User:Sonalimaster/sandbox

= Privatization of K-12 Education in Argentina =

Annotated Bibliography
Mariono Naradowski & Myrian Andrada (2001) The privatization of education in Argentina, Journal of Education Policy, 16:6, 585-595, DOI: 10.1080/02680930110087834

This was the article that was featured on the signup sheet. The authors in this article understood the rise in privatization to be a result of switching from a mainly state-based statement to a hybrid system, which allowed for higher-income people to exit the public system and create two very different education realities. There was a lot of crucial information about how trends changed in particular years and explained some of the regional differences. However, since this article is now more than 20 years old, it’s missing information on new policies since the 90s.

Gvirtz, Silvina. “Seminar John Fogarty Buenos Aires April 26-27 the Education in Argentina : past, present and future tendencies.” (2007).

This article walked through the different education reforms that have been attempted and explained some of the political economy surrounding these policies. The author also specifically walked through how specific components of the 1993 reforms affected both public and private schools. Again, the article is not the most recent, so it’s missing key information about the 2010s. Additionally, there was not the same level of specificity about how the trends vary regionally. The information about how the overall political attitudes affected education will be especially useful.

Gottau, V. & Moschetti, M.C. (2016). Between Open and Internal Privatization: the Argentine Educational System from 1940 through 2010. Social and Education History 5(2), 112-133. doi:10.17583/hse.2016.2010

The authors in this article claim that because the Argentine government did not commit to investing fully in either the public or private sector, the result is very uneasy and has continued these divergent trajectories. This article highlighted how the supply-side design of the private education system creates a different result than other counties. Moreover, the authors explain how privatization is not two dichotomous systems. While this article explains how upper classes have exited the public sector, they did not go into much detail about the effect that has had on student performance.

Mariano Narodowski & Mauro Moschetti (2015) The growth of private education in Argentina: evidence and explanations, Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 45:1, 47-69, DOI: 10.1080/03057925.2013.829348

What this article did that unique was explain how the privatization trend is not necessarily tied neoliberal vs anti-neoliberal regimes. The authors explained how even when rhetoric around education changed, or major legislation was passed, the design and reality of the education system stayed the same. The article also provided more context to how this trend is positioned in the greater Latin American context. The authors did not spend as much time discussing how these policies affected individual schools, teachers, or families.

Claudia Diaz Rios (2019) Domestic coalitions in the variation of education privatization: an analysis of Chile, Argentina, and Colombia, Journal of Education Policy, 34:5, 647-668, DOI: 10.1080/02680939.2018.1460494

While the other articles focused almost entirely on Argentina, this author compared three different examples in the region. They spent time going into how global economic discourse and recommendations changed over time, and how privatization was heavily endorsed by institutions like the world bank. Their overall conclusion was that global opinion was not the only important factor, but domestic political coalitions as well. They also highlighted that compared to other cases of privatization, Argentina’s has been incredibly gradual, making it hard to change. Because the article was making direct comparisons, it wasn’t as informative about the reality of the education system today.

Final Article
See also education in Argentina

Argentina has two systems of education, public and private schools. There are critical differences between how the Argentine system is structured compared to other states. Private schools do not operate completely separate from the public system. Instead, the private system is another branch of the public education system. Argentina uses a supply-side model, which is different than other hybrid systems. The supply-side structure results in a unique environment. Both public and private schools receive government funding in Argentina. Private schools receive subsidies through tax exemptions and pay for teacher salaries. General Pedro Aramburu gets credit for rising privatization. In 1955, Arambury’s government codified privatization policies with Aramburu's Law 6403 of 1955 by offering subsidies to parochial schools. Since then, there has been continued expansion and growth in enrollment for private schools. This trend has persisted even as the government took on education reform in 1993 and the early 2000s as responses to economic hardships.

Today, private schools continue to grow faster than public schools. This trend is in line with the Latin American region and the globe as a whole. The two tracks of education have ended up serving different socioeconomic classes. Private schools end up performing better than public schools as they face increasing demands and fewer resources. These trends have created growing frustrations for teachers, students, and parents. Both teachers and students have engaged in strikes and protests based on their frustrations with the education system.

In spite of these conflicts, education in Argentina performs well by global metrics, and especially regionally, with at least half of those 20 and over have completed at least secondary school. The country also boasts a literacy rate of over 98%.

Before the 50s
Up until the education reforms in the 90s, the main education legislation was Argentina Law 1420, passed in 1882, which mandated that “public, compulsory, free, and secular education” be available to all. The move toward secularism was a departure from the role that the catholic church had played in education up until this point. At many points, the catholic church has held a strong position in Argentina. Separation from the church sparked conflict between the two institutions, including the breakdown of diplomatic relations with the Vatican and the clergy protesting the opening of secular schools.

The policy of expanding national secular education was part of a broader goal of the political processes at the time. At this time, the government had the goal of creating a national identity. One strategy was to bring schools under the control of the state and to equalize society through education. During this time, private, primarily parochial, schools had to operate in conjunction with public schools. They were not authorized to give out certifications independently. Private schools were heavily regulated during this period, and their enrollment fell dramatically.

