Opinion, The Jakarta Post, 1 December 2007
Published as "The Rise of Privately Funded Education" *
The delivery of education in
This article attempts to explore the social and cultural cost of privatization of education and the possible danger this may bring to the development of the society. The case of single corporations founding and funding private educational institutions will be discussed in more depth due to its mushrooming growth and especially alarming repercussions.
With the expansion of free market and its campaign for privatization,
In
The term corporate university refers to educational programs and institutions founded by corporations to train their employees in core beliefs, operating and value systems of the corporations. But corporatist** educational institutes, the private corporations in
While many of these corporations may found educational institutions out of sincere desire to contribute towards improvement of the quality of education in
These latter corporatist educational institutions run the operation of their educational institutions very similar to the way they would run corporations – with cost benefit factors, marketing surveys, and the running of marketing and management of the institutions by professionals who may or may not have interests in the value of educational and academic quest for development of knowledge. In these institutions, students and their parents are customers whose demands must be met regardless of academic integrity.
Some of these corporatist educational institutions manage their educational institutions the way corporations would manage their offices and commercial areas: highly secured, gated, exclusive communities with their own privately run food courts, parking lots, and students’ dormitories. Every now and then, these institutions would run sponsored and marketing events where other corporations could promote their latest products to students. Some of them even look and feel like the malls, where people who ‘don’t belong’ won’t have access to the educational compound.
In describing the effect of corporate sponsorship to the “re-engineer[ing of] some of the fundamental values of public universities,” Klein mentions that “[m]any professors speak of the slow encroachment of the mall mentality, arguing that the more campuses act and look like malls, the more students behave like consumers” (Klein, 2000: 109).
To make matters worse, corporatist educational institutions polarize even more the already divided social economical classes of Indonesian society. In his book, “Manifesto Pendidikan Nasional” (National Education Manifesto, 2005), Prof. H.A.R. Tilaar describes the impact of consumerism to education: “… most of [national pluses schools] are very elitist because they are very expensive. This consumerist life style is highly contrasted with the everyday realities of many children on the streets, many of whom are homeless … and have no access to education. [It] has dampened our feelings … towards the poverty that majority of Indonesian society is living in” (Tilaar, 2005: 27).
To illustrate the above point, several weeks ago, I was invited give feedbacks to presentations by fourth-year architectural students from one of the corporatist universities. I was stunned by one particular presentation of a student’s point of view about an urban problem she observed, and was even more baffled by her proposal. She noted that the price of a pack of instant noodle was cheaper at Carrefour than at the (illegal) street vendors. However, the (legal) inhabitants by the railroad of the Mangga Dua area she investigated did not go to Carrefour because they had to take a roundabout walk or take the ojek (motorcycle taxi).
Her design proposal was a building that would bridge over the railroad track into the Mangga Dua Mall so the inhabitants could go directly to Carrefour. Thus, in her reasoning, the legal inhabitants of the area would no longer need to purchase items from the (illegal) street vendors or use the service of ojek – because “by law these (illegal) people would have to anyway be evicted from the area.”
In her argument against corporations sponsoring educational events and programs, Klein stated: “When corporations sponsor an event on a university campus [or school] … they cross an important line between private and public space – a line that is not part of a consumer’s interaction with a corporation as an individual shopper. We don’t expect morality at the mall but, to some extent, we do still expect it in our public spaces – in our schools, national parks and municipal playgrounds” (Klein, 2000: 445).
With the lack of national parks and municipal playgrounds in
Notes
* This is the original, unedited version.
** Not in the original manuscript: The term corporatist is borrowed from Klein's "Shock Doctrine" (2007):"Corporatism, or "corporativism," originally referred to Mussolini's model of a police state run as an alliance of the three major power sources in society - government, businesses and trade unions - all collaborating to guarantee order in the name of nationalism. ... an evolution of corporatism [can be defined as]: a mutually supporting alliance between a police state and large corporations, joining forces to wage all-out war on the third power sector - the workers - thereby drastically increasing the alliance's share of the national wealth" (Klein, 2007: 86).
