Responder al comentario

To take up one of the many interesting threads of this discussion, I'd like to add just a few comments about the aspects of marketisation and privatisation raised by Salim Vally.
 
The privatisation of higher education is rapidly advancing across the world, whether in terms of decreases in state funding for public institutions (and consequent charging of student fees and seeking research funds from business) or in terms of the emergence of purely private institutions. In Brazil, over 80% of students now enrol in private institutions, half of which are profit-making businesses with a questionable commitment to academic values, let alone those of social justice and human rights. Yet while higher education provides a particularly fertile ground, primary and secondary education too are not safe from the encroachment of profit-making activities. James Tooley, the prominent proponent of free markets in education, has argued strongly for the entry of new private providers in the poorest countries of the world so as to extend primary education to all. His argument is initially seductive given the obvious limitations of state systems in the countries he focuses on (Nigeria, India etc), and the purported ability of private schools to drive up standards through creating stronger incentives for teachers and greater ownership and involvement of parents. However, on closer examination, the ‘research’ supporting these claims is superficial to say the least. Even if it were to be shown that, all other things being equal, private providers in Lagos State are currently providing education of a higher quality than their counterparts in the state system, this cannot in itself constitute an argument for encouragement of the private sector generally speaking. While the private schools Tooley focuses on charge low fees and are therefore accessible to some poor families (though importantly not to all…), we need also to look at the consequences of the expansion of these schools. As the system becomes increasingly privatised, there will be an inevitable stratification of institutions, with some maintaining the low fees and others charging premium rates for higher quality, thereby restricting access to middle-class and elite students. A private system has discrimination on the basis of economic resources built into it, and is certainly not an empowering tool for the poor as some have argued. This is true even if vouchers are provided by the government, as top up fees can always be charged.
 
Furthermore, privatization has significant implications for the curriculum – and specifically for the promotion of understanding of and respect for human rights – that would need another post to explore in full. There are certainly some aspects of the arguments for privatisation that need to be taken on board. Soulless, distant state systems churning out identical, mediocre educational experiences for all is certainly not the goal of the right to education. Community-based schooling with locally relevant curricula and strong ownership and endorsement from all involved is clearly of value. Yet this space for diversity should not be conflated with a system of private funding that will crystallise initial socio-economic inequalities.