Good Practice, Dissemination and Sustainability ...10… · More Effective Decentralized Education...

Decentralized Basic Education 1: Management and Governance

Good Practice, Dissemination and Sustainability: Implications for Policy

May 2009 This report is one of a series of special reports produced by Research Triangle Institute (RTI), Implementing Partner for the USAID-funded Improved Quality of Decentralized Basic Education (IQDBE) program in Indonesia

More Effective Decentralized Education Management and Governance (DBE1) Good Practice, Dissemination and Sustainability: Implications for Policy Contract 497-M-00-05-00029-00 Prepared for USAID/Indonesia Prepared by RTI International 3040 Cornwallis Road Post Office Box 12194 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2194 The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government.

Good Practice, Dissemination and Sustainability: Implications for Policy iii

Table of Contents page

Table of Contents .......................................................................................... iii List of Figures ................................................................................................ v List of Tables .................................................................................................. v Executive Summary ....................................................................................... 1 1. Introduction ............................................................................................... 5 2. Good Practice in DBE1 ............................................................................. 8

Good Practices at School and Community Level ...................................................... 9 School/Madrasah Development Plans (RPS/M or RKS/M) ............................... 10 School Committee Strengthening ........................................................................ 14 School Leadership Training ................................................................................. 18 School Database System ...................................................................................... 20

Good Practices at District Level .............................................................................. 23 Financial Analyses ............................................................................................... 26 District Education Planning (Renstra) and Planning Information System (SIPPK)

......................................................................................................................... 32 Capacity Development Plans (RPK) and Education Management Methodologies

......................................................................................................................... 37 Education Management Information System (EMIS) ......................................... 40 Governance .......................................................................................................... 44

Public-Private Alliances........................................................................................... 47 USAID Policy and Corporate Social Responsibility ........................................... 47 Responding to the 2006 Earthquake .................................................................... 48 Summary .............................................................................................................. 52

Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) Grants ................................. 54 Summary .............................................................................................................. 57

3. A Strategy for Dissemination, Sustainability and Policy Development ....................................................................................................................... 58

Introduction .............................................................................................................. 58 Defining Sustainability and Dissemination ......................................................... 58 Basic Principles .................................................................................................... 60

A General Strategy for Transition and Sustainability .............................................. 61 A General Strategy for Dissemination ..................................................................... 64

How Much Support Should be Provided? ........................................................... 64 What Are The Risks? ........................................................................................... 65 Manuals and Modules .......................................................................................... 66 Standards .............................................................................................................. 67

A Strategy for Dissemination in Target Districts .................................................... 67 District Level Planning, Budgeting, and Advocacy ............................................. 68 Management, Implementation, Monitoring, Evaluation, Reporting, and

Advocacy ......................................................................................................... 69 District Facilitators ............................................................................................... 70

iv Good Practice, Dissemination and Sustainability: Implications for Policy

Reference Schools ................................................................................................ 71 Active Learning as a Part of School Based Management .................................... 72

A Strategy for Dissemination across Districts ......................................................... 73 East Java Program ................................................................................................ 74 Provincial Engagement ........................................................................................ 74 Service Providers ................................................................................................. 75 Reference Districts ............................................................................................... 76

A Strategy for the National Level ............................................................................ 77 Finalize and Obtain Endorsement for All Materials ............................................ 77 Engagement at National Levels ........................................................................... 78

4. Dissemination Results – Progress to Date ........................................... 80 Disseminating School-Based Management ............................................................. 80 Disseminating District Level Programs and Developing Service Providers ........... 88

5. Materials to Support Dissemination and Sustainability ...................... 90 Manuals and Training Materials .............................................................................. 90

Manuals ................................................................................................................ 91 Training Materials ................................................................................................ 91

Identifying and Promoting Good Practice ............................................................... 93 Articles in Mass Media ........................................................................................ 94 Web-Based Publications ...................................................................................... 94 Newsletters and Promotional Material ................................................................. 96 Reports to Stakeholders ....................................................................................... 96 Books ................................................................................................................... 97

6. Policy Development, Dissemination and Sustainability .................... 102 Collaboration with the MONE Secretariat for School-Based Management (Direktorat Pembinaan TK- SD) ............................................................................ 105 Collaboration with World Bank, UNICEF and MONE ......................................... 107 Collaboration with The Education Statistics Center (PSP) – EMIS Pilot ............. 107 Collaboration with The Education Statistics Center (PSP) – Milenium Challenge Corporation ............................................................................................................ 110 Provincial Level Advocacy and Scaling Up .......................................................... 111

7. Summary and Next Steps ..................................................................... 113 Appendix 1: Current List of DBE1 Materials ............................................ 117 Appendix 2: List of DBE1 Articles Published in Print and Online Media ..................................................................................................................... 119 Appendix 3: Status of Government Engagement in DBE1 Methodology Development and Use ............................................................................... 130 Appendix 4: Dissemination Standards .................................................... 137

A. Process Standards ...................................................................................... 137 B. Program Content ........................................................................................ 137 C. Content Standards ...................................................................................... 138 C1. Outcome Standards for RKS/M ............................................................. 138 C2. Outcome Standards for School/Madrasah Committee Strengthening

....................................................................................................................... 139

Good Practice, Dissemination and Sustainability: Implications for Policy v

C3. Outcome Standards for Leadership Training ...................................... 139

Appendix 5: ICT Grant Program .............................................................. 140 a. ICT Innovation EMG ..................................................................................... 140 b. Education Hotspot .......................................................................................... 141

Appendix 6: Overview of Current Regulatory Framework for Basic Education, Indonesia ................................................................................. 143 Annex 7: Abbreviations, Acronyms and Glossary .................................. 147

Abbreviations and Acronyms ................................................................................ 147 Glossary ................................................................................................................. 151

List of Figures page

Figure 1: DBE1 Target Locations .................................................................................. 6 Figure 2: SDS Architecture .......................................................................................... 20 Figure 3: Initial Page of SDS Data Entry .................................................................... 21 Figure 4: Slides from Bupati Karawang District Presentation to MONE ................... 31 Figure 5: Covers of Renstra in Sukabumi & Lebak Districts ...................................... 34 Figure 6: Repetition Rates in Pidie District, Aceh ....................................................... 36 Figure 7: The EMIS Triangle - Supply, Demand, & Use ............................................ 42 Figure 8: Public and Private Entities Alliances ........................................................... 54 Figure 9: Transition Strategy ....................................................................................... 60 Figure 10: DBE1 Manuals and Modules for School-Level Programs ......................... 66 Figure 11: DBE1 Manuals and Modules for District-Level Programs ........................ 67 Figure 12: DBE Website; Growth in Number of Hits ................................................. 95

List of Tables page

Table 1: Summary of Dissemination Effort to December 2008 .................................. 80 Table 2: Summary of Dissemination Programs to end of December 2008 (Program

Realization) ............................................................................................................. 83 Table 3: Summary of Dissemination Programs to end of December 2008 Showing

Unit Costs (Program Realization) ........................................................................... 86 Table 4: DBE Website; Ten Most Popular Publication Requests ................................ 95

vi Good Practice, Dissemination and Sustainability: Implications for Policy

Good Practice, Dissemination and Sustainability: Implications for Policy 1

Executive Summary Decentralized Basic Education (DBE) is a bilateral program between the Government of the United States of America, represented by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), and the Government of the Republic of Indonesia. DBE1, one of three components under the DBE program, is focused on the management and governance of basic education.

The objective of DBE1 is to assist the government of Indonesia to improve the quality of basic education in Indonesia through more effective decentralized educational management and governance. The project runs from April 2005 until April 2010. The complete program is being implemented in a total of 50 target districts across eight provinces.

This report, prepared at the end of three and a half years of project implementation, focuses on our strategic approach to dissemination, sustainability and policy development, supported by the collaborative development and production of materials. The project’s core strategy is to develop exemplars of good practice in management and governance, both at school and at district level, and to support the dissemination of these to other schools and districts.

Singling out good practice requires an agreement on what is meant by the term ‘good practice’ and how we can identity it. Good practice in DBE1 is defined through reference to international research, reports on previous and concurrent projects in Indonesia, including the USAID-funded MBE project, and lessons learned through our own project experience and systems for monitoring and evaluation. Practices and approaches which meet stakeholder needs and improve the management and governance of basic education in efficient and effective ways are regarded as good practice.

In order to support both dissemination and sustainability, DBE1 has focused on developing and piloting methodologies to implement Indonesian Government policy which supports decentralization and improves the management and governance of basic education. This includes school development planning, school leadership training, school database systems, and strengthening the role of school committees. Together these approaches constitute a comprehensive approach to school-based management. In addition, DBE1 has developed methodologies for district education finance analysis, strategic planning, improving management of personnel, assets and supervision, governance and policy development.

One of the keys to the success of DBE1 is that all of these methodologies are closely and explicitly aligned to current Government of Indonesia policy and regulations. Another key is that the project has focused heavily on the development of practical manuals for each of these methodologies, in some cases supplemented with simple computer software and in some cases comprised of training modules. This approach, combined with the capacity

2 Good Practice, Dissemination and Sustainability: Implications for Policy

building and an intensive program of training for school supervisors and independent service providers, such as universities, as facilitators, supports dissemination in a very powerful way. It provides the tools and creates the human resources which enable districts and other agencies to implement the approach in their own schools without further funding assistance.

In this context, the project has pioneered a number of innovative and highly effective approaches. Two examples are the school database system and school unit cost analysis. The school database system is unique to DBE1 and has proved to be extremely popular with schools and districts, giving them for the first time the tools to manage their own data in a meaningful and effective way, and efficiently producing reports in government-required formats for a range of management purposes. Financial analysis methodologies such as the school unit cost analysis for the first time give school district administrators a tool to determine the real costs of educating children at each level in the school system according to national standards. This then enables districts to budget adequately to provide basic quality schooling and at the same time implement free-schooling policies, which are currently gaining currency in Indonesia.

The report sets out each of the project’s methodologies and for each one identifies the good practice element. It also provides a summary of project manuals and materials published to date together with plans for the future. At the time of writing, all of DBE1’s school-based management materials, including a manual designed for district and school system managers on how to implement the program, are in the process of being published under Government of Indonesia logos and with introductory statements from senior officials in the Education Department and the Ministry of Religious Affairs, which manages Islamic schools. This approach greatly strengthens our aim to have good practice institutionalized and disseminated widely throughout the country.

In addition to promoting the dissemination of good practices in management and governance, DBE1 has collaborated with its sister projects, DBE2 and DBE3, to support an integrated approach which includes a focus on teaching and learning. The concept of school-based management inherent in MONE and MORA policy is expressed as three pillars, each of which is needed to support improvement: school management, community participation and active learning (referred to as PAKEM). 1 This policy puts teaching and learning where it should be – at the heart of school-based management. The approach taken to incorporate this aspect and promote an integrated package for dissemination is described in the report. The coordination between DBE1 and DBE2-3 is ongoing.

The strategy for sustainability and dissemination of good practices in DBE1 is embedded in the belief which has underpinned DBE1’s approach since day one: that our task is to assist the Indonesian Government and non-government stakeholders to better implement their own policy by collaboratively developing

1 PAKEM is a common acronym in Indonesia for Pembelajaran yang Aktif, Kreatif, Efektif dan Menyenangkan, which translates as Active, Creative, Effective and Joyful Learning.


and piloting methodologies which build capacity and support good practice in target districts.

In the words of one senior official in the Ministry of National Education, there are four keys to ensuring successful implementation and dissemination of project methodologies:

1. The program must be aligned with government policy 2. The program must be adopted into the government bureaucracy 3. Both formal and informal networking is required. Working exclusively

through a formal network is difficult. Meanwhile, informal networking is effective but if used exclusively, it can make it difficult for programs to be institutionalized, especially if the informal contact person is no longer part of the system.

4. Be confident that the program, products and approach are good practice.2

Building on this strategic approach to sustainability and dissemination and given the significant depth and breadth of the DBE1 program, the project is able to contribute to the development of a field-based policy agenda in a number of ways:

by assisting national government to implement existing and newly developed policy, reporting on progress and thereby helping to inform the process of policy review. This also occurs to some extent at district and school level

by conducting financial and data analysis, and directly assisting in the development of strategic plans and budget preparation at district (and school) level

by improving the capacity of local government and non-government players to engage in open policy dialogue and to implement various policies related to decentralization

by improving the systemic and institutional capacity of local government to develop policy in the form of plans and budgets on the basis of good data and information, and

by conducting pilots, special studies and analysis and creating and participating in forums to report on results and encourage policy dialogue. This supports policy development at all levels.

Consistent with these underlying strategic principles, the focus for DBE1 during the final period of implementation is on: (1) completing the implementation of core programs in 50 districts particularly at the district level, (2) strengthening and deepening the impact of these programs by supporting implementation and

2 Speaking at a DBE1 workshop held to plan for the integration of DBE1 materials and good practices into MONE policy and practice held in Bandung on 1 April 2009, the Head of the Learning Division for the Directorate for Kindergarten and Elementary Schooling in MONE (Kasubdit Pembelajaran, Dir Pemb. TK dan SD), described the following keys for success of dissemination:

1. Program diseminasi merupakan bagian dari kebijakan 2. Program diseminasi masuk ke dalam birokrasi 3. Network formal dan informal harus terjalin baik. Network formal saja akan sulit, sementara network informal

saja akan sulit untuk diformalkan 4. Kita harus yakin bahwa program diseminasi yang kita tawarkan ialah baik


sustainability measures, giving increasing responsibility to the schools, districts, provinces, national government and other agencies to support the ongoing program, (3) supporting the dissemination of core programs to increasing numbers of schools, sub-districts and districts, and (4) leveraging the depth and quality of data collected for programs such as school development planning, district strategic planning, and financial analyses to support a widening agenda for information-based policy development with a focus on improving quality of basic education at district, province and national levels.

In line with these major objectives, DBE1 has intensified the already strong collaboration with government and non-government partners at all levels. Also in the final phase of implementation, the focus on publication of materials will increase with all manuals and supporting materials published and widely disseminated, where possible with Indonesian Government endorsements. A series of publications will also be published for wider audiences to share good practice and the findings of special studies. This will potentially include the use of mass media, books, and film media.


1. Introduction

This report is prepared for the USAID Quality Improvement for Decentralized Basic Education program, Component: More Effective Decentralized Education Management and Governance (DBE1) implemented by Research Triangle Institute.

Decentralized Basic Education (DBE) is a bilateral program between the Government of the United States of America, represented by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), and the Government of the Republic of Indonesia represented by the Ministry for People’s Welfare (Kementerian Koordinator Kesejahteraan Rakyat or Menkokesra). DBE consists of three separate but coordinated projects, DBE1, which is focused on the management and governance of basic education, DBE2, on the quality of teaching and learning in elementary schools and madrasah, and DBE3, on the relevance and quality of junior-secondary schools and madrasah.

The objective of DBE1 is to assist the government of Indonesia to improve the quality of basic education in Indonesia through more effective decentralized educational management and governance.

The project aims to develop an education sector that (1) is effectively and efficiently managed by local government agencies operating at different levels of the education system (district, sub-district, and school levels); and (2) has strong governance agencies that effectively voice the aspirations of all stakeholders. The project seeks to promote local government management practices that are transparent, participatory, responsive, and accountable (i.e. practices that are guided by principles of good governance). The education sector as a whole will benefit from continuing interactions between effective executive leadership and organized civil society.

To achieve the overall project objective, the following Intermediate Results were identified in consultation with USAID at the beginning of the project:

1. Improved capacity of local government to effectively manage education;

2. Strengthened education governance related institutions; 3. Increased use of information resources to enhance education

management and governance; and 4. Dissemination of project results, including through Public Private

Alliances (PPA).

The project runs from April 2005 until April 2010. The complete program is being implemented in a total of 50 target districts across eight provinces. An initial 29 districts, designated as Cohort 1, were jointly selected with the government of Indonesia (GOI) and commenced the program in 2005. In late 2006, 21 new districts were selected and commenced the program. Six of the


original districts were also selected for an expanded program, making a total of 27 districts for Cohort 2. A further 6 districts have taken part in Public-Private Alliance programs in Yogyakarta and West Papua.

Figure 1: DBE1 Target Locations

1. Aceh 6. Yogyakarta (PPA) 2. North Sumatra 7. Central Java 3. Banten 8. East Java 4. West Java 9. South Sulawesi 5. Jakarta 10. West Papua (PPA)

This report sets out the strategy and progress to date for dissemination and sustainability of good practices developed by the Decentralized Basic Education project, DBE1, up until the end of 2008. In particular the report includes:

1. a summary of good practices developed by DBE1 in collaboration with GOI

2. an overview of the project strategy for dissemination and sustainability

3. an update on progress with dissemination to date

4. a summary of DBE1 materials, and how these

a. have been prepared and piloted in consultation with GOI,

b. support dissemination, and

c. are being transferred to GOI to support both dissemination and sustainability, and

5. an update on the impact of DBE1 on policy at all levels: national, provincial, district and school/community.

The report thus focuses on our strategic approach to dissemination, sustainability and policy development, supported by the collaborative development and production of materials. It includes a list of materials produced by the project and a summary of policy linkages.


The report interprets the term ‘materials’ broadly to include manuals, training materials, reports, films, brochures, newsletters, posters, press coverage and other material that DBE1 has produced - or is producing - to support dissemination and sustainability. This includes materials jointly prepared with other components (DBE2 and DBE3) and material published in mass media including national, provincial and district newspapers.

Examples of materials produced are provided and a list is included in Appendix 1. The report concludes with some comments on the next steps to support dissemination and sustainability of good practices3.

Some of the material in this report draws on previously published or reported material. In particular, the report draws on material from the Year 3 Annual Report, the Year 4-5 Workplan and Annexes, and the 15th Quarterly Report.

The report concludes with some notes on the next steps to be taken in regard to completion of materials development and production and plans for dissemination and sustainability.

3 The report addresses the following three deliverables from the DBE1 Task Order concurrently:

Deliverable 12: Summary of materials on local government education planning, management and governance, as well as participatory community school management practices. The report will help DBE1 refines its dissemination strategy to meet efficient and effective dissemination of best practices.

Deliverable 13: Document outcomes highlighting DBE1 best practices, how they were developed, tested, and the extent of successful dissemination. The report will inform MONE and MORA the implementation of national policy at the lower level (districts and schools) and the recommendations for national policy dialogues.

Deliverable 23: Produce a periodic report describing the institutionalization and transfer of DBE1 products (training materials, manuals, reports regarding local government and school education planning, management, and governance, as well as community participation in management practices) to MONE and MORA.

The report reflects revisions to the Task Order as described in a Change Letter dated July 8, 2008 and draft revised SOW dated August 25 and October 21, 2008. DBE1 submitted reports on Deliverables 12 and 13 in 2007. The wording of the deliverables was altered slightly in the revised Task Order. Notwithstanding this, the current report addresses the period following that reported on in the previous reports for these deliverables: July 2007 to December 2008. Follow up reports are scheduled as follows: Deliverable 12 (3rd report): April 2009, Deliverable 23 (2nd report): June 2009 and Deliverable 13 (3rd report): October 2009.


2. Good Practice in DBE1 DBE1 aims to develop more effective decentralized education management and governance of basic education. The core strategy is to develop exemplars of good practice in management and governance, both at school and at district level, and to support the dissemination of these to other schools and districts. Singling out good practice requires an agreement on what is meant by the term ‘good practice’ and how we can identity it.

As in previous DBE1 reports, the term ‘good practice’ is used in this report in preference to ‘best practice’. Whilst the latter implies an objective measure of what is ‘best’, suggests that there is little room for further improvement and that there is only one answer, one ‘best’ approach, the former is more modest and open-ended.

Good practice in DBE1 is defined through reference to international research, reports on previous and concurrent projects in Indonesia, including the USAID-funded MBE project, and lessons learned through our own project experience and systems for monitoring and evaluation. The report of the independent mid-term evaluation4 provides another reference point. Practices and approaches which appear to meet stakeholder needs and achieve the objectives of the project to improve management and governance and increase quality of basic education in efficient and effective ways are regarded as good practice.

As a general principle, good practice in education management and governance, will align with current national Government of Indonesia (GOI) policy and will be sustainable. The development and dissemination of good practice will also contribute to the ongoing development of a field-based policy agenda at all levels, which supports the continuous improvement of quality in basic education.

The experience of DBE1 over three and a half years has produced a number of examples of good practice along with lessons learnt, all of which have been promoted through the publications and strategies described in this report.

In the context of developing more effective decentralized education management and governance of basic education, DBE1 aims to develop an education sector that:

1. is effectively and efficiently managed by local government agencies operating at district and school levels; and

2. has strong governance agencies that effectively voice the aspirations of all stakeholders at district and school levels.

Good practice in DBE1 reflects these aims. The project promotes school-based management and local government management practices that are transparent,

4 The Mitchell Group, Inc. The Midterm Evaluation of USAID/Indonesia’s Decentralized Basic Education (DBE) Project Final Report, March 18, 2008


participatory, responsive, and accountable; in other words, practices that are guided by principles of good governance. The education sector as a whole benefits from improved interactions between an effective executive leadership and an organized civil society. This is equally true at the level of school and community and at the district level.

In this section, good practices from DBE1 at school/community level and at district level are described. This section also draws on previous quarterly and annual reports to describe the process of developing each methodology in collaboration with government and non-government stakeholders.

Good Practices at School and Community Level During the first three and a half years of implementation, DBE1 assisted the ministries responsible for education in developing and piloting approaches to implement their policies in school planning, school budgeting, reporting and parent and community participation through school committees. In Indonesia there are two national ministries concerned with the management of the education system: the Ministry of National Education (MONE) and the Ministry of Religious Affairs (MORA)5. This is because around 20% of Indonesia’s children are educated in Islamic schools, known as madrasah.

With the passing of the Law on the National Education System (20/2003)6 Indonesia formally adopted a policy of school-based management for all of its public and private schools and madrasah. In July 2005, the Government of Indonesia (GOI) introduced School Operational Funding (Bantuan Operasional Sekolah, known as BOS)7. As a result, since then schools and madrasah have received per-capita grant funding direct from the central government, giving them for the first time some financial independence8. In the current round, BOS funding was increased more than 50%9. DBE1 has been the first major donor-funded project to develop and implement an approach to school planning and school-based management since the introduction of this policy.

This makes the project very significant. Prior to the introduction of BOS, school planning lacked a certain degree of substance, since schools had such inconsequential budgets. Since BOS funding has been available, school budgets

5 MONE is known as Departemen Pendidikan Nasional or Depdiknas in Indonesian. MORA is known as Departemen Agama or Depag. 6 Undang Undang Sisdiknas 20/2003 – This and other relevant laws and regulations may be found on the DBE website, http://www.dbe-usaid.org/ under the Resource Materials section 7 See the DBE1 report, Study of Legal Framework for the Indonesian Basic Education Sector (November 2007) for a full explanation of the BOS scheme along with the Law on the Education System (20/2003) and other significant government laws, regulations and policies. 8 A typical rural elementary school prior to the introduction of BOS had an annual budget of around Rp2million ($200), enough to buy a few stationary items. Text books and other requirements were supplied centrally. Since 2005 the same school has had a budget of over Rp25 million ($2,500) and since 2009, Rp40 million ($4,000). Parent and community contributions along with funding from other sources such as the district government can further increase this amount. 9 For elementary schools and madrasah, the rate per student in cities increased from Rp254,000 to Rp400,000 per year in 2009.


are significant. School planning is thus much more important, as is the role of school communities, and particularly school committees in school governance.

Since the adoption of these new school management and governance policies, the Indonesian Government has been working to implement them across its 216,000 schools and madrasah. It is in this context that DBE1 has provided assistance by developing and implementing a model of school development planning, supported by training in leadership for school principals, training to empower school committees and a new school database system (SDS).

One of the most significant aspects of the DBE1 approach has been to consistently align models and manuals for school-development planning, leadership training, school committee strengthening and school database systems to the latest government regulations and policy. This approach has enabled the project to successfully translate established international good practice into the Indonesian context. Strategically aligning the project’s inputs to current regulations greatly increases the potential for implementation, dissemination and sustainability.

Routine monitoring and evaluation, a preliminary impact study for RPS/M in 2007, and the fact of widespread adoption and dissemination of the DBE1 approaches, especially school/madrasah development planning, all provide good evidence of a positive impact. The combined impact of the school and community level interventions discussed below will be the subject of a comprehensive impact study to be conducted early in 2009.

School/Madrasah Development Plans (RPS/M or RKS/M) 10 The heart of successful school-based management is a commitment to children, to teaching and learning, to continuous improvement, to good planning and to the participation of all stakeholders.

10 Formally referred to in Indonesian as Rencana Pengembangan Sekolah (RPS), which translates as School Development Plan, following a shift in government policy, these plans are now referred to as Rencana Kerja Sekolah (RKS), or School Work Plans.

Participants from schools and madrasah in North Sumatra identify priorities and draft programs as part of the school development planning process (RKS/M).


Following established models of good practice, and building on the work of earlier projects, DBE1 assists schools and madrasah to create and implement comprehensive school development plans which:

1. focus on quality improvement, 2. are based on needs identified through data collected and analysed in a

school profile, 3. reflect the aspirations and priorities of stakeholders, 4. are integrated and cover all main aspects of the school program, 5. are multi-year – four years is standard, 6. are multi-resourced – all sources of funding and resourcing are

covered, including block grants from the national government (known as Bantuan Operasional Sekolah or BOS), annual district budgets (known as Anggaran Pendapatan dan Belanja Daerah or APBD), parent contributions and other sources,

7. are directly linked to annual school work plans (known as Rencana Kerja Tahunan or RKT) and budgets (known as Rencana Kegiatan dan Anggaran Sekolah/Madrasah or RKAS/M), and

8. are effectively implemented and monitored by the school committee and stakeholders.

Along with the development of a new curriculum and new approaches to teaching and learning introduced in Indonesia during the reform period of the late 1990s and early 2000s, a new approach to school-based management was introduced and became MONE policy for elementary and elementary schools in the early 2000s.

The new policy was first introduced in junior secondary schools with a program called Quality Management Operational Support (Bantuan Operasional Manajemen Mutu or BOMM) in 1997/9811. As part of the new approach, schools were required to establish school committees. However, in most schools, school based management initially meant little. School committees were typically established by changing the name of the old parent committee (BP3) and there was little real capacity or empowerment either of schools or of their communities12. This reality still holds true in many cases and is exemplified by the usual translation of ‘community participation’ into Bahasa Indonesia as ‘partisipasi masyarakat’ which is taken to mean parent and community financial contributions to the school.

Support to develop the new approaches to teaching and learning, school-based management and community participation has been provided over the last ten years through donor-funded projects such as the World Bank-funded PEQIP and BEP, the UNICEF-UNESCO CLCC project, the ADB-funded DBEP, JICA-

11 School-Based Management was reportedly first promoted in Indonesia by the Director of Junior Secondary Schooling (SMP) in the late 1990s. 12 BP3 stands for BPPP, or Badan Pembantu Penyelenggara Pendidikan, which literally means Education Implementation Support Body. The BP3 usually consisted of a small group (or individual) appointed by the principal which theoretically represented the parents but usually functioned as an agency for collecting parent fees and signing off on the annual budget.


funded REDIP, and AusAID-funded IAPBE and NTT PEP, and more recently under the USAID-funded MBE and DBE projects. These various projects have provided important resources and opportunities to support the development of policy and practice in school planning.

With the passing of the National Education System Law, Indonesia formally adopted a policy of school-based management for all of its public and private schools and madrasah. Criteria for school development planning (RPS/M) were first set out in regulations issued in 2005 (PP No. 19/2005)13. The DBE1 approach implemented in the first two years of the project was designed to support the implementation of this policy.

In consultation with national stakeholders from MONE and MORA, DBE1 developed an initial manual for school development planning in 2005-6 (Rencana Pengembangan Sekolah/Madrasah or RPS/M). This manual was based on the regulation that sets national education standards (PP No. 19/2005). The first draft of the RPS/M manual was evaluated and revised toward the end of 2006. The revised manual was used for initial RPS/M training for Cohort 2 schools in Year 2 of the project. Using these manuals, DBE1 provided intensive assistance to 1,086 elementary schools to prepare comprehensive needs-based school development plans in collaboration with their communities.

In July of 2007, the 2005 regulation was revised and strengthened with a new Ministerial Decree (Permendiknas 19, 2007)14 requiring all Indonesian schools and madrasah to produce school development plans known as School/Madrasah Work Plans (Rencana Kerja Sekolah/Madrasah or RKS/M).

School/Madrasah Work Plans under the newer policy differ from the earlier model – and from the original DBE1 model - in two ways:

1. The 2007 model uses nine categories in the school profile compared with the six used in the earlier DBE1 model. These categories correspond to those used by the new National School Accreditation Board (Badan Akreditasi Sekolah Nasional or BASNAS).

2. Under the 2007 policy, schools and madrasah no longer produce annual school budgets using the old format (RAPBS/M) but produce integrated Program and Budget Plans (Rencana Kegiatan dan Anggaran Sekolah/Madrasah or RKAS/M) together with annual work plans, called Rencana Kerja Tahunan (RKT).

These changes fit well with the DBE1 approach to integrated planning and budgeting. During Years 2 and 3 the original DBE1 model was revised to fit the new approach. The new, more integrated, and more rigorous, approach to school development planning helps schools to achieve national standards through a deliberate and purposeful school improvement program.

13 PP stands for Peraturan Pemerintah or Government Regulation, and usually serves to interpret a law which is higher level policy into operational terms. 14 Permendiknas is an abbreviation of Peraturan Menteri Pendidikan Nasional or Ministry of National Education Regulation.


During Year 2, in consultation with national stakeholders from MONE and MORA, DBE1 developed and piloted an RKS/M manual for junior secondary schools and madrasah. By end of December 2008, the new RKS/M approach was successfully implemented in 168 out of 196 target junior secondary schools and madrasah. The remainder is expected to complete the process early in 2009.

Also during Year 3, the previous RPS/M manual for elementary schools and madrasah was revised in consultation with stakeholders from MONE and MORA to align with the 2007 regulations for RKS/M. Work was completed on the new manual in 2008, and during this year all target elementary schools and madrasah were supported to update their RPS/M to fit with the new regulations and become RKS/M15. All schools have also been supported to prepare annual work plans (Rencana Kerja Tahunan or RKT) and annual budgets (Rencana Kerja Anggaran Sekolah/Madrasah or RKAS/M) as part of the development plans. This involved a series of workshops and on-site mentoring visits for all schools. The process of converting RPS/M into RKS/M to meet the requirements of the new regulations took place as part of the process of updating plans which is conducted annually.

The creation of a school development planning (RKS/M) approach that is based on good practice and aligned to the 2007 regulations is one of DBE1’s major contributions and sets the project apart from other previous and parallel donor projects.

Following a preliminary multi-donor meeting at the World Bank on April 11 2008, members of the national DBE1 team attended a meeting on April 24-27 with the Secretariat of School-Based Management (Sekretariat MBS) from the Directorate for Kindergarten and Elementary Schooling, MONE (Directorate Pembinaan TK-SD). The purpose of the meeting was to share experience, map school-based management programs and establish a multi-stakeholder forum. In this context, information was shared between donors and

15 Some schools in Aceh, West Java, Banten and South Sulawesi are expected to complete the process early in 2009.

RKS/M development workshop in Aceh Besar, NAD

Cover of Annual School Workplan (RKT) from Muhammadiyah

Madrasah in Jombor, Central Java


the Directorate on approaches to school development planning. Also attending these meetings were representatives of the World Bank, AusAID, (IAPBE, NTT PEP, LAPIS), Kartika Sukarno Foundation, Plan International, Save the Children, UNESCO, UNICEF, World Vision and JICA.

