The “private” in the privatisation of schools: the case of Chile

Figures & data

Table 1. Development of education reforms in Chile.

Year	Law	Description
1981	Decentralization law and change of funding system (vouchers)	-State/public schools were given to municipalities -Funding is allocated according to enrolment -Private providers can open schools and get vouchers -Private and municipal schools should compete for students to get funding (vouchers)
1988	SIMCE Sistema de Medición de la Calidad de la Educación	Assessment of schools to be published at national and school levels which has gradually increased over last 30 years the subjects, frequency, grades, and samples of the test as well as the consequences of its outcomes over schools.
1993	Co-payment law	Only subsidised private schools are allowed to charge a fee to families (not municipal)
2008	SEP Law	Extra vouchers to low socieoconomic students
2009	General Law of Education; regulation to new providers	New providers should fulfil two requirements: (i) to hold a professional degree (ii) not have been prosecuted for sexual issues
2012	National System of Quality Assurance	Two new national agencies were created: Superintendence of Education and Office of Quality (high-stakes accountability measures using SIMCE standardised national test, which include closing underperforming schools).
2016	Inclusion Law: (a) banning selection, co-payment, and for-profit; (b) regulation to new providers	while subsidised private schools will continue operating and getting state vouchers, students’ selection, co-payment, and for-profit is banned; New providers should apply to a local educational authority who will decide if the opening of a new school is authorised based on two criteria: Enough pupil demand should exist in the local area (to avoid competition) The new provider should offer an educational project non-existent within the local area

Source: authors’ elaboration

Table 2. Who makes decisions?

		School socioeconomic level
Which of the following school’s members are involved in deciding:		Low (41)	Middle-low (124)	Middle (221)	Middle-high (127)	High (13)	Total (526)
i. Definition of planning classroom lessons	Head teacher	85.4%	91.1%	94.1%	86.9%	76.9%	90.5%*
	Other middle school leaders (e.g. teacher’s deputy)	78.1%	88.0%	92.8%	94.8%	100%	91.2%***
ii. Allocation ofteaching hoursor workingtime	Owner	79.5%	69.4%	65.1%	59.4%	50.9%	64.3%
	Head teacher	80.0%	92.0%	94.0%	93.9%	92.9%	92.4%**
	Other middle school leaders (e.g. deputy teacher, department coordinator)	55.0%	67.7%	73.2%	77.8%	84.6%	71.8%**
	Other	2.6%	3.5%	8.6%	1.7%	0.0%	4.6%**
iii. Teachers’ hiring	Owner	92.3%	82.9%	80.9%	76.9%	70.9%	80.2%
	Head teacher	77.5%	92.0%	96.3%	94.7%	100%	93%***
	Other middle school leaders	32.5%	50.4%	56.8%	58.7%	61.5%	54%**

χ²: *** p < 0.001; ** p < 0.05; * p < 0.1

Note 1: Socio-economic level is an administrative variable based on SES category from standardised national survey SIMCE 2015.

Note 2: In relation to school members, the table shows only those exhibiting significant association to SES category. See Annex 1 for the original question and school members.

Note 3: In Chile, some schools provide only primary education (K to 8) and some offer both primary and secondary levels of education. In our sample, 48.5% (285) are “primary schools only” and 51.5% (303) are “primary and secondary”.

Table 3. The new inclusion law banning student selection.

	School socioeconomic level ^1
Banning selection/eliminating co-payment “Will limit the school’s ability to build a unified community with a common educational project?”	Low (n = 41)	Middle low (n = 123)	Middle (n = 217)	Middle high (n = 130)	High (n = 16)	Total (n = 527)
Very much disagree	41.5%	22.8%	16.6%	6.9%	6.3%	17.3%
Disagree	39.0%	37.4%	36.4%	31.5%	31.3%	35.5%
Neither agree nor disagree	9.8%	15.5%	19.4%	18.5%	12.5%	17.3%
Agree	4.9%	17.1%	19.8%	25.4%	37.5%	19.9%
Very much agree	4.9%	7.3%	7.8%	17.7%	12.5%	10.1%

χ²: p = 0.000

¹An administrative variable based on SES category from standardised national survey SIMCE 2015.

Source: authors’ elaboration

Table 4. The new inclusion law banning co-payment.

	School socioeconomic level^1
Banning selection/eliminating co-payment “Will limit the school’s ability to build a unified community with a common educational project?”	Low (n = 39)	Middle Low (n = 117)	Middle (n = 212)	Middle high (n = 127)	High (n = 14)	Total (n = 509)
Very much disagree	25.6%	26.5%	16.0%	9.5%	7.1%	17.3%
Disagree	48.7%	41.0%	40.1%	37.0%	35.7%	40.1%
Neither agree nor disagree	18.0%	15.4%	18.4%	18.1%	28.6%	17.9%
Agree	5.1%	13.7%	19.8%	20.5%	14.3%	17.3%
Very much agree	2.6%	3.4%	5.7%	15.0%	14.3%	7.5%

χ²: p = 0.003

¹An administrative variable based on SES category from standardised national survey SIMCE 2015.

Source: authors’ elaboration