Narodowski and Nores 2002

Narodowski, Mariano, and Milagros Nores. 2002. "Socio-economic segregation with (without) competitive education policies. A comparative analysis of Argentina and Chile." Comparative Education 38(4): 429-451.

• Argentina is a quasi monopoly while Chile is a quasi market (430)
• trying to figure out why social segmentation happens pretty equally in both chile adn Argentina, despite different education systems (ie former has vouchers) (431)
• chile (423-438)
• some found evidence that private schools were better, but others found that controlling for SES makes this difference go away (436-8)
• might be thaqt the market mechanism has actually brough tparity? (438)
• Argentina
• "After the 1950s, the educational system faced a strong legitimacy loss related to the fact that the system was not able to fulfill its promise of social mobility.\" (441)
• in 1964 subsidies for teacher pay were finally set down in objective parameters (before they were a bit willy nilly), but even still these subsidies can get paid out in clientelistic fashion (441)
• decentralization reforms of 1978 sent primary schools to be under provinces, 1992 was the rest of them and secondary schools.
• "The last thrity years have generated a hyper-regulated impoverished state system coexstient with a highly autonomous and expanded private sector." (442)
• private schools are a state subsidized exit option for students (442)
• decentralization did not change teh form of school regulation, just its locus
• enrollment is highly segmented by income...rich go to private, poor go to public (443)
• Conclusions....nothing big
• the paper suggests that vouchers themselves don't necessarily increase social segmentation in schools, since both countries have it but only Chile has vouchers (447)
• also questions/denies the assumption that SES variables can be taken as independent from school choice variables in quant studies

Katz 1971

Katz, Michael B. 1971. Class, bureaucracy, and schools: The illusion of educational change in America. New York: Praeger University Series.

• schools in the 20th century US have been designed with teh purpose of ulculcating values adn aceptance of the dominant classes...chicldren are taken, processed adn put into generally the same social class as their parents (xviii)
• the system serves the interests of the powerful, so there has been no real need/desire to actually reofrm them (xxiii-xxiv)
• arguemtn of the book is that the educational system was basicallly designed in the 19th century and hasn't been changed in any fundamental way since then

Spring 1972

Spring, Joel H. 1972. Education and the Rise of the Corporate State. Boston: Beacon Press.

• "The coporate image of society turned American schools into the central social institution for the production of men and women who conformed to the needs and expectatins of a corporate and technocratic world" (1)
• the corporate image of society was shared by major interest, business elites, labor unions, and political elites, as a way to deal with rapid indsutrialization and urbanization (1)
• business leaders started on paternalistic labor relations to control working classes, and many of the activities of these programs were later adopted by the education system (22, and chapter 2 as a whole)
• early schools were created to give their parents more times to work, improve home lives (and thus imporve efficiency), and to educate th enext genreations' workers (36-38)
• the school was like a factory (44-45)
• it was argued this was a great way to create a good industrial society...knowledge done by assembly line (45
• "professionalized and bureaucratic control of education became a barrier to establishing the school as a meaningful center of community life in the city. Schools were instruments for shaping community life along lines determined by the expertise of the organizer." (89)
• "the hard shell of bureaucracy provided protection for school systems that were basically hostile to their environments and to large numbers of the people they served (89)
• cmprehensive high school was partially started to push back against specialization of previous schooling, specialization which "threatened the whole goal of training a self-sacrificing and cooperative individual" (108)...schools were places for socializing individuals, but doing so to create good citizens, as teh workplace was a terribly individualizing place, whichi would lead to an atomized, bad society (108-125)
• "the parallels that can be drwn between teh socialization programs of the factory and school are not accidental. Both believed they faced the problem of internal fragmentation and both believed that the new institutions of society required a cooperative individual (124-125)
• "The school is and has been an instrument of social, economic, and political control. It is an institution which consciously plans to turn people into something. Within this framework the school must be viewed as an instrument of power. ... The most important feature of the school in the twentieth century as its role as the major institution for socialization." (149)
• "Schooling not only prepares for the acceptance of control by dominant elites and social structures but also can create a dependence on institutions and expertise." (152)
• 
  

Sullivan 2002

Sullivan, Alice. 20002. "Bourdieu and education: how useful is Bourdieu's theory for researchers?." Netherlands Journal of Social Sciences 38.2: 144-166.

