Publications

Education | December 2018

1. INTRODUCTION

Education is crucial for reducing inequality and breaking the cycle of poverty. The importance of education is recognized through its inclusion as the United Nations’ fourth sustainable development goal (SDG), “ensuring inclusive and equitable quality education and promoting lifelong learning opportunities for all” (n.d.). In the context of this goal, inclusive refers to a learning environment without barriers limiting the presence, participation, or achievement of learners and equitable means that the education of all learners is seen as having equal importance (UNESCO, 2017, p. 13).

The SDG aims by 2030 to achieve a world in which all children enjoy “complete free, equitable and quality primary and secondary education” (United Nations, n.d.). In order to attain this goal, UNESCO cooperated with the Center for Indonesian Policy Studies (CIPS) in a project on Valorizing Research and Evidence for Social Inclusion. Valorization of knowledge is the process of making knowledge available, accessible, and useable for public policymaking and for economic and social development planning.

Stage I of this project provides a situational analysis of practices related to research and evidence in education policy design and planning in Indonesia. The research and evidence concerned is produced by stakeholders, including:

  • Government agencies that are responsible for the development, implementation, and monitoring of national education policies. At the national level these include the President of the Republic of Indonesia and three ministries in the education sector: The Ministry of Education and Culture (MOEC), Ministry of Religious A airs (MORA), and Ministry of Technology, Research, and Higher Education (MORTHE). Regional government stakeholders include provincial governments, district and municipal governments, and regional government work units1.

  • Bi- and multilateral donors who usually develop their programs in close cooperation with government agencies to align them with national development plans and policies.

  • Civil society organizations (CSOs), which are private Indonesian organizations, mostly not-for-pro t, that often rely on grants and donations to fund their programs.

  • Twenty relevant government and non-government stakeholders attended an initial meeting of a national working group2 that introduced them to the ideas of knowledge valorization in the education sector. The meeting also facilitated an exchange of information related to the institutions’ focus areas in the education sector.

    1 Dinas Pendidikan is the work unit of the Ministry of Education and Culture on the regional level (provincial and regency/city levels) (Government Regulation No. 32/2004 concerning Regional Government, Law No. 20/2003 concerning National Education System).2 Brief descriptions of the national working group members who attended the event organized by UNESCO and CIPS in September 2018 are listed in Annex 1.

The situational analysis assesses the current state of knowledge uptake in the Indonesian government’s education policymaking process. The analysis further provides examples to illustrate its ndings about the uptake and use of knowledge, obstacles faced by stakeholders in the policymaking process, and their openness to making information available and accessible. Our analysis di erentiates between stakeholders in the Indonesian education sector.

Stage II of the project provides a practical guide and training materials designed to improve the uptake of information and knowledge in government policymaking processes and to address the identi ed gaps.

Stage III involves the delivery of a national capacity-building module delivered by UNESCO and CIPS in order to: a) launch the practical guide and use developed training materials; b) enhance the capacity of professionals via the input of stakeholders who joined the national working group; and c) strengthen the research-policy interface with the goal of implementing the Agenda 2030.

1. Education Policymaking in Indonesia

In order to make and monitor inclusive and equitable education policies, the Indonesian government relies on the availability and accessibility of knowledge, as well as the capacity to use this knowledge in the policymaking process. The availability, accessibility, and use of knowledge is commonly referred to as the uptake of evidence, or the valorization of knowledge in the policymaking process—the subject of this situational analysis.

 

Developing inclusive and equitable education policies requires that decision makers in the Indonesian government rely on knowledge from stakeholders both inside and outside government that can improve education policies and programs towards this end. The government then uses this evidence to implement speci c reforms.

Cooperation between the government and other stakeholders follows, in general, the “knowledge- to-policy model” set by the Knowledge Sector Initiative of the Australia Indonesia Partnership for Pro-Poor Policy (AusAID, 2012, p. iii). The model contains four inter-connected pillars:

  • Supply side: Research organizations that produce knowledge and evidence that in uences policies.

