local governance capacity assessment - governance matters to education outcomes

i

Go

vernan

ce Matters to

Ed

ucatio

n O

utco

mes

The Indonesia Local Education Governance Index (ILEGI) :

A Report Card of 50 Local Governments

Go

vernan

ce Matters to

Ed

ucatio

n O

utco

mes

ii

i

Go

vernan

ce Matters to

Ed

ucatio

n O

utco

mes

The Indonesia Local Education Governance Index (ILEGI) :

A Score Card of 50 Local Governments

Governance MattersTo Education Outcomes

Go

vernan

ce Matters to

Ed

ucatio

n O

utco

mes

ii

Table of Contents

List of Boxes

List of Figures

List of Tables

Foreword

Acknowledgments

Executive Summary

Glossary of Abbreviations

Glossary of Terms

SECTION ONE: ASSESSING AND MONITORING DECENTRALIZED EDUCATION – THE CONTEXT

SECTION TWO: DIAGNOSING LOCAL GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE – THE STUDY

Study Design

• Objectives

• Methodology

Indicators

• Transparency and Accountability

• Education Service Provision Standards

• Management Control Systems

• Management Information Systems

• Efficient Resource Use

SECTION THREE: EDUCATION GOVERNANCE MATTERS - THE ANALYSIS

The Score Card: Aggregated Education Governance Scores and Findings






SECTION FOUR: REFORMING EDUCATION GOVERNANCE - THE ROADMAP

Key ILEGI Recommendations for Education Systems Reform

Recommendations for Central Government

Recommendations for Local Government by Strategic Area






CONCLUSIONS

APPENDIX 1: BEC LOCAL EDUCATION GOVERNANCE SCORE CARDS BY STRATEGIC AREA

APPENDIX 2: EDUCATION MINIMUM SERVICE STANDARDS (MSS)

APPENDIX 3: DISTRIBUTION OF FUNCTIONS WITHIN AN EDUCATION QUALITY ASSURANCE SYSTEM

REFERENCES

iii

iii

iii

iv

v

vi

ix

xi

1

5

6

10

17

45

47

48

49

55

56

58

60

62

iii

Go

vernan

ce Matters to

Ed

ucatio

n O

utco

mes

List of Boxes, Figures and Tables

28

31

34

35

39

7

8

19

19

20

21

22

23

37

41

47

10

11

12

13

14

15

26

29

32

36

38

40

48

49

50

51

52

54

Kabupaten Kebumen

Kabupaten Bojonegoro

Kabupaten Majene

Kabupaten Aceh Utara

Kabupaten Sleman

Education Governance Strategic Areas

ILEGI Normality Test Results

A Perfect Score on Each ILEGI Index

Average ILEGI Results Over 50 Local Governments

ILEGI Color-coded Capacity Assessment

ILEGI Results for LGs Established since Decentralization

Best and Worst Performance by Strategic Area

Correlation between Education Governance and Education Outcomes

Number of Districts Using Education Management Software

Local Budget Absorption on Education Spending (2008)

Key Signposts for Education System Performance

Indicator Aspects and Weightings

Transparency and Accountability: Indicators, Aspects and Weightings

Education Service Provision Standards: Indicators, Aspects and Weightings

Management Control Systems: Indicators, Aspects and Weightings

Management Information Systems: Indicators, Aspects and Weightings

Efficient Resource Use: Indicators, Aspects and Weightings

Aggregated Indicator Scores: Transparency and Accountability

Aggregated Indicator Scores: Education Service Provision Standards

Aggregated Indicator Scores: Management Control Systems

Aggregated Indicator Scores: Management Information Systems

LG Use of Education Management Software

Aggregated Indicator Scores: Efficient Resource Use

Recommendations for Reform: Central Government

Recommendations for LG Reform: Transparency and Accountability

Recommendations for LG Reform: Education Service Provision Standards

Recommendations for LG Reform: Management Control Systems

Recommendations for LG Reform: Management Information Systems

Recommendations for LG Reform: Efficient Resource Use

Box 3.1

Box 3.2

Box 3.3

Box 3.4

Box 3.5

Figure 1.1

Figure 2.1

Figure 3.1

Figure 3.2

Figure 3.3

Figure 3.4

Figure 3.5

Figure 3.6

Figure 3.7

Figure 3.8

Figure 4.1

Table 2.1

Table 2. 2

Table 2.3

Table 2.4

Table 2.5

Table 2.6

Table 3.1

Table 3.2

Table 3.3

Table 3.4

Table 3.5

Table 3.6

Table 4.1

Table 4.2

Table 4.3

Table 4.4

Table 4.5

Table 4.6

Go

vernan

ce Matters to

Ed

ucatio

n O

utco

mes

iv

Foreword

Starting in 2008, the Basic Education Capacity Trust Fund conducted a Local Education

Governance Index survey in 50 districts in 9 provinces in Indonesia. The survey focused

on 5 strategic areas which together encompass education governance: Education

Service Provision Standards; Efficient Resource Use; Management Control Systems;

Transparency and Accountability; Management Information Systems.

This study generated Local Government Education Governance Score Cards for each

district. These Score Cards help districts to identify the areas that they need to work

on. The Local Education Governance Indicator is an important tool for self-reflection,

and not a competition between districts, as each district in the survey has very different

challenges and contexts. Since the Score Cards were developed in 2009, the BEC-TF

districts have prepared Capacity Development Plans to improve their capacity in the 5

strategic areas.

The Basic Education Capacity Trust Fund is now providing technical assistance and

grants to these 50 districts so that they can improve their education governance and

therefore provide better education services to the public. Progress will be measured

periodically through the BEC-TF project using the Local Education Governance Index

survey, thereby giving a useful map of performance and improvement in each district

over time.

We hope that all 50 districts under the Basic Education Capacity Trust Fund have

already started to improve their capacity in education governance, so that schools and

communities can benefit from better education services in the future. We hope that

other districts will also make use of this instrument and the lessons learned from the

survey. As this report concludes, governance does matter to education outcomes.

Didik Suhardi

Director of Junior Secondary Education

Directorate General for Managing Basic Education , Ministry of National Education

Jakarta, December 3, 2010

v

Go

vernan

ce Matters to

Ed

ucatio

n O

utco

mes

Acknowledgments

This publication was prepared in consultation with the Government of Indonesia’s

Ministry of National Education Basic Education Capacity Trust Fund (BEC-TF) Secretariat

in the Directorate General of Primary and Secondary Education. The team would like to

thank the Mayors, District Education Heads and staff of the 50 BEC-TF regions surveyed

for their support during the local government assessment process.

The World Bank team was led by Jessica Ludwig-Maaroof supported by Syarif Syahrial

and Richard Paulsen. Sheila Town provided overall oversight and supervision. Andrew

Ragatz, Wolfgang Fengler, Asmeen Khan, Sheldon Shaeffer and Adrianus Hendrawan

provided valuable input. Prima Setiawan and Ferdy Rondonuwu supported survey

preparation and piloting. Surveymeter conducted the field survey. Sukmawah Yuningsih

and Imam Setiawan assisted in data analysis. Yvonne Trethewey and Chris Stewart

edited the document. Gedsiri Suhartono, Sharon Lumbantobing, Santi Santobri and

Dyah K. Nugraheni pepared the report for publication . Edwin Pieroelie worked with the

World Bank Indonesia Education Team to prepare the video documentary.

Go

vernan

ce Matters to

Ed

ucatio

n O

utco

mes

vi

Executive Summary

THE STUDY

‘Governance Matters to Education

Outcomes’ is a capacity assessment

study conducted in 2009 of 50 Basic

Education Capacity-Trust Fund (BEC-TF)

targeted local governments. It provides

an analysis of education governance

performance indexed according to

BEC-TF derived indicators. Findings

highlight the strong relationship

between governance and improved

educational outcomes and inform

recommendations for a roadmap

to education policy reform in local

government.

vii

Go

vernan

ce Matters to

Ed

ucatio

n O

utco

mes

THE CONTEXT

In 2001, decentralization in Indonesia transferred

substantial functional responsibility and fiscal

resources to sub-national governments for education

service provision. In the education sector the central

government, through the Ministry of National Education

(MoNE) and the Ministry of Religious Affairs (MoRA),

maintains responsibility for education policy and

education standards. Minimum Service Standards (MSS)

govern the sector with National Education Standards

(NES) providing the curriculum foundation for academic

content and graduate competencies.

The management of education service provision in public

schools is the responsibility of local government; that

of public religious schools is the responsibility of MoRA

in each region. As mandated by Law No. 20, 2003, the

provision of education services based on School-Based

Management (SBM) approaches is the responsibility of

schools and the community. In 2005, a School Operational

Funding subsidy (Bantuan Operasional Sekolah - BOS)

was introduced to cement SBM and parental involvement

within a framework of quality 9-year compulsory

education. BOS block grants are centrally disbursed

to schools on a per-student formula which provides

incentives to headmasters and teachers to maintain

and increase enrollment. In 2011, these funds will

be disbursed and managed at the local government

(LG) level.

MoNE recognizes that governance matters to education

service provision and improved educational outcomes.

Through the Basic Education Capacity Trust Fund (BEC-

TF), MoNE supports the Government of Indonesia (GoI)

in achieving Millennium Development and Education

for All goals. The BEC-TF, funded by the Netherlands

Government and the European Commission, provides

capacity development support to 50 targeted LGs -- with

education governance central to activities undertaken

that are unique to each LG context or situation.

THE STUDY DESIGN

In a decentralized landscape, it is critical to access

reliable, comprehensive and systematic information

about performance and improvement in education

governance and service delivery. Whilst various

diagnostic tools and indices exist, these provide

generalized information -- insufficient for measuring

performance and ongoing improvement in education

management and service delivery at the LG level.

Through the BEC-TF, a LG capacity assessment (LGCA)

tool and an Indonesia Local Education Governance Index

(ILEGI) were designed to provide a coherent national

monitoring and evaluation system of performance

in education governance and service provision in the

decentralized environment. These customized diagnostic

tools are composed of sub-indices that capture key

output-level dimensions of education governance

within five strategic areas derived from the design

features of the BEC-TF program. These are Management

Control Systems, Management Information Systems,

Education Service Provision Standards, Transparency

and Accountability and Efficient Resource Use. For

each strategic area, a set of indicators and variables

were developed and agreed upon in a series of national

consultations and pilot activities with MoNE and

targeted local governments.

Go

vernan

ce Matters to

Ed

ucatio

n O

utco

mes

viii

THE ANALYSIS: A Local Government Education Governance Report Card

The LGCA results were used to construct an index

of results in the form of the Indonesia Education

Governance Index (ILEGI) and to provide individualized

local government report cards.

Primary findings confirmed that governance matters

to education outcomes. Analysis of LGCA primary and

secondary data showed a statistically significant positive

correlation between net enrollment rates for primary and

junior secondary schools and national exam performance

at the local level and the education governance areas

indexed in the ILEGI. Apart from rare examples of creative

thinking about education service delivery improvement,

it was clear that prevailing local government bureaucratic

systems stifle innovation and reform and do not

incentivize performance nor encourage transparency

and accountability.

Analysis also revealed wide differences in local

government service delivery. Of the 50 local governments

surveyed, only 6% achieved a high ranking for education

governance across the five strategic areas; 54% achieved

medium ranking; and 40% were ranked low. This raised

concerns about existing practices associated with the

equitable and transparent use of funds in the sector; the

uneven distribution of learning opportunities; gaps in

community engagement; the quality of instruction; and,

the use of reliable data to deploy teachers and manage

their professional development.

THE ROADMAP TO REFORM

The education system plays a key role in supporting

Indonesia’s successful transition to a competitive

middle-income country -- preparing its citizens with

the necessary education and technical skills to

accelerate economic growth, reduce poverty and spur

innovation through competition. Findings reinforced

that the major challenge will be to ensure ongoing

capacity development and institutional strengthening

in education service provision, management and

governance.

Key signposts for better performing education

systems are identified as Education Standards and

Quality Assurance Systems; Benchmarking and Clear

Expectations; and, Sufficient Funding, Facilities and

Other Resources. They link quantitative results with

qualitative insights based on commonalities between

high performing and rapidly improving education

systems – focusing on issues that transcend cultural

and socio-economic characteristics and seek to foster

flexible, performance-oriented reform strategies. Study

recommendations are intended to guide central and

local government during capacity development and

improvement planning and are categorized according to

these signposts.

ix

Go

vernan

ce Matters to

Ed

ucatio

n O

utco

mes

ABBREVIATION INDONESIAN ENGLISH

BAPPEDABadan Perencanaan Pembangunan

Daerah

Regional Body for Planning and

Development

BEC-TFProgram Pengembangan Kapasitas

Pendidikan DasarBasic Education Capacity Trust Fund

BOS Bantuan Operasional Sekolah School Operational Assistance

BOSDA Bantuan Operasional Sekolah Daerah BOS Supplementary Funding

BOS-KITA

Bantuan Operasional Sekolah –

Knowledge Improvement for

Transparency and Accountability

School Operational Assistance –

Knowledge Improvement for


BPK Badan Pemeriksa Keuangan Supreme Audit Agency

CDP Rencana Pengembangan Kapasitas Capacity Development Plan

DAU Dana Alokasi Umum General Allocation Fund

DG-PSEDirektorat Jenderal Manajemen

Pendidikan Dasar dan Menengah

Directorate General of Primary and

Secondary Education

DISPORA Dinas Kepemudaan dan OlahragaLocal Education Agency (Youth and

Sports Office)

DPKKDDinas Pengelolaan Keuangan dan

Kekayaan Daerah

Office of Financial Management and

Regional Property

DPRD Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Daerah Regional Legislative Councils

EPEA/ABPP Analisis Belanja Publik Pendidikan Education Public Expenditure Analysis

Eur Euro Euro

GDS 2/SDK Survei Desentralisasi Kepemerintahan Governance Decentralization Survey

GIS Sistem Informasi Geografis Geographic Information System

GMPP Gerakan Masyarakat Peduli PendidikanCommunity Movement for the Betterment

of Education

GoI Pemerintah Republik Indonesia Government of Indonesia

HDI/IPM Indeks Pengembangan Manusia Human Development Index

ILEGIIndeks Tata Kelola Pendidikan

Pemerintah Daerah

Indonesia Local Education Governance

Index

JARDIKNAS Jaringan Pendidikan Nasional National Education Network

KORCAM Koordinator Kecamatan Sub-District Coordinator

KPA Komite Peralihan Aceh Aceh Transition Committee

KPPODKomite Pemantauan Pelaksanaan

Otonomi DaerahRegional Autonomy Watch Committee

Glossary of Abbreviations

Go

vernan

ce Matters to

Ed

ucatio

n O

utco

mes

x

ABBREVIATION INDONESIAN ENGLISH

L-BECPengembangan Kapasitas Pendidikan

Dasar DaerahLocal Basic Education Capacity

LG Pemerintah Daerah Local Government

LGCA Asesmen Kapasitas Pemerintah Daerah Local Government Capacity Assessment

MCS Sistem Pengendalian Manajemen Management Control System

MDG Tujuan Pembangunan Milenium Millennium Development Goals

MIS Sistem Informasi Manajemen Management Information Systems

MoF/KEMENKEUKementerian Keuangan Republik

IndonesiaMinistry of Finance

MoHA/KEMENDAGRIKementerian Dalam Negeri Republik

IndonesiaMinistry of Home Affairs

MoNE/KEMDIKNAS Kementerian Pendidikan Nasional Ministry of National Education

MoU Nota Kesepahaman Memorandum of Understanding

MSS/SPM Standar Pelayanan Minimal Minimum Service Standards

MUSRENBANGMusyawarah Perencanaan

Pembangunan

Development Planning Consultative

Meeting

NES/SNP Standar Nasional Pendidikan National Education Standards

NGO/LSM Lembaga Swadaya Masyarakat Non Governmental Organization

PADATIPangkalan Data dan Informasi

Pendidikan

Educational Data and Information

Infrastructure

PAS Paket Aplikasi Sekolah School Application Package

PKPADDinas Pengelolaan Keuangan

Pendapatan dan Aset Daerah

Department of Financial, Income and Asset

Management

RKPD Rencana Kerja Pemerintah Daerah Annual Local Government Workplan

RPJMDRencana Pembangunan Jangka

Menengah DaerahRegional Medium-term Strategic Plan

SAKERNAS Survei Tenaga Kerja Nasional National Labor Force Survey

SBM Manajemen Berbasis Sekolah School-Based Management

SD Sekolah Dasar Primary School

SIKD Sistem Informasi Keuangan Daerah Regional Finance Information System

SIMDA Sistem Informasi Manajemen Daerah Regional Management Information System

SUSENAS Survei Sosial Ekonomi Nasional National Socio-economic Survey

xi

Go

vernan

ce Matters to

Ed

ucatio

n O

utco

mes

TERMS EXPLANATION

Basic Education Capacity

Trust Fund (BEC-TF)

The 2008-2012 Basic Education Capacity Trust Fund is a partnership initiative between

the Ministry of National Education, Ministry of Religious Affairs, the World Bank and

50 local governments in 9 Provinces. It uses a combination of tools and approaches

to (i) identify, prioritize, and make local budget, physical and personnel allocation

decisions; (ii) improve local governance and efficient resource use through increased

transparency, accountability, improved budget processes and performance-based

financing, improved financial management and accounting; and (iii) strengthen

capacity of existing information and performance assessment systems to improve

stakeholders’ access to accurate and timely information. It is funded by the

Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands (EUR22milllion) and the European

Commission (EUR 17 million).

Capacity Development

Plans (CDP)

Local government capacity development plans which identify education management

and governance priorities over a three- year timeframe. The plans are prepared on the

basis of LGCA results and focus on improving performance in education governance.

Color Coding

The technique used to differentiate local government performance in the five strategic

areas. Based on aggregate scores local governments are categorized as green, yellow

or red. High rankings are categorized as green and indicate a score of 60% and above;

Medium rankings are categorized yellow indicating scores of between 40 – 60%; Low

rankings are categorized red indicating scores below 40%.

