More Effective Decentralized Education Management and Governance Final Report December 2011 This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared by RTI International.
More Effective
Decentralized
Education Management
and Governance
Final Report
December 2011 This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared by RTI International.
More Effective Decentralized Education
Management and Governance (DBE1)
Final Report
Contract 497-M-00-05-00029-00 Prepared for USAID/Indonesia Prepared by RTI International 3040 Cornwallis Road Post Office Box 12194 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2194
The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government.
More Effective Decentralized Education Management and Governance—Final Report iii
Table of Contents
Page
List of Figures ...................................................................................................................... iv
List of Tables ........................................................................................................................ iv
Acronyms and Abbreviations ................................................................................................. v
Glossary of Indonesian Terms ............................................................................................. viii
Executive Summary .............................................................................................................. 1
Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 5
Evolution of the Contract and Project .................................................................................... 7
Coordination ......................................................................................................................... 8
The DBE1 Tool Kit ............................................................................................................... 10 School-Based Management and Governance ......................................................... 11 District Management and Governance..................................................................... 19
Phase 1: Planning and Budgeting Tools ...................................................... 19 Phase 2: School Cost Analysis Tools ........................................................... 23 Phase 3: Management Tools (Asset and Personnel Information Systems) .. 26 Phase 4: Integrated Tools for Calculating Costs of Achieving Minimum
Service Standards and Universal Access—and For Planning and Policy Development .......................................................................... 30
East Java ―Inova‖ Program .......................................................................... 31 Information and Data Management ......................................................................... 33
EMIS Assessment and Pilot ......................................................................... 34 ICT Innovation Program ............................................................................... 35 Project Data and Information Management .................................................. 36
Public-Private Alliances ........................................................................................... 37
Dissemination and Sustainability ......................................................................................... 39
Challenges, Weaknesses, and Lessons Learned ................................................................ 46
Recommendations and Policy Inputs .................................................................................. 51
Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 54
Appendix A: Consolidated Project Implementation Data
Appendix B: Data by Province
iv More Effective Decentralized Education Management and Governance—Final Report
List of Figures
Page
Figure 1: DBE1 Coverage ..................................................................................................... 6
Figure 2: Data Triangle ........................................................................................................ 35
Figure 3: Post-Earthquake School Reconstruction Manual ................................................. 39
Figure 4: DBE1 Transition Strategy ..................................................................................... 40
List of Tables
Page
Table 1: Summary of Public-Private Alliances ..................................................................... 38
Table 2: Types of School-Based Management Programs Disseminated, as per November 2011 ....................................................................................................... 43
Table 3: Indonesian Financial Commitments Resulting from DBE1 ..................................... 44
More Effective Decentralized Education Management and Governance—Final Report v
Acronyms and Abbreviations
Abbreviation/Acronym Bahasa Indonesia Definition English Definition
AusAID Australian Agency for International Development
ABPPD Analisis Belanja Publik Pendidikan Daerah
Local Government Education Expenditure Analysis
ACM Aku Cepat Membaca ―I Read Fast‖ approach/method
ADB Asian Development Bank
AIBEP Australia Indonesia Basic Education Program
AKPK Analisis Keuangan Pendidikan Kabupaten/Kota
District Education Financial Analysis
APBD Anggaran Pendapatan dan Belanja Daerah
District Government Annual Budget
BEC-TF Basic Education Capacity Trust Fund
BOP Petunjuk Teknis Pengelolaan Biaya Operasional Pendidikan
Technical Guidelines for the Management of Education Operation Funds
BOS Bantuan Operasional Sekolah National School Operation Grants
BOSDA BOS Daerah Regional BOS
BOSP Penghitungan Biaya Operasional Satuan Pendidikan
School Operations Cost Calculation
BP British Petroleum
BPS National Bureau of Statistics
BSNP Badan Standar Nasional Pendidikan National Education Standards Body
CLCC Creative Learning Community for Children [UNICEF]
CMS Content management system
CSR Corporate social responsibility
CV Curriculum Vitae
DBE Decentralized Basic Education
DBE1 Decentralized Basic Education Project–Management and Governance
DBE2 Decentralized Basic Education Project–Teaching and Learning
DBE3 Decentralized Basic Education Project–Improving Work and Life Skills
DF District Facilitators
DKI Daerah Khusus Ibukota Jakarta Special Capital City District of Jakarta [official name of Jakarta]
DPISS District Planning Information Support System [now SIPPK]
DPPKAD Dinas Pendapatan, Pencatatan Keuangan dan Asset Daerah
District Asset, Finance Management, and Revenue Office
DPR Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat House of Representatives
DPRD Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Daerah District parliament
EDS Evaluasi Diri Sekolah School Self-Evaluation [Module]
EMG Education Management and Governance
EMIS Education Management Information System
EU European Union
GDA Global Development Alliance [USAID]
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GOI Government of Indonesia
vi More Effective Decentralized Education Management and Governance—Final Report
Abbreviation/Acronym Bahasa Indonesia Definition English Definition
ICT Information and Communication Technology
IR Intermediate Result
ISP Internet service provider
JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency
KCD Kepala Cabang Dinas Head of Subdistrict Education Office
KP Keputusan Bupati District Head Decree
LAKIP Laporan Akuntabilitas Kinerja Instansi Pemerintah
Annual plan implementation performance monitoring
LAN Local Area Network
LGSP Local Governance Support Program
LOGICA Local Governance and Infrastructure for Communities in Aceh [AusAID]
LPKIPI Institute for Training and Innovation Educational Consultancy of Indonesia
LPMP Quality Assurance Institutes
MA Madrasah Aliyah Islamic senior-secondary school
MBE Managing Basic Education [USAID]
MCC Millennium Challenge Corporation
MI Madrasah Ibtidaiyah Islamic primary school
MOHA Ministry of Home Affairs
MONE Ministry of National Education
MORA Ministry of Religious Affairs
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
MS Microsoft
MT/MTs Madrasah Tsanawiyah Islamic junior-secondary school
NGO nongovernmental organization
NOC Network Operation Center
NTT Nusa Tenggara Timur East Nusa Tenggara
NUPTK education personnel database system
PATTIRO Center for Regional Information and Studies [NGO]
PBPSA/PBPSAP Penghitungan Biaya Pencapaian Standard dan Akses Pendidikan
Calculation of Costs to Meet Standards
PDA Personal Data Assistant
PDMS Project Data Management System
PDSP Pusat Data dan Statistik Pendidikan MONE’s Center for Education Data and Statistics
PO Program Objective
PP Peraturan Pemerintah Government regulations
PPA Public-private alliances
PRIORITAS
Prioritizing Reform, Innovation, Opportunities for Reaching Indonesia's Teachers, Administrators, and Students Project
PSP Pusat Statistic Pendidikan Center for Education Statistics [MONE]
PT ITS PT Institut Teknologi Sepuluh November [Indonesian training firm]
RKS Rencana Kerja Sekolah School Work Plans
RKS/M Rencana Kerja Sekolah/Madrasah School Work Plans/Madrasah
RKT Rencana Kerja Tahunan School Annual Medium-Term Plan
RKTS/RKAS Rencana Kerja Tahunan Sekolah/ Rencana Kegiatan Anggaran Sekolah
School Annual Work Plan/ School Annual Budget
RPJM Medium-Term Education Plan
More Effective Decentralized Education Management and Governance—Final Report vii
Abbreviation/Acronym Bahasa Indonesia Definition English Definition
RPJMD Medium-Term Education Development Plans
RPJMN National Medium-Term Development Plan
RPK Rencana Pengembangan Kapasitas Capacity Development Planning tool
RPS Rencana Pengembangan Sekolah School Development Plans
RTI Research Triangle Institute (RTI International)
SBM School-based management
SD Sekolah Dasar Elementary/primary school
SDN State elementary schools
SDS School Database System
SEDIA Support for Education Sector Development in Aceh [AusAID]
SIMA Sistem Informasi Manajement Aset Asset Management Information System
SIMPK Sistem Informasi Manajemen Kabupaten/Kota
District Information Management System
SIMPTK see SIM-PTK
SIM-PTK Sistem Informasi Management Pendidik dan Tenaga Kependidikan
personnel management information system
SIPPK Sistem Informasi Perencanaan Pendidikan Kabupaten/Kota
District Planning Information Support System
SIPUS Library Information System
SKPD Rencana Kerja/Renja Annual work plans [regional]
SK Surat Keputusan (Government) Decision Letter
SLB Special Schools
SMA/SMK senior-secondary school
SMERU SMERU Research Institute
SMP Sekolah Menangar Pertama Junior-secondary school
SMPK Finance management
SMPN State junior high schools
SMS Short Message System
SNP National Education Standards
SOW Scope of Work
SPM Standar Pelayanan Minimum Minimum Service Standards
SPSS Statistical Package for the Social Sciences Software
SSE The Sampoerna School of Education
TEDS Total Education Delivery System
TK-PPA Tim Koordinator Pendidikan Provinsi Aceh
Aceh Provincial Coordinating Team
TO Task Order
TOT Training of trainers
TRIMS Tool for Reporting and Information Management by Schools
UM Universitas Negeri Malang National University of Malang
UMS Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organisation
UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund
UNILA Universitas Lampung
UNM Universitas Negeri Makassar
UNSIKA Singaperbangsa University
UPI Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia
UPTD Education Office/Subdistrict Offices
viii More Effective Decentralized Education Management and Governance—Final Report
Abbreviation/Acronym Bahasa Indonesia Definition English Definition
USA United States of America
USAID United States Agency for International Development
USD United States dollar
WAN Wide-area network
YASTI Yayasan Tarbiyah Islamiyah [an NGO]
YPK Yayasan Pendidikan dan Ketramplian [from YPK Amanah, a grantee organization]
Glossary of Indonesian Terms
Bahasa Indonesia Term English Term
Aku Cepat Membaca ―I Read Fast‖ approach/method
Analisis Belanja Publik Pendidikan Daerah Local Government Education Expenditure Analysis
Analisis Keuangan Pendidikan Kabupaten/Kota District Education Financial Analysis
Badan Standar Nasional Pendidikan National Education Standards Body
Balitbang MONE’s Research and Development Body
Bantuan Operasional Sekolah National School Operation Grants
Bappeda Provincial and District Development Planning Bodies
Bappenas National Planning Body
Bimbingan Belajar Private skills and academic courses
Dewan Pendidikan Local parliaments and education councils
Dinas Pendapatan, Pencatatan Keuangan dan Asset
Daerah
District Asset, Finance Management, and Revenue
Office
Dinas Pendidikan District Education Office
Evaluasi Diri Sekolah School Self-Evaluation [Module]
Jardiknas MONE’s ICT network infrastructure
Kanwil Departemen Agama Regional Offices of MORA
Keputusan Bupati District Head Decree
Laporan Akuntabilitas Kinerja Instansi Pemerintah Annual plan implementation performance monitoring
Lembaga Penjaminan Mutu Pendidikan Province-based quality assurance bodies
Madrasah Ibtidaiyah Islamic primary school
Madrasah Tsanawiyah Islamic junior secondary school
Madrasah Islamic school
Majelis Pendidikan) The Education Council
MenkoKesra/ Kementerian Koordinator
Kesejahteraan Rakyat Coordinating Ministry for People’s Social Welfare
Musrenbangdes District planning processes/community
consultation/village development planning forums
PadatiWEB MONE’s Web-based EMIS
Pengawas School supervisors
Penghitungan Biaya Operasional Satuan Pendidikan School Operations Costs Calculation
Penghitungan Biaya Pencapaian Standard dan Akses
Pendidikan Calculation of Costs to Meet Standards
Penyusunan Biaya Pencapaian Standard dan Akses
Pendidikan
Calculation of Costs for Achieving Standards and
Access
Peraturan Pemerintah Government regulations
Permendikna Ministerial regulation
Pusat Data dan Statistik Pendidikan MONE’s Center for Education Data and Statistics
Qanun Provincial education regulation
Qanun Pendidikan Provincial-level education law
Rencana Kerja Sekolah School Work Plans
Rencana Kerja Tahunan School Annual Work Plan
Rencana Kerja/Renja Annual work plans [regional]
Rencana Pengembangan Kapasitas Capacity Development Planning Tool
More Effective Decentralized Education Management and Governance—Final Report ix
Bahasa Indonesia Term English Term
Rencana Pengembangan Sekolah School Development Plans
Rencana Strategis or Renstra Strategic Development Plan
Renstra see Rencana Strategis
Sekolah dasar Primary school
Sekolah menangar pertama Junior-secondary school
Sekretaris Daerah Provincial Secretary
Sistem Informasi Management Pendidik dan Tenaga
Kependidikan Personnel Management Information System
Sistem Informasi Manajement Aset Asset Management Information System
Sistem Informasi Perencanaan Pendidikan
Kabupaten/Kota District Planning Information Support System
Standar Pelayanan Minimum Minimum Service Standards
Surat Keputusan (Government) Decision Letter
Tim Koordinator Pendidikan Provinsi Aceh Aceh Provincial Coordinating Team
More Effective Decentralized Education Management and Governance—Final Report 1
Executive Summary The United States Agency for International Development (USAID)/Indonesia Mission
significantly invested in the Indonesian education sector through its Quality
Improvement for Decentralized Basic Education program. RTI International
implemented Component One: More Effective Decentralized Education Management
and Governance (DBE1) between April 12, 2005, and December 31, 2011. The
objective of DBE1 was to assist the Government of Indonesia (GOI) in improving the
quality of basic education in Indonesia through more effective decentralized
educational management and governance.
DBE1 was a collaborative project between USAID, GOI, and RTI International. Key
national partners were the National Ministry of Education (MONE), the Ministry of
Religious Affairs (MORA), and the Coordinating Ministry for People’s Welfare
(MenkoKesra). DBE1 worked extensively at the provincial and local levels of
government. One of the DBE1 program goals was to improve coordination, both
vertically and horizontally, between these many stakeholders. Building ownership at
all levels has been a key ingredient to the program’s success.
DBE1 operated in seven target provinces: Aceh, North Sumatra, Banten, West Java,
Central Java, East Java, and South Sulawesi. The project operated in a number of
additional provinces under dissemination programs, including South Sumatra, West
Sumatra, Lampung, Jakarta, Yogyakarta, Nusa Tenggara Timur (NTT), West Papua,
and Papua.
DBE1’s strategy for technical assistance was to develop tools and exemplars of good
practice in management and governance, both at the school and the district level, and
develop the capacity of school and government officials to use these tools for
planning, budgeting, and policy development. Where possible, DBE1 used existing
tools for planning and budgeting; but in most cases, the necessary tools were not
available or considered unsatisfactory to provide the quality of technical assistance
envisioned by the project. This final report describes in detail the many tools
developed and refined by DBE1 throughout implementation, which can be broadly
categorized within these technical emphases: (1) School-Based Management and
Governance (SBM), (2) District Management and Governance, (3) Information and
Data Management, and (4) Public-Private Alliances (PPA). DBE1’s principle of
capacity development for school and local government counterparts was product
focused; DBE1 staff provided a mixture of ―classroom-based‖ skills training,
followed by on-the-job mentoring until products in the form of plans, budgets, and
policies were drafted and stakeholder consultations held. Such products were
mandated by government policy.
Basing all interventions explicitly on current GOI policy, working within existing
structures, working with whole schools and communities, supporting the development
of policies to institutionalize good practices, and ensuring that programs were
affordable and manageable for partners have all contributed to the sustainability of
DBE1 interventions. The efficacy of this approach is confirmed by the fact that
2 More Effective Decentralized Education Management and Governance—Final Report
schools, districts, and other partners committed substantial funds and successfully
disseminated DBE1 programs to the extent that they did.
The DBE1 strategy for promoting the project interventions’ sustainability and others’
take-up involved developing service providers’ capacity. Thus, they would be able to
continue to assist schools and local governments in implementing the interventions
after the project ended; the service providers’ certification was a key factor in
ensuring their competence to be able to deliver ongoing technical assistance. DBE1
established such certification criteria with MONE and partner universities. Some 400
school supervisors were certified to assist schools in implementing School-Based
Management (SBM) programs, and 25 university staff were certified to provide
technical assistance to local governments.
A core principle of DBE1 was to make use of data already available through MONE
databases; separate project-funded data collection was not required. The project found
that the data that schools and local governments submitted to MONE’s Education
Management Information System (EMIS) was of poor quality because they did not
use the data for their own purposes; there was little incentive to validate the data.
However, once schools and local governments began to apply DBE1 tools that
required using the EMIS data for their own planning, data quality improved
significantly.
