Microsoft Word - 7. Zancajo 4318 FNL FNL.docx Journal website: http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/ Manuscript received: 10/31/2018 Facebook: /EPAAA Revisions received: 6/2/2019 Twitter: @epaa_aape Accepted: 6/3/2019 Special Issue Globalization, Privatization, Marginalization: Assessing Connections in/through Education education policy analysis archives A peer-reviewed, independent, open access, multilingual journal Arizona State University Volume 27 Number 130 October 21, 2019 ISSN 1068-2341 Education Markets and Schools’ Mechanisms of Exclusion: The Case of Chile1 Adrián Zancajo University of Glasgow United Kingdom Citation: Zancajo, A. (2019). Education markets and schools’ mechanisms of exclusion: The case of Chile. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 27(130). https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.27.4318 This article is part one of a special issue, Globalization, Privatization, Marginalization: Assessing Connections in/through Education, Part 2, guest edited by D. Brent Edwards and Alex Means. Abstract: Education market advocates frequently argue that socioeconomically disadvantaged students could be the main beneficiaries of privatization and market policies. However, the international evidence has shown how privatization and pro-market policies have a negative impact in terms of equity, which particularly affect socioeconomically disadvantaged 1 The research presented in this article has been supported by the projects “Public-Private Partnerships in Educational Governance: An Analysis of Its Dissemination, Implementation and Impact in a Globalizing World” (EDUPARTNER, Ref. GA-2012-322350, EU Program “PEOPLE”) and “Cuasi-mercados en educación en América Latina: Un análisis de su implementación e impacto sobre la desigualdad y la pobreza” (EDUMERCAL, Ref. CSO2011-22697, Spanish Ministry of Education). epaa aape Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 27 No. 130 2 populations, increase school segregation and stratification, and foster educational inequalities. The main objective of this paper is to analyze how the responses developed by educational providers in marketized environments especially impact poor populations and can act as mechanisms of exclusion. In this context, Chile is an optimal case study due to the extreme version of privatization and market policies it adopted four decades ago. Based on the case study of two municipalities in Chile, which represent two local education markets, the presented evidence combines in-depth interviews with school principals and families. The paper analyses how schools’ responses in the context of a competitive environment produce, among other effects, processes of exclusion affecting students from low socioeconomic backgrounds, foster school segregation and increase educational inequalities. Finally, the paper elaborates on the limits of education markets and privatization policies, as well as market regulation reforms, in providing better educational opportunities to socioeconomically disadvantaged students. Keywords: privatization; educational equity; Chile Mercados educativos y dispositivos de exclusión de las escuelas: El caso de Chile Resumen: Los defensores del mercado educativo con frecuencia argumentan que los estudiantes socialmente más desfavorecidos podrían ser los principales beneficiarios de las políticas de privatización y de mercado. Sin embargo, la evidencia internacional ha demostrado cómo las políticas de privatización y pro-mercado tienen un impacto negativo en términos de equidad, el cual afecta especialmente a la población socioeconómicamente más desfavorecida, aumenta la segregación y la estratificación escolar, y fomentan las desigualdades educativas. El principal objetivo de este artículo es analizar cómo las respuestas desarrolladas por los proveedores educativos en entornos de mercado afectan especialmente a las poblaciones pobres y pueden actuar como mecanismos de exclusión. En este contexto, Chile es un óptimo caso de estudio debido a la versión extrema de privatización y políticas de mercado que adoptó hace cuatro décadas. Basado en los estudios de caso de dos municipios de Chile, que representan dos mercados educativos locales, la evidencia presentada combina entrevistas en profundidad con directores de escuelas y familias. El artículo analiza cómo las respuestas de las escuelas en un entorno competitivo producen, entre otros efectos, procesos de exclusión que afectan a estudiantes de bajo nivel socioeconómico, fomentan la segregación escolar y aumentan las desigualdades educativas. Finalmente, el documento reflexiona en torno a los límites de los mercados educativos y las políticas de privatización, así como las reformas de la regulación del mercado, para brindar mejores oportunidades educativas a los estudiantes socialmente más desfavorecidos. Palabras-clave: privatización; equidad educativa; Chile Mercados educativos e dispositivos de exclusão das escolas: O caso do Chile Resumo: Os defensores do mercado educacional frequentemente argumentam que os estudantes socialmente desfavorecidos podem ser os principais beneficiários das políticas de privatização e de mercado. No entanto, a evidência internacional tem mostrado como as políticas de privatização e pró-mercado têm um impacto negativo sobre o capital próprio, que afeta especialmente as populações socioeconomicamente desfavorecidas, aumentando a segregação e estratificação escolar, e promover as desigualdades educacionais . O principal objetivo deste artigo é analisar como as respostas desenvolvidas pelos provedores de educação nos ambientes de mercado afetam especialmente as populações pobres e podem atuar como mecanismos de exclusão. Nesse contexto, o Chile é um excelente estudo de caso Education markets and schools’ mechanisms of exclusion: The case of Chile 3 devido à versão extrema das políticas de privatização e de mercado que adotou há quatro décadas. Com base em estudos de caso de dois municípios no Chile, que representam dois mercados educacionais locais, as evidências apresentadas combinam entrevistas em profundidade com diretores de escolas e de famílias. O artigo analisa como respostas de escolas em um ambiente competitivo produzir, entre outros efeitos, processos de exclusão que afetam os estudantes de baixo nível socioeconômico, a segregação escolar incentivar e aumentar as desigualdades educacionais. Finalmente, o documento reflete sobre os limites dos mercados educacionais e das políticas de privatização, bem como as reformas de regulação do mercado, para proporcionar melhores oportunidades educacionais aos estudantes socialmente desfavorecidos. Palavras-chave: privatização; equidade educacional; Chile Introduction In the last three decades, many countries have experienced an increase in the involvement of private providers in basic education, as well as an important expansion of pro-market education policies (Rizvi, 2016). The data available show that private enrollment in primary and secondary education has grown dramatically over the last three decades, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (Verger, Fontdevila, & Zancajo, 2016a). At the same time, many national education systems have adopted pro-market policies in education, essentially promoting school choice and competition between schools (Musset, 2012; Waslander, Pater, & Weide, 2010). Despite other possible benefits regarding effectiveness and efficiency, education privatization and market policies advocates have frequently argued that poor students could be the main beneficiaries from the adoption of these reforms. In many cases, the equity argument is part of the discourses defending the involvement of private actors in education and the adoption of market mechanisms. For education privatization and market advocates, traditional state education systems limit the capacity of poor students to access high-quality schools since their school choice options are restricted and schools do not have appropriate incentives to improve their educational quality, due to the lack competition between them. In this context, increasing the capacity of choice for students and families, promoting competition between schools and facilitating the capacity of private institutions to deliver educational services are presented as feasible policy solutions for improving the educational opportunities of socioeconomically disadvantaged students (Patrinos, Barrera-Osorio, & Guáqueta, 2009). However, the empirical evidence has shown that education privatization and market policies have a negative impact on equity and particularly affect poor students (Waslander et al., 2010). Market policies and the involvement of private actors in education provision seem to be related to socioeconomic school segregation and stratification phenomena (Alegre & Ferrer, 2010; Elacqua, 2012; Fiske & Ladd, 2001; OECD, 2012a; Reay, 2004; Valenzuela, Bellei, & de los Ríos, 2014). Therefore, there is an apparent paradox between the ontology of privatization and pro-market policies regarding equity and their effects, according to the available evidence. The context in which these policies are implemented and the way in which educational actors enact market mechanisms can shed some light on this paradox. Beyond the impact evaluations that identify the negative effects in terms of equity, particularly for socioeconomically disadvantaged students, the research needs to explore why and how marketization and privatization policies produce processes of segregation, exclusion or marginalization. Much of the research on the dynamics of education markets has focused on the demand side. In this sense, research concerning different contexts and on different policy designs Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 27 No. 130 4 has shown that families and students do not enact market policies, mainly in the form of school choice, in the same way. Different studies have demonstrated how school choice processes are highly influenced by social class (Ball, 2003; Gewirtz, Ball, & Bowe, 1995). For example, middle- and upper- class families tend to manage high levels information, while lower-class families are faced with more economic restrictions and geographical and cultural barriers. As a result, the patterns of school choice are socially segmented, which partly explains the different results of privatization and market policies among advantaged and disadvantaged social groups. That said, how the incentives that schools face and the behaviors that they develop to respond to the competitive environment contribute to the exclusion of poor students has been relatively under-analyzed in the academic literature (Waslander et al., 2010). Beyond school student selection practices developed in some market contexts, responses in other dimensions, such as school diversification or external communication, have been identified as possible means to exclude most disadvantaged students. On the other hand, compared to the research carried out for the demand-side of the market, schools’ rationalities, motivations, logics of action and mechanisms are still under-researched areas, particularly in relation to their capacity to generate educational exclusion. This paper contributes to the analysis of how, through which mechanisms and under what motivations and rationalities, schools exposed to marketized environments can contribute to an increase in educational inequalities. This is essential in order to be able to accurately assess the capacity of regulation and compensatory policies to reduce the socioeconomic stratification among schools. This objective entails the identification of the main responses developed by schools in the process of education market enactment and the analysis of how these responses might exclude the most socioeconomically disadvantaged students. Based on the vast evidence on the Chilean education system, which demonstrates the negative impact of the education market on inequalities, this article seeks to open the ‘black box’ by identifying which supply-side mechanisms can explain these negative effects. The Chilean case is particularly interesting since in 2015 the government passed a legal reform, under the name Inclusion Law2 which, among other issues, prohibits the most relevant and explicit practices producing social exclusion such as cost-sharing and students selection. Although it is still early to assess the impact of this legal reform, it is important to note that during the political debate, this law faced important resistance from right-wing political parties but also from private subsidized schools and families (Bellei, 2016). This resistance demonstrates the extent to which exclusion practices are rooted in the dynamics of the Chilean education system on both the supply and demand sides, and makes Chile a standout case to analyze the role of the supply-side when it comes to exclusion mechanisms. The article is structured as follows. The first section reviews the main assumptions and the theory of change in privatization and market policies with a particular focus on the expected effects on equity and poor students. Second, some of the main characteristics of the Chilean case are presented, as well as evidence of school segregation and educational inequalities. Third, the research methodology and the data collection process are briefly explained. Fourth, the main findings of the research are summarized, highlighting how different schools’ responses to the education market can act as mechanisms of exclusion and increase school segregation and educational inequalities. Finally, the main conclusions of the research are presented and the capacity of privatization and market policies to provide educational opportunities to poor students is discussed in light of the results obtained in the Chilean case. 2 Ley de Inclusión Escolar (20.845) in Spanish. Education markets and schools’ mechanisms of exclusion: The case of Chile 5 Education Markets and Equity: Between Theory and Evidence Education privatization and market-oriented reforms are adopted under different circumstances and rationalities. The supposed superiority of the private sector, the ‘public education in crisis’ narrative, the need for school supply diversification and economic efficiency arguments are commonly used to promote and justify the adoption of privatization and market reforms (Verger et al., 2016a). However, market reforms in education have also frequently been adopted and justified as a way to improve the educational opportunities of the poor and minority groups (e.g., immigrants, black students or linguistic and religious minorities; Lubienski, 2005; Lubienski, Weitzel, & Lubienski, 2009). In some contexts, the main pressures for the adoption of school choice and privatization policies even come from the most socioeconomically disadvantaged populations or minorities, who see, in market solutions and private schools, a means to expand their educational opportunities or meet their specific educational needs (Harris, Herrington, & Albee, 2007; Walford, 2013). However, critics of pro-market reforms have warned that these policies may not improve the situation of poor students, but rather amplify the existing level of inequalities (Apple, 2001; Belfield & Levin, 2009; Ladd, 2002). Although privatization and market mechanisms are not new ideas in education, they have been disseminated across the globe in the last two decades, particularly by International Organizations, non-state international actors and national development aid agencies. As Rizvi (2016) points out, globalization has contributed to the rapid expansion of these policies worldwide and particularly in middle- and low-income countries. Usually these policies are presented as a feasible solution for southern countries trying to expand access or to improve the quality of primary and secondary education. In some cases, this is an attempt to achieve the objectives of the past Education for All (EFA) framework, or of the current education Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs; Srivastava, 2010). In this case, the capacity of these policies not just to provide access and improve quality but also to increase equity, particularly regarding the incorporation of traditionally marginalized populations to the education system, is a frequent argument used by International Organizations. For example, the 2020 World Bank Education Strategy establishes equity improvement as one of the main objectives and at the same time considers partnerships with the private sector as one desirable policy option to achieve this objective (Verger & Bonal, 2011; World Bank, 2011). Beyond the involvement of the private sector, pro-market policies in education, such as school choice and competition, have been also broadly disseminated on a global level by IOs and other international actors. Nowadays, it is possible to affirm that market solutions are part of the global education agenda (Ball, 2012; Ball & Youdell, 2008). However, the global expansion of privatization and market mechanisms in education has been related to the increase of inequalities in southern countries and in particular to the exclusion and marginalization of most socioeconomically disadvantaged populations. For example, Macpherson, Robertson, and Walford (2014) analyze different case studies of education privatization in southern countries showing, among other concerns, that in many cases the advance of this phenomenon does not necessarily increase the opportunities of most socioeconomically disadvantaged students but has in fact generated processes of exclusion and marginalization of these populations. Similar results regarding equity are shown by Ndimande and Lubienski (2017), in this case particularly focusing on the effects of the adoption of market mechanisms in education and combing case studies from northern and southern countries. Ndimande and Lubienski (2017) consider that market mechanisms and privatization do not necessarily improve the educational opportunities of marginalized children in the countries analyzed and also can perpetuate and increase educational inequalities. Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 27 No. 130 6 Although equity-based arguments are frequently used by privatization advocates, it is not easy to identify a clear theory of change in terms of how these policies could improve the educational opportunities of socioeconomically disadvantaged students. In fact, privatization and market initiatives are typically justified as a way to overcome the supposed failures of state intervention or ‘democratic control’ in education, rather than by emphasizing the inherent benefits of these interventions. This line of argument is also applied to the case of equity. For example, Tooley (1996) defends the equality capacity of education pro-market solutions as alternatives to the inequalities created by state intervention, which, for the author, are “an inevitable consequence of the middle- classes ‘muscling in’ on welfare, using the state to provide for their needs, at the expense of the poor” (Tooley, 1996, p. 63). In the same sense, the seminal pro-market education proposal, Politics, Markets, and America’s Schools (Chubb & Moe, 1990), is also based on the need to overcome the supposed intrinsic pathologies of state education systems, especially their incapacity to provide educational opportunities to socioeconomically disadvantaged students, who are normally concentrated in underperforming schools (Neal, 2002). Although there is no specific equity focus on the proposals of education “market theory” (Lubienski, 2006a), the review of the main assumptions behind the adoption of privatization and market policies in education permits us to identify how the proponents of these policies forecast that poor populations could benefit from the application of its principles. In this regard, there are two main sets of arguments: one related to the demand side and the other to the supply side. Regarding the demand side, for education market proponents, increasing families’ choice options, through school choice policies and vouchers schemes, is a way to provide them with real capacity to exercise “exit” (Hirschman, 1970), i.e., leaving underperforming or low-quality schools, and accessing schools previously restricted to them, because of economic barriers or the presence of more restrictive catchment areas (Hoxby, 2003). In this respect, Moe (2008) affirms that the increase in school choice capacity particularly benefits the poor, who, unlike middle- and upper-class families, do not have other options to increase the educational opportunities available to their children. In practice, this means that parents with money can escape the trap by changing their residence or going private, but poor parents cannot. Thus, a major advantage of choice is that it expands the opportunities of parents who are in greatest need and who currently have little or no control over their children’s educations. (Moe, 2008, p. 565) As the above quote suggests, the main objective regarding equity among market proponents is not to establish compensatory measures or provide additional options to students from low socioeconomic backgrounds, but to ‘level the playing field’ by reducing the barriers facing these students trying to access better schools (Musset, 2012). In fact, for Moe (2002), providing equal opportunities for poor and non-poor students through initiatives such as vouchers and school choice “will tilt the playing field in favor of the disadvantaged and aggressively promote the cause of social equity” (Moe, 2002, p. 180). Within this framework, it is assumed that families and students, regardless of their socioeconomic status (SES), will manage the necessary information for choosing better-quality schools and act in line with instrumental rationality, based on educational quality, when it comes to choosing a school for their children. Those who are skeptical about these assumptions argue that families do not have access to the same information (Elacqua & Fábrega, 2006); that families from different social backgrounds do not have the same skills to interpret and analyze this information (Ambler, 1994; Gewirtz et al., 1995); that school choice is not always guided by instrumental rationality (Ben-Porath, 2009; Bonal, Verger, & Zancajo, 2017); or that families’ school preferences are socially influenced (Ball, 2003; Schneide, Teske, & Marschall., 2000). Education markets and schools’ mechanisms of exclusion: The case of Chile 7 Another set of arguments used by pro-market advocates to defend the equity benefits of education markets refers to the supply side of the market. It is claimed that the adoption of policies, such as school choice and per capita funding schemes (i.e., vouchers), will force schools to operate according to the rules of competition (Belfield & Levin, 2002). It is precisely this competitive environment that will provide the necessary incentives to schools to deliver a quality education for all, or conversely force them to exit the market due to a lack of demand and financial resources. This environment of competition should provide schools with “strong incentives to move toward the kinds of ‘effective-school’ organizations” (Chubb & Moe, 1990, p. 190). In other words, in an education system coordinated by state intervention and not by market, low-quality schools are only able to operate because of a lack of competitive incentives. However, competition, based mainly on per capita funding, provides schools with the necessary motivation to improve the quality of their education; otherwise, being unable to attract students, they are be forced to exit the market. However, different scholars have pointed out that schools do not necessarily respond to market incentives as education market theory expects. Two main approaches have been useful in understanding why schools in a competitive environment do not develop the expected responses and therefore fail to improve the educational opportunities of socioeconomically disadvantaged students or even increase educational inequalities. First, there is the fact that schools in competitive environments do not necessarily perceive competition in the same way and therefore do not develop the expected responses, for example, in terms of improving the quality of education. In this context, it is important to distinguish between structural competition and perceived competition. While structural competition refers to the existence of alternative options in the market, perceived competition entails the extent to which and how schools perceive these alternative options as direct competitors (Jabbar, 2015; Kasman & Loeb, 2013). Frequently, the adoption of market mechanisms does not necessarily translate into a high perception of competition (Zimmer & Buddin, 2009). In fact, in market environments schools’ perceived competition is often lower than structural competition, with some schools even able to develop responses to avoid competition (Leviacic, 2004). Consequently, the adoption of market policies seems to be an insufficient condition for providing the necessary incentives to schools in order to significantly alter their pedagogical and management practices. The second approach, which tries to explain why schools do not always respond to market policies as the theory expects, is based on the economic theory of monopolistic competition (Lubienski, 2006b). Monopolistic competition (Chamberlin, 1933; Robinson, 1933) refers to a situation where providers are not able to compete using price and therefore need to differentiate their products through other features. In the case of education, and particularly basic education, the capacity to offer a substantially different product to that of other providers in the educational market is relatively limited. In most education systems, regardless of the presence of market policies, the curriculum of basic education is strongly regulated by the state, which means the capacity of schools to develop substantive changes in curricular terms is limited. In the context of the education market where: a) the exchanged good is relatively homogeneous, b) the margin of action with respect to price is limited, and c) there is a large number of suppliers, frequently resulting in attempts by schools to differentiate themselves through attributes of symbolic nature. These are not necessarily transferred to the daily activity of schools and marketing practices are especially important when emphasizing these symbolic aspects, which do not necessarily have an impact in terms of the quality of education (Lubienski, 2006b). Despite the fact that the demand side of the market (students and families) and particularly socioeconomically disadvantaged populations do not necessarily respond as market advocates expect, the incentives that schools offer do not necessarily translate into gains in terms of equity. As Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 27 No. 130 8 Lubienski (2006a) states, “market forces may in fact provide disincentives for schools to focus on the equity considerations of diverse learning styles and difficult-to-educate students” (p. 25). In this sense, socioeconomically disadvantaged students are especially affected by what van Zanten (2009) refers to as first- and second-order competition. While first-order competition involves incentives that schools offer to attract a large number of students, second-order competition takes place when schools try to attract the most academically able students, since they cost less to educate. The Case of Chile: Privatization, Marketization and Inequalities Historically, Chile has been well known as one of the most market-oriented education systems in the world (Bellei & Vanni, 2015). Since the reforms adopted during the 1980s, in the context of the military dictatorship led by Augusto Pinochet, the Chilean education system has been characterized by the presence of a universal voucher scheme, total freedom of school choice and high levels of school competition (Cox, 2003; Gauri, 1998; Mizala, 2007). The most direct and visible effects of the reforms adopted during the 1980s have been the emergence of private subsidized schools and an increase in enrollment in private institutions. Private enrollment has risen dramatically, from 15.1% in 1981 to 61.2% in 2017 (Centro de Estudios Mineduc, 2017; Verger, Bonal, & Zancajo, 2016b). Nowadays, around 90% of students in primary and secondary education are enrolled in schools funded through the voucher system (Paredes & Ugarte, 2011). On the other hand, private schools are allowed to operate on a for-profit basis and, since the mid-1990s, private subsidized schools have been allowed to charge families mandatory fees (Elacqua, Montt, & Santos, 2013)3. The Chilean education system has also developed a strong information system, which is mainly based on the national performance assessment (SIMCE). This information system accomplishes two main roles: it provides information to families regarding school choice processes and it informs accountability devices (Bravo, 2011; Falabella, 2015). Finally, another important feature of the Chilean case is that market rules in education have remained relatively stable for more than 30 years, which means that both demand (i.e., families and students) and supply (i.e., schools) sides are familiar with and able to operate in a market environment. From a global perspective, the Chilean case plays a relevant role because it represents the most extreme version of an education market or an ‘authentic’ market (Tooley, 1996). Since the adoption of the market education reform in the 1980s, Chile has been traditionally considered by market advocates as an example to follow of a country adopting a universal voucher scheme and promoting school competition. However, since 2006, with the massive student and civil society mobilizations against the high level of educational inequalities, Chile has become a case that exemplifies the unintended consequences of privatization and pro-market policies in education, especially in terms of equity. After more than three decades of market policies in education, there is a relative academic consensus that the reforms adopted to promote the involvement of private providers in the provision of education, competition between schools and significant levels of school choice have produced little or null effects in terms of academic performance or educational quality (see Bellei [2007] for a review of the existing studies). Nevertheless, some authors point out that the 3 Recently, the Chilean government approved an important educational reform that prohibits student selection, eliminates school fees in publicly funded schools and does not allow schools to operate on a for- profit basis (Bellei, 2016). Regarding the contents of this research, the fieldwork and the collection data were developed before the approval of the reform. Education markets and schools’ mechanisms of exclusion: The case of Chile 9 compensatory policies developed during the 1990s4 have improved the results of schools with the lowest academic performance (e.g., rural schools and public schools situated in poor contexts; Bellei, 2003; Cox, 2003). However, the Chilean education system is characterized by high levels of school segregation and educational inequalities. In fact, international comparisons show that Chile has the lowest level of school social inclusion5 and one of the highest levels of school segregation among OECD countries (OECD, 2016; Valenzuela, 2008). This progressive process of school socioeconomic stratification can be mainly explained as a consequence of a process of concentrating most socioeconomically disadvantaged students in public schools, which followed the middle-class flight to private schools in recent decades (Elacqua, 2012; Villalobos & Valenzuela, 2012). Beyond the ethical or social justice concerns about the unequal distribution of students, school segregation has also fostered a “socioeconomic stratification of achievement” (Mizala & Torche, 2012), increasing the differences in academic performance between private and public schools and between different SES groups of students (Mizala & Romaguera, 2000). That said, how the school segregation of socioeconomically disadvantaged students works in Chile is a complex phenomenon. While students with a low SES are mainly enrolled in public schools, their level of segregation is greater in the private subsidized sector (Elacqua, 2012). On the other hand, this relationship between privatization and market reforms and inequalities goes beyond the academic performance