Introduction
A.
Understanding Comparative Public Policy
As noted by (Feldman, 1978),
Public policy comparison is a method of studying public policy (covering the
policy process, policy outcomes, and policy impacts), which is carried out by
adopting a "comparative" approach. Comparing certain policies with
other policies in specific countries with those in other countries. (Heidenheimer, Heclo, & Adams, 1990)
gives a more specific affirmation, by the
comparison of public policy is the study of how, why, and what impacts are
caused by government actions and government inaction.
From both Feldman's and Heidenheimer's
definitions of CPP (Comparative Public Policy), we can conclude that there are
3 elements (elements) that are keywords that are the center of attention of
CPP. In Feldman's terms, the 3 keywords are "process," "output,"
and "outcomes," while the keywords used by Heidenheimer are
"haw," "why," and "to what effect." Although
there are differences in using keywords, the concepts of Feldman and
Heidenheimer are not contradictory, and even Heidenheimer (who developed the concept
later than Feldman) seems to have clarified our understanding of CPP.
B.
Objectives of Comparative Public Policy
There are at least 3 reasons and
objectives why we need to conduct a comparative study of existing public
policies between certain countries and other countries or between existing
policies in our country and policies in other countries. That is:
1)
To get an overview and lessons on designing a
good policy.
2)
To gain a more profound and better
understanding of how the role of government institutions and political
processes (as they should be) is primarily related to the formulation and
resolution of concrete problems that develop in society.
3)
To review various existing policies across the
national level.
C.
CPP Framework
With the definition and objectives of CPP
as stated above, it can be said that the CPP study includes theoretical
analysis and practical analysis aimed at solving problems (as formulated in the
policy) in more detail and detail. Thus, the scope of the study becomes very
broad. Therefore, it is possible to have many choices to compare public
policies, including "economic choice" and "politics
choice." If in the economic framework (economical choice) there are known
2 types, namely allocation (allocational) and distribution (distributive), then
in the framework of politics (politics choice), we will know more. Heidenheimer
helps us concentrate only on 4 types of choices from the many choices in
Politics as Choice. That is:
1)
Choices
of coverage areas (Choices of Scope). This type of Choice of Scope analyzes how
public (Government) roles and responsibilities are compared to private
(private) roles and responsibilities in dealing with policy issues. In other
words, the extent to which the scope of government involvement in dealing with
public problems is compared to the scope of public (private) involvement. This
choice of Scope type is also used to analyze whether a policy is set to solve
single problems or complex (interrelated) problems. For example, policies on
education; Is the policy only specifically to solve education problems, or is
it also intended to solve poverty problems and others related to increasing
citizens' access to a more harmonious life?
2)
Choices
of Policy Instruments (Choices of Policy Instruments). This type of choice
analyzes what instrument or policy tool is used. The policy was taken for the
purpose (as a tool to achieve the goal) to maintain decision-making power at
the national level or for the purpose (as a tool to achieve the goal) of
delegation of authority at a lower level?. Using the government structure as a
policy instrument or other tools? Moreover, there are many more choices of
policy instruments used, which are generally related to specific instruments in
public intervention.
3)
Choices
of Distribution (Choices of Distribution). This option analyzes the impact of
that policy anywhere. Does the policy have a multiplier impact or not?
4)
Choices
of Detailed Problem Solving and Innovation (Choices of Restraints and
Innovation). This type of choice analyzes various possible alternatives that
can be selected and used to solve problems in detail. The questions asked
ranged from; how to continue, end or adjust policies that have been implemented
so far. These questions are used to find creations and innovations for solving
problems that may not be solved with alternatives that have been chosen so far.
D.
CPP approach
Comparative Public Policy (CPP) studies
recognize several approaches. W. Parsons (1997: 40) suggests that 5 approaches
are generally used in CPP studies, namely:
1)
Socio-Economic
Approaches; This approach analyzes how far the impact of the policy affects
economic and social factors.
2)
Party
Government Approaches; This approach examines how the competition (competition)
between political parties and partisans controls the Government, especially in
controlling public policy.
3)
Class
Struggle Approaches; This approach explains the struggles of each group in
society regarding the political format of public policy, which differs between
capitalist countries.
4)
Neo-Corporatist
Approaches; This approach focuses more on analyzing the influence of interest
organizations (interest groups) in determining public policy. In other words,
focusing on competing interest organizations.
5)
Institutionalist
Approaches; This approach examines the role of the State and social
institutions in defining and formulating public policy.
As a complement, (Clasen & Clegg, 2006) are
also presented on various approaches to Comparative Public Policy. According to
Doling, 3 focus studies are always compared. Each has significant questions and
significant goals. The three focuses of the study are:
1)
Context
to Content; In the focus of this study, the study aims to test and build new
theories. The main questions asked are; why and how did the policy emerge
(held)?.
2)
Content;
In the focus of this study, the main objective to be achieved is to describe
the content of the policy and make its classification (classify the policy).
The questions asked are; what is the content of the policy?
3)
Context
to Conclusion; In this focus study, the main objective is to evaluate and learn
policy lessons. The critical question is; what is the result of that policy?
