This proposal integrates the above, and is born from the need to standardize the service offer in Initial Education in Colombia, where Initial Education was only taken into account - formally - as a process of vital importance in early childhood until the nineties, and for this reason by 2005 the educational offer was characterized by its diversity in terms of quality and quantity. On the other hand, although standardization is an administrative process, the effectiveness of the school depends on it not only in terms of the performance of its traditional academic functions but also in terms of its function of replicating the social scenario.

Its social influence is reflected in the way in which its heterogenization allows the generation of different levels of opportunity and therefore, unequal access for boys and girls in their early childhood to: training processes, socialization and ultimately, an optimal learning scenario for the development of their potential. It is precisely in this stratified mediation where access to cultural codes becomes a perpetuation of existing lines of poverty and inequality, allowing the purchasing power of the child's family to be an unavoidable sign of their possibilities.

Therefore, although standardization could knock on the doors of institutional autonomy and various aspects of the educational process, it is necessary since it will allow the establishments that offer the service to have basic minimums that provide a basic guarantee to the service that boys and girls will receive. At this point it is necessary to clarify that what is intended to be standardized does not respond to the educational approaches used in the teaching-learning process, but rather to basic agreed contents, which allow the development of different skills, abilities and attitudes in the child, independent of the cost of registration or the teacher's guidance.

This proposal is made in this sense, trying to reconcile the external and internal contexts of the “school”, and the perspectives of its different actors, since only a true conciliation of the different agents and regulations will be able to allow the process of implementation and development of standardization, and with it a more equitable offer in Initial Education, that is, a true guarantee of the rights of equality and equity with regard to access to Education.

Under this perspective, the model was developed from an exploratory qualitative study (Torres, A. 2006), based on the theory of Kurt Lewin (Coffey, A. and Atkinson, P., 2003) and Action Research in education (Elliot, J., 1997, 2000). This study had the collaboration of the educational community of the educational institution financed by the district government of Bogotá: “Casa Vecinal Adico Olarte”.

The main objective of the study was the design of a classroom project for kindergarten grade that could indicate the path for the standardization of Initial Education in the city of Bogotá, based on the conciliation of the different perspectives and tensions existing in this educational scenario (Torres, 2006), and finally, it allowed as added value the design of the model that is presented today without further ado, in graph No.1, which allows the general visualization of the model:.

This model proposes three development cycles that are framed in three continuous and elliptical processes that allow: validation, advancement and socialization of the knowledge required for the construction of consensus prior to the implementation of a process or project within an organization.

It refers to the definition of the objective, the relevance of the project and based on this, the design of an initial methodology based on exploration, contact with the population and contextualization. This implies that the state body (or its equivalent) that exercises advisory and control functions demonstrates the existence of a heterogeneous service that does not allow the guarantee of a basic minimum of processes and procedures in the teaching-learning relationship. With which feedback on findings is implicit, a training process around the current situation in the area and the generation of a document that accounts for the process.

It starts from a more adjusted vision of reality, feeding back the initial objective, and validating itself through the consensus of relevance by the different actors of the experience. This will begin the general execution plan based on three simultaneous processes: An initial documentary production, which is validated by Intersubjectivization (Lyotard, J., 2000) and allows the generation of final documents. At this point, it is important to take into account the processes and procedures already documented in the institution, such as coexistence manuals, internal work regulations, schedules, plans and level curricular programs, and see the adjustment of these with the current regulations, in general it is about establishing an initial diagnosis that allows the different actors a recognition of their reality and their possibilities.

Once it is clear what the starting point is, what processes and procedures should be included in the experience, and what its objectives are, a methodological adjustment process of co-construction begins with the participation of the different actors (state representative, institutional director, teachers, families, students), which allows the participants to know and explore the theoretical, legal or other possibilities, and choose the lines of support for their processes and procedures. Only once they know their possibilities does feedback on the current state and its alternatives begin, and from this point on, co-construction is continuously carried out with circular processes of feedback, training and documentary production.

When the final documents are produced, a final feedback and closure is carried out, which begins its implementation and monitoring. This cycle will also take into account the general circular processes of feedback, training and production.

It should be noted that each of the three elliptical components has a function from Piaget's perspective, they could be explained as follows: Feedback (structuring, adjustment), Training (balancing of conceptual structures) and Production (assimilation of new content and externalization of the same through operationalizations). These components entail a process of continuous learning both in the school and in the actors in the process, who are ultimately the ones who establish the rhythm and time necessary for development.

At a general level, three sessions are proposed for the initial cycle, five during the central cycle and two in the final cycle. For its development, the use of the designed instruments is taken into account, according to the needs perceived in each phase.

It is important that the documents correspond to the needs and interests of the different actors, and fit within the pedagogical conception of the school, therefore it is suggested to take into account current regulations, educational standards, organizational legislation (labor law, occupational health, etc.), and the operational difference of each pedagogical model.

In practice, during the exploratory application study, it was found that to the extent that the greatest number of possible actors are involved, the possibilities of commitment to the process and implementation increase; the use of instruments such as questionnaires has low effectiveness since the return rate is less than 50%. While the technique of focus groups and interviews with key informants show a dynamic that positively influences the development of the experience and its maintenance.

To conclude, the model allows a shared approach to a reality that allows the actors of a community to grant a space to reflect and transform their daily activities, based on a participatory and consensual process that could well be framed within the “knowledge management” process.

