Vested interests in national exams<\/p>\n
By Mayling Oey-Gardiner and Peter Gardiner<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): This is the time of year when millions of
\nelementary and secondary students take the national end-of-cycle
\nexaminations known as Ebtanas.<\/p>\n
It is also a time of year when many national, regional and
\nlocal officials of the Ministry of National Education and local
\ngovernments can enjoy the financial spoils of this annual ritual
\nof holding the nation's schoolchildren to ransom.<\/p>\n
This year, senior high school students were scheduled to sit
\nfor their exams from May 22 to 25, followed by junior high school
\nstudents from May 29 to 31, and finally primary school students
\nfrom June 5 to 7.<\/p>\n
Without taking the exams, they are not allowed to graduate and
\nwithout a piece of paper indicating the results, they cannot
\nprogress to the next level in the education hierarchy or apply
\nfor a job in the civil service.<\/p>\n
These exams include all schools, both public and private.
\nPrivate schools must cover the full "cost" of these exams -- in
\neffect, their students must pay extra.<\/p>\n
And this is true, even though many private schools conduct
\ntheir own examinations or tests. Costs for state schools are
\nsupposed to be largely covered by the government budget, but in
\npractice, student charges are still often levied.<\/p>\n
If they don't or can't pay, they can't take the exams and they
\nwill not graduate with their classmates who do. Parents, thus,
\nhave no choice but to pay if they want their children to have a
\nchance at further education or even simply proof of completion at
\ntheir current level.<\/p>\n
The media have recently been reporting about the amounts of
\nmoney involved and also regarding those in favor of abolishing
\nthis expensive end-of-cycle hardship to civil society. The
\narguments are fairly straightforward. Firstly, it is a source of
\nsignificant additional income contributed by schools, students
\nand the tax-paying public.<\/p>\n
Secondly, the exams serve very little purpose. They are
\ndefended (by the education bureaucracy) as a means of controlling
\npossible variations in the quality of school level grading
\nsystems and, thus, as a stimulus for schools to improve their
\nquality.<\/p>\n
They are also defended as means to provide greater certainty
\nin selection of students for progression to higher levels. To
\ndate, however, the validity of these suppositions has not been
\nproven.<\/p>\n
Exam scores appear to have little influence on graduation or
\nschool quality. And it is arguable that selection can be carried
\nout by other, less expensive and onerous, means.<\/p>\n
Not surprisingly, and contrary to increasing popular opinion
\nto eliminate the Ebtanas, and considering the overall amount of
\nmoney involved, the vested interests to maintain the system are
\nvery strong.<\/p>\n
Take the example of Jakarta. Meetings about this year's
\nEbtanas reportedly started in February. But it was only when time
\nwas running out on May 1 that the Jakarta regional office of the
\nabove ministry submitted for local government approval the per
\nstudent costs of the national exam.<\/p>\n
These were Rp 55,650 at junior secondary level, Rp 75,100 at
\ngeneral senior secondary level and Rp 115,400 for vocational
\nsenior secondary schools.<\/p>\n
They cleverly avoided requesting approval for a total budget.
\nPrimary school exams come under local government and are not
\ndealt with here.<\/p>\n
However, based on last year's (1998-1999) numbers of exam
\nparticipants and the detailed unit costs for 1999-2000, we can
\narrive at a projected total cost.<\/p>\n
By this calculation we arrive at a total figure of at least Rp
\n22 billion, simply to conduct final national exams for secondary
\nstudents in Jakarta.<\/p>\n
This amount covers only what has been submitted to the
\ngovernor, but does not cover actual amounts that students and
\nparents have to pay to all the various levels of government
\noffices. This is definitely not chicken feed and clearly
\nrepresents a good source of "pocket money" for those involved.<\/p>\n
The details are also equally interesting. To conduct a final
\nexam for some 294,000 students, the government has set up five
\nlevels of organization: 1) regional, 2) district, 3) city, 4)
\nsubdistrict, and 5) schools.<\/p>\n
According to the officially approved budget, the regional
\noffice demands Rp 6.7 billion, the district office Rp 238
\nmillion, the city Rp 95 million and the subdistrict Rp 2 billion.<\/p>\n
Another breakdown is also an eye-opener. The total budget for
\nstationery, for four levels of government, excluding the amount
\ndemanded for the schools, comes to Rp 2.6 billion.<\/p>\n
This item is to cover correspondence costs. Even more amazing
\nis that the government committees at each level are given
\nallowances and honorarium. Here, the total bill for Jakarta
\ngovernment officials is Rp 1.3 billion.<\/p>\n
Worse still, as noted by the Private Schools Consortium, in
\nthe provincial office of the ministries there are only 12
\ncommittee members and they meet about six times to discuss the
\nnational exams.<\/p>\n
Yet, they demand a total fee, consisting of allowances during
\nmeetings and honorarium, of about Rp 556 million. It is up to the
\nreader to further calculate what each committee member collects
\n-- clearly a substantial annual harvest.<\/p>\n
Here we have looked only at Jakarta. But, it should be made
\nclear that Jakarta is not an exception. This process is
\nduplicated across the country. And the relative gain of officials
\nand\/or burden placed on students may well be greater elsewhere.<\/p>\n
The Indonesian education system is a closed one with very
\nrigid rules. Children are required to progress through the system
\nin an orderly fashion, with promotion being determined by
\nperformance at the previous level -- be it school level, or even
\ngrades within each school. No skipping of grades is allowed.<\/p>\n
At the end of each cycle -- for elementary school grade 6,
\njunior high school grade 3, and for senior high school also grade
\n3 -- children have to take the national exam to be promoted to
\nthe next cycle.<\/p>\n
Admission to junior high, senior high and university requires
\na certificate that the applicant has taken the national exam.<\/p>\n
Inability to show a certificate indicating that a student has
\ntaken the national exam prohibits a school from accepting that
\nstudent, irrespective of whether the school is public or private.
