The debate on Chile’s higher education Javier Sandoval debate on Chile's higher...The debate on...
-
Upload
doannguyet -
Category
Documents
-
view
215 -
download
0
Transcript of The debate on Chile’s higher education Javier Sandoval debate on Chile's higher...The debate on...
May 2012 Universitetet for miljø- og biovitenskap (UMB)
Institutt for internasjonale miljø- og utviklingsstudier (Noragric) Ås – Norge
The debate on Chile’s higher education: a right or merchandise? Javier Sandoval Guzmán
Abstract
The education, rather than being considered a right that needs to be assured for any
human being, it has been progressively deemed as merchandise subject to the laws of the
markets. This idea neglects the essence of education as the transmission of knowledge that
has been socially constructed and, as such, belonging to the whole human kind. In this
article, I will focus on Chile’s system of education, particularly on its tertiary (or higher)
education, which is passing through a crisis rooted in decades ago. The crisis has
deepened the country’s inequalities, leading to recent social outbreak commanded by the
student movement.
Keywords: autonomy, crisis, human rights, perverse interests, merchandise, privatization, profit, free public education, public role, quality of the education, self-financing.
1. Introduction
Perhaps the majority of the society is aware about the long existence of human
rights as an idea, and maybe it is also well known that they have been defined, approved,
and thus “legalized” in several international covenants and declarations. The right to
education is one of them, as it can be seen in the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human
Rights (1948), or in the UN’s International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights (1966). However, beyond any agreement, it must be acknowledged that these rights
have been systematically violated throughout history. Plus, some of them are not even
2
considered as human rights by numerous influential states (Uvin, 2004). The purpose of
this article is to draw upon old and more recent debates addressing the question of why
considering education as a right, acknowledging its different interpretations, perspectives
and definitions, as well as examining how far is reality from the ideal fulfilment of this
human right. In addition, I suggest some possible paths we can follow to positively
influence the unfortunate situation of the education system in Chile. The education, rather
than being considered a right that needs to be assured for any human being, it has been
progressively deemed as merchandise subject to the laws of the market (see Brunner &
Uribe, 2007). This idea neglects the essence of education as the transmission of knowledge
that has been socially constructed and, as such, belonging to the whole human kind.
Whether the right to education has been violated or not since its conception has
been a source of debate for different sectors of the society, wherein student movements
have played an important role. The historical demands of this latter group have comprised
not only the defence of this right, for they have also been involved in struggles for peace,
democracy and many other important issues affecting societies all around the world (see for
example DeGroot, 1998; Van Maanen, 1966). In the following debate, though, I will focus
on the case of Chile’s system of education, particularly its tertiary (or higher) education.
In specific terms, this situation is rooted in the country’s recent history and the
different policies that have systematically pushed the system towards its definite
privatization. It must be acknowledged that the idea of at least a partial privatization is
since long ago, officially widespread, being also accepted in international covenants (see
for example UN, 1966, Art. 13. §4). In the case of Chile, the aspects defining a
privatization according to many experts fit well in the Chilean model (see Belfield & Levin,
2002; Walford, 1990). The actors that have guided this trend, however, have not explicitly
recognized the privatization of the system as their final objective. With the absence of
political will to consider the social demands, the outcomes of this crisis reached an
unexpected level of connotation in 2006. This year witnessed mass participation of students
in strikes that lasted for several months, putting in evidence the necessity of structural
change. This process -led mainly by high school students- was called “la revolución
3
pingüina”1 (see Bellei, Contreras & Valenzuela, 2010; Gutiérrez & Caviedes, 2006). Later,
in 2011 with the still unsolved crisis of the system, the movement swept with the recent
history of movements, reaching enormous levels of participation that comprised not only
students from all the educational levels, but also different sectors of the society towards the
defence of the education as a human right (Valdebenito, 2011). However, it’s necessary to
point out that students and different sectors of the society have reacted against the
perceived crisis and privatization since its outset. Thus, the student movement has been
struggling to build structural change in the system, including the laws that define it. In this
struggle, students have resorted to different and innovative methods of raising their claims,
aiming also to include the whole society. The government has reacted with brutal levels of
repression (Ferretti, & Massardo, 2006; Grez, 2012). Students demand free and quality
education necessary for overcoming the high social inequalities that hinder the country’s
development (CONFECH, 2011). This article analyses the importance of establishing a free
public system and the requirement of quality in all levels of the educational system to
address the crisis. The quality of the education it is also a key aspect in both public and
private institutions. The student movement has included all these relevant factors of the
crisis in its demands, providing largely discussed proposals for building structural change.