Initial reforms, 1947 to 1965
In 1947, Juan Peron brought the church back into public schools as a part of his efforts to ensure the support of the catholic church. Part of this embrace of the clergy included making religion a compulsory subject in public schools. This was a move away from the strict secular approach to education that had defined the previous period. However, later on, in his administration, relations between the church and Peron’s government began to break down, and he reversed these policies that embraced parochial education. Another policy that Perón advocated for during this time was a constitutional amendment separating the church and state. Peron was ousted from the government in the Revolución Libertadora primarily for these policy reversals. His anti-religious policies led prominent clergy members to speak against him and later for specific catholic sectors of the armed forces to begin a coup d’etat against Peron. General Pedro Aramburu, the second leader in the military junta period, put the pro-clerical education reforms into law with Aramburu's Law 6403 in 1955. This is the point where the privatization trend begins in Argentina.

The first significant change that occurred with these policies was allowing religious schools to offer certifications independently. This was a change from their previous status, where they needed to operate in conjunction with public schools. During this period, public schools also started facing increased regulation. Public schools had new requirements governing what allowed them to receive public funding but also changed the rights of teachers. For private schools, teachers now we're able to receive subsidies of up to 60% of the salaries of public school teachers. There was little transparency in determining what schools got subsidies of what size. Eventually, there were some laws dictating regulations for how funds were distributed, but they're still wasn’t much public input or clear patterns in what determined subsidies. This law also began the trend that would persist throughout subsequent reforms where public schools faced increasing demands and bureaucracy, and publicly-funded private schools faced deregulation.

These reforms form the basis for the structure that governs the Argentine education system today. This specific education legislation would remain in place over the next few decades. This type of system persisted even during two military juntas and other periods of political instability. Today, families still are often choosing between traditional public schools and publicly-funded private schools if they have the resources to afford private schools.

Reforms of the early 90s
The next wave of privatization came after a series of riots following a period of chronic inflation in the 80s. Experts credited the cause of the rapid inflation to excessive government spending, which led to subsequent regimes cutting expenditures. Eventually, a new loan plan was put in place by the International Monetary Fund. Argentina ended up defaulting on its loans again. The Argentine peso continued to lose value even as several changes in leadership attempted to make policy changes. Eventually, the IMF refused to continue lending to Argentina. After the riots in 1989 following the failed Primavera Plan, a new economic reform package was passed under the leadership of Carlos Menem. This was a part of the general trends toward privatization that characterized this time in Latin America.

These austerity and privatization policies aimed to help curb government spending and bring inflation under control. They followed the policy prescriptions of global economic thinking known as the Washington Consensus. These economic policy prescriptions have, over time, become highly scrutinized. The original author John Williamson has pointed out that many of the critiques of his ideas are critiques of neoliberalism more generally rather than his specific proposals.

The Federal Education Law changed the distribution of primary versus secondary school and changed the administration of secondary school from the federal level to the provincial level. This put greater demands on the provincial governments. Additionally, the law placed both public and private schools in the same category, defining them as “‘public schools’ with different ‘types of administration.’” Provinces were not allowed to change the subsidy schemes either. They were required to maintain the same structure inherited from the federal government. While there was more money put into the public school system. This did not necessarily lead to improvement or stop the attrition of upper-class families from the public system.

The law attempted to pass on decision-making and curriculum decisions to individual schools. However, schools were still not able to hire their staff, and the process of submitting reform proposals was challenging. Private schools did not face the same level of bureaucracy, allowing them to be more dynamic and better able to handle the changes. Where private schools were able to adapt quickly to the needs of the community, public schools ended up only being able to fulfill the minimum standard.

There is no way to separate these reforms from the greater political landscape in Latin America at this time. Neoliberalism governed much of the international economist and domestic policy conversation during this time. Organizations like the World Bank were actively promoting education privatization. They believed that centralized national education systems were very susceptible to authoritarian regimes. Economists thought that they did not promote enough competition, reducing their level of quality.

The post-neoliberalism of the early 2000s
After frustration with the restructuring policies of the 90s, Argentina experienced continued economic hardships. These frustrations ushered in new political rhetoric. Politicians campaigned in Argentina against the trends of the previous decade. When the Justicialist party came to power, they advocated for a rejection of the neoliberal policies that had dominated the previous decade. Where the previous decade attempted to create education policy with the goal of addressing economic challenges first, these new policies were written with language that paid particular attention to advancing educational purposes. In 2006 they passed the National Education Law, which called for equal educational opportunities regardless of regional differences. This law, among others passed around the same time, was designed to bring back some of the federal government's role in the public education system.

Despite the explicit goal to change the trends of the previous decade, the legislation could not reverse the effects of privatization. In fact, private school enrollment continued to grow. There have been a few efforts to analyze why these trends remained even with changing policy landscapes. Public schools still did not have the level of freedom they needed to address the needs of their community. Schools on their own cannot hire teachers and control very little of the budget. This landscape puts private schools in a position to offer way more to families.

