When education is brought up in political discussions in Buenos Aires, there is a certain kind of tension that permeates the city. It is more intense than regular debate, as if everyone in the nation feels that something fundamental is at risk. That sensation has returned. Additionally, educators outside of Argentina have taken notice of it this time.
Argentina took a truly audacious step in 1882. Educators and politicians convened at the First Argentine Pedagogical Congress to vehemently and extensively argue that the State owed every child, whether they were wealthy or poor, immigrants or native-born, a seat in a classroom. After that, Law 1420 was passed, making primary education free, mandatory, and secular. The majority of Latin America at the time provided very little in the way of formal education for common people. Argentina presented itself as unique. It felt more like a national identity than merely a policy decision.
The World Organization for Early Childhood Education’s national branch, OMEP Argentina, is stating unequivocally that Law 1420’s promise has never been fully fulfilled more than 140 years later. The Education Freedom Bill, which is presently being discussed in Argentina, is the perfect opportunity to state this clearly and loudly. The bill, which is supported by President Javier Milei’s administration, calls for a dramatic change in the structure and financing of education, moving away from a right guaranteed by the state and toward something more in line with personal family preferences.
With the authority of someone who has spent more than 50 years in policy rooms and classrooms, the World President of OMEP is not subtle about the issue in a recent letter. She contends that the bill offers more than just technical changes. It questions the fundamental reasoning that has guided education in Argentina ever since Domingo Faustino Sarmiento stated in the 19th century that “to govern is to educate.” That phrase is still relevant today. Is anyone in a position of authority still paying attention?
Before the rhetoric takes over, it is worthwhile to examine the current state of Argentina’s educational system. On the surface, enrollment rates are impressive: secondary enrollment has reached levels that rank Argentina among the leaders in Latin America, and primary school enrollment is almost universal. However, enrollment only reveals a portion of the story—possibly the more positive one. For more than ten years, PISA scores have essentially remained unchanged. After secondary school, dropout rates rise dramatically. Additionally, the difference between a student in Buenos Aires and one in a less affluent northern province may seem less like a gap and more like two completely different systems under the same name.
That image is unsettling in some way. Argentina established itself as the hemisphere’s most educated nation, a reputation it has maintained for generations. That reputation is waning, but it is not completely gone. Prestigious universities, significant scientific output, and a tradition of critical thinking that has produced Nobel laureates are all still present in the nation. When public education is threatened, hundreds of thousands of people have frequently taken to the streets to defend it. Early in 2024, Milei’s government moved to reduce funding for public universities by as much as 70% in some cases, sparking one of the biggest protests since democracy was restored. That isn’t how people who don’t care about education behave.
However, OMEP and its allies are cautioning against something more structural than a budget cut. According to their interpretation, the Education Freedom Bill would progressively transfer authority from the state to families, requiring parents to weigh their options, negotiate a more disjointed system, and augment what public institutions are no longer able to provide. In a society of relative equals, that might make sense. That’s not Argentina. The rate of poverty has been increasing. Regional disparities are pervasive and profound. A child in a wealthy Buenos Aires neighborhood has the same ability to “choose” her path to a quality education as a child born in a low-income neighborhood on the outskirts of a provincial capital. Law 1420’s real insight was the system built around that reality, and it remains the correct one.
Here, too, the international framework is important. OMEP has been actively involved in UNESCO and the larger UN initiatives pertaining to education reform, such as the 2022 Tashkent Declaration, which reaffirmed education as a public good and a human right. Argentina agreed to those pledges. Fragmentation is opposed by the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals, particularly SDG 4.2 on early childhood access and SDG 4.7 on education for democratic citizenship. Whether the government considers those pledges to be significant limitations or merely formalities is still up for debate.
Observing this from a distance, it’s difficult to ignore the fact that Argentina keeps returning to the same dispute—the conflict between those who view education as a group endeavor and those who would rather approach it as a marketplace. Once, Law 1420 provided a conclusive response to that query. OMEP is urgently inquiring as to whether the nation still intends to do so.
