Deadlock over who should pay for education, and who should profit from it

One issue rarely touched upon is the abysmal quality of the vast majority of Chile's private universities (the only exceptions being a few well-established ones belonging to the Catholic Church). These institutions, which take in 2/3 of the country's college students, have by and large no admissions standards -- they will take in anyone willing to go into debt in exchange for a low-value degree. They produce virtually no scientific knowledge, their libraries are risible, they have no tenure system, and they have no no real academic staff.

This last point deserves special emphasis. Classes in Chile's private universities are overwhelmingly taught by itinerant "professors" who possess at most a master's degree, though more often only a bachelor's. They are paid piecemeal by hour of classroom time taught (meaning most must work in two, three or more such universities in order to eke out a meager living), they have no offices, they are hired for one semester at a time, and --due to a rather nasty loophole in Chilean law-- their contracts are civil, rather than labor contracts, giving them no rights to sick leave, collective bargaining, vacation time, maternity leave, nor protection from discrimination or arbitrary dismissal.

Chile's private universities are fantastically profitable rackets whose graduates are lucky to be able to compete with those who went to upper-class high schools. This is yet another of the scandals of the country's educational system.

Just a small (tough significant) correction: the government is not promising grants for "the poorest 40% of students" but for the students coming from the poorest 40% of families. These are far less, since poor students go to bad public schools and usually don't qualify for the university anyway.

Chilean students "want the whole system to be “free” (ie, paid for by the taxpayer) and run by the state"?

No quite.

Chilean students demand that education funding should not come out of each household's pockets, because such a system seggregates students into "poor kid" schools, "average-income kids" schools, and "rich kid schools". Public funding is thus essential in 2/3 of the educational system; and it is much desirable in upper education.

They do not demand (not as a majority, at least) that the whole educational system is publicly held; most students and chileans appreciate the diversity of educational projects. Rather, they demand funding to be public, and education to be exclusively based on state or privately-held non-profit organizations, both of them with prohibition of student selection at school and pre-school levels, since selection (by school fees, by skill exams, by knowledge exams, etc) discriminates kids based on their family's money and "cultural assets". Each parent should have unrestricted freedom for choosing what he or she considers is the best available school project, without economic restraints or otherwise.

Greetings from Chile!

The radical privatization of education is to Chile what the currency board and the "paridad cambial" — the inflexible dollar peg — was to Argentina: a field test of an ultraliberal policy experiment.

In Argentina, it ended in the horrible crash in 2001/2002. Argentina became a much poorer country after that.

Worse: a generation of young people had to leave school, interrupt their education and abandon their dreams to help their families make ends meet. They feel they were denied a better future.

Now it is Chile's time to pay the bill. It seems obvious to anyone that the students are speaking for their parents and many other people — fiercely, often naively and irrealistically, as only young people can, and have every right to be. They are just fed up with a system which many Chileans see as unfair to most people.

We are witnessing the failure, one by one, of the radical policy prescriptions of the ultraliberal economists who came back to Latin America from rich-world universities to advise the military dictators of the 70s and 80s.

The "Chicago boys" imposed their authoritarian policies backed by criminal generals like Pinochet in most of the continent (with enthusiastic support from the Big Guns of the western business press, like the WSJ, the FT and, yes, The Economist). We were Guinea pigs for their experiments.

The next time a TE correspondent feel the need to ask "why Latin Americans seem to distrust so much the West"? or some variation on this theme, as they often do, he/she would do well to remember this.

If you take a look around the world, you will notice that the most economically stable and successful countries are those that support education the most and those that offer education for free. If Chile wants to become the successful, developed country that it claims to want to be, then they are definitely going to have to increase their educational standards and make it more realistic to afford education. There is no other solution. It all starts with an education. You develop minds that can innovate and people with educated skills for the work force. I understand that it might be an extensive process to cover the cost for education, but I think it is well worth it.

The students will never get a completley free education. No one likes to pay for college. It seems like the students spend most of their time protesting instead of saving their money and working in order to help finance their education. They can't expect the government to solve all of their problems for them.

"It will also gradually transfer municipal “subsidised” schools to the education ministry, but not make them free."