Significantly, it was confirmed that the DBE1 approach to school development planning (RKS/M) is the only one that was currently fully aligned to current government regulations (particularly Permendiknas 19/2007). This fact is well appreciated by MONE (especially the directorates for elementary and junior-secondary schooling) and also largely accounts for the success of the program in the field and the strong interest in dissemination. As a result, DBE1, responding to a request from the Directorate for Kindergarten and Elementary Schooling (TK-SD), is preparing final versions of manuals for school development planning. It is expected that the manuals will be officially endorsed by the Ministry by mid-2009.

School Committee Strengthening Good practice in school-based management involves not just good planning but the active participation of all stakeholders. When parents, community members, teachers – and, where appropriate, students – participate in decision making and planning, they are likely to be more committed to supporting the implementation of decisions and plans. Ideally schooling is a partnership between home/community and school with everyone sharing the same vision for quality improvement; everyone sharing a sense of ownership, responsibility and a commitment to work together to realize the vision.

The achievement of this good practice in Indonesian schools requires a shift in how people think about schooling. Indonesia’s historically centralized education system has served well to unify the nation, providing Indonesian citizens with a single political ideology (Pancasila), a single language (Bahasa Indonesia) and a common national identity. Indonesia’s aim to provide access to education for all children, across a vast archipelago of over 13,000 islands with around 300 ethnic groups, has been largely successful. Although the Education For All (EFA) goal of universal access is yet to be achieved, progress has been impressive. According to UNESCO EFA reports, approximately 92% of Indonesian children receive some elementary schooling. Around 80% complete elementary school and the trend is improving16.

16 See: UNESCO, 2007, Indonesia EFA Mid-Decade Assessment Report and Fasli Jalal, Nina Sardjunani, 2005, Background paper prepared for the Education for All Global Monitoring Report 2006 Literacy for Life: Increasing literacy in Indonesia

Good practice in school development planning The good practice is that DBE1 school development planning methodology has aligned with current government policy which means that it is mandated for schools.


While Indonesia has yet to perform well on international tests in math and science, it has been successful in giving the basic skills of literacy to approximately 90% of its large and mainly poor population. These are significant achievements for a young nation which 50 years ago provided schooling to less than 10% of its citizens.

But this success has come at a cost. Education designed as an instrument for nation building has not worked as well for building the foundations of a democratic society. While the centralized top-down model worked well for Indonesia’s first phases of political and economic development, it is no longer appropriate. For Indonesia to build an open, competitive and democratic society, it needs a new model of education. In order to implement models of good practice in school-based management, local communities need to feel a renewed sense of ownership and responsibility for quality in their local school.

The highly centralized system developed during the initial 50 years since Indonesian independence in one sense disempowered local communities. School principals and teachers tend to see themselves as implementers of national government policy; parents, communities and children see themselves as passive recipients. They do not feel an ownership of local schools and consequently do not feel that they have rights or responsibilities attached. With the new government policies this is beginning to change.

The Ministerial regulation, Kepmendiknas No 044/U/200217 concerning School Committees and Education Boards lays out the roles, rights and responsibilities for these governing bodies at school and district level.

In order to support the implementation of this policy and the change to greater partnership between schools and communities, and to create models of good practice in the school governance, DBE1 has developed and piloted training materials to strengthen the role of school committees. The training is designed to increase understanding within school committees of their role based on Kepmendiknas No 044/U/2002 and to strengthen their capacity to fulfill that role. DBE1 school committee training consists of a series of fourteen modules, designed to be implemented in six phases. This approach gives schools the opportunity to select the most relevant modules from a menu, following completion of standard introductory training.

Training to strengthen the role of school committees has been provided in all DBE1 supported elementary schools and madrasah. The fourteen training modules are organized in themes to enable schools to select the most appropriate topics for capacity development.

17 Kepmendiknas is an abbreviation of Kepututsan Menteri Pendidikan Nasional or Decree of the Minister for National Education.


Part 1: An introduction to the role and function of the school or madrasah committee

Part 2: Self Assessment and Organization Strengthening, including formation and representation of the committee, gender sensitivity, sensitivity to diversity and marginalized groups, and school committee organization

Part 3: Administration and Management: including organization of the school or madrasah committee, basic budgeting and work planning

Part 4: (select from the menu) Strengthening the role of the committee: including participation, transparency and accountability, assessing community aspiration, developing partnerships, alternative funding sources and participation in the village development planning and budgeting process (musrenbangdes/kel)..

Part 5 (select from the menu): Strengthening the role of the committee: including simple financial reporting, and identifying learning resources18.

Community participation is not just about money, it is about decision making and ownership: Public consultation as part of the school development planning process in South Sulawesi

In December 2008 DBE1 developed training materials to support the implementation of the law and associated regulations concerning local village level government and development planning – especially to support the implementation of school development plans.

The new training module was developed and subsequently implemented in all DBE1-supported schools to prepare school committees to advocate for support in the community consultation process to be held in January-February. This consultative process, called musrenbangdes/kel is part of the broad bottom-up consultative planning process conducted annually in all districts throughout the country. The development planning process is managed by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MOHA)19 based on Law No. 25/2004 concerning the National

18 Musrenbangdes/kel is an abbreviation of Musyawarah Rencana Pengembangan Desa / Kelurahan or Village Development Planning Consultation 19 Departemen Dalam Negeri or, in abbreviation, Depdagri


Development Planning System20. Development funds are allocated to villages and districts as part of the development planning program.

The following laws and regulations form the basis for the new training for musrenbangdes/kel:

1. A circular letter from the Minister for National Development Planning and the Minister for Home Affairs21 states very clearly that school committees have the right to participate in the consultative planning process at village level (musrenbangdes/kel).

2. Law No 32/2004 concerning Regional Government and Law No 33/2004 concerning Fiscal Balance between the Central Government and Regional Government, together with the associated regulations PP 72/2005 and PP 73/2005 concerning villages (desa and kelurahan) which explain the funds which can be used by villages22.

3. Circular Letter No 140/640/SJ concerning Guidelines for the Allocation of Village Funds from the District Government to the Village Government23 which determines that funds which are managed by the village may be allocated, among others areas, to support the provision of basic education in the village.

This program provides an excellent opportunity for schools to lobby for village development funds (Anggaran Alokasi Desa/Kelurahan or ADD) to finance their school development plans. DBE1 District Facilitators (DF)24 conducted the training in December 2008-January 2009 and will follow up with school visits in February-March 2009 to facilitate the process. At the time of writing, the musrenbangdes/kel process is just getting under way. The results of monitoring and evaluation are not yet available but early signs suggest that in some cases this approach is proving very effective in leveraging funds for school development and engaging the village level government in the process. Since the approach is very new, the experience is likely to be quite varied. This is the first instance of a basic education project making the link and supporting school committees to lobby for funds under the national village development program for school improvement. As such this is a very significant activity.

The school committee training provided through DBE1 not only strengthens school governance but offers an important opportunity for local communities and citizens to experience open, participative democracy at a grass roots level. The education system and its schools and madrasah reach further into local communities and the lives of ordinary Indonesians than any other government

20 Undang Undang No 25/2004 tentang Sistim Perencanaan Pembangunan Nasional 21 Circular Letter no. 0008/M.PPN/01/2007 or Surat Edaran Bersama Menteri Negara Perencanaan Pembangunan dan Menteri Dalam Negeri No 0008/M.PPN/01/2007 22 Undang-Undang No 32/2004 tentang Pemerintahan Daerah dan Undang-Undang No 33/2004 tentang Perimbangan Keuangan antara Pemerintah Pusat dan Pemerintahan Daerah, yang diatur melalui PP 72/2005 tentang Desa, PP 73/2005 tentang Kelurahan 23 Surat Edaran No 140/640/SJ tentang Pedoman Alokasi Dana Desa Dari Pemerintah Kabupaten/Kota kepada Pemerintah Desa 24 District Facilitators (DF) in DBE1 are mostly school supervisors, jointly selected with the districts to be trained as trainers and facilitators for the school and community level DBE1 program.


Good practice in school governance through school committees The good practice in school governance is DBE1’s training program which operationalizes current government regulations which mandate the role of school committees and take into account the principles of adult learning and participative decision making.

DBE1 has also pioneered the development of an approach to empowering schools through their committees to lobby for village funds through the musrenbangdes/kel process. This is good practice in a climate of diminishing funds for schools and restrictions on parent contributions brought about by policies of ‘free schooling’.

agency. The potential impact of improved school governance through school committees is that of a huge training ground for grass-roots democracy.

School Committees; grass-roots democracy in action: Transparent election of a school committee in Aceh

School Leadership Training DBE1 has developed training materials for school principals to strengthen leadership, increase accountability and transparency and support school development planning and the participation of stakeholders in school governance. School supervisors are also included in the training to further support the implementation of good practice in leadership. One of the good practice aspects of this program is the way in which each component supports the other – school leadership training, school committee strengthening and school development planning.

School-based management, community participation, the successful implementation of school development plans and the improvement of quality in education in schools; all of these depend on the quality of leadership provided by the school principal. An ineffective principal can block change, disempower staff and communities, and stifle improvement. An effective principal will champion change, empower teachers and communities and provide the vision and support necessary for improvement. The principal is the key.

The objective of the leadership training modules is to assist principals in understanding what effective leadership means in practice, and to enable them to assess their own leadership style and to develop a brief plan for self-


improvement. The broader goal is, by improving the quality of school leadership, to facilitate the participation of communities and the implementation of school-development plans.

The school leadership training consists of two one-day events. The first day is delivered prior to the RKS/M planning process in order to prepare principles for a leadership role and equip them to manage the participation of school committees and other stakeholders. The second day is delivered after the first year of school development plans (RKS/M) implementation.

The training focuses on participatory planning and not on instructional leadership, which is a more complex field and beyond the scope of the project.

The first one-day training for school leadership has been provided to school principals and supervisors in all elementary target schools and madrasah. The second, follow-up one-day module has been provided to principals of all but a few target schools and madrasah. The module

will be delivered in all remaining districts early in 2009.

This first round of leadership training has also been provided to junior secondary school principals in most schools25.

Evaluation reports indicate that the training has been very useful. DBE1 introduced the concept of participatory planning by involving the principal, teachers and school committee members in preparing RKS/M. The leadership training for principals reinforced this. As a result of the leadership training, principals indicate they see the value of greater involvement of teachers and community in school management; in other words, traditional top-down and ‘autocratic’ practices are being replaced with more modern management practices.

25 All but 40 had completed the training at the end of December 2008.

Principals and supervisors from schools and madrasah in Soppeng, South Sulawesi,

discuss traditional local concepts of leadership in DBE1 Leadership Training

Good practice in school leadership The good practice is providing simple but effective leadership training, mandated by government, to groups of principals and supervisors in existing clusters (KKKS) and linking the focus of the training to other DBE1 programs: school committee training and school development planning (RKS). The training develops skills and understandings which enable principals to lead in a more transparent, accountable and participatory way.


ProfileProfile RKSRKS

SRCSRC

AccreditationAccreditationForm (BAN)Form (BAN)

BOS ReportsBOS Reports

INPUT PROCESS OUTPUT

SchoolSchoolDatabase Database

SystemSystem

School ProfileSchool Profile

School ProgramSchool Program

BOS TransactionBOS Transaction

ProfileProfile RKSRKS

SRCSRC

AccreditationAccreditationForm (BAN)Form (BAN)

BOS ReportsBOS Reports

INPUT PROCESS OUTPUT

SchoolSchoolDatabase Database

SystemSystem

School ProfileSchool Profile

School ProgramSchool Program

BOS TransactionBOS Transaction

School Database System DBE1 worked throughout 2006 and 2007 in collaboration with DBE2 to develop an application software called School Report Card (SRC) to disseminate school performance reports to parents and community members.

Building on this foundation, in late 2007 and 2008 DBE1 expanded the SRC program by developing an integrated School Database System (SDS) that includes all the data needed for several reporting requirements in addition to the SRC; these include: data to prepare for school accreditation to be submitted to the School Accreditation Board (Badan Akreditasi Sekolah or BAS), reports on the use of their BOS grants, and medium term and annual plans and budgets (Figure 2).

The SDS has evolved in response to demand and initiative from within the project into a unique initiative to support the implementation of National Education System Regulation No. 19/2007 regarding Standards for the Management of Education by Elementary and Junior Secondary Schools26, Government Regulation No. 48/2008 regarding Education Funding27, and National Education System Regulation No. 12/2007 regarding Standards of School/Madrasah Supervisors28.

SDS enables schools to produce reports in formats previously designed to meet variety of government/MONE requirements such as the school profile for school development plans (RKS/M), School Operation Funds (BOS) reports, and school accreditation data. In addition, SDS provides reports for community members and parents on annual school performance (School Report Card).

Figure 2: SDS Architecture

26 Permendiknas No. 19/2007 tentang Standar Pengelolaan Pendidikan oleh Satuan Pendidikan Dasar dan Menengah – see DBE websitehttp://www.dbe-usaid.org/ for this and other relevant laws and regulations. 27 PP No. 48/2008 tentang Pendanaan Pendidikan 28 Permendiknas No. 48/2008 tentang Standar Pengawas Sekolah/Madrasah.


Following a trial of the SDS early in 2008, DBE1 conducted training for facilitators of SDS for all target elementary school and madrasah clusters in July-August 2008. These facilitators were generally teachers or, in some cases, school supervisors, who were nominated by the districts. All possessed a basic computer literacy. In the following months, the SDS was introduced to all elementary schools and madrasah in cluster-level training.

The school database system (SDS) has proven to be extremely popular with schools and districts who find the system to be user-friendly and meeting their needs to facilitate multiple reporting requirements. Since the beginning of its implementation in August 2008 and up to mid March 2009, the SDS program has been completed in 429 schools. This is quite an achievement considering the short period of time. Schools report that they find SDS very useful because it provides an opportunity to utilize computers for school data management. The experience of using computers increases awareness of the importance of accurate and quality data while at the same time improving ICT awareness. School personnel come to an understanding that technology can help ease or minimize redundant and repetitive data management.

The SDS is also being modified for use in junior-secondary schools.

Figure 3: Initial Page of SDS Data Entry

SDS has now been implemented in nearly all Cohort 2 elementary schools and madrasah. The software for junior-secondary is nearly complete and ready for trial. Cohort 1 districts have expressed great interest in the program. Following a review and update of the software, DBE1 will facilitate the implementation of


SDS in all DBE1-supported schools mid-2009 to time with new enrolments and new data for the next school year.

The SDS represents a significant innovation and is good practice, increasing the accuracy, timeliness and completeness of data supplied by schools to the system – and at the same time enabling schools to plan on the basis of good quality data.

Introducing a computer based program enables school personnel to learn first-hand the value of computers in a real context. In most cases small schools do not yet own a computer. In some cases they do not yet have electricity supply. Nonetheless, demand for the SDS software and training has been high and schools find a way to overcome these hurdles, by using flash-disks, borrowed or hired computers, and sometimes expertise from neighbouring schools.

The real value of SDS is that it provides data in a form that can be easily utilized to support decision-making and policy development. One of the major problems in schools and at higher levels of government is that decisions are typically made and policy is formulated without reference to good data. Among other things, SDS produces a school profile, putting school and community data into a format that enables a school to quickly see its strengths and weaknesses, developments over time, and the gap between current reality and the goals of the school in achieving its stated mission.

This school profile thus forms the basis for a school’s development plan or RKS. In districts such as Boyolali, in Central Java, the district government is already formalizing a mechanism for taking this data, SDS outputs, and using them as input into district level planning and policy development.29 As more districts complete the initial SDS process, DBE1 will promote this approach more widely. Even where SDS and RKS are only available from a few schools, they provide a very useful snapshot of the condition of schools and madrasah, of the realities and the needs. This development is extremely encouraging as it moves the process of decision making, planning and policy development away from a top-down, often ill informed, process to a two way – vertically integrated process in which district policy (and national and provincial policy) informs school planning, while school data and planning informs the higher levels.

29 At the time of writing, the district of Boyolali is preparing a policy statement on education planning (SK Kepala Dinas) which will institutionalize the use of SDS and RKS as a basis for planning at higher levels.

Cover of SDS Output from DDI Madrasah, Pinrang, South

Sulawesi


DBE1 is currently exploring the possibility of further integrating the SDS approach into the government’s own Education Management Information System (EMIS) – and the software which manages it, known as PADATIWEB. The pilot project in Aceh which is described elsewhere in this report will text ways to link the SDS to PADITWEB.

The SDS program is good practice on many fronts – decreasing the information divide, improving quality and demand for data from schools, increasing accountability and improving school-based planning.

Good Practices at District Level In the first year of the project, DBE1 focused heavily on the development and implementation of school and community level programs. This was a strategic focus intended to support a bottom-up planning model. In Years 2 and 3 the focus shifted to the district level. During this period DBE1 worked with GOI partners to improve the capacity of district governments and other stakeholders in planning and financing education development, and increasing accountability and transparency by facilitating opportunities for parents, community members and other stakeholders to voice their concerns and aspiration for better quality education in the district.

As with the school and community level program described above, all DBE1 approaches and methodologies have been firmly based on current government policy and regulations. As explained above, this approach has enabled the project to successfully translate established international good practice into the Indonesian context. Again, as with the school and community level program, this has at times made life somewhat difficult as methods and manuals have been revised and updated in line with frequently changing policy and regulations from GOI. Notwithstanding this challenge, the strategic alignment of DBE1 methods with GOI policy has greatly strengthened the implementation and sustainability of the program.

Good practice in school level data management The good practice is the School Database System (SDS) which introduces computer-based data management to schools for the first time. SDS is as an easy-to-use application, using the familiar Excel platform, which handles basic school level data. It produces reports in government-required formats for a range of purposes and audiences including:

• School Operational Fund (BOS) reports – for the BOS management section of MONE

• School Accreditation reports – for the School Accreditation Board

• School Report Cards – for school community and stakeholders

• School Profile – for school development planning (RKS)


Good practice in the management and governance of basic education at the district level is consistent with good practice in other sectors and with principles of good governance. Governance is defined as the processes and institutions by which those who govern (1) are selected, held accountable, monitored, and replaced; (2) have the skills, tools, and resources to manage resources and provide services efficiently, and to formulate and implement sound policies and regulations; and (3) those who govern and the governed have respect for the institutions that govern economic and social interactions30.

Good practice in this context thus includes effective data and information-based planning, budgeting and policy development supported by transparency, open relationships and dialogue within and between executive government, legislative government and non-government stakeholders.

In an effort to increase accountability and transparency, and to bring government decision making (including planning, budgeting and policy development) closer to the people, in 1999, the Government of Indonesia passed the first law on regional autonomy and instituted a major restructuring of government. In 2004, this law was superseded by Law 32/2004 Concerning Regional Government and Law 33/2004 Concerning Fiscal Balance between the Central and Regional Governments31. With these changes, responsibility for management of education, along with many other sectors, shifted primarily from the central to the district level32.

Prior to the introduction of the regional autonomy laws, the function of district government was largely to administer centrally determined policies and plans. The challenge of building capacity at the district level to meet the challenge of decentralized government is ongoing. Exemplars of good practice on which to base DBE1 interventions were hard to find. The skills, tools, and systems to manage resources, provide services efficiently, and develop policies and regulations are still lacking.

In Year 2 and 3, DBE1 conducted an extensive governance capacity assessment. The results of the assessment show that governance of basic education at district level is very weak. Local parliaments are poorly informed and lack the data and analysis on which to base policy. District education boards (dewan pendidikan) are generally comprised of former senior bureaucrats (as often as not the retired head of the local education office) and are captured by the bureaucracy with no clear idea of how to play a useful or independent role in governance. The press is, for the most part, equally poorly informed and generally lacks capacity to act as an independent watchdog on government or to provide credible public information on educational issues. There are very few effective NGOs at local

30 This is used as a ‘working definition’ of governance in the DBE1 annual Workplan and was adopted from the LGSP Project. LGSP adopted these definitions from various sources, including the World Bank, OECD, UNDP, ADB, USAID, and RTI. 31 See DBE website http://www.dbe-usaid.org/ 32 Note that some 20% of Indonesian children are educated in madrasah, the management of which remains with the central Ministry of Religious Affairs.


level focusing on basic education. Whilst none of this is surprising, what is perhaps more significant is that the communication between these various bodies has also been found to be very weak. Although district communities are often small and quite tight knit, prior to DBE1 interventions there were few cases of effective networking or coordination between the governance bodies themselves or between governance bodies and the government bureaucracy.

Planning and financial management by the executive government has also been found to be typically weak. Plans and budgets are generally formulated in the absence of good data and information and with little public consultation.

Good governance is in essence a matter of open, constructive relationships and communication between the executive, legislature, district leadership, civil society, press and related institutions such as the Education Board (Dewan Pendidikan), private sector, NGOs, and the broader community. Transparency and accountability are multidirectional. The outcome is educational policy, plans and management based on an open sharing of accurate and complete information and the voicing of aspirations by key stakeholders.

In order to help achieve this, DBE1 has worked with local and national government to develop a number of approaches and methodologies. These include:

• Educational financial analysis: District Education Finance Analysis (known in Indonesian as Analisis Keuangan Pendidikan Kabupaten/Kota or AKPK), School Unit Cost Analysis (Biaya Operasional Satuan Pendidikan or BOSP) and BOS impact study.

• Educational planning methodologies: District strategic planning (or Renstra)33

• Educational management methodologies: Capacity Development Planning (Rencana Pengembangan Kapasitas or RPK), personnel management systems, asset management systems and school supervision systems.

• Education information management methodologies: Educational Management Information System (EMIS) and District Project Information Support System (Sistem Informasi Perencanaan Pendidikan Kabupaten/Kota or SIPPK)

• Governance strengthening methodologies: Multi-Stakeholder Workshops, training for Education Boards (Dewan Pendidikan) and District Report Cards (still to be developed).

Extensive consultation has taken place and is ongoing with national government in the development of each of these methodologies.

For example, DBE1 collaborated with the province level Education Quality Assurance Organization (Lembaga Penjamin Mutu Pendidikan or LPMP) and local government in Kudus District, Central Java, to develop personnel management systems, asset management systems and school supervision

33 Renstra is an abbreviation of the term Rencana Strategis, literally Strategic Plan


systems which will enhance existing manuals and approaches previously developed by MONE. DBE1 also consulted with MONE’s Center for Educational Statistics (Pusat Statistic Pendidikan or PSP) to develop a data management (SIPPK) approach.

Consultations with the National School and Madrasah Supervisors Consultative Body (Badan Musyawarah Pengawas Sekolah dan Madrasah or BMPSM) and the Directorate of Educational Personnel (Direktorat Tenaga Kependidikan or Ditjen PMPTK) in MONE are contributing to the development of training modules and systems for the improvement of school supervision.

While it is too early to report on outcomes and impact of these methodologies, preliminary evidence from the field suggests that these tools are proving useful to district managers and strengthen the development of good governance as described above. Some cases are described below.

Financial Analyses DBE1 has developed and is implementing two main methodologies for financial analysis: (1) District Education Finance Analysis (Analisis Keuangan Pendidikan Kabupaten/Kota or AKPK) and (2) School Unit Cost Analysis (Biaya Operasional Satuan Pendidikan or BOSP).

We began to carry out the District Education Finance Analysis (AKPK) in Year 2 as a DBE1 initiative to provide financial data to support Renstra development. The School Unit Cost Analysis (BOSP) program also began in Year 2 in response to a request from the Head of The District (Bupati) of Sidoarjo, East Java, who required the information to better target district funds for school operations. In Year 2 we consulted with Ministry of Finance (MOF)34 on these approaches. We have also had ongoing consultations with National Education Standards Board (BSNP) in developing and rolling out BOSP and we have been informing MONE of these developments.

The financial analyses have two main purposes: 1. to provide financial data for education development planning, in

particular for the preparation of the financing plan, and 2. to inform policy dialog and improve harmonization of education

development efforts undertaken by the different levels of government.

In this section we first discuss AKPK and then BOSP.

Education development planning should result in plans that can be realistically implemented. This can only be achieved when plans are prepared by taking account of financial resource constraints. In 2005-2006 we realized that critical financial information was missing to effectively support the education planning process. As a result we developed District Education Finance Analysis (AKPK), which is a tool to obtain a more comprehensive picture of how education development is financed. It basically condenses and reworks information

34 We met with MOF in order to obtain APBD data for the districts where DBE1 specialists conducted AKPK for 2005 & 2006 budget data.


contained in the very thick government budget documents into information that is easy-to-understand and that provides a transparent and relevant picture of what the money is spent on. This helps:

• Improve decision making as decisions are based on analysis results • Setting priorities among district development sectors and within the

education sector (e.g. investments in early childhood development versus improved education at the secondary level)

• Assess whether funding is being allocated in a fair manner as AKPK provides information on per student expenditure by level of education

• Compare performance among districts which is an effective way of assessing individual district performance

• Assess the extent to which the district has met its obligation under Law 20 of 2003 to spend a minimum of 20% of their budget (APBD) on education,

• Move toward a results orientation in which expenditures are matched to key education performance indicators

• Improve internal accountability by linking results to inputs which will help improve internal management

• Improve external accountability by widely disseminating results-to-inputs information in an easy-to-understand manner for use in public policy debate.

Put simply, the AKPK methodology essentially answers two questions: (1) where does the money come from, and (2) where does the money go to and how much goes to each level of schooling?

Covers of AKPK reports from Sampang District in East Java and Sidrap District in South Sulawesi


Our experience is that this is the first time districts are able to answer these questions as they prepare their budgets and consider needs. The AKPK methodology calculates education spending more accurately than was previously possible. It removes non-education components from the designated education budget document and adds education components from other sectors such as Public Works (Dinas Cipta Karya) and the Finance Section of the District Secretariat (Bagian Keuangan-Sekretariat Daerah).

As at the end of December 2008, AKPK has been completed in 14 districts and is underway in another 19 districts. We intend to complete the analyses in a minimum of 35 districts by the end of March 2009. The presentations of AKPK results have been ‘eye-openers’ for stakeholders as almost no one had a clear picture of what all the money was spent on. Across the board participants were surprised, if not shocked, to see that the greater part of education expenditure is for teacher salaries (for instance 83% in Boyolali District, Central Java) and as a result only small amounts remain to support school operation and the teaching learning processes (for instance books and teaching aids).

Another example is from Indramayu District in West Java. In this district, as in others, the results of the financial analysis (AKPK) were presented by local officials who took part in the analytic process. The power of these presentations to inform and influence policy making is significant. The analysis in Indramayu showed that, in 2008, some 37% of the total district budget was allocated to education, by far the largest sector, followed by public administration at 30% and pubic works at 11%.

The breakdown of education spending showed that a massive 80% was allocated to teacher salaries. This left around 2% for non-teacher salaries, 7% for non-school operations and 2% for school operations. Approximately 7% was spent on school infrastructure. What this shows is that there is very little funding available for developing quality, in-service training and the like.

The second finance analysis introduced by DBE1 is School Unit Cost Analysis, known by its Indonesian acronym as BOSP. This methodology answers for the first time the question, how much does it cost to educate a child at each level of the education system? By the end of December 2008 a total of 29 districts had conducted the BOSP assessment.

This program which was originally developed in response to demand in one district, as described, has proven extremely popular with local district heads, legislature and administrations. For the first time it gives district managers and stakeholders an accurate assessment of the cost of educating a child at each level in the system35. This in turn enables them for the first time to accurately predict costs, calculate short-falls (the difference between the centrally allocated BOS

35 Note that BOSP only calculates school operational costs – salary and non salary - according to standards set by BSNP. It does not include the necessary investments at system level.


funds and actual costs calculated by BOSP) and formulate policy and allocate district budgets based on real needs.

In late 2008 DBE1 specialists assisted officials in a number of districts to use BOSP results to inform the policy development processes. For example, in Karawang District, West Java, the Head of the District (Bupati) used BOSP results to formulate a new policy on school funding that stipulates that elementary schools will receive Rp 30,000 per student per year and junior secondary schools Rp 120,000 per child per year from the district’s annual budget (APBD) in 2009, which is a major increase relative to 2008. The Head of the District, however, did not stop there but used BOSP results to advocate for additional financial support from the province of West Java to cover school operational expenditure. His efforts were successful in the sense that he was able to convince the Governor to provide financial support to all elementary schools (Rp 25,000 per child per year) and junior secondary schools (Rp 125,000 per child per year) in the province.

Another interesting example is Tangerang City in Banten Province. For some time, the Mayor (Walikota) had been looking for answers to the following questions: ‘How much does it cost to operate an elementary, a junior secondary and senior secondary school?’ The District Planning and Development Body (Bappeda)36 was tasked to provide answers to these questions. The Head of Bappeda approached DBE1 and asked for only technical assistance as Bappeda was able to fund the BOSP process by itself. To respond swiftly to the request, we deployed an experienced DBE1 specialist from the South Sulawesi team. After two facilitation events in a period of ten days, the West Java team took over and finalized the process with BOSP results presentation in December 2008. Also in Tangerang, BOSP results have helped the district decide to provide financial support from the district budget (APBD) for 2009 to elementary schools (Rp 412,074 per child per year), junior secondary schools (Rp 705,651 per child per year) and senior secondary schools (Rp 1,502,563 per child per year) to cover operational expenditure. The local government in Tangerang plans to use this calculation to help prepare its 2009 Annual Budget in order to cover for the difference between costs allocated by BOS and the amount required to meet national standards.

The BOSP process in Tangerang City also triggered a much wider policy discussion on school funding which resulted in a broad range of policy recommendations that were presented during the multi-stakeholder event in December. The thrust of the policy recommendations was to ensure that education would become free for students at the elementary and junior secondary level, which means that (1) the collection of financial contributions for a wide variety of schools activities (for instance special contributions for testing, tryouts, and additional lessons) should be discontinued and (2) payment

36 Bappeda is an abbreviation of Badan Perencanaan dan Pembangunan Daerah, or District Planning and Development Board


of incentives and special allowances to teachers and school principals should be stopped.

It is rewarding to note that the elementary and junior secondary schools in Karawang and Tangerang districts will now get the funding needed to operate the schools adequately, which is achieved through the combined efforts of the central government through its BOS program, the provincial government through provincial APBD support and district government through district APBD support. It is fair to conclude that DBE1’s BOSP program has effectively informed the policy process and has played a major role in achieving this positive development.

The following slides are taken from a PowerPoint presentation which used data from the DBE1 BOSP calculation process in Karawang District. The District Head (Bupati) of Karawang made the presentation to MONE policy makers. He made a similar presentation to the Governor of West Java Province, which resulted in the province providing an additional support for school operations.37 The slides demonstrate how this methodology helps districts to calculate budget requirements to meet national standards in schools.