Education

Decentralization

A governance strategy for large scale education reform. In a decentralized education

landscape there is a dynamic relationship between central government and the

network of provincial, regional and district education offices. Successful decentralized

education relies on local government capacity and capability to communicate and

implement education policy

Education Governance

Framework

A framework which describes the commitment, standards, processes and tools

needed to measure service delivery standards and education outcomes. It embeds

accountability, transparency and continuous improvement within a legal, political and

policy environment unique to each local government.

Education Minimum

Service Standards (MSS)Refer MSS

Education Service

Provision Standards

Standards for service provision which are shaped by the MSS and good practices in the

education sector.

Glossary of Terms

Go

vernan

ce Matters to

Ed

ucatio

n O

utco

mes

xii

TERMS EXPLANATION

Education Public

Expenditure Analysis (EPEA)

The analysis of planning and budgeting processes, structures, revenues and

expenditures using a mapping process. It uses an analytical lens to map spending

flows and the impact of past resource allocation decisions. The process highlights

issues and concerns about education planning, budgeting and expenditure; provides

credible analysis to influence district education policy; involves stakeholders and the

wider community in decisions about education expenditure.

Efficient Resource Use

Planning, budgeting and monitoring systems and procedures in place at local

government level to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of budget planning and

resource use with regard to development priorities.

Gender Mainstreaming

The public policy concept of assessing the different implications of planned actions

for women and men, girls and boys. Gender perspectives should be central to all

activities - policy development, advocacy, legislation, resource allocation, planning,

monitoring, and evaluation of programs and projects. Mainstreaming is not an end in

itself but approach to achieve the goal of gender equality. GoI regulations concerning

gender include UUD 1945 Ps 27, 28, 31; National Education System Law UU No 20/2003;

Medium Term Development Plan RPJMN 2009-14; Inpres No 9/2000; Permendagri

No.15/2008; Permendiknas No 84/2008

Indonesia Local Education

Governance Index (ILEGI)

An index/diagnostic tool which presents a ‘color-coded’ performance overview

based on averages of five key output-level dimensions of local education governance

identified as priorities under the BEC-TF. The index is constructed on the basis of LGCA

results and serves to:

• provide central and local-level policy makers, development partners and

communities with an approach to collecting systematic and comparable information

about local government education governance strengths and weaknesses;

• stimulate policy debate through benchmarking performance against peers --

identifying potential challenges, lessons learned and good practices;

• support the development of coherent national monitoring and evaluation

of education governance and service provision in a decentralized education

environment.

Local Basic Education

Capacity Grant (L-BEC)

A grant of IDR2.5billion over a three-year period made to each BEC-TF local

government partner on the basis of approved capacity development plans (CDP).

Local Government (LG) District and municipal level government

xiii

Go

vernan

ce Matters to

Ed

ucatio

n O

utco

mes

TERMS EXPLANATION

Local Government Capacity

Assessment (LGCA)

A capacity assessment and diagnostic tool designed to measure local government

performance against five identified strategic areas of education governance under

the BEC-TF. It provides a ‘snapshot’ of overall performance and capacity which enables

local governments to identify areas for improvement based on identified strengths

and weaknesses. With its ability to provide time-series and comparative analyses it

is one of the first integrated survey instruments used in the Indonesian education

sector. It plays a vital role in determining capacity building priorities and the

allocation of L-BEC capacity building grants (CDP).

Note: The ILEGI is constructed on the basis of LGCA results.

Local Government Report

Cards

Individualized aggregated and disaggregated reports provided to local governments

participating in the LGCA process with recommendations for reform and

improvement.

Management Control

Systems (MCS)

The management control systems in place at local government level to improve

incentive systems and the governance of procurement and asset management.

Management Information

Systems (MIS)

Data collection, management, secure storage, analysis and decision-making processes

that ensure education planning and budget allocations are determined on the basis

of quality information.

Minimum Service Standards

(MSS) for Basic Education

Minimum service standards which govern the education sector, developed by MoNE

and MoHA. They are under the authority and responsibility of local governments and

serve as benchmarks for basic education services.

MUSRENBANGThe standardized planning process that all local governments are required by law to

undertake on an annual basis.

National Education

Standards (NES)

National standards which provide the curriculum foundation for academic content

and graduate competencies.

Reform Roadmap

Recommendations to improve educational management and governance based

on local government education system performance measurement and analysis

– benchmarked against international best practice and strongly performing

participating local governments.

Spider Web

A graphic representation of the strengths and weaknesses of local governments

as they relate to the five strategic areas of education governance – in the form of a

spider web diagram.

Go

vernan

ce Matters to

Ed

ucatio

n O

utco

mes

xiv

TERMS EXPLANATION

Strategic Areas of

Education Governance

Five key education governance indicators derived from the design features of the BEC-

TF program: Transparency and Accountability; Education Service Provision Standards;

Management Control Systems; Management Information Systems; Efficient Resource

Use. Each strategic area comprises a set of indicators with a sub-set of variables with

output level dimensions.

Transparency and

Accountability

The practices and regulatory efforts made by local government to enable transparent

and accountable governance in education service delivery and expenditure for its

constituents.

Tool for Reporting and

Information Management

(TRIMS)

A simple Excel-based tool to empower schools to make use of their own data in

planning and budgeting by generating accurate information for aggregation and

submission to local governments. It improves data collection, processing, reporting

speed and usage. A version of the tool has also been created for use by Districts. It

does not replace but strengthens PAS and PADATI, as well as existing GoI education

management and information systems. The tool will be introduced to schools

nationwide as part of the BOS training program commencing in March 2011.

Wajib Belajar 9 Tahun/

WajarNine year compulsory Basic Education Program

“...Decentralization and autonomy is aimed at establishing a closer relationship between government and the people. Through this, the government will be able to provide better services and satisfy community needs in better, faster and more appropriate ways…” President Susilo Bambang YudhoyonoAddress to the plenary session of the People’s Consultative Assembly on Regional Development Policy (23 August 2005)

In decentralized Indonesia, how do we know

that these expectations are being met?

Photo: Marbawi

Section 1

Assessing and Monitoring Decentralized Education – The Context

1

Section

1: Assessin

g an

d M

on

itorin

g D

ecentralized

Ed

ucatio

n – Th

e Co

ntext

Go

vernan

ce Matters to

Ed

ucatio

n O

utco

mes

2

SECTION ONE: ASSESSING AND MONITORING DECENTRALIZED EDUCATION – THE CONTEXT

Decentralization in Indonesia in 2001

transferred sizeable service delivery

responsibilities and fiscal resources to sub-

national governments.

Decentralization

Decentralization in Indonesia in 2001 transferred sizeable service delivery

responsibilities and fiscal resources to sub-national governments. The Ministry of

Finance (MoF) estimated that in 2009 approximately 65% of Indonesia’s national budget

was channeled to the sub-national level (MoF: 2009). There are indications, however,

that these abundant financial resources have not produced effective service delivery

nor quality educational outcomes. Many local governments (LGs) lack the financial

management technical capacity necessary to manage increased fiscal resources and

responsibilities. Access to reliable quantitative and qualitative sub-national information

is essential in a decentralized environment. Interestingly, despite a ‘big-bang’ approach

to decentralization, there is no nation-wide, systematic monitoring and evaluation of

performance. Although an enacting regulation (No. 6/2008), issued by the Ministry of

Home Affairs (MoHA) exists, it remains in pilot stage.

Responding to these challenges and lack of information about education governance

capacity at the LG level, the Ministry of National Education (MoNE), through the Basic

Education Capacity Trust Fund (BEC-TF) designed a program that puts education

governance at the center of its capacity-building efforts for 50 LGs across Indonesia.

The BEC-TF aims to help the Government of Indonesia (GoI) to achieve the Millennium

Development and Education for All Goals by supporting good governance in the

education sector. Funded by the Netherlands Government (EUR 22 million) and the

European Commission (EUR 17 million), the BEC-TF is administered by the World Bank

and implemented by MoNE to assist LG partners to increase their overall governance

capacity1 through targeted capacity development planning and improvement.

(1) The BEC-TF runs from 2008 – 2012 and will serve 50 local government partners in nine provinces. It uses a combination of tools

and approaches, such as Local Government Capacity Assessments (LGCA), Capacity Development Plans (CDPs), Local Basic Education

Capacity (L-BEC) Grants, and Education Public Expenditure Analysis (EPEA) to: (i) identify, prioritize, and make local budget, physical,

and personnel allocation decisions; (ii) improve local governance and efficient resource use through increased transparency,

accountability, improved budget processes and performance-based financing, improved financial management and accounting; and

(iii) strengthen capacity of existing information and performance assessment systems to improve stakeholders’ access to accurate

and timely information. Fifty local government partners will each receive a Local Basic Education Capacity (L-BEC) grant totaling Rp

2.5 billion over three years to help them implement their CDP for the Education Sector.

3

Section

1: Assessin

g an

d M

on

itorin

g D

ecentralized

Ed

ucatio

n – Th

e Co

ntext

Education Governance: Assessment & Monitoring

Globally, diagnostic tools and indices to assess

performance are available within a large range of

development topics. Assessment tools and indices, such

as the Corruption Perception Index, Doing Business, the

World Governance Assessment and the Bertelsmann

Transformation Index, have attracted international

interest as they provide unique perspectives on the

dynamics of reform and development with systematic

and comparable information disaggregated for policy

dialogue and capacity development purposes. In an

aggregated manner, they also provide a snapshot of

current performance and capacity – highlighting areas

that require attention and improvement.

Although these international rankings and assessments

are of use in general terms, they do not provide the

level of information necessary to support LGs to

develop targeted approaches to education system

performance improvement. Examples include the

Regional Autonomy Watch Committee’s (KPPOD)

Perception-based Investment Climate Survey which

focuses on the economic governance aspects of

more than 200 LGs; the Java Pos Pro-Autonomy Award

which focuses on LGs in East Java and selected LGs in

Kalimantan; the Partnership for Governance Reform

which has introduced the Partnership Governance

Index at the provincial level; and the Governance and

Decentralization Survey (GDS 2) of 140 LGs conducted in

2006. Whilst some local level information on education

outcomes is available across the country, there are few

assessment mechanisms to determine local governance

performance. Those that exist are neither sufficiently

comprehensive nor systematic to provide the level of

information required to assess and index LG education

governance performance and enable LGs to plan strategic

performance improvement.

The BEC-TF’s education governance framework sets

out standards, inputs, processes, outcomes and

tools needed to help guide and monitor service

delivery. It embeds accountability, transparency and

continuous improvement to support the provision

of quality education. The customized diagnostic

tools – the LGCA and ILEGI -- developed under BEC-

TF provide a mechanism for nation-wide systematic

and comprehensive monitoring and evaluation of

performance --at LG and local education office levels.

The LGCA and the ILEGI are composed of sub-indices

for each strategic area which are comprised of sets

of indicators, with subsets of variables derived from

the design features of the BEC-TF program. The tools

are intended to facilitate and drive governance

reforms based on short- and medium-term process

and output-level governance dimensions which are

directly influenced by the actions and behaviors of LG

officials. They are not designed to measure all aspects

of education governance nor generate information to

guide improvement in public financial management

systems, school operations, teacher performance or

classroom practices. Rather, they measure localized

LG practices and systems in the governance and

management of the sector, allowing for comparisons

across other LGs. LGs are exposed to public scrutiny

and compared with their peers – a known incentive

for performance improvement. These results provide

a unique basis to link quantitative results with

qualitative insights and to foster the development

of flexible, performance-oriented reform strategies

which meet the educational challenges facing each

LG and the schools and communities it serves –

selectively applying good practices without adopting

a ‘one-size-fits-all’ top-down solution. The tools are

described in more detail in Section 2.

Photo: M. Wildan

Diagnosing Local Government Performance – The Study

Section 2

5

Section

2: Diag

no

sing

Local G

overn

men

t Perfo

rman

ce – The Stu

dy

Go

vernan

ce Matters to

Ed

ucatio

n O

utco

mes

6

SECTION TWO: DIAGNOSING LOCAL GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE – THE STUDY

Governance Matters to Education Outcomes is

a capacity assessment study conducted in 2009

of 50 BEC-TF targeted LGs. It provides an analysis

of education governance performance indexed

according to BEC-TF derived indicators.

Study Design

In a decentralized landscape it is critical to access reliable, comprehensive and

systematic information about performance and improvement in education governance

and service delivery. Whilst various diagnostic tools and indices exist, these provide

generalized national level information -- insufficient for measuring performance and

ongoing improvements in education management and service delivery at LG level.

Through the BEC-TF, customized diagnostic tools -- the LGCA tool and the ILEGI -- were

developed to provide a coherent approach for monitoring and evaluating performance

in decentralized education governance and education service provision. The five key

areas identified as central to strategic education governance are: Management Control

Systems, Management Information Systems, Education Service Provision Standards,

Transparency and Accountability and Efficient Resource Use are derived from the

design features of the BEC-TF. The World Bank BEC-TF team provided leadership in

the development of relevant indicators for these tools which are designed to capture

different elements of governance – short and medium-term – that are under the

authority and sphere of influence of the LG. In determining and selecting indicators,

relevance was balanced with data availability and manageability. Each represents

a mixture of input, process and output indicators. During a series of national

consultations with MoNE and selected LGs during the period December 2008 – February

2009 the tools and indicators were reviewed and confirmed as representative of

education governance performance expectations.

Objectives

The overall objectives of this study were:

• To assess the capacity of 50 targeted LGs with regard to performance in five key

strategic areas of education governance: Transparency and Accountability; Education

Service Provision Standards; Management Control Systems; Management Information

Systems; and, Efficient Resource Use.

7

Section

2: Diag

no

sing

Local G

overn

men

t Perfo

rman

ce – The Stu

dy

• To analyze the education governance performance

of targeted LGs and highlight areas for improvement

compared with districts possessing similar geographic

and/or socio-economic characteristics.

• To provide recommendations to LG leaders2 to guide

the development of education policy reform based on

the correlation between education governance and

education outcomes.

Methodology

A field survey to assess the education governance

capacity of the 50 participating districts was identified

as the most appropriate research approach for the study.

The LGCA was designed for this purpose.

The Local Government Capacity Assessment (LGCA) tool

The LGCA is a customized capacity assessment tool

designed to measure LG performance against the five

BEC-TF identified strategic areas of education governance.

The LGCA was used to survey participating LGs during

structured interviews, focus group discussions, and in

the collection of primary data. It provided a ‘snap-shot’

of overall performance and capacity to enable LGs to

identify areas for improvement based on identified

strengths and weaknesses. With its ability to provide

time-series and comparative analyses, it is one of the first

integrated survey instruments used in the Indonesian

education sector. It plays a vital role in the facilitation of

LGs to determine capacity building priorities and capacity

development plans (CDPs).

EducationGovernance

Figure 1.1 Education Governance Strategic Areas

(2) Additional recommendations for the central government emerged during the study. These are described in Section 4.

Transparency and

Accountability

EducationService

ProvisionStandards

ManagementControlSystems

ManagementInformation

Systems

EfficientResource

Use

Go

vernan

ce Matters to

Ed

ucatio

n O

utco

mes

8

The Indonesia Local Education Governance Index (ILEGI)

The ILEGI was designed as the diagnostic tool to index

performance and was constructed on the basis of LGCA

results. It presents a ‘color-coded’ performance overview

based on the averages of five key output-level dimensions

(Figure 1.1) of local education governance identified as

priorities under the BEC-TF. It serves to:

• Provide central and local-level policy makers,

development partners and communities with an

approach for collecting systematic and comparable

information about LG education governance strengths

and weaknesses.

• Stimulate policy debate through benchmarking

performance against peers, identify potential

challenges and lessons learned and highlight good

practices.

• Support the development of coherent national

monitoring and evaluation of education governance

and service provision in a decentralized education

environment.

Verifying the LGCA as a Suitable Tool

To verify the validity and sensitivity of the LGCA

assessment tool, a normality test was conducted. The

Jarque-Bera statistics test was used to assess if variables

were normally distributed and measured the difference

between the skewness and kurtosis of variables, against

those from a normal distribution. This is computed as:

Where S is the skewness, K is the kurtosis: k represents

the number of estimated co-efficients used to create

the variable. Under the null hypothesis of a normal

distribution, the Jarque-Bera statistic is distributed as

chi-square distribution with two degrees of freedom.

The reported probability is that a Jarque-Bera statistic

exceeds (in absolute value) the observed value under

the null—a small probability value leads to the rejection

of the null hypothesis of a normal distribution.3 The

normality test shown below in Figure 2.1 indicates that

the ILEGI is distributed normally with no strong statistical

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

Series

Sample

Observations

Mean

Median

Maximum

Minimum

Std. Dev.

Skewness

Kurtosis

Jarque - Bera

Probability

ILEGI

150

50

0.428438

0.443297

0.619572

0.190785

0.122926

-0.300288

2134234

2313005

0.314584

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

Figure 2.1 ILEGI Normality Test Results

(3) SMERU, 2009: EViews User’s Guide.

9

Section

2: Diag

no

sing

Local G

overn

men

t Perfo

rman

ce – The Stu

dy

proof to reject a null hypothesis. The test validated the

LGCA as the survey instrument and confirmed it as a

useful instrument to assess local education governance

performance through its ability to provide an indication

of differentiation between evaluated objects that can be

influenced and implemented by local level leaders.

The calculation of ILEGI primary data is predominantly

quantitative, but some qualitative elements are included.

These enrich the interpretation of results and generate

insights into the LG education governance situation

across performance, process and regulatory aspects to

enable horizontal and vertical comparison.

Measuring Composite Achievement

The ILEGI represents more than the sum of its individual

parts as it captures overall achievement in each of the

five strategic areas, providing a performance snapshot

based on averages. While each strategic areas is equally

important, what ultimately matters is progress on all

fronts. Each strategic area is equally weighted in the

overall index with the ILEGI for a particular LG expressed

as the arithmetic mean of observed values for each

strategic area. The performance of each strategic area is

determined by multiplying the weight and the assigned

value for each indicator.