These proposals, far from being utopic, are backed by strong technical analyses. For
example, a study by Frigolett, Mayol, Muñoz, and Pizarro (2011) demonstrate that
establishing a free public system is possible through three different sources of funding that
wouldn’t affect the stability of the country’s economy. These and many other proposals
also address flaws in the economic system that may represent additional source of
inequalities, like the misuse of inputs from Chile’s copper mining together with its
privatization. For a deeper understanding of these connected issues, we should analyse the
context of Chile’s recent history and its society.
1 Penguin is the name coloquially given to primary and secondary school students because of their uniform resembling colors of a penguin.
4
2. Why Right to Education in Chile?
Chile, a country of ca. 17 million people, suffers from enormous inequalities. The
average of the per-capita autonomous-income2 of the richest percentile (richest 1%) of the
population is about 260 times higher than that of the poorest ten per cent. Besides, almost
60 per cent of the population cannot satisfy their basic needs (e.g. food, shelter, clothing,
education, health, mobility, recreation, etc.). However, these figures remain hidden when
measuring growth by using indicators as GDP per capita (Durán & Kremerman, 2012; see
also Fig.1). In this context, experts have demonstrated that the private investment coming
from families is substantial in the sense that they can spend 40 per cent of their income only
in their children’s education (Durán & Kremerman, 2012). In the same way, evidence
shows that Chile’s structural inequalities are directly linked to the progressive privatization,
which not only maintains but also increases inequalities. The outset of the privatization
trend in the education system can be traced back to the times of Pinochet’s dictatorship,
with the education reform of 1981 (see DFL Nº1 art. 15).
Fig.1: Distribution of household’s autonomous-income by decile of autonomous per capita-income (Mideplan – Casen, 2009). The decile I has an autonomous-income of 64,361 Chilean pesos (CLP) (i.e. approx. USD 129). The decile IX earns CLP 1,149,137 (approx. USD 2,300). The decile X earns CLP 2,958,175 (approx. USD 5,920).
2 Autonomous-income -also called primary income- is defined as all payments received by the household as a result of the possession of productive factors. Includes salaries and wages, self-employment earnings, the self-provision of goods produced by the household, income, interest, pensions, and retirement.” (Mideplan – Casen, 2009, p. 2. Own translation).
5
Two of the main changes imposed by the dictatorship were the progressively
decrease in the state funding given to public universities, and the allowance and promotion
of private education. This process was of much significance, since it created a market in the
system of education. With Pinochet’s reform, Chile became the first Latin American
country in charging tuition fees to students in public universities (OECD, 2009b). This
funding source represents today a large percentage of the budget of these institutions. They
have then been forced to increase the tuition fees every year -given the continuous decline
in state funding- thus promoting the self-financing logic. Other countries, through long
lasting strikes, were more successful in preventing attempts to introduce fees in public
higher education3. Throughout decades, the effects have worsened and Chile is nowadays
the country with the highest level of privatization in education (see Fig. 2), with public
universities getting less than 15% of their budget -as an average- from public funding (see
Contraloría, 2011). The remainder comes mostly from the students’ families through
education fees (see Fig. 3), which have become the second highest education fees in the
world4, just below the US5. This situation has devastating effects on the population. For
example, a student who gets a private loan to study will owe USD 13,000 after 4 years of
studies at the university, whereas the minimum wage in Chile is about USD 360 (Araya,
2012; BCN, 2011a; OECD, 2011). Thus, most of Chilean students are obliged to go in debt
if they want to access higher education, with the consequence of being forced to pay during
20 years after graduating to be able to return the loans they got from private financing
institutions (Rodríguez, 2011). It is not hard to recognize that this logic only deepens the
inequality the entire educational system drags. All the more, students of lower and medium
strata have not even been able to get these credits, thus being completely denied of the
possibility of accessing or remaining at the higher education level. The World Bank itself
states that this problem "is due to imperfections in capital markets" because "borrowers do
not accept the promise of future earnings as guarantee of payment" (World Bank, 1996; as
cited in Mora, 2005, p. 257. Own translation.) The figures put in evidence that the
education is no longer considered by the Chilean political class as a right associated to what
is known as “positive liberty.” This means that even though the middle and lower
3 Famous is the case of the nine-month strike at the UNAM, in Mexico, 1999 (Sotelo, 2000). 4 Around USD 9,000 a year. 5 Around USD 22,000 a year.
