teach English; it is a lack of coherent national planning, consistent funding, and a shared vision for how English should be taught, to whom, and with what resources.
3	A Deep Divide: Public vs. Private:	Bilingualism in Costa Rica has always been accessible to a small segment of the population, those attending private or experimental bilingual schools. Meanwhile, the majority of students in public schools receive just 3 to 5 40-minute MEP teaching hours of English per week, often delivered by undertrained or under-supported teachers. Compare that to the 14+ hours in well-funded bilingual schools, and the inequity becomes clear.
	This is not a path to national bilingualism; it is a recipe for linguistic inequality that mirrors existing socioeconomic divisions.
4	The Pandemic and Educational Setbacks:	The COVID-19 pandemic, coupled with previous teacher strikes, accelerated the collapse of the bilingual dream. Learning loss was not exclusive to English; however, language acquisition, especially in early and continuous exposure, was hit particularly hard. The data is grim: a two-year delay in academic progress and a spike in school dropout rates among teenagers.
	Without basic literacy and educational continuity, foreign language development becomes nearly impossible.
5	Inconsistent Teacher Preparation:	The editorial at Diario Extra rightly points out that between 75% and 80% of English teachers are graduates of private universities, many of which vary greatly in quality and standards. Without national mechanisms for evaluating teacher proficiency and instructional effectiveness, students receive uneven and often inadequate English instruction across the country.

Timeline of Costa Rica’s Bilingualism Policy Failure

Timeline of Costa Rica’s Bilingualism Policy Failure by Jonathan Acuña

Where Do We Go From Here?

It is painful, but necessary, to accept that Costa Rica will not be a bilingual nation by 2040. Still, this acknowledgment should not be seen as defeatist; it should be seen as a call for reform.

If the goal is to build a truly bilingual population, the following steps are essential:

• Significantly increase the number of English contact hours in public schools.
• Redesign teacher training and certification, ensuring language proficiency and pedagogical competence.
• Invest in digital platforms and exposure opportunities, especially in rural areas.
• Create sustained, cross-administration policies that transcend political cycles.
• Foster collaboration between public universities and the MEP to build research-based, context-specific language education strategies.

Costa Rica has the potential to become a leader in language education, but only if it stops chasing politically expedient timelines and instead builds a sustainable, inclusive, and evidence-based approach. The dream of a bilingual Costa Rica doesn't need to die, but it must evolve. Let us abandon illusions of quick fixes and instead commit to long-term, equitable transformation.

Historical Efforts and Limitations Across Administrations by Jonathan Acuña