Governance Matters to Education Outcomes - World Bank

Public Disclosure Authorized




59766 v1

i

Governance Matters to Education Outcomes

The Indonesia Local Education Governance Index (ILEGI) : A Report Card of 50 Local Governments

ii


The Indonesia Local Education Governance Index (ILEGI) : A Score Card of 50 Local Governments


Governance Matters To Education Outcomes

i

Table of Contents iii

List of Boxes

iii

List of Figures

iii

List of Tables

iv

Foreword

v

Acknowledgments

vi

Executive Summary

ix

Glossary of Abbreviations

xi

Glossary of Terms

1

SECTION ONE: ASSESSING AND MONITORING DECENTRALIZED EDUCATION – THE CONTEXT

5

SECTION TWO: DIAGNOSING LOCAL GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE – THE STUDY

6

Study Design • Objectives • Methodology

10

Indicators • Transparency and Accountability • Education Service Provision Standards • Management Control Systems • Management Information Systems • Efficient Resource Use

ii

17

SECTION THREE: EDUCATION GOVERNANCE MATTERS - THE ANALYSIS The Score Card: Aggregated Education Governance Scores and Findings


• Transparency and Accountability • Education Service Provision Standards • Management Control Systems • Management Information Systems • Efficient Resource Use 45

SECTION FOUR: REFORMING EDUCATION GOVERNANCE - THE ROADMAP

47

Key ILEGI Recommendations for Education Systems Reform

48

Recommendations for Central Government

49

Recommendations for Local Government by Strategic Area • Transparency and Accountability • Education Service Provision Standards • Management Control Systems • Management Information Systems • Efficient Resource Use

55

CONCLUSIONS

56

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

58

APPENDIX 2: EDUCATION MINIMUM SERVICE STANDARDS (MSS)

60

APPENDIX 3: D ISTRIBUTION OF FUNCTIONS WITHIN AN EDUCATION QUALITY ASSURANCE SYSTEM

62

REFERENCES

List of Boxes, Figures and Tables Box 3.1

Kabupaten Kebumen

31

Box 3.2

Kabupaten Bojonegoro

34

Box 3.3

Kabupaten Majene

35

Box 3.4

Kabupaten Aceh Utara

39

Box 3.5

Kabupaten Sleman

7

Figure 1.1

Education Governance Strategic Areas

8

Figure 2.1

ILEGI Normality Test Results

19

Figure 3.1

A Perfect Score on Each ILEGI Index

19

Figure 3.2

Average ILEGI Results Over 50 Local Governments

20

Figure 3.3

ILEGI Color-coded Capacity Assessment

21

Figure 3.4

ILEGI Results for LGs Established since Decentralization

22

Figure 3.5

Best and Worst Performance by Strategic Area

23

Figure 3.6

Correlation between Education Governance and Education Outcomes

37

Figure 3.7

Number of Districts Using Education Management Software

41

Figure 3.8

Local Budget Absorption on Education Spending (2008)

47

Figure 4.1

Key Signposts for Education System Performance

10

Table 2.1

Indicator Aspects and Weightings

11

Table 2. 2

Transparency and Accountability: Indicators, Aspects and Weightings

12

Table 2.3

Education Service Provision Standards: Indicators, Aspects and Weightings

13

Table 2.4

Management Control Systems: Indicators, Aspects and Weightings

14

Table 2.5

Management Information Systems: Indicators, Aspects and Weightings

15

Table 2.6

Efficient Resource Use: Indicators, Aspects and Weightings

26

Table 3.1

Aggregated Indicator Scores: Transparency and Accountability

29

Table 3.2

Aggregated Indicator Scores: Education Service Provision Standards

32

Table 3.3

Aggregated Indicator Scores: Management Control Systems

36

Table 3.4

Aggregated Indicator Scores: Management Information Systems

38

Table 3.5

LG Use of Education Management Software

40

Table 3.6

Aggregated Indicator Scores: Efficient Resource Use

48

Table 4.1

Recommendations for Reform: Central Government

49

Table 4.2

Recommendations for LG Reform: Transparency and Accountability

50

Table 4.3

Recommendations for LG Reform: Education Service Provision Standards

51

Table 4.4

Recommendations for LG Reform: Management Control Systems

52

Table 4.5

Recommendations for LG Reform: Management Information Systems

54

Table 4.6

Recommendations for LG Reform: Efficient Resource Use

iii Governance Matters to Education Outcomes

28

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.

iv

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

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.

v Governance Matters to Education Outcomes

Executive Summary THE STUDY

vi Governance Matters to Education Outcomes

‘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.

