3 minute read

The processes of privatizing and commercializing universities in Latin America and the Caribbean in the context of the pandemic

THE PROCESSES OF PRIVATIZATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

IN LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN IN THE CONTEXT OF PANDEMIC¹⁴

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic placed the entire world in an unprecedented and unthinkable situation, whose implications in terms of social, economic, political, psychological and affective consequences are not yet fully evident, with the large part of human activities having being disrupted, giving way to new ways of meeting up and relating as well as of researching, teaching and learning.

The suspension of face-to-face educational activities occurred rapidly in the region. On March 12, the process of closing the higher education institutions began and in less than a week this had reached almost the entire population of students and teachers. According to data from UNESCO-IESALC (May 2020), the closure of the institutions affected approximately 23.4 million students and 1.4 million teachers in Latin America and the Caribbean.

The measures affected all the functions carried out by higher education institutions: research, extension services and teaching. In particular, this report analyzes the processes that were deployed to support higher education teaching while the relevant institutions are closed. From concerns about what happens in this context regarding the right to higher education, which is recognized as a responsibility of state governments in the principles established in Cartagena in 2008 and ratified in Cordoba in 2018, this paper intends to explore some dimensions of the processes of privatization and commercialization existing in the region in the context of the pandemic and the vicissitudes that higher education workers are going through due to this situation. This proposal involves looking at the deepening of long-standing processes at the same time as identifying emerging ones that promote privatization and commercialization, along with efforts that could counter these in a democratizing fashion.

¹⁴ This report is a reduced version of a work in which it is possible to find the empirical data supporting the arguments raised. We would like to thank Gabriela Bonilla (Observatorio Latinoamericano de Políticas Educativas - EILA) and Mercedes Martín (FaHCE-Universidad Nacional De La Plata) for the advice received for the report.

From the study¹⁵ it is possible to apply two arguments: firstly, the type of response made in each of the region's higher education systems (HES) to the arrival of COVID-19 was highly variable and depended not only of the economic situation, health, and politics of each country, but also of the degree of privatization and commercialization of each education system, the previous development of Distance Education (DE) and the progress in the expansion of educational access and the persistence of inequalities limiting the exercise of the right to education in terms of access to the university and to technologies. Secondly, the actions implemented within the framework of emergency remote education caused by the pandemic and the closure of face-to-face classes in the institutions have consolidated and updated the trends towards privatization and commercialization present in higher education in the region.

¹⁵ We performed a systematic analysis of the “Coyuntura Latinoamericana (Latin American Situation)” report produced by EILA regional office's Observatorio Latinoamericano de Políticas Educativas; the web site SITEAL (UNESCO) that reports on news about government initiatives disseminated on the countries' government agency internet sites and social media accounts; internet searches on the documents and activities of several relevant organizations for the issue in question; and press releases on significant items that were identified. This was further complemented by a set of interviews conducted electronically of trade union leaders at the higher education level who contributed information and opinions. The analysis was carried out from May-December, months in which the orientation of the measures were changing in parallel to the extension and complexity of the social-health scenario.