The ILEGI consists of Individual indicators and variables

– the LGCA primary units. Data is disaggregated by

strategic area, and analyzed down to the indicator level

to allow for detailed analysis and interpretation which

ultimately determines the overall capacity assessment.

A careful examination of each LG’s scores exposes both

weaknesses and strengths. Indexing enables local

leaders and policy makers to better identify governance

strengths and weaknesses and to benchmark results

and stimulate debate about policy. The results can help

LGs to prioritize and categorize capacity development

programming and formulate capacity development

plans funded under the BEC-TF granting mechanism –

extending the ILEGI’s function beyond a simple diagnostic

instrument. The weakest areas identified through the

scoring mechanism should be of primary consideration

in the identification of capacity development planning

priorities and activities designed to improve performance

and future scoring.

The Data Collection Process

The LGCA survey was conducted by Surveymeter,

an Indonesian survey firm using groups of local

enumerators. Enumerators participated in a week

of training to facilitate consistency in the use of the

tool and reduce perception bias. The field survey was

conducted from March through May 2009.Training and

guidance for enumerators was provided by education

management and public financial management experts,

with oversight provided by the World Bank. Methodology

included structured interviews, focus group discussions

and primary data collection. Survey data was subjected to

numerous tests to ensure findings were robust. Technical

experts controlled the quality of the data collection

process and tested data; supervised the data entry

and cleaning process; and provided back-up support to

enumerator teams.

Survey distribution

Enumerator teams spent four to five days in each LG

location, typically conducting interviews and focus

group discussions with LG officials from relevant office

units such as: Education; Legal; Local Planning Board;

Finance/Asset Management and Revenue; Internal Audit

Agency; Department of Religious Affairs; Local Planning

Board: and, the LG Secretariat. A total of 1,189 people

participated.

Limitations of the Methodology

It should be noted that as a simple average, the ILEGI

has the potential to mask important variations between

strategic areas, reinforcing the need to consider the

score in the context of performance. Generally there is a

known lack of local level disaggregated data, especially

in the governance area. Although human development

outcomes are captured in the Survei Tenaga Kerja

Nasional (SAKERNAS) and Survei Sosial Ekonomi Nasional

(SUSENAS) and financial data is available in MoF’s Sistem

Informasi Keuangan Daerah (SIKD) system, process and

output level data is considered practically nonexistent.

Limitations to consider when interpreting data include:

• The ILEGI is not designed to provide an exhaustive

assessment of education governance. It examines

specific process and output level aspects derived from

the key design elements of the BEC-TF project.

Go

vernan

ce Matters to

Ed

ucatio

n O

utco

mes

10

• All data collected is at LG level due to time and cost

constraints. School-level information is not covered in

the ILEGI.

• The lack of sufficient and available raw data did not

enable in-depth analysis.

• Standardized case-studies do not represent all

education governance issues faced by profiled LGs.

Examples used refer to particular sets of issues relevant

to high scoring strategic areas.

• There is a possibility of perception bias. Although the

survey mainly covers objective information and hard

data with enumerators trained to ensure comparability

across regions, the potential for a degree of perception

bias should be taken into account.

Indicators

To be able to compare LGs on an equal basis, five

components of education governance and performance

were identified to capture the strategic elements of

performance under the authority and sphere of influence

of each LG. These were derived from the design elements

of the BEC-TF’s education governance framework.

Relevance was balanced with data availability and

manageability. The LG regulatory framework and

instances of known good practice were used to guide

input, process and output indicator selection. Relevant

indicators for Efficient Resource Use, Transparency and

Accountability and Management Control Systems were

adapted from the Local Government Public Financial

Management Measurement Framework – jointly

developed by MoHA and the World Bank.

The World Bank provided leadership in the development

of indicators and questionnaires, in close consultation

with external education and public financial

management experts. Data-sets for a total of sixty-six

indicators across the five strategic areas were identified.

These were validated in a series of national consultations

and piloting activities with the World Bank, MoNE and

selected LGs followed by focus group discussions with

LG officials during the period December 2008 through

February 2009.

ASPECT EXPERT CHOICE WEIGHT

Regulation 13 17%

Process 2 33%

Performance 3 50%

Table 2.1 Indicator Aspects and Weightings

The analytical hierarchy and assigned indicator

weightings were determined through expert choice.

Strategic areas were weighted equally, but indicators

were grouped and weighted according to aspects relating

to performance, process and regulation. Table 2.1 shows

that the lowest weighting of 17% was assigned to

indicators that measure regulatory compliance; process

indicators were weighted as 33%; performance indicators

were weighted as 50%.

Based on this weighting approach, a scoring and report

card system was developed to measure LG performance

horizontally and vertically. LGs were scored by strategic

area and aggregate levels compared longitudinally

against other LGs. Aggregate scores were constructed on

the basis of scoring for each of the five strategic areas.

High performing (indicated in green) LGs were those

with aggregate scores above 60%; medium performing

(indicated in yellow) LGs were those with scores between

40-60%; low-performing (indicated in red) LGs had

aggregate scores that were below 40%.

11

Section

2: Diag

no

sing

Local G

overn

men

t Perfo

rman

ce – The Stu

dy


The practices and regulatory efforts made by local government to enable transparent and accountable

governance in education service delivery and expenditure for its constituents.

With ongoing democratic reform in Indonesia, transparency and accountability is of particular importance in

demonstrating the commitment to implementation of good governance. Indicators for this strategic area measure

good practice related to regulatory compliance on two levels. The first level focuses on education-specific activities

and the second to LG level efforts which demonstrate transparency and accountability. The indicators, aspects and

assigned weightings are detailed in Table 2.2.

INDICATORS ASPECT WEIGHT

1Financial reports are publicized in the local mass media, on an official announcement board, or through a website.

Performance 50%

2Community is able to attend local parliament session discussing the accountability and BPK audit reports.

Performance 50%

3 The Education Council is involved in the compilation of Renstra (Strategic Planning). Performance 50%

4 Local legislation on transparency exists. Performance 50%

5 Local legislation on public participation exists. Performance 50%

6 The public has access to budget sessions in the local parliament. Performance 50%

7 The accountability report discussion in the local parliament is open to the public Performance 50%

8 Community is involved in monitoring and evaluating education activities. Process 33%

9Education unit is producing progress reports on planned activities and realization, including budget.

Regulation 17%

10There are mechanisms in place to ensure that educational stakeholders have the opportunity to participate and voice their opinions regarding the evaluation of the local government’s Education Office, schools, and the local Education Board.

Process 33%

Table 2.2 Transparency and Accountability: Indicators, Aspects and Weightings

Go

vernan

ce Matters to

Ed

ucatio

n O

utco

mes

12

Table 2.3 Education Service Provision Standards: Indicators, Aspects and Weightings


1Each primary school has at least 40% of teachers that have a minimum education qualification of S-1 or Diploma IV and holds a teaching certificate.

Performance 50%

2Each primary school has at least 40% of teachers that have a minimum education qualification of S-1 or Diploma IV and holds a teaching certificate in-line with the subject they teach.

Performance 50%

3At least 75% of all primary school principals have a minimum education qualification of S-1/D-IV and a teaching certificate from an accredited institution.

Performance 50%

4At least 75% of all SMP/MTs school principals have a minimum education qualification of S-1/D-IV and a teaching certificate from an accredited institution.

Performance 50%

5At least 75% of all school supervisors have a minimum education qualification of S-1/D-IV and a teaching certificate from an accredited institution.

Performance 50%

6 95% of children in the 7-12 year age group attend primary school. Performance 50%

7The primary level drop-out rate does not exceed 1% of students currently enrolled in school.

Performance 50%

8The junior secondary level drop-out rate does not exceed 1% of students currently enrolled in school.

Performance 50%

9 Average National Exam Score for Year 6 is 6.0 or higher Performance 50%

10 Average National Exam Score for Year 9 is 6.0 or higher Performance 50%

11 Transition rate from primary to junior secondary. Performance 50%

12 Transition rate from junior secondary to senior secondary. Performance 50%

13 Net Enrollment Rate. Performance 50%

14 Gender Parity: Primary and Junior Secondary. Performance 50%

15 Adult Literacy Rate. Performance 50%

Education Service Provision Standards

Standards for the provision of primary and junior secondary education.

These standards are derived from National Education Standards (NES) and Indonesia’s Education Minimum Service

Standards (MSS).4 Results can be regarded as proxy for the overall achievement of MSS and relevant elements of the

NES. The indicators, aspects and assigned weightings are detailed in Table 2.3.

(4) The eight National Education Standards are outlined in Government Regulations (Permendiknas): 1) Content - No. 22/2006, No. 22 & 23/2006; 2) Facilities and Equipment – No.

24/2007; 3) Process – No. 41/2007; 4) Evaluation – No. 20/2007; 5) Management – No. 19/2007; 6) Educator Standards – No. 13/2007, No. 16/2007, No. 27/2007, No. 12/2007, No. 24/2007, No.

25/2007; 7) Funding – Law No. 20/2003; 8) Graduate Competencies – No. 23/2007. For Basic Education Minimum Service Standards (MSS) Kepmendiknas No. 129a/2004, Permendagri

No. 6/2007, and a November 2009 draft version of the revised MSS were used. In July 2010, Education MSS were confirmed by the Minister of National Education (Law No.15/2010);

refinements do not influence indicators or their weightings. Appendix 1: Education Minimum Service Standards (MSS) provides additional information.

13

Section

2: Diag

no

sing

Local G

overn

men

t Perfo

rman

ce – The Stu

dy

Management Control Systems

The management control systems in place at local government level to improve incentive systems and the

governance of procurement and asset management.

This strategic area addresses the management control systems that are in place within the entire LG office. Systems

related to procurement, asset management and incentive systems are assessed, based on the requirements set out in

the regulatory framework for decentralized public financial management in Indonesia. For education management

issues additional indicators which address systems for managing good practice and involve civil society groups are

included. The indicators, aspects and assigned weightings are detailed in Table 2.4.

Table 2.4 Management Control Systems: Indicators, Aspects and Weightings


1 Goods users carry out a yearly stock inventory. Process 33%

2 A technical guideline for procurement issued by local government head exists. Regulation 17%

3The local government has an incentive-based performance management system in place for teachers based on the National Education Standards

Regulation 17%

4The local government has an incentive-based performance management system in place for school supervisors based on the National Education Standards

Regulation 17%

5Does the local government have an incentive-based performance management system in place for school principals based on the National Education Standards

Regulation 17%

6The annual local government Education Forum integrates inputs and recommendations from the annual village level and municipal level planning consultative meeting results (MUSRENBANG).

Process 33%

7The local government education office considers consolidated school level inputs through the school development planning mechanism in developing the local govern-ment Annual Education Work-plan.

Process 33%

8School Committees, local government Education Boards and Community-Based Organiza-tions actively participate in strategic educational planning processes.

Process 33%

9The local government Education Board has a clear work program and routine budget allocation in the APBD.

Regulation 17%

10Procurement bids for goods and services are planned properly to avert any accusations of breaking down into smaller packages to avoid tendering

Process 33%

11 All cash storage by working units is put into local government bank accounts Regulation 17%

12There is evidence of the existence of clear, systematic system to validate good practice (Local Regulation, Evaluation Schematic for Innovative Practice, Cataloguing and Dis-semination Procedure).

Process 33%

13Evidence of the efforts of LG to identify good practice in improving educational service provision.

Performance 50%

14There is evidence of a systematic approach to document and catalogue innovative good practice.

Performance 50%

15There is evidence of stakeholder participation in the maintenance of a network for shar-ing and disseminating good practices.

Process 33%

16The education unit head has passed an organization regulation on sectoral asset man-agement in education unit and all sub-units.

Regulation 17%

17 Local legislation on asset management exists. Regulation 17%

Go

vernan

ce Matters to

Ed

ucatio

n O

utco

mes

14

Management Information Systems

Data collection, management, secure storage, analysis and decision-making processes that ensure

education planning and budget allocations are determined on the basis of quality information.

This strategic area focuses on centrally-provided, local education office and school-level management information

systems such as the School Application Package (PAS), Educational Data and Information Infrastructure (PADATI) and

the National Education Network (JARDIKNAS).5 Decentralization has challenged LGs to establish sound management

information systems, however data collection, management and integration efforts are still ad-hoc with data

management generated manually. The indicators, aspects and assigned weightings are detailed in Table 2.5.

Table 2.5 Management Information Systems: Indicators, Aspects, Weightings


1. There is evidence of an existing education database at the local government level. Regulation 17%

2.There is evidence of written procedures and protocols for the scheduling and methodology of data collection, data cleaning, data submission from lower levels of the system (i.e. schools).

Regulation 17%

3. There is evidence of data spot checking systems in place. Process 33%

4.

There is evidence of the integration and use of Paket Aplikasi Sekolah - PAS, Jaringan Pendidikan Nasional - JARDIKNAS, and Pangkalan Data dan Informasi Pendidikan - PADATI within the existing management infrastructure of the education system at the local government level.

Process 33%

5. Percentage of schools that have at least one functioning computer. Performance 50%

6. Percentage of schools that have an internet connection. Performance 50%

(5) The Tool for Reporting and Information Management (TRIMS) is a simple Excel-based tool developed since the survey and prior to the publication of this study report. It

empowers schools to make use of their own data in planning and budgeting. Schools can then use the data and forward it to LGs for aggregation. This simple system intends to

assist in education governance and management by supporting school planning and education management information system needs, by generating accurate data for use by

schools and districts. TRIMS has been welcomed by the MoNE, and is being piloted in all schools in each of six districts prior to nationwide rollout , through a mass training program,

for 250,000 schools starting in 2011.

15

Section

2: Diag

no

sing

Local G

overn

men

t Perfo

rman

ce – The Stu

dy


Planning, budgeting and monitoring systems and procedures in place at local government level to assess

the effectiveness and efficiency of budget planning and resource use with regard to development priorities.

Efficient and equitable resource allocation and use is a major concern in the education sector. A 2007 study ‘Investing

in Indonesia’s Education at the District Level’ (World Bank, 2007) highlights that 56% of education expenditure was

spent at the sub-national level, but spending is mostly on nondiscretionary routine expenditure. It recommended that

LGs need to improve the efficiency of their spending and identify key issues within the education sector. This strategic

area assesses spending patterns, the local-level planning and budgeting processes to determine and understand

shortcomings. Resource use indicators, aspects and assigned weightings are detailed in the Table 2.6.


1.Tariffs for the use of assets have been updated regularly in the past three years (markets etc.)

Process 33%

2. Education council has been involved in drafting of education strategic plan. Regulation 17%

3. There is evidence of data spot checking systems in place. Regulation 17%

4.Budget priorities and ceilings are set before the budgeting process in education of-fice starts.

Regulation 17%

5. The education planning and budget calendar has been drafted. Regulation 17%

6.Education (sectoral) medium-term and annual plans include indicative budget ceil-ings and take budget limit into account.

Regulation 17%

7.Sectoral poverty alleviation programs and activities have been accommodated by local government budget team.

Regulation 17%

8. Planning and budgeting documents can easily be accessed by the community. Process 33%

9.The education unit is producing progress reports on planned activities and realiza-tion, including the budget.

Regulation 17%

10.Programs and activities in medium-term development plan can be measured quanti-tatively.

Regulation 17%

11.The difference between planned and realized expenditures was less than 10% in the last three financial years.

Performance 50%

12. Education budget absorption rate by December 2008 was 90% or more. Performance 50%

Table 2.6 Efficient Resource Use: Indicators, Aspects and Weightings

Photo: M. Wildan

Section 3

Education Governance Matters – The Analysis

17

Section

3 : Ed

ucatio

n G

overn

ance M

atters – The A

nalysis

Go

vernan

ce Matters to

Ed

ucatio

n O

utco

mes

18

SECTION THREE: EDUCATION GOVERNANCE MATTERS – THE ANALYSIS

The LGCA revealed wide differences in the

achievement of better educational outcomes

and effective educational governance

performance. Comparisons between

participating LGs highlighted considerable

variation in education systems but

demonstrated that improvement across

strategic areas of education governance impacts

on outcomes. Statistical analysis on LGCA data

and some secondary data sources showed a

statistically significant positive correlation

between the education governance areas

assessed in the ILEGI and net enrollment rates

for primary and junior secondary schools. There

was also a strong positive correlation between

the ILEGI and performance at national exams --

affirming that education governance matters to

education outcomes.

The information generated through the LGCA process is indexed in the ILEGI and

presented graphically in the form of a spider-web diagram. A representation of a perfect

score in the five strategic areas is shown in Figure 3.1

19

Section

3 : Ed

ucatio

n G

overn

ance M

atters – The A

nalysis

Figure 3.1 A Perfect Score on Each ILEGI Index

Perfect Score

EfficientResourceUse

1

4 3

2

ManagementInformationSystems


Education ServiceProvision Standards

TransparencyandAccountability

5

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

The average ILEGI score by strategic area for the 50 local governments surveyed is illustrated in Figure 3.2.

Figure 3.2 Average ILEGI Results Over 50 Local Governments


42%

33%47%

50%

43%Education ServiceProvision Standards

Transparency andAccountability

EfficientResource

Use

ManagementInformation

Systems

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

Go

vernan

ce Matters to

Ed

ucatio

n O

utco

mes

20

The Score Card

The score card system measured LG performance both

horizontally and vertically.6 LGs were scored by strategic

area and aggregate levels compared longitudinally

against other LGs. These aggregated scores were

constructed on the basis of the scoring process for each

of the five strategic areas.

Figure 3.3 illustrates the geographical distribution of the

50 BEC-TF LGs, color coded according to results. ILEGI

coding designates the strongest overall performing

LGs as green. These LGs attained an aggregate score

of above 60% of an idealized maximum of 100%. LGs

coded as yellow are those with scores between 41–60%

and indicate room for improvement in a number of

indicators within strategic areas. LGs coded as red are

the weakest, scoring below 40% on the aggregated ILEGI.

Of all districts surveyed, only 6% were designated green;

54% achieved yellow status; 40% achieved red status.

Some interesting capacity clusters were revealed, such

as LGs in Java scoring substantially higher than other LGs.