6
socioeconomic strata are not “prevented” from being educated, they don’t receive the
minimum conditions to access it (see Uvin, 2004).
Fig.2: Share of private expenditure on tertiary educational institutions (2000, 2005 and 2008) and change, in percentage points, of the share of private expenditure between 2000 and 2008. (OECD, 2011)
Fig.3: Distribution of public and private expenditure on educational institutions (2008) in tertiary education (OECD, 2011)
7
To further describe the flaws of the system, we need to focus in the higher or
tertiary education in which a brief description should account the different institutions
comprising it. By and large, there are three kinds of institutions: the public or state-owned
institutions; the private institutions created before the education reform of 1981; and the
private institutions created after that reform (Beyer, 2001). The first two categories of
institutions mentioned above, are known as the “traditional” universities (Beyer, 2001, p.8).
On the other hand, the rest of the private educational institutions correspond to a large
number of institutions (much larger than the traditional group) that could be considered as
just sheer examples of private companies in the new “education market” (see Brunner &
Uribe, 2007). One aspect that may distinguish many traditional universities, in their original
or current functioning, from the later private educational institutions is the concept of
“public role”. This is understood basically as the responsibility the universities must have
towards solving problems of a society (Biesta et al., 2009). Different laws defining Chile’s
system of education have specified that the educational institutions in Chile should function
as non-profit institutions (see DFL Nº1 art. 15, LOCE art. 30, LGE Ch.II, sec.9); a
statement found also in laws enacted during Pinochet’s dictatorship. However, the private
universities indeed function as for-profit corporations that benefit from the “educational
business” by using multiple methods 6 . Evidence also shows that these university-
corporations are strong ideological apparatuses. Among their owners and shareholders we
account: parliamentarians, ministers and former ministers of the two main political
coalitions, religious sects like the Opus Dei and the Legionaries of Christ, and large
national and transnational business groups (Mönckeberg, 2007). These facts remind us to
what Walford (1990, p.19) states about the objectives of the education:
“For education is inherently political (…) it is necessary to recognise that one of the great
threads which runs through the history of education is the conflict between education as a
liberating and egalitarian influence and education as a way of justifying elitism and
privilege.”
6 To cite an example, it has been demonstrated that owners of private universities are also owners of estate agencies, which at the same time own the land or buildings being rented by these universities, using the formula of leasing. This allows them avoiding taxes or harnessing the “legal gaps” to make profits. Unfortunately, because of their nature, these cases cannot be furher investigated (see Mönckeberg, 2007).
8
Moreover, the scenario of Chile’s education ought to be also analysed in the global
context, so to get an idea of how and with what priority it is addressed. The low level of
public expenditure on education in Chile (0.3% of GDP in higher education), compared to
the average of OECD countries (1.0% of GDP in higher education) can be evidenced by
different indicators, being typical examples the public expenditure per student or the total
public expenditure on education as a share of GDP (OECD, 2009a). Table 1 (see appendix)
shows the latter indicator, contrasted with private expenditure (education fees, educational
extension, sale of patrimony and services, etc.). These figures seem to be in accordance to
what multilateral financial institutions such as the World Bank promote and emphasize.
These institutions define education as an industry producing profits, or as an investment in
"human capital"-due to the higher revenue expected as a result of it (Gascón & Cepeda,
2008). This encourages neoliberal sectors to expand the idea that the education should be
seen as a “private good”, rather than a human right as subscribed in international
agreements. As an example of the latter we have the UN’s International Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, in which free higher education is promoted:
"[H]igher education shall be equally accessible to all, on the basis of capacity, by
every appropriate means, and in particular by the progressive introduction of free
education." (UN-CESCR, Part III, Art. 13, sec. 2d.)
In addition, UNESCO (1998a) poses strong arguments against the individualist pro-
privatization perspectives. These arguments help understand why establishing a free system
of education (in all levels) is a fundamental factor for establishing an education system with
a public role of building a sustainable and democratic society:
“The concept of educational income in personal benefit needs to be replaced by the concept
of external economy and especially by the concept of ‘social return’, which designates the
indirect benefits generated by the education in benefit of the society. These are difficult to
quantify, but this does not make them less real: the elevation of knowledge and skills have
an impact on the growth rate and competitiveness of the country; the investment made by
previous generations relapses in later generations; it is also a desire to fully exploit the skills
of those who are more capable (the concept of merit) of serving for development; raising
9
the level of education affects the development of a more democratic culture and allows to
become distant and a resistant to arbitraries” (UNESCO, 1998A, p.50, quotation marks in
the original. Own translation.)
Another important aspect of higher education is the its effect in “social mobility”,
which is a way of helping people to get out from poverty. This is evidenced by the effect of
the different levels of education in people’s average income (see Fig.4). In this sense,
UNESCO (2009, p.10) sates that “[t]oday’s inequalities in education are tomorrow’s
inequalities in the distribution of wealth and wider opportunities for human development”.
Continuing with the strategic importance of a country's higher education accessible to all,
Angel Ruiz (2000) explains that:
“[T]he impact of actions in higher education not only has positive effects on national
product-management in a direct way, through professional cadres or through the developed
investigations, but also on the educational system itself. Higher education is a key part of
the progress of pre-university education, if properly developed” (p.227. Own translation.)
However, far from demonstrating a proper development, in Chile we have a
scenario where most of the students come disproportionately from the highest income
quintile. The advocates of privatization use this fact when they claim that the state funding
to higher education is regressive, since in this way it is favouring the wealthiest (see
Friedman, 1979; Hernes, 2002; OECD, 2009b). However, in this argument it’s not
acknowledged that it’s precisely the system and its privatization trend that has created such
an uneven proportion of rich and poor students in higher education. This unfortunate fact
has made the argument in favour of the privatization an apparently irrefutable truth.
Conversely, some experts claim that this is a serious mistake:
“(…) [A] total system funding –i.e. free higher education- has a positive effect on equality,
even without considering the effects of collection. In the case of Chile, free education
creates an unambiguous declining in the Gini coefficient”. (Corvalán & Sanhueza, 2011,
para. 3. Own translation.)
10
Fig.4: Average income by level of education7 (Futuro Laboral based on CASEN, 2006; as cited in
DIPRES, 2010)
In addition, Corvalán and Sanhueza (2011) argue that establishing free education is
not a regressive policy neither confirms the slogan that by doing it “poor people would
finance the rich” (para. 16. Own translation.) These authors also cite results of Engel,
Galetovic and Raddatz (1999), giving support to the idea that establishing free education
has important redistributing effects:
“(…) Redistribution has an ‘unpleasant arithmetic’: it’s redistributed slightly when it takes
out from the rich, but it’s redistributed strongly when giving to the poor. This is to say,
taxes and subsidies have influence upon inequality mainly through its effect on low-income
sectors, and this effect is accentuated in highly unequal countries like ours.” (Engel,
Galetovic & Raddatz, 1999; as cited in Corvalan & Sanhueza, 2011, para. 5. Own
translation)
Moreover, to continue examining the negative effects of the logic of self-financing,
it’s important to consider another of its sources; namely, the private donors. In many cases, 7 The original histogram shows values in Chilean pesos (CLP) from 2007. For the purposes of this article and for the sake of legibility, the data were modified considering an approximate exchange rate of USD 1 = CLP 500. In order to estimate a real value, it can be used the exchange rate at the moment of writing this article, i.e. USD 1 = CLP 482,12 (Banco Central, 07/May/2012) which of course, produces no substantial difference.
11
these donations have represented substantial amounts of money. Based on this it can be
described how private education and the self-financing of higher education institutions,
introduce “perverse interests” and biases affecting teaching and research, whether in
response to these donations or just as the intention of the owner of the private institution.
As examples, one can mention the businesses of private universities in Chile or the cases of
the California-Berkeley and Florida universities in USA (Mönckeberg, 2007; Warde,
2001). To describe these “perverse interests” it in more detailed terms, Collins (2000, para.
1-2) contends:
“Science is losing credibility. Conflicts of interest, biased studies and secrecy are
undermining science's reputation and its truth-seeking objective. Scientist-consultants who
are paid by industries but who serve as faculty professors frequently testify before Congress
and federal regulatory agencies without pausing to reveal their industry connections.
Science departments in public universities enter into multimillion-dollar contracts with
private corporations, yet few details are revealed about the nature of such agreements.
