Estado, sociedad y educación en la Argentina de fin de siglo: proceso y desafíos. Responsibility: Daniel Filmus. Edition: 1a. ed. Imprint: Buenos Aires: Troquel. Estado Sociedad y Educacion En La Argentina (Troquel Educacion) (Spanish Edition) [Daniel Filmus] on *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. Estado Sociedad y Educacion En La Argentina (Troquel Educacion) by Daniel Filmus at – ISBN – ISBN

Author: Kajigis Voodoosida
Country: Madagascar
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Medical
Published (Last): 6 July 2017
Pages: 118
PDF File Size: 6.10 Mb
ePub File Size: 9.11 Mb
ISBN: 699-9-30548-130-5
Downloads: 54688
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Dagore

Skip to main content. Log In Sign Up. Educational Politics in the nineties. Contrary to the general idea that menemism was the realm of neo liberal ideas, it argues that the role of the state in educational matters was very significant. However the goals for sociwdad the number of students in secondary school and the reorganization of higher education was effectively achieved, politicians failed to design a long-term project for the structural change of the soxiedad.

Last century Argentina, as many Latin American countries, initiated important reforms in their educational system1. In general, they were conditioned by international organizations to solve financial problems and open free commerce for educational services.

Menem, from Justicialista Party, assumed power in during a social and economic crisis produced by hyperinflation and financial chaos. Once in power, President Menem used effective macroeconomic policies to recover stability.

One of the most important instruments was privatization. This strategy was extended to other areas other than economy. It is believed that educational policies encouraged socieddad by decentralization of secondary education and reform educadion higher education system.

Teorias Sociopolíticas de la Educación by Euge Santiago on Prezi

socierad There have already been very important works on new educational regulations. Educaciom the ideologists of Social State, education was considered a public good and hence, the state had to intervene thoroughly.

We argue that it would be rather incorrect to affirm that educational decision making fstado radically transferred to private sector and that the state suffered a cut of its power in educational matters. Provincial governments, on one hand, took charge of secondary schools and privatization in the interior did not grow significantly6 At higher education level, Federal State regulated and intervened not only by setting up evaluation measures but also regulating the government of national universities and the developing of private ones.

These policies entailed the decentralization of secondary schools and stimulated private and state universities to determine education alternatives different from the existing ones. However, the state continued intervening in certain areas such as subsidies, evaluation, financial support and the general management of education or governance.

We conclude that politics in education in the nineties changed the role of government encouraging private alternatives in secondary and fllmus education while the state still maintained important decision- making power.

Similar authors to follow

We should say, rather, it became less centralized and more opened to educational alternatives, mostly private, but also got involved in controlling and evaluating.

It set up strategies to adapt education to the rules of globalization, dictated mainly by international financial organizations. However, the state failed to envisage a sociedxd and decisive vision of what kind of student Argentina needed to overcome its recession.

In other words, it changed the system substantially to update the organization to a more competitive international model but it lacked a strategic educational policy for the future of Argentina.

This article will examine: The discussion about the role of the state and the critics on neo-liberal reforms are based on the following arguments: It is always useful to go back to classical Greek philosophy, the principal source of Western thinking to understand some issues of political science. For Filmud, Politics was a practical science belonging to Philosophy.

The object of Politics was the state, that it is to say, the most important and perfect community on Earth. Its importance derived from the fact that its end was the Common Good which, as it incorporated the whole community, subordinated all the personal and familiar goods to it. One of these was education. Why was it so? Because education internalized the values of society in mankind. Moreover, as Common Good varied throughout time and places, education made people adjust to not only universal values but also to those ideals a concrete community pursued at a certain time in a certain place.


For Parsons, education was part of a social system which gave legitimacy to the values of society. It worked as a filter of those ideas and thoughts which could be disrupting. The ultimate end of systems and subsystems was equilibrium. Education was a means of adapting people to society so that society could survive. As we can see, it did not differ from philosophical point of view.

New sociological trends reinforced this conception. This term meant that there were value systems intended to make certain power relations to prevail. Those who were politically or economically excluded from the elite could only receive 11 education tainted by certain ideas which supported the power of the elite.

He adapted education for the sake of the poor. It was not properly a new model proper because he thought that there was not only one way to approach the political-educational duality.

The new perspective was based on the fact that the state did not play the leading role in educational politics.

