Regional Autonomy, as discussed formerly, aims to achieve peace in a nation, by accommodating local aspirations to independently manage and develop their own territory and authority. Most observers, such as Chadda (1997), Karlsen (1999), Ghai (2000), Nesiah (2000), Turner and Podger (2003), Aspinall and Fealy (2003) have similarly articulated that the challenge is to develop a governmental strategy as a whole, rather than focusing on specific sectors, such as education. Karslen stated that “Governments have used decentralization as a strategy in various institutions within the public sector, including education, where there is a prevalent belief that decentralization will bring about desired large-scale, education reform” 167, for example, Hungary, New Zealand, South Africa, England, Norway and British Columbia (in Canada). Both strategies either broad or specific, are the same, giving regions the authority and discretion to manage their educational matters independently, with the potential for programs and policies to be tailored to suit real local needs.
166 Down to Earth (2001), “Regional Autonomy: Dark Future”, (Original title “Otonomi Dareah: Masa
depan yang suram”, Available [online], Down to earth, Nr. 51, November 2001,
http://dte.gn.apc.org/51idc.htm, [10 October, 2007]
167 Karlsen, G.E. (1999), “Decentralized Centralized-Governance in the field of education : Evident from Norway and British Columbia”, Canadian Journal of Education and Policy, Issue 13, December
Broad ‘autonomy’ or ‘decentralization’ in education is where school programs and policies can be determined principally by the schools themselves. Gabor argued that, in Hungary, after experiencing educational reform, the government has deliberately formulated the education autonomy law, “to separate political, administrative, and professional control functions that had been combined”168
. The system formerly assigned the local government to provide all school needs, before finally being reformed to limited tasks in managing administrative matters. Schools have full authority to provide their own policy and programs, including their internal rules, activities, organizational structure and staff recruitment. According to this concept, the power belongs to the schools’ teachers, who have the right to approve all policies and programs prior to implementation. As Gabor points out, teachers also decide the position of the school principal and “if more than fifty percent of an institution’s staff refuse, the candidate can not be accepted…”169
. The role of the local government is just to ascertain that the authority given to the schools, to decide on matters such as programs, policies, curriculum, internal affairs, facilities and budgeting, has been implemented appropriately, according to the regulations. The local government also has to supportand guide schools with planning for the future and with solving any disputes arising between the schools and other institutions or people.
Some countries have taken a practical approach to decentralizing the education sector. In New Zealand, Williams explained that the strategy has been to allow schools to administer themselves independently, deactivating the previous regional boards. The site council, consisting of parents, school principal, staff and students, took over the function of the former regional board. This policy was applied to accommodate growing community concerns that certain groups, such as Maori people and women, “were disadvantaged by the system”170
. In England, decentralization in Education is called ‘Local Management of Schools’ (LMS), and operates by giving individual schools their budget directly, for them to maintain independently. This concept is based on the trust of the central government of the school governing bodies to be accountable, similar to the New Zealand site council system. Richard refers to this as sweeping decentralization in education. In essence, Williams asserts, both countries have experienced the practice of formerly-centralised tasks moving to local authority level. The curriculum is still provided nationally, yet measurement of success is carried out differently. In New Zealand, the central government will review accountability
168 Gabor, Halasz (1996), “School Autonomy and the Reform of Educational Administration in Hongaria”, European Education, 10564934, Vol. 27, Issue 4, p. 390
169 Gabor, Halasz (1996), p.390
170 Williams, Richard C. and Harold, Barbara (1997). “Sweeping Decentralization of Educational Decision-Making Authority”, Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 78, Issue 8, April, Available [online], http://0-web30.epnet.com.library.vu.edu.au/citation.asp?tb=1&ug=sid+B8..., [19 October, 2004]
every three years, while in England this is done by looking at the schools’ results in the national examinations.
