higher education policy in indonesia
Post on 21-Oct-2014
85 views
DESCRIPTION
Policy memo assignment for Comparative Education PolicyTRANSCRIPT
ì Improving Equity & Access to Higher Education in Indonesia Reforming the scholarship scheme and Adop4ng work-‐study program
Structure of Higher Education System
� Short history in higher education (1st college established in late 19th) � Total 2,898 higher education institutes (DGHE, 2009] – Public(83), Private (2,766)
& Islamic (52) � Dependency on Private institute is very high & autonomy is guaranteed by law � Government spend 20% of budget for Education & 30% from Education budget is
designated for Higher education
Gross Enrolment Rate 2004-‐2008
� Constant increase from 14.62% in 2004 to 17.75% in 2008 � Still considered low compared to neighboring Asian countries such as Malaysia
(29%), Philippines (28%), Thailand(50%), China(22%) [UNESCAP, 2007]
è Demands on higher education rapidly increase due to; 1. Increasing number of secondary school graduates aspired to further study in higher education. (235 million population -‐ world 4th largest populated country -‐ 72 million are under age 14)
2. Rapid economic growth drives employees to improve their education
Cost of Higher Education
� Public institutions are much for less expensive than the private one. (almost half except low ones)
� Lowest is $525 and the highest is $4,739 per year. Even lowest amount is very hard for the lowest income quintile students, Q1 earning $186 per year, to afford
* Quick facts on Poverty in Indonesia (World Bank & UNDP, 2010) � GINI Index of Indonesia is 35.6 � 43.7% of income is share among highest 20% of population in Indonesia � HDI value is 0.620 – ranked 121
Participation by Income Quintile
� Less expensive public institution is very limited to be admitted due to dramatically small number of institute
� Non-‐compulsory education, senior-‐secondary & higher education shows dramatic disparity in participating the school by income quintile.
� Only less than 40% (362,336 out of 1,147,720) of senior secondary graduates attempt to continue their study
Identified Issues
ì Disparity of par4cipa4on in higher educa4on between lowest income quin4le and highest income quin4le is very severe.
ì Cost of higher educa4on is too high for the most of the students to afford and be the main cause of the disparity between different economic background students.
ì Government interven4on on narrowing down the economic disparity and improving the equity and access to higher educa4on is needed.
Current policy in response to the issue-‐I
ì The Directore General of Higher Educa4on (DGHE) provides scholarship to support highly talented high school leavers who are winners of interna4onal compe44on and this budget could cover around 5.6% of total popula4on of undergraduate student which is more than enough to cover total GER, 4,9% of student in higher ins4tu4on from lowest income quin4le.
However, because of the merit based condi4on, most of the ones who cannot show compe44ve academic performance or other skills and can’t be selected as the beneficiary of the scholarship.
Current policy in response to the issue -‐ II
ì In aPempt to provide more access to the needy, in 2010 the DGHE allocates budget to provide 20,000 full scholarships under a new scheme called “Bidik misi” targeted for senior secondary school leavers.
However, this program is s4ll under merit-‐based and targets all senior secondary students willing to pursue higher educa4on regardless economic background. This will not meet the target beneficiaries simply due to the lower academic performance of students from lower income quin4le unless they are genius. Accountability in selec4ng process of beneficiaries should be well designed but there’s no par4cular process or body to make an effort to
Policy Recommendation -‐ I
ì Reforming current scholarship program “Bidik Misi” as the mixture of both merit & need based scholarship & redesign the process and the scheme of grantee selec4on to increase the accountability and effec4veness of the policy
� Set compe44on among same income quin4le group
� Establish special unit both at the central and ins4tu4onal level to process from beginning to the end only regarding the scholarship & financial aid including applica4on, financial transac4on and student profiling and etc.
Policy Recommendation -‐ II
ì Work-‐Study Program to grantees to share the financial burden using public funds by ins4tu4ons, industries and different social groups.
� Government and the ins4tu4on share the expenses for the program
� Government takes role in suppor4ng the part of the expense for the program and connec4ng the work place and ins4tu4on.
� Ins4tu4on to be the main actor and takes in responsible for all the administra4ve works however the central government funds only can be given upon the request made by the par4cipa4ng ins4tu4on.
� Students who work through this program should be guaranteed the minimum wage and the working hours
Case Study – US Work-‐Study Program
ì Washington State work-‐study program has been in place since 1974 and remains a major financial aid mechanism with approximately $21 million awarded to 9,500 students in FY2009 at over 3,000 employers statewide. Since employers contribute up to 45 percent of the student wages, the program substan4ally enhances the efficiency of public funds allocated to financial aid by increasing the number of students who receive financial assistance.
ì
Thank you.