the impacts of proposed education minimum service standards on a sample of districts in indonesia...
TRANSCRIPT
The Impacts of Proposed Education Minimum Service Standards on a Sample of Districts in Indonesia
Stephen Dunn
January 13, 2005
Overview
“Snapshot” of Indonesia and Districts
“Pre-History” of Decentralization in Indonesia
The Era of Decentralization
Motivation for Minimum Service Standards
Overview of Proposed Minimum Service Standards
Study and Results
Conclusions, Issues, Looking Forward
Snapshot of Indonesia
Population 214.5 million (WB, 2003)
14,000 islands
3,000 miles east-to-west
43% urban (WB, 2002)
Life expectancy at birth 66.7 Years, (WB, 2002)
GDP per capita $971 (WB, 2003)
Poverty Headcount Index 16% (WB, 2002)
Snapshot of Districts
420 Districts
District Populations from <25,000 to Over 4 Million
Environments from “Metro” to isolated, agricultural
Poverty Headcount Index from >90% to <2% (SUSENAS, 2002)
Annual Per Capita Own-Source Revenues from nearly Rp 1 million to below Rp 5,000 (WB, 2001)
Snapshot of District Education
Primary NER: 91% for lowest-income districts 91% for highest-income districts
Sen. Sec. NER: 18% for lowest-income districts 62% for highest-income districts
(WB, 2002)
Per-Student APBD Education Expenditure Range: minimum < Rp 50,000 maximum > Rp 300,000
(author’s data)
“Pre-History” of Decentralization in Indonesia
Prior to 1999 Laws, Highly Centralized Government
Low Control of Own-Resources
Deconcentrated Sectoral Offices in Districts
Limited District Autonomy
Little Scope for Local Choice in Service Delivery
The Era of DecentralizationOverview
Motivations for Decentralization
Decentralization to District Level
Laws 22, 25 of 1999 and “Big Bang” in 2001
Assets Transferred to Districts
Local Planning and Budgeting
New Revenue Streams: DAU and DAK
Share of Sub-National Spending Doubled
The Era of DecentralizationFinance and Management of Education
Education managed at district and school level
DAU is primary source of district funds
Education competes for district resources with other sectors
There are numerous other funding streams
Large amount of district autonomy, emerging school autonomy
Motivation forEducation Minimum Service Standards
Education is a national concern
Desire to increase equity across districts
Indonesia has low achievement relative to peers
Political-Economic Aspects
Overview of ProposedEducation Minimum Service Standards
SPM cover:
formal education (grades 1-12)
equivalent out-of-school education
pre-school
sports
“youth participation” / “social participation”
special education
teacher/school development and management
Overview of ProposedEducation Minimum Service Standards
Large number of SPM (297)
Some SPM are conflicting or internally inconsistent
“Education” SPM cover many non-education areas
Districts do not collect much of the data needed
PERFORM StudyOverview
Goal: understand expenditure implications of SPM
Team: PERFORM staff, MOF, RTI
SPM focus: formal education (grades 1-12)
* Districts: 15 districts from 10 provinces
* Model: policy options projection model
* Results: projections from 2002-2017, “lower bound”
PERFORM StudyDistricts
PERFORM Studypolicy options projection model
User can set policy/functional parameters (SPM) and examine impacts
A “what if?” model to examine policy impacts
Single district focus, output for 15 districts
District base data
Projections over 2002-2017
Results for many variables/indicators
ResultsOverview
Interpretation of Results
Total Expenditure
Expenditure by Level
Expenditure by Type
Enrollment Indicators, Teachers, Classrooms, Books, Teacher and Classroom Upgrading
ResultsExpenditure
Proposed SPM result in a 54% increase in district expenditure on education by the year 2007 (“lower bound” estimate of SPM impact)
