Argentina: How the Privatisation of Early Childhood Education and Care Deepens Inequalities

11 Nov

Wednesday 11th November 2026

A recognised right, but unequally guaranteed

Argentina has a long tradition of early childhood education and a legal framework that recognises education as a right from the earliest years of life. The National Education Law No. 26,206 establishes early childhood education as a pedagogical unit covering children from 45 days to five years of age. Education is compulsory from the age of four, and the State is responsible for progressively ensuring universal access to educational settings for three-year-olds.

However, legal recognition does not necessarily translate into sufficient social and political recognition of this right, particularly for children under three, or into effective public policies that ensure its realisation for all children. Early Childhood Care and Education (ECCE) in Argentina operates within a context of profound social, economic and territorial inequalities. In the second half of 2025, 41.3% of children under 14 were living in poverty, according to the National Institute of Statistics and Census (INDEC).

In this context, the participation of private actors in the provision of ECCE raises fundamental questions about the role of the State, public responsibilities and equitable access to education and care as a fundamental right.

Our recent study, Privatisation of Early Childhood Care and Education: Trends and Policy Implications in Argentina, published by the Privatisation in Education and Human Rights Coalition (PEHRC), examines these issues from a human rights perspective.

Horizontal digital drawing of four blocks covered in barcodes. In the centre text reads: ECCE cannot be reduced to a commodity.

What the data show: multiple disparities

Argentina's ECCE system can be understood as a puzzle composed of three institutional pieces, each revealing different forms and degrees of privatisation: official early education settings under the provincial Ministries of Education; Child Development Centres (CDIs) within the social development sector; and a large, unregistered sector with no formal state oversight. The arrangements include state-run, privately managed and community-based institutions, both for-profit and non-profit, operating under different regulatory frameworks.

Between 2006 and 2020, enrolment in official early education rose from 55.7% to 89.1% for four-year-olds and from 27.2% to 42.3% for three-year-olds (UNICEF, 2024). Yet access drops sharply with age: fewer than 11% of two-year-olds attend an official early education setting (Cardini et al, 2021).

The extent of the private sector’s role follows the opposite curve. Early education has the lowest state-sector participation in Argentina's entire education system. While 72% of enrolled five-year-olds attend public kindergartens, among children aged 0–2 enrolled in official early education settings, only 38% attend state-run institutions, compared with approximately 60% in privately managed institutions (Cardini et al., 2021).

Territorial inequalities are equally striking. Enrolment among three-year-olds reaches 68% in the City of Buenos Aires and 63% in the province of Buenos Aires, but barely 10% in provinces such as San Juan, Misiones, Neuquén, Salta and Formosa (Cardini et al, 2021).

For children under three, provision is particularly fragmented: at age two, only 13.8% of children attend formal education, while 19.1% attend CDIs or other settings outside the formal education system (Makon et al., 2025). CDIs, which primarily serve children in socially disadvantaged communities, may be state-run or community-managed and generally operate with fewer resources and less regulation and supervision than official education settings. Other settings include for-profit institutions as well as community-managed, non-profit initiatives, operating under different regulatory arrangements and often subject to insufficient supervision and quality oversight. In the City of Buenos Aires, when settings outside the formal education system are also taken into account, non-state provision accounts for almost three-quarters of ECCE provision (Guevara et al., 2024).

Family income compounds all these gaps. Among three- and four-year-olds, 84% of children from the highest-income households attend an ECCE setting, compared with 59% of those from the lowest-income households (Anauati et al., 2025). At age two, the gap is even wider: 32% versus just 7%.

Privatisation is not always an explicit policy choice

One of the important lessons from the Argentine case is that privatisation cannot be understood solely as the result of deliberate policies transferring public programmes and institutions to private providers.

It may also develop through less visible processes. Our study identifies structural drivers: the insufficient social and political recognition of ECCE as a universal right, particularly for children under three; insufficient public provision and infrastructure; and inadequate public investment and fragmented regulatory and supervisory frameworks. Together, these create conditions for private actors to expand, not by design, but by default and omission.

When the State does not offer enough ECCE provision, families are compelled to seek alternatives. However, their choices are far from equal: they depend on household income, place of residence, the availability of institutions, and families' working and caregiving arrangements. Those who can afford it pay for private settings; others turn to community-based provision, other settings outside the formal education system, or care arrangements within the household, which continue to rely disproportionately on women.

In this context, private provision may expand not only in response to social demand, but also as a consequence of gaps in public policies. Privatisation therefore extends beyond private enrolment figures: it encompasses growing reliance on household financing, the delegation of State responsibilities to non-State actors, and the normalisation of market-based solutions, especially for children under three.

It is also important to distinguish between for-profit private institutions, and community-managed, non-profit organisations and initiatives. The latter have historically played a significant role, particularly in communities where public provision has been insufficient. Nevertheless, recognising their contribution does not diminish the State's primary responsibility to guarantee the right to education and care for every child.

Digital drawing on an orange background. A white arrow emerges in a gap between two white blocks. The arrow reads: Private provision expands. The blocks include text 'Gaps in public policies' with an arrow to the gap between the blocks.

When social inequalities become educational inequalities

The expansion of a heterogeneous and segmented system of provision can contribute to the consolidation of differentiated pathways in which access, institutional conditions, the working conditions of educators and the quality of children's experiences vary considerably across settings.

Limited access to affordable public ECCE also restricts women's participation in the labour market. Insufficiently regulated provision, whether public or private, is often associated with precarious working conditions for educators.

When access to education and care depends on families' financial resources, a fundamental human right risks becoming a commodity differentiated according to the ability to pay. ECCE cannot be reduced to a commodity purchased in a marketplace. Care and Education are inseparable dimensions of a fundamental right that requires public policies, regulation, adequate financing and clearly defined State responsibilities.

Consequently, discussions about privatisation should not be limited to the proportion of public and private institutions. They must also consider how ECCE provision is financed, who regulates it and the actual conditions under which education and care is provided.

What lessons can be drawn from Argentina?

The Argentine experience highlights several interconnected priorities. First, strengthening the social and political recognition of ECCE as a universal right from the earliest years of life, and translating existing legal guarantees into effective public policies, particularly for children under three. This requires sustained public investment, prioritizing the most disadvantaged communities, to expand free, quality public provision, infrastructure and a qualified, adequately remunerated workforce.

Equally important are integrated policies across education, social development and health that preserve the distinctive pedagogical identity of ECCE; effective regulation, supervision and accountability across all forms of provision; and comprehensive, publicly accessible and disaggregated data to identify inequalities, guide public policies and monitor progress, in line with the Abidjan Principles.

Early childhood cannot be left to market forces

The Argentine case illustrates a tension shared by many countries: the gap between the legal recognition of young children's rights and their effective realisation through equitable public policies. Strengthening the coverage of ECCE provision is necessary, but it is not enough. We must also ask who gains access, under what conditions, with what resources and under whose institutional responsibility.

This is, ultimately, a political choice and a matter of rights. The State is the primary duty-bearer: whether private actors expand by design or by default, the State cannot delegate its obligation to guarantee the right to education and care from birth. Meeting that obligation requires sustained, adequate and progressive public financing, to build free, public, well-regulated ECCE systems with qualified and fairly paid educators. Non-State actors may complement this effort but never replace it. Community-managed, non-profit organisations and other non-State actors may contribute to ECCE provision, but their participation cannot be a substitute for the State's responsibility to guarantee, finance and regulate ECCE. Only then can every child, regardless of age, place of residence or family income, enjoy inclusive, equitable and quality early childhood education and care. This is the central issue that the analysis of privatisation in Argentina invites us to place at the heart of the international debate.