The effective and efficient management of project data and information was crucial to
the success of DBE1. A project as large and diverse as DBE1 generates an enormous
amount of data on a routine basis. Two key components of managing it were the
Project Data Management System (PDMS) and the project Website. The PDMS, now
transferred to USAID Indonesia, contains information on project beneficiaries as well
as special features designed to facilitate DBE1 project management. DBE1 also
maintained a popular project Website (http://www.dbe-usaid.org/). As of September
2011, it had received a total of 3,284,155 hits.
Key highlights of DBE1 impact include the following:
In total, DBE1 reached 15 provinces, 148 districts, over 16,000 schools, and
over 40,000 teachers, government officials, and local stakeholders.
For every fully funded DBE1 school, another 12 schools used DBE1 tools and
adopted good practices developed under the project. Over Rp.18 billion, or
approximately US$2 million, were allocated from counterpart budgets to fund
this dissemination.
MONE’s national training program introduced DBE1 school development
planning and financial management/reporting tools to every elementary and
junior-secondary school principal and supervisor in the country. This MONE
project trained principals from 293,000 schools, as well as school supervisors
and district education officials.
Significant increases in local government funding for schools have occurred as
a result of the DBE1 School Operations Cost Calculation (Penghitungan Biaya
Operasional Satuan Pendidikan [BOSP]). In the three years since it was first
introduced, as a result of the BOSP analysis and subsequent consultations with
More Effective Decentralized Education Management and Governance—Final Report 3
stakeholders and policy makers, local government allocations to schools
increased by over Rp.2 trillion (US$240 million).
Important lessons learned through DBE1 implementation form the basis of
recommendations for future USAID programming to support the education sector and
for GOI’s ongoing education policy development. Most significant are the following:
The challenge of internal coordination. DBE was split into three components:
Decentralized Basic Education Project–Management and Governance (DBE1),
Decentralized Basic Education Project–Teaching and Learning (DBE2), and
Decentralized Basic Education Project–Improving Work and Life Skills (DBE3), each
responsible for different technical aspects of program delivery, each working in the
same districts and schools, each delivered by a different implementing partner. The
common experience of all three components was that this division was a weakness
and created major challenges for project delivery. Improvement of basic education
requires an integrated focus on: management and governance, teaching and learning,
and curriculum relevance. Such integration is better achieved with an implementing
team under one management structure.
The need to limit scope. Working intensively in a small number of schools grouped
in clusters was far more effective than working less intensively in larger numbers of
schools spread more widely geographically.
The need to focus on core programs. Public-private alliances and grants programs
must be made to serve the core goals of the project and not to divert attention away to
activities which, while worthwhile, do not serve the core goals of the project.
The challenge of a dynamic regulatory environment. One of the key success
factors identified for DBE1 was the project’s principle of basing all interventions and
tools firmly, and explicitly, on current GOI policy. This provided DBE1 with a
mandate for all programs and greatly increased the effectiveness of implementation
and the scale of dissemination. It also increased sustainability by ensuring that good
practices were embedded in government policy.
The need for commitment. The two key partners—local governments and the project
implementation team—shared responsibility for achieving agreed objectives. Results,
however, were not even. The most significant element of project success was the level
of commitment of the local government or school and the capacity of the
implementation team to leverage and build that commitment. Commitment was
expressed most concretely in the allocation of resources to the project: notably human
and financial resources.
The political challenges. As is typically the case with development projects, DBE1
operated in an intensely political environment that existed at all levels, from the
national through local school community contexts, and within the international donor
community. To successfully navigate this reality, project implementers should recruit
project staff with the view to leverage their professional relationships to build political
alliances to support the project.
4 More Effective Decentralized Education Management and Governance—Final Report
The challenge of data quality. DBE1 needed to rely on good data to provide input
into the various tools described to produce good analysis and outputs. The quality of
data in Indonesia, however, is often poor. The lesson learned is that increasing the use
of data for policy and planning inputs over time increases the demand and quality of
the data supplied.
More Effective Decentralized Education Management and Governance—Final Report 5
Introduction This is the final report for the USAID Quality Improvement for Decentralized Basic
Education program, Component One: More Effective Decentralized Education–
Management and Governance (DBE1), implemented by RTI International. The
Decentralized Basic Education (DBE) program consisted of three components and
was a bilateral program between the Government of the United States of America,
represented by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID),
and the Government of the Republic of Indonesia (GOI), represented by the Ministry
for People’s Welfare (Kementerian Koordinator Kesejahteraan Rakyat or
MenkoKesra). The objective of DBE1 was to assist the Government of Indonesia to
improve the quality of basic education in Indonesia through more effective
decentralized educational management and governance. DBE1 worked in close
collaboration with Decentralized Basic Education Project–Teaching and Learning
(DBE2), which aimed to improve teaching and learning in elementary schools, and
Decentralized Basic Education Project–Improving Work and Life Skills (DBE3),
which aimed to improve the quality and relevance of junior-secondary schooling. The
project began on April 12, 2005, and closed on December 31, 2011.
The DBE program was designed in 2003 and 2004 to respond to significant and
complex challenges in delivering, managing, and financing quality education in
Indonesia. With Indonesia’s wide-reaching and sudden decentralization in 1999, the
education sector, like many other sectors, required new ways of delivering and
managing its services. Given the size of Indonesia, and education being its largest
public service, addressing these challenges required a comprehensive approach
exemplified in the three DBE component programs. For a sense of scale, Indonesia
has over 50 million students and 2.6 million teachers in more than 250,000 schools.1
It is the fourth largest education system in the world.2
As illustrated in the map below, the program operated in seven target provinces as
follows: Aceh and North Sumatra on the island of Sumatra; Banten, West Java,
Central Java, and East Java on the island of Java; and South Sulawesi to the east. The
project operated in a number of additional provinces under dissemination programs,
including South Sumatra, West Sumatra, Lampung, Jakarta, Yogyakarta, Nusa
Tenggara Timur (NTT), West Papua, and Papua.
1 Note that throughout this report, the term ―school‖ includes Islamic madrasah, which in Indonesia operate as
general schools, teaching the national curriculum in addition to extra religious studies. Approximately 20% of
Indonesia’s children are educated in madrasah. DBE1 has worked in a similar percentage of madrasah.
2 World Bank, 2011.
6 More Effective Decentralized Education Management and Governance—Final Report
Figure 1: DBE1 Coverage
DBE1 worked with 148 districts over the period of performance—approximately
one-third of all Indonesian local governments. These districts comprise three
categories and will be referenced by these distinctions throughout the report. The
three categories reflect how DBE1 evolved over the lifetime of the project and are
grouped as follows:
1. Within the original target provinces, DBE1 worked in 50 districts.
2. In addition to these 50 target districts, some 74 non-target districts
implemented DBE1 programs, using their own funding under dissemination
schemes.
3. A further 24 districts in Aceh, Papua, West Papua, and elsewhere also
replicated DBE1 programs in the latter stage of the project, under expansion
agreements with USAID and various forms of public-private alliance and
cooperation with the Australian Agency for International Development
(AusAID), the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), and the World
Bank.
In total, the project reached 15 provinces and 148 districts, around one-third of
Indonesia’s districts (See Appendix A for a complete list of provinces and districts).
This figure does not count the introduction of DBE1 school-based management
(SBM) tools to every province, district, and elementary and junior-secondary school
in the country through the Ministry of National Education’s (MONE’s) national
training program conducted in 2011. This program is discussed below. Dissemination
of DBE1 programs is expected to continue after the project.
1. Nanggroe Aceh Darussalam (Aceh) 9. D.I. Yogyakarta
2. North Sumatra 10. Central Java
3. South Sumatra 11. East Java
4. West Sumatra 12. South Sulawesi
5. Lampung 13. Nusa Tenggara Timur (NTT)
6. Banten 14. West Papua
7. West Java 15. Papua
8. DKI Jakarta
More Effective Decentralized Education Management and Governance—Final Report 7
This Final Report is divided into two main volumes:
This first volume includes the main body of the report that describes the evolution of
the project; the approach to coordination; a history of the development and
implementation of tools; data and information management; strategies for
dissemination; sustainability; and results, challenges, and opportunities for USAID
going forward; and a summary of major policy inputs. This first volume also contains
a set of appendices that include lists of districts, deliverables, training beneficiaries,
documents, and policies (Appendix A) a summary (in English) of the provincial
reports (Appendix B).
The second volume of the report includes a series of provincial reports. For each of
the seven target provinces, a full report is provided in Bahasa Indonesia, together with
relevant data on model districts for each DBE1 methodology or ―tool,‖ champions
and certified service providers (including district facilitators), contributions from
schools, dissemination results, and policies supported for each province.
Evolution of the Contract and Project DBE1 began in April 2005. The initial contract set targets for six provinces, 100
districts and 2,000 schools. During 2005, Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) were
signed with an initial cohort of 26 districts within the six target provinces of North
Sumatra, Banten, West Java, Central Java, East Java, and South Sulawesi.
Prior to this time, in December 2004, the province of Aceh was struck by a major
tsunami and a series of earthquakes. As a result, the long-term hostilities in this
province ceased, and Indonesia opened the province for the first time in many years to
development assistance. In response to a request from USAID, in 2005, RTI
conducted a feasibility study for expanding DBE1 into Aceh province. USAID also
requested DBE1 to initiate school-level activities in Jakarta. In the first year of project
implementation, activities began in two districts in Aceh, one district in Jakarta, and
in 26 districts in the other target provinces.
In 2006, a second cohort of 21 districts was selected from within these seven
provinces (now including Aceh), and new clusters of schools were selected in six of
the original districts. With the addition of one district in the City of Jakarta, the
project now included a total of 50 districts and 1,272 schools (1,076 elementary
schools and madrasah, and 196 junior-secondary schools and madrasah). Work began
in the new schools in late 2006–early 2007. Also during this period, DBE1 began
developing, piloting, and implementing interventions to improve the management and
governance of basic education at the district level.3
In early 2008, a Mid-Term Review of all three components of the DBE program was
conducted by an independent team comprising international and Indonesian
consultants, as well as representatives from the GOI, MONE, the Ministry of
Religious Affairs (MORA), and the Coordinating Ministry for People’s Social
3 District interventions were conducted in all of these districts, with the exception of Jakarta.
8 More Effective Decentralized Education Management and Governance—Final Report
Welfare (MenkoKesra).The evaluation aimed to assist USAID in making informed
management decisions about the implementation of DBE in the remaining years.
Acting on a recommendation of the Mid-Term Review, USAID issued a revised Task
Order (TO) and Scope of Work (SOW) on August 21, 2008. The most significant
change resulting from this revision was that DBE1 would no longer scale up to 100
target districts as originally envisaged. Instead, the project was to focus efforts during
the remaining implementation period on strengthening the program, deepening
impacts, and working more closely with local governments to disseminate good
practices and lessons learned in the 50 districts already targeted.
Also in 2008, acting on a request from USAID, RTI International conducted an
assessment of the feasibility for expanding the DBE1 program in Aceh.4 DBE1’s TO
was subsequently modified in July 2009, to extend district level services to all 18
districts in Aceh that had not received DBE support. The programs were limited to
financial analysis, strategic planning, and education governance; school-level
programs were not extended in these 18 districts.
DBE1 was due to complete after five years in April 2010. A Contract Modification
issued in January 2010 extended the project until September 30, 2010. At the same
time, three new districts were added to enable the project to support selected
universities to become service providers, experienced in the delivery of DBE1
programs at the district level.
Two more important modifications were subsequently made to the DBE1 TO.
Modification 16 was signed November 11, 2010. It increased the ceiling price of the
contract and extended the completion date to June 30, 2011. Modification 19 was
signed on April 26, 2011. It increased the ceiling price further and extended the
contract end date to December 31, 2011. A Technical Direction, dated April 21, 2011,
also mandated DBE1 to assist UNICEF in implementing education management and
governance programs in Papua and West Papua under a USAID grant to UNICEF for
this purpose.
Coordination DBE1 was planned and implemented as a collaborative project between USAID, the
GOI, and RTI International, as implementing partner. Key partners at the national
level were MONE, MORA, and MenkoKesra from the GOI. DBE1 also worked from
time to time with the Ministry for Home Affairs (MOHA), the National Planning
Body (Bappenas) and other agencies, including the Office of the Vice President of
Indonesia.
At the provincial and district levels, DBE1 coordinated closely with provincial
government agencies, especially District Education Offices (Dinas Pendidikan),
Regional Offices of MORA (Kanwil Departemen Agama), Provincial and District
Development Planning Bodies (Bappeda), local parliaments and education councils
4 ―Report on Assessment of the Feasibility of Expanding the DBE1 Program in Aceh,‖ August 2008.
More Effective Decentralized Education Management and Governance—Final Report 9
(Dewan Pendidikan). At the school and community level, DBE1 coordinated with
local government officials, including school supervisors (pengawas), schools,
madrasah, and school committees. The project also worked with a number of
universities and province-based quality assurance bodies, known as Lembaga
Penjaminan Mutu Pendidikan (LPMP), as service providers. Finally, DBE1
coordinated closely at all levels with project partners in USAID, DBE2, and DBE3,
and with other donors active in the education sector and their projects, particularly the
World Bank, AusAID and UNICEF.
One of the DBE1 project’s goals was to improve coordination, both vertically
and horizontally, between these many stakeholders. Coordination was thus both
a project goal and a strategy to support implementation. Building ownership at
all levels has been a key ingredient to the success of the project. For all of these
reasons, DBE1 invested heavily in coordination. At all levels, this meant frequent
meetings with counterparts and stakeholders and day-to-day coordination with
colleagues in DBE2, DBE3, and other USAID- and donor-funded projects. This
coordination, both internal and external, was managed by the Chief of Party and a
team of advisors, specialists, and administrative staff at the national level; Provincial
Coordinators and a similar team at the provincial level in six province centers (Aceh,
North Sumatra, West Java/Banten, Central Java, East Java, and South Sulawesi); and
District Coordinators working with district facilitators (under the local government) in
each of the 50 target districts.
One of the core principles underpinning the DBE1 approach was to base all
interventions firmly and explicitly on GOI policy. As described later in this
report, this approach was identified as one of the keys to success in achieving the
widespread take-up and dissemination of project programs described below.
Schools and district administrations were quick to see the benefits of adopting
methodologies that assisted them in implementing mandated government policies,
which result in demonstrable improvements, and which are, at the same time,
affordable at a local level. Moreover, once the project provided tools and trained
district facilitators and service providers in the use of these, the implementation
process became very manageable for local partners.
This approach required DBE1 to maintain close coordination with government
counterparts, to keep abreast of the dynamic, changing, and sometimes ambiguous
policy environment, and at times to anticipate changes. It required the project on a
number of occasions to abandon or redesign tools and methodologies already piloted
and in use in the field, as the policies on which they were based became obsolete. And
it required a sensitive approach to managing the political complexities within and
between donors, the government, and other stakeholders. All of this required the
development and maintenance of strong working relationships with government
counterparts and other stakeholders. DBE1 was able to achieve this through careful
recruitment and then by leveraging and building on the existing professional networks
and relationships of team members at all levels. The use of experienced personnel
with local networks; cultural, political, and technical understandings; and professional
credibility was crucial to this success. The development of service providers such as
10 More Effective Decentralized Education Management and Governance—Final Report
school supervisors (district facilitators) and universities to implement programs
further strengthened the success of this approach.
The DBE1 Tool Kit
DBE1’s core strategy was to develop tools and exemplars of good practice in
management and governance, both at the school and the district level, and to
support the dissemination of these to other schools and districts by building the
capacity of service providers to use the tools. The project’s mandate was to provide
technical assistance to strengthen education planning, budgeting, and governance in
schools and districts. However, importantly, technical assistance and capacity
building are not synonymous with training; rather, they encompass the development
and application of systems, as well as the training of stakeholders to implement these
systems. Where possible, DBE1 tried to use existing tools for planning and budgeting,
but in every case the necessary tools were not available or considered unsatisfactory
to provide the quality of technical assistance envisioned by the project. This section of
the report provides a summary of the tools developed and used during the six years of
the DBE1 project (2005–2011) and explains the history of their development—the
variations and modifications made to the tools—that occurred during this period.
The DBE1 Results Framework, developed in the first year, contained the Intermediate
Results (IR) upon which the DBE1 program was to be based. These were initially
grouped into four pillars under the following headings:
1. Improved capacity of local government to effectively manage education;
2. Strengthened education governance related institutions;
3. Increased use of information resources to enhance education management and
governance; and
4. Dissemination of project results, including replication through Public-Private
Alliances (PPA).