Method
Data
analysis is a method ina research process carried out after all the data
obtained will be used to solve a problem. The discussion uses a descriptive
method, where the descriptive analysis method is "a statistical method
used to collect, analyze and classify the data that has been collected
according to what it is without intending to conclude. This study uses data
analysis techniques in the form of the SWOT method. This research study method
uses SWOT analysis. The authors' data comes from primary and secondary
observations and documentation, namely from many sources such as journals,
articles, literature, and field observations. This process begins with
identifying and formulating a policy, a plan, and a large or small-scale
project by assessing and explaining internal and external factors that can
influence policies to achieve results.
The SWOT analysis guideline is to compare certain areas'
conditions with other conditions that are the same or different. The swot
method consists of:
1)
Strength:
the policy is in the form of strengths and advantages.
2)
Weakness:
the policy is in the form of weaknesses and shortcomings.
3)
Opportunity:
the policy is in the form of opportunities.
4)
Threats:
the policy is a threat.
Then
analyze the various data that have been obtained and set goals.
Results
and Discussion
A.
Description of United States Education Policy
1.
US Education Politics
In general, educational policies taken in
a country tend to be used for state intervention in its citizens. The form of
intervention can be in the form of justification (abash or acknowledgment or
not) of specific knowledge, school institutional arrangements, length of
education and degrees, and educational qualifications associated with job
positions (positions). Among the existing levels of school education (starting
from Elementary to Higher Education levels), the State generally prefers to
concentrate its power on intervening in school education intended for children,
youth, and youth. Hardly any country pays sufficient attention to adult education.
The question is; Why does the State
prefer to focus its attention on the education of children (youth) compared to
adult education?. (Heidenheimer et al., 1990)
illustrates the answer as follows: Some countries choose
to concentrate their intervention on education for children and youth is due to
the reason that the State has the responsibility to create national cadres.
Some other countries have reasons that schools are pretty interesting to master,
in which there is a generation that is very easy to influence. Some countries
argue that voting rights for future political elections need a socialization
process, and it is suitable for children through their schools.
Meanwhile, education is a basic need that must
be met. State intervention and intervention in formal school education seem to
be often ignored by parents. Because of this, parents flocked to enroll their
children in various educational institutions, mainly formal educational
institutions organized or accredited by the State.
Therefore, it is necessary to have a
supervisory mechanism carried out by local adults (community) on the
implementation of formal school education so that state intervention (policy) in
the education sector has a positive meaning for the next generation who is more
reliable, as well as to reduce the chances of deviations that may occur.
Carried out by the State in its intervention activities.
The United States is one of the pioneers of democracy.
In democratic countries, the awareness to monitor and limit government
intervention in the education sector is marked by choice of the principle of
Decentralization in policymaking (regulation) in the education sector.
Education policy in the United States has long been the responsibility of the
State and Local Governments. Previously, the Central Government did intervene
in educational policy, as had happened since 1872, when the US Central
Government intervened in education policy by giving state land to the State for
the construction of agricultural and engineering faculties; assisting schools
with lunch programs, providing education for Indians; providing education funds
for veterans who return to campus for further education.
Provide loans for students; provide budgets
for research purposes, foreign student exchanges, and assistance for various
other student needs; and provide indirect assistance (because under United
States law, the Government is prohibited from providing direct assistance) to
religious schools in the form of textbooks and laboratories.
However, since the administration of President
Ronald Reagan, the US Central Government's intervention in education has begun
to be reduced. Furthermore, responsibilities and initiatives for education
policies are handed over to the State (Provincial level) and Local/District
Governments (Regency/City level). In the United States, there are 50 States and
15,358 Districts, so many institutions are given the authority and autonomy to
manage education.
2.
US Educational Goals
As described above, the main characteristic of
the political education system in the United States is the prominence of
DECENTRALIZATION (Inglehart, 1988). The
Central Government gives the broadest possible autonomy to the Government,
namely the State and Regional Governments (Districts). Although the United
States does not have a centralized or national education system, this does not
mean that there is no formulation of educational goals that apply nationally.
The goals of the American education system are generally formulated in 5 points
as follows:
a)
To
achieve unity in diversity;
b)
To
develop democratic ideals and practices;
c)
To
assist individual development;
d)
To
improve the social conditions of the community; and
e)
To
accelerate national progress.
Beyond these 5 goals, the United States
developed a vision and mission of free education for school-age children for 12
years of early education. The cost of education is relatively cheap for higher
education levels.
3.
US Education Mangement
By developing the pattern of Decentralization,
education management in the United States is managed based on the aspirations
and needs of the State community and local Government. One department was
formed at the national (federal/central) level, namely the FEDERAL DEPARTMENT
OF EDUCATION (Data & Pendidikan, n.d.).
A Cabinet Secretary equivalent heads this department. The task of this
department is to implement all federal government policies in the education
sector at all levels of Government and for all levels of education (Hakam, 2011) (Kurniawan, 2011).
However, since most educational authority and
responsibility have been delegated to the State and Local Governments, the
Federal Department of Education only monitors and supervises. At the state
level, a body called the BOARD of EDUCATION was formed. This Agency has the
task and function of making policies and determining the education budget for
each region (State), especially Basic Education and Secondary Education.
