The Government of Bulukumba
demonstrates a strong commitment to
improve BOSP
Bulukumba highly values education and considers it an important government program. In partnership with USAID-KINERJA, the Bulukumba District Head (Bupati) H. Zainuddin Hasan and the district government developed a program to effectively implement the Educational Unit Operational Cost Analysis (BOSP) in Butta Panrita Lopi. Bupati Hasan made this important announcement at a hearing organized by the education Multi-Stakeholder Forum on November 9, 2012.
The BOSP calculation regulation instructs elementary schools (SD) and junior high schools (SMP) to calculate the necessary budgets in order to provide standardized education services.
Using the results of the minimum service standards (MSS)-based BOSP analysis for primary education in Bulukumba, Bappeda and the District Education Office (DEO) amended the Budget (APBD-P) FY2012 and increased operational funding for elementary and junior high schools by Rp 773,476,899 and the line item for education in the APBD increased from Rp 20,296,105,600 to Rp 21,069,582,499.
The DEO also allocated a budget of Rp 23,418,129,910 for free elementary and junior high school education in Bulukumba, as detailed in the Budget Execution Document (DPA) of Educational SKPD 2013. In comparison to the previous year, the budget increased by Rp 2,348,547,411 from Rp MSS-based BOSP calculations that revealed a gap of Rp 11,030,847,203. As a result, the district plans to gradually close this gap by 2016.
Free Education in South Sulawesi
If implemented carefully, free education programs not only give poor children broad access to schooling at no charge but also gradually break the chain of poverty, thus restoring their rights and confidence that had been previously undermined by the rich.
“Free Education” is the government’s commitment to providing education without requiring the community and parents to contribute any funding, particularly to cover the costs of school operations. Consequently, free education programs heavily depend on accurate unit costs at the school level. These unit costs provide a picture of average costs each school incurs in serving one student. The total unit costs should be compared to school
operational assistance (BOS) grants to reveal any shortages that local governments must cover in their regulated budget set out in provincial and district APBD. Such a mechanism is called cost sharing between the central and local governments.
The free education policy does not burden citizens (parents) with these financial gaps. Two alternatives remain: the local government (Pemda) will close the financial gaps or the financials gaps are not closed at all. If Pemda closes the financial gaps, an allocation from APBD is required based on the number of students. The wider the gap between BOS and unit costs and the greater the number of students in a district, the greater APBD allocations are required (Prof. Dr. Hj. Syamsiah Badruddin, M.Si). The fact is, however, that many schools cover their budget deficits by imposing fees on students.
A local regulation (PERDA) number 4 year 2008 on free education was put into effect in South Sulawesi. Fulfilling the commitment to free education required a significant portion of the national government annual budget (APBN) and provincial and district budgets in South Sulawesi. In 2008, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was created between the provincial and district governments to carry out the program with 11 pilot districts (Makassar, Gowa, Takalar, Bantaeng, Bulukumba, Selayar, Pangkep, Barru, Tana Toraja, Luwu Utara, and Sinjai). The cost of piloting free education in these districts was Rp 644 billion, with Rp 405 billion generated from the school operational assistance program (BOS), Rp 125 billion from provincial APBD, and the rest from a line item in APBN. The government also allowed third parties to give financial support. The technical guidelines (juknis) indicated at least 15 line items were included in the allocation to the free education program. In 2009, the second year of the program implementation, the total allocation to free education from the provincial APBD was Rp 193.6 billion (Governor Decree of South Sulawesi 2008). This amount increased sharply after the free education program has been implemented across districts in South Sulawesi. The Provincial Education Office recently announced the allocation disbursed to districts for free education amounted to Rp 216 billion.
Particularly in Kota Makassar, as covered in a news article in 18/11 (ANTARA), its 2009 budget plan (RAPBD Pokok) for financing about 400 schools in the city required
education (Fajar: May 22, 2013).
Many stakeholders welcome this new commitment to free education as not just a district head election campaign promise, but as a result of cooperation between the Provincial Government and all districts across South Sulawesi. While many technical problems remain to be addressed, the BOSP program provides the public real results and evidence of good governance, not just a promise. However, the program faces opposition from some politicians and government officials who consider the policy as added pressure or fear some officials may inappropriate use the funds. They are also concerned with larger APBD may become increasingly burdensome for the government and may wean its commitment to free education.
Some cost indicators have made a few people less confident to take action. In fact, it is clear that the concept of free education is not planning without plan.
Nondiscriminatory Education
The National Education System Law 2003, chapter III on principles of educational delivery (article 4) stipulates that education must be provided in a democratic, equal, and
nondiscriminatory manner, upholding human rights, religious values, cultural values and pluralism.
Nondiscriminatory education refers to the delivery of education without separation between the rich and the poor and as a basic right of each citizen. Limiting free education according to socio-economic status may reduce government expenditure (GE) to free education in APBD allocations and free up remaining funds for other priorities. However, this will
exacerbate gaps among social classes and result in greater imbalances in society. The rich may say that they are pursuing education at their own expense. As a result, education will be considered as an investment only from an economic viewpoint.
Supports from Rubber Estate Company - PT Lonsum
PT Lonsum’s rubber company in Bulukumba carried out its corporate social responsibility (CSR) through:
1. Paving a 5-km road section to give access to the community to reach nearby schools in Palangisang, Subdistrict of Ujung Loe.
