Campus autonomy: What does it mean?<\/p>\n
By Nirwan Idrus<\/p>\n
This is the first of two articles exploring the meaning of
\ncampus autonomy.<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): Minister of Education and Culture Juwono
\nSudarsono recently announced the granting of autonomy to four
\nleading state universities in Indonesia: the University of
\nIndonesia (UI), the Bogor Agricultural Institute (IPB), the
\nBandung Institute of Technology (ITB) and Gadjah Mada University
\n(UGM).<\/p>\n
This is a refreshing change for higher education in Indonesia.
\nSome would say that it is about time. With the arrival of
\nglobalization, the free-trade zone very early in the new
\ncentury\/millennium, ever-increasing competition within Indonesia
\nfor higher education provision and the real need to significantly
\nimprove Indonesian human resources, such a decision is obviously
\nwelcomed. It is understood that various meetings are now taking
\nplace in those institutions about the matter of autonomy. It is a
\ngood sign.<\/p>\n
However, accepting the popular definition of autonomy, that is
\nin broad terms the granting of \"self-rule\", the process is a
\nformidable one in Indonesia and hence must be planned and
\nexecuted as carefully as possible. One small error will render
\nthe idea unworkable and vested interests may use this as an
\nexcuse to return to the old rules of centralization. Those who
\nare involved with higher education institutions may be frustrated
\nand dismayed with the hit-and-miss plan of delivering autonomy to
\nor empowering the institutions. They may declare that, for
\nexample, the old style, i.e. centralization, is better. These
\nnegative thoughts and utterances must be avoided at all costs, if
\nthe empowerment process is to succeed. But how?<\/p>\n
A potent method is by providing strong assurance of one's
\nseriousness to those involved as well as others, by way of
\nappropriate and supportive examples. In the first instance, this
\nwill eliminate lip service. People will see that action is louder
\nthan words. They will also see that there is a sense of
\nseriousness about the matter. People do become encouraged when
\nthey see that others are also doing whatever they are supposed to
\nbe doing. Their hopes start to build up, and as we all know, you
\nonly need a flicker of hope to conquer the world. But who should
\ngive the examples and who should see and learn from these
\nexamples?<\/p>\n
Examples should come from the top. That is, the highest
\nmanagement, the highest governance and the top people,
\nparticularly in a country like Indonesia, where the
\nIndonesian\/Asian culture is very much revered. In the case in
\nhand then, the examples should be set by the Minister of
\nEducation and Culture, by the Ministry of Education and Culture,
\nby the Directorate General for Higher Education (DGHE) and the
\nhighest echelon within DGHE, led by the director general
\n(Director General DGHE).<\/p>\n
Within institutions, university presidents must give examples
\nto everyone within the institutions, the deans of faculties must
\nprovide examples to everyone within their faculties, the heads of
\ndepartments must provide examples to everyone within their
\ndepartments, the teaching staff must provide examples to their
\nstudents. Only when a cascading provision of good and supportive
\nexamples occur can the empowerment process be said to have begun.<\/p>\n
Please note that it has not finished, but has only started.
\nThere are many other elements in the devolution process that must
\nbe acted on in order to approach the end of the process. So why
\ndon't we trace the provision of those examples above from the
\nminister to the students.<\/p>\n
It is expected that as the political leader of his portfolio
\nhe will give examples of empowerment, devolution and autonomy
\nwithin his sphere of influence. He will have to be sincerely
\ndoing what he preaches, but he also has to be seen to be doing
\nso. He has to find a way of showing the whole country that he is
\nserious about change. Australians have a phrase for this: \"fair
\ndinkum\". The question is: Is the minister fair dinkum about what
\nhe says? A real change that everyone will see and appreciate
\n(perhaps not straight away) may be the surrendering of the
\n\"culture\" portfolio in \"education and culture\" to another
\nministry and minister.<\/p>\n
In doing so, the new ministry will concentrate 100 percent on
\neducation -- a major and extremely important portfolio if we want
\nto really build strong, formidable and appropriate national human
\nresources.<\/p>\n
In doing so, the minister would completely cut off his
\nand his ministry's association with a portfolio that has been
\nanachronistic for 54 years, namely education and culture. It is a
\nportfolio that, as we have seen, has not met the expectations of
\nthe nation and the people. With such an action, it is hoped that
\nmany of the systems within the Ministry would be turned upside
\ndown. It is hoped that there will be new procedures, a new modus
\noperandus, a new organizational structure and so on. While these
\nare only hopes, these hopes will not even flicker if that first
\nstep is not taken. The promise for change can only happen with
\nchange.<\/p>\n
The ministry, as the administrative arm of the minister, must
\nalso play its part. It must take this opportunity to apply the
\nmany proven management and administrative practices not hitherto
\nused within the ministry to support the minister's decision. It
\nmust take this opportunity to continually improve its efficiency
\nand effectiveness, in the name of the development of national
\nhuman resources.<\/p>\n
It must therefore practice staff empowerment within the
\nministry. It must take this opportunity to systematically reduce
\nunnecessary costs and wastage, a job easily undertaken by
\ncritically examining and then changing its procedures, rules and
\nregulations. It must take this opportunity to practice what it is
\nadministering -- education -- and continually educate its own
\nstaff members to turn itself into a learning organization. It
\nmust lead other ministries toward this goal of becoming learning
\norganizations. In so doing it would have taken the first step
\ntoward reform of the national public service. But only the first
\nstep!<\/p>\n
The Director General for Higher Education (DGHE) must follow
\nsuit. In all its dealings with both state and private higher
\neducation institutions, the directorate must manifest
\nempowerment.<\/p>\n
DGHE must no longer determine, decide, cajole and force
\ninstitutions into anything. Empowered or autonomous institutions
\ndetermine their own destinies, develop their own plans and make
\ntheir own decisions. DGHE's roles must change and must be seen to
\nchange. Like the ministry, DGHE must review its procedures, rules
\nand regulations with the objective of realigning them with new
\ndirections of autonomy given by the minister.<\/p>\n
DGHE must make itself more efficient and less bureaucratic if
\nit wants the institutions under it to be more efficient,
\neffective and less bureaucratic themselves. DGHE must also be
\nseen to be more efficient and less bureaucratic. Even simple and
\nseemingly inconsequential things must be addressed. Think of the
\nmany bundles of reports written by people who spend hours and
\nhours preparing and producing them, only to be stored under the
\nstairs and in other DGHE areas, visible to anyone visiting the
\nDGHE.<\/p>\n
If the reports are not going to be read, why ask for them? If
\nonly three copies of a report are required why ask for seven? Not
\nonly is it wasteful, but the writers of those reports are
\nextremely disappointed to see their unread reports lying around.<\/p>\n
The writer is an international higher education consultant
\nliving in Jakarta. The article is the author's personal opinion.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/campus-autonomy-what-does-it-mean-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}