The purpose of education

In this blog, I will be discussing Chile and its educational system, considering my own experiences as a student during the late 70s and 80s and reflecting on the radical changes that education in Chile has undergone over the past 50 years.

Primary education became compulsory in Chile in 1920. Like the 1870 Education Act in Britain, this move stirred controversy among conservatives who were concerned about the state’s control over the educational system and the diminished influence of the Catholic Church in schools. The Chilean act established something similar the “Cowper-Temple’ clause of the 1870 British act which established that “No religious catechism or religious formulary which is distinctive of any particular denomination shall be taught in the school”. It also was a challenge for the more liberal Chilean government of the time, which for the first time needed to define its role in the educational system.

As many are aware, Chile experienced turbulent political times during the 1970s, and 1980s. In 1971, the communist government of Salvador Allende was determined to bring about a profound transformation in the educational system, influenced in many ways by the work of Paulo Freire and its followers. Their aim was to liberate students from the constraints of the social hierarchy and to move away from what Freire termed ‘banking education.’ This reform was known as ‘Educación Nacional Integrada.’ I think in certain ways and considering Biesta’s three domains, Salvador Allende’s government purpose of education was seeking to develop the three domains this academic coined: qualifications, socialization, and Subjectification in the educational system.

The Allende government aspired to provide an education that allowed students to acquire the necessary qualifications to pursue their personal ambitions while also contributing to the country’s development. Socialization was a key focus, aiming to create an educational system that acknowledged the role of a more equal society and the student’s role within it. They wanted to involve all sectors of society in the educational process. However, there was also a hidden curriculum aimed at shaping society in accordance with the beliefs of the communist party. Furthermore, they aimed to grant students the freedom to learn and cultivate autonomy, as per Biesta’s ideas. This reform aimed to make students active recipients of knowledge.

Unfortunately, this reform did not gain congressional approval and later due to the military coup that Chile suffered in 1973, it was never a reality. The era of Pinochet profoundly impacted all my life as a student, from primary to higher education. The dictatorship, once in power, brought about drastic changes in the educational system. The budget for education was significantly reduced, the state’s role was diminished, and the whole primary and secondary educational system was decentralized, with local authorities assuming responsibility for their administration, whilst the curriculum and content taught in schools and universities came under strict government control. Higher education ceased to be free, and universities were forbidden from promoting free political ideas. During this period, some argued that Chilean education became a neoliberal Institution. Education began to be a profitable business controlled by the market.

Considering Biesta’s essay on the purpose of education, one could argue that education during this time primarily aimed at developing qualifications to support neoliberal policies. The market needed to grow, and a qualified labour force was required. A hidden curriculum influenced students to perceive education primarily to secure employment and to climb the social ladder. There was little emphasis on Subjectification among Chilean students, and it is evident, as Biesta suggested, that democratization was not the goal; rather, the historical social hierarchies were maintained. Subjects like history, philosophy, and ethics were heavily censored by the dictatorial government. My university entrance exams were essentially tests of memorization with multiple-choice questions, there was neither creative thinking nor freedom to develop my own ideas. As the example that Biesta quoted in his article, the students’ freedom in the Pinochet era was taken away. The dictatorial regime wanted to re-educate and indoctrinate students into a new political landscape. Many may argue that the number of students that finished high school was larger than ever but the fact that university was (and is) very expensive made the higher education ambitions of many capable students impossible.

It was not until 2005 when radical changes to the educational system were put in place. The government wanted to end the disparities in education, improve educational facilities and teachers’ careers, and return control of Chilean education to the state. Despite these improvements, in 2006, more than a million secondary students began one of the most important social movements in the history of my country. State school students were demanding real changes in the educational system. After this movement called ‘La revolución pingüina,’ the government created a commission of eighty-two people, among whom there were some student leaders. In fact, the actual president of Chile was a former university student leader of another important student movement in 2011.



It is curious that the Chilean student uprising of 2006 occurred almost two decades after the end of the dictatorship. Some academics suggest that this delay may be attributed to these students had higher level of education than their parents. This may have helped them become aware of their rights and social status quo. In my view, once these students attained a certain level of competence in the domains of qualification and socialization, they were more inclined to question the type of education they were receiving. I believe that the more knowledge one acquires and the better social standing one achieves, the greater their desire for freedom to make choices and take on a leading role in their own lives.