The Jakarta Post reported that the government has proposed to increase the 2009 education budget to Rp. 224.44 trillion, a 45 percent increase over the 2008 budget, in order to fulfill our constitutional requirements. The proposal has been applauded by some observers, yet others have sounded many forewarnings.
This article will highlight why we need to be mindful about this increase, stressing that education needs more than just a sharp increase in funding -- it also requires effective program implementation.
The proposal shows government's compliance to the calls by civil society and lawmakers who amended our constitution. This should revise former practices which used to put defense spending over social development. However, this increase may not necessarily boost the education sector's progress indicators as we might expect if we don't know what our target is.
Undoubtedly, the New Order government had done a remarkable job in increasing our adult literacy rate to 85.5 percent by 1996. This was done when the education budget's proportion was only about 10 percent of the State Budget.
The current administration plans to increase the adult literacy rate to 95 percent by 2009 and according to data from the Central Bureau of Statistics, the rate in 2005 was 90.9 percent. Thus the increase in the education budget is expected to enable that target to be met. It may well be so at the national level, but would that be the case at the regional level?
If we look at two indicators that shape human development index, i.e., adult literacy rate and mean years of schooling at the regional level, we will see the stark reality of how different our regions are.
In 2005 when many regencies had reached 95 percent literacy rate, including Jayapura and Sorong, the literacy rate in Jayawijaya, Boven Digul, Mappi, Asmat, Yahukimo, Pegunungan Bintang and Tolikara was only 32 percent or less. The rate in Jayawijaya had even decreased from 36 percent in 1999.
The mean years of schooling in those Papuan districts was between 2.2 to 3.1 years, while the rest of the country was about 7.3 years, and some cities were at more than 10 years, including Jayapura and Sorong. This tells us there is an uneven distribution of education quality among Indonesia's regions, as well as between urban and rural areas.
Then what about the impact of fiscal decentralization on the two indicators? An analysis of the relationship between the increase in the local government's budget and the literacy rate and mean years of schooling suggests that the per capita expenditure for education before decentralization had stronger correlation with both indicators than the expenditure after decentralization.
On the average, the local budget after decentralization was three times greater than before decentralization. And to keep the analysis consistent, per capita expenditure for education in Jayawijaya after decentralization was more than ten times greater than before decentralization.
This example reminds us that an increase in money is not the only factor in meeting targets. There are other factors such as the initial conditions, well-planned programs based on careful studies, and the performance of program implementers.
What can the government do regarding these other factors? First of all, program designers must understand how to reach the right target for each program. As we know our community is divided into urban and rural areas, rich and poor regions, or accessible or inaccessible areas within a district or city, and so forth. Therefore, knowing and understanding the characteristics of a place and its people are necessary steps in planning.
Secondly, learn from regencies which have been successful in improving the indicators. Two examples are the district of Timor Tengah Selatan in East Nusa Tenggara which has successfully increased its literacy rate by 13.2 percent between 1999 and 2005; and the district of Paniai which increased its mean years of schooling from 3.6 in 1999 to 6.2 years in 2005 and increased its literacy rate by 13 percent.
A compilation of successful case-studies could help programmers and program implementers to understand what works in the targeted community. Specific programs for specific communities can then be added to the nationwide program of free nine-year basic education.
Third, close monitoring and evaluation of how each rupiah is spent by each office must be maintained and conducted by cross-agencies. The budget for the education sector is distributed to many agencies from the national to the local level, and therefore there is great potential for corruption, as many people are afraid of.
Each head of an implementing agency must be held accountable for each rupiah allocated to his/her office. In addition, some measures of performance indicators must be applied nationwide to ensure the program implementers are performing their duties as they are supposed to.
With these steps at least the government could embark on a careful use of the budget increase in order to achieve its target by having more effective programs. Then we, as a civil society, must also watch carefully how this budget is spent, as it is the taxpayers' money that mainly shapes the state revenues.
The writer is a Ph.D Candidate in Urban and Regional Planning at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. He can be reached at wilmar@hawaii.edu