  • Demand side: Policymakers who demand and use evidence in formulating policies.

  • Intermediary functions and bodies that translate, package, and communicate

    knowledge.

  • Policies, regulations, and procedures that govern the uptake of evidence in the

    policymaking process.

  • This situational analysis broadens the perspective on the supply side to include bi- and multilateral donors as well as a broad spectrum of CSOs involved in Indonesia’s education sector. On the demand side it focuses on the Ministry of Education and Culture (MOEC) and analyzes regulations and procedures that govern their uptake of evidence in the process of making a ministerial regulation (Peraturan Menteri) in MOEC.

policy design of the ministry of educati

The guideline for creating a Ministerial Regulation in MOEC follows the Regulation of the Indonesian Minister of Education and Culture / Permendikbud No. 142/2014 (MOEC 142/2014) on the Formulation of Regulations under the Authorization of the MOEC. It speci es the steps for planning, drafting, discussion, legalization, and enactment as prescribed in the ministerial regulation. Articles 3–8 stipulate eight steps for the formulation of regulations under MOEC. This process is illustrated in Figure A.1.

  1. Preparation → An academic literature review (Naskah Akademik) collects thoughts and ideas that will contribute to the content of the proposed regulation. This can be initiated by higher-level regulations or upon the initiative of the minister. This step is conducted by the relevant unit within a rst-echelon level department (Secretariat General, Directorate General, Inspectorate General, Research and Development Center, and Language Development Center) in the ministry in coordination with the legal department under the rst-echelon level.

  2. Formulation → The academic literature review inspires chapters and articles of the proposed regulation. This step is conducted by the unit that provided the academic literature review in coordination with the Bureau of Legal and Organizational A airs(Biro Hukum dan Organisasi) under the Secretariat General.

  3. Discussion and Coordination → As the second step (formulation) is taking place, discussions are held between the same groups drafting the regulation—the units that provide the literature review and the Bureau of Legal and Organizational A airs. This step also includes coordination with other units and departments, including those within the ministry and those from other government agencies, obtain input and feedback.

  4. Public Harmonization and/or Testing → The parties undertaking formulation and discussion and coordination complete the harmonization and testing processes at the same time as steps 2 and 3. The purpose of harmonization is to ensure the proposed regulation does not contradict existing regulations. Public testing analyzes the stakeholder responses to the proposed regulation by conducting online presentations, seminars, and/or focus group discussions with a ected stakeholders. The results are reported to the Minister of Education.

  5. Proposed Draft to Minister → Once steps 1–4 are completed, the draft regulation is proposed to the minister. If the minister declines to approve the proposal, the second, third, and fourth steps must be repeated to re-work the draft in accordance with the minister’s feedback. If the minister approves the proposal, he will instruct the Secretary General to commence the sixth step.

  6. Determination → The regulation is nalized (penetapan) when the Secretary General instructs the Head of the Bureau of Legal and Organizational A airs to process the approved draft and turn it into a Ministerial Regulation (Peraturan Menteri).

  7. Promulgation → The Ministerial Regulation is promulgated by the Ministry of Law and Human Rights in the State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia.

  8. Dissemination → The ministry organizes the dissemination of information about the newly enacted regulation to stakeholders. This dissemination is conducted via events such as seminars and focus group discussions

According to MOEC 142/2014, this process must ful ll the principles of good lawmaking as stipulated by Law 12/2011, Concerning Establishment of Legislation. There must be clear objectives—the proposed regulation must identify aims, targets, and purposes it wants to achieve. The proposed regulation must not contradict existing regulations with higher positions in the legal hierarchy, such as Pancasila,3 the constitution (Undang-Undang Dasar), laws enacted by the legislature (Undang-Undang), and presidential regulations (Peraturan Presiden).