Underperforming districts were predominantly found in

rural and remote parts of the country. In Kalimantan and

Papua all LGs were coded as red with the exception of

Jayapura in West Papua.7

Red = ILEGI overall score from 0 to 40%. Yellow = ILEGI overall score from 41 to 60%.

Green = ILEGI overall score more than 60%.

Figure 3.3 ILEGI Color-coded Capacity Assessment

(6) Appendix 1: BEC Local Government Scores by Strategic Area provides a detailed listing of scores for participating LGs for each strategic area.

(7) Individualized district score cards are contained within the Annex to this publication.

21

Section

3 : Ed

ucatio

n G

overn

ance M

atters – The A

nalysis

Scores for those LGs established since decentralization

clearly indicated that capacity development support

is needed if improvement is to occur in the education

sector. With the exception of Lhokseumawe with

yellow status, all are performing in the red category.

Figure 3.4 provides a graphic representation of the scores

of those LGs.

Figure 3.4 ILEGI Results for LGs Extablished Post-Decentralization

50.00%

45.00%

40.00%

35.00%

30.00%

25.00%

20.00%

15.00%

10.00%

05.00%

00.00%

AVERAGE BEC DISTRICTS

47.06%

19.08%19.08%

29.70% 29.90%30.70%31.04%

34.50% 35.65%

36.49%36.84%

PAN

IAI

PE

GU

NU

NG

AN

BIN

TAN

G

TELU

K W

ON

DAW

A

MA

MA

SA

AC

EH

BA

RAT D

AYA

NA

GA

N R

AYAN

SOR

ON

G SE

LATAN

KA

IMA

NA

KE

PU

LAU

AN

SULA

SER

UYA

N

LHO

KSE

UM

AWE

Go

vernan

ce Matters to

Ed

ucatio

n O

utco

mes

22

The ILEGI illustrated disconcerting results -- only 15 of the

50 scored above 50% across the five strategic areas. The

average ILEGI score of just 43% indicated considerable

room for improvement, even for the best LGs surveyed.

Appendix 2: BEC-TF Local Government Scores by Strategic

Area provides further details. Figure 3.5 illustrates best

and worst performance by strategic area.

90.00%

80.00%

70.00%

60.00%

50.00%

40.00%

30.00%

20.00%

10.00%

00.00%

TA ESS MCS EMIS ERU ILEGI

Best district: Sleman Worst District: Pegunungan Bintang Average BEC Districts

Figure 3.5 Best and Worst Performance by Strategic Area8

(8) TA: Transparency and Accountability, ESS: Education Service Standards, MCS: Management Control Systems, EMIS: Education Management Information System; ERU: Efficient

Resource Use; ILEGI: Indonesia Local Education Governance Index.

23

Section

3 : Ed

ucatio

n G

overn

ance M

atters – The A

nalysis

From weak data capacity to public financial management

systems devoid of any clear indication of strategies

used to ensure accountability or measure performance,

many LGs appeared to be ill-prepared to take on the

increasingly complex duties and responsibilities of

Indonesia’s highly decentralized basic education sector.

Performance clusters showed a significant capacity

gap between Eastern, Central and Western Indonesia

providing further evidence that capacity development

priorities should be geographically focused. Exceptions

included LGs demonstrating commitment to reform and

improvements in educational service delivery.

Correlating Education Governance with Education Outcomes

Regression results proved that education governance

was highly correlated with education outcomes.

Statistical regression analysis showed a positive,

significant correlation between education governance

and education outcomes, indicated by gross and

enrollment rates for junior secondary and net enrollment

rates for primary education. Figure 3.6 9 shows positive

slope graphs which correla ted the ILEGI and indicators of

education outcomes.

Gross Enrollment Rate Primary

The ILEGI

160

140

120

100

8010 40 7020 5030 60

The ILEGI

Gross Enrollment Rate Junior Primary

200

150

100

50

010 40 7020 5030 60

The ILEGI

Net Enrollment Rate Primary

160

140

120

100

8010 40 7020 5030 60

The ILEGI

Net Enrollment Rate Junior Primary

200

150

100

50

010 40 7020 5030 60

(9) It does not include gross enrollment rates for primary education as the relationship with the ILEGI is not statistically significant, as shown by the horizontal line.

Figure 3.6 Correlation between Education Governance and Education Outcomes

Go

vernan

ce Matters to

Ed

ucatio

n O

utco

mes

24

Female students and teacher ratios were positively

correlated with education outcomes and education

governance but causes were considered as not gender

related. The ratio of female students to the total number

of elementary school students (SD/MI) was shown to have

a positive and significant correlation (level of significance

10%) with education outcomes (net enrollment rate of

elementary schools) and education governance (ILEGI).

The ratio of female students to the total number of junior

secondary school students (SMP/MTs) was shown to have

a positive and significant correlation with education

outcomes (net enrollment rate of junior secondary

schools) and education governance (ILEGI). The ratio of

female teachers to the total number of elementary school

teachers (SD/MI) correlated positively and significantly

with education outcomes (net enrollment rate of

elementary schools) but did not correlate significantly

with education governance (ILEGI). The ratio of female

teachers to the total number of junior secondary school

teachers (SMP/MTs) did not correlate significantly with

education governance (ILEGI) and did not correlate

significantly with education outcomes (net enrolment

rate of junior secondary schools).

The ILEGI results illustrated that the challenge of

achieving a high, socially equitable distribution of

learning opportunities can be successfully addressed if

there is sufficient political will. Across the LGs surveyed,

including Aceh, Java, and Papua – there were instances

where LG leadership enabled innovation and attainable

continuous improvement in the sector at the local level.

Examples10 of this include Bojonegoro’s innovations in

transparency and accountability; Majene’s approach to

management control practices; Aceh Utara’s approach

to public involvement in the education process; and,

Sleman’s approach to collecting reliable data to monitor

school operations and providing funding under BOS

Supplementary Funding (BOSDA) as a supplement to the

operational funding provided through BOS. In addition

most schools had functioning school committees with

increased responsibility for participatory school based

management and governance as a result of the increased

focus on parent and community involvement in school

decision making through the BOS program.

Since decentralization, LG education offices have been

required to produce progress reports that specifically

demonstrate planned and achieved/realized outputs by

budget line item. Increasingly LG planning and budgeting

documents generally incorporated the issue of teacher

certification and deployment and, transition rates. As

well, some established their education budgets on the

basis of student unit cost ratios -- often the precursor

towards more responsive, student-based allocation

patterns and focused accountability frameworks.

Problems still existed however in sharing this

information with the wider community of stakeholders

and policy makers.

Apart from a few examples of creative thinking about

ways to improve education service delivery, the

overarching conclusion drawn from the LGCA was that

reform and innovation in the basic education sector was

stifled by bureaucratic systems that did not incentivize

performance, transparency or accountability. Male

dominance in LG positions, especially at the senior level

was reflected In survey gender distribution – only 19% of

the 1,189 respondents were female.

Findings highlighted the strong relationship between

governance and improved educational outcomes

and informed the recommendations for a roadmap

to education policy reform at local government

level. Questions raised include: How equitable and

transparent is spending in the sector? How are learning

opportunities distributed? What gaps are there in

community engagement? What is the level of quality of

student instruction? How are teachers deployed? What

professional development opportunities are provided? On

what basis? 11

(10) Refer Case Studies described in Boxes 3.2 – 3.6 for Kabupatens Kebumen, Bojonegoro, Majene, Aceh Utara, and Sleman.

(11) Section 4 provides recommendation’s to guide central and local government for an education reform roadmap.

25

Section

3 : Ed

ucatio

n G

overn

ance M

atters – The A

nalysis

Perhaps what was most disheartening was

that, in some areas, the raw data required for

LGCA analysis was so weak,12 that much of the

intended depth of analysis could not occur. It was

impossible to find sufficient reliable information

to evaluate important considerations relating

to the flexibility within the LG regulatory reform

environment; the existence of a results-based

management approach; and if investments in

educational technology were producing improved

educational outcomes.

Findings also raised concerns about how well

the education system was prepared to support

Indonesia’s successful transition to a competitive

middle-income country in which its citizens have

the necessary education and technical skills to

accelerate economic growth, reduce poverty and

spur innovation through competition.

Education Governance Aggregated Scores and Findings

Aggregated scores and findings for each of the five

strategic areas of education governance:

Transparency and Accountability; Education

Service Provision Standards; Management Control

Systems; Management Information Systems; and,

Efficient Resource Use are detailed in the following

discussion.


Innovation and performance-oriented reform requires

deep reserves of political capital and a wide spectrum of

stakeholder involvement to break the highly bureaucratic

and input-based culture of the current education service

provision model.

Transparency and accountability overall scores

demonstrated that good governance principles were

not prioritized by LGs. The score of 43% was the same

as that of the overall ILEGI. The highest score of 75%

was achieved by Kabupaten Kebumen in Central

Java and the lowest score of 4% by Kabupaten Paniai

in Papua. The lowest scoring indicator was “Local

legislation on transparency exists” with only 8% of LGs

complying. The highest achievement was reported on

the indicator “There are mechanisms in place to ensure

that educational stakeholders have the opportunity

to participate and voice their opinions regarding the

evaluation of the local education office, schools, and the

local government Education Board,” with a total score of

86%. Table 3-1 shows the average score per indicator.

(12) Some LGs presented multiple data sets from different collection sources; others operated within a severely limited range of data or with non-existent data.

Go

vernan

ce Matters to

Ed

ucatio

n O

utco

mes

26

Scores demonstrated the measure of commitment to

change and political reform. The vast score difference

was not so much a question of technical capacity, but

reflected LG lack of political commitment at leadership

level to ensure transparency and accountability and

engagement with communities -- for example only 24

LGs published summarized financial reports although

Law No. 15/2008: Access to Information decrees that

people have the right to access public documents and

information. ILEGI results demonstrated that this law

was not enforced at local level -- central government had

passed the law but there was insufficient encouragement

and support to enable the implementation of good

governance – an opportunity missed to set the stage for

reform and innovation through good practice.

Transparency and participative activities that generate

good will are required to implement good governance

principles, underpinned by technical capacity building.

LGs surveyed did not have local regulatory frameworks

in place to enforce transparent and accountable

governance, and those that did made little attempt

to implement such practices. Legislation on public

participation which demonstrated transparency (a

milestone in terms of political will for reform) was found

to exist in only 12% of the LGs assessed. Enforcement

of the legislation was often formalistic and did not

lead to meaningful stakeholder involvement. Budget

sessions, financial reports and audit results were also

not widely regarded as in the public domain. Only seven

of the 50 LGs surveyed allowed community members to

* The average score for the surveyed LGs from highest to lowest. The indicator reference number appears in brackets

INDICATORS SCORE

Percentage of districts that have mechanisms in place to ensure that educational stakeholders have the opportunity to participate and voice their opinions regarding the evaluation of the local government Education Office, schools, and the local government Education Board. (10)

86%

Percentage of districts where the Education unit is producing progress reports on planned activities and realization, including budget. (9)

78%

Percentage of districts where the Education Council has been involved in drafting the education strategic plan. (3)

68%

Percentage of districts where financial reports are publicized in the local mass media, on an official announcement board, or through a website. (1)

28%

Percentage of districts where the public has access to budget sessions in the local parliament. (6) 26%

Percentage of districts where the community is involved in monitoring and evaluating education activities. (8) 21%

Percentage of districts where the community is able to attend local parliament session discussing the accountability and BPK audit reports. (2)

14%

Percentage of districts where accountability report discussion in the local parliament is open to the public. (7) 14%

Percentage of districts where legislation on public participation exists. (5) 12%

Percentage of districts where local legislation on transparency exists. (4) 8%

Table 3.1 Aggregated Indicator Scores : Transparency and Accountability

27

Section

3 : Ed

ucatio

n G

overn

ance M

atters – The A

nalysis

observe local parliament accountability sessions and

access annual financial audit results by the Supreme

Audit Agency (BPK); only 26% of LGs opened their budget

parliamentary session to the public; and, only 14% made

the parliamentary session of the budget and audit reports

public. The local budget, a key indicator of government

accountability, was mostly inaccessible to the public.

This may be because LG education offices did not submit

performance accountability reports -- despite regulatory

obligation. In addition there was no clear framework to

guide the use of these reports for policy improvement

and no due diligence incentives/disincentives.

LGs by law must conduct annual development planning

forums at village, sub-district, and LG levels to obtain

stakeholder input into the planning and budgeting

process. These annual development planning forums,

MUSRENBANG 13, provide LGs with a formal mechanism

for stakeholder participation in the education sector.

The LGCA survey showed that 86% of all assessed LGs had

mechanisms in place to enable these stakeholder inputs.

However, this result should be viewed cautiously as the

effectiveness of these forums was unclear. Although

the forums are considered to run well, a large number

of stakeholders believed they are a mere formality and

little public information or feedback was provided about

how public forum inputs are incorporated into final

annual plans.

Community empowerment is low. Only 21% of LGs

involved their communities in the monitoring and

evaluation of education activities. Combined with scarce

public access to budget documents and questionable

public participation mechanisms, it was concluded

that education policy dialogue occurred mostly as a

government internal process that lacked meaningful

stakeholder involvement.

In summary, LGs did not tend to encourage participatory

governance in the education sector. The results of the

ILEGI demonstrated that a culture of participatory

governance and the institutionalization of a continuous

improvement strategy that is based on performance

standards are yet to be established.


The overall score of 50% for Education Service Provision

Standards was slightly higher than the average aggregate

result for LGs. The highest score in this strategic area

was recorded in Wonogiri in Central Java at 81%, while

the lowest scoring district was Pegunungan Bintang in

Papua with 19%. Teacher qualifications and certification

at the primary school level were the key determinants

of ranking in this strategic area. The relative number of

primary school teachers at this level of the education

system was sizably higher than at junior high school

level where teacher qualifications and certification

were less problematic, given fewer teachers and

more stringent initial teacher selection. There was a

positive and significant correlation between female

students and teacher ratios, net enrollment rates and

education governance but gender was not considered a

causal factor.

Results indicated that transition rates, exam scores and

drop-out rates were problematic -- a clear reflection

that educational quality and access was lessened in the

transition from primary to junior secondary school, and

lessened again by a factor of almost two in the transition

to senior secondary school. The indicator which scored

the lowest was “Each primary school has at least 40% of

teachers that have a minimum education qualification of

Bachelor or Diploma IV and holds a teaching certificate”.

Only 6% of schools in the LG areas complied with this

criterion. The highest achievement of 92% was reported

for the indicator “Percentage of districts where each

junior secondary school has at least 40% of teachers who

have a minimum education qualification of S-1 or Diploma

IV and hold a teaching certificate in line with the subject

they teach”. This vast score difference was explained

by the significantly smaller number of junior secondary

school teachers compared with primary school teachers.

(13) MUSRENBANG was introducted by former President Soeharto some decades ago. It is the standardized planning process all LG’s are required by law to undertake on an

annual basis.

Go

vernan

ce Matters to

Ed

ucatio

n O

utco

mes

28

Kabupaten Kebumen is a resource-scarce district with limited financial resources. A large portion

of the district budget (APBD) comes from central government without any significant additional

support from local resources. Kebumen has neither natural resources nor industry. Agriculture is

the main source of income for the populace of 1.3 million.

Despite, or perhaps because of its limited financial resources, Kabupaten Kebumen recorded the

highest score (75.24%) on the Transparency and Accountability strategic index. Kebumen based its

initial initiatives in transparency, accountability and participation on marketing principles: build

trust, create need, maintain services and address complaints.

Kebumen’s initiatives in public accountability and transparency commenced with the merit-based

appointment of school principals. The initiative was not well-received but the first female Regent,

Rustriningsih, stood by her vision and extended reforms by initiating a number of public forums

to provide the public with the opportunity to express opinions and any grievances about public

services and policy.

Uncensored interactive talk shows between the public and the Regent were conducted and

broadcast on local television and radio stations. The “Good Morning Bupati” talk show was the first

opportunity for the public to air their grievances through a regularly organized public forum. As

citizens realized that grievances were being addressed, the nature of commentary changed from

criticism to constructive feedback generating and attracting wide community support.

To sustain transparency and accountability initiatives, local government has:

• enacted a local regulation (Peraturan Daerah No. 64/2004) to facilitate community participation in

the public policy process;

• developed communication and information channels: cascade planning and reporting forums,

mass media (radio, television, local newspaper, and bulletins); and

• established regular interactive, non-censored media appearances which began in 2002.

“This is the forum to see eye-to-eye to ensure that we’re synchronizing our development needs and

priorities,” said Mahar, Head of Kebumen’s Education, Youth and Sport Development Office. “There

is no way around establishing participation; either we have a strong system with a mediocre leader,

or a weak system which enables a dominant leader to ensure.” said Mustika Aji, a leading activist

consultant for the Kebumen Government.

Kabupaten Kebumen (Central Java)Box 3.1 Photo: Gedsiri Suhartono

29

Section

3 : Ed

ucatio

n G

overn

ance M

atters – The A

nalysis

*The average score for the surveyed LGs from highest to lowest. The indicator reference number appears in brackets.

