DISCUSIÓN DE RESULTADOS

To understand the context of service quality in the Indonesian decentralized education system, some examination of relevant laws and regulations is necessary.

Therefore, several laws related to the distribution of authorities among government tiers and their government regulations will be discussed in this section. Firstly, the main law concerning regional governance, law 22/1999 and its government regulations 25/2000 will be discussed. Secondly, the new law 32/2004 (revision of law 22/1999) on decentralization and its government regulation 38/2007. Most importantly, the latest government regulation on MSS 65/2005 will also be discussed, because this is the yardstick to measure how good local government organizations exercise their ‘newly handed down authority’. (This used to be called

‘obligatory functions’.)

The main laws on decentralization were discussed in collaborative paper (exhibit 34).

This section will explore Government Regulation 25/2000 on Government Authority and The Provincial Authority as an Autonomous Region. For many observers, the fact that this regulation only specifies the central and provincial government authority without describing clearly the district/municipal (local) government authority is a serious weakness (GOI, 2000b). As a consequence, in order to be able to exercise their new authority legally, all DEOs should interpret and formulate their own obligatory functions based on Government Regulation 25/2000. Another consequence of this regulation is that there are now varied local government regulations, even among districts within the same province. As a result of these different interpretations, DEO organizational structures and functions also vary from place to place, and from district to district. Right after DEOs were restructured following decentralization, most local government named their DEOs in different ways, for example, Local Government Education Office, Office of Education and

Learning, Education and Culture, Education and Youth, Education and Library, etc.

There are more than twenty different names with different functions and structures.

On one hand, this is a sign of democratization, because for the first time in history, districts feel free to design their own organization after years of rigid centralization.

Unfortunately, on the other hand, this is only temporary consolation. The differences in nomenclature and practice tend to cause confusion and hinder effective coordination, organizational communication and local education management.

As mentioned above, in response to Government Regulation No. 25/2000, local governments defined their own authority in the education sector differently.

Although, there are central government guidelines on how to formulate organizational structures and functions of DEO, the guidelines are usually not adopted. Local government officials have tended to formulate their own regulations about DEO functions based on their own views and perceptions. According to Government Regulation 8/2003 on Local Government Organizations, DEO organizational structure and its functions are proposed by the district head to the local House of Representatives. After being approved by the local House of Representatives then, the DEO structure and functions are stipulated by a local government decree. Unfortunately, most local governments neglected the central government guidelines in restructuring their organization, and as a result a range of DEO structure and functions exists. This is worrying, because the failure to specify the structure and role/responsibilities of local government creates uncertainty and confusion and is a major weakness that hinders the decentralization process.

Baedhowi (2004) suggests that each district/municipality (Kabupaten/Kota) should hold a comprehensive education function or authority in order for DEOs to be able to formulate and implement their new authority in better ways for schools and community. He proposed, that based on government regulation 25/2000, DEO functions should be stipulated by national, provincial and district regulation. The function should cover and specify district policy and its implementation mainly related to education finance, facilities, and personnel. In addition, the function should also include any relevant function such as DEO planning, organizing, managing, developing, and supervising processes. Baedhowi proposed 32 DEO functions based

mainly on his interpretation of government regulation 25/2000 above (please see appendix 4).

While the list developed by Baedhowi is comprehensive it is, in my opinion, too complicated and demanding. In other word, by trying to achieve all functions, DEOs will more likely achieve little. It is doubtful whether many of the staff or people in a DEO would be able to implement the functions. In fact any attempt to achieve all 32 functions would most probably result in a lower performance. This is not the only problem with this very long list. For example, item 4 requires that DEOs ‘develop student competency standards’ for kindergarten, primary and secondary students based upon minimum competencies stipulated by national government. This assumes that staff in district offices understand the national standards and how they operate.

Because it requires DEO staff to develop competencies it is reasonable to expect that DEO staffs are themselves ‘competent’ in curriculum development and assessment.

Although the list is useful for understanding DEO functions, in reality not all local governments adopted it in their local government regulations. This is why government regulation 25/2000 was revised by government regulation 38/2007 where district and municipality functions are clearly specified. These DEO functions, as listed by the new Government Regulation 38/2007 are fundamental for defining what appropriate input, process and output a DEO should have, to provide better service quality to schools.

Compared to the DEOs functions in the centralized era, their responsibilities and obligatory function have almost doubled. In the centralized era, DEOs were responsible for elementary education matters only, especially related to personnel, finance, and facility aspects. But in this decentralized era, their responsibility is much more than before; they are now responsible for all education matters at all levels (including preschool, elementary, junior and senior high education, vocational and general) except for tertiary or higher education. However, ensuring that this new authority is clearly understood and implemented is the challenge. In response to this issue, the government introduced a concept called SPM or MSS. To ensure that those obligatory functions are really implemented at district and municipal levels, the central government, through each sectoral ministry issued ministerial decrees. The

latest ministerial decree on educational MSS is National Education Ministerial Decree 129a/U/2004, based on Law 22/1999 and Government Regulation 25/2000.