Furthermore, to deal with problems related to more technical matters (namely,
regarding the school curriculum, determination of certification requirements,
teachers, and school financing), an education section called the COMMISSIONER,
often also referred to as the SUPERINTENDENT, was formed. This section is
headed by a person appointed by the Board of Education or the Governor.
Principals have broad freedom and autonomy to
carry out educational and operational management. Many are carried out directly
by the respective schools. For some States, the leadership of the Education
Section is elected by the community. Meanwhile, at the operational level, the
implementation of education management is carried out by lower units.
To deal with Higher Education policy, the
United States education management developed by the States separates the Agency
that permits the establishment of Higher Education (State and Private) from the
Agency that formulates academic and financial policies.The governing body for
academic and financial policy for Higher Education is the BOARD of TRUSTEES.
For State Universities, the body members are appointed by the Governor of the
State. Some are selected from and by the group to be represented. As for
Private Universities, the members of the Agency are selected from their
respective universities.
4.
US Education Funding
Sources of funding for education in America,
mainly primary and secondary education, better known as PUBLIC SCHOOLS, come
from the Central Government Budget (Federal), State Government Budgets, and
Local Government Budgets.
5.
US Education Issues
According to the results of a comparative
study conducted by (Nur, 2001),
there are several educational issues and problems experienced by the United
States government and society, including:
a)
The number of school-age children who are not
directly cared for by their parents is due to the dynamics of social change in
US society, in which generally, both the mother and the father are very busy
outside the home. This will be a severe problem for children's social
development seen from the psychological and emotional aspects.
b)
The high divorce rate resulted in many
school-age children whom the mother only raises as a single parent in the
household. Not a few divorcee widows in the US are forced to have a lowly and
rude profession. This also affects the social development of their children.
c)
The high level of immigration generally comes
from the poor and uneducated, because of which many of them do not get a decent
job. This causes the educational problems of children from immigrant families
cannot be resolved. In addition, the language factor of immigrants makes it
difficult for immigrant children themselves if they have access to education.
d)
From various monitoring and evaluations of
education carried out by various US official agencies themselves, it turns out
that the quality of education and school graduates in the US is still inferior
to other countries in international standards. Many children drop-outs and have
high levels of violence by children.
6.
US Education Reform
Because of these problems, the US government
in 1990 has launched educational reforms. In that year, US President George H.
B. Bush and all the Governors of the State (at that time, Bill Clinton was one
of the Governors of the State) agreed to education reform by declaring 6 new US
national education goals (Herawati, Suryadi, Warlizasusi, & Aliyyah, 2020).
That is:
a)
By 2000, all children in the US when they
started primary school were ready to learn.
b)
In 2000, high school graduations rose by at
least 90%.
c)
In 2000, US students who completed
"grades 4, 8, and 12" demonstrated proficiency in challenging
subjects, namely English, maths, science, history, and geography. Every school
in the US must demonstrate that children can use their minds well so that they
are ready to become good citizens, ready for higher education, and ready for
productive work in the modern economy.
d)
In 2000, US students were among the best in
the world in science and mathematics.
e)
By 2000, every US adult can read and write,
has the knowledge and skills necessary to compete in the global economy, and
can exercise his rights and responsibilities as a citizen.
f)
By 2000, every school in the US must be free
of drugs and violence and be able to create a stable and safe environment
conducive to learning.
The main points of these reforms are intended
as a guide in making education policies that must be implemented immediately,
and the results should be seen in 2000. Moreover, indeed that is what happened
in the US. (Inkeles & Larry, n.d.)
The points of education reform were finally followed up with various
educational policy creations at the state and local government levels. The
education reform movement among Governors was spearheaded by Governors Bill
Clinton and Lamar Alexander in their respective states. The breakthroughs were:
a)
Increasing the requirements for completing a
level of education,
b)Carry out standardized
tests to measure student success,
c)
Carrying out a strict assessment system for
teachers in line with reforming the career path,
d)Increase additional
state funding for schools. This new additional fund was generally used to
increase teacher salaries, which were still at a superficial level.
Finally, the United States made progress in
the field of education. When Bill Clinton became President of the United
States, the success of the United States in developing education policy
received special attention.
B.
Description of
Indonesian Education Policy
1.
Indonesian Education Politics
Educational politics in Indonesia seems to
have shifted from being centralized to decentralized. The act of state
intervention in the education sector is vast, very thick, and very vulgar. The
situation reached its peak when Daoed Joesop held the ministry of education. At
that time, there was no freedom in schools and colleges. Even different
opinions are not possible. Schools and campuses are like big classes to
indoctrinate government ideology (not state ideology) who do not want open
criticism. The curriculum is designed so that political subjects become very
important. The subjects of Pancasila, History, Entrepreneurship and even
religion are designed to thicken state intervention in its citizens' minds,
thoughts, and attitudes.
Along with the fall of the intervening 'new
order' regime, which was brought down by a total societal reform movement led
by students and educated people, came an era full of enthusiasm for reducing
the role and intervention of the central government in dealing with various
policy issues, including education policy. . The first inspiration came from
the promulgation of reformist regional autonomy, namely Law No.22 of 1999. It
is said to be reformist because there had been a regional autonomy law before
this, but it did not have the spirit of reform and was only a formality, namely
Law No.5 of 1975. The autonomy law The new area inspired the formulation of a
decentralized education policy.