THE CONTEXT

THE STUDY DESIGN

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.

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.

MoNE recognizes that governance matters to education service provision and improved educational outcomes. Through the Basic Education Capacity Trust Fund (BECTF), 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.

vii Governance Matters to Education Outcomes

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.

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.

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.

viii Governance Matters to Education Outcomes

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.

Glossary of Abbreviations INDONESIAN

ENGLISH

BAPPEDA

Badan Perencanaan Pembangunan Daerah

Regional Body for Planning and Development

BEC-TF

Program Pengembangan Kapasitas Pendidikan Dasar

Basic Education Capacity Trust Fund

BOS

Bantuan Operasional Sekolah

School Operational Assistance

BOSDA

Bantuan Operasional Sekolah Daerah

BOS Supplementary Funding

BOS-KITA

Bantuan Operasional Sekolah – Knowledge Improvement for Transparency and Accountability

School Operational Assistance – Knowledge Improvement for Transparency and Accountability

BPK

Badan Pemeriksa Keuangan

Supreme Audit Agency

CDP

Rencana Pengembangan Kapasitas

Capacity Development Plan

DAU

Dana Alokasi Umum

General Allocation Fund

DG-PSE

Direktorat Jenderal Manajemen Pendidikan Dasar dan Menengah

Directorate General of Primary and Secondary Education

DISPORA

Dinas Kepemudaan dan Olahraga

Local Education Agency (Youth and Sports Office)

DPKKD

Dinas 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 Pendidikan

Community Movement for the Betterment of Education

GoI

Pemerintah Republik Indonesia

Government of Indonesia

HDI/IPM

Indeks Pengembangan Manusia

Human Development Index

ILEGI

Indeks 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

KPPOD

Komite Pemantauan Pelaksanaan Otonomi Daerah

Regional Autonomy Watch Committee

ix Governance Matters to Education Outcomes

ABBREVIATION

x Governance Matters to Education Outcomes

ABBREVIATION

INDONESIAN

ENGLISH

L-BEC

Pengembangan Kapasitas Pendidikan Dasar Daerah

Local 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/KEMENKEU

Kementerian Keuangan Republik Indonesia

Ministry of Finance

MoHA/KEMENDAGRI

Kementerian Dalam Negeri Republik Indonesia

Ministry 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

MUSRENBANG

Musyawarah Perencanaan Pembangunan

Development Planning Consultative Meeting

NES/SNP

Standar Nasional Pendidikan

National Education Standards

NGO/LSM

Lembaga Swadaya Masyarakat

Non Governmental Organization

PADATI

Pangkalan Data dan Informasi Pendidikan

Educational Data and Information Infrastructure

PAS

Paket Aplikasi Sekolah

School Application Package

PKPAD

Dinas Pengelolaan Keuangan Pendapatan dan Aset Daerah

Department of Financial, Income and Asset Management

RKPD

Rencana Kerja Pemerintah Daerah

Annual Local Government Workplan

RPJMD

Rencana Pembangunan Jangka Menengah Daerah

Regional 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

Glossary of 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.

xi Governance Matters to Education Outcomes

TERMS

TERMS

EXPLANATION

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 Education Public Expenditure Analysis (EPEA) 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 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:

xii Governance Matters to Education Outcomes

Indonesia Local Education Governance Index (ILEGI)

• 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

TERMS

Local Government Capacity Assessment (LGCA)

EXPLANATION 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 which govern the education sector, developed by MoNE Minimum Service Standards and MoHA. They are under the authority and responsibility of local governments and (MSS) for Basic Education serve as benchmarks for basic education services. The 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.

xiii Governance Matters to Education Outcomes

MUSRENBANG

xiv

TERMS

EXPLANATION

Strategic Areas of Education Governance

Five key education governance indicators derived from the design features of the BECTF 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/ Wajar

Nine 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 Yudhoyono Address 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

1

Assessing and Monitoring Decentralized Education – The Context

Section 1: Assessing and Monitoring Decentralized Education – The Context

Section 1

SECTION ONE: ASSESSING AND MONITORING DECENTRALIZED EDUCATION – THE CONTEXT Decentralization in Indonesia in 2001 transferred sizeable service delivery responsibilities and fiscal resources to subnational governments. Decentralization

2

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.

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.

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.

3 Section 1: Assessing and Monitoring Decentralized Education – The Context

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 BECTF provide a mechanism for nation-wide systematic and comprehensive monitoring and evaluation of performance --at LG and local education office levels.

Photo: M. Wildan

5

Diagnosing Local Government Performance – The Study

Section 2: Diagnosing Local Government Performance – The Study

Section 2

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.

