ESSAY WRITING. SESSION 4: THE FINAL DRAFT
The demand for
a public education, free and of quality, has been historically in the struggles
of the people of Chile, taking more strength and popular adhesion since 2006.
In spite of
its important social support, this demand has faced the resistance of the
economic interests of the current educational market. And this happens because
achieving the social right to education is also a discussion about the
development project of the country, since the neoliberal model includes
education as a service that can be purchased and restricts state action to the
delivery of subsidies (subsidies, scholarships, credits and many other
contributions in money) aimed at the demand, treating citizens as consumers.
Education was converted into a market of millionaire earnings for entrepreneurs
and indebtedness for Chilean families.
Because of the above, I am disturbed to hear again,
arguments of the neoliberal logic, that is, to focus state resources on the
most vulnerable, without distinguishing the type of institution in which they
are formed, distorting the content of the social right to the education, which
links gratuity to the role of the state (in its genuine public role), to the
quality of education, guaranteed universally and without discrimination.
Speaking of gratuity, then, is not just talking about ending
debt and alleviating the pockets of families, it is talking about social
inclusion, education as a right and training professionals who do not only
expect to recover the investment, but have a vocation to serve his country.
In 2011 they told us that "nothing is free in
life" and that education is a consumer good, saying that "people do
not value what is given away", that if it were free students would live in
the university and would never be titled or that we wanted to finance the
richest.
The same ones that at that moment caricatured us and
pretended to make normal that Chile is the only country on the planet where not
even the state has a free university, now they say that the gratuity must be
for all students regardless of the institution they enter. . That is the kind
of opportunism, without masks or remorse to distort social demand, seeking to
secure their own interests through profit with education.
It is also said that the gratuity is associated with bad
quality, today they want silver from the state but without further demands
since this would "undermine the freedom of education", which for them
is nothing other than market freedom.
Currently, those who previously commented unfair gratuity,
who are currently rectors or shareholders of private universities, also want
free and use their students to blackmail the state, under a false argument of
discrimination. That is why, the state should ensure the destination of its
resources for the purposes proposed, in this case, the assurance of the social
right to education. For this reason, compliance with quality standards,
democracy and inclusion are essential.
In this sense, and as a conclusion, for me, the right that
the state must guarantee is to study for free in an institution that delivers
inclusive quality education and in which minimum rights such as the possibility
of organizing or freedom are respected. of chair.
Comentarios
Publicar un comentario