37 See page 45 for more information.


Figure 4: Slides from Bupati Karawang District Presentation to MONE

STRATEGI PENDIDIKAN GRATIS DI KABUPATEN KARAWANGSTRATEGI PENDIDIKAN GRATIS DI KABUPATEN KARAWANG

Jakarta, 18 November 2008

ALOKASI BOS SD/MI DENGAN STANDAR PERHITUNGAN USAID DENGAN PEMKAB KARAWANG

Standar USAID Rp. 443.000BOS Pusat Rp. 379.000BOS Kabupaten Rp. 30.000Kekurangan Dana BOS Rp. 34.000

Kebutuhan Tambahan Dana Pendidikan melaluiAPBD I untuk seluruh siswa SD/MI di KabupatenKarawang agar sesuai dengan standar USAID:

241.666 Siswa * Rp. 34.000 = Rp. 8.216.644.000

* Alokasi dana bos per siswa per tahun

ALOKASI BOS SMP DENGAN STANDAR PERHITUNGAN USAID DENGAN PEMDA KARAWANG

Standar USAID Rp. 782.000BOS Pusat Rp. 570.000BOS Kabupaten Rp. 120.000Kekurangan Dana BOS Rp. 92.000

Kebutuhan Tambahan Dana Pendidikan melaluiAPBD I untuk seluruh siswa SMP di KabupatenKarawang agar sesuai dengan standar USAID:

104.418 Siswa * Rp. 92.000 = Rp. 9.606.456.000

* Alokasi dana bos per siswa per tahun These tools of analysis are new and constitute a valuable contribution to the development of good practice and improved management and governance of education at district level. In themselves they represent good practice since the tools enable district managers and stakeholders to better understand the realities,


needs and policy/planning issues within their own districts. As more districts conduct similar analyses the ability to compare between districts will likely have a big impact on local, provincial and national level policy dialogue and development. The fact that districts are already picking up these tools and applying them using their own funds is a very positive indicator.

District Education Planning (Renstra) and Planning Information System (SIPPK)

District education plans are termed ‘Renstra’ or ‘rencana strategis’, meaning strategic sectoral development plans. Renstra prepared with assistance from DBE1 include both ‘medium term education sector development plans’ and supporting ‘finance plans and budgets’38.

In late Year 2 and Year 3, DBE1 commenced piloting of a new approach to medium-term education development planning at district level. Key features of the methodology are:

1. information based plans; 2. a shift from input to output/outcome based planning; and 3. a strong focus on identification of groups of schools requiring special

attention (e.g. low performing schools or underserved schools).

DBE1 collaborated with officials from two ministries – the Ministry of National Education (MONE) and Ministry of Home Affairs (MOHA) - in the development of the education planning methodology, progressively revising and refining the approach to meet the objectives of the national ministries. This process took more time than anticipated but is considered vital if DBE1 is to impact not only on education planning and management in target districts, but more broadly on national policy39.

38 Deliverables 9 and 10. 39 Cf. DBE1 Special report “Policy Reform in Education Planning”, October 2007.

Good practice in financial analysis for educational planning DBE1 in partnership with government stakeholders has developed two complementary tools for financial analysis which greatly assist local and higher levels of government in planning and policy making:

1. District Financial Analysis (AKPK)

2. School Unit Cost Analysis (BOSP)

Use of these tools gives district managers and stakeholders, for the first time, an accurate assessment of the cost of education a child at each level in the system and a comprehensive understanding of education financing from the various budget sources available (national, provincial and district budgets).

This in turn enables decision makers for the first time to accurately predict costs, calculate short-falls and formulate policy and district budgets based on real needs.


In Year 2, two districts completed strategic education plans (Pidie in Aceh and Soppeng in South Sulawesi). Throughout Year 3, DBE1 specialists provided capacity development support for the preparation of education plans. By the end of December 2008, five additional districts had completed the preparation of strategic educational plans (Renstra). With an intensive focus of support, a further 30 districts can be expected to complete the process during the coming months.

In the majority of these districts multi-stakeholder consultations on the draft plans were stimulating events: often participants expressed their gratitude for having had the opportunity to give their opinion on the draft plan and to suggest improvements. More than once, they explained that this was the first time that they had this opportunity. Further, most of participants were happy with the data-based planning approach which made it easier for them to understand what was planned and more importantly, why.

The DBE1 planning methodology is set out in a manual that was developed in consultation with the Ministry of National Education (MONE) and Ministry of Home Affairs (MOHA) during Year 2 and further refined in Year 3. Officials from the Ministry of National Education briefed DBE1 on recent developments in the sector, namely progress in the implementation of MONE’s strategic plan, the Ministry’s high priority programs, and the new government regulation on Education Financing (PP 48 of 2008)40. The manual was revised on the basis of this input and feedback from the field.

40 This regulation along with others may be found on the DBE website http://www.dbe-usaid.org/ under Resource Materials

Formal handing over of strategic education planning documents in South Sulawesi


The national strategic education plan, Rencana Strategis Departemen Pendidikan Nasional Tahun 2005-2009, provides a strategic policy framework for the development of district level plans. This national strategic plan identifies three policy pillars – access, quality and management.

Among the features of the DBE1 Renstra methodology is the use of data analysis software (SIPPK41) that allows districts to make plans based on disaggregated data in order to prioritize specific schools and program areas that need special attention. Currently, plans are prepared on the basis of data aggregated at the district level, which often results in over supply in some cases and under supply in others.

Figure 5: Covers of Renstra in Sukabumi & Lebak Districts

SIPPK is an Excel based software, easy to use, that allows various kinds of data analysis. In addition to supporting the DBE1 Renstra methodology, the program also forms a common platform for other management tools such as personnel planning software.

In almost all assisted districts, the government Education Office has collected the data required by the MONE Center for Education Statistics42, for the compilation of national education statistics but does not use this data for education management at the district level. Further, there is the problem of aggregating school data at the sub-district (kecamatan) level which means that a lot of information gets lost in the aggregation process. Aggregated data may be useful at the central level for the preparation of national education statistics but this kind of information is not very useful for education planning at the district level. As DBE1 promotes information based planning with the school as the unit

41 SIPPK stands for Sistem Informasi Perencanaan Pendidikan Kabupaten/Kota or District Education Planning Information System 42 Pusat Statistik Pendidikan (PSP) located in the Badan Penelitian dan Pengembangan (Balitbang) or the Research and Development Body, in MONE


of analysis, a lot of work has been done to make the data sets ready for data analysis.

Along with the EMIS Assessment conducted by DBE1 in 200743, the work in developing a special application for the use of NUPTK44 data for human resource management described below, further confirms our experience of data sets for education planning; the districts are collecting a lot of data for use at the national level, but lack the capacity to use this data for education management at the district level.

Experience to date clearly shows that district Education Office staff are able to prepare the education profile with the help of SIPPK and that school-based education profiles are very helpful in preparing education plans. Some striking general findings from the different education profiles are the following:

1. participation at the kindergarten level is still low in the majority of districts (around 25%) and public provision of this kind of education is almost non-existent: only a single kindergarten per district;

2. children go earlier to elementary school; in some districts over 90% of first graders are six years or even younger;

3. as school preparedness is low and as first graders are young, it is not surprising that repeater rates in grade 1 are high which gradually become lower for the higher grades;

4. repeater rates as well as dropout rates for girls are consistently lower than for boys for all districts where we work; girls performance in passing rates and examination results is also better than for boys;

5. the development that children have a tendency to enter primary education at the age of six in a number of districts, has important consequences for the interpretation of a number of education ratios, in particular the net enrolment rate as this rate will decline over time when children go to school at a younger age; and

6. in general, district-wide performance has improved over the past years but serious disparities between areas and or schools continue to exist.

The following figure, taken from the Pidie District Strategic Education Plan (Renstra) demonstrates the power of good data for planning. The figure shows the repetition rates in the district revealed through SIPPK. This then enabled the district to plan for appropriate interventions.

43 DBE1, EMIS Assessment Report, June 2007 44 NUPTK stands for Nomor Unik Pendidik dan Tenaga Kependidikan or Unique Number of Educator and Education Staff


0.00

5.00

10.00

G rade

Male 7.40 5.10 4.50 3.80 2.10 0.30

F emale 4.50 3.00 2.80 1.80 1.20 0.30

I II III IV V V I

Figure 6: Repetition Rates in Pidie District, Aceh

The Renstra process is comprehensive and time consuming. A well-prepared strategic education plan is based on comprehensive data collection and analysis, comprehensive financial analysis at district and school levels, and focused consultation and dialogue between all education governance stakeholders. The Renstra is thus the center-piece in a broad range of district level interventions.

Whereas in the past, and still commonly, districts produced Renstra by hiring a consultant to write the document, often with little consultation and sketchy data as a basis, the DBE1 approach takes time and commitment. At first district officials were somewhat reluctant to spend the time and use the data analysis approach but when they saw examples of what the data can do then became enthusiastic supporters of the approach. The end result is a plan which is based on the real needs and capacities of the district to address these.

Such a document becomes a policy instrument for improving quality in practical ways rather than simply a formality to be undertaken to meet bureaucratic requirements. The Renstra becomes the basis for annual district work-planning

Good practice in district strategic planning The good practice is preparation of information-based strategic plans that are translated into annual work-plans and district budgets and also inform broader policy development.

DBE1 has developed an effective methodology to achieve this, which

• enables districts to formulate strategic objectives based on data analysis,

• contains easy to use software for analysis,

• includes development of a finance plan based on financial analysis,

• helps operationalize district vision and mission statements, and

• links to MONE’s national strategic plan.


and budgeting in the same way that the school development plan (RKS/M) becomes the basis for annual school work-plans (RKT) and budgets.

This is what we regard as good practice in strategic education planning at district level.

Capacity Development Plans (RPK) and Education Management Methodologies

As described above, a major challenge in the implementation of decentralized management and governance of basic education in Indonesia lies in the capacity of local government to manage an education system. For example, districts lack the experience and capacity to effectively manage data for planning and policy development (as described above), to manage human resources, to manage assets, and to foster and respond to public policy debate. In Years 2 and 3, DBE1 developed a pilot methodology and assisted in the development of capacity development plans (Rencana Pengembangan Kapasitas or RPK) in 11 districts. These plans are regarded as sufficient to serve as models for districts under various projects and programs. Ongoing discussions with the World Bank and AusAID indicate that the RPKs developed in the 11 districts may serve as models for dissemination under other donor funded programs45.

The RPK process results in a plan to build capacity in the district education office. In order to implement the RPK a budget is required. In Tuban district, for example, a total of Rp 250 million ($25,000)46 was allocated in the 2008 budget for RPK implementation. The programs to be implemented in 2008 included teacher mapping and the conduct of a School Unit Cost Analysis (BOSP).

A significant outcome of the RPK process across the districts where the process has been conducted is the identification of the need to improve management of the education system, and particularly personnel management. This outcome highlights the shift in approach that DBE1 has pioneered. Whereas capacity development programs typically take the form of training, DBE1 has instead focused on needs identification and systemic strengthening or institutional capacity development.

In Year 3 DBE1 worked intensively to develop and pilot a system to better manage human resources in Kudus, Central Java. The DBE1 approach is to enhance systems and models that already exist in the education system, enabling better collection and management of data to improve management. In this context, a number of systems are addressed: personnel mapping (SIM NUPTK)47, teacher competency, qualifications and certification, human resource

45 However, in response to demand, DBE1 will assist two more districts, Nganjuk and Bojonogero, in East Java, to develop RPK in Year 4 and will work jointly with the World Bank and MONE to improve the manual based on the pilot in 13 districts. 46 Throughout this document a nominal exchange rate of IRP 10,000 = USD 1 is used. The actual rate has varied significantly throughout the project, from around IRP 7,000 to the Dollar to the current rate of approximately IRP 11,000 47 Sistem Informasi Manajemen - Nomor Unik Pendidik dan Tenaga Kependidikan (Management Information System of Unique Number of Educator and Education Staff)


planning, recruitment and deployment of teachers, promotion and career development, professional development (training), performance appraisal, reward and protection.

A special team was established for human resource management development in Kudus. The team is comprised of members from the District Education Office, District Personnel Board (Badan Kepegawaian Daerah) and principals of both public and private schools from all levels of education. To ensure progress, a core team of five members worked to identify policy issues in human resource management, identify options to address these issues and then select the preferred solutions. The outcome of this process was formalized in a Head of District Decree (Peraturan Bupati). The second phase then focused on developing the systems and procedures to support implementation of the policy objectives. Here again, these systems and procedures were formalized through a Head of District or Education Office Decree.

During the initial stage, team members were reluctant to look for innovative solutions and restricted themselves to ‘cutting and pasting’ text and articles from central government regulations. However, gradually a shift occurred. Options that were beyond consideration during the early stages of the process were heatedly discussed later on.

As a result of the program, the Kudus human resource management (HRM) team members could see that more detailed and operation-based rules and regulations were used by those districts to implement policies on human resource management. Members also understood that there was a certain level of courage required to implement human resource management successfully in Kudus. This courage is required because of two factors: originally, the Kudus District Personnel Board only functioned as an implementer of policies and was

Demonstrating good practice in human resource management as part of project management: Interviewing a candidate as part of the transparent, merit-based

selection process for DBE1 district coordinators in South Sulawesi. The selection panel includes senior personnel from the local Education Office, Religious Affairs

Office and local Education Board


rarely involved in decision making process. Secondly, issues of human resource management tend to involve other matters (e.g. salary and division of responsibilities) and could easily be linked to political issues or interests, making the whole approach more complex.

Although DBE1 had to continuously convince team members throughout facilitation meetings that proposed policy improvement should be based on real conditions and requirements, not on concerns about displeasing others or possibly violating other laws, team members were able to incorporate several changes to the draft of District Head Decree on human resource management. Following a series of facilitation meetings to develop the draft, the District Head Decree was signed by the Head of District on June 30 2008. The challenge for the Kudus HRM team remains as these changes need to be implemented and adopted by district employees in their daily activities.

Some examples of new approaches to human resource management included in the Decree are as follows:

1. A shift to a performance-based approach for staff appraisal, candidate selection for academic programs, certification, and other career development programs

2. A shift from ‘past entitlements’ to a more rational and needs-based approach that will help rationalize the use of resources

3. Introduction of more plan-based management practices 4. Introduction of a human resource management information system

Specific items in the regulation include: 1. Mid-term planning and employee needs, not employee numbers and

composition 2. Qualifications will be used as a basis for recruitment, change of

position, and promotion 3. A formal work agreement is to be used as basis of performance

assessment; particularly for decisions related to employee promotion, change of position, and acknowledgement of service

4. Career mapping and planning will be used as a basis for employee promotion and career development

5. Human resource management improvement will be included in district annual budget allocations

6. A systematic employee management system, not subjective information

Following the development of the decree, DBE1 developed a systematic employee information system based on SIM NUPTK. This system is used for mapping personnel requirements and a basis for the decision making process, in particular for the distribution of human resources such as qualified teachers to different regions.

The software application and pilot testing and data collection and validation followed by data processing and drafting of policies, strategies and programs


were almost completed by the Kudus HRM team in 2008. This work will be finalized early in 2009 and the new system will be rolled out in one district per province, where appropriate focusing on districts which have undergone the RPK process.

In addition to the management of personnel, DBE1 is committed to developing enhanced systems and models of good practice in the management of school supervision and preventive assets maintenance. This work will also take place in 2009.

Education Management Information System (EMIS) In 2006 DBE1 conducted an assessment of MONE’s Education Management Information System (EMIS). The assessment reviewed existing EMIS instruments and data collection, analysis and reporting systems in place.

The final Assessment report was submitted to USAID in April 2007. Some of the major findings were:

• MONE’s EMIS is not designed in such a way as to adequately motivate schools and districts to take a vested interest in the success of EMIS

• Schools and districts would be more motivated to enter data more accurately and in a timely fashion if the data were in a form readily available for their own planning purposes

• Districts have low capacity for data analysis.

DBE1 presented preliminary results of the EMIS Assessment to 513 district and provincial officials during a workshop in September 2006, organized by MONE’s Education Statistics Center (PSP or Pusat Statistik Pendidikan). The purpose of the workshop was to introduce MONE’s new web-based EMIS called PADATIWEB (Pangkalan Data dan Informasi berbasis Web). DBE1’s preliminary findings were well appreciated by the workshop. MONE commented that the findings fully support their reasons for introducing a new system. However, much yet remains to be done to fully implement this system.

Consultations continued with MONE’s Education Statistics Center (PSP) and in DBE districts throughout 2007 and 2008. DBE1 continued to assess progress in data collection and data entry in PADATIWEB. We found that districts typically lack the time to go through the entire processes and steps specified in

Good practice in capacity development planning and district management

DBE1 has developed an approach which enables district officials to:

• obtain feedback from other stakeholders and compare with other districts to assess their performance

• analyze data to determine districts needs and strategic development

• focus on systemic assistance for improvement and not only training


PADATIWEB. Further observations highlighted district difficulties in initiating the system including challenges in collecting the data in a timely fashion. For example the statistical analysis displayed on the web as of November 2007 still only reported year 2005 data.

Even though all data collection forms have been available online since the beginning of 2007, difficulties in collecting and reporting the data in a timely fashion were still noted through 2008. Field visits conducted early in the year indicated that data is available at the districts. However, the quality of the data is questionable and the data are not used for education management and governance by the districts themselves. The problem relates to three factors: supply, demand and use.

Despite common misconception, the objective of an EMIS is not to collect data, nor is the goal to manage, input, print, or send data to government or international education agencies such as the UNESCO. Although these are important uses of data, an EMIS should enable information use to support education managers and decision makers at all levels.

In examining the EMIS environment in Indonesia, it has become evident that there are three interdependent elements related to information use: 1) supply of quality data; 2) demand for data in education management; and 3) capacity to use data (see Figure 7 below).

1. Supply of quality data refers to the availability of data that is timely, accurate, reliable, relevant and accessible to users. Information that is not of satisfactory quality may lead to: poor decisions, such as in cases where the data in inaccurate; baseless decisions, where data are not available or not accessible; and distrust in data, when it is unreliable.

2. Demand for data refers to the incentives (or disincentives) for decision makers to use data in planning, monitoring and evaluation, and administrative and management tasks. Regardless of the quality of data available, if there is no demand for it to be used to support decision making, it will likely languish. Lack of demand may be a result of various causes, including, but not limited to, lack of: value placed on data; awareness that data are available; and accountability for using data to inform decisions, as well as failure to consider data to be functional to different decision makers.

3. Use of the information refers to the ability of users to access, understand, apply, and benefit from data48. Even where quality data and a demand for it exist, many would-be users are not able to understand data as it is typically presented, or to use it to guide their decision making. This may be particularly true in systems that have recently decentralized, where new actors who have not previously been responsible for using data for making decisions now find themselves with the responsibility to use data but without the requisite capacity to do so.

48 Use of data in this context does not refer to the use of computerized information systems such as PADATIWeb, but rather the use of the data contained in them.


Figure 7: The EMIS Triangle - Supply, Demand, & Use

Supply, demand, and use ultimately determine whether or not data can support education management. DBE1 has investigated these three factors with particular focus on school and district levels. School and district levels have most recently assumed the responsibility of decision making as a result of decentralization; therefore, it is not surprising to find that at these levels, the greatest disconnect exists between what is available and what is needed for planning and management purposes.

Furthermore, failure to ensure data use at the school and district level has an adverse impact that ripples through all higher levels of education administration and education data aggregation. Our experience shows that when data are not used at the school level, the quality of data passed on to the district level is likely to be poor. Likewise, in instances where data are not used at the district level, the quality of data flowing up to the provincial or central level is often unsatisfactory or lacking. In Indonesia, where the central level need for data depends on the school and district levels as its source, it is of paramount importance to ensure high-quality data at the lower levels. The best way to secure high-quality data is to make sure it is being utilized by the schools and districts. In effect, all levels of education administration and management must play a part in ensuring that issues of supply, demand, and use are addressed on a system-wide basis.

Part of the problem seems to be that data is traditionally aggregated at the district level to submit to Jakarta. The data is thus not available in a useful form to support district planning and decision making. Since districts and schools have only recently gained some level of autonomy in the newly decentralized system, there is no history of using data at school or district level for planning or policy development. On the contrary, schools are accustomed to responding to

Supply

Use Demand


demands for data from the district for which they see no immediate purpose. Similarly districts supply the data in an aggregated form to the center with no clear sense of the purpose of the exercise.

DBE1 has worked on a number of fronts to address these issues, building capacity in the supply of quality data, and in the demand for and use of data at school and district levels for planning and policy development.

In MONE’s EMIS, data is entered at the school level, aggregated at sub-district level and entered into the web-based PADATIWEB at the district level. From there it is aggregated at province level and again at national level, from where it becomes (in theory) useable for national planning and policy development. The major weaknesses in this system, as it stands, are:

1. The data available at each level below the center is not in a form useful for planning and policy development. It is aggregated data that is simply passed on up the line.

2. As the data is not typically used for planning at school, district or even province level, the incentive to ensure that it is accurate, timely and complete is low. Officials responsible for data collection and entry do not see the value of their work. As a result the data is typically very unreliable.

In addition to the financial analysis methodologies described above, DBE1 has developed two methodologies to address these issues and supplement MONE’s system: the School Database System (SDS) and the District Education Planning Information System (Sistem Informasi Perencanaan Pendidikan Kabupaten/Kota or SIPPK).

At school level data is collected and entered into the school database system (SDS) which produces reports in appropriate formats for use at various levels:

1. School report cards for accountability to parents and local stakeholders 2. School profile for school development planning (RKS/M) 3. Report for school operational fund (BOS) management – the reports

are collated at sub-district level and passed up the line to the central BOS management section of MONE.

4. Report for school accreditation submitted to the district of provincial level School Accreditation Board (BAS)

In addition to providing a basis for school development, school profiles and school development plans (RKS/M) are a source of input for the development of district strategic plans (Renstra), providing a snapshot of school conditions, needs and priorities.

At the district level, data is analyzed by district planning teams with DBE1’s District Planning Information Support System (SIPPK). This is essential in order to provide data in a form that is useable for planning and policy development – and particularly for the development of district strategic education plans (Renstra). The system pulls data from MONE’s district level EMIS as well as population data from other sources. The Renstra, supported by data from


District Planning Information Support System (SIPPK) and the financial analyses described above49, provides an important basis for policy development at district level – including budgeting (APBD). It can also support policy development at the province level.

In the final phase of the project, with the help of a pilot in Aceh, DBE1 will work to integrate the project’s methodologies into the MONE EMIS. This will include:

1. Expanding the SDS software and training packages to enable the program to produce reports in the format required for MONE’s EMIS50.

2. Possibly integrating the District Planning Information Support System into MONE’s EMIS so that data can be easily extracted in a form that is useful for planning and policy development at the district level.

Governance As described above, Good governance at district level is essentially a factor of open and transparent relationships between key stakeholders: legislature, executive and non-government agencies. The development of public policy which supports quality improvement and the effective, efficient management of education in a district require the transparent sharing of complete and accurate information. This should include data reflecting educational needs, the condition of the current system, finances and resources, and analysis. Open dialogue between all stakeholders, informed by this information sharing is the basis for policy development. Policy in this context includes strategic plans (Renstra), annual budgets (APBD), and local regulations (Perda, Keputusan Bupati etc51).

As a result of the capacity assessment of the governance sector and program development conducted in Year 2 and 3 it became clear that governance of basic education and the design of interventions to enhance it at district level is inseparable from the development and implementation of other DBE1 programs; school level planning and capacity development (leadership training and school

49 District Education Financial Analysis (AKPK) and School Unit Cost Analysis (BOSP) are described in the section above on Financial Analyses 50 This is referred to as Lembah Individu or LI 51 Perda is an abbreviation of Peraturan Daerah or District Regulation. Keputusan Bupati means District Head Decree.

Good practice in EMIS

DBE1 has developed a number of EMIS tools which demonstrate the use of data for planning and policy development. This, in turn, generates demand, which stimulates supply of quality data.

The tools include easy to use software which enable analysis of existing data to inform planning, management and policy.


committee strengthening), educational data management (EMIS, SIPPK), financial planning (AKPK, BOSP) and district planning (Renstra). All of these activities require strong community participation and all involve the collection, collation, analysis and dissemination of data which informs the governance of basic education.

Through the governance program, DBE1 aims to strengthen both vertical and horizontal governance links to enable broad participation in the governance and policy making processes. In practice this means supporting school and community level actors to voice aspirations and concerns at the district level – and vice versa – and similarly strengthening links and enabling dialogue and information sharing between district and province and to the national level. It also means creating dialogue and where possible sustainable forums for communication and cooperation between stakeholders at each level – between schools and all components of the local community, including the village council (BPD); between governance stakeholders at district level (local legislature or DPRD, education board or dewan pendidikan, civil society and local press); and similarly at province level.

In Year 3, multi-stakeholder forums were conducted in 34 of the 49 target districts. In all cases these events served to strengthen relationships and facilitate networking. In the best cases, the forums were used as an opportunity to inform the stakeholders by sharing data and analysis from DBE1 programs. The key is to have good quality, relevant and well-presented data available to inform the policy dialogue in multi-stakeholder forums.

As an outcome of improved governance at the district level, it is hoped that during the budget review process in 2009 (APBD Perubahan 2009) and preparation for 2010 district budgets (APBD 2010) districts will approve policies and budgets which are more pro-child. One way to increase the focus on pro-child and educational policy issues is to bring forward governance issues which emerge from the school development plans (RKS/M) to district governance forums, including the multi-stakeholder forum and the Renstra preparation forums. To support this, DBE1 has commenced an analysis of the data already collated through The Project Data Management System (PDMS), SIPPK, Renstra and the various financial analyses (BOSP, AKPK). This includes data from school development plans. It is hoped that this will help identify key governance issues at the school level. Such issues may include, for example:

1. a lack of appropriate sanitation, clean water and toilets in schools or attention to children’s health and nutrition impacting negatively on attendance of teachers and students as well as well-being and academic performance;

2. a high percentage of drop outs, non-attenders or low performing students in certain sub-districts, which correlate with ethnic minorities or economic sub-groups; and

3. principal and teacher absenteeism.


In 2008, DBE1 provided support for several districts to develop local regulations to support the improvement of basic education. Whilst demand is strong and many districts have requested support from DBE1 to develop local laws and regulations for this purpose, the reality is that few have any real idea of what policy they wish to formalize through such regulations. As a result, early efforts have generally resulted in local regulations which simply repeat higher level (national) laws and serve no useful purpose.

Several examples of useful regulations arising from a process of data gathering, analysis, capacity building and information-based policy development have been described elsewhere in this report:

1. A District Head Regulation (Peraturan Bupati or Perbup) was issued in Kudus, Central Java, on personnel management systems, based on extensive work by DBE1 with a management team.

2. A number of districts have allocated budgets to provide top-up funding for schools as a result of the school unit cost analysis (BOSP) which showed that the central per-capita block grant funding (BOS) was insufficient to enable schools to meet agreed national standards. In one example, Karawang in West Java, the policy process involved both the district and province, resulting in an allocation of Rp 622 billion (approximately $62 million) for top-up funding to schools in the province.52 Karawang District also allocated additional top-up funding to schools.

3. As a result of the Renstra planning process a number of districts have now formally adopted strategic education plans which will have significant impact on targeting of funds and resources to meet needs and priorities.

It is expected that in 2009 more examples of good practice in the governance area will emerge, based on the training provided to Education Boards and the multi-stakeholder forums and policy dialogues.

52 The Governor West Java Provincial was elected on a platform of free education. The West Java Province now plans to allocate around Rp1.6 trillion (around 20% of total budget of Rp8.2 trillion) in order to comply with the constitutional and Law 20/2003 requirements. Of that amount, Rp 622 billion is planned for Program BOS Provinsi (grant funds for school to top up the national government BOS grants), with the following details: Elementary schools/madrasah: Rp 25,000 per student per year; Junior Secondary schools/madrasah: Rp 127,500 per student per year; Senior Secondary: 180 per student per year. This information is based on an interview with the Education Office, West Java Province conducted by DBE1 consultant, Edy Priyono, on 27 January 2009.

The Bupati of Karawang District used the calculation of BOSP (facilitated by DBE1) for presentation: (1) to the Governor of West Java and (2) during a seminar entitled ‘Management of Free Education’ (Seminar Penyelenggaraan Pendidikan Gratis) held by MONE, at which the Minister of Education invited various representatives of Head of Districts (November 2008). His key message was that Karawang District can only contribute to meeting BOSP as follows: Elementary schools/madrasah Rp 30,000 per student per year and Junior secondary schools/madrasah Rp120,000 per student per year.

The Karawang BOSP calculation seems to have triggered the West Java Provincial Government’s decision to contribute: for elementary schools/madrasah Rp25,000 per student and for junior secondary schools/madrasah Rp125,000 per student per year for all districts in the province. As a result, schools in Karawang District now receive somewhat more than the BOSP calculation, which suggests the amount required to meet national standards.


Public-Private Alliances In the last few years shifts in how bilateral development programs are structured, and corresponding changes in USAID policy, have created new patterns of aid funding and delivery. Increasingly governments, the traditional donors, are working with non-traditional partners, including the private sector. According to USAID, this is a reflection of the shift in resource flows to the developing world. Thirty years ago, 70% of resource flows from the US to the developing world came in the form of Official Development Assistance. Today, 80% of those resource flows come from foreign direct investment, private donations, remittances, and other non-governmental sources. Official Development Assistance accounts for only 14% of these resource flows today, underscoring the increasing importance of the private sector in the development process53.

USAID Policy and Corporate Social Responsibility USAID Indonesia regards Public Private Alliances (PPAs) as a way for the strengths of the private and public sectors to complement each other. By joining forces, our assistance to the people of Indonesia can be significantly expanded54. As part of USAID’s Global Development Alliance (GDA), which was created to join the efforts, resources, and capabilities of the public and private sectors to achieve a more effective impact on sustainable development activities, DBE1 was given a specific mandate to engage private sector firms to supplement the overall program impact and expand geographical reach.

DBE1 set aside approximately $677,775 amounting to 15% of the program activity budget to support PPAs55. Although the experience has been varied, this has been one of the more successful aspects of the project. Overall, DBE1 has leveraged 3:1 from the private sector.

In Indonesia, corporate social responsibility (CSR) is on the rise. Some CSR initiatives are taking the shape of public-private alliances (PPAs), whereby companies merge resources with the public sector to increase the impact of

53 USAID Indonesia, 2009, Public Private Alliances. http://indonesia.usaid.gov/en/Program.7a.aspx 54 Ibid 55 The DBE1 Task Order requires a 1:1 leverage (preferred 2:1).

Good practice in district education governance DBE1 has developed an approach to support information-based education policy formulation.

We bring together key education stakeholders in multi-stakeholder forums and facilitate the shared review of data analysis. In this context, we facilitate policy dialogue based on data analysis and needs assessment.


development projects. CSR initiatives in Indonesia have evolved over the last several years, especially since 2007, when the House of Representatives (DPR)56 passed a law making CSR mandatory for companies operating in any business field related to natural resources. The law imposes sanctions on non–compliant firms57.

There is wide recognition that opportunity exists in Indonesia to engage the private sector in improving the quality of education. Many companies now invest through their CSR programs beyond their operational areas and offer broader funding opportunities such as humanitarian assistance in cases of natural disasters. For example, the 2004 tsunami, earthquakes, and flooding that devastated the Aceh Province sparked an upwelling of CSR support. Following this, the May 2006 earthquake outside the city of Yogyakarta on the island of Java, prompted many companies in Indonesia to donate substantial resources and to offer the assistance of skilled personnel to support the affected communities. The 2006 earthquake affected 3,062 education facilities; approximately half were heavily damaged or destroyed58. This increased commitment to CSR initiatives in Indonesia provides a good opportunity for development agencies to form alliances with private sector partners to further development objectives.