Table 3.2 Aggregated Indicator Scores: Education Service Provision Standards

INDICATORS SCORE

Percentage of districts where each junior secondary school has at least 40% of teachers who have a minimum education qualification of S-1 or Diploma IV and holds a teaching certificate in line with the subject they teach. (1)

92%

Number of districts where gender party in Primary and Junior Secondary schools exists. (14) 91%

Percentage of districts where the primary level drop-out rate does not exceed 1% of students currently enrolled in school. (7)

82%

Average Net Enrollment Rate: primary and junior secondary for all districts. (13) 79%

Percentage of districts where at least 75% of all junior secondary school principals have a minimum education qualification of S-1/D-IV and a teaching certificate from an accredited institution. (4)

66%

Percentage of districts where at least 75% of all school supervisors have a minimum education qualification of S-1/D-IV and a teaching certificate from an accredited institution. (5)

60%

Percentage of districts where the junior secondary level drop-out rate does not exceed 1% of students currently enrolled in school. (8)

60%

Average transition rate from junior secondary to senior secondary for all districts. (12) 28%

Percentage of districts where average National Exam Score for Year 6 is 6.0 or higher. (9) 24%

Average transition rate from primary to junior secondary for all districts. (11) 24%

Percentage of districts where 95% of children in the 7-12 year age group attend school SD/MI. (6) 22%

Percentage of districts where average National Exam Score for Year 9 is 6.0 or higher. (10) 16%

Percentage of districts where at least 75% of all primary school principals have a minimum education qualification of S-1/D-IV and a teaching certificate from an accredited institution. (3 )

12%

Percentage of districts where each primary school has at least 40% of teachers who have a minimum education qualification of Bachelor or Diploma IV and holds a teaching certificate. (2)

6%

Percentage of Average Adult Literacy Rate in all districts. (15) 83%

Go

vernan

ce Matters to

Ed

ucatio

n O

utco

mes

30

Improving teaching qualifications and teacher capacity

has a significant impact on improved student test

scores. Enhancing teacher qualifications is regarded

as a key determinant. With higher test scores, student

and teacher motivation also increases with a resulting

‘ripple ‘effect on transition rates. Not one of the 50 LGs

had in excess of 50% of certified primary school teachers.

However, some LGs were working on accelerating the

qualification rate by allocating extra funds from the

local budget; others were working with teacher training

institutions to improve access to equivalency training

through extension programs and night classes.

The lack of a performance-based teacher evaluation

process was found to be a major barrier in the

management, removal or dismissal of poorly

performing teachers. The bureaucratic nature of teacher

appointments as civil servants did not facilitate effective

performance management of ineffective teachers,

principals or school supervisors. LG systems to evaluate

teacher effectiveness were focused almost entirely on

inputs, for example the level of training and the number

of years of teaching experience -- even though these

factors have little impact on student achievement.

None of the 50 surveyed LGs required teachers to

provide evidence of student achievement or learning

in teacher evaluations. Without the ability to manage

poorly performing human resources, the education

sector cannot establish a performance-based culture

which ensures that all students are provided with equal

educational opportunities and enabled to develop to

their maximum potential.

Analyses demonstrated that national exam scores were

strongly correlated with local education governance.14

This reinforced the key theme of this study: governance

does matter to educational outcomes. Test scores do not

only reflect the intelligence or potential of the student.

They equally demonstrate that the potential of students

is maximized through capable, qualified teachers,

effective sectoral management strategies and well-

targeted resource use geared to educational outcomes

and high student achievement. An important indicator

reflecting LG performance was the score on primary

and junior secondary school national examinations.

Correlation analysis showed that LGs tending to score

low on the ILEGI also tended to have lower scores at

primary and junior secondary levels. Table 3-2 indicates

only 24% of LGs achieved an average national exam score

of 6.0 for the primary level, and only 16% achieved an

average score of 6.0 at the junior secondary level, with

the optimal score being 10 for each respective level of the

education system.


At 47%, the aggregate score for Management Control

Systems (MCS) was slightly above the overall score -- but

scores on this index varied widely. The highest aggregate

score was in Kebumen district in Central Java with a score

of 84%, while the lowest score was 10% in Kotawaringin

Timur district located in Central Kalimantan. The lowest

scoring indicators were: “An incentive-based performance

management system is in place for school supervisors

based on the National Education Standard” and, ”An

incentive-based performance management system is

in place for school principals based on the National

Education Standards”, with only 7% of LGs in compliance

on each subindicator. The highest scoring indicator

was “The Annual Local Government Education Forum

integrates inputs and recommendations from the annual

village-level and municipal-level planning consultative

meeting results (Musrenbang)” with a total score of 94%.

Findings did not indicate if village level inputs were

eventually established as programming priorities --

another question altogether. Table 3.3 shows the average

score per indicator.

(14) Results can be regarded as proxy for the overall achievement of MSS and relevant elements of the NES.

31

Section

3 : Ed

ucatio

n G

overn

ance M

atters – The A

nalysis

Kabupaten Bojonegoro received the second highest overall rating among the 50 local governments

surveyed in the 2009 LGCA (60.45%). This result was achieved due to the partnership between the

district government and stakeholder community which is focused on improving the transparency and

accountability of education management in the district.

School students, teachers, and staff have implemented several unique initiatives to increase

transparency and accountability in the budget process, fundraising, and time management. The

school budget (RAPBS) is published on school notice boards, on posters and through biannual letters

to parents at the end of each school term. The content of these documents always includes the details

of the budgeting process and planned and actual budget expenditure. The minutes of principals’

meetings with school and teacher committees and other school reports are also fully accessible to the

public at each school.

Some schools have devised an innovative way of finding alternative sources of funding, called

Paguyuban Kelas, which is organized by parents who donate the resources needed for individual

classes. Donations can only be in material form, not monetary. Every three months, 6-8 schools meet in

a larger forum to share their knowledge and experiences in accessing and managing funds and other

resources to improve the quality of schools.

An honesty system has been introduced in school canteens and to record attendance. In the Kantin

Kejujuran, there are no supervisors. Students must do their own transactions to pay for their food,

relying on individual honesty to pay the correct amount. The profits generated are used to fund any

extra school activities or to provide scholarships for students in need. In the classroom and school

office, each student, teacher, principal, and staff has their own paper clock. They mark the times

when they arrive, take breaks, and go home -- promoting a culture of honesty with regard to daily

attendance, on-time arrival and departure.

Local government is also playing its part. Bapak Suyoto, the Bupati of Bojonegoro, has initiated several

noteworthy activities that promote transparency and accountability. Principals from all primary and

secondary schools as well as the head and staff of the education department took a public oath of

honesty at the city square. Bapak Suyoto encourages people in the community to communicate with

him through SMS and chatting on Facebook. He is very responsive to these forms of communication,

even when it is just a “good morning” greeting from a citizen. The secretary of the Education Agency,

Bapak Muslih, explained that he regularly receives SMS messages from the Bupati regarding education

provision issues -- even when he was on the Haj pilgrimage.

More than 500 people, including the Bupati, all heads of departments, the local legislative council

members, and community members, also participate in a weekly communication forum called “Friday’s

Interactive Dialogue”. In this forum, people are given the opportunity to express their ideas, raise

issues and register complaints. The Bupati has instituted a “no interruptions when people are talking”

rule, so that no government official can interrupt a citizen when talking. These Friday dialogues are

also broadcast on local radio. If time runs out during the Friday dialogue, the Bupati will assign a

relevant department head to follow up on any unresolved issues and broadcast the response on the

local radio. This interactive dialogue has received the Jawa Pos Otonomi award.

Kabupaten Bojonegoro (East Java) Box 3.2 Photo: Ratna Kesuma

Go

vernan

ce Matters to

Ed

ucatio

n O

utco

mes

32


Table 3.3 Aggregated Indicator Scores: Management Control Systems

INDICATORS SCORE

Percentage of districts where the annual local government Education Forum integrates inputs and recommendations from the annual village-level and municipal-level planning consultative meeting results (MUSRENBANG). (6)

94%

Percentage of districts where the local government Education Board (Dewan Pendidikan) has a clear work program and routine budget allocation in the APBD. (9)

72%

Percentage of districts where school committees, local government Education Boards and community-based organizations actively participate in strategic educational planning processes. (8)

66%

Percentage of districts where evidence of the efforts of LG to identify good practice in improving educational service provision. (13)

59%

Percentage of districts where procurement bids for goods and services are planned properly to avert any accusations of breaking down into smaller packages to avoid tendering. (10)

54%

Percentage of districts where there is evidence of a systematic approach to document and catalogue innovative good practice. (14)

47%

Percentage of districts where goods users carry out a yearly stock inventory. (1) 42%

Percentage of districts where local legislation on asset management exists. (17) 36%

Percentage of districts where a technical guideline for procurement issued by local government head exists. (2)

34%

Percentage of districts where there is evidence of stakeholder participation in the maintenance of a network for sharing and disseminating good practices. (15)

33%

Percentage of districts where the Education unit head has passed an organization regulation on sectoral asset management in education unit and all subunits. (16)

32%

Percentage of districts where all cash storage by working units is put into local government bank accounts. (11)

30%

Percentage of districts where there is evidence of the existence of a clear, systematic system to validate good practice (Local Regulation, Evaluation Schematic for Innovative Practice, Cataloguing and Dissemination Procedure). (12)

22%

Percentage of districts where the local government Education office considers consolidated school-level inputs through the school development planning mechanism (Rencana Kegiatan Sekolah - RKS) in developing the local government level Annual Education Workplan. (7)

16%

Percentage of districts where an incentive-based performance management system is in place for teachers based on the National Education Standards. (3)

10%

Percentage of districts that have an incentive-based performance management system in place for school supervisors based on the National Education Standards. (4)

7%

Percentage of districts where an incentive-based performance management system is in place for school principals based on the National Education Standards. (5)

7%

33

Section

3 : Ed

ucatio

n G

overn

ance M

atters – The A

nalysis

Management control systems remained weak at the LG

level, especially in the areas of procurement and asset

management. These results further demonstrated that

only a small number of LGs had taken the necessary steps

to ensure accountable and effective local governance.

Most are still to establish clear reform agendas across

a number of key management control requirements

which over time, will continue to hamper the progression

and performance of the education sector. Regulations,

procedures and guidelines for procurement and asset

management only existed in between 34-36% of all

assessed LGs. With the high potential for corruption and

leakage in procurement and asset management it is

crucially important to ensure that regulations which set

out “the rules of the game” are in place to enable LGs to

monitor, control and take corrective action.

Only 30% of sector units maintained their cash reserves

in approved LG bank accounts although there is a

requirement that LGs must set up accounts in banks

appointed through mayoral decree. These designated and

organized accounts are intended to ensure better cash

management and minimize the potential for corruption

or misuse of funds. MoF and BPK have attempted to

enforce this requirement with some degree of success

but ultimately, sanctions and penalty measures may need

to be instituted to optimize reform efforts in this area.

The MoF observed that most LGs still possessed unofficial

bank accounts and most LG sector units used these to

bank and manage cash.

Despite the involvement of a wide range of education

sector stakeholders in the annual development planning

process, only 16% of LGs considered school-level inputs

when drafting the annual education work plan and

budget. Echoing a similar finding in the Transparency and

Accountability and the Efficient Resource Use strategic

areas, this showed that while bottom-up mechanisms

are in place in the annual development planning process,

the inputs were rarely considered in key policy-making or

budget allocations. This trend demonstrated the heavy

focus on the process of planning without identifying

programming outputs, added value and monitoring and

evaluation requirements.

Incentive-based performance management systems

at the school level were not commonly found. The

lack of a performance culture was considered a

serious impediment to the improvement of learning

outcomes. Only 10% of LGs had introduced performance

management elements for teachers; only 7% had

introduced performance management for school

supervisors. In all of the LGs surveyed, the incentives

provided were in reality supplementary top-up payments

available to all schools for teachers as a matter of

course. Despite being described as a performance

incentive, these management systems did not consider

key performance variables when disbursing incentive

funds. This practice did very little to encourage or reward

innovation or creativity rather it encouraged the status

quo: that all teachers and schools should be paid the

same regardless of performance. With the new Teacher

Law, certified and qualified teachers will not be paid a

functional incentive but LGs still used these funds to top

up the relatively low salaries of part-time, contract and

non-qualified civil servant teachers.

Local-level documentation practices and the sharing of

good practices scored poorly amongst all but the highest

scoring LGs. Combined with the lack of performance

culture, LGs rarely based reform on local level good

practice examples nor pilot innovations on a larger scale.

In high-scoring LGs there were correspondingly high

scores in documentation and good practices. Generally,

these LGs had achieved the minimum standards

for education service provision and demonstrated

innovation and creativity in their drive for continuous

improvement.

Go

vernan

ce Matters to

Ed

ucatio

n O

utco

mes

34

Kabupaten Majene achieved one of the highest scores (77.66%) on the Management Control System

indicator. The Management Control System in Majene was effectively implemented in 2001 when

the current Bupati and Deputy Bupati were elected. The basis for Majene’s management practices is

Peraturan Menteri Dalam Negeri No. 13/2006, a ministerial decree regarding Financial Management in

Local Governments and Keputusan Presiden No.80/2003, a presidential decree regarding Government

Procurement.

The Kabupaten Majene administration believes that management control practices are the key to

establishing good governance and community trust. A Management Control System is not merely

an element in the management cycle. In the broadest sense, it includes the methods and procedures

adopted by management to ensure that they meet the agreed goals. It also includes processes for

planning, organizing, directing, and controlling program operations. A subset of management controls

is the internal controls used to make sure that there is prevention or timely detection of unauthorized

acquisition, use, or disposition of the local government’s assets.

• The local parliament (DPRD) is very active in supervising and controlling the implementation of all

local government programs, including the use of resources. Besides regular meetings with local

government, the DPRD conducts ad hoc meetings and invites corresponding Dinas when there are

information and complaints from the community.

• A higher level unit called Dinas Pengelolaan Keuangan, Pendapatan dan Aset Daerah (PKPAD)

or Department of Financial, Income, and Assets Management has been established. The main

responsibility of the Dinas is to ensure that district finances and assets are well managed and

controlled. By establishing the Dinas, the local government implements a ‘one-gate policy’ for LG’s

finance and assets.

• Each month all Dinas submit financial reports and reliable supported documents of expenditures to

Dinas PKPAD. They are not allowed to spend more money in the following month if the last month’s

reports are not submitted and approved. An online computerized reporting application is being used.

• All Dinas, including the Education Agency send their three monthly financial reports directly to the

PKPAD through SIMDA where the reports are verified.

• The Education Agency implements internal management control mechanisms by regular and ad

hoc meetings. Through the meetings the Agency and Unit Heads are able to review the progress of

activities and the use of resources.

• To control the use of funds at school level from certain sources, the Dinas involves independent

supervisors from the community. Head teachers, teachers, the school committee, and parent/

community representatives together discuss the annual school plan and budget. Besides internal

control, the schools are also closely supervised and controlled by external parties such as the

Education Agency, Regional Inspectorate, BPKP, school committee, and NGOs.

Kabupaten Majene (West Sulawesi)Box 3.3 Photo: M. Wildan

35

Section

3 : Ed

ucatio

n G

overn

ance M

atters – The A

nalysis

Kabupaten Aceh Utara is included here as an example of a district that is struggling in a post-conflict

environment to deliver improved education services. It received one of the highest scores outside Java

(71.63%) for its Management Control Systems. The post-conflict condition of education in Aceh Utara is

marked by: post-conflict trauma; the poor quality of teachers and inadequate numbers; poor quality

of school infrastructure; a lack of discipline from teachers and students in teaching and learning

activities; high rates of truancy; low school graduation rates; poor awareness of the need to educate

children; and, a lack of responsibility for the maintenance of school assets.

Public involvement in the regional education process is made possible due to limited public resources

and regional management capacity in enhancing the quality of education and achieving equity.

Management Control System indicators in Kabupaten Aceh Utara closely reflect the involvement of

the community in education planning and management as well as their role in various activities aimed

at improving the quality of education outputs and teaching/learning activities at the school level

through two local institutions.

1. The Community Movement for the Betterment of Education (Gerakan Masyarakat Peduli Pendidikan

- GMPP) is a regional body that was initiated by the Education Agency to monitor the teaching

learning process in schools. The GMPP attempts to synergize cooperation between various

stakeholders, including: the Aceh Transition Committee (Komite Peralihan Aceh - KPA), religious

scholars, education managers, community figures, the general community, and students’ parents

to take an active role in supervising the delivery of teaching/learning activities in school in order to

ensure there is equity and improvement in the quality of education for every person in Kabupaten

Aceh Utara.

GMPP activities and community monitoring in the delivery of teaching/learning activities include,

inter alia: (i) assisting with the delivery of a quality, Islamic-based education in Kabupaten Aceh

Utara; (ii) preventing poor behavior and performance of students; (iii) creating a safe and secure

school environment; (iv) striving for adequate education infrastructure and equipment; (v) protecting

and maintaining education facilities across Aceh Utara; and (vi) evaluating the delivery of teaching

and learning activities across Aceh Utara, including in the villages and subdistricts.

2. The Regional Education Council (Majelis Pendidikan Daerah - MPD at the national level, this

institution is known as the Education Council). The MPD was established in 1990, long before the

establishment of the National Education System regulation in 2003 that monitors the Education

Council. The MPD is representative of the special rights of the Government of Aceh.

The role of the MPD and school committee is to: (i) denote the unique features of the Government

of Aceh in the delivery of education at the regional level; (ii) give effect to its role and function as a

partner in the formulation of education policy, the supervision of education delivery in the region

and at the education unit level, so the management of education is more democratic, accountable,

and transparent; and (iii) take an optimal role in facilitating the entry and input of the community

into the management of education at the regional level.

Kabupaten Aceh UtaraBox 3.4 Photo: Gedsiri Suhartono

Go

vernan

ce Matters to

Ed

ucatio

n O

utco

mes

36


Of the five strategic areas, Management Information

Systems (MIS) scores showed significant inter-local

government variation and were lowest for all LGs with

an average of only 33%. The raw data required for LGCA

analysis was very weak impacting considerably on the

intended depth of analysis. The highest scoring district

was Sleman, a Special Region of Yogyakarta, with a score

of 77%, while the lowest scoring was the municipality

of Manokwari in West Papua with a score of only 1%.

The lowest scoring indicator was the “Percentage of

schools that have an internet connection” - with a score

of only 4%. The highest achieving indicator was “There

is evidence of an existing education database at the

local government level”, with a total score of 69%. Table

3.4 shows the average score per indicator.

Despite the fact that 69% of LGs reported that they had

an existing education database, these systems provided

only limited information about school operations,

performance and educational outcomes. Most LGs had

made substantial progress in improving the architecture

(hardware and connectivity) that supports better data

collection and utilization. However these databases were

inadequate. They did not capture school operational

level information nor had the capacity to answer basic

questions about capacity -- such as the degree to which

professional development improves student outcomes or

the types of innovative teaching and learning practices

which provide the best return on investment.

