MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Students and police clash in Santiago; mayor threatens to cancel protestors scholarships
For a third day running Chilean riot police broke up protests by students who had taken control of several high schools in the capital Santiago to demand education reform. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesIt is ironic how the students that are benefiting from one of if the not the best educational systems in Latin America, are at the same time trying to destroy it. The dictator Pinochet implemented this system because free market works to improve the quality of any product or service, including education. Obviously the providers of this service are out to make money, but competition will force the price to always be the lowest possible; if not, that particular school will be pushed out of the market by one that can offer the same quality service at lower price. If the government must provide a socialist “hand” in the matter, just give the outstanding poor students scholarships to the best private schools.
Aug 15th, 2012 - 05:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If the private schools are regulated too much, or their profits taxed too heavily, private schools will leave the country as it won't be worth the investment anymore. Everyone will lose out as the government will have to take on a huge burden and thus increase taxes to help pay for the increased costs. Quality WILL go down. It is such a shame that people can't see this.
““I think it’s sensible for a mayor who has limited resources to use these recourses on students who are committed to education,” Beyer told reporters”
Aug 15th, 2012 - 06:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The protesters ARE committed to education, thats why they want it reformed!
BK,
Aug 15th, 2012 - 09:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That is true to some extent, but you can't blame the mayor for attempting to discourage children from ransacking their schools, many of which are already in a poor state of repair. Although there is a real political issue underneath this, there is also a lot of opportunistic vandalism and political manipulation. How much do does the average 14 year old really care about educational reform?
Last year children in public schools lost a whole year of their school education and as a result, this year there was an exodus of children leaving the public system for the subsidised schools.
The root reason for this massive students strike and ransacking of schools is just political mathematics from the opposition´s leaders ruled by the Comunist Party.......For third consecutive month the Chilean President (and his Gvt. officers) has been growing up in the polls because the good management of the state wich is reflected in better salaries, more employement, low inflation, good state incomes, high level of external long term investiment, one of the best Unis level within LA (4 out top ten LA Unis are Chilean).....
Aug 16th, 2012 - 07:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0As BAMF say, the state ruled schools are inefficient, with too much time lost because the students and teachers strikes, so parents prefeer to pay a small price and send their kids to private subsidized schools where they will finish their matters on time and well aducated....
truth is... they want it the easy way. They can say what they say and camouflage it with supposedly noble reasons. But the reason is another.
Aug 16th, 2012 - 09:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0I often hear form argentines, that they use as an argument for their education, that many Chileans go over there to study. Of course many do! If the Argentines pay for them and if they get it for free, they are willing to take the loss of the lower quality. It's for free (at least for the students, Argentine's, or more probable creditors will pay and never get it back).
But just hold on for a minute... if you are going to study as an adolescent, having mostly alot of stuff in mind (girls, party etc...). Are you going to study more hard, if it costs yourself sacrifice (pay for it) or if you take it for granted without any personal risk? I think you all know the answer...
They have a right to take away scholarships. Scholarships are given to able and willing students but with conditions. They are hard won and give the student something other students have to pay for. In return they have to study hard and behave in an acceptable manner. If they are not studying, as in any country, scholarships are revoked and given to students that do want to study.
Aug 16th, 2012 - 10:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0@1 It is not entirely true that the schools offering the cheapest prices will be more successful in Chile. With all due respect to Chileans, there is a huge snob factor involved in choosing schools and religion plays a significant part, especially with the more wealthy.
The main complaint I hear is that there is little or no real control over how the money from the government is spent in subsidised schools. In the past this has led to some school owners becoming very wealthy at the expense of the students. There is nothing wrong with private businesses being successful but some controls to ensure tax-payers money is spent on the students would seem necessary.
#4 ”For third consecutive month the Chilean President (and his Gvt. officers) has been growing up in the polls“
Aug 16th, 2012 - 11:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0So he used to be even more unpopular?! The article says he's still the most unpopular president since democracy returned. By contrast the leftist Bachelet had stratospheric ratings.
#6 Define ”behave in an acceptable manner“. Surely in a democracy it shouldn't be ”unacceptable” to protest against the governmnet's policy?!