Medical and other science journals all too frequently publish articles without adequately
disclosing even major conflicts of interest.”
Thereby it seems to be worth asking us: what could have been hidden behind results
of research related to tobacco, atmosphere pollution, food contamination, or drugs and
medications? The described situation gives us another strong argument against the
privatization of the education or, in the opposite sense, to establish it as a human right. If
we still prefer to stay dubious, an ethic or at least responsible demand would be to cut the
public funding for institutions that have not been able to demonstrate non-profiting
functioning in their educational “service.” However, one can also step aside of the debate
related to the existence of private education. This must consider, though, that assuming the
existence of private education as an immovable reality involves taking over the negative
effects it entails. These effects become more important when acknowledging that private
institutions “prepare” and “indoctrinate” the majority8 of the professionals in Chile.
Moreover, evidence shows that private educational institutions have no “accreditation” of
its quality, which becomes relevant if we recognise that the negative effects can all be 8 CASEN (2009).
12
embedded in a lack of quality in its broad sense (see Torres, Riquelme, & Guzmán, 2011;
BCN, 2011b).
Therefore, another central aspect in this debate draws upon our understanding of
quality of education and the ways we can measure and implement it. Although one can
naturally assume that right to education intrinsically refers to a quality education, it seems
convenient to explicitly refer to it. Unfortunately, the task of defining the concept of quality
escapes from the scope of this article. However, based on the arguments this article draws
upon we can still agree in some basic pillars that quality education must encompass. This
allows us to establish a connection between quality education, the public role expected
from it, and the kind of human beings this education should create. This connection
emphasises the importance of human rights, and particularly principles like solidarity,
pluralism, democracy, and self-determination adapted to a specific society (see Bellei,
Contreras & Valenzuela 2010; Carr and Hartnett 1996). These principles are to be
considered as important as technical considerations of quality. To this end, a key aspect is
the democracy within the institutions and their autonomy. The relevance of a democratic
functioning is relevant because it enables a broad participation of the community in
education principles and objectives. In addition, it deepens the understanding of this
principle in the community, creating the habit of its importance in daily life (Vaccarezza,
2006). On the other hand, the autonomy principle, which in Chile is enacted by law (see
LGE, art. 65), should always be seized and sheltered. The communities within the
education institutions and the society in general may focus in deepening these practices,
because they don’t require reaching the highest levels of the political system, but only local
reforms and agreements. While implementing these principles, the education institutions
may also collaborate and contribute to alternative methods of non-formal or popular
education. This may create symbiotic process that would strengthen the public role as well
as enabling the society to access a permanent and universal process of education. Non-
formal or popular methods of education have been successfully developed in many
countries in Latin America (Barreiro, 1978; Parra, 2007). Pavez (2003) poses that it is
specifically in these terms that public institutions are to be distinguished from private ones.
The former institutions should address society not only in their academic activity, but also
13
in the way they are constituted. They should resemble the society, with its problems and
contradictions, thus enabling the students to develop values of coexistence, tolerance and
respect.
On the other hand, we should realize that private entities need not have any interest
in meeting social goals, either because these goals are not part of their mission and vision
statement, or because their existence relies specifically in not meeting them. Their raison
d'être is perhaps based on their ideological influence, their profit-making objective, or both
at the same time (see Brunner & Uribe, 2007; Mönckeberg, 2007).
3. Conclusions: Some possible paths
Consequently, the society can start finding the ways of implementing the basic
pillars of a quality public education, which conceives education as a fundamental human
right. Privatizing this right is equivalent to the privatization of knowledge, which is a joint
creation of humanity; thus by essence belonging to all. It is possible for the society to
define and start implementing the character of public education the country needs. In
addition, while building the basic pillars of this change also the continuity of the process
must be ensured. Thereby, the idea that defining all types and contents of the imparted
education is a unique and exclusive privilege of the state becomes inconvenient. What to do
then with the alternation of governments, each of them with their own different political
agendas? How does the project of public education with its social role react to this? The
focus should then be on demanding what the state is obliged to fulfil, given the respective
laws, and regardless of the coalition in the executive power. A failure in these terms would
condemn the government to illegality and illegitimacy. The society must focus in making
the state respect and ensure the right to quality education, and also prohibiting the for-profit
educational institutions, being both of these duties established by the constitution (see LGE,
2007). Recognising the education as a human right also requires a transition to a free public
system of education. Hence the society must demand the progressive increase in basal
funding for the public education budget to move in that direction. At the same time the
society and the communities within the institutions can develop the fundamental contents
14
for a quality education with social goals, in all institutions -public or private- without
exception. Thus, the society may advance towards creating a system that: a) ensures a
permanent process of education during people’s whole lives; b) ensures access without
economic nor any kind of discrimination; c) contributes to the reduction of inequalities that
come from earlier education levels; d) plays a fundamental role to help solve society’s
problems; d) ends with the self-financing logic of public universities, moving towards a
free system. An additional requirement is that the institutions willing to get public funds
should remain free of ideological biases, market-influence or any religious imposition. The
doors of educational institutions should finally be opened towards the society in general. To
accomplish this, the formal education institutions should work together, in a symbiotic
process, with non-formal and popular initiatives of education. Thus, the ideological for-
profit perspective and the private institutions might succumb to these demands, prevailing
the commitment towards solving society’s problems. The student movement can take
strategic actions capable of getting popular support. These actions may include ways of
curtailing the possibility of using education as merchandise or as an ideology-transmitter.
