The dilemma of achieving improvements in education

The dilemma of achieving improvements in education

By Mochtar Buchori

JAKARTA (JP): Participation in a two-day seminar on the
problem of quality and equity in secondary education in
Indonesia, sponsored by the United States Agency for
International Development, has opened my eyes regarding the
enormous complexity of this problem. From discussions about
efforts that have been made thus far, it can be concluded that
the efforts toward achieving a higher quality of education in
this society have been going on for quite a long time. A great
amount of money, energy and time has been spent for this purpose.
Yet almost every participant in this seminar -- many of whom are
people who have worked in the field -- feels that not much
improvement has been achieved. It is true that in terms of
physical quality -- buildings, textbooks, laboratory equipment,
and other teaching instruments -- our schools have shown
considerable improvements. But when it comes to the quality of
students' academic performance, the general feeling is that we
have not made much progress. There is even a strong feeling that
our schools have declined in quality.

One participant stated that, in his opinion, all this
stagnancy has been caused by a mistake in the way the problem has
been approached. Efforts to this end have always been carried out
as "projects of the central bureaucracy", in which ways of
implementing the projects have been entirely controlled by the
central bureaucracy. In this way, teachers in the field do not
have the feeling that they are involved in a very important
national undertaking, i.e. improving the academic quality of our
schools. The feeling common among our teachers in this regard has
been that they are just carrying out instructions. The purpose of
each of these projects is not sufficiently understood by these
teachers. What they are aware of is that all their activities are
directed toward achieving a given "target", which is only vaguely
understood as having to do with improving their schools. But what
the "objective" is of each project is something which is beyond
their understanding. The end result of this approach is that
after all the projects have been completed, there is still no
significant improvement in the quality of our education.

Based on this information, the question was asked in this
seminar whether our way of tackling the problem should not be
changed. Wouldn't it be a good idea if efforts towards quality
improvement are executed in a decentralized way, with greater
participation by teachers in the field in identifying and
formulating programs to this effect? Wouldn't it be a good idea
if project preparation included workshops in understanding the
purpose and design of each project? It should not be forgotten
that in the end, it is those teachers in the field who decide
whether or not real improvements in quality will be forthcoming.
On the basis of this principle, it was argued that it is of
paramount importance that teachers in the field acquire a greater
understanding of and make a greater commitment to efforts aimed
at improving the various aspects of our education. Changes in
project administration, as suggested in this discussion, will
bring about this greater understanding and commitment.

Another important aspect that was highlighted in this seminar
is that the range of quality among private schools is much
greater than that among public schools. There is a strong
impression that the best private schools are still better than
the best public schools. This brought into light that the problem
of improving the quality of education is especially pressing
among private schools. Out of discussions about this issue came
an excellent idea of creating a network through which private
schools of high quality could help private schools of lower
quality to improve their conditions. I do not know to what extent
this idea can really be carried out in our present situation, but
the fact that the seminar produced such a wonderful idea is
itself a very notable accomplishment, in my opinion.

A clear picture concerning how the problem of quality affects
our schools emerged when one participant revealed that out of
20,838 junior high schools (SMPs) throughout the country (public
and private), only 18 (0.23 percent) fulfill the criteria for
category A (the highest out of five categories). Six-hundred SMPs
(2.89 percent) fall within the B category, while more than 50
percent of these 20,838 schools fall within the E (lowest)
category. It can be inferred from the discussions that almost all
of the schools falling in the E category are private SMPs. A
rough estimate puts the worst among the public SMPs in the D
category.

The biggest problem in this regard is that many teachers and
principals of our schools do not have a clear notion of what
"quality education" is. As long as this conceptual obstacle is
not removed in a decisive manner, it is unrealistic to expect
that a genuine drive towards quality education will ever occur
among these poor schools. The question is, then, how to make
principals and teachers in such schools become "literate"
concerning the meaning of "quality education".

This is a problem that cannot be taken too lightly. Only a
very intensive retraining program for the core personnel of such
schools can remedy this situation. Such a retraining program must
include a healthy amount of discussion concerning the essence of
"quality education". It is only on the basis of a very solid
understanding concerning this matter that a meaningful discussion
can be generated among participants of such a retraining program.
Meaningful discussions concerning criteria of "standard schools",
for instance, can take place only among educators who really
understand what quality education is all about. It is also only
on the basis of such understanding that a realistic discussion
can be conducted concerning the criteria for the promotion of
standard schools into "above-standard" schools ("super schools")
and degradation into "substandard" schools ("mediocre schools").