• says habitus is useless, too vague adn vacuous and impossible to use empirically
• lots of researchers have worked on cultural capital ,but they have achieved varying results, mainly due to differences in the wy they operationalize cultural capital (155-163)
• seems liek cultural capital can be helpful, but it is still difficult to tell if the relationshp works as it should, which is:
• cultural capital helps one attain educational credentials which in turn help one attain better position in society (154)
• Bourdieu claims there is a working class habitus that makes working class people more likely to self-select out of education (151, citing Bourdieu and Passeron 1977: 153)
• 
  

Narodowski 2008

Mariano Narodowski, 2008, "School Choice and Quasi-state Monopoly Education Systems in Latin America: The Case of Argentina" 131-144  in Forsey, Martin, Scott Davies, and Geoffrey Walford. 2008. The globalisation of school choice? Oxford: Symposium Books.

• INtroduction
• private schooling has been on teh rise in Argentina, but the beginning of this rise precedes neoliberalism (131-132)
• definition of state monoppoly\ (132-3), lack of autonomy of managers and centralized decisionmaking
• quasi monopoly:
• schools are financed and coordinated by the state, but have autonomy and have to compete for students (133)
• but this is an ideal type, that doesn't exist in LA
• "As I discuss below, Argetnina's and othe Latin American systems have rsponded to the 'quasi' state monopoly by reaching a sort of equilibrium, where having wealthier parents opt out of the public system has allowed the punlic system to spend more dollars per pupil that it could otherwise."
• Privatization of the education system
• urban areas like CABA, Rosario, Cordoba, Mendoza, Tucuman have the largest private enrollment rates, over 50% and at times as high as 70% (135, citing Narodowski 2002)
• 92% of wealthiest fifth of population send kids to private school
• 1966 law that allows the state to fund part or all of teachers' salaries, is only used whena  government doesn't want to pay for infrastructure (135-6)
• CABA has about 50% private school enrollment
• 26.8% of private schools receive 100% teachers salaries
• 23.8% get 70-80% of salaries
• 13.3% private get 40-60% salary
• some studies have found that student test scores are better among private school students, but data is mostly inconsistent and hard to come by (137)
• Key factors in the behavior of families
• thsoe who choose private school seem to see it as fraught with difficulties, shoter school days, lots of strikes, worse supplies, fewer computers (138)
• some studies see choice of private school as a social process of self-segregation
• poor seem dissatisfied with public school, and would send them to private schools if they could (139)
• School Choice in a State Quasi-Monopoly
• it is not a monopoly, because there are so many private schools, but at the same time the other choice is unequally distributed (rich can afford it, poor can't) so it's not exactly a quasi market either
• suggests this quasi monopoly is a reaction by the monopoly to new demands of society (140)
• the quasi monopoly allows the middle and upper classes to fund their own edcuation, while the state can pay for education of the poor (141)
• argues that the poorer sectors do benefit from thsi arrangment because it allows the government to spend more per student than they would if they had to teach everyone

 this is OK, but it's a little funny because it doesn't quite take into account that the middle class can still pay for bettern edcuation...the poor get better scraps, but scraps all the same

Donaire 2012

Donaire, Ricardo. 2012. Los docentes en el siglo XXI: ¿empobrecidos o proletarizados? Buenos Aires: Siglo Veintiuno Editores.

• Introduction
• while education coverage has increased greatly since 1960, we are also seeing more people with precarious work relations (23)
• between 2002 and 2007 22% of protests have included "intellectual" workers, including teachers (23) citing another report
• 2009 Ministry of labor report: 454 000 teachers in the the 5 national teachers unions, 2/3 of which are in CTERA (24)
• teachers have done about 1/4 of all strikes between 1994 and 2008
• check out the "Programa de Investigacion sobre el Movimiento de la Sociedad Argentina
• but traditionally teachers aren't thought of as the working class, yet they are going on stikes and stuff
• the governemnt then and now has tried to delegitmize teachers strikes as an attack on the poor (by the teachers), thereby separating teachers from the identity of "poor" (25)
• ARGUMENT: showing teachers have descended to become a proletariat, but not just because they have a union or don't make as much money as they used to. Rather, this is a larger story abuot how this middle class was turned into a proletariat, and how many other of the middle/intellectual classes are also being turned into proles (25-6)
• chapter 2: theories of proletarianization
• proletarianization as deskilling, Braverman (30-34)
• ideological proletarianization, where proles lose the ability to choose how to do their work, has a lot more to do with proeltarianization of the middle class (Derber)
• teachers are becoming de-skilled due to the number of pre-made lessons and the rules set out by the state that teacher smust follow (37-38)
• but specialization could mean actually GREATER skill for teachers, rather than a deskilling (39)
• then something about ideological proletarianization that i didn't understand...i think it's something about misunderstanding WHY they do work (think they are helping, but actually just recreating classes and their own domination, despite being a middle class)
• chapter 3: lit on what class teachers on in
• generally they are seen as part of the middle classes, in Marxian thought
• some studies note that at teachers are making less money, that poorer people are becoming teachers, but still see teachers as middle class, just not doing as well as they used to (47-49)
• in major part this is happening thanks to precarious contracts, and worsening labor conditions (45-46)
• though some scholars still see teachers as a privileged middle class, relative to workers (47-8)
• but importantly there are lots of teachers who are identified as part of the "new poor" (51), those who lost out (in terms of salary and working conditions) a lot during the 1990s
•  
• in the official classifications, docentes de primaria y secundaria are technical workers, whereas university profs are the only professionals (73)
• teachers make up about 30% of formal wage workers that have professional or technical expertise in the country (74)
• in 2001 CABA teachers were about 55% public, 45% private, rest of the country was more like 76/24 (75-77)
• to decide whether or not teachers are becoming part of the proletariat, subseuquent chapters will look at : living conditions, working conditions, work process, and perceptions of class among teachers (79), going to look at primary and secondary, private and public, did data gathering in 2007 (80)