In his book entitled 'Fixing National
Education,' (Tilaar, 2005) states
that the Decentralization of education in Indonesia is not just a desire and a
will but has become a necessity. After the political reform movement was
launched in 1998, in the future, the Indonesian nation must rise to become a
solid and dignified nation, which means the education sector must be placed in
an important and urgent position. In connection with the urgency of the
education sector, reforms in education must be carried out from centralization
to Decentralization. 3 things can explain the urgency of the Decentralization
of education in Indonesia, namely:
a)
For the development of a democratic society.
b)
For the development of social capital.
c)
To increase the competitiveness of the nation.
Furthermore, a description of the politics of
education in Indonesia can be followed by the quote 'proponents dikes which are
systematized as follows:
At the beginning of the XXI century, the world
of education in Indonesia faced three significant challenges. The first
challenge, as a result of the economic crisis, the world of education is
required to maintain the results of educational development that have been
achieved. Second, to anticipate the global era, education is required to
prepare competent human resources to compete in the global job market. Third,
in line with the implementation of regional autonomy, it is necessary to make
changes and adjustments to the national education system so that it can realize
a more democratic education process, pay attention to the diversity of
needs/conditions of the region and students, and encourage increased community
participation.
Currently, national education is still faced
with several significant problems:
1)
There is still low equity in obtaining an
education.
2)
The quality and relevance of education are
still low.
3)
Education management is still weak and does
not realize the independence and excellence of science and technology among
academics. Inequality in education distribution also occurs between
geographical areas, namely between urban and rural areas, between eastern
Indonesia (KTI) and western Indonesia (KBI), and between income levels of the
population or between genders.
The quality of education in Indonesia is still
very concerning. This is reflected, among other things, in the results of a
reading ability study for elementary school (SD) conducted by the International
Educational Achievement (IEA) organization which shows that elementary school
students in Indonesia are in 38th place out of 39 study participants countries.
Meanwhile, for the Junior High School (SLTP) level, the study for the
mathematics ability of junior high school students in Indonesia is only 39th
out of 42 countries, and the Natural Sciences (IPA) is only 40th out of 42
participating countries. (Klingemann, Hofferbert, Budge, & Jatmika, 2000)
The management of national education as a whole is still centralized so that it
does not encourage democratization and Decentralization of education
administration (Peters & Van Nispen, 1998).
The centralized management of education has led to uniform policies that cannot
accommodate differences in diversity/interests of regions/schools/students,
shutting down community participation in the education process, and encouraging
waste and leakage of education budget allocations.
Meanwhile, the distribution of human research
resources of various kinds and levels has not followed the needs and challenges
faced. In addition, there is still a lack of a culture of critical thinking,
inadequate awards for copyrighted works (HAKI), the ineffectiveness of the
institutional system and legal instruments, and professional scientific
certification. These problems will be overcome by implementing various
development programs that refer to the direction of education policies that the
1999-2004 GBHN has mandated.
National Education Vision. The vision of
national education is the realization of an Indonesian society that is
peaceful, democratic, moral, skilled, competitive, advanced, and prosperous within
the unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia, supported by Indonesian people
who are healthy, independent, faithful, devoted, have a noble character, love
the homeland, based on law and environment, mastering science and technology,
have a high work ethic and discipline.
National Education Mission. In order to
realize the vision of national education, youth, and sports, missions that are
the targets of national education, youth, and sports development are set, which
are as follows:
1)
Realizing a democratic and quality national
education system and climate to create a nation with a noble character, is
creative, innovative, has a national perspective, is intelligent, healthy,
disciplined, responsible, skilled, and masters science and technology.
2)
Realizing a social and cultural life that is
personal, dynamic, creative, and resilient to the effects of globalization.
3)
Improving the practice of religious teachings
in daily life to realize the quality of faith and piety to God Almighty in
life, and the stability of brotherhood among religious people who have a noble
character, tolerance, harmony, and peace
4)
Improving the quality of human resources that
are productive, independent, advanced, competitive, environmentally friendly,
and sustainable in empowering the community and all national economic forces,
tiny, medium, and cooperative entrepreneurs.
2.
Direction of Indonesian Education Policy
Education
development policies in Indonesia are directed at achieving the following:
1)
Strive for the expansion and equal distribution
of opportunities to obtain high-quality education for all Indonesian people
towards creating high-quality Indonesian people with a significant increase in
the education budget
2)
Improving academic and professional abilities
as well as improving the welfare of educational staff so that educators can
function optimally, especially in improving character and character education
so that they can restore the authority of institutions and educational staff;
3)
Reforming the education system, including
curriculum renewal, in the form of curriculum diversification to serve the
diversity of students, preparation of national and local applicable curricula
following local interests, and diversification of types of education in a
professional manner.
4)
Empowering educational institutions, both
school and out of school, as centers for cultivating values, attitudes, and
abilities and increasing family and community participation supported by
adequate facilities and infrastructure.
5)
To reform and strengthen the national
education system based on the principles of Decentralization, scientific
autonomy, and management.
6)
Improving the quality of educational
institutions organized by both the community and the Government to establish an
effective and efficient education system in the face of developments in
science, technology, and the arts.