 

The regulation must also be realistic—the assessment of the potential for the regulation to be implemented must take social, economic, philosophical, and legal factors into account. The proposed regulation must be e ective as well as e cient and must bring meaningful bene ts to the public while using a minimum of public resources. It must ful ll all technical and legal requirements, be clearly structured, use the correct vocabulary and terminology, and clear and easy-to-understand words that do not allow for multiple interpretations. Finally, the whole formulation process of the proposed regulation must be transparent and open to the public. Relevant stakeholders must have the opportunity to provide input and feedback during the formulation process

 

UNESCO has developed an Analytical Framework for Inclusive Policy Design (UNESCO, 2017), which can be applied to MOEC 142/2014 to determine the inclusivity of MOEC regulatory development. This framework uses policy markers for inclusive policy design, “quality- and process-related markers of inclusion against which the inclusive character of a given policy or a portfolio of interventions can be considered”. The particular markers in UNESCO’s Analytical Framework fall into six dimensions: multi-dimensional, relational, intersecting risks and drivers, dynamic, contextual and multi-layered, and participatory.

 

MOEC’s regulatory development process addresses the multi-dimensional policy marker because MOEC 142/2014 requires education regulations to follow an overarching objective; to be integrated with other interventions; and to use policy-sensitive evidence from stakeholders.

 

Step 1 (preparation) of MOEC 142/2014 falls into the participatory dimension of the UNESCO Framework since the process of drafting policies includes meetings with experts and academics, such as those from the Jakarta State University. In addition to data from Statistics Indonesia and internal ministerial sources such as the Education Statistics Data Center, this participatory aspect addresses UNESCO’s multi-dimensional policy marker because it also includes accessible data from stakeholders, including CSOs and bi- and multilateral donors, when considering the demand, supply, and use of available places in schools, the volume and allocation of funds, the background of children, student-teacher ratios and class sizes, and sta quali cations. The data collected through preparation are important for understanding access, participation, school leadership, equity (based on socio-economic status, migrant background, special needs, gender, digital divide), the quality of education provision, general trends over time, economic and social outcomes, and parental expectations.

 

To help make the incredible breadth of data required for crafting education policy easier to use, the OECD divides it into four areas: a) the output of education institutions and the impact of learning; b) access to education, participation, and progression; c) nancial resources invested in education; d) teachers, the learning environment, and the organization of schools (OECD, 2018, p. 16).

 

Step 3 (discussion and coordination) of MOEC 142/2014 allows for input and feedback by other government agencies, which requires both horizontal (with other government ministries/ institutions) and vertical (with regional government bodies and governments) inter-ministerial coordination. Step 3 helps bring MOEC 142/2014 in line with several UNESCO policy markers by making MOEC regulations multi-dimensional as well as contextual and multi-layered. A positive example can be found in the government’s anti-stunting intervention, which involves various government bodies at di erent levels providing an all-round and sustainable continuum of services intended to minimize stunting in Indonesia. The Indonesian government has recognized this as a complex issue with implications for economic growth and the labor force, worsening inequality, and potentially causing various other health problems. In response, MOEC seeks the cooperation with other Ministries (Agriculture, Villages and Underdeveloped Regions, Public Works, Finance, Health, National Development Planning, etc.) to provide food supplements to children in Early Childhood Education (PAUD) facilities.

 

MOEC has identi ed several intersected exclusion risks for people living in underdeveloped, border, and outlying islands (3T: Tertinggal, Terdepan, Terluar), marginalized communities, children with special needs, and disaster victims. Step 3 also allows for the intersection of risks and drivers, is the third dimension of the UNESCO Framework. Identifying these exclusion risks demonstrates awareness of the necessity of addressing multiple risk communities. 3T communities, for instance, su er from poverty, lack of market access, and lack of economic development, and hence require complex interventions to address the multiple overlapping drivers of their exclusion. The removal of these drivers cannot be achieved by any ministry in isolation, instead requiring coordinated action by all stakeholders in government and civil society.