Data collection continued to be uneven and fragmented

as data flows were generally one way and not reciprocal

between LGs and schools. Schools were bombarded

with a multitude of different data collection formats

and requests from all levels of government, but very

rarely received critical feedback on how that data was

used to assess relative performance. LGs tended to use

a compliance-driven data management strategy where

data was collected and stored, but rarely analyzed or

used to inform and reform practices. Findings indicated

that fictional or manipulated data was submitted which

served different purposes and/or vested interests --

although data return rates were improving.


INDICATORS SCORE

Percentage of districts where there is evidence of an existing education database at the local government level. (1)

69%

Percentage of districts where there is evidence of the integration and use of School Application Packet (Paket Aplikasi Sekolah - PAS, Jaringan Pendidikan Nasional - JARDIKNAS, and Pangkalan Data dan Informasi Pendidikan - PADATI) within the existing management infrastructure of the education system at the local government level. (4)

57%

Percentage of districts where there is evidence of data spot checking systems in place. (3) 35%

Percentage of districts where there is evidence of written procedures and protocols for the scheduling and methodology of data collection, data cleaning, data submission from lower levels of the system (that is schools). (2)

32%

Percentage of schools that have at least one functioning computer across all districts. (5) 32%

Percentage of schools that have an internet connection in all districts. (6) 4%

Table 3.4 Aggregated Indicator Scores: Management Information Systems

37

Section

3 : Ed

ucatio

n G

overn

ance M

atters – The A

nalysis

The ILEGI survey showed evidence of a trend where

computers were purchased without clear or transparent

management or educational rationale. These computers

were generally used for other purposes or only available

with limited access. Data collected was for stock-taking

purposes about equipment acquired and the number of

schools with a computer or an internet connection. No

data was collected by LGs about school technology use or

implementation.

There are three main types of education software

available to LGs and schools: Paket Aplikasi Sekolah

(PAS), Jaringan Pendidikan Nasional (JARDIKNAS) and

Pangkalan Data dan Informasi Pendidikan (PADATI).

None of the surveyed LGs kept databases that tracked

student progress and test score achievements through

the education system across years of schooling. To foster

independent schools that embrace autonomy and can

respond to new challenges, LGs must provide educators,

policy makers, and the public with better information.

Disappointingly, none used a systematic approach to

provide local schools and educators with high-quality,

real-time data for use to evaluate the effectiveness of

particular approaches and initiatives to improve student

outcomes. Figure 3.7 shows the number of districts using

PAS, JARDIKNAS, and PADATI.

NO

T AT ALL

ON

Y PA

DATI

ON

LY JA

RD

IKN

AS

ON

LY PA

S

JAR

DIK

NA

S DA

N P

ADATI

PAS D

AN

PAD

ATI

PAS D

AN

JAR

DIK

NA

S

PAS.JA

RD

IKN

AS

AN

D PA

DATI

Figure 3.7 Number of Districts Using the Education Management Software

2

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

8

2

0

14

3

9

12

Go

vernan

ce Matters to

Ed

ucatio

n O

utco

mes

38

Table 3.5 provides a detailed breakdown of the use LGs make of each education management software application.

Table 3.5 LG Use of Education Management Software

APPLICATIONNUMBER OF LGs USING THE SOFTWARE

PURPOSE OF THE APPLICATION

Paket Aplikasi Sekolah 13 Measuring performance indicators.

Sending teacher and student data to central government.

Collecting data on a regular basis.

Providing access to data for stakeholders.

Evaluating LG and Local education units.

Providing summary data in the form of a data-base to profile schools and local education units.

Providing guidelines for education planning.

Sourcing data for the national examination.

Jaringan Pendidikan Nasional

33Providing the infrastructure to connect the internet/intranet network in order to manage school individual data (28 LGs).

Providing the infrastructure to connect the internet/intranet network in order to manage cumulative data for all schools at local level (28 LGs).

Other uses. For example as an information center, source of reference materials for students and teachers.

Pangkalan Data dan Informasi Pendidikan

24 Managing school individual data (19 LGs).

Managing cumulative data for all schools at local level (15 LGs)

Other uses: For example GIS, processing individual data (8 LGs).

39

Section

3 : Ed

ucatio

n G

overn

ance M

atters – The A

nalysis

Kabupaten Sleman recorded the highest score of the 50 local governments (61.96%), mainly due to its

achievement of the highest rankings for Management Information Systems and Efficient Resource

Use. An initiative by the local Education Agency (Dispora) has established Kabupaten Sleman as a role

model for LGs in Indonesia. MoNE requires all LG Education Agencies to collect data on each school

student in their jurisdiction. An official form called Lembar Individu (LI) is issued in a specific computer

format to collect the data. Before this initiative, approximately 80% of LIs in Kabupaten Sleman were

returned by schools – within two weeks of the four weeks allocated for this process the return rate was

100%. Since primary schools are not yet equipped with personal computers, Dispora uses a Sub-District

Coordinator to distribute printed LI forms to all primary schools. The forms are distributed to schools

through Korcam and collected after Korcam completion. The forms are then passed on to the Dinas

where the information is transferred to computer format and imported into the National Education

Network system (Jardiknas). Any questions relating to the data are handled by Korcam. It is intended

that all primary schools in the future will be equipped with a computer for administrative tasks.

“We are ready if the primary school also has to fill out the Excel LI form” said the principal of SDN

Sleman. This school takes the process more seriously by converting the printed form into computer

format but for documentation purposes only. It has employed a part-time administration officer who is

proficient with computers.

The LI form is distributed to secondary schools in MS Excel format on a CD. Before distributing them for

the first time, the Dinas conducts a training session for school administration staff on how to fill out

using the electronic format. At the end of the school year, the Dinas distributes/sends the CD out to all

schools. After the form is completed and returned, Dinas staff import the data to the Jardiknas system.

The Dinas contacts the school directly with any inquiries. In the near future, as far as possible, Dispora

will help all secondary schools to establish an internet connection so they can directly download the LI

forms and send electronically.

At times, the Dinas asks additional questions (using a separate form) to gather further information

about school specific data, for example the reason for school dropouts. This is sent to schools at the

same time as the Lembar Individu. This approach ensures that the necessary information related to

school specific education issues is available when required.

Kabupaten Sleman also ranked first in its approach to the Efficient Use of Resources. Whilst BOS

funding has had a significant impact on school budgets, it does not cover the minimum funding

costs required to cover the operational costs for each student per year. In order to give all children

equal access and opportunity in education, supplementary funding through Bantuan Operasional

Sekolah Daerah (BOSDA) provides education stakeholders in Sleman with funding for innovation and

operational costs not covered by BOS. LG stakeholders calculate minimum basic annual costs per

student; these are then listed and weighted. The total cost for one student is then compared with

the BOS allocation and the gap covered through BOSDA. School representatives from each level are

asked to prepare an annual cost budget based on daily practices and SNP. The draft budget is then

discussed and an estimated budget agreed in a focus group discussion. Dispora, DPKKD and BAPPEDA

agree on the draft which provides the basis for Dispora to answer inquiries from the local legislature

and seek their support to pass the BOSDA proposal. The BOSDA is confirmed through a Bupati Decree

and endorsed by DPRD (Bupati Sleman Decree No. 26/2009 for BOSDA: SD and SMP; and, Bupati Sleman

Decree No. 25/2009 for APBS). The principals of the two schools surveyed advised that BOSDA has

greatly assisted in the provision of funds to cover school operational costs.

Kabupaten Sleman (DI Yogyakarta)Box 3.5 Photo: Dimas Oky Nugroho

Go

vernan

ce Matters to

Ed

ucatio

n O

utco

mes

40


The overall score for Efficient Resource Use was 42%,

demonstrating major room for improvement in budget

planning and execution. The highest score recorded in

the ILEGI for this strategic area was recorded in Sleman,

a Special Region of Yogyakarta, with 73%, while the

lowest score was 11% in Teluk Wondama located in West

Papua. The lowest scoring indicator was “Education

budget absorption rate by December 2008 is 90% or more”

with only 15% meeting this rate. Most achievement

was reported on the indicator “There are mechanisms

in place to ensure that educational stakeholders have

the opportunity to participate and voice their opinions

regarding the evaluation of the local government

Education Office, schools, and the local government

Education Board”, with a total score of 86%. Table 3.6

shows the average score per indicator.

Table 3.6 Aggregated Indicator Scores: Efficient Resource Use


INDICATORS SCORE

Percentage of districts where education unit is producing progress reports on planned activities and realization, including budget. (9)

78%

Percentage of districts where education (sectoral) medium-term and annual plans include indicative budget ceilings and take budget limit into account. (6)

76%

Percentage of districts where annual budget policy includes measurable outcome indicators. (3) 72%

Percentage of districts where education council has been involved in drafting of education strategic plan. (2) 68%

Percentage of districts where sectoral poverty alleviation programs and activities have been accommodated by local government budget team. (7)

62%

Percentage of districts where tariffs for the use of assets have been updated regularly in the past three years (markets etc.). (1)

60%

Percentage of districts where budget priorities and ceilings are set before the budgeting process in SKPD starts. (4)

56%

Percentage of districts where programs and activities in RPJMD can be measured quantitatively. (10) 52%

Percentage of districts where education planning and budget calendar has been drafted. (5) 50%

Percentage of districts where the difference between planned and realized expenditures was less than 10% in the last three financial years. (11)

45%

Percentage of districts where planning and budgeting documents can easily be accessed by the community. (8)

39%

Percentage of districts where education budget absorption rate by December 2008 is 90% or more. (12) 15%

41

Section

3 : Ed

ucatio

n G

overn

ance M

atters – The A

nalysis

LG financial management systems were found to be

inefficient and there was a lack transparency which did

not support performance and innovation. The patchwork

of spending programs in each LG provided schools with

almost no flexibility to spend financial resources in a

more effective manner. Very few LGs made basic planning

and financial data easily accessible to the public – either

through the Internet or on public information boards –

limiting the public’s capacity to hold the LG and school

accountable for expenditure. Four BEC LGs had very

low education budget absorption rates (as recorded In

December 2008) -- Paniai (Papua), South East Aceh (Aceh),

Mamasa (West Sulawesi) and South Halmahera (North

Maluku) had rates of less than 55% expended. Figure

3.8 shows the breakdown of local budget absorption on

education spending by LG location for 2008.

Mamasa (53%)

Paniai (50%)

South East Aceh (50%)

South Halmahera (23%)

Nagan Rraya (n.a.)

Kepulauan Sula (90%)

West Aceh (90%)

Purbalingga (90%)

Blora (85%)

North Aceh (82%)

Jaya Wijaya (80%)

Nabire (70%)

Manokwari (95%)

Probolingg0 (95%)

Seruyan (95%)

Bondowoso (95%)

Rembang (95%)

Trenggelek (94%)

Purworejo (94%)

Sleman (93%)

Jombang (92%)

Kebumen (92%)

Sampang (91%)

Polewati Mandar (90%)

Peg. Bintang (98%)

Kulon Progo (98%)

Wonosobo (98%)

North West Aceh (98%)

Lhokseumawe (98%)

Pacitan (98%)

Bojonegoro (98%)

Ngawi (98%)

Banjarnegara (98%)

Demak (98%)

Brebes (97%)

Probolinggo (97%)

Sragen (96%)

Kaimana (100%)

East Kotawaringin (100%)

Palangkaraya (100%)

Majene (100%)

Teluk Wondama (100%)

South Sorong (100%)

Bireuen (100%)

Jayapura (100%)

Ternate (100%)

Aceh Besar (100%)

Nganjuk (100%)

Wonogiri (100%)

Bangkalan (100%)

<55% 91-95% 100%70-90% 96-99%

Figure 3.8 Local Budget Absorption on Education Spending (2008)

Go

vernan

ce Matters to

Ed

ucatio

n O

utco

mes

42

Spending patterns undermined the efficient use of

resources. There was a lack of internal consistency

between what was planned and what was implemented

-- 55% of the 50 LGs surveyed demonstrated differences in

excess of 10% between planned and realized budget.

While LGs placed heavy emphasis on development

planning, budgeting processes, budget execution and

monitoring were disconnected and inefficient. Looking

at the indicator scores for Efficient Resource Use, it can

be seen that LGs placed heavy emphasis on the mainly

formalistic planning process through MUSRENBANG.

It did not inform the budgeting process sufficiently

and led to poor budget execution and monitoring. As a

result, most LGs had low absorption rates; differences

in planned versus realized budget; and interestingly, big

budget surpluses.

The development planning process showed a few

encouraging trends with 68% of all LGs involving

stakeholders in the drafting of the education strategic

plan. 56% of LGs provided indicative budget ceilings to

each sector; and 72% included measurable outcome

indicators in the annual budget policy. Even though

LGs were still a long way from fully implementing

performance-based budgeting as stipulated by

the central government in 2002, the formulation of

quantitative indicators is seen as a positive first step.

Since decentralization in 2001 responsibility for various

education services has changed dramatically – the most

noteworthy shift has occurred in the way schools are

funded. The introduction of the BOS subsidy is the key

mechanism in making progress towards the targets for

compulsory Nine-Year Basic Education (Wajib Belajar). The

BOS program is designed to lessen the burden of school

operational costs, registration, tuition, examination fees

and materials and costs of laboratory and workshop

sessions. BOS provides assistance to schools in order to

permit them to eliminate student fees for operational

costs while still maintaining educational quality. Schools

now receive a centrally allocated block grant15 based on

a per-student allocation in the form of a cash transfer

directly to the school’s bank account.

At the LG level there was no evidence of student-based

funding systems. Unlike BOS which provides the majority

of school operational funds LG investment was not

allocated according to student needs. Instead funds were

distributed based on factors that had little to do with

individual students for example, the number of teachers

or classrooms in a school; or the type of educational

programs provided by the school. These financial

practices made it almost impossible to empower school

leadership to allocate resources in new and innovative

ways focused on meeting student needs. Opportunities

were limited for the provision of alternative educational

choices and healthy competition which could contribute

to additional quality education services. Instead

decisions continued to be made by LG personnel who

often had little or no interaction with students or first-

hand understanding of school and student needs.

(15) From 2011, BOS grant funds will be disbursed at LG level

43

Section

3 : Ed

ucatio

n G

overn

ance M

atters – The A

nalysis

Future Assessment Rounds

The first set of ILEGI results demonstrated that further

refinement of the instrument is necessary to address

wide inconsistency in LG data collection practices and

in situations where little concrete data was available.

Suggested refinements include additional qualitative

indicators about increased innovation and good

practices; secondary budget data elements; education

input data; and, a gender specific focus. Future

assessment rounds should trace relative and absolute

progress over time against the established benchmarks

and allow for more detailed analysis between education

inputs, governance and outcomes, and further

comparative and cross analyses .

Section 4 provides ‘signposts’ for reform presented as

recommendations which link quantitative results with

qualitative insights on commonalities between high

performing and rapidly improving education systems.

Key signposts focus on issues that transcend cultural and

socio-economic characteristics and seek to foster flexible,

performance-oriented reform strategies, for example:

Education Standards and Quality Assurance Systems;

Benchmarking and Clear Expectations; and, Sufficient

Funding, Facilities and Other Resources.

Photo: Mahargianto

Section 4

Reforming Education Governance – The Roadmap

45

Section

4 : Refo

rmin

g E

du

cation

Go

vernan

ce – The R

oad

map

Go

vernan

ce Matters to

Ed

ucatio

n O

utco

mes

46

SECTION FOUR: REFORMING EDUCATION GOVERNANCE – THE ROADMAP

The analysis identified gaps in strategic

areas of education governance that impact

at school, local, provincial and national

government levels. Findings highlighted

variations in the equitable and transparent

use of funds in the sector; the uneven

distribution of learning opportunities; gaps

in community engagement; the quality

of instruction; and, the deployment and

ongoing professional development of

teachers. These findings raise additional

concerns about how well prepared the

education system is to support Indonesia’s

transition to a competitive middle-income

country in which its citizens have the

necessary education and technical skills to

accelerate economic growth, reduce poverty

and spur innovation through competition.

47

Section

4 : Refo

rmin

g E

du

cation

Go

vernan

ce – The R

oad

map

Key ILEGI Recommendations for Education System Reform

Key ILEGI findings are examined and recommendations

made in the following discussion to guide central and

LG policy reform and future LG capacity development

planning. These recommendations link quantitative

results with qualitative insights and areas of

commonality between high performing and rapidly

improving education systems. The discussion focuses

on issues that transcend cultural and socio-economic

characteristics and seek to foster flexible, performance-

oriented reform strategies within the authority and

sphere of influence of the LG – with the support of the

central government.

Signposts for Better Performing Education Systems

Signposts for Better Performing Education Systems

are categorized according to Education Standards and

Quality Assurance Systems; Benchmarking and Clear

Expectations; and, Sufficient Funding, Facilities and

Other Resources which serve as key signposts for better

performing education systems.17

Figure 4.1 Key Signposts for Education System Performance

(16) McKinsey in Barber and Mourshed, 2007:13

Key Signposts

Better Performing Education Systems

Education Standards and Quality Assurance Systems

Benchmarking and ClearExpectations for Progress

Sufficient Funding Facilities and Other Resources

Go

vernan

ce Matters to

Ed

ucatio

n O

utco

mes

48

Recommendations for the Central Government

The survey revealed issues related to education governance that are beyond LG control and require higher level central

government policy dialogue to support reform. In addition to expanding the scope of dissemination of the survey,

substantial effort also needs to be placed on improving coordination between national and sub-national partners.

Table 4.1 Recommendations for Reform: Central Government


Improve teacher quality beyond certification by expanding pre-service reform. Triggered by the Teacher Law (2005), considerable effort and resources have been put into upgrading incumbent teachers. Whether or not the law is successful will largely be determined by the characteristics of new teachers entering the profession. Indonesia is at a critical point in the reform of its teacher training programs. Increased compensation has attracted an increased number of better qualified and capable candidates into teacher training programs. Many new programs (such as S1 for primary teachers, and post-S1 training programs) have the potential to produce a leaner, higher quality workforce and reduce the financial burden on government. These new programs provide effective pre-service training with considerably improved curricula to attract and retain high-caliber university graduates into the teaching profession.

