![\"Harald_beyer_2\"](\"http:\/\/amchamchile.cl\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/09\/Harald_beyer_2-1024x798.jpg\")
<\/p>\nEl ex Ministro de Educaci\u00f3n del Gobierno de Sebasti\u00e1n Pi\u00f1era, se\u00f1ala que es t\u00e9cnicamente imposible un sistema universitario sin costo para todos, m\u00e1s a\u00fan cuando la reforma est\u00e1 dejando una estela de incertidumbres a falta de un marco regulatorio y de definiciones clave.<\/i><\/p>\n
A fines de mayo la Presidenta de la Rep\u00fablica, Michelle Bachelet, promulg\u00f3 la Ley de Inclusi\u00f3n Escolar que pone fin al lucro, copago y selecci\u00f3n escolar en los establecimientos educacionales que reciben subvenci\u00f3n estatal, pieza ancla de la reforma educacional y que entra en vigencia en enero de 2016.<\/p>\n
Pasados cuatro meses, diversos actores vinculados al sector educacional ya han alertado sobre la incertidumbre que conlleva una ley -que a la fecha- no cuenta con un reglamento y menos con directrices claras respecto de temas clave.<\/p>\n
En este escenario, Harald Beyer, actual director del Centro de Estudios P\u00fablicos (CEP) y ex Ministro de Educaci\u00f3n bajo la administraci\u00f3n de Sebasti\u00e1n Pi\u00f1era, se\u00f1ala que el gran problema para implementar la ley de inclusi\u00f3n, es que no existe un marco regulatorio, que el Gobierno tampoco ha definido un modelo de costos para establecer un arancel de referencia y, menos a\u00fan, est\u00e1 claro c\u00f3mo ser\u00e1n las transferencias por gratuidad. \u201cLa incertidumbre no est\u00e1 en la ley, sino en los reglamentos\u201d, afirma.\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n
-\u00bfSe trat\u00f3 de abarcar demasiado con esta reforma?<\/b><\/p>\n
-Por un lado hay una reforma, en la que la gente no entiende qu\u00e9 es lo que se est\u00e1 haciendo y la segunda dimensi\u00f3n, es que la gente no cree que \u00e9sta sea la reforma que hay que sacar adelante. La poblaci\u00f3n no quiere educaci\u00f3n gratuita para todos, sino para los m\u00e1s necesitados, entiende que hay alternativas donde podr\u00edan canalizarse mejor los recursos.<\/p>\n
-El CEP han se\u00f1alado que no est\u00e1n de acuerdo con la gratuidad universal, de hecho, han planteado que ser\u00eda regresivo. \u00bfPor qu\u00e9?<\/b><\/p>\n
-Si uno mira c\u00f3mo se van a distribuir los recursos, no se sabe c\u00f3mo el Gobierno va a definir las transferencias por gratuidad, son estimaciones imprecisas. Pero m\u00e1s o menos, aproximadamente 46% de los recursos van al 20% m\u00e1s alto, entonces eso la hace tremendamente regresiva.<\/p>\n
Acaba de salir un documento de la Uni\u00f3n Europea que dice que los pa\u00edses que tienen gratuidad en Europa tienen menos alumnos, porque tienen un n\u00famero limitado de recursos, por lo tanto, buscan mecanismos selectivos que finalmente perjudican a los estudiantes. Por ejemplo, los alemanes hoy tienen una tasa de cobertura inferior a la chilena y con menor participaci\u00f3n de sectores vulnerables. Y eso tiene que ver con que no hay suficientes cupos, porque no hay muchos recursos. Por ejemplo, Alemania gasta 1,3% del PIB en educaci\u00f3n y nosotros 2,4% del PIB, aunque mucho de nuestro gasto es privado, lo que genera espacio para ampliar los cupos. Los alemanes est\u00e1n tratando de revertir la situaci\u00f3n y generar 91 mil cupos anuales, pero lo han hecho muy lento porque no tienen los recursos.\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n
-Usted ha dicho que la gratuidad no garantiza el acceso, \u00bfhabr\u00eda que cambiar el sistema de admisi\u00f3n para asegurar el ingreso de j\u00f3venes de sectores de menores recursos?<\/b><\/p>\n
-Hoy, en las universidades del Consejo de Rectores entran 168.000 estudiantes, y los que quedan fueran son 380.000 que entran a CFT (Centro de Formaci\u00f3n T\u00e9cnica) o universidades privadas, de ellos van a recibir beneficios s\u00f3lo 60.000 y el resto no recibir\u00e1n, porque est\u00e1n en universidades que no cumplen con la acreditaci\u00f3n o porque est\u00e1n organizados como una corporaci\u00f3n comercial, como lo permit\u00eda la ley. Esto hace que el sistema vaya dejando a muchos j\u00f3venes fuera y eso no es lo adecuado. El Gobierno debiera definir otro marco regulatorio, no soy partidario de la gratuidad, pero el paso l\u00f3gico era \u00e9se.<\/p>\n
Hay que combinar flexibilidad acad\u00e9mica con equidad. Uno puede cambiar el sistema de admisi\u00f3n, pero a lo mejor entran m\u00e1s alumnos vulnerables, pero no permanecen. El sistema de admisi\u00f3n est\u00e1 muy cargado hacia las habilidades cognitivas y muy poco a otras no cognitivas, y \u00e9se es el cambio que hay que hacer. Por ejemplo, las universidades en Estados Unidos ponderan habilidades deportivas, sociales, de liderazgo.\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n
