Those Who “Come for the Stipend” and Those Who "Need It": Local Appropriations of School Stipend Programs in Youth and Adult Secondary Education

Abstract

This paper, utilizing an ethnographic approach, aims to contribute to the study of conditional cash transfers within youth and adult secondary education, specifically in Secondary Education Centers (CENS) in the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires (CABA), Argentina. Drawing on fieldwork conducted in two CENS, alongside interviews and regulatory analysis, it explores the construction of meanings and valuations that various school actors make regarding grant recipients, which in turn designate them as more or less deserving of accessing and maintaining the benefit. It is argued that this entails local appropriations of grant programs that mobilize historically configured meanings about grants and their beneficiaries as both students and individuals living in poverty.

Keywords
Grant programs; Grant recipients; Local appropriations; Youth and adult secondary education

Resumen

Este trabajo se propone, desde un enfoque etnográfico, aportar al estudio de las transferencias condicionadas de ingresos en la educación secundaria para jóvenes y adultos, específicamente en Centros Educativos de Nivel Secundario (CENS) de la Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires (CABA), Argentina. A partir del trabajo de campo realizado en dos CENS, la realización de entrevistas y el análisis de normativas, se indaga sobre la construcción de sentidos y valoraciones que los distintos actores escolares realizan acerca de los/as becarios/as, a partir de las cuales se les considera más o menos merecedores/as del acceso y mantenimiento del beneficio. Se sostiene que ello supone apropiaciones locales de los programas de becas que movilizan sentidos históricamente configurados sobre las becas y sus destinatarios/as en tanto estudiantes y pobres.

Palabras clave
Programas de becas; Becarios/as; Apropiaciones locales; Educación secundaria para jóvenes y adultos

Resumo

Este trabalho se propõe, a partir de uma abordagem etnográfica, a contribuir para o estudo das transferências condicionadas de renda na educação secundária para jovens e adultos, especificamente em Centros Educativos de Nivel Secundario (CENS) da Cidade Autônoma de Buenos Aires (CABA), Argentina. A partir do trabalho de campo realizado em dois CENS, da realização de entrevistas e da análise de normativas, investiga-se a construção de sentidos e percepções que os diferentes atores escolares manifestam sobre os/as bolsistas, com base nas quais estes/as são considerados/as mais ou menos merecedores/as do acesso e da manutenção do benefício. Sustenta-se que isso implica apropriações locais dos programas de bolsas que mobilizam sentidos historicamente configurados sobre as bolsas e seus/suas destinatários/as enquanto estudantes e pobres.

Palavras-chave
Programas de bolsas; Bolsistas; Apropriações locais; Educação secundária para jovens e adultos

Introduction

In Argentina, school grants take on special significance within the framework of compulsory secondary education established by the 2006 National Education Law,¹ as they are monetary transfers aimed at students who need financial support to sustain their schooling. In this paper, I aim to analyze the ways in which grant programs are received in youth and adult secondary education,² specifically in Secondary Education Centers (CENS; “Centros Educativos de Nivel Secundario”) in the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires (CABA; “Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires”).

First, I will provide a brief historical overview of school grants in general, and in particular, of the two grant programs present in the CENS where the fieldwork was conducted. Then, I will analyze how the recipients of the benefit are understood, considering different dimensions that emerged as relevant during the fieldwork: economic need, attendance, academic performance, the use of the money, and their age. I argue that based on the substance these dimensions assume, conceptions are formed about the grant recipients that render them more or less deserving of accessing and keeping the benefit. Finally, in the last section, I argue that local appropriations of grant programs mobilize historically configured meanings about grants and their beneficiaries as both students and individuals living in poverty.

This research draws upon the contributions of Latin American educational ethnography (Neufeld, 1997; Achilli, 2005; Rockwell, 2009), thereby highlighting the effort to articulate fieldwork with conceptual work, as well as to interrelate the diverse dimensions of the analyzed problems, the interest in the everyday, the subjects, and their meanings, practices, and relationships. Furthermore, the relevance of historicizing the present is emphasized, as “the present suddenly appears as ‘history in action’. Each situation recorded in ethnographies seems to demand its historicization, in order to recognize how certain meanings and interpretations have come to be constructed” (Neufeld, 1997).

Additionally, I take up the contributions anthropology has made to the study of policies. Scholars have highlighted the complexity and messiness of their formulation, the ambiguous ways in which they are taken up and given meaning by people, and how individuals receive them and, in that very act, produce, reproduce, and transform them in everyday life (Shore, 2010; Franzé Mudanó, 2013; Sinisi, 2020). In this regard, Ezpeleta and Rockwell (1985) argue that, although normativity and control are always present, they do not completely determine the web of interactions between subjects or the meaning of observable practices.

For this inquiry, I conducted fieldwork in two CENS³ in CABA⁴, primarily during 2022. One of them was located in a southern commune of the city, while the other was in the central area, and I will refer to them as “Southern Commune CENS” and “Central Commune CENS”, respectively.⁵ Both operated in the morning and received students from the immediate vicinity as well as from other parts of the city and its surrounding municipalities, belonging to both middle and lower classes. In 2022, they had an enrollment of between 85 and 90 registered students, of which around 30 applied for the Ciudad grant and around 10 applied for the Progresar grant in each institution. As will be seen later, actors in both centers highlighted that in recent years, the number of young students had increased significantly.⁶

To carry out the research, relevant legislation was systematized, and statistical data related to school grants was compiled. Additionally, the fieldwork included the collection of institutional information regarding enrollment and grants.

With the aim of “documenting the undocumented” aspects of social reality (Rockwell, 2009), observations of various school settings were conducted, involving note-taking and the subsequent construction of expanded fieldnotes. Furthermore, I engaged in informal conversations and conducted in-depth open interviews (Guber, 1991; Oxman, 1998) with the supervisor, principals, current and former grant coordinators from both CENS, and a teacher from the Southern Commune CENS.⁷ The selection of these interviewees was based on their knowledge of the subject matter. Additionally, seven students⁸ [2] from the Southern Commune CENS were interviewed, prioritizing those with whom I had maintained more sustained interactions during the fieldwork, while striving to ensure the representation of diverse ages and grade levels.

School Grants

To In the early days of the Argentine educational system, school grants served as a reward for the “deserving poor”, aimed primarily at encouraging entry into the teaching profession and thereby expanding basic schooling. They were not part of a standard educational policy but rather an unsystematic state contribution rewarding the best students, which simultaneously reinforced the illusion of equal opportunity regardless of socioeconomic status. Over time, grants became a central axis of educational policy, bringing to light the social nature of the grant recipient, which had previously been obscured by notions of intelligence and effort (Gluz, 2006).