This proposal integrates the above, and is born from the need to standardize the service offer in Initial Education in Colombia, where Initial Education was only taken into account - formally - as a process of vital importance in early childhood until the nineties, and for this reason by 2005 the educational offer was characterized by its diversity in terms of quality and quantity. On the other hand, although standardization is an administrative process, the effectiveness of the school depends on it not only in terms of the performance of its traditional academic functions but also in terms of its function of replicating the social scenario.

Its social influence is reflected in the way in which its heterogenization allows the generation of different levels of opportunity and therefore, unequal access for boys and girls in their early childhood to: training processes, socialization and ultimately, an optimal learning scenario for the development of their potential. It is precisely in this stratified mediation where access to cultural codes becomes a perpetuation of existing lines of poverty and inequality, allowing the purchasing power of the child's family to be an unavoidable sign of their possibilities.

Therefore, although standardization could knock on the doors of institutional autonomy and various aspects of the educational process, it is necessary since it will allow the establishments that offer the service to have basic minimums that provide a basic guarantee to the service that boys and girls will receive. At this point it is necessary to clarify that what is intended to be standardized does not respond to the educational approaches used in the teaching-learning process, but rather to basic agreed contents, which allow the development of different skills, abilities and attitudes in the child, independent of the cost of registration or the teacher's guidance.

This proposal is made in this sense, trying to reconcile the external and internal contexts of the “school”, and the perspectives of its different actors, since only a true conciliation of the different agents and regulations will be able to allow the process of implementation and development of standardization, and with it a more equitable offer in Initial Education, that is, a true guarantee of the rights of equality and equity with regard to access to Education.

Under this perspective, the model was developed from an exploratory qualitative study (Torres, A. 2006), based on the theory of Kurt Lewin (Coffey, A. and Atkinson, P., 2003) and Action Research in education (Elliot, J., 1997, 2000). This study had the collaboration of the educational community of the educational institution financed by the district government of Bogotá: “Casa Vecinal Adico Olarte”.

The main objective of the study was the design of a classroom project for kindergarten grade that could indicate the path for the standardization of Initial Education in the city of Bogotá, based on the conciliation of the different perspectives and tensions existing in this educational scenario (Torres, 2006), and finally, it allowed as added value the design of the model that is presented today without further ado, in graph No.1, which allows the general visualization of the model:.

This model proposes three development cycles that are framed in three continuous and elliptical processes that allow: validation, advancement and socialization of the knowledge required for the construction of consensus prior to the implementation of a process or project within an organization.

It refers to the definition of the objective, the relevance of the project and based on this, the design of an initial methodology based on exploration, contact with the population and contextualization. This implies that the state body (or its equivalent) that exercises advisory and control functions demonstrates the existence of a heterogeneous service that does not allow the guarantee of a basic minimum of processes and procedures in the teaching-learning relationship. With which feedback on findings is implicit, a training process around the current situation in the area and the generation of a document that accounts for the process.

It starts from a more adjusted vision of reality, feeding back the initial objective, and validating itself through the consensus of relevance by the different actors of the experience. This will begin the general execution plan based on three simultaneous processes: An initial documentary production, which is validated by Intersubjectivization (Lyotard, J., 2000) and allows the generation of final documents. At this point, it is important to take into account the processes and procedures already documented in the institution, such as coexistence manuals, internal work regulations, schedules, plans and level curricular programs, and see the adjustment of these with the current regulations, in general it is about establishing an initial diagnosis that allows the different actors a recognition of their reality and their possibilities.

Once it is clear what the starting point is, what processes and procedures should be included in the experience, and what its objectives are, a methodological adjustment process of co-construction begins with the participation of the different actors (state representative, institutional director, teachers, families, students), which allows the participants to know and explore the theoretical, legal or other possibilities, and choose the lines of support for their processes and procedures. Only once they know their possibilities does feedback on the current state and its alternatives begin, and from this point on, co-construction is continuously carried out with circular processes of feedback, training and documentary production.

When the final documents are produced, a final feedback and closure is carried out, which begins its implementation and monitoring. This cycle will also take into account the general circular processes of feedback, training and production.

It should be noted that each of the three elliptical components has a function from Piaget's perspective, they could be explained as follows: Feedback (structuring, adjustment), Training (balancing of conceptual structures) and Production (assimilation of new content and externalization of the same through operationalizations). These components entail a process of continuous learning both in the school and in the actors in the process, who are ultimately the ones who establish the rhythm and time necessary for development.

At a general level, three sessions are proposed for the initial cycle, five during the central cycle and two in the final cycle. For its development, the use of the designed instruments is taken into account, according to the needs perceived in each phase.

It is important that the documents correspond to the needs and interests of the different actors, and fit within the pedagogical conception of the school, therefore it is suggested to take into account current regulations, educational standards, organizational legislation (labor law, occupational health, etc.), and the operational difference of each pedagogical model.

In practice, during the exploratory application study, it was found that to the extent that the greatest number of possible actors are involved, the possibilities of commitment to the process and implementation increase; the use of instruments such as questionnaires has low effectiveness since the return rate is less than 50%. While the technique of focus groups and interviews with key informants show a dynamic that positively influences the development of the experience and its maintenance.

To conclude, the model allows a shared approach to a reality that allows the actors of a community to grant a space to reflect and transform their daily activities, based on a participatory and consensual process that could well be framed within the “knowledge management” process.