of students. Torche (2005) examines how educational opportunities, related to the possible attainment of a specific educational level, have evolved in recent decades, which demonstrates how inequalities have increased among the age cohorts directly affected by the privatization reforms adopted during the 1980s. While there is no direct impact evaluation of the 1980s reforms on equity issues, such as school segregation and stratification, the available evidence seems to point to a negative relationship between privatization reforms and inequalities (OECD, 2004). The relationship between market policies and school segregation transcends the national scale, for example, Valenzuela et al. (2014) observe that higher levels of privatization and marketization at the local level are related to higher levels of school segregation at the municipal level. As Bellei, Contreras, Cananles, & Orellana (2018) explain, market policies are not necessarily the origin of school segregation in Chile, but enough evidence exists to confirm that they have amplified the unequal socioeconomic distribution of students in schools. Research on the mechanisms that explain school segregation in the Chilean education system identifies both demand- and supply-side dynamics. Regarding the demand side of the market, studies show that school choice processes are significantly affected by social class and economic barriers. Student selection practices, school fees and even geographical barriers are important restrictions, which mainly affect poor families when it comes to choosing a school for their children (Alves et al., 2015; Raczynski, Salinas, de la Fuente, Hernández, & Pascual, 2010; Rodriguez et al., 2016). On the other hand, research has also identified how upper- and middle-class families have access to different sources of information from low SES families (Elacqua & Fábrega, 2006). There are also important differences in terms of school choice preferences and choice criteria between middle and low SES families (Elacqua, Schneider, & Buckley, 2006). On the other hand, school competition has also been identified as driver of school segregation in the Chilean context for two main reasons. First, the adoption of a universal voucher 4 Since the restoration of democracy (1990), the Chilean government has put in place different compensatory programs to improve the resources and the learning conditions of the worst schools. See Cox (2003) for a comprehensive review of these programs. 5 The PISA index of social inclusion measures the level of socioeconomic heterogeneity in schools, with low values indicating fewer levels of social heterogeneity (OECD, 2013). Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 27 No. 130 10 system and school choice have produced an important transfer of students from public to private subsidized schools, mainly from middle-income families, increasing the concentration of poor students in the public sector (Carnoy, 1998). Second, some schools have responded to competition incentives by selecting the best students and increasing the level of stratification between public and private schools (Contreras, Bustos, & Sepúlveda, 2010; Hseih & Urquiola, 2006). For Bellei (2007), the main hypothesis by which to explain this behavior is that, within the market framework, “schools can improve their market position without improving the quality of their educational service” (Bellei, 2007p. 28). This hypothesis is based on the fact that schools can improve their academic performance without increasing the quality of the education service by recruiting the most academically able students. At the same time, the school population can act as an attraction to potential demand, since some parents do not necessarily base their choice on academic quality but on other attributes of a symbolic nature. Finally, it is important to take into account which role segregation plays in the Chilean education system from a more cultural point of view that, at least partially, can explain the extensive use of these practices among schools. In this sense, Falabella, Seppänen, & Raczynski (2015) point out how in Chile students’ selection practices enjoy higher levels of tolerance than in other countries. For the authors, this higher level of tolerance is rooted in a strong meritocratic belief in which selection practices are seen as a way to reward those children who deserve to be enrolled in higher status schools. The other factor, of a more material nature, highlighted by the authors to explain this tolerance is the need for social distinction in a highly socioeconomically stratified education system. The social composition of the school is a key factor for parents to guarantee the future educational and social success of their children. Hence, students’ selection is understood as a necessary practice to ensure that children with similar socioeconomic status are enrolled in the same school. Precisely, this greater tolerance for social injustice explains why in Chile families and schools are socially allowed to develop practices and strategies that foster and reinforce school social stratification. It is necessary to take into account this cultural dimension of school segregation when it comes to analyzing the mechanisms and logics of action developed by schools to produce social exclusion. In Chile, there is a large body of literature analyzing the impact of school choice and competition on areas such as effectiveness and equity. However, research on actors’ logics of action and mechanisms that explain these impacts is still relatively scarce. Moreover, the differences in preferences and patterns of school choice between low SES students and other social groups, which have been well documented (Bonal et al., 2017; Canales, Bellei, & Orellana, 2016; Carrasco, Falabella, & Mendóza, 2015), as well as how schools respond to competition, are essential factors in understanding the mechanisms of social exclusion that particularly affect the poorest students. In fact, the available evidence indicates that, in Chile, as in other contexts, pro-market policies drastically influence the practices developed by schools (Carrasco & Fromm, 2016; Verger et al., 2016b). Data and Methods The findings presented in this article are based on case studies developed in two municipalities of Chile. Both are urban municipalities with between 300,000 and 350,000 inhabitants. Due to the importance of the local dimension when analyzing the dynamics of education markets (Gewirtz et al., 1995; Lubienski, 2007; Woods, Bagley, & Glatter, 1998), both municipalities were selected as they represent relatively closed local education markets (LEMs). Despite school choice boundaries not existing in Chile, data from the CASEN-2013 Chilean household survey showed that the number of primary education students enrolled in schools in both municipalities who actually live Education markets and schools’ mechanisms of exclusion: The case of Chile 11 in the municipality is high in both cases (94.8% in Municipality A and 86.9% in Municipality B). At the same time, the percentage of the population living in both municipalities but attending school in a different municipality is relatively low (7% in Municipality A and 9.3% in Municipality B). In both cases, the diversity of education providers in terms of ownership was relatively high in both municipalities. In Municipality A, the percentage of schools and enrollment by type of school is relatively similar to the national average, with 36.3% of students enrolled in public schools, 57.7% in private subsidized schools and 6% in private independent schools. In the case of Municipality B, the level of enrollment in public schools is relatively low (18.7%) in comparison with the national average (40.4%), which translates into an increase in the proportion of the private subsidized sector (74.1%). The fieldwork was developed in different phases between May 2014 and November 2015. A representative sample of schools was selected in each municipality based on three main attributes: typology (public, private subsidized, private independent), level of school fee, performance in the national assessment (see Appendix, table A-1, for the main characteristics included in the sample). Finally, 17 schools were selected in Municipality A, while the sample of schools in Municipality B consisted of 14 schools. In-depth interviews with school principals (lasting around 1.5 hours) and short interviews with families (between 20 and 30 minutes) were carried out. Table 1 summarizes the number of interviews with principals and parents by school typology in each municipality. Qualitative data have been complemented with a statistical analysis of the SIMCE parents survey6 of all the schools included in the sample. Table 1 Principals’ and parents’ interviews by school typology and municipality Typology of school Municipality Interviews Public Private subsidized Private Total Municipality A Principals 6 9 2 17 Parents 16 37 17 70 Municipality B Principals 3 9 2 14 Parents 5 27 7 39 The analysis of the collected qualitative data consisted of transcribing and coding the interviews with school principals and parents on different categories of school responses (e.g., contextual factors, pedagogical diversification, selection practices, academic performance, external communication). Due to the focus of this article being on school responses, the main source of information during the process of analysis was the interviews with school principals, while parents’ interviews were used to triangulate the analysis. Since schools are the main unit of analysis, they were classified according to the SES of their students. However, the socioeconomic classification of schools also considered the local context. For each school, the average SES of students was estimated, and schools were classified into five categories (low, lower-middle, middle, upper-middle 6 The national quality assessment (abbreviated as SIMCE in Spanish) is an external performance test administered annually among different grades. In this research, the fourth-grade assessment was analyzed, which also included a survey of parents about their socioeconomic characteristics, as well as the relationship with the school. Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 27 No. 130 12 and upper) depending on the distance, in terms of standard deviations, to the local students’ SES average. Schools’ Responses to the Education Market and Exclusion As in other contexts (Fiske & Ladd, 2001; Jabbar, 2015; Woods et al., 1998), the analysis of the two case studies shows that schools develop responses in six main dimensions: market scanning, establishment of school fees, school diversification, student selection, marketing, and academic performance improvement (mainly through teaching to the test practices). The focus of this section is to analyze how some of these responses can produce processes by which socioeconomically disadvantaged students are excluded. School fees and schools’ student selection practices are among the main forms of exclusion identified by previous literature. However, the analysis carried out in the current study highlights that schools’ means of excluding socioeconomically disadvantaged students are diverse and not always related to explicit and direct mechanisms. Frequently, semiotics plays an important role in preventing low SES students from enrolling at a particular school. In this respect, schools’ behaviors in terms of diversification or marketing can become important mechanisms of exclusion. From the school responses collected during the course of this research, it is possible to identify two main categories of mechanisms through which schools are able to influence and determine their school population, so as to exclude specific profiles of students or families and attracting others. On the one hand, there are hard mechanisms of exclusion, which refer to conditions of access imposed by schools and directly affect the capacity of low SES students to enroll. In the Chilean education system, hard mechanisms of exclusion involve the level of mandatory school fees charged to families and the explicit processes of student selection, such as entrance examinations. On the other hand, soft mechanisms are more related to semiotics (e.g., symbols, values, codes) and also prevent low SES students from applying to a particular school. In contrast, soft mechanisms involve the values and codes disseminated through school diversification or external communication. Through soft mechanisms of exclusion, schools seek to appeal to middle- and upper-class family codes, values and preferences. Since low SES families and middle- and upper-class families report very different choice preferences, a focus on meeting the preferences of the most socioeconomically advantaged families can exclude poor families in an indirect way. However, soft mechanisms of exclusion are not necessarily the result of conscious strategies developed by the schools, but rather the result of their logics of action in a market environment (Ball & Maroy, 2009; van Zanten, 2009). This section analyses in depth, how both hard and soft mechanisms of social exclusion operate and under what rationalities schools develop them. School Fees: Segmenting the Market One of the main hard mechanisms producing social exclusion in the context of the Chilean education market is the capacity of schools to impose mandatory school fees on families (Elacqua et al., 2013). In fact, Chile is a singular case since public and private subsidized schools received the same amount of public funding but schools are allowed to charge fees to families (Boeskens, 2016). In primary education, only private subsidized schools are allowed to charge fees, which is combined with a progressive reduction in public funding if the fees are more than the 50% of the total amount of the public funds received (Kutscher, 2014). Although public secondary schools are legally allowed to charge families mandatory fees, only a few of them do so. Different studies have shown how fees reinforce schools’ social stratification dynamics, since poor families cannot afford the high level of fees of some schools (Raczynski et al., 2010). The possibility to charge mandatory school fees was approved in Chile in the mid-1990s, based on the argument that it would give families the capacity to Education markets and schools’ mechanisms of exclusion: The case of Chile 13 financially contribute to the education of their children and increase the level of financial resources available to the education system (Beyer, 2015). However, there exists a certain level of contradiction between the use of vouchers, as a way to facilitate access for all students to private schools, and the use of school fees, which act as a restriction, particularly for low-income families (Epple, Romano, & Urquiola, 2015). In the case of the private subsidized schools analyzed, seven out of nine schools in Municipality A and six out of nine in Municipality B charged their students mandatory fees. As expected, data for the two analyzed LEMs show that there is a significant relationship between the level of school fees and the average SES of the school population. Table 2 presents the distribution of schools by the average SES of their students and the level of school fees. It is possible to observe in the graphic that, as the average SES of the school population increases, the higher the percentage of schools charge fees, as well as the higher the amount of these fees. Table 2 School fees level by school students’ SES average (%). School fees (Chilean pesos) School SES average Free 1.000 to 10.000 10.001 to 25.000 25.001 to 50.000 50.001 to 100.000 More than 100.000 Total Municipality A Low 100 0 0 0 0 0 100 Medium-low 69.1 9.1 20 1.8 0 0 100 Medium 4.2 0 25 54.2 16.6 0 100 Medium-high 0 0 11.1 44.5 44.4 0 100 High 0 0 0 0 28.6 71.4 100 Municipality B Low 83.3 16.7 0 0 0 0 100 Medium-low 32.6 6.5 41.3 17.4 2.2 0 100 Medium 0 0 9.4 62.5 28.1 0 100 Medium-high 0 0 0 10 70 20 100 High 0 0 0 0 0 100 100 Source: Own elaboration based on Mineduc statistics. Although it fluctuates frequently, the rate of exchange between US dollars and Chilean pesos (CLP) is approximately $1 USD=$724.5 CLP. Regarding the intervals of school fees presented in the table, this means: 1000-10,000 CLP=1.38-13.8 USD; 10,001-25,000 CLP=1.38-34.5 USD; 25,001-50,000 CLP=34.5-69 USD; 50,001-100,000 CLP=69-138 USD; More than 100,000 CLP= More than 138 USD. Although school principals do not directly recognize the use of school fees as a way to exclude students7, they are aware of how it determines the socioeconomic profile of families that the school is able to attract and how it influences the socioeconomic background of their school population. For example, when school principals are asked about whom are their most direct competitors in the LEM, in the first place, they frequently refer to schools with the same level of school fees and sometimes how this is related to the academic profile of their school populations. In this sense, school fees are the main driver of education market segmentation on both the supply and 7 Unfortunately, the majority of school principals interviewed confirmed that the level of school fees was set several years ago before they were in charge at the school. Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 27 No. 130 14 the demand sides. It is openly assumed by principals and families that schools’ fees levels are related to their students’ socioeconomic background. Interviews with families revealed that school fees are the main attribute that is considered when establishing their set of choices. Although some families were interested in schools that charged fees, they quickly discounted them because “they were too expensive, and I can’t afford them” (Mother, private subsided, Medium-low SES, Municipality B). This relationship between school fees, market segmentation and their targeted population is frequently reported by school principals. The next quote from a school principal shows how schools are aware of the capacity of school fees to define the potential population of families and students, as well as position their schools in the LEM. I believe that the population [that the school attracts] is of an average level because, in spite of being a private independent school, there are other private independent schools that are much more expensive. So, it is at a level that is a little higher than the private subsidized schools because the subsidized private sector can charge up to 75,000 pesos, more or less, and here we charge 120- 130,000. But there are others that are worth 250,000. It’s another level of income. (Principal, private independent school, Medium-high SES, Municipality A) Although, as explained above, there is no explicitly recognized strategy regarding school fees, when school principals, who have recently established mandatory fees, were asked about the criterion to establish them, they referred to their ability to retain families and attract new demand. For example, one of the analyzed private subsidized schools, which enrolls low- and lower-middle-class families, recently established cost sharing (previously it was free). This measure is justified by the school principal as a way to attract additional financial resources and improve their capacity to compete with other nearby schools that historically have charged fees to families. When asked about the criterion to establish the fee level, the school principal only referred to the capacity to retain the current profile of families. Interviewer: What criteria did you use to establish the monthly payment? Principal: What can be paid. It can be waived in part, which means you can have an additional resource without meaning to strain families and let them go because they cannot pay. (Principal, private subsidized school, Medium SES, Municipality A) In 2008, the Chilean government approved a compensatory policy, which tried, among other aims, to reduce the effect of school fees as a barrier imposed on the most socioeconomically disadvantaged students. The Preferential School Subsidy8 (PSS) was a voluntary program for private subsidized schools by providing additional public funding for each socioeconomically disadvantaged student who enrolled. In turn, counterpart schools were not able to charge fees to these students, as well as being required to meet some accountability criteria. The available evidence on the impact of this policy on school segregation shows that it had no significant effect9 (Raczynski, Muñoz, Weinstein, & Pascual, 2013; Valenzuela, Villaroel, & Villalobos, 2013). As Elacqua & Santos (2013) demonstrate, the increase in resources as a result of enrolling low SES students is not enough of an 8 Known in Spanish as Subvención Escolar Preferencial (abbreviated to SEP). 9 However, the evidence also shows that this policy has been, on average, successful in increasing the academic performance of schools that enroll the most disadvantaged students and reducing the gap between public and private subsidized schools (Centro de Estudios Mineduc, 2012; Mizala & Torche, 2013). Education markets and schools’ mechanisms of exclusion: The case of Chile 15 incentive for schools and does not outweigh the advantages of enrolling the most socioeconomically advantaged school population. In some cases, principals from schools attended by low SES students (mainly public, but also some private subsidized schools) even consider that PSS could have fostered the dynamics of school segregation. According to these principals, some private subsidized schools participating in the PSS program have tried to attract low SES students with good academic records, increasing the concentration of poor and less academically able students in public schools. This phenomenon is explained by the next principal as part of his personal experience since the PSS program was established. The private subsidized schools, which guide themselves by the issue of priority students, look for children with good [academic] performance and try to motivate them so that they will enroll in their schools, particularly those that have good performance (Principal, public school, Low SES, Municipality B) In this sense, school fees are not just an economic barrier for poor students to access some schools, but also a means by which schools influence their school population, in turn segmenting the LEM. Students Selection: Producing Exclusion and Auto-exclusion The second hard mechanism of exclusion identified is the use of students’ selection processes. Although student selection, based on academic performance or socioeconomic background, has been formally prohibited in schools receiving public funding (public and private subsidized) since 200910, it has been a common practice in Chile in recent decades. Research focused on this issue has revealed how selection practices are used by a significant percentage of schools, particularly private subsidized schools (Carrasco, Bogolasky, Flores, Gutiérrez, & San Martín, 2014; Contreras et al., 2010). In line with the existing evidence, this current study has also identified that student selection practices in the analyzed schools are among the most important mechanisms of exclusion. However, the collected evidence confirms that student selection is a complex practice in terms of use, nature, objectives and the degree to which it is carried out. Although some of the school principals interviewed recognized that the use of explicit processes of selection was relatively common (19 of 39 schools recognizes the use of student selection practices), the SIMCE parent survey allows us to complement the information obtained via interviews of school principals and to quantify the extent of these practices. Graphic 1 shows the percentage of schools analyzed in each municipality, in which at least 50% of parents confirm that their children have been required to sit entrance examinations or that student behavior in the classroom has been observed according to the average SES of schools. As the data contained in the graphic show, there is a positive relationship between the use of these explicit procedures of selection and the SES of the school population. While the majority of upper SES schools use these practices (85.7% in Municipality A and 100% in Municipality B), schools with the lowest SES average do not use any of these procedures. 10 In 2009, the General Education Law (abbreviated to LGE in Spanish) prohibits the use of selection based on the current or potential academic performance of students, as well as their socioeconomic background, in primary education. Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 27 No. 130 16 Figure 1. Schools using explicit selection methods by school students’ SES average (%) Source: Own elaboration based on SIMCE parents’ questioner. Despite the intensive use of explicit selection processes among upper and middle SES schools, the evidence collected shows that the ways in which schools develop these practices are diverse and do not necessarily entail the use of entrance examinations or observation sessions. School principals reported a broad variety of methods utilized to carry out student selection, as well as to promote auto-exclusion among socioeconomically disadvantaged students. It is important to consider that, since student selection practices were formally prohibited in 2009, the use of these procedures has been a controversial issue in the Chilean education system. As a result, some of the principals interviewed recognized the increasing use of practices oriented towards “auto-selection” or “auto-exclusion”. The objective of these practices is that some specific families exclude themselves during the process of application, thus avoiding the need for explicit practices of selection. Of course, the use of these procedures of auto-selection does not necessarily imply that these schools fail to apply explicit processes of selection later on, but rather that their incidence is reduced as a consequence. Three main procedures of auto-selection have been identified among some of the schools analyzed. First, some schools charge a fee as a requirement to be part of the process of application. Although this practice was not directly acknowledged by any of the principals interviewed, in the interviews with families explicit references were made to this application fee as a requirement to access schooling and some of the school websites also refer to it. Second, families are required to actively participate during the process of application. Some principals confirmed that they use extended processes of application, which entail school meetings, family workshops and other social activities for several months of the year before children start the school. The main objective of the extended process of application is to ensure that the family demonstrates real commitment to the school, as well as setting up the possibility for parents to withdraw their children from the process. Third, informative sessions are delivered in order to make clear that the school does not have the will or capacity to enroll children from low socioeconomic backgrounds or with special needs. The next quote from a school principal in Municipality A summarizes how information sessions seek to promote some level of auto-exclusion among certain families at the application stage. 85,7 55,6 62,5 19,3 0,0 100,0 65,0 47,1 10,0 0,0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 High Medium-high Medium Medium-low Low Municipality A Municipality B Education markets and schools’ mechanisms of exclusion: The case of Chile 17 So, what we do is to bring all the parents together at some point in the year, something that we have done already, and we tell them: “Look, this is who we are, are you sure you want your child to come here? We do not have this, we do not have this, and we do not have this other” [...]. We tell them, but the worst of it is to see if anyone leaves. (Principal, Medium SES, private subsidized school, Municipality A) In fact, this same school located some posters at the entrance of the building with explicit messages warning families of potential new students that the school charges fees (“we have cost sharing”), does not participate in the national program for socioeconomically disadvantaged students (Preferential School Subsidy) (“the school is not part of the PSS program”) or even that it cannot support children with special needs (“we do not have professionals to attend to special education needs”). All of these messages are oriented towards preventing socioeconomically disadvantaged families and students from applying to the school, thereby avoiding the use of other forms of selection, such as interviews with families or entrance examinations. To understand the broad dissemination of these selection practices among the schools located in both LEMs, it is important to take into account how much parents tolerate and even request them. For parents, selection practices are a way to ensure some level of social closure. School principals are aware of how families value selection requirements when it comes to choosing school and sometimes they use parents’ attitude towards school selection as a justification for implementing student selection practices in their schools. On the other hand, interviews with families have shown how a certain level of social homogeneity is an important criterion of choice. As one mother argued, non-selective schools, mainly public schools, “are attended by people that maybe we don’t want, it’s not like discriminating against them, but we didn’t want that for our daughter” (Mother, Private subsidized school, Medium SES, Municipality A). In this sense, for some middle- and high-income families, school segregation and social stratification among schools is not just a feature of the Chilean education system but something desired in a relatively open way. Of note is the use of selection practices among schools already enrolling low SES and poorly performing students. In this case, selection practices are applied in an arbitrary manner with some of the students who come to the school to be enrolled. The use of selection in these schools is justified by school principals as a means to reduce the concentration of the most disadvantaged students in these schools, as the next quote summarizes: Now, what I am doing is trying to do a bit… is to slightly filter the students, which means that, when new students arrive, we at least intuit what kinds of marks they have because we are already full of vulnerable students and low performance. So, what we also have to do is to enroll some students with a good performance record who are not in that condition [of vulnerability], in order to level up, because we were leveling down. (Principal, private subsidized school, Low SES, Municipality B) In some way, these schools try to develop a de facto policy of desegregation due to the absence of an active public policy to reduce the high level of segregation in the Chilean educational system. They choose to adopt selection practices that allow them to reduce the concentration of socioeconomically disadvantaged students or those with very low academic performance. These practices have also been observed in some municipal schools that try to position themselves better in the market, despite the high level of vulnerability among the students they serve and their limited resources. Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 27 No. 130 18 The perception and discourse of the majority of public schools’ principals regarding students’ selection compared to principals of private subsidized schools is also a point of interest. For them, their schools are asked to accomplish contradictory objectives as, on the one hand, they have to compete in the market with the other schools and, on the other, they need to have an inclusive orientation and enroll all profiles of students, including those expelled11 - mainly from private subsidized schools. These contradictory objectives, together with their lack of capacity to develop students’ selection practices, are experienced by public schools’ principals as a competitive disadvantage. The next quote from a municipal school principal summarizes this perception: Since we should not select students, we are at a disadvantage position because here we receive all the children who arrive. In the nearby subsidized schools, they select students and if the student repeats a course, he leaves the school. We cannot do that, here we have children who have repeated 2, 3 times the same course because they have learning difficulties, because they are alone, because their parents are in jail. So, we have here very different realities, as well as children who are really great. So, what can we do? You have to try to work for different levels, for different realities, and that is hard. […] And of course, we never can put ourselves at the level of a private subsidized school. (Principal, public school, Low SES, Municipality B) Diversification of School Policies and Practices: Excluding and Attracting the Poor The promotion of the diversification of school policies and practices is one of the objectives associated with the adoption of market policies (Levin, 1991). In this case, school diversification refers to the capacity of schools to differentiate what they offer based on curricular, pedagogical, religious or value approaches among other possible attributes. Education market theory expects that schools seek to develop pedagogical policies and practices, based on the preferences of families and students, with the objective of attracting them. However, among other aims, diversification is frequently used as a way to attract specific profiles of students, as well as exclude others. Since school diversification is often not necessarily related to the pedagogical dimension, symbolic attributes are often used to distinguish between schools amongst highly competitive LEMs. In fact, it is frequently the case that these symbolic attributes do not necessarily involve substantive changes in the daily practices of schools but are more related to the social codes valued by the targeted population of the schools (Lubienski, 2003). As in other contexts, the evidence available in the case of Chile demonstrates that market policies have not been successful in significantly increasing the levels of pedagogical diversification (Gauri, 1998; Ministerio de Educación, 2012; Villalobos & Salazar, 2014). However, the analysis carried out over the course of the current study has allowed us to identify other typologies of diversification, which combine pedagogical and non-pedagogical dimensions, as well as substantive and symbolic attributes. For the schools analyzed in both LEMs, the typologies identified were: social distinction, academic performance, alternative pedagogy, security, school climate, individual attention or special needs. Although an in-depth discussion of these typologies of diversification is beyond the scope of this paper, this section describes how diversification can become a soft mechanism of exclusion and how some of the typologies identified foster processes of exclusion. The relationship between diversification and social exclusion is not 11 Student expulsion is not analysed in this paper, mainly because of the lack of evidence to weight the importance of this phenomenon, due to the very controversial nature of the issue in Chile. It is worth mentioning that traditionally it has been a relatively common practice in the Chilean education system and frequently reported by public schools’ principals. Education markets and schools’ mechanisms of exclusion: The case of Chile 19 unidirectional. While, for some schools, their diversification strategy is a means to attract families from the middle and upper classes, thereby excluding low-class families, for other schools, diversification is used to reinforce their market niches based on enrollment among poor populations, which increases the prevalence of socioeconomic segregation. The most direct way in which exclusion takes place through school diversification involves schools that tailor their policies and practices as a way to offer a certain level of social distinction to families (4 out of 39 schools analyzed). This means that the main attribute used by these schools to attract families is their social composition, which is always in the form of middle- and upper-class students. In a way, the main attraction of these schools is social exclusivity, alongside a certain level of social closure as the main selling point in order to increase demand for their school. The majority of families interviewed connected with these schools refer to the social composition of the school as the first and main choice criterion. These families value the fact that their children have the opportunity to be in contact with other students from a similar or higher SES background during their schooling. Principals from these schools recognized the importance that the school social composition plays in attracting families. The next quote from a school principal, who was asked about the main point of attraction, summarizes how social distinction works as a diversification strategy and how families openly value the capacity of these schools to provide a socially homogenous environment: [Families] come here because the father was a student here, or his friends at the university were students of the school, or their co-workers, who like what they like, how they work, are former students of the school, or because they have co- workers who have their children here and they have already told them about it. So, now, what do they tell us? What do they like about the school? They want these types of parents that I tell you about. (Principal, private independent school, High SES, Municipality A) Another more indirect way to produce exclusion through diversification is appealing to the preferences and values of middle- and upper-class families. For example, an educational project based on alternative pedagogy (2 out of 39 schools analyzed) is attractive to some middle-class families, as well as acting as a way of excluding low SES families. Alternative pedagogy has been classified as any school that mainly uses non-directive teaching methods (e.g., Montessori or Waldorf). The interviews with families showed that some middle- and upper-class families look for and value these types of pedagogical approaches in order to avoid traditional pedagogies and methods of teaching, which, for them, are associated with the majority of Chilean schools. In contrast, lower-middle and low-class families value more discipline or security and therefore disregard schools based on alternative pedagogical approaches, since they perceive them to be less aligned with their choice preferences. Principals are aware of how their pedagogical approach has the capacity to attract a specific profile of students and, as a consequence, exclude others. In fact, the next quote from a principal of one of these schools summarizes how he has established a relationship between the alternative pedagogy approach of the school and the socioeconomic profile of families that the school is able to attract. [The profile of families with students at this school] is that of progressive young professionals. I say progressive because they don’t belong to the conservative tradition. They are also a product of capitalist modernity in Chile because they are part of a rising middle class, which has been promoted by neoliberal policies and also have a critical view on this reality [...] I think that they come here because of the search for a different project, which is more innovative in these areas, mainly Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 27 No. 130 20 because of the authoritarianism that is highly present in Chilean schools. (Principal, private subsidized school, High SES, Municipality B) Principals of schools according to this typology of diversification openly recognize that their school tries to reinforce the diversification project through the use of symbols and ideological or political references, which are valued by the targeted profile of families. In fact, interviews with families whose children attend these schools show that they often refer to symbolic attributes related to more open teaching methods, such as the absence of uniforms or the lack of a dress code, but that they are not able to provide a specific discourse about the pedagogical approach of the respective school. School principals are aware of the importance of these symbolic attributes in creating processes of self-selection and self-exclusion. […] that discourse is constructed so that a dad says: “Here, I am fine”. But someone who does not share this approach excludes himself because the educational project in action is saying to him this is not for me.” (Principal, private subsidized school, High SES, Municipality B) On the other side of the education market, it is possible to identify some schools that have developed a niche in the market for low SES families, as one of the school principals recognized: “We attend to the vulnerable students and we are very happy with doing it” (principal, public school, Municipality A). These schools are aware that the main attributes valued by socioeconomically disadvantaged families are highly influenced by the context in which they live. These schools do not focus their diversification approach on pedagogical issues but on aspects related to the school climate, security or discipline. For this typology of schools, symbolic factors also play an important role in defining their diversification strategy. Basically, here, what prevails is security, that is, people here, in fact, come here and say: “We are going to put it in this school because it is a safe school.” This already gives us an insight into what people are looking for, because it is safe. They live in an environment of insecurity, then they feel that the school is a safe place for their children, in this environment, in this school. [...] It’s a safe school, so suddenly some parents feel that it’s safer for them to be here at school, rather than at home. (Principal, private subsidized school, Medium-low SES, Municipality B) The fact that these schools develop diversification responses oriented towards attracting the most disadvantaged students is the expected result from a highly socioeconomically segmented LEM, present in both the municipalities analyzed. However, despite this being considered a part of the rationale of the schools, this specific approach fosters the dynamics of school social segregation. Marketing: Reinforcing Exclusion Finally, marketing practices developed by schools can also act as soft mechanisms of exclusion. In this context, marketing is understood as activities and initiatives developed by the school to communicate with potential applicants but also with families already enrolled in the school (Oplatka & Hemsley-Brown, 2004). Educational marketing, particularly in basic education, overcomes the traditional activities of advertising and entails a “wide and dynamic range of external relationships” (Foskett, 2002). Marketing, or the way in which schools communicate with the external environment, can play a crucial role in attracting specific families and students, as well as excluding others. Studies focused on marketing activities developed by schools, mainly in the U.S. Education markets and schools’ mechanisms of exclusion: The case of Chile 21 context, show that marketing is not just a way to attract new families and students, but also a mechanism used to limit access to low SES students or other minorities (Jabbar, 2016; Lubienski & Lee, 2016; Wilson & Carlsen, 2016). School marketing is a means by which to produce school “glossification” (Gewirtz et al., 1995), which entails the generation and dissemination of a specific school image. Of course, school marketing is intensely related to the diversification responses developed by schools (Zancajo, 2018). Frequently, marketing becomes the main method by which schools communicate with their more closed external environment and therefore an effective tool to attract specific profiles of families. The evidence collected for the two LEMs analyzed shows that the intense use of marketing and promotional activities (e.g., flyers, posters, newspaper ads) is more common among schools with shortfalls in terms of demand, that is, schools that mainly enroll low SES students. These schools develop an extended marketing strategy in order to make themselves visible in a highly competitive education market and attract new demand, without a specific targeted population. Although there is a relationship between the use of marketing responses and the socioeconomic level of the school population, schools enrolling middle- and upper-class students also develop activities of marketing which have two key objectives: on the one hand, reinforcing the school image based on their diversification strategy; on the other hand, orienting their marketing activities to attract a specific target group of students by reinforcing their market niches. For example, some of the schools analyzed have established partnerships with preschools as way to attract their desired target population. These schools identify preschool educational institutions with a middle- and high-class population and try to establish a partnership with them in order to promote their school in these environments via flyers or presentations to parents of children in the preschools. Other common behavior related to marketing activities in these schools is to only advertise schools in areas of the municipality where middle- and upper-class families are concentrated. In terms of school marketing, websites are acquiring an important role in schools’ marketing. In the case of Municipality A, 8 out of 17 schools have a webpage, while, in Municipality B, 8 out of 14 schools have one. The existence of a webpage is more common in schools enrolling middle and high SES students. Interviews with families show that mainly middle- and upper-class families use school websites when putting together their initial choice set, alongside asking relatives and friends for information or visiting the school. In fact, school principals report that the content of their websites is sometimes used to produce self-selection or self-exclusion. Of course, this phenomenon is related to the diversification typology, but acts as an initial filter for families, as the next quote from a school principal makes clear. Interviewer: Do you feel that some families check the website and, based on the information they find there, come to the school? Principal: Parents should ask themselves: “Is this for me or not?” (Principal, private subsidized school, Medium-high SES, Municipality B) Discussion As the article has shown in the case of the Chilean education market, processes and mechanisms that foster exclusion and school segregation take place in very different ways. In terms of the main focus of this article, the supply side, it has been possible to identify hard mechanisms of exclusion (i.e., school fees and student selection), as well as soft mechanisms, which produce exclusion in a more indirect way. While hard mechanisms of exclusion are relatively easy to detect, soft mechanisms, managed through marketing and the diversification of school policies and practices, act in a subtler manner, reinforcing the capacity of schools to attract specific profiles of Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 27 No. 130 22 students and excluding others, mainly based on their socioeconomic background. In an education market context, semiotics plays an important role in the responses developed by schools to the incentives of competition. To a certain extent, it is not necessary to develop explicit processes of exclusion, but to appeal to the values and preferences of middle- and high-class families in order to attract them, while excluding other social groups that do not identify themselves with these cultural codes. Soft mechanisms of exclusion are not always the result of a conscious and explicit rationality or even strategy of schools; rather, they are an essential orientation of their logic of action when enacting market policies. As a consequence, it is difficult to discern to what extent processes of exclusion developed by some schools are the result of opportunistic behaviors or the inevitable consequence of their response to the incentives of a competitive environment. The debate on the effects of privatization and pro-market policies has traditionally been controversial and highly ideological. Over the last three decades these policies have expanded across the world, still a relevant academic and political discussion is still taking place on how market- oriented policies impact on different dimensions, such