 

Although there are positive examples of coordination between ministries, the general perception of policymaking in Indonesia is that the cooperation, coordination, and communication between central level government agencies and between central and regional level agencies is insu cient. The inter-governmental International Development Law Organization (IDLO) nds in Indonesia, “con icting laws and regulations on both the national and local level and a lack of capacity of, and coordination among, government institutions.” In IDLO’s analysis, this hinders Indonesia’s pursuit of sustainable and inclusive growth (IDLO, 2018).

 

The Knowledge Sector Initiative also takes a critical view of Indonesian governmental coordination, saying that “civil servants appeared to be consumed by habitual practices, such as elaborate annual planning and budgeting cycles and the issuance of regulatory instruments to sub-ordinate institutions. But plans and budgets were often seen as outputs to produce rather than opportunities to discuss policy problems and strategies to address them.” (Datta et al., 2018, p. v).

 

Again addressing the participatory marker, Step 4 (public harmonization and/or testing) of MOEC 142/2014 includes public appraisals through focus group discussions with relevant stakeholders, such as central and regional government bodies, CSOs, and communities. In some cases, MOEC tests regulations through pilot implementation, which is done by implementing a draft policy within a limited scope (i.e. in several schools, in certain regions). A new policy of PAUD management, for instance, was implemented in some sample PAUD institutions rst in order to evaluate and improve the drafted policy. Testing can happen up to three times before proceeding to the next stage of policymaking. Moreover, the use of modern communication technology, such as WhatsApp or Twitter, cuts through bureaucracy by enabling bene ciaries to communicate directly with policymakers, reporting issues and problems—provided they know how to reach decision-making levels in MOEC.

 

The relational dimension of the UNESCO Framework puts special emphasis on a meaningful dialogue targeting all relevant parties both on the supply and demand sides. A meaningful dialogue in step 4 allows education policies to be adaptive and responsive towards existing and newly emerging exclusion risks. According to the dynamic dimension of the UNESCO Framework, the response to exclusion risks requires a mix of anticipatory (proactive) interventions as well as reactive responses to unplanned results. This mix re ects the dynamic nature of inclusive policymaking.

 

An example of reactive responses to unplanned results appeared in the policy to subsidize operational costs of PAUD (Operational Assistance of Early Childhood Education). Initially, the policy required that education units have at least 12 pupils to qualify for the bene t, but upon learning that there are many education units with a smaller number of pupils that would be at risk of exclusion from the assistance, the government moved to modify the policy to make smaller units eligible bene ciaries of the assistance and ensure it covers more students

 

In the nal analysis, while the main dimensions of the UNESCO Framework are being addressed during particular stages of policy design, they may not be applied throughout the entire policy circle. In particular, they may not be applied through guaranteed and well-established channels that are open to a broad range of stakeholders. This limits the use of stakeholders’ knowledge in policymaking. In fact, stakeholder participation does not yet appear to be a normative goal in the Indonesian policymaking process. It is not pursued throughout the policy circle and while new technologies are improving feedback and input mechanisms, there are limited guaranteed and institutionalized avenues for public participation in the policymaking process.

 

The Knowledge Sector Initiative (KSI) puts this de ciency of the policymaking process in more speci c terms, saying that “formal policy processes featured actors primarily from the executive arm of government, usually appointed for their experience and seniority rather than their analytical skills. Socialization processes to promote uptake of regulation were usually top- down a airs based on a sender-receiver mode of communication”. KSI generally sees “little two-way engagement between those drafting policy and those whose behaviour they were trying to change (...)” (Datta et al., p. v).

 

Addressing this shortcoming of the Indonesian policymaking process will improve the uptake of available evidence and its use in the policy formulation process. It can lead to improved knowledge valorization in Indonesian education policy design. However, this analysis has so far examined only MOEC and the regulations and procedures that govern the uptake of evidence in the policymaking process. A more holistic view requires incorporating an analysis of the supply side of knowledge and the interaction between government agencies, bi- and multilateral donors, and CSOs.