Arguably, DBE1’s most significant PPAs during the period of this report focused on school reconstruction in the Yogyakarta/Central Java areas struck by the earthquake: the Chevron Alliance in Yogyakarta, the BP Migas Alliance in Central Java and the ConocoPhillips Alliance to support school rehabilitation and reconstruction in Central Java and Yogyakarta.

Responding to the 2006 Earthquake On May 26, 2006, a major earthquake hit Yogyakarta and Klaten in Central Java. USAID asked DBE1 to respond immediately to the earthquake be assisting DBE schools to be able to resume classes as soon as possible. DBE1 carried out a rapid assessment and helped construct temporary classrooms made from bamboo (bamboo schools59). We also produced a simple manual for constructing temporary classrooms: “Panduan Pelaksanaan Pembangunan Sekolah dan Madrasah Darurat” (August 200660).

BP Migas, in partnership with other international oil companies in Indonesia, including ConocoPhillips, BP, Total and Chevron, allocated some funds for reconstruction of two schools61. The reconstruction program was coordinated by a school reconstruction committee and involved religious leaders, parents and

56 Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat or DPR translates as House of Representatives 57 http://www.adbi.org/conf-seminar-papers/2007/10/24/2377.csr/ 58 http://edu4jogja.depdiknas.org/master.php?kateg=listberit&katindex=utama, data updated: 27 June 2006. 59 This was reported in DBE1 Annual Report 1 and Quarterly Reports 5 (July 2006) and 6 (October 2006). 60 Available on DBE website, http://www.dbe-usaid.org/ 61 SDN Bero, Trucuk and SDN Gondangan 01/02, Gondangan in Klaten District, Central Java


other community members. DBE1 provided this committee with supervision, coaching and training in administration, financial and technical aspects of building construction. In collaboration with MONE, DBE1 drafted a manual for reconstructing earthquake resistance buildings. The manual was revised and finalized in 200862.

SDN Babadan, Klaten, prior to reconstruction, bamboo was used to prevent ceiling collapse in the

classrooms

DBE1 also formed a PPA with Chevron Corporation to support a school reconstruction project at Kalongan elementary school in Yogyakarta (DIY). The project was the result of contributions from Chevron Indonesia Corporation and employees following the earthquake. Once again, the school reconstruction project used the community participation mechanism whereby Chevron provided grants directly to the school, which in turn used the grants to hire local craftsmen and architects and procure materials and labor.

Training of school committee for rebuilding; SDN01 Babadan

Community volunteers demolish the school building as the first step in reconstruction of SDN01

Babadan

62 DBE1 formally handed over the Rehabilitation/Reconstruction Manual to the Ministry of Religious Affairs and Klaten District Education Office on 27 February 2009 during the hand-over ceremonies for 35 schools to the government of Bantul, Sleman, Klaten districts and Yogyakarta municipality.


As with the BP Migas partnership, DBE1 provided counterpart funding to support the school reconstruction committee, specifically (1) to train school committees, principals and foremen; and (2) to support members of community and school committee to plan for and oversee school construction also to empower community to undertake proper financial management and administration reporting. The alliance with Chevron to rehabilitate the school in Yogyakarta was completed in late 2007.

On January 19, 2007, USAID and ConocoPhillips formed Education Response Alliance (ERA) to help reconstruction or rehabilitation of 35 state and private school, Islamic schools (madrasah) and Community Learning Centers (Pusat Kegiatan Belajar Mengajar/PKBM) in Central Java (Klaten) and Yogyakarta (Bantul, Sleman and Yogyakarta City). DBE1 started the process by facilitating the establishment of school committees for rebuilding (Panitia Pelaksana Pembangunan Sekolah). Principals, teachers, school committee members, community members and local government officials attended these meetings; a total of 975 people (714 male and 261 female). The selection process was conducted transparently and focused on selecting those who had prior experience in managing or supervising rebuilding, regardless of their social status in the community. As a result, most committees included members who work in private sector, teachers, farmers and others.

DBE1 then revised the manual that had previously been developed and used to train committees for rebuilding schools and madrasah in Klaten under the PPA with BP Migas, and which was completed in June 2007. The new comprehensive manual is titled: ‘Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Manual for Earthquake Resistance Reconstruction of Educational Facilities using the Community Participation Method’. On May 10, 2008, the final version of this manual was presented to BP Migas in Yogyakarta63.

Using the manual, DBE1 conducted training for schools and madrasah management and reconstruction/rehabilitation teams to support reconstruction planning, overseeing of building construction and proper financial management and administration reporting. Participants were also given information regarding inclusive schools and the importance of involvement and contribution from surrounding communities.

63 Available on DBE website, http://www.dbe-usaid.org/


In late 2007 and early 2008, we assisted schools and madrasah in developing grant proposals. Budget negotiations took place with schools and madrasah in order to help the schools finalize their proposals. The negotiation was conducted to increase efficiency, to review the budgets based on the results of market surveys and to ensure that budgets did not exceed the allocated grant fund. Efficiency measures included:

1. encouraging the surrounding community to participate in site cleaning activities (preparation and finishing) and demolition and,

2. completing secondary tasks only if there were funds remaining from the budget.

The DBE1 Team subsequently ensured that these efficiency measures would not reduce the quality of construction.

We then facilitated the School Rebuilding Committee members to plan and supervise the actual rebuilding process and budget spending. With this arrangement, 25 of the 35 schools were able to complete the project earlier than scheduled and build additional school facilities within the planned budget. Altogether, these 35 schools saved approximately 7% of the planned budget. Members of the communities surrounding the 35 schools were also very involved in the process. Some volunteered to demolish the damaged school building. Others worked directly in the rebuilding process and accepted payment below market price as part of their contribution to the schools. Others contributed building materials and food for committee members and laborers. As of December 2008, the total value of community contributions was approximately $19,000.

Reconstruction process SDN09 Babadan, Klaten After the reconstruction process, December 2008. The school was able to save and used the

remaining budget for paving the school yard


New classroom New school library

Summary The Public-Private Alliances described above successfully leveraged private sector funding from Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) programs and public funding from the USAID-funded DBE1 project to respond to a humanitarian crisis in Yogyakarta and Central Java.

What makes the approach exceptional is that the response took the form of a sustainable, community based reconstruction effort. DBE1 provided technical expertise and coordinated communication and cooperation between the donors (public and private), the local government, local non-government partners and local communities.

Previous construction practices in Indonesia typically transferred all school rebuilding responsibilities to building contractors or other third parties. In contrast, the community-based mechanisms employed by DBE1 encourage the active participation of school community members. Parents, local public figures, religious leaders and neighborhood members independently and self-sufficiently managed the entire rebuilding process, from laying the building foundation to placing the last tile on the roof. DBE1 trained school communities to enable effective collaboration and provided clear technical and administrative guidance to allow local construction workers, school community members, and the school committee to reconfigure the business process according to their respective duties. The approach promotes open communication and dialogue within and across communities and local governments to create a process of integrated, community-driven recovery and development.

In comparison to other reconstruction mechanisms, the community participation approach results in higher quality construction work, lower costs, and greater transparency. It also engenders high degrees of community ownership and satisfaction when compared to reconstruction work undertaken by building contractors and consultant firms, as demonstrated when the Ministry of National Education (MONE) implemented the community-based mechanisms approach through a Basic Education Project from 1999 to 2006.


The community participation approach also helped persuade private sector partners that their CSR funds would be used most effectively if tied with a strong development program already operating on the ground. Forming a PPA through DBE1 offers private partners the ability to more strategically support development efforts than if they were simply making random donations from a CSR fund.

While private partners are experts in running their own businesses, they typically have limited experience in development or in working directly with the public sector. By collaborating with an experienced development agency through a PPA, they eliminate the need to spend money and resources to determine community needs, identify project opportunities, and locate beneficiaries. By melding resources with the public sector and sometimes other private partners, companies are instead able to put their total contribution directly toward project costs, thereby magnifying their investment. DBE1 partnerships help private partnerships strategically channel their CSR investments in effective and efficient ways to respond to needs and improve the quality of education in Indonesia.

Good Practice in Public Private Alliances A number of factors make these programs ‘good practice’:

1. The public-private alliance approach described above successfully integrates funding and management from the United States Government (USAID) with private sector organizations operating in Indonesia (Chevron, BP Migas and ConocoPhillips) coordinated by an implementing partner (Research Triangle Institute or RTI). The private sector leverages the development expertise and relationships with local government and non-government partners represented by an existing project, DBE1. This in turn is supported by public funding from USAID. The public sector leverages the funding and corporate social responsibility of the private sector.

2. The rapid response to a humanitarian disaster in Yogyakarta and Central Java focused on a specific sector, basic education, leveraging the expertise and relationships developed under an existing project, DBE1, to enable quick and effective mobilization combined with sound development approaches such as community engagement.

3. The process and outcomes of these three related programs produced models of good practice which have been well documented and can be replicated in other contexts. This includes the technical approach to school construction in earthquake prone areas and community participation in the reconstruction process.


Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) Grants For some time, many USAID projects have included a small grants component. Typically grants to government are not allowed in this context, since the entire USAID funded project is a grant to government. DBE1 has developed a program that links the private sector to government, which contributes to the achievement of overall project objectives. Grants are to private enterprises but government receives benefits resulting in better management and governance of education.

DBE1 currently funds 14 education hotspots in targeted districts through a small grants program. The aim is to seek creative solutions that can help improve the management and governance of basic education while serving the wider community, including the private sector, social services and local government.

What has particularly made this program ‘good practice’ is the approach to public private partnership at the local level. The approach is to work with the private sector by forming a consortium between local government and a local enterprise. Local government comprises the District Education Office, local Religious Affairs Office, District Public Library and other public offices while the private sector comprises ICT training centers, ICT businesses, Internet Service Providers (ISP) and other ICT related companies (Figure 8).

DBE1 provides limited grant funds to help establish a service which is sustained through the partnership. Private sector partners are selected through a transparent, competitive process, based on demonstrated capacity to implement the program and provide technical maintenance for the service. Educational or affiliated institutions were not excluded from this competition.

Figure 8: Public and Private Entities Alliances

1 ICT CENTER (2%)

1 INFORMATION AND

COMMUNICATION OFFICE (2%)

3 REGIONAL PLANNING &

DEVELOPMENT BODY (6%)

1 UNIVERSITY/ VOCATIONAL SCHOOL (2%)

13 DISTRICT EDUCATION

OFFICE (26%)

14 PRIVATE SECTOR (28%)

8 RELIGIOUS AFFAIRS

BRANCH OFFICE (16%)

8 DISTRICT PUBLIC LIBRARY

(16%) 1 EDUCATION BOARD (2%)


The overall objective of the program is to leverage ICT to contribute to more effective: (1) management and governance of education and (2) information and communication among education stakeholders and the wider community. The program designed to fulfill the first objective was called Innovation Education Management and Governance (EMG) ICT Grants, while the program to fulfill the second objective was called Education Hotspot ICT Grants.

Innovation EMG ICT Grants are targeted at District Education Offices and their partners focusing on the innovative use of ICT to improve education management and governance (EMG). Examples include programs:

1. to improve the communication of information between district and sub-district education offices and schools,

2. to provide computer application training; and 3. to develop management information system application software to

strengthen effective education management (financial, personnel, infrastructure, office inventory) to include resource management and planning accountability and transparency.

Education Hotspot ICT Grants are targeted at: 1. establishing alliances between education institutions and ICT private

entities (e.g. Internet café, small scale entrepreneur providing hardware, software or networking services);

2. upgrading or establishing ICT access in District Public Libraries together with District Education Office and their partners; and

3. providing educational programs to the wider community in addition to Internet/extranet/intranet connectivity and/or other information and communication services.

Funds are disbursed in stages linked to agreed milestones. This occurs in the form of equipment procured directly by DBE1 and cash to cover training expenses64. The size of the grants ranges from $1,800 to $3,200 (or Rp 18 million to Rp 32 million) for small grant and from $9,000 – $36,000 (or Rp 90 million to Rp 360 million) for larger grants.

Although it is early, initial monitoring gives some indication of the success of the program. Five grantees established Public Internet Access Point activities. The results of monitoring and evaluation show that the number of education stakeholders using the grantees’ hotspot and/or Internet café is increasing. The results also show that the consortia are able to gain revenue from the operation that exceeds ongoing costs.

The involvement of the public sector introduces a profit motive. Development assistance programs which provide grants to government agencies in the form of computer hardware, equipment or other capital items often lack sustainability. All too often no provision is made for maintenance or repairs. When computers break down or become riddled with viruses, when the system no longer operates,

64 Only one grantee, CV Cosmo Jaya, conducted the procurement independently as their procurement management system was assessed as adequate.


the program collapses. Introducing a profit motive through the public-private alliance changes this dynamic. Small businesses are unwilling to simply abandon expensive equipment and they find a way to maintain the system creating much higher levels of sustainability. Although it is too early to draw firm conclusions about sustainability, the evidence from the field supports this approach.

One example will serve to illustrate this. In Sukabumi, West Java, a non-profit foundation, Yayasan Tarbiyah Islamiyah, was awarded a grant. The aim of the grant program is to improve library management and services by:

1. developing and installing an automated Library Information System, called ‘Perpustakaan Digital Berbasis Internet’ (Internet-based Digital Library), to handle user registrations, materials processing, cataloguing and transactions, and periodic reporting; and

2. establishing a ‘Warung Internet’ (Warnet – an Internet café) to expand library users’ Internet access. The Warnet provides Internet services through the district Public Library desktop computers and hotspots areas (Internet access using access/member card and user-owned portable computer).

The program was officially launched on April 8, 2008 and the Sukabumi District Public Library now offers an Internet Café consisting of five computers with Internet access, wireless Internet access in its vicinity, and computer training services to the public. Since the launch, community members have made use of a special promotion offering one hour of high speed Internet access at just Rp 3,000 in the first six months. The establishment of the Internet Café was the first of several activities under this grant. Other activities will include the development and launching of a web-based digital library system to facilitate timely information and resource retrieval, as well as intensive training on computer and system use for both library staff and the community.

The service has proven extremely popular. Monitoring and evaluation results show that number of education stakeholders using the facility increased continuously. Based on our observation, the Sukabumi location is very strategic compared to some others, being surrounded by schools and within a walking distance of many potential users. Indeed students seem to be the primary users.

In recognition of the value of the program, the District Government of Sukabumi has recently pledged support for ongoing training to be provided by the facility. In 2008, the local government allocated some Rp 224 million to upgrade the public library in part to accommodate the new internet facility. In order to continue the ICT training program funding will be provided through the 2010 district budget. According to the Head of the Library: ‘In 2010 we will provide follow-up training because actually the ICT training is extremely beneficial and the demand is strong from the students.’

The involvement of the private sector may or may not continue in this case, as the District government considers that it now has the capacity to provide the training independently. However, it is also likely that the government will


outsource aspects of the training and ongoing program operation and maintenance to the private sector using the links established through the grant consortium.

Summary In conclusion, DBE1 in collaboration with the Government of Indonesia, and particularly MONE, MORA and MOHA, has developed and piloted a range of methodologies to support the implementation of current government policy which, in turn, supports good practice in the management and governance of basic education. This process serves to both (1) create models of good practice which can be disseminated to other schools and districts and (2) inform the national, provincial and district governments of the results of their policy at district and schools/community level, thereby informing the ongoing policy review and development process.

In order to maximize the potential for these benefits to be realized, DBE1 has developed a strategy for dissemination, sustainability and policy development, which is explained in the following section.

Good Practice in ICT The main aspect of the ICT Grants program which we regard as good practice is the partnership it promotes between local government and small business.

1. Grants to a consortium allow for passing of knowledge and skills from the private sector to local government especially on the business aspects of the program.

2. The introduction of a profit motive increases sustainability.


3. A Strategy for Dissemination, Sustainability and Policy Development

Introduction The core strategy for DBE1 is to develop a limited number of target schools and districts as exemplars of good practice in the hope that this is taken up and implemented (or ‘disseminated’) by districts and other agencies, and that this process will influence government policy, creating a much wider impact.

Sustainability is an essential element in good practice. Dissemination is at the heart of the project’s strategic approach. Dissemination occurs initially within target districts but is also supported at provincial and national level through (1) policy development and (2) building the capacity of service providers65.

This chapter outlines DBE1’s strategy to support dissemination, sustainability and policy development. The previous chapter outlined a number of good practices in education management and governance that have been developed by the project. In this chapter we outline what may be regarded as good practice in project design and implementation. Since the outset, we have worked on the basis that our programs and approaches must be institutionalized in order to be sustained and disseminated. In order to achieve this, our main strategy has been to ensure that all interventions are strongly supportive of current GOI policy and support the ongoing reform effort through official channels.

Defining Sustainability and Dissemination Ultimately, good practices promoted by DBE1 will be implemented completely independently of DBE. In this sense, the term ‘replication’, which was previously used by the project, can be misleading with its suggestion of ‘cookie cutter’ duplication of the program. From the perspective of stakeholders, including GOI, it is not ‘replication’ but ‘implementing good practice’. Other appropriate terms might be ‘mainstreaming good practice’, ‘scale-up’ or ‘dissemination’; terms which allow that stakeholder agencies which take up and

65 This section draws on Annex 6 to the DBE1 Year 4-5 Workplan. This document was intended as a statement of the comprehensive strategy adopted by DBE1 for sustainability and dissemination.

DBE1 held meetings in East Java with District Education Offices, Offices of

Religious Affairs, and other stakeholders to discuss plans to support sustainability.


implement good practices and aspects of DBE will make the program their own, do it in their own way, and give it their own context-specific flavour and slant.

Following advice from USAID, we usually use the term ‘diseminasi’ in Indonesian documents as this is more familiar and acceptable to our counterparts. Throughout this report, the term ‘replication’ is abandoned in favor of ‘dissemination’ which suggests greater ownership by implementing partners.

To put the above operational definitions in concrete terms; as an example, if schools continue to implement school development plans and translate these annually into work-plans and budgets, and if this process is institutionalized within schools and districts after the completion of the program, then the outcome is sustainable. If the district takes up the approach and trains other schools in school development planning, then dissemination is occurring.

From the project planning and management perspective, both dissemination and sustainability are managed through an overarching transition strategy, as illustrated in Figure 9 below. Since the beginning it has been apparent that a degree of project support is required during transition. Without such support, dissemination efforts are likely to fail. Without some years of capacity building, districts and implementing partners generally lack the capacity to immediately implement a technically complex program such as school development planning. In order to ensure sustainability and to support dissemination, DBE1 provides a progressively decreasing level of support. As capacity to implement the program increases, so, support from the project is decreased.

Principals from non-DBE1 schools took part in leadership training in Boyolali,

Central Java.

Sustainability means that the positive impact of DBE continues beyond the life of the program.

Dissemination (or Replication) means that programs, approaches and good practices from DBE are implemented by stakeholders using their own resources.


Figure 9: Transition Strategy

As illustrated in Figure 9 above, DBE1 has progressively decreased the level of effort in schools, communities and districts as the project has proceeded. Simultaneously, partner districts have progressively increased their level of effort as they have developed ownership and capacity. Whilst the graphic displays an idealized concept it is nonetheless the basis of our strategic approach and reflects reality.

An important aspect of this model is that transition commences on day one of project implementation. It is not a final phase that happens in the last year. By the time DBE1 closes offices and concludes activities (the blue line reaches the point zero on the graphic), local governments and their partners should assume 100% responsibility for ongoing implementation and dissemination (the red line reaches the top of the graphic).

Basic Principles Whilst sustainability and dissemination are distinct objectives, the strategies for achieving them are closely related. Both are achieved through:

1. aligning program interventions with government policy and local needs,

2. increasing stakeholder buy-in and ownership, 3. building institutional capacity and human capital, 4. collaborative planning with stakeholders, 5. providing technical assistance rather than funding, and 6. ensuring that the program is manageable and affordable from a

stakeholder perspective.

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4-5

Le

vel o

f Eff

ort

Districts & partners

DBE1


A General Strategy for Transition and Sustainability The history of reform in Indonesia’s basic education sector is littered with cases of early take-up which failed to sustain after the withdrawal of program support. Whilst this is not unique to Indonesia, learning the lessons and instituting an

effective sustainability strategy is critical for the achievement of DBE 1’s objective to improve the management and governance of basic education.

Since the commencement of project activity, DBE1 planning and project implementation have been based on the above principles with the aim of increasing sustainability. Following the Mid-Term Review66, USAID issued a draft revised Task Order and Scope of Work on August 21 2008. The most significant change was that

DBE1 would no longer scale up to 100 target districts as envisaged in the original project design. Instead, the project will focus efforts during the remaining implementation period on strengthening the program, deepening impacts and working more closely with local governments to disseminate best practices and lessons learned in the 50 districts already targeted. This change provides an excellent opportunity for DBE1 to strengthen both sustainability and dissemination during the remaining implementation period.

The key strategy employed to support transition and take-up by the partner governments and non-government agencies is to build capacity within the system. As capacity is built so, gradually, support is withdrawn. To support the sustainability and dissemination of school level programs, the focus of this capacity building is the district facilitators (DF). DBE1 jointly selected district facilitators with district stakeholders, based on agreed criteria and a transparent process, as a first step in each new district. Most of the district facilitators are school supervisors (pengawas) employed by the District Education Office. In many ways their role as a DBE1 district facilitator supports them in their role as a school supervisor. In each district five or six of these district facilitators have been supported.

These district facilitators are the front-line for implementing DBE1’s school level program. The project has provided them with intensive training to enable them to do this job. This training consists in a series of extended workshops, on-the-job training and more recently monthly one-day forums in each district. The comprehensive training improves their capacity as school supervisors and

66 The Mitchell Group, Inc. The Midterm Evaluation of USAID/Indonesia’s Decentralized Basic Education (DBE) Project Final Report, March 18, 2008

Participant of District Facilitator Forum in Karawang, West Java.


enables them to implement the DBE1 program and, moreover, to disseminate the program to other schools and clusters. DBE1 has trained over 300 district facilitators and between 800 and 900 additional facilitators for dissemination programs. Once trained, these facilitators are able to conduct training in school clusters and follow-up mentoring (or pendampingan) visits to schools. This approach is used to implement school-based management, including school development

planning, annual work-planning and budgeting, school committee participation and improved school leadership.

District Facilitators are not only a key to sustainability and transition but also dissemination. The approach is described in further detail below in the section on the strategy for dissemination in target districts.

At the school level, the key sustainability strategy in 2009 is to provide ongoing support to schools to:

1. implement their plans, 2. monitor implementation through an active school committee, 3. update school profiles annually and 4. develop annual work-plans and budgets based on the plans.

The mechanism for this is to provide ongoing monthly forums for district facilitators (school supervisors) with the aim of continually upgrading and supporting them in their role as facilitators and mentors to schools. In addition, the project provides some limited funds to enable them to visit schools over the year. Following the principles outlined above, involving all stakeholders and providing intensive and sustained input over the coming year will greatly increase sustainability. The aim is to create enough depth, weight and momentum behind the reforms to sustain them beyond the life of the project.

Dissemination programs have been supported in a limited way by DBE1 as part of the broader transition, sustainability and dissemination strategy. Following the first dissemination exercise conducted in Soppeng, South Sulawesi, in 2006, it was apparent that some initial support was required to help ensure quality and good management of dissemination efforts. Without such support the risk of districts ‘cutting corners’ and not following good practice in implementation, as described in the previous section, were too high.

The district government in Soppeng provided funds to disseminate RPS/M in 2006; however, the implementation was ineffective - DBE1 materials were used but the DBE1 implementation model was not followed. When the education office requested additional funding for the program for 2007, the district

District Facilitators and Supervisors Forum in Pasuruan, East Java.


legislature refused. The education office then submitted a new plan that more closely follows the DBE1 model.

In 2007, DBE1 provided a range of assistance to districts and other agencies disseminating DBE1 programs. The first dissemination manual (then called ‘Replication Manual’) was produced to explain how the core materials for school development planning (then RPS/M) and the manual are best used. The replication manual also provides a budget template that projects all associated costs for implementing the program. The budgeting formula allows districts to insert unit costs prevailing in the district (travel allowances, per diem rates, etc.) This manual was used in all provinces in 2007 and subsequently revised, expanded and updated in 2008.

In addition, DBE1 assisted districts to disseminate RPS/M by training district staff in dissemination. In some cases DBE1 District Facilitators (primarily school supervisors) who had gain ed skills and experience by working with the program were able to train and facilitate dissemination in non-DBE schools. At the beginning of 2007 a refresher training course for these facilitators included sessions which specifically addressed dissemination. New facilitators also joined some of these sessions. In many districts DBE1 staff conducted special training for district staff in dissemination. In these cases districts covered all the costs of the training while DBE1 provided the trainers and master copies of materials.

To support dissemination in 2008 DBE1 provided the following: • A monthly forum for district facilitators and school supervisors

(pengawas) to maintain motivation and continually update skills and understandings within the group. District facilitators working in dissemination programs were included

• Some limited funding for selected programs to encourage districts to implement a comprehensive program including RKS/M, leadership, school committee strengthening in both cluster training and in-school mentoring (pendampingan)

• Workshops (at province and district level) followed up with advice and support in preparing district budgets and plans for dissemination.

A similar approach is being taken at the district level. Sustainability will be increased by providing ongoing support in 2009 to enable districts to:

1. complete and implement medium-term strategic plans (including finance plans);

2. translate these into annual work-plans and budgets, 3. facilitate multi-stakeholder forums,

RKS development training in Aceh Besar, NAD, attended by representatives of non-

DBE schools


As the districts take on more and more responsibility for developing and disseminating the programs introduced by DBE1, so capacity is built, ownership increased and sustainability of outcomes supported. A phased exit strategy will ensure a smooth hand-over in the final six-month period of the project. During this period, project support will be progressively withdrawn as district responsibility for ongoing management and dissemination is increased.

The DBE1 approaches to dissemination, sustainability and transition may themselves be regarded as good practice in project design and implementation. The aim is for the program to be institutionalized within the policy and practice of partner governments and institutions.

A General Strategy for Dissemination In a sense, we are in a marketplace. Districts and other agencies will ‘buy into’ and disseminate our programs only if they meet their needs, are closely aligned with GOI policy, and are affordable. The fact that districts have committed substantial funds and have disseminated elements of DBE1 over the last two years is a very positive sign.

How Much Support Should be Provided? As explained above, one of the first challenges in designing a strategy for dissemination, was to define the level and type of support to be provided by DBE1 for dissemination.

• Too much support and it is no longer ‘dissemination’ but rather project implementation. Local ownership and therefore sustainability is diminished. Project resources are stretched.

• Too little support and the effectiveness of the process and quality of outcomes are diminished. It is no longer dissemination since the approach is no longer true to the original concept. Results are likely to be disappointing and thus both impact and sustainability is reduced.

The answer we arrived at was to take the middle ground, provide limited support to encourage the districts and help maintain quality – then progressively reduce that support over time to increase sustainability.

As described above, following successful practice in 2007 and 2008, dissemination activities will be supported in a modest way in 2009 as part of the project phase-out strategy. In 2008 DBE1 provided a limited number of districts with clearly defined technical support whilst the districts funded non-technical aspects of the program. DBE1 funded the costs of trainers and facilitators for training and in-school mentoring.

Participants of dissemination workshop in North Sumatra


Districts funded all participant costs. This approach to supporting dissemination in a clearly limited way and then phasing out that support is part of the DBE1 transition strategy. In 2009, this support will include top-up training for district facilitators in monthly forums and covering some travel costs for school visits.

At the same time if districts or other agencies pick up DBE1 approaches and materials and disseminate these without program support, this independent dissemination is encouraged, and as far as possible, monitored and reported.

What Are The Risks? Experience suggests that districts and other implementing agencies often seek ways to reduce the cost and increase the scope of improvement programs, thereby reducing the effectiveness of the approach. Common risks are as follows:

1. The number of training days is reduced. 2. Follow up on-site mentoring is not included. 3. The number of participants per event is increased. 4. Poorly qualified facilitators revert to lecture style delivery. 5. A cascade model is envisaged but without allocating funds or

designing a program for the training to be delivered to the final level. (‘Harap diimbaskan….’)

6. Funds allocated for dissemination are diverted or ‘lost on the way’ with the result that programs are only partially completed.

A poor dissemination effort resulting in disappointing results is not only a disappointment to the participants but can result in district stakeholders, including the (Local Legislature) DPRD, declining to support further dissemination efforts.

The main strategies to support ongoing good practice and to address these risks are

1. Provide a full set of GOI sanctioned manuals and training modules, including a manual for the management of dissemination

2. Establish and reinforce standards for dissemination 3. Provide support at the district level for

a. budgeting and planning, b. management and implementation, c. monitoring and evaluation, d. reporting and advocacy,

4. Train district facilitators and service providers 5. Develop reference schools & reference districts.

Each of these strategies is discussed below.


Manuals and Modules As described in the previous chapter, DBE1 has produced a range of technical manuals and modules to support ongoing implementation and dissemination. These are mainly targeted at facilitators but also include some materials for practitioners and one manual for managers at district or system level.

This includes a dissemination manual for district and program level managers67, which provides advice and direction for managers of dissemination programs. Included is advice on how to select and train district facilitators, how best to target and select school clusters, how to provide workshop training and in-school mentoring (pendampingan) for school-based management and how to budget for dissemination programs. The manual includes a template (hard copy and CD) for budgeting so that districts and other agencies can input their local payment standards for travel and so forth and easily create budget proposals for a comprehensive dissemination program which meets DBE1 standards.

The majority of DBE1 materials are already complete and have been field tested. Many are still undergoing final revisions on the basis of these field tests. We aim to have all materials officially sanctioned and endorsed by appropriate GOI ministries; MONE, MORA, MOHA and The Coordinating Ministry for People’s Welfare (Menkokesra). Some manuals have already been endorsed in this way and including introductory comments by senior officials and GOI logos. This process ensures that DBE1 manuals align with GOI policy (laws and regulations) and that the format meets GOI standards. This is an important means of supporting both sustainability and dissemination.

Figure 10 below shows the manuals and modules for school level programs. Figure 11shows manuals and materials for district level programs.

Figure 10: DBE1 Manuals and Modules for School-Level Programs

67 See the DBE1 website, http://www.dbe-usaid.org/ under the Resource Materials section.

Program Management Manual for Local Government/Foundations

RKS Facilitator’s Manual

Leadership Modules (2)

School Committee Modules (14)

SDS Technical Manual

Introduction to PAKEM Module

RKS School Manual SDS Software


Figure 11: DBE1 Manuals and Modules for District-Level Programs

Note that blue indicates that the manuals are currently under development.

Chapter 5 of this report details the manuals and training materials developed to support dissemination and includes information on the process of development, and government / stakeholder participation in the process.

Standards Where DBE1 plans to provide support for dissemination, the project is in a position to dictate some terms to ensure quality and fidelity. For this purpose DBE1 has developed and published a simple set of guidelines or ‘standards’ for dissemination. (See Appendix 4). Without such a set of standards the risk is high that the process will lose fidelity to the original and in consequence the results will be disappointing.

The standards are included in the dissemination manual and provide a basis for DBE1 personnel and others to advocate for and support good planning and program implementation. They also provide a basis for reporting on dissemination.

In addition to promoting dissemination within districts, during the final phase of project implementation, DBE1 will increasingly support higher level impacts and dissemination through involving provinces and national counterparts.

Strategies for each of these levels are outlined below.

