Lessons from Chile’s Education System

Chile’s Education System is one based upon school choice implemented through vouchers. Behind school choice is the guiding philosophy of equity WITH growth. The result of this system is that approximately 10% of the population pays for private school and 90% attends one of two options within the public options. Of the 90% who attend schools with governmental dollars, 52% attend a school in which the parents are charged an additional fee to pay for their child’s education and 48% attend a school in which a financial contribution is not required. The schools in which a financial contribution is not required are generally operated by the municipality. This system has created some interesting results of which the government is considering new policies to correct for the inequities.

School choice in Chile has created three systems of education. The professional community is in agreement that as a general rule the quality of education is worse in the public schools that don’t receive any parental financial contribution. To correct for the inequity, the government is considering policies in which a student that is from a family with little resources draws a higher payment for his/her education with the assumption that it costs more to educate a child from a poor environment. Currently, the government also requires that all schools have a certain percentage of students that come from poor communities.

In addition, private and non profit groups have instituted initiatives that are also correcting for the inequities. For example, many of the schools operated by the Catholic Church of which 75% come from poor communities invests heavily in teacher training as the poor communities generally receive less qualified teachers. The Catholic Church also contributes their success, measured by the results of the National Student Achievement tests created to measure student and school success, because of their dedication to discipline, being mission driven, and parents who select the school because of their religious focus. A private initiative, driven and operated by the largest paper company in Chile, has dedicated their foundation to improve the lives of the families that work in their factories has shown great improvements in the public schools due to their large investments in teacher trainings.

Beyond the dollars invested in private (10 times more than public and 5 times more than public/private), private/public, and public schools most of the professional community indicated that key to improving the quality of the education system is good management which includes the authority to hire/fire employees who do not perform. The public and public/private schools indicated that one very large advantage that private schools have beyond additional dollars is the ability to contract their own staff and regulate staff measurements of success. Although there was not consensus on the dollar amount needed to bring equity to the education system, there was general consensus that good administration/leadership and authority to hire/fire was critical to equity within the system.


“Y Que”

The philosophy behind school choice is extremely important if we are going to build schools with quality education. Specifically, it mandates that parents be in charge of their child’s education. Secondly, it eliminates schools that are not performing measured by parental choice because they don’t have a sufficient student population. Of course there are some large challenges to this system such as poor communities often don’t have choice because there are few schools in their communities and they can not afford the transportation costs. It also assumes that all parents are the same in terms of knowledge and capacity to seek school choice. The question for our education systems in the United States is how do we maintain the key ingredients within School Choice within our current system?

First, we need to assume that although resources are important they are not the only key to quality education. The Charter School movement has created school choice, although still very limited. However, many argue that the Charter Schools are drawing the most qualified students creating the same inequities that exist in Chile’s system. The Charter School movement also is not driven within a market driven by parental choice as new schools can only be opened with approval of the School Reform Commission and are regulated by student test scores. In addition, poor performing charter schools, at least in Philadelphia, have yet to be closed. Finally, the charter schools in Philadelphia only represent 15% of the population and therefore don’t really represent parental school choice. Finally, although the law that prevents charter schools from charging a fee is excellent because it prevents the creation of inequity between poor and wealthy, it also prevents schools from ensuring parental “buy-in”. A school needs to have the flexibility to demand parental contributions either through financial contributions, donated hours, or exceptions similar to the concepts behind cooperatives. It creates an environment of active versus passive participation in a student’s education. Finally, many professionals who work within the public education system prefer a charter school because of its flexibility, teacher ownership, and the ability to hold teachers accountable and dismiss those who are not performing on behalf of the students. Charter School regulation should be based upon a general rule that they must draw a balanced socio-economic student population and that low performing schools eventually should be forced to close. In addition, we need to create an environment in which schools can openly compete in the market. Meaning both public and private schools with public money should have the same flexibility. For example, principals should have the same powers within both the public and charter schools to ensure an equal playing field. This requires new negotiations with the unions as one critical authority that charter schools have that public schools don’t is teacher accountability. Finally, students from poor communities should draw a higher rate because of the additional social and environmental challenges they face.