تاملی جامعه‌شناختی بر خصوصی‌سازی آموزش (مدارس غیر دولتی) در ایران مقالة

پژوهش جامعه شناختی حاضر با سه هدف مشخص انجام گرفت: هدف اول، بررسی زمینه‌های اجتماعی شکل‌گیری خصوصی سازی آموزش در ایران. دوم، بررسی پیامدهای اجتماعی توسعه مدارس غیردولتی خاصه در خصوص وضعیت تحقق و توسعه عدالت آموزشی و عدالت اجتماعی و سوم، واکاوی و تبیین راهبرد‌های مواجهه با خصوصی سازی آموزش در ایران. این تحقیق برای رسیدن به اهداف مذکور، از مصاحبه نیمه ساختار یافته عمیق به همراه بهره‌گیری از اسناد و متون تاریخی استفاده کرده است. و به واسطه متون و اسناد تاریخی داده‌ها مورد تحلیل قرار گرفته است. یافته‌های این مطالعه نشان داد که خصوصی سازی آموزش در ایران از بستر‌های اجتماعی مختلف همچون، بحران پسا جنگ، برون سپاری و قوانین، برساخته شد. پیامدهای این خصوصی سازی نیز در سه سطح نابرابری، طبقاتی شدن و کالایی شدن آموزش قابل تحلیل است. مشارکت کنندگان این تحقیق به دو راهبرد در مواجهه با خصوصی سازی آموزش اشاره و استدلال کردند: خصوصی کردن و عادلانه کردن مدارس.

The current sociological research was carried out regarding three specific goals: firs, to investigate the social contexts of the formation of privatization of education in Iran. Second, to examine the social consequences of the development of private schools, especially regarding the situation of the realization and development of educational and social justice, and, third, to analyze and explain the strategies to face the privatization of education in Iran. In order to achieve the aforementioned goals, this research has used in-depth semi-structured interviews along with utilization of historical documents and texts. And the data has been analyzed through historical texts and documents. The findings of this study showed that the privatization of education in Iran was reconstructed from different social contexts such as the post-war crisis, outsourcing and laws. The consequences of this privatization can be analyzed in three levels of inequality, classification and commodification of education. The participants of this research indicated and argued two strategies in facing the privatization of education: privatizing and making schools fair. Key word: Privatization, neoliberalism, commodification, classification, inequality Extended abstract: It can be said that the arrival of the winds of modernity in Iran has set the first sparks of a paradigm shift in the view of the educational structure. If we read the Qajar era as the first encounters of the Iranian "May" with the structure of the West, we can analyze the beginning of the genealogy of private schools and the reasons for its formation. Privatization of the education system in Iran has a long history, and Iranian rulers have continued this process since the Qajar period until now for several reasons. Historically, most of the schools were private during the Qajar period, and the government did not allocate funds to other schools, except for some schools, such as Dar al-Funun school, Nizam school, and National school. In 1911, the National Assembly passed a law according to which the Ministry of Education was obliged to establish six-grade primary schools in some cities, and a certain amount of funding was also considered for these schools, and due to this funding, half of the students should They paid tuition and the other half had free education. Following the process of privatization during the Pahlavi era, according to the approved budget law of 1312, the government declared all primary schools free, but due to the recession of the first and second decade of Hijri and economic problems, according to the decree of June 9, 1335, it announced the conditions for the establishment and creation of private schools. After the victory of the Islamic revolution in 1957, private schools were dissolved, but in 1959, only private Islamic schools were allowed to operate. In June 1367, the law on the establishment of private schools was approved, it started with the establishment of eight educational units and by the end of the academic year 75-76, the number of students reached 704. Historically, after the Islamic Revolution of Iran, in 1958, private schools were closed in order to distribute and develop educational facilities fairly. However, in 1967, the bill for the development of private schools was approved in the parliament. The government supported the participation of the private sector in education due to the government's financial problems. Therefore, it is possible to think about the issue of whether the privatization of education in Iran has resulted in the goals that have been pointed out and emphasized in the constitution and the fundamental change document. And in this regard, the privatization of education in Iran has been associated with what social consequences? And finally, what can be the optimal strategy in facing the process of privatization of education (non-government schools) in Iran? Regarding the formation of private schools, two factors are important as key elements, and the interviewees and historical trends consider these two elements as the main factors in the formation of privatization contexts. First, the post-war financial crisis, and second, the idea of outsourcing government affairs due to economic problems, have been two fundamental concepts in creating the idea of privatization in Iran. In this sense, the idea of outsourcing has also become an important and basic concept due to the chaotic economy after the war. It can be said that the government's lack of financial well-being in economic terms, the lack of necessary budget and finally the removal of subsidies forced the education system and the policy-makers of this field to continue the education structures and compensate for the shortcomings of the education system. Turn to outsourcing logic. The consequences of these schools can be formulated at the level of class, inequality and commodification of knowledge. Classification of schools is one of the important and fundamental consequences in the educational structure and education system. It can be explained that in the stratification of the society, the relations and relations of the society are reduced to at least two classes from the biological point of view, and these two classes line up against each other willingly or unwillingly. In this line-up, components such as parent's occupation, family economy and material and even non-material income as an influential object, show themselves in social fields. In the heart of class relations, what shows itself and becomes a problematic issue is the idea of capital reproduction, which can be analyzed both from an economic and a non-economic point of view. The reproduction of capital in two cases, i.e. the tendency of material and immaterial capital, will be inclined towards those who have more favorable economic origins and relationships, and in this event, their children will be closer to a better economic position due to the services of this class. From the point of view of strategies, two ideas were proposed and formulated in general. The first idea (privatizing the education system) that some of the audience believed in this idea, in their arguments they introduced privatization as an inevitable thing in the contemporary world. Their idea can be analyzed and interpreted in the way that in the development process of Western societies, the idea of privatization and entrusting the market, including the culture market to private institutions and individuals, will provide and create the possibility of development, because according to them, one of the secrets of development in the west, it is the privatization of economic and market institutions. But we can talk about another approach in which non-government schools are called a symbol of discrimination and injustice, and in the final analysis, this approach was called making schools fair. The audience and those who tend to criticize non-government schools believe that strict laws should be formulated in the governments so that the possibility of the growth of these schools, which are a symbol of discrimination and injustice in the society, will be diminished. The fundamental approach of the idea of nationalizing schools is based on the tradition of government intervention in cultural matters. Although culture should grow independently of the government, education is an area in which the lack of government intervention will lead to differentiation and social distancing of students. It should be analyzed in this way that the government should formulate the structures of schools in an equal way from an economic point of view and treat all students equally. In such a situation, the possibility of equal growth without rent and discrimination in the society will be realized, and all children will have the possibility of healthy competition with the same facilities and at the same level.