7)
Develop the quality of human resources as
early as possible in a directed, integrated, and comprehensive manner through
various proactive and reactive efforts by all components of the nation so that
the younger generation can develop optimally accompanied by the right to
support and protection according to their potential.
8)
Increase the mastery, development, and
utilization of science and technology, including the nation's technology in the
business world, minimal, medium, and cooperative enterprises to increase the
competitiveness of products based on local resources.
3.
Indonesian Education DevelopmentProgram
a.
Primary and Preschool Education Program
The primary and preschool education
development program aims to:
1)
Expand the reach and capacity of SD and
Madrasah Ibtidaiyah (MI), SLTP and Madrasah Tsanawiyah (MTs), and preschool
educational institutions to reach children from all communities.
2)
Increasing equal opportunity to obtain
education for disadvantaged groups, including those living in remote areas and
urban slums, problem areas, the poor, and children with disabilities.
3)
Improve the quality of primary and preschool
education with adequate quality.
4)
School/community-based management of primary
education and preschools implementation.
The targets to be achieved by the primary and
preschool education development program until the end of 2004 are:
1)
Increasing the Gross Enrollment Rate (APK) for
SD, MI, and SLTP-MTs.
2)
The realization of school organizations in
each district/city that are more democratic, transparent, efficient,
accountable, and encourage community participation.
3)
Realization of school/community-based
education management by introducing the concept and pioneering the formation of
School Councils in each district/city and empowerment or formation of School
Committees in all SD and MI, and SLTP MTs.
The main activities in seeking an equal
distribution of primary education are:
1)
Improve educational facilities and
infrastructure in SD and MI and develop and improve facilities and
infrastructure in SLTP and MTs, including sports facilities.
2)
Provide education subsidies for private
schools to provide quality education and provide educational services that are
accessible to the broader community.
3)
Implementing alternative education services,
especially for disadvantaged communities (poor, nomadic, isolated, isolated,
minority, and in problem areas, including street children), such as one teacher
primary and small MI, visiting teacher/tutorial system, SD Pamong, SD-MI
integrated, remote classes, as well as SLTP-MTs open.
4)
Carry out revitalization and regrouping of schools,
especially elementary schools, to achieve school efficiency and effectiveness
supported by adequate facilities.
5)
Provide scholarships for outstanding students
from low-income families, considering female students proportionally.
6)
Equalize the reach of preschool education
through increasing community participation in providing quality child care
institutions, playgroups, and kindergartens, as well as providing facilities,
assistance, and awards by the Government.
The main activities to improve the quality of
primary and preschool education are:
1)
Improve teachers' professional ability and
welfare and other education personnel to improve the quality, image, prestige,
dignity, and worth.
2)
Formulating a curriculum based on essential
competencies, following the needs and potential of regional development, able
to increase teacher creativity, inclusive and not gender biased, following the
capacities and abilities of students, supporting the improvement of mastery of
basic sciences as well as faith, piety, and personality noble character.
3)
Improve the provision, use, and maintenance of
educational facilities and infrastructure: introductory textbooks, reading
books, Social Sciences (IPS) educational tools, science and mathematics,
libraries, laboratories, and other necessary spaces.
4)
Improve the efficiency and effectiveness of
the teaching and learning process through school quality mapping, gradual and
continuous assessment of learning processes and outcomes, as well as the
development of more effective educational assessment systems and measurement
tools to improve education control and quality.
5)
Improve supervision and accountability of
institutional performance so that the roles and responsibilities of schools,
local governments, including legislative institutions, and the community in
efforts to improve the quality of education are increasingly fundamental.
The main activities to improve the management
of primary and preschool education are:
1)
Implement gradual, wise, and professional
Decentralization of the education sector, including increasing the role of the
School Committee by encouraging the regions to implement pilot implementation
of the concept of establishing a School Council.
2)
Develop a pattern of education implementation
based on school-based management to improve the efficiency of utilization of
educational resources by taking into account the conditions and needs of the
local community.
3)
Increasing public participation in the
provision of education, such as diversifying the use of resources and funds.
4)
Developing an incentive system that encourages
healthy competition between institutions and school personnel to achieve
educational goals.
5)
Empowering personnel and institutions, among
others, through training conducted by professional institutions. This empowerment
program needs to be followed by gradual and intensive monitoring and evaluation
so that school performance can survive following the established quality
standards of education.
6)
Reviewing all legal products in education that
are no longer following the direction and demands of educational development.
7)
Pioneering the establishment of teaching
accreditation and certification bodies in the regions to improve the quality of
education personnel independently.
b.
Secondary Education Program
The secondary education development program,
which includes General High School (SMU), Vocational High School (SMK), and
Madrasah Aliyah (MA), is aimed at:
5)
Expand the reach and capacity of SMU, SMK, and
MA for the entire community.
6)
Increasing equal opportunity to obtain
education for disadvantaged groups, including those living in remote areas and
urban slums, problem areas and the poor, and children with disabilities.
7)
Improve the quality of secondary education as
a basis for students to continue their education to a higher level of education
and meet the needs of the world of work.
8)
Improve the efficiency of utilization of
available educational resources.