Target capacity building efforts - especially with newly established BEC-TF districts. To improve basic education sector management, governance and outcomes, a comprehensive approach to capacity building needs to be put into place. Targets for capacity development should use nationally established sectoral priorities to map capacity deficits across all levels of the system.

Benchmarking and Clear Expectations

Incentivize reforms and performance. Understanding the dynamics of incentives and disincentives about reform and performance is an important step in designing a better education system. Competition and recognition alone are often not sufficient to mobilize or maintain the reform effort, incentives should be extrinsic as well as intrinsic.

Revise the formula for the General Allocation Fund (DAU) to remove the implication that “the more one hires, the more budget allocation one gets”. The Teacher salary component of DAU should be given to LGs as “block grants” proportional to their school-age population. Remote and disadvantaged LGs should receive additional incentive-based allocations.

Support service delivery through the central government’s key role in (i) developing instruments for schools and LGs to assess student and teacher performance; (ii) including gender perspectives for women and men, girls and boys in all planned activities to achieve the goal of gender equality; (iii) reformulating staffing norms to ensure efficient and equitable teacher deployment; and (iv) providing timely feedback through the monitoring and evaluation of LGs and schools.

Identify unclear areas in functional assignments by developing a framework which clearly identifies the roles and responsibilities of central, provincial, and local governments. This kind of role responsibility mapping should detail the diverse range of functional assignments. Appendix 3 provides a conceptual framework that can be used to analyze the distribution of functions within the Indonesian education quality assurance system.

Sufficient Funding, Facilities and Other Resources

Use the budget as a policy tool to improve education governance. Budget priorities and stakeholder involvement could lead to quick wins to improve education outputs and outcomes. For example while the MSS has focused on provision of inputs to schools, future central government financing to districts to implement BOS could be designed to provide incentives for education outcomes.

Review current practices with regard to determinations about the amount of education financing at each level of government and provide funding to support the quality assurance system.

Ensure central and LGs contribute/co finance incentives for teachers in special areas, as required by legislation. Increased budget allocations and contributions are necessary to attract good teachers to remote areas.

Use the LGs budget composition as an indicator for targeting deconcentration spending. Central government should monitor LG expenditure and provide incentives/disincentives in order to improve budget composition.

49

Section

4 : Refo

rmin

g E

du

cation

Go

vernan

ce – The R

oad

map

Recommendations for Local Governments by Strategic Area

Recommendations for reform at LG level are categorized by strategic area. These recommendations serve as guidance

for LGs as they develop capacity development and improvement plans. Recommendations can be tailored to individual

requirements for implementation at the LG level.


From a governance perspective, no education improvement strategy can succeed without true accountability focused

on results and transparency of process. LGs that perform well have common elements in their approaches to increase

transparency and deepen accountability.

Table 4.2 Recommendations for LG Reform: Transparency and Accountability


Build a supportive regulatory framework. Whilst the drafting of local regulations on transparency and accountability do not alone guarantee serious reform in education sector governance, they unmistakably reflect the commitment and intention to begin the process. LGs will need to establish the “rules of the game” and set transparency and accountability standards as well as build capacity in regulatory compliance and enforcement which follow principles of good governance.


Conduct a participatory Education Public Expenditure Analysis ( EPEA ) to kick-start the education governance reform process. This open and participatory process allows for dialogue on issues which influence spending patterns and improvement in education outcomes, as well as increasing LG trust and credibility with the communities they serve. Recent sub-national education public expenditure analyses and the reports prepared have generated vast interest-from LGs, the media, and other stakeholders. EPEA recommendations have also contributed to facilitation of effective and efficient resource management in the short - to medium-term.

Establish mechanisms for community participation in monitoring and evaluation of basic education activities which take into account gender equity considerations. Communities and stakeholders need to be meaningfully and actively involved in reviewing and monitoring education activities and school and LG education finances to increase accountability and transparency.


Improve the quality and consistency of annual and medium-term planning and budgeting documents and practices at all levels of government to optimize the impact of interventions. This reform recommendation is complex and needs a phased approach, particularly in the education sector, where schools receive funding from three levels of government. In Phase 1, LGs should consolidate plans internally, for example, the education strategic plan (Renstra) must be consistent with the medium-term strategic plan ( RPJMD), and education-related programs in the annual LG work plan (RKPD) must refer to the strategic plan. In Phase 2, the focus should move to inter-governmental consolidation. Central, provincial, and district governments have to engage in consultations which coordinate and consolidate activities to avoid or reduce the potential for overlap so as to optimize the impact of interventions.

Publicize or disseminate information and official reports on LG finances and open parliamentary budget sessions to the public. Parliamentary budget sessions are not exclusive events where the legislative meets the executive but must be open to the public. In many of strongest performing education systems, the LG administration makes use of the mass media, scheduling public consultations to increase ownership, transparency and accountability in the sector.

Create mechanisms that not only measure progress towards ensuring school accountability to communities but also better target resource allocations to weak schools. Systems to share and disseminate information on school and student performance across the local government, sub-district government and cluster levels are essential for accountability and transparency. LGs must be pro-active about disseminating results on school and student performance at school and the broader community level to foster increased oversight, ownership and representation as well as balancing the primarily, top-down governance system. Annual ‘State of the School’ reports should be prepared and provided by principals, the head of the local education office and the Regent/ Mayor.

Go

vernan

ce Matters to

Ed

ucatio

n O

utco

mes

50


The quality of an education system does not exceed the quality of its teachers (Barber and Mourshed, 2007) and its

service and educational standards. International evidence shows that the most successful educational systems have

an integrated structure of rigorous standards and assessments, clear expectations, differentiated support for teachers

and students, good facilities and core resources. Education service provision and quality assurance standards play a

key role in making sure education systems continually improve.

Table 4.3 Recommendations for LG Reform: Education Service Provision Standards


Strengthen routine teacher and principal professional development mechanisms. Under the current approach, teachers and principals gather in cluster-based groups and discuss strategies to address common problems. Clinical observation of the teaching and learning process and a strategy which uses the talents of teachers and principals considered leaders in their fields could be incorporated.

Create a teacher training cadre. Most LGs in Indonesia use school supervisors to strengthen administrative oversight of schools and serve as mediator between policy and the oversight functions of the LG education office and service provision function of schools. However, school supervisors are rarely involved in the substantive task of in-service professional development at the school level. Resources should be allocated for the development of a cadre of master teacher trainers to support professional development at the LG level. This teacher training corps could be tasked to design and deliver in-service professional development support focused on improving the weakest teachers and principals to a minimum competence standard established by the LG. This activity would bolster and support on going teacher certification by ensuring that all teachers and principals, regardless of their certification status, have the skills and knowledge to work at the expected performance level.

Mandate the use of school assessment instruments to monitor individual student learning progress and identify and plan for remedial measures to support poor-performing students. A detailed implementation plan should be included as a mandatory component of the school’s annual plan and budget (APBS) and the Memorandum of Understanding between schools and LGs.

Introduce a report card system to inform the public about the academic achievement of primary and junior high school students across the LG. The report cards should detail student assessment scores and improvements in teacher classroom performance to increase public awareness and encourage participation in the education system. Report cards17 communicate a representative measure of achievement in various subjects over time and help identify where geographic achievement gaps exist within the LG and across schools.


Promote better service delivery, especially by public servants, such as teachers, nurses, and doctors through performance –based incentive systems which promote improvement. Facilitate district and school level understanding of the link between education service provision, gender equity and equality education. Some LGs have already initiated such reforms which use incentives as the key element to promote improved service delivery but they are not widely disseminated.

Base teacher evaluations on performance. Teacher evaluations need a stronger performance orientation and should be carried out regularly by school supervisors. Results should then be discussed with teachers and professional development and remedial measures agreed in the form of a learning contract. LGs must be vigilant in ensuring that the weakest teachers do not end up in the weakest schools. Ensure that teachers with the least experience are not placed in the weakest schools. Good teachers and principals are required for underperforming schools and communities where there are high poverty levels. Through an annual evaluation mechanism, the relative strengths and weaknesses of teachers and schools should be identified to enable appropriate mapping of teachers to schools. Initial intake assessments should group new teachers according to ability to ensure that the local education office is aware of the capabilities of its teaching force.

(17) The World Bank is currently piloting a school-based report card approach in Papua to provide specific insights for parents, students and policy-makers. This could be scaled up to

produce individual school report cards which disaggregate information about achievement across school clusters and sub-district governments.

51

Section

4 : Refo

rmin

g E

du

cation

Go

vernan

ce – The R

oad

map


Plan teacher allocation and deployment efficiently and effectively and address issues related to the unequal distribution of teachers. LGs should link teacher allocation planning with the incentives program, as required by Teacher and Lecturer Law No. 14/2005:• Teachers working in isolated or special regions should receive the relevant allowance and must understand

that these special allowances are on the basis of residence in the village in which they teach. • Teacher deployment strategies must not only address the issue of urban-rural bias, but must also look at the

individualized needs of schools and students. • The most capable teachers should be given special incentives to be relocated to weaker schools to help

strengthen the capacity of teaching staff on the job if there are no other mechanisms in place such as a cadre of clinical professional development master teachers.

Publicize or disseminate information and official reports on LG finances and open parliamentary budget sessions to the public. Parliamentary budget sessions are not exclusive events where the legislative meets the executive but are open to the public. In many of strongest performing education systems, the LG administration makes use of the mass media, scheduling public consultations to increase ownership, transparency and accountability in the sector.

Strengthen monitoring and evaluation of BOS fund use. Consider BOSDA funding as a mechanism to meet funding gaps. This is required for the program to achieve its objective of widening access to education, particularly for the poor.


At the LG level, management control systems are crucial for effective governance action. The survey results indicated

that these systems are often not in place with decision-making appearing to be frequently ad hoc. Processes

particularly prone to corruption are asset management and procurement, reinforcing the need for management

control reform.

Table 4.4 Recommendations for LG Reform: Management Control Systems


Improve coordination between LGs and exchange lessons learned. Regional clustering could be a vehicle for sharing good practice and promoting horizontal and systematic learning exchanges. Encourage peer to peer learning and the adaption/customizing of good practices to other LG contexts. Enable the systematic measurement and documentation of good practices and facilitate processes which acknowledge and reward innovation.

Manage performance and reduce barriers that inhibit the removal of poor-performing teachers and principals. Currently poor performers who are civil servants are typically transferred to another school once their performance becomes severely problematic as removal involves the central government. Schools do not have the ability to remove ineffective civil servants, limiting opportunities to develop a cohesive school team within an environment of accountability for student learning. LGs will need to work closely with the central government to establish a performance management framework that is transparent for the removal of poor-performing teachers and principals. This is complex and may take several years to establish but without this option, the system will continue to be saddled with ineffective teachers and principals who do not meet performance requirements. The removal of poor-performing contract teachers should reflect transparency in the dismissal process.


Establish incentive structures, reform teacher pay and reward teachers for measurable increases in student performance and achievement. A strategy which institutes a clear evaluative framework to assess teacher performance and measure academic performance will not be easy to implement but is vital in fostering the development of performance-driven improvement in the education sector. Currently, most LGs use the local education budget to provide financial ‘top-ups’ to teacher salaries – but there are no examples of this disbursement being on the basis of performance.

Go

vernan

ce Matters to

Ed

ucatio

n O

utco

mes

52


Seek local Education Board approval for local education strategic plans that include costing tables, measurable targets, performance indicators and monitoring and evaluation plans. This will enable stakeholders to meaningfully participate in inclusive local education planning. Training may need to be provided to stakeholders to facilitate them in the establishment of process and performance targets.

Establish a sound local regulatory framework for procurement, asset management and annual stock inventories which includes public scrutiny mechanisms that are disseminated to LG communities. LGs should prioritize the drafting and improvement of local regulations and implementation guidelines for asset management and procurement and ensure that adequate training is provided to relevant personnel such as principals and members of the local education board.


One of the key elements to set the stage for change and reform is the ability to use data effectively. Measuring

progress, setting standards and analyzing information to identify patterns of failure and their causes enables LG

education offices and schools to diagnose diminished performance and address specific problems with concrete

solutions. Important sources of data include: student test scores; portfolios of work; comparisons of school-wide

achievement against LG, provincial and national standards; resource use; teacher deployment; and teacher, student

and parent surveys.

Table 4.5: Recommendations for LG Reform: Management Information Systems


Collect quality gender-disaggregated data using tools such as the Tool for Reporting and Information Management by Schools (TRIMS). The amount and type of educational data collected at all levels of government in Indonesia must focus less on compliance and more on performance and outputs. Data collection currently focuses on gathering detailed information on system inputs such as teacher salaries or numbers of textbooks and desks. Without more solid educational data, informed policy development becomes nothing more than educated guesswork. With the constitutional mandate of allocating 20% of the national and sub-national budgets to the education sector, too much is at stake to continue basing critical decisions on weak data.

The challenge is to focus on quality data of relevance which explains what, why, and how students (girls and boys) learn best and how schools can deliver improved educational services to the general public. LGs must make the effort to ensure that all data collected from schools can help school leaders improve school management, teaching, learning and student retention rates. If the data being collected currently does not fit into this category, LG education offices need to focus on data that will provide key performance information and create a transparent system which provides the necessary information to share with schools, parents, policy makers and the public.

The National Education Standards (NES) and Minimum Service Standards (MSS) can also be used to recalibrate data collection and management systems, focusing on data needed to measure performance across these standards. The NES and MSS furnish LGs with a relatively simple set of data from which to begin establishing benchmarks for measuring school and sector performance. Currently, LGs and schools surveyed demonstrate a tendency to collect excessive and irrelevant data. Without data that allows the local education office to be attuned to the needs of individual schools, bureaucratically-driven approaches will continue to limit the effectiveness of the teaching workforce and hamper attempts at improvement at the local level. Compounding this is the fact that most LG education offices do not act on the findings from the data they collect. Information and knowledge generated through the collection of data is only of use if it is used to tackle educational problems.

53

Section

4 : Refo

rmin

g E

du

cation

Go

vernan

ce – The R

oad

map


Develop LG-level longitudinal data systems. Until LGs and educators understand the nature and extent of their educational problems, it will be impossible to make needed changes and improvements. LGs should develop gender-disaggregated data systems that provide specific information about individual students, teachers, and programs and feed that information back to schools and communities. Longitudinal data about teachers would help with management, deployment, and the design of professional development priorities; longitudinal student data would enable LGs to sharpen their understanding about student retention and transition rates, as well as information about the type of programming and teaching pedagogy that is most successful in producing better student outcomes.

Improve data collection on teacher absenteeism18 and link it to a system of incentives and disincentives. A recent study on absenteeism in Indonesia shows that 14% of teachers are absent at any given time (SMERU 2009). High absenteeism rates create inefficiencies and are likely to be one of the main contributors to the oversupply of teachers. The ILEGI revealed that many LG education offices do not monitor the attendance of teachers and principals. LG education offices should begin collecting data on teacher absenteeism rates and develop sanctions which are clear to all so as to reduce absenteeism.

Develop a straightforward and routine data spot-check and verification system to improve the quality, integrity and consistency of raw data collected at the school level. This system would also require the LG education office to reciprocate by streamlining data request protocols to schools, reduce duplication and cease the collection of unnecessary data. Fewer than half the LGs surveyed stated that they employed any kind of data verification system for school-level data. In addition to low submission rates of school-level data to the LG education office it is often inaccurate and out of date. Sanctions will need to be reinforced for those schools providing inaccurate data.

Establish an interactive online database which provides details about good practice in LGs; LGCA and ILEGI results and recommendations; relevant data elements; and sample surveys.


Take advantage of technology to improve the management of education. In Indonesia, generally little thought is given to how technology might modernize education delivery and improve teaching and learning. One of the major problems associated with the slow take-up of technology into the teaching and learning process may be teachers’ lack of technological proficiency. Local governments should make sure that clear learning goals are established before schools purchase computers and help stimulate demand for technology by increasing teachers’ technological capacity through professional development.

(18) A multi-country survey of teacher absenteeism in primary schools found that one in every five teachers is absent at any given moment (Chaudhury et al, 2006)

Go

vernan

ce Matters to

Ed

ucatio

n O

utco

mes

54


Across the districts surveyed, education spending was generally divorced from results. LG education systems lack a

performance culture in which schools and the local government education office are required to meet established

performance standards –whatever that standard may be. LGs still struggle to find ways to track the return on

investment in education. Generally, educators are unable to answer key questions to inform education planning

such as whether spending “X” amount on a new instructional model will yield “Y” gains on important outcome

measures.

Table 4.6: Recommendations for LG Reform: Efficient Resource Use


Develop financial accountability systems that are outcome-/performance -based rather than input based. The ILEGI found no evidence that any LG surveyed conducts financial accountability reviews on an outcome basis. Without information on outcomes, LGs will not be able to estimate the return-on-investment and if sectoral funds are well and equitably spent.


View the budget with a lens that provides a medium-term perspective and is linked to development outcomes. Minimize formalistic planning processes and put more emphasis on medium-term and annual budgeting with a goal of achieving “participatory budgeting” as an international good practice (for LGs that are advanced in their budgeting process). While the general development planning process is outlined in national legislation, LGs should prioritize activities that enable achievable quality outputs and useful stakeholder involvement.


Include an analysis of unit costs in LG planning and budgeting to identify operational and developmental costs associated with the delivery of educational services to levels established in the NES and MSS. An analysis of unit costs will then assist LGs in planning and allocating their budgets appropriately and channeling funds to schools that have difficulties in narrowing budget gaps between available funds and the operational costs of the school.

Model BOS and BOSDA mechanisms and allocate local budget using an equitable student-based funding formula. While at the national level, the finance system distributes a larger proportion of its funds through the BOS mechanism on a per-pupil basis, none of the LGs surveyed allocated APBD funds directly to schools based on demonstrated needs. The introduction of such a system would also contribute to increased clarity and transparency, helping to expand the BOS model which has proven to improve the ability of parents and policy makers to judge and assess how effectively educators are using those resources.