However, although in this original Intermediate Results (IR) framework,
―Strengthening of education governance related institutions‖ was conceived as a
separate set of activities at both the school/community and district levels, a more
integrated approach emerged during the early years of implementation. Rather than
train ―governance related institutions‖ such as the local parliament, media, education
councils, and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), it soon became apparent that
traditional training was not the most appropriate approach. Good governance is a
function of good working relationships between these institutions and the executive
government, including the Education Office, Religious Affairs Office, and the
schools. Good governance is expressed most clearly in good policy, which is the
result of open dialogue, informed by good data and information. Thus DBE1 focused
not on training institutions, but on developing tools that could provide this data and
information, and then creating forums where the data could be presented and
discussed by all stakeholders—executive, legislative, and civil society—in a
collaborative environment. At the same time, the project built capacity in the system
More Effective Decentralized Education Management and Governance—Final Report 11
by training teams from within government, community, and service provider
institutions to use these tools.
As a result, the project evolved as four broad and overlapping areas of activity and
related sets of interventions or ―tools,‖ incorporating the original set of Intermediate
Results (IR) but reorganized as below. This structure enabled the project to better
coordinate and manage the wide range of activities required to achieve the DBE1
Program Objective (PO): ―More effective decentralized education management and
governance.‖
1. School-Based Management and Governance
2. District Management and Governance
3. Information and Data Management
4. Public Private Alliances (PPA)
Each of these is briefly described below.
School-Based Management and Governance
School-Based Management and Governance was the first sub-program to develop.
Together with DBE2, DBE3, and district partners, DBE1 jointly selected clusters of
elementary/primary schools (sekolah dasar [SD]) and Islamic primary schools
(madrasah ibtidaiyah) (MI), along with their feeder junior-secondary schools (sekolah
menangar pertama [SMP]) and Islamic junior-secondary schools (madrasah
tsanawiyah [MTs]) in two cohorts in each province. Each cluster included
approximately ten elementary schools/madrasah and two junior-secondary
schools/madrasah. While DBE2 focused on improving teaching at the elementary
level and DBE3 on improving teaching and curriculum relevance at the junior
secondary level, DBE1 began to develop tools to improve management and
governance. The first tool developed was for school-based planning. The logic was
that school planning should inform district level planning, so DBE1 focused initially
on this area.
DBE1’s first cohort of schools and madrasah prepared plans known as school
development plans (rencana pengembangan sekolah [RPS]) in 2006, based on
Government Regulation (Peraturan Pemerintah [PP] 19/2005). Subsequently, the
government introduced a new policy (Ministerial Regulation, Permendiknas 19/2007)
on school development planning, the DBE1 approach was modified, and the second
cohort prepared plans known as school work plans (rencana kerja sekolah [RKS]) in
2007, following the new government approved terminology. In line with this policy,
the plans were based on school profiles using the National Education Standards (SNP)
as a benchmark. Subsequently the original plans were updated in 2007.
During this period, DBE1 also developed and piloted a set of training modules to
strengthen the leadership of schools through principals and supervisors and the
governance of schools through school committees. As part of the latter, DBE1
developed an innovative approach to support school committees in obtaining financial
support from local village government, through the community consultation
mechanism known as musrenbangdes, for the implementation of school plans. This
12 More Effective Decentralized Education Management and Governance—Final Report
training was provided to all target schools and communities in an integrated program
that encompassed leadership and school committee strengthening, school
development planning, and school data management (described below).
Over a three-year period, the project provided each school with approximately 23
days of training and 23 mentoring visits (limited to the 24 selected schools in each
district). The training focused on principals and local education leaders to improve
their leadership skills and encourage a more open, transparent, and participatory
approach to school leadership. Much of the training also went toward establishing the
role of school committees in the planning process and other areas.
To support the planning process, DBE1 developed a software application known as
the School Database System (SDS), also based on the National Education Standards.
At this time, Minimum Service Standards (Standar Pelayanan Minimum [SPM]),
promulgated under MOHA rather than MONE, applied to district educational
management, but not to schools. Subsequently, in 2010, SPM were developed for the
school level. Working with AusAID, the World Bank, and the Asian Development
Bank (ADB, MONE developed an approach to school data management and school
self-evaluation as a basis for planning, known as the Tool for Reporting and
Information Management by Schools (TRIMS), which used the SPM and not SNP as
a benchmark. MONE’s policy at this time shifted to prioritizing SPM rather than SNP
for the basis of school planning, although the regulations had not changed.
SDS training participants in Enrekang, Sulawesi Selatan (left), and Jepara, Jawa Tengah (right). [Photo: DBE1 staff]
In a separate but related development, DBE1 was asked by MONE to assist in
developing a manual and approach for schools to report on financial administration,
particularly on spending of the national school operation grants, known as Bantuan
Operasional Sekolah (BOS). In 2005, GOI initiated this unprecedented program as a
way to inject massive funding directly, as opposed to through existing
intergovernmental grants, into Indonesian schools. The creation of this grant
completely changed the landscape of education sector funding and, like any new
reform, the on-boarding of this grant brought opportunities and challenges for districts
and MONE. As a result, DBE1 was approached by MONE to assist in this transition.
More Effective Decentralized Education Management and Governance—Final Report 13
After a series of pilots, the DBE1 materials were adopted by MONE nationally, and
became a part of the package of a nation-wide training package described below.
During 2010 and 2011, DBE1 worked closely with partners from MONE, the World
Bank, ADB, and AusAID in developing methodologies for a major project to
implement school planning and finance management processes nationwide. DBE1
was asked to join the National BOS Development Team that was responsible for this
national training and to design the SBM training (for elementary and junior-secondary
schools). As a result, DBE1 revised the project’s RKS methodology to align with
MONE’s new policy.5 The national BOS Development Team consisted of
representatives from DBE1, the World Bank, the AusAID-funded Australia Indonesia
Basic Education Program (AIBEP), the ADB, and MONE’s national BOS team.
The team prepared and piloted a set of training materials for the national training
consisting of three modules: (1) School Self-Evaluation module, (2) School Planning
and Budgeting module, and (3) School Financial Management module. DBE1
provided support in developing this package; specifically DBE1 methodologies for
RKS and BOS reporting were adopted and formed the basis of the second and third
modules.
Although DBE1 expressed technical concerns about the materials for school self-
evaluation, the methodological sequence, and the large-scale cascade training model
proposed, the strategic decision was made to collaborate in the design of this project
and thus to have the opportunity to influence the process as a partner rather than
observe as an outsider. One concern was related to the School Self-Evaluation module
(Evaluasi Diri Sekolah [EDS]), the TRIMS tool that was adopted for this first module,
and the disconnection between these and the following two modules, which were
derived from DBE1. Moreover, based on DBE1 experience, the ―top-down, one-off‖
cascade training approach was unlikely to be effective. Notwithstanding these
concerns, DBE1 remained actively involved as the materials were finalized and, in
mid-2011, the training rolled out. Once the materials were finalized and training
commenced, DBE1 provided refresher training for some 400 district facilitators in the
new version of RKS, along with other new materials.
The above project history illustrates the dynamic regulatory and political climate
in which DBE1 operated. Although the process involved some compromise as
described, core DBE1 materials and tools have now been introduced to every
school in the country through MONE’s national training program. In many areas
where DBE1 has trained district facilitators, follow-on training and mentoring is now
being provided to schools to enable them to fully utilize the DBE1 tools after being
introduced to them under MONE’s national training program.
5 In mid-2010, USAID received a letter, dated April 22, 2010, from the Director General of Primary and
Secondary Education (Ref No: 2032/C.C3.PR/2010), addressed to the country directors of the World Bank,
ADB, European Union (EU), AusAID, USAID, UNICEF and JICA, requesting this assistance. In a response
(Letter no. 598, June 11, 2010), USAID’s Director, Office of Education, confirmed DBE1’s readiness to
continue collaboration with MONE in this context.
14 More Effective Decentralized Education Management and Governance—Final Report
The comprehensive packet of manuals and training modules to support the
implementation of SBM in Indonesian schools and madrasah developed by DBE1 is
summarized in the text boxes below.
SUMMARY OF SCHOOL DATABASE SYSTEM
Manuals
“Sistim Database Sekolah” [DATES: 2008; 2009; Final 2010]
Data Sources
Local school data
Supports implementation of these relevant regulations:
1. Permendiknas No. 19 Tahun 2007 tentang Standar Pengelolaan Pendidikan
2. Permendiknas No. 21 Tahun 2007 tentang Standar Proses Satuan Pendidikan
Dasar dan Menengah
3. Permendiknas No. 12 Tahun 2007 tentang Standar Pengawas Sekolah/Madrasah
Software:
1. SDS
2. SDS++
SUMMARY OF SCHOOL COMMITTEE STRENGTHENING MODULES
Manuals
―Penguatan Komite Sekolah/Madrasah‖ (15 training modules) [DATES: 2006 1st ed.; 2011
final ed.]
Supports implementation of these relevant regulations:
1. PP 19/2005 tentang Standar Nasional Pendidikan
2. Kepmendiknas 044/U/2002 tentang Dewan Pendidikan dan Komite Sekolah
3. Permendiknas 19/2007 tentang Standar Pengelolaan Satuan Pendidikan
4. Acuan Operasional dan Indikator Kinerja Komite Sekolah, 2004
5. Peraturan Pemerintah No.17 Tahun 2010 Tentang Pengelolaan dan Penyelenggaraan Pendidikan
SUMMARY OF SCHOOL LEADERSHIP STRENGTHENING MODULES
Manual
―Kepemimpinan Buat Kepala Sekolah/Madrasah; Memimpin secara transparan dan
akuntabel‖ (Two training modules) [DATES: 2007 1st ed.; 2011 final ed.]
Supports implementation of these relevant regulations:
1. PP 19/2005 tentang Standar Nasional Pendidikan
2. Keputusan Menteri Pendidikan Nasional Republik Indonesia 162/U/2003 tentang Pedoman Penugasan Guru sebagai Kepala Sekolah
3. Permendiknas No.13 Tahun 2007 Tentang Standar Kompetensi Kepala Sekolah
More Effective Decentralized Education Management and Governance—Final Report 15
Note that only key regulations are included in the box above. Other relevant
regulations are listed in the footnote below.6
6 Peraturan Pemerintah N. 38 Tahun 2007 tentang Pembagian Urusan Pemerintahan Antara Pemerintah,
Pemerintahan Daerah Provinsi, dan Pemerintahan Daerah Kabupaten/Kota
Permendiknas No.37 Tahun 2010 Tentang Penggunaan Dana Bantuan Operasional Sekolah (BOS) Tahun
Anggaran 2011
Permendiknas No. 15 tahun 2010 Tentang Standar Pelayanan Minimal Pendidikan
Permendiknas N. 23 tahun 2006 Tentang Standar Kompetensi Lulusan untuk Satuan Pendidikan Dasar dan
Menengah
Permendiknas No. 22 Tahun 2006 Tentang Standar Isi
Permendiknas No. 41 Tahun 2007 tentang Standar Proses.
Permendiknas No. 24 Tahun 2007 tentang Standar Sarana dan Prasarana untuk SD/MI, SMP/MTs, dan
SMA/MA.
Permendiknas No. 69 Tahun 2009 Tentang Standar Biaya Operasi Nonpersonalia untuk SD/MI, SMP/MTs,
SMA/MA, SMK, SDLB, SMPLB, dan SMALB.
Permendiknas No. 19 Tahun 2007 Tentang Standar Pengelolaan Pendidikan oleh Satuan PendidikanDasar
dan Menengah
Permendiknas No. 20 tahun 2007 Tentang Standar Penilaian Pendidikan
Undang-Undang No. 17 Tahun 2003 Tentang Keuangan Negara
Undang-Undang No. 1 Tahun 2004 Tentang Perbendaharaan Negara
Undang-Undang No. 15 Tahun 2004 Tentang Pemeriksaan Pengelolaan dan Tanggung Jawab Keuangan
Negara
Undang-Undang No. 14 Tahun 2008 tentang Keterbukaan Informasi Publik
Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 58 Tahun 2005 tentang Pengelolaan Keuangan Daerah
Permendagri No. 13 Tahun 2006 tentang Pedoman Pengelolaan Keuangan Daerah (direvisi melalui
Permendagri 59/2007)
SUMMARY OF SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT PLANNING TOOL
Manuals
―Rencana Kerja Sekolah/Madrasah‖ [DATES: 2007; 2008;2009; 2011]
Supports implementation of these relevant regulations
1. UU No. 25 Tahun 2004 Tentang Sistem Perencanaan Pembangunan Nasional.
2. UU No. 20 Tahun 2003 Tentang Sistem Pendidikan Nasional.
3. Peraturan Pemerintah No. 19 Tahun 2005 Tentang Standar Nasional Pendidikan
4. Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 17 Tahun 2010 tentang Pengelolaan dan Penyelenggaraan Pendidikan.
16 More Effective Decentralized Education Management and Governance—Final Report
Note that only key regulations are included in the box above. Other relevant
regulations are listed in the footnote below.7
In addition to these tools, DBE1 produced a technical manual for facilitators about
facilitation and mentoring techniques and a manual for district level managers to
support districts (and other school network managers) in planning, budgeting,
implementing, and monitoring and evaluating a program to disseminate the DBE1
SBM approach.
A multi-methods, multi-site study conducted over the 2008–2010 period found that
DBE1’s SBM program had a significant impact on schools and communities.8 Project
7 Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 48 Tahun 2008 Tentang Pendanaan Pendidikan.
Permendagri No. 59 Tahun 2007 Tentang Pedoman Pengelolaan Keuangan Daerah
Permendagri No. 17 Tahun 2007 Tentang Pedoman Pengelolaan Barang Daerah
Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 17 Tahun 2010 tentang Pengelolaan dan Penyelenggaraan Pendidikan
Permendagri No. 13 Tahun 2006 tentang Pedoman Pengelolaan Keuangan Daerah (direvisi melalui
Permendagri 59/2007)
Undang-Undang No. 15 Tahun 2004 Tentang Pemeriksaan Pengelolaan dan Tanggung Jawab Keuangan
Negara
Peraturan Pemerintah No. 19 Tahun 2005 Tentang Standar Nasinal Pendidikan
Permendiknas No. 15 tahun 2010 Tentang Standar Pelayanan Minimal Pendidikan
Permendiknas N. 23 tahun 2006 Tentang Standar Kompetensi Lulusan untuk Satuan Pendidikan Dasar dan
Menengah
Permendiknas No. 22 Tahun 2006 Tentang Standarisi
Permendiknas No. 41 Tahun 2007 Tentang Standar Proses.
Permendiknas No. 24 Tahun 2007 Tentang Standar Sarana dan Prasarana untuk SD/MI, SMP/MTs, dan
SMA/MA.
Permendiknas No. 69 Tahun 2009 Tentang Standar Biaya Operasi Nonpersonalia untuk SD/MI, SMP/MTs,
SMA/MA, SMK, SDLB, SMPLB, dan SMALB.
Permendiknas No. 19 Tahun 2007 Tentang Standar Pengelolaan Pendidikan oleh Satuan Pendidikan Dasar
dan Menengah
Permendiknas No. 20 tahun 2007 Tentang Standar Penilaian Pendidikan
SUMMARY OF SCHOOL FINANCIAL REPORTING TOOL
Manuals
―Bantuan Operasional Sekolah‖ [DATES: 2010; 2011 Final]
Supports implementation of these relevant regulations
Permendiknas No.37 Tahun 2010 Tentang Penggunaan Dana Bantuan Operasional Sekolah
Software
1. BOS 2010
2. BOS 2011
More Effective Decentralized Education Management and Governance—Final Report 17
interventions resulted in better management and governance in target schools, and
changes were disseminated to large numbers of non-target schools by partner
government and nongovernmental agencies. The study found that many principals
were becoming more open, transparent, and participative in their management
approach. School committees were becoming more active, and schools had prepared
and were implementing school development plans based on comprehensive data
analysis and involving a range of stakeholders. In short, SBM was being successfully
implemented in target schools.
DBE1 monitoring data shows that, of the 526 target elementary schools surveyed,
96% had prepared good quality school development plans in the first year of
implementation, based on a set of 32 agreed criteria. Of the 7,603 programs listed in
these plans in the first year, 74% were implemented by schools and their
communities, and 79% of programs were implemented in the second year. This
resulted in targeted professional learning programs for teachers, improvements to the
learning environments in many schools, and better teaching resources such as the
addition of computers, texts, and teaching aids. The planned programs that were
delayed, such as major infrastructure and teacher upgrading, were mostly dependent
on higher levels of funding from district budgets.
During the first three years of implementation, local communities contributed over
Rp.25 billion (approximately US$2.6 million) as either cash or non-cash support for
schools to implement their development plans. This is an average of US$2,446
contributed to each school―a significant sum for the mostly poor communities. This
contribution is a direct result of involving school communities in preparing school
development plans. These voluntary contributions were made despite many district
governments at the time adopting ―free schooling‖ policies that prevented schools
from levying parents for funds.