9)
Improve equity in financing with public funds.
10)
Increase the effectiveness of education
following local needs and conditions
11)
Improve the performance of personnel and
educational institutions.
12)
Increase community participation to support
education programs.
13)
Improve the transparency and accountability of
education implementation.
The targets to be achieved by the secondary
education development program until the end of 2004 are:
1)
Increase in Gross Enrollment Rate (APK) for
SMU, SMK, and MA.
2)
The increase in capacity, including for SLTP
and MTs graduates, resulted from completing the Nine Years Basic Education Compulsory
Education of 5.6 million students.
3)
Realizing school organizations in each
district/city are more democratic, transparent, efficient, accountable, and
encourage community participation.
4)
The realization of school/community-based
education management (school/community-based management) by introducing the
concept and pioneering the formation of School Councils in each district/city
and empowerment or the formation of School Committees in each school.
The main activities to improve the quality and
relevance of secondary education are:
1)
Improve the professional ability and welfare
of teachers and other education personnel, among others, through the provision
of accreditation and teaching certification in specific fields that are
reviewed and evaluated periodically, and improvement of the credit score system
for teacher career advancement.
2)
Compiling a curriculum based on essential
competencies following the needs and potential of regional development, able to
increase teacher creativity, inclusive and not gender biased according to the
capacity of students, and emphasizing the need to increase faith and piety,
national insight, physical health, moral personality noble, work ethic,
understand rights and obligations, and improve mastery of basic sciences
(mathematics, science and technology, language and literature, social sciences,
and English).
3)
Gradually increasing national quality
standards so that secondary education graduates can compete with secondary
education graduates in other countries.
4)
Implementing competency-based curriculum in
vocational high schools to meet workforce requirements.
5)
Develop scientific work competitions and the
like that are adapted to the standards used in international education.
6)
Approach the business world and industry to
collaborate with secondary schools, primarily vocational secondary education,
to develop, develop subject matter, implement activities, and assess teaching
programs.
7)
Develop skills/vocational programs in high
school and MA following the local environment or the demands of the local world
of work. High school and MA graduates who do not have the opportunity to
continue university can compete in entering the workforce.
8)
Gradually increase the procurement, use, and
maintenance of educational facilities and infrastructure, including books and
teaching aids, libraries, and laboratories for public and private schools.
9)
Improve the efficiency and effectiveness of
the teaching and learning process through school quality mapping, gradual and
continuous assessment of learning processes and outcomes, as well as the
development of more effective educational assessment systems and measurement
tools to improve education control and quality.
10)
Improve supervision and accountability of
institutional performance and management of funding sources so that the roles
and responsibilities of schools, local governments, including legislative
institutions, and the community in efforts to improve the quality of education
are more accurate.
c.
Higher Education Program
The higher education national development
program aims to:
7)
Organize the higher education system.
8)
Improve the quality and relevance of higher
education to the world of work.
9)
Increase equal opportunity to obtain higher
education, especially for outstanding students who come from underprivileged
families.
d.
Out of School Education Development Program
This out-of-school education development
program (PLS) aims to provide services to people who do not or have not had the
opportunity to obtain formal education to develop themselves, attitudes,
knowledge and skills, personal potential, and can develop productive businesses
to improve their welfare. In addition, the PLS program is directed at providing
basic knowledge and professional business skills so that learning citizens can
create employment opportunities for themselves and their family members.
The target of the PLS program is residents or
learning residents who do not or have not had time to obtain formal education,
which includes:
1)
Residents who are still illiterate in Latin,
numbers, and Indonesian.
2)
Learning residents who have not completed 9
years of compulsory primary education.
3)
Empowerment of places/studios for community
learning activity centers.
e.
Program Sinkronisasi dan Koordinasi
This program aims to improve the
synchronization and coordination of planning, implementation, control, and
supervision of educational programs both between levels, pathways, types, and
regions.The goal is to realize the synchronization and coordination of planning,
implementation, control, and supervision of educational development programs
between levels, pathways, types, and regions.
The
main activities are:
1)
Conduct academic studies, formulate, and
realize laws and regulations and national education policies that support the
synchronization and coordination of planning and implementation of educational
development between levels, pathways, and types, and between regions.
2)
Develop and implement an institutional system
that supports the synchronization and coordination of planning, implementation,
control, and supervision of educational development between levels, pathways
and types, and regions.
3)
Assessing or measuring the success of national
education development.
4)
Standardize educational facilities and
infrastructure to support quality teaching and learning processes.
5)
Develop and implement information systems and
data collection for all lines, types, levels, and regions.
6)
Conduct advocacy and socialization of national
education policies.
7)
Cooperate in education with various
institutions both at home and abroad.
f.Research
and Development Program
This
program aims to:
10)
Improve the quality of research results.
11)
Improve the quality of research.
12)
Improve the competence of public research and
development (R&D) institutions in line with the needs of the business world
and society and the accelerated development of science and technology.
13)
Establish a conducive climate for the
formation of R&D resources.
The target to be achieved is to utilize
science and technology following the nation's religious values
and noble culture to solve various development problems.
g.