The MSS details quantitative and qualitative standards/measurements to ensure how well a district is fulfilling its task as mandated by the decentralization law to satisfy its stakeholders. The Educational MSS is a set of indicators on formal, non formal, Youth, and Sport Education to be achieved by all DEOs as a consequence of their new obligatory functions after decentralization. Without such standards, there would be no evaluation of how those greater authorities handed down to province and district affect regional government service quality provision. Unfortunately, for many observers, the latest MSS are considered too output oriented, because basically they only describe the educational output that should be achieved by district offices. On the contrary, the above literature review and the new Government Regulation 65/2005 suggest that MSS should cover three important factors; input, process and output. For example, the MSS as outlined in Education Ministerial Decree 129a/U/2004 are difficult to quantify and only relate to performance (too output oriented) in junior high schools and says little about the work of DEOs (see table 3-1 below).

Table 3-1:

MONE’s MSS in Junior Secondary Education:

Too Output Oriented?

Target Indicator Percentage Explanations

1 Enrollment of 13-15 age > = 90 At least 90% in Junior High School 2 Drop Out rate < = 1 Drop Out Rate less than 1 % 3 School Facilities > = 90 Facilities comply with National

Standard 4 Administrative

personnel

> = 80 Schools having enough Non Teaching Staff

5 Number of Teachers > = 90 Adequate Number of Teachers 6 Teacher certification > = 90 Comply with National Standard 7 Student Books > = 100 Subject matter books fulfilled 8 Number of Students < = 30 - 40 Number of student in each class 9 Student Achievement > = 90 Satisfactory achievement test 10 Student Transition Rate > = 70 Continue to Senior High (Source: GOI, 2004a, p. 5)

It is clear that the Decree mandates 90% or more of 13-15 year old children in a district should enroll in the Junior High Educational system. Dropout rates should be less than 1 % in every single district, and so on. It is obvious that MSS is merely a target or performance standard. In other word, it is only about DEO responsibility for high school output, disregarding a more comprehensive approach covering input, process and output as required by government regulation 65/2005 on MSS. Basically it indicates very little about the whole process of actually implementing service quality in DEOs.

Not only is it too output oriented, the Ministerial Decree 129a/U/2004 also has other weakness. Its position among government laws and regulations is still questioned.

Ministerial decrees are not explicitly listed in the hierarchy of the Indonesian legal system, the system usually referred to by local government in formulating policies.

Consequently, most local governments overlook the essence of assessing DEO service measurement using MSS. In addition, the hierarchy of laws and regulations within the Indonesian legal system is described by a decree stipulated by the Indonesian General Assembly as follows;

1. 1945 Constitution Law;

2. General Assembly Decrees;

3. Laws;

4. Government Regulation Substituting Laws;

5. Government Regulations;

6. Presidential Decrees;

7. Local Government Regulations. (GOI, 2000a),

It is clear that Ministerial Decrees, for example Ministerial Decree 129a/2004 on MSS is not enlisted in the legal hierarchy above. As a consequence, in reality, Ministerial Decree 129a/2004 on MSS is usually overlooked by most local governments. As a result, until now, there is no effective way to measure the implementation of DEOs authority or the implementation of its very uncertain obligatory functions.

Now that the decentralization reform has been implemented since 1999, many observers realize that its laws and regulations still lack clarity and are subject to many criticisms on their weaknesses. For example, McClure (2002) argues that there is some convergence of meaning, and multiple meanings exist both within and across levels of government regarding MSS,as a result of the poor dissemination process.

Considering this situation, in 2004, the central government finally stipulated a new law 32/2004 on central and local governance. Government regulation 25/2000 was also revised, becoming government regulation 38/2007.

In this new regulation 38/2007, authority among the three different tiers of government (central, provincial, and district) has been specified separately. The educational authorities of districts and municipalities in the education sector are now grouped in six categories: Policy, Financing, Curriculum, Facilities, Education Personnel, and Education Quality Assurance (GOI, 2007a). In detail, the authorities to be held by districts and municipalities, as translated by this researcher, are listed in appendix 5.

Compared to the previous government regulation 25/2000, the new government regulation 38/2007 is considered much improved because it explicitly specifies the authorities (used to be called obligatory functions) held by district and municipalities in the education sector. In addition, this regulation is an improvement, because the previous government regulation only specified central and provincial authority, but the authority of district and municipality has never been specified nor stipulated in a formal regulation.