• Chapter 6: condiciones de vida
• overall this chatper suggests that teachers are getting poorer, even when they come from middle class backgrounds (which most do), but can’t quite prove they are becoming proles (103)
•  chapter 7 working conditions
• a report from 2008 said that 65% (460) of the school buildings in CABA were deteriating, 50 of which were totally ununsable (105)
• 52% were older than 50 yrs (106)
• the poorest neighborhoods tend to have the wrost schools (106
• there is a syndrome or burnout that has affected teachers and been noted by pyschiatrists (107-8)
• tables on precarity 128, 125
• 141-143: teachers are in more precarious work relationships becaues they are being proletarianized
• public school teachers earn less than other public sector workers of similar qualifications, and private school teachers earn even less than that (147-148)
• labor process, chapter 8
• teachers haven’t lost the skills of teaching, their jobs haven’t been deskilled, but they have experiecned a sort of “ideological proletarianization”, where they have lost control o the politics behind what they teach, essentially they seem to be passing on the norms without being able to fight them (152-3
• issues facing teachers in teh classroom, including what to teach, what to do when students don’t care, etc (153-167
• perceptions of teachers of theri class location, chapter 9
• most teachers 59.6% think they are part of middle class, but only 46% think teachrs in general are in middle class...for working class it is 12 and 14% resectively (181)
• 2004 study found 63% thought they were in middle class, but 28% thought working class (182)
• many teachers think strikes are fine to use (186) and about 33% said they would g out with a spontaneous strike, while 11% they wouldn’t and the rest had no opinion (185)
• 58% of teachers suggested that teachers were like “salaried workers”, and thus close to the working class if not exactly a part of it (195)
• sees tehe strike as an important symbol of teachers as working class as opposed to anything else
• history of teachers unions 197-204, with data on memebr #s on 200
• teachers at least seem to be moving closer to identifying with the working class, even if they see themselves as professionals/workers (206), it seems like teachers aren’t actually ebing robbed of their ideologies, but rather their ideologies are moving closer to those that favor the working class (207)
• conclusions
• 60% of teachers can be removed at will (210-211)
• it doesn't seem like teachers have lost control of their work process in a real, fundamental way, but they do have a lot fo expectations about student achievement and subjects taught that is at les enchroaching on these things (214-2158), meaning teachers aren't whollyautonomous
• teachers are being proleatrianized, though they aren't there fullly yet (234-238)

Perazza 2011b

• teachers laws from teh 1950s set up lots of rights/features, icnluding stability in employment, skills training, and good benefits (29)
• ley 13047 states that government would make sure private teachers were paid as much as public school teachers (unclear if this is still in effect) (29)
• the decentralization demanded that the provinces set up their own education systems, and to do so they had to deal with the expectations set up by the laws from the 1950s (30)
• but they also had to do so in the context of a fiscal crisis, so they had to make cuts
• Argentina is an interesting case, as improving teachers careers and working conditions doesn't need to be accompanied by a change in law necessarily (31)
• these norms mean that innovations will basically always result in conflict, so the key is figuring out how to create policies that will allow for innovation but also make it match a norm so that teachers will actually implement it (32)
• three issues to show this
• first, evaluation of teachers
• would be nice to have best practices
• but these things tend to be ignored just to avoid conflict with teachers
• second, teacher capacity
• there is a sort of race to get credentials, but these institutions vary in quality a great deal (33)
• need to have more structured demands of what constitutes improvement in qualifications
• make sure raises are transparent (33)
• when rules are made up but aren't fully explained, these become obstacle to implementation adn measurement (34)
• the state just needs to take a more active role in the education system, set up and define the norms of the industry better! (34)