Program for Increasing Independence and Excellence
in Science and Technology
This program aims to improve the technical
service capabilities of R&D institutions, Metrology, Standardization,
Testing, and Quality (MSTQ), which is emphasized to support the competitiveness
of the business world and encourage the implementation of R&D in and by the
business world.
The target is to increase the independence of
technology services and the superiority of the nation's technological
innovations to increase the competitiveness of the business world and society.
4.
Education Management in Indonesia
The administration and management
(bureaucracy) of education in Indonesia is no different from the administration
and management of other sectors in the form of departments. Nationally,
problems in the education sector are handled by an agency in the form of a
department, which has changed its name several times. The last change was named
DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL EDUCATION.
For now, the organizational structure is as
follows. At the regional (provincial) level, the coordination of educational
affairs is handled by a body called the PROVINCIAL DINAS EDUCATION, headed by
ahead. The Head of the Provincial Education Office is appointed by the Governor
with the approval of the Provincial DPRD. This department is headed by whom the
president directly appoints a president.
Meanwhile, at the Regency/City level, the
coordination of educational affairs is handled by the DISTRICT/CITY EDUCATION
DINAS.Similar to the Provincial Service, this Service is headed ahead. The
difference is that the head of the Service at the district/city level is
appointed by the Regent/Mayor with the approval of the relevant Regency/City
DPRD.
The formation of the Board of Education and
the School Committee must be carried out in a transparent, accountable, and
democratic manner. What is done transparently is that the School Committee must
be formed openly and widely known by the public starting from the stage of
forming the preparatory committee, the socialization process by the preparatory
committee, the criteria for prospective members, the selection process for
prospective members, announcement of prospective members, the selection
process, and submission of election results. Carried out in an accountable
manner is that the preparatory committee should submit an accountability report
on its performance and the use of committee funds. It is carried out
democratically. The selection process for members and management is carried out
by deliberation and consensus. If deemed necessary, members and management can
be elected through voting.
5.
Education Funding in Indonesia
Compared to the US, education funding sources
in Indonesia come from several budget sources. That comes from the APBN,
Provincial APBD, and Regency/City APBD. Funding sources from the APBN are
generally allocated for all educational activities, from elementary and
secondary to tertiary levels.
The source of funds from the provincial budget
is allocated to implement education in the province. Sources from the APBN are
also earmarked for the implementation of national education. Meanwhile, funding
sources from the Provincial APBN are generally allocated for primary and
secondary education. Only a tiny part is allocated to support activities at the
higher education level. The funding sources from the Regency/City APBD are
entire to support the implementation of education in the region. This follows
the spirit of Decentralization.
Since implementing the education
decentralization policy, the education budget allocation, both in the APBN and
Provincial and Regency/City APBD, has increased quite significantly. According
to the law's mandate, the education budget must continue to be increased until
it reaches at least 20% of the total state budget or APBD expenditures.
Conclusion
From
the description and elaboration of educational decentralization policies in two
countries: the United States and Indonesia, and by using the Comparative Public
Policy Framework as conceptualized by Heidenheimer, it can be concluded that
the results of the comparison as intended by Heidenheimer are that the
comparison of policies using this framework analyzes the extent to which public
(Government) roles and responsibilities compared to private (private) roles and
responsibilities in dealing with policy issues. The extent to which government
involvement in dealing with public problems is compared to the scope of public
(private) involvement.
Also,
analyze whether a policy is set to solve single problems or complex
(interrelated) problems. For example, policies on education, whether the policy
is only specifically to solve the problem of education or is also intended to
solve the problem of poverty and others related to increasing citizens' access
to a more harmonious life.
The
decentralization policy of education in Indonesia also seems to broadly favor
this Choice of Scope framework. Education decentralization in Indonesia is
intended to achieve many goals: to regulate education itself, increase access
to the broadest possible service to the community, for bureaucratic reform, the
function of Decentralization and regional autonomy politically, and to solve
population problems and population poverty.
It
can be concluded that there are similarities in this framework for matters
relating to the scope beyond funding between the US and Indonesia. This is
possible because Indonesia has been leaning towards the US in terms of
developing a decentralized system of Government and in developing its education
sector. the difference is only in the time factor. The US came first and lasted
longer, while Indonesia is still just being proclaimed and implemented. The
choice of "Choice of Scope" from a review outside of funding factors
in education policies in various countries is almost the same, focusing on the
breadth of coverage and the breadth or complexity of the problems that a
particular policy must solve.
However,
if viewed from the size of the coverage area of the State that
has a monopoly on education (The Scope of the State Education Monopoly), then
what happens and is applied in Indonesia is slightly different. Under certain
conditions, the State/Government of Indonesia provides assistance (such as
grants) for private schools and private universities. This is usually
associated with a coaching program. Recently, there has been a quite favorable
political decision: all private schools (SD-SMP) receive automatic assistance,
which is called BOS (School Operational Assistance). For the latter, we do not
find it in the United States.
Both
the United States and Indonesia have chosen education policy as a state
intervention for their people (citizens). Heidenheimer even stated that
education policy in many countries is used as a government tool to show
hegemony or government intervention over its citizens. However, the reasons for
each country are different from one another.