Expenditure impact varies significantly across districts
Within districts, expenditure impact varies dramatically for different levels of education
ResultsExpenditure
District
Total Education Expenditure (base case):
2002
Total Education Expenditure (SPM-implied):
2007
%Difference
(2007-2002)
Kab. Probolinggo 122,752,000,000 151,102,565,528 23%
Kab. Batang 102,377,837,970 197,195,090,673 93%
Kab. Pati 149,207,000,000 224,659,939,789 51%
Kab. Banyuwangi 185,661,000,000 212,301,335,884 14%
Kab. Badung 101,122,289,895 144,902,914,201 43%
Kota Jayapura 74,440,544,100 133,860,163,672 80%
Kab. Kupang 74,936,298,168 116,248,371,089 55%
Kab. Solok 27,605,015,555 32,039,358,546 20%
Kab. Lombok Timur 181,724,956,236 348,186,081,662 92%
Kab. Maros 39,741,218,532 86,371,462,551 117%
Kab. Sleman 207,587,848,558 342,713,028,721 65%
Kota Pangkal Pinang 43,272,567,000 60,123,203,441 39%
Kota Banjarmasin 113,830,723,000 234,181,568,246 106%
Kab. Gowa 120,061,272,688 291,091,309,546 157%
TOTAL 1,610,753,101,209 2,475,614,366,237 54%
ResultsTotal Education Expenditure: Kab. Batang
Total Expenditure SD/MI through SMK (gds. 1-12) (Rp)
0
50,000,000,000
100,000,000,000
150,000,000,000
200,000,000,000
250,000,000,000
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
tahun/year
Ru
pia
h
SD/MI through SMK (total SPM-impliedexpenditure, total)
SD/MI through SMK (base expenditure, total)
ResultsSD/MI Expenditure: Kab. Batang
Total SD/MI Expenditure (Rp)
0
10,000,000,000
20,000,000,000
30,000,000,000
40,000,000,000
50,000,000,000
60,000,000,000
70,000,000,000
80,000,000,000
90,000,000,000
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
tahun/year
Ru
pia
h
SD/MI (total SPM-impliedexpenditure, total)
SD/MI (base expenditure, total)
ResultsSMA/MA Expenditure: Kab. Batang
Total SMA/MA Expenditure (Rp)
0
10,000,000,000
20,000,000,000
30,000,000,000
40,000,000,000
50,000,000,000
60,000,000,000
70,000,000,000
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
tahun/year
Ru
pia
h
SMA/MA (total SPM-implied expenditure,total)
SMA (base expenditure, total)
ResultsSD/MI Enrollment: Kab. Batang
Total SD/MI Enrollment (students)
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
tahun/year
sis
wa/
stu
den
ts
SD/MI (SPM-implied enrollment, total)
SD/MI (base enrollment, total)
ResultsSMA/MA Enrollment: Kab. Batang
Total SMA/MA Enrollment (students)
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
tahun/year
sisw
a/st
ud
ents
SMA/MA (SPM-implied enrollment, total)
SMA/MA (base enrollment, total)
ResultsSD/MI and SMA/MA Teacher Demand: Kab. Batang
Teacher Demand SD/MI
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
5,000
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
tahun/year
gu
ru/t
each
ers
SD/MI (teacher demand, total SPM-implied)
SD/MI (teacher demand, total basescenario)
Teacher Demand SMA/MA
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
tahun/year
gu
ru/t
each
ers
SMA/MA (teacher demand, total)
SMA/MA (teacher demand, total basescenario)
Conclusions
If implemented, the proposed SPM would result in large expenditure increases for many districts
Achievement of SPM would require substantial level-specific actions/changes for each district
Time as well as money will be required
Issues/Questions
Are the proposed SPM Affordable?
Are the SPM really “minimum service standards”?
Should all districts be subject to the same SPM?
Should SPM apply to all of education or to particular aspects?
What about empowerment of schools, school committees, and district education boards?
Why are the enrollment SPM not met?
How to finance SPM?
How to hold districts accountable for meeting SPM?
Looking Forward
Before promulgation, more analysis: financial and educationist perspectives
Definition of obligatory functions within education
Tsunami Impacts? focus, spending priorities, timeframe