Responsibility for Education

Kompas

Didie SW

If there are damaged school buildings, inadequate salaries for contract teachers, poor learning outcomes, and increasingly difficult access to education during the Covid-19 pandemic, who can the people turn to and demand that they take responsibility?

It is urgent to clarify who in the field of education has responsibility today to keep our national education system to be intact, sustainable, democratic, and free of conflicts of interest. Since the issuance of Law No. 23/2014 on Regional Governments, which divides the authority over managing state education affairs between the central and regional governments, the stance on delivering education responsibility has become increasingly ambiguous.

Ambiguity can give birth to escapism, namely avoiding responsibility, or in the case of severe deviation, it can reach the level of scapegoating, namely blaming another party. In both escapism and scapegoating, the victims are the people who have a constitutional right to education.

Also read:

> Maintaining Teacher Quality

> The Perseverance of a “Waste Teacher”

> Online Learning is Safer for Students and Teachers

Ambiguity can also give birth to two attitudes. On the one hand, the Education, Culture, Research and Technology Ministry (Kemendikbudristek) feels distant from local governments because the minister’s main task is to develop norms, standards, procedures, and criteria, as well as be the official that presides over and supervises the delivery of education services in the regions.

As a result, arrogance can appear in the design of regional regulations on education, or regional heads might simply ignore the policies of the Kemendikbudristek.

On the other hand, misused autonomy can give birth to minor kings who manage education. The regional heads can come to feel that they hold autonomy over local education services. As a result, arrogance can appear in the design of regional regulations on education, or regional heads might simply ignore the policies of the Kemendikbudristek.

Some examples have been seen with the emergence of cases related to new student admissions (PPDB) that are not in line with ministerial policies, or cases of extortion conducted through the mechanism of the school principal\'s authority.

The ambiguous responsibility for delivering education services to citizens would not arise if the education system was designed in an integrated way that promoted synergy among education stakeholders at both the central and regional levels and among ministries and institutions, as well as provided space for public participation in education services management, supervision, and administration.

One system

Article 31, Paragraph 3 of the 1945 Constitution mandates the government to establish a national education system that promotes faith, piety and noble character in the context of enriching the intellectual life of the nation as regulated by law. This mandate is implemented through Law No. 20/2003 on the National Education System (Sisdiknas) under a standards-based education paradigm.

The National Education System Law defines the national education standard as “the minimum criteria for education systems in all jurisdictions of the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia”. It also underlines that the national education standard cover content, process, graduate competencies, education staff, infrastructure, management, financing, and academic assessments that must be upgraded on a planned and regular basis.

KOMPAS/PRIYOMBODO

An officer serves parents of students at the New Student Admissions Post (PPDB) at SMK 15 state vocational school, South Jakarta, Tuesday (23/6/2020). The government, through a joint decree issued by four ministers, stipulates that schools can be opened in COVID-19 green zones on the condition that they meet health protocols, as well as obtain local government permits and parent permission.

The high interregional disparities in education mean that the national education standard is the main reference for protecting the citizens\' right to education, which is organized by the government. Meeting these standards is the government\'s task in order to guarantee the right of education for every citizen.

In the context of the standards-based education paradigm, the existence of a body that develops the national education standard is very important. Because the government is responsible for meeting the national education standard, the National Education System Law emphasizes the importance of developing, monitoring, and reporting on the achievements of the national education standard by an agency overseeing the standardization, guarantees, and quality control of education.

This is also to avoid the conflicts of interest that might arise and harm citizens’ right to education.

This agency is independent at both the national and provincial levels. The agency’s independence is very important for creating a democratic control mechanism between the individual in charge of education and the community as the mandated recipient of education services. This is also to avoid the conflicts of interest that might arise and harm citizens’ right to education.

The establishment of this agency as mandated by the Sisdiknas Law must be regulated by a government regulation (PP). Therefore, PP No. 19/2005 on the National Education Standard emphasizes, in detail, the existence of an agency called the National Education Standard Agency (BSNP). The BSNP’s task is to develop the national education standard as an independent and professional institution based in Jakarta, and its national education standard binds education providers across the jurisdiction of the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia. On this affirmation, the national education system is formed.