-En Argentina las universidades estatales son gratuitas, pero hay alta tasa de deserci\u00f3n. \u00bfC\u00f3mo lo ve usted?<\/b><\/p>\n
-Tienen una muy baja tasa de graduaci\u00f3n, de hecho, es una de las m\u00e1s bajas del mundo. Se grad\u00faan 27 de cada 100 y en Chile es 48.\u00a0 Por ejemplo, en la Universidad de Buenos Aires, el n\u00famero de estudiantes que ingresa es muy alto, pero muchos no terminan.<\/p>\n
Los pa\u00edses que tienen universidades gratuitas las han tenido siempre, no hay ninguno que haya involucionado a la gratuidad. Por ejemplo, Inglaterra tuvo un sistema de pago proporcional y hoy todas las universidades son pagadas.\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n
-En Chile, la ministra Delpiano ya adelant\u00f3 que la gratuidad universal comenzar\u00e1 gradualmente a partir de 2016. \u00bfCu\u00e1les son las principales incertidumbres que persisten?<\/b><\/p>\n
-Creo que no va haber gratuidad universal. Es muy complejo de implementar. S\u00ed se podr\u00eda lograr gratuidad para los m\u00e1s vulnerables. T\u00e9cnicamente es muy dif\u00edcil, el problema que tiene el Gobierno hoy en d\u00eda, es un problema de corto plazo, porque no tiene un marco regulatorio definido para que las instituciones o los estudiantes puedan tener beneficios. Por ejemplo, \u00bfse van a respetar los aranceles actuales o no se van a respetar? El Gobierno ha dicho que va a definir un modelo de costo, pero hasta ahora ni siquiera ha podido establecer los costos de las universidades estatales. Hoy sostiene que va a haber un arancel de referencia m\u00e1s un tope de 20% para cubrir la brecha con el arancel de referencia, esto va a permitir en algunos casos cubrirlo, pero en otros la brecha persistir\u00e1. De hecho, las mismas universidades estatales est\u00e1n reclamando que no les alcanzar\u00eda y se est\u00e1 generando una negociaci\u00f3n bastante inconveniente. Como no hay modelo claro para definir los precios, al final es la presi\u00f3n de todos lo que va a definir los aranceles, qui\u00e9n tiene m\u00e1s fuerza, ser\u00e1 una decisi\u00f3n pol\u00edtica.<\/p>\n
Por otro lado, si el Estado hace un modelo de costos puede estar apoyando programas que no son valiosos para la sociedad.\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n
-\u00bfUsted est\u00e1 de acuerdo que el subsidio sea a la demanda? \u00bfSe debe entregar directo a las instituciones o a los alumnos?<\/b><\/p>\n
-Tiene que ser un subsidio a la demanda, es la mejor forma en que le rindan los recursos al Ministerio de Hacienda. Es bueno que los estudiantes puedan elegir, es una forma de control social.\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n
-En un sistema de demanda, una carrera vale m\u00e1s o menos en funci\u00f3n del impacto y oportunidades en el mercado laboral, en este contexto, \u00bfel mecanismo de asignaci\u00f3n debiera ser de acuerdo a estas variables? <\/b><\/p>\n
-Como la educaci\u00f3n no debe ser gratuita, debiera existir lo que yo llamo gratuidad condicionada. El Estado debe tener un ancla y \u00e9sta debe ser el financiamiento que est\u00e9 dispuesto a prestarle al estudiante por la duraci\u00f3n total de la carrera. En este esquema, al comienzo la universidad debe decir cu\u00e1nto cobrar\u00e1 por estudiante y el Estado debe decir para cada grupo de carreras y universidades voy a poner este financiamiento y el alumno compara el costo de la carrera con el financiamiento m\u00e1ximo que va a poner el Estado, si se produce una discrepancia, la universidad tiene que demostrarle al Estado que efectivamente sus costos son mayores de lo que le est\u00e1 dando, si no es capaz de demostrarlo, tiene que entregarle a los estudiantes recursos a trav\u00e9s de una beca o un cr\u00e9dito.<\/p>\n
En este esquema, el Estado me est\u00e1 diciendo que le agrego valor al alumno por tanto y yo le estoy cobrando m\u00e1s, como lo financio yo, mejor reduzco la oferta en determinadas carreras y aumento aqu\u00e9llas m\u00e1s atractivas desde el punto de vista de la demanda, lo que es cierto para 94% de las carreras que se dan hoy. No es un buen sistema para las carreras humanistas que son de alto retorno social, pero no necesariamente de alto retorno privado, como las artes, la literatura, entre otras. En este caso, el esquema debe ser distinto.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
