The Democratization of the Educational Administration in Argentina: A Comparison of Provincial Policies

Abstract

This article analyses some of the main school management reforms implemented at the provincial level from the mid-1980s in Argentina, and relates them to the national policies and to global trends regarding the governance of educational systems. It is argued that democratic and participatory proposals, which responded to a great extent to the return of the country to political democracy, began to give ground as the provinces focused on administrative rationalization and as the national government promoted a concept of school autonomy based on educational quality and efficiency criteria defined at the central level. On the other hand, participatory policies and programs faced various obstacles that originated in a context of social inequality, the prevailing institutional cultures, and the lack of a clear idea about the requirements and implications of implementing democratic practices at schools.

English language education in primary schooling in Argentina

“…There is agreement in the literature that the provincial administrations have undergone financial difficulties related to the responsibilities that they have had to assume since the 1993 Federal Education Act (Adrogué, 2013;Candia, 2004;Gorostiaga, 2006;Gorostiaga et al, 2003;Gvirtz et al, 2006;Keweitel et al, 2003;Perez Centeno & Leal, 2011;Rivas, 2010;Terigi, 2007) and this interview extract provides an illustration.…”

“…Her words reflect the limitations and inequalities that the provinces faced in those times, echoed by education experts in the country (Adrogué, 2013;Candia, 2004;Gorostiaga, 2006;Gorostiaga et al, 2003;Gvirtz et al, 2006;Keweitel et al, 2003;Perez Centeno & Leal, 2011;Rivas, 2010;Terigi, 2007). La Pampa simply lacked the necessary resources to face the new responsibilities set by the law.…”

“…In particular for preprimary and primary education, this process had begun in 1970 and was completed in 1978 (Adrogué, 2013;Candia, 2004). There is agreement in the literature that this process of decentralisation was a top-down initiative imposed vertically on the provinces in order to transfer public expenditures on education to the provinces, with the final aim of alleviating the budget of the national government (Adrogué, 2013;Candia, 2004;Gorostiaga, 2006;Rivas, 2010). The process was fraught with limitations regarding the quality, equity and efficiency of the system and the outcomes were discouraging (Adrogué, 2013;Candia, 2004;Gorostiaga, 2006;Gorostiaga, Acedo & Xifra, 2003;Gvirtz, Larripa & Oelsner, 2006;Keweitel et al, 2003;Perez Centeno & Leal, 2011;Rivas, 2010;Terigi, 2007).…”

“…There is agreement in the literature that this process of decentralisation was a top-down initiative imposed vertically on the provinces in order to transfer public expenditures on education to the provinces, with the final aim of alleviating the budget of the national government (Adrogué, 2013;Candia, 2004;Gorostiaga, 2006;Rivas, 2010). The process was fraught with limitations regarding the quality, equity and efficiency of the system and the outcomes were discouraging (Adrogué, 2013;Candia, 2004;Gorostiaga, 2006;Gorostiaga, Acedo & Xifra, 2003;Gvirtz, Larripa & Oelsner, 2006;Keweitel et al, 2003;Perez Centeno & Leal, 2011;Rivas, 2010;Terigi, 2007). For instance, as the Law was not discussed horizontally, there was not firm consensus about it in many aspects; the provincial administrations lacked the necessary resources to face the new responsibilities, which led to fiscal crisis in many cases; many lacked expertise to implement the reform; planning at the administrative, curricular and other levels was poor; the increased autonomy of the provinces resulted in a wide variety of local implementations; consequently, the system was atomised and fragmented, resulting in inequalities.…”

“…In 2012, the grade repetition rate was 2.9% for the whole country, with significant disparities among provinces (0.4% in Santa Cruz; 5,6% in Santiago del Estero; 9,9% in Corrientes) (INDEC, 2013). Inter-annual dropout rates are low in primary school, below 2% between 2006(Cimientos, 2014Rivas, 2010(INDEC, 2013 …”