Governance Matters to Education Outcomes The Indonesia Local Education Governance Index (ILEGI) : A Report Card of 50 Local Governments
Jan 29, 2016
i
Go
vernan
ce Matters to
Ed
ucatio
n O
utco
mes
The Indonesia Local Education Governance Index (ILEGI) :
A Report Card of 50 Local Governments
Go
vernan
ce Matters to
Ed
ucatio
n O
utco
mes
ii
i
Go
vernan
ce Matters to
Ed
ucatio
n O
utco
mes
The Indonesia Local Education Governance Index (ILEGI) :
A Score Card of 50 Local Governments
Governance MattersTo Education Outcomes
Go
vernan
ce Matters to
Ed
ucatio
n O
utco
mes
ii
Table of Contents
List of Boxes
List of Figures
List of Tables
Foreword
Acknowledgments
Executive Summary
Glossary of Abbreviations
Glossary of Terms
SECTION ONE: ASSESSING AND MONITORING DECENTRALIZED EDUCATION – THE CONTEXT
SECTION TWO: DIAGNOSING LOCAL GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE – THE STUDY
Study Design
• Objectives
• Methodology
Indicators
• Transparency and Accountability
• Education Service Provision Standards
• Management Control Systems
• Management Information Systems
• Efficient Resource Use
SECTION THREE: EDUCATION GOVERNANCE MATTERS - THE ANALYSIS
The Score Card: Aggregated Education Governance Scores and Findings
• Transparency and Accountability
• Education Service Provision Standards
• Management Control Systems
• Management Information Systems
• Efficient Resource Use
SECTION FOUR: REFORMING EDUCATION GOVERNANCE - THE ROADMAP
Key ILEGI Recommendations for Education Systems Reform
Recommendations for Central Government
Recommendations for Local Government by Strategic Area
• Transparency and Accountability
• Education Service Provision Standards
• Management Control Systems
• Management Information Systems
• Efficient Resource Use
CONCLUSIONS
APPENDIX 1: BEC LOCAL EDUCATION GOVERNANCE SCORE CARDS BY STRATEGIC AREA
APPENDIX 2: EDUCATION MINIMUM SERVICE STANDARDS (MSS)
APPENDIX 3: DISTRIBUTION OF FUNCTIONS WITHIN AN EDUCATION QUALITY ASSURANCE SYSTEM
REFERENCES
iii
iii
iii
iv
v
vi
ix
xi
1
5
6
10
17
45
47
48
49
55
56
58
60
62
iii
Go
vernan
ce Matters to
Ed
ucatio
n O
utco
mes
List of Boxes, Figures and Tables
28
31
34
35
39
7
8
19
19
20
21
22
23
37
41
47
10
11
12
13
14
15
26
29
32
36
38
40
48
49
50
51
52
54
Kabupaten Kebumen
Kabupaten Bojonegoro
Kabupaten Majene
Kabupaten Aceh Utara
Kabupaten Sleman
Education Governance Strategic Areas
ILEGI Normality Test Results
A Perfect Score on Each ILEGI Index
Average ILEGI Results Over 50 Local Governments
ILEGI Color-coded Capacity Assessment
ILEGI Results for LGs Established since Decentralization
Best and Worst Performance by Strategic Area
Correlation between Education Governance and Education Outcomes
Number of Districts Using Education Management Software
Local Budget Absorption on Education Spending (2008)
Key Signposts for Education System Performance
Indicator Aspects and Weightings
Transparency and Accountability: Indicators, Aspects and Weightings
Education Service Provision Standards: Indicators, Aspects and Weightings
Management Control Systems: Indicators, Aspects and Weightings
Management Information Systems: Indicators, Aspects and Weightings
Efficient Resource Use: Indicators, Aspects and Weightings
Aggregated Indicator Scores: Transparency and Accountability
Aggregated Indicator Scores: Education Service Provision Standards
Aggregated Indicator Scores: Management Control Systems
Aggregated Indicator Scores: Management Information Systems
LG Use of Education Management Software
Aggregated Indicator Scores: Efficient Resource Use
Recommendations for Reform: Central Government
Recommendations for LG Reform: Transparency and Accountability
Recommendations for LG Reform: Education Service Provision Standards
Recommendations for LG Reform: Management Control Systems
Recommendations for LG Reform: Management Information Systems
Recommendations for LG Reform: Efficient Resource Use
Box 3.1
Box 3.2
Box 3.3
Box 3.4
Box 3.5
Figure 1.1
Figure 2.1
Figure 3.1
Figure 3.2
Figure 3.3
Figure 3.4
Figure 3.5
Figure 3.6
Figure 3.7
Figure 3.8
Figure 4.1
Table 2.1
Table 2. 2
Table 2.3
Table 2.4
Table 2.5
Table 2.6
Table 3.1
Table 3.2
Table 3.3
Table 3.4
Table 3.5
Table 3.6
Table 4.1
Table 4.2
Table 4.3
Table 4.4
Table 4.5
Table 4.6
Go
vernan
ce Matters to
Ed
ucatio
n O
utco
mes
iv
Foreword
Starting in 2008, the Basic Education Capacity Trust Fund conducted a Local Education
Governance Index survey in 50 districts in 9 provinces in Indonesia. The survey focused
on 5 strategic areas which together encompass education governance: Education
Service Provision Standards; Efficient Resource Use; Management Control Systems;
Transparency and Accountability; Management Information Systems.
This study generated Local Government Education Governance Score Cards for each
district. These Score Cards help districts to identify the areas that they need to work
on. The Local Education Governance Indicator is an important tool for self-reflection,
and not a competition between districts, as each district in the survey has very different
challenges and contexts. Since the Score Cards were developed in 2009, the BEC-TF
districts have prepared Capacity Development Plans to improve their capacity in the 5
strategic areas.
The Basic Education Capacity Trust Fund is now providing technical assistance and
grants to these 50 districts so that they can improve their education governance and
therefore provide better education services to the public. Progress will be measured
periodically through the BEC-TF project using the Local Education Governance Index
survey, thereby giving a useful map of performance and improvement in each district
over time.
We hope that all 50 districts under the Basic Education Capacity Trust Fund have
already started to improve their capacity in education governance, so that schools and
communities can benefit from better education services in the future. We hope that
other districts will also make use of this instrument and the lessons learned from the
survey. As this report concludes, governance does matter to education outcomes.
Didik Suhardi
Director of Junior Secondary Education
Directorate General for Managing Basic Education , Ministry of National Education
Jakarta, December 3, 2010
v
Go
vernan
ce Matters to
Ed
ucatio
n O
utco
mes
Acknowledgments
This publication was prepared in consultation with the Government of Indonesia’s
Ministry of National Education Basic Education Capacity Trust Fund (BEC-TF) Secretariat
in the Directorate General of Primary and Secondary Education. The team would like to
thank the Mayors, District Education Heads and staff of the 50 BEC-TF regions surveyed
for their support during the local government assessment process.
The World Bank team was led by Jessica Ludwig-Maaroof supported by Syarif Syahrial
and Richard Paulsen. Sheila Town provided overall oversight and supervision. Andrew
Ragatz, Wolfgang Fengler, Asmeen Khan, Sheldon Shaeffer and Adrianus Hendrawan
provided valuable input. Prima Setiawan and Ferdy Rondonuwu supported survey
preparation and piloting. Surveymeter conducted the field survey. Sukmawah Yuningsih
and Imam Setiawan assisted in data analysis. Yvonne Trethewey and Chris Stewart
edited the document. Gedsiri Suhartono, Sharon Lumbantobing, Santi Santobri and
Dyah K. Nugraheni pepared the report for publication . Edwin Pieroelie worked with the
World Bank Indonesia Education Team to prepare the video documentary.
Go
vernan
ce Matters to
Ed
ucatio
n O
utco
mes
vi
Executive Summary
THE STUDY
‘Governance Matters to Education
Outcomes’ is a capacity assessment
study conducted in 2009 of 50 Basic
Education Capacity-Trust Fund (BEC-TF)
targeted local governments. It provides
an analysis of education governance
performance indexed according to
BEC-TF derived indicators. Findings
highlight the strong relationship
between governance and improved
educational outcomes and inform
recommendations for a roadmap
to education policy reform in local
government.
vii
Go
vernan
ce Matters to
Ed
ucatio
n O
utco
mes
THE CONTEXT
In 2001, decentralization in Indonesia transferred
substantial functional responsibility and fiscal
resources to sub-national governments for education
service provision. In the education sector the central
government, through the Ministry of National Education
(MoNE) and the Ministry of Religious Affairs (MoRA),
maintains responsibility for education policy and
education standards. Minimum Service Standards (MSS)
govern the sector with National Education Standards
(NES) providing the curriculum foundation for academic
content and graduate competencies.
The management of education service provision in public
schools is the responsibility of local government; that
of public religious schools is the responsibility of MoRA
in each region. As mandated by Law No. 20, 2003, the
provision of education services based on School-Based
Management (SBM) approaches is the responsibility of
schools and the community. In 2005, a School Operational
Funding subsidy (Bantuan Operasional Sekolah - BOS)
was introduced to cement SBM and parental involvement
within a framework of quality 9-year compulsory
education. BOS block grants are centrally disbursed
to schools on a per-student formula which provides
incentives to headmasters and teachers to maintain
and increase enrollment. In 2011, these funds will
be disbursed and managed at the local government
(LG) level.
MoNE recognizes that governance matters to education
service provision and improved educational outcomes.
Through the Basic Education Capacity Trust Fund (BEC-
TF), MoNE supports the Government of Indonesia (GoI)
in achieving Millennium Development and Education
for All goals. The BEC-TF, funded by the Netherlands
Government and the European Commission, provides
capacity development support to 50 targeted LGs -- with
education governance central to activities undertaken
that are unique to each LG context or situation.
THE STUDY DESIGN
In a decentralized landscape, it is critical to access
reliable, comprehensive and systematic information
about performance and improvement in education
governance and service delivery. Whilst various
diagnostic tools and indices exist, these provide
generalized information -- insufficient for measuring
performance and ongoing improvement in education
management and service delivery at the LG level.
Through the BEC-TF, a LG capacity assessment (LGCA)
tool and an Indonesia Local Education Governance Index
(ILEGI) were designed to provide a coherent national
monitoring and evaluation system of performance
in education governance and service provision in the
decentralized environment. These customized diagnostic
tools are composed of sub-indices that capture key
output-level dimensions of education governance
within five strategic areas derived from the design
features of the BEC-TF program. These are Management
Control Systems, Management Information Systems,
Education Service Provision Standards, Transparency
and Accountability and Efficient Resource Use. For
each strategic area, a set of indicators and variables
were developed and agreed upon in a series of national
consultations and pilot activities with MoNE and
targeted local governments.
Go
vernan
ce Matters to
Ed
ucatio
n O
utco
mes
viii
THE ANALYSIS: A Local Government Education Governance Report Card
The LGCA results were used to construct an index
of results in the form of the Indonesia Education
Governance Index (ILEGI) and to provide individualized
local government report cards.
Primary findings confirmed that governance matters
to education outcomes. Analysis of LGCA primary and
secondary data showed a statistically significant positive
correlation between net enrollment rates for primary and
junior secondary schools and national exam performance
at the local level and the education governance areas
indexed in the ILEGI. Apart from rare examples of creative
thinking about education service delivery improvement,
it was clear that prevailing local government bureaucratic
systems stifle innovation and reform and do not
incentivize performance nor encourage transparency
and accountability.
Analysis also revealed wide differences in local
government service delivery. Of the 50 local governments
surveyed, only 6% achieved a high ranking for education
governance across the five strategic areas; 54% achieved
medium ranking; and 40% were ranked low. This raised
concerns about existing practices associated with the
equitable and transparent use of funds in the sector; the
uneven distribution of learning opportunities; gaps in
community engagement; the quality of instruction; and,
the use of reliable data to deploy teachers and manage
their professional development.
THE ROADMAP TO REFORM
The education system plays a key role in supporting
Indonesia’s successful transition to a competitive
middle-income country -- preparing its citizens with
the necessary education and technical skills to
accelerate economic growth, reduce poverty and spur
innovation through competition. Findings reinforced
that the major challenge will be to ensure ongoing
capacity development and institutional strengthening
in education service provision, management and
governance.
Key signposts for better performing education
systems are identified as Education Standards and
Quality Assurance Systems; Benchmarking and Clear
Expectations; and, Sufficient Funding, Facilities and
Other Resources. They link quantitative results with
qualitative insights based on commonalities between
high performing and rapidly improving education
systems – focusing on issues that transcend cultural
and socio-economic characteristics and seek to foster
flexible, performance-oriented reform strategies. Study
recommendations are intended to guide central and
local government during capacity development and
improvement planning and are categorized according to
these signposts.
ix
Go
vernan
ce Matters to
Ed
ucatio
n O
utco
mes
ABBREVIATION INDONESIAN ENGLISH
BAPPEDABadan Perencanaan Pembangunan
Daerah
Regional Body for Planning and
Development
BEC-TFProgram Pengembangan Kapasitas
Pendidikan DasarBasic Education Capacity Trust Fund
BOS Bantuan Operasional Sekolah School Operational Assistance
BOSDA Bantuan Operasional Sekolah Daerah BOS Supplementary Funding
BOS-KITA
Bantuan Operasional Sekolah –
Knowledge Improvement for
Transparency and Accountability
School Operational Assistance –
Knowledge Improvement for
Transparency and Accountability
BPK Badan Pemeriksa Keuangan Supreme Audit Agency
CDP Rencana Pengembangan Kapasitas Capacity Development Plan
DAU Dana Alokasi Umum General Allocation Fund
DG-PSEDirektorat Jenderal Manajemen
Pendidikan Dasar dan Menengah
Directorate General of Primary and
Secondary Education
DISPORA Dinas Kepemudaan dan OlahragaLocal Education Agency (Youth and
Sports Office)
DPKKDDinas Pengelolaan Keuangan dan
Kekayaan Daerah
Office of Financial Management and
Regional Property
DPRD Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Daerah Regional Legislative Councils
EPEA/ABPP Analisis Belanja Publik Pendidikan Education Public Expenditure Analysis
Eur Euro Euro
GDS 2/SDK Survei Desentralisasi Kepemerintahan Governance Decentralization Survey
GIS Sistem Informasi Geografis Geographic Information System
GMPP Gerakan Masyarakat Peduli PendidikanCommunity Movement for the Betterment
of Education
GoI Pemerintah Republik Indonesia Government of Indonesia
HDI/IPM Indeks Pengembangan Manusia Human Development Index
ILEGIIndeks Tata Kelola Pendidikan
Pemerintah Daerah
Indonesia Local Education Governance
Index
JARDIKNAS Jaringan Pendidikan Nasional National Education Network
KORCAM Koordinator Kecamatan Sub-District Coordinator
KPA Komite Peralihan Aceh Aceh Transition Committee
KPPODKomite Pemantauan Pelaksanaan
Otonomi DaerahRegional Autonomy Watch Committee
Glossary of Abbreviations
Go
vernan
ce Matters to
Ed
ucatio
n O
utco
mes
x
ABBREVIATION INDONESIAN ENGLISH
L-BECPengembangan Kapasitas Pendidikan
Dasar DaerahLocal Basic Education Capacity
LG Pemerintah Daerah Local Government
LGCA Asesmen Kapasitas Pemerintah Daerah Local Government Capacity Assessment
MCS Sistem Pengendalian Manajemen Management Control System
MDG Tujuan Pembangunan Milenium Millennium Development Goals
MIS Sistem Informasi Manajemen Management Information Systems
MoF/KEMENKEUKementerian Keuangan Republik
IndonesiaMinistry of Finance
MoHA/KEMENDAGRIKementerian Dalam Negeri Republik
IndonesiaMinistry of Home Affairs
MoNE/KEMDIKNAS Kementerian Pendidikan Nasional Ministry of National Education
MoU Nota Kesepahaman Memorandum of Understanding
MSS/SPM Standar Pelayanan Minimal Minimum Service Standards
MUSRENBANGMusyawarah Perencanaan
Pembangunan
Development Planning Consultative
Meeting
NES/SNP Standar Nasional Pendidikan National Education Standards
NGO/LSM Lembaga Swadaya Masyarakat Non Governmental Organization
PADATIPangkalan Data dan Informasi
Pendidikan
Educational Data and Information
Infrastructure
PAS Paket Aplikasi Sekolah School Application Package
PKPADDinas Pengelolaan Keuangan
Pendapatan dan Aset Daerah
Department of Financial, Income and Asset
Management
RKPD Rencana Kerja Pemerintah Daerah Annual Local Government Workplan
RPJMDRencana Pembangunan Jangka
Menengah DaerahRegional Medium-term Strategic Plan
SAKERNAS Survei Tenaga Kerja Nasional National Labor Force Survey
SBM Manajemen Berbasis Sekolah School-Based Management
SD Sekolah Dasar Primary School
SIKD Sistem Informasi Keuangan Daerah Regional Finance Information System
SIMDA Sistem Informasi Manajemen Daerah Regional Management Information System
SUSENAS Survei Sosial Ekonomi Nasional National Socio-economic Survey
xi
Go
vernan
ce Matters to
Ed
ucatio
n O
utco
mes
TERMS EXPLANATION
Basic Education Capacity
Trust Fund (BEC-TF)
The 2008-2012 Basic Education Capacity Trust Fund is a partnership initiative between
the Ministry of National Education, Ministry of Religious Affairs, the World Bank and
50 local governments in 9 Provinces. It uses a combination of tools and approaches
to (i) identify, prioritize, and make local budget, physical and personnel allocation
decisions; (ii) improve local governance and efficient resource use through increased
transparency, accountability, improved budget processes and performance-based
financing, improved financial management and accounting; and (iii) strengthen
capacity of existing information and performance assessment systems to improve
stakeholders’ access to accurate and timely information. It is funded by the
Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands (EUR22milllion) and the European
Commission (EUR 17 million).
Capacity Development
Plans (CDP)
Local government capacity development plans which identify education management
and governance priorities over a three- year timeframe. The plans are prepared on the
basis of LGCA results and focus on improving performance in education governance.
Color Coding
The technique used to differentiate local government performance in the five strategic
areas. Based on aggregate scores local governments are categorized as green, yellow
or red. High rankings are categorized as green and indicate a score of 60% and above;
Medium rankings are categorized yellow indicating scores of between 40 – 60%; Low
rankings are categorized red indicating scores below 40%.
