More Effective Decentralized Education Management …prioritaspendidikan.org/file/I._DBE1_Final_Report_FINAL_0_.pdf · More Effective Decentralized Education Management and Governance

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


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


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


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

http://www.dbe-usaid.org/


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.


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.


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.


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


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.


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.


(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


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


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


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.


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.


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.]


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.]


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


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.


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]


Permendiknas No.37 Tahun 2010 Tentang Penggunaan Dana Bantuan Operasional Sekolah

Software

1. BOS 2010

2. BOS 2011


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.


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.


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


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.


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.


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.


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)


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


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


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.


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


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


Peraturan Pemerintah/PP Number 19 of 2005


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


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.


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


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


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


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


1. PP No. 65/2005 (on setting Minimum Service Standards)

2. Permendiknas 15/2010 (on defining education Minimum Service Standards)


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


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).


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.


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.


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




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/.


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.


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.


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


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.


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.


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.


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.‖


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


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.


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


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


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


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


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:


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.


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.


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.


Documents

More Effective Decentralized Education Management …prioritaspendidikan.org/file/I._DBE1_Final_Report_FINAL_0_.pdf · More Effective Decentralized Education Management and Governance