To measure and ensure that those obligatory functions are implemented in districts and municipalities, the central government also stipulated another new regulation - 65/2005 on MSS. This regulation is supposed to be an umbrella for sectoral ministries in formulating their new regulations on MSS to be implemented by all local governments. The forthcoming National Education Ministerial decree on MSS to be formulated (as a revision of National Education Ministerial decree 129a/U/2003 on MSS) should be based on law 32/2004, government regulation 38/2007 and government regulation 65/2005. This Government Regulation 65/2005 states several important points should be considered by all sectoral ministries in formulating the new MSS. These include:

1. Minimum Service Standard (MSS) is a regulation on what and how good basic services should be delivered by local government as their obligatory function to fulfill the minimum rights of citizen;

2. Obligatory functions are government functions related to the rights and basic services enacted by laws or regulations for local government institution to protect the constitutional, national security, community welfare, and public order rights of the citizen to guarantee the national unity and to fulfill the commitment related to national or international convention;

3. Basic services are all public services needed to fulfill all citizen needs in social, economical, and constitutional life;

4. MSS indicators are quantitative and qualitative achievement describing MSS targets covering the input, process, output and impact of the planning including its targets and timelines based on their resources;

7. Each Ministry shall ensure and supervise the MSS implementation in each province; while Provincial governments supervise their respective district and municipal government;

8. Within three years after Government Regulation 65/2005 stipulation (by the end of 2008), MSS for all sectors should have been formulated and stipulated by all respective ministerial sectors including MSS for MONE.

(GOI, 2005c)

Based on this summary of Government Regulation 65/2005, each ministry in the Indonesian government has to formulate MSS. The MSS must outline the basic level of acceptable services that should be delivered by every district office to satisfy citizen’s rights as outlined in the Indonesian constitution. This should include clear statements about the provision of acceptable education services by DEOs to satisfy all aspects of school needs. In this case, by the end of 2008, the MONE should have finished formulating and stipulating a ministerial decree concerning DEO MSS to be enacted by all DEOs. MSS, as mandated by the above regulation, should cover input, process, output, and outcome aspects. Indicators for each aspect should be defined flexibly enough in order for differently resourced DEOs to be able to achieve the MSS. Provincial governments are to supervise their respective district and municipal governments in implementing MSS. The PEO, in this case, should supervise DEOs in implementing MSS. This regulation also informs my research and the development of the MSS that are located in the accompanying portfolio.

It is appropriate now to return to the definition of service quality. In the previous section, it is understood that the ability of a DEO to fulfill its obligatory functions is determined by their performance in implementing all functions (Policy, Financing, Curriculum, Facilities, Education Personnel, and Education Quality Assurance) mandated by Government Regulation 38/2007. If a DEO implements this function consistently, it should soon indicate whether or not the DEO’s achieves service quality in satisfying school needs in each DEO service area. In relation to this, MSS is becoming critically important to ensure that each DEO implements all of these new functions as mandated by the government regulation 65/2005. Not only that, in the future, the role of MSS should be enhanced, becoming part of the public service auditing system; an institutionalized mechanism to gain citizen feedback, which in turn stimulates public concern and participation. This is where local governments show their accountability to their citizens.

Unfortunately, the usage of MSS as an accountability mechanism is not explicitly stated yet in government regulations. More effective government regulations and proper disseminations are still needed. Despite its important role in assuring education service quality at the district level, the existing MSS as stipulated by National Education Ministerial Decree 129a/U/2004 as described above, is only a little more than a listing of outputs. There is almost no mention of strategies for increasing capacity, detailing processes to improve performance or for providing appropriate funding. In addition, as noted, too often these new regulations are still unclear, incomplete, irrelevant or even ignored as stated by many DEOs personnel whenever describing Ministerial Decree 129a/U/2004. As a consequence little has changed in DEOs and service quality has not improved significantly. This is ironic because, although the decision-making process has already been handed down closer to citizen or customer, service quality remains unchanged. This is one reason why this research has become very important.

The following central question is then; how to improve the existing MSS regulations? What strategies should be developed and what changes should be implemented to make the forthcoming MSS regulation clearer and more applicable in DEO level? This is what this research is aiming for: to improve the existing MSS stipulated by National Education Ministerial Decree 129a/U/2004. By implementing

the more recently revised MSS each DEO could assess their service quality comprehensively, not only measuring their outputs as described above, but also their inputs and processes as well. They could assess their capacity, their performance and most importantly their weaknesses in processing all the available resources to respond to and fulfill school needs properly.

Now that a detailed context for MSS has been provided the next question to be considered is: what sort of institution are DEOs and how could they possibly implement MSS? The next section will elaborate the profile of DEO as a critical point in Indonesian education and in the decentralization process in relation to MSS implementation.