Students, their families, the media had a significant and decisive a role as public organizations. It all depended on when and where educational reforms were adopted. For instance, on the one hand, educational transformation in Latin American appeared to have widened up the gap between social classes.

On the other hand, though, there was an increase in the number of youngsters from lower classes who stayed at school longer and of students who went to university. In short, this goes to prove that micro-sociological studies and field research are needed to evaluate the consequences of public policies in education. Education legitimizes any given ideology and the political actions derived from it.

As a consequence, education is never impartial. Laicism, nationalism and faith in progress were, among others, the values instilled by education in the nineties and twenties centuries.


As it is well known, political elites decide not only which values people should adopt but also what concrete objectives a certain society should pursue.

Education was ruled by the following principles: The bloody wars against Indians, the intervention in the territory of other countries and the upsurge of American citizens in Mexico were justified in name of Liberty and Democracy. Americans believed in their mission to give freedom and democracy to the world. This feeling was translated filmuus education of many generations of American citizens.

Despite the reformist laws and the innovative models of the nineties, Argentina did not reach a consensus on the political formula to carry out sociddad recovery. Elites, consequently, did not agree on the values and projects were necessary to educate the new generations. The Federal Education Act. Some years later, the reform of the Federal educational system brought about a debate about the role of the state.

The reasons given were, among others, that the needs of former centralization of secondary school had not allowed local governments to adapt education to regional characteristics. Education, was rather authoritarian since contents and organization were designed in the capital of the nation.

Families and social groups should participate in education. They thought that decentralization of primary and secondary schools was decided to restrict the Federal budget.

The government overlooked the fact that the majority of provinces did not have enough revenue to afford increase in expenditure and it was not clear how Federal Government would distribute the surplus.

The government was accused of paying more attention to economy than to education. The state was wrong to subordinate the educational policy to fiscal needs. Other detractors objected to the biased nature of the law. They claimed that the educational transformation was underpinned by neo- liberal ideas. Therefore, the law encouraged different educational project in both private and state schools. But naturally, private institutions would have more freedom than the ones depending on provincial governments.


For many representatives, the Federal State should be in charge of imposing stricter policies than 16 those of the provinces and the private sector. With an emerging economy based on cattle rising and agriculture and with a large number of immigrants coming year by year, this country needed a certain education. Fikmus consequently created a system, which, in the long run, gave the citizenship to the children of European immigrants and leveled off classes.

The new norms, conversely, sought a dual model in which people with average and high incomes would be able to have high educational standards whereas, the rest of the 17 population would not get adequate eociedad for the work market. This approach to education was christened privatista because it seemed to pave the way for religious and lay education.

State education would only intervene through the Federal Council of Education which was a consultative and not an executive body. Another point raised was the impossibility of the law to provide provinces with financial resources. It was established that danuel educational budget would get increasingly more economic support, which depended on economic growth. However, as the national budget was discussed every year at Congress it would be impossible to ensure the money needed. Three out of ten argued that the level of sociedadd had declined since the law was implemented.

This kind of intervention was deemed pointeless to solve problems at primary and secondary school education. Besides, another interesting point is that far from neglecting funding and consulting, the Federal State was still the principal financial agent through subsidies, fellowships, and compensatory policies.

The Secretariat of Education, for instance, is compounded of three undersecretaries.

One of them is the undersecretary of equity and quality. It also coordinates the system of educational evaluation through the information and evaluation department. The government did not seem to seek their support by interchanging ideas about dealing with difficulties.

They considered that authorities were merely interested in improving attendance. From our point of view, the new law was made under the conception that the Federal State should let provincial, local governments and private sector impart education in the way they deemed appropriate. This idea sprang from the belief that the Federal Government had been a bad administrator and had misused its resources. In those years, conservative politicians having been brought up on positivism and scientism believed in the power of reason.

Therefore, education was the only way an underdeveloped country such as Argentina would able to grow economically and socially.

SearchWorks Catalog

Education, then, was defined as a tool of politics and revolutionary action. In the case of Federal Education Law, politicians wanted to change and modernize education but, as it became apparent in Congress they did not see eye to eye on the changes they wanted to make.

Supporters of the law were in favor of the idea of decentralizing secondary schools in order to improve the standards of education and allowing local governments and private institutions to adapt their syllabi to their needs. They also stimulated the creation of new alternatives.

Defenders of the Welfare State, convinced that private initiatives could be dangerous in widening up the gap between the rich and the poor, thought that education had to be controlled by the state. The results were chaotic.

This article was written by admin