University Leonardo Garnier on "Sub / versions" written by him in 2002 These days various people have been circulating widely on the Internet an old sub / version I wrote back in October 2002. The funny thing is that now runs to show "how much I've changed" or "how betrayed today what I said yesterday." Some believe they have discovered the fatal contradiction between that Leonardo Garnier defending and the educational investment that today, as Minister of Education, has been transmuted into a kind of neo-liberal monster prepared to cut and curtail the resources education and in particular to higher education.
is always a good thing to force him to confront what he has said, done or thought of other times in their life, either to demonstrate the changes that may have had throughout life - it would be tragic not ever change - or to identify inconsistencies, of course, should be remedied soon. It can also serve, however, to confirm that is still thinking and feeling as when it was written then and that the facts, far from contradicting, confirming what previously were only words.
admit that I am flattered the durability over time of those sub / versions that claimed to be calls short-term care and that now, years later, still seem to be of interest to many people. I'm glad.
But as some have tried to use my text to draw conclusions other than those that actually appears to allow, using my words yesterday to misrepresent my actions today, I feel the right and the obligation to restore my text, to add some comments and reflections on the current situation so that everyone can judge whether my tenure as Minister is a betrayal or was rather an exercise of realization of my ideas, my sub / versions. In those sub / versions of 2002 ended stating:
"How say that he bet on the future and young people when they ask for education? Yesterday, the education was free and compulsory. Today, it is governed by the accounting and surveys. More than a deficit, seems to suffer from a serious lack of leadership. "
Neither more nor less, they felt, what I thought and wrote. Today, would not take a comma. The context of the column was indeed proposing a cut to the education budget and school year; cut was even worse in the context of a constitutional mandate - in which I had to play a role - and that since 1998 provided that the education budget could not be less than 6% of GDP. The constitutional mandate, however, remained unimplemented four years later.
In this refusal to raise the funding of our education was I - and keep - a lack of leadership. Said yesterday that as a columnist.
Today, some consider me turned around and that, faced with the challenges of expanding investment in education and in particular with respect to the negotiation of FEES, I fall into the failure of leadership yesterday criticized. But is it?
My main concern in taking the Ministry of Education - as stated in my previous publications both in the definition of priorities that guided our work from home - was the low coverage of secondary education in Costa Rica. I can hardly find a greater tragedy that we've had this inability as a society to ensure all our young people the opportunity to complete their secondary education, although not sufficient, is indispensable in today's world to have access to a skilled and well paid. The battle against poverty and inequality, the battle to rebuild the middle class of this century, passing through the universal requirement of high school really.
I'm not saying there ends our educational challenge: the universalization of secondary education must involve a great effort in terms of quality and relevance, a major challenge in terms of development of technical education, a profound and vital task which points to the comprehensive education - ethics, aesthetics and public - of our young people and, of course, an indispensable task in the development of a higher education is quantitatively and qualitatively to the height of the times.
These challenges involve a number of actions, but certainly also require funding. Therefore, the profound challenges of the coverage, quality and relevance of education inevitably pass over the question of the five, on the budget issue.
How to value our management from this view, that was precisely what I questioned as a columnist back in 2002?
I joined the Ministry of Education in May 2006. That year, the education sector budget was ¢ 570,000 million and represented 5% of GDP. Four years later, in 2010 I still as Minister of Education, the education sector budget is ¢ 1,330,000 million, representing 7.2% of GDP. In real terms - after inflation - the education sector budget has grown by 67% in these four years, the highest growth in history. In doing so, we not only meet the constitutional mandate 6% of GDP, but we investing in education to 7.2% of GDP in 2010. That, we can be proud.
In conjunction with the various qualitative measures, organizational and management have driven, this dramatic increase in the resources invested in the education sector could contribute to reversing the trend of increasing attrition in the education system but, above all, we could reduce inequality within the education system itself. I mean, while enrollment rates of the two highest income quintiles - which are the highest - remained virtually at the same level of 89% and 96% between 2006 and 2009, the rate of education of the three lowest income quintiles improved significantly: schooling in the middle quintile rose from 80% to 87% and that of lower-middle quintile rose from 74% to 83% and the poorest quintile rose from 71 to 80%. Thus, the average improvement in schooling we accomplished in those years, was achieved through a significant reduction of educational inequalities. That, we can be proud.
A key element in pursuit of both justice and the quality of education, was the significant increase negotiated with the trade associations for the teaching staff of the Ministry of Education. In recent years, educators saw Costa Rica their earnings almost doubled to implement the education sector to 50 percentile equating the public sector. This is a major achievement not only in terms of due recognition to the hard work of teachers of preschool, primary and secondary, but as a key instrument to promote long-term educational quality, by making the teaching profession to be attractive returns for our young people today know who teach can also bring a level of living for their families.
Finally, to drop the issue that gave rise to this "rediscovery" of my sub / version of 2002, we have the issue of financing higher education and in particular the issue of FEES.
Well, FEES had fallen to its lowest point in history in 1982, after the crisis of the late Carazo administration, and thereafter, it recovered slowly over the next twenty years from 26 billion to 127 billion (in constant colones). While this was a real positive growth FEES was shown lower growth than the national economy as a whole, so that the participation of FEES in GDP was reduced, every year, from 1.18% of GDP 1985 to 0.85% of GDP in 2004.
