Saya tidak berencana membiayai anak saya kuliah
Education, Funding, and the Reconfiguration of Parental Responsibility
A Capability-Based Critique of Dependency-Oriented Educational Norms
Abstract
Contemporary discourse on parental responsibility in higher education frequently conflates educational support with financial provision, treating the latter as a moral imperative. This paper challenges that conflation by distinguishing education as the formation of human capability from funding as a protective economic mechanism. Drawing on a capability-based framework, the paper argues that unconditional parental financing of university education risks prolonging dependency rather than cultivating adult agency. Through a concrete model of work-based learning and responsibility transfer, this paper proposes a reconfiguration of parental duty—from protection toward structured exposure to consequence—as a legitimate and defensible philosophy of education.
1. Introduction: The Moralization of Funding in Educational Discourse
In many contemporary societies, parental responsibility toward children’s higher education is implicitly defined through financial commitment. Statements such as “I do not finance my children’s university education” are often interpreted not as policy positions, but as moral failures—signaling neglect, indifference, or hostility toward learning itself.
This reaction reveals a deeper conceptual problem: the moralization of funding as a proxy for educational commitment. The assumption operates silently but forcefully—namely, that education and financial provision are inseparable, and that withdrawal of the latter constitutes a rejection of the former.
This paper argues that such an assumption is conceptually flawed and pedagogically counterproductive.
2. Conceptual Clarification: Education vs. Funding
At the conceptual level, education and funding occupy different functional domains.
Education concerns the formation of cognitive, practical, and moral capacities: the ability to think, judge, work, and assume responsibility.
Funding functions as an economic instrument designed to reduce friction, uncertainty, and risk exposure.
While funding may support education, it is not constitutive of it. Treating financial provision as an intrinsic component of education collapses two analytically distinct processes into a single moral category. This collapse produces a distorted evaluative framework in which parental virtue is measured by endurance of financial shielding rather than effectiveness of adult formation.
The failure to maintain this distinction results in what may be termed a normative category error.
3. The Category Error: Family Policy vs. Moral Sentiment
Criticism of non-financed higher education often proceeds from a mismatch of analytical planes. A system-level decision regarding adult formation is evaluated through the lens of affective parental norms. In such evaluations, structural design is reduced to emotional symbolism.
This is not an empirical critique; it is a reflexive moral judgment.
Parental love, in this framework, is tacitly defined as continuous economic insulation. Any deviation is interpreted as emotional withdrawal rather than strategic repositioning of responsibility. The error lies not in disagreement, but in the misclassification of intent and function.
4. A Capability-Based Educational Framework
This paper adopts a capability-based paradigm of education, wherein educational success is assessed by the extent to which individuals acquire:
Cognitive autonomy (the ability to think and evaluate),
Practical competence (the ability to work and produce value),
Decisional authority (the ability to choose and prioritize),
Consequence-bearing capacity (the ability to absorb outcomes without deflection).
Within this paradigm, prolonged financial dependency is not neutral. It actively delays the emergence of these capacities by externalizing consequence and diluting causal feedback between effort and outcome.
By contrast, structured exposure to responsibility—within a controlled but real economic environment—functions as an accelerant of adult formation.
5. Structural Implementation: Work as Pedagogy
The model under discussion is not theoretical abstinence from support, but reallocation of support mechanisms. A workshop environment is established as a hybrid space: workplace, learning site, and disciplinary structure. Within it, young adults engage in productive labor, receive income, and manage resources independently.
Crucially, income allocation—including the choice to finance higher education—is left to the individual. Access to scholarships, including international opportunities, remains open and encouraged.
Thus, higher education is neither prohibited nor devalued. It is decoupled from entitlement.
6. Protection-Based Paradigms and Their Limits
Opposition to this model typically arises from a protection-based paradigm, where education is implicitly defined as insulation from real-world pressure. Within this view, success is measured by the duration for which friction can be postponed.
This paper argues that such postponement does not eliminate friction; it merely displaces it—often to a later stage where corrective capacity is lower and stakes are higher.
The disagreement, therefore, is not about care, but about temporal placement of difficulty.
7. Love, Responsibility, and the Ethics of Discomfort
A central ethical tension emerges: whether love is best expressed through protection or preparation.
This paper rejects the reduction of love to economic buffering. Love, in an educational context, can function as intentional exposure—the provision of firm ground rather than safety nets. Discomfort, within limits, is not evidence of harm but a signal of contact with reality.
To interpret discomfort as ethical failure is to mistake resilience formation for cruelty.
8. Conclusion: Reclaiming Responsibility as an Educational Value
Refusing to finance university education is not a rejection of learning. It is a rejection of dependency sanctified by moral sentiment. It represents a deliberate relocation of responsibility from parent to emerging adult.
Such a position may be unsettling, but discomfort alone does not invalidate a principle. More often, it indicates a confrontation with realities that dominant norms have long deferred.
An education that avoids reality may feel humane in the short term—but it produces adults ill-equipped to stand when protection inevitably recedes.
Komentar
Posting Komentar