A Strategy for Dissemination in Target Districts DBE1 has developed a comprehensive School-Based Management program in collaboration with DBE2 and DBE3 in two clusters of elementary schools and madrasah (averaging 10 schools/madrasah per cluster) in 50 districts and in four junior secondary schools or madrasah in 49 districts. This amounts to a total of 1,272 schools and madrasah. Taken as a percentage of the 216,000 plus public and private schools, and madrasah in Indonesia, this is a very small number. As a pilot it is a very large number.

The strategy is to create a substantial and sustainable change in these schools and to interest districts and other agencies in funding the dissemination of the program to other schools and madrasah in the districts.

Program Management Manual for Service Providers

DPISS Renstra AKPK BOSP RPK Manual

DPISS Software

BOSP Software

Personnel Manual

Personnel Software

Supervision Manual

Preventive Maintenance

Manual

Preventive Maintenance

Software


District Level Planning, Budgeting, and Advocacy

In order to address the risks and help to ensure the quality of process and outcomes in dissemination, DBE1 personnel work with key stakeholders within the districts – champions for the project – to design and advocate for dissemination programs, prepare budget proposals, monitor and support the budgeting process, manage and monitor implementation and evaluate and report on outcomes.

This approach was initiated in the first major round of dissemination in 2007 and progressively honed and improved over the last two years. 2009 will provide the last opportunity for DBE1 to directly support dissemination. We expect that after three years of support and experience, districts and other implementing partners will have developed the confidence and capacity for ongoing dissemination beyond this.

There are two main windows of opportunity for DBE1 to influence the district budgeting and planning process:

1. During the June-July 2009 period, DBE1 will conduct a round of workshops at provincial and district level to support districts in the preparation of budgets for dissemination. This process was highly successful in 2008 in securing increased and better targeted budgets for dissemination in (1) the budget revision (perubahan anggaran) which takes place mid-year and (2) preparation for the following year’s budget (APBD).

2. As part of this budgeting process, districts prepare detailed budget proposals for specific programs already budgeted within APBD. These are called RKA (Rencana Kegiatan Anggaran) and DPA (Dokumen Pelaksanaan Anggaran). Where access is available in 2009, DBE1 will work closely with counterparts in districts which plan to disseminate DBE programs to assist in the preparation of RKA and DPA. For some districts there may still be opportunity to influence the process for 2009 APBD in early 2009. In all districts where dissemination is planned we hope to be able to support the preparation of APBD, including RKA and DPA, for APBD 2010.

Budget allocations must use the standard government terminology and categories within APBD. The creation of a program within the district budget titled ‘DBE1 Dissemination’, ‘Replikasi DBE’ or similar is to be avoided as this reinforces a ‘project mentality’ which tends to encourage corrupt practices. It also reinforces the idea that the program is not core business; it is an add-on, something introduced from outside for which government support is sought. The

DBE1 South Sulawesi team members presented DBE1 programs to stakeholders.


objective should be to present the budget proposal, using existing program categories, as a core government program for which there has been some short-term support available from USAID / DBE1.

In reality, most dissemination activities are likely to take place in the final quarter of the calendar year as this is when GOI development funds usually become available.

Notwithstanding this, if in some cases districts have allocated funds to disseminate DBE programs in the earlier part of 2009, DBE1 should seize the opportunity and seek to ensure that a whole-school approach is taken – or at least that management and governance programs such as RKS/M are supported by teaching and learning programs such as teacher training modules from DBE3 for junior-secondary level and either MONE PAKEM materials or DBE2 foundation modules for elementary level.

Ultimately the districts will decide what and when they wish to disseminate - and each will take a different approach. Nonetheless DBE1encourages an integrated whole-school approach and reinforces the standards outlined in order to reduce the risk that dissemination efforts will be poor quality.

Management, Implementation, Monitoring, Evaluation, Reporting, and Advocacy

In addition to supporting the budgeting and planning process, during 2009 DBE1 will continue to support districts in a limited way to manage, implement, monitor, evaluate, report and advocate for dissemination. In practical terms this means that DBE1 personnel will meet routinely with key stakeholders and champions for programs within the districts to advise and support good practice in all of these areas. In districts where commitment for dissemination is high, an identifiable team of district government officials now exists to promote and manage dissemination programs.

In order to reward and encourage good practice in dissemination and to ensure that some good examples of an integrated dissemination approach exist, in 2008 DBE1 provided some limited matching funds for dissemination programs. These were allocated after assessing the commitment of districts and directed to where that commitment was highest. In order to support dissemination in the final period of project implementation, in 2009 DBE1 will provide some funds for school supervisors, who have been trained as district facilitators, to visit schools. This is specifically to encourage this vital element in dissemination.

If DBE3 opts to support dissemination by, for example, funding costs of facilitators whilst districts fund participant costs, DBE1 will support the process by providing qualified trainers and materials for the management and governance components.

As the program begins to phase out, further funding or support for implementation of dissemination programs will not be provided. During this period, DBE1 will continue to support local counterparts and champions of the


program to advocate for increased funds for education improvement programs in future budgets.

District Facilitators In order to implement the project DBE1 hired a provincial coordinator and a team of specialists in each target province. In addition we hired a district coordinator for each district. Beyond this, DBE1 has invested heavily in the training of district facilitators to implement and disseminate the program at school level. As described above, most of these are employed by local government as school supervisors (pengawas) and so will remain after the project. In this way we will leave each district with a body of well-trained personnel embedded within the system.

To date, DBE1 has provided intensive training to approximately 300 District Facilitators (DF), mostly school supervisors (pengawas), who can act as change agents to support both dissemination and sustainability. This number will be significantly increased during 2009 as a further 800 – 900 pengawas participate in monthly district-based forums. In this way, we expect that this resource will be developed and institutionalized within districts. DBE1 will continue to fund monthly forums for facilitators throughout 2009. The monthly forums are a major strategy for both sustainability and dissemination. At the same time we will work with districts to find ways for the forums to be sustained and funded beyond the life of the project. In cases where the forum has made use of an existing institutionalized structure (such as a monthly pengawas meeting) this should be relatively simple. In others, where the forum is a new institution it will require greater commitment from the district to sustain.

In addition to this human resource, DBE1 will hand over the manuals and training modules for school level programs described above, which these personnel know well how to implement and in which, we hope, they feel a sense of ownership and pride.

Forum of District Facilitators/Supervisor in Dairi, North Sumatra


Reference Schools In 2006 DBE1 collaborated with DBE2 to develop two elementary schools or madrasah ibtidaiyah in each district as a reference school.

The more common terms ‘sekolah unggulan’ (outstanding school), ‘sekolah model’ or ‘sekolah teladan’ (model school) and ‘lighthouse school’ were not used as these tend to imply that the school is provided with extra resources to enable it to demonstrate good practice. In practice the additional funds and resources are typically directed towards schools already recognized as ‘sekolah favorit’ which serve the elites within local communities. Visitors to these schools tend to dismiss whatever good practice they observe as reliant on the extra resources and thus not possible for them to replicate in ‘normal’ schools.

Rather than fall into this trap, DBE1 and DBE2 only provided assistance to help the schools prepare for and receive visitors. The aim is that visitors will see the schools as a ‘reference’ or ‘acuan’; normal schools with no additional funding which are making changes, improving quality and are able to demonstrate some good practice in management, governance, teaching and learning.

We have found that conducting study tours to schools where school-based management has been successfully implemented is a highly effective strategy for stimulating change and reform in the new schools and districts. The value of this approach is also supported by research and the experience of previous programs. In the study tour for Cohort 1 schools conducted in 2005, DBE arranged visits to schools previously supported by the USAID-funded MBE project and UNICEF’s CLCC project68. In late 2006 DBE1 and DBE2 developed reference schools in Cohort 1 districts in preparation for study tours from the new Cohort 2 schools and districts.

Important factors in the success of the study tour include close cross-component collaboration, extensive preparation, commencing with a workshop for reference schools and continuing with school level mentoring up until the visits, and strong support from district administrations. In many cases districts are now using the reference schools to promote dissemination within their own districts.

In 2009 DBE1 will continue to promote the use of study tours to reference schools as an effective way of supporting dissemination. We also plan to work with DBE3 to prepare reference schools in the junior-secondary sub-sector.

68 The USAID-funded Managing Basic Education (MBE) project was a forerunner to the larger DBE project and ran in Indonesia from 2003 until 2007. The UNICEF-UNESCO multi-donor funded project Creating Learning Communities for Children (CLCC) commenced in Indonesia in 1999 and continues to run. Both have been very influential in the development of policy and practice in school-based management and PAKEM in Indonesian elementary schools and madrasah.


Active Learning as a Part of School Based Management DBE1 and MONE regard an introduction to active learning, or PAKEM69, as an essential component in school-based management (MBS)70. Teaching and learning is the core business of a school. Without including PAKEM, DBE1’s school-level initiatives lack this core focus. It is only when all the elements of school-based management come together that an energy and focus for improvement can be created. This includes school planning, community participation, leadership and teaching and learning. For this reason, DBE1 is committed to promoting an integrated or ‘whole school’ approach to dissemination which incorporates an introduction to PAKEM, provided by facilitators from within the district.

There are two ways in which this can take place in the context of dissemination: 1. Districts may opt to use DBE2 trained facilitators and materials to

disseminate the program in new school clusters. This is already occurring in some districts such as Boyolali and Soppeng.

2. Districts may wish to implement the MONE module for PAKEM (which is based on materials previously developed by MBE and CLCC) using district facilitators.

In the first case, DBE1 will work with the districts and coordinate with DBE2 at district level to ensure that dissemination of the DBE2 foundation package occurs in the same schools and clusters and is integrated with dissemination of DBE1 components. Coordination between components is vital to also ensure that both core programs and dissemination programs run smoothly.

In the second case, DBE1 will encourage districts to use MONE’s PAKEM materials in a three-day training module implemented by school supervisors (pengawas), where appropriate supported by other district-based personnel, including DBE2 trained facilitators. To support this approach, DBE1 has prepared an integrated design for districts to implement a full school-based management program which includes all DBE1 components and PAKEM in a logical sequence. This design is included in the DBE1 manual for dissemination.

All three DBE components are committed to promoting an integrated whole-school approach to dissemination which includes elements of management, governance, teaching and learning. The approach and focus is slightly different for each. Where appropriate, DBE1 will work closely with DBE2 and DBE3 to ensure that an integrated approach to dissemination is promoted.

The DBE2 strategy for dissemination and sustainability, embodied in its ‘transition strategy71’, focuses primarily on strengthening the supply side of in-service training for elementary teachers. The focus is on developing the capacity

69 PAKEM stands for Pembelajaran yang Aktif, Kreatif, Efektif dan Menyenangkan or Active, Creative, Effective and Joyful Learning. 70 MBS stands for Manajemen Berbasis Sekolah or School Based Management 71 2008, DBE2 Transition Strategy (Unpublished planning document)


of partner universities and MONE quality assurance agencies (PMPTK and LPMP72) to provide teacher training which improves quality and links to the national program to upgrade all elementary teachers to the minimum standard of S1 (graduate level). The demand for this program is strong as this is a nationally mandated and funded program.

DBE1 supports this approach by encouraging districts and other implementing agencies to provide introductory training in active learning (referred to as PAKEM) within districts using their own resources and to then seek more advanced in-service training from DBE2 supported agencies. It is clear that introductory training in PAKEM, such as provided by MBE or DBE2 foundation materials will not result in the substantial shifts in practice required to truly reform teaching and learning and increase quality. Only long-term, sustained and institutionalized changes in both pre- and in-service teacher training provided by universities and MONE’s in-service and quality assurance agencies will do that.

As with elementary schools, DBE1 with MONE, believe that implementation of school-based management at junior-secondary level entails not only improved management and governance, but improved teaching and learning.

DBE1 will continue to promote dissemination in the junior-secondary sub-sector, encouraging districts to take an integrated ‘whole school approach’ to include DBE3 teacher training modules to be delivered by DBE3 training facilitators and management and governance programs to be facilitated by DBE1 trained district facilitators.

A Strategy for Dissemination across Districts Dissemination in non-target districts can occur through district initiatives or with the support of the province. DBE1 approaches to be disseminated can include school-based management programs and district management and governance programs.

In 2009 provinces are likely to have significant funds available to support the development of basic education. Following the decision of the Constitutional Court in February 2008, national, provincial and district levels of government are all required to allocate a minimum 20% of budgets to education. The funds for districts to develop education are very limited as nearly all of this allocation is taken up on teacher salaries and other operational costs. In contrast, provinces are likely to have substantial funds to spend on development.

DBE1 will advocate in 2009 for some of these funds to be allocated to supporting target districts to implement programs and to disseminate within the district. In addition DBE1 will advocate for provinces to disseminate district and school level programs to new districts.

72 PMPTK stands for Peningkatan Mutu Pendidik dan Tenaga Kependidikan or Quality Improvement for Teachers and Education Personnel, while LPMP stands for Lembaga Penjamin Mutu Pendidikan, or Education Quality Assurance Board.


East Java Program In East Java, DBE1 is trialing a unique approach in response to demand from the province and some districts. A group of ‘service providers’ exists within this province for dissemination of school-based management programs across the province. The core group is comprised of facilitators trained by and with experience from previous projects including MBE and CLCC. Most are school supervisors, principals or teachers embedded in the system.

DBE1 has selected 20 district facilitators from the target DBE1 districts to join this group and is providing training for an additional eight non-DBE1 facilitators to prepare a joint team for dissemination of school-level programs across the districts. In 2008 the team worked in three districts (Nganjuk, Bojonogoro and Tuban) with a target of some 399 schools disseminating RKS/M and school committee training. It is anticipated that this program will reach an additional 900 schools in 2009 in these same districts plus Surabaya, Bangkalan, Pasuruan and Mojokerto. At the same time DBE1 is lobbying the province to support dissemination using this resource across new districts in 2009 and beyond. The program will be monitored to determine the effectiveness of this ‘cascade’ approach to dissemination.

Depending on the success of this program and the response of district and provincial governments, it may be supported in other regions. One province that is showing interest in a similar approach is South Sulawesi. The program in East Java is being treated as a pilot to enable us to learn the lessons prior to possibly advocating for and supporting a similar approach elsewhere.

Provincial Engagement During 2009, DBE1 will increase engagement with province level stakeholders from MONE, MORA, Bappeda, Dewan Pendidikan, universities and related agencies. The aim is to interest these stakeholders in supporting the implementation of DBE1 programs in target districts and dissemination to new districts.

The following main strategies will be employed: 1. Increased field trips to enable provincial stakeholders to see first hand

the process and outcomes of DBE1 programs in districts and schools 2. A series of province level workshops to enable districts which have

completed all core programs to share their experience with other districts and with the province. Districts will give presentations on the outcomes of SIPPK, Renstra, BOSP, AKPK as well as school-level

Participants of RKS/M training in Nganjuk, East Java.


programs and other district programs. National stakeholders may also be invited to these events.

3. Depending on demand, provincial specialists may also support provinces to prepare budgets and plans for dissemination.

Service Providers Whilst district facilitators or pengawas can facilitate school based management programs, higher level ‘service providers’ are required to facilitate district-level programs. In the past districts typically hired individual consultants from universities to assist in the preparation of district development plans. Unfortunately, the process has usually not been participative and the plans often do not inform practice and are not fully implemented. Most of the other DBE1 district-level products are new and so there is no precedent for ongoing implementation or dissemination.

In order to address this need, we are committed to developing service providers with the experience and capacity to implement DBE1 approaches at district level. Over the last three years a small number of individual consultants from local universities have been provided opportunities for a ‘professional apprenticeship’ with DBE1 implementing district programs. This approach has been tried in South Sulawesi and Central Java with some success. DBE1 has also endeavored to establish collaborative relationships at an institutional level with universities, MONE’s provincial Education Quality Assurance Centers (LPMP), MORA’s Madrasah Development Centers (MDC) and private Islamic school networks Muhammadiyah and Ma’arif. We have also worked successfully with an NGO, the Regional Economic Development Institute (REDI) in East Java. Although there have been some successful individual cases, these approaches have been somewhat limited by institutional barriers and differing priorities. All of the few successful cases have involved individuals from university faculties, recruited through discussion with faculty leaders on an informal basis.

A fund has been set aside within the DBE1 Year 4-5 budget to enable provincial offices to identify potential individual service providers and fund travel costs for these to participate in district activities and so learn our methods. Based on the experience to date, DBE1 will approach universities at the faculty level with the aim of jointly identifying individuals with a high level of interest and potential and an appropriate background to become a service provider for DBE1 district level programs. To facilitate this process a set of selection criteria will be developed. Once identified individuals will be offered the opportunity for ‘professional apprenticeship’ (‘magang profesional’) – meaning that they will be provided initial training at provincial offices to familiarize them with the approach and materials, following which they will join provincial specialists in trips to the field to assist in implementing programs.


A second approach to development of service providers for district level programs involves the professional development of our own team of specialists and coordinators. DBE1 employs 100 provincial coordinators, provincial specialists and district coordinators. (Current status is 54 district coordinators, 37 specialists and 6 provincial coordinators). DBE1 has invested heavily in the training and professional development of this group over the life of the project. Most are young or mid-career professionals with links to universities and/or NGOs and strong academic qualifications. Many have previous experience in education development projects. This represents a huge resource of potential service providers who have been closely involved with the development, piloting and implementation of DBE1 approaches at district level. It has been suggested that this group might form a semi-formal network to support ongoing communication and collaboration in this area. In some provinces moves have already been made in this direction.

In 2009, in consultation with MONE and MORA, DBE1 will assess the capacity of the current group of District Facilitators in order to provide the national government with a recommendation on the most capable facilitator, who may be utilized for ongoing dissemination programs, including those funded by the center.

In 2009 DBE1 will collaborate with MONE and partners from the donor community including the World Bank, who are developing a major project to include a component aiming to develop service providers in education (BEC-TF and SISWA73). As DBE1 has pioneered many of the approaches being taken to improve the management and governance of education at district level, there is great interest in our materials and methods.

DBE1 will assist MONE and partners to develop strategies for identifying and certifying service providers. In this context, we have consulted with MONE on the matter of certification. MONE has responded positively and we are in the process of formulating certification criteria with MONE for school-level service providers. A pilot program in West Java will involve collaboration with the national and provincial governments as well as several districts to prepare the premier teacher training institute in Bandung, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia (UPI), as a service provider. Based on the experience and outcomes of this pilot program it is intended to follow up with further discussions with MONE and MORA for district/province level service providers. Certification criteria are expected to be adopted by MONE by December 2009.

Reference Districts DBE1 will help prepare one district in each province as a ‘reference district’. The aim is to create integrated and holistic working models, bringing together all the main elements of management and governance at both school and district level, which may be disseminated to other districts in Indonesia by national,

73 The Basic Education Capacity Trust Fund (BEC-TF) and System Wide Approach (SISWA)


provincial and district governments, community service organizations (CSOs), the private sector and/or the donor community.

Taking a similar approach to that taken for reference schools, DBE1 will conduct a series of workshops for key district stakeholders in selected districts to help them prepare for study tours and visits and enable them to best show off the good practice they have developed within their districts.

A Strategy for the National Level In line with the bottom up strategy, DBE1 has focused intensively at district level, commencing in the first year at school level. At the same time, since the outset, DBE1 has consulted with national ministries and agencies to develop joint approaches and to ensure that all materials are aligned with GOI standards and policies.

In the final period of implementation DBE1 will increase its engagement at the national level with the aims of:

1. better ensuring sustainability of outcomes at districts 2. supporting dissemination within and across districts 3. influencing the policy agenda to better support improvement of

management, governance and quality in basic education nationally

The first two of these aims will be achieved through confirming official endorsement for DBE1 materials, manuals and training modules and integrating DBE1 strategies and approaches into ministry policy and practice, such as in the program for the Secretariat for School Based Management. The third aim will be achieved through gaining endorsement for DBE1 materials and also through exposing national counterparts to the district and school level programs where they can see first hand the process and outcomes. DBE1 will also publish a number of studies and special reports based on analysis of project data which should inform the national policy dialogue.

Finalize and Obtain Endorsement for All Materials DBE1 has collaborated with national ministry officials to ensure that materials align with national policy and standards. This process is ongoing as materials are revised based on developments and feedback from the field and in consultation with national ministries continues. It is anticipated that all materials will be finalized and fully endorsed by national ministries by the end of June 2009.

All will be published with signed introductions and use of GOI logos. Aligning the project with government regulations and official policy in this way greatly enhances the chance of successful implementation, sustainability and dissemination. Notwithstanding the recent reforms aimed at decentralizing government decision-making, Indonesia remains a traditional society in the sense of high power-distance between senior officials and subordinates and a high level of respect paid to authority, particularly within the public service


structure. What this means is that, even given authority to take decisions and form policies at school and district level within the parameters of higher level policy, many officials and school heads remain reluctant to take initiative.

DBE1 manuals and publications are aimed at supporting the implementation of policy which empowers communities, schools and all stakeholders in government at district and community level. When these publications appear with official endorsements and introductory comments by senior ministry officials, such as the Director of Kindergarten and Elementary Schooling in MONE and the Director of Education in MORA, then lower level officials and public servants, including school supervisors and school heads, feel confident to implement the programs in the manuals. When these programs are explicitly linked to current national government policy, the mandate to implement them is further enhanced. In fact with this official high-level endorsement, lower level officials may feel compelled to implement the programs.

One of the major barriers to quality improvement in basic education in Indonesia is the gap that exists between government policy and implementation. Policies are often formulated without due consideration given to implementation; to the capacity of local officials, of schools, school principals and community members, to implement the policies. Sometimes little thought is given to designing, funding and staffing an implementation program – even though the new policies may require profound shifts in how people interpret their jobs and the roles they play, such as is the case with school-based management and regional autonomy policies. By developing methodologies to assist with policy implementation at the local level, and by publishing these in accessible manuals and training modules, DBE1 contributes in a very significant way to the implementation of policies to improve the management and governance of Indonesia’s basic education system. By ensuring that these manuals and training modules are officially endorsed and published with appropriate Ministerial logos, we greatly increase the likelihood that they will be accepted and used at the local level.

Engagement at National Levels In 2009 DBE1 will continue to increase engagement with the key agencies at the national level. We have found that one of the most practical and effective approach is to invite counterparts from MONE, MORA, the Coordinating Ministry for People’s Welfare (Menkokesra) and relevant agencies to join project personnel from the center on field trips to attend training events, monitor activity and observe first hand the process and outcomes of DBE1 program. This approach provides opportunity to build relationships as well as to raise the profile and understandings of the project in appropriate sections of national ministries.

Such visits are followed up with workshops with counterparts to inform them of developments, introduce materials and report on progress. A series of national


policy workshops will be held at which DBE1 will share the outcomes of special studies and analysis of data from the field.

At the same time, engagement with other donors, which has been ongoing, will become more critical as DBE1 reaches the end of the implementation period and other donors consider the appropriateness of various methods and approaches for dissemination through future projects and collaborative arrangements.

Increased policy adherence, improved coordination between different levels of government; national, provincial, district and school/community, and improved coordination between donors are all positive outcomes of DBE1. Particularly in a system as vast and diverse as Indonesia’s this improved coordination in itself represents an example of good practice.


4. Dissemination Results – Progress to Date

Disseminating School-Based Management By the end of December 2008, some 3,205 schools and madrasah had participated in DBE1 dissemination or dissemination programs with a total budget from counterpart governments, schools and private agencies of rp 6.4 billion (approximately $640,00074). Based on project data available at this time, we project some 12,000 persons have been trained in dissemination programs. These are all programs which are funded by schools, local governments and non-government agencies and have been budgeted, planned and implemented as a result of the DBE1 initiative.

Table 1: Summary of Dissemination Effort to December 2008

Period Cumulative Number of

Schools Districts Budget (Rp) Participants*

Oct 2006-Dec 2008 3,205 36 6,806,019,700 12,076

*Using the assumption that at least 4 participants per school attend the training activity

As a result of this substantial effort, over 3,200 schools, in addition to the approximately 1,000 DBE1 target schools, have now prepared school-development plans (RKS/M) and/or implemented other aspects of the DBE1 school-based management package such as strengthening school committees, improving leadership or implementing school database systems (SDS). In many cases these schools have also participated in the dissemination of DBE2 or DBE3 programs. While it is not possible to say with certainty, as the outcomes of these programs have yet to be monitored or evaluated, it is reasonable to suggest that this dissemination effort is contributing in a significant way to the improvement of schooling for many. This means that some 692,000 Indonesian children have benefited from the dissemination programs to date75. This is in addition to the 340,000 children who have benefited from the program in target schools and madrasah76.

74 Whilst most of these funds are allocated to dissemination of DBE1 programs, in a few cases fund allocations are not differentiated by the districts and may also include allocations for dissemination of DBE2 programs. 75 Extrapolating from the number of schools which have participated in dissemination programs we can say that approximately 692,280 students attend schools which have participated in dissemination programs. This figure may be slightly understated as it assumes an average enrolment of 216 children per school, based on the actual average enrolment in DBE1 target elementary schools. Since some of the schools in dissemination programs are junior-secondary the real figure should be somewhat higher. The average student enrolment for DBE1 target junior-secondary schools is 573. However since we don’t have a break-down of the type of school in dissemination programs we have assumed for the current purpose that all are elementary level. 76 DBE1 currently works in 1,076 elementary schools and madrasah, and 196 junior secondary schools and madrasah; a total of 1,272. The total number of students enrolled in these schools is 346,432; of whom 234,480 are enrolled in elementary and 112,423 in junior secondary schools and madrasah.


During March-May 2008, DBE1 conducted a study of dissemination to identify the factors associated with success, and conversely with failure. The aim was to inform DBE1 planning and practice for the remainder of the project implementation period.

A mix of quantitative and qualitative methodologies was employed at program and school levels. A nationwide survey of dissemination collected data at the program level – including numbers of schools, levels of funding and funding

sources. This was followed up with quantitative and qualitative mini case studies conducted in a sample of 92 schools in 17 districts in six provinces.

The study found a range of different management styles and approaches to funding and implementation of dissemination programs. Early field reports had suggested a diverse experience in terms of perceived success of dissemination efforts. Since the most common program targeted by districts and other agencies for

dissemination in this period was school development planning (RPS/M or RKS/M) this became the focus of the study. The results have been used to inform further efforts to disseminate the RPS/M program and to enable DBE1 to better advise and guide counterpart governments and other institutions on dissemination.

Among others, the study found that the following factors are associated with success:

1. Ensuring that the program is conducted in its entirety. 2. Ensuring that community members are involved in the process of

developing RPS/M. (The data show that no contributions were forthcoming from the community in contrast to the great community support achieved in the DBE target schools where community were more actively involved).

3. Limiting the target number of schools to ensure that the capacity/funds are there for the complete program.

4. Studi-banding / school visits are very effective if followed up with training.

5. The role of District Coordinator (DC), District Facilitators (DF), the Education Office (Dinas), Sub-District Office (KCD) and school principals are all important.

Monitoring and Evaluation meeting to discuss results of dissemination in Boyolali, Central

Java.


A report on this study was published in October 200877. Prior to this, preliminary findings of the study were used to inform DBE1 practice. In particular, initial findings were discussed with stakeholders and counterparts in a series of province and district level workshops to plan dissemination programs conducted in July 2008.

Further monitoring and a follow up study will be conducted in 2009 to enable the project to better support schools, particularly in cases where the program has stalled and is less than half complete and to determine causes for the lack of community participation in the dissemination programs studied. The 2009 study will be able to investigate not only the process of dissemination but, more importantly, the outcomes; the impact.

The table below shows the level of commitment from counterpart funding agencies to dissemination in 2006, 2007 and 2008. There are two categories of dissemination identified: district-funded (APBD) and non-district funded dissemination programs. The first of these covers all programs planned and funded under the district budget (APBD). The second category includes dissemination programs funded by non-government school networks such as Muhammadiyah together with programs funded by the schools themselves, often working together in school clusters (gugus) under the leadership of local sub-district education officials.

77 October 2008: DBE1 Special Monitoring Report: Dissemination of DBE1 School Development Planning by District Governments and non-Government Agencies


Table 2: Summary of Dissemination Programs to end of December 2008 (Program Realization)

Province Number

of districts

Funding Source and number of schools

Number of programs

disseminated

District budgets (APBD) Other funds (BOS, non-

government foundations, MORA etc)

Rp. Number of schools & madrasah

Rp. Number of schools & madrasah

2006

South Sulawesi 1 129,000,000 12 0 0 1

Total 2006 1 129,000,000 12 0 0 1

2007

Aceh North Sumatra 4 487,000,000 58 3,000,000 30 2 Banten 1 0 0 17,500,000 5 1 West Java 2 150,000,000 42 22,500,000 45 1 Central Java 6 500,000,000 410 100,000,000 758 4 East Java 4 436,000,000 137 24,000,000 66 3 South Sulawesi 9 164,000,000 50 0 0 3

Total 2007 26 1,737,000,000 697 167,000,000 904 8

2008

Aceh 2 50,000,000 27 0 0 3 North Sumatra 8 328,786,000 87 8,200,000 7 4 Banten 2 180,000,000 40 0 0 2 West Java 4 409,470,000 145 0 0 3 Central Java 6 1,944,000,000 347 0 148 2 East Java 5 628,000,000 447 185,000,000 70 6 South Sulawesi 9 963,913,700 239 75,650,000 35 5

Total 2008 36 4,504,169,700 1,332 268,850,000 260 9

Cumulative Total 36 6,005,577,200 78 2,041 435,850,000 79 1,164 12 80

The table above shows the growth of commitment to dissemination from districts and other agencies over the last three years. DBE’s target for dissemination programs is 3,000 schools81. The initial target has already been exceeded.

Comparing planned programs with actual expenditure under district budgets (APBD) tells an interesting story:

78 Note that a few cases of DBE2 dissemination may be included in this data. 79 Ditto 80 Examples of programs in this context are RKS, SDS, School Committee Strengthening and Leadership training. 81 DBE1 revised Task Order (Deliverable 4)


• In 2006 the planned budget was Rp129 million and the actual expenditure was Rp129 million for a total of 12 schools and madrasah82.

• In 2007 the planned budget was Rp.946 million for 1,320 schools and madrasah, whilst the actual expenditure was Rp.1,237 million for 697 schools and madrasah.

• In 2008 the planned budget was Rp.378 million for 825 schools and madrasah and the actual expenditure was Rp.4,504 million for 1,332 schools and madrasah.

Several points arise from this data:

The number of schools and corresponding district budgets have grown progressively each year. The data for 2006 is unusual in that the unit cost per school is very high at Rp10,750,000. This data is from one district in South Sulawesi, where the first effort at dissemination was made. It seems clear that the ‘management overheads’ were far too high in this instance, as suggested in the previous chapter.

In 2007, the planned budget, expressed in unit costs per school or madrasah, was low - at around Rp 716,000 per school with an ambitious target of 1,320 schools set in district budgets (APBD). The actual program covered a much more modest 697 schools with a higher overall budget and a much higher unit cost at approximately Rp 2,492,000 per school. This change may be regarded as a result of DBE1 work with the districts to help them adjust plans and set realistic targets and adequate funding. This was to enable good practice in implementation, using the DBE1 implementation model to include the full program of workshops and mentoring. In both 2006 and 2007, virtually all dissemination was of the RPS/M program. For comparison the DBE1 standard for dissemination of RPS/M was calculated at around Rp 4 million per school83.