It was in the 1990s that grants became State policy, when the 1993 Federal Education Law made them an obligation of the central and federal governments, in a context of rapidly rising poverty and unemployment resulting from structural adjustment policies. This strategy was common to other countries in the region which, driven by the second-generation reforms promoted by the World Bank, the pursuit of equity, and the goal of poverty alleviation, placed targeted compensatory social policies at the center, utilizing the school as one of the primary arenas for their implementation. Since then, the various provinces have established their own grant systems. Student grant programs faced the same criticisms attributed to other targeted welfare policies of that period: the stigmatization of the beneficiary population and the suspicion of undue appropriation of the benefit, which falls upon the subjects targeted by the social policy (Gluz, 2006, 2007).

It has been highlighted that grants often embody contradictory and conflicting aspects: while state documents tend to underscore their role in sustaining schooling and the exercise of the right to education, within educational institutions there is also evidence of distrust and accusations regarding the “objective” and “subjective” characteristics of the grant recipient. These include their predisposition to study and the effective use of the cash transfers to address genuine economic needs (Gluz, 2006, 2007; Hirsch, 2016; Paoletta, 2019), along with assertions regarding the need to impose broader conditionalities on grant recipients than those established by policy guidelines (Martínez, 2016). Consequently, meanings surrounding the “good grant recipient” and the “bad grant recipient” are constructed, interpellating students not only according to their social class but also based on their age, given that the controls, suspicions, and accusations associated with grants frequently fall upon young people (Paoletta, 2019).

One of the two grant programs present in the CENS is the Secondary Level Student Grants (Becas Estudiantiles de Nivel Medio) of the Government of the City of Buenos Aires, whose origins date back to 2001. In that year, the Secretariat of Education of the Government of the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires designed the Student Grant Program aimed at youth in secondary education through Decree No. 737/01. During 2008, the administration of Mauricio Macri, then Head of Government of Buenos Aires, decided to reduce the number of grants granted to students, arguing that from then on the amounts would be larger, but they would only be intended “for those who truly need them”. This provoked criticism from various sectors and student protests that included the occupation (“toma”)⁹ of several schools. Finally, following the conflicts, the Buenos Aires Legislature passed Law 2917/08, which approved the Student Grant Regime under the enforcement authority of the Ministry of Education of the Government of the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires, replacing the previous program.

The Student Grant Regime¹⁰ aims to guarantee the access, retention, re-entry, and promotion of students in state-run secondary schools, without any age limit, who find themselves in a situation of socioeconomic vulnerability.¹¹ Registration can be completed at the beginning and in the middle of the academic year; since 2020, both the uploading of the necessary documentation and its verification have been carried out through the program’s website. The grants consist of an annual amount corresponding to a “minimum vital and mobile wage”¹², paid in two installments throughout the year. The total number of grant recipients in 2022 was 63,229, of which 5,920 belonged to the Adult modality (Secretariat of Pedagogical Coordination and Educational Equity, 2022).

The other grant program present in the CENS is the Argentine Student Support Program “Progresar” (Programa de Respaldo a Estudiantes Argentinos), introduced through Decree 84/2014 during the presidency of Cristina Fernández de Kirchner. At the time of the fieldwork, it was a public policy developed by the then National Ministry of Education, which aimed to create opportunities for social and educational inclusion for youth in situations of vulnerability. It features different grant lines, one of which corresponds to the “Compulsory Level” (Nivel Obligatorio) and aims to support students in the re-entry, retention, and completion of compulsory primary or secondary education. This line is aimed at students in regular education between 16 and 24 years old and includes priority populations for whom the age requirements vary.¹³

There are two annual calls for applications, with registration available either online through the program’s platform or in person, and the payment entails twelve monthly installments.¹⁴ Across all its lines, the program reached 1,697,663 grant recipients in 2022. That year, 115,309 Progresar grants were awarded in CABA, of which slightly over 17,000 corresponded to compulsory education grants for individuals over 18 years of age (Ministry of Education, 2023).

Although both grants were present in the CENS where I conducted fieldwork, the Ciudad grants were the most well-known among teachers, school administrators, and students. There were informational posters about them on the centers’ bulletin boards; they have no age limit for enrollment, thus encompassing the entire student body, and they have a grant coordinator within the CENS, which grants them greater institutional visibility. These coordinators visited classrooms to inform students about application dates and eligibility criteria, tracked applications, advised and assisted students, and participated in the reconsideration request process in the event of an unfavorable decision. The Progresar grants, on the other hand, “are not handled as much by the school; rather, the student manages the grant elsewhere, and the only thing the school does is certify that the student is a regular student” (Pablo, supervisor of both CENS).

At the time of the fieldwork, each student completed their online application for both grants, and the CENS were responsible for certifying online whether the applicants were regular students. However, the grant might still not be awarded if the student did not meet the eligibility criteria. In this regard, during the interviews, teachers and school administrators often emphasized that this decision did not depend on the school, a point they sought to make clear to the students.

Regarding the grant amount, school administrators, grant coordinators, teachers, and students generally agreed that it was insufficient, and some teachers or coordinators who were unaware of the amount were surprised by how low it was when I mentioned it to them. Nevertheless, they generally underscored the relevance of the grant to the domestic economy of the grant recipients.

Characterizations of Grant Recipients

Grants constitute financial support for navigating the secondary level, a level highly valued by school administrators, teachers, and students, who highlighted the importance of completing it in order to achieve employment improvements and continue studying. Likewise, students expressed regret over having discontinued their schooling in the past, similar to what has been recorded in other CENS (Paoletta, 2020). In this context, as anticipated, I documented various ways of understanding grant recipients, based on which they were considered more or less deserving of accessing and keeping the benefit. I will analyze these characterizations based on some dimensions that frequently emerged during the fieldwork: economic need, attendance, academic performance, the use of the money, and age.

