Now that many Republican dominated states like Louisiana, Indiana, Michigan, and Wisconsin are enacting vouchers, it is a good time to look at the experience of vouchers in Chile. The Pinochet military dictatorship became infatuated with free-market ideas and imposed vouchers in the early 1980s.
To learn about the Chilean experience with vouchers, I turned to one of Mexico’s best-known independent researchers, Eduardo Andere.
Eduardo Andere writes:
“I began doing research about Chile in 2005. I was most struck by the fact that Chile is the country, perhaps together with New Zealand, that initiated a long and deep stream of education policy reforms since the 1980s . In the case of Chile, the reforms were imposed by a military regime and were very different from those adopted in New Zealand. The Chilean reforms were what is now often described as “neo-liberal”: decentralization of decision making, vouchers, standardized testing and accountability with league tables, teacher assessment or evaluation, privatization of school education services.
“The results of the reforms in Chile are: very low performance in PISA. At the last published PISA 2009 test, Chile was tied with Mexico as the lowest performing countries, among 34 members, in Math. Chile ranks about the same as Mexico but below the rest in Science and Reading. Chile has launched deep reforms; Mexico has not; and yet the two of them show very similar performance.
“The voucher system in Chile is very limited and only works partially for certain kinds of schools, i.e. private subsidized. There are three types of schools: municipal (for the poorest); subsidized private (for middle class); paying private (for the elites). Academic performance is highest in the last ones, which have no vouchers or public subsidy.
“With the new Chilean government, education is in the midst of deep institutional reforms: new agency for quality education with increasing power to supervise and rank schools, recurrent failing schools will be closed; a revision of the voucher system; the creation of a superintendent of education to oversee the use of resources; and a national council of education to set the national policies of education. The new government, in other words, is not abandoning the reforms imposed by the military regime, just fine-tuning them.
“So far, it is the same story for US, Mexico and many other systems: many reforms, few changes: or “much ado about nothing.’”
For another perspective on vouchers in international context, read Martin Carnoy here. This was published in 1996 but the lessons remain the same: Vouchers increase the gap between the haves and the have-nots.
This suggests the perverse genius of the corporate reform movement, led by right-wing think tanks, which tout vouchers as a way to “close the achievement gap” and to “save minority children from failing schools.”
How clever to market vouchers by promising to do what vouchers have never done and will never do. How clever to claim that the free-market, which produced our current income gap, will produce equity in schooling and equality of opportunity. The most astonishing aspect of this claim is the utter lack of evidence for it.

“Vouchers increase the gap between the haves and the have-nots.” Is the issue that the “haves” are doing academically better than before or that the “have-nots” are doing academically worse than before?
LikeLike
I never heard of the voucher system in Chile, but the results are what I predicted for our schools. After all, it is not is not a free market system. Corporations only give that lip service.
Even if vouchers paid for all schooling, it is still school choice.
At least professional sport teams make it clear they take only the best. The privatization of schools makes it a secret. The uninformed believe private schools pick from the rank and file and then make them the best.
Government keeps this little secret, or the public would never support such a system.
It is not a level playing field.
At the high school level, we could never compete against private schools. The private schools could draw from a huge geographic area for players while we were limited to our district.
In recent years, I noticed that my school would bring in ringers from outside the district. Even the public schools were finding ways of cheating. What kind of message does that send?
LikeLike
Chile 1973: Allende, Pinochet, Nixon, Copper, IT&T, corporate interests and coups. That’s what EdReform/Privatization is: a coup. Now it becomes a tad bit clearer.
For more on Chile:
2011–2012 Chilean student protests- Wikipedia- great overview and sourced
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011%E2%80%932012_Chilean_student_protests
Google search results for: Chilean students protest – nice videos – take a gander
https://www.google.com/#hl=en&tbo=d&sclient=psy-ab&q=chilean+students+protest&oq=chilean+students+protest&gs_l=hp.3..0j0i10i30j0i30j0i5i30.804.9926.0.10341.26.20.2.4.4.0.200.2677.2j17j1.20.0.les%3B..0.0…1c.1.mixvOysideU&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.1355272958,d.b2I&fp=767e16e3e38cb9c3&bpcl=39942515&biw=1205&bih=737
LikeLike
People interested in vouchers and market based instruments should look at what is going on now in Sweden. Since the 1990s, Sweden –very surprisingly– has developed the most marketized system of eduction in the world. And it is now coming apart at the seams, or at least that is what the Swedes think.
In the 1990s, they introduced rules that said that children had the right to go to any school they like –public, charter, or private– and local governments had the obligation to transfer to all schools the average per pupil amount they were spending on their public schools to both charter and private ones.
But the twist in the rules that made the system truly revolutionary and at first instance seems totally odd is that private, for profit schools are not allowed to charge tuition. This means they can make a profit if their costs are lower than those of public and charter schools, but that from the point of households there is no difference between the three types of institutions.
And over the last twenty years, there has been an explosive growth of enrollment in private schools, particularly at the secondary school level, and particularly in larger cities. For example, private school enrollment is now between 30 and 40% in Stockholm, Malmo, and Gotenburg.
It remains a bit of a mystery how the private schools –many of which are now corporate chains with logos and brand identities– are making their profits, but interestingly it does not seem to be through the use of non-union labor (after all, we are still in Sweden). Rather, they seem to be able to do it by delivering “standardized” curricula to selected target groups of students, and by “taylorizing” lesson plans so that teachers do less preparation work and more teaching of “specialized curricula to –again– particular types of schools.
As a result, there has been a proliferation of specialized secondary schools each claiming to deliver different sorts of education to different sorts of students (e.g. “entrepreneurial” programs, “vocational programs”, academic programs of various types. And to keep up, the public (and charter) schools have had to do the same, with everybody spending apparently every increasing sums on advertising.
To marketers, the Swedish experiment sounds like heaven and is surely the place where competition as an accountability instrument has been pushed farthest and fastest. Problem is, it doesn’t seem to be working. Sweden’s once stellar performance on international tests has fallen significantly and there has been a rapid increase in both socioeconomic and ethnic sorting across schools that with the dizzying array of (often meaningless) choice is pissing everybody off. Indeed, the last two national elections have largely been fought out over how to fix reforms that are now widely considered to have gone of the tracks.
Tony Levitas
LikeLike
This just proves to me that the education reform movement is profit-based. With so many examples of failure, it is the only explanation for focusing on vouchers and market-based models. Those who pay the bill will be our children, because they will not have the skills to be competitive in the job market. That will affect our productivity as a country, as innovation and creativity wane because our children have been taught to be automatons.
I am a teacher. This trend disturbs me greatly. Whenever possible, I try to stretch my students’ thinking, so they don’t lose the creative spark we all have.
LikeLike
The entire charter movement is being exploited to break unions and “tenure” in those places where it still exists. It is a total “bait and switch” scam.
LikeLike