Simplify funding streams. In most LGs surveyed, complex and confusing funding streams were the norm. These complex systems reduce flexibility and transparency while making it difficult to link specific investment to results. By simplifying funding streams, and linking them explicitly to a prioritized results framework that is linked to the NES and MSS performance and achievement standards, decision makers and communities will be in a position to more easily assess the relative success of programs and recommend corrective action.

Establish sound mechanisms to monitor budget absorption and execution rates and patterns of consistency between realized and planned budgets as one of the key strategies for more effective education spending. Ensure that performance indicators are equitable and consider the needs of boys and girls. Simple Excel worksheets combined with clearly assigned roles and responsibilities will be a useful beginning before more complex mechanisms are developed.

55

Go

vernan

ce Matters to

Ed

ucatio

n O

utco

mes

CONCLUSION

Education governance in a decentralized landscape

is focused on large scale education reform at central,

provincial, district, school and community levels.

Although the primary objective of this report is to provide

policy guidance and support to LG leadership, some

findings can only be addressed through policy dialogue

at higher levels. In addition to expanding the scope of

dissemination of the study, substantial efforts must be

made to improve and maintain effective coordination

between national and sub-national partners.

The right conditions to foster an environment of

continuous improvement and improve the quality and

service delivery of the nine-year basic education program

in terms of student learning are central to quality and

service delivery improvement and effective education

governance, management and resource use.

The study revealed issues related to education

governance that are within and beyond LG control

requiring central government support . Local education

governance reform -- supported by central government

–with improved national and sub national coordination

is necessary. The most significant reforms will be at LG

and school level. LG leadership must take active steps

to establish high expectations for schools, teachers

and students, supported by policy reform and ongoing

capacity development support. Performance indicators

must be established to monitor and evaluate progress

with strategies put in place to provide assistance to

those schools and students that fail to meet performance

standards. Data collection must be streamlined to cease

duplication in reporting currently the norm at school

and LG levels. Schools must focus on the teacher as the

primary agent of change, supported by capable school

leadership with supervisors providing quality assurance,

mentoring and coaching support aimed at facilitating

professional development targeted at improved teaching

quality and, effective classroom practices which enrich

student learning and educational outcomes.

Further LG capacity assessment rounds are needed to

better understand the dynamics of education governance

processes and service delivery outputs at the local level.

This will be facilitated by strengthened data collection

and increased access to more reliable data – through

the TRIMS tool which strengthens PAS and PADATI.

Trend analysis and time series data captured, using the

customized LGCA and ILEGI diagnostic tools developed

for this purpose, have the capacity to demonstrate,

encourage and monitor changes in performance. They

enable better targeting of capacity building activities and

the identification of the strategies and incentives needed

to reward good performance and encourage continuous

improvement in the provision of quality 9-year equitable

compulsory basic education in Indonesia.

Go

vernan

ce Matters to

Ed

ucatio

n O

utco

mes

56

Local GovernmentTransparency

and Accountability

Education Service

Provision Standards



Systems


Total

Sleman 54.29% 64.76% 40.77% 77.47% 72.50% 61.96%

Bojonegoro 63.10% 71.58% 76.91% 61.94% 28.75% 60.45%

Kebumen 75.24% 54.60% 84.23% 20.83% 66.25% 60.23%

Bondowoso 50.71% 62.78% 59.13% 63.03% 61.25% 59.38%

Wonogiri 62.98% 80.95% 23.71% 64.78% 63.33% 59.15%

Sragen 55.83% 80.36% 59.13% 55.04% 45.00% 59.07%

Probolinggo (City) 61.43% 50.94% 72.62% 73.60% 35.00% 58.72%

Pacitan 56.43% 70.87% 78.27% 46.51% 39.17% 58.25%

Sampang 47.62% 54.46% 82.19% 41.67% 59.17% 57.02%

Purworejo 44.05% 67.92% 80.56% 36.66% 53.33% 56.50%

Ngawi 61.43% 76.82% 83.23% 25.00% 22.08% 53.71%

Nganjuk 49.29% 63.86% 63.59% 54.74% 31.25% 52.55%

Probolinggo 55.00% 49.96% 73.71% 43.69% 37.50% 51.97%

Blora 52.98% 60.69% 29.37% 43.46% 69.58% 51.21%

Bangkalan 45.71% 62.53% 78.27% 38.78% 30.00% 51.06%

Trenggalek 61.90% 51.55% 46.33% 28.36% 60.83% 49.80%

Majene 52.38% 44.51% 77.68% 33.71% 40.42% 49.74%

Aceh Utara 40.48% 48.25% 71.63% 42.38% 43.75% 49.30%

Jombang 30.48% 57.94% 75.79% 37.19% 39.17% 48.12%

Wonosobo 44.05% 37.36% 76.39% 41.30% 39.17% 47.65%

Aceh Besar 42.14% 58.01% 70.83% 30.87% 33.75% 47.12%

Lhokseumawe 40.48% 55.36% 76.09% 21.70% 41.67% 47.06%

Demak 57.14% 60.99% 27.68% 42.45% 40.00% 45.65%

Purbalingga 44.05% 43.81% 67.26% 13.18% 57.50% 45.16%

Rembang 52.98% 71.67% 20.83% 31.70% 45.42% 44.52%

Brebes 44.05% 49.63% 49.60% 12.84% 64.58% 44.14%

APPENDIX 1:

BEC LOCAL GOVERNMENT SCORES PER STRATEGIC AREA

57

Go

vernan

ce Matters to

Ed

ucatio

n O

utco

mes

Local GovernmentTransparency

and Accountability

Education Service

Provision Standards



Systems


Total

Jayapura 48.81% 45.52% 59.90% 28.10% 32.08% 42.88%

Polewali Mandar 44.05% 43.02% 38.29% 51.65% 34.17% 42.24%

Ternate 49.29% 48.26% 18.43% 54.56% 39.17% 41.94%

Banjarnegara 49.40% 47.21% 48.66% 41.41% 21.25% 41.59%

Aceh Tenggara 42.14% 42.06% 14.78% 22.14% 70.00% 38.22%

Bireuen 40.48% 48.59% 68.75% 15.29% 15.83% 37.79%

Aceh Barat 40.48% 40.81% 11.61% 31.64% 60.83% 37.07%

Seruyan 45.71% 43.89% 12.10% 41.67% 40.83% 36.84%

Kepulauan Sula 25.48% 34.86% 45.59% 30.30% 46.25% 36.49%

Kaimana 40.48% 28.76% 36.11% 21.68% 51.25% 35.65%

Halmahera Selatan 37.62% 37.11% 45.81% 20.83% 31.25% 34.52%

Kulon Progo 27.38% 44.91% 37.40% 37.50% 25.42% 34.52%

Sorong Selatan 41.67% 42.63% 37.90% 26.97% 23.33% 34.50%

Nabire 30.48% 27.46% 29.69% 27.21% 43.75% 31.72%

Nagana Raya 42.14% 29.95% 27.28% 20.83% 35.00% 31.04%

Aceh Barat Daya 10.71% 61.02% 19.25% 8.33% 54.17% 30.70%

Mamasa 23.33% 23.37% 27.58% 4.37% 70.83%z 29.90%

Teluk Wondama 49.29% 47.60% 11.61% 29.17% 10.83% 29.70%

Manokwari (City) 27.38% 36.59% 17.36% 0.65% 30.42% 22.48%

Palangka Raya 28.69% 41.84% 13.19% 5.23% 21.67% 22.12%

Kotawaringin Timur 10.24% 44.90% 10.02% 4.49% 38.33% 21.60%

Jayawijaya 16.67% 19.49% 14.19% 24.32% 30.42% 21.02%

Pegunungan Bintang 22.02% 18.90% 24.11% 4.96% 25.42% 19.08%

Paniai 3.57% 33.93% 24.11% 4.61% 29.17% 19.08%

Sample Average 42.87% 49.70% 46.79% 32.28% 42.04% 42.84%

Go

vernan

ce Matters to

Ed

ucatio

n O

utco

mes

58

APPENDIX 2:

EDUCATION MINIMUM SERVICE STANDARDS (MSS) Education Minimum Service Standards are benchmark standards for formal basic education services for which all

sub-national governments and schools have obligatory responsibility. First drafts of MSS were developed for primary,

secondary and vocational education by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MoHA) in 2004. At that time, the expectation was

that all district governments would aspire to achieve these standards as a minimum.

This first iteration of the MSS was criticized as too quantitative and lacking of clear timelines for school and district

government level compliance. Other notable weaknesses included the omission of benchmarks for minimum facilities,

infrastructure and standardized teacher credentials.

In July 2010, a second iteration of the MSS for basic education was issued by the Minister of National Education,

Indonesia under Law No. 15/2010. A number of qualitative indicators were introduced as well as standards for teacher

qualifications and professional certification. A timeline for achieving compliance was also included for both school

and district level indicators.

The architecture for the Education Service Provision Standards strategic area of the ILEGI was developed in January

2010. It used the 2010 draft version of the MSS which accounts for slight differences between ILEGI indicators for this

strategic area and the final version of the MSS.

TYPE OF SERVICE

No. SPM PERFORMANCE INDICATORSATTAINMENT

TARGET

STANDARDS FOR DISTRICT / CITY

Facilities and Infrastructure

1Each community living in a permanent settlement will have a primary school within a safe walking distance of 3 km and a junior secondary school within 6 km safe walking distance.

2013

2 The maximum class size for SD/MI should not 32 students and 36 students for SMP/MTs. Each learning group should be provided with one classroom and equipped with enough desks and chairs for students and teacher and at least one blackboard.

2013

3Each SMP and MT is equipped with a basic Science Laboratory with sufficient desks and chairs for 36 students and at least one set of science equipment for demonstration and observations of experiments.

2013

4Each SD/MI and SMP/MTs is equipped with at least one teacher room, furnished with a desk and chairs for every teacher, non-teaching personnel and the school principal; and for each SMP/MTs the Principal’s office is separated from the teacher room.

2013

Teaching and Education Personnel

5Each SD/MI and SMP/MTs provides one teacher for every 32 students and 6 teachers for every school, and for specific condition schools at least 4 teachers available in each school.

2013

6Each SMP/MTs provides at least one teacher for each subject and for specific condition schools one teacher for each group of subjects.

2013

7Each SD/MI has at least two teachers who meet the minimum educational qualifications of S-1 or D-IV and two teachers who hold a teaching certificate.

2013

8Each SMP/MTs has at least 70% of teachers who meet the minimum educational qualifications of S-1or D-IV and half of them (35% of total teachers) hold a teachingcertificate, with specific condition schools with 40% and 20% respectively.

2013

9Each SMP/ MTs provides at least one teacher in each of the core subjects of Math, Science, Bahasa Indonesia and English who meets the minimum educational qualifications of S-1 or D-IV and holds a teaching certificate.

2013

10All (100%) SD/ MI principals in each district/city have a minimum educational qualification of S-1 or D-IV and hold a teaching certificate.

2013

11All (100%) SMP/MTs principals in each district/city have a minimum educational qualification of S-1 or D-IV and hold a teaching certificate.

2013

12All (100%) school supervisors in each district/city have a minimum educational qualification of S-1 or D-IV and hold a teaching certificate.

2013

Education Minimum Service Standards – Law No. 15/2010

59

Go

vernan

ce Matters to

Ed

ucatio

n O

utco

mes

STANDARDS FOR DISTRICT / CITY

Curriculum 13The district develops and implements a plan to provide support to schools for curriculum development and effective teaching processes.

2013

Education Quality Control

14The school supervisor visits each school one a month, each visit is a minimum of 3 hours for the purpose of monitoring school performance and providing assistance for improvement.

2013

STANDARDS FOR SCHOOLS

Facilities and Infrastructure

15Each SD/MI provides a set of textbooks that have been certified by the Government, covering four subjects (Math, Bahasa Indonesia, Natural Sciences, Social Science, at a ratio of one set for every student.

2013

16Each SMP/MTs provides a set of textbooks that have been certified by the Government covering every subject at a ratio of one set for every student.

2013

17

Each SD/MI provides ones set of science equipment and resource materials comprising at least: a model of a human skeleton, model of a human body, globe, examples of optical equipment, science equipment for basic experiments and posters for natural science.

2013

18Each SD/MI provides 100 items of enrichment materials and 10 reference books and every SMP/MTs provides 200 items of enrichment materials and 20 reference books.

2013

Teachers and Education Personnel

19

Each full-time teacher must be on duty in the school for 37.5 hours per week, which includes face to face teaching, preparing a teaching plan and accompanying materials, reviewing and grading student tests, providing consultation to students, and other related duties.

2013

20

Students receive teaching instruction for at least 34 weeks per year with face to face teaching as follows:: Grade I – II: 18 hours per week Grade III: 24 hours per week Grade IV – VI: 27 hours per week Grade VII – IX: 27 hours per week

2013

21Each school and Madrasah develops and implements a school level curriculum (KTSP) in accordance with the pertaining regulations.

2013

22Each teacher develops and implements lesson plans based on syllabi for every subject taught.

2013

Learning Evaluation

23Each teacher develops and implements a learning assessment program for students to assist them to improve their learning.

2013

24Each school/Madrasah principal undertakes classroom observation and provides feedback to each teacher on their performance at least twice per semester.

2013

25Each teacher reports assessment results for each student in each subject to the school principal at the end of each semester in the form of learning achievement grades.

2013

26Each school/Madrasah principal reports the results of final semester test and final exams to parents and the Dinas/Kandepag at the end of the semester.

2013

School Management

27 Each school/Madrasah implements the principle of school-based management. 2013

Go

vernan

ce Matters to

Ed

ucatio

n O

utco

mes

60

APPENDIX 3:

DISTRIBUTION OF FUNCTIONS WITHIN AN EDUCATION QUALITY ASSURANCE SYSTEM This conceptual framework can be used to analyze the distribution of functions within the Indonesian education

quality assurance system. It was drawn from a World Bank19 comparison of education quality assurance systems and

institutions in selected countries focused on strengthening quality assurance for basic and secondary education. It

helps to clarify the assignment of roles and functions for the key dimensions of a national quality assurance system,

across different levels of government and stakeholders -- identifying where overlap, duplication and inefficiencies

exist to inform decision making about the priorities for corrective action.

Policy Oversight Provision

Institution A Institution B Institution C Institution D

Set Performance Goals

Students

Teachers

Schools

Local government

Nation

Set Performance Goals

Students

Teachers

Schools

Local government

Nation

Reports on Performance

Students

Teachers

Schools

Local Government

Nation

Evaluates Impact ofPolicies and Programs

Students

Teachers

Schools

Local Government

Nation

Sets Requirements toOperate

Students

Teachers

Schools

Local Government

Nation

Ensures Adequate andEquitable Resources

Students

Teachers

Schools

Local Government

Nation

Provides Technical – Pedagogical Support

Students

Teachers

Schools

Local Government

Nation

Accountability and Consequences

Students

Teachers

Schools

Local Government

Nation

(19) World Bank 2009

61

Go

vernan

ce Matters to

Ed

ucatio

n O

utco

mes

Go

vernan

ce Matters to

Ed

ucatio

n O

utco

mes

62

Barber, M. Mourshed, M. 2007. How the World’s Best Performing Schools Come Out on Top.

McKinsey and Company, New York, USA.

Bertelsmann Stiftung. Shaping Change – Strategic of Development and Transformation.

Bertelsmann Transformation Index.

Viewed June 2010 http://www.bertelsmann-transformation-index.de/en/bti/

Chaudhury, N. Hammer, J.S. Kremer, M. Muralidharan, K., Halsey Rogers, F. 2006. Missing in

Action: Teacher and Health Worker Absence in Developing Countries. Journal of Economic

Perspectives 20(1): 91-116.

International Finance Corporation. Doing Business 2010: Measuring Business Regulations.

Economy Rankings June 2008 through May 2009. The World Bank Group. Viewed May 2010

http://www.doingbusiness.org/economyrankings/.

Kemitraan Partnership. 2008. Annual Governance Assessment Partnership Governance

Index. Viewed May 2010 http://www.kemitraan.or.id/govindex/

Orin Basuki. 2009. Mardiasmo, Director General for Fiscal Balance. Kompas.

Viewed June 2010 http://m.kompas.com/index.php/news/read/data/2009.01.20.01310258

Quantitative Micro Software. EViews 4 Users Guide. March 11 2002.

Viewed May 2010 http://www.eviews.com

The Jawa Pos Institute of Pro-Otonomi Award. 2006.

Viewed June 2010 http://www.jpip.or.id/pages/otonomi_award/

Transparency International. 2009. Corruptions Perceptions Index 2009.

Viewed May 2010 http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2009

The SMERU Research Institute. 2009. Teacher Remote Area Allowance and Absenteeism

Levels for Teachers in Remote Areas Baseline Survey.

Viewed June 2010 http://www.smeru.or.id/publicationdetail.php?id=246

World Bank. 2007. Investing in Indonesia’s Education: Allocation, Equity and Efficiency of

Public Expenditures.

World Bank. 2007. Investing in Indonesia’s Education the District Level.

World Bank. 2009. Chile: Strengthening the Quality Assurance System for Basic and

Secondary Education. A Comparison of Educational Quality Assurance Systems and

Institutions in Selected Countries.

World Bank. 2009. Governance Matters. Worldwide Governance Indicators 1996 – 2008.

Viewed May 2010 http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/index.asp

REFERENCES

63

Section

4 : Refo

rmin

g E

du

cation

Go

vernan

ce – The R

oad

map

Go

vernan

ce Matters to

Ed

ucatio

n O

utco

mes

64

BEC-TF Secretariat

Directorate General of Primary and Secondary Education

Ministry of National Education

Jl. Jend. Sudirman Gedung E, 17th Floor

Jakarta 10270

T • (021) 579 00349

F • (021) 579 00450

E • [email protected]

http://dit-plp.go.id/bec

local governance capacity assessment - governance matters to education outcomes

Documents