Need

Grant recipients were often presented as belonging to one of the following groups: those who truly need the money and those who do not. Although some students argued that grants should be for those who “truly need” them, this dimension was thematized to a greater extent by the CENS staff. For example, Ariel spoke about this need and the control over their awarding:

We know each other and it is known who truly needs it; the place is very small. […] I do believe the grant is for certain people who need it, not for everyone. I don’t think grants should just be given out... For the person who needs it, it is super positive and necessary. It just has to be well controlled, that’s all. (Ariel, teacher and grant coordinator, Southern Commune CENS)

Paola, for her part, was not sure that control was possible, as she observed that some young people access the benefit without being entitled to it:

I mean, there are people who are more in need than others. And it also depends on, I don’t know, how they manage to find out what information... Let’s see, how can I put it, if a person says “I have no income”, because they work off the books, well, they are going to get paid. Then, whether they need it or not, that will depend on each person, on what their reality is. I am sure that, every law has its loophole. Here, for example, there are several kids who have a disability, they have the disability certificate to travel on the bus and everything, and the family is well-off, they come dressed nicely, you can tell they are from a good socioeconomic level. So, the grant doesn’t fit. Unless it’s like something they feel is their own, right? Like a salary for them, for their personal expenses, so they don’t have to ask mom and dad. [...] There is always the law and the loophole, right? Because there are those who don’t have economic problems, but they apply for the grant anyway. So they have, for example, the Progresar grant, and they also apply for the grant here: two grants. So, well, they live off grants. (Paola, teacher and grant coordinator, Central Commune CENS)

According to the documented meanings, among the grant recipients there are those who genuinely need the grant economically to carry out their schooling, which is the true objective of applying for it. Meanwhile, others might apply for it without having a real need, unduly appropriating the money and generating an unnecessary expenditure of state resources, a behavior that enables mechanisms of criticism and control.

Attendance

It was often highlighted that grants are a right and that they have legally mandated requirements, principally the condition of being a regular student, an aspect that the CENS is responsible for controlling and entering into the system.

The grant is a right that the student has, and it is guaranteed by law. It is very difficult to take away the student’s possibility of receiving that grant. Unless they have disappeared… (Pablo, supervisor of both CENS)

Within this framework, applying for the stipend and failing to meet the expected attendance is a subject of disapproval:

Students are very clear that the grant is part of their rights, but what they are sometimes not clear about are their duties. [...] It is not enough to be vulnerable; you have to earn the grant. If they don’t come, they don’t have the right to receive the grant. [...] If you, as a student, are not coming — if you didn’t show up to more than two classes in a semester — you are not entitled to the grant, even if I know that your situation is that you don’t even have food to eat at home. [...] Like some tell me, “Oh, but Principal, I don’t even have food to eat at home”. “Yes, but here we are opening a door so that you do have this grant, and the only thing you have to do is come. (Carmen, principal, Central Commune CENS)

There are people who act... They would want to apply for it and not go to school. So, since they are enrolled, they cannot be denied the grant, but they don’t go. [...] Nothing, people don’t study, people don’t work, people don’t do anything. Maybe that’s a political idea, for people to be on a social plan; but things are not achieved that way. It’s good for them to study and for there to be a real attempt on their part to improve... [...] So, with the grants, there are many who sign up for the grant. I mean, the grant is for studying. (Paola, teacher and grant coordinator, Central Commune CENS)

Some students also alluded to this topic. For example, Dolores, whose application for the Ciudad grant was not approved and who had therefore applied for the Progresar grant, maintained that:

¿Why does the one who misses a lot get paid, and I, who come, am diligent, and do everything, can’t get paid? Those things are not fair. [...] If you keep getting paid and you sleep at home, you say: “No, if I sleep and get paid, I will keep sleeping. After all, if I am a regular student, I can keep getting paid”. That is the thinking. (Dolores, student, 32, 1st cycle, Southern Commune CENS).

What characterizes the ideal grant recipient is that they genuinely desire to pursue their schooling, and their attendance becomes an indicator of that desire; conversely, absences give rise to the suspicion that their interest in applying for the grant was monetary. Nevertheless, absences can also be “justified” and involve more or less legitimate reasons that are usually articulated by the students (Paoletta, 2024).

This has consequences for the ways in which regulations are put into practice in the CENS. For example, Pilar, the principal of the Southern Commune CENS, told me that previously, students had to certify that they were enrolled in the school through a paper certificate of regular student status, and that some still ask for it, but she explains to me that she does not grant it right away since she cannot certify on the very first day that they are regular students, as that is only seen after two months. She then clarifies to me that, in any case, they are generally people who “need it”, “humble people” because they are from the local area, and that “those who only come for that” end up leaving (Pilar, principal of the Southern Commune CENS). Carmen, the principal of the Central Commune CENS, maintained that “adults make a great sacrifice to come, so it is unfair for someone to come just for the grant, out of an interest in the money”, and that when a student applies for the grant and then does not attend, if they enroll again the following year, she carries out an evaluation regarding the granting of the vacancy based on the non-compliance from the previous year (principal, Central Commune CENS). For his part, Ariel maintained that

We strictly monitor that the student comes, that they are a regular student. We closely monitor that they don’t show up just for the grant. [...] And if they don’t come, it gets cut off, their grant is terminated. [...] There are other places where, well, they get paid, but they never come back. And it is the public treasury, it is all of our money, I think that is not right… (Ariel, teacher and grant coordinator, Southern Commune CENS)

In response to the previous meanings, Beatriz maintains that she speaks with the students when accusations arise in this regard:

Sometimes you hear the issue of: “Why do you have the right to get paid if you are absent?” We talk about all of that in class, with the students. Rights are rights. Then, if you have a work or family problem that makes you miss school, like this boy I was telling you about [...], well, I think we have to talk, too, and raise awareness, [...] So that there isn’t this fight, that “you get paid and you don’t come” or that “you have a husband who works, why do you get the grant?” [...]. That you look to see if the other person bought a bicycle, “Ah, you bought the bicycle with the grant…” (Beatriz, teacher, Southern Commune CENS)

Academic Performance

Reference was also often made to the academic performance levels of the grant recipients, an aspect not required by regulations. The supervisor explained it to me in these terms:

Sometimes what we have questioned is the term beca [grant/scholarship], because often, at least in the university setting or elsewhere, one associates it with academic performance, and in this case, it is not associated with academic performance. The student might not pass their subjects, but as long as they attend, as long as they can sustain their school trajectory, they will receive the grant, even if they get a 1 in all subjects. (Pablo, supervisor of both CENS)

Pilar told me that it is not necessary to prove academic performance to access the grant, adding that in any case “it wouldn’t be a bad thing if, for example, they had to have 30% of their subjects passed” (Pilar, principal, Southern Commune CENS). Similarly, Carmen maintained that some other requirement related to grades or the number of subjects passed should be added to the attendance requirement: “grants should have a requirement for renewal, that the student has passed between 3 and 8 subjects” (Carmen, principal, Central Commune CENS). And the grant coordinator of the Central Commune CENS argued that:

The grant and studying should go hand in hand. [...] Did you lose your job? Well, you have some help until you find a job. Are you studying? Well, you have some help, but you have to study! (Paola, teacher and grant coordinator, Central Commune CENS)

These ways of understanding grant recipients influence the ways in which regulations are appropriated by the subjects and put into motion in everyday life, transforming their initial meanings:

