High-cost Schools in Indonesia<\/p>\n
Ade Irawan
\nJakarta<\/p>\n
High cost has become a pressing issue in the operation of
\nschools in Indonesia. In fact, various regulations, like the
\nNational Education Law (No.20 of 2003), stipulate that the
\ncentral government and local administrations are jointly
\nresponsible for covering the cost of primary school and junior
\nhigh school education, or their equivalents. Instead of free
\neducation, however, school levies at both the elementary and
\njunior high levels are getting out of hand.<\/p>\n
Studies by the Ministry of National Education show that the
\ncost of education has for the greater part been borne by the
\ncommunity rather than the government. The portion of the cost
\npaid by the parents of students has reached between 53.74 percent
\nand 73.87 percent of the total cost of educational, whereas the
\nportion borne by the government and society (other than parents)
\namounts to between 26.13 percent and 46.26 percent of the total
\ncost of education.<\/p>\n
There are at least two reasons why such a high proportion of
\nthe cost of education has to be borne by the community.<\/p>\n
First, the allocation from the government is very small while
\nhuge sums are needed for education. In 2005, for instance, Rp 71
\ntrillion (US$7.6 billion) was required compared to only Rp 21.375
\ntrillion allocated by the state budget.<\/p>\n
Second, corruption has set down deep roots. The budget
\nallocation for education is not fully used for the needs of
\nschool. A large part of the money goes into the pockets of the
\npersonnel in charge of the relevant institutions, from the
\neducation ministry to the schools themselves.<\/p>\n
Likewise, the charges imposed on the community are not all
\nspent on the promotion of education. Most of the 38 levies
\nidentified by Indonesia Corruption Watch (ICW) have no connection
\nwith the enhancement of the quality of school management. For
\ninstance, some of the money goes on \"coordination with the
\neducation agency\", organizing the succession of school
\nprincipals, and even the purchase of mundane items such as
\nplates, forks and glasses.<\/p>\n
In economic terms, the high-cost management of schools has
\nprevailed. The extra money demanded of the public does not
\nguarantee good service.<\/p>\n
Nonetheless, in view of their position and roles in society,
\nour schools have mostly been left untouched by criticism. There
\nhas been no serious attempt yet to deal with corruption in the
\nschool system. Corruption is still handled on a case-by-case
\nbasis, involving a handful of teachers or school principals.<\/p>\n
So far, teachers have been made the scapegoats for corruption
\nin our schools. Corruption in the running of schools has actually
\nbecome very sophisticated, affecting nearly all areas and
\nactivities and involving numerous people, ranging from school and
\neducation office staff members to those not directly related to
\nthe schools like contractors, publishers and garment
\nmanufacturers.<\/p>\n
It is undeniable that teachers have become a factor in
\ncreating high-cost education. They often increase the cost of an
\nactivity by, for example, giving low marks in examinations to
\nmake students sit repeats, which, of course, they have to pay
\nfor. But this is a small-scale practice with a limited scope,
\nprompted by a desire to cover basic needs and low pay. Teachers
\nare actors in and at the same time the victims of corruption.<\/p>\n
Corruption has always been to do with power and teachers lack
\npower in our schools. The lack of a power balance is the main
\ncause of school corruption. The position of school principals is
\nso strong and dominant that teachers and parents have no way of
\ncontrolling it. For instance, in the case of the school budget as
\nthe main source of school funding, the power of the principals
\nenables them to formulate and implement the budget without
\ninvolving the other stakeholders.<\/p>\n
School committees, which are supposed to represent the
\nstakeholders and exercise control over the school principals,
\nhave turned out to be helpless. As appointments to these
\ncommittees is mostly at the initiative of the principals, who
\noften name their cronies as members, the committees frequently
\nturn out to be little more than rubber stamps for the wishes of
\nthe principals.<\/p>\n
In the same way, the local education offices, which are
\nhierarchically superior to the school principals in the education
\nsystem, more often than not act as their protectors rather than
\ntheir supervisors. In fact, they enjoy something of a symbiotic
\nrelationship.<\/p>\n
In general, three patterns of corruption can be found in
\nschools.<\/p>\n
First: embezzlement, in which school principals do not pay
\nour, or mark up, the cost of certain activities or purchases that
\nhave already been funded by levies paid by parents or the
\ngovernment.<\/p>\n
Second: double budgeting, in which school principals impose
\ncharges on parents for activities or purchases already financed
\nwith government funds.<\/p>\n
Third: bribery, in which school principals make monthly
\npayments to education officials out of the school budget and
\nannual payments out of the \"coordination with the education
\noffice\" account.<\/p>\n
Several approaches can be used to reduce the high cost of
\nschool management.<\/p>\n
First, school principals and education officials involved in
\ncorruption should be punished. Corruption is a calculated crime,
\nin which a would-be actor will estimate the profit or loss
\nexpected. Tough penalties will increase the cost for the would-be
\nactor, thus serving as a deterrent.<\/p>\n
Second, a regulation should be introduced to limit the power
\nof school principals, and motivate them to serve and be
\nresponsible to the other stakeholders. As an alternative, the
\ndirect election of principals by the stakeholders could be
\nconsidered.<\/p>\n
Third, the school committees should be reoriented. The
\ngovernment tends to benefit from the committees' function of
\nserving as private fund raisers. The role of committees in
\naccommodating the stakeholders' interests and participation
\nshould be made clear and further promoted so that members of the
\npublic will be encouraged to become involved in running and
\nmaintaining these sort of democratic institutions in our schools.<\/p>\n
The writer is public service monitoring program manager with
\nIndonesia Corruption Watch.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/high-cost-schools-in-indonesia-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}