Higher education deregulation<\/p>\n
By Freddy Kirana<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): A wave of public institution deregulations has
\nswept the world both in developing and developed countries.<\/p>\n
The recent announcement about the government's plan to revoke
\nits subsidies on state universities is one of the latest trends.<\/p>\n
The assumption underlying the initiatives has always been that
\nmarket competition-based activities will encourage better
\nperformance and diversity.<\/p>\n
Amid the euphoria intended to support good governance and
\nhuman rights, such initiatives should be applauded. As Satryo
\nSoemantri Brodjonegoro, the director general for higher
\neducation, said in a seminar at the Australian Embassy on Feb.
\n23, \"a university and its teaching staff need particular rights\"
\nto promote university autonomy.<\/p>\n
By this, the government seems to be sure that a better outcome
\ncan be achieved with gradual deregulation in higher education,
\nalong with the potential decrease in future government funding.<\/p>\n
In fact, \"marketization\" is not new in higher education,
\nparticularly in developed countries, such as the United Kingdom
\nand Australia. In a country where higher education was once
\nsubstantially funded by its government, economic rationalism was
\nadopted to curtail government expenditures and balance of payment
\nin the time of the economic crisis of the mid-1980s.<\/p>\n
It is a belief that the shift from state control to state
\nsupervision will make public tertiary institutions more cost-
\neffective and will be better managed, driven by the market forces
\n(consumer control).<\/p>\n
However, this might be a different story from the situation in
\nIndonesia and the implications it will bring on the cultural
\nand\/or intellectual formation of the future of the nation state
\nand its citizenship. Even in many advanced countries,
\nderegulation in higher education has become a perennial debate.<\/p>\n
Along with funding issues, autonomy is always the central
\ntheme in education deregulation. In academic terms, autonomy is
\nnormally divided into \"academic autonomy\", traditionally known as
\n\"academic freedom\", and \"institutional autonomy\".<\/p>\n
Generally, institutional autonomy is concerned with structural
\ndesign as well as the administration of tertiary institutions --
\nin this context referring to primarily state-owned universities
\nor colleges -- which are normally subdivided into \"substantive
\nautonomy\" and \"procedural autonomy\".<\/p>\n
The former refers to the authority of the tertiary institution
\nin its corporate entity to set its own objectives and programs.
\nThe latter refers to the authority of the tertiary institution in
\nits corporate form to determine its resources to pursue the
\nobjectives and programs.<\/p>\n
Autonomy, together with a number of nomenclatures derived from
\nbusiness and management, such as efficiency and effectiveness,
\ninnovation and quality improvement, productivity and quality
\nassurance, are two sides of one coin.<\/p>\n
The relative advantage expected from higher education
\nderegulation is that tertiary institutions -- run like a business
\norganization -- can play in a more agile way in accordance with
\nits strengths and weaknesses.<\/p>\n
They can define their own mission statements, set their
\nobjectives and priorities without much intervention from the
\ngovernment. They can institute long-term and short-term planning
\nprocesses, and develop their quality management plans with
\naccountabilities, targets and performance indicators. They can
\noffer to communities a greater access to the programs and
\nconsultation capabilities they are strong at.<\/p>\n
Furthermore, tertiary institutions are expected to be
\ninnovative and responsive to changes in their environment. They
\nare expected to be more entrepreneurial and to be able to
\noutsource funds, while at the same time helping offset the
\ndecline of government support. The funds consumed by research and
\nservices should produce a positive outcome. Thus, the tendency of
\n\"dependent mentality\" built on the relationship with the
\ngovernment can be gradually eliminated.<\/p>\n
So far there has been no research carried out to identify the
\nbest practice to govern and manage higher education systems and
\ninstitutions in Indonesia. In the past, the regulations and
\ndesign of higher education were mainly based on comparative
\nstudies abroad and arbitrary and\/or historical precedence.<\/p>\n
As a result, there were concerns about the lack of public
\naccountability of the tertiary institutions on the funds
\nallocated. There were practically no quantitative as well as
\nqualitative performance measures on the quality of teaching,
\nresearch and community services as well as the graduate outcome
\nand satisfaction.<\/p>\n
Since deregulation implies that tertiary institutions would be
\nincreasingly managed like that of the corporate sector, some
\nproblems are potential in relation to the governance, management
\nand diversity at the institutional level.<\/p>\n
It is in this regard that we could question whether the
\ndecisionmakers in the Ministry of Education have put in
\nsufficient time and energy to think about the implications
\nresulting from their new market-like regulatory framework.<\/p>\n
First, the expectation of market forces which drive
\nproductivity might reduce the quality of teaching and research.