\nThus, neither schools nor students have the freedom to choose.
\nThey are only forced to pay and sit for the exams.<\/p>\n
We mentioned earlier that one of the claimed objectives of the
\nnational exam is to control schools and serve as stimulus for
\nquality improvement. Yet, look at the results for 1998-1999
\n(Table).<\/p>\n
Table: Numbers of Ebtanas participants and number of graduates,
\naverage Ebtanas grade and graduation ratio for all students in
\nIndonesia, 1998-1999<\/p>\n
School Type Participants Graduates Average Graduation
\n and Level Grade Ratio
\n ---------------------------------------------------------
\n Public
\n ---------------------------------------------------------
\n Junior
\n Secondary 1,571,012 1,546,216 5.75 98%<\/p>\n
General
\n Senior
\n Secondary 461,086 446,547 3.99 97%<\/p>\n
Vocational
\n Senior
\n Secondary 155,440 153,555 5.09 99%
\n ---------------------------------------------------------
\n Private
\n ---------------------------------------------------------
\n Junior
\n Secondary 775,314 768,900 5.22 99%<\/p>\n
General
\n Senior
\n Secondary 351,303 344,156 3.19 98%<\/p>\n
Vocational
\n Senior
\n Secondary 380,985 348,647 4.68 92%
\n ---------------------------------------------------------<\/p>\n
Source: based on statistics from the Ministry of Education,
\nobtained from the Internet.<\/p>\n
The grading of national exams is based on numbers, on a scale
\nfrom 0 to 10. It should be clear from the table that average
\ngrades are relatively low (on normal report cards, 6 is usually
\nconsidered a minimum passing grade).<\/p>\n
Yet graduation rates are very high, all well in excess of 90
\npercent. The worst cases are among general senior high school
\nstudents who managed to score on average less than 4 on Ebtanas.
\nYet between 97 percent and 98 percent still graduated.<\/p>\n
Clearly, Ebtanas provides little or no control on the quality
\nof graduates. Requiring students to sit the exam in addition to
\nnormal school testing and grading in order to graduate must,
\nthus, be open to question.<\/p>\n
The low scores, and questions that have been raised over just
\nwhat the tests are measuring (not to mention perennial issues
\nrelated to leakage and manipulation), cast doubt on its value as
\na screening tool for progression to higher levels in the
\neducation system.<\/p>\n
If screening beyond grades and other school-based performance
\nmeasures were required, it would be far more efficient for this
\nto be carried out by individual schools using whatever standards
\nthey deem necessary.<\/p>\n
For state universities, where selection is a major issue,
\nthere is already a separate entrance exam, the UMPTN, which is
\nused as a basis for screening applicants.<\/p>\n
Some more elite high schools even require applicants to take
\nspecial aptitude tests either designed by the school or through
\nprivate testing services.<\/p>\n
Under such conditions, civil society should clearly question
\nthe value of Ebtanas. Particularly if, as we suggest, it's
\nprimary purpose is to keep the bureaucracy in pocket money and,
\nthereby, hold children at ransom.<\/p>\n
The writers are social science researchers on human resource
\ndevelopment issues at the private Insan Hitawasana Sejahtera
\nFoundation in Jakarta.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/vested-interests-in-national-exams-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}