3. KNOWLEDGE VALORIZATION PRACTICES IN INDONESIA

3. KNOWLEDGE VALORIZATION PRACTICES IN INDONESIA

The Alliance for Useful Evidence identi ed six mechanisms that enable research use in decision- making (Breckon and Dodson, 2016, p. 6):

  1. Awareness: Building awareness and positive attitudes towards evidence use

  2. Agree: Building mutual understanding and agreement on policy-relevant questions

    and the kind of evidence needed to answer them.

  3. Access and communication: Providing communication of, and access to, evidence.

  4. Interact: Facilitating interactions between decision-makers and researchers.

  5. Skills: Supporting decision-makers as they develop their skills for accessing and

    making sense of evidence.

  6. Structure and Process: In uencing decision-making structures and processes.

 

These mechanisms are often used in combination and together a ect the interaction between the supply and demand sides of evidence. This part of our analysis reduces the narrative to three factors identi ed by UNESCO as key indicators for the valorization or uptake of useful evidence in the policymaking process: the availability of evidence, the levels of accessibility and the usage of the evidence in the policymaking process.

 

Availability of information in this context refers to the existence of useful information in the education policymaking processes. Such information may be obtained through research, observations, interviews, the study of secondary literature, the population census, and surveys. Accessibility of information is de ned as the extent to which existing information is received by the government and other users. Finally, usage of information refers to the extent to which available and accessible information is being taken into consideration in the government’s policymaking process.

 

This chapter looks separately at three categories of stakeholders (government agencies, bi- and multilateral donors, and CSOs) and discusses the availability of, accessibility to, and usage of evidence by these stakeholders. The resulting analysis provides insights on strengths and shortcomings that should be addressed in the capacity development part of the program. Given the complexities of the Indonesian education sector, the analysis refers to individual examples that are seen as indicators for the general situation. The analysis cannot address the education sector in its entirety.

Government agencies

The enactment of Government Regulation No. 25/2000 concerning Central and Provincial Government Authorities as Autonomous Regions, has changed the governing structure of the public education system in Indonesia. This regulation decentralized authority, splitting it between.

the central and regional governments. The central government sets the vision, main policies, and standards for national education. Regional governments are authorized to implement policies and programs enacted by the central government through providing, maintaining, and monitoring education provision in their jurisdiction. Regional governments are also authorized to adjust existing education policies in their respective regions by, for example, developing and evaluating local curricula or providing, distributing, maintaining, and monitoring educational facilities and infrastructure (Winingsih, 2016, pp. 3-5).

 

In general, both central and local governments have available data and information regarding the Indonesian education sector. These consist of quanti able data and information gathered by the government through national surveys and studies, often also involving cooperation with bi- and multilateral donors and CSOs.

Quantitative government data can be used and analyzed in further research. For instance, there are official records of the number of schools, enrolled students, teachers’ distribution, and dropout rates. In cases like the gross enrollment ratio (GER), the data is collected through professional surveys, which are generally relatively high quality. Donors and CSOs need, but lack, this information when assessing and developing their interventions.

Because the government acts through separate agencies, data and information are scattered. For instance, information related to primary and secondary formal (i.e., SD, SMP, SMA/SMK) and non-formal (i.e., PAUD) education systems are recorded by MOEC, while information related to Islamic education (i.e., Madrasah and Pesantren) is available within MORA, speci cally within the Directorate General of Islamic education. MORTHE keeps data and information related to formal tertiary education. This dispersed management by di erent institutions creates a challenge to establishing a good system of data management that avoids and eliminates errors and contradicting information.

Central and local governments make data publicly accessible in many forms, such as online databases and annual reports. Information compiled by the ministries and central government bodies tend to be more standardized and are updated more regularly compared to information collected by local governments. Reports by Statistics Indonesia (BPS) are released annually while only some provincial governments publish annual reports and make them available online through their respective websites.