Therefore, it becomes essential to prepare the society for the debate of allowing or not
profit-making in education, and make it conscious of the negative effects of its
privatization. The students, above all, have the duty to lead this process and search for the
unconditional social support it needs.
In conclusion, evidence shows that far from respecting, promoting or enshrining the
right to education in Chile, its privatization works towards an opposite direction. Besides,
several aspects demonstrate how the failures of the system would deepen if this privatizing
trend is maintained. However, this is not happening because the solution remains unknown,
but because there is no political will to concede what the majority of the society is
demanding as a solution. Worse, it is uncertain if the government is capable, and prone, of
strengthening the repression they have already used against the agents of change. Perhaps
these coercive ways won’t succeed in eliminating a seed of change that seems to be
growing, faster and stronger than ever.
15
4. References Araya, C. (2012, April 21). 78 carreras superan en más de un 100% arancel de referencia [78
university programmes exceed in more than 100% the reference fees]. La Tercera. [online]
Retrieved May 5, 2012, from
http://diario.latercera.com/2012/04/21/01/contenido/pais/31-106812-9-78-carreras-superan-
en-mas-de-un--100-arancel-de-referencia.shtml
Banco Central [online]. Retrieved May 5, 2012, from
http://www.bcentral.cl/
Barreiro, J., (1978). Educación popular y proceso de concientización [Popular education and
awareness process]. Siglo Veintiuno Editores.
BCN [Biblioteca del Congreso Nacional de Chile] (2011a). Sueldo mínimo, sueldo base y derecho a
semana corrida [Minimum wage, basal salary and the right to a full week] [online].
Retrieved May 5, 2012, from
http://www.bcn.cl/guias/sueldo_minimo_slario_base
BCN [Biblioteca del Congreso Nacional de Chile] (2011b). Acreditación de la educación superior
[Accreditation of higher education] [online]. Retrieved May 5, 2012, from
http://www.bcn.cl/guias/acreditacion-de-la-educacion-superior
Bellei, C., Contreras, D., & Valenzuela, J.P. (Eds.). (2010). Ecos de la revolución pingüina.
Avances, debates y silencios en la reforma educacional [Echoes of the penguin revolution]
Chile: Universidad de Chile.
Beyer, H. (2001). Las Reformas de la Educación en Chile [The reforms of Chilean Education]. In F.
Larraín and R. Vergara (Eds.). La Transformación Económica de Chile (pp. 643-708).
Centro de Estudios Públicos, Chile.
Biesta, G., Kwiek, M., Lock, G., Martins, H., Masschelein, J., Papatsiba, V., & Simons, M.
(2009). What Is the Public Role of the University? A Proposal for a Public Research Agenda.
European Educational Research Journal. 8 (2).
Brunner, J., & Uribe, D. (2007). Mercados universitarios [University markets]. Santiago, Chile:
Ediciones Universidad Diego Portales.
Carr, W., & Hartnett, A. (1996). Education and the Struggle for Democracy: The Politics of
Educational Ideas. Open University Press.
CASEN [Encuesta de Caracterización Socioeconómica Nacional] (2009) [online].
