Subsidies must target better education for poor students
Subsidies must target better education for poor students
Good schools want new entrants with good grades. Do rich and
poor have the same opportunities? Education researcher Ace
Suryadi shared his views with The Jakarta Post's
Muhammad Yazid on Monday. He teaches in the postgraduate program
of the University of Indonesia, as well as the Jakarta State
University, and holds a Phd in the economics of education from
the State University of New York at Albany.
Question: The recruitment of students to relatively good
state high schools has so far required good grades as reflected in
the average examination grades (Nilai Ebtanas Murni, NEM). Such
schools are now dominated by students from well-to-do families.
What are the implication for poor students?
Answer: This is an issue of education quality -- which is not
only determined by the NEM. Quality depends on a student's learning
method and learning capacity, the output of which would be to
understand something.
This requires four things: the ability to read fast, the
ability to express ideas verbally or in writing; the ability to
understand the logic of numbers, space mathematics, etc, and the
ability to analyze.
Q: What is the aim of those requisites?
A: One is so that a student can get a good NEM. But it's not
right if quality is judged by the NEM given that answers to the
tests can be memorized. There is an unfair element in the process
(of evaluation).
Q: Could you elaborate?
A: Poor students seem to have various disadvantages as regards
entering schools requiring a high NEM. First, a high NEM is easy
to acquire for those from well-to-do families because of their
access to good facilities. Second, the poor will predictably
enter lower grade schools because of their low NEM. These lower
grade schools would certainly be financially disadvantaged
because of their low fees. So such schools continue to be of low
quality...
Meanwhile, students from well-off families have experienced a
better process. They have had good nutrition and study
facilities. They have acquired some habits from their parents,
such as reading, discussing, analyzing. Their schools are better
funded as the result of charging larger fees. The schools can
thus pay their teachers higher salaries; their students' parents
can pay for private lessons.
In state-run higher education institutions, we now have entry
procedures without the NEM (for high school graduates with
constantly good grades), but the proportion (of the total number
of university entrants) benefiting is too small.
The standard matriculation examination for state universities
(UMPTN) is unfair because it reinforces the status quo, which
works to the advantage of the rich. This view is based on the
findings of the research department of the ministry of education.
Their studies have revealed a positive correlation between the
NEM and the socio-economic status of parents.
I fear the state university recruitment method has been
reduced to a selection based on financial rather than
intellectual capacity. Those from rich families with good
nutrition and learning facilities have a greater chance of
passing the university test because the system stresses
achievement instead of the thinking process, or the above four
requisites. The University of Indonesia (UI) has more students
from well-off families than from poor ones.
So the well-off pay low fees to study at state-run
universities like UI and the Bandung Institute for Technology.
While the poor who are rejected by UI must seek more expensive
private institutions. Therefore our education system tends to
make study cheap for the rich and expensive for the poor. So we
tax the poor and subsidize the rich.
Q: What's the solution?
A: First, we need diversity in subsidies. It's better to provide
subsidies for the poor -- such as subsidies for disadvantaged
schools, even if they are private (as opposed to the current
policy of only subsidizing state schools).
State schools dominated by the well-off -- such as SMUN 3 in
Bandung (West Java) and SMUN 8 in Jakarta -- only need small
subsidies, or none at all. Such state schools could be left to
become independent or they could be turned into commercial
ventures, as they receive large donations from parents.
The issue here is that the government must determine the
criteria by which schools receive government subsidies. But don't
differentiate between private and state schools (regarding
subsidies).
The approach of managing schools like commercial ventures is
reflected by the top private schools ... and also state schools
like SMU 8 and SMU 70 (in Jakarta). They should be left to manage
their own affairs. As they seek profit, they could be taxed --
these taxes could then be paid to poor schools as a kind of cross
subsidy.
Q: But our taxation system is said to be ineffective and
inefficient...
A: The method would be up to the government; but that's only a
mid-term solution. The problem is that the government should be
willing to adopt a commercial approach to education. Don't
discourage educational institutes from seeking profit as long as
they are providing quality education.
What should be discouraged is the practice of seeking profit
when the education provided is bad. And, in general, parents will
pay anything for a good education.
With cross-subsidization, the poor schools could hopefully
upgrade their quality...
Q: So how can poor students enter the top state schools?
A: This brings us back to the NEM. Evaluations should be based on
the learning ability tests which would apply equally to poor and
rich students. The United States employs tests like the Graduated
Record Examination, which evaluates verbal reasoning, writing,
reading and argumentation skills. Also tested are mathematical
reasoning, analytic reasoning and logical reasoning. This kind of
learning ability test has a higher degree of predictability.
Q: Can we apply such tests under regional autonomy?
A: Tests to measure learning ability are precisely designed for
autonomy. So regions must not repeat the mistakes of the central
government (in designing inappropriate tests). I'm sure this
system is workable.
Q: How then would you view later competition in the job market?
A: Competition in the job market would become more objective, and
would no longer be based on whether one was rich or poor.
Recruitment departments in foreign companies stress the above
four requirements, as well as language skills. This is different
from domestic firms which engage in a lot of nepotism in their
recruitment practices. (Mohammad Yazid)