Decentralization of education often misinterpreted

Decentralization of education often misinterpreted

Alpha Amirrachman, Contributor, Sydney

In his article published on The Jakarta Post on April 16,
Mateus Yumarmanto raised concern that the government had adopted
an approach that groups schoolchildren according to their
intellectual abilities and the financial capacity of their
parents.

According to him, this is against the principle that the
competency of all students should meet minimum national
standards. Second, according to the writer, this is also against
the policy of a nine-year compulsory education, which implies
that the government should provide basic education for all
children regardless of their intellectual and financial levels.

Education minister Bambang Sudibyo said this was not yet
policy, but merely an "internal discourse" that had leaked out to
the public.

He said the government would consistently stick to Education
Law 20/2003, which divides the path into formal, nonformal and
informal education.

However, the draft of the education ministry's Strategic Plan
for 2005-2009 and the would-be government regulation state that
formal education would further be divided into mandiri
(independence) and standar (standard). The mandiri is for
students who have high intellectual ability and come from
financially sound families, while the standar is for students
with less intellectual capacity and who come from less
financially sound families.

Certainly, these categorizations could be insulting for some.
Who wants to be labeled "poor" or "stupid"? Besides, these
categorizations are too simplistic. How about those intelligent
students who come from poor families, and those students who are
not so academically gifted but come from wealthier families?

I would argue that this is all due to the "excessive"
misinterpretation of the principles of education
decentralization.

As the collapse of the New Order regime also brought down with
it the highly centralized education system, a decentralized
education system was introduced. Karslen (2000) and McGinn and
Wells (1999) outline the advantages of education
decentralization, such as releasing the central authority from a
s financial burden and increasing local participation.

Unfortunately, this has further been interpreted as releasing
the central authority from its "total" financial burden and
"total" local participation. As a result, families are now
bearing the main responsible for their children's education,
particularly with regard to the financial aspects.
Simultaneously, the government is gradually "washing its hands"
of education by shifting its responsibilities into the hands of
parents.

If this trend continues, a segregated society is inevitable.
During my research fieldwork, some rich parents whose children
were studying at a successful and "rich" school already held the
view that a segregated society was somehow "acceptable".

How can you expect my children to be sent to a low-quality
school when I have enough money to send her to this school? Less
financially capable parents whose children were studying at less
successful and "poorer" school said, "We have no choice although
my son is smart enough!"

Their arguments are logical, but given the fact that
decentralization is linked to "marketization" in which schools
are increasingly competing against one another despite their
differing conditions, this trend, if unchecked, might lead to a
widening gap between "rich" and "poor" schools and further divide
society.

This is perhaps what pushed the government to simplistically
divide formal education into mandiri and standar classes, thus
"legitimizing" the increasingly segregated society and
dangerously encouraging discrimination.

One can learn from Chile and Spain, which decentralized their
education systems while moving from authoritarianism to
democracy. Much of Chile's success reflects an effective
arrangement of state and private forces, in which the ministry of
education plays a strong role in protecting the vulnerable and
assuring quality.

Indeed, increased competition among schools will encourage
quality education, and increased local participation will enhance
people's awareness of education. But this does not mean the
government should abdicate its responsibilities and let the
competition segregate society, let alone structurally place the
poor, both "financially and intellectually", into a separate
assembly line!

A quasi-market approach has therefore been proposed to combine
both market and bureaucratic procedures in which the government
should act as a wise mediator to ensure that the force of
marketization will not devour the poor. While letting the people
decide what level of education is best for them, the government
should somehow facilitate the process without forcing people to
be grouped into "special classes".

One way to achieve this is by ensuring that the plan to
utilize the money saved from the slashed fuel subsidy to provide
free education within the framework of a nine-year compulsory
education is fully endorsed and implemented. Regardless of their
differing backgrounds, let all students compete and strive for
excellence!

The writer is pursuing his master's at the University of
Sydney's School of Policy and Practice, Department of Education
and Social Work. He is currently completing his thesis on the
decentralization of education in Indonesia.