Retrieved May 5, 2012, from
16
http://www.ministeriodesarrollosocial.gob.cl/casen2009/RESULTADOS_CASEN_2009.pd
f
Collins, R. (2000). Assuring Truth in Science a Must, Baltimore Sun [online]. Retrieved May 5,
2012, from
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2000-08-29/news/0008290081_1_nas-science-conflicts-of-
interest
CONFECH [Confederación de Estudiantes de Chile] (2011). Bases técnicas para un sistema
gratuito de educación [Technical bases for a free education system] [online]. Retrieved
May 5, 2012, from
http://www.elmostrador.cl/media/2011/10/Bases-técnicas-para-un-sistema-gratuito-de-
educación.pdf
Contraloría [Contraloría General de la República de Chile] (2011). Análisis de universidades
estatales [Analysis of state universities]. División de Análisis Contable. Área Empresas
Públicas y Universidades.
Corvalán, A., & Sanhueza, C. (2011, October 7). La educación superior gratuita no es una
política regresiva [Higher free education is not a regressive policy] [online]. Ciper.
Retrieved May 5, 2012, from
http://ciperchile.cl/2011/10/07/la-educacion-superior-gratuita-no-es-una-politica-regresiva/
DeGroot, G. (Ed.). (1998). Student Protest: The Sixties and After. Longman.
DFL [Decreto con Fuerza de Ley] Nº1 (1981). Art. 15, Ministerio de Educación Pública.
DIPRES [Dirección de Presupuestos] (2010). Términos Técnicos de Referencia Evaluación de
Impacto Programas de Becas de Educación Superior [online]. Retrieved May 5, 2012,
from http://www.dipres.gob.cl/572/articles-70699_doc_pdf3.pdf
Durán, G., & Kremerman, M. (2012, April 2) Desigualdad en Chile: el problema es el 1% más
rico [Inequality in Chile: the problem is the richest 1%]. El Mostrador. [online]. Retrieved
May 5, 2012, from
http://www.elmostrador.cl/opinion/2012/04/02/desigualdad-en-chile-el-problema-es-el-1-
mas-rico/
Ferretti, P., & Massardo, J. (2006). El mayo de los estudiantes secundarios. Un movimiento
social emergente que pone en evidencia los rasgos sociales y culturales del modelo
neoliberal en Chile [The May of high school students. An emerging social movement that
evidences social and cultural features of the neoliberal model in Chile]. CPU-e, Revista de
Investigación Educativa, 3. Retrieved May 5, 2012, from
http://cdigital.uv.mx/handle/123456789/5207
17
Frigolett, H., Mayol, A., Muñoz, S., & Pizarro, R. (2011). Educación 2013 [Education 2013].
[e-book] Santiago, Chile: Fundación Terram. pp. 27. Retrieved May 5, 2012, from
http://www.terram.cl/images/storiesterram_educacion_final2011.pdf
Gascón, P., & Cepeda, J. L. (2008). Globalización y mercantilización de la educación. Nuevos
retos para los Estados y las universidades públicas [Globalization and marketization of
education. New challenges for states and public universities]. Veredas. Número especial.
UAM-Xochimilco. México, pp.7-19.
Grez, S. (2012, January-February). Chile 2012: El movimiento estudiantil en la encrucijada [Chile
2012: the student movement at the crossroads]. Le Monde Diplomatique. Chile.
Gutiérrez T. & Caviedes C. (2006). Revolución Pingüina: La primera gran movilización del siglo
XXI en Chile [Penguin revolution: The first major mobilization of the XXI century in
Chile]. Ayún. Santiago, Chile.
Hernes G. (2002). Fundamentals of educational planning, in education privatization: Causes,
consequences and planning implications. UNESCO.
LGE [Ley General de Educación]. Ch. II, sec. 9.
LOCE [Ley Orgánica Constitucional de Enseñanza ]. Art. 30.
Mideplan [Ministerio de Planificación] – Casen (2009) [online]. Retrieved May 5, 2012, from
http://www.ministeriodesarrollosocial.gob.cl/casen2009/distribucion_ingreso_casen_2009.p
df
Mönckeberg, M.O. (2007). El negocio de las universidades en Chile [The business of universities in
Chile]. Chile: Debate.
Mora, O. (2005). Las políticas educativas en América Latina: un análisis de la educación
superior desde la visión de la banca multilateral [Educational policies in Latin America: an
analysis of higer education from the vision of multilateral banks]. Apuntes del Cenes. II
Semestre de 2005 (pp. 249-262).
OECD [Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development] (2011). Education at a Glance.
