Decentralization of education often misinterpreted<\/p>\n
Alpha Amirrachman, Contributor, Sydney<\/p>\n
In his article published on The Jakarta Post on April 16,
\nMateus Yumarmanto raised concern that the government had adopted
\nan approach that groups schoolchildren according to their
\nintellectual abilities and the financial capacity of their
\nparents.<\/p>\n
According to him, this is against the principle that the
\ncompetency of all students should meet minimum national
\nstandards. Second, according to the writer, this is also against
\nthe policy of a nine-year compulsory education, which implies
\nthat the government should provide basic education for all
\nchildren regardless of their intellectual and financial levels.<\/p>\n
Education minister Bambang Sudibyo said this was not yet
\npolicy, but merely an \"internal discourse\" that had leaked out to
\nthe public.<\/p>\n
He said the government would consistently stick to Education
\nLaw 20\/2003, which divides the path into formal, nonformal and
\ninformal education.<\/p>\n
However, the draft of the education ministry's Strategic Plan
\nfor 2005-2009 and the would-be government regulation state that
\nformal education would further be divided into mandiri
\n(independence) and standar (standard). The mandiri is for
\nstudents who have high intellectual ability and come from
\nfinancially sound families, while the standar is for students
\nwith less intellectual capacity and who come from less
\nfinancially sound families.<\/p>\n
Certainly, these categorizations could be insulting for some.
\nWho wants to be labeled \"poor\" or \"stupid\"? Besides, these
\ncategorizations are too simplistic. How about those intelligent
\nstudents who come from poor families, and those students who are
\nnot so academically gifted but come from wealthier families?<\/p>\n
I would argue that this is all due to the \"excessive\"
\nmisinterpretation of the principles of education
\ndecentralization.<\/p>\n
As the collapse of the New Order regime also brought down with
\nit the highly centralized education system, a decentralized
\neducation system was introduced. Karslen (2000) and McGinn and
\nWells (1999) outline the advantages of education
\ndecentralization, such as releasing the central authority from a
\ns financial burden and increasing local participation.<\/p>\n
Unfortunately, this has further been interpreted as releasing
\nthe central authority from its \"total\" financial burden and
\n\"total\" local participation. As a result, families are now
\nbearing the main responsible for their children's education,
\nparticularly with regard to the financial aspects.
\nSimultaneously, the government is gradually \"washing its hands\"
\nof education by shifting its responsibilities into the hands of
\nparents.<\/p>\n
If this trend continues, a segregated society is inevitable.
\nDuring my research fieldwork, some rich parents whose children
\nwere studying at a successful and \"rich\" school already held the
\nview that a segregated society was somehow \"acceptable\".<\/p>\n
How can you expect my children to be sent to a low-quality
\nschool when I have enough money to send her to this school? Less
\nfinancially capable parents whose children were studying at less
\nsuccessful and \"poorer\" school said, \"We have no choice although
\nmy son is smart enough!\"<\/p>\n
Their arguments are logical, but given the fact that
\ndecentralization is linked to \"marketization\" in which schools
\nare increasingly competing against one another despite their
\ndiffering conditions, this trend, if unchecked, might lead to a
\nwidening gap between \"rich\" and \"poor\" schools and further divide
\nsociety.<\/p>\n
This is perhaps what pushed the government to simplistically
\ndivide formal education into mandiri and standar classes, thus
\n\"legitimizing\" the increasingly segregated society and
\ndangerously encouraging discrimination.<\/p>\n
One can learn from Chile and Spain, which decentralized their
\neducation systems while moving from authoritarianism to
\ndemocracy. Much of Chile's success reflects an effective
\narrangement of state and private forces, in which the ministry of
\neducation plays a strong role in protecting the vulnerable and
\nassuring quality.<\/p>\n
Indeed, increased competition among schools will encourage
\nquality education, and increased local participation will enhance
\npeople's awareness of education. But this does not mean the
\ngovernment should abdicate its responsibilities and let the
\ncompetition segregate society, let alone structurally place the
\npoor, both \"financially and intellectually\", into a separate
\nassembly line!<\/p>\n
A quasi-market approach has therefore been proposed to combine
\nboth market and bureaucratic procedures in which the government
\nshould act as a wise mediator to ensure that the force of
\nmarketization will not devour the poor. While letting the people
\ndecide what level of education is best for them, the government
\nshould somehow facilitate the process without forcing people to
\nbe grouped into \"special classes\".<\/p>\n
One way to achieve this is by ensuring that the plan to
\nutilize the money saved from the slashed fuel subsidy to provide
\nfree education within the framework of a nine-year compulsory
\neducation is fully endorsed and implemented. Regardless of their
\ndiffering backgrounds, let all students compete and strive for
\nexcellence!<\/p>\n
The writer is pursuing his master's at the University of
\nSydney's School of Policy and Practice, Department of Education
\nand Social Work. He is currently completing his thesis on the
\ndecentralization of education in Indonesia.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/decentralization-of-education-often-misinterpreted-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}