6 Governance Matters to Education Outcomes

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.

• 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).

Figure 1.1 Education Governance Strategic Areas

7

Efficient Resource Use

Education Governance


Management Control Systems

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




The Indonesia Local Education Governance Index (ILEGI)

Verifying the LGCA as a Suitable Tool

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:

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:

• 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.

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

• 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.


Figure 2.1 ILEGI Normality Test Results

6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0.2

(3) SMERU, 2009: EViews User’s Guide.

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

Series : Sample : Observations :

ILEGI 150 50

Mean Median Maximum Minimum Std. Dev. Skewness Kurtosis

: : : : : : :

0.428438 0.443297 0.619572 0.190785 0.122926 -0.300288 2134234

Jarque - Bera : Probability :

2313005 0.314584

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 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.

9 Section 2: Diagnosing Local Government Performance – The Study

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

• 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

10

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.

Table 2.1 Indicator Aspects and Weightings ASPECT

EXPERT CHOICE

WEIGHT

Regulation

13

17%

Process

2

33%

Performance

3

50%

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%.

Transparency and Accountability The practices and regulatory efforts made by local government to enable transparent and accountable governance in education service delivery and expenditure for its constituents. With ongoing democratic reform in Indonesia, transparency and accountability is of particular importance in demonstrating the commitment to implementation of good governance. Indicators for this strategic area measure good practice related to regulatory compliance on two levels. The first level focuses on education-specific activities and the second to LG level efforts which demonstrate transparency and accountability. The indicators, aspects and assigned weightings are detailed in Table 2.2.

Table 2.2 Transparency and Accountability: Indicators, Aspects and Weightings INDICATORS

Aspect

1

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

Performance

50%

2

Community 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%

9

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

Regulation

17%

11

10

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’s Education Office, schools, and the local Education Board.

Process

33%


WeIght

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.

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


INDICATORS

Aspect

Weight

1

Each 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%

2

Each 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%

3

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.

Performance

50%

4

At 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%

5

At least 75% of all school supervisors have a minimum education qualification of S-1/DIV 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%

7

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

Performance

50%

8

The 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%

(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.

Management Control Systems The management control systems in place at local government level to improve incentive systems and the governance of procurement and asset management. This strategic area addresses the management control systems that are in place within the entire LG office. Systems related to procurement, asset management and incentive systems are assessed, based on the requirements set out in the regulatory framework for decentralized public financial management in Indonesia. For education management issues additional indicators which address systems for managing good practice and involve civil society groups are included. The indicators, aspects and assigned weightings are detailed in Table 2.4.

Table 2.4 Management Control Systems: Indicators, Aspects and Weightings INDICATORS

Aspect

Weight

1

Goods users carry out a yearly stock inventory.

Process

33%

2

A technical guideline for procurement issued by local government head exists.

Regulation

17%

3

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

Regulation

17%

4

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

Regulation

17%

5

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

Regulation

17%

6

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

Process

33%

7

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

Process

33%

8

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

Process

33%

9

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

Regulation

17%

10

Procurement 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%

12

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

Process

33%

13

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

Performance

50%

14

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

Performance

50%

15

There is evidence of stakeholder participation in the maintenance of a network for sharing and disseminating good practices.

Process

33%

16

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

Regulation

17%

17

Local legislation on asset management exists.

Regulation

17%

13 Section 2: Diagnosing Local Government Performance – The Study

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

14

INDICATORS

ASPECT

WEIGHT

1.

There is evidence of an existing education database at the local government level.

Regulation

17%

2.

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

Regulation

17%

3.

There is evidence of data spot checking systems in place.

Process

33%

4.

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

Process

33%

5.

Percentage of schools that have at least one functioning computer.

Performance

50%

6.

Percentage of schools that have an internet connection.

Performance

50%

Governance Matters to Education Outcomes (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.

Efficient Resource Use Planning, budgeting and monitoring systems and procedures in place at local government level to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of budget planning and resource use with regard to development priorities. Efficient and equitable resource allocation and use is a major concern in the education sector. A 2007 study ‘Investing in Indonesia’s Education at the District Level’ (World Bank, 2007) highlights that 56% of education expenditure was spent at the sub-national level, but spending is mostly on nondiscretionary routine expenditure. It recommended that LGs need to improve the efficiency of their spending and identify key issues within the education sector. This strategic area assesses spending patterns, the local-level planning and budgeting processes to determine and understand shortcomings. Resource use indicators, aspects and assigned weightings are detailed in the Table 2.6.

Table 2.6 Efficient Resource Use: Indicators, Aspects and Weightings INDICATORS

ASPECT

WEIGHT

1.