The state of school choice in Argentina today
In 2015 Argentina’s political landscape swung back towards neoliberal austerity politics. This came with the cost-cutting that defines the neoliberal school of policy, which exacerbated tensions in education. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, the Justicialist Party came back into power, although now with increased discussions of scandal and corruption. The COVID-19 pandemic brought many other challenges to education.

Today private school subsidies are structured in the same way as they were in the 1950s. Publicly-funded private schools receive direct subsidies to reduce costs and help pay teacher salaries which they can then use to reduce the cost somewhat to students. Additionally, some private schools receive indirect subsidies when they are granted tax exemptions. As of 2010, at least 65% of private educational institutions receive public support.

Private schools are growing at a faster rate than public schools. Between 2003 and 2012, private school enrollment for primary school increased by 20%, while public school enrollment declined by 6%. For secondary schools, while public enrollment grew by 6%, private school enrollment grew by 10.6%. As of 2019, the share of private school primary enrollment as a share of total primary school enrollment was 26%, up from 20% in 2000. While the trend has been more volatile for secondary school, the share of secondary school enrollment in private schools has remained in the high 20% range for the last 20 years. Additionally, people drop out of public schools at a higher rate than they do in private schools.

One potential reason for the persistent enrollment trends is the structure of having supply-side subsidies. This is different from the way many other hybrid education systems operate. For example, in Argentina, schools receive support regardless of the number of students. In other words, schools get financing from the state directly as opposed to families choosing to spend their public education dollars at a private school.

Income and geographic disparities
Privatization has disproportionately impacted different regions of Argentina, which has led to what can be described as socio-economic segregation. Urban centers, which in general have a wealthier population, have a larger number of schools receiving subsidies, and public schools are more scarce. Public school enrollment growth is the lowest in these areas. Reinforcing the cycle where the upper classes leave the public school system.

This has created a situation where private schools end up serving anyone who can pay, and public schools serve everyone else. When asked about a third of families say the public system say that they would choose private schools if they could afford to do so. The funding structure also does not proportionately allocate funds to where there is the most need. In Buenos Aires, 16% of the schools with populations in the wealthiest third receive 75% of state contributions. While there is increased transparency as to how funding is allocated since the policy began, it still is not transparent or subject to direct public input.

How each system performs
Private schools consistently perform better than public schools by most traditional metrics, such as internationally accredited standardized tests. Based on how students scored on the Programme for International Student Assessment in 2006, private school students do better academically. Some theorize that this is the structure of private schools compared to public schools. However, further examinations reveal that most of the differences between academics for the two student bodies can be explained by differences in socioeconomic position. As discussed in the previous section in Argentina, the two systems end service very different populations, contributing to this difference in performance. For that reason, there is more than is immediately apparent when private schools are framed as better education providers.

Somewhat connected to school quality is the presence of extracurriculars. While they are not directly related to academics, they provide an indication of resources. Extracurriculars are an important difference between the two systems. Private schools are able to offer more extracurriculars. This is one of the reasons that parents cite for why they choose private schools over public schools. For those working in public schools, they highlight that it's not just the lack of financial resources making it difficult for public schools to provide similar activities but also the bureaucracy required.

General trends in Latin America and globally
Private school enrollment is growing more in Latin America than any other region. While not every country has taken the same approach to education policy, the overall trend is clear that private school enrollment is up in the region as a whole. Like in Argentina, other countries did not necessarily create policies to pursue the growth of private schools. Instead, governments never corrected policies to reverse existing trends. While the trend toward privatization is the most pervasive in Latin America, it is also a global phenomenon. Institutions like the World Bank have continued to push policies that support private education as a solution to challenges around the world. Encouraging public-private partnerships has been a standard recommendation from intergovernmental organizations. This includes projects like land grants for private schools and subsidies like the ones in Argentina.

Teacher Strikes
Educators are being asked to take on and accomplish more with the increasing level of regulation in public schools. Often these increased responsibilities are not adequately included in training or compensation. This burden on teachers often leads to public schools focusing solely on the basic required curriculum, whereas private schools often have the resources to expand and provide more varied offerings.

These frustrations are some of the reasons for teacher strikes in Argentina. Strikes are frequently cited as a reason why public schools are less successful or why parents choose private schools. Students in public schools in Argentina do lose significant instruction time to strikes. One study calculated that primary students, on average, lose out on 88 days of instruction over the course of primary school. These strikes often occur in provinces where the poorest students are in school.

Despite the potential adverse effects of such prevalence of strikes in the region, there is no evidence for school closures being a reason why parents choose private schools over public schools.

Student reactions and protest
Students have also taken action against the functioning of the school system in Argentina. In 2017, President Mauricio Macri reintroduced different adjustment policies that moved towards more privatization and austerity. One of the education policies involved having public secondary school students work for private companies in unpaid internships. Public secondary school students occupied public high school buildings to protest that policy, among others. They joined with teachers in striking against the policy and for wage increases. There have also been various university student protests over the years over the impact that privatization has had on higher education.