Through Village Development Planning Forums known as musrenbangdes in 2009,
school committees leveraged some Rp.1.1 billion (US$120,000) for school
development programs in the 106 villages studied (about US$1,132 per village or
US$283 per school). This was a new source of funding for Indonesian schools. Some
82% of these funds were allocated to infrastructure programs, including local roads to
improve access to schools, which could not be funded from the national per-capita
school funds known as BOS. In remote areas of Indonesia, for example, children are
sometimes unable to attend school in the wet season as river crossings become
impossible. Construction of a foot bridge can make the difference.
8 In addition to publishing the full study in a report: DBE1, (2010) Implementing school-based management in
Indonesia: the DBE1 experience 2005–2009, Impact Study, two peer-reviewed research articles were
subsequently published, based on this study:
1. Heyward, M., Cannon, R., and Sarjono, (2011). Implementing School-Based Management in
Indonesia: Impact and Lessons Learned. Journal of Development Effectiveness. 3:3, 371–388.
2. Heyward, M., Cannon, R., and Sarjono, (2011). Implementing School-Based Management in Indonesia.
RTI Press publication No. OP-0006-1109. Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI Press.
18 More Effective Decentralized Education Management and Governance—Final Report
Community members helped build a direct road to the village (left) so students of SDN 101150, Tapanuli Selatan, can go to school safely (right.) [Photo: DBE1 staff.]
Some 99% of principals in target schools indicated that they believe DBE1 has had a
positive impact on their school. Many of those interviewed gave detailed accounts and
concrete examples of impact.
The most frequently mentioned impact was on school planning, followed by
management, leadership, and administration. The qualitative field case-studies found
that DBE1 is having a strong, broad, and deep impact on schools, school committees,
parents, teachers, and students. The evidence found for transparent, participatory, and
responsive management practices was especially strong as noted in the text box
below.
Examples of Positive Impact
“After taking part in Leadership Training, I realized my leadership style. As part of
this training, we had to do a self-assessment exercise. I know now what I have
done wrong or right in the past. Now we also know how to improve our abilities to
lead.”
—IBU AISYAH, PRINCIPAL OF SDN 14 BONTO-BONTO,
PANGKEP, SULAWESI SELATAN
“Before DBE1, parents thought their children’s education was the responsibility of
the school only. After they saw the school’s plans and programs in the School
Development Plan, they began to realize what the school wanted to achieve for
their children’s education. They became more involved. They started by making
the school and classrooms more comfortable for their children.”
—IBU JENI TRI SULISJAYANTI, FORMER PRINCIPAL OF
SDN SEDATI GEDE 2, SIDOARJO, JAWA TIMUR.
More Effective Decentralized Education Management and Governance—Final Report 19
The take-up by local government was impressive, funding increased in many districts,
and the large numbers of districts and schools that disseminated DBE1 methodologies
to non-target schools is discussed in the section on dissemination, below.
District Management and Governance
In the second year of implementation, DBE1 began to develop and pilot tools to
improve the management and governance of basic education at the district level.
DBE1 pioneered new approaches to improving education management and
governance under a decentralized education system. While previous projects,
including USAID’s Managing Basic Education (MBE) and UNICEF’s Creative
Learning Community for Children (CLCC), had a strong focus at the school level,
their impact on capacity development at the district level was limited. Further, the
regulatory framework that guides district planning only gradually took shape in the
years after the introduction of regional autonomy with, for instance, the issuance of
Law No 25 on the National Development Planning System in 2004.
By the end of the project, DBE1 district level tools had been implemented in 117
districts in 13 provinces in Indonesia. Of these, 78 districts were supported directly
with USAID funding. The others, 69 non-DBE districts, used non-project resources
amounting to over Rp.600 million (US$80,000) to implement the tools. This included
district and provincial government budgets and projects funded by other donors. As
this final report is being prepared, the number of dissemination districts is increasing
with service providers supporting the process and funding from districts, provinces,
and other donors. Results of the technical assistance have been used by governments
at the national, provincial, and district levels to inform education policy, planning, and
budgeting.
The following pages describe four major phases in the development of DBE1 tools
and procedures for providing technical assistance to local (district and provincial)
governments. Some of these tools have been modified over the six years of the project
as government regulations changed, as stakeholders requested development and
implementation of interventions not envisioned at the beginning of the project, and as
a result of ongoing monitoring and evaluation.
In the later phases of the project, some of the tools were able to be used either
independently for informing specific policies, or in combination with other tools for
wider policy inputs. DBE1 did not have a specific tool for formulating or informing
policy. Rather, policy considerations were incorporated in each and every tool.
Phase 1: Planning and Budgeting Tools
Late in Year 2, DBE1 began piloting a new approach to medium-term education
development planning at the district level. In Indonesia, strategic plans are required
for each government department at each level. These are known as “rencana
strategis” or “renstra” for short. Key features of DBE1’s renstra tool are as follows:
1. Information based planning;
2. A shift from input to output/outcome-based planning; and
20 More Effective Decentralized Education Management and Governance—Final Report
3. A strong focus on identification of groups of schools that require special
attention (e.g., low performing schools or underserved schools).
DBE1 worked closely with officials from two ministries, MONE and MOHA, in the
development of the renstra tool, progressively revising and refining the approach to
meet the objectives of the national ministries. This process took considerable time, as
the tool was progressively piloted and refined in the field. The final version of the
renstra tool is very comprehensive. The process was demanding for districts, but it
resulted in the first information-based and truly strategic plan that many
districts have had in the education sector. Part of the DBE1 renstra approach was
the use of a tool, known initially as the District Planning Information Support System
(DPISS), and subsequently by its Indonesian title: Sistem Informasi Perencanaan
Pendidikan Kabupaten/Kota (SIPPK). The take-up and dissemination of the SIPPK-
renstra approach, along with the interest of service providers and government
officials at the provincial and national levels, confirms the utility of the tool and the
approach taken. A well-developed strategic plan and accompanying budget are
two of the most powerful policy instruments that can be developed at the district
level. The impact of these plans on districts, schools, and students can be very
significant.
The SIPPK-renstra tool requires facilitation by senior consultants or service providers
and a serious time commitment from districts. In Year 3, three districts completed a
renstra. In Year 4, a further 19 districts completed renstra, and 23 more did so in
Year 5, making a total to 45 districts. Another 12 subsequently completed renstra in
the Aceh expansion program. A total of 57 districts have now developed renstra using
the DBE1 tool. Ongoing dissemination and expansion in Aceh, Papua, West Papua,
and elsewhere is further increasing this total.
Also in Year 2, DBE1 began developing a tool for financial analysis: the District
Education Financial Analysis, known as Analisis Keuangan Pendidikan
Kabupaten/Kota (AKPK). This tool essentially answers the questions: how much
money is currently available for education, from which sources is it available, and
DBE1 Planning and Budgeting Impacts
In 2009, Bapak Bardhan Saidi, a newly-elected, not yet sworn-in Aceh Tengah
Parliament member took part in Renstra Public Consultation Sessions for the first
time. At the end of the session, he said to the Renstra Development Team member,
“I admit that developing the education sector can be complicated. My colleagues
and I promised to learn about this subject carefully so we could support the
Education Office in the future.”
It seemed that he kept his word. During the 2011 DBE Close-Out Workshop, he
presented the following information to the Forum:
20% of the 2012 Aceh Tengah District Budget, or Rp.556 billion, has been allocated for the education sector.
20% of the 2012 Gas and Oil Special Autonomy Funds, or Rp.121 billion, has been allocated to support sustanaibility of DBE good practices in Aceh
Tengah.
More Effective Decentralized Education Management and Governance—Final Report 21
where is it currently spent? Because education development planning should result in
plans that can be realistically implemented, this can only be achieved when plans are
prepared by taking account of financial resource constraints. Realizing that critical
financial information was missing to effectively support the education planning
process, DBE1 developed the AKPK methodology. It condenses and reworks
information from the very thick budget documents so that it is easy to
understand and provides a transparent and relevant picture of how and where
the money is spent. This assists districts to do the following:
Improve decision making because decisions are based on analysis results ;
Set priorities among district development sectors and within the education
sector (e.g., investments in early childhood development versus improved
education at the secondary level);
Assess whether funding is being allocated in a fair manner because AKPK
provides information on per-student expenditure by level of education;
Compare performance among districts, which is an effective way of assessing
individual district performance;
Assess the extent to which the district has met its obligation under Law 20 of
2003, to spend a minimum of 20% of the District Government Annual Budget
(APBD) on education, excluding teacher salaries;
Move toward a results orientation in which expenditures are matched to key
education performance indicators;
Improve internal accountability by linking results to inputs, which will help
improve internal management; and
Improve external accountability by widely disseminating results-to-inputs
information in an easy-to-understand manner for use in public policy debate.
This information assists the executive branch of government, the legislature, and civil
society to develop effective policies and strategic plans (renstra) for education
development.
AKPK requires availability of district government budget documents, plus other
supporting data. Obtaining these documents was not always an easy task and required
tactful intervention. The initial AKPK conducted in Year 2 was basically a pilot and,
therefore, the analyses were conducted by DBE1 staff with limited involvement of
district staff. Building on this early experience, the delivery method changed in Year
3, from a DBE1 staff-led exercise to a model focusing on developing the capacity of
district staff to conduct financial analysis of the education sector.
During Year 3, district personnel, supported by DBE1 specialists, completed a total of
10 AKPK reports, bringing the total to 12. By the end of the project, a total of 66
districts had completed AKPK.
22 More Effective Decentralized Education Management and Governance—Final Report
A core principle of DBE1 was to make use of already available data; separate
project-funded data collection was not required. In our experience, data quality
improves the more often it is used. Examples of data sources include school profiles
being drawn from MONE’s Education Management Information System (EMIS). The
EMIS requires each school to complete annual data that are collected at the District
Education Office and then forward to MONE. The financial data sources are the
district, provincial, and national budgets. The major issue with these sources was data
validity and completeness.
The medium term plans and budgets developed with DBE1 assistance have
become the basis for longer term policies in many districts. Policies may take the
form of official legal documents or simply guidance for formulating budgets. All
DBE1 manuals contain technical assistance guidance for policy inputs or formulation.
The medium-term plans are also the basis for developing required annual work plans,
called Rencana Kerja (SKPD) or Renja. Local governments are also required to
monitor annual plan implementation performance through a process called Laporan
Akuntabilitas Kinerja Instansi Pemerintah (LAKIP). Beginning in 2009, DBE1
assisted local governments to develop renja and implement LAKIP using existing
government documents. In 2011, DBE1 published manuals to systematically guide
provision of technical assistance to local governments to develop 35 Renja and
implement 35 LAKIP.
AKPK Results
Analysis results of a sample of AKPKs showed the following:
1. The education sector is by far the largest district government sector because
30%–43% of total district expenditure is used for the education sector;
2. Teacher salaries are by far the largest expenditure component taking up
63%–80% of total education sector expenditure; and
3. Funding for school operations remains low, with only 2%–6% of total education
sector expenditure.
More Effective Decentralized Education Management and Governance—Final Report 23
Phase 2: School Cost Analysis Tools
In 2007, the Head of Sidoarjo District, East Java, asked for DBE1 assistance to
calculate operations costs for schools. Although this was not initially planned as a
DBE1 activity, DBE1 decided to provide the assistance with the intent to both
SUMMARY OF PLANNING AND BUDGETING TOOLS
Manuals
“Penyusunan Renstra SKPD” [DATES: 2006 1st ed.; 2011 final ed.]
―Analisa Keuangan Pendidikan Kabupaten/Kota‖ [DATES: 2007 1st ed.; 2011 final ed.]
―Panduan Penyusunan RENJA‖ [DATES: 2011 (GOI Manuals); 2011 DBE1 final ed.]
―Panduan Penyusunan LAKIP‖ [DATES: 2011 (GOI Manuals); 2011 DBE1 final ed.]
Software
1. MS Access-based ―Sistem Informasi Pendukung Perencanaan Kabupaten/Kota”
(SIPPK)
2. MS Excel-based ― Analisa Keuangan Pendidikan Kabupaten/Kota” (AKPK)
Data Sources
1. MONE EMIS (Individual Annual School Report (Laporan Individu Sekolah)
2. PadatiWEB
3. Provincial and District Budgets (APBD)
Supports implementation of these relevant regulations:
1. Permendagri 54/200 & Permendiknas 44/2010 (on planning)
2. PP No.48/2008 (on education financing)
Development of Education Renstra in Pidie
The draft Pidie Renstra identifies several priorities for the district’s education-sector
development. For example, through the use of data analysis, the district concluded
that they have sufficient numbers of school buildings. It was also found that there are
sufficient numbers of teachers in the district, but that they are not distributed evenly.
As a result, the Renstra recommends policies to divert funds from construction of
schools into quality improvement programs and mapping and deployment of teachers,
so current available staff could be better utilized.
Renstra was developed by closely collaborating with stakeholders. After extensive
assistance by the DBE1 Team, the Pidie Education Office held their first Forum on
August 14, 2007, for obtaining feedback from the community. The Head of Pidie
District clearly showed his interest in the Forum by participating in the event for
almost three hours. Special visits were made to this landmark event by the Aceh Head
of the Education Office, Bapak Anas Adam, and the Head of the Aceh Education
Program Development. As a follow up, on September 7, 2007, the DBE1 Aceh team
members met with personnel from the Education Office in Pidie to finalize the
document, particularly the budget figures for five years. The cooperation between the
two parties culminated on September 14, 2007, when the Head of the Pidie Education
Office approved the finalized budget and issued a Decision Letter (Surat Keputusan),
which made the Pidie Renstra SKPD an official document
24 More Effective Decentralized Education Management and Governance—Final Report
respond to a request for technical assistance and to determine if the tools developed
for this exercise could be applied elsewhere.
DBE1 developed the tool named School Operations Costs Calculation (Penghitungan
Biaya Operasional Satuan Pendidikan [BOSP]). The BOSP uses standards for school
operational costs that were established by the National Education Standards Body
(Badan Standar Nasional Pendidikan [BSNP]) but allows district governments to
adjust the volume and unit costs according to local needs and resources. After the
value of this tool was assessed, DBE1 then implemented BOSP widely in 68 districts
with USAID funding; local governments and other donors have funded
implementation in 25 additional districts. The dissemination of this program is
continuing with local funding.
Although the AKPK, described above, answers the question of how much money
is currently allocated for education and where it is spent, the BOSP answers the
question of how much money is required to fund schools adequately. The
implications for planning and policy are significant. Since 2005, the national
government has been transferring school operation funds to schools through the BOS
program. Through BOSP, district governments can find out how much money is
needed at every level of education, how much is obtained from central government
BOS funds, and what level of funding should be budgeted by the district to close the
gap and meet national standards. Furthermore, BOSP can assist district governments
in determining their policy to either prohibit or permit schools to levy charges on the
parents of students.
To determine the average operating cost that is required per school per year, DBE1
provides guidance to districts through two main activities: first, to determine the
average number of students and teachers, and second, to calculate the operational
costs for each level of schooling using the BSNP template as a guideline. The BOSP
template is divided into two parts: (1) personnel operational costs and (2) non-
personnel operational costs. Included in the personnel operating costs are the basic
salaries and allowances attached to the salary for principals, deputy principals, regular
teachers, and others such as librarians, laboratory assistants, and caretakers. Non-
personnel operating costs include school stationery, resources and services,
maintenance and light repairs, transportation, insurance, extra-curricular activities,
consumable materials, tools, and compilation of data and reports.
When DBE1 first implemented BOSP, the calculation was aligned with the BSNP
template. In subsequent implementations, the template was modified by adding
several components that are not school operations costs according to the original
definition. These include assistance to poor students, books, and simple teaching aids.
These items were added in consultation with BSNP because of a regulation change
that allowed them to be funded by the central government BOS.
Significant increases in local government funding for schools have occurred as a
result of the DBE1 School Operations Cost Calculation (Penghitungan Biaya
Operasional Satuan Pendidikan [BOSP]). In the three years since it was first
introduced, as a result of the BOSP analysis and subsequent consultations with
stakeholders and policy makers, government allocations to schools increased by
More Effective Decentralized Education Management and Governance—Final Report 25
over Rp.2 trillion (US$240 million). This outcome occurred because, after learning
that BOS funds were insufficient to meet the non-personnel operational needs of
schools, many districts and provinces moved to allocate additional funds, commonly
known by the term BOSDA (BOS Daerah or Regional BOS).
