The 2026 Budget sent to Parliament proposes to scrap the 2006 domestic law target of investing 6% of GDP in education. It is argued that this target is misleading given GDP fluctuations, is futile as it was only achieved in 2015, that the current allocation of 4.9% is comparable to the proportion of other Latin American countries, and that efficiency gains are central. We must remember that 75% of the total national education budget is funded by local governments, so we must actively involve local governments in the discussion.
Indeed, a figure of 6% of GDP can imply a highly variable effective resource depending on the economic cycle. However, in Brazil (18%), Costa Rica (8%), Ecuador (6%), and Peru (6%), it is a parameter established by the constitution. Otherwise, more appropriate formulas and funding may be available in case of a crisis.
The argument that the goal was achieved only in 2015 omits the fact that stock growth was pushed from 4% in 2006 to 6% in 2015. He also argues that in “a country without laws,” to use Carlos Nino’s words, a large proportion of the laws are not followed, and that is not why we should abolish them. It’s better to have a reference book than not have one at all.
It seems questionable whether 4.9% is enough if teachers are paid less today than they were 20 years ago, if secondary teachers continue to be appointed by class time rather than by title, and if half of primary schools do not have connections to sewer networks, libraries, computers or classrooms, to name a few aspects that require a bigger budget.
Although Argentine students are five years ahead of the average of other students in the OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) on the PISA test, we invest half in each of them.
There is no denying that the quality of investment in bankrupt countries is low and there is room for efficiency that is little talked about. Discussions typically focus on the amount of resources, not how they are allocated. From the lowest student-to-teacher ratio in Latin America, to the amount of teacher replacement available, to the lack of clarity between sectors that create duplicative costs, to the number of educational institutions and higher education offerings, there is room for a (slightly) smarter budget, especially against the backdrop of a sharp decline in birth rates.
In addition to efficiency, we need to achieve more efficiency. Investment is a prerequisite, but better results must be achieved. Today, only one in 10 students completes compulsory school having satisfactorily learned languages and mathematics within a theoretical time. It is possible to increase the yield of resources. To do this, we must stop “watering and praying.”
Other states and territories in the region have achieved improvement processes over the past 25 years, including Chile, Peru, Ecuador, and the Brazilian states of Ceará, Pernambuco, Espiritu Santo, and Paraty. In all of them, educational policy prioritized a hierarchy of instruction and focused on results. It’s very difficult, but possible. The solution is not to abandon investment in the right to learn, but to develop better education policies.
About The Author
