Implementation of the mandate of the constitution, the 1945 Constitution and the legislation on compulsory education is necessarily carried out seriously by the Government. And this is shown by the high value of the budget allocated to this area. One of the flagship programs in education is the Operational School Assistance Program.
Since its implementation in 2005, the BOS program always is in the process of continuous improvement. Good improvements to the system / mechanism, requirements, and provisions. Even the unit cost or at nominal value increases in the state budget. And this government real enough from the occurrence of visible changes in policy, in each year. However, although there has strived to provide and maintain this policy and with good BOS program, and in accordance with Good Governance framework, the government is not even able to or managed to find an exact formula, which is compatible between BOS program with fiscal decentralization system running.
In addition, there are some policy gaps that occur scalable rules of the game (rule of law) and scalable implementation. Some gaps or gaps that have successfully identified in this report.
The findings gap / gap consisted of 8 cases, the problems associated with consistency, sustainability programs, and public accountability for the planning, implementation, and accountability of the BOS program. The third type of problem spread and fill the whole part of the gap to eight findings.
There is a disregard for the mandate of the 1945 Constitution and the National Education Law to organize a national education system that is free of charge, without levies, or free of charge.
The government’s education funding policy is split in two orientations: a funding orientation that eases the burden on all students and affirmatively exempts students from poor households from school levies; and a funding orientation that exempts all students from educational levies.
The construction of a reasonable policy in the primary, with the option of exempting students from all school levies, must be realized consistently and consequently. This policy choice is more due to the material aspects of higher legislation mandating it.
The 1945 Constitution and the National Education Law must be the source of law and policy in the implementation of reasonable education, and education subsidies, from planning to its implementation. However, when the assessment of the country’s fiscal capacity is not adequate in carrying out the country’s mandate, then the problem is not in being able or unable to. But more on the choice of strategy and management of the country’s finances.
Decentralization of BOS is a policy that must be strongly supported. However, the distribution of BOS funds for this purpose, which is carried out through fiscal instruments that are not legitimate, unclear, and based on political negotiations, namely the Adjustment Fund, is a fiscal policy that traps the decentralization process itself.
The decentralization of BOS is in danger of failing with vague fiscal decentralization policy choices and opening up the possibility of political space.
According to law regulation 33/2004, there are only 5 fiscal instruments, namely DAU, DAK, DBH (which is classified as a Balance Fund), Deconcentration, and Assistance Task.
The Adjustment Fund does not exist and is not known by regulation, and is only at the discretion of the DAU, so it is temporary and limited.
Therefore, the government’s choice to place the BOS program in the DAK is an option that the Government must make.
Conditio sine qua non for the government, with a note, the DAK mechanism must be developed and built in a format that is accountable, transparent, efficient, fair, and on target, especially for beneficiary schools.
Standard Unit Cost
The unit of nonpersonal operational costs borne by the BOS program is not sufficient for the needs of educational costs that must be borne by schools or students. There is a significant difference between the BOS unit cost and the required cost unit.
Therefore, the government should not set a target for policy achievement beyond the government’s own fiscal capabilities. Policy formulation and determination should be in line and in line with the fiscal capabilities possessed and not put the achievement target at a level that is too high.
Source of Funding
The source of funding for the BOS program comes in part from foreign debt, or through the PHLN mechanism. This policy causes vulnerabilities of BOS programs in terms of public sustainability and accountability.
The government’s fiscal policy orientation, which is still dependent on foreign loans and grants, should be changed. Creativity in finding new sources of funding, such as through extensification and intensification of income tax, strengthening domestic products to meet the needs of the domestic market, and minimizing imports of goods must be a priority.
However, if you still receive PHLN, the funds should be placed in development programs that are productive in the short and medium term. Such as infrastructure, agriculture, trade, and industry.
The distribution of BOS funds is categorized as urgent-need. Causing the existence of the BOS program within the framework of decentralization is temporary, and not yet compatible with the regional financial system.
A MECHANISM for transferring BOS funds that is compatible with the regional financial system must be established immediately, especially with regard to the distribution of such funds to schools, without procedures that make it difficult for schools, in planning or in accountability and reporting.
Various BOS program implementation regulations issued by several relevant ministries overlap and are inconsistent in determining the rules of the game.
The government must establish government regulations that become the legal and policy umbrella for the implementation of the BOS program from various ministries as equals.
Transfer to Regions
The transfer of funds from the government to the local government, and from the local government to the school has been delayed. And the delay is not only caused by the inaction of the local government in disbursing funds to schools. However, it is also caused by other things, such as inaction in the transfer of funds from the government to the local government, the excessive workload of BUD, slow socialization and local government capacity, additional requirements for local government, and low school compliance.
Delays in the transfer of funds in these two stages must be solved by establishing a mechanism for transferring BOS funds to schools that is more open, flexible, transparent, and accountable.
It is necessary to add an affirmation element by placing it in a separate account, in the regional financial system, and simplifying the administration process in disbursement.
School compliance in the implementation of bos programs that are accountable, participatory, and transparent is still low.
The government must prioritize improving school capacity as a national priority for education. Especially in terms of the APBS, and the functions of the school committee and the board of education.