El costo de la reforma<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n -El Gobierno ha dicho que el costo de implementar la reforma ser\u00e1 de US$ 5 mil millones al a\u00f1o. \u00bfEsto es suficiente o hay riesgo que en el camino se tenga que ir inyectando m\u00e1s recursos?<\/b><\/p>\n -Hoy estamos gastando del orden de US$ 1.300 millones y calculo que el costo adicional debiera ser del orden de US$ 3.800, entonces, es m\u00e1s o menos la misma cifra. No creo que se requieran m\u00e1s recursos, porque la tasa de matr\u00edcula en los colegios est\u00e1 cayendo, dado que la tasa de natalidad est\u00e1 bajando. Ya tenemos una cobertura alta, por lo tanto, no debiera haber un d\u00e9ficit.<\/p>\n Donde tenemos un gran d\u00e9ficit es en investigaci\u00f3n, en Chile, de 1.000 personas empleadas hay 72 investigadores, mientras que el promedio de la Organizaci\u00f3n para la Cooperaci\u00f3n y el Desarrollo Econ\u00f3micos (OCDE) es 100. En Chile se invierte 0,39% del PIB en Investigaci\u00f3n y Desarrollo (I+D) seg\u00fan la OCDE, con muy baja participaci\u00f3n de privados. El promedio de la OCDE es 2,4%, entonces, en qu\u00e9 nos gastamos los recursos, yo dir\u00eda en investigaci\u00f3n.\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n -\u00bfDeber\u00eda ser distinto el mecanismo de financiamiento para las instituciones que hacen investigaci\u00f3n?<\/b><\/p>\n -En Chile, las universidades complejas son la Cat\u00f3lica, la Chile y la de Concepci\u00f3n, y hay otras con investigaci\u00f3n avanzada como las universidades de Santiago, Santa Mar\u00eda, de Talca, de la Frontera y otras con investigaci\u00f3n emergente. Para estas instituciones los aportes basales debieran convertirse en aportes para la investigaci\u00f3n.\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n -\u00bfCu\u00e1l es su visi\u00f3n del Consejo Consultivo que anunci\u00f3 la presidenta Bachelet? Se cr\u00edtica que no consider\u00f3 representantes de las universidades privadas. \u00bfUsted cree que ayudar\u00e1 a despejar, por ejemplo, el camino para hacer el reglamento?<\/b><\/p>\n -Como no soy partidario de este conjunto de pol\u00edticas no me siento representado por ellas. Haciendo un juicio evaluador, son gente con experiencia, no es una comisi\u00f3n que va a elaborar una propuesta, es un consejo consultivo que emitir\u00e1 una opini\u00f3n.The former Minister of Education under the Government of Sebasti\u00e1n Pi\u00f1era says that a university system free to all is a technical impossibility, particularly since the reform is creating widespread uncertainty with its absence of a regulatory framework and key definitions.<\/i><\/p>\n At the end of last May, Chilean President Michelle Bachelet enacted the School Inclusion Act. This legislation, which brings an end to the profit-making, co-payment and school selection processes previously in place in state-subsidized educational institutions, is a central component of the educational reform introduced by the Bachelet government. It is due to come into force in January 2016.<\/p>\n Now, just four months later, different actors from the education sector are already warning of the uncertainty stemming from an act which, to date, lacks both regulatory content and clear guidelines in terms of the most important aspects.<\/p>\n In this context, Harald Beyer, current Director of the Center for Public Studies (CEP) and former Minister of Education under the Sebasti\u00e1n Pi\u00f1era government, expresses his concern about the legislation. He believes that the biggest problem in terms of implementing the Inclusion Act is its lack of a regulatory framework. He also claims that the Government has failed to compile a cost model for establishing a reference fee, and that the issue of transferring institutions over to free education is even less clear. \u201cThe uncertainty is not it the act, it\u2019s in the regulations\u201d, he stated in an interview with AmCham Chile. \u00a0\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n Do you think this reform tried to cover too much?<\/b><\/p>\n On one hand, people do not understand what the reform is trying to do. On the other hand, people do not believe that this is the reform required. The general public wants free education for the most needy, not for everyone, and people understand that there are alternative options available through which resources could be more effectively channeled.<\/p>\n The CEP has said that it disagrees with free universal education and that such a policy would, in fact, be regressive. Why?<\/b><\/p>\n If you look at how resources are to be distributed, no one knows exactly how the government will make the transfers to free education. All we have are imprecise estimates. Approximately, 46% of resources will go to the highest 20%, making it extremely regressive.