In late 2010, the Deputy Minister of Education asked DBE1 to enlarge the scope of
the tool to enable local governments to also calculate costs for achieving SPM and to
reach school enrollment targets. This request reflected a shift in MONE policy to
focus more on the achievement of Minimum Service Standards as a national objective
than the earlier National Education Standards. The new tool developed in the first half
of 2011 by DBE1 to respond to this request was called Calculation of Costs to Meet
Standards (Penghitungan Biaya Pencapaian Standard dan Akses Pendidikan
[PBPSAP/PBPSA]). This tool is described separately (see Phase 4, below). The BOSP
tool was integrated into the PBPSAP with only minor modifications. Again, no
additional data was collected.
As a separate but related activity, DBE1 developed a personal cost survey tool which
estimates the cost borne by parents to send a child to school. This information can
then become the basis for district governments to provide financial assistance to those
families who are not able to send their children to school; The personal cost survey
helps district governments to meet their obligations as required under Government
Regulation No 19 of 2008 for Education Financing and supports the achievement of
universal nine-year basic education.
DBE1 initially planned to conduct an assessment of the impact of the government’s
BOS. This plan was introduced in 2005, with the aim of reducing the burden on
families for funding schooling. However, with USAID agreement and in response to
an initial request from Indramayu District in West Java, it was decided in 2009 to re-
focus this activity to determine personal costs, which are basically the cost borne by
parents to send their children to school. The government regulation, Peraturan
Pemerintah/PP Number 19 of 2005, was used as a reference. This regulation defines
personal cost as being education costs that have to be incurred by each student to be
able to follow the learning process in a regular and sustainable manner. Examples of
personal costs provided in the clarification of this regulation include clothing,
transport, textbooks, lunch/snacks, accommodation, and other private costs. A second
reference used was the study conducted by MONE’s Research and Development
Body (Balitbang) in 2004. A number of cost components were added, based on DBE1
field experience.
When the personal cost analysis is combined with the BOSP and AKPK, it
provides a complete picture of the total cost of education, comprising the cost
that is borne by the parents plus the cost borne by the different levels of
government. Moreover, personal cost information is useful for those districts
that are planning to help low-income families send their children to school, to
determine the amount of support needed. In the case of Indramayu District, the tool
was developed in response to a request from the District Head. A draft manual on how
to facilitate the process of determining personal cost was produced in Year 4, and
piloted in two districts in Year 5.
26 More Effective Decentralized Education Management and Governance—Final Report
Phase 3: Management Tools (Asset and Personnel Information Systems)
In line with the original scope of work, DBE1’s first district level activity was to
develop a Capacity Development Planning tool (known as Rencana Pengembangan
Kapasitas [RPK]) for District Education Offices. The RPK tool enabled districts to
make a plan for improving their performance of key education management functions,
specifically, education planning, human resource management, and financial
management, and providing technical support to schools. A total of 11 districts
completed RPK in Years 2 and 3. MONE and the World Bank showed interest in the
approach, and in response, DBE1 facilitated one additional RPK in Year 4 with the
World Bank and MONE. However, DBE1 did not continue with this methodology as
it became apparent that districts generally responded more favorably to tools that help
them to develop policy, plans, and budgets in a more immediate way.
As an outcome of the early RPK work, two tools to improve district management of
education were subsequently developed: (1) a personnel management information
system known as Sistem Informasi Management Pendidik dan Tenaga Kependidikan
(SIM-PTK) and (2) an asset management information system known as Sistem
Informasi Manajement Aset (SIMA).
The regional autonomy laws of 2004 required the central government to hand over
assets to the districts. However, district governments lacked the capacity to manage
assets. Education assets consist of facilities and infrastructure at schools and at sub-
district and district offices. Two offices in each district are responsible for education
assets: (1) the Education Office (Dinas Pendidikan) and the District Asset, Finance
SUMMARY OF SCHOOL OPERATIONAL AND PERSONAL COST ANALYSIS TOOLS
Manual
―Penghitungan BOSP‖ [DATES: 2007 1st ed.; 2011 final ed.]
Software
MS Excel-based ―Penghitungan BOSP‖ software application
Data Source
School Operational Cost Standards by BSNP and Local Unit Costs and Volume
Supports implementation of these relevant regulations
Permendiknas 69/2009 (on school standards)
Manual
“Penghitungan Personal Costs‖ [DATES: 2009 1st ed.; 2010 final ed.]
Software
MS Excel-based ―Penghitungan Personal Costs‖ software application
Data Source
Household survey: Local Unit Costs and Volume
Supports implementation of these relevant regulations:
Peraturan Pemerintah/PP Number 19 of 2005
More Effective Decentralized Education Management and Governance—Final Report 27
Management, and Revenue Office (Dinas Pendapatan, Pencatatan Keuangan dan
Asset Daerah [DPPKAD]). Managing assets in the education sector presents a
complex set of problems that need to be addressed nationwide; many schools and
districts have drawn the attention of the state auditor because of poor asset
management, and most have not yet been audited for fear that they will also receive
an audit disclaimer. Such disclaimers reflect badly on a district’s performance. Until
now, this issue had not been addressed properly by either the GOI or by the donor
community.
The issue is further complicated in that asset management is based on requirements
set forth in regulations by two ministries: MONE and MOHA. The former sets the
standards—and requirements—for facilities (desks, chairs, laboratories, books,
teaching aids, etc.) and infrastructure (land and buildings). The latter sets the rules for
recording, coding, and asset inventory. Neither school principals nor education office
officials have the background for managing these. Furthermore, manuals, guidelines,
and training materials to enable schools and districts to comply with the regulations
did not exist.
Work began in 2009 on the Asset Management program with the aim of improving
the management of assets within schools and district education systems. The program
was originally conceived as a preventive maintenance program. However, it soon
became apparent that district governments lacked the basic data on the assets they
possessed. The first step in a preventive maintenance program is a thorough audit of
the condition of the assets. As a result, the DBE1 asset management program now
consists of two components: (1) a computerized information system for inventorying
assets known as SIMA, which can be used as a basis for strategic planning, budgeting,
and policy development, to improve district level management and governance of
education; and (2) a training program on preventive maintenance for school and
district level administrators.
Although the two components can be implemented independently as stand-alone
interventions, they are mutually supportive. Ideally, the SIMA is implemented as a
complementary data system that describes school conditions for the more
comprehensive SIPPK, which forms the basis for district strategic planning (renstra)
and budgeting in the education sector. The SIMA helps schools and the Education
Office to identify facilities that are seriously damaged and in need of repair. The
second component, training in preventive maintenance, is then provided to Education
Office officials, school principals, selected teachers, and community members. It
enables the verification of school reports so that districts and their schools can
properly plan for preventive maintenance.
The overall system is based on the regulations from the two ministries mentioned
above: the MOHA regulation, Permendagri 17/2007 on Administration of District
Owned Assets, and the MONE regulation, Permendiknas 24/2007 on National
Education Standards for School Assets and Infrastructure. The SIMA tool was
implemented initially in West Java, where the provincial administration showed
interest and subsequently used the tool to assess the condition of assets and develop
policy for their network of special schools. Implementation of the Assets Management
28 More Effective Decentralized Education Management and Governance—Final Report
System, SIMA, was completed across seven districts in 2010. Subsequently, the
system was disseminated with district funding to 1,605 schools in 16 districts in West
Java, Central Java, and West Sulawesi.
DBE1’s Personnel Management System, SIM-PTK, was piloted in two locations and,
after refinements to the methodology, was implemented fully in six districts across the
country. The SIM-PTK tool integrates data from DBE1’s planning information
system (SIPPK), and from MONE’s Web-based EMIS, PadatiWEB, and the
education personnel database (NUPTK) systems. It includes formulae to calculate
teacher requirements based on information about the surplus/shortage of teachers at
the elementary/primary and junior-secondary levels; the linkage between length of
service/experience and final exam scores; and the level of education and students’
scores. It identifies senior teachers, school size, and inflow/outflow of teachers, and
by using the student-teacher ratio, it can identify whether a school has met the
Minimum Service Standards.
The system evolved through a number of iterations, with each development phase
tested in a different location. Phase 1 of the development took place in Kudus District
in Central Java; Phase 2 in Mojokerto City, East Java, and Purworejo, Central Java;
and Phase 3 also in Purworejo. After the methodology and manuals were in their final
form, they were piloted in Purworejo. Pilot tests in Purworejo in early 2011
demonstrated that the methodology and underlying software were valid and ready to
be rolled out in five more districts. In late 2011, DBE1 completed the roll-out of SIM-
PTK in five more districts. The final phase in each district included a workshop to
formulate policies based on the data analysis. As with other information-based
policy discussions resulting from implementing DBE1 tools, much interest and
excitement is generated as the data are presented, and the impact on district
policy is clear. In many cases where, based on anecdotal evidence, stakeholders
and policy makers assumed there was a shortage of teachers, the application of
the tool revealed an oversupply. The problems of uneven deployment, of
underserved rural sub-districts, and of mismatching become apparent, and
implications for policy and staffing planning are evident. In Aceh, the work
across all districts in the expansion program enabled DBE1 to facilitate an
analysis of this data at the provincial level, providing a powerful dataset to
inform a higher level planning and policy dialogue.
More Effective Decentralized Education Management and Governance—Final Report 29
In summary, beginning in 2007, the SIM-PTK took three years to develop, test, and
implement in six districts. This lengthy period resulted because the MONE database
of teachers and education personnel, which is the application’s data source, was not
functioning properly at the time DBE1 began this intervention. By 2010, MONE’s
database was functioning well, so the data could be used to populate the DBE1
software application. Local governments have enthusiastically endorsed the program;
a number have enacted hiring policies based on the data analysis.
In 2011, the SIM-PTK was incorporated in the final set of DBE1 district management
and governance tools described in Phase 4, below.
SUMMARY OF MANAGEMENT TOOLS
Manuals/Software
Personnel Management: MS Excel-based ―Sistem Informasi Manajemen Pendidik and Tenaga
Kependidikan‖ (SIM-PTK) [DATE: 2010 final ed.]
School Asset Management: MS Excel-based ―Sistem Manajemen Aset” (SIMA) and
“Pemeliharaan and Perawatan Aset Sekolah” [DATE: 2010 final ed.]
Data Sources
1. Personnel Management: Provincial Education Personnel Database (NUPTK) 2. Asset Management: Inventories and Recording of School Assets, Including Land
Ownership
Supports implementation of these relevant regulations:
1. Permendiknas No.12/2007 (on school supervision) 2. Permendiknas No.13/2007 (on school principal standards) 3. Permendiknas No.16/2007 (on teacher standards) 4. Permendiknas No. 24/2007 (on school infrastructure and equipment standards) 5. Permenpu No. 24/PRT/M/2008 (manual on school building maintenance) 6. Permendagri No. 17/2007 (on technical aspects of managing assets) 7. PP No. 6/2006 (on management of government-owned assets)
BOSP Impact
“DBE1 facilitation and technical assistance on Biaya Operasional Satuan Pendidikan (school
operations cost calculation) for each education level really supported the Aceh Tamiang
Education Office. This process is very good and important because the methods are easy to
understand and implement by the District’s BOSP team members. At the same time, the
capacity of school principals who are involved in calculation and analysis also improves.”…
“We hope participants can go back and use their new knowledge and skills in their school.
Also, I hope that they can train other school principals about this calculation and analysis.”
—BAPAK IZWARDI, S. IP, HEAD OF THE EDUCATION OFFICE OF ACEH TAMIANG,
ONE OF THE DBE1 EXPANSION DISTRICTS IN ACEH
30 More Effective Decentralized Education Management and Governance—Final Report
Phase 4: Integrated Tools for Calculating Costs of Achieving Minimum Service
Standards and Universal Access—and For Planning and Policy Development
In late 2010, the Deputy Minister of National Education and the Secretary to the Vice
President of Indonesia asked DBE1 to expand its BOSP tool to enable local
governments to also calculate costs to meet Minimum Service Standards in education
(SPM) and to achieve national basic education access targets. In 2010, with support of
an international donor, MONE had produced new SPM and had calculated costs to
meet the standards aggregated at the national level. However, this calculation did not
take into account the costs if access targets were met. Further, the calculation did not
disaggregate costs at the district level. Thus, DBE1 developed a new tool called the
Calculation of Costs to Meet Standards, called Penghitungan Biaya Pencapaian
Standard dan Akses Pendidikan (PBPSAP); it includes SPM and BOSP standards and
government targets for achieving universal basic education, as well as the costs to
maintain those standards
Like all DBE1 tools, PBPSAP uses data readily available through MONE databases:
in this case (1) the MONE EMIS, which provides data on school profiles available at
district offices or through PadatiWEB for all schools in the country, and (2) the
education personnel database available at MONE provincial Quality Assurance
Institutes (LPMP), called NUPTK. DBE1 developed an Excel-based software
application called the District Information Management System (Sistem Informasi
Manajemen Kabupaten/Kota [SIMPK]), which combines the two MONE databases
and manuals to operate the system and to use data analysis for planning, costing, and
policy development purposes. This integrated tool supersedes two earlier tools
described previously: the District Planning and information Support System called
SIPPK, and the Personnel Management System known as SIM-PTK. The newer tool
provides data analysis for costing to meet Minimum Service Standards and access
targets. The original tool for calculating school operations costs (BOSP) (see Phase 2)
was modified slightly and incorporated in the PBPSAP tool.
PBPSAP enables districts to calculate costs to meet standards and achieve access
targets over a period of five years. More importantly, the package also provides
analysis and guidance for local governments to determine policy alternatives to
meet standards and targets most efficiently. (See Appendix A for an example of
policy alternatives.) If the tool is implemented in all districts in the country, the
national government will have a more accurate analysis of costs to meet standards and
would enable the government to better target resources to districts, based on districts’
needs and capacities.
In 2011, PBPSAP was implemented in 51 districts. A high-level analysis of the
generated data was conducted, and results were presented to a forum of national-level
stakeholders, policy makers, and donors in December 2011. The workshop was
attended by senior representatives of MONE and USAID and representatives of other
donors and donor-funded projects, including AusAID, Japan International
Cooperation Agency (JICA), the European Union (EU), the World Bank, and Plan
International, as well as SMERU Research Institute, the Sampoerna School of
Education (SSE), Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia (UPI), and Universitas Negeri
More Effective Decentralized Education Management and Governance—Final Report 31
Makassar (UNM). The event was covered by Voice of America. The analysis took a
large sample from DBE1 results using these tools and showed the importance of not
analyzing the achievement of Minimum Service Standards in a simple binary manner
(achieved or not achieved), but rather in a more complex way to show, for example,
the percentage of schools that have greatly exceeded the standard. The results clearly
showed that Indonesia faces a major challenge in terms of equity. In many cases,
greater efficiencies in the deployment of teachers and distribution of resources could
enable districts to achieve Minimum Service Standards. Although many schools are
under-resourced and do not meet the standards, in more cases schools are over-
resourced. As a result of this workshop, DBE1 was invited to present the analysis to
decision-makers in MONE, at a meeting in the ministry to be arranged in the near
future.
East Java “Inova” Program
In 2009, DBE1 was asked by the East Java provincial planning body, Bappeda, to
assist in developing a new education strategy for the province. Bappeda agreed to
fund all activities, while DBE1 cost-shared time and expenses for DBE1 staff. The
program, which at first consisted of four major activities, was called ―Inova.‖ The
four activities were as follows:
1. Complete BOSP in 29 non-DBE target districts;
2. Conduct a review of the Total Education Delivery System (TEDS);
3. Conduct review of degree of harmonization between Regional Education
Development Targets and Indicators (East Java Province and all 38
SUMMARY OF MINIMUM SERVICE STANDARDS/ACCESS TOOL
Manual
―Penghitungan Biaya Pencapaian Standar Pelayanan Minimal, Biaya Operasional Satuan Pendidikan,
and Akses Pendidikan‖ (PBPSAP) [DATE: 2011 final ed.]
Software
MS Access-based ―Sistem Manajemen Informasi Pendidikan Kabupaten/Kota” (SIMPK)
Data Source
MONE EMIS LI/ PadatiWEB and NUPTK
Manual
―Penghitungan BOSP‖ [DATES: 2007 1st ed.; 2011 final ed.]
Software
MS Excel-based ―Penghitungan BOSP‖ software application
Data Source
School Operational Cost Standards by BSNP and Local Unit Costs and Volume
Supports implementation of these relevant regulations:
1. PP No. 65/2005 (on setting Minimum Service Standards)
2. Permendiknas 15/2010 (on defining education Minimum Service Standards)
32 More Effective Decentralized Education Management and Governance—Final Report
regions/cities) and National Targets in the National Medium-Term
Development Plan (RPJMN) 2010–2014; and
4. Facilitate a strategic review of acceleration of illiteracy eradication with two
main activities: (1) a collaboration with BPS (National Bureau of Statistics)
for data collection on illiterates; (2) a trial of Functional Literacy Learning
Methodology with the Aku Cepat Membaca (ACM) (I Read Fast)
approach/method.
