Q COSTA RICA — Costa Rican President Laura Fernández has made a pointed case for education as crime prevention: keeping children and young people in school, she says, can help steer them away from criminal networks.
But that message is colliding with a fiscal proposal from her government that would cut nearly ¢9 billion (US$18.9 million) from the Ministry of Public Education’s 2026 budget.
Read more: Laura Fernández compares her own life path to that of the drug trafficker “Diablo”
The proposal, submitted by Finance Minister Rodrigo Chaves, would reduce the ministry’s funding through a second extraordinary budget. It is part of a wider adjustment to public spending after the government lowered its revenue forecast.
The bill is still moving through the Legislative Assembly; the proposed reduction has not yet received a final legislative decision. (Teletica; La Nación)
Fernández sharpened her argument in a televised address on October 25, describing education as a way to reduce young people’s exposure to crime. The following day, she said that her own path from a rural community to the presidency, compared with the criminal path of a notorious drug trafficker known as “Diablo,” showed why educational opportunity matters.
She also pointed to government-reported work at 700 schools and colleges between 2022 and 2026, including 196 new facilities.
The proposed cuts touch areas central to that prevention argument. The largest reduction identified in the education ministry’s plan is ¢3.648 billion colones from educational technology, including devices and robotics kits, connectivity, internal networks, and digital infrastructure. Another ¢1.747 billion colones would be removed from infrastructure and equipment; the proposal also trims about ¢380 million colones from equity programs, mainly student transportation. Funding for ten new education centers and school gardens would be shifted to 2027. (Teletica)
That creates a clear political tension.
Fernández presents education as part of the government’s security strategy, while Chaves’s ministry has proposed reducing spending on programs and services that can support students’ access to school and learning. The contradiction is not simply that one official praises education while another cuts its budget: both operate within the same administration, and the budget proposal gives a concrete measure against which the government’s stated priorities can be judged.
There is an important qualification. The proposed cut does not mean every affected program will disappear, and the government says some funds are being removed because they will not be used during 2026 or are being rescheduled.
The budget also responds to a projected revenue shortfall and includes reductions across multiple public institutions. Those factors help explain the decision, but they do not resolve the policy question: if education is a long-term tool for crime prevention, which educational services should be protected when revenues fall? (Delfino; La Nación)
The proposal also comes amid a broader debate over how much Costa Rica invests in education. A report by CRHoy in February described declining public education investment in recent years and noted that the 2026 allocation remained below the constitutional benchmark of 8% of gross domestic product. The government has emphasized construction and completed projects; critics have focused on the resources needed to sustain schools, programs, and student support.
The issue is especially pointed because Fernández has argued that today’s criminality reflects educational failures and missed opportunities from years ago. She has asked the public to judge her administration’s education results over a much longer period. That long horizon makes the budget choices now more consequential, not less: the outcomes she says matter will depend in part on whether students can access the support and learning opportunities the government says help prevent crime.
The central test for Fernández and Chaves is therefore practical. Can the government preserve the parts of education spending that underpin its prevention message while containing costs elsewhere—and can it show that the money it retains is reaching students? Without clear answers, “education is the key” risks sounding less like a governing principle than a slogan competing with the annual demands of fiscal restraint.