The decentralization of education can be distinguished from the technical and political approaches. Rhoten argues that the system by which education has been decentralized and where overall educational performance is determined by comparing national examination results is the ‘technical’ approach171
. On the other hand, New Zealand employed the ‘political approach’, where progress is determined according to whether there is a decrease in the number of disputes in the field. Karslen compared the decentralization of Education across different countries according to the degree of transfer of powers from central to local authorities172. Karlsen examines in the cases of Hungary, New Zealand and England, to what extent the central government has delegated or devolved tasks to the regions. Karslen argues that “delegation normally implies a transmission of tasks and administrative responsibilities…”173. Karlsen argues that, ‘decentralisation’ does not mean necessarily mean shifting the powers to local governments and that local governments may in some cases just execute central policy and programs, while with ‘devolution’, in the implementation of decentralization (or regional autonomy), authority and responsibilities actually move to local governments. The most interesting of Karslen’s statements is that decentralization should be based on the bottom level initiative and result in the transfer of power to the local governments, which, in reality, he argues, rarely happens in practice. In Norway, decentralization in education was introduced in 1993, through the act provided by central government and popularly known as the ‘lump-sum system’. Besides giving more local freedom and authority to the municipalities and schools, the most notable area of discretion is with the budgeting system:
“… the state gives a sum of money to the municipalities to cover the cost of schools, as well as the cost of other sectors such as culture and health services. In many municipalities, this lump-sum system is then employed to fund schools. The school principal then becomes responsible for the budget”174
.
A strategy of giving indirect autonomy to the education sector has been the experience of some countries. As happened in British Columbia, Canada (passing through three levels,
171 Rhoten, Diana (2000), “Education decentralization in Argentina: a ‘global-local conditions of possibility’ approach to state, market, and society change”, Journal Education Policy, Vol 15, No. 6, pp. 593-619, Available [online], http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals, [7 October, 2004]
172 Karslen, G.E. (2000), p.530 173
Karslen, G.E. (2000), p.530 174 Karslen, G.E (2000), p.530
starting from the central government, to the education agencies at the lower levels), the regulations empowered the provinces to administer education independently175. Besides the lump-sum system, the government also introduced a certified bargaining agent, the teachers’ union, which has collective bargaining rights with the local school board. The school principal is not the part of the union or council, as in other countries, except for functioning as the administrative officer in the management of the school. Karslen argued that these types of top-down initiative, carried out through the local institutions and not directly touching the target schools, may be perceived by local people as just a strategy for strengthening the central power and determining the central tasks to be implemented in schools.
Preston claims that, whether autonomy in the education sector is full, sectoral, partial or indirect depends on the complexity of the programs176. Preston argues (as do Fanany, Sukma, Ghai, Colongon, Arghiros, Hope and Sayed, referred to in Part 3.3 above) that a policy of decentralization is effected within a system depending not only on political will, competency, and resources, but on the capability of the providers or developers to provide activities that are ‘SMART’. Williams and Johnson argue that a program should be ‘SMART’, that is, specific, measurable, agreed, realistic and time-based and that this can be achieved by understanding the expected process and changes involved in implementation177. Preston also addresses this issue through analysing the decentralization in vocational education in Papua New Guinea. In this country, vocational training centres have been established, aimed at solving problems caused by the failure of the central government management of vocational education. This has resulted in a more complex situation. The central government provided the syllabus and inspectors for these Centres, but this made “graduates ineligible for entry at any level into liberal arts secondary education; there was no mechanism through which they could compete in upper secondary technical colleges…”178
, argued Preston. In addition, the self-funding, through income generated by Centres, including their administrative committees, has not yet promoted members to undertake their own activities, as has been expected.
However, there is no golden rule, as Gershberg argues except “we still know too little about how to implement such reform successfully, given the intricate political contexts in which it
175
Karslen, G.E. (2000), p. 532
176 Preston, Rosemary (1993), “Gender and Relevance: Decentralized vocational education in Papua New Guinea”, Oxford Review of Education, 03034985, March, Vol. 19, Issue 1, Available [online], http://0-web18.epnet.com.library.vu.edu.au/citation.asp?tb=1&_ug=sid+8d..., [28 September, 2004] 177 Williams, Kate and Johnson, Bob (2004), Introducing Management: a Development Guide, Second
Edition, London, Elsevier Butterworth Heinemann, p. 148 178 Preston, Rosemary (1993), p. 25
must occur” 179
. However, from all these arguments, explanations and experiences, including associated problems or impacts, Gershberg identified two distinct trends. The first trend is that strategies are formed by making the law the basis of reform, followed by action. This strategy focuses on the “consistency, comprehensiveness and a clear sense of what the final outcomes should look like” 180
, such as what is being implemented in Mexico and Colombia. The second trend is to reform, directly, those objects which are “emphasizing operational viability, local responsiveness and a sense that doing is the best way of learning”181
, such as that which occurred in Nicaragua.