Threat to unity

The education system that is regulated under the 2003 Sisdiknas Law and PP No. 19/2005, along with its two amendments, is now on the brink of disintegrating. PP No. 57/2021 on the National Education System, which replaced PP No. 19/2005 and its two amendments, violates the Sisdiknas Law, as it does not provide regulations on the existence of an agency on the standardization, guarantee, and quality control of education.

Instead of regulating this agency in line with the mandate of Article 35 Paragraph 4 of the Sisdiknas Law, the regulation on the existence of this agency is entrusted to the education minister.

The dissolution of the BSNP through Article 334 of Education Ministerial Regulation (Permendikbudristek) No. 28/2021 on the Organization and Work Procedures of the Education, Culture, Research and Technology Ministry, derived from Presidential Regulation (Perpres) No. 62/2021 on the Education, Culture, Research, and Technology Ministry, makes us question how could the Perpres even provide a loophole for the minister to not fulfill their mandate under the Sisdiknas Law?

Who authorizes the establishment of a standards agency as mandated in the National Education System Law as independent of the minister?

Kompas/Priyombodo

Adam, a grade 3 student at SD Negeri Petukangan Selatan 03, South Jakarta, was picked up by his parents after attending school, Tuesday (19/1/2021).

The most damaging aspect is that the education system is divided. The national education standard, which in the previous PP was binding for all education administrations in the jurisdictions of the Unitary

State of the Republic of Indonesia, no longer exists at present. As a result, those schools managed by the Religious Affairs Ministry are not required to follow the national education standard as set by the minister.

Conflicts of interest

Granting the minister the authority to establish an education standardization, assurance, and quality control agency that is not independent and unprofessional, but is integrated as a work unit at the Education, Culture, Research and Technology Ministry, has the potential for abuse of power and conflicts of interest. Who ensures that the national education standard is designed to truly guarantee citizens’ right to education, and not for the temporary interests of ministerial projects or the relevant directorates?

The responsibility for the education sector in the Regional Governments Law is concurrently in the hands of the central and regional governments.

Moreover, it would be a mistake if the Kemendikbudristek Ministry, in referring to the Regional Government Law, stated that the minister’s task was simply to design the norms, standards, procedures and criteria, as well as to supervise and oversee their implementation by local governments. The responsibility for the education sector in the Regional Governments Law is concurrently in the hands of the central and regional governments.

The division of authority only emphasizes the differentiation of duties and functions, but does not define the responsibility for delivery of education services to citizens.

The paradigm in PP No. 57/2021 apparently wants to position the Education, Culture, Research and Technology Ministry only as a regulatory body. The concept of report cards as national assessment in regional education and among regional education units indicates that the ministry does not feel it is partly responsible for the failure of education services in the regions.

Public oversight

The provision on the national education standard in PP No. 57/2021 eliminates various roles of the public in developing, improving, and supervising education quality. In fact, the existence of a self-reliant, independent and professional BSNP as mandated in PP No. 19/2021 is intended to realize a democratic mechanism to guarantee citizens their right to education, which the government is obligated to provide.

If the national education standard is developed by the education minister, ambiguity will arise in terms of who is responsible for what. The Regional Governments Law emphasizes that the government, in this case the education minister, has the authority to set the national education standard. The minister\'s job is to establish this. However, the national education standard must be developed by an independent agency as regulated in the PP and mandated in the 2003 Sisdiknas Law, and it may be handed over to a work unit in the Education, Culture, Research and Technology Ministry.

Kompas/Hendra A Setyawan

Education and Culture Minister Nadiem Makarim

In addition, the mechanism for public oversight, such as the Education Council, a non-hierarchical and independent institution in the ministry, has also been abolished. The absence of public oversight in the development, guarantee, and quality control of education through a self-reliant, independent and professional agency, such as the BSNP or the Education Council, further emphasizes that our education is currently managed only by a handful of government elites who can easily violate the legal mandate.

Revising PP No. 57/2021 is a fundamental and urgent matter to avoid the collapse of the education system, the emergence of various conflicts of interest, and the absence of a democratic mechanism in education management. If school buildings are damaged, contract teachers’ salaries are inadequate, the position of school principal is being politicized, learning outcomes are poor, and education is difficult to access, the central or regional governments must take responsibility for these. The failure of local governments in providing the minimal standard in education services to citizens is also the failure of the central government; meaning, it is the minister’s failure!

Doni Koesoema A, Education Observer and Lecturer at Multimedia Nusantara University, Serpong

(This article was translated by Hyginus Hardoyo).