\nTo generate income, academic and research staff would still have
\nto increase their productivity. However, partly due to time and
\nfinancial constraints, it is possible that they would produce as
\nmuch as they can, and hence have a low quality output.<\/p>\n
Second, the management of a tertiary institution that
\nresembles a corporate giant requires true managerial knowledge
\nand skills on the part of institution officials. So far, many
\nofficials of public higher institutions are not career managers,
\nbut rather they are academics who have achieved much in their
\nacademic fields.<\/p>\n
Thus, a top professor in health education does not necessarily
\nconstitute a top manager or team leader. Under such
\ncircumstances, rectors and deans might turn out to be a good
\nfigurehead rather than a problem-shooter. In the past, nearly all
\ncould survive in their positions supported by their academic and
\ncollegial environment, which was rather stable. However, many
\nissues related to quality improvement and innovation might have
\nbeen neglected as a result of their lack of capability. In the
\nmore uncertain and turbulent future, a better managerial
\nknowledge and skills are thus inevitable.<\/p>\n
Third, a higher education institution is usually regarded as a
\npowerhouse of intellect and innovative thought that generates,
\ninterprets and disseminates knowledge, values and qualities for
\nthe younger generation, who are supposed to be the future leaders
\nof society. In such a unique position, it is different from a
\nbank or a textile company.<\/p>\n
As a professional organization, it is entitled to its
\ncollegial rights. A collegial culture in higher education is
\ntraditionally favored in the academic realm, in which peer review
\nof research or publication is well-accepted. Under such
\ncircumstances, the managerial culture in a deregulated market
\nmight clash with the collegial culture.<\/p>\n
Quality assurance, based on a panel of experts appointed by
\nthe government, to ensure accountability and transparency demands
\non the part of institutions -- which seemingly threaten academic
\nfreedom -- might be ignored.<\/p>\n
Fourth, deregulation stimulates and promotes diversity in
\nhigher education. In turn, diversity affects nearly all aspects
\nof higher education, such as teaching methods, student learning,
\nequity and choices available to students, human resources, social
\nrelevance, finance and management. In such a diverse condition
\nand wider span of control, an institution requires a well-
\nprepared and solid management and information system.<\/p>\n
Fifth, since diversity suggests a loose supervision of
\ninstitutions by the government, no unitary system is available.
\nIt will follow the market mechanism. In response to rivalry,
\nduplication of courses and programs commonly viewed as counter-
\nproductive, i.e. preventing firms from gaining economies of
\nscale, will be likely. Risk taking will increasingly become an
\nintegral part of their portfolio of activities.<\/p>\n
There might be more issues encountered in the practice that
\none might be able to think of. However, the foregoing discussion
\nand illustrations should remind us that market-like regulatory
\nframeworks bring concerns on several factors, such as quality,
\nequality, opportunities, labor market priorities and academic
\nfreedom, to mention but a few.<\/p>\n
Whatever steps the government takes in the next few days or
\nweeks from now, other issues which should be taken into further
\nconsideration in relation to education deregulation are as
\nfollows:<\/p>\n
* Education is perhaps one of the most difficult services that
\none can measure its quality quantitatively.<\/p>\n
* Higher education deregulation requires both solid management
\nand information systems as well as a control mechanism.<\/p>\n
* There seems to be a need to look at the existing universitas
\n(sekolah tinggi) in the future. Should we redefine or abolish
\nsuch a binary system? Which tertiary institutions
\n(department\/school within an institution, to be precise) will be
\nregarded as a \"teaching institution\" or \"research institution\" so
\nthat funds can be better allocated, and accountability be better
\nmeasured.<\/p>\n
* Subsidies and cross-subsidies will be necessary for many
\nyears to come to assist public institutions to sustain their
\nexisting competitive edge, particularly in important research
\nareas, and to enhance equality and\/or opportunities for higher
\neducation in a pluralistic society.<\/p>\n
* In the future, as the outcome can be seen from the process
\nof deregulation, the government and its agencies should listen to
\nthe institutions' needs, rather than continuously setting
\nagendas, rules and regulations for their interest. Otherwise, the
\nobjectives of deregulation might slip back into centralism in a
\ndifferent guise, but with one exception: smaller funding for the
\ninstitutions.<\/p>\n
The writer is a member of the teaching staff at the Faculty of
\nEducation at Atma Jaya University, Jakarta.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/higher-education-deregulation-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}