<\/p>\n The European Union has recently released a document reporting that European countries with free education systems have fewer students. The report claims that this is due to states having limited resources and, as a result, they tend to pursue selection mechanisms which, ultimately, discriminate against students. For example, in Germany there are lower coverage rates than in Chile, as well as less participation from the most vulnerable sectors. This is the result of a lack of sufficient places being available, which in turn is due to insufficient funds. Germany spends 1.3% of its GDP on education, compared to 2.4% by Chile, and since much of the Chilean expenditure comes from the private sector, it creates space to generate new places. The Germans are trying to reverse this situation by creating 91,000 spaces per year, but the process is incredibly slowly due to the aforementioned lack of resources.<\/p>\n You have said that free education does not guarantee access. Should the admissions system be changed to ensure the entry of young people from low-income sectors?<\/b>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Nowadays, the number of students joining Council of Rector universities is 168,000. This leaves 380,000 to join Technical Training Centers (CFTs) or private universities, of which only 60,000 will receive financial support. This is because these universities or centers fail to comply with accreditation standards or because they are founded as commercial corporations, as permitted by law. This means that the system ignores huge numbers of young people, which is not right. I am not a supporter of free universal education, but the logical step would have been for the government to compile a different regulatory framework.<\/p>\n Academic flexibility must be combined with fairness. While it is possible to change the admissions system, meaning more vulnerable students are able to join educational institutions, these students might not choose to stay within education. The admissions system is also loaded in favor of cognitive skills, with very little importance placed on other cognitive abilities, and this is the change that is required. For example, universities in the United States take account of sporting, social and leadership skills, as well as cognitive skills.<\/p>\n Universities in Argentina are free, but there is a high dropout rate in that country. How do you view this scenario?<\/b>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Argentinian universities have a very low graduation rate, one of the lowest in the world. Only 27 out of every 100 students graduate in Argentina, compared to 48 in Chile. For example, at the Universidad de Buenos Aires, student enrolment is high but many students do not complete their degrees. Countries with free universities have always had free universities; no country has taken the backward step of implementing free education. For example, the United Kingdom used to have a proportional payment system, whereas today all universities there charge fees.\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n In Chile, the Minister of Education, Adriana Delpiano, has announced that free universal education will be introduced gradually from 2016. What are the main uncertainties that still remain?<\/b><\/p>\n I do not believe there will be free universal coverage because its implementation would be far too complicated. Achieving free education for the most vulnerable segments of society is possible, although it is technically very difficult. The problem facing the government at present is that of a short-term timeframe, because the act lacks a well-defined regulatory framework through which benefits can be provided to both institutions and students. For example, are they going to respect the current fees? The government has said that it will compile a cost model, but it has not even been able to determine the costs of state universities as yet. Today, the government argues that there will be a reference fee plus a cap of 20% to cover any resulting gaps. This will help to cover the fee in certain cases, but in other situations the gap will simply persist. In fact, the same state universities are complaining that it is not enough and that the deal will in fact be detrimental to them. As there is no clear model for setting prices, overall pressure from the strongest actors will ultimately determine the fees set and the policy itself.<\/p>\n On the other hand, if the state devises a cost model, it may end up supporting programs that have no value for society.<\/p>\n Do you agree that the subsidy should be based on demand? Should it be provided directly to institutions or students?<\/b>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n It should be a subsidy based on demand, because that is the best way to ensure resources for the Ministry of Finance. It is good for students to be able to choose, since it is a form of social control.