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

Process

33%

2.

Education council has been involved in drafting of education strategic plan.

Regulation

17%

3.

There is evidence of data spot checking systems in place.

Regulation

17%

4.

Budget priorities and ceilings are set before the budgeting process in education office 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 ceilings and take budget limit into account.

Regulation

17%

15

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 realization, including the budget.

Regulation

17%

10.

Programs and activities in medium-term development plan can be measured quantitatively.

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%


Photo: M. Wildan

17

Education Governance Matters – The Analysis

Section 3 : Education Governance Matters – The Analysis

Section 3

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

Figure 3.1 A Perfect Score on Each ILEGI Index

Perfect Score

1 100% 80% 60% 40%

5

2

20% 0%




Efficient Resource Use


4

3

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

19

Transparency and Accountability 100% 80% 60%

43% Efficient Resource Use

40% 20%

42%

50%

0%

33%


47%




Figure 3.2 Average ILEGI Results Over 50 Local Governments

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

Figure 3.3 ILEGI Color-coded Capacity Assessment


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

(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.

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%

47.06%

45.00% AVERAGE BEC DISTRICTS 40.00%

36.84% 36.49%

35.65% 34.50%

35.00%

31.04% 30.70% 30.00%

29.90% 29.70%

21 25.00%

15.00%

10.00%

05.00%

00.00% PANIAI

PEGUNUNGAN BINTANG

TELUK WONDAWA

MAMASA

ACEH BARAT DAYA

NAGAN RAYAN

SORONG SELATAN

KAIMANA

KEPULAUAN SULA

SERUYAN

LHOKSEUMAWE


19.08% 19.08%

20.00%

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.

Figure 3.5 Best and Worst Performance by Strategic Area8

Best district: Sleman

Worst District: Pegunungan Bintang

Average BEC Districts

90.00% 80.00% 70.00% 60.00% 50.00%

22

40.00%


30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 00.00% TA

ESS

MCS

EMIS

ERU

ILEGI

(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.

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.

Figure 3.6 Correlation between Education Governance and Education Outcomes

Gross Enrollment Rate Junior Primary

Gross Enrollment Rate Primary 160

200

140

150

120

100

100

50

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0

10

20

Net Enrollment Rate Primary 200

140

150

120

100

100

50

10

20

30

40

50

The ILEGI

40

50

60

70

Net Enrollment Rate Junior Primary

160

80

30

The ILEGI

The ILEGI

60

70

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

The ILEGI

(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.


80

23

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.

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

Transparency and Accountability Innovation and performance-oriented reform requires deep reserves of political capital and a wide spectrum of stakeholder involvement to break the highly bureaucratic and input-based culture of the current education service provision model. Transparency and accountability overall scores demonstrated that good governance principles were not prioritized by LGs. The score of 43% was the same as that of the overall ILEGI. The highest score of 75% was achieved by Kabupaten Kebumen in Central Java and the lowest score of 4% by Kabupaten Paniai in Papua. The lowest scoring indicator was “Local legislation on transparency exists” with only 8% of LGs complying. The highest achievement was reported on the indicator “There are mechanisms in place to ensure that educational stakeholders have the opportunity to participate and voice their opinions regarding the evaluation of the local education office, schools, and the local government Education Board,” with a total score of 86%. Table 3-1 shows the average score per indicator.

Aggregated scores and findings for each of the five strategic areas of education governance:

(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.


Transparency and Accountability; Education Service Provision Standards; Management Control Systems; Management Information Systems; and, Efficient Resource Use are detailed in the following discussion.

25

Table 3.1 Aggregated Indicator Scores : Transparency and Accountability 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%


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

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

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.

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.

27 Section 3 : Education Governance Matters – The Analysis

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.


Box 3.1

Kabupaten Kebumen (Central Java)

Photo: Gedsiri Suhartono

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.

28

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.

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%


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


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.

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.

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 welltargeted resource use geared to educational outcomes

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.

Box 3.2

Kabupaten Bojonegoro (East Java)

Photo: Ratna Kesuma

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.

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.


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.

31

Table 3.3 Aggregated Indicator Scores: Management Control Systems INDICATORS

32

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%


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.

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.

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.


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.

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.

Box 3.3

Kabupaten Majene (West Sulawesi)

Photo: M. Wildan

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.

34

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.

Box 3.4

Kabupaten Aceh Utara

Photo: Gedsiri Suhartono

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.

MPP activities and community monitoring in the delivery of teaching/learning activities include, G 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. T he 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.


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.