BOSP was completed in 15 of the 29 districts―plus in the nine DBE1 target districts,
making a total of 24. The results were considered significant enough to warrant
the provincial Dinas Pendidikan (Education Offices) to instruct the remaining
East Java districts to implement BOSP using their own resources.
The literacy program was outside DBE1’s mandate, but it was decided to respond to
Bappeda’s request; a number of DBE1 staff had expertise in the field of literacy, and
demonstrating good faith in this context helped the project to gain access to policy
inputs at the provincial level. DBE1 worked with Bappeda and the National
University of Malang (UM) to review and refine the province’s approach to literacy
eradication. To better target programs, the work began with a mapping of illiteracy in
the province. The key finding was that the level of illiteracy was greatly overstated in
the recent national census. The second aspect of the study was a review of the
proposed ACM approach, which was found to be ineffective in eradicating illiteracy.
While early results can be encouraging, this fast-track method does not produce
sustainable learning outcomes. Finally, since illiteracy eradication ultimately aims to
alleviate poverty, DBE1 investigated the role of local NGOs to both deliver literacy
training and assist in providing pathways to employment for participants. The other
two activities—the TEDS and Harmonizing Planning Targets—had great potential to
improve policy and planning at the provincial and district levels. Moreover, they had
potential to be applied in every province in the country.
The three studies were completed by October 2011. Results were reported in a letter
to the governor and presentations were made to the provincial secretary (Sekretaris
Daerah), the Assistant Governor, and to the Heads of the Provincial Bappeda and
Education Office in early December 2011. Significant findings are as follows:
Provincial and district governments subsidize about 18 hours of religious
education/week for elementary school children versus the standard three
hours/week for mathematics.
The number of private skills and academic courses (known as Bimbingan
Belajar) is increasing rapidly in the province. Often the academic study
courses are taught by the same teachers who teach in the formal system, but
they tend to use more advanced methods in the private courses.
Parents are required to supplement costs for education in the formal, religious,
and informal (private courses) systems at a rate of about Rp.1,500,000 per
child per year. This amounts to about 25% of income for a daily laborer.
There is little harmonization or consistency between education development
plans and targets issued by the national, provincial, and district government
More Effective Decentralized Education Management and Governance—Final Report 33
bodies. Hence, it is nearly impossible to accurately measure education
performance, and this lack of consistency does not enable efficient targeting of
resources.
East Java Province has the largest number of illiterates in the country (over
three million illiterates). However, the Inova research indicated that many who
have been classified as illiterate in the 2010 Census could in fact meet MONE
literacy standards.
DBE1 was informed that the following policy decisions were expected to be enacted
by the end of 2011 as a result of the Inova research: (1) provincial funding for
supplemental religious education will be reduced because parents seem willing to
fund this; (2) funding will be provided for more efficient distribution of teachers; (3)
medium-term education development plans (RPJMD) in the province will be revised
so that they are in harmony with national plans; (4) illiteracy data will be analyzed to
better target illiteracy eradication.
The East Java Province has indicated that it wants further USAID support, and they
are willing to provide matching funds to implement DBE1 programs. It is therefore
recommended that USAID find means to communicate with provincial Bappeda and
the governor’s staff once DBE closes.
Information and Data Management
As the DBE1 project evolved, it became apparent that information and
communications technology (ICT) was integral to every intervention, every tool
described above. Thus ICT evolved from a separate pillar in the original IR plan to an
integrated program that supported all DBE1 tools, all aspects of project intervention.
Drawing on datasets housed in MONE’s online resources, NUPTK and PadatiWEB,
and applying DBE1-designed software packages that use existing platforms such as
Microsoft Excel, local governments and stakeholders are able to generate profiles,
analyses, and displays that provide valuable input into policy and enable improved
management and governance. The same is true at the school level. The management
of data at the school and community level is integral to the preparation of school
profiles that form the basis of information-based plans, known as RKS. These
programs have been described above.
At the same time, DBE1’s TO mandated a number of other data- and information
management-related activities. These included the following:
1. An assessment of MONE’s Education Management and Information system
(EMIS). DBE1 worked with MONE’s Center for Education Data and Statistics
(PDSP)9 to conduct the assessment and pilot new approaches to managing
education data to support improved systemic management and governance.
9 Formerly the Center for Education Statistics (Pusat Statistic Pendidikan or PSP); in 2011, the organization was
restructured and renamed the Center for Education Data and Statistics (Pusat Data dan Statistik Pendidikan or
PDSP).
34 More Effective Decentralized Education Management and Governance—Final Report
2. The development of innovative solutions for data transfer and management,
including programs to enable the wider community and private business to
access information through various media. DBE1 was mandated to support
ICT innovations through a small grant program.
3. Development and maintenance of a project Website and Project Data
Management System (PDMS). The management of data and information
internal to the project was also critical to project success. DBE1 managed a
Website for the DBE project and operated a Project Data Management System
that enabled the tracking of project performance and the collation and analysis
of datasets generated through the application of the various tools described
above.
Each of these is described below.
EMIS Assessment and Pilot
DBE1’s assessment of Indonesia’s EMIS,10
conducted in the first two years of project
implementation, concluded that data supply and validity were poor. The study further
concluded that those who supplied the data to the national EMIS did not use it for
their own purposes; hence, they had little motivation to provide up-to-date, valid data,
especially since sanctions were not applied. The assessment proposed the theory
that increased use of data would result in greater demand for data, and hence, a
better supply of timely and valid data. This finding became a guiding principle in
the development of all the DBE1 planning and management tools described
above.
To test the theory and strengthen the supply-use-demand chain (see Figure 2), thereby
improving the quality of data and the overall utility of MONE’s EMIS, DBE1 and the
PDSP piloted the use of new technologies (personal data assistants [PDAs] and flash
drives) in two districts in Aceh. The aim was to improve data validity and flow by
enabling school supervisors to collect and immediately upload up-to-date and valid
school data. While the theory undoubtedly holds, as demonstrated in the application
of other DBE1 tools described above, lessons were learned from the technological
aspect of this pilot study, as described at the end of the following section.
10
DBE1 Special Report ―EMIS Assessment‖, June 2007.
More Effective Decentralized Education Management and Governance—Final Report 35
Figure 2: Data Triangle
Supply
Demand Use
ICT Innovation Program
DBE1 issued two categories of small ICT innovation grants: (1) ICT Innovation and
Education Management Grants to improve education management, and (2) Education
Hotspots grants that aimed to provide Internet access to schools, education offices,
and the community as a whole. Although the grants were all slightly different, they
typically included purchasing software and hardware and training users, including
government officials and community members. These grants were awarded to
consortia comprising the private sector (usually local ICT firms) and the public sector
(usually including local Education and Religious Affairs Offices, local libraries, and
schools). DBE1 awarded 14 grants that began in the first year of the project. By the
final year, all were closed out.
The intention was for the consortia to be self-sustaining after the grant period was
completed, to be able to maintain the networks and the training facilities that were
established through the grant. In most cases, this was achieved. For example, in
Sukabumi, West Java, the program is self-sustaining, managed by the Sukabumi
Regional Library. Operational costs are allocated in the district budget (APBD).
Similarly, in Karawang, West Java, the program is now self-sustaining, managed and
funded by the Singaperbangsa University (UNSIKA).
The success of awarding grants to consortia composed of private sector organizations
and local governments was the most significant finding of an ICT grants programs
assessment. Government projects often are not sustainable because of funding
uncertainty for maintenance and ongoing operations. Such government funding for
these activities rely on line items in annual budgets that may be late in disbursement
or, ultimately, cut. In contrast, the private sector has a profit motive that drives
maintenance and continuous operations. The DBE1 ICT grant program engaged the
private sector with a transparent profit motive, while at the same time serving local
governments’ and schools’ ICT needs.
36 More Effective Decentralized Education Management and Governance—Final Report
The really significant use of ICT and development of EMIS came not through these
targeted programs, but through the development and implementation of tools that
meet the needs of schools and districts to implement current policies. These tools,
described in the previous section, all used familiar and readily available technologies
and software such as Microsoft Excel. By applying these tools to meet their needs,
schools and districts learned to value the quality of data and, as a result, learned that
quality improved along with ICT skills and application.
Project Data and Information Management
The effective and efficient management of project data and information was
crucial to the success of DBE1. A project as large and diverse as DBE1 generates an
enormous amount of data on a routine basis. The timely and accurate capture of this
data, the storage of the data in a manageable and accessible format, and the effective
use of the data to monitor and evaluate project performance and provide support for
analysis and subsequent input into planning and policy development, all require a
sophisticated system and a competent team to manage it. Two key components of this
were the PDMS and the project Website.
Under the TO, DBE1 was required to develop and manage a Project Data
Management System (PDMS). The PDMS was intended to contain data for all three
DBE components (DBE1, 2, and 3). Developing the system for organizing and simple
analysis of data continued throughout project duration. The PDMS, which has now
been transferred to USAID Indonesia, contains up-to-date information on project
beneficiaries as well as special features designed to facilitate DBE1 project
management.
Data were routinely uploaded throughout the project. As a result of the development,
improvement, and maintenance of the PDMS over the life of the project, data queries
were answered quickly and accurately. This was of particular value toward the end of
the project cycle, as the increased focus on evaluation and impact assessment required
the management of a large amount of project data in a form that was accurate, timely,
complete, and easily accessible. DBE1 responded quickly to queries of the PDMS
received from a range of internal and external stakeholders. These included project
personnel requiring data summaries for project planning, evaluation, impact
assessment and reporting; USAID personnel requiring data for a range of
accountability and planning purposes; and colleagues from other donors requesting
data from districts in which other projects have also been operating to assist in
assessing impact and dissemination effects of their own interventions.
Throughout the project, DBE1 also maintained a project Website (http://www.dbe-
usaid.org/) that housed data primarily from DBE1, including project manuals and
materials; references such as current Indonesian government regulations relevant to
education management and governance; success stories; and project data. Although it
was originally envisaged that DBE2 and DBE3 would share the Website, and
provision was made for each of the components to upload data and use the facility, in
the end, each component also established and maintained its own Website. Links were
More Effective Decentralized Education Management and Governance—Final Report 37
established between the project site set up by DBE1 and the sites for DBE2 and
DBE3.
The Website was launched in 2005. As of September 2011, it had received a total of
3,284,155 hits. Throughout the project, DBE1 continued to upload information from
DBE1, 2, and 3 into various sections of the Website, primarily into the Resource
Materials and News sections. The list of top ten requests for documents, updated each
quarter, was consistently dominated by requests for resource materials uploaded by
DBE1, especially relevant government policy documents such as ministerial decrees,
law, and regulations. Also among the top ten downloads were DBE1 and DBE3
manuals.
The Website used a custom Web-based application, developed by RTI International,
using the Cold Fusion programming language. The site has now been handed over to
USAID and is hosted by a local company in Indonesia. To make this possible, DBE1
restructured the Website using the Drupal content management system (CMS).
Public-Private Alliances
Public-private alliances (PPAs) are a way for the strengths of the private and public
sectors to complement each other. As part of USAID’s Global Development Alliance
(GDA), which was created to join the efforts, resources, and capabilities of the public
and private sectors to achieve a more effective impact on sustainable development
activities, DBE1 was given a specific mandate to engage private sector firms to
supplement the overall program impact and to expand geographical reach. The
intention was that, by joining forces, foreign assistance to the people of Indonesia
could be significantly expanded.
Meanwhile, in Indonesia, corporate social responsibility (CSR) was on the rise. Some
CSR initiatives are now taking the shape of PPAs, whereby companies merge
resources with the public sector to increase the impact of development projects. CSR
initiatives in Indonesia have evolved over the past several years, especially since
2007, when the House of Representatives (DPR)11
passed a law making CSR
mandatory for companies operating in any business field related to natural resources.
The law imposes sanctions on noncompliant firms.12
At the beginning of the project, DBE1 was required to set aside approximately
US$677,775 to support PPAs. The original DBE1 TO required a 1:1 leverage
(preferred 2:1). By the end of Year 4, DBE1 had leveraged 3:1 from the private sector
(see Table 1). By this time, all PPAs had been completed and final reports submitted.
As a result of recommendations made by the Mid-Term Review, no new PPAs were
formed after Year 3. After completing the British Petroleum (BP) alliance in West
Papua and the ConocoPhillips alliance in Central Java and Yogyakarta, the balance of
set-aside PPA funds was US$113,775. In June 2010, DBE1 requested approval from
11
Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat or DPR translates as House of Representatives.
12 http://www.adbi.org/conf-seminar-papers/2007/10/24/2377.csr/.
38 More Effective Decentralized Education Management and Governance—Final Report
USAID to reallocate this balance for project closeout activities.13
The funds were
subsequently used for closeout workshops in all districts in all provinces and, in some
cases, for provincial-level workshops.
A further amount of US$350,000 was set aside in the Aceh Contract Modification for
PPAs. However, based on the assessment DBE1 that was conducted and submitted to
USAID, it was agreed that DBE1 would not use these funds to support further PPAs
in Year 4 or 5; instead, the funds would be used to support other activities in Aceh.
Table 1: Summary of Public-Private Alliances
Alliances
Private
Contribution
Project
Contribution Ratio
BP Alliance $500,000 $225,000 2:1
BP Migas Alliance $222,000 $50,000 4:1
ConocoPhillips Alliance $700,000 $279,000 3:1
Chevron Alliance $125,000 $10,000 12:1
Total $1,547,000 $564,000 3:1
The PPA program had both positive and negative impacts on the project. On the
positive side of the equation, the program helped persuade private-sector partners that
their CSR funds would be used most effectively if tied with a strong development
program already operating on the ground. Forming a PPA through DBE1 offered
private partners the ability to more strategically support development efforts, than if
they were simply making random donations from a CSR fund.
Although private partners are experts in managing their own businesses, they typically
have limited experience in development or in working directly with the public sector.
By collaborating with an experienced development agency through a PPA, they
eliminate the need to spend money and resources to determine community needs,
identify project opportunities, and locate beneficiaries. By melding resources with the
public sector and sometimes other private partners, companies are instead able to put
their total contribution directly toward project costs, thereby magnifying their
investment. DBE1 PPAs helped private sector partnerships strategically channel their
CSR investments in effective, efficient, and sustainable ways to respond to needs and
improve the quality of education in Indonesia.
On the negative side of the equation, the PPA program sometimes diverted project
effort and expertise away from core activity and from the achievement of core,
mandated project objectives. The nature of the partnerships tended to favor the
objectives of the private sector partners who, in all cases, were the larger financial
contributor. Consequently, the PPAs generally aligned with the agendas of company
CSR programs more so than they did with DBE1’s agenda.
13
Deliverable # 14, YEAR 5, June 2010, page 2.
More Effective Decentralized Education Management and Governance—Final Report 39
Notwithstanding, these concerns,
as a result of the PPAs listed in
Table 1, above, a number of tools
were produced and significant
technical assistance was provided,
resulting in capacity building.
Arguably, the most significant
PPAs conducted by DBE1 focused
on school reconstruction in the
Yogyakarta-Central Java areas
struck by an earthquake in 2006:
the Chevron Alliance in
Yogyakarta, the BP Migas
Alliance in Central Java, and the
ConocoPhillips Alliance. These
PPAs successfully leveraged
private sector funding from CSR
programs and public funding from
the USAID-funded DBE1 project
to respond to a humanitarian crisis. What made the approach exceptional is that
the response took the form of a sustainable and community-based reconstruction
effort. DBE1 provided technical expertise and coordinated communication and
cooperation between the donors (public and private), the local government, local
nongovernment partners, and local communities.
As a result of this work, DBE1 produced a ―Manual for Reconstruction and
Rehabilitation of School and Madrasah Buildings Post-Disaster: Using the
Community Participation Method‖ (see Figure 3 above).
Dissemination and Sustainability During the first three to four years, DBE1 worked with partners to develop, pilot,
finalize, and begin to institutionalize the methodologies or ―tools‖ described in the
previous section, which were designed to support the implementation of GOI policy
Figure 3: Post-Earthquake School
Reconstruction Manual
Post-Earthquake School Reconstruction Results
Out of 35 schools, 25 were able to complete the reconstruction process earlier than
scheduled and to build additional locations/facilities.
A high level of community involvement existed throughout the whole rebuilding
process.
Community contributions included cash and in-kind contributions, with a total value of
(approx.) Rp.210 million.
40 More Effective Decentralized Education Management and Governance—Final Report
to improve the management and governance of basic education. As illustrated in
Figure 4, below, sustainability and dissemination were core goals from the beginning
of DBE1 activity in 2005. As the project progressed, the focus shifted from
developing tools to building the capacity of service providers to use these tools.
Beyond achieving sustainability of project outcomes in target districts and supporting
dissemination within and across districts, the process has influenced government
policy, creating a much wider impact.
Figure 4: DBE1 Transition Strategy
As illustrated in Figure 4, above, DBE1 progressively decreased the level of effort in
schools, communities, and districts as the project proceeded. Simultaneously, partner
districts progressively increased their level of effort as they developed ownership and
capacity. While the graphic displays an idealized concept, it is nonetheless the basis
of the project’s strategic approach and reflects reality. An important aspect of this
model is that transition began on the first day of project implementation. It was not a
final phase that happened in the last year. As DBE1 closed its offices and concluded
activities in the final months of 2011 (the red line reached the zero point on the
graphic), local governments and their partners assumed 100% responsibility for
ongoing implementation and dissemination (the blue line reached the top of the
graphic).
Following advice from USAID, DBE1 adopted the term “diseminasi” in Indonesian
documents, as this is more familiar and acceptable to our counterparts. The term
―replication‖ was abandoned in favor of ―dissemination,‖ which suggests greater
ownership by implementing partners. The following definitions were adopted:
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
DBE1
Partners
2011 2012
More Effective Decentralized Education Management and Governance—Final Report 41
Although sustainability and dissemination are distinct objectives, the strategies
for achieving them were closely related. These include jointly planning and
implementing programs with counterparts, basing all interventions explicitly on
current GOI policy, working within existing structures, working with whole
schools/communities, supporting the development of policies to institutionalize
good practices, and ensuring that programs were affordable and manageable for
partners. In a sense, development projects operate in a marketplace. Districts and
other agencies will ―buy into‖ and disseminate programs only if they meet their needs,
are closely aligned with government policy, and are affordable. The fact that
schools, districts, and other partners committed substantial funds and
successfully disseminated DBE1 programs to the extent that they did, confirms
the efficacy of this approach.
The extension of DBE1 beyond the originally planned five years to over six and a
half years provided an unusual and extremely valuable opportunity for the
project to really consolidate gains made, to support sustainability, and to
promote the dissemination of good practices developed under the project to non-
target schools and districts. Such opportunities are rarely available within the
standard project cycle. In addition, the extension provided time for a number of
significant studies to become part of the impact and dissemination of DBE1; as well
as to collate and analyze data collected through the project and provide policy inputs
to the Indonesian government. Similarly, the expansion of the project and
collaboration with other donors in regions such as Aceh, Central Java, Papua, and
West Papua provided an unusual opportunity to support dissemination and
sustainability.
The original target for dissemination was 3,000 schools that would disseminate at
least one DBE1 program. This target was progressively increased in the various
contract amendments described above. By the end of the project, some 16,106
schools, in addition to the 1,272 DBE1 target schools, had prepared school-
In summary, sustainability is an essential element in good practice. Dissemination
was at the heart of the project’s strategic approach, which was to:
develop good methodologies, good practices, and formalize these in practical manuals
or ―tools‖;
build the capacity of facilitators and service providers to use these tools; and
support policy development at district, provincial, and national levels to institutionalize
the good practices.
Definitions:
Sustainability means that the positive impact of DBE1 continues beyond the life of
the program.
Dissemination (or Replication) means that programs, approaches, and good
practices from DBE1 are implemented by stakeholders using their own resources.
42 More Effective Decentralized Education Management and Governance—Final Report
development plans and/or implemented other aspects of the DBE1 school-based
management package, such as strengthening school committees, improving
leadership, asset management, financial management, and BOS reporting, or
implementing school database systems (SDS). In other words, for every one project
fully funded school, another 12 schools used DBE1 tools and adopted good
practices developed under the project. Over Rp.18 billion, or approximately US$2
million,14
were allocated from counterpart budgets to fund this dissemination. Of this
amount, Rp.11 billion came from annual district budgets (APBD) and the remainder,
Rp.7 billion, from a variety of non-APBD sources, including MORA, school funds
(predominately BOS), and the non-government sector, including religious-based
foundations.
In many cases, these schools also participated in the dissemination of programs to
improve quality of teaching and learning (DBE2 or DBE3 programs). Although it is
not possible to say with certainty on the basis of this quantitative data alone, based on
the qualitative case studies conducted in 2010, it is reasonable to suggest that this
dissemination effort contributed in a significant way to the improvement of schooling
for many. This means that approximately 3.5 million Indonesian children have
benefited from the dissemination programs to date.15
This is in addition to the 340,000
children who benefited from the program in target schools.16
By reviewing documents from previous years and interviewing school personnel,
survey teams determined that few if any of the dissemination schools had previously
prepared plans that met either government guidelines or DBE1 criteria. Studies
conducted subsequently in 2008 and 2010 found that most sampled dissemination
schools prepared good quality plans that complied with government standards.
Furthermore, 74% (rising to 90% in the second year) of planned programs were being
implemented, resulting in better school management and governance, plus school
improvement. Some 90% of principals surveyed from the dissemination schools
believed that the program had a positive impact on their school and gave concrete
examples of that impact.
The quality of dissemination programs, although varied, was found to be satisfactory.
Moreover, the quality of the implementation process and outcomes improved between
2008, when the first survey was conducted, and 2010, when the second survey was
conducted. While school development planning remained the main focus of
dissemination, as illustrated in Table 2, below, more schools were implementing more
14
Using a nominal exchange rate of Rp.9,000 = $1.
15 Extrapolating from the number of schools that have participated in dissemination programs, we can say that
approximately 3,511,108 students attend schools that have participated in dissemination programs. This figure is
conservative, as it assumes an average enrollment of 218 children per school, based on the actual average
enrollment in DBE1 target elementary schools. Since some of the schools in dissemination programs are junior-
and senior-secondary level, the real figure should be somewhat higher.
16 DBE1 worked in 1,076 elementary schools and madrasah, and 196 junior-secondary schools and madrasah; a
total of 1,272. The total number of students enrolled in these schools is 346,432, of whom 234,480 are enrolled
in elementary and 112,423 in junior-secondary schools and madrasah.
More Effective Decentralized Education Management and Governance—Final Report 43
varied DBE1 school-based management programs, making the process more
comprehensive. More schools received mentoring as follow-up to class-based
training, and the participation of school committees also increased.
These results are in addition to the potential impact of MONE’s AusAID-funded
national training program, which introduced DBE1 school development planning and
financial management/reporting tools to every elementary/primary and junior-
secondary school principal and supervisor in the country. The project aimed to train
all 293,000 of Indonesia's school principals, school supervisors, and district education
officials. 17
At the time of writing this report, training implementation is still in
progress. Monitoring by DBE1 staff indicate that initial concerns DBE1 raised about
the training approach (see p. 10 above) are becoming evident. Nonetheless, it may be
assumed that a project as large as this will have impact and that a percentage of
schools and districts in which DBE1 tools have been introduced will take up and
implement good practices using these tools.
Table 2: Types of School-Based Management Programs Disseminated, as per
November 2011
Disseminated Programs Number of Schools RKS, RKT 10,343
Leadership 2,192
School Committee 1,859
SDS 791
SDS++ 1,775
BOS Reporting 1,537
Asset Management 1,721
Total (Headcount) 16,106
Note: RKS = Annual School Plans (rencana kerja sekolah); RKT = School Annual Medium-Term Plan (rencana kerja tahunan)
In addition, DBE1 district level programs have been replicated in 74 districts, with
local funding. This is in addition to the 50 target districts and 24 additional districts in
Aceh, Papua, West Papua, and elsewhere across the country. In total, DBE1 reached
15 provinces, 148 districts, over 16,000 schools, and over 40,000 teachers,
government officials, and local stakeholders.
Because the dissemination of DBE1 district level programs proceeded forward later
than the school level program did, the same opportunity to study the impact of this
dissemination did not exist. However, there are at least two ways in which that impact
may be determined: through the policy outcomes and the financial outcomes of using
DBE1 tools. As illustrated in Table 3, below, overall, DBE1 has leveraged some
US$250 million from the Indonesian Government and community as a
contribution towards the implementation of DBE1 programs and in increased
support for school operations.
17
http://www.ausaid.gov.au/hottopics/topic.cfm?ID=5746_1784_9510_7159_7325.
44 More Effective Decentralized Education Management and Governance—Final Report
Table 3: Indonesian Financial Commitments Resulting from DBE1
Partner Contribution Amount (Billion Rp) Amount (Million USD)
Public Private Alliance (1:3) 14 1.56
Government Budget, Foundations, Schools, Donors for SBM dissemination
18 2.00
Community 25 2.78
Musrenbangdes 32 3.56
BOSDA – District 288 32.04
BOSDA – Province 1,900 211.00
Total 2,277 252.94
As shown in Table 3, the majority of this amount was in the form of increased or new
school operational grants provided from district and province budgets. These resulted
from policies made on the basis of BOSP analysis, which highlighted the gap between
national BOS funding and the funds required for schools to meet minimum
requirements. The largest contribution came from the West Java and Central Java
provincial governments over two years, amounting to US$211 million. In addition, 18
districts increased their funding to schools by a total of US$32 million, as a result of
conducting the BOSP analysis.
Other contributions included US$1.56 million for public-private alliances, US$2
million for dissemination programs, US$2.78 million of unsolicited contributions
from local communities as a result of participation in school development planning,
and US$3.56 million from village governments to support school development plan
implementation as a result of the consultative process known as musrenbangdes,
facilitated by DBE1.
As shown in Appendix A, some 48 policies have been developed as an outcome of
DBE1 work. All of these aim in some way to improve the quality of basic
education, either directly or through improved management and governance.
This is an addition to the 58 information-based strategic plans (renstra) and associated
district budgets (APBD) developed with DBE1 support. Select examples include the
following:
1. Technical Guidelines on School Finance Management Based on 2010 BOS
Manual: a national level policy instrument that aimed to improve transparency
in school financial reporting from every school in the country. One district
issued a regulation requiring schools to report finances using DBE1 tools.
2. At least 14 districts issued regulations requiring schools and madrasah to
prepare school work plans (rencana kerja sekolah/madrasah [RKS/M]) and
for these to be integrated into district plans. These generally took the form of
decrees or circular letters issued by the district head. The impact is to
institutionalize the DBE1 school development planning process and to align
this in various ways to district planning, making that planning more responsive
to school needs and community aspirations.
3. Some 12 districts issued regulations about the allocation of additional funds to
schools, based on BOSP or PBPSAP calculations, or on ―free education.‖
More Effective Decentralized Education Management and Governance—Final Report 45
4. Two districts issued regulations to support the education of poor students. The
impact is to increase the participation of these marginalized communities.
5. Ten districts prepared general education regulations that supported the
improvement of quality through better management and governance in various
ways. In Aceh, DBE1 also supported a revision of the provincial-level
education law (Qanun Pendidikan).
6. In addition, West Java province issued a regulation requiring special schools
to base applications for infrastructure funding on results of the DBE1 SIMA
tool; one district issued a regulation requiring schools to use the DBE1 tool to
support applications for asset maintenance; and one issued a regulation to
improve the personnel management system based on the SIM-PTK.
At the national level, DBE1 has impacted the broad development of policy and
practice relating to management and governance of basic education. The inclusion of
DBE1 tools in the national SBM training program, for example, illustrates this impact
as does the request by the Deputy Minister of Education for specialized tools to
analyze complex education finance challenges, and the subsequent adoption of those
tools
DBE1 also made an important contribution by assisting MONE’s statistics division
(Pusat Statistic Pendidikan [PSP]) in collating and presenting data to support
Indonesia’s participation in the USA’s Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC)
program. In 2005, the MCC selected Indonesia to participate in the Threshold
Program. For Indonesia to become a Compact eligible country, it needed to meet
specific benchmarks and criteria within 16 specific MCC indicators. One of the
indicators that MCC used was a country’s public primary education spending as a
percentage of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP). However, in both 2005 and 2006,
Indonesia scored very low on this indicator, based on the United Nations Educational,
Scientific, and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) calculations. These low scores were
basically because of two reasons: (1) data for primary education expenditures for
2004, 2005, and 2006 were not updated; the 2003 data was used, and (2) the
calculation of primary education expenditures only included spending from the central
government budget and did not include spending from provinces and districts. This
significantly understated the amount available for primary education spending. As a
result of DBE1 support, a far more accurate submission was made from 2007 until
2010, assisting Indonesia in reaching the targets required to receive support under the
MCC program.
Subsequently, in November 2011, the MCC signed a Compact Agreement with
Indonesia. The five-year, US$600 million MCC Compact with Indonesia is designed
to reduce poverty through economic growth. The Compact’s three projects are
expected to increase household income in project areas through increased
productivity, reduced energy costs, and improved provision of public-sector growth-
enhancing goods and services.
As described above, following the DBE1 national workshop in December,
Decentralized Basic Education Management and Governance: Lessons and Policy
Implications, DBE1 was asked to present the analysis of data collected through the
46 More Effective Decentralized Education Management and Governance—Final Report
application of district level methodologies to a group of high-level policy makers
within MONE. At the time of writing this report, the date for this meeting has not
been set; however, MONE has requested a copy of the workshop materials for
consideration.
Challenges, Weaknesses, and Lessons Learned Overall, DBE1 was a remarkably successful project. It achieved well against agreed
performance indicators, as reported in routine monitoring and evaluation reports. But,
importantly, it went well beyond this, achieving broad impacts through widespread
dissemination and policy development, as described above.
Important lessons were learned through the implementation of DBE1. The majority of
these were learned as a result of changes in the strategic approach made in response to
feedback from the field and changes in the external environment. Most changes have
been discussed above. In this section of the report, we summarize these challenges,
weaknesses, and lessons learned. Most significant are the following:
1. The challenge of internal coordination.
DBE was split into three components: DBE1, DBE2, and DBE3, each responsible for
different technical aspects of program delivery, each working in the same districts and
schools, each delivered by a different implementing partner. The common experience
of all three components was that this division was a weakness in the project design
and created major challenges for project delivery. In the early years, significant effort
was made to coordinate the project management and delivery at all levels: national,
provincial, and district. This coordination continued throughout the project. However,
because of the high cost and difficulty of achieving close coordination, as
implementation progressed, the attempt to deliver the project as a single integrated
program lessened somewhat. Increasingly, each DBE pursued its own agenda as these
diverged during the period of implementation.
In this respect, the original design at times made it confusing and inefficient for
schools, districts, provinces, and the central administration to deal with three separate
―projects‖; the extra cost of coordinating across components was high; and many
opportunities for synergy were lost because of challenges in coordination. The
response of the projects in progressively reducing the effort to coordinate closely was
rational, but disappointing. It enabled the individual components to focus more fully
and effectively on their own program delivery and thus achieve better results, but it
also resulted in a more fragmented project.
This lesson was noted not only by DBE1 personnel, but within MONE in recent
discussions—that the improvement of basic education requires an integrated focus on
all aspects: management and governance, teaching and learning, and curriculum
relevance. Such integration is better achieved with an implementing team under one
management.
More Effective Decentralized Education Management and Governance—Final Report 47
2. The need to limit scope.
The scope of work presented a major challenge to DBE1 as the project evolved
through the first two cohorts of districts and schools. Following the Mid-Term
Review, the original scope of 100 districts and 2,000 schools was reduced by 50%.
This enabled the project to more fully engage with target districts and schools and
ensure that good practices were more fully implemented and institutionalized.
Paradoxically, by reducing the scope in this way, the outcomes of the project
were substantially increased. The reduction in scope enabled DBE1 to more fully
develop and pilot the tools described above, to more fully prepare district facilitators
and service providers to be able to use these, and to more fully collaborate with
provinces, districts, and other donors to support dissemination.
Similarly, at the school level, the impact study found that working intensively in
a small number of schools grouped in clusters was far more effective than
working less intensively in larger numbers of schools spread more widely
geographically. By focusing efforts in this way, DBE1 was able to develop
communities and models of good practice, effective tools, and district facilitators who
then disseminated the good practice widely, using the tools and models established
and local government funds. In districts where local government attempted to scale up
too widely and too quickly, reducing the quality of the training and cutting back on
essential elements, such as in-school mentoring, the results were disappointing.
As a result of reducing the number of target districts and schools funded by the
project, the number of non-funded districts and schools that implemented the program
increased, as described above. Ultimately, as described, DBE1 reached 148 districts
and over 16,000 schools. The lesson is that a relatively small, geographically focused
target-group of schools and districts provides the best opportunity for a project to
achieve substantial reforms and establish models of good practice.
3. The need to focus on core programs.
The public-private alliance (PPA) program, as described above, was both a ―blessing‖
and a ―curse.‖ It enabled the project to leverage substantial financial support from the
public sector. At the same time, it diverted project effort away from core tasks and the
achievement of core objectives.
Similarly, although the ICT grant program did achieve worthwhile results, it was
something of a distraction to the project team, requiring a major investment of time
and energy for relatively small outcomes.
The lesson learned is that public-private alliances and grants programs must be
designed to serve the core goals of the project and not to divert attention away to
activities which, while worthwhile, do not serve the core goals.
4. The challenge of a dynamic regulatory environment.
One of the key success factors identified for DBE1 was the project’s principle of
basing all interventions and tools firmly and explicitly on current government
policy. This provided DBE1 with a mandate for all programs and greatly
48 More Effective Decentralized Education Management and Governance—Final Report
increased the effectiveness of implementation and the scale of dissemination. It
also increased sustainability by ensuring that good practices were embedded in
government policy.
At the same time, this government policy-based approach created a challenge. The
Indonesian regulatory environment is fluid, changeable, and at times ambiguous and
contradictory. Government policy shifts in sometimes subtle ways and sometimes
through the promulgation of new regulations, both of which are illustrated in the
example given above of changes in the regulations framing SBM. Such shifts created
a serious challenge for the project. On a number of occasions, well-developed tools
and methodologies had to be abandoned or substantially revised to align with
changing regulations and policy priorities. The gap between policy and practice—and
the time lag between the promulgation of new regulations in Jakarta and the
implementation of these across Indonesia’s vast education system—is often profound.
Projects like DBE1 provide assistance to GOI to close that gap. However, often by the
time successful implementation is gaining traction in the field, new policies are
already being formulated and the old policies are obsolete.
This shifting process threatens both the effectiveness of project interventions in the
short term and sustainability in the long term. The solution is to work closely with
government at the national level, to be able to anticipate policy developments while,
at the same time, developing the capacity of service providers and district government
to be able to adapt and continue to use the tools provided in the event of policy shifts.
Ongoing change and continuous improvement, reflected in a dynamic policy
environment, is not a bad thing. By developing and updating tools and working
closely with local consultants and service providers to do this, DBE1 effectively built
capacity for ongoing change management. This process should continue with follow-
on projects such as the Prioritizing Reform, Innovation, Opportunities for Reaching
Indonesia's Teachers, Administrators, and Students Project (PRIORITAS).
The lesson learned is that project interventions should be firmly and explicitly
based on current government policy. A second lesson is that effective project
management is flexible, requiring a responsive approach from the donor, the
project implementation team, and government partners.
5. The need for commitment.
As with other demand-driven development projects, DBE1 was designed and
delivered as a partnership. The two key partners—local governments and the project
implementation team—shared responsibility for achieving agreed upon objectives.
Results, however, were not even, and comparisons in outcomes between regions
suggest that both internal and external factors (and the interplay between the two)
were associated with successful implementation. The most significant element in
this dynamic seems to be the level of commitment of the district or province and
the capacity of the implementation team to leverage and build that commitment.
The level of commitment from local partners varied greatly. Commitment was
expressed most concretely in the allocation of resources to the project: notably human
and financial resources. DBE1 was designed as a program of technical assistance. No
More Effective Decentralized Education Management and Governance—Final Report 49
financial contribution was required from local government partners. However, as
illustrated in the previous section, the success of the project may, in part, be measured
by the extent of financial support for implementation and dissemination that was
forthcoming.
Conversely, where commitment from partner governments was less, financial support
was lacking, key individuals were often transferred to different schools or government
departments resulting in loss of momentum, and other priorities frequently took
precedence, resulting in key personnel being unavailable to participate in important
project activities.
For example, the School-Based Management (SBM) Impact Study found that in cases
where districts committed to the full implementation of SBM programs (as opposed to
just one component, typically school development planning), the impact of
dissemination was profound. In these districts, schools produced better quality plans,
support for implementation was stronger, and impact extended to greater numbers of
schools. When institutionalized through changes in government policy, dissemination
resulted in a broad impact across all schools in a district or province.
The lesson is that success is more likely where an experienced implementation
team with strong local connections is paired with government and institutions in
districts selected on the basis of demonstrated commitment to reform. In cases
such as this, DBE1 was able to make significant achievements, which then became
the basis for dissemination to other schools and districts.
6. The political challenges.
As is typically the case with development projects, DBE1 operated in an intensely
political environment. This was true at all levels, from the national through local
school community contexts.
At the national level, the project faced challenges in establishing strong working
relationships with senior MONE managers, some of whom reportedly felt that the
project’s formal working agreement should have been made with MONE and not, as it
was, with MenkoKesra. Bureaucratic politics in Indonesia are very personality driven.
Where DBE1 was able to build on existing relationships and networks to create good
working relationships, the project prospered. Where this was not the case, it was more
difficult to proceed. Furthermore, relationships are sometimes lost when individuals
are transferred and faces change.
DBE1 also worked within the political context of the international donor community.
It is true to say that DBE1 demonstrated well the effectiveness of increasing donor
harmonization, with a number other donors and projects taking up and disseminating
DBE1 practices using DBE1 tools. However, it was also at times difficult to advance
the project’s agenda at the national level where, for example, other donors brought
different agendas to the table, along with more substantial funding. One of the success
factors identified in the impact study was that DBE1 did not provide funding but,
rather, technical assistance. As a result, project outcomes were generally more
sustainable, the implementation of good practices was regarded as affordable and
50 More Effective Decentralized Education Management and Governance—Final Report
manageable at the local level, and greater ownership resulted. However, without
financial incentives to offer, such as grants to Indonesian counterpart agencies, the
project was at times at a disadvantage when dealing with government officials in the
often competitive world of aid delivery.
The lesson learned and the solution to this challenge is that project implementing
partners must recruit well and leverage the existing networks and professional
relationships within the team to build political alliances to support the project.
At the district and subdistrict level, for example, where the project jointly selected
coordinators and facilitators with district government, the teams were generally more
effective than where this was not the case.
7. The challenge of data quality.
DBE1 relied on good data to provide input into the various tools described, to produce
good analysis and outputs to support better management and governance. The quality
of data in Indonesia, however, is often poor. Data on schools were frequently invalid,
unreliable, and incomplete. Population data that was required for some programs was
equally problematic. Data operators at the local level have a tendency to input data
without checking for validity or considering the meaning of the data. The challenge is
to work effectively with the data such as is available, while at the same time building
the quality of data and the capacity of data operators through strengthening the
supply-demand-use triangle described above in Figure 2.
The lesson learned is that increasing the use of data for policy and planning
inputs over time increases demand and quality of data supplied. Over the period
of implementation, the quality of data in MONE’s online systems did improve
significantly, making the use of that data for DBE1 tools more feasible.
8. The need for service providers.
A key element in DBE1’s strategy was the development of competent service
providers, able to use the project’s tools and to support the dissemination of good
practices. As described above, DBE1 began early in the project to build the role and
capacity of service providers. However, it was not until the final two years that this
program began to bear fruit for district level programs. This was the case for a number
of reasons: (1) the district level tools took a lengthy period to develop, pilot, refine,
and finalize, meaning that it was not possible to train service providers in the early
years, (2) in some cases, proposed service providers proved to be inappropriate (as
with the NGO PATTIRO [Center for Regional Information and Studies]), (3) the plan
to work closely with MONE’s provincial level quality assurance bodies (LPMP)
proved challenging, as these institutions generally lacked a serious commitment to
working with DBE1; and (4) it took some time to identify the appropriate institutions
within universities and to develop working relationships with these.
As a result of these factors, DBE1 established good working relationships with a
small number of university service providers and was able to certify a small number
of academic staff from within these as competent in the delivery of DBE1 district
level programs. The enthusiasm and commitment from within the four main partner
More Effective Decentralized Education Management and Governance—Final Report 51
universities (UNM in South Sulawesi, UM in East Java, Universitas Muhammadiyah
Surakarta [UMS] in Central Java, and UPI in West Java), plus Universitas Lampung
(UNILA) for school level programs, is now very evident; however, DBE1’s
assessment found that these service providers really need longer periods of training
and mentoring to become fully effective in their roles as such. The DBE1 district level
tools require a high level of technical expertise and some years of practice to master.
University lecturers traditionally focus on theory rather than practice and adopt a
didactic ―chalk-and-talk‖ approach to consultancies. Although this pattern is
changing, it takes time to develop new skills and approaches. Acting as a “service
provider” is a new role for universities; it will take some time for them to
develop the role and for districts, as the main users or clients, to begin to use
them in the way intended. It is hoped that USAID’s PRIORITAS and possible
higher education projects will pick up these service providers and continue to develop
their capacity.
Meanwhile, for the SBM, DBE1 developed the capacity of school supervisors
(pengawas) as service providers internal to the education system. This approach
proved effective, as these district facilitators were developed over a much longer
period, beginning in the early years of project implementation. The project has now
certified over 400 such facilitators. In the best cases, these are highly skilled and
highly motivated professionals who are willing to work across district and provincial
borders and, potentially, are much in demand. One of the challenges in this approach
is that school supervisors are typically nearing retirement, often having been
appointed into the position on the basis of seniority rather than merit. The investment
in these individuals is lost as they retire from service.
The long-term solution is to work with districts to develop and institute new patterns
of promotion that enable talented, younger professionals to become supervisors. This
solution is something that was considered by DBE1, but not followed up because of
competing priorities. It is definitely something on which PRIORITAS could follow
up.
Recommendations and Policy Inputs
Recommendations for USAID in planning further assistance and for GOI policy
development are listed below. These recommendations are based on the DBE1
experience and lessons learned, described above.
1. Follow principles of good development practice.
DBE1 based all interventions on a set of principles, some of which were evident in the
original design, while others emerged more strongly during the implementation. It is
recommended that future USAID-funded technical assistance be designed and
implemented on the same basis. The key assumption is that capacity building is
best achieved through strengthening the system, rather than simply training
individuals. The success of the project is largely due to adherence to the
following principles:
52 More Effective Decentralized Education Management and Governance—Final Report
Provide technical assistance rather than funding, while ensuring that
programs are affordable and manageable for local partners. This builds
ownership and self-reliance.
Focus on developing products or tools that schools and local governments
are required to implement. Products and procedures should be firmly and
explicitly based on—and intended to implement—government regulations;
project interventions must be modified as regulations change.
Utilize technology (software and hardware) commonly in use or available
in districts and schools (Microsoft Office Excel or Microsoft Access is the
underlying software for all DBE1 applications).
Introductory training for local implementers must be followed by
mentoring/on-the-job training until a product of quality is achieved. One-off
training is never effective for developing quality products.
Work within existing structures and systems. For example, use the school
cluster system, use school supervisors as facilitators, and include consultative
review and inputs by local stakeholders to promote participation, transparency,
and accountability.
Work intensively with a small number of beneficiaries (schools or
districts) to achieve substantial change before scaling up to larger
numbers using a dissemination approach with local funding. This approach
rejects the top-down cascade model, which tends to be inefficient and result in
diluted results, for a lateral dissemination model, which promotes greater local
ownership.
All tools and procedures incorporate facilitation for policy alternatives
based on data analysis. All use currently available data; they do not require
additional specific data collection. The quality of products is determined by
the quality of data; local stakeholders determine the quality of data sufficient
for their purposes.18
The logic of the project’s approach was as follows: By purposively selecting a group
of schools and districts thought to have the motivation and capacity for change, and
by providing these with an intensive program of support, the aim was to create a core
group of successful schools and districts that could model the desired change. At the
same time, the project developed the capacity of a group of district facilitators and
service providers who could support dissemination of the program to a wider group of
schools and districts, using a set of tools developed by the project and piloted in the
target schools. This approach differed from the more common, top-down
“cascade” approach, adopting as it did a lateral, “sideways” approach to
dissemination. A key element of the approach in the Indonesian context was to
work within the existing school cluster system, using government school
supervisors as facilitators.
18
DBE1 holds the principle that increased use of data will generate a greater demand, and demand will generate
a better supply and quality of data.
More Effective Decentralized Education Management and Governance—Final Report 53
Beyond adherence to these general principles, a number of recommendations follow
from the DBE1 experience, including from the lessons learned described above.
2. Focus on strengthening the role of the province and vertically integrating policy.
Development occurs in a dynamic and changing context. During the approximately
eight-year period in which DBE1 was designed and then implemented, Indonesia has
undertaken major reforms. Decentralization of authority to the district level is now
well-established, and there are suggestions that some responsibilities may be returned
to the provinces, which were largely bypassed in the earlier reforms. Future
interventions in the education sector should anticipate this possibility. Recent work by
DBE1 in East Java to align planning between district, provincial, and national levels
highlighted the need for a greater focus on provincial level coordination, and on the
vertical integration of management and governance within the Indonesian system,
now that district autonomy is institutionalized. This presents both a challenge and an
opportunity for USAID going forward.
3. Focus on improving personnel and asset management systems.
The key element in any education system is the teaching force. The DBE1 personnel
management system SIM-PTK highlighted the need for improved personnel
management. The SIM-PTK helps by providing information about and analysis of
teacher deployment and future staffing needs. This system can be further enhanced by
more strongly linking the teacher data to educational outcomes, correcting for input
factors such as poverty and isolation, and developing incentive systems to reward
effective teaching. There is a real need for the development of merit-based promotion
and transparent career paths for teachers and educational professionals. Performance
appraisal and contract-based employment could go a long way toward improving
educational quality. Improved approaches to school supervision would also assist.
Similarly, the DBE1 asset management system, SIMA, highlighted the need for
further development in this area. The system has been applied only in a limited
number of districts, mainly in West Java. SIMA could be effectively expanded to
other areas. Procedures for managing assets could be further developed and
institutionalized.
4. Build on current approaches to school-based management training.
As DBE1 closes, MONE is implementing a major program to train every elementary
and junior-secondary school principal in the country in the basics of SBM. However,
as discussed above, DBE1 has serious technical concerns about the approach taken.
The lessons of DBE1 build on those of earlier projects, such as the USAID-funded
MBE and UNICEF’s CLCC. The elements of effective technical assistance to
implement SBM are now well established. These include: (1) whole-school training,
(2) cluster-based training, (3) provision of post-training, in-school mentoring, and (4)
ongoing training. Unfortunately, these principles have not been followed fully in the
current nationwide training program. This provides challenges and opportunities to
the GOI and to USAID as a development partner. Follow-up to the current nationwide
training could be provided using the principles established.
54 More Effective Decentralized Education Management and Governance—Final Report
5. Develop the role of service providers.
DBE1 demonstrated that the approach to developing universities as service providers
can work. However, the program only began to gain momentum toward the end of the
project implementation period. More time is required to further develop the capacity
of the institutions and to expand the number and quality of individuals within the
institutions who are capable of implementing programs to improve management and
governance at district and, potentially, at the provincial level. At the same time, there
is potential for further work to build the demand side—particularly within district and
provincial administrations. Demand can be expected to grow, as the capacity of
service providers to deliver a quality service, aligned with the needs of local
government, grows.
Building the capacity and strengthening the role of service providers is an
opportunity for USAID. It is an opportunity to invest in long-term sustainability
as service providers, particularly universities, can potentially take over the role
currently played by donor-funded projects such as DBE1. Ultimately, this is a far
more sustainable approach. In the short- to medium-term, it may be expected that
donor assistance is still required; however, ideally this assistance can be increasingly
channeled through local service provider institutions, including universities. The
government could strengthen and support this process by, for example, forming
alliances with universities at the provincial and district level.
6. Continue to support the integration of madrasah into the general education
system.
Approximately 20% of Indonesian children are educated in madrasah, administered
under MORA. Following the pattern established by the government and supported by
other donors, DBE1 included madrasah and MORA in activities at all levels, in an
effort both to strengthen the Islamic education sector and to support the integration of
madrasah into mainstream education. The two systems are still separated structurally,
as general schools fall under local government administration, while madrasah are
managed under MORA, which is still centralized. However, local governments are
increasingly supporting the integration of madrasah and including these in teacher
and school development activities. USAID can continue to support this trend.
Conclusion
As suggested in this report, DBE1 was by any measure a very successful project.
There were many lessons learned, as described above. Primarily these concern the
strategic approach taken by DBE1 to facilitate, through systemic strengthening, the
development of tools and service providers, as well as the support for dissemination.
USAID and the GOI now have an excellent opportunity to build on this success. The
main recommendation arising from this report is that the GOI, with USAID as a
development partner, should ensure that these lessons, and that the successful DBE1
approach, are incorporated into and further strengthened through the upcoming
PRIORITAS project.
More Effective Decentralized Education Management and Governance—Final Report 55