They have to understand that here one can help and accompany them, but we are not going to give them anything for free. And also, this thing of coming and only attending and not passing any subjects and collecting the grant is another thing that also outrages me. So, the one I see in that situation, I call them and let them know: “Look, in the first semester you didn’t pass anything, what are we going to do? What is happening? Look, for you to continue with the grant, you have to pass something”. Then the student understands that coming here is not like going to other schools where they only went for the grant [...]. In my time, when the first state grants appeared, they asked you for a certain grade, a certain average, they told you “look, you have to pass this many”, and with that, I managed to renew my grant. Today I’m not saying we should ask for that, but at least make the student see that they have to advance in their studies, that if they don’t pass two, or one, you can’t live off the state for free. (Carmen, principal, Central Commune CENS)

In other CENS, for example, they used to ask me, monthly, who was working, who wasn’t coming, who was participating. I work in another CENS, and the previous principal used to consult us monthly not only about whether [the student] was coming, but whether they were participating in class, if they were working, if they were up to date, if their exams were good, and he would tell them: “Look, you have a grant, pay attention, I don’t want you to lose the grant, focus more on your studies”. Then, the person would kind of activate a bit more. Which seemed like the most correct thing to do to me. (Ariel, teacher and grant coordinator, Southern Commune CENS)

Sara told me about a situation in which a grant recipient was worried about his performance:

There was a student who was kind of nervous when he came, because he wasn’t doing well in his subjects when he started, so he wanted to make a fuss, he went to the Ombudsman’s Office, to see if they would give him the grant that way. So, it was explained to him that the grant was given for attendance, not for the grade you get. (Sara, teacher and former grant coordinator, Southern Commune CENS)

In contrast, there are the grant recipients considered more deserving due to their performance. For example, this is the case of Dolores, who explains why she is more entitled to the grant than her classmate, or that of Romina, for whom the institution intervened so that it would be awarded to her:

Also the issue of studying. Before, for the grants, we had to get straight 10s, because if not, supposedly, they would take the grant away from you, because it was for the best student. Not anymore. [...] I mainly applied because, since he gets paid and never comes, and sleeps in class, I put myself forward, as I come every day, I study, I bring my complete binders, I am a 10. You ask me and I tell you “two plus two: four”, instantly. Well, since I’m here, I apply. I deserve it more, as I come every day and I am better than him. (Dolores, student, 32, 1st cycle, Southern Commune CENS).

One of the [denied] grants that we have had to fight for two consecutive years is that of Romina Díaz, a student who truly deserved it, because she had the highest grade average. So yes, it was fought for with pride, the documentation was submitted with pride; she truly deserved it. She doesn’t work, her husband does, but [...] she had a child with a chronic illness, for which she had a lot of expenses, plus rent and so on. And they accepted the situation. (Julia, Grant Coordinator, Central Commune CENS)

As other research has revealed, the demand for effort and dedication in relation to studying appears associated with grants (Gluz, 2006). Similarly to what happens with attendance, low performance gives rise to the suspicion that the interest in the grant is related to the money and not to the desire to pursue schooling, while the level of performance becomes an indicator of whether or not the benefit is deserved.

Use of the Money

On the other hand, while some school administrators and teachers did not consider it relevant how the grant recipients used the money, since they considered it a private matter, in other cases there was indeed concern about its proper or improper use:

[The grant money] is well used by the majority of the students, in the sense that, for example, I have had students who need it to pay for the bus. I have a student who I know was waiting for it because [... she needs it to travel], and it came in handy for her because of the cost. In the CENS, it is well used, in general, I think. In general, it is well used. Yes, well, there’s a bit of everything. There is also the student who gets paid and never comes back. (Pilar, principal of the Southern Commune CENS)

Complementarily, to create a “restriction on what to use it for”, Pilar told me she considers that the grant could be given partly in “money” and partly in “vouchers”; the first part could be used for things like “sneakers and clothes” and the second for “school supplies”. From another point of view, Paola maintained that:

I think it’s good that it’s money and not things, because maybe you give them pens and the person works in a kiosk and doesn’t need pens, right? Everyone uses it for what they need. Maybe it’s not for studying, but it’s to be able to afford some little treats that they otherwise couldn’t, I don’t know. That is fine. It’s like it invites them to study; that is the idea. What I’m not sure about is if they really take it that way, in some cases. As always, there’s a bit of everything, there’s a bit of everything. (Paola, teacher and grant coordinator, Central Commune CENS)

As I have presented thus far, some students shared with the centers’ staff the meanings regarding need, attendance, and performance, but in general, the students paid more attention to the issue of the correct or incorrect use of the money than to those other dimensions. Among the meanings deployed by this group, it was highlighted that the grant money should be used gradually and allocated primarily to school expenses or other household goods, and not for leisure or consumption such as alcoholic beverages.

Eugenia maintained that she uses the money “little by little” and not all at once, and the same goes for her children’s grant money:

Little by little, I put it towards expenses [...]. I mean, not squandering, let’s say, the money one receives. Because, even though one receives it from the State, I don’t think one should squander it either, right? Knowing how to manage it. [...] And my kids spend it little by little, because they still have it. I mean, it’s not like they took it and spent it all. Maybe on something they want, they want to buy something for themselves, they go and... But they also know how to save it. (Eugenia, 41, 2nd cycle, Southern Commune CENS)

Because I, at least, am not one of those people who get money and go and spend it all at once. First I think, when I have money, what it can be useful for and what not, and I spend it on what I need. (Kevin, 19, 1st year A, Southern Commune CENS)

Regarding the destination of the grant money, for example, Alejandro (19, 1st year, Southern Commune CENS) explains to me that it went towards household expenses and buying drawing supplies; Paula maintained that “I always explained to them [my children] that this grant was a help for them, in case at some point we didn’t have enough to buy school supplies, for them to buy their things, basically for studying, it was always like that”; while the money from her own grant was allocated to housing rent, her children’s clothes, or “things for the house” (Paula, 51, 3rd year, Southern Commune CENS). In some cases, contrasted with expenses considered appropriate, those that would be inappropriate to make were mentioned:

When I requested them for my children, I told them that the grants were given to them, mostly, for school expenses. [...] And in my personal case, not so much for entertainment, like many who spend it on little games, or paying for things on the internet and stuff like that. [The grant money] is added to the general everyday expenses. (Eugenia, 41, 2nd year, Southern Commune CENS)

And, well, the only thing I use [the money] for is for school stuff, nothing else. Only for that. Yes, maybe, once in a while, when I don’t have enough to eat, I grab from that. Using the money to go, I don’t know, to a nightclub, or buying alcoholic beverages and those things, no, it kind of doesn’t fit. [...] But, yes, at the same time I am also saving, to buy myself a refrigerator. (Marina, student, 22, 2nd year, Southern Commune CENS)

In summary, the use of the money by the grant recipients was sometimes considered a private matter upon which it is not appropriate to opine, while in other cases it was argued that the correct use was one that was gradual and oriented towards school expenses or household goods, in opposition to hasty spending, spending for leisure, or improper consumption.