35

Management Information Systems Of the five strategic areas, Management Information Systems (MIS) scores showed significant inter-local government variation and were lowest for all LGs with an average of only 33%. The raw data required for LGCA analysis was very weak impacting considerably on the intended depth of analysis. The highest scoring district was Sleman, a Special Region of Yogyakarta, with a score

of 77%, while the lowest scoring was the municipality of Manokwari in West Papua with a score of only 1%. The lowest scoring indicator was the “Percentage of schools that have an internet connection” - with a score of only 4%. The highest achieving indicator was “There is evidence of an existing education database at the local government level”, with a total score of 69%. Table 3.4 shows the average score per indicator.

Table 3.4 Aggregated Indicator Scores: Management Information Systems INDICATORS

36

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%


Despite the fact that 69% of LGs reported that they had an existing education database, these systems provided only limited information about school operations, performance and educational outcomes. Most LGs had made substantial progress in improving the architecture (hardware and connectivity) that supports better data collection and utilization. However these databases were inadequate. They did not capture school operational level information nor had the capacity to answer basic questions about capacity -- such as the degree to which professional development improves student outcomes or the types of innovative teaching and learning practices which provide the best return on investment.

Data collection continued to be uneven and fragmented as data flows were generally one way and not reciprocal between LGs and schools. Schools were bombarded with a multitude of different data collection formats and requests from all levels of government, but very rarely received critical feedback on how that data was used to assess relative performance. LGs tended to use a compliance-driven data management strategy where data was collected and stored, but rarely analyzed or used to inform and reform practices. Findings indicated that fictional or manipulated data was submitted which served different purposes and/or vested interests -although data return rates were improving.

The 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.

Figure 3.7 Number of Districts Using the Education Management Software

16 14

14


10

12

NOT AT ALL

12 9 8 8 6 3

4 2

2

2 0 0 ONY PADATI

ONLY JARDIKNAS

ONLY PAS

JARDIKNAS DAN PADATI

PAS DAN PADATI

PAS DAN JARDIKNAS

PAS.JARDIKNAS AND PADATI

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

APPLICATION Paket Aplikasi Sekolah

NUMBER OF LGs USING THE SOFTWARE 13

PURPOSE OF THE APPLICATION 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.

38

Jaringan Pendidikan Nasional

33

Providing 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).

Box 3.5

Kabupaten Sleman (DI Yogyakarta)

Photo: Dimas Oky Nugroho

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.

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.


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.

Efficient Resource Use The overall score for Efficient Resource Use was 42%, demonstrating major room for improvement in budget planning and execution. The highest score recorded in the ILEGI for this strategic area was recorded in Sleman, a Special Region of Yogyakarta, with 73%, while the lowest score was 11% in Teluk Wondama located in West Papua. The lowest scoring indicator was “Education

budget absorption rate by December 2008 is 90% or more” with only 15% meeting this rate. Most achievement was reported on the indicator “There are mechanisms in place to ensure that educational stakeholders have the opportunity to participate and voice their opinions regarding the evaluation of the local government Education Office, schools, and the local government Education Board”, with a total score of 86%. Table 3.6 shows the average score per indicator.

Table 3.6 Aggregated Indicator Scores: Efficient Resource Use INDICATORS

40

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%


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.

Figure 3.8 Local Budget Absorption on Education Spending (2008)

41

Peg. Bintang (98%)

Kaimana (100%)

Kulon Progo (98%)

East Kotawaringin (100%)

Manokwari (95%)

Wonosobo (98%)

Palangkaraya (100%)

Probolingg0 (95%)

North West Aceh (98%)

Majene (100%)

Seruyan (95%)

Lhokseumawe (98%)

Teluk Wondama (100%)

Bondowoso (95%)

Pacitan (98%)

South Sorong (100%)

Kepulauan Sula (90%)

Rembang (95%)

Bojonegoro (98%)

Bireuen (100%)

West Aceh (90%)

Trenggelek (94%)

Ngawi (98%)

Jayapura (100%)

Mamasa (53%)

Purbalingga (90%)

Purworejo (94%)

Banjarnegara (98%)

Ternate (100%)

Paniai (50%)

Blora (85%)

Sleman (93%)

Demak (98%)

Aceh Besar (100%)

South East Aceh (50%)

North Aceh (82%)

Jombang (92%)

Brebes (97%)

Nganjuk (100%)

South Halmahera (23%)

Jaya Wijaya (80%)

Kebumen (92%)

Probolinggo (97%)

Wonogiri (100%)

Nagan Rraya (n.a.)

Nabire (70%)

Sampang (91%)

Sragen (96%)

Bangkalan (100%)