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.