Education
Decentralization
A governance strategy for large scale education reform. In a decentralized education
landscape there is a dynamic relationship between central government and the
network of provincial, regional and district education offices. Successful decentralized
education relies on local government capacity and capability to communicate and
implement education policy
Education Governance
Framework
A framework which describes the commitment, standards, processes and tools
needed to measure service delivery standards and education outcomes. It embeds
accountability, transparency and continuous improvement within a legal, political and
policy environment unique to each local government.
Education Minimum
Service Standards (MSS)Refer MSS
Education Service
Provision Standards
Standards for service provision which are shaped by the MSS and good practices in the
education sector.
Glossary of Terms
Go
vernan
ce Matters to
Ed
ucatio
n O
utco
mes
xii
TERMS EXPLANATION
Education Public
Expenditure Analysis (EPEA)
The analysis of planning and budgeting processes, structures, revenues and
expenditures using a mapping process. It uses an analytical lens to map spending
flows and the impact of past resource allocation decisions. The process highlights
issues and concerns about education planning, budgeting and expenditure; provides
credible analysis to influence district education policy; involves stakeholders and the
wider community in decisions about education expenditure.
Efficient Resource Use
Planning, budgeting and monitoring systems and procedures in place at local
government level to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of budget planning and
resource use with regard to development priorities.
Gender Mainstreaming
The public policy concept of assessing the different implications of planned actions
for women and men, girls and boys. Gender perspectives should be central to all
activities - policy development, advocacy, legislation, resource allocation, planning,
monitoring, and evaluation of programs and projects. Mainstreaming is not an end in
itself but approach to achieve the goal of gender equality. GoI regulations concerning
gender include UUD 1945 Ps 27, 28, 31; National Education System Law UU No 20/2003;
Medium Term Development Plan RPJMN 2009-14; Inpres No 9/2000; Permendagri
No.15/2008; Permendiknas No 84/2008
Indonesia Local Education
Governance Index (ILEGI)
An index/diagnostic tool which presents a ‘color-coded’ performance overview
based on averages of five key output-level dimensions of local education governance
identified as priorities under the BEC-TF. The index is constructed on the basis of LGCA
results and serves to:
• provide central and local-level policy makers, development partners and
communities with an approach to collecting systematic and comparable information
about local government education governance strengths and weaknesses;
• stimulate policy debate through benchmarking performance against peers --
identifying potential challenges, lessons learned and good practices;
• support the development of coherent national monitoring and evaluation
of education governance and service provision in a decentralized education
environment.
Local Basic Education
Capacity Grant (L-BEC)
A grant of IDR2.5billion over a three-year period made to each BEC-TF local
government partner on the basis of approved capacity development plans (CDP).
Local Government (LG) District and municipal level government
xiii
Go
vernan
ce Matters to
Ed
ucatio
n O
utco
mes
TERMS EXPLANATION
Local Government Capacity
Assessment (LGCA)
A capacity assessment and diagnostic tool designed to measure local government
performance against five identified strategic areas of education governance under
the BEC-TF. It provides a ‘snapshot’ of overall performance and capacity which enables
local governments to identify areas for improvement based on identified strengths
and weaknesses. With its ability to provide time-series and comparative analyses it
is one of the first integrated survey instruments used in the Indonesian education
sector. It plays a vital role in determining capacity building priorities and the
allocation of L-BEC capacity building grants (CDP).
Note: The ILEGI is constructed on the basis of LGCA results.
Local Government Report
Cards
Individualized aggregated and disaggregated reports provided to local governments
participating in the LGCA process with recommendations for reform and
improvement.
Management Control
Systems (MCS)
The management control systems in place at local government level to improve
incentive systems and the governance of procurement and asset management.
Management Information
Systems (MIS)
Data collection, management, secure storage, analysis and decision-making processes
that ensure education planning and budget allocations are determined on the basis
of quality information.
Minimum Service Standards
(MSS) for Basic Education
Minimum service standards which govern the education sector, developed by MoNE
and MoHA. They are under the authority and responsibility of local governments and
serve as benchmarks for basic education services.
MUSRENBANGThe standardized planning process that all local governments are required by law to
undertake on an annual basis.
National Education
Standards (NES)
National standards which provide the curriculum foundation for academic content
and graduate competencies.
Reform Roadmap
Recommendations to improve educational management and governance based
on local government education system performance measurement and analysis
– benchmarked against international best practice and strongly performing
participating local governments.
Spider Web
A graphic representation of the strengths and weaknesses of local governments
as they relate to the five strategic areas of education governance – in the form of a
spider web diagram.
Go
vernan
ce Matters to
Ed
ucatio
n O
utco
mes
xiv
TERMS EXPLANATION
Strategic Areas of
Education Governance
Five key education governance indicators derived from the design features of the BEC-
TF program: Transparency and Accountability; Education Service Provision Standards;
Management Control Systems; Management Information Systems; Efficient Resource
Use. Each strategic area comprises a set of indicators with a sub-set of variables with
output level dimensions.
Transparency and
Accountability
The practices and regulatory efforts made by local government to enable transparent
and accountable governance in education service delivery and expenditure for its
constituents.
Tool for Reporting and
Information Management
(TRIMS)
A simple Excel-based tool to empower schools to make use of their own data in
planning and budgeting by generating accurate information for aggregation and
submission to local governments. It improves data collection, processing, reporting
speed and usage. A version of the tool has also been created for use by Districts. It
does not replace but strengthens PAS and PADATI, as well as existing GoI education
management and information systems. The tool will be introduced to schools
nationwide as part of the BOS training program commencing in March 2011.
Wajib Belajar 9 Tahun/
WajarNine year compulsory Basic Education Program
“...Decentralization and autonomy is aimed at establishing a closer relationship between government and the people. Through this, the government will be able to provide better services and satisfy community needs in better, faster and more appropriate ways…” President Susilo Bambang YudhoyonoAddress to the plenary session of the People’s Consultative Assembly on Regional Development Policy (23 August 2005)
In decentralized Indonesia, how do we know
that these expectations are being met?
Photo: Marbawi
Section 1
Assessing and Monitoring Decentralized Education – The Context
1
Section
1: Assessin
g an
d M
on
itorin
g D
ecentralized
Ed
ucatio
n – Th
e Co
ntext
Go
vernan
ce Matters to
Ed
ucatio
n O
utco
mes
2
SECTION ONE: ASSESSING AND MONITORING DECENTRALIZED EDUCATION – THE CONTEXT
Decentralization in Indonesia in 2001
transferred sizeable service delivery
responsibilities and fiscal resources to sub-
national governments.
Decentralization
Decentralization in Indonesia in 2001 transferred sizeable service delivery
responsibilities and fiscal resources to sub-national governments. The Ministry of
Finance (MoF) estimated that in 2009 approximately 65% of Indonesia’s national budget
was channeled to the sub-national level (MoF: 2009). There are indications, however,
that these abundant financial resources have not produced effective service delivery
nor quality educational outcomes. Many local governments (LGs) lack the financial
management technical capacity necessary to manage increased fiscal resources and
responsibilities. Access to reliable quantitative and qualitative sub-national information
is essential in a decentralized environment. Interestingly, despite a ‘big-bang’ approach
to decentralization, there is no nation-wide, systematic monitoring and evaluation of
performance. Although an enacting regulation (No. 6/2008), issued by the Ministry of
Home Affairs (MoHA) exists, it remains in pilot stage.
Responding to these challenges and lack of information about education governance
capacity at the LG level, the Ministry of National Education (MoNE), through the Basic
Education Capacity Trust Fund (BEC-TF) designed a program that puts education
governance at the center of its capacity-building efforts for 50 LGs across Indonesia.
The BEC-TF aims to help the Government of Indonesia (GoI) to achieve the Millennium
Development and Education for All Goals by supporting good governance in the
education sector. Funded by the Netherlands Government (EUR 22 million) and the
European Commission (EUR 17 million), the BEC-TF is administered by the World Bank
and implemented by MoNE to assist LG partners to increase their overall governance
capacity1 through targeted capacity development planning and improvement.
(1) The BEC-TF runs from 2008 – 2012 and will serve 50 local government partners in nine provinces. It uses a combination of tools
and approaches, such as Local Government Capacity Assessments (LGCA), Capacity Development Plans (CDPs), Local Basic Education
Capacity (L-BEC) Grants, and Education Public Expenditure Analysis (EPEA) to: (i) identify, prioritize, and make local budget, physical,
and personnel allocation decisions; (ii) improve local governance and efficient resource use through increased transparency,
accountability, improved budget processes and performance-based financing, improved financial management and accounting; and
(iii) strengthen capacity of existing information and performance assessment systems to improve stakeholders’ access to accurate
and timely information. Fifty local government partners will each receive a Local Basic Education Capacity (L-BEC) grant totaling Rp
2.5 billion over three years to help them implement their CDP for the Education Sector.
3
Section
1: Assessin
g an
d M
on
itorin
g D
ecentralized
Ed
ucatio
n – Th
e Co
ntext
Education Governance: Assessment & Monitoring
Globally, diagnostic tools and indices to assess
performance are available within a large range of
development topics. Assessment tools and indices, such
as the Corruption Perception Index, Doing Business, the
World Governance Assessment and the Bertelsmann
Transformation Index, have attracted international
interest as they provide unique perspectives on the
dynamics of reform and development with systematic
and comparable information disaggregated for policy
dialogue and capacity development purposes. In an
aggregated manner, they also provide a snapshot of
current performance and capacity – highlighting areas
that require attention and improvement.
Although these international rankings and assessments
are of use in general terms, they do not provide the
level of information necessary to support LGs to
develop targeted approaches to education system
performance improvement. Examples include the
Regional Autonomy Watch Committee’s (KPPOD)
Perception-based Investment Climate Survey which
focuses on the economic governance aspects of
more than 200 LGs; the Java Pos Pro-Autonomy Award
which focuses on LGs in East Java and selected LGs in
Kalimantan; the Partnership for Governance Reform
which has introduced the Partnership Governance
Index at the provincial level; and the Governance and
Decentralization Survey (GDS 2) of 140 LGs conducted in
2006. Whilst some local level information on education
outcomes is available across the country, there are few
assessment mechanisms to determine local governance
performance. Those that exist are neither sufficiently
comprehensive nor systematic to provide the level of
information required to assess and index LG education
governance performance and enable LGs to plan strategic
performance improvement.
The BEC-TF’s education governance framework sets
out standards, inputs, processes, outcomes and
tools needed to help guide and monitor service
delivery. It embeds accountability, transparency and
continuous improvement to support the provision
of quality education. The customized diagnostic
tools – the LGCA and ILEGI -- developed under BEC-
TF provide a mechanism for nation-wide systematic
and comprehensive monitoring and evaluation of
performance --at LG and local education office levels.
The LGCA and the ILEGI are composed of sub-indices
for each strategic area which are comprised of sets
of indicators, with subsets of variables derived from
the design features of the BEC-TF program. The tools
are intended to facilitate and drive governance
reforms based on short- and medium-term process
and output-level governance dimensions which are
directly influenced by the actions and behaviors of LG
officials. They are not designed to measure all aspects
of education governance nor generate information to
guide improvement in public financial management
systems, school operations, teacher performance or
classroom practices. Rather, they measure localized
LG practices and systems in the governance and
management of the sector, allowing for comparisons
across other LGs. LGs are exposed to public scrutiny
and compared with their peers – a known incentive
for performance improvement. These results provide
a unique basis to link quantitative results with
qualitative insights and to foster the development
of flexible, performance-oriented reform strategies
which meet the educational challenges facing each
LG and the schools and communities it serves –
selectively applying good practices without adopting
a ‘one-size-fits-all’ top-down solution. The tools are
described in more detail in Section 2.
Photo: M. Wildan
Diagnosing Local Government Performance – The Study
Section 2
5
Section
2: Diag
no
sing
Local G
overn
men
t Perfo
rman
ce – The Stu
dy
Go
vernan
ce Matters to
Ed
ucatio
n O
utco
mes
6
SECTION TWO: DIAGNOSING LOCAL GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE – THE STUDY
Governance Matters to Education Outcomes is
a capacity assessment study conducted in 2009
of 50 BEC-TF targeted LGs. It provides an analysis
of education governance performance indexed
according to BEC-TF derived indicators.
Study Design
In a decentralized landscape it is critical to access reliable, comprehensive and
systematic information about performance and improvement in education governance
and service delivery. Whilst various diagnostic tools and indices exist, these provide
generalized national level information -- insufficient for measuring performance and
ongoing improvements in education management and service delivery at LG level.
Through the BEC-TF, customized diagnostic tools -- the LGCA tool and the ILEGI -- were
developed to provide a coherent approach for monitoring and evaluating performance
in decentralized education governance and education service provision. The five key
areas identified as central to strategic education governance are: Management Control
Systems, Management Information Systems, Education Service Provision Standards,
Transparency and Accountability and Efficient Resource Use are derived from the
design features of the BEC-TF. The World Bank BEC-TF team provided leadership in
the development of relevant indicators for these tools which are designed to capture
different elements of governance – short and medium-term – that are under the
authority and sphere of influence of the LG. In determining and selecting indicators,
relevance was balanced with data availability and manageability. Each represents
a mixture of input, process and output indicators. During a series of national
consultations with MoNE and selected LGs during the period December 2008 – February
2009 the tools and indicators were reviewed and confirmed as representative of
education governance performance expectations.
Objectives
The overall objectives of this study were:
• To assess the capacity of 50 targeted LGs with regard to performance in five key
strategic areas of education governance: Transparency and Accountability; Education
Service Provision Standards; Management Control Systems; Management Information
Systems; and, Efficient Resource Use.
7
Section
2: Diag
no
sing
Local G
overn
men
t Perfo
rman
ce – The Stu
dy
• To analyze the education governance performance
of targeted LGs and highlight areas for improvement
compared with districts possessing similar geographic
and/or socio-economic characteristics.
• To provide recommendations to LG leaders2 to guide
the development of education policy reform based on
the correlation between education governance and
education outcomes.
Methodology
A field survey to assess the education governance
capacity of the 50 participating districts was identified
as the most appropriate research approach for the study.
The LGCA was designed for this purpose.
The Local Government Capacity Assessment (LGCA) tool
The LGCA is a customized capacity assessment tool
designed to measure LG performance against the five
BEC-TF identified strategic areas of education governance.
The LGCA was used to survey participating LGs during
structured interviews, focus group discussions, and in
the collection of primary data. It provided a ‘snap-shot’
of overall performance and capacity to enable LGs to
identify areas for improvement based on identified
strengths and weaknesses. With its ability to provide
time-series and comparative analyses, it is one of the first
integrated survey instruments used in the Indonesian
education sector. It plays a vital role in the facilitation of
LGs to determine capacity building priorities and capacity
development plans (CDPs).
EducationGovernance
Figure 1.1 Education Governance Strategic Areas
(2) Additional recommendations for the central government emerged during the study. These are described in Section 4.
Transparency and
Accountability
EducationService
ProvisionStandards
ManagementControlSystems
ManagementInformation
Systems
EfficientResource
Use
Go
vernan
ce Matters to
Ed
ucatio
n O
utco
mes
8
The Indonesia Local Education Governance Index (ILEGI)
The ILEGI was designed as the diagnostic tool to index
performance and was constructed on the basis of LGCA
results. It presents a ‘color-coded’ performance overview
based on the averages of five key output-level dimensions
(Figure 1.1) of local education governance identified as
priorities under the BEC-TF. It serves to:
• Provide central and local-level policy makers,
development partners and communities with an
approach for collecting systematic and comparable
information about LG education governance strengths
and weaknesses.
• Stimulate policy debate through benchmarking
performance against peers, identify potential
challenges and lessons learned and highlight good
practices.
• Support the development of coherent national
monitoring and evaluation of education governance
and service provision in a decentralized education
environment.
Verifying the LGCA as a Suitable Tool
To verify the validity and sensitivity of the LGCA
assessment tool, a normality test was conducted. The
Jarque-Bera statistics test was used to assess if variables
were normally distributed and measured the difference
between the skewness and kurtosis of variables, against
those from a normal distribution. This is computed as:
Where S is the skewness, K is the kurtosis: k represents
the number of estimated co-efficients used to create
the variable. Under the null hypothesis of a normal
distribution, the Jarque-Bera statistic is distributed as
chi-square distribution with two degrees of freedom.
The reported probability is that a Jarque-Bera statistic
exceeds (in absolute value) the observed value under
the null—a small probability value leads to the rejection
of the null hypothesis of a normal distribution.3 The
normality test shown below in Figure 2.1 indicates that
the ILEGI is distributed normally with no strong statistical
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Series
Sample
Observations
Mean
Median
Maximum
Minimum
Std. Dev.
Skewness
Kurtosis
Jarque - Bera
Probability
ILEGI
150
50
0.428438
0.443297
0.619572
0.190785
0.122926
-0.300288
2134234
2313005
0.314584
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Figure 2.1 ILEGI Normality Test Results
(3) SMERU, 2009: EViews User’s Guide.
9
Section
2: Diag
no
sing
Local G
overn
men
t Perfo
rman
ce – The Stu
dy
proof to reject a null hypothesis. The test validated the
LGCA as the survey instrument and confirmed it as a
useful instrument to assess local education governance
performance through its ability to provide an indication
of differentiation between evaluated objects that can be
influenced and implemented by local level leaders.
The calculation of ILEGI primary data is predominantly
quantitative, but some qualitative elements are included.
These enrich the interpretation of results and generate
insights into the LG education governance situation
across performance, process and regulatory aspects to
enable horizontal and vertical comparison.
Measuring Composite Achievement
The ILEGI represents more than the sum of its individual
parts as it captures overall achievement in each of the
five strategic areas, providing a performance snapshot
based on averages. While each strategic areas is equally
important, what ultimately matters is progress on all
fronts. Each strategic area is equally weighted in the
overall index with the ILEGI for a particular LG expressed
as the arithmetic mean of observed values for each
strategic area. The performance of each strategic area is
determined by multiplying the weight and the assigned
value for each indicator.
The ILEGI consists of Individual indicators and variables
– the LGCA primary units. Data is disaggregated by
strategic area, and analyzed down to the indicator level
to allow for detailed analysis and interpretation which
ultimately determines the overall capacity assessment.
A careful examination of each LG’s scores exposes both
weaknesses and strengths. Indexing enables local
leaders and policy makers to better identify governance
strengths and weaknesses and to benchmark results
and stimulate debate about policy. The results can help
LGs to prioritize and categorize capacity development
programming and formulate capacity development
plans funded under the BEC-TF granting mechanism –
extending the ILEGI’s function beyond a simple diagnostic
instrument. The weakest areas identified through the
scoring mechanism should be of primary consideration
in the identification of capacity development planning
priorities and activities designed to improve performance
and future scoring.
The Data Collection Process
The LGCA survey was conducted by Surveymeter,
an Indonesian survey firm using groups of local
enumerators. Enumerators participated in a week
of training to facilitate consistency in the use of the
tool and reduce perception bias. The field survey was
conducted from March through May 2009.Training and
guidance for enumerators was provided by education
management and public financial management experts,
with oversight provided by the World Bank. Methodology
included structured interviews, focus group discussions
and primary data collection. Survey data was subjected to
numerous tests to ensure findings were robust. Technical
experts controlled the quality of the data collection
process and tested data; supervised the data entry
and cleaning process; and provided back-up support to
enumerator teams.
Survey distribution
Enumerator teams spent four to five days in each LG
location, typically conducting interviews and focus
group discussions with LG officials from relevant office
units such as: Education; Legal; Local Planning Board;
Finance/Asset Management and Revenue; Internal Audit
Agency; Department of Religious Affairs; Local Planning
Board: and, the LG Secretariat. A total of 1,189 people
participated.
Limitations of the Methodology
It should be noted that as a simple average, the ILEGI
has the potential to mask important variations between
strategic areas, reinforcing the need to consider the
score in the context of performance. Generally there is a
known lack of local level disaggregated data, especially
in the governance area. Although human development
outcomes are captured in the Survei Tenaga Kerja
Nasional (SAKERNAS) and Survei Sosial Ekonomi Nasional
(SUSENAS) and financial data is available in MoF’s Sistem
Informasi Keuangan Daerah (SIKD) system, process and
output level data is considered practically nonexistent.
Limitations to consider when interpreting data include:
• The ILEGI is not designed to provide an exhaustive
assessment of education governance. It examines
specific process and output level aspects derived from
the key design elements of the BEC-TF project.
Go
vernan
ce Matters to
Ed
ucatio
n O
utco
mes
10
• All data collected is at LG level due to time and cost
constraints. School-level information is not covered in
the ILEGI.
• The lack of sufficient and available raw data did not
enable in-depth analysis.
• Standardized case-studies do not represent all
education governance issues faced by profiled LGs.
Examples used refer to particular sets of issues relevant
to high scoring strategic areas.
• There is a possibility of perception bias. Although the
survey mainly covers objective information and hard
data with enumerators trained to ensure comparability
across regions, the potential for a degree of perception
bias should be taken into account.
Indicators
To be able to compare LGs on an equal basis, five
components of education governance and performance
were identified to capture the strategic elements of
performance under the authority and sphere of influence
of each LG. These were derived from the design elements
of the BEC-TF’s education governance framework.
Relevance was balanced with data availability and
manageability. The LG regulatory framework and
instances of known good practice were used to guide
input, process and output indicator selection. Relevant
indicators for Efficient Resource Use, Transparency and
Accountability and Management Control Systems were
adapted from the Local Government Public Financial
Management Measurement Framework – jointly
developed by MoHA and the World Bank.
The World Bank provided leadership in the development
of indicators and questionnaires, in close consultation
with external education and public financial
management experts. Data-sets for a total of sixty-six
indicators across the five strategic areas were identified.
These were validated in a series of national consultations
and piloting activities with the World Bank, MoNE and
selected LGs followed by focus group discussions with
LG officials during the period December 2008 through
February 2009.
ASPECT EXPERT CHOICE WEIGHT
Regulation 13 17%
Process 2 33%
Performance 3 50%
Table 2.1 Indicator Aspects and Weightings
The analytical hierarchy and assigned indicator
weightings were determined through expert choice.
Strategic areas were weighted equally, but indicators
were grouped and weighted according to aspects relating
to performance, process and regulation. Table 2.1 shows
that the lowest weighting of 17% was assigned to
indicators that measure regulatory compliance; process
indicators were weighted as 33%; performance indicators
were weighted as 50%.
Based on this weighting approach, a scoring and report
card system was developed to measure LG performance
horizontally and vertically. LGs were scored by strategic
area and aggregate levels compared longitudinally
against other LGs. Aggregate scores were constructed on
the basis of scoring for each of the five strategic areas.
High performing (indicated in green) LGs were those
with aggregate scores above 60%; medium performing
(indicated in yellow) LGs were those with scores between
40-60%; low-performing (indicated in red) LGs had
aggregate scores that were below 40%.
11
Section
2: Diag
no
sing
Local G
overn
men
t Perfo
rman
ce – The Stu
dy
Transparency and Accountability
The practices and regulatory efforts made by local government to enable transparent and accountable
governance in education service delivery and expenditure for its constituents.
With ongoing democratic reform in Indonesia, transparency and accountability is of particular importance in
demonstrating the commitment to implementation of good governance. Indicators for this strategic area measure
good practice related to regulatory compliance on two levels. The first level focuses on education-specific activities
and the second to LG level efforts which demonstrate transparency and accountability. The indicators, aspects and
assigned weightings are detailed in Table 2.2.
INDICATORS ASPECT WEIGHT
1Financial reports are publicized in the local mass media, on an official announcement board, or through a website.
Performance 50%
2Community is able to attend local parliament session discussing the accountability and BPK audit reports.
Performance 50%
3 The Education Council is involved in the compilation of Renstra (Strategic Planning). Performance 50%
4 Local legislation on transparency exists. Performance 50%
5 Local legislation on public participation exists. Performance 50%
6 The public has access to budget sessions in the local parliament. Performance 50%
7 The accountability report discussion in the local parliament is open to the public Performance 50%
8 Community is involved in monitoring and evaluating education activities. Process 33%
9Education unit is producing progress reports on planned activities and realization, including budget.
Regulation 17%
10There are mechanisms in place to ensure that educational stakeholders have the opportunity to participate and voice their opinions regarding the evaluation of the local government’s Education Office, schools, and the local Education Board.
Process 33%
Table 2.2 Transparency and Accountability: Indicators, Aspects and Weightings
Go
vernan
ce Matters to
Ed
ucatio
n O
utco
mes
12
Table 2.3 Education Service Provision Standards: Indicators, Aspects and Weightings
INDICATORS ASPECT WEIGHT
1Each primary school has at least 40% of teachers that have a minimum education qualification of S-1 or Diploma IV and holds a teaching certificate.
Performance 50%
2Each primary school has at least 40% of teachers that have a minimum education qualification of S-1 or Diploma IV and holds a teaching certificate in-line with the subject they teach.
Performance 50%
3At least 75% of all primary school principals have a minimum education qualification of S-1/D-IV and a teaching certificate from an accredited institution.
Performance 50%
4At least 75% of all SMP/MTs school principals have a minimum education qualification of S-1/D-IV and a teaching certificate from an accredited institution.
Performance 50%
5At least 75% of all school supervisors have a minimum education qualification of S-1/D-IV and a teaching certificate from an accredited institution.
Performance 50%
6 95% of children in the 7-12 year age group attend primary school. Performance 50%
7The primary level drop-out rate does not exceed 1% of students currently enrolled in school.
Performance 50%
8The junior secondary level drop-out rate does not exceed 1% of students currently enrolled in school.
Performance 50%
9 Average National Exam Score for Year 6 is 6.0 or higher Performance 50%
10 Average National Exam Score for Year 9 is 6.0 or higher Performance 50%
11 Transition rate from primary to junior secondary. Performance 50%
12 Transition rate from junior secondary to senior secondary. Performance 50%
13 Net Enrollment Rate. Performance 50%
14 Gender Parity: Primary and Junior Secondary. Performance 50%
15 Adult Literacy Rate. Performance 50%
Education Service Provision Standards
Standards for the provision of primary and junior secondary education.
These standards are derived from National Education Standards (NES) and Indonesia’s Education Minimum Service
Standards (MSS).4 Results can be regarded as proxy for the overall achievement of MSS and relevant elements of the
NES. The indicators, aspects and assigned weightings are detailed in Table 2.3.
(4) The eight National Education Standards are outlined in Government Regulations (Permendiknas): 1) Content - No. 22/2006, No. 22 & 23/2006; 2) Facilities and Equipment – No.
24/2007; 3) Process – No. 41/2007; 4) Evaluation – No. 20/2007; 5) Management – No. 19/2007; 6) Educator Standards – No. 13/2007, No. 16/2007, No. 27/2007, No. 12/2007, No. 24/2007, No.
25/2007; 7) Funding – Law No. 20/2003; 8) Graduate Competencies – No. 23/2007. For Basic Education Minimum Service Standards (MSS) Kepmendiknas No. 129a/2004, Permendagri
No. 6/2007, and a November 2009 draft version of the revised MSS were used. In July 2010, Education MSS were confirmed by the Minister of National Education (Law No.15/2010);
refinements do not influence indicators or their weightings. Appendix 1: Education Minimum Service Standards (MSS) provides additional information.
13
Section
2: Diag
no
sing
Local G
overn
men
t Perfo
rman
ce – The Stu
dy
Management Control Systems
The management control systems in place at local government level to improve incentive systems and the
governance of procurement and asset management.
This strategic area addresses the management control systems that are in place within the entire LG office. Systems
related to procurement, asset management and incentive systems are assessed, based on the requirements set out in
the regulatory framework for decentralized public financial management in Indonesia. For education management
issues additional indicators which address systems for managing good practice and involve civil society groups are
included. The indicators, aspects and assigned weightings are detailed in Table 2.4.
Table 2.4 Management Control Systems: Indicators, Aspects and Weightings
INDICATORS ASPECT WEIGHT
1 Goods users carry out a yearly stock inventory. Process 33%
2 A technical guideline for procurement issued by local government head exists. Regulation 17%
3The local government has an incentive-based performance management system in place for teachers based on the National Education Standards
Regulation 17%
4The local government has an incentive-based performance management system in place for school supervisors based on the National Education Standards
Regulation 17%
5Does the local government have an incentive-based performance management system in place for school principals based on the National Education Standards
Regulation 17%
6The annual local government Education Forum integrates inputs and recommendations from the annual village level and municipal level planning consultative meeting results (MUSRENBANG).
Process 33%
7The local government education office considers consolidated school level inputs through the school development planning mechanism in developing the local govern-ment Annual Education Work-plan.
Process 33%
8School Committees, local government Education Boards and Community-Based Organiza-tions actively participate in strategic educational planning processes.
Process 33%
9The local government Education Board has a clear work program and routine budget allocation in the APBD.
Regulation 17%
10Procurement bids for goods and services are planned properly to avert any accusations of breaking down into smaller packages to avoid tendering
Process 33%
11 All cash storage by working units is put into local government bank accounts Regulation 17%
12There is evidence of the existence of clear, systematic system to validate good practice (Local Regulation, Evaluation Schematic for Innovative Practice, Cataloguing and Dis-semination Procedure).
Process 33%
13Evidence of the efforts of LG to identify good practice in improving educational service provision.
Performance 50%
14There is evidence of a systematic approach to document and catalogue innovative good practice.
Performance 50%
15There is evidence of stakeholder participation in the maintenance of a network for shar-ing and disseminating good practices.
Process 33%
16The education unit head has passed an organization regulation on sectoral asset man-agement in education unit and all sub-units.
Regulation 17%
17 Local legislation on asset management exists. Regulation 17%
Go
vernan
ce Matters to
Ed
ucatio
n O
utco
mes
14
Management Information Systems
Data collection, management, secure storage, analysis and decision-making processes that ensure
education planning and budget allocations are determined on the basis of quality information.
This strategic area focuses on centrally-provided, local education office and school-level management information
systems such as the School Application Package (PAS), Educational Data and Information Infrastructure (PADATI) and
the National Education Network (JARDIKNAS).5 Decentralization has challenged LGs to establish sound management
information systems, however data collection, management and integration efforts are still ad-hoc with data
management generated manually. The indicators, aspects and assigned weightings are detailed in Table 2.5.
Table 2.5 Management Information Systems: Indicators, Aspects, Weightings
INDICATORS ASPECT WEIGHT
1. There is evidence of an existing education database at the local government level. Regulation 17%
2.There is evidence of written procedures and protocols for the scheduling and methodology of data collection, data cleaning, data submission from lower levels of the system (i.e. schools).
Regulation 17%
3. There is evidence of data spot checking systems in place. Process 33%
4.
There is evidence of the integration and use of Paket Aplikasi Sekolah - PAS, Jaringan Pendidikan Nasional - JARDIKNAS, and Pangkalan Data dan Informasi Pendidikan - PADATI within the existing management infrastructure of the education system at the local government level.
Process 33%
5. Percentage of schools that have at least one functioning computer. Performance 50%
6. Percentage of schools that have an internet connection. Performance 50%
(5) The Tool for Reporting and Information Management (TRIMS) is a simple Excel-based tool developed since the survey and prior to the publication of this study report. It
empowers schools to make use of their own data in planning and budgeting. Schools can then use the data and forward it to LGs for aggregation. This simple system intends to
assist in education governance and management by supporting school planning and education management information system needs, by generating accurate data for use by
schools and districts. TRIMS has been welcomed by the MoNE, and is being piloted in all schools in each of six districts prior to nationwide rollout , through a mass training program,
for 250,000 schools starting in 2011.
15
Section
2: Diag
no
sing
Local G
overn
men
t Perfo
rman
ce – The Stu
dy
Efficient Resource Use
Planning, budgeting and monitoring systems and procedures in place at local government level to assess
the effectiveness and efficiency of budget planning and resource use with regard to development priorities.
Efficient and equitable resource allocation and use is a major concern in the education sector. A 2007 study ‘Investing
in Indonesia’s Education at the District Level’ (World Bank, 2007) highlights that 56% of education expenditure was
spent at the sub-national level, but spending is mostly on nondiscretionary routine expenditure. It recommended that
LGs need to improve the efficiency of their spending and identify key issues within the education sector. This strategic
area assesses spending patterns, the local-level planning and budgeting processes to determine and understand
shortcomings. Resource use indicators, aspects and assigned weightings are detailed in the Table 2.6.
INDICATORS ASPECT WEIGHT
1.Tariffs for the use of assets have been updated regularly in the past three years (markets etc.)
Process 33%
2. Education council has been involved in drafting of education strategic plan. Regulation 17%
3. There is evidence of data spot checking systems in place. Regulation 17%
4.Budget priorities and ceilings are set before the budgeting process in education of-fice starts.
Regulation 17%
5. The education planning and budget calendar has been drafted. Regulation 17%
6.Education (sectoral) medium-term and annual plans include indicative budget ceil-ings and take budget limit into account.
Regulation 17%
7.Sectoral poverty alleviation programs and activities have been accommodated by local government budget team.
Regulation 17%
8. Planning and budgeting documents can easily be accessed by the community. Process 33%
9.The education unit is producing progress reports on planned activities and realiza-tion, including the budget.
Regulation 17%
10.Programs and activities in medium-term development plan can be measured quanti-tatively.
Regulation 17%
11.The difference between planned and realized expenditures was less than 10% in the last three financial years.
Performance 50%
12. Education budget absorption rate by December 2008 was 90% or more. Performance 50%
Table 2.6 Efficient Resource Use: Indicators, Aspects and Weightings
Photo: M. Wildan
Section 3
Education Governance Matters – The Analysis
17
Section
3 : Ed
ucatio
n G
overn
ance M
atters – The A
nalysis
Go
vernan
ce Matters to
Ed
ucatio
n O
utco
mes
18
SECTION THREE: EDUCATION GOVERNANCE MATTERS – THE ANALYSIS
The LGCA revealed wide differences in the
achievement of better educational outcomes
and effective educational governance
performance. Comparisons between
participating LGs highlighted considerable
variation in education systems but
demonstrated that improvement across
strategic areas of education governance impacts
on outcomes. Statistical analysis on LGCA data
and some secondary data sources showed a
statistically significant positive correlation
between the education governance areas
assessed in the ILEGI and net enrollment rates
for primary and junior secondary schools. There
was also a strong positive correlation between
the ILEGI and performance at national exams --
affirming that education governance matters to
education outcomes.
The information generated through the LGCA process is indexed in the ILEGI and
presented graphically in the form of a spider-web diagram. A representation of a perfect
score in the five strategic areas is shown in Figure 3.1
19
Section
3 : Ed
ucatio
n G
overn
ance M
atters – The A
nalysis
Figure 3.1 A Perfect Score on Each ILEGI Index
Perfect Score
EfficientResourceUse
1
4 3
2
ManagementInformationSystems
ManagementControlSystems
Education ServiceProvision Standards
TransparencyandAccountability
5
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
The average ILEGI score by strategic area for the 50 local governments surveyed is illustrated in Figure 3.2.
Figure 3.2 Average ILEGI Results Over 50 Local Governments
ManagementControlSystems
42%
33%47%
50%
43%Education ServiceProvision Standards
Transparency andAccountability
EfficientResource
Use
ManagementInformation
Systems
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Go
vernan
ce Matters to
Ed
ucatio
n O
utco
mes
20
The Score Card
The score card system measured LG performance both
horizontally and vertically.6 LGs were scored by strategic
area and aggregate levels compared longitudinally
against other LGs. These aggregated scores were
constructed on the basis of the scoring process for each
of the five strategic areas.
Figure 3.3 illustrates the geographical distribution of the
50 BEC-TF LGs, color coded according to results. ILEGI
coding designates the strongest overall performing
LGs as green. These LGs attained an aggregate score
of above 60% of an idealized maximum of 100%. LGs
coded as yellow are those with scores between 41–60%
and indicate room for improvement in a number of
indicators within strategic areas. LGs coded as red are
the weakest, scoring below 40% on the aggregated ILEGI.
Of all districts surveyed, only 6% were designated green;
54% achieved yellow status; 40% achieved red status.
Some interesting capacity clusters were revealed, such
as LGs in Java scoring substantially higher than other LGs.
Underperforming districts were predominantly found in
rural and remote parts of the country. In Kalimantan and
Papua all LGs were coded as red with the exception of
Jayapura in West Papua.7
Red = ILEGI overall score from 0 to 40%. Yellow = ILEGI overall score from 41 to 60%.
Green = ILEGI overall score more than 60%.
Figure 3.3 ILEGI Color-coded Capacity Assessment
(6) Appendix 1: BEC Local Government Scores by Strategic Area provides a detailed listing of scores for participating LGs for each strategic area.
(7) Individualized district score cards are contained within the Annex to this publication.
21
Section
3 : Ed
ucatio
n G
overn
ance M
atters – The A
nalysis
Scores for those LGs established since decentralization
clearly indicated that capacity development support
is needed if improvement is to occur in the education
sector. With the exception of Lhokseumawe with
yellow status, all are performing in the red category.
Figure 3.4 provides a graphic representation of the scores
of those LGs.
Figure 3.4 ILEGI Results for LGs Extablished Post-Decentralization
50.00%
45.00%
40.00%
35.00%
30.00%
25.00%
20.00%
15.00%
10.00%
05.00%
00.00%
AVERAGE BEC DISTRICTS
47.06%
19.08%19.08%
29.70% 29.90%30.70%31.04%
34.50% 35.65%
36.49%36.84%
PAN
IAI
PE
GU
NU
NG
AN
BIN
TAN
G
TELU
K W
ON
DAW
A
MA
MA
SA
AC
EH
BA
RAT D
AYA
NA
GA
N R
AYAN
SOR
ON
G SE
LATAN
KA
IMA
NA
KE
PU
LAU
AN
SULA
SER
UYA
N
LHO
KSE
UM
AWE
Go
vernan
ce Matters to
Ed
ucatio
n O
utco
mes
22
The ILEGI illustrated disconcerting results -- only 15 of the
50 scored above 50% across the five strategic areas. The
average ILEGI score of just 43% indicated considerable
room for improvement, even for the best LGs surveyed.
Appendix 2: BEC-TF Local Government Scores by Strategic
Area provides further details. Figure 3.5 illustrates best
and worst performance by strategic area.
90.00%
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
00.00%
TA ESS MCS EMIS ERU ILEGI
Best district: Sleman Worst District: Pegunungan Bintang Average BEC Districts
Figure 3.5 Best and Worst Performance by Strategic Area8
(8) TA: Transparency and Accountability, ESS: Education Service Standards, MCS: Management Control Systems, EMIS: Education Management Information System; ERU: Efficient
Resource Use; ILEGI: Indonesia Local Education Governance Index.
23
Section
3 : Ed
ucatio
n G
overn
ance M
atters – The A
nalysis
From weak data capacity to public financial management
systems devoid of any clear indication of strategies
used to ensure accountability or measure performance,
many LGs appeared to be ill-prepared to take on the
increasingly complex duties and responsibilities of
Indonesia’s highly decentralized basic education sector.
Performance clusters showed a significant capacity
gap between Eastern, Central and Western Indonesia
providing further evidence that capacity development
priorities should be geographically focused. Exceptions
included LGs demonstrating commitment to reform and
improvements in educational service delivery.
Correlating Education Governance with Education Outcomes
Regression results proved that education governance
was highly correlated with education outcomes.
Statistical regression analysis showed a positive,
significant correlation between education governance
and education outcomes, indicated by gross and
enrollment rates for junior secondary and net enrollment
rates for primary education. Figure 3.6 9 shows positive
slope graphs which correla ted the ILEGI and indicators of
education outcomes.
Gross Enrollment Rate Primary
The ILEGI
160
140
120
100
8010 40 7020 5030 60
The ILEGI
Gross Enrollment Rate Junior Primary
200
150
100
50
010 40 7020 5030 60
The ILEGI
Net Enrollment Rate Primary
160
140
120
100
8010 40 7020 5030 60
The ILEGI
Net Enrollment Rate Junior Primary
200
150
100
50
010 40 7020 5030 60
(9) It does not include gross enrollment rates for primary education as the relationship with the ILEGI is not statistically significant, as shown by the horizontal line.
Figure 3.6 Correlation between Education Governance and Education Outcomes
Go
vernan
ce Matters to
Ed
ucatio
n O
utco
mes
24
Female students and teacher ratios were positively
correlated with education outcomes and education
governance but causes were considered as not gender
related. The ratio of female students to the total number
of elementary school students (SD/MI) was shown to have
a positive and significant correlation (level of significance
10%) with education outcomes (net enrollment rate of
elementary schools) and education governance (ILEGI).
The ratio of female students to the total number of junior
secondary school students (SMP/MTs) was shown to have
a positive and significant correlation with education
outcomes (net enrollment rate of junior secondary
schools) and education governance (ILEGI). The ratio of
female teachers to the total number of elementary school
teachers (SD/MI) correlated positively and significantly
with education outcomes (net enrollment rate of
elementary schools) but did not correlate significantly
with education governance (ILEGI). The ratio of female
teachers to the total number of junior secondary school
teachers (SMP/MTs) did not correlate significantly with
education governance (ILEGI) and did not correlate
significantly with education outcomes (net enrolment
rate of junior secondary schools).
The ILEGI results illustrated that the challenge of
achieving a high, socially equitable distribution of
learning opportunities can be successfully addressed if
there is sufficient political will. Across the LGs surveyed,
including Aceh, Java, and Papua – there were instances
where LG leadership enabled innovation and attainable
continuous improvement in the sector at the local level.
Examples10 of this include Bojonegoro’s innovations in
transparency and accountability; Majene’s approach to
management control practices; Aceh Utara’s approach
to public involvement in the education process; and,
Sleman’s approach to collecting reliable data to monitor
school operations and providing funding under BOS
Supplementary Funding (BOSDA) as a supplement to the
operational funding provided through BOS. In addition
most schools had functioning school committees with
increased responsibility for participatory school based
management and governance as a result of the increased
focus on parent and community involvement in school
decision making through the BOS program.
Since decentralization, LG education offices have been
required to produce progress reports that specifically
demonstrate planned and achieved/realized outputs by
budget line item. Increasingly LG planning and budgeting
documents generally incorporated the issue of teacher
certification and deployment and, transition rates. As
well, some established their education budgets on the
basis of student unit cost ratios -- often the precursor
towards more responsive, student-based allocation
patterns and focused accountability frameworks.
Problems still existed however in sharing this
information with the wider community of stakeholders
and policy makers.
Apart from a few examples of creative thinking about
ways to improve education service delivery, the
overarching conclusion drawn from the LGCA was that
reform and innovation in the basic education sector was
stifled by bureaucratic systems that did not incentivize
performance, transparency or accountability. Male
dominance in LG positions, especially at the senior level
was reflected In survey gender distribution – only 19% of
the 1,189 respondents were female.
Findings highlighted the strong relationship between
governance and improved educational outcomes
and informed the recommendations for a roadmap
to education policy reform at local government
level. Questions raised include: How equitable and
transparent is spending in the sector? How are learning
opportunities distributed? What gaps are there in
community engagement? What is the level of quality of
student instruction? How are teachers deployed? What
professional development opportunities are provided? On
what basis? 11
(10) Refer Case Studies described in Boxes 3.2 – 3.6 for Kabupatens Kebumen, Bojonegoro, Majene, Aceh Utara, and Sleman.
(11) Section 4 provides recommendation’s to guide central and local government for an education reform roadmap.
25
Section
3 : Ed
ucatio
n G
overn
ance M
atters – The A
nalysis
Perhaps what was most disheartening was
that, in some areas, the raw data required for
LGCA analysis was so weak,12 that much of the
intended depth of analysis could not occur. It was
impossible to find sufficient reliable information
to evaluate important considerations relating
to the flexibility within the LG regulatory reform
environment; the existence of a results-based
management approach; and if investments in
educational technology were producing improved
educational outcomes.
Findings also raised concerns about how well
the education system was prepared to support
Indonesia’s successful transition to a competitive
middle-income country in which its citizens have
the necessary education and technical skills to
accelerate economic growth, reduce poverty and
spur innovation through competition.
Education Governance Aggregated Scores and Findings
Aggregated scores and findings for each of the five
strategic areas of education governance:
Transparency and Accountability; Education
Service Provision Standards; Management Control
Systems; Management Information Systems; and,
Efficient Resource Use are detailed in the following
discussion.
Transparency and Accountability
Innovation and performance-oriented reform requires
deep reserves of political capital and a wide spectrum of
stakeholder involvement to break the highly bureaucratic
and input-based culture of the current education service
provision model.
Transparency and accountability overall scores
demonstrated that good governance principles were
not prioritized by LGs. The score of 43% was the same
as that of the overall ILEGI. The highest score of 75%
was achieved by Kabupaten Kebumen in Central
Java and the lowest score of 4% by Kabupaten Paniai
in Papua. The lowest scoring indicator was “Local
legislation on transparency exists” with only 8% of LGs
complying. The highest achievement was reported on
the indicator “There are mechanisms in place to ensure
that educational stakeholders have the opportunity
to participate and voice their opinions regarding the
evaluation of the local education office, schools, and the
local government Education Board,” with a total score of
86%. Table 3-1 shows the average score per indicator.
(12) Some LGs presented multiple data sets from different collection sources; others operated within a severely limited range of data or with non-existent data.
Go
vernan
ce Matters to
Ed
ucatio
n O
utco
mes
26
Scores demonstrated the measure of commitment to
change and political reform. The vast score difference
was not so much a question of technical capacity, but
reflected LG lack of political commitment at leadership
level to ensure transparency and accountability and
engagement with communities -- for example only 24
LGs published summarized financial reports although
Law No. 15/2008: Access to Information decrees that
people have the right to access public documents and
information. ILEGI results demonstrated that this law
was not enforced at local level -- central government had
passed the law but there was insufficient encouragement
and support to enable the implementation of good
governance – an opportunity missed to set the stage for
reform and innovation through good practice.
Transparency and participative activities that generate
good will are required to implement good governance
principles, underpinned by technical capacity building.
LGs surveyed did not have local regulatory frameworks
in place to enforce transparent and accountable
governance, and those that did made little attempt
to implement such practices. Legislation on public
participation which demonstrated transparency (a
milestone in terms of political will for reform) was found
to exist in only 12% of the LGs assessed. Enforcement
of the legislation was often formalistic and did not
lead to meaningful stakeholder involvement. Budget
sessions, financial reports and audit results were also
not widely regarded as in the public domain. Only seven
of the 50 LGs surveyed allowed community members to
* The average score for the surveyed LGs from highest to lowest. The indicator reference number appears in brackets
INDICATORS SCORE
Percentage of districts that have mechanisms in place to ensure that educational stakeholders have the opportunity to participate and voice their opinions regarding the evaluation of the local government Education Office, schools, and the local government Education Board. (10)
86%
Percentage of districts where the Education unit is producing progress reports on planned activities and realization, including budget. (9)
78%
Percentage of districts where the Education Council has been involved in drafting the education strategic plan. (3)
68%
Percentage of districts where financial reports are publicized in the local mass media, on an official announcement board, or through a website. (1)
28%
Percentage of districts where the public has access to budget sessions in the local parliament. (6) 26%
Percentage of districts where the community is involved in monitoring and evaluating education activities. (8) 21%
Percentage of districts where the community is able to attend local parliament session discussing the accountability and BPK audit reports. (2)
14%
Percentage of districts where accountability report discussion in the local parliament is open to the public. (7) 14%
Percentage of districts where legislation on public participation exists. (5) 12%
Percentage of districts where local legislation on transparency exists. (4) 8%
Table 3.1 Aggregated Indicator Scores : Transparency and Accountability
27
Section
3 : Ed
ucatio
n G
overn
ance M
atters – The A
nalysis
observe local parliament accountability sessions and
access annual financial audit results by the Supreme
Audit Agency (BPK); only 26% of LGs opened their budget
parliamentary session to the public; and, only 14% made
the parliamentary session of the budget and audit reports
public. The local budget, a key indicator of government
accountability, was mostly inaccessible to the public.
This may be because LG education offices did not submit
performance accountability reports -- despite regulatory
obligation. In addition there was no clear framework to
guide the use of these reports for policy improvement
and no due diligence incentives/disincentives.
LGs by law must conduct annual development planning
forums at village, sub-district, and LG levels to obtain
stakeholder input into the planning and budgeting
process. These annual development planning forums,
MUSRENBANG 13, provide LGs with a formal mechanism
for stakeholder participation in the education sector.
The LGCA survey showed that 86% of all assessed LGs had
mechanisms in place to enable these stakeholder inputs.
However, this result should be viewed cautiously as the
effectiveness of these forums was unclear. Although
the forums are considered to run well, a large number
of stakeholders believed they are a mere formality and
little public information or feedback was provided about
how public forum inputs are incorporated into final
annual plans.
Community empowerment is low. Only 21% of LGs
involved their communities in the monitoring and
evaluation of education activities. Combined with scarce
public access to budget documents and questionable
public participation mechanisms, it was concluded
that education policy dialogue occurred mostly as a
government internal process that lacked meaningful
stakeholder involvement.
In summary, LGs did not tend to encourage participatory
governance in the education sector. The results of the
ILEGI demonstrated that a culture of participatory
governance and the institutionalization of a continuous
improvement strategy that is based on performance
standards are yet to be established.
Education Service Provision Standards
The overall score of 50% for Education Service Provision
Standards was slightly higher than the average aggregate
result for LGs. The highest score in this strategic area
was recorded in Wonogiri in Central Java at 81%, while
the lowest scoring district was Pegunungan Bintang in
Papua with 19%. Teacher qualifications and certification
at the primary school level were the key determinants
of ranking in this strategic area. The relative number of
primary school teachers at this level of the education
system was sizably higher than at junior high school
level where teacher qualifications and certification
were less problematic, given fewer teachers and
more stringent initial teacher selection. There was a
positive and significant correlation between female
students and teacher ratios, net enrollment rates and
education governance but gender was not considered a
causal factor.
Results indicated that transition rates, exam scores and
drop-out rates were problematic -- a clear reflection
that educational quality and access was lessened in the
transition from primary to junior secondary school, and
lessened again by a factor of almost two in the transition
to senior secondary school. The indicator which scored
the lowest was “Each primary school has at least 40% of
teachers that have a minimum education qualification of
Bachelor or Diploma IV and holds a teaching certificate”.
Only 6% of schools in the LG areas complied with this
criterion. The highest achievement of 92% was reported
for the indicator “Percentage of districts where each
junior secondary school has at least 40% of teachers who
have a minimum education qualification of S-1 or Diploma
IV and hold a teaching certificate in line with the subject
they teach”. This vast score difference was explained
by the significantly smaller number of junior secondary
school teachers compared with primary school teachers.
(13) MUSRENBANG was introducted by former President Soeharto some decades ago. It is the standardized planning process all LG’s are required by law to undertake on an
annual basis.
Go
vernan
ce Matters to
Ed
ucatio
n O
utco
mes
28
Kabupaten Kebumen is a resource-scarce district with limited financial resources. A large portion
of the district budget (APBD) comes from central government without any significant additional
support from local resources. Kebumen has neither natural resources nor industry. Agriculture is
the main source of income for the populace of 1.3 million.
Despite, or perhaps because of its limited financial resources, Kabupaten Kebumen recorded the
highest score (75.24%) on the Transparency and Accountability strategic index. Kebumen based its
initial initiatives in transparency, accountability and participation on marketing principles: build
trust, create need, maintain services and address complaints.
Kebumen’s initiatives in public accountability and transparency commenced with the merit-based
appointment of school principals. The initiative was not well-received but the first female Regent,
Rustriningsih, stood by her vision and extended reforms by initiating a number of public forums
to provide the public with the opportunity to express opinions and any grievances about public
services and policy.
Uncensored interactive talk shows between the public and the Regent were conducted and
broadcast on local television and radio stations. The “Good Morning Bupati” talk show was the first
opportunity for the public to air their grievances through a regularly organized public forum. As
citizens realized that grievances were being addressed, the nature of commentary changed from
criticism to constructive feedback generating and attracting wide community support.
To sustain transparency and accountability initiatives, local government has:
• enacted a local regulation (Peraturan Daerah No. 64/2004) to facilitate community participation in
the public policy process;
• developed communication and information channels: cascade planning and reporting forums,
mass media (radio, television, local newspaper, and bulletins); and
• established regular interactive, non-censored media appearances which began in 2002.
“This is the forum to see eye-to-eye to ensure that we’re synchronizing our development needs and
priorities,” said Mahar, Head of Kebumen’s Education, Youth and Sport Development Office. “There
is no way around establishing participation; either we have a strong system with a mediocre leader,
or a weak system which enables a dominant leader to ensure.” said Mustika Aji, a leading activist
consultant for the Kebumen Government.
Kabupaten Kebumen (Central Java)Box 3.1 Photo: Gedsiri Suhartono
29
Section
3 : Ed
ucatio
n G
overn
ance M
atters – The A
nalysis
*The average score for the surveyed LGs from highest to lowest. The indicator reference number appears in brackets.
Table 3.2 Aggregated Indicator Scores: Education Service Provision Standards
INDICATORS SCORE
Percentage of districts where each junior secondary school has at least 40% of teachers who have a minimum education qualification of S-1 or Diploma IV and holds a teaching certificate in line with the subject they teach. (1)
92%
Number of districts where gender party in Primary and Junior Secondary schools exists. (14) 91%
Percentage of districts where the primary level drop-out rate does not exceed 1% of students currently enrolled in school. (7)
82%
Average Net Enrollment Rate: primary and junior secondary for all districts. (13) 79%
Percentage of districts where at least 75% of all junior secondary school principals have a minimum education qualification of S-1/D-IV and a teaching certificate from an accredited institution. (4)
66%
Percentage of districts where at least 75% of all school supervisors have a minimum education qualification of S-1/D-IV and a teaching certificate from an accredited institution. (5)
60%
Percentage of districts where the junior secondary level drop-out rate does not exceed 1% of students currently enrolled in school. (8)
60%
Average transition rate from junior secondary to senior secondary for all districts. (12) 28%
Percentage of districts where average National Exam Score for Year 6 is 6.0 or higher. (9) 24%
Average transition rate from primary to junior secondary for all districts. (11) 24%
Percentage of districts where 95% of children in the 7-12 year age group attend school SD/MI. (6) 22%
Percentage of districts where average National Exam Score for Year 9 is 6.0 or higher. (10) 16%
Percentage of districts where at least 75% of all primary school principals have a minimum education qualification of S-1/D-IV and a teaching certificate from an accredited institution. (3 )
12%
Percentage of districts where each primary school has at least 40% of teachers who have a minimum education qualification of Bachelor or Diploma IV and holds a teaching certificate. (2)
6%
Percentage of Average Adult Literacy Rate in all districts. (15) 83%
Go
vernan
ce Matters to
Ed
ucatio
n O
utco
mes
30
Improving teaching qualifications and teacher capacity
has a significant impact on improved student test
scores. Enhancing teacher qualifications is regarded
as a key determinant. With higher test scores, student
and teacher motivation also increases with a resulting
‘ripple ‘effect on transition rates. Not one of the 50 LGs
had in excess of 50% of certified primary school teachers.
However, some LGs were working on accelerating the
qualification rate by allocating extra funds from the
local budget; others were working with teacher training
institutions to improve access to equivalency training
through extension programs and night classes.
The lack of a performance-based teacher evaluation
process was found to be a major barrier in the
management, removal or dismissal of poorly
performing teachers. The bureaucratic nature of teacher
appointments as civil servants did not facilitate effective
performance management of ineffective teachers,
principals or school supervisors. LG systems to evaluate
teacher effectiveness were focused almost entirely on
inputs, for example the level of training and the number
of years of teaching experience -- even though these
factors have little impact on student achievement.
None of the 50 surveyed LGs required teachers to
provide evidence of student achievement or learning
in teacher evaluations. Without the ability to manage
poorly performing human resources, the education
sector cannot establish a performance-based culture
which ensures that all students are provided with equal
educational opportunities and enabled to develop to
their maximum potential.
Analyses demonstrated that national exam scores were
strongly correlated with local education governance.14
This reinforced the key theme of this study: governance
does matter to educational outcomes. Test scores do not
only reflect the intelligence or potential of the student.
They equally demonstrate that the potential of students
is maximized through capable, qualified teachers,
effective sectoral management strategies and well-
targeted resource use geared to educational outcomes
and high student achievement. An important indicator
reflecting LG performance was the score on primary
and junior secondary school national examinations.
Correlation analysis showed that LGs tending to score
low on the ILEGI also tended to have lower scores at
primary and junior secondary levels. Table 3-2 indicates
only 24% of LGs achieved an average national exam score
of 6.0 for the primary level, and only 16% achieved an
average score of 6.0 at the junior secondary level, with
the optimal score being 10 for each respective level of the
education system.
Management Control Systems
At 47%, the aggregate score for Management Control
Systems (MCS) was slightly above the overall score -- but
scores on this index varied widely. The highest aggregate
score was in Kebumen district in Central Java with a score
of 84%, while the lowest score was 10% in Kotawaringin
Timur district located in Central Kalimantan. The lowest
scoring indicators were: “An incentive-based performance
management system is in place for school supervisors
based on the National Education Standard” and, ”An
incentive-based performance management system is
in place for school principals based on the National
Education Standards”, with only 7% of LGs in compliance
on each subindicator. The highest scoring indicator
was “The Annual Local Government Education Forum
integrates inputs and recommendations from the annual
village-level and municipal-level planning consultative
meeting results (Musrenbang)” with a total score of 94%.
Findings did not indicate if village level inputs were
eventually established as programming priorities --
another question altogether. Table 3.3 shows the average
score per indicator.
(14) Results can be regarded as proxy for the overall achievement of MSS and relevant elements of the NES.
31
Section
3 : Ed
ucatio
n G
overn
ance M
atters – The A
nalysis
Kabupaten Bojonegoro received the second highest overall rating among the 50 local governments
surveyed in the 2009 LGCA (60.45%). This result was achieved due to the partnership between the
district government and stakeholder community which is focused on improving the transparency and
accountability of education management in the district.
School students, teachers, and staff have implemented several unique initiatives to increase
transparency and accountability in the budget process, fundraising, and time management. The
school budget (RAPBS) is published on school notice boards, on posters and through biannual letters
to parents at the end of each school term. The content of these documents always includes the details
of the budgeting process and planned and actual budget expenditure. The minutes of principals’
meetings with school and teacher committees and other school reports are also fully accessible to the
public at each school.
Some schools have devised an innovative way of finding alternative sources of funding, called
Paguyuban Kelas, which is organized by parents who donate the resources needed for individual
classes. Donations can only be in material form, not monetary. Every three months, 6-8 schools meet in
a larger forum to share their knowledge and experiences in accessing and managing funds and other
resources to improve the quality of schools.
An honesty system has been introduced in school canteens and to record attendance. In the Kantin
Kejujuran, there are no supervisors. Students must do their own transactions to pay for their food,
relying on individual honesty to pay the correct amount. The profits generated are used to fund any
extra school activities or to provide scholarships for students in need. In the classroom and school
office, each student, teacher, principal, and staff has their own paper clock. They mark the times
when they arrive, take breaks, and go home -- promoting a culture of honesty with regard to daily
attendance, on-time arrival and departure.
Local government is also playing its part. Bapak Suyoto, the Bupati of Bojonegoro, has initiated several
noteworthy activities that promote transparency and accountability. Principals from all primary and
secondary schools as well as the head and staff of the education department took a public oath of
honesty at the city square. Bapak Suyoto encourages people in the community to communicate with
him through SMS and chatting on Facebook. He is very responsive to these forms of communication,
even when it is just a “good morning” greeting from a citizen. The secretary of the Education Agency,
Bapak Muslih, explained that he regularly receives SMS messages from the Bupati regarding education
provision issues -- even when he was on the Haj pilgrimage.
More than 500 people, including the Bupati, all heads of departments, the local legislative council
members, and community members, also participate in a weekly communication forum called “Friday’s
Interactive Dialogue”. In this forum, people are given the opportunity to express their ideas, raise
issues and register complaints. The Bupati has instituted a “no interruptions when people are talking”
rule, so that no government official can interrupt a citizen when talking. These Friday dialogues are
also broadcast on local radio. If time runs out during the Friday dialogue, the Bupati will assign a
relevant department head to follow up on any unresolved issues and broadcast the response on the
local radio. This interactive dialogue has received the Jawa Pos Otonomi award.
Kabupaten Bojonegoro (East Java) Box 3.2 Photo: Ratna Kesuma
Go
vernan
ce Matters to
Ed
ucatio
n O
utco
mes
32
*The average score for the surveyed LGs from highest to lowest. The indicator reference number appears in brackets.
Table 3.3 Aggregated Indicator Scores: Management Control Systems
INDICATORS SCORE
Percentage of districts where the annual local government Education Forum integrates inputs and recommendations from the annual village-level and municipal-level planning consultative meeting results (MUSRENBANG). (6)
94%
Percentage of districts where the local government Education Board (Dewan Pendidikan) has a clear work program and routine budget allocation in the APBD. (9)
72%
Percentage of districts where school committees, local government Education Boards and community-based organizations actively participate in strategic educational planning processes. (8)
66%
Percentage of districts where evidence of the efforts of LG to identify good practice in improving educational service provision. (13)
59%
Percentage of districts where procurement bids for goods and services are planned properly to avert any accusations of breaking down into smaller packages to avoid tendering. (10)
54%
Percentage of districts where there is evidence of a systematic approach to document and catalogue innovative good practice. (14)
47%
Percentage of districts where goods users carry out a yearly stock inventory. (1) 42%
Percentage of districts where local legislation on asset management exists. (17) 36%
Percentage of districts where a technical guideline for procurement issued by local government head exists. (2)
34%
Percentage of districts where there is evidence of stakeholder participation in the maintenance of a network for sharing and disseminating good practices. (15)
33%
Percentage of districts where the Education unit head has passed an organization regulation on sectoral asset management in education unit and all subunits. (16)
32%
Percentage of districts where all cash storage by working units is put into local government bank accounts. (11)
30%
Percentage of districts where there is evidence of the existence of a clear, systematic system to validate good practice (Local Regulation, Evaluation Schematic for Innovative Practice, Cataloguing and Dissemination Procedure). (12)
22%
Percentage of districts where the local government Education office considers consolidated school-level inputs through the school development planning mechanism (Rencana Kegiatan Sekolah - RKS) in developing the local government level Annual Education Workplan. (7)
16%
Percentage of districts where an incentive-based performance management system is in place for teachers based on the National Education Standards. (3)
10%
Percentage of districts that have an incentive-based performance management system in place for school supervisors based on the National Education Standards. (4)
7%
Percentage of districts where an incentive-based performance management system is in place for school principals based on the National Education Standards. (5)
7%
33
Section
3 : Ed
ucatio
n G
overn
ance M
atters – The A
nalysis
Management control systems remained weak at the LG
level, especially in the areas of procurement and asset
management. These results further demonstrated that
only a small number of LGs had taken the necessary steps
to ensure accountable and effective local governance.
Most are still to establish clear reform agendas across
a number of key management control requirements
which over time, will continue to hamper the progression
and performance of the education sector. Regulations,
procedures and guidelines for procurement and asset
management only existed in between 34-36% of all
assessed LGs. With the high potential for corruption and
leakage in procurement and asset management it is
crucially important to ensure that regulations which set
out “the rules of the game” are in place to enable LGs to
monitor, control and take corrective action.
Only 30% of sector units maintained their cash reserves
in approved LG bank accounts although there is a
requirement that LGs must set up accounts in banks
appointed through mayoral decree. These designated and
organized accounts are intended to ensure better cash
management and minimize the potential for corruption
or misuse of funds. MoF and BPK have attempted to
enforce this requirement with some degree of success
but ultimately, sanctions and penalty measures may need
to be instituted to optimize reform efforts in this area.
The MoF observed that most LGs still possessed unofficial
bank accounts and most LG sector units used these to
bank and manage cash.
Despite the involvement of a wide range of education
sector stakeholders in the annual development planning
process, only 16% of LGs considered school-level inputs
when drafting the annual education work plan and
budget. Echoing a similar finding in the Transparency and
Accountability and the Efficient Resource Use strategic
areas, this showed that while bottom-up mechanisms
are in place in the annual development planning process,
the inputs were rarely considered in key policy-making or
budget allocations. This trend demonstrated the heavy
focus on the process of planning without identifying
programming outputs, added value and monitoring and
evaluation requirements.
Incentive-based performance management systems
at the school level were not commonly found. The
lack of a performance culture was considered a
serious impediment to the improvement of learning
outcomes. Only 10% of LGs had introduced performance
management elements for teachers; only 7% had
introduced performance management for school
supervisors. In all of the LGs surveyed, the incentives
provided were in reality supplementary top-up payments
available to all schools for teachers as a matter of
course. Despite being described as a performance
incentive, these management systems did not consider
key performance variables when disbursing incentive
funds. This practice did very little to encourage or reward
innovation or creativity rather it encouraged the status
quo: that all teachers and schools should be paid the
same regardless of performance. With the new Teacher
Law, certified and qualified teachers will not be paid a
functional incentive but LGs still used these funds to top
up the relatively low salaries of part-time, contract and
non-qualified civil servant teachers.
Local-level documentation practices and the sharing of
good practices scored poorly amongst all but the highest
scoring LGs. Combined with the lack of performance
culture, LGs rarely based reform on local level good
practice examples nor pilot innovations on a larger scale.
In high-scoring LGs there were correspondingly high
scores in documentation and good practices. Generally,
these LGs had achieved the minimum standards
for education service provision and demonstrated
innovation and creativity in their drive for continuous
improvement.
Go
vernan
ce Matters to
Ed
ucatio
n O
utco
mes
34
Kabupaten Majene achieved one of the highest scores (77.66%) on the Management Control System
indicator. The Management Control System in Majene was effectively implemented in 2001 when
the current Bupati and Deputy Bupati were elected. The basis for Majene’s management practices is
Peraturan Menteri Dalam Negeri No. 13/2006, a ministerial decree regarding Financial Management in
Local Governments and Keputusan Presiden No.80/2003, a presidential decree regarding Government
Procurement.
The Kabupaten Majene administration believes that management control practices are the key to
establishing good governance and community trust. A Management Control System is not merely
an element in the management cycle. In the broadest sense, it includes the methods and procedures
adopted by management to ensure that they meet the agreed goals. It also includes processes for
planning, organizing, directing, and controlling program operations. A subset of management controls
is the internal controls used to make sure that there is prevention or timely detection of unauthorized
acquisition, use, or disposition of the local government’s assets.
• The local parliament (DPRD) is very active in supervising and controlling the implementation of all
local government programs, including the use of resources. Besides regular meetings with local
government, the DPRD conducts ad hoc meetings and invites corresponding Dinas when there are
information and complaints from the community.
• A higher level unit called Dinas Pengelolaan Keuangan, Pendapatan dan Aset Daerah (PKPAD)
or Department of Financial, Income, and Assets Management has been established. The main
responsibility of the Dinas is to ensure that district finances and assets are well managed and
controlled. By establishing the Dinas, the local government implements a ‘one-gate policy’ for LG’s
finance and assets.
• Each month all Dinas submit financial reports and reliable supported documents of expenditures to
Dinas PKPAD. They are not allowed to spend more money in the following month if the last month’s
reports are not submitted and approved. An online computerized reporting application is being used.
• All Dinas, including the Education Agency send their three monthly financial reports directly to the
PKPAD through SIMDA where the reports are verified.
• The Education Agency implements internal management control mechanisms by regular and ad
hoc meetings. Through the meetings the Agency and Unit Heads are able to review the progress of
activities and the use of resources.
• To control the use of funds at school level from certain sources, the Dinas involves independent
supervisors from the community. Head teachers, teachers, the school committee, and parent/
community representatives together discuss the annual school plan and budget. Besides internal
control, the schools are also closely supervised and controlled by external parties such as the
Education Agency, Regional Inspectorate, BPKP, school committee, and NGOs.
Kabupaten Majene (West Sulawesi)Box 3.3 Photo: M. Wildan
35
Section
3 : Ed
ucatio
n G
overn
ance M
atters – The A
nalysis
Kabupaten Aceh Utara is included here as an example of a district that is struggling in a post-conflict
environment to deliver improved education services. It received one of the highest scores outside Java
(71.63%) for its Management Control Systems. The post-conflict condition of education in Aceh Utara is
marked by: post-conflict trauma; the poor quality of teachers and inadequate numbers; poor quality
of school infrastructure; a lack of discipline from teachers and students in teaching and learning
activities; high rates of truancy; low school graduation rates; poor awareness of the need to educate
children; and, a lack of responsibility for the maintenance of school assets.
Public involvement in the regional education process is made possible due to limited public resources
and regional management capacity in enhancing the quality of education and achieving equity.
Management Control System indicators in Kabupaten Aceh Utara closely reflect the involvement of
the community in education planning and management as well as their role in various activities aimed
at improving the quality of education outputs and teaching/learning activities at the school level
through two local institutions.
1. The Community Movement for the Betterment of Education (Gerakan Masyarakat Peduli Pendidikan
- GMPP) is a regional body that was initiated by the Education Agency to monitor the teaching
learning process in schools. The GMPP attempts to synergize cooperation between various
stakeholders, including: the Aceh Transition Committee (Komite Peralihan Aceh - KPA), religious
scholars, education managers, community figures, the general community, and students’ parents
to take an active role in supervising the delivery of teaching/learning activities in school in order to
ensure there is equity and improvement in the quality of education for every person in Kabupaten
Aceh Utara.
GMPP activities and community monitoring in the delivery of teaching/learning activities include,
inter alia: (i) assisting with the delivery of a quality, Islamic-based education in Kabupaten Aceh
Utara; (ii) preventing poor behavior and performance of students; (iii) creating a safe and secure
school environment; (iv) striving for adequate education infrastructure and equipment; (v) protecting
and maintaining education facilities across Aceh Utara; and (vi) evaluating the delivery of teaching
and learning activities across Aceh Utara, including in the villages and subdistricts.
2. The Regional Education Council (Majelis Pendidikan Daerah - MPD at the national level, this
institution is known as the Education Council). The MPD was established in 1990, long before the
establishment of the National Education System regulation in 2003 that monitors the Education
Council. The MPD is representative of the special rights of the Government of Aceh.
The role of the MPD and school committee is to: (i) denote the unique features of the Government
of Aceh in the delivery of education at the regional level; (ii) give effect to its role and function as a
partner in the formulation of education policy, the supervision of education delivery in the region
and at the education unit level, so the management of education is more democratic, accountable,
and transparent; and (iii) take an optimal role in facilitating the entry and input of the community
into the management of education at the regional level.
Kabupaten Aceh UtaraBox 3.4 Photo: Gedsiri Suhartono
Go
vernan
ce Matters to
Ed
ucatio
n O
utco
mes
36
Management Information Systems
Of the five strategic areas, Management Information
Systems (MIS) scores showed significant inter-local
government variation and were lowest for all LGs with
an average of only 33%. The raw data required for LGCA
analysis was very weak impacting considerably on the
intended depth of analysis. The highest scoring district
was Sleman, a Special Region of Yogyakarta, with a score
of 77%, while the lowest scoring was the municipality
of Manokwari in West Papua with a score of only 1%.
The lowest scoring indicator was the “Percentage of
schools that have an internet connection” - with a score
of only 4%. The highest achieving indicator was “There
is evidence of an existing education database at the
local government level”, with a total score of 69%. Table
3.4 shows the average score per indicator.
Despite the fact that 69% of LGs reported that they had
an existing education database, these systems provided
only limited information about school operations,
performance and educational outcomes. Most LGs had
made substantial progress in improving the architecture
(hardware and connectivity) that supports better data
collection and utilization. However these databases were
inadequate. They did not capture school operational
level information nor had the capacity to answer basic
questions about capacity -- such as the degree to which
professional development improves student outcomes or
the types of innovative teaching and learning practices
which provide the best return on investment.
Data collection continued to be uneven and fragmented
as data flows were generally one way and not reciprocal
between LGs and schools. Schools were bombarded
with a multitude of different data collection formats
and requests from all levels of government, but very
rarely received critical feedback on how that data was
used to assess relative performance. LGs tended to use
a compliance-driven data management strategy where
data was collected and stored, but rarely analyzed or
used to inform and reform practices. Findings indicated
that fictional or manipulated data was submitted which
served different purposes and/or vested interests --
although data return rates were improving.
*The average score for the surveyed LGs from highest to lowest. The indicator reference number appears in brackets.
INDICATORS SCORE
Percentage of districts where there is evidence of an existing education database at the local government level. (1)
69%
Percentage of districts where there is evidence of the integration and use of School Application Packet (Paket Aplikasi Sekolah - PAS, Jaringan Pendidikan Nasional - JARDIKNAS, and Pangkalan Data dan Informasi Pendidikan - PADATI) within the existing management infrastructure of the education system at the local government level. (4)
57%
Percentage of districts where there is evidence of data spot checking systems in place. (3) 35%
Percentage of districts where there is evidence of written procedures and protocols for the scheduling and methodology of data collection, data cleaning, data submission from lower levels of the system (that is schools). (2)
32%
Percentage of schools that have at least one functioning computer across all districts. (5) 32%
Percentage of schools that have an internet connection in all districts. (6) 4%
Table 3.4 Aggregated Indicator Scores: Management Information Systems
37
Section
3 : Ed
ucatio
n G
overn
ance M
atters – The A
nalysis
The ILEGI survey showed evidence of a trend where
computers were purchased without clear or transparent
management or educational rationale. These computers
were generally used for other purposes or only available
with limited access. Data collected was for stock-taking
purposes about equipment acquired and the number of
schools with a computer or an internet connection. No
data was collected by LGs about school technology use or
implementation.
There are three main types of education software
available to LGs and schools: Paket Aplikasi Sekolah
(PAS), Jaringan Pendidikan Nasional (JARDIKNAS) and
Pangkalan Data dan Informasi Pendidikan (PADATI).
None of the surveyed LGs kept databases that tracked
student progress and test score achievements through
the education system across years of schooling. To foster
independent schools that embrace autonomy and can
respond to new challenges, LGs must provide educators,
policy makers, and the public with better information.
Disappointingly, none used a systematic approach to
provide local schools and educators with high-quality,
real-time data for use to evaluate the effectiveness of
particular approaches and initiatives to improve student
outcomes. Figure 3.7 shows the number of districts using
PAS, JARDIKNAS, and PADATI.
NO
T AT ALL
ON
Y PA
DATI
ON
LY JA
RD
IKN
AS
ON
LY PA
S
JAR
DIK
NA
S DA
N P
ADATI
PAS D
AN
PAD
ATI
PAS D
AN
JAR
DIK
NA
S
PAS.JA
RD
IKN
AS
AN
D PA
DATI
Figure 3.7 Number of Districts Using the Education Management Software
2
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
8
2
0
14
3
9
12
Go
vernan
ce Matters to
Ed
ucatio
n O
utco
mes
38
Table 3.5 provides a detailed breakdown of the use LGs make of each education management software application.
Table 3.5 LG Use of Education Management Software
APPLICATIONNUMBER OF LGs USING THE SOFTWARE
PURPOSE OF THE APPLICATION
Paket Aplikasi Sekolah 13 Measuring performance indicators.
Sending teacher and student data to central government.
Collecting data on a regular basis.
Providing access to data for stakeholders.
Evaluating LG and Local education units.
Providing summary data in the form of a data-base to profile schools and local education units.
Providing guidelines for education planning.
Sourcing data for the national examination.
Jaringan Pendidikan Nasional
33Providing the infrastructure to connect the internet/intranet network in order to manage school individual data (28 LGs).
Providing the infrastructure to connect the internet/intranet network in order to manage cumulative data for all schools at local level (28 LGs).
Other uses. For example as an information center, source of reference materials for students and teachers.
Pangkalan Data dan Informasi Pendidikan
24 Managing school individual data (19 LGs).
Managing cumulative data for all schools at local level (15 LGs)
Other uses: For example GIS, processing individual data (8 LGs).
39
Section
3 : Ed
ucatio
n G
overn
ance M
atters – The A
nalysis
Kabupaten Sleman recorded the highest score of the 50 local governments (61.96%), mainly due to its
achievement of the highest rankings for Management Information Systems and Efficient Resource
Use. An initiative by the local Education Agency (Dispora) has established Kabupaten Sleman as a role
model for LGs in Indonesia. MoNE requires all LG Education Agencies to collect data on each school
student in their jurisdiction. An official form called Lembar Individu (LI) is issued in a specific computer
format to collect the data. Before this initiative, approximately 80% of LIs in Kabupaten Sleman were
returned by schools – within two weeks of the four weeks allocated for this process the return rate was
100%. Since primary schools are not yet equipped with personal computers, Dispora uses a Sub-District
Coordinator to distribute printed LI forms to all primary schools. The forms are distributed to schools
through Korcam and collected after Korcam completion. The forms are then passed on to the Dinas
where the information is transferred to computer format and imported into the National Education
Network system (Jardiknas). Any questions relating to the data are handled by Korcam. It is intended
that all primary schools in the future will be equipped with a computer for administrative tasks.
“We are ready if the primary school also has to fill out the Excel LI form” said the principal of SDN
Sleman. This school takes the process more seriously by converting the printed form into computer
format but for documentation purposes only. It has employed a part-time administration officer who is
proficient with computers.
The LI form is distributed to secondary schools in MS Excel format on a CD. Before distributing them for
the first time, the Dinas conducts a training session for school administration staff on how to fill out
using the electronic format. At the end of the school year, the Dinas distributes/sends the CD out to all
schools. After the form is completed and returned, Dinas staff import the data to the Jardiknas system.
The Dinas contacts the school directly with any inquiries. In the near future, as far as possible, Dispora
will help all secondary schools to establish an internet connection so they can directly download the LI
forms and send electronically.
At times, the Dinas asks additional questions (using a separate form) to gather further information
about school specific data, for example the reason for school dropouts. This is sent to schools at the
same time as the Lembar Individu. This approach ensures that the necessary information related to
school specific education issues is available when required.
Kabupaten Sleman also ranked first in its approach to the Efficient Use of Resources. Whilst BOS
funding has had a significant impact on school budgets, it does not cover the minimum funding
costs required to cover the operational costs for each student per year. In order to give all children
equal access and opportunity in education, supplementary funding through Bantuan Operasional
Sekolah Daerah (BOSDA) provides education stakeholders in Sleman with funding for innovation and
operational costs not covered by BOS. LG stakeholders calculate minimum basic annual costs per
student; these are then listed and weighted. The total cost for one student is then compared with
the BOS allocation and the gap covered through BOSDA. School representatives from each level are
asked to prepare an annual cost budget based on daily practices and SNP. The draft budget is then
discussed and an estimated budget agreed in a focus group discussion. Dispora, DPKKD and BAPPEDA
agree on the draft which provides the basis for Dispora to answer inquiries from the local legislature
and seek their support to pass the BOSDA proposal. The BOSDA is confirmed through a Bupati Decree
and endorsed by DPRD (Bupati Sleman Decree No. 26/2009 for BOSDA: SD and SMP; and, Bupati Sleman
Decree No. 25/2009 for APBS). The principals of the two schools surveyed advised that BOSDA has
greatly assisted in the provision of funds to cover school operational costs.
Kabupaten Sleman (DI Yogyakarta)Box 3.5 Photo: Dimas Oky Nugroho
Go
vernan
ce Matters to
Ed
ucatio
n O
utco
mes
40
Efficient Resource Use
The overall score for Efficient Resource Use was 42%,
demonstrating major room for improvement in budget
planning and execution. The highest score recorded in
the ILEGI for this strategic area was recorded in Sleman,
a Special Region of Yogyakarta, with 73%, while the
lowest score was 11% in Teluk Wondama located in West
Papua. The lowest scoring indicator was “Education
budget absorption rate by December 2008 is 90% or more”
with only 15% meeting this rate. Most achievement
was reported on the indicator “There are mechanisms
in place to ensure that educational stakeholders have
the opportunity to participate and voice their opinions
regarding the evaluation of the local government
Education Office, schools, and the local government
Education Board”, with a total score of 86%. Table 3.6
shows the average score per indicator.
Table 3.6 Aggregated Indicator Scores: Efficient Resource Use
*The average score for the surveyed LGs from highest to lowest. The indicator reference number appears in brackets.
INDICATORS SCORE
Percentage of districts where education unit is producing progress reports on planned activities and realization, including budget. (9)
78%
Percentage of districts where education (sectoral) medium-term and annual plans include indicative budget ceilings and take budget limit into account. (6)
76%
Percentage of districts where annual budget policy includes measurable outcome indicators. (3) 72%
Percentage of districts where education council has been involved in drafting of education strategic plan. (2) 68%
Percentage of districts where sectoral poverty alleviation programs and activities have been accommodated by local government budget team. (7)
62%
Percentage of districts where tariffs for the use of assets have been updated regularly in the past three years (markets etc.). (1)
60%
Percentage of districts where budget priorities and ceilings are set before the budgeting process in SKPD starts. (4)
56%
Percentage of districts where programs and activities in RPJMD can be measured quantitatively. (10) 52%
Percentage of districts where education planning and budget calendar has been drafted. (5) 50%
Percentage of districts where the difference between planned and realized expenditures was less than 10% in the last three financial years. (11)
45%
Percentage of districts where planning and budgeting documents can easily be accessed by the community. (8)
39%
Percentage of districts where education budget absorption rate by December 2008 is 90% or more. (12) 15%
41
Section
3 : Ed
ucatio
n G
overn
ance M
atters – The A
nalysis
LG financial management systems were found to be
inefficient and there was a lack transparency which did
not support performance and innovation. The patchwork
of spending programs in each LG provided schools with
almost no flexibility to spend financial resources in a
more effective manner. Very few LGs made basic planning
and financial data easily accessible to the public – either
through the Internet or on public information boards –
limiting the public’s capacity to hold the LG and school
accountable for expenditure. Four BEC LGs had very
low education budget absorption rates (as recorded In
December 2008) -- Paniai (Papua), South East Aceh (Aceh),
Mamasa (West Sulawesi) and South Halmahera (North
Maluku) had rates of less than 55% expended. Figure
3.8 shows the breakdown of local budget absorption on
education spending by LG location for 2008.
Mamasa (53%)
Paniai (50%)
South East Aceh (50%)
South Halmahera (23%)
Nagan Rraya (n.a.)
Kepulauan Sula (90%)
West Aceh (90%)
Purbalingga (90%)
Blora (85%)
North Aceh (82%)
Jaya Wijaya (80%)
Nabire (70%)
Manokwari (95%)
Probolingg0 (95%)
Seruyan (95%)
Bondowoso (95%)
Rembang (95%)
Trenggelek (94%)
Purworejo (94%)
Sleman (93%)
Jombang (92%)
Kebumen (92%)
Sampang (91%)
Polewati Mandar (90%)
Peg. Bintang (98%)
Kulon Progo (98%)
Wonosobo (98%)
North West Aceh (98%)
Lhokseumawe (98%)
Pacitan (98%)
Bojonegoro (98%)
Ngawi (98%)
Banjarnegara (98%)
Demak (98%)
Brebes (97%)
Probolinggo (97%)
Sragen (96%)
Kaimana (100%)
East Kotawaringin (100%)
Palangkaraya (100%)
Majene (100%)
Teluk Wondama (100%)
South Sorong (100%)
Bireuen (100%)
Jayapura (100%)
Ternate (100%)
Aceh Besar (100%)
Nganjuk (100%)
Wonogiri (100%)
Bangkalan (100%)
<55% 91-95% 100%70-90% 96-99%
Figure 3.8 Local Budget Absorption on Education Spending (2008)
Go
vernan
ce Matters to
Ed
ucatio
n O
utco
mes
42
Spending patterns undermined the efficient use of
resources. There was a lack of internal consistency
between what was planned and what was implemented
-- 55% of the 50 LGs surveyed demonstrated differences in
excess of 10% between planned and realized budget.
While LGs placed heavy emphasis on development
planning, budgeting processes, budget execution and
monitoring were disconnected and inefficient. Looking
at the indicator scores for Efficient Resource Use, it can
be seen that LGs placed heavy emphasis on the mainly
formalistic planning process through MUSRENBANG.
It did not inform the budgeting process sufficiently
and led to poor budget execution and monitoring. As a
result, most LGs had low absorption rates; differences
in planned versus realized budget; and interestingly, big
budget surpluses.
The development planning process showed a few
encouraging trends with 68% of all LGs involving
stakeholders in the drafting of the education strategic
plan. 56% of LGs provided indicative budget ceilings to
each sector; and 72% included measurable outcome
indicators in the annual budget policy. Even though
LGs were still a long way from fully implementing
performance-based budgeting as stipulated by
the central government in 2002, the formulation of
quantitative indicators is seen as a positive first step.
Since decentralization in 2001 responsibility for various
education services has changed dramatically – the most
noteworthy shift has occurred in the way schools are
funded. The introduction of the BOS subsidy is the key
mechanism in making progress towards the targets for
compulsory Nine-Year Basic Education (Wajib Belajar). The
BOS program is designed to lessen the burden of school
operational costs, registration, tuition, examination fees
and materials and costs of laboratory and workshop
sessions. BOS provides assistance to schools in order to
permit them to eliminate student fees for operational
costs while still maintaining educational quality. Schools
now receive a centrally allocated block grant15 based on
a per-student allocation in the form of a cash transfer
directly to the school’s bank account.
At the LG level there was no evidence of student-based
funding systems. Unlike BOS which provides the majority
of school operational funds LG investment was not
allocated according to student needs. Instead funds were
distributed based on factors that had little to do with
individual students for example, the number of teachers
or classrooms in a school; or the type of educational
programs provided by the school. These financial
practices made it almost impossible to empower school
leadership to allocate resources in new and innovative
ways focused on meeting student needs. Opportunities
were limited for the provision of alternative educational
choices and healthy competition which could contribute
to additional quality education services. Instead
decisions continued to be made by LG personnel who
often had little or no interaction with students or first-
hand understanding of school and student needs.
(15) From 2011, BOS grant funds will be disbursed at LG level
43
Section
3 : Ed
ucatio
n G
overn
ance M
atters – The A
nalysis
Future Assessment Rounds
The first set of ILEGI results demonstrated that further
refinement of the instrument is necessary to address
wide inconsistency in LG data collection practices and
in situations where little concrete data was available.
Suggested refinements include additional qualitative
indicators about increased innovation and good
practices; secondary budget data elements; education
input data; and, a gender specific focus. Future
assessment rounds should trace relative and absolute
progress over time against the established benchmarks
and allow for more detailed analysis between education
inputs, governance and outcomes, and further
comparative and cross analyses .
Section 4 provides ‘signposts’ for reform presented as
recommendations which link quantitative results with
qualitative insights on commonalities between high
performing and rapidly improving education systems.
Key signposts focus on issues that transcend cultural and
socio-economic characteristics and seek to foster flexible,
performance-oriented reform strategies, for example:
Education Standards and Quality Assurance Systems;
Benchmarking and Clear Expectations; and, Sufficient
Funding, Facilities and Other Resources.
Photo: Mahargianto
Section 4
Reforming Education Governance – The Roadmap
45
Section
4 : Refo
rmin
g E
du
cation
Go
vernan
ce – The R
oad
map
Go
vernan
ce Matters to
Ed
ucatio
n O
utco
mes
46
SECTION FOUR: REFORMING EDUCATION GOVERNANCE – THE ROADMAP
The analysis identified gaps in strategic
areas of education governance that impact
at school, local, provincial and national
government levels. Findings highlighted
variations in the equitable and transparent
use of funds in the sector; the uneven
distribution of learning opportunities; gaps
in community engagement; the quality
of instruction; and, the deployment and
ongoing professional development of
teachers. These findings raise additional
concerns about how well prepared the
education system is to support Indonesia’s
transition to a competitive middle-income
country in which its citizens have the
necessary education and technical skills to
accelerate economic growth, reduce poverty
and spur innovation through competition.
47
Section
4 : Refo
rmin
g E
du
cation
Go
vernan
ce – The R
oad
map
Key ILEGI Recommendations for Education System Reform
Key ILEGI findings are examined and recommendations
made in the following discussion to guide central and
LG policy reform and future LG capacity development
planning. These recommendations link quantitative
results with qualitative insights and areas of
commonality between high performing and rapidly
improving education systems. The discussion focuses
on issues that transcend cultural and socio-economic
characteristics and seek to foster flexible, performance-
oriented reform strategies within the authority and
sphere of influence of the LG – with the support of the
central government.
Signposts for Better Performing Education Systems
Signposts for Better Performing Education Systems
are categorized according to Education Standards and
Quality Assurance Systems; Benchmarking and Clear
Expectations; and, Sufficient Funding, Facilities and
Other Resources which serve as key signposts for better
performing education systems.17
Figure 4.1 Key Signposts for Education System Performance
(16) McKinsey in Barber and Mourshed, 2007:13
Key Signposts
Better Performing Education Systems
Education Standards and Quality Assurance Systems
Benchmarking and ClearExpectations for Progress
Sufficient Funding Facilities and Other Resources
Go
vernan
ce Matters to
Ed
ucatio
n O
utco
mes
48
Recommendations for the Central Government
The survey revealed issues related to education governance that are beyond LG control and require higher level central
government policy dialogue to support reform. In addition to expanding the scope of dissemination of the survey,
substantial effort also needs to be placed on improving coordination between national and sub-national partners.
Table 4.1 Recommendations for Reform: Central Government
Education Standards and Quality Assurance Systems
Improve teacher quality beyond certification by expanding pre-service reform. Triggered by the Teacher Law (2005), considerable effort and resources have been put into upgrading incumbent teachers. Whether or not the law is successful will largely be determined by the characteristics of new teachers entering the profession. Indonesia is at a critical point in the reform of its teacher training programs. Increased compensation has attracted an increased number of better qualified and capable candidates into teacher training programs. Many new programs (such as S1 for primary teachers, and post-S1 training programs) have the potential to produce a leaner, higher quality workforce and reduce the financial burden on government. These new programs provide effective pre-service training with considerably improved curricula to attract and retain high-caliber university graduates into the teaching profession.
Target capacity building efforts - especially with newly established BEC-TF districts. To improve basic education sector management, governance and outcomes, a comprehensive approach to capacity building needs to be put into place. Targets for capacity development should use nationally established sectoral priorities to map capacity deficits across all levels of the system.
Benchmarking and Clear Expectations
Incentivize reforms and performance. Understanding the dynamics of incentives and disincentives about reform and performance is an important step in designing a better education system. Competition and recognition alone are often not sufficient to mobilize or maintain the reform effort, incentives should be extrinsic as well as intrinsic.
Revise the formula for the General Allocation Fund (DAU) to remove the implication that “the more one hires, the more budget allocation one gets”. The Teacher salary component of DAU should be given to LGs as “block grants” proportional to their school-age population. Remote and disadvantaged LGs should receive additional incentive-based allocations.
Support service delivery through the central government’s key role in (i) developing instruments for schools and LGs to assess student and teacher performance; (ii) including gender perspectives for women and men, girls and boys in all planned activities to achieve the goal of gender equality; (iii) reformulating staffing norms to ensure efficient and equitable teacher deployment; and (iv) providing timely feedback through the monitoring and evaluation of LGs and schools.
Identify unclear areas in functional assignments by developing a framework which clearly identifies the roles and responsibilities of central, provincial, and local governments. This kind of role responsibility mapping should detail the diverse range of functional assignments. Appendix 3 provides a conceptual framework that can be used to analyze the distribution of functions within the Indonesian education quality assurance system.
Sufficient Funding, Facilities and Other Resources
Use the budget as a policy tool to improve education governance. Budget priorities and stakeholder involvement could lead to quick wins to improve education outputs and outcomes. For example while the MSS has focused on provision of inputs to schools, future central government financing to districts to implement BOS could be designed to provide incentives for education outcomes.
Review current practices with regard to determinations about the amount of education financing at each level of government and provide funding to support the quality assurance system.
Ensure central and LGs contribute/co finance incentives for teachers in special areas, as required by legislation. Increased budget allocations and contributions are necessary to attract good teachers to remote areas.
Use the LGs budget composition as an indicator for targeting deconcentration spending. Central government should monitor LG expenditure and provide incentives/disincentives in order to improve budget composition.
49
Section
4 : Refo
rmin
g E
du
cation
Go
vernan
ce – The R
oad
map
Recommendations for Local Governments by Strategic Area
Recommendations for reform at LG level are categorized by strategic area. These recommendations serve as guidance
for LGs as they develop capacity development and improvement plans. Recommendations can be tailored to individual
requirements for implementation at the LG level.
Transparency and Accountability
From a governance perspective, no education improvement strategy can succeed without true accountability focused
on results and transparency of process. LGs that perform well have common elements in their approaches to increase
transparency and deepen accountability.
Table 4.2 Recommendations for LG Reform: Transparency and Accountability
Education Standards and Quality Assurance Systems
Build a supportive regulatory framework. Whilst the drafting of local regulations on transparency and accountability do not alone guarantee serious reform in education sector governance, they unmistakably reflect the commitment and intention to begin the process. LGs will need to establish the “rules of the game” and set transparency and accountability standards as well as build capacity in regulatory compliance and enforcement which follow principles of good governance.
Benchmarking and Clear Expectations
Conduct a participatory Education Public Expenditure Analysis ( EPEA ) to kick-start the education governance reform process. This open and participatory process allows for dialogue on issues which influence spending patterns and improvement in education outcomes, as well as increasing LG trust and credibility with the communities they serve. Recent sub-national education public expenditure analyses and the reports prepared have generated vast interest-from LGs, the media, and other stakeholders. EPEA recommendations have also contributed to facilitation of effective and efficient resource management in the short - to medium-term.
Establish mechanisms for community participation in monitoring and evaluation of basic education activities which take into account gender equity considerations. Communities and stakeholders need to be meaningfully and actively involved in reviewing and monitoring education activities and school and LG education finances to increase accountability and transparency.
Sufficient Funding, Facilities and Other Resources
Improve the quality and consistency of annual and medium-term planning and budgeting documents and practices at all levels of government to optimize the impact of interventions. This reform recommendation is complex and needs a phased approach, particularly in the education sector, where schools receive funding from three levels of government. In Phase 1, LGs should consolidate plans internally, for example, the education strategic plan (Renstra) must be consistent with the medium-term strategic plan ( RPJMD), and education-related programs in the annual LG work plan (RKPD) must refer to the strategic plan. In Phase 2, the focus should move to inter-governmental consolidation. Central, provincial, and district governments have to engage in consultations which coordinate and consolidate activities to avoid or reduce the potential for overlap so as to optimize the impact of interventions.
Publicize or disseminate information and official reports on LG finances and open parliamentary budget sessions to the public. Parliamentary budget sessions are not exclusive events where the legislative meets the executive but must be open to the public. In many of strongest performing education systems, the LG administration makes use of the mass media, scheduling public consultations to increase ownership, transparency and accountability in the sector.
Create mechanisms that not only measure progress towards ensuring school accountability to communities but also better target resource allocations to weak schools. Systems to share and disseminate information on school and student performance across the local government, sub-district government and cluster levels are essential for accountability and transparency. LGs must be pro-active about disseminating results on school and student performance at school and the broader community level to foster increased oversight, ownership and representation as well as balancing the primarily, top-down governance system. Annual ‘State of the School’ reports should be prepared and provided by principals, the head of the local education office and the Regent/ Mayor.
Go
vernan
ce Matters to
Ed
ucatio
n O
utco
mes
50
Education Service Provision Standards
The quality of an education system does not exceed the quality of its teachers (Barber and Mourshed, 2007) and its
service and educational standards. International evidence shows that the most successful educational systems have
an integrated structure of rigorous standards and assessments, clear expectations, differentiated support for teachers
and students, good facilities and core resources. Education service provision and quality assurance standards play a
key role in making sure education systems continually improve.
Table 4.3 Recommendations for LG Reform: Education Service Provision Standards
Education Standards and Quality Assurance Systems
Strengthen routine teacher and principal professional development mechanisms. Under the current approach, teachers and principals gather in cluster-based groups and discuss strategies to address common problems. Clinical observation of the teaching and learning process and a strategy which uses the talents of teachers and principals considered leaders in their fields could be incorporated.
Create a teacher training cadre. Most LGs in Indonesia use school supervisors to strengthen administrative oversight of schools and serve as mediator between policy and the oversight functions of the LG education office and service provision function of schools. However, school supervisors are rarely involved in the substantive task of in-service professional development at the school level. Resources should be allocated for the development of a cadre of master teacher trainers to support professional development at the LG level. This teacher training corps could be tasked to design and deliver in-service professional development support focused on improving the weakest teachers and principals to a minimum competence standard established by the LG. This activity would bolster and support on going teacher certification by ensuring that all teachers and principals, regardless of their certification status, have the skills and knowledge to work at the expected performance level.
Mandate the use of school assessment instruments to monitor individual student learning progress and identify and plan for remedial measures to support poor-performing students. A detailed implementation plan should be included as a mandatory component of the school’s annual plan and budget (APBS) and the Memorandum of Understanding between schools and LGs.
Introduce a report card system to inform the public about the academic achievement of primary and junior high school students across the LG. The report cards should detail student assessment scores and improvements in teacher classroom performance to increase public awareness and encourage participation in the education system. Report cards17 communicate a representative measure of achievement in various subjects over time and help identify where geographic achievement gaps exist within the LG and across schools.
Benchmarking and Clear Expectations
Promote better service delivery, especially by public servants, such as teachers, nurses, and doctors through performance –based incentive systems which promote improvement. Facilitate district and school level understanding of the link between education service provision, gender equity and equality education. Some LGs have already initiated such reforms which use incentives as the key element to promote improved service delivery but they are not widely disseminated.
Base teacher evaluations on performance. Teacher evaluations need a stronger performance orientation and should be carried out regularly by school supervisors. Results should then be discussed with teachers and professional development and remedial measures agreed in the form of a learning contract. LGs must be vigilant in ensuring that the weakest teachers do not end up in the weakest schools. Ensure that teachers with the least experience are not placed in the weakest schools. Good teachers and principals are required for underperforming schools and communities where there are high poverty levels. Through an annual evaluation mechanism, the relative strengths and weaknesses of teachers and schools should be identified to enable appropriate mapping of teachers to schools. Initial intake assessments should group new teachers according to ability to ensure that the local education office is aware of the capabilities of its teaching force.
(17) The World Bank is currently piloting a school-based report card approach in Papua to provide specific insights for parents, students and policy-makers. This could be scaled up to
produce individual school report cards which disaggregate information about achievement across school clusters and sub-district governments.
51
Section
4 : Refo
rmin
g E
du
cation
Go
vernan
ce – The R
oad
map
Sufficient Funding, Facilities and Other Resources
Plan teacher allocation and deployment efficiently and effectively and address issues related to the unequal distribution of teachers. LGs should link teacher allocation planning with the incentives program, as required by Teacher and Lecturer Law No. 14/2005:• Teachers working in isolated or special regions should receive the relevant allowance and must understand
that these special allowances are on the basis of residence in the village in which they teach. • Teacher deployment strategies must not only address the issue of urban-rural bias, but must also look at the
individualized needs of schools and students. • The most capable teachers should be given special incentives to be relocated to weaker schools to help
strengthen the capacity of teaching staff on the job if there are no other mechanisms in place such as a cadre of clinical professional development master teachers.
Publicize or disseminate information and official reports on LG finances and open parliamentary budget sessions to the public. Parliamentary budget sessions are not exclusive events where the legislative meets the executive but are open to the public. In many of strongest performing education systems, the LG administration makes use of the mass media, scheduling public consultations to increase ownership, transparency and accountability in the sector.
Strengthen monitoring and evaluation of BOS fund use. Consider BOSDA funding as a mechanism to meet funding gaps. This is required for the program to achieve its objective of widening access to education, particularly for the poor.
Management Control Systems
At the LG level, management control systems are crucial for effective governance action. The survey results indicated
that these systems are often not in place with decision-making appearing to be frequently ad hoc. Processes
particularly prone to corruption are asset management and procurement, reinforcing the need for management
control reform.
Table 4.4 Recommendations for LG Reform: Management Control Systems
Education Standards and Quality Assurance Systems
Improve coordination between LGs and exchange lessons learned. Regional clustering could be a vehicle for sharing good practice and promoting horizontal and systematic learning exchanges. Encourage peer to peer learning and the adaption/customizing of good practices to other LG contexts. Enable the systematic measurement and documentation of good practices and facilitate processes which acknowledge and reward innovation.
Manage performance and reduce barriers that inhibit the removal of poor-performing teachers and principals. Currently poor performers who are civil servants are typically transferred to another school once their performance becomes severely problematic as removal involves the central government. Schools do not have the ability to remove ineffective civil servants, limiting opportunities to develop a cohesive school team within an environment of accountability for student learning. LGs will need to work closely with the central government to establish a performance management framework that is transparent for the removal of poor-performing teachers and principals. This is complex and may take several years to establish but without this option, the system will continue to be saddled with ineffective teachers and principals who do not meet performance requirements. The removal of poor-performing contract teachers should reflect transparency in the dismissal process.
Benchmarking and Clear Expectations
Establish incentive structures, reform teacher pay and reward teachers for measurable increases in student performance and achievement. A strategy which institutes a clear evaluative framework to assess teacher performance and measure academic performance will not be easy to implement but is vital in fostering the development of performance-driven improvement in the education sector. Currently, most LGs use the local education budget to provide financial ‘top-ups’ to teacher salaries – but there are no examples of this disbursement being on the basis of performance.
Go
vernan
ce Matters to
Ed
ucatio
n O
utco
mes
52
Sufficient Funding, Facilities and Other Resources
Seek local Education Board approval for local education strategic plans that include costing tables, measurable targets, performance indicators and monitoring and evaluation plans. This will enable stakeholders to meaningfully participate in inclusive local education planning. Training may need to be provided to stakeholders to facilitate them in the establishment of process and performance targets.
Establish a sound local regulatory framework for procurement, asset management and annual stock inventories which includes public scrutiny mechanisms that are disseminated to LG communities. LGs should prioritize the drafting and improvement of local regulations and implementation guidelines for asset management and procurement and ensure that adequate training is provided to relevant personnel such as principals and members of the local education board.
Management Information Systems
One of the key elements to set the stage for change and reform is the ability to use data effectively. Measuring
progress, setting standards and analyzing information to identify patterns of failure and their causes enables LG
education offices and schools to diagnose diminished performance and address specific problems with concrete
solutions. Important sources of data include: student test scores; portfolios of work; comparisons of school-wide
achievement against LG, provincial and national standards; resource use; teacher deployment; and teacher, student
and parent surveys.
Table 4.5: Recommendations for LG Reform: Management Information Systems
Education Standards and Quality Assurance Systems
Collect quality gender-disaggregated data using tools such as the Tool for Reporting and Information Management by Schools (TRIMS). The amount and type of educational data collected at all levels of government in Indonesia must focus less on compliance and more on performance and outputs. Data collection currently focuses on gathering detailed information on system inputs such as teacher salaries or numbers of textbooks and desks. Without more solid educational data, informed policy development becomes nothing more than educated guesswork. With the constitutional mandate of allocating 20% of the national and sub-national budgets to the education sector, too much is at stake to continue basing critical decisions on weak data.
The challenge is to focus on quality data of relevance which explains what, why, and how students (girls and boys) learn best and how schools can deliver improved educational services to the general public. LGs must make the effort to ensure that all data collected from schools can help school leaders improve school management, teaching, learning and student retention rates. If the data being collected currently does not fit into this category, LG education offices need to focus on data that will provide key performance information and create a transparent system which provides the necessary information to share with schools, parents, policy makers and the public.
The National Education Standards (NES) and Minimum Service Standards (MSS) can also be used to recalibrate data collection and management systems, focusing on data needed to measure performance across these standards. The NES and MSS furnish LGs with a relatively simple set of data from which to begin establishing benchmarks for measuring school and sector performance. Currently, LGs and schools surveyed demonstrate a tendency to collect excessive and irrelevant data. Without data that allows the local education office to be attuned to the needs of individual schools, bureaucratically-driven approaches will continue to limit the effectiveness of the teaching workforce and hamper attempts at improvement at the local level. Compounding this is the fact that most LG education offices do not act on the findings from the data they collect. Information and knowledge generated through the collection of data is only of use if it is used to tackle educational problems.
53
Section
4 : Refo
rmin
g E
du
cation
Go
vernan
ce – The R
oad
map
Benchmarking and Clear Expectations
Develop LG-level longitudinal data systems. Until LGs and educators understand the nature and extent of their educational problems, it will be impossible to make needed changes and improvements. LGs should develop gender-disaggregated data systems that provide specific information about individual students, teachers, and programs and feed that information back to schools and communities. Longitudinal data about teachers would help with management, deployment, and the design of professional development priorities; longitudinal student data would enable LGs to sharpen their understanding about student retention and transition rates, as well as information about the type of programming and teaching pedagogy that is most successful in producing better student outcomes.
Improve data collection on teacher absenteeism18 and link it to a system of incentives and disincentives. A recent study on absenteeism in Indonesia shows that 14% of teachers are absent at any given time (SMERU 2009). High absenteeism rates create inefficiencies and are likely to be one of the main contributors to the oversupply of teachers. The ILEGI revealed that many LG education offices do not monitor the attendance of teachers and principals. LG education offices should begin collecting data on teacher absenteeism rates and develop sanctions which are clear to all so as to reduce absenteeism.
Develop a straightforward and routine data spot-check and verification system to improve the quality, integrity and consistency of raw data collected at the school level. This system would also require the LG education office to reciprocate by streamlining data request protocols to schools, reduce duplication and cease the collection of unnecessary data. Fewer than half the LGs surveyed stated that they employed any kind of data verification system for school-level data. In addition to low submission rates of school-level data to the LG education office it is often inaccurate and out of date. Sanctions will need to be reinforced for those schools providing inaccurate data.
Establish an interactive online database which provides details about good practice in LGs; LGCA and ILEGI results and recommendations; relevant data elements; and sample surveys.
Sufficient Funding, Facilities and Other Resources
Take advantage of technology to improve the management of education. In Indonesia, generally little thought is given to how technology might modernize education delivery and improve teaching and learning. One of the major problems associated with the slow take-up of technology into the teaching and learning process may be teachers’ lack of technological proficiency. Local governments should make sure that clear learning goals are established before schools purchase computers and help stimulate demand for technology by increasing teachers’ technological capacity through professional development.
(18) A multi-country survey of teacher absenteeism in primary schools found that one in every five teachers is absent at any given moment (Chaudhury et al, 2006)
Go
vernan
ce Matters to
Ed
ucatio
n O
utco
mes
54
Efficient Resource Use
Across the districts surveyed, education spending was generally divorced from results. LG education systems lack a
performance culture in which schools and the local government education office are required to meet established
performance standards –whatever that standard may be. LGs still struggle to find ways to track the return on
investment in education. Generally, educators are unable to answer key questions to inform education planning
such as whether spending “X” amount on a new instructional model will yield “Y” gains on important outcome
measures.
Table 4.6: Recommendations for LG Reform: Efficient Resource Use
Education Standards and Quality Assurance Systems
Develop financial accountability systems that are outcome-/performance -based rather than input based. The ILEGI found no evidence that any LG surveyed conducts financial accountability reviews on an outcome basis. Without information on outcomes, LGs will not be able to estimate the return-on-investment and if sectoral funds are well and equitably spent.
Benchmarking and Clear Expectations
View the budget with a lens that provides a medium-term perspective and is linked to development outcomes. Minimize formalistic planning processes and put more emphasis on medium-term and annual budgeting with a goal of achieving “participatory budgeting” as an international good practice (for LGs that are advanced in their budgeting process). While the general development planning process is outlined in national legislation, LGs should prioritize activities that enable achievable quality outputs and useful stakeholder involvement.
Sufficient Funding, Facilities and Other Resources
Include an analysis of unit costs in LG planning and budgeting to identify operational and developmental costs associated with the delivery of educational services to levels established in the NES and MSS. An analysis of unit costs will then assist LGs in planning and allocating their budgets appropriately and channeling funds to schools that have difficulties in narrowing budget gaps between available funds and the operational costs of the school.
