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

Entradas populares de este blog

THE REPORT

BIODATA

Elevator Speech