School cooperatives of the Ciudad de Buenos Aires rejected the Marco General para la Cultura del Cuidado en Establecimientos Educativos and warned that it can transfer to the community obligations that belong to the State. The policy affects institutions of all levels and modalities, both public and private. The conflict presents two interpretations: the Buenos Aires government presents it as training in shared responsibility, while the organizations question a possible delegation of maintenance and repair.
The framework stipulates that students participate in the care of classrooms, furniture, walls, bathrooms, courtyards, green spaces, and common use areas. It assigns teachers the role of accompanying the habits and agreements of coexistence, and the management teams the leadership of the implementation. These tasks are described in educational and community terms. Their specific application will depend on each institution and does not authorize, without additional regulation, any conclusions about what material work could be required from students or families.
The proposal includes environmental committees with participation from teachers, students, and family representatives, as well as sessions aimed at organizing, improving, or repairing spaces. It also foresees that the establishments create their own guidelines within the general framework. The cooperatives argue that this organization can turn voluntary contributions into a substitute for services that should be financed with public funds. The criticism requires distinguishing simple educational activities from specialized maintenance, infrastructure works, and tasks subject to labor and safety regulations.
Another point of controversy is the treatment of intentional damage. The scheme proposes that the community and cooperatives intervene in its repair, which raises questions about responsibility, identification of the act, and availability of funds. Organizations reject that the cost automatically falls on them and request that the Ministry maintain its patrimonial obligation. The existence of a principle of repair does not by itself determine who pays in each case or what procedure must prove intentionality.
The Buenos Aires administration bases the initiative on the need to form habits of order, belonging, and respect for common goods. From that perspective, taking care of what is used by everyone is part of the educational experience and prevents maintenance from being perceived as the task of someone outside the community. That justification does not eliminate the state's responsibility for cleaning, security, and infrastructure. The point to resolve is how the boundary will be drawn between formative participation and obligatory material provision.
The cooperatives perform support functions through contributions, activities, and resource management, but they do not replace the employer or the construction contractor. That is why they demand clarifications about insurance, supervision, tools, the age of participants, and the scope of the workdays. They also request that budgetary shortages not turn collaboration into a condition for having adequate buildings. Their warnings represent an institutional position and do not in themselves demonstrate that the program has already produced a verifiable reduction in services.
The analysis should consider differences between schools. Not all have the same building condition, staff quantity, space, resources from the parent association, or organizational capacity. A general guideline could create unequal burdens if it is not accompanied by financing, safety criteria, and exception mechanisms. In private institutions, moreover, the relationship with owners and fees presents another structure of responsibilities. The inclusion of all modalities requires clear rules so that participation does not depend solely on family resources.
The next steps will be the regulation, the Ministry's instructions, and the projects adopted by each community. It will be necessary to observe whether a budget is assigned, whether the tasks are voluntary, how damages are resolved, and what controls prevent replacing necessary jobs or contracts. The confirmed fact is the approval of a care framework and the rejection of parent associations. The effective transfer of obligations, its economic consequences, and its compatibility with the state's duty can only be evaluated based on documented implementation.