In 2008 the figures were higher again, with the planned budget of Rp 378 million for 825 schools and madrasah equivalent to a unit cost of Rp 4.579 million. The realization was somewhat lower at Rp 3.381 million per school or madrasah but still close to the DBE1 standard of Rp 4 million per school or madrasah.

The reason for the increase is not clear. Are districts becoming less efficient in their management of dissemination programs? Or are they conducting more in-depth dissemination programs which deliver a broader range of programs to schools rather than just RPS/M or RKS/M? It could also be that some of the 2007 programs were poorly managed, for example consisting of only ‘socialization’ or just a study tour with no follow up whereas, following further

82 DBE1 records APBD budgets at the stages of RKA, DPA and realization. RKA is the proposal put by the education office to the district budgeting committee. DPA is the budget approved by the DPRD (local legislature). 83 Based on average district standard payments, the unit cost of disseminating RPS/RKS is calculated at approximately Rp 4 million to meet DBE1 standards – and Rp 6.3 million for the full package of RPS/RKS, school committee training and leadership training.


support and direction from DBE1 specialists in 2008, the dissemination efforts were much more complete and thorough - and thus more expensive.

The dissemination study conducted in 2008 suggests that the last possibility may indeed be the cause. These questions will be further investigated in the field study planned for 2009.

Table 3 on the following page shows the unit-cost analysis in more detail, with breakdown per district. The table also shows unit costs for APBD funded dissemination programs compared with unit costs for non-APBD funded programs. Interestingly the unit cost per school or madrasah is much lower for the non-APBD funded programs. In 2007, Rp 184,735 for the non-APBD funded programs compared with Rp 2,492,000 for the APBD funded programs - 13 times more expensive. In 2008 again the figures are quite different with Rp 1.034 million per school or madrasah for the non-APBD funded programs compared to Rp 3.381 million for the APBD funded - three times more expensive.

Why are the non-APBD funded costs so much lower per school or madrasah? This is a question for the field study to be conducted in 2009. However on the basis of anecdotal evidence and the 2008 field study we can predict that the following factors account for at least some of the difference in costs:

1. In the case of school and school cluster initiatives, the management overheads are much lower - or non-existent. Transparency is greatly increased along with a sense of shared responsibility for financial management when funds are managed by, or close to, the users and beneficiaries.

2. In these cases training costs are also much lower. When the program is initiated and planned by the schools themselves or their immediate supervisors participants are much more willing to participate without personal payments. Catering and venue costs can be much cheaper if managed locally.

3. In the case of non-government education systems such as Muhammadiyah, training is often provided without any travel costs paid to participants.

In short, when the initiative is ‘bottom-up’ the costs are greatly reduced. It is also likely that commitment is higher, making bottom-up a far more efficient and effective approach than large-scale top-down reform.


Table 3: Summary of Dissemination Programs to end of December 2008 Showing Unit Costs (Program Realization)

Province Number

of districts

Funding Source and number of schools

Number of programs

disseminated

UNIT COST Other (non-

APBD) OVERALL

UNIT COST

District budgets (APBD) Other funds (BOS, non-

government foundations, MORA etc)

Rp. Number

of schools & madrasah

UNIT COST APBD Rp.

Number of

schools & madrasah

South Sulawesi 1 129,000,000 12 Rp10,750,000 0 0 1 Rp0 Rp10,750,000 Total 2006 1 129,000,000 12 Rp10,750,000 0 0 1 Rp0 Rp10,750,000 Aceh North Sumatra 4 487,000,000 58 Rp8,396,552 3,000,000 30 2 Rp100,000 Rp5,568,182 Banten 1 0 0 Rp0 17,500,000 5 1 Rp3,500,000 Rp3,500,000 West Java 2 150,000,000 42 Rp3,571,429 22,500,000 45 1 Rp500,000 Rp1,982,759 Central Java 6 500,000,000 410 Rp1,219,512 100,000,000 758 4 Rp131,926 Rp513,699 East Java 4 436,000,000 137 Rp3,182,482 24,000,000 66 3 Rp363,636 Rp2,266,010 South Sulawesi 9 164,000,000 50 Rp3,280,000 0 0 3 Rp0 Rp3,280,000 Total 2007 26 1,737,000,000 697 Rp2,492,109 167,000,000 904 8 Rp184,735 Rp1,189,257 Aceh 2 50,000,000 27 Rp1,851,852 0 0 3 Rp0 Rp1,851,852 North Sumatra 8 328,786,000 87 Rp3,779,149 8,200,000 7 4 Rp1,171,429 Rp3,584,957 Banten 2 180,000,000 40 Rp4,500,000 0 0 2 Rp0 Rp4,500,000 West Java 4 409,470,000 145 Rp2,823,931 0 0 3 Rp0 Rp2,823,931 Central Java 6 1,944,000,000 347 Rp5,602,305 0 148 2 Rp0 Rp3,927,273 East Java 5 628,000,000 447 Rp1,404,922 185,000,000 70 6 Rp2,642,857 Rp1,572,534 South Sulawesi 9 963,913,700 239 Rp4,033,112 75,650,000 35 5 Rp2,161,429 Rp3,794,028 Total 2008 36 4,504,169,700 1,332 Rp3,381,509 268,850,000 260 9 Rp1,034,038 Rp2,998,128

Grand Total 36 6,005,577,200 2,041 Rp2,942,468 435,850,000 1,164 12 84 Rp374,442 Rp2,009,806

84 Examples of programs in this context are RKS, SDS, School Committee Strengthening and Leadership training.


These figures may not tell the whole story, as many more cases of bottom-up dissemination are possibly occurring in individual schools and groups of schools, sometimes under the leadership of local school supervisors (pengawas) or sub-district education heads (KCD or Kepala UPTD). In these cases schools are likely to be using their own funds, typically from BOS funding (annual per-capita grants) to run the training, conducted by DBE1-trained facilitators – usually school supervisors. Although we have tried to capture the data on all of these programs, since they occur beyond the control of the project it is likely that some cases are not reported or fully reported.

A recent survey of local initiatives to disseminate DBE2 programs to improve teaching and learning conducted in South Sulawesi supports the argument that a large number of dissemination activities have been taking place unreported. The survey found a total of 141 activities or sets of activities had taken place during 2007 and 2008 or are planned for 2009, involving some 5,000 participants85. In this context, dissemination or ‘replication’ activities are defined as formal events not funded by the project in which DBE2 materials and trainers were used. Whilst some of these activities were funded by districts from APBD, the great majority were initiated at the local level, typically by the sub-district education office (KCD), and funded by schools. Most took place in the context of teacher clusters (gugus), and most were facilitated by DBE2 trained Master Teacher Trainers (MTT).

Anecdotal evidence, to some extent supported by the DBE1 field study of dissemination programs conducted in 2008 and the data discussed above, suggests that bottom-up initiatives are often highly successful and efficient. When the initiative and funding comes from the schools themselves supported by local leadership, commitment is likely to be greater. Participants are often willing to attend training events without payment or with lower transport payments than when the training is initiated and funded by the district. Implementation of plans and programs in schools is also thought to be strengthened due to the increased local commitment. These trends will be further studied in the second in-depth field study of dissemination to be conducted in 2009.

85 The DBE2 Sulsel survey was conducted with MTT in February 2009 and counted both activities already conducted and those for which concrete plans are formed and are scheduled to take place in the near future.


Disseminating District Level Programs and Developing Service Providers

Dissemination of district level programs has not yet commenced in earnest as most of these are in the final stages of development and first-round implementation in core districts.

Notwithstanding this there are a number of cases where districts are beginning to allocate funds and commit to implementing or disseminating district level programs from DBE1 where these programs have not been targeted in these districts. Boyolali District in Central Java will reportedly fund a Capacity Development Planning program using DBE1 materials and approaches. In Tanggerang funds were allocated to conduct school unit cost analysis (BOSP). In this case, the district covered all the workshop costs and we provided the facilitators. Soppeng District in South Sulawesi has requested DBE1 to support the development of a regulation on education based on its recently produced Renstra. Soppeng District will cover workshop costs, DBE1 will provide technical assistance.

A public consultation event was held in Aceh Besar to obtain community input into the Resntra. A total of 80 participants attended, 20 from non-government organizations. The entire event was prepared, organized and 100% funded by The Education Office in Aceh Besar, which provided snacks, lunch and transportation for all participants. This is a good example of a local government effort to improve governance.

Potentially more significant than these examples in terms of impact, coordination with MONE, MORA and other donors at the national level is beginning to show signs of bearing fruit. Following a series of meetings in 2008, MONE’s World Bank funded BEC project will use DBE1 materials for district capacity development planning (RPK) in early 2009. It is expected that this approach may be extended to include other DBE1 products, approaches and good practices for district management and governance, including Renstra, AKPK, and BOSP. Discussions with other donors give cause for optimism.

In addition, DBE1 is collaborating with the UNICEF Mainstreaming Good Practices project, with the aim of refining and improving the DBE1 strategy for dissemination through dialogue and collaborative planning. Following a series of planning workshops and meetings in 2008, in 2009, DBE1 will participate in further cross-donor meetings, hosted by the World Bank funded BEC project and including UNICEF, the World Bank, AusAID, MONE and MORA. The objective is to facilitate the identification and promotion of good practices developed through a range of development assistance projects.

In 2009, DBE1 will intensify collaboration with other donors and with MONE and MORA at the national level. Efforts to promote the dissemination of district level programs to non-target districts will include:


• Identifying and building the capacity of service providers who can act as consultants to districts to implement DBE1 programs to improve management and governance: particularly financial analysis, information based strategic planning (Renstra).

• Conducting province level workshops to enable districts to share and promote the process and outcomes of financial analysis, strategic planning (Renstra) and improved management programs. These workshops will include participants from other districts, provinces, potential service providers, national stakeholders and where appropriate other donors.

• Developing one district in each province as a ‘reference district’ where the complete suite of DBE1 district level programs has been successfully implemented. Reference districts will be supported to effectively manage visits and study tours from other districts and stakeholders.


5. Materials to Support Dissemination and Sustainability

This section details progress on the production of materials and documentation of good practices and approaches developed by DBE1 in the period up until the end of December 2008. A broad interpretation of materials developed by the project includes manuals, training materials, reports, films, brochures, newsletters, posters, press coverage and other material produced by DBE1 to support dissemination by stakeholders (including schools, consultants, districts, provinces, media, universities and other providers). This also covers material published in mass media including national, provincial and district newspapers.

To date, DBE1 has produced 15 manuals of various kinds, four sets of training modules, and newsletters from all provinces (See Appendix 1 for a listing of products). We have also routinely contributed to the newsletter produced on behalf of the whole project by DBE3.

DBE1 manages a project website where a large body or material is published including manuals, reports, success stories and reference material such as Indonesian government laws and regulations. Project reports are also available online; currently 15 quarterly reports and three annual reports have been published. Since its inception in June 2006 the site recorded some 819,391 hits. The page request rate has steadily climbed over this period.

The project has been featured in over 200 newspaper articles, in many cases highlighting good practice. Many of these are also published in on-line versions. Examples of materials produced are provided below and a complete list is included in Appendix 2.

Two types of materials are produced to support dissemination based on experience:

1. Manuals and training materials on − local government planning and management of education services,

and − participatory community school management practices; and

2. Publications singling out best practices and lessons learned.

Manuals and Training Materials DBE1 supports dissemination by publishing and providing manuals and training materials. Manuals are designed for managers, facilitators and practitioners to be able to implement a particular methodology, such as school development planning. Training materials are designed for facilitators to enable them to conduct training activities on a range of topics. These materials are published in


hardcopy form and provided to target districts and service providers. They are also published on the website where they are freely available for download.

Manuals Perhaps the most significant means of supporting dissemination through publications is to produce manuals – simple, practical and readable guides to implementing the good practice developed by DBE1. To date DBE1 has produced 15 manuals. In addition, some 4 training modules have been produced; all at the national level. See Appendix 1 for a complete listing of publications. In some cases, the provincial publications are taken up and become part of the national material disseminated to all provinces and used in all districts.

At the national level, the project has produced a series of manuals for all DBE1 school level activities, namely School Development Planning (RKS/M), strengthening the role of School Committees and Principals, and School Database System. To support activities at district level, DBE1 has prepared different manuals for Renstra development, district finance analysis (AKPK) and school unit cost analysis (BOSP) facilitation. A range of different manuals have also been prepared for EMIS/ICT and public-private alliance components of the program.

These materials have been provided initially to districts where DBE1-trained facilitators are able to use them to deliver training and mentoring in non-target schools and sub-districts.

These manuals have been developed in consultation with national stakeholders including MONE and MORA and in some cases are endorsed by these government authorities. The Directorate of Kindergarten and Elementary Schooling in MONE has now approved all of the school-based management materials. This includes the dissemination manual for managers, school development planning manuals, school database manuals and application, and training modules for school committees and school principals. These manuals and materials are currently with the Ministry for final formatting and addition of introductory statements of support from the Director. The Director of MORA will also add endorsements.

Training Materials In addition to manuals, a wealth of training material has been produced (17 items at last count). This includes nationally produced training modules, disseminated to all provinces and used in all districts, and materials produced at provincial and district levels which are often more ephemeral in nature but nonetheless are routinely shared with stakeholders and become the basis for dissemination of DBE1 approaches and good practices.

In the first category of nationally produced training materials is a set of 14 training modules for strengthening school committees. These modules have been successfully used by local school supervisors (pengawas) who receive training


and support from the project as District Facilitators and deliver the training independently to groups of school committee members at school level.

The second category – locally produced materials – includes a great many PowerPoint presentations, instruments and other support materials. Other materials produced include posters, brochures, instruments and guides for use in training activities. All of these materials are available to stakeholders for use to support dissemination. Some examples are provided on the following pages.

Sample manuals and materials produced by DBE1

Draft Strategic Plan (Rencana Strategis) Development for District Education Office

January 25, 2008

Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Manual with Community Contribution Method

May 2008

Unit Cost Calculation Facilitation Manual December 2008

Data Planning Information Support System (SIPPK) User Manual

December 2008


Sample posters published by DBE1

DBE1 Activities at school and district levels January 2009

DBE1 Manuals for school and district levels activities

January 2009

One of a series of five posters showing Education Response Alliance (ERA) activities in Central Java and DIY

Identifying and Promoting Good Practice In addition to producing manuals and training materials, DBE1 also supports dissemination by identifying and promoting good practice. Once identified, good practice is promoted in a number of ways. This includes use of both external and internal media:

• Articles in mass media to promote awareness and encourage stakeholder interest; primarily newspapers and print media but also radio and television,


• Web-based publications • Newsletters and promotional material • Reports to stakeholders on project activity and outcomes • Books; the project has produced a series of books describing good

practice in community participation to support school improvement.

In some cases, these publications are not primarily intended to support dissemination, but rather to report on activity or promote the project. Taking a broad view, however, all publications which reach an audience of stakeholders in basic education may be seen to support dissemination to some extent.

Whilst in the initial phase of the project, materials focused more on socialization and promotion than dissemination, during the period from July 2007 to December 2008 significant progress has been made to develop and document experience-based good practice and to learn useful lessons to share with stakeholders. In the final section of this chapter, plans to finalize all publications in 2009 to support dissemination and sustainability are outlined.

As demonstrated in this report, DBE1 has produced a wealth of material which may be used to encourage and/or guide dissemination of good practice. This includes material published in print format, web-based publications, PowerPoint presentations and training materials and news-coverage in print media, radio and TV.

Articles in Mass Media It is a difficult task to keep track of media coverage related to DBE. The project has developed a broad profile in Indonesia’s press and is routinely featured in daily newspapers and tabloids, cyber-news versions of the printed newspapers, TV and radio coverage.

To date, some 206 instances of newspaper coverage have been recorded. This use of mass-media is potentially an extremely efficient and effective means of encouraging dissemination. In addition to print media, project activity has been routinely reported on local radio and television, often including interviews with project personnel and stakeholders.

Web-Based Publications In addition to DBE activity and good practice reported in mass-media, including cyber-news versions, a large amount of material is published on the official DBE website, established and managed by DBE1 on behalf of the entire DBE project. Included on this public site is a range of relevant documents, articles and pages – including project newsletters, news items, good practice stories and additional resources to encourage and support dissemination. Most items are

Practices and approaches which meet stakeholder needs and improve the management and governance of basic education in efficient and effective ways are regarded as good practice.


published in both English and Indonesian. Project reports are also available online; currently 15 quarterly reports have been published.

As mentioned above, the website has now recorded over 800,000 hits. The page request rate has steadily climbed over the period.

Figure 12: DBE Website; Growth in Number of Hits

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

Jun-

06

Jul-0

6

Aug-

06

Sep-

06

Oct

-06

Nov

-06

Dec

-06

Jan-

07

Feb-

07

Mar

-07

Apr-

07

May

-07

Jun-

07

Jul-0

7

Aug-

07

Sep-

07

Oct

-07

Nov

-07

Dec

-07

Jan-

08

Feb-

08

Mar

-08

Apr-

08

May

-08

Jun-

08

Jul-0

8

Aug-

08

Sep-

08

Oct

-08

Nov

-08

Dec

-08

Num

ber o

f Hits

It is also possible to track which pages and sections of the website are most popular. In summary, the most commonly requested publications are those which relate to technical approaches, including life skills education and school committee training, along with relevant government regulations.

Table 4: DBE Website; Ten Most Popular Publication Requests

No Publication Name Number of Requests

1 Information Communication Technology (ICT) for Life, Learning and Work (Teknologi Informasi Komunikasi untuk Kehidupan, Pembelajaran dan Pekerjaan)

10,273

2 Attachment to the National Education Standards Body regulation No.984-BSNP-XI-2007 regarding Standard Operating Procedures for all school levels (SMP, MTs, SMPLB, SMA, MA, SMALB, and SMK) for the National Examination Year 2007/2008

7,276

3 National Education Minister Regulation number 34, Year 2007, regarding National Exam Year 2007-2008

6,153

4 Integration of Life Skills into Learning (Integrasi Kecakapan Hidup dalam Pembelajaran)

4,106

5 Law number 14, Year 2005, regarding Teachers and University Lecturers 3,963

6 Letter of Directorate General of Basic Education Management No. 643/C/KU/2007 regarding Implementation Guidelines for 2007 Fiscal Year 2007 Specific Allocation Funds

3,879


7 School Committee: Alliance 3,534

8 School Committee: Simple Accounting Methods 3,145

9 Professional Teaching and Meaningful Learning (Pengajaran Profesional dan Pembelajaran Bermakna)

3,123

10 National Education Minister Regulation number 12,Year 2007, regarding School Supervisor Standards

3,063

Newsletters and Promotional Material DBE1 routinely contributes to the official project newsletter published by DBE3. Examples of a relevant articles published include ‘Dissemination of DBE1 programs in Boyolali, Central Java,’ ‘School Unit Cost Analysis recommendations approved by District Government of Pinrang, South Sulawesi,’ and “Rebuilding of 35 Education Response Alliance (ERA) schools completed.’ Five editions of the newsletter have been published to date. The newsletter is distributed in Bahasa Indonesia to over 16,000 stakeholders and members of the public throughout Indonesia – particularly focusing on target provinces and districts. In addition, the newsletter is published on-line on the DBE1 hosted website. All of the DBE1 provincial offices have also published occasional newsletters – North Sumatra, West Java/Banten, Central Java, East Java, and South Sulawesi while DBE1 Aceh prepares DBE Aceh newsletter.

Aside from newsletters, the project has also published a number of brochures and fact sheets. A series of posters promoting community participation in school management and school-development planning were produced and distributed widely throughout project districts. Three posters were published and a total of 4,500 copies have been distributed. In addition provincial and national offices have produced durable banners promoting USAID and DBE1. Certificates, produced by the project, are awarded to training participants on successful completion of courses. DBE1 also distributed 1,500 dissemination leaflets in April 2008 to participants of provincial level dissemination workshops as well as other district level stakeholders.

Reports to Stakeholders DBE1 routinely publishes reports to stakeholders. At the national level, to date, 15 quarterly reports have been published on the website. In addition, the project produces and disseminates occasional reports to stakeholders at district, provincial and national level. Reports are sometimes published in bound hardcopy format – and sometimes delivered as a PowerPoint presentation usually with printed copies distributed to stakeholders at the presentation.

Also in this category are occasional papers and reports given to forums of stakeholders including donor coordination and harmonization groups. These reports include a Summary of Laws and Regulations, a Study of the Legal Framework for the Indonesian Basic Education System, and ‘Improving the Management and Governance of Islamic Schools and Madrasah’ which was


presented at an international symposium held at the National Islamic University in Jakarta.

Books To document good practices at school level, DBE1 has been producing When the Community is There’ (Ketika Menyapa Masyarakat) since 2006. This book is updated at the end of each school year to show the trend in contribution level as well as types of participation that school community and parents do to help improve their schools’ condition. DBE1 West Java has produced similar book in December 2006 and 2007 while South Sulawesi also produced one in 2007. In addition, DBE1 is planning to compile stories of good practices that take place as a result of interventions at district level.

Sample books and newsletters describing good practice produced by DBE1

When the Community is There 2008

North Sumatra Newsletter October 2008


East Java Newsletter September 2008

South Sulawesi Newsletter January 2009

Sample Press Coverage

Newspaper article from Kudus and Boyolali, Central Java on dissemination of DBE1 programs.


Newspaper Article from Aceh on DBE1 BOSP activity

Seputar Indonesia online article on completion of rebuilding of 35 schools as part of Education Response Alliance in Central Java and Yogyakarta

March 2009


Good practice stories, news, reports and other resources published on the project website.


Throughout 2008 DBE1 continued to work on refining, editing and testing manuals and modules in the field, prior to final publication. The Dissemination Manual, now titled ‘Implementing MBS, a Guide for Managers’ has been checked by the Director of Kindergarten and Elementary Schools and approved, subject to modification in line with MONE standard format. Work is under way to complete the required reformatting.

In addition, a new edition of the DBE1 publication, ‘When the Community is There’ (Ketika Menyapa Masyarakat) was released in October 2009. This small booklet sets out case-by-case the experience of many DBE1 supported schools in developing successful partnerships with their communities to improve the quality of education through the school development planning (RKS/M) process. A list of major DBE1 publications to date is included in Appendix 1 of this report.

Next steps planned for materials development include the following: • A set of illustrated booklets will be produced to tell the stories of good

practice in DBE1 schools, communities and districts. We plan to hire a small team of professional writers and media production specialists who will work alongside project personnel to conduct writers’ workshops in selected districts to enable practitioners to tell their own stories.

• At the same time it is planned to produce a short film capturing good practice stories which can be used to support implementation and dissemination of good practice in educational management and governance.

• Over the coming months all manuals and training modules will be finalized, where appropriate endorsed by MONE and MORA and published in final form.

• At an appropriate time a launching event or series of events will be held to launch these materials publicly

• As the results of meta-analyses of project data become available, if appropriate, final reports will be published as special reports and publicly launched.


6. Policy Development, Dissemination and Sustainability

Public policy in the Indonesian basic education sector is developed at four levels: national, provincial, district and school level. Indonesian policy development and policy reform is a dynamic and complex process taking place in a changing environment. DBE1 works to improve the governance of education primarily at district and school level, improving the communication and strengthening the policy dialogue at these levels. In addition, given the significant depth and breadth of the DBE1 program, the project is able to contribute to the development of a field-based policy agenda at the national level.

DBE1 contributes to policy reform in the following ways: 1. by assisting national government to implement existing and newly

developed policy, reporting on progress and thereby helping to inform the process of policy review. This also occurs to some extent at district and school level

2. by conducting financial and data analysis, and directly assisting in the development of strategic plans and budget preparation at district (and school) level

3. by improving the capacity of local government and non-government players to engage in open policy dialogue and to implement various policies related to decentralization

4. by improving the systemic and institutional capacity of local government to develop policy in the form of plans and budgets on the basis of good data and information

5. by conducting pilots, special studies and analysis and creating and participating in forums to report on results and encourage policy dialogue. This supports policy development at all levels.

Policy development and reform takes time. In the first two years of project implementation, described in a report in October 200786, DBE1 invested heavily in the development of methodologies to facilitate consultative, information-based planning and improved governance at the school and district levels. This process involved extensive consultation with national level government. In this way, we ensured that all methodologies were well aligned with national government policy and regulations.

Since that time and up until the end of 2008, DBE1 has continued to intensify dialogue with national stakeholders, whilst at the same time increasing engagement with provincial, district and school/community level policy makers. This has occurred in the context of further developing and trialing

86 October 2007: DBE1; Special Report: Policy Reform in Education Planning. (Deliverable 13)


methodologies to improve the management and governance of basic education. In 2009, the final year of project implementation, it is anticipated that consultation and policy inputs at the national level will be further increased as results of work at district level are analyzed and reported.

Policy issues of concern to DBE1 fall into the following areas: 1. School planning and governance 2. District education finance, planning and governance 3. National standards and school accreditation87 4. District education management 5. Education management information systems (EMIS) and the use of

information and communication technology (ICT).

Each of these has been discussed in some detail in Section 2 of this report. Overall the objective of DBE1’s policy input is to improve the quality of and access to basic education through improved management and governance. This objective aligns with the three pillars for education policy identified in MONE’s five-year strategic plan for the period 2005-200988:

1. Standardize and increase access to education; 2. Improve quality, relevance and competitiveness of outputs; 3. Strengthen management, accountability and public image of

education89.

The key strategy outlined in this report is to base sustainability and dissemination of good practices developed through DBE1 on a close collaboration with national government and an alignment of these good practices, and the methodologies to implement them, with formal government policy. Appendix 3 shows in table form the policy linkages for each of the main DBE1 programs and methodologies.

A recent USAID discussion paper, Effective Aid Modalities in Basic Education, highlights a number of factors relevant to this discussion90. The main conclusion of this paper is that, in order to be successful in terms of sustainability and scale up (or dissemination), donor-funded development projects should build on existing recipient government reform efforts:

‘With few exceptions … donor-funded projects tend to be designed as pilot projects that are rarely scaled-up when the funding ends.' (p.13 point 23)

87 DBE1 has been coordinating with the National Accreditation Body (Badan Akreditasi Nasional or BAS) for schools, and the National Education Standards Body (Badan Standar Nasional Pendidikan or BSNP) in connection with the school development planning format (RKS) and school database system (SDS). 88 Departemen Pendidikan Nasional: Rencana Strategis, Tahun 2005 – 2009. See DBE website, http://www.dbe-usaid.org/ under the Resource Materials section. 89 Tiga Pilar Kebijakan Pendidikan: (1) Pemerataan dan perluasan akses pendidikan; (2) Peningkatan mutu, relevansi, dan daya saing keluaran pendidikan; (3) Penguatan tata kelola, akuntabilitas, dan citra publik pendidikan. 90 January 2009; USAID Education Strategy Development. Authors: Gita Steiner-Khamsi, PhD, professor, Andrew Shiotani and Carina Omoeva with Christine Harris-Van Keuren, PhD students and graduate research assistants in Comparative and International Education, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York.


‘A broader approach might be useful in order to capture the realities of different types of recipient governments, including those that have an active yet under-funded reform agenda. We therefore make the proposition that the purpose of aid should be specified in relation to existing reforms and practices in a country. In principle, each and every donor-funded project should be aligned with sector strategies of a government.’ (p.16 point 30)

This point above is very relevant to DBE1. As has been described in this report, DBE1 is doing precisely what is proposed here, and in just such a context. That is, we align our interventions closely to the sector strategies of GOI. This, we suggest, is the key to the success of DBE1 to date.

‘The question on how aid interventions relate to existing reforms and practices enables us to highlight at least three different purposes of aid interventions: Aid interventions support, supplement, or modify existing reforms or practices in basic education. Supplementary interventions (for example, adding civic education as a subject matter into the curriculum) are the most difficult to sustain beyond the project duration. Coming full circle back to the earlier concerns regarding donor-funded pilot projects that neither entail a clear scaling-up nor a sustainability strategy, one might assert that pilot projects lend themselves as incubator projects for testing and evaluating how an ongoing reform could be modified. But many more arguments would be needed to justify the proliferation of donor-funded pilot projects in aid interventions that serve to support ongoing reform initiatives.’ (p.16. point 31)

Put another way, the authors argue that most pilot projects do not support recipient government reform initiatives but try to impose new models and approaches from outside. As a result, and because they do not have a clearly defined strategy for sustainability or scale up, they often fail in their broader aims.

DBE1 is a capacity building project, within which we are able to pilot specific methodologies designed to support the implementation of the GOI policy and reform program. As described above, our pilot programs are so well-aligned to the GOI policy and the indigenous reform agenda that we are effectively piloting tools to implement the GOI agenda. Not so much to evaluate how the GOI reform agenda could be modified (although this can also be an outcome - in the form of informing the policy development process) but more to help create tools to implement the existing agenda - which we take to be well directed.

The key statement in the above excerpts is the suggestion that '...every donor-funded project should be aligned with sector strategies of government ..... including those that have an active yet under-funded reform agenda.' The GOI reform agenda is just that - 'active yet under-funded.' A lack of capacity exists within the system to implement the reform agenda. USAID, through the DBE1 project, assists by developing and piloting tools to assist with implementing the


existing agenda and by building capacity in some fifty districts; a significant sized target group in the context of Indonesia, a nation of over 230 million people91 and 400 plus districts. Given the size of the target group, over 10% of Indonesia’s districts, DBE1 is thus both a pilot project and an implementation program.

As described in Section 2, above, DBE1 has worked closely with national government over the last three and a half years in the development and piloting of methodologies to support policy implementation. DBE1 has also supported broad-based policy development at school and district levels through the implementation of those methodologies in financial analysis, data collection and analysis, strategic planning and building capacity and supportive networks between government and civil society. In addition, the project is currently engaged with national and provincial government in a number of contexts. These include:

1. The MONE Secretariat for School-Based Management within the Directorate for Kindergarten and Elementary Schooling (Direktorat Pembinaan TK- SD)

2. The World-Bank – MONE collaboration on the BEC project 3. The Educational Statistics Unit (PSP) 4. Provincial level advocacy and scaling up in a number of provinces.

DBE1 has also produced draft Statement of Work (SOW) for a major study on education finance. The final SOW will be submitted to USAID for approve in August 2009. The study will draw on the extensive collection and analysis of financial data conducted under the project in fifty districts and 1,200 schools and madrasah. It is intended that results will be presented in the period after October 2009 to MOF, MOHA, the national planning and development body, Bappenas,92 as well as MONE, MORA and other national and international stakeholders. This is timed for soon after a new Cabinet and Parliament in place following the July Indonesian Presidential election.

These collaborative exercises promise to support the dissemination and scale-up of DBE1 approaches and good practices on a wide scale well beyond the life of the project.

Collaboration with the MONE Secretariat for School-Based Management (Direktorat Pembinaan TK- SD)

In late 2008, DBE1 placed a full-time senior staff member in the Secretariat for School Based Management (MBS) within the Directorate. The appointment was made jointly with the Directorate of Elementary Schooling (Direktorat

91 Bappenas, National Statistics Center, United Nations Population Fund, Indonesian Population Projection 2000-2025, 2005: Population projection for 2009 is 230,632.7: http://www.datastatistik-indonesia.com/proyeksi/index.php?option=com_proyeksi&task=show&Itemid=941 [accessed date: March 19, 2009] 92 Bappenas is an acronym for Badan Perencanaan dan Pengembangan Nasional, which translates as National Planning and Development Body.


Pembinaan TK-SD). This move has strategically increased our ability to coordinate and collaborate with MONE.