The central government recently established an online database of schools’ detailed information, such as location, number of students, and teachers. Schools under MOEC are listed and managed by the Fundamental Education Data (Data Pokok Pendidikan / Dapodik) database, while schools under MORA are listed and managed by the Education Management Information System (EMIS), and MORTHE institutions report to the Higher Education Database (Pangkalan Data Pendidikan Tinggi / PD-DIKTI). These databases are to be managed independently by the respective schools and other learning institutions to allow for continuous updates. However, due to challenges such as limited technological ability and undelivered instructions, these databases are incomplete. For instance, the majority of Islamic schools (Pondok Pesantren) have not been properly recorded in EMIS despite being education institutions under the responsibility of MORA (Personal observation, 2018). Despite remaining limitations, through the use of information technology ministries are revolutionizing the Indonesian data management system by allowing constant updates and wider access by all stakeholders.

 

Data maintained by government agencies, such as BPS, MOEC, and MORA, are key sources of information that are frequently used by policymakers. For example, the national parliament (DPR), together with MOEC, used available and accessible information about student drop-out rates from BPS to map priority regions for the Smart Indonesia Program (Program Indonesia Pintar / PIP) (Informants from the DG of Early Education and DG of Primary and Secondary Education, personal communications, 2018).

It appears that, naturally but not necessarily inevitably, government data are the most frequently used in government policymaking. An example of cooperation between the national government and several local government agencies is provided in Box 1. The example in Box 2, however, illustrates existing limits to the usage of available data, which result from insu cient public testing and a lack of meaningful dialogue through well-established and guaranteed channels between government stakeholders, bi- and multilateral donors, and CSOs, as was outlined in the previous chapter.

Box 1. The Establishment of Advocacy Forum for Sumba Education (Forum Peduli Pendidikan Sumba/FPPS) in Sumba, East Nusa Tenggara (NTT) Province

FPPS is a local government policy consultation and coordination forum established in June 2016 in Sumba, NTT. It was established as the result of school case studies conducted by the Education Sector Analytical and Capacity Development Partnership (ACDP) team.

The Forum consists of representatives of all four districts in Sumba (West Sumba, Southwest Sumba, East Sumba, and Central Sumba). Representatives include the vice regents (wakil bupati), the heads of regional education departments (Dinas Pendidikan Daerah), and the heads of regional planning and development agencies (Bappeda). The aim of FPPS is to improve the quality of education in Sumba, with a particular focus on education issues at the primary school level (ACDP, 2016a, p. ix; INOVASI, 2018, p.1). Its main tasks include: (1) galvanizing coordinated actions in areas where all districts have common problems and interests; (2) monitoring the commitment of all districts in implementing policy reforms within their jurisdiction; and (3) ensuring the compliance of all districts in submitting their progress reports on policy adoption, resourcing, and regulating (ACDP, 2016b, p. xi).

FPPS listed primary-level education issues in all districts in Sumba, classi ed them into six key policy issues, and brought them to the discussion with MOEC in September 2016. Those six policy issues are: (1) availability of civil servant (Pegawai Negeri Sipil / PNS) teachers; (2) improvement of teachers’ professionalism; (3) teacher quali cation; (4) expanding access for teachers from Sumba to join the Frontline Teachers (Guru Garis Depan/GGD) program; (5) school leadership; and (6) resourcing quality early childhood education (ACDP, 2016b, p. 32-34). The Secretary General of MOEC complimented the cross-government-sectoral approach of FPPS as “a bright initiative that the Ministry has never seen before in other regions” (ACDP, 2016b, p. 35).

In line with the multi-dimensional requirements of the UNESCO Framework for an Inclusive Policy Design process, FPPS set a “supra-goal at priority setting level” as its main reason for choosing primