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.