The Directorate for Kindergarten and Elementary Schooling has now decided to adopt the DBE1 manuals for school-based management (RKS/M, School Committee and Leadership modules). SDS will also be adopted by the Directorate in the form of a collaborative workshop and the best schools in the training will be given a block grant of between Rp 30 and 40 million on condition that the selected schools disseminate the program to other schools. It has also been agreed that the best performing district facilitators (DF) from DBE1 will be selected to become national level facilitators for disseminating the Directorate’s school-based management program. The Directorate plans to work together with DBE1 to develop the PAKEM packet and has further agreed to endorse and disseminate the DBE1 Dissemination Manual.

Active and joyful learning (PAKEM) in East Java: Ultimately the improvement of

management and governance, the implementation of school-based management, is about improving the quality of schooling for children.

The ongoing collaboration with this secretariat is planned to include the formatting and sanctioning of all DBE1 manuals and training modules relevant to elementary schools. The Directorate has also requested assistance with the development of manuals for school-based management and principal leadership, which will be aimed at a practitioner audience to give a light theoretical background and practical direction for implementation of school-based management and participatory school leadership93.

93 Note that while DBE2 has prepared materials and approaches on instructional leadership, DBE1 focuses only on leadership for participatory planning and school policy development.


Collaboration with World Bank, UNICEF and MONE Following ongoing consultations over the last two years, DBE1 recently participated in workshops with a number of donors, including AusAID and UNICEF, facilitated by MONE and the World Bank under the Basic Education Capacity (BEC) project. The focus has initially been on BEC supporting the dissemination of DBE1 capacity development planning (RPK) methodology for district education offices.

In this context DBE1 has also had discussions with the World Bank, MONE and other donors and intends to assist MONE with BEC to identify and develop potential service providers who are able to help districts to implement the good practice methodologies developed through the project. We have shared experience and provided inputs into the planning and development of BEC, especially focused on the DBE1 model and manual for district capacity development planning (RPK).

Discussions with BEC, which is a precursor for the larger loan project, SISWA (System Improvement through System Wide Approach), have also covered other good practices and methodologies developed by DBE1 for district level including SIPPK, Renstra, AKPK, BOSP and SDS. The BEC program is based within MONE in the Directorate for Junior Secondary Education, which is fortunate for DBE1 since it helps balance our engagement with the Directorate for Elementary Schooling and Kindergarten.

DBE1 has also purposefully built on the earlier and ongoing work of the UNICEF Creating Learning Communities for Children (CLCC) program, which was closely linked to the USAID-funded Managing Basic Education (MBE) project. More recently UNICEF’s Mainstreaming Good Practice (MGP) project has set out to identify and promote good practice developed by a range of donor-funded projects including DBE1.

The ease of communication enjoyed by DBE1 across projects and between DBE1 and the Ministries has in large part been a function of the strong professional relationships and networks that have been built up by DBE1 personnel with counterparts in other agencies and in the Indonesian government over many years. This fact is important to keep in mind when planning future interventions.

Collaboration with the Education Statistics Center (PSP) – EMIS Pilot

DBE1 has collaborated with MONE’s Education Statistics Center (Pusat Statistik Pendidikan or PSP) in two important areas: the piloting of an improved Education Management Information System (EMIS) in Aceh and the preparation of data for submission to the Milenium Challenge Corporation (MCC). The first of these is discussed below and the second in the following section.


Since 2006, DBE1 has monitored progress with the development of MONE’s web-based PADATIWEB information updating (Pangkalan Data dan Informasi berbasis WEB). Although all data collection forms have been available online since the beginning of 2007 difficulties in collecting and reporting the data to MONE in a timely fashion are still noted. Field visits conduced early in 2008 indicated that EMIS data available at the districts is generally incomplete and often inaccurate. Thus the data sent to MONE via PADATIWEB is also typically incomplete and inaccurate. Furthermore this data is not used for education management and governance by the districts themselves.

Based on an assessment conducted in Aceh in early 2008, DBE1 proposed a pilot project to test technology to improve the flow and accuracy of EMIS data from schools to districts. The proposal was discussed with the director of MONE’s statistics and information center (PSP), his staff and USAID in May 2008. The Director enthusiastically supported the project and assigned his staff to be part of an implementation team with DBE1 staff. The results of the pilot will be useful for MONE in improving its EMIS.

A subsequent feasibility study carried out in Aceh identified the following main issues. In sub-district education offices only very limited ICT infrastructure and human capacity in its use is available. It is here, however, where elementary school EMIS data is being processed, mainly in aggregating information from individual schools into sub-district level data. The Aceh assessment also confirmed results of the earlier EMIS assessment, highlighting that the capacity of personnel at the district level to process and analyze data is basically non-existent.

The Aceh ICT Assessment found that, at the elementary school level, access to ICT infrastructure is very limited. As a result, school managers and sub-district education offices track, record and share EMIS data manually and in hardcopy formats. At the district level, staff must be hired to enter the data of all schools in the district into the electronic system required for further reporting and analysis. This leads to tremendous workloads for District Education Offices, and, in turn, presents challenges in both data quality and timeliness of reporting.

This often results in discrepancies between what is the actual situation, what is reported, and what is finally recorded in the EMIS database. The assessment found that the data entry and exchange process lacks an instance of data verification that would enable early mitigation of such discrepancies. There are also considerable data integrity challenges, due to regular data loss through power and equipment malfunction and viruses. At the school level, a certain

DBE1 together with MONE’s PSP discussed focus of program with Aceh provincial

stakeholders.


fatigue of having to fill out many different forms was identified, together with issues of data availability-- with a frequently cited reason being the non-availability of appropriate logbooks, resulting in an information vacuum in terms of the relevance of the data provided by schools.

Based on this analysis, the pilot designed to test an enhanced EMIS has three integrated components to improve the supply, demand, and use for effective information use:

• Enhancing existing resources for information and data management in district and sub-district education offices in two selected Aceh districts based on actual needs.

• Strengthening capacity and role of school supervisors to act as key liaisons (and “information nodes”) between schools and sub-district education offices.

• Strengthening the capacity of school principals and administrators to manage EMIS data at the school level in (1) the use of data for planning and decision making (e.g. in school development planning or community outreach); and (2) more timely and accurate reporting of EMIS data.

The most innovative feature of the pilot is the use of smart phones/PDAs by a limited group of school inspectors (pengawas) who will collect EMIS data directly from schools. Pilot project schools will be given computers for this purpose. This will allow the inspectors to verify the data at the time of collection and will prevent spread of viruses, which is very common when schools that have access to computers transmit data from local internet cafes (Warnet) or flash disks.

The results of the pilot will help to support implementation of the following MONE regulations:

• National Education System Regulation No.12 / 2007 regarding school supervisor competencies94

• National Education System Regulation No.19 / 2007 concerning supply, demand, and capacity of data and information95.

The pilot project also helps DBE1 meet its mandate for utilizing ICT tools to achieve program objectives96.

The pilot is being planned and implemented with MONE and other stakeholders, commencing early in 2009. The purpose is to test instruments and procedures to promote sound data management at the school level and data and information exchange between school and district/sub district education offices that will

94 Permendiknas No. 12 / 2007 (Standar Pengawas Sekolah/Madrasah) See DBE website, http://www.dbe-usaid.org/ under the Resource Materials section. 95 Permendiknas No. 19 / 2007 (Standar Pengelolaan Pendidikan) See DBE website, http://www.dbe-usaid.org/ under the Resource Materials section. 96 “The contractor will develop an integrated approach for utilizing ICT tools to achieve program objectives. Where applicable, innovative solutions such as mobile information access (Personal Data Assistant/PDA, etc.), Voice-over Internet Protocol (VOIP). . .should be utilized” (DBE1 Task Order, P.14)


strengthen the national EMIS. The pilot will also test interventions for data verification and continuous tracking and logging of data required for monthly or annual reporting purposes school level.

Ultimately, it is intended that the pilot in Aceh will provide a context to develop an enhanced school database system (SDS) which incorporates school data reporting in the format required for MONE’s PADATIWEB, known as Lembar Individu (LI). It is also hoped that the ongoing collaboration with PSP will lead to an adaptation or institutionalization of the SDS, linked to MONE’s own EMIS and PADATIWEB, supporting widespread dissemination and sustainability of the program.

Collaboration with the Education Statistics Center (PSP) – Milenium Challenge Corporation

DBE1 has also collaborated with PSP to assist in the preparation of submissions to the Milenium Challenge Corporation (MCC). The MCC is a US Government agency through which substantial development assistance is provided to those countries that (1) rule justly; (2) invest in their people; and (3) encourage economic freedom. The vision for the MCC is a $5 billion annual increase in development assistance worldwide, or a 50% increase in US core assistance.

In November 2005, the MCC selected Indonesia to participate in the Threshold Program. For Indonesia to become a compact eligible country, it had to meet specific benchmarks and criteria within 16 specific MCC indicators. One of these indicators is the country’s public primary education spending as a percentage of GDP. MCC uses data from UNESCO Institute for Statistics, which in turn compiles education expenditure data by level of education from official responses to surveys and from reports provided by education authorities in each country. Indonesia participates in UNESCO’s surveys. The Indonesian government agency that has the authority to complete UNESCO’s survey for education expenditures is MONE, specifically the Education Statistics Center (PSP).

For both FY2005 and FY2006, Indonesia scored 0.56% of GDP for primary education expenditure. These scores are significantly below the medians of 1.84% and 1.90%, respectively. For FY2007, Indonesia scored even lower, at 0.35% of GDP among a median of 2.07%. These low scores were basically due to two reasons:

• Data for primary education expenditures for FY2004, FY2005, and FY2006 was not updated; the same data as for FY2003 was used.

• Calculation of primary education expenditures only included spending from the central government budget (APBN). It did not include spending from Province and Kabupaten/Kota budget (APBD). This significantly understated the amount for primary education spending.

In 2006 DBE1 developed a model for calculation of primary education expenditure, which includes spending from both APBN and APBD. In this model, DBE1 makes use of the methodology for calculating total education


sector expenditure and average percentage of primary education spending from APBD Kabupaten/Kota that it obtained from District Education Finance Analyses (AKPK) conducted in some 26 DBE1 cohort 1 Kabupaten/Kota.

In 2007 DBE1 participated in PSP’s workshop for completing UNESCO’s survey formats for education expenditure by level of education. In 2008, DBE1 again assisted MONE to complete the UNESCO reporting formats. DBE1 assisted with the calculation in the following ways:

1. We participated in two meetings at the National Planning and Development Body (Bappenas)97 and assisted MONE’s representative in providing clarifications on data requirement and calculation method.

2. We helped calculate primary education expenditure from Province and District budgets (APBD) using average share of primary education expenditure over APBD Province & Kabupaten/Kota that we gained from our financial analysis (AKPK).

3. We participated in a meeting at MONE PSP between PSP and MONE’s planning bureau and again provided clarification on data requirement and the calculation method.

DBE1’s calculation methodology and assistance contributed significantly to Indonesia reaching the threshold indicator (median 1.80) for primary education expenditure for 2006 and 2007. Having reached the threshold indicator for primary education expenditure and other such indicators for ruling justly, investing in people, and economic freedom, in December 2008 Indonesia was selected, by the MCC Board of Directors, along with Colombia, and Zambia, as a new country eligible for large-scale grant funding under the U.S. Government’s innovative foreign assistance program to reduce poverty through economic growth. Following this announcement these countries may begin the process of applying for the five-year MCC compacts.

In a December 2008 press release, MCC Chief Executive Officer, Ambassador John Danilovich, commented as follows:

“Congratulations to the newly eligible countries selected to participate in the Millennium Challenge Corporation program. Your commitment to good governance and dedication to promoting economic freedom and investing in your people has placed you among a select group of countries working diligently to reduce global poverty through sustainable economic solutions98”.

Provincial Level Advocacy and Scaling Up Dissemination and policy impact from DBE1 district-level programs is now starting to take off at provincial level in some regions; in particular Central Java and West Java. Initially the school unit cost analysis (BOSP) has had a strong

97 Bappenas is an abbreviation of Badan Perencanaan dan Pembangunan Nasional, literally National Planning and Development Board 98 December 11, 2008, Press Release, www.mcc.gov


impact. The methodology, as described in Section 2 of this report, for the first time provides policy makers with a relatively simple but complete analysis of the real cost of educating a child or young person at each level of the education system compared with the actual expenditure. It thus becomes clear where the funding gaps are and thus where budgets should prioritize spending on basic education. This tool has been extremely significant within the context of free education policy platforms often pushed for political reasons by new district heads.

In West Java, the province, through its development planning board (Bappeda), has reportedly allocated some Rp 622 billion (approximately USD 62,200,000) to implementing the BOSP methodology across the province99. At the same time a similar process is taking place in Central Java where the province reportedly intends to fund the implementation of BOSP in all districts in the coming year. This is an important form of dissemination with potentially very significant consequences for improving quality through addressing funding issues across two of the largest provinces in the country.

It is hoped that a series of provincial workshops planned for mid-2009 and designed to showcase best practice developed by the project will lead to further dissemination and scaling up of the various methodologies and good practice with provincial funding in the future.

99 See page 45 for further information


7. Summary and Next Steps

As stated in the Year 4-5 Workplan, the major focus for DBE1 during the final period of implementation is on:

• completing the implementation of core programs in 50 districts particularly at the district level,

• strengthening and deepening the impact of these programs by supporting implementation and sustainability measures, giving increasing responsibility to the schools, districts, provinces, national government and other agencies to support the ongoing program,

• supporting the dissemination of core programs to increasing numbers of schools, sub-districts and districts, and

• leveraging the depth and quality of data collected for programs such as school development planning (RKS/M), district strategic planning (SIPPK and Renstra), and financial analyses (AKPK, BOSP) to support a widening agenda for information-based policy development with a focus on improving quality of basic education at district, province and national levels.

In line with these major objectives, DBE1 has intensified the already strong collaboration with government and non-government partners at all levels.

Dissemination has occurred mainly at the school level until recently. We are now beginning to see the impact of good practice from DBE1 district level methodologies and cases of potentially widespread dissemination are emerging. This is occurring in the context of an ongoing collaboration with MONE, MORA, provincial and district administrations and other donors.

District education managers, school supervisors, and school/madrasah heads visit schools and madrasah and meet with district officials to learn about improved management and governance in

a study tour to East Java.


DBE1 school-level methodologies are also being picked up and disseminated across district boundaries, in some cases with provincial funding or support. There are already cases of study tours being conducted to DBE1 reference districts100 and a district planning to take up and disseminate innovative practices developed under the ICT grants program101.

In the final period of project implementation, these various collaborations will become a major focus as DBE1 methodologies are institutionalized and shift from being artifacts of a USAID project, to become official GOI methodologies. These good practices have been developed with relevant government partners and support the implementation of national and provincial policy to improve the quality of basic education.

The strategy for sustainability and dissemination of good practices in DBE1 is embedded in the belief which has underpinned DBE1’s approach since day one: that our task is to assist the Indonesian government and non-government stakeholders to better implement their own policy by collaboratively developing and piloting methodologies which build capacity and support good practice in target districts.

In the words of one senior official in MONE, there are four keys to ensuring successful implementation and dissemination of project methodologies:

1. The program must be aligned with government policy 2. The program must be adopted into the government bureaucracy 3. Both formal and informal networking is required. Working exclusively

through a formal network is difficult. Meanwhile, informal networking is effective but if used exclusively, it can make it difficult for programs to be institutionalized, especially if the informal contact person is no longer part of the system.

4. Be confident that the program, products and approach are good practice102.

The materials development that supports this strategy focuses on the production of manuals, training modules and supporting materials, including software, that enable school and district practitioners and service providers to disseminate DBE1 methodologies. Over the coming year it is intended that these materials will be transferred to GOI, endorsed and in many cases published by the

100 A German Government bilateral program implemented by DED in Kota Mataram, NTB, is currently planning to support a study tour by district education stakeholders to reference districts in East Java and Central Java. 101 As reported in the section on Good Practices above, Sukabumi District has allocated funds to continue and expand the program of training introduced under the ICT Grant program. 102 Speaking at a DBE1 workshop held to plan for the integration of DBE1 materials and good practices into MONE policy and practice held in Bandung on 1 April 2009, the Head of the Learning Division for the Directorate for Kindergarten and Elementary Schooling in MONE (Kasubdit Pembelajaran, Dir Pemb. TK dan SD), described the following keys for success of dissemination:

1. Program diseminasi merupakan bagian dari kebijakan 2. Program diseminasi masuk ke dalam birokrasi 3. Network formal dan informal harus terjalin baik. Network formal saja akan sulit, sementara network informal

saja akan sulit untuk diformalkan 4. Kita harus yakin bahwa program diseminasi yang kita tawarkan ialah baik


Ministry with formal introductory statements by the appropriate Director. Other materials may be further developed and adapted under the BEC project.

In planning for the final phase of project implementation a number of challenges need to be identified and addressed. In particular two challenges stand out.

First, DBE1 has achieved considerable success in engaging at all levels with MONE, and particularly with the Directorate for Kindergarten and Elementary Schooling. While MORA and other directorates of MONE have been fully involved throughout the development and implementation of DBE1 approaches, as has been described in this report, it will be very beneficial if engagement with these groups could be strengthened. The bureaucratic ‘silo’ culture that is inherent in Indonesian government bureaucracy makes this challenging. Each department prefers to have its own ‘favorite’ projects and does not always appear willing to share with others.

The second challenge is to continue to support dissemination and sustainability efforts in a way that ensures quality of processes and outcomes. The risk that dissemination efforts are ‘watered down’ and do not have the same impact as the original program has been described in this report. This risk remains high as dissemination efforts are likely to increase in the final phase.

In order to meet the first of these challenges, DBE1 will facilitate meetings between MONE’s School Based Management Secretariat and other groups, particularly MORA and, within MONE, PMPTK, the Directorate General responsible for teaching quality and, under this directorate, the teacher in-service training and quality assurance sections known as P4TK and LPMP respectively. These meetings will discuss implementation of the set of materials that are being sanctioned by MONE’s Directorate for Kindergarten and Elementary Schooling. DBE1 is also coordinating closely with PMPTK on the development and planned dissemination of materials related to supervision and personnel management.

Engagement with MORA has been consistent throughout the project and is very evident in some specific districts. However, the ‘silo’ mentality mentioned above, coupled with the difference in management structures between MONE and MORA (the former is decentralized while the latter remains centralized), has meant that the involvement of MORA is sometimes less significant. Additional effort will be required to engage with central and provincial level MORA officials, and to arrange more field visits where they can witness successful implementation of DBE1 school-based management approaches in madrasah and pesantren, such as in Tuban, East Java.

In relation to the second challenge, it will be vital, as dissemination expands within and beyond the boundaries of target districts, to promote an approach which adheres to the principles of good practice as outlined in the DBE1 Dissemination Manual. The variable quality of dissemination efforts to date was described in the Dissemination Study conducted in 2009 together with lessons learned. The quality of implementation varies widely and will be the subject of a


second dissemination study to be conducted late in 2009. Ensuring quality will become a major focus for field personnel in the final year of project implementation.

The final question concerns the future. How far can DBE1 go in supporting the Indonesian education reform agenda within the five-year project life-cycle? This report demonstrates that we have achieved a great deal through DBE1 in the development and dissemination of good practices in management and governance of basic education. In the coming months we will do much more to bed down the initiatives, support dissemination (scale up) and support sustainability. But only so much can be achieved with such an ambitious agenda in a short period – particularly in the context of a donor-funded project, driven by deliverables and need for short-term results.

In order for the DBE1 strategy to really bear fruit, ongoing support is required from the international donor community. This could include ongoing USAID support and/or World Bank – MONE collaborations such as the BEC and planned SISWA projects. Reform of the Indonesian education system is a work in progress and requires long-term sustained commitment. Policy and practice are continually being refined, reviewed and improved and the role of the international donor community, including USAID and DBE1, in this process is critical.


Appendix 1: Current List of DBE1 Materials

No Program Title Edition Report Type Available

on Website

1 EMIS and ICT Education Hotspots January-06 Deliverable (15) Report

2 Grants Application Manual April-06 Manual 3 Grants Manual October-06 Manual 4 Emis Assessment June-07 Special Report 5 Emis & ICT June-07 Special Report 6 Systematization of Information Updating and Reporting August-07 Training Report

7 Pilot Project for EMIS Strengthening May-08 Feasibility

Study 8 ICT Grants Monitoring and Evaluation July-08 Special Report

9 Public Private Alliance Manual for Emergency School and Madrasah Rebuilding June-05

Training Module

10 Public Private Alliance September-07 Deliverable (14) Report

11 Public Private Alliance September-08 Deliverable (14) Report

12 Manual for Post Earthquake Schools and Madrasah Reconstruction and Rehabilitation with Community Participation December-08

Training Module

13 School Level Activities MBS Manual Final review with

MONE Manual 14 Dissemination Manual ditto Manual


No Program Title Edition Report Type Available

on Website

15 RKS/M Development Manual ditto Manual

16 School Committee Training Modules ditto Training Modules

17 Leadership for School/Madrasah Principals ditto Training Modules

20 District Level Analysis How to Develop District's Capacity Development Plan July-07 Manual

21 Manual for School Unit Cost Analysis and Development of Related Regulations November-07 Manual

22 Manual to Develop a Strategic Plan for Education Office January-08 Manual 23 Manual for District Education Finance Analysis March-08 Manual 24 BOSP Facilitation Manual December-08 Manual 25 District Planning Information Support System (DPISS) Manual December-08 Manual

26 Special Reports

Review of Materials on Education Planning, Management and Governance June-07

27 Improving the Management and Governance of Islamic Schools and Madrasah August-07

28 Policy Reform in Education Planning October-07 Deliverable (13) Report

29 Study of Legal Framework for the Indonesian Basic Education Sector November-07

30 Basic Education and Obstacles to Learning November-07

31 Summary of Laws and Regulation November-07 Deliverable (11) Report

32 When the community is there (Ketika Menyapa Masyarakat) October-08 Book


Appendix 2: List of DBE1 Articles Published in Print and Online Media

Date Title Publication Type Author

Aceh

2 November 2007 Penyusunan RKS/M berakhir Newspaper Article Harian Serambi Indonesia

2 November 2007 Penyusunan RKS/M berakhir Web article www.serambinews.com

9 September 2007 Pemko diminta lanjutkan program DBE Newspaper Article Harian Serambi Indonesia

9 September 2007 Pemko diminta lanjutkan program DBE Web article www.serambinews.com

29 September 2007 Bupati Aceh Besar terima RPS/M versi DBE Newspaper Article Harian Serambi Indonesia

29 September 2007 Bupati Aceh Besar terima RPS/M versi DBE Web article www.Serambinews.com

26 February 2008 Mutu Pendidikan Aceh masih dibawah Standar Newspaper Article Harian Waspada Medan

26 February 2008 Mutu Pendidikan Aceh masih dibawah Standar Web article www.waspada.co.id

26 February 2008 Pelatihan Renstra SKPD Disdik digelar Newspaper Article Metro Aceh

26 February 2008 Pendidikan di Aceh masih dibawah standar Newspaper Article Harian Aceh



26 February 2008 Pendidikan di Aceh masih dibawah standar Web article www.harianaceh.com

26 February 2008 Kondisi Pendidikan Aceh dibawah Standar Newspaper Article Harian Rakyat Aceh

27 February 2008 Pejabat ditatar susun Renstra Newspaper Article Harian Serambi Indonesia

27 February 2008 Pejabat ditatar susun Renstra Web article www.serambinews.com

11 April 2008 Peran Komite Sekolah belum maksimal Newspaper Article Harian Serambi Indonesia

15 January 2009 Krisis Guru bukan Penyakit Khas Aceh Newspaper Article Harian Serambi Indonesia

North Sumatra

20 Agustus 07 USAID Membawa Dampak Besar Dalam Manajemen Pelayanan Pendidikan Di Tapanuli Utara Newspaper Article Warta Indonesia Baru

6 January 08 USAID Gelar Lokakarya Good Governance Sektor Pendidikan untuk Kota Sibolga dan Taput Newspaper Article Sinar Indonesia Baru

7 February 08 SDN 085115 Kota Baringin Kembangkan Kelas Unggulan Newspaper Article Waspada

25 February 08 TIM GGSP TanJunigbalai Septemberakat Perbaiki Kualias Pendidikan Newspaper Article Sinar Indonesia Baru

27 February 08 USAID Gelar Workshop GGSP di Parapat diikuti Tebing Tinggi, TanJunigbalai dan Dairi Newspaper Article Sinar Indonesia Baru

5 March 08 Stakeholder Septemberakat Terapkan GGSP Di Kota TanJunigbalai Newspaper Article Sinar Indonesia Baru



20 April 08 USAID Bergerak Dibidang Pendidikan Beri Nilai Khusus Kepada Harian Sinar Indonesia Baru (SIB) Newspaper Article Sinar Indonesia Baru

28 April 08 Jika Negara Tidak Dapat Memenuhi Pendidikan Dasar dan Membiarkan Rakyat Kelaparan Merupakan " Pelanggaran Berat "

Newspaper Article Sinar Indonesia Baru

12 Agustus 08 DPRD Sarankan Forum GGSP TanJunigbalai untuk Studi Banding Newspaper Article Waspada

30 Agustus 08 Kualitas Guru dan Fasilitas Memadai Dorong Tingkatkan Mutu Lulusan Pendidikan Newspaper Article Analisa

14 November 08 DBE1 USAID Fasilitasi Penyusunan Renstra Bidang Pendidikan Minimnya Guru akan diajukan melalui APBD

Newspaper Article Metro Tapanuli

West Java and Banten

26 September 2007 Keterbatasan tenaga Pengajar Jadi Persoalan Pelik Newspaper Article Tribun (Written by DBE1 Iman Solichudin)

27 September 2007 USAID DBE Berhasil TingkatkanMutu Pendidikan Newspaper Article Fajar Banten

10 November 2007 Replikasi rencana Pengembangan sekolah Masuk Perubahan APBD Newspaper Article Fajar Banten

13 Maret 2008 Bantuan Dana BOS Munculkan Kontroversi Newspaper Article Fajar Banten (Written by DBE1 Edi Priyono and Iman Solichudin)

8 April 2008 USAID Bantu Perpustakaan Digital Newspaper Article Kompas



9 April 2008 USAID Beri Bantuan Perpustkaan Digital Newspaper Article Jurnalika

12 April 2008 USAID Rintis Perpustakaan Digital Newspaper Article SINDO

15 April 2008 Dana BOS Dinilai Minim Newspaper Article Sindo (Written by DBE1 M. Ipin Rohana)

14 Juni 2008 Guru di Kota Dilatih Manajemen Newspaper Article Tangerang Raya

1 Agustus 2008 Peran Komite dan Kepsek Harus Seimbang Newspaper Article Baraya Post

1 Agustus 2008 Komite Sekolah Newspaper Article Radar Banten

4 September 2008 Berita Foto Peningkatan kapasitas Sekolah Newspaper Article Radar Banten (Written by DBE1 Iman Solihudin)

4 November 2008 Tingkatkan Pelaynan dan Mutu Pendidikan; USAID Sumbang 22 Unit Komputer untuk Pemkab Karawang Newspaper Article Pasundan Express

Karawang

Central Java

26 January 2009 Renstra Dinas P&K perlu akomodir kebutuhan Sekolah Newspaper Article Joglopos

12 January 09 2010, SD Ditargetkan dapat Susun RKS/M Newspaper Article Suara Merdeka

5 11 January 2009 Komite Sekolah Ikuti Musrenbangdes Newspaper Article Joglopos

9 January 09 Maraton Penyusunan RKA Sekolah Newspaper Article Jawa Pos Radar Kudus



24 December 08 Penyusunan Renstra, Libatkan Kepsek Newspaper Article Jawa Pos Radar Kudus

18 December 08 Dinas Pendidikan Berharap SDM Ikut Dibenahi Newspaper Article Jawa Pos Radar Kudus

Minggu I II Des 2008

Komite Sekolah Mitra DBE 1 Ikuti Pelatihan Alternatif Pendanaan Sekolah Newspaper Article Borobudur Post, Media

Purworejo

15 December 08 Biaya Murid SD Rp. 76.549 Per Bulan Newspaper Article Suara Merdeka

6 December 08 Simpeg Akan diupadet terus menerus Newspaper Article Jawa Pos Radar Kudus

5 December 08 Pemkab gelar lokakarya BOSP Newspaper Article Solopos

5 December 08 Pendataan Tenaga Kependidikan Kudus Belum Maksimal Newspaper Article Suara Merdeka

2 December 08 Biaya Operasional satuan Pendidikan Dihitung Newspaper Article Suara Merdeka

29 November 08 Penting Unutk Pahami BOSP Newspaper Article Jawa Pos Radar Kudus

28 November 08 Perencanaan BOS belum mementingkan Siswa Newspaper Article Suara Merdeka

26 November 08 Peran Walimurid minim sekolah tak Berkembang Newspaper Article Suara Merdeka

1 November 08 Lokakarya pengembangan sekolah Newspaper Article Suara Merdeka

17 September 08 Porsi Madrasah Dalam Diseminasi Sedikit Newspaper Article Jawa Pos Radar Kudus

17 September 08 Pelatihan Fasilitator RKS/M Newspaper Article Suara Merdeka



13 September 08 Banyak Sekolah Jiplak Rancangan Kerja Untuk Terima BOS Newspaper Article Suara Merdeka

12 Juni 08 Diseminasi DBE Diharapkan bisa memacu Pendidikan Newspaper Article Solopos

12 Juni 08 706 Guru SD/MI Tak Layak Mengajar Newspaper Article Joglosemar

15 April 08 Dari Lokakarya Pendidikan Regulasi Sering Tak Sesuai Newspaper Article Suara Merdeka

30 January 08 Penerapan Rencana Sekolah Belum Maksimal Newspaper Article Suara Merdeka

27 Jul 07 Renstra Pendidikan Dirumuskan Newspaper Article Suara Merdeka

East Java

09 Juni 2008 Stakeholder Pendidikan Harus Tentukan Skala Prioritas Newspaper Article Jawa Pos Radar Madura

23 Agustus 2008 Tahun Depan Ikuti Program DBE 1 Newspaper Article Jawa Pos

21 November 08 Dispendik Diseminasi DBE Newspaper Article Jawa Pos

27 Nopember 2008 Jujugan Studi Banding Newspaper Article Jawa Pos Radar Madura

South Sulawesi

25 Juli 2008 Pemkab Respon Program DBE I USAID Newspaper Article Ujung Pandang Ekspres

8 Agustus 2007 Pemkot USAID Bermitra Tingkatkan Mutu Pendidikan Newspaper Article Tribun Timur



Juli 2008 Ambil Kue Sendiri, Bayar Tak Perlu Diawasi Newspaper Article Fajar

29 Juli 2008 USAID Tawarkan Lanjutan Program DBE Newspaper Article Ujung Pandang Ekspres

1 Agustus 2008 Ketua DPRD Bubarkan Pertemuan Stakeholder Pendidikan Newspaper Article Ujung Pandang Ekspres

Agustus 2007 Lokakarya Komunitas Pembelajaran Gugus I dan Gugus II DBE2 USAID Dilaksanakan di SDN 24 Attang Salo Kecamatan Ma’rang Newspaper Article Ujung Pandang Ekspress

2007 Wabup Sidrap & Koordinator DBE Sulsel kunjungi SDN 4 Betao Newspaper Article Pare Pos

2007 “Foto Jejak Kasus” Newspaper Article Metro Lacak

12 Juni 2008 Bagian Dari Program DBE Newspaper Article Pare Pos

12 Juni 2008 Pendidikan Gratis Butuh Rp. 29,7 M Newspaper Article Pare Pos

21 Juni 2008 Sidrap Respons Kesehatan dan Pendidikan Gratis Newspaper Article Fajar

Juni 2008 Pendidikan Gratis Masuk Program Kabupaten Newspaper Article Pare Pos

3 Agustus 2007 DBE1: Latih Komite Sekolah Newspaper Article Fajar

31 Agustus 2007 Pengembangan SDM Siswa Butuh Peranan Semua Pihak Newspaper Article Pare Pos

6 September 2007 Sejumlah SKPD Belum Miliki Renstra Newspaper Article Pare Pos

8 September 2007 Marhaban Koordinator Forum GGSP Newspaper Article Pare Pos



9 September 2007 Dewan Soroti Rekruitmen Tenaga Sukarela Newspaper Article Pare Pos

10 September 2007 SKPD Belum Miliki Renstra Newspaper Article Pare Pos

17 September 2007 Pendidikan Penyusunan Dokumen BOSP Rampung Newspaper Article Pare Pos

5 January 2008 2008, DBE Januaryji Lima Jenis Bantuan Newspaper Article Pare Pos

19 September 2007 Pendidikan Bermutu Butuh Kompetensi Newspaper Article Pedoman Rakyat

12 Juli 2008 DBE USAID: Tingkatkan Wawasan Guru Newspaper Article Pare Pos

Periode September 2008 DBE Tingkatkan Kualitas dan Mutu Pendidikan Newspaper Article Matahari Timur

02 Juli 2007 USAID Gelar Pelatihan RPS/M Tahap II Newspaper Article Palopo Pos

05 Juli 2007 USAID DBE Bina SD/MI di Luwu Newspaper Article Suara Sawerigading

17 Juli 2007 DBE USAID Ekspose Newspaper Article Palopo Pos

17 Juli 2008 USAID Lokakarya Paket Diseminasi di Luwu Newspaper Article Suwer

23 Juli 2008 Bupati Respon Program Usaid Newspaper Article Palopo Pos

6 Agustus 2008 USAID Benahi Sistem Pendidikan Newspaper Article Palopo Pos

25 Nopember 2008 Dikpora Dukung Program DBE USAID Newspaper Article Palopo Pos



24 Desember 2008 Tinggalkan USAID Demi Kemenangan Newspaper Article Palopo Pos

18 Juli 2007 Program USAID di Enrekang Berjalan Lancar Newspaper Article Metro Lacak

1 Nopember 2007 Bupati Bakal Evaluasi Program DBE Newspaper Article Pare Pos

03 Nopember 2007 RKS/M: Tiga Sekolah Ikut Lokakarya Newspaper Article Pare Pos

8 Nopember 2007 USAID DBE Perioritaskan Peningkatan Mutu Pendidikan Dasar Newspaper Article Pedoman Rakyat

08 Desember 2007 DBE1 USAID: Programnya Didukung Penuh Newspaper Article Pare Pos

31 Desember 2007 Diknas Enrekang Gelar DBE 1 Newspaper Article Ujung Pandang Ekspres

13 Juni 2008 DBE Workshop Pendidikan Newspaper Article Fajar

14 Juni 2008 DBE USAID Gelar Workshop Pendidikan Newspaper Article Pare Pos

14 Maret 2008 Tingkatkan Akses dan Mutu Pendidikan Newspaper Article Pare Pos

2 Mei 2007 USAID Luncurkan Empat Hibah Newspaper Article Fajar

13 Maret 2007 Metode Pembelajaran Aktif Ala DBE: Anak anak Ingin Ke Amerika Newspaper Article Fajar

26 Maret 2008 Analisa Gender dalam Pendidikan Newspaper Article Ujung Pandang Ekspres

8 Juli 2008 Penelepon Gelap Ancam Ledakkan Kantor USAID Newspaper Article Fajar



8 Juli 2008 USAID Diancam BOM Newspaper Article Ujung Pandang Ekspres

9 Juli 2008 Polisi Sulit Lacak Peneror USAID Newspaper Article Seputar Indonesia

1 Agustus 2008 Kompetensi Perempuan Di Dunia Politik Newspaper Article Ujung Pandang Ekspres

13 September 2008 UNM USAID Kembali Gagas Kerja Sama Newspaper Article Tribun Timur

21 Desember 2008 USAID Jajaki Kerja Sama Unismuh Newspaper Article Fajar

Yogyakarta

26 February 2009 Hasil rehab 17 sekolah diserahkan Web Article Solo Pos Online

27 February 2009 ConocoPhilips Serahkan 18 Lembaga Pendidikan Web Article Republika Online

27 February 2009 18 fasilitas pendidikan diserahkan ke pemerintah Web Article Harian Jogja Online

27 February 2009 ConocoPhillips Serahkan 18 Fasilitas Sekolah ke DIY Web Article Kapanlagi.com

27 February 2009 Hasil rehab 17 sekolah diserahkan Web Article Klaten Online

28 February 2009 ConocoPhillips dan USAID rampungkan proyek di Yogya Web Article Bisnis Indonesia Online

28 February 2009 ConocoPhillips serahkan 18 lembaga pendidikan di DIY Newspaper Article Republika

1 March 2009 18 Gedung Sekolah di DIY Diserahkan Web Article Seputar Indonesia Online



3 March 2009 USAID dan ConocoPhillips Rampungkan Rekonstruksi Sekolah di Bantul Web Article Suara Merdeka

Cybernews

3 March 2009 USAID Rampungkan 35 Bangunan Pendidikan di Jateng Web Article Okezone.com

23 March 2009 ConocoPhillips CSR Photo and caption Jakarta Post


Appendix 3: Status of Government Engagement in DBE1 Methodology Development and Use

Methodologies Status of

materials Dec 2008

Materials & approaches designed to

support implementation of

GOI policy:

Status of MONE involvement

Status of MORA involvement

Status of other GOI involvement (KESRA, MOF)

Policy Impact / Next steps for GOI

endorsement

School and Community Program

School development planning (RKS )

& Annual school work-plans and budgets (RKT)

Manuals completed and with MONE for final approval process

UU Sisdiknas (2003)

PP 19/2005 on Standar Pendidikan Nasional

Permendiknas 19/2007

Workshops with stakeholders to finalize materials held over three years. This included MONE Directorate for TK-SD and Directorate for Junior Secondary

Most recent joint workshop to discuss materials held in Bandung on April 1-2 2009. Final workshop planned for May 2009.

Workshops with stakeholders to finalize materials held over three years.

Most recent joint workshop to discuss materials held in Bandung on April 1-2 2009. Final workshop planned for May 2009.

- Materials are at the final stage of GOI endorsement. Introductions (kata pengantar) are being prepared for signing by the Directors from MONE (Dir. TK-SD) and MORA (Mappenda)

Interest has been shown by other donors and NGOs in taking up some of these materials for dissemination

Widespread dissemination of RKS with district, provincial and NGO funding

School Committee Training

13 Modules completed and with MONE for final approval process

Kepmendiknas 044/2002

UU Sisdiknas (2003)


As above As above - As above



materials Dec 2008



GOI policy:





endorsement

School Committee Training on village budget planning – musrenbangdes/kel

1 Module completed and with MONE for final approval process

UU 25/2004 concerning the National Development Planning System;

UU 32/2004 concerning Regional Government

UU 32/2004 tentang Pemerintahan Daerah

UU 33/2004 tentang Perimbangan Keuangan antara Pemerintah Pusat dan Pemerintahan Daerah

PP 72/2005 tentang Desa,

PP 73/2005 tentang Kelurahan

Surat Edaran No 140/640/SJ tentang Pedoman Alokasi Dana Desa Dari Pemerintah Kabupaten/Kota kepada Pemerintah Desa

Surat Edaran Bersama Menteri Negara Perencanaan Pembangunan dan Menteri Dalam Negeri No 0008/M.PPN/01/2007




materials Dec 2008



GOI policy:





endorsement

Leadership Training for Principals

2 Modules completed and with MONE for final approval process

UU Sisdiknas (2003)


Permendiknas 12/2007 and 13/2007


School Database System (SDS)

Facilitator manual, user manual and software completed for SD/MI level and with MONE for final approval process

Facilitator manual, user manual and software completed for SMP/MTs level being piloted and finalized

UU Sisdiknas (2003)


Permendiknas 19/2007 tentang Standar Pengelolaan Pendidikan oleh Satuan Pendidikan Dasar dan Menengah

PP No. 48/2008 tentang Pendanaan Pendidikan

Permendiknas No. 48/2008 tentang Standar Pengawas Sekolah/Madrasah.


Dissemination Manual –School-Based Management and Governance Program

Manual for district level managers completed for SD/MI level and with MONE for final approval process

Manual for district level managers for SMP/MTs level currently under development with DBE3

This manual supports implementation of all the policies listed above as it is an overarching manual to help managers to implement the programs in a district or school system




materials Dec 2008



GOI policy:





endorsement

District Program

Multi-stakeholder workshops for governance stakeholders (Education Board, local legislature, media & civil society)

Governance program integrated into broader approach at district level

Kepmendiknas 044/2002

UU Sisdiknas (2003)

UU 2004 ttg Pemerintahan Daerah (DPRD)

Surat edaran - Petunjuk teknis penyelenggaraan musrenbang (Jan 2007)

SPM (minimum service standards)

Attended March 2007 workshop.

Attended March 2007 workshop.

Kesra attended March 2007 workshop.

Priority gaps are in implementation of policy. The national policymakers are distanced from implementers – no direct link with Bupati, DPRD etc

Training for Education Boards

Strategic Education Planning

(Renstra)

and Annual Planning / Budgeting (Renja)

Latest version January 2008. Under revision. Final version to be updated June 2009 and published this year.

National Development Planning System Law (UU 25/2004)

Regional Government Law (UU 32/2004)

PP 8/2008 concerning Rencana Pembangunan Daerah

Attended workshop in June 2006


Kesra attended workshop in June 2006

Ongoing consultation with MOHA including review of the manual

National stakeholders will be invited to workshop to discuss final materials in 2009

District Education Finance Analysis

(AKPK)

Manual drafted and improved in September-October 2007. Under revision. To be updated and finalized June 2009. Final version to be published this year.

AKPK provides analysis to support planning as required in

UU 32/2004 on Regional Government

UU 33/2004 on Finance Balance btw Central & Regional Gov’t

Methodology and results informed to PSP to help them prepare country submission to MCC

Informed MOF on methodology

20 District stakeholder workshops have been held to discuss results. Impact on district plans and budgets.

National workshop planned for 2009 to report on findings of



materials Dec 2008



GOI policy:





endorsement

UU Sisdiknas 20/2003 on funding (20%)


PP8/2008 concerning Rencana Pembangunan Daerah

national level analysis of AKPK and BOSP studies.

School Unit Cost Analysis

(BOSP)

Latest version December 2008. To be updated on the basis of 2009 BOS guidelines. Final version to be published later this year.

Draft concept re standards on BOSP prepared by BSNP

MONE reps participated in pilot and development of methodology in East Java

Periodic consultation with BSNP

MONE reps participated in pilot and development of methodology in East Java

No national level participation

As above for AKPK, BOSP is having a strong impact on district and provincial policies and budgets to enable schools to meet national standards

Interest shown by other donors in taking up the methodology (World Bank)

District Capacity Development Planning (RPK)

Manual complete (July 2007)

RPK supports implementation of Bappenas policy. (Kepmendagri 2002)103

RPK also builds capacity for districts to implement policy (e.g. Renstra, annual budgeting, personnel)

Attended workshops in June 2006


KESRA attended workshop in June 2006

The World Bank funded BEC TF is using the methodology in pilot program in several districts

103 Keputusan bersama antara : Menteri Dalam Negeri Dan Menteri Negara Perencanaan Pembangunan Nasional/Kepala Bappenas tentang KERANGKA NASIONAL PENGEMBANGAN DAN PENINGKATAN KAPASITAS DALAM RANGKA MENDUKUNG DESENTRALISASI. Dikeluarkan di Jakarta tanggal Nopember 2002 Dan ditandatangani oleh Hari Sabarno Dan Kwik Kian Gie.



materials Dec 2008



GOI policy:





endorsement

School Management Supervision Manual

Preliminary materials are being drafted

UU Sisdiknas (2003)


Permendiknas 12/2007 and 13/2007

Permendiknas 19/2007 re Standar Pengelolaan Pendidikan oleh Satuan Pendidikan

Consultations with MONE staff already: PMPTK, Direktorat Pendidikan dan Pembangunan Diklat, BSNP

No national level participation yet

- Materials to be completed and piloted in 5 districts in 5 provinces.

Preventive Maintenance Manual

Preliminary materials have been drafted

Education Law (UU 20/2003) (Bab X11, Pasal 45)

Permendiknas 24/2007 about standards of facilities & equipment

No formal national level participation yet. Consultations with MONE staff already.


- Materials to be completed and piloted in 2009

NUPTK Data Based Personnel Management System

Draft version of HRISS developed and tested in Kudus

UU 14/2005 on Teachers

Permendiknas (12, 13, 16, 18 / 2007) on standard competency and certification for ed’n personnel.

Buku pedoman from Dirjen PMPTK

Efforts were made to engage with LPMP (Jateng) as partners in the development of the materials. This was not a successful exercise.


- National stakeholders will be invited to workshop in 2009

District Education Planning Information System

(SIPPK)

Manuals completed SIPPK provides data and analysis to support planning (as required in the Regional Government Law (UU 32/2004)

Following early consultation with MONE (PSP and Vocational Ed Directorate) it was agreed to develop a simpler methodology.



The system is operational in 25 districts.



materials Dec 2008



GOI policy:





endorsement

PP8/2008 concerning Rencana Pembangunan Daerah

District Report Card (Laporan Pendidikan Kabupaten/Kota or LPK)

To be developed LPK will provide summarized data in a user-friendly format to assist districts to plan and implement national policy (especially focus on transparency and accountability)




National stakeholder meetings will be held in 2009.


Appendix 4: Dissemination Standards

Standards for Replication (Diseminasi) of School-Based Management (MBS)

(28 November 2008)

A. Process Standards Successful DBE1 replication programs:

1. include both training and on-site mentoring (pendampingan), 2. are conducted by facilitators with experience and/or training (TOT) in

the DBE1 methodology 3. involve a range of school-level participants

a. for RPS/M - RKS/M: school/madrasah heads, teachers and school/madrasah committees

b. for SDS training: school/madrasah heads, teachers and administration staff

c. for leadership training: madrasah/school heads and school/madrasah supervisors (pengawas)

d. for school/madrasah committee training: school/madrasah heads, teachers and school/madrasah committees

4. involve system level managers and supervisors (pengawas, KCD etc) in management, monitoring and evaluation

5. do not involve large-scale events (of over 50 participants) and are preferably cluster-based (gugus-based)

6. are completed within a reasonable period of time a. for RKS/M : full program within one year b. for SDS training: within the period for completing RKS/M c. for leadership training: minimal one training per year d. for school committee training: minimal three different

workshops per year

B. Program Content Most districts and other agencies have focused initially on RKS/M in replication programs. Ideally replication programs will integrate all aspects of school-based management:

• Strengthening school committees and community participation • Improving school leadership • School/madrasah development planning (RKS/M)


• School Database System (SDS), and • Introduction to active learning (PAKEM)

Ideally these components will be introduced to schools in a strategically sequenced way (following the DBE1 training plan). To support this integrated approach in 2008 DBE1 will:

• Provide ongoing training for DF and replication pengawas in monthly forums

• Provide initial funding and support to complete the program in cases where districts or other agencies have shown strong commitment to the program. (In one district per province selected by the PC, we can fully fund a program of School Committee and Leadership training in replication schools.)

• Counterpart funding for a limited number of replication schools, where districts agree to fund the pendampingan in replication programs planned for 2009

• Encourage DBE2 and DBE3 to provide introductory training and support for active learning in replication schools

C. Content Standards Successful DBE1 replication programs:

1. include the complete RKS/M program 2. include school committee strengthening and leadership training 3. ideally include introduction to active learning (PAKEM) program

C1. Outcome Standards for RKS/M Successful RKS/M replication programs produce an RKS/M which:

1. includes: (1) a school/madrasah profile, (2) school objectives (harapan), (3) analysis of challenges and strategies, (4) program (including schedule) and (5) budget and RKAS/M (Rencana Kegiatan dan Anggaran Sekolah/Madrasah).

2. is multi-source and multi-year 3. increased community participation (e.g. more active school committee,

financial or in-kind contributions, ‘paguyuban kelas’) 4. is implemented (at least 50% of planned programs)


C2. Outcome Standards for School/Madrasah Committee Strengthening Successful replication of School Committee Strengthening programs results in:

1. At least one member of school/madrasah committee involved in preparing RKS/M and RKAS/M

2. At least one member of school committee involved in monitoring implementation of RKS/M

3. School/madrasah committee active in supporting program implementation RKS/M

4. School/madrasah committee active in monitoring school/madrasah performance

C3. Outcome Standards for Leadership Training Successful replication of Leadership training programs results in:

1. participative decision making, for example wide participation in formulating RKS/M

2. increased accountability and transparency, for example, RKS/M posted on the wall and principal gives financial report to school/madrasah committee


Appendix 5: ICT Grant Program

a. ICT Innovation EMG

1. YPK Amanah - Pangkajene Kepulauan, South Sulawesi

Business Plan Sustainability Factor

: Internet Service Provider (ISP) services

Internet Café

Training provider on technical local area network, internet, and computer technician

2. PT Turatea Computer Center - Jeneponto, South Sulawesi


: Integrated information management system software (Sistem Informasi Terpadu -SIMPADU)

Training on basic computer and maintenance, operating system, application software, and local area network (LAN)

3. CV Trisatya Pratama - Karawang, West Java


: ICT-based Education Data Center

LabNet Training & Business Center

MP_Ka@Network (Education Information System software)

4. PT Indomaya Wira Sejahtera - Karanganyar, Central Java


: Local Area Network (LAN) development at DEO, Kandepag and 2 subdistrict offices

Wide Area Network (WAN) establishment to link LAN at DEO, Kandepag, and 2 subdistrict offices

Internet connection for DEO, Kandepag, and 2 subdistrict offices

Karanganyar Cyber and Education Community through Karanganyar School Information network portal development

Integration of DGlib into WAN

Training software application usage, data input and tools for operators, admin and site managers

5. CV Cosmo Jaya - Klaten, Central Java


: Network Operation Center (NOC) establishment and internet connectivity coordination among DEO,


Kandepag, and DPL

DEO website establishment to provide better access to information and increase transparency and accountability

Local Area Network (LAN) establishment at Kandepag office

Internet Café hotspot development

Training for trainers for DEO, kandepag, and DPL staffs on Advanced MS-Office, Internet and Internet Business, Local Area Network (LAN), ICT program and data networking

6. PT ITS Kemitraan [Tier-1] - Surabaya, East Java


: Office Software Training

Web Design and Programming Training

7. PT ITS Kemitraan [Tier-2] - Surabaya, East Java


: District Education PORTAL development

DigiSchool PORTAL development

Education PORTAL and DigiSchool PORTAL Training

b. Education Hotspot

1. Indo Komputer - Soppeng, South Sulawesi -


: English and Science Multimedia Teaching Aids development

Training on multimedia interactive module development

2. Yayasan Tarbiyah Islamiah (YASTI) - Sukabumi, West Java


: Internet-based Digital Library software development

Internet Café establishment

3. PT Tridata Cakrawala - Tuban, East Java


: Library Information System software development

Internet Café establishment

4. PT Rekayasa Teknologi Informasi (Rekti) - Enrekang, South Sulawesi


: CD-ROM of Multimedia Teaching Aids development

Animation and graphic design multimedia software training

5. CV Almagada Jaya - Tangerang, Banten

Business Plan : School.net development


Sustainability Factor Catalog.net development

Warnet establishment

6. PT Indomaya Wira Sejahtera - Karanganyar, Central Java


: Local Area Netwrok (LAN) development

Library automation system development

Network administration and system operator functions training


Appendix 6: Overview of Current Regulatory Framework for Basic Education, Indonesia

LAW No. 20/2003

National Education

System

CHAPTER IX

GovernmentRegulation No.19/2005

National EducationStandard

Substance StandardNo. 22/2006

Graduate CompetenceNo. 23/2006

Educator dan Supporting Staff for EducationNo. 12/2007 – Standard for Supervisor No. 13/2007 – Standard for School/Madrasah Principal No. 16/2007 – Standard for Educator No. 18/2007 – Teacher Certification

No. 24/2006Implementation of National Education Ministerial Decree

No. 22 dan 23

National Education Minister Regulation

ManagementNo. 19/2007Education Management No. 50/2007Education Management by Local Government

Infrastructure (Asset)No. 24/2007 – Standard for Education Infrastructure

National Education Standard

Gov. Reg.No.47/2008Compulsory Basic Education

Gov. Reg. No.48/2008Education Funding


Minimum Service StandardGovernment Regulation No.65/2005

Manual for Development and Implementation of Minimum Service Standard

Home Affairs Minister RegulationNo.79/2007 (Annex I)Manual for Development of Minimum Service Standard

National Education Minister Decree No.129a/U/2004

Minimum Service Standard in Education


InfrastructureGovernment Regulation No.38/2008Management of State and Local Asset

Home Affairs Minister Regulation No.17/2007Manual for Local Asset Management

Home Affairs Minister RegulationNo. 18/2007Standard for Infrastructure and Cross Country Service

National Education Minister RegulationNo.24/2007

Standard for Education Infrastructure


MusrenbangdesGovernment Regulation No.72/2005 VillageGovernment Regulation No.38/2007 Administration division

among Central, Province and DistrictGovernment Regulation No.08/2008 Stage, System for Development and

Evaluation of Implementation ofDistrict Development Planning

Home Affairs Minister Circular No. 140/640/SJHome Affairs Minister Circular to Governor, Province Parliament, Regent/Mayor and District Parliament on Village Funding Allocation from District Government to Village

Circular No. 0008/M.PPN/01/2007 050/264/SJCircular from Home Affairs Minister and Head of National Development Planning Agency on Implementation Guidance of Musrenbang 2007


Annex 7: Abbreviations, Acronyms and Glossary

Abbreviations and Acronyms ADB Asian Development Bank ADD Alokasi Dana Desa [Village Budget Allocation] APBD Anggaran Pendapatan dan Belanja Daerah [District

Government Annual Budget] APBN Anggaran Pendapatan dan Belanja Negara [National

Government Annual Budget] AusAID Australian Agency for International Development Balitbang Badan Penelitian dan Pengembangan [Research and

Development Body] Bappeda Perencanaan Pembangunan Daerah [Regional Development

Planning Agency] Bappenas Perencanaan Pembangunan Nasional [National Development

Planning Agency] Basnas Badan Akreditasi Sekolah Nasional [National School

Accreditation Board] BEC Basic Education Capacity [World Bank Project] BIA BOS (Bantuan Operational Sekolah) Impact Analysis BMPSM Badan Musyawarah Pengawas Sekolah dan Madrasah

[School and Madrasah Supervisors Consultative Body] BOMM Bantuan Operasional Manajemen Mutu [Quality

Management Operational Support] BOP Bantuan Operasional Pendidikan [Education Operational

Grants] BOS Bantuan Operational Sekolah [school grants] BOSP Biaya Operasional Satuan Pendidikan [School Unit Cost] BP British Petroleum BRR Bureau for Reconstruction and Rehabilitation (Aceh and Nias) BSNP Badan Standar Nasional Pendidikan [National Education

Standard Board] CA Capacity Assessment CLCC Creating Learning Communities for Children COP Chief of Party CSO Civil Society Organization CSR corporate social responsibility DAU Dana Alokasi Umum [general budget allocation from central

government to local governments] DBE USAID Decentralized Basic Education Project


DBE1 Decentralized Basic Education Project Management and Governance

DBE2 Decentralized Basic Education Project Teaching and Learning DBE3 Decentralized Basic Education Project Improving Work and

Life Skills DBEP Decentralized Basic Education Project [ADB Project] DEFA District Education Finance Analysis DF District Facilitator DPA Dokumen Pelaksanaan Anggaran [budget approved by the

local legislature] DPISS District Planning Information Support System DPR Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat [House of Representatives] DPRD Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Daerah [district parliament] DSC District Steering Committee DTT District Technical Team EFA Education for All EMIS Education Management Information Systems ERA Education Response Alliance ESP Environmental Services Program [USAID project] GDA Global Development Alliance GDP Gross Domestic Product GGSP Good Governance Sektor Pendidikan (Good Governance in

The Education Sector) GOI Government of Indonesia IAPBE Indonesia-Australia Partnership in Basic Education [AusAID

project] ICT Information and Communication Technology ILO International Labor Organization Jardiknas Jaringan pendidikan nasional – national education network JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency KADIN Indonesian Chamber of Commerce Kandepag Kantor Departemen Agama [District Religious Affairs Office] KKG Kelompok Kerja Guru [teachers’ working group] KKRPS Kelompok Kerja RPS [school RPS team] KTSP Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan [School Unit

Curriculum] LAPIS Learning Assistance Program for Islamic Schools [AusAID

Project] LG Local government LGSP Local Governance Support Program [USAID project] LOE Level of Effort LPMP Lembaga Penjamin Mutu Pendidikan [Education Quality


Assurance Body] M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MAPENDA Madrasah dan Pendidikan Agama [Religious and Madrasah

Education] MBE Managing Basic Education [USAID project] MBS Manajemen Berbasis Sekolah (SBM=School Based

Management) MCA Millennium Challenge Account MCC Milenium Challenge Corporation MDC Madrasah Development Centers MGMP Musyawarah Guru Mata Pelajaran [Subject-based Teachers

Association] MGP Mainstreaming Good Practice [UNICEF Project] MI Madrasah Ibtidaiyah [Islamic primary school] MIS Madrasah Ibtidaiyah Swasta [private madrasah; MIN State

Madrasah] MOF Ministry of Finance MOHA Ministry of Home Affairs MONE Ministry of National Education MORA Ministry of Religious Affairs MOU Memoranda of Understanding MSS Minimum Service Standards MTT Master Teacher Trainers MTs Madrasah Tsanawiyah [Islamic junior secondary school] Musrenbangdes Musyawarah Perencanaan Pembangunan Desa [Village

Development Planning Forum] NGO Non Governmental Organization NTT PEP Nusa Tenggara Timur Primary Education Partnership

[AusAID Project] P4TK Pusat Pengembangan dan Pemberdayaan Pendidik dan

Tenaga Kependidikan [Center for Educators and Education-Related Personnel Capacity Building]

PADATIWEB Pangkalan Data dan Informasi berbasis WEB. MONE database system

PAG Provincial Advisory Group PAKEM Pembelajaran Aktif, Kreatif, Efektif, dan Menyenangkan

[AJEL: Active, Creative, Joyful, and Effective Learning] PCR Politeknik Caltex Riau, Pekanbaru PDIP Pusat Data dan Informasi Pendidikan [Education Data and

Information Center] PDMS Project Data Management System PEQIP Primary Education Quality Improvement Project [World Bank

Project]


PKBM Pusat Kegiatan Belajar Mengajar [Teaching and Learning Center]

PMP Performance Monitoring Plan PMPTK Peningkatan Mutu Pendidik dan Tenaga Kependidikan

[Quality Improvement for Teachers and Education Personnel] P4TK Pusat Pelatihan & Pengembangan Pendidik dan Tenaga

Kependidikan [Center for Training & Development of Teachers and Education Staff]

PPA Public-private alliances Ranperda Rancangan Peraturan Daerah [Draft of District Regulations] RAPBS Rencana Anggaran, Pendapatan, dan Belanja Sekolah [School

Budget Plan] REDI Regional Economic Development Institute REDIP Regional Education Development and Improvement Program

[JICA Project] RKA Rencana Kegiatan Anggaran [proposal put by the education

office to the district budgeting committee] RKAS Rencana Kegiatan dan Anggaran Sekolah [School Activities

and Budget Plan] RKS Rencana Kerja Sekolah [School Work Plan] RKT Rencana Kerja Tahunan [Annual Work Plan] RKTL Rencana Kerja Tindak Lanjut [Future Action Plan] RPJMD Rencana Pengembangan Jangka Menengah Daerah [District

Mid-Term Development Plan] RPK Rencana Pengembangan Kapasitas [Capacity Development

Plan] RPPK Rencana Pengembangan Pendidikan Kabupaten/Kota [District

Education Development Plan] RPS Rencana Pengembangan Sekolah [School Development Plan] RTI RTI International SBM School-based management (see MBS) SD Sekolah Dasar [primary school] SIMNUPTK Sistem Informasi Manajemen - Nomor Unik Pendidik dan

Tenaga Kependidikan (Management Information System of Unique Number of Educator and Education Staff)

SIPPK Sistem Informasi Perencanaan Pendidikan Kabupaten/Kota [District Planning Information Support System]

SISWA System Improvement through System Wide Approach SMP Sekolah Menengah Pertama [junior secondary school] SNP Standar Nasional Pendidikan [National Standards for

Education] SOAG Strategic Objective Agreement [USAID and Menko Kesra] SOTK Struktur Organisasi dan Tata Kerja [Organizational and

Work Structure]


SPM Standard Pelayanan Minimum [Minimum Service Standard] STTA Short-Term Technical Assistance SUCA School Unit Cost Analysis TraiNet TraiNet Administrator & Training [USAID reporting system] UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural

Organization UNICEF United Nations Children's Fund UPTD Unit Pelaksana Teknis Dinas [Technical Implementation Unit] USAID United States Agency for International Development WIB Waktu Indonesia Barat [Western Indonesian Standard Time]

Glossary Badan Kepegawaian Daerah District Personnel Board Bupati Head of a district Departemen Agama Ministry of Religious Affairs Departemen Keuangan Department of Finance Departemen Pendidikan Nasional Ministry of National Education Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Daerah

District Parliament (DPRD)

Dinas Provincial, district, or city office with sectoral responsibility

Dinas Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan (Dinas P&K)

Provincial or district educational office

Gugus School cluster Kabupaten District (administrative unit), also referred

to as a regency Kanwil Agama Provincial Religious Affairs Office Kecamatan Sub-district Kepala Dinas Pendidikan Head of provincial or district education

office Kepala Sekolah School principal Komisi Committee in national or local legislatures Komite sekolah School committee Kota City (administrative unit) Madrasah Ibtidaiyah Islamic primary school (MI; MIS Swasta;

MIN Negeri) Madrasah Tsanawiyah Islamic junior secondary school (MT) Madrasah Pendidikan dan Agama Department of Religious Affairs directorate

for Islamic religious schools (Mapenda) Menko Kesra Coordinating Ministry for People’s Welfare Pengawas School inspector Renstra Satuan Kerja Perangkat Strategic Plan for local government work


Daerah (Renstra SKPD) unit (e.g. District Education Development Plan)

Sekolah Dasar primary school (SD) Sekolah Menengah Pertama junior secondary school (SMP) Surat Keputusan Decree/defining conditions, outcomes of a

decision Wali Kota Mayor Widyaiswara Trainer

Good Practice, Dissemination and Sustainability ...10… · More Effective Decentralized Education...

Documents

Transcript of Good Practice, Dissemination and Sustainability ...10… · More Effective Decentralized Education...