High-cost Schools in Indonesia

High-cost Schools in Indonesia

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.