as effectiveness, efficiency and equity. However, nowadays, there is a relative international consensus on the fact that, under some circumstances and policy designs, privatization and market policies could have a negative impact on equity12. Especially in the case of southern countries, the research has shown how these negative consequences particularly affect socioeconomically disadvantage populations or ethnic minorities, fostering processes of school segregation and marginalization. In recent years this consensus has transcended the academic sphere and relevant international organizations have expressed concerns about the possible unintended consequences of these policies, particularly in terms of equity and for socioeconomically disadvantaged students. For example, the OECD has warned that voucher schemes and school competition can increase the socioeconomic stratification of schools and educational inequalities (OECD, 2012a, 2014). The 2017/18 edition of the UNESCO Global Education Monitoring Report points out that more regulation is needed to avoid opportunistic behavior on the part of private providers and negative effects of this on equity (UNESCO, 2017). Even the World Bank, traditionally an advocate of market-based solutions, recognizes in its 2018 World Development Report that, in some cases, the rapid expansion of private provision can “undermine the political constituency for effective public schooling in the longer term” (World Bank, 2018, p. 177). Therefore, the World Bank recommends the development of effective regulatory frameworks to avoid discrimination and ensure that all providers pursue the public interest. Independent of the controversy surrounding market solutions, a debate about regulation has emerged in response to processes of exclusion and negative impacts on equity. This relatively recent trend shows a significant change in the narrative and discourses of international organizations around the role of private providers and market mechanisms in education. After several decades of global expansion of these policies, nowadays concerns about the effects these policies have on equity have grown. In part, this recent trend can be explained as international evidence has shown how, up to a point, national education systems must improve equity as a way of making gains in terms of educational quality and performance (OECD, 2012b). Evidence on privatization and market policies not only show how these policies are not able to improve equity, but also how in some countries the 12 For example, in 2014 the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the right to education released a report warning about the negative consequences on social justice and equity of the increasing expansion of educational private provision worldwide. According to the report, these negative effects are mainly explained by “abusive practices” developed by some private providers (UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Education, 2014). Education markets and schools’ mechanisms of exclusion: The case of Chile 23 involvement of private providers and the adoption of market mechanisms have led to the exclusion and marginalization of socially disadvantaged students. However, given the evidence presented in this paper, as well as in other research, there are reasonable doubts about the capacity of new regulative frameworks or accountability devices to avoid the unintended consequences of pro-market and privatization policies. In contexts where market mechanisms, such as school choice and competition, still play a central role, it may be questioned whether it is possible to reduce the negative equity effects without significantly altering these mechanisms. In some cases, international organizations are advocating for higher levels of regulation or the establishment of accountability measures to avoid or reduce opportunistic behaviors with negative effects on equity. Yet, as this paper has shown: mechanisms of exclusion are complex; they can act in a subtle way (soft mechanisms of exclusion); it is not always possible to regulate them; and in some cases actors can even develop, more informally, other forms of exclusion. Here, the evidence available seems to show that market mechanisms of coordination, choice and competition, ensure that educational actors face a structure of incentives that can contradict the objectives of educational inclusion. The debate around the capacity of markets and other forms of PPPs to foster educational equity and inclusion transcends the particular case of Chile. In the context of the new Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs; UN, 2015), in which the promotion of equitable education systems has acquired a central role, the capacity of pro-market policies to achieve educational equity objectives is open to question. Although different International Organizations have promoted the establishment of partnerships between the public and the private sectors or the adoption of choice and competition as a way to achieve the SDGs, the evidence has repeatedly shown how these interventions cannot only perpetuate existing inequalities but also increase them. Recently, organizations such as the World Bank or UNESCO (UNECO, 2017; World Bank, 2018) have pointed out the need for new regulations or the establishment of accountability devices to ensure that private providers’ practices or market mechanisms do not produce negative effects in terms of equity. However, the effectiveness of these proposals to deal with the negative effects on equity is still uncertain. The effectiveness of education market regulations or compensatory policies to avoid negative effects regarding equity would depend on their capacity to grasp and deal with the demand- and supply-side mechanisms that produce exclusion and school segregation. In this sense, research on school choice policies has provided a large amount of necessary evidence to help understand the different patterns and rationalities developed by families when choosing a school. What is more, the academic literature has revealed how different social groups enact school choice policies in various forms depending on their socioeconomic background, and how this affects the equity (Ball, 2003; Canales et al., 2016; Schneider et al., 2000). That said, how educational providers are able to create processes of exclusion is still relatively under-analyzed. The evidence presented in this article shows that supply-side mechanisms of social exclusion are diverse and complex. Despite the hard mechanisms of exclusion, such as student selection and school fees, other mechanisms of a softer nature can also produce and reinforce the processes of exclusion. In particular, semiotics, in this case related to diversification and school marketing, can be effective in attracting specific profiles of families and students, as well as sometimes excluding socioeconomically disadvantaged students. Education market regulations, which are oriented towards compensating for the dynamics of school segregation and exclusion, need to consider how both demand and supply sides enact market policies beyond the expected responses according to education market theory. Chile is nowadays a paradigmatic case for exploring the possibilities and effects of market regulation in a highly unequal education market. In 2015, the Chilean government passed a new education reform (the Inclusion Act), which mainly prohibits student selection practices, school fees Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 27 No. 130 24 in publicly funded schools and for-profit schools in primary and secondary education (Bellei, 2016), with the objective of improving educational opportunities and reducing school segregation. Although this new regulation will be progressively implemented over the coming years, during which time its effects need to be evaluated, this represents a significant opportunity, on a national scale, to analyze the strengths and shortcomings of regulation in promoting equity and educational opportunities for all students in an education market framework. On the other hand, despite the policy design of this reform, knowing how educational actors (mainly schools and families) enact the new legal framework will be essential in determining the extent of its effects. However, the extent to which it is possible to foster educational inclusion and to reduce the level of social stratification in a market environment remains unclear. In an education market context, to influence the behavior of actors, competitive incentives can be more powerful than regulations or focused policies that try to promote inclusion. In a competitive environment, regulation aimed at encouraging inclusive practices through per capita funding, school choice and dissemination of test results can fail to alter the traditional exclusion practices developed by actors. Thus, the educational reform adopted in Chile since 2015 is not only informative regarding the capacity of the law to improve educational inclusion, but also about the feasibility of improving it when the education market’s main features, choice and competition, have not been significantly altered. Finally, the Chilean experience could also provide evidence of the capacity of the reform, and particularly the policy and public discussion around inclusion, to alter the existing cultural and social tolerance towards social exclusion and school segregation. References Alegre, M. A., & Ferrer, G. (2010). School regimes and education equity: Some insights based on PISA 2006. British Educational Research Journal, 36(3), 433-461. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411920902989193 Alves, F., Elacqua, G., Koslinki, M., Martinez, M., Santos, H., & Urbina, D. (2015). Winners and losers of school choice: Evidence from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil and Santiago, Chile. International Journal of Educational Development, 41, 25–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2014.12.004 Ambler, J.S. (1994). Who Benefits from Educational Choice? Some Evidence from Europe. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 13(3), 454-476. https://doi.org/10.2307/3325386 Apple, M. W. (2001). Comparing neo-liberal projects and inequality in education. Comparative education, 37(4), 409-423. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050060120091229 Ball, S. J. (2003). Class strategies and the education market: The middle classes and social advantage. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203218952 Ball, S. (2012). Global education Inc.: New Policy Networks and the Neo-Liberal Imaginary. New York, NY: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203803301 Ball, S. J., & Maroy, C. (2009). School’s logics of action as mediation and compromise between internal dynamics and external constraints and pressures. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 39(1), 99-112. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057920701825544 Ball, S., & Youdell, D. (2008). Hidden privatisation in public education. Brussels: Education International. Bellei, C. (2003). ¿Ha tenido impacto la reforma educativa chilena?. In C. Cox (Ed.), Políticas educacionales en el cambio de siglo: La reforma del sistema escolar de Chile (pp. 125-209). Santiago de Chile, Chile: Editorial Universitaria. Bellei, C. (2007). The private-public school controversy: The case of Chile. In R. Chakrabarti & P. Peterson (Eds.), School choice international: Exploring public- private partnerships (pp. 165–192). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262033763.003.0008 Education markets and schools’ mechanisms of exclusion: The case of Chile 25 Bellei, C. (2016). Dificultades y resistencias de una reforma para des-mercantilizar la educación. RASE: Revista de la Asociación de Sociología de la Educación, 9(2), 232-247. Bellei, C., & Vanni, X. (2015). Chile: The Evolution of Educational Policy, 1980-2014. In S. Schwartzman (Ed.), Education in South America (pp. 179-200). London: Bloomsburry Academic. http://dx.doi.org/10.5040/9781474243223.ch-008 Bellei, C., Contreras, M., Canales, M., & Orellana, V. (2018). The Production of Socio-economic Segregation in Chilean Education: School Choice, Social Class and Market Dynamics. In X. Bonal & C. Bellei (Eds.), Understanding School Segregation: Patterns, Causes and Consequences of Spatial Inequalities in Education (pp. 221-242). London, UK: Bloomsburry. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350033542.ch-011 Ben-Porath, S. R. (2009). School choice as a bounded ideal. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 43(4), 527–544. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9752.2009.00726.x Belfield, C. R., & Levin, H. M. (2002). Education privatization: Causes, consequences and planning implications. Paris, France: UNESCO - International Institute for Educational Planning. Belfield, C. & Levin, H. (2009). Market Reforms in Education. In G. Sykes, B. Schneider & D. Plank (Eds.), Handbook of Education Policy Research (pp. 513–527). New York, NY: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203880968 Beyer, H. (2015). Una nota sobre financiamiento de la educación. In J. J. Brunner & C. Peña (Eds.) La reforma al sistema escolar: aportes para el debate. Santiago de Chile, Chile: Ediciones UDP. Boeskens, L. (2016). Regulating publicly funded private schools: A literature review on equity and effectiveness. (OECD Education Working Papers, No. 147). Paris, France: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/5jln6jcg80r4-en Bonal, X., Verger, A., & Zancajo, A. (2017). Making poor choices? Demand rationalities and school choice in a Chilean local education market. Journal of School Choice, 11(2), 258–281. https://doi.org/10.1080/15582159.2017.1286206 Bravo, J. (2011). El SIMCE: Pasado, presente y futuro del sistema nacional de evaluación. Estudios Públicos, 123, 189-211. Canales, M., Bellei, C., & Orellana, V. (2016). ¿Por qué elegir una escuela particular subvencionada? Sectores medios emergentes y elección de escuela en un sistema de Mercado. Estudios Pedagógicos, 42(3), 89-109. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-07052016000400005 Carnoy, M. (1998). National voucher plans in Chile and Sweden: Did privatization reforms make for better education? Comparative Education Review, 42(3), 309-337. https://doi.org/10.1086/447510 Carrasco, A., Bogolasky, F., Flores, C., Gutiérrez, G., & San Martin, E. (2014). Selección de estudiantes y desigualdad educacional en chile: ¿Qué tan coactiva es la regulación que la prohíbe?. Informe para el Fondo de Investigación y Desarrollo en Educación – FONIDE. Carrasco, A., Falabella, A., & Mendoza, M. (2015). School choice in Chile as a sociocultural practice. In P. Seppa ̈nen, A. Carrasco, M. Kalalahti, R. Rinne, & H. Simola (Eds.), Contrasting dynamics in education politics of extremes. School choice in Chile and Finland (pp. 245–266). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers. Carrasco, A., & Fromm, G. (2016). How local market pressures shape leadership practices: evidence from Chile. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 48(4), 290-308. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220620.2016.1210584 Centro de Estudios Mineduc (2012). Impacto de la Ley SEP en SIMCE: una mirada a 4 años de su implementación. Serie Evidencias, 8. Retrieved from https://centroestudios.mineduc.cl/wp- content/uploads/sites/100/2017/06/A1N8_ImpactoSEP.pdf Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 27 No. 130 26 Centro de Estudios Mineduc (2017). Resumen Estadístico de la Educación 2017. Retrieved from https://centroestudios.mineduc.cl/wp-content/uploads/sites/100/2018/04/Resumen- Estad%C3%ADstico-de-la-Educaci%C3%B3n.-A%C3%B1o-2017.pdf Chamberlin, E. H. (1933). The theory of monopolistic competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Chubb, J. E., & Moe, T. M. (1990). Politics, markets & America’s schools. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution. Contreras, D., Bustos, S., & Sepúlveda, P. (2010). When Schools Are the Ones that Choose: The Effect of Screening in Chile. Social Science Quarterly, 91(5): 1349-1368. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6237.2010.00735.x Cox, C. (2003). Las políticas educacionales de Chile en las últimas dos décadas del siglo XX. In C. Cox (Ed.), Políticas educacionales en el cambio de siglo: La reforma del sistema escolar de Chile (pp. 19- 124). Santiago de Chile, Chile: Editorial Universitaria. Elacqua, G. (2012). The impact of school choice and public policy on segregation: Evidence from Chile. International Journal of Educational Development, 32(3), 444–453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2011.08.003 Elacqua, G., & Fábrega, R. (2006). El consumidor de la educación: El actor olvidado de la libre elección de escuelas en Chile. In S. Cueto (Ed.), Educación y brechas de equidad en América Latina. Tomo II (pp. 353-398). Santiago de Chile, Chile: Fondo de Investigaciones Educativas, PREAL. Elacqua, G., & Santos, H. (2013). Preferencias reveladas de los proveedores de educación privada en Chile: El caso de la Ley de Subvención Escolar Preferencial. Gestión y política pública, 22(1), 85- 129. Elacqua, G., Montt, P., & Santos, H. (2013). Evidencias para eliminar – gradualmente – el Financiamiento Compartido. Instituto de Políticas Públicas. Claves de Políticas Públicas, 14. Elacqua, G., Schneider, M., & Buckley, J. (2006). School choice in Chile: Is it class or the classroom? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 25(3), 577–601. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.20192 Epple, D., Romano, R. E., & Urquiola, M. (2017). School vouchers: A survey of the economics literature. Journal of Economic Literature, 55(2), 441-92. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.20150679 Falabella, A. (2015). School markets in Chile and the emergence of the new public management: The fabric of policies between a neoliberal dictatorship regime and center-left democratic governments (1979–2009). Educaçao & Sociedade, 36(132), 699–722. https://doi.org/10.1590/ES0101-73302015152420 Falabella, A., Seppänen, P., & Raczynski. D. (2015). Growing tolerance of pupil selection: Parental discourses and exclusionary practices in Chile and Finland. In P. Seppänen, A. Carrasco, M. Kalalahti, R. Rinne & H. Simola (Eds.), Contrasting Dynamics in Education Politics of Extremes: school choice in Finland and Chile (pp. 121-138). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: SENSE publishers. Fiske, E. B., & Ladd, H.F. (2001). When schools compete: A cautionary tale. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Foskett, N. (2002). Marketing. In T. Bush & L. Bell (Eds.), The Principles and Practice of Educational Management (pp. 241-257). London, UK: Paul Chapman Publishing. Gauri, V. (1998). School Choice in Chile. Two Decades of Educational Reform. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press. Gewirtz, S., Ball, S. J., & Bowe, R. (1995). Markets, choice, and equity in education. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Education markets and schools’ mechanisms of exclusion: The case of Chile 27 Harris, D. N., Herrington, C. D., & Albee, A. (2007). The future of vouchers: Lessons from the adoption, design, and court challenges of Florida’s three voucher programs. Educational Policy, 21(1), 215–244. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904806297209 Hirschmann, A. O. (1970). Exit, voice and loyalty. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Hoxby, C. M. (2003). The economics of school choice. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226355344.001.0001 Hsieh, C. T., & Urquiola, M. (2006). The effects of generalized school choice on achievement and stratification: Evidence from Chile's voucher program. Journal of public Economics, 90(8-9), 1477-1503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2005.11.002 Jabbar, H. (2015). “Every Kid Is Money”: Market-Like Competition and School Leader Strategies in New Orleans. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37(4), 638-659. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373715577447 Jabbar, H. (2016). Selling Schools: Marketing and Recruitment Strategies in New Orleans. Peabody Journal of Education, 91(1), 4–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2016.1119554 Kasman, M., & Loeb, S. (2013). Principals’ perceptions of competition for students in Milwaukee schools. Education Finance and Policy, 8, 43–73. https://doi.org/10.1162/EDFP_a_00082 Kutscher, M. (2014). Financiamiento Compartido y su efecto en diferentes indicadores de calidad educativa. Centro Latinamericano de Políticas Económicas y Sociales. Documento de trabajo, 9. Ladd, H. (2002). School vouchers: a critical review. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 16(4), 3–24. Levacic, R. (2004). Competition and the performance of English secondary schools: Further evidence. Education Economics, 12(2), 177-193. https://doi.org/10.1080/0964529042000239186 Levin, H. M. (1991). The economics of educational choice. Economics of Education Review, 10(2), 137- 158. https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-7757(91)90005-A Lubienski, C. (2003). School Competition and Promotion: Substantive and Symbolic Differentiation in Local Education Markets. (National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education Teachers College, Occasional Paper 80). Retrieved from https://ncspe.tc.columbia.edu/working- papers/OP80.pdf Lubienski, C. (2005) School Choice as a Civil Right: District Responses to Competition and Equal Educational Opportunity. Equity & Excellence in Education, 38(4), 331-341. https://doi.org/10.1080/10665680500299809 Lubienski, C. (2006a). Incentives for school diversification: Competition and promotional patterns in local education markets. Journal of School Choice: International Research and Reform, 1(2), 1-31. https://doi.org/10.1300/J467v01n02_01 Lubienski, C. (2006b). School diversification in second-best education markets. Educational Policy, 20(2), 323–344. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904805284049 Lubienski, C. (2007). Marketing Schools: Consumer Goods and Competitive Incentives for Consumer Information. Education and Urban Society, 40(118), 118-141. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124507303994 Lubienski, C., & Lee, J. (2016). Competitive Incentives and the Education Market: How Charter Schools Define Themselves in Metropolitan Detroit. Peabody Journal of Education, 91(1), 64–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2016.1119582 Lubienski, C., Weitzel, P., & Lubienski, S. T. (2009). Is there a “consensus” on school choice and achievement? Advocacy research and the emerging political economy of knowledge production. Educational Policy, 23(1), 161–193. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904808328532 Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 27 No. 130 28 Macpherson, I., Robertson, S., & Walford, G. (Eds.). (2014). Education, Privatisation and Social Justice: Case Studies from Africa, South Asia and South East Asia. Oxford, UK: Symposium Books. https://doi.org/10.15730/books.88 Ministerio de Educacio ́n. (2012). Análisis de Proyectos Educativos de los Establecimientos Educacionales Chilenos. Informe final. Retrieved from http://portales.mineduc.cl/usuarios/convivencia_escolar/doc/201311181020370. Estudio_PEI_%20Informe_Final.pdf Mizala, A. (2007). La economía política de la reforma educacional en Chile (Serie Estudios Socio/Económicos Number 36). Santiago de Chile, Chile: Corporación de Estudios para Latinoamérica (CIEPLAN). Mizala, A., & Romaguera, P. (2000). School performance and choice: the Chilean experience. Journal of Human Resources, 25, 392-417. https://doi.org/10.2307/146331 Mizala, A., & Torche, F. (2012). Bringing the schools back in: the stratification of educational achievement in the Chilean voucher system. International Journal of Educational Development, 32(1), 132-144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2010.09.004 Mizala, A., & Torche, F. (2013). ¿Logra la subvención escolar preferencial igualar los resultados educativos?. Espacio Público. Documento de Referencia, 9. Retrieved from https://www.espaciopublico.cl/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/19.pdf Moe, T. M. (2002). The structure of school choice. In P. T. Hill (Ed.), Choice with Equity (pp. 179- 212). Hoover Institution Press. Moe, T. M. (2008). Beyond the Free Market: The Structure of School Choice. Brigham Young University Law Review, 2008 (2): 557–92. Musset, P. (2012). School choice and equity: current policies in OECD countries and literature review. (OECD Education Working Paper, No. 66). Paris: OECD Publishing Ndimande, B. S., & Lubienski, C. (Eds.). (2017). Privatization and the Education of Marginalized Children: Policies, Impacts and Global Lessons. New York, NY: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315205878 Neal, D. (2002). How vouchers could change the market for education. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 16(4), 25-44. https://doi.org/10.1257/089533002320950966 OECD. (2004). Reviews of National Policies for Education: Chile. Paris, France: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/19900198 OECD. (2012a). Public and Private Schools: How Management and Funding Relate to their Socio-economic Profile. Paris, France: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264175006-en OECD. (2012b). Equity and Quality in Education: Supporting Disadvantaged Students and Schools. Paris, France: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264130852-en OECD. (2014). When is competition between schools beneficial?. PISA in Focus, 42. https://doi.org/10.1787/5jz0v4zzbcmv-en OECD. (2016). PISA 2015 Results (Volume II): Policies and Practices for Successful School. Paris, France: OECD Publishing. https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264267510-en Oplatka, I., & Hemsley-Brown, J. (2004). The research on school marketing. Journal of Educational Administration, 42(3), 375 – 400. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230410534685 Paredes, R., & Ugarte, G. (2011). Should Students Be Allowed to Miss? The Journal of Educational Research, 104(3), 194-201. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671003690130 Patrinos, H.A., Barrera-Osorio, F., & Guáqueta, J. (2009). The role and impact of public- private partnerships in education. Washington, DC: World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-0-8213-7866-3 Education markets and schools’ mechanisms of exclusion: The case of Chile 29 Raczynski, D., Muñoz, G., Weinstein, J., & Pascual, J. (2013). Subvención escolar preferencial (SEP) en Chile: un intento para equilibrar la macro y la micro política escolar. REICE. Revista Electrónica Iberoamericana sobre Calidad, Eficacia y Cambio en Educación, 11(2), 164-193. Raczynski, D., Salinas, D., de la Fuente, L., Hernádez, M., & Lattz, M. (2010). Hacia una estrategia de validación de la educación pública-municipal: Imaginarios, valoraciones y demandas de las familias. Santiago de Chile, Chile: FONIDE. Robinson, J. (1933). The theory of imperfect competition. London, UK: Macmillan. Rodríguez, P., Valenzuela, J. P., Suschan, K., Truffello, R., Norel, N., Allende, C., … Céspedes, J. (2016). Determinando el acceso real de los estudiantes a establecimientos educacionales efectivos para generar políticas públicas que mejoren la provisión de educación de calidad. (CIAE Documento de Trabajo, 19). Retrieved from http://www.ciae.uchile.cl/download.php?file=publicaciones/90db72e06725e7b501e7c6a2ed f908d8-1473188635.pdf Reay, D. (2004). Exclusivity, exclusion, and social class in urban education markets in the United Kingdom. Urban education, 39(5), 537-560. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085904266925 Rizvi, F. (2016). Privatization in Education: Trends and Consequences. (UNESCO Education Research and Foresight Working papers, 18). Retrieved from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000246485 Schneider, M., Teske, P., & Marschall, M. (2000). Choosing schools: Consumer choice and the quality of American schools. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1300/J025v16n02_09 Srivastava, P. (2010). Privatization and Education for All: Unravelling the mobilizing frames. Development, 53(4), 522-528. https://doi.org/10.1057/dev.2010.88 Tooley, J. (1996). Education without the state. London, UK: Institute of Economic Affairs. Torche, F. (2005). Privatization reform and inequality of educational opportunity: The case of Chile. Sociology of Education, 78(4), 316-343. https://doi.org/10.1177/003804070507800403 UNESCO. (2017). Global Education Monitoring Report 2017/18. Accountability in education: meeting our commitments. Paris, France: UNESCO. UN Special Rapporteur on the right to education. (2014). Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to education: "Privatization and the right to education". Retrieved from https://documents-dds- ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N14/546/83/PDF/N1454683.pdf?OpenElement United Nations. (2015). Transforming our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Retrieved from https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/21252030%20Agenda%20for% 20Sustainable%20Development%20web.pdf Valenzuela, J. P. (2008). Segregación en el sistema escolar chileno: en la búsqueda de una educación de calidad en un contexto de extrema desigualdad. In X. Poo & P. Velasco, P. (Eds.), Transformaciones del Espacio Público. Segunda Escuela Chile-Francia (pp. 131-155). Santiago de Chile, Chile. Valenzuela, J. P., Bellei, C., & de los Ríos, D. (2014). Socioeconomic school segregation in a market- oriented educational system. The case of Chile. Journal of Education Policy, 29(2), 217–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2013.806995 Valenzuela, J. P., Villaroel, G., & Villalobos, C. (2013). Ley de Subvención Escolar Preferencial (SEP): algunos resultados preliminares de su implementación. Pensamiento Educativo. Revista de Investigación Educacional Latinoamericana, 50(2), 113–131. https://doi.org/10.7764/PEL.50.2.2013.7 Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 27 No. 130 30 van Zanten, A. (2009). Competitive arenas and schools' logics of action: a European comparison. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 39(1), 85-98. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057920802447867 Verger, A., & Bonal, X. (2011). The 2020 education strategy or the limitations of the World Bank to promote “learning for all.” Educação & Sociedade, 32(117), 911-932. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0101-73302011000400002 Verger, A., Fontdevila, C., & Zancajo, A. (2016a). The Privatization of Education. A Political Economy. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Verger, A., Bonal, X. & Zancajo, A. (2016b). What are the role and impact of public- private partnerships in education? A realist evaluation of the Chilean education quasi-market. Comparative Education Review, 60(2), 223-248. https://doi.org/10.1086/685557 Villalobos, C., & Salazar, F. (2014). Proyectos educativos en el sistema escolar chileno: una aproximación a las libertades de enseñanza y elección. (Informes para la Política Educativa Nº 2). Centro de Políticas Comparadas en Educación. Retrieved from http://cpce.udp.cl/wp- content/uploads/2016/08/IPE2.pdf Villalobos, C., & Valenzuela, J. (2012). Polarización y Cohesión Social del Sistema Escolar Chileno. Revista de Análisis Económico – Economic Analysis Review, 27(2), 145-172. Walford, G. (2013). Low-fee private schools: A methodological and political debate. In P. Srivastava (Ed.), Low-fee private schooling: Aggravating equity or mitigating disadvantage? (pp. 199–213). Oxford, UK: Symposium Books. Waslander, S., Pater, C., & Weide, M. van der. (2010). Markets in Education: An Analytical Review of Empirical Research on Market Mechanisms in Education. (OECD Education Working Paper Series, No 52). Paris: OECD Publishing. Wilson, T. S., & Carlsen, R. L. (2016). School Marketing as a Sorting Mechanism: A Critical Discourse Analysis of Charter School Websites. Peabody Journal of Education, 91(1), 24–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.2016.1119564 Woods, P.A.; Bagley, C., & Glatter, R. (1998). School Choice and Competition. Markets in the Public Interest?. New York, NY: Routledge. World Bank (2011). Learning for All: Investing in People’s Knowledge and Skills to Promote Development. World Bank Group Education Strategy 2020. Washington, DC: World Bank. World Bank. (2018). World Development Report 2018: Learning to realize education promise. Washington, DC: International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank. Zancajo, A. (2018). Educational providers in the marketplace: Schools’ marketing responses in Chile. International Journal of Educational Research, 88, 166-176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2017.10.009 Zimmer, R., & Buddin, R. (2009). Is charter school competition in California improving the performance of traditional public schools? Public Administration Review, 69(5), 831-845. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2009.02033.x Education markets and schools’ mechanisms of exclusion: The case of Chile 31 Appendix Table A-1 Main characteristics of schools included in the sample SIMCE average performance (4th grade) Code and school type Religious orientation PSS a Cost- sharing Fee (Chilean pesos) SES averageb L an gu ag e M at he m at ic s N at ur al sc ie nc es M un ic ip al ity A Public school 1 Secular Yes NA Free Medium- low 217 243 229 Public school 2 Secular Yes NA Free Medium- low 212 203 213 Public school 3 Secular Yes NA Free Low 213 219 228 Public school 4 Secular Yes NA Free Medium- low 238 236 234 Public school 5 Secular Yes NA Free Medium- low 247 237 236 Public school 6 Secular Yes NA Free Medium- low 252 246 246 Private subsidized school 7 Catholic Yes No Free Medium- low 280 258 261 Private subsidized school 8 Secular Yes No Free Medium- low 248 252 229 Private subsidized school 9 Secular Yes Yes 25.001 – 50.000 Medium- high 262 255 270 Private subsidized school 10 Evangelical No Yes 25.001 – 50.000 Medium 287 255 261 Private subsidized school 11 Catholic No Yes 25.001 – 50.000 Medium 260 272 273 Private subsidized school 12 Catholic Yes Yes 25.001 – 50.000 Medium 289 292 291 Private subsidized school 13 Catholic No Yes 10.001 – 25.000 Medium 301 294 278 Private subsidized school 14 Evangelical Yes Yes 50.001 – 100.000 Medium 204 181 212 Private subsidized school 15 Secular No Yes 50.001 – 100.000 High 290 283 283 Private school 16 Secular No NA 50.001 – 100.000 Medium- high 267 240 244 Private school 17 Secular No NA More than 100.000 High 304 298 307 Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 27 No. 130 32 a Preferential School Subsidy (PSS) is a programme, voluntary for private subsidized schools, which allocates extra funds for each low-income student enrolled in the school. The participation of the school in this program can be understood as a proxy of its school population socioeconomic status. b SES of the school was calculated as the average of students’ SES, which has been estimated based on the following variables: level of family income, father’s education, mother’s education, and number of books at home. NA: Not Applicable (public schools were not allowed to charge fees and private schools were not part of the cost-sharing scheme). Table A-1 cont. Main characteristics of schools included in the sample SIMCE average performance (4th grade) Code and school type Religious orientation PSS a Cost-sharing Fee (Chilean pesos) SES averageb L an gu ag e M at he m at ic s N at ur al sc ie nc es M un ic ip al ity B Public school 18 Secular Yes NA Free Low 252 247 244 Public school 19 Secular Yes NA Free Low 243 228 238 Public school 20 Secular Yes NA Free Low 251 232 222 Private subsidized school 21 Secular Yes No Free Low 238 218 221 Private subsidized school 22 Evangelical Yes No Free Medium- low 244 219 232 Private subsidized school 23 Secular Yes No Free Medium- low 224 216 217 Private subsidized school 24 Catholic Yes Yes 25.001 – 50.000 Medium 277 255 259 Private subsidized school 25 Secular No Yes 25.001 – 50.000 Medium 261 234 254 Private subsidized school 26 Catholic No Yes 50.001 – 100.000 Medium- high 309 291 292 Private subsidized school 27 Catholic No Yes 50.001 – 100.000 Medium 300 285 283 Private subsidized school 28 Secular No Yes 50.001 – 100.000 Medium- high 267 263 264 Private subsidized school 29 Secular No Yes 50.001 – 100.000 Medium- high 286 294 304 Private school 30 Catholic No NA More than 100.000 High 282 266 278 Private school 31 Secular No NA More than 100.000 High 318 325 323 Education markets and schools’ mechanisms of exclusion: The case of Chile 33 About the Author Adrián Zancajo University of Glasgow adrian.zancajo@glassgow.ac.uk ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4431-8155 Adrian Zancajo is a British Academy Postdoctoral Fellow at the University of Glasgow. His research interests include education privatization, market-oriented policies, and inequalities in education. He is currently developing a research project on the Chilean education market reform. About the Guest Editors D. Brent Edwards Jr. University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa brent.edwards@hawaii.edu http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3955-9525 D. Brent Edwards Jr. is an associate professor of theory and methodology in the study of education at the University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa. He has more than 10years of experience as an educator, researcher, and scholar of education policy. In his scholarship, he applies political economy perspectives to (a) the examination of the global governance of education and (b) the origins, spread and effects of global education policies. In particular, Brent focuses on the ways that a range of international organizations affect the politics and processes of policymaking and policy implementation. Geographically, these areas of focus have led to research projects on education in many countries across Latin America, Southeast Asia, and Africa. His recent books include The Trajectory of Global Education Policy: Community-based Management in El Salvador and the Global Reform Agenda and Global Education Policy, Impact Evaluations, and Alternatives: The Political Economy of Knowledge Production (both with Palgrave MacMillan). He also has a forthcoming co-edited special issue of Educational Policy entitled “School choice policy and politics around the globe: Sociological contributions.” Alexander Means University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa meansaj@hawaii.edu Alexander Means is an assistant professor of educational policy with global perspectives in the Department of Educational Foundations, University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa. He is the author most recently of Learning to Save the Future: Rethinking Education and Work in the Era of Digital Capitalism (Routledge, 2018); Educational Commons in Theory and Practice: Global Pedagogy and Politics (Palgrave, 2017); and The Wiley Handbook of Global Education Reform (Wiley-Blackwell, 2018). His research examines educational policy and organization in relation to political, economic, cultural, technological, and social change. Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 27 No. 130 34 Special Issue Globalization, Privatization, Marginalization: Assessing Connections in/through Education education policy analysis archives Volume 27 Number 130 October 21, 2019 ISSN 1068-2341 Readers are free to copy, display, distribute, and adapt this article, as long as the work is attributed to the author(s) and Education Policy Analysis Archives, the changes are identified, and the same license applies to the derivative work. More details of this Creative Commons license are available at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/. EPAA is published by the Mary Lou Fulton Institute and Graduate School of Education at Arizona State University Articles are indexed in CIRC (Clasificación Integrada de Revistas Científicas, Spain), DIALNET (Spain), Directory of Open Access Journals, EBSCO Education Research Complete, ERIC, Education Full Text (H.W. Wilson), QUALIS A1 (Brazil), SCImago Journal Rank, SCOPUS, SOCOLAR (China). Please send errata notes to Audrey Amrein-Beardsley at audrey.beardsley@asu.edu Join EPAA’s Facebook community at https://www.facebook.com/EPAAAAPE and Twitter feed @epaa_aape. Education markets and schools’ mechanisms of exclusion: The case of Chile 35 education policy analysis archives editorial board Lead Editor: Audrey Amrein-Beardsley (Arizona State University) Editor Consultor: Gustavo E. Fischman (Arizona State University) Associate Editors: Melanie Bertrand, David Carlson, Lauren Harris, Eugene Judson, Mirka Koro- Ljungberg, Daniel Liou, Scott Marley, Molly Ott, Iveta Silova (Arizona State University) Cristina Alfaro San Diego State University Amy Garrett Dikkers University of North Carolina, Wilmington Gloria M. Rodriguez University of California, Davis Gary Anderson New York University Gene V Glass Arizona State University R. Anthony Rolle University of Houston Michael W. Apple University of Wisconsin, Madison Ronald Glass University of California, Santa Cruz A. G. Rud Washington State University Jeff Bale University of Toronto, Canada Jacob P. K. Gross University of Louisville Patricia Sánchez University of University of Texas, San Antonio Aaron Bevanot SUNY Albany Eric M. Haas WestEd Janelle Scott University of California, Berkeley David C. Berliner Arizona State University Julian Vasquez Heilig California State University, Sacramento Jack Schneider University of Massachusetts Lowell Henry Braun Boston College Kimberly Kappler Hewitt University of North Carolina Greensboro Noah Sobe Loyola University Casey Cobb University of Connecticut Aimee Howley Ohio University Nelly P. Stromquist University of Maryland Arnold Danzig San Jose State University Steve Klees University of Maryland Jaekyung Lee SUNY Buffalo Benjamin Superfine University of Illinois, Chicago Linda Darling-Hammond Stanford University Jessica Nina Lester Indiana University Adai Tefera Virginia Commonwealth University Elizabeth H. DeBray University of Georgia Amanda E. Lewis University of Illinois, Chicago A. Chris Torres Michigan State University David E. DeMatthews University of Texas at Austin Chad R. Lochmiller Indiana University Tina Trujillo University of California, Berkeley Chad d'Entremont Rennie Center for Education Research & Policy Christopher Lubienski Indiana University Federico R. Waitoller University of Illinois, Chicago John Diamond University of Wisconsin, Madison Sarah Lubienski Indiana University Larisa Warhol University of Connecticut Matthew Di Carlo Albert Shanker Institute William J. Mathis University of Colorado, Boulder John Weathers University of Colorado, Colorado Springs Sherman Dorn Arizona State University Michele S. Moses University of Colorado, Boulder Kevin Welner University of Colorado, Boulder Michael J. Dumas University of California, Berkeley Julianne Moss Deakin University, Australia Terrence G. Wiley Center for Applied Linguistics Kathy Escamilla University ofColorado, Boulder Sharon Nichols University of Texas, San Antonio John Willinsky Stanford University Yariv Feniger Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Eric Parsons University of Missouri-Columbia Jennifer R. Wolgemuth University of South Florida Melissa Lynn Freeman Adams State College Amanda U. Potterton University of Kentucky Kyo Yamashiro Claremont Graduate University Rachael Gabriel University of Connecticut Susan L. Robertson Bristol University Miri Yemini Tel Aviv University, Israel Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 27 No. 130 36 archivos analíticos de políticas educativas consejo editorial Editor Consultor: Gustavo E. Fischman (Arizona State University) Editores Asociados: Felicitas Acosta (Universidad Nacional de General Sarmiento, Argentina), Armando Alcántara Santuario (Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México), Ignacio Barrenechea, Jason Beech (Universidad de San Andrés), Angelica Buendia, (Metropolitan Autonomous University), Alejandra Falabella (Universidad Alberto Hurtado, Chile), Veronica Gottau (Universidad Torcuato Di Tella), Antonio Luzon, (Universidad de Granada), José Luis Ramírez, (Universidad de Sonora),, Axel Rivas (Universidad de San Andrés), Maria Alejandra Tejada-Gómez (Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Colombia) Claudio Almonacid Universidad Metropolitana de Ciencias de la Educación, Chile Ana María García de Fanelli Centro de Estudios de Estado y Sociedad (CEDES) CONICET, Argentina Universidad Autónoma de Tamaulipas, México Miguel Ángel Arias Ortega Universidad Autónoma de la Ciudad de México Juan Carlos González Faraco Universidad de Huelva, España José Gregorio Rodríguez Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Colombia Xavier Besalú Costa Universitat de Girona, España María Clemente Linuesa Universidad de Salamanca, España Mario Rueda Beltrán Instituto de Investigaciones sobre la Universidad y la Educación, UNAM, México Xavier Bonal Sarro Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona, España Jaume Martínez Bonafé Universitat de València, España José Luis San Fabián Maroto Universidad de Oviedo, España Antonio Bolívar Boitia Universidad de Granada, España Alejandro Márquez Jiménez Instituto de Investigaciones sobre la Universidad y la Educación, UNAM, México Jurjo Torres Santomé, Universidad de la Coruña, España José Joaquín Brunner Universidad Diego Portales, Chile María Guadalupe Olivier Tellez, Universidad Pedagógica Nacional, México Yengny Marisol Silva Laya Universidad Iberoamericana, México Damián Canales Sánchez Instituto Nacional para la Evaluación de la Educación, México Miguel Pereyra Universidad de Granada, España Ernesto Treviño Ronzón Universidad Veracruzana, México Gabriela de la Cruz Flores Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México Mónica Pini Universidad Nacional de San Martín, Argentina Ernesto Treviño Villarreal Universidad Diego Portales Santiago, Chile Marco Antonio Delgado Fuentes Universidad Iberoamericana, México Omar Orlando Pulido Chaves Instituto para la Investigación Educativa y el Desarrollo Pedagógico (IDEP) Antoni Verger Planells Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona, España Inés Dussel, DIE-CINVESTAV, México José Ignacio Rivas Flores Universidad de Málaga, España Catalina Wainerman Universidad de San Andrés, Argentina Pedro Flores Crespo Universidad Iberoamericana, México Juan Carlos Yáñez Velazco Universidad de Colima, México Education markets and schools’ mechanisms of exclusion: The case of Chile 37 arquivos analíticos de políticas educativas conselho editorial Editor Consultor: Gustavo E. Fischman (Arizona State University) Editoras Associadas: Kaizo Iwakami Beltrao, (Brazilian School of Public and Private Management - EBAPE/FGV, Brazil), Geovana Mendonça Lunardi Mendes (Universidade do Estado de Santa Catarina), Gilberto José Miranda, (Universidade Federal de Uberlândia, Brazil), Marcia Pletsch, Sandra Regina Sales (Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro) Almerindo Afonso Universidade do Minho Portugal Alexandre Fernandez Vaz Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Brasil José Augusto Pacheco Universidade do Minho, Portugal Rosanna Maria Barros Sá Universidade do Algarve Portugal Regina Célia Linhares Hostins Universidade do Vale do Itajaí, Brasil Jane Paiva Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil Maria Helena Bonilla Universidade Federal da Bahia Brasil Alfredo Macedo Gomes Universidade Federal de Pernambuco Brasil Paulo Alberto Santos Vieira Universidade do Estado de Mato Grosso, Brasil Rosa Maria Bueno Fischer Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil Jefferson Mainardes Universidade Estadual de Ponta Grossa, Brasil Fabiany de Cássia Tavares Silva Universidade Federal do Mato Grosso do Sul, Brasil Alice Casimiro Lopes Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil Jader Janer Moreira Lopes Universidade Federal Fluminense e Universidade Federal de Juiz de Fora, Brasil António Teodoro Universidade Lusófona Portugal Suzana Feldens Schwertner Centro Universitário Univates Brasil Debora Nunes Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, Brasil Lílian do Valle Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil Flávia Miller Naethe Motta Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil Alda Junqueira Marin Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo, Brasil Alfredo Veiga-Neto Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil Dalila Andrade Oliveira Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Brasil