The poster child of Latin American countries, when it comes to the Millennium Development Goals, Chile, which seemed to have surpassed all eight goals before the goals were popular in 2000. Chile looks great on paper and excels in many areas like the global partnership, eradicating poverty, and gender equality. A brief look at Chile’s rich history paints a picture like a roller coaster full of ups and downs economically, socially and institutionally. This article will look to examine each of the 8 goals of the MDG. Furthermore, Chile is a unique study where the state has the right formula for success but a lot of times are held back by the wrong institutions. In conclusion this article will discuss how Chile has done completing the MDG and
…show more content…
This articles looks at the education system of Chile through the lens of Neo-Liberalism and the changes it impresses on the institution of education. According to Aravena and Marta “Chilean’s education system has reproduced social classes in discourse and practice trough of dramatic social stratification”. With the authors claims the education system generates segregation and selectivity that ever widens the gap between the rich and the poor of the country. Since the Neo-Liberal did so well with the economy it became “structurally influenced and created a new Chilean’s education system” (Aravena and Marta, 2016). The term Neo-Liberal is a malleable concept able to apply many things, and the model applied to the educational system in competition, selection, modernization and homogenization. Though the Neo-Liberal model did increase public budget, sustainable economic growth, poverty reduction, urban acceleration, high incomes and therefore was seen as a positive image. One of the main issues with Neo-Liberalization is “Urban Bias” as Michael Lipton would say that the rural northern areas were unequally funded when compared to the Urban schools in Santiago. Hence the move to …show more content…
Neo-Liberal education system creates three types of schools public, private subsidized, and private schools and the three “Paradoxically… seems a social class division…by low-class, middle class and high class.” (Aravena and Marta, 2016). This is another parody created by the institution of Neo-Liberalization in education because it creates unequal opportunity and different levels in quality, while also being selective in education. The disparity between the schools comes from amount of funding received with the funding attributing to the overall quality of experience, public schools get all their funding from the state and private-subsidized schools get funding from the state as well as tuition from each student’s parent. Therefore, student who enroll in private schools will achieve better scores in national test when compared to those in the public, so only the wealthy have a shot at the top quality education. Chile has often been criticized for mixing Neo-Liberal policy and education.
The “Chilean Winter” was a durable student movement in which generated much debate and changes in the political system to provide more funding and scholarship opportunities to that of students in the lowest income brackets. In 2016 higher education “is free for some parts of students” (Verena and Marta, 2016) in vulnerable sectors. In conclusion Chile has done well in
This articles looks at the education system of Chile through the lens of Neo-Liberalism and the changes it impresses on the institution of education. According to Aravena and Marta “Chilean’s education system has reproduced social classes in discourse and practice trough of dramatic social stratification”. With the authors claims the education system generates segregation and selectivity that ever widens the gap between the rich and the poor of the country. Since the Neo-Liberal did so well with the economy it became “structurally influenced and created a new Chilean’s education system” (Aravena and Marta, 2016). The term Neo-Liberal is a malleable concept able to apply many things, and the model applied to the educational system in competition, selection, modernization and homogenization. Though the Neo-Liberal model did increase public budget, sustainable economic growth, poverty reduction, urban acceleration, high incomes and therefore was seen as a positive image. One of the main issues with Neo-Liberalization is “Urban Bias” as Michael Lipton would say that the rural northern areas were unequally funded when compared to the Urban schools in Santiago. Hence the move to …show more content…
Neo-Liberal education system creates three types of schools public, private subsidized, and private schools and the three “Paradoxically… seems a social class division…by low-class, middle class and high class.” (Aravena and Marta, 2016). This is another parody created by the institution of Neo-Liberalization in education because it creates unequal opportunity and different levels in quality, while also being selective in education. The disparity between the schools comes from amount of funding received with the funding attributing to the overall quality of experience, public schools get all their funding from the state and private-subsidized schools get funding from the state as well as tuition from each student’s parent. Therefore, student who enroll in private schools will achieve better scores in national test when compared to those in the public, so only the wealthy have a shot at the top quality education. Chile has often been criticized for mixing Neo-Liberal policy and education.
The “Chilean Winter” was a durable student movement in which generated much debate and changes in the political system to provide more funding and scholarship opportunities to that of students in the lowest income brackets. In 2016 higher education “is free for some parts of students” (Verena and Marta, 2016) in vulnerable sectors. In conclusion Chile has done well in