The setting of these criteria is a very important technical
step. Equally important is the dissemination of information
concerning these standards to the public. The public has the
right to know whether or not a school which is advertising itself
as a "high-quality school" really meets the existing standards.
It is felt in this seminar that at the moment, the majority of
the public is aware only of the "hardware" side of quality
schools, but totally ignorant about the academic side. An
informed public, especially informed and concerned parents, can
be a very powerful motivator in helping a school to move into a
higher category.

How is quality measured in our schools? This was a topic that
created very animated discussions. It was revealed in this
seminar that the basic indicator for a school's quality is the
grades achieved by the students in the national examination test,
popularly known as the EBTANAS, an acronym for Evaluasi Belajar
Tahap Akhir Nasional. Two criticisms were leveled against this
method. One, it was argued that the EBTANAS results do not really
signify the excellence in academic achievement. Out of so many
grades in the EBTANAS, it is only grades for achievement in
language and mathematics that can be trusted as really reflecting
the academic quality of the students. Second, the figures that
are finally put on the official EBTANAS list are in most cases
results of administrative manipulation. If pure EBTANAS figures
were used, it was feared that many students will have to be
declared failures, and parents will become upset. Furthermore,
that would put a school in a low category. It was on the basis of
this kind of information that participants in this seminar
seriously doubted the validity of the present ranking systems of
schools. The question which arose was "What will be a better way
of measuring a school's quality"? This question was left
unanswered.

Another important question about quality that was discussed in
this seminar was the high cost of providing a good education. A
school which wants to provide education of reasonable quality
must practically subsidize each student. The amount of subsidy
that has to be provided for each student depends upon the
economic status of the parents. Private schools with rich parents
do not have to provide subsidies. But schools with less well-to-
do parents have to provide this subsidy if they want to maintain
their educational services at acceptable level. In the PSKD
school system (the Jakarta Christian School Association) -- a
reasonably good system, but not a luxurious one -- the monthly
expenditure for each student in 1996 is Rp 36,322 for elementary
school (SD), Rp 37,603 for junior high school, Rp 36,691 for
senior high school (SMA), Rp 32,459 for vocational high school
for commerce (SMEA), and Rp 67,207 for technical high school
(STM). The monthly tuition fee that the PSKD school system
receives from each student is, on the average, Rp 26,045 for
elementary school, Rp 30,025 for SMP, Rp 49,942 for SMA, Rp
25,730 for SMEA, and Rp 25,807 for STM.

This particular school system has to provide subsidies for its
students at the SD, SMP, SMEA, and STM levels. The amount of this
monthly subsidy per student is thus Rp 10,277 for SD, Rp 7,578
for SMP, Rp 6,729 for SMEA, and Rp 41,400 for STM. It is only for
their SMA students that the PSKD school system does not have to
provide subsidies. SMA students in this system donate Rp 13,251
per student per month to the school system. This means that on
the whole, SMA students within PSKD have come from economically
well-to-do families. As an illustration, it was mentioned by
Tunggul Siagian, executive director of the PSKD system, that at
one of his SMAs, students come to school in Mercedes cars.

The problem of maintaining quality in private schools is
further aggravated by the fact that certain types of teachers are
"hijacked" by the business community. Tunggul Siagian mentioned
that it is very difficult for his system to retain mathematics
teachers for a fairly long time. A senior mathematics teacher at
the SMA level receives only Rp 600,000 per month in his system,
whereas if they work for an insurance company, they get Rp 2
million a month plus other benefits.

The discussion about equity touched upon four specific forms
of present inequities: gender inequity, regional inequity,
inequity in teachers' quality and inequity in institutional
conditions. The discussion reached a very interesting phase when
the problem of substandard schools was discussed. What should be
done about these schools? Should they just be closed, or should
efforts to increase their quality be persistently pursued, in
spite of the high costs?

The dominant view was that these schools should never be
closed. At the very least, these schools fulfill a very important
social function: keeping children out of the streets and out of
the huge class of unemployed people. Furthermore, at least they
learn something, no matter how imperfect the learning process may
be. Thus, regardless of the high cost, efforts to improve their
quality must be constantly pursued.

Improving the quality of our schools is considered vital for
the formation of the middle class in Indonesia. Only when we
succeed in raising the quality of our schools will we have a real
middle class in our society of the size that can play a decisive
role in the economic and political development of our country.

The writer is an observer of social affairs based in Jakarta.

Window A: The problem of maintaining quality in private schools is
further aggravated by the fact that certain types of teachers are
"hijacked" by the business community.

Window B: Improving the quality of our school is considered vital
for the formation of the middle class in Indonesia.