The winding road to better education<\/p>\n
Sayidiman Suryohadiprojo, Jakarta<\/p>\n
Public opinion in Indonesia supports a radical improvement in
\ngeneral education, which covers scholastic education, education
\nat home and social education. This article focuses on scholastic
\neducation.<\/p>\n
It is becoming increasingly clear that scholastic education in
\nIndonesia lags far behind its Southeast Asian neighbors. While
\nMalaysia had once recruited high school and university teachers
\nfrom Indonesia during the 1950s to the 1960s, today it is
\nIndonesia that should learn from Malaysia how to develop quality
\neducation.<\/p>\n
However, improving education is not only a matter of quality.
\nQuality education should also be available to the nation's
\ncitizenry as a whole, and not only benefit the wealthy segment of
\nsociety. For a nation of more than 200 million people, this is
\ncertainly no easy task; the more so because the majority of the
\npeople are poor.<\/p>\n
To improve scholastic education, at least the first nine years
\nof compulsory education -- spanning elementary to middle school
\n-- should be made free, so that children of poor backgrounds can
\nhave a good primary education. In comparison, Malaysia provides
\nfree education up to high school.<\/p>\n
According to a study by the Research and Development
\nDepartment of the Ministry of National Education, parents spend
\nan average of Rp 4.8 million annually for each child attending
\nstate elementary school and about Rp 6.1 million for a private
\none. For middle school education, the figure is Rp 5.6 million
\nfor state schools and Rp 5.7 million for private schools; and for
\nhigh school education, it is about Rp 7 million for state schools
\nand Rp 6.8 million for private schools.<\/p>\n
We can easily surmise the consequences if the government
\nprovided free education. Even if this was limited to elementary
\nand middle school education, spending will be astronomical, as
\nthe government must also finance Islamic schools, to which the
\ncompulsory education program also apply.<\/p>\n
Moreover, this must be complemented with an improvement in the
\nquality of teachers through professional development programs and
\nin increasing their salaries. Basic salaries for the teaching
\nprofession must at least be equal to that of their counterparts
\nin the business sector, if we want to attract the best graduates
\nto the profession.<\/p>\n
We must also not forget that good scholastic education
\nrequires good facilities. This means that a school must not only
\nhave a proper building, but also other facilities, such as a
\nlibrary, athletic field and science laboratories, to elevate the
\nquality of education to an appropriate standard.<\/p>\n
Today, we often read in newspapers how many schools have
\ndeteriorated and collapsed, forcing students to study in
\nmakeshift classrooms under extremely uncomfortable and
\ninappropriate conditions. Meanwhile, only a small number of
\nelementary and middle schools have libraries and sports
\nfacilities, let alone laboratories.<\/p>\n
Some say that the amendment of the Constitution, which
\nstipulates that the state should allocate at least 20 percent of
\nthe budget for education, would solve a large part of the
\nproblem. But the government today cannot afford to meet such a
\nbudgetary requirement. As long as the economy remains weak and
\nnational revenue limited, any government would find great
\ndifficulty in allocating 20 percent of the budget to education,
\noverwhelmed by other vital financial obligations.<\/p>\n
It is still far from clear how much state investment in
\neducation can be expected in the near future. This year, it is
\nnot more than 8 percent. Even if budget allocation reached 20
\npercent, the educational fund would be limited by the total
\nbudget.<\/p>\n
There are others who say we should not rely on the government
\nexcessively, and point out that society could make a significant
\ncontribution to the improvement of education. For this approach
\nto be valid, it must be based on the assumption that the general
\npublic are wealthy, like in Japan or the U.S. Critics of this
\ncamp seem not to realize that the majority of the Indonesian
\npopulation are poor.<\/p>\n
Even in Malaysia, which has a gross domestic product (GDP) per
\ncapita of about US$3,900, the state pays for the cost of
\neducation up through secondary school. How can we expect the
\npeople of Indonesia, which has a per capita GDP of about $820, to
\ncontribute financially to the improvement of education? In this
\ncase, it is the state that must take the bulk of the
\nresponsibility in improving national education.<\/p>\n
During the ongoing campaigns ahead of the July 5 presidential
\nelection, we have heard the candidates' oft-repeated promise to
\nimprove the condition of national education and provide free or
\naffordable education. They and their success teams are either
\nrelatively ignorant about the problems facing national education
\nor they are making empty promises intentionally.<\/p>\n
It is clear that a better educational system requires a
\nstronger economy. However, in order to strengthen the economy, we
\nneed a large workforce of skilled human resources. The new
\nleadership should realize this dilemma and posit a solution.<\/p>\n
As a nation, we should be aware of the many great obstacles on
\nthe road to improving national education and thus support the
\ngovernment in its efforts to overcome them.<\/p>\n
We should support it all the more because, apart from the
\nproblem of financial resources, other difficult issues prevail;
\nfor example, in convincing Muslim leaders that the madrasah,
\nwhere many children obtain their education, should teach general
\nscience alongside religious education.<\/p>\n
The writer is a former governor of the National Resilience
\nInstitute (Lemhannas).<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/the-winding-road-to-better-education-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}