This certainly has been the subject in vogue during the last major reform initiated by the government to "improve education, use quotation marks because it is meaningless to talk about this without mentioning the always honest and healthy exercise of saying "I understand to improve education, it is certainly understandable fierce opposition from the right and some members disagree with official position of the PDC, and is also understood the idea of \u200b\u200bgovernment, however, there is a big mistake (not political of course) not to delve on "good." Anyway, it is futile to discuss in depth this point and I only served a prelude to explain my position, discussed at the last congress of the DCU as it should be about education, for me, nonprofit education and where there is no discrimination on the performance, but only for liberty education. non-profit Education: The national education system can not accept the profit at least to the level of education (secondary), the reasons are varied, but will argue on the basis two that I consider the most important:
a) The State's contribution to education must go to education: It is impossible under any point of view that an educational institution that receives support from the State is capable of gaining this by a complicated control and that finally (and this is the ideological) means that a holder (the most complicated this) must provide resources to improve education with an ultimate social order which results in improving the education system. This is better understood when we take the opposite argument, where "if the holder does it well exceeds the established minimum quality required by the system, it is reasonable to obtain a profit in excess" that in the eyes of a state that encourages people who want to open educational institutions is extremely complicated, because the minimum does not imply a standard of conduct, but rather are just a necessary stop, that does not mean that anyone who opened an establishment can reinvest that surplus to improve the quality of education . To think otherwise is a contradiction to the spirit of a particular establishment supported where it is assumed that they tend to lean toward improving education. Not profit from it, another way of thinking would result in the problem of mediocrity "if I meet the minimum, okay, and the more I earn, the better"
b) the establishment purely private should not profit: in a purely ideological conception leads me to think of the argument above, if a person opens an establishment of education is precisely to improve it or to teach a particular ideological trend coupled with education "must" at all levels, it otherwise involving a breach of what society seeks to give powers to private to educate. It is not possible to make a profit without limit in a sensitive area. This is coupled with a regulation of tuition, and a system of private proportions when a surplus store to get an education center (where if, for example gets a 50% gain as the reinvested in education).
No discrimination: This is referred to the impossibility of applying screening tests to students to enter a basic setting or medium, whether public, private or subsidized . The only exception should come from those schools who profess a religious or ideological tendency outside what is considered regular lay education. So, along with a state commitment to increase levels of a purely public education we can match the quality of public schools, subsidized and private. And besides, "matching up" because the whole system (not profit) will tend to increase levels of eduacion without reinvesting excess weight in another area. The system would certainly not equal (the private sector should tend, if you want to stay alive, to sustain a higher level than an audience) but equal to a level well above that currently have, the touchstone of this would come from the contribution state municipal schools, thus ensuring the capacity addition colleges to "not lose" students of excellence who traditionally flock to a handful of school and students are not "excellent" crowd in another class of schools with teachers who also tend not to be "excellent."
good account, and being horribly simplistic to argue my point of view, the education system should aim to improve if given the two previous assumptions, coupled with a policy of restructuring the teaching profession, official and education systems. Only then we can make the debate of excellence, which is the logical prelude to discuss higher education.
