MR. DIRECTOR:
We celebrate the approval in the Chamber of the bill that modifies the School Admission System. The discussion revealed deficiencies in the system that are widely recognized. However, it is advisable to clear up a misdirected objection: it is argued that the failure is due to the insufficient supply of quality options, but no admission mechanism creates this; that corresponds to another public policy. What the SAE defines is the criteria for allocating the existing supply, and today it does so poorly, ignoring the parents' preferential right and the autonomy of educational projects. Its most severe deficiency is chance: in 2025, 60.1% of students assigned to an oversubscribed school obtained their spot through a lottery.
The bill is an advance, but its scope depends on four improvements that the Senate must include. First: the definition of oversubscription. If established in the aggregate, only 2,510 schools will be able to apply mutual choice, leaving out another two thousand with at least one oversubscribed course. The law must define it by course. Second: there will be many schools that continue to apply the random mechanism, which requires the incorporation of new criteria into the system, such as academic performance. Third: regarding students who were expelled, access should be temporarily limited to the same establishment, as already recognized by the Superintendence. Fourth: continuity between establishments of the same sponsor should be recognized when the student…
AI Brief
Your highlights
School Admission System. Archive photo. CommentsMR. DIRECTOR: We celebrate the approval in the Chamber of the bill that amends the School Admission System. The discussion revealed deficiencies in the system that are widely recognized. However, it is worth clearing up a misdirected objection: it is claimed that the failure is due to insufficient quality supply, but no admission mechanism creates it; that corresponds to another public policy. What the SAE defines is the criteria for allocating the existing supply, and today it does so poorly, ignoring the parents' preferential right and the autonomy of educational projects. Its most severe deficiency is chance: in 2025, 60.1% of students assigned to an oversubscribed school obtained their spot by lottery. The bill is an advance, but its scope depends on four improvements that the Senate must include. First: the definition of oversubscription. If established in the aggregate, only 2,510 schools will be able to apply mutual choice, leaving out another two thousand with at least one oversubscribed course. The law must define it by course. Second: there will be many schools that continue to apply the random mechanism, which requires the incorporation of new criteria into the system, such as academic performance. Third: regarding students who were expelled, access should be temporarily limited to the same establishment, as already recognized by the Superintendence. Fourth: continuity between establishments of the same provider should be recognized when the student changes cycle. Good reforms are played out in the details, and now they are in the hands of the Senate. Francisca EspinozaDirector of Studies Acción EducarBernardita IllanesLegal Researcher Acción EducarMore about:EducationSchoolsAdmission