This sentence is incorrect. All municipal schools are already free. These are the former public schools, that were transfered from the central government to the municipalities in the 80's under Pinochet's rule. Since private subsidised schools (financed by the state) are allowed to charge extra fees to the families and to select students, this has created a tiered system where the poor has stayed in the municipal schools and the middle class has fled to the private system seeking distinction and the illusion of a better quality education (in fact there's no difference in quality when family income is controlled).

What the author meant, probably, is to say that the government has no intention of prohibiting the extra charges to the families in the private subsidized system

I agree with most of this article except for the description of Piñera's government as "centre-right": don't be fooled, it is as right wing as they get, and the way they've unleashed the police dogs on anyone who disagrees proves this

The Chilean government seems to be doing the sensible thing - moving to correct the worst problems, make education more affordable, and so on. The protesters need to understand that it's impossible to turn the ship of state on a dime. Disrupting the entire economy immediately to meet the demands of schoolkids is neither rational nor possible.

The protests started out reasonable, but now are just riots for the sake of riots. If the students really cared about their education, they'd be back in class, not wrecking central Santiago. Demanding that something be 'free' is a giveaway - nothing can be 'free' that costs money to provide - what they mean is that they want somebody else to pay.

Governments strive to encourage young adults to gain higher education in hopes of elevating the reputation of the country, building a better society as a whole. However, the Chilean school system is not economically practical for the average student. Less students have the opportunity to seek further education because their parents can't afford it. This trend it not only occurring in Chile, but also in the United States. Many students choose to attend community college now because of the low costs. It is absurd that businesses care more about profit than student education.

Moreover, in Latin and South America there is usually a huge gap between the rich and poor. For the rich, it is beneficial to have less educated and poor people so that they stick to the low-paying jobs. I believe that for the rich in Chile the high price of education is convenient, so it changing may be less likely.

You are not getting it. Nobody ask for "free for all" education in Chile, the students ask for a public free system, where everybody can enjoy the same opportunities. They are not saying to finish with the paid schools or univerities, they say free public education. If somebody wants to paya private school, go ahead. But the public education should be free and public, and must be paid with taxes, and off course the ones that make bigger profits must pay more taxes than the rest. The bottom line is, what society we want? a society that cares for the weakest or a society that leave us to our luck? the present article doesn´t say that based on recent polls 80% of people in Chile aupports the student cause, and everything they ask for. You americans are used to be alone, your governments doesnt care about you and they have never protected you, but there is other countries, more happier and succesful, where the authority cares about people, and that is what we want for our country, starting with education.

From the article and comments, it seems that school education is available free to those who need it. Quality seems to be an issue in free schools plus the de facto segregation of rich and poor students. Education stamps accompanied by adequate supply of schools could enable these issues to be addressed.

In terms of higher education, the economy should provide the job opportunities commensurate with the cost of the education, which to a certain extent could be subsidized by govt - the last is important to pursue future opportunities. For example, if it is national interest to creat a vibrant bio-tech and agri sector, the jobs may not exist at present for the scientists who quality and thus be an unviable investment.

Higher education divorced from the economy is something that is best left for individuals to pay for, as it is akin to watching a movie (just for pleasure) or alternatively the economy is rich enough to afford the freebie.

Chile, being a developing country in todays world, will find no harm in offering cheaper if not free education to the public. Education is an important demographic as it relates almost directly to the literacy of a country's population. A nation full of knowledgable people is important to a country that is looking for new ideas/innovations that will help it strive towards the developed side of the spectrum in todays world. While education is not entirely free in the US, as an average American student spends several thousand dollars on tuition as well as things such as room and board in college, the nation as a whole has reached such heights, because it provides the opportunity for young children to grow up in a fair, and virtually free educational environment. If students want to learn and further their capacity as human beings, I believe that it is not right to deprive them of an education solely on monetary issues. While the bill proposed in the article sounds promising, there is no guarantee that the chilean educational system will abide by such reforms, and thus, there may still exist protest from the country's youth.

Our Occupy Wall Street protesters should go to protesting school in Chile. Nobody gets heard standing outside of buildings blocking traffic anymore!!! Break in and jump on their desks!