در راستای چنین نگره ای که سامان کلیت جهان ما را درگیـر خـود کـرده اسـت ، بـه زبـان فیلسوف آلمانی ، نیچه ، می توان گفت ، در دل این نگاه ، ایده اراده معطوف به سود نهفتـه اسـت ، هر چند مراد نیچه اراده مفهومِ قدرت بود ولی آنچنان که می دانیم قدرت در جهان متاخر پیوند وثیقی با امر سیاست و نظام سرمایه داری با تمام لوازمات آن دارد. اساسا کالایی شدن سازوکارهای خود را در روابط مناسبات آدمیان بسط می دهد از این حیث ساختارهای فرهنگی ، یکی از ابژه های مهم نظام سرمایه داری بـه حسـاب مـی آیـد. آن چنان که مخاطبان نیز بیان کردنند، در چنین شرایطی ، بازپرداخت ارزی بـدهی خـارجی کـه برحسب پول ملی محاسبه می شود، فشار مالی شدیدی را به دولت تحمیل می کند و این امر بـه خصوصی شدن آموزش به مثابه یک نهاد عمومی ، که نفس چنین نهادی خدمت به مردم است ، منجر شد. در برنامه سوم توسعه ، در بخش آموزش و پرورش ، به تامین مالی جدید اشاره شده اسـت ، که یک مورد آن روندهای خصوصی سازی آموزش را ازُ بعد قانونی تقویت می کند: «استفاده از اجاره دریافتی از اماکن و فضاهای آموزشی » این رویکرد و این تبصره نگاه دولت خاتمی را بـه اقتصاد کمی مشخص تر کرد (حج فروش ، ١٣٨٤). ایـن نگـاه به طور تاریخی بعد از مواجهه ایده خصوصی سازی در ایران رواج یافت و می دانیم که بخـاطر مشکلات پساجنگ ، کثیری از بحران های اقتصادی به سراغ اقتصاد ما آمـد و یکـی از نتـایج آن کالایی شدن همه امور و به طور مشخص نظام دانش است .