Unfortunately, neither of those trends is likely to be the situation in Indonesia. Decentralization of education in Indonesia is considered as just one of the consequences of the political changes made through the introduction of Regional Autonomy Law 22/1999 in 2001. The law on the National Education System (Law 20/2003), promulgated in 2003, is very ‘descriptive’, merely to accommodate the demands of the constitution (UUD 1945), and does not specifically determine how decentralization should be carried out in the education sector. However, the law does contain one fundamental principle which might be used to support the ‘action’ approach in decentralizing education: the obligation for governments in Jakarta, the provinces, districts and cities to allocate 20% of their annual budget (known as ‘APBN’ in the central government and ‘APBD’ in the provinces, districts and cities) to the education sector. (At the time of completion of the field work of this research, in July 2005, that figure had still not been achieved)182. However under the Regional Autonomy Law, it is definite that the education sector, including VSE, is one of the 11 sectors to be devolved to the local governments in districts and cities183. Before regional autonomy, some of the above concepts were taken up as Central Education Office initiatives, in the education sector. For example, Hadiwaratama claims that the VSE curriculum was greatly improved, as far back as 1976, in order to support the development of the industrial sector, agriculture and services184. Hadiwaratama’s opinion regarding the decentralization of education was:
179 Gershberg, Alec Ian (1999), “Education ‘Decentralization’ Process in Mexico and Nicaragua: legislative versus ministry-led reform strategies”, Comparative Education, Volume 35, No. 1, pp. 63-80
180 Gershberg,Alec Ian (1999), p. 64 181 Gershberg,Alec Ian (1999), p. 64
182 Republic of Indonesia (2003), “The Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 20, 2003 about the National Education System”, (original title “Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 20 tahun 2003 tentang Sistem Pendidikan Nasional”), Available [online],
http://www.ri.go.id/produk_uu/isi/pp2000/pp020-2003.html, [23 September, 2005]
183 The eleven sectors are Public Works, Health, Education, Agriculture, Transportation, Industry, Infestation, Environment, Land Reform, Cooperation and Workers.
184
Hadiwaratama (2002a), “The Development of Vocational Education in Pelita III”, (original title “Perkembangan Pendidikan Kejuruan Pada Pelita III”), in Supriadi, (ed.), History of the
“Education should be synchronized with the needs of surrounding community. The resources and potencies of the local area could be improved by using technology to improve community welfare. The implication is that the vocational school in Ambon, as an example, should not be similar to the school in Jakarta, as the resources of each of these two locations are different”185
.
Also, Adiati et al noted that the VSE curriculum in Indonesia has been modified several times, starting in 1984, then again in 1994, 1996, 1999 and 2004, to match needs, especially in optimizing teaching and learning processes at school level186. Each version of the curriculum is named, according to specific characteristics. For example, the 1994 reform was known as the ‘competency-based curriculum’, where the focus of the curriculum was on the competency of the graduates. The 1996 reform introduced a ‘broad-based curriculum’, with a focus on the teaching and learning process. Another government strategy to improve vocational education was, as Adiati also mentions, was the introduction of national programs and policies, particularly two prominent principles, ‘Link and Match’ and ‘Dual System’ 187.
However,Slamet argues that such centralized initiatives have some weaknesses. The central government decision is considered to frequently not meet the real needs of the schools at local level. The multiple bureaucratic administrations (central and provincial government) have resulted in low responsiveness in solving problems and this has impacted on the schools’ performance in implementing programs and policies. Such a form of administration has also been perceived as limiting local creativity, forcing educational development to end up under- managed, and resulting in inefficiency and ineffectiveness188. The most substantial argument from Slamet is:
“The state-driven approaches have placed schools in a marginal position. Schools become powerless, with no initiative, dependent, undemocratic, irresponsive in reading and articulating the problems, needs and aspirations of the community. The
Vocational Secondary Education in Indonesia: Developing Productive Manpower, Jakarta- Indonesia, Departemen Pendidikan Nasional, Dit-Jend. Dikdasmen, Dikmenjur
185 Hadiwaratama (2002), p. 153
186 Adiati, Achmad Sudrajat (2002), “Pendidikan Pertanian Dari Masa Ke Masa”, in Supriadi, (eds),
Sejarah Pendidikan Teknik dan Kejuruan di Indonesia: Membangun Manusia Produktif, Jakarta- Indonesia, Departemen Pendidikan Nasional, Dit-Jend. Dikdasmen, Dikmenjur
187 ‘Link and Match’ is a principle where the vocational schools have partnerships with industries, while the ‘Dual System’ is teaching and learning method where classroom teachings are implemented by the students in industry, see Adiati p.432.