@7 A manner acceptable to the body granting the scholarship. There are always conditions attached to scholarships. I assume not attending lectures, failing to study and damaging school property would be unacceptable, but I don't know the terms of individual scholarships in Chile.
Aug 16th, 2012 - 11:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0I doubt protesting against the government would be reason alone. As an example, I know of independent schools in the UK granting days of absence from school to allow sixth form students to take part in lawful and peaceful protests, with parent's permission.
#6 Elaine - Completely agree that tax payer money destined for the education of students should be spent on the education of students and not to allow corruption schemes that only profit the owners. But think about it, the only reason that this type of corruption occurs is not because there is little or no regulation, but because the government is subsidizing these “private” schools by giving them CASH. Just stop giving them cash; it doesn't work and is guaranteed to create corruption with or without regulation. Instead, just give out scholarships, tax-vouchers, to the parents and let them decide where the kids will go to school. If the parents prefer to have their children go to a religious school, that is the parents choice and the parents are the ones responsible for their own children, not the government. Image, snob factor, more important, than that is the parent's decision. You and I can agree that a majority of parents want the best quality education they can afford for their children (not 100% of parents but most). So the schools that can offer the best education at the cheapest price, meaning for each dollar that the economy spends returns the most benefit for the society, will be the schools that receive the most number of students and thus can grow bigger and offer more kids good cheap education. The owners of such schools will make lots of money, but only because they provided a service that their clients were satisfied with and keep on returning. Competition between two successful private schools will force the price down similar to any other industry.
Aug 16th, 2012 - 01:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Regulation will only hurt the poor because it incurs extra operating costs for the school. That cost is transmitted to the price of tuition. And like I mentioned before, regulation is no guarantee that the corruption will stop.
BK
Aug 16th, 2012 - 02:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Democracy is the right to vote, not the right to vandalise public and private property, endanger lives by burning buses and policemen. Why do anarchists and communists defend as acceptable that a policeman should be burnt and disfigured in his line of duty?
The PS (socialist party, not the concertacion BK) in Chile is politically irrelevant. Democratic elections show that the country wants to consign them and their malign politics to history. But as they are a fundamentally non-democratic animals, when democracy marginalises them, they choose violence and radicalization of school children.
You are right that Piñera is breaking records with his low popularity. He is unpopular because he is not delivering. The amusing thing is that come the next election power will probably go back to the Bachelet tribe and we will get back to business as usual, free-market capitalism, hydroaisen will be pushed through and the status quo will return to education. There is little to no difference between the nominal left and right here (except for fringe elements on either side) – they are two cartels fighting for power. It is regrettable that the Bachelet cartel has decided to use the education debate as their battle ground instead of alienating the anarchists in their ranks.
The losers: the children in state education, the education system in general and the police; the winners: cynical politicians.
BAMF
I broadly agree with you, but I see little difference between giving cash to schools and providing scholarships. If a child with a scholarship chooses a certain school, the government will still have to allocate the funds associated with that scholarship to the chosen school.
Condorito - The difference is that the forces of the market place will determine where the best place for tax-payers money should go to for education. By simply giving private schools money, subsidizing the actual school, the government will have to personally check to make sure the money is being properly used in each and every school it subsidizes. The costs of this regulation are horrendous and wide open to corruption. By using vouchers, the parents which have the greatest interest in giving their children the best education, will put their kids in another school if the voucher money is not being used properly. Essentially you remove the inefficient regulation of the state and give it to the market forces, though it is not perfect, it is the best system possible; less resources will be used to provide a better service (education).
Aug 16th, 2012 - 03:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0BAMF
Aug 16th, 2012 - 06:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That is kind of what happens now with the subsidised system. The school receives approx $100 / month per child from the government. If I move my children from school A to school B, school B then receives the money corresponding to my children from the government and school A loses it. So if the school has no pupils, it gets no subsidy.
In my town there are 7 big private schools, 6 of which are very good. All 6 are oversubscribed. The subsidised schools are much easier to start up because once your project has been approved by the ministry of education, the bank will almost certainly lend you the cash to build. I haven’t counted the subsidised schools, but there must be at least 20.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!