In
the United States, the impact of the Decentralization policy on education is
especially felt in the development of politics, economics, and technology
development. In Indonesia, the impact of the education decentralization policy
extends to the following areas; politics, economy, culture, religion,
technology, defense, and even tourism. So it can be concluded that the US and
Indonesia have similarities in terms of distribution choices (Choices of
Distribution).
That
in many ways, Indonesia is the same as the US. Perhaps this is because
Indonesia is more inclined to reform education policies based on experiential
studies in the US. (Huntington, 1993) The
political direction of the policy is thus to create conditions conducive to the
development of democratization from the lowest level to a more mid-level, from
the sector with the narrowest impact to the sector with a very complex impact.
The
involvement of the wider community is therefore very much needed. Likewise,
environmental factors, such as economic growth, must be designed so that the
political mission of decentralized education can be achieved optimally.
The
BOS (School Operational Assistance) subsidy mechanism concept does not reflect
a sense of justice and a passion for education. Why not? BOS is given to all
students in all elementary schools without exception. Elementary students whose
parents are wealthy and who study at favorite elementary schools that are super
expensive must also receive the same BOS allowance as elementary school
students whose parents are impoverished and schools in suburban elementary
schools that are not taken into account. Therefore, the author proposes that
the education decentralization policy is more focused on Service with the
spirit of creating distributive justice, not cumulative justice.
There
needs to be a new law that regulates the education of school-age children from
low-income families located in local government areas that do not have excess
budgetary capacity. It is also necessary to improve (reform) the government
(regional) bureaucracy that explicitly handles the education sector. The target
is to create a harmonious and solutive relationship between the
Bureaucracy-School-Community.
Local
Government in the area and when and how the provincial government is involved
in education planning and policy (Chan & Sam, 2005). Furthermore,
the provincial Government prepares a plan and identifies environmental factors
that should be able to intervene to be conducive to the planned policy.
Finally, it is also necessary to think about making regulations that require
all regional governments, which have the authority and autonomy, to prepare a
master plan for education in their respective regions and present it at the
respective provincial level so that the provincial Government can know at an
early stage where the education policy is headed. This is also beneficial for
the local Government concerned because by knowing each other's presentations,
it is hoped that they will complete each other's master plans.
References
Chan, Sam
M., & Sam, Tuti T. (2005). Analisis swot kebijakan pendidikan era otonomi
daerah. Jakarta: Raja Grafindo. Google Scholar
Clasen, Jochen, & Clegg, Daniel. (2006).
Beyond activation reforming European unemployment protection systems in
post-industrial labour markets. European Societies, 8(4), 527�553. Google Scholar
Data, Pusat, & Pendidikan, Informasi.
(n.d.). Balitbang-Depdiknas.(2004). Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 20
Tahun 2003 Tentang Guru Dan Dosen. Google Scholar
Feldman, Kenneth A. (1978). Course
characteristics and college students� ratings of their teachers: What we know
and what we don�t. Research in Higher Education, 9(3), 199�242. Google Scholar
Hakam, Kama Abdul. (2011). Pengembangan Model
Pembudayaan Nilai-Moral dalam Pendidikan Dasar di Indonesia: Studi Kasus di
Sekolah Dasar Negeri Bandungrejosari 1 Kota Malang, Jawa Timur. Sosiohumanika,
4(2).
Google Scholar
Heidenheimer, Arnold J., Heclo, Hugh, &
Adams, Carolyn Teich. (1990). Comparative public policy: The politics of social
choice in America, Europe, and Japan. St. Martin�s Press. Google Scholar
Herawati, Endang Sri Budi, Suryadi, Suryadi,
Warlizasusi, Jumira, & Aliyyah, Rusi Rusmiati. (2020). Kinerja Dewan
Pendidikan Dalam Meningkatkan Mutu Pendidikan. Tadbir: Jurnal Studi Manajemen
Pendidikan, 4(1), 87�100. Google Scholar
Huntington, Samuel P. (1993). The third wave:
Democratization in the late twentieth century (Vol. 4). University of Oklahoma
press.
Google Scholar
Inglehart, Ronald. (1988). The renaissance of
political culture. American Political Science Review, 82(4), 1203�1230. Google Scholar
Inkeles, Alex, & Larry, J. (n.d.).
Diamond, 1980,�Personal Development and National Development: A Cross-National
Perspective,� dalam The Quality of Life: Comparative Studies, ed. Alexander
Szalai dan Frank M. Andrews. London: Sage Publications. Google Scholar
Klingemann, Hans Dieter, Hofferbert, Richard
I., Budge, Ian, & Jatmika, Sigit. (2000). Partai, kebijakan dan
demokrasi. Jentera bekerjasama dengan Pustaka Pelajar. Google Scholar
Kurniawan, Bodi. (2011). Peran komite sekolah dalam
meningkatkan mutu pendidikan di Madrasah Pembangunan UIN Jakarta. Google Scholar
Nur, Agustiar Syah. (2001). Perbandingan
Sistem Pendidikan 15 Negara. Lubuk Agung. Google Scholar
Peters, B. Guy, & Van Nispen, Frans K. M.
(1998). Public policy instruments: Evaluating the tools of public
administration. Edward Elgar. Google Scholar
Tilaar, H. A. R. (2005). Adaptasi dan adopsi
masyarakat terhadap pendidikan modern. Google Scholar