2. Paying the salaries of part-time teachers teaching in schools whose students are mostly children of PT Lonsum employees (located 15km away from the district capital).
3.
Facilitating the creation of distance-learning classes for school-age children who live far away from schools and have no access to elementary schools. The company provided classrooms and facilities, while the umbrella schools provided teachers whose salaries were paid for by the company. Now, with these distance-learning classes, some 20 students are receiving an education.
Use of Production Units as School Funding Sources
In support of learning and teaching activities at the Public Vocational High School (SMKN) 4 - Makassar, five production units were developed:
1. Printing Unit 2. Travel Agent Unit 3. Building Lease Unit 4. Photo Studio Unit 5. Self-service Shop Unit
The SMKN’s Self-Service Shop Unit is named Swalayan KESIMA (Student and Community Welfare), one of self-service shops cooperating with GORO.
BOSDA Integration into Local Mid-Term Development Plans (RPJMD) in
South Sulawesi
South Sulawesi’s Development Vision for RPJMD 2008-2013 was “South Sulawesi among
the Top Ten Best Provinces in Fulfilling Basic Rights”. To achieve the vision, South Sulawesi provincial government developed five development missions for 2008-2013, one of which was “to improve the quality of service delivery to fulfill the basic rights of citizens”. The basic rights referred to affordable and good-quality education services.
The RPJMD contained a development agenda that specifically addressed the lack of access to primary education and meeting the compulsory nine-year primary education program. These problems were associated with costs, particularly in the provision of books and other fees.
education delivery, which included standard contents and learning process, competencies of graduates, educators and teaching staff, facilities and infrastructure, management, financing and assessment.
A third problem was the citizens’ attitude towards or perception of education. Among farmers, children were considered as productive assets rather than channels of investment through education. Such attitude and perception were demonstrated by the low spending of the community on education. In addition, other household priorities such as food and housing take up a larger share of income and often compete with education expenses.
The policy on improved education aimed to achieve the following:
1.
1. Free EducationThe policy aimed to improve the availability of facilities and the quality of primary and secondary education delivery (SD and junior high school and equivalent levels), and full financing by the government for school age children (6-15 years old). The policy was implemented on a cost-sharing basis between the government’s School Operational Assistance (BOS) program and District Governments and Provincial Government through their local budgets (APBD). The Provincial Government accounted for a maximum 40% of the required funds not covered by BOS.
2.
2. Improved Service DeliveryThis education policy aimed to fulfill the government requirement of average schooling of 8.5 years (2013). The implementation of this policy focused on efforts to provide educational facilities, particularly at elementary and junior high school levels; improve the quality of school management; utilize communication and information technology; improve welfare and quality of teachers; and improve community access to such facilities, including providing incentives for students from low economic backgrounds with strong academic achievements, and providing additional subjects such as sports.
3.
3. Education PromotionThis goal aimed to improve citizens’ understanding and awareness of the role education plays in improving the quality of life (through improving individual performance).
Free Education Budget at Rp 15.5 Billion
The District Government of Tana Toraja allocated Rp 15.5 billion to finance free education in 2013. Sixty percent of the allocation was generated from Tana Toraja APBD and the remaining forty percent came from South Sulawesi Provincial APBD.
The 2013 Free education program manager of the Tana Toraja DEO, Tato Alik, said that the budget allocation to free education at the elementary and junior high school levels in 2013 served 305 schools, with 37,677 students in 228 elementary schools and 15,340 students in 76 junior high schools.
The SD and SMP free education grants were transferred directly to each school according to the number of students. ''The grants will be transferred quarterly,” he said. Tato reiterated that with the free education grants, schools were strictly prohibited from charging students any costs and fees because all costs had been covered by the grants. The items to be covered by the free education program included stationery, school tools and incentives for principals, librarians and janitors. “Any fees charged by schools to their students are illegal,” he said.
Tato said that the DEO exercised strict control over the use of the funds and regular reports were submitted to ensure appropriate use of the free education grants. “We encourage parents to immediately report any charges imposed by schools to DEO,” he said. (rp6/uce/t)
Source: Palopo Pos, Wednesday, February 13, 2013
Community Participation in Local Development Planning and Budgeting in
Pati
The Pati district government had adopted a participatory approach to development planning. The district was chosen as a model of good practices because it was the first district in Indonesia to engage the community in both local planning and budgeting. The process has engaged PERFORM Project in planning and BIGG (Building Institutions for Good Governance). The pilot participatory planning in Pati started in 2002. Three sub-districts were selected, Tayu, Pati, and Juwana, out of the total twenty-one sub-sub-districts.
Experiences with community participation may vary among districts depending on the local conditions. Pati adopted a collaborative approach to planning and budgeting for the Fiscal Year 2003. Since its adoption of participatory planning and budgeting, Pati has been considered one of the districts with best practices.
Pati District Development Planning Agency (Bappeda) was the first office to adopt participatory planning and budgeting, even prior to the issuance of SPPN Law concerning participatory planning and budgeting.
organizations were also instrumental in informing the community’s mindset about the changes. (Wahyu Dyah Widowati, 2007).
Translator’s Statement:
This document is translated accurately and consistently from Indonesian into English. Tangerang, May 20, 2015