188 Slamet, PH (2000), “School Based Management” (original title “Manajemen Berbasis Sekolah”), Available [online], http://www.depdiknas.go.id/Jurnal/27/manajemen_berbasis_sekolah.htm, [10 July, 2005], pp. 606 -632
management-based central government is not only reducing the creativity of the schools, but also the sense of belonging”189
.
Slamet believed that, with the implementation of regional autonomy, a logical consequence of decentralization of the education sector should be school autonomy, where schools would have the authority and responsibility to manage their own business (school- based management)190. Tjahjono agreed, confident that giving full authority to local governments would improve the quality of planning and also of outcomes191. In addition, Mecca asserted that decentralization would encourage initiative and popular participation in the process of governing and developing their regions192. However, Baedowi argued that such a perception is a misconception and that it would contribute to widening the gap between central and local governments in managing education. Baedowi realized that the Regional Autonomy Law has, indeed, eliminated the hierarchical relationship between central, provincial and local governments. He asserts that the relationship between the three levels of governments has become unclear. He argues that, therefore, the National Education Law should establish what the responsibilities of the three levels of government should be193. In this regard, Mecca and Riana consider the National Education Law is an indication that the central government intends to maintain control of education, as has been the experience of many other countries194.
In broader terms, Saptono is sceptical about the outcomes of decentralization and states:
“Giving so much power to the regions and in such a fast manner and has created new problems in implementation…Sensitive issues are arising, such as the creation of small ‘kings’, impacts on the vertical and horizontal relationships and new mechanisms and forms of administration …”195
.
189 Slamet, PH., (2000), p.615 190 Slamet, PH., (2000) 191
Tjahjono, S Indro (2000), “Autonomy Running as a Wild Ball”, (original title “Otonomy berjalan
seperti bola liar”), Available [online],
http://www.hamline.edu/apakabar/basisdata/2000.09/10/0085.html, [29 September 2005] 192
Mecca, Antonny and Riana Refa (2005), “Format Baru Otonomi Daerah”, available [online],
http://www.pikiran-rakyat.com/cetak/2005/0105/03/teropong/utama01.htm, p. 1
193 Suara Pembaruan (2004), “The implementation of the Regional Autonomy in the Education sector is still weak”, (original title “Pelaksanaan Otonomi Daerah Bidang Pendidikan Masih Lemah”),
Suara Pembaruan Daily, Available [online],
http://www.suarapembaruan.com/News/2004/08/04/Kesra/kes04.htm, [9 February, 2006]
194 Mecca, Antonny and Riana Refa (2005), “Format Baru Otonomi Daerah”, available [online], http://www.pikiran-rakyat.com/cetak/2005/0105/03/teropong/utama01.htm
195 Saptono, Irawan (2002), “The Key To Understanding Regional Autonomy”, (original title “Pintu
Untuk Memahami Otonomi Daerah”), Available [online], http://www.dadangsolihin.com/pan- otda_review3.asp, [12 July 2005]
Bjork claims that the early implementation of the ‘Local Content Curriculum’ (LCC) in the senior high schools (SMA) in Indonesia, part of the ‘action’ approach to education decentralization, has sparked tensions, both in the hierarchical relationships between the central and regional governments and horizontally, between institutions, particularly in the Districts196. The different expectations of central and local governments were generating “a state of paralysis at all level of the education system”197. The important members of the LCC in East Java, who were supposed to act autonomously, were always waiting instructions from the Central Government. In VSE, Priowirjanto and Suryatmana suggested that, for decentralization to be successful, the educational institutions, the Local Education Office (Dinas) and the Vocational Secondary Schools (SMK) needed to establish relationships with the surrounding communities, the trades and industrial sectors and needed to consider the roles of other national and higher-level bodies198. Finally, Lee suggested that, the neighbouring country, Malaysia, seems to have different experiences, as the decentralization process has been implemented smoothly and it has included the “devolution of decision- making, empowerment and enablement”199
. Yet, the only problem, as indicated by Lee, was the difficulty in formulating schools’ performance indicators 200
.
Thus, it is obvious that decentralization of education in Indonesia still has positives and negatives. Nevertheless, there is an indication that some distinguishing aspects can be identified. In many countries, the strategy in decentralizing education has mostly been conducted by formulating specific regulations or laws, introduced to develop the education sector. Nicaragua has succeeded in implementing decentralisation by following the models of America and Australia, “fostering as much as citizen participation and passing as much power, if not more, on to parents and other local actors”201. In Malaysia, the success in education has been achieved by empowering the educational institutions202. In Indonesia, the