The reform of the Higher Education Act by the National Government to the public opinion is the true example of a clumsy way we have been committed by the president and his economic advisers and educational policy. The biggest mistake that makes this proposal is that it managed to be the perfect excuse for the ghost-hunting fantasize about the evil specter of privatization. I do not know which is more awkward: if the Government's intention to reform higher education with an unwavering faith in the private sector set up by incentives that lead to profitable altruism or radical receivers academic community have been put to work their ideological machinery retread that devil hates both in public education such as privatization.
Moisés Wasserman, president of the National University is the first opponent of the law and rules out the privatization of public universities and intent of the law. Privatization is a ghost and the ghosts do not exist. However I share his assessment: the reform is naive, and perhaps it is this naivety that makes this project a huge blunder. Regardless of whether the university autonomy is violated or not, most concern is focused on two flanks of great importance: the financing of higher education is not an acceptable solution and the quality of teaching and complementary processes, such as research, may be jeopardized.
On the one hand the Government on the assumption that higher education is highly profitable and capital are pending legal certainty to invest in it. And the issue is much more than the naivete of some who believe that by 1400 million pesos worth the so-called Plan of Action of the Universidad del Valle, this institution is readying the ground for privatization germinate. The issue goes beyond, definitely, on one hand a supply and increasing demands are not a financial structure that would sustain under the required conditions. Educating students twice no less expensive and decreasing the cost of course he has deceived the president's advisers and the Minister of Education. As die deceived if they believe that private capital will optimize the performance of public universities.
Moreover, an employer will find it more profitable to give a building to a university (Santo Domingo Pacheco case with the Universidad de los Andes, or Sarmiento National University) to take care of everything involved in their government and administration. Only in the world of grants there is a lack of investors for failing to control the use of their capital, a fact that takes place by a powerful incentive explained by the 125% tax deductions as provided by law. So if an employer wishes to profit from higher education, is unlikely to move in the incentive structure of the quality and the best service and decide to move, as a framework for profit, quantities and simplifying processes and economies of scale. And that education leads to the precariousness of its purpose and rationale.
But my assessment is on the assumption that the projections of the Ministry of Education they had no place in reality. However, how clumsy of law is that it ignores something, found their own private universities, mediocre and low cost because it is cheaper to go to public universities to form alliances with rising costs and needs to multimillionaires. That the ghost of privatization and appears dissipating end is a far worse monster called low quality. The gap between universities grow and income disparities are even greater future. Complete legions of poor students from the quartile with the lowest concentration income and the worst public and private schools will go to new universities, borrow to pay tuition and receive an education in terms of quality will be much lower than the students receive the best public and private schools of the wealthiest in the country.
The government's idea, however, is no less awkward than the student movement and the eventual reaction to educational reform. The protest scheduled for April 7 is a sample: protest not only by law but by education projects such as fiscal sustainability and the law of first employment. What worries me most is that most have acquired a very cheap commodity and easily digested, but of little use, based on the most radical upheaval have on the students eager to protest and nostalgia with the student movements of the past. The mentioned privatization of public universities are diverting attention from what really matters.
The proposed amendment to the Act 30 does not solve the funding problem and proposed outputs very naive to get resources to maintain and offset the costs of state universities and on the other hand, responds to problem coverage but makes it clear a possible deterioration of educational quality. It welcomes the Government's interest to increase the supply of education loans, but can not stop criticizing how light can be reform. The proposed safe, bland response. In the debate on Bill 30 are in the worst of all worlds.
0 comments:
Post a Comment