In other CENS, I identified how the concerns of different subjects were related to the grant money being used inappropriately for the purchase of expensive items deemed unnecessary for schooling, represented especially by items such as sneakers or cell phones¹⁵ (Paoletta, 2019). In this regard, Gluz maintains that the “strong concern over the use of money is understood when the mediation of economic resources comes into play in a social universe where this type of benefit is discouraged as a tacit norm. This unleashes criticism and control over the benefit and its beneficiaries beyond what is formally stipulated in the various grant programs” (2006: 143).

Ages

An aspect to highlight regarding the characterizations made of the students has to do with age differences¹⁶. Primarily, school administrators and teachers at the centers where I conducted fieldwork agreed that there was currently a greater youth presence, an aspect noted in other CENS (Paoletta, 2019, 2020). In some cases, teachers and students considered that this did not bring major consequences for the everyday life of the classrooms. On other occasions, I recorded criticisms directed at young people; teaching staff maintained that “they are on their cell phones all the time” and make it difficult for adults to concentrate on their work, that they sometimes offend adults with the vocabulary they use, or that they are “unmotivated”. And from the perspective of some female students, they stated that young people are more “rebellious” and that there are cases where they “don’t do their homework”, “sleep in class”, and “talk back to the teacher”. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that, in general, teachers and students valued the good treatment and camaraderie among peers.

Regarding the grants, the principal of the Central Commune CENS maintained that students were assisted with the application, especially some older ones who, unlike the youth, did not have good computer skills, although some older students turned to family members for help with this. And then she went on to mention other differences between the two groups:

I haven’t had cases of adult people who collect the grant and don’t come; on the contrary, those adult people collect the grant and make a great effort to come, they strive to want to advance, to want to do things despite all the difficulties they have; one could say “how well they value what they are given”. On the other hand, it’s not that the kid doesn’t value it, they just come with another perspective, it’s a different way. This happens to me with the youngest ones, the youngest ones, I mean those who are 20, 18. This year, for example, with three students who received the grant, we met a bunch of times, but why? Because I do the pedagogical tracking, [...] I go after them, “you didn’t take the exam”, “look at the upcoming exam board”, so every now and then I take them out of the classroom and talk about this, because some already come with that mindset, of coming just for the grant, and I warn them. [...] One time a student tells me “are you threatening me that you are going to take away my grant?”, “no, no, I am not threatening you, I am telling you what I am going to do”, “that is my way of proceeding”, “you come and you are only on your cell phone, you interrupt the teacher’s class”. [...] “I am just putting you on notice that if you come until the first semester and you don’t pass anything for me, you are telling me that I have to terminate your grant”. (Carmen, principal, Central Commune CENS)

Paola, who suspected that some young people with disabilities applied for the grant without deserving it since they appeared to have a “good socioeconomic level”, maintained that:

There is this opportunism among kids who sign up for the grant. I have called them on the cell phone and they shared the cell phone with their brother. [...] I tell him: “Call your brother, see why he isn’t coming, so he comes”. Why aren’t they in school? Because they don’t value it. They want the secondary school degree, I suppose, to get a job. But you can’t have a degree without doing anything, because it is not ethical. You are going to get a job with a degree and you won’t even know how to stock things on a shelf. [The grant], as I interpret it, is a help so they can carry out their studies. So, there are many kids who sign up for the grant and then don’t come… (Paola, teacher and grant coordinator, Central Commune CENS)

On the other hand, I recorded diverse forms of money organization within the domestic sphere, and in some cases involving young people, I identified adult participation regarding its administration and use. For example, Alejandro (student, 19, 1st cycle, Southern Commune CENS) told me that he lives with his mom and his two brothers and that, unlike previous years, this year the grant “is in my name, so now it is mine” since he is of legal age and it is not a requirement to designate an adult to collect the benefit. Anyway, this year like the previous ones, he gave half of the amount to his mother, who uses it for domestic expenses, and he kept the other half to use for whatever he needs. He also gives most of his salary as a dishwasher to his mother¹⁷.

Thus, it was possible to identify differences between youth and adults linked to the allocation and use of the grant and, although it is not possible to assume that age constitutes an indicator of a legitimate beneficiary, young people sometimes appear to condense the negative pole surrounding deservingness. They become the object of controls, suspicions, and accusations, similar to what has been found in other CENS (Paoletta, 2019).

Grants, Poor Students, and the Ages of Life

As developed in the article, the ways in which grant programs are locally processed in the centers where I conducted fieldwork involve characterizations of the grant recipients, based upon which they are identified as more or less deserving of the benefit. In this section, I present some dimensions from which to analyze those appropriations, wherein it is possible to identify historically configured meanings regarding grants and their recipients..

Schooling, as Sacristán affirms, does not mean the same thing to different subjects, although different subjects may indeed see in schooling a way to find solutions to various problems, needs, and ideals (Sacristán, 2000). Indeed, attendance at the centers was highly valued by school administrators, teachers, and students, who associated it with employment improvement, the possibility of continuing their studies, and as a means of self-improvement and personal development. Within this framework, the existence of grants was considered positive and necessary, insofar as it represents monetary support that allows those in need to navigate their schooling.

But we have also seen that these grants entail high visibility compared to other educational expenditures and provoke evaluations regarding their effectiveness and risks. In this sense, Hornes argues that the money transferred through conditional cash transfer programs acquires a public character; that is to say, it ceases to be conceived exclusively by specialists and comes to include a plurality of meanings and competing moral evaluations regarding state-origin money on the part of other social sectors (Hornes, 2015).

By analyzing various dimensions linked to the allocation, maintenance, and use of the grant, it was possible to identify local constructions of “better” and “worse” grant recipients, although the different subjects highlighted some characteristics over others, in variable and even opposing ways. This gives rise to processes of marking and unmarking — that is, the assignment of characteristics to groups of grant recipients and the effort to distance oneself when those traits are negative.