At that time, the university authorities and the Government then negotiated Financing a Convention that would bring the fees of 0.87% of GDP in 2004 showed 1.05% of GDP in 2009. Initially, with a growing GDP, the application of this formula allowed a significant expansion of FEES, when GDP fell, the government agreed to allow the FEES continued to grow in real terms up to ¢ 226 billion that today represent 1.23% of GDP. Faced with criticism today is easily heard, it is important to note that, if implemented "formula" of the latest agreement, the FEES hardly have been of ¢ 200 billion in 2010, ie, ¢ 26 billion less than the Government agreed to cover.
So no, I have no reason to feel that what is said in the sub / version of 2002 there were betrayed by the actions that allow the FEES to the point where it is today. On the contrary, I believe that my actions as a Minister have been totally consistent with my thoughts of yesterday. But then what about the current negotiations, the source of so much discord?
In my column in 2002 argued about the responsibility that could be the political authorities in the sense of allowing and promoting real growth of investment in education. The proposal from the current Government have proposed to universities is quite consistent with that.
Although some talk about the government's proposal as if it were a "cutting" of the university budget, the truth is simple and distinct: what we have proposed is that the FEES grow in real terms and to grow faster than the rate of growth national economy. We proposed that the FEES to grow at a 4.5% real plus inflation, plus a credit of $ 200 million.
In simple terms this would bring the funding to universities in the ¢ 226 billion today to about ¢ 360 billion in 2015 (¢ 400 billion if we quantify the loan). It is difficult to understand why anyone would play this kind of increase, real, as un recorte. Con la propuesta del Gobierno, el FEES alcanzaría su nivel más alto de la historia tanto en términos reales como en su participación en el PIB. En términos de mi columna de 2002, puedo sentirme tranquilo y orgulloso: en medio de una crítica situación fiscal, el Gobierno del que formo parte no solo no recorta la inversión educativa, sino que le permite crecer a un ritmo mayor del ritmo al que crece la economía, del ritmo al que crece el resto del gasto público y del ritmo al que crecen los ingresos tributarios. La prioridad de la educación claramente se mantiene.
Entonces – dirá el lector - ¿por qué tanto conflicto? La razón es fácil de explicar, aunque no sea easy to correct.
university elites do not take a real 4.5% growth but demand growth of 11% real. This would mean that the FEES grow three times faster than the national economy, putting a terrible strain on the rest of the social and economic investments by the government, society.
Why such high demand growth ESSF elite university?
As we have said - verbally and in writing - "need" this disproportionate increase to pay for what they call the "inertial charge" of the university forms: a set of incentives and privileges they do that without hiring a teacher more, no more admit a student without the slightest increase or improve services generated by universities, costs automatically rise by 8% per annum above inflation ... to pay for this increase automatic wage is also an 8% per annum above inflation.
In short, the problem of universities is not that governments are not giving them enough resources. On the contrary, both during the previous five years and the current government proposal, the resources of universities increased clearly and consistently. However, incentives to absorb most of the budget increase, universities have chosen to stop the admission of students, who not only left out of the public universities, but fail to fit into the careers of their choice.
Between 2003 and 2010, the University of Costa Rica increased from 29,004 to 35,524 students: seven years only increased its enrollment 6,520 students, less than a thousand per year. In the case of National University, went from 12,940 to 15,444, an increase of just 2,504 in seven years, less than 400 per year. UNED apparently increased in 5174 but the fact is that this only appears to have happened in the last year, because between 2003 and 2009 only increased from 18,659 to 19,521, ie only 862 more students. The strangest case is that of the Technological Institute, in these seven years, not only did not increase the number of students but reduced it! The ECT increased from 8153 to 8,151 students between 2003 and 2010.
Over the last five years our public universities increased their tuition, among all, in just over 2000 students per year. Its enrollment grew only by 15%. This is not possible to blame the governments for not having allocated resources: their own bodies have recognized that this has been five years in which its resources have grown: 80% in real terms. How to explain that resources increase by 80% términos reales, pero la matrícula solamente en un 15%?
Ahora se nos dice – en la propuesta oficial de las y los Rectores – que durante el próximo quinquenio su matrícula aumentará en un 3% anual (es decir, apenas unos 2.500 estudiantes por año). Sin embargo, se pide que el financiamiento (FEES) crezca a un ritmo del 11% por encima de la inflación. ¿Cómo justificar esto?
No creo que los salarios en las universidades deban ser bajos. Por el contrario, me parece bien que sean buenos salarios de manera que podamos atraer a los mejores intelectuales, los mejores científicos, los mejores artistas a la docencia y la investigación. Eso podría justificar que, over a period - a five-year, for example - costs rise more than services. What happened in the MEP with increasing wages do: for two or three years, the costs exceed the enrollment growth because wages are recovering. That's fine.
What can not be right is that these increases become a permanent and automatic privilege. It's okay that wages are high. It is not right - according to the current system - continue to grow at a rate so great that double every eight years above inflation!
So when I reread my sub / versions of 2002 and see the how increased funding to universities during my first four years as minister, when I check my ideas of yesterday and today discussed the proposal that we submitted to the directors for the FEES to continue at a faster rate than the national economy I feel good. These are facts and proposals that, if properly used, allow our public universities growth and systematic improvement.
And so when I hear that is threatening to cut scholarships, quotas and close racing, to eliminate graduate studies, arguing that the fault lies with the Government to "cut" the university budget, I care deeply. Not because I believe that the resources offered are insufficient. I worry about how those resources are being used and, above all, I worry - and I was saddened - by the way the elite universities are arguing - against students and against our universities - as long as not transform an inadequate system of privileges.
As in my sub / versions of yesterday, I think we have a leadership problem. Only that the problem seems to be inside, not outside of our universities.