\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n In a system of demand, the worth of a degree is essentially dependent on its impact and resultant opportunities in the labor market. Accordingly, should the allowance mechanism concur with these variables?<\/b>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n As education should not be free, there should be what I call conditional free education. The state should have a safeguard in place, i.e., the funding it is willing to lend to a student for the entirety of their degree. Under this approach, firstly the university should outline the amount it will charge per student. Subsequently, the state should clarify exactly which specific sets of degrees and universities will be assigned funding, and the student can then compare the cost of the degree with the maximum funding available from the state. If a discrepancy arises, the university should have to prove to the state that its costs are higher than the amount it is receiving from the government. If it is incapable of producing this evidence, the student should be provided with the necessary resources via a grant or loan.<\/p>\n Under this approach, the state is effectively telling universities that they add value to the student and that they should charge higher fees. And as they are the ones doing the financing, it is better for them to reduce the supply of certain degree courses, while increasing it for the more attractive ones, from a demand point of view. This is what happens in 94% of degree courses offered today. It is not a good system for humanities degrees, such as the arts and literature, which despite their high social return are not necessarily so positive in terms of private return. In this case, the approach should be different.<\/p>\n The cost of reform<\/span><\/b><\/p>\n The government has said that implementing the reform will cost approximately US$5 billion per year. Is this sufficient, or is there a risk that additional resources will be required along the way?<\/b>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n We are currently spending around US$1.3 billion and I believe the additional cost will come to about US$3.8 billion, which is more or less the same figure you mention. I do not think more resources will be required because the matriculation rate in high schools is falling, due mainly to the decreasing birth rate in Chile. Given the wide coverage at present, there should be no deficit.<\/p>\n Where there is a large deficit, however, is in research. In Chile, of every 1,000 people employed there are 72 researches, whereas the average in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) is 100. According to the OECD, Chile invests 0.39% of GDP in Research and Development, with very low participation rates from the private sector. The OECD average is 2.4%, so I would suggest we spend the money on research.<\/p>\n Should the funding mechanism be different for research institutions?<\/b><\/p>\n In Chile, the research universities are the Universidades Cat\u00f3lica, de Chile and de Concepci\u00f3n. There are also others conducting advanced research, such as the Universidades de Santiago, Santa Mar\u00eda, de Talca, and de la Frontera, in addition to others with emerging research faculties. For these institutions, core support should come in the form of financial contributions for research.<\/p>\n What is your view of the Advisory Council announced by President Bachelet? It has been criticized for a lack of representatives from private universities. Do you think it will help to resolve the issue regarding the regulations still required?<\/b>\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n As I am not in favor of this political package I feel rather unrepresented on the matter. Regarding my evaluation, the members of the council are experienced people. It is not a committee formed to devise a proposal; it is an advisory council which will draft an opinion.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" El ex Ministro de Educaci\u00f3n del Gobierno de Sebasti\u00e1n Pi\u00f1era, se\u00f1ala que es t\u00e9cnicamente imposible un sistema universitario sin costo para todos, m\u00e1s a\u00fan cuando la reforma est\u00e1 dejando una estela de incertidumbres a falta de un marco regulatorio y de definiciones clave. A fines de mayo la Presidenta de la Rep\u00fablica, Michelle Bachelet, promulg\u00f3 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"template":"","news_tax":[],"user_type":[],"class_list":["post-9380","news","type-news","status-publish","hentry"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n<\/p>\n