Unfair competition: exploring state-funded low-fee private schools’ logics of action in Buenos Aires

Opting for Private Education: Public Subsidy Programs and School Choice in Disadvantaged Contexts

“…However, in the studied context, we can see how, in the absence of other sources and mechanisms of public information (in terms of, for instance, school pedagogic approaches, educational results, or school fees), school reputation acquires even greater relevance, at the same time that it becomes a highly imprecise construal. As evidenced elsewhere (Moschetti, 2018), this seems to make family decisions especially sensitive to the differentiation practices developed by S-LFPSs and, in particular, to the dynamic of group differentiation that these schools develop (such as the construction of an overarching “private school brand”) in opposition to public schools. By virtue of these practices, “good reputation” seems to be monopolized by the private sector, whereas public education is progressively delegitimized (Da Porta & Cianci, 2016; Vior & Rodríguez, 2012).…”

“…Faced with the rigorous student selection practices that many S-LFPSs conduct (Moschetti, 2018), families in this group have the advantage of showing a great commitment and interest in the education of their children that parallels the idea of investing in schooling. This characteristic is highly valued by S-LFPSs’ principals and positively assessed in admission interviews.…”

Educating on a budget: The subsistence model of low-fee private schooling in Peru

“…Waslander et al, 2010). Theoretical contributions on such questions have thus drawn largely on research conducted in European and Anglo-Saxon settings -even if recent accounts focusing on Argentina (Moschetti, 2018), Chile (Zancajo, 2017) or Colombia (Termes, Bonal, Verger, & Zancajo, 2015) have contributed to a significant diversification in this line of inquiry. However, when it comes to less-effectively regulated education systems (as those in which LFPSs typically operate), the analytical tools provided by existing theoretical approaches might be insufficient to capture and explain the responses and strategies deployed by education providers.…”

Speaking cooperation, acting competition: Supply-side subsidies and private schools in socioeconomically disadvantaged contexts in Buenos Aires

“…On the one hand, the policy's highly idiosyncratic features are explained by these historical-contextual factors. On the other hand, its retention-in Jessop's (2010) terms-and its long-lasting disconnectedness vis-à-vis pro-market global discourses and mechanisms may be explained by (a) the difficulty of the Argentine political parties to articulate alternative discourseslargely due to a historical lack of technical cadres in matters of educational policy in the country, as compared to neighboring Chile, for instance (Diaz Rios, 2018); (b) Strong path-dependence dynamics and a perception of irreversibility based fundamentally on economic factors-as part of an arguably short-sighted cost-effectiveness narrative; And, (c) the impermeability to global trends posed by the unchallenged role of the Catholic Church as the main articulator of the discursive defense of private provision in the country (Moschetti, 2018a). Consequently, the subsidy policy has remained anchored in the essentialist doctrine of freedom of instruction and learning inscribed in the philosophical-social reflection of the Catholic Church and disconnected not only from pro-market thinking imported from the field of economics, but also from the discursive and policy developments of critical studies addressing the most recent debate on educational governance (Beech & Barrenechea, 2011;Moschetti, 2018b).…”