Embezzlement, bribery plague state schools

Ade Irawan, Jakarta

High cost has become a pressing issue in the operation of schools in Indonesia. In fact, various regulations, like the National Education Law (No.20 of 2003), stipulate that the central government and local administrations are jointly responsible for covering the cost of primary school and junior high school education, or their equivalents. Instead of free education, however, school levies at both the elementary and junior high levels are getting out of hand.

Studies by the Ministry of National Education show that the cost of education has for the greater part been borne by the community rather than the government. The portion of the cost paid by the parents of students has reached between 53.74 percent and 73.87 percent of the total cost of educational, whereas the portion borne by the government and society (other than parents) amounts to between 26.13 percent and 46.26 percent of the total cost of education.

There are at least two reasons why such a high proportion of the cost of education has to be borne by the community.

First, the allocation from the government is very small while huge sums are needed for education. In 2005, for instance, Rp 71 trillion (US$7.6 billion) was required compared to only Rp 21.375 trillion allocated by the state budget.

Second, corruption has set down deep roots. The budget allocation for education is not fully used for the needs of school. A large part of the money goes into the pockets of the personnel in charge of the relevant institutions, from the education ministry to the schools themselves.

Likewise, the charges imposed on the community are not all spent on the promotion of education. Most of the 38 levies identified by Indonesia Corruption Watch (ICW) have no connection with the enhancement of the quality of school management. For instance, some of the money goes on "coordination with the education agency", organizing the succession of school principals, and even the purchase of mundane items such as plates, forks and glasses.

In economic terms, the high-cost management of schools has prevailed. The extra money demanded of the public does not guarantee good service.

Nonetheless, in view of their position and roles in society, our schools have mostly been left untouched by criticism. There has been no serious attempt yet to deal with corruption in the school system. Corruption is still handled on a case-by-case basis, involving a handful of teachers or school principals.

So far, teachers have been made the scapegoats for corruption in our schools. Corruption in the running of schools has actually become very sophisticated, affecting nearly all areas and activities and involving numerous people, ranging from school and education office staff members to those not directly related to the schools like contractors, publishers and garment manufacturers.

It is undeniable that teachers have become a factor in creating high-cost education. They often increase the cost of an activity by, for example, giving low marks in examinations to make students sit repeats, which, of course, they have to pay for. But this is a small-scale practice with a limited scope, prompted by a desire to cover basic needs and low pay. Teachers are actors in and at the same time the victims of corruption.

Corruption has always been to do with power and teachers lack power in our schools. The lack of a power balance is the main cause of school corruption. The position of school principals is so strong and dominant that teachers and parents have no way of controlling it. For instance, in the case of the school budget as the main source of school funding, the power of the principals enables them to formulate and implement the budget without involving the other stakeholders.

School committees, which are supposed to represent the stakeholders and exercise control over the school principals, have turned out to be helpless. As appointments to these committees is mostly at the initiative of the principals, who often name their cronies as members, the committees frequently turn out to be little more than rubber stamps for the wishes of the principals.

In the same way, the local education offices, which are hierarchically superior to the school principals in the education system, more often than not act as their protectors rather than their supervisors. In fact, they enjoy something of a symbiotic relationship.

In general, three patterns of corruption can be found in schools.

First: embezzlement, in which school principals do not pay our, or mark up, the cost of certain activities or purchases that have already been funded by levies paid by parents or the government.

Second: double budgeting, in which school principals impose charges on parents for activities or purchases already financed with government funds.

Third: bribery, in which school principals make monthly payments to education officials out of the school budget and annual payments out of the "coordination with the education office" account.

Several approaches can be used to reduce the high cost of school management.

First, school principals and education officials involved in corruption should be punished. Corruption is a calculated crime, in which a would-be actor will estimate the profit or loss expected. Tough penalties will increase the cost for the would-be actor, thus serving as a deterrent.

Second, a regulation should be introduced to limit the power of school principals, and motivate them to serve and be responsible to the other stakeholders. As an alternative, the direct election of principals by the stakeholders could be considered.

Third, the school committees should be reoriented. The government tends to benefit from the committees' function of serving as private fund raisers. The role of committees in accommodating the stakeholders' interests and participation should be made clear and further promoted so that members of the public will be encouraged to become involved in running and maintaining these sort of democratic institutions in our schools.

The writer is public service monitoring program manager with Indonesia Corruption Watch.