Mr. Piñera is the most unpopular president in Latin America and he is waisting the chance of doing what the people (80% or more, according to surveys)is asking him to do: Provide quality and free education to our children. In his hands, and his coalition's, is the answer: a real tax reform. Is he going to betray the people who elected him or the group of bussines men he comes from?

I cannot see either side backing down in the near future. The government ever since the school strikes started has shown itself to be out of touch and not fully taking the protests seriously (it's first response was to move school holidays forward 2 weeks, nullifying the strikes).

The students have heavily invested in the strikes, I dont see them giving up even with summer holidays coming. Many students have now sacrificed an entire school year - they'll graduate at 19. They're not going to stop until they have something significant to show for this.

If the government had taken the protesters seriously in May, maybe this would have been resolved by now. As it is, I fully expect that in March after the summer holidays we'll again see schools being reoccuppied.

As an American living here in Chile I understand both sides of the arguments. Yes education is expensive here and yes the state contributes little. But it seems like the government has already moved to consider some of the students concerns like subsidies for most students. The students say that is not enough and demand that universities and grade school should be "free" for everyone. That is not a reasonable bargaining position. The article is correct when it says that the violence is wearing down the citizens. More than once I have passed through tear gas myself and scurried around burning debris in the street and it is not pleasant. In another matter not mentioned here I wonder with so many high school students not going to school this year what will happen next year as 7th graders try to enroll in 8th grade classes which are already filled to capacity. The system will be as they say in Spanish "colapsado".

Walker Rowe
http://www.gringolandiasantiago.com/2011/06/culture-of-protests.html

I understand that the students want free education (maybe they would even settle for just less expensive education), but I don't think they're looking at the tax payers money as a whole.
As it is now, there are not as many students going to the school because of their financial situation; however, imagine how many students would enroll if it were free. The cost from the government for the education would be astronomical for their current state. Countries are in an economic depression already, and asking for the government to devote so many funds towards education would hurt other parts of the state.

No one mentioned the role of the banking industry in giving student loans and no one here has mentioned that Chile is controlled by a tiny group of rich families, many of whom own the banks, the for-profit schools, the media, the copper mines, etc.

Case in point is this article from Santiago Times which talks about a Chilean journalist's investigation of the ties between one of the richest men in Chile (who owns a newspaper, real estate companies, bank):

"[The journalist] noted the strong editorial stance against free university-level education taken by Qué Pasa magazine and the La Tercera, and insisted that the publications’ owner, businessman Álvaro Saieh, should inform readers that he also owns CorpBanca, a private bank that has profited handsomely from state-backed student loans. Weissman noted that the publications never revealed the financial interests that might motivate publisher Mr. Saieh’s editorial stance. They forget to say (in their editorials and columns) that CorpBanca has a monopoly on the state-backed loans (CAE) given to students, and that Corpbanca is owned by Álvaro Saieh,” wrote Weissman. “Nor is it mentioned that Saieh is also owner of COPESA, which owns Qué Pasa magazine and La Tercera.”

Education is one part of the reform that has to take place in Chile. But the greatest reform has to be the breakup of large anti-competitive interlocking companies controlled by the very few richest families, who have been controlling Chile for many decades. No wonder Chileans are so angry!

Not mentioned anywhere in any of the discussions of improved education is how the education system will also include students with disabilities (nearly 15% of the population in Chile live with a disability). Chile has not only signed, but also ratified the UN Convention on Rights for Persons with Disabilities (that include articles that focus on equal access and equity in education, legal/civil rights and access as well as human rights for persons with disabilities). It has on its books Ley 20.422 (think Americans with Disabilities Act but without much due process).

Missing in action, however, is a conversion of the culture to begin to respect and expect their youth and maturing adults to actually participate and learn in k-12 education, move on to universities and eventually become gainfully and meaningfully employed. Perhaps this is why neither the government nor the striking/protesting students have considered in their proposals the inclusion of ALL students. Many of these individuals matriculate from an undeserved, inadequate and segregated education with a meager curriculum to the streets and metro corners seeking handouts (especially worthy of note here in the the fast-approaching season of the Teletón, Chile's answer to Jerry Lewis, that this source of support is limited to ONLY children UNDER 21 with PHYSICAL disabilities).