On the one hand, positively valued grant recipients were understood as those who possess material needs (they “need” the grant), truly desire to pursue schooling and act accordingly despite the difficulties; therefore, they attend, make an effort to pass their subjects, and ultimately spend the money in a manner consistent with those needs and desires. At the other extreme, negatively characterized grant recipients are those who purportedly do not have material needs or, if they do, lack a genuine interest in schooling (they “come for the grant”); and, since their core interest is not tied to schooling, they might be absent, if they do attend they do not make an effort to pass their subjects, and they may ultimately make inappropriate uses of the money.

Those attributed characteristics become indicators of deservingness for accessing and maintaining the benefit, which entails practices of institutional accompaniment and support as well as control and reprimand. Underlying these constructions is the idea that the grant should not be so much a motive for attending the CENS as something necessary to achieve it — a means and not an end — and it is a frequent concern that it might mobilize students out of a monetary interest and that they might unduly appropriate the benefit by not fulfilling the expected counterpart of engaging in schooling. The school inclusion and retention that the grants pursue must, locally, be anchored in a genuine desire for schooling, which is sometimes signified without regard for the educational proposal or the social conditions in which the subjects’ lives unfold.

In these characterizations, it is possible to identify practices and conceptions from the past that remain as traces (Neufeld, 1997). The emphasis on the restrictions and requirements for accessing and maintaining the benefit based on the particularities of each subject — even beyond those mandated by regulations — has its correlate in the ways in which grants were constituted at the origins of the educational system as an unsystematic contribution to the intelligence and effort of the “deserving poor”. Meanwhile, the concern regarding the necessity of the grant revives, for example, the debates surrounding the creation of the Student Grant Regime in the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires.

On the other hand, the differentiation between those who only “come for the grant” and those who “need” it involves distinctions between who has material needs and who does not, but it also entails processes of hierarchization within the first group, insofar as those who “need” it may or may not understand and utilize the benefit appropriately, which points to particular ways of conceptualizing poverty.

Monreal argues that, in theoretical developments from the 18th century to the present, the conception that there is a “worthy” poverty and an “unworthy” poverty has been reproduced. The former includes those who are adapted to society and fulfill their social duties, meaning it is only a matter of time or bad luck that they remain in poverty. Meanwhile, unworthy poverty is purportedly linked, among other issues, to delinquency, aggressiveness, disorganized family life, alcoholism, drug addiction, pathological and uncivil behavior, and unsupportive, antisocial, and individualistic beings (Monreal, 1996). The author maintains that “conceptualizations have developed around the poor that distort their actual behavior and that, in the most extreme cases, end up asserting that the blame for poverty rests on the poor, on their values, on their family organization, on their communities” (Monreal, 1996: 115). In this regard, Montesinos and Sinisi warn about the importance of considering the social effects and the unforeseen “uses” of these theoretical productions in educational settings (Montesinos and Sinisi, 2003).

Finally, we have seen how, on occasions, young grant recipients embodied the negative pole in terms of deservingness, becoming the targets of suspicions and controls, which corresponds to what has been observed in various CENS. In previous works, I analyzed how teachers and students of different ages, within a framework of collaboration and affection that everyone valued, often characterized young people based on a set of negative attributes. Thus, their presence was understood as a “problematic issue” that previously did not exist in these institutions, which traditionally would have been attended by adults and workers, who were considered their legitimate recipients. Likewise, I recorded complaints and criticisms towards this group, allusions to their lack of willingness regarding schoolwork and their inappropriate behavior (in relation to order, silence, respect, and coexistence), accusations that they waste time and make others waste theirs, and suspicions that their motivation to study is not their own, but rather mobilized by their parents or by the grant (Paoletta, 2019 and 2020).

The relationships of adult students and teachers with young people were articulated around different interpretations concerning the CENS (their history, objectives, the target population to whom the educational proposal is directed, and projects regarding what they should be like), expectations and interests regarding secondary schooling, as well as issues related to teaching work concerning what and how to teach in an institution for youth and adults (Paoletta, 2020). Likewise, in the CENS, meanings regarding youth and adulthood that circulate widely in contemporary Argentine society seemed to have sedimented, highlighting the invisibilization and stigmatization of youth (Chaves, 2005; Reguillo Cruz, 2007).

Age status constitutes a significant aspect of relationships in our society and, particularly, in the CENS, where students of very diverse ages coexist, and who, as a whole, are older individuals who have not completed their secondary schooling within the expected timeframes. In this context, the ages of the grant recipients become a dimension that makes it possible to give meaning to the ways in which they are understood and the expectations placed upon them.

Concluding Remarks

Based on an ethnographic approach and drawing on the contributions of anthropology to the study of public policies, I described how grant programs are received in two CENS in CABA. I paid special attention to the multiple ways in which grant recipients are characterized, which mobilizes meanings, valuations, and practices that are not always defined in the policy formulations, thus imparting additions, omissions, and changes upon them.

After carrying out a brief historicization of school grants in Argentina and of the two grant programs present in the CENS, I maintained that the local appropriations of these policies entail conceptions about the grant recipients that make them more or less deserving of accessing and maintaining the benefit. In doing so, historically configured meanings about school grants and their recipients — as students and as poor individuals — are mobilized. At the same time, because these are institutions for youth and adults, the age dimension acquires a certain relevance in the reception and everyday implementation of the programs.

In these institutions, grants condense contradictory aspects insofar as they are positively valued as a support for schooling for those students who do not possess sufficient resources, but at the same time, they are identified as a mechanism that can foster the improper appropriation of the benefit by those who might not meet the regulatory requirements, as well as the presence and encouragement of students mobilized by a material rather than an educational interest..

These ways in which grants are processed in the CENS provide elements for reflection on conditional cash transfers and on the singular, conflictual, and sometimes unequal experience of navigating the compulsory secondary education level within secondary education for youth and adults in contexts of inequality (Paoletta, 2020). Although these processes involve all actors as protagonists, they especially interpellate the subjects of the subaltern classes who need these grants, which is expressed concurrently within the framework of the positive valuation of the secondary level, the relationships within the CENS, and the efforts deployed in these institutions to guarantee their students’ right to education.

Acknowledgments

María Rosa Neufeld: Research Project Director; Universidad de Buenos Aires - UBA, Facultad de Filosofía y Letras - FFyL, Instituto de Ciencias Antropológicas, Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Ana Padawer: Co-director of the research project; Universidad de Buenos Aires - UBA, Facultad de Filosofía y Letras - FFyL, Instituto de Ciencias Antropológicas, Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires, Argentina.

