Chilean researcher Alvaro Gonzalez Torrez has read the
posts about Chile and thinks the solutions are too timid. Here are
his suggestions for what is needed to get free of free-market
ideology:
“I’ve been following the series of three blog posts about
Chile, being a Chilean ed researcher myself. I believe Waissbluth’s
contribution to the blog opens a debate of international relevance
by showcasing the Chilean example in the context of a global
advance of neoliberal policies in education (what Pasi Sahlberg
calls ‘GERM’).
I agree with the (dreadful) diagnosis offered by
Mario Waissbluth in terms of the consequences of neoliberal and
market policies in school education: high social segregation and
low attainment in schools, plus a weakened public image of public
education and the teaching profession.
Sharing the diagnosis,however, I do believe Waissbluth’s (and Educación 2020’s) proposals
to revert this situation would fall short to produce the necessary
changes. I don’t think this is the place to get in a detailed
argument, but I would say that Chile’s problems won’t be solved by
employing ‘market tools’ and ‘special funds’ as change levers.
There’s a need for more radical responses to address the radically
grim scenario of Chilean school education. The idea is to break
free from the neoliberal principles underpinning the Chilean school
system (market, choice, privatisation) that have turned education
into a commodity.
To do so, it isn’t enough to think that ‘we can
play the game better’ than the people that came before us, and use
neoliberal strategies to improve education quality (which is, in my
opinion, what people from the Concertación thought in the
90s).”
Right. We will never be able to play their game better than they do – they have a long running head start on how to play it (not to mention, they own the referees). We need to play our own game.
Thanks for publishing my comments to Mario Waissbluth’s post, Diane.
One thing, though: my name is Alvaro, not Alberto 😉
Alvaro, I will fix that. Sorry for my error!
Thanks! 🙂
The game here needs to be what works for society and not individuals.
A pure capitalist society can be just as corrupt as a pure socialist one – in that neither can be totally pure and both are subject corruption.
We are always (at least in this country) walking a balance of socialist policies and capitalist ones (we are working on healthcare, we have social security, we have market regulation to an extent, etc.)
In balancing the needs of individuals against the needs of the many, it’s apparent that Chile is all the way on one side of the spectrum. In my experience with bureaucracy (though not international or even national) – you really can’t shift things gradually. The reason why being that if everything remained static, that idea would make sense.
The bigger players on the field can make bigger changes a lot quicker than fringe individuals or groups.
Chile doesn’t need small shifts – it needs large shifts to make society equitable again. It shouldn’t hop all the way on the other end of the spectrum, but perhaps it should make a pretty good leap and then work its way back since the inclination is to be what the country identifies as now.
Exactly! Thinking that one can play the game better is simply to continue playing THEIR game. It is a “game” and it has no place in a free public school system founded upon democratic principles. We don’t hear much of those lately, do we?
The people who privatize get personal pay-offs, financially and politically. They have elite status and, effectively, are the benefactors of power. They have no incentives to change the game. That’s why it has to become a different game –and with different players. Removing them and their heirs from power is the problem.
We have the same dilemma here. We have to vote for replacements who will truly represent the masses, not those who can be bought to protect the elites. I think it will take a huge amount of organization and collaboration amongst voters in both of our nations to break free from neo-liberal control.
Perhaps you should take to the streets like the Morsi supporters in Egypt. Of course, defending theological control of a society does have some risks. They are trying to make Egypt part of the new caliphate, Muslim in law. What religion do you want to impose on Chile and on the USA? Morsi preached “democracy” too, but what he meant by it was, “after I win the election and I am in power, I will end democracy.” Isn’t that essentially what you mean by “democracy” too? Rule by the workers, not true democracy where everyone has a vote and if a particular regime is voted out, it leaves peacefully?