Politics and teachers' unions oppose a revolutionary reform for one specific reason: they would be the ones who would be harmed, not the students.
U.S. economist Milton Friedman, one of those responsible for spreading in his books the voucher system for education or health. (PanAm Post Archive)
Some time ago, a private study in Argentina revealed something as surprising as it is evident, although it sounds contradictory. What the State spent on a standard bed in a public hospital was greater than the amount spent in one of the most desirable and inaccessible private clinics for most of the population. The difference was even abysmal. However, every time budgets for health or education are discussed, the only thing that is talked about is the amount. As if the only thing that could improve the situation was a greater number of economic resources. Although it is evident that this is false, the debate is practically closed.
It is no coincidence that in all areas related to fiscal resources and public money, efficiency and the most basic scientific analysis is never present. If this discussion is to be opened, the left begins to point to those who propose innovation as the enemies of the neediest. However, keeping things as they are is synonymous with continuing to postpone and harm, precisely, those people with fewer resources who cannot access privately managed entities.
When people use the toilet at home after relieving themselves, the flush that cleans the toilet is approximately 8 to 10 liters. The pressure of the container load usually does the job. What does this have to do with the financing of state entities? Can you imagine if a person, after going to the toilet, flushes water into glasses, seeking to replace the flush to clean the toilet? You can throw 20 liters that will not fulfill the task. He can flush 200 liters, and everything will still be there. Well, the analogy with what the policy proposes in terms of financing of public entities would be to increase the number of glasses of water, although nothing collaborates with improving the situation. Well, that is how the State usually spends. Of course, while everything remains the same or worse, there are elements that benefit at the expense of people who do not get good services and taxpayers who finance total inefficiency.
The idea of the voucher system, or school vouchers, the first thing it does is to eliminate all the intermediaries that "eat" the resources that arrive minimized to the classroom. Instead of the money being reduced by the governmental steps of the tax collection agencies, the national government, the ministries, the provincial administrations and the secretariats, the resource goes to the families, who choose the school they want for their children in a market. In this way, the educational institutions start to operate with other incentives: if they want to receive the funds to continue operating, they must offer a good service to be chosen. In short, it is a matter of financing supply instead of demand, which is inefficient and a guarantee of the worst disincentives.
This change of perspective puts an end to a parasitic and prerequisite system that makes off with resources regardless of anything else. It is no coincidence that the teachers' unions refuse any innovative proposal and propose to leave everything as it is.
Although the voucher system has produced several success stories, such as in the education systems of countries like Sweden or Chile, we need only look at how the economy works with other goods and services. Competition improves supply and its absence is synonymous with decadence. Even more so, if resources are always guaranteed by the State.
By moving in this direction, educational institutions would also be able to manage with greater autonomy. Although it is not currently part of the discussion, it is an atrocity that public school teachers' salaries are regulated and equalized. Why should all teachers be paid the same? How do they expect a system without any reward or punishment to work? Every beginning of the school year, it is usual to see unions protesting for "salary increases" that go to a collectivist equalizing system, which suppresses innovation and recognition to those who deserve it.
The proposal to move towards a voucher system could improve the lives of a good part of society, which is decentralized and does not form a lobby group. Those who are interested in nothing changing are a lobby group, which permanently contributes to general misinformation. The discussion is absolutely unequal, but common sense points the way. It is a matter of deepening the discussion in the public opinion and that people draw their own conclusions.
This article was originally published in Spanish in PanAm Post.