• Support and Funding:
  Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET)
• Use of AI:
  The author states that he did not use any artificial intelligence (AI) tools at any stage of the process of preparing or drafting the manuscript, including, but not limited to, tools for generating text, images, code, abstracts, translations, or analyses.
• Copy Editing services:
  Spanish version - Copy editing and standardization of citations and bibliographical references (7th. Edition APA): Francisco López Toledo Corrêa [e-mail]
  English version: Francisco López Toledo Corrêa [e-mail]
• 1
  According to the National Education Law No. 26,206/2006, education is a personal and social right guaranteed by the State. Compulsory education extends for 14 years, from the initial level (4-year-olds) to the completion of secondary education
• 2
  Belonging to the Permanent Youth and Adult Education modality, intended for those who have not completed their schooling within the standard timeframe. As a point of reference, according to the results of the 2022 National Census of Population, Households, and Dwellings, 13.9% of individuals aged 25 and over in the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires had not completed secondary education, whereas this percentage stands at 19.2% for Argentina as a whole (General Directorate of Statistics and Censuses, 2022).
• 3
  CENS, created in 1970, are public secondary-level institutions belonging to the Permanent Youth and Adult Education modality. Their purpose is to enable individuals over 18 years of age who have not completed their secondary schooling to do so. They have a duration of three years (or less, depending on previous studies), offer various specializations, and operate within partnering institutions. They currently fall under the jurisdiction of the different provinces.
• 4
  In 2022, there were around 90 CENS in CABA.
• 5
  The names of the institutions and individuals have been changed to protect their identities.
• 6
  In 2022, 9,777 students attended CENS in CABA; of that total, 60.9% were 29 years old or younger (information provided by the Research and Statistics Area of the Unit for the Integral Evaluation of Educational Quality and Equity, of the Ministry of Education and Innovation of the GCABA).
• 7
  In all cases, these were individuals over 40 years old with diverse trajectories within the educational system, particularly in the youth and adult secondary education level.
• 8
  These are individuals of varying ages: Kevin and Alejandro (1st cycle) are 19, Marina (2nd cycle) is 22, Dolores (1st cycle) is 32, Eugenia (2nd cycle) is 41, Inés (1st cycle) is 45, and Paola (3rd cycle) is 51. The interviewees had interrupted educational trajectories and had returned to schooling through the adult modality. At the time of the interviews, all except Inés had applied for the Ciudad grant for themselves (only Dolores’s application was rejected) and, in two cases, they had also applied for the Progresar grant (Marina and Dolores, who were awaiting the results). Inés had not applied for the grant for herself, but for her children. All of them resided in the vicinity of the CENS. At the time of the interview, all were employed, with the exception of Kevin, who was unemployed. Alejandro worked as a dishwasher, Marina worked in a kiosk, Dolores baked custom pastries, Eugenia worked in a cleaning company, Inés was an administrative employee, and Paula worked in a cybercafe. Their family compositions varied, and Dolores, Eugenia, Inés, and Paula had dependent children.
• 9
  A form of protest involving the continuous occupation of educational establishments, carried out by students and other actors such as teachers or family members.
• 10
  In 2022, its implementation fell under the Operational Management of Educational Inclusion, directed by the Secretariat of Pedagogical Coordination and Educational Equity of the Ministry of Education of the Government of the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires.
• 11
  The criteria for granting the grant include, among others, that the students belong to a household whose monthly income is equal to or less than 1.5 times the minimum vital and mobile wage, or that they have special needs or serious illnesses (Law 2917/08).
• 12
  Which in February 2022 was USD $33,000 for monthly salaried workers.
• 13
  Additionally, applicants are required to be native or naturalized Argentines with a National Identity Document, or legal residents in the country for at least two years. Furthermore, the combined income of the recipient and their family group must not exceed three minimum vital and mobile wages
• 14
  Which, at the time of the opening of the 2022 application period, was USD $6,400 each.
• 15
  During the present research, after the COVID-19 pandemic enabled new uses for this technology in educational settings, some interviewees referred to cell phones as an important resource for schooling
• 16
  Taking into account the social and historical, variable, and relational character of the ages of life (Padawer, 2008a, 2008b; Feixa, 1996, 1999; Kropff, 2010; Ariès, 1988; Bourdieu, 1990), solely for analytical purposes, I consider as youth those who were under 30 years old, a range that encompasses the ages of those referred to as “youth” by the various school actors.
• 17
  Similarly, Inés (student, 45 years old, 1st cycle, Southern Commune CENS) explained to me that she divides the grant of her children who attend “regular” secondary school into two parts: one she gives to them to spend however they want, and the other she manages herself, using it as her children need it, for example, for the purchase of school supplies.

Research data availability:

The contents underlying the research text are included in the manuscript.