Model BOS and BOSDA mechanisms and allocate local budget using an equitable student-based funding formula. While at the national level, the finance system distributes a larger proportion of its funds through the BOS mechanism on a per-pupil basis, none of the LGs surveyed allocated APBD funds directly to schools based on demonstrated needs. The introduction of such a system would also contribute to increased clarity and transparency, helping to expand the BOS model which has proven to improve the ability of parents and policy makers to judge and assess how effectively educators are using those resources.
Simplify funding streams. In most LGs surveyed, complex and confusing funding streams were the norm. These complex systems reduce flexibility and transparency while making it difficult to link specific investment to results. By simplifying funding streams, and linking them explicitly to a prioritized results framework that is linked to the NES and MSS performance and achievement standards, decision makers and communities will be in a position to more easily assess the relative success of programs and recommend corrective action.
Establish sound mechanisms to monitor budget absorption and execution rates and patterns of consistency between realized and planned budgets as one of the key strategies for more effective education spending. Ensure that performance indicators are equitable and consider the needs of boys and girls. Simple Excel worksheets combined with clearly assigned roles and responsibilities will be a useful beginning before more complex mechanisms are developed.
55
Go
vernan
ce Matters to
Ed
ucatio
n O
utco
mes
CONCLUSION
Education governance in a decentralized landscape
is focused on large scale education reform at central,
provincial, district, school and community levels.
Although the primary objective of this report is to provide
policy guidance and support to LG leadership, some
findings can only be addressed through policy dialogue
at higher levels. In addition to expanding the scope of
dissemination of the study, substantial efforts must be
made to improve and maintain effective coordination
between national and sub-national partners.
The right conditions to foster an environment of
continuous improvement and improve the quality and
service delivery of the nine-year basic education program
in terms of student learning are central to quality and
service delivery improvement and effective education
governance, management and resource use.
The study revealed issues related to education
governance that are within and beyond LG control
requiring central government support . Local education
governance reform -- supported by central government
–with improved national and sub national coordination
is necessary. The most significant reforms will be at LG
and school level. LG leadership must take active steps
to establish high expectations for schools, teachers
and students, supported by policy reform and ongoing
capacity development support. Performance indicators
must be established to monitor and evaluate progress
with strategies put in place to provide assistance to
those schools and students that fail to meet performance
standards. Data collection must be streamlined to cease
duplication in reporting currently the norm at school
and LG levels. Schools must focus on the teacher as the
primary agent of change, supported by capable school
leadership with supervisors providing quality assurance,
mentoring and coaching support aimed at facilitating
professional development targeted at improved teaching
quality and, effective classroom practices which enrich
student learning and educational outcomes.
Further LG capacity assessment rounds are needed to
better understand the dynamics of education governance
processes and service delivery outputs at the local level.
This will be facilitated by strengthened data collection
and increased access to more reliable data – through
the TRIMS tool which strengthens PAS and PADATI.
Trend analysis and time series data captured, using the
customized LGCA and ILEGI diagnostic tools developed
for this purpose, have the capacity to demonstrate,
encourage and monitor changes in performance. They
enable better targeting of capacity building activities and
the identification of the strategies and incentives needed
to reward good performance and encourage continuous
improvement in the provision of quality 9-year equitable
compulsory basic education in Indonesia.
Go
vernan
ce Matters to
Ed
ucatio
n O
utco
mes
56
Local GovernmentTransparency
and Accountability
Education Service
Provision Standards
Management Control Systems
Management Information
Systems
Efficient Resource Use
Total
Sleman 54.29% 64.76% 40.77% 77.47% 72.50% 61.96%
Bojonegoro 63.10% 71.58% 76.91% 61.94% 28.75% 60.45%
Kebumen 75.24% 54.60% 84.23% 20.83% 66.25% 60.23%
Bondowoso 50.71% 62.78% 59.13% 63.03% 61.25% 59.38%
Wonogiri 62.98% 80.95% 23.71% 64.78% 63.33% 59.15%
Sragen 55.83% 80.36% 59.13% 55.04% 45.00% 59.07%
Probolinggo (City) 61.43% 50.94% 72.62% 73.60% 35.00% 58.72%
Pacitan 56.43% 70.87% 78.27% 46.51% 39.17% 58.25%
Sampang 47.62% 54.46% 82.19% 41.67% 59.17% 57.02%
Purworejo 44.05% 67.92% 80.56% 36.66% 53.33% 56.50%
Ngawi 61.43% 76.82% 83.23% 25.00% 22.08% 53.71%
Nganjuk 49.29% 63.86% 63.59% 54.74% 31.25% 52.55%
Probolinggo 55.00% 49.96% 73.71% 43.69% 37.50% 51.97%
Blora 52.98% 60.69% 29.37% 43.46% 69.58% 51.21%
Bangkalan 45.71% 62.53% 78.27% 38.78% 30.00% 51.06%
Trenggalek 61.90% 51.55% 46.33% 28.36% 60.83% 49.80%
Majene 52.38% 44.51% 77.68% 33.71% 40.42% 49.74%
Aceh Utara 40.48% 48.25% 71.63% 42.38% 43.75% 49.30%
Jombang 30.48% 57.94% 75.79% 37.19% 39.17% 48.12%
Wonosobo 44.05% 37.36% 76.39% 41.30% 39.17% 47.65%
Aceh Besar 42.14% 58.01% 70.83% 30.87% 33.75% 47.12%
Lhokseumawe 40.48% 55.36% 76.09% 21.70% 41.67% 47.06%
Demak 57.14% 60.99% 27.68% 42.45% 40.00% 45.65%
Purbalingga 44.05% 43.81% 67.26% 13.18% 57.50% 45.16%
Rembang 52.98% 71.67% 20.83% 31.70% 45.42% 44.52%
Brebes 44.05% 49.63% 49.60% 12.84% 64.58% 44.14%
APPENDIX 1:
BEC LOCAL GOVERNMENT SCORES PER STRATEGIC AREA
57
Go
vernan
ce Matters to
Ed
ucatio
n O
utco
mes
Local GovernmentTransparency
and Accountability
Education Service
Provision Standards
Management Control Systems
Management Information
Systems
Efficient Resource Use
Total
Jayapura 48.81% 45.52% 59.90% 28.10% 32.08% 42.88%
Polewali Mandar 44.05% 43.02% 38.29% 51.65% 34.17% 42.24%
Ternate 49.29% 48.26% 18.43% 54.56% 39.17% 41.94%
Banjarnegara 49.40% 47.21% 48.66% 41.41% 21.25% 41.59%
Aceh Tenggara 42.14% 42.06% 14.78% 22.14% 70.00% 38.22%
Bireuen 40.48% 48.59% 68.75% 15.29% 15.83% 37.79%
Aceh Barat 40.48% 40.81% 11.61% 31.64% 60.83% 37.07%
Seruyan 45.71% 43.89% 12.10% 41.67% 40.83% 36.84%
Kepulauan Sula 25.48% 34.86% 45.59% 30.30% 46.25% 36.49%
Kaimana 40.48% 28.76% 36.11% 21.68% 51.25% 35.65%
Halmahera Selatan 37.62% 37.11% 45.81% 20.83% 31.25% 34.52%
Kulon Progo 27.38% 44.91% 37.40% 37.50% 25.42% 34.52%
Sorong Selatan 41.67% 42.63% 37.90% 26.97% 23.33% 34.50%
Nabire 30.48% 27.46% 29.69% 27.21% 43.75% 31.72%
Nagana Raya 42.14% 29.95% 27.28% 20.83% 35.00% 31.04%
Aceh Barat Daya 10.71% 61.02% 19.25% 8.33% 54.17% 30.70%
Mamasa 23.33% 23.37% 27.58% 4.37% 70.83%z 29.90%
Teluk Wondama 49.29% 47.60% 11.61% 29.17% 10.83% 29.70%
Manokwari (City) 27.38% 36.59% 17.36% 0.65% 30.42% 22.48%
Palangka Raya 28.69% 41.84% 13.19% 5.23% 21.67% 22.12%
Kotawaringin Timur 10.24% 44.90% 10.02% 4.49% 38.33% 21.60%
Jayawijaya 16.67% 19.49% 14.19% 24.32% 30.42% 21.02%
Pegunungan Bintang 22.02% 18.90% 24.11% 4.96% 25.42% 19.08%
Paniai 3.57% 33.93% 24.11% 4.61% 29.17% 19.08%
Sample Average 42.87% 49.70% 46.79% 32.28% 42.04% 42.84%
Go
vernan
ce Matters to
Ed
ucatio
n O
utco
mes
58
APPENDIX 2:
EDUCATION MINIMUM SERVICE STANDARDS (MSS) Education Minimum Service Standards are benchmark standards for formal basic education services for which all
sub-national governments and schools have obligatory responsibility. First drafts of MSS were developed for primary,
secondary and vocational education by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MoHA) in 2004. At that time, the expectation was
that all district governments would aspire to achieve these standards as a minimum.
This first iteration of the MSS was criticized as too quantitative and lacking of clear timelines for school and district
government level compliance. Other notable weaknesses included the omission of benchmarks for minimum facilities,
infrastructure and standardized teacher credentials.
In July 2010, a second iteration of the MSS for basic education was issued by the Minister of National Education,
Indonesia under Law No. 15/2010. A number of qualitative indicators were introduced as well as standards for teacher
qualifications and professional certification. A timeline for achieving compliance was also included for both school
and district level indicators.
The architecture for the Education Service Provision Standards strategic area of the ILEGI was developed in January
2010. It used the 2010 draft version of the MSS which accounts for slight differences between ILEGI indicators for this
strategic area and the final version of the MSS.
TYPE OF SERVICE
No. SPM PERFORMANCE INDICATORSATTAINMENT
TARGET
STANDARDS FOR DISTRICT / CITY
Facilities and Infrastructure
1Each community living in a permanent settlement will have a primary school within a safe walking distance of 3 km and a junior secondary school within 6 km safe walking distance.
2013
2 The maximum class size for SD/MI should not 32 students and 36 students for SMP/MTs. Each learning group should be provided with one classroom and equipped with enough desks and chairs for students and teacher and at least one blackboard.
2013
3Each SMP and MT is equipped with a basic Science Laboratory with sufficient desks and chairs for 36 students and at least one set of science equipment for demonstration and observations of experiments.
2013
4Each SD/MI and SMP/MTs is equipped with at least one teacher room, furnished with a desk and chairs for every teacher, non-teaching personnel and the school principal; and for each SMP/MTs the Principal’s office is separated from the teacher room.
2013
Teaching and Education Personnel
5Each SD/MI and SMP/MTs provides one teacher for every 32 students and 6 teachers for every school, and for specific condition schools at least 4 teachers available in each school.
2013
6Each SMP/MTs provides at least one teacher for each subject and for specific condition schools one teacher for each group of subjects.
2013
7Each SD/MI has at least two teachers who meet the minimum educational qualifications of S-1 or D-IV and two teachers who hold a teaching certificate.
2013
8Each SMP/MTs has at least 70% of teachers who meet the minimum educational qualifications of S-1or D-IV and half of them (35% of total teachers) hold a teachingcertificate, with specific condition schools with 40% and 20% respectively.
2013
9Each SMP/ MTs provides at least one teacher in each of the core subjects of Math, Science, Bahasa Indonesia and English who meets the minimum educational qualifications of S-1 or D-IV and holds a teaching certificate.
2013
10All (100%) SD/ MI principals in each district/city have a minimum educational qualification of S-1 or D-IV and hold a teaching certificate.
2013
11All (100%) SMP/MTs principals in each district/city have a minimum educational qualification of S-1 or D-IV and hold a teaching certificate.
2013
12All (100%) school supervisors in each district/city have a minimum educational qualification of S-1 or D-IV and hold a teaching certificate.
2013
Education Minimum Service Standards – Law No. 15/2010
59
Go
vernan
ce Matters to
Ed
ucatio
n O
utco
mes
STANDARDS FOR DISTRICT / CITY
Curriculum 13The district develops and implements a plan to provide support to schools for curriculum development and effective teaching processes.
2013
Education Quality Control
14The school supervisor visits each school one a month, each visit is a minimum of 3 hours for the purpose of monitoring school performance and providing assistance for improvement.
2013
STANDARDS FOR SCHOOLS
Facilities and Infrastructure
15Each SD/MI provides a set of textbooks that have been certified by the Government, covering four subjects (Math, Bahasa Indonesia, Natural Sciences, Social Science, at a ratio of one set for every student.
2013
16Each SMP/MTs provides a set of textbooks that have been certified by the Government covering every subject at a ratio of one set for every student.
2013
17
Each SD/MI provides ones set of science equipment and resource materials comprising at least: a model of a human skeleton, model of a human body, globe, examples of optical equipment, science equipment for basic experiments and posters for natural science.
2013
18Each SD/MI provides 100 items of enrichment materials and 10 reference books and every SMP/MTs provides 200 items of enrichment materials and 20 reference books.
2013
Teachers and Education Personnel
19
Each full-time teacher must be on duty in the school for 37.5 hours per week, which includes face to face teaching, preparing a teaching plan and accompanying materials, reviewing and grading student tests, providing consultation to students, and other related duties.
2013
20
Students receive teaching instruction for at least 34 weeks per year with face to face teaching as follows:: Grade I – II: 18 hours per week Grade III: 24 hours per week Grade IV – VI: 27 hours per week Grade VII – IX: 27 hours per week
2013
21Each school and Madrasah develops and implements a school level curriculum (KTSP) in accordance with the pertaining regulations.
2013
22Each teacher develops and implements lesson plans based on syllabi for every subject taught.
2013
Learning Evaluation
23Each teacher develops and implements a learning assessment program for students to assist them to improve their learning.
2013
24Each school/Madrasah principal undertakes classroom observation and provides feedback to each teacher on their performance at least twice per semester.
2013
25Each teacher reports assessment results for each student in each subject to the school principal at the end of each semester in the form of learning achievement grades.
2013
26Each school/Madrasah principal reports the results of final semester test and final exams to parents and the Dinas/Kandepag at the end of the semester.
2013
School Management
27 Each school/Madrasah implements the principle of school-based management. 2013
Go
vernan
ce Matters to
Ed
ucatio
n O
utco
mes
60
APPENDIX 3:
DISTRIBUTION OF FUNCTIONS WITHIN AN EDUCATION QUALITY ASSURANCE SYSTEM This conceptual framework can be used to analyze the distribution of functions within the Indonesian education
quality assurance system. It was drawn from a World Bank19 comparison of education quality assurance systems and
institutions in selected countries focused on strengthening quality assurance for basic and secondary education. It
helps to clarify the assignment of roles and functions for the key dimensions of a national quality assurance system,
across different levels of government and stakeholders -- identifying where overlap, duplication and inefficiencies
exist to inform decision making about the priorities for corrective action.
Policy Oversight Provision
Institution A Institution B Institution C Institution D
Set Performance Goals
Students
Teachers
Schools
Local government
Nation
Set Performance Goals
Students
Teachers
Schools
Local government
Nation
Reports on Performance
Students
Teachers
Schools
Local Government
Nation
Evaluates Impact ofPolicies and Programs
Students
Teachers
Schools
Local Government
Nation
Sets Requirements toOperate
Students
Teachers
Schools
Local Government
Nation
Ensures Adequate andEquitable Resources
Students
Teachers
Schools
Local Government
Nation
Provides Technical – Pedagogical Support
Students
Teachers
Schools
Local Government
Nation
Accountability and Consequences
Students
Teachers
Schools
Local Government
Nation
(19) World Bank 2009
61
Go
vernan
ce Matters to
Ed
ucatio
n O
utco
mes
Go
vernan
ce Matters to
Ed
ucatio
n O
utco
mes
62
Barber, M. Mourshed, M. 2007. How the World’s Best Performing Schools Come Out on Top.
McKinsey and Company, New York, USA.
Bertelsmann Stiftung. Shaping Change – Strategic of Development and Transformation.
Bertelsmann Transformation Index.
Viewed June 2010 http://www.bertelsmann-transformation-index.de/en/bti/
Chaudhury, N. Hammer, J.S. Kremer, M. Muralidharan, K., Halsey Rogers, F. 2006. Missing in
Action: Teacher and Health Worker Absence in Developing Countries. Journal of Economic
Perspectives 20(1): 91-116.
International Finance Corporation. Doing Business 2010: Measuring Business Regulations.
Economy Rankings June 2008 through May 2009. The World Bank Group. Viewed May 2010
http://www.doingbusiness.org/economyrankings/.
Kemitraan Partnership. 2008. Annual Governance Assessment Partnership Governance
Index. Viewed May 2010 http://www.kemitraan.or.id/govindex/
Orin Basuki. 2009. Mardiasmo, Director General for Fiscal Balance. Kompas.
Viewed June 2010 http://m.kompas.com/index.php/news/read/data/2009.01.20.01310258
Quantitative Micro Software. EViews 4 Users Guide. March 11 2002.
Viewed May 2010 http://www.eviews.com
The Jawa Pos Institute of Pro-Otonomi Award. 2006.
Viewed June 2010 http://www.jpip.or.id/pages/otonomi_award/
Transparency International. 2009. Corruptions Perceptions Index 2009.
Viewed May 2010 http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2009
The SMERU Research Institute. 2009. Teacher Remote Area Allowance and Absenteeism
Levels for Teachers in Remote Areas Baseline Survey.
Viewed June 2010 http://www.smeru.or.id/publicationdetail.php?id=246
World Bank. 2007. Investing in Indonesia’s Education: Allocation, Equity and Efficiency of
Public Expenditures.
World Bank. 2007. Investing in Indonesia’s Education the District Level.
World Bank. 2009. Chile: Strengthening the Quality Assurance System for Basic and
Secondary Education. A Comparison of Educational Quality Assurance Systems and
Institutions in Selected Countries.
World Bank. 2009. Governance Matters. Worldwide Governance Indicators 1996 – 2008.
Viewed May 2010 http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/index.asp
REFERENCES
63
Section
4 : Refo
rmin
g E
du
cation
Go
vernan
ce – The R
oad
map
Go
vernan
ce Matters to
Ed
ucatio
n O
utco
mes
64
BEC-TF Secretariat
Directorate General of Primary and Secondary Education
Ministry of National Education
Jl. Jend. Sudirman Gedung E, 17th Floor
Jakarta 10270
T • (021) 579 00349
F • (021) 579 00450
http://dit-plp.go.id/bec