Striving for effective higher education

Striving for effective higher education

By Nirwan Idrus

This is the second of two articles on ways to improve higher
education.

JAKARTA (JP): It is exactly two years to the day. Regrettably,
business is as usual in almost all the country's state higher
education institutions.

In fact, for many people the situation is more perplexing and
dangerous than before. We now have people and institutions who
have learned the new paradigm "speak" or language. They now go
around championing the new paradigm, but stop short of doing
anything.

The same old lip-service syndrome. Some consider post-monetary
crisis Indonesia as being totally different from that before the
crisis, thus solutions that may have had an impact precrisis are
simply not acceptable now. As if nothing can be learned from
successful solutions generated during the precrisis era. Lest we
forget, the problems with and in the Indonesian education system
were perpetrated precrisis and not post-crisis.

It is true that the various ideas already advocated can be
seen to be top-down. Without the appropriate training of the
people, it is difficult to expect solutions to be generated at
the "bottom" and then to expect them to filter upward to the top.
The top also needs to be trained to receive and not just give
ideas, instructions, etc.

It is also true that the changes discussed here would need
appropriate resources. But is education in Indonesia out of
resources? Not according to the amount of loans and grants that
have been received to date, as well as the unserviceable
equipment and buildings mentioned before. This is where the
question of effectiveness comes into the picture.

Perhaps a more practical suggestion is now appropriate. Take
just two items from the previous article as examples. They are:
1. The dissemination of the new paradigm in education, and 2.
Getting unserviceable equipment working again.

The new paradigm was announced to heads of higher education
institutions (both state and private) at the tail end of the New
Order era.

It is hardly surprising, therefore, that the message has not
filtered down to the people. In the old paradigm, the required
dissemination first required a letter of instruction from the
director general followed by fund disbursement to carry out the
order. This mentality is still alive in state and some private
higher education institutions even now, two years hence and well
into a different political era in Indonesia.

It is therefore suggested that a training program for rectors
and directors of polytechnic schools be mounted as soon as
possible to familiarized them with the new paradigm and show ways
how they should disseminate the message to everyone in their
respective institutions.

There should not be a huge expenditure for this purpose as
rectors and directors could be grouped in a number of regions
around the country while the director general traveled out to
those regions from Jakarta.

There would be no need for an entourage from the ministry to
accompany the director general, as it would be most appropriate
that the director general be the person that sells and is seen to
sell the new paradigm. A program of dissemination of the new
paradigm could be agreed upon with the rectors and directors.

The implementation of this agreed program would need nothing
more than a commitment and a little time from everybody. The
commitment could be manifested in several ways. For example, the
director general could set aside a couple of days a month on the
"new paradigm", reading and commenting on reports from rectors
and directors about progress in their institutions.

The comments, which should be developmental, should be passed
on as quickly as possible to the rectors and directors. In turn,
the rectors and directors would do the same with their deans of
schools and the deans with their heads of departments.

Naturally, input from departments should precede that of the
faculties and that from the faculties should precede that from
the institutions to the director general.

The major difference between this method and the centralized
system of the past would be that the position above would not
simply give instructions to the position below and expect them to
be acted upon, but would accept reports of action already taken
and give advice on how to improve them in a sort of coaching
manner.

There would be no sanctions or penalties for actions taken,
but the wisdom of the people in positions above would be offered
to those below them to improve the actions. This practice would
be just as valuable to the people below as to those above. The
people above do have a monopoly on the best solutions, and indeed
in many cases are ignorant of situations in the "field".

Self-discipline would be the key to all the above. Everyone at
all levels, from the director general down, should be disciplined
enough to set that couple of days a month for this purpose.

The second immediate problem faced by institutions generally,
and school of engineering in particular, is that of unserviceable
equipment. This impacts badly on the education of students,
particularly in this era of technology.

Theoretical knowledge alone cannot produce skilled graduates
to bring this country on a par with its neighbors. This problem
ranges from new equipment supplied without manuals, equipment
supplied with missing accessories and equipment supplied without
training, to nonexistent service support.

Exacerbated by New Order mentality, only very few institutions
take the initiative to repair and bring equipment to a usable
condition. Others simply wait for a letter of instruction and the
funds to fix the problem. Naturally they wait a long time.

However, the situation is acute and the impacts on graduates
and this country will be pervasive and debilitating. A national
action plan is needed in this case. It is therefore suggested
that the Directorate General of Higher Education (DGHE) requests
all state institutions to make inventories of unserviceable
equipment, clearly stating the required repairs.

To avoid potential misuse of funds, it is also suggested that
an independent skilled personnel be contracted by DGHE to audit
the inventories, prioritize the repairs and categorize them into
those that should be repaired locally by expertise within
campuses and those that needed skills and competence external to
the institutions.

Where will the funds come from for the repair and other work,
one hears many rectors and directors as well as deans and heads
of departments at state institutions scream.

As has been said, there are at least seven solutions to a
problem, and they do not grow on trees. Suggestions could be
made, but it would be unfair not to let these people exercise
their talents first, before being told what the answers are.

Hopefully nobody will need to tell them what the answers are.
Then, and only then, will we see incipient effective higher
education in the country.

The writer is an international higher education consultant
living in Jakarta. This article is his personal opinion.