References

References

• Achilli, E. (2005). Investigar en antropología social Rosario, Laborde editor.
• Ariès, P. (1988). El niño y la vida familiar en el Antiguo Régimen. Madrid, Taurus.
• Bourdieu, P. (1990). La ‘juventud’ no es más que una palabra. En P. Bourdieu Sociología y cultura (pp.163-173). México DF, Grijalbo.
• Chaves, M. (2005). Juventud negada y negativizada: representaciones y formaciones discursivas vigentes en la Argentina contemporánea. Ultima Década, v. 13, N° 23, 2005, 9-32. https://scielo.conicyt.cl/pdf/udecada/v13n23/art02.pdf
  » https://scielo.conicyt.cl/pdf/udecada/v13n23/art02.pdf
• Dirección General de Estadística y Censos (Ministerio de Hacienda y Finanzas, Gobierno de la Ciudad de Buenos Aires). (2022). Población de 25 años y más por máximo nivel educativo alcanzado. Indicador b29. Censo Nacional de Población, Hogares y Viviendas 2022 https://estadisticaciudad.gob.ar/si/demog/principal-indicador?annio=2022&cortante=%7B%22educ%22%3Atrue%2C%22annio%22%3Atrue%2C%22g_edad%22%3Atrue%2C%22lu_nac%22%3Atrue%7D&indicador=b29
  » https://estadisticaciudad.gob.ar/si/demog/principal-indicador?annio=2022&cortante=%7B%22educ%22%3Atrue%2C%22annio%22%3Atrue%2C%22g_edad%22%3Atrue%2C%22lu_nac%22%3Atrue%7D&indicador=b29
• Ezpeleta J. y Rockwell, E. (1985). Escuela y clases subalternas. En E. Rockwell y M. Ibarrola, (comp.), Educación y clases populares en América Latina (pp. 195-215). México: IPN- DIE.
• Feixa, C. (1996). Antropología de las edades. En J. Prat & A. Martínez (Eds.) Ensayos de Antropología Cultural. Homenaje a Claudio Esteva-Fabregat (pp. 319-334). Barcelona, Editorial Ariel.
• Feixa, Carles (1999). De Jóvenes, Bandas y Tribus. Antropología de la juventud Barcelona, Editorial Ariel.
• Franzé Mudanó, A. (2013). Perspectivas antropológicas y etnográficas de las políticas públicas. Revista de Antropología Social, 22, 2013, 9-23.
• Gluz, N. (2006). La construcción socioeducativa del becario. La productividad simbólica de las políticas sociales Instituto Internacional de Planeamiento de la Educación - Unesco, Argentina.
• Gluz, N. (2007). La expresión de las políticas sociales en el campo educativo. El caso de las becas estudiantiles para la escuela media. Revista Mexicana de Investigación Educativa, 2007, vol. 12, núm. 34, pp. 1065-1087. https://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1405-66662007000301065
  » https://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1405-66662007000301065
• Guber, R. (1991). El salvaje metropolitano. A la vuelta de la antropología posmoderna Buenos Aires: Legasa.
• Hirsch, M. M. (2016). Construyendo futuro en contextos de desigualdad social: Una etnografía en torno a las elecciones de los jóvenes en la finalización de la escuela secundaria (Tesis doctoral). FFyL, UBA, Buenos Aires.
• Hornes, M. (2015). Controversias en torno a la construcción pública del dinero. Cuadernos de Antropología Social /42, pp. 55-71.
• Kropff, L. (2010). Apuntes conceptuales para una antropología de la edad. Avá. Revista de Antropología, 16. http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=169020992009
  » http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=169020992009
• Martínez, Laura Victoria (2016). Concepciones sobre los derechos sociales en la escolaridad de la niñez migrante. Alteridad, 11(1), pp. 10-20.
• Ministerio de Educación de la Nación (2023). Sistema Nacional de Becas de acompañamiento a las trayectorias educativas: resultados y desafíos para su fortalecimiento. Amaya, Paula (coord.). https://www.argentina.gob.ar/sites/default/files/informe_becas_de_acompanamiento_a_las_trayectorias_educativas.pdf
  » https://www.argentina.gob.ar/sites/default/files/informe_becas_de_acompanamiento_a_las_trayectorias_educativas.pdf
• Monreal, P. (1996). Antropología y pobreza urbana Editorial Los Libros de la Catarata, Madrid. España
• Montesinos, M. P. y Sinisi, L. (2003). Pobreza, niñez y diferenciación social. Runa: archivo para las ciencias del hombre, 2003, 24(1), 63-81.
• Neufeld, M.R. (1997). Acerca de Antropología Social e Historia: una mirada desde la Antropología de la Educación. Cuadernos Del Instituto Nacional de Antropología y Pensamiento Latinoamericano, 17, 145-158.
• Oxman, C. (1998). La entrevista de investigación en ciencias sociales Buenos Aires: Eudeba
• Padawer, A. (2008 a). Cuando los grados hablan de desigualdad, una etnografía sobre iniciativas docentes contemporáneas y sus antecedentes históricos Buenos Aires, Teseo.
• Padawer, A. (2008 b). Definiendo las edades: una revisión conceptual de transiciones y etapas a la luz de las experiencias formativas de niños y jóvenes en la vida productiva y política, ponencia presentada en el IX Congreso de Antropología Social “Fronteras de la Antropología”. Posadas, Misiones.
• Paoletta, H. (2019). Jóvenes en el CENS. Edades y políticas en la educación secundaria de jóvenes y adultos, un enfoque socioantropológico (Tesis de Doctorado). Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Argentina.
• Paoletta, H. (2020). ‘Ya sos grande y ya sabés qué tenés que hacer’. Experiencias juveniles en Centros Educativos de Nivel Secundario, reflexiones desde un enfoque relacional. En M. R. Neufeld (comp.) Políticas sociales y educativas entre dos épocas: abordajes histórico-etnográficos de la relación entre sujetos y Estado Buenos Aires, Editorial de la Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, (pp. 209-243). http://publicaciones.filo.uba.ar/sites/publicaciones.filo.uba.ar/files/Politicas%20soc-nuevo-interactivo.pdf
  » http://publicaciones.filo.uba.ar/sites/publicaciones.filo.uba.ar/files/Politicas%20soc-nuevo-interactivo.pdf
• Paoletta, H. (2024). Faltar al CENS: articulaciones locales entre normativas y edades de la vida en la educación secundaria para jóvenes y adultos. Revista Del Museo De Antropología, 17(1), 123-132. https://doi.org/10.31048/1852.4826.v17.n1.41339
  » https://doi.org/10.31048/1852.4826.v17.n1.41339
• Reguillo Cruz, R. (2007). Emergencia de culturas juveniles. Estrategias del desencanto Colombia: Grupo Editorial Norma.
• Rockwell, E. (2009). La experiencia etnográfica. Historia y cultura en los procesos educativos Buenos Aires, Paidós.
• Sacristán, G. (2000). La educación obligatoria: su sentido educativo y social. Madrid, España: Ediciones Morata.
• Shore, C. (2010). La antropología y el estudio de la política pública: reflexiones sobre la "formulación" de las políticas. Antípoda, 10, 21-49. http://redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=81415652003
  » http://redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=81415652003
• Sinisi, L. (2020). El aporte de la investigación antropológica en educación y su incidencia en la evaluación de políticas educativas y programas “innovadores”. En M. R. Neufeld (comp.), Políticas sociales y educativas entre dos épocas: abordajes histórico-etnográficos de la relación entre sujetos y Estado, (pp. 41-54). Buenos Aires: Editorial de la Facultad de Filosofía y Letras. http://publicaciones.filo.uba.ar/sites/publicaciones.filo.uba.ar/files/Politicas%20soc-nuevo-interactivo.pdf
  » http://publicaciones.filo.uba.ar/sites/publicaciones.filo.uba.ar/files/Politicas%20soc-nuevo-interactivo.pdf
• Subsecretaría de Coordinación Pedagógica y Equidad Educativa del Ministerio de Educación del Gobierno de la Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires (“Informe anual a la Legislatura del Gobierno de la Ciudad de Buenos Aires sobre el Régimen de Becas Estudiantiles de Escuelas de Nivel Medio/ Secundario – 2022”).
• Ley de Régimen de Becas Estudiantiles N° 2917. Sancionada el 12 de diciembre de 2008.
• Decreto Programa de Respaldo a Estudiantes Argentinos N° 84. Sancionado el 23 de enero de 2014.

Edited by

• Responsible editors:
  Associate Editor: Vanessa Fonseca Barbosa https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2901-015X
  Editor-in-chief: Chantal Medaets https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7834-3834

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  10 July 2026
• Date of issue
  2026

History

• Received
  28 June 2025
• Reviewed
  20 Feb 2026
• Accepted
  21 Apr 2026