OECD Indicators. OECD Publishing
OECD [Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development] (2009a). Education at a
Glance. OECD Indicators. OECD Publishing
OECD [Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development] (2009b). La Educación
Superior en Chile. Revisión de Políticas Nacionales de Educación [Higher Education in
Chile. Review of National Education Policy]. OECD Publishing.
Parra, O. (2007). Diálogos con Freire para una pedagogía universitaria [Dialogues with Freire for
a university pedagogy]. Pontificia Universidad Javeriana.
18
Pavez, J. (2003). Prólogo. In La educación no es una mercancía [The education is not
merchandise]. Le Monde Diplomatique.
Rodríguez, A. (2011, September 21). En Foro Económico Analizaron Financiamiento de la
Educación Superior [The financing of higher education was analysed in an economy
forum]. Rectoría Universidad Austral de Chile. Retrieved May 5, 2012, from
http://www.uach.cl/organizacion/rectoria/noticia.php?codigo=12692
Ruiz, A. (2000). El destino de Costa Rica y la educación superior [Costa Rica’s destiny and higher
education]. Editorial de la Universidad de Costa Rica. Consejo Nacional de Rectores de
Costa Rica.
Sotelo, A. (2000). Neoliberalismo y educación. La huelga en la UNAM a finales de siglo.
[Neoliberalism and education. The UNAM’s strike at the end of the century]. Ediciones El
Caballito S. A.
Torres, V., Riquelme, G., & y Guzmán, J.A. (2011, September 29). Así opera el escandaloso
sistema de acreditación de las universidades [Thereby operates the scandalous accreditation
system of universities] [online]. Ciper. Retrieved May 5, 2012, from
http://ciperchile.cl/2011/09/29/asi-opera-el-escandaloso-sistema-de-acreditacion-de-las-
universidades/
UN [United Nations] (1948). Universal Declaration of Human Rights. United Nations [online].
Retrieved May 5, 2012, from
http://daccess-dds-
ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/043/88/IMG/NR004388.pdf?OpenElement
UN-CESCR [United Nations] General Assembly (1966). International Covenant on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights. 16 December 1966, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 993, p.
3. [online]. Retrieved May 5, 2012, from
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3ae6b36c0.html
UNESCO [United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization] (2009). Overcoming
inequality: why governance matters. Oxford University Press.
UNESCO [United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization] (1998a, October 5-9).
Conferencia mundial sobre la educación superior: La educación superior en el siglo XXI.
Visión y acción [World Conference on Higher Education: The higher education in the XXI
century. Vision and action]. Documento de trabajo. Paris.
UNESCO [United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization] (1998b, October 5-9).
19
Conferencia mundial sobre la educación superior: La educación superior en el siglo XXI.
Visión y acción [World Conference on Higher Education: The higher education in the XXI
century. Vision and action]. Documento de trabajo. Tomo I, Informe final. París.
UNESCO [United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization] (1979, December 13).
Declaración de México. Conferencia regional de ministros de educación y de ministros
encargados de la planificación económica [Mexico declaration. Regional conference of
ministers of education and Ministers responsible of economic planning]. México, DF.
Uribe, A. (1974). El libro negro de la intervención norteamericana en Chile [The black book of
North American intervention in Chile]. Siglo Veintiuno Editores.
Uvin, P. (2004). Human Rights and Development. Kumarian Press, Inc.
Vaccarezza, L. S. (2006) Autonomía universitaria, reformas y transformación social [University
autonomy, reforms and social transformation]. In Universidad e Investigación Científica.
Consejo Latinoamericano de Ciencias Sociales (CLACSO). Retrieved May 5, 2012, from
http://biblioteca.clacso.edu.ar/clacso/se/20100614120356/universidad.pdf#page=28
Valdebenito, L. (2011). The quality of the education in Chile: A problem of concept and praxis?
Review of the concept of quality starting from two instances of student mobilization (2006
and 2011). Cisma. Centro Telúrico de Investigaciones Teóricas (CTIT), pp. 1-25.
Van Maanen, G. (1966). The international student movement: History and background.
International Documentation and Information Centre.
Warde, I. (2001). For sale: US academic integrity. Conflicts of Interest on the Campus. Le
Monde Diplomatique [online]. Retrieved May 5, 2012, from
http://mondediplo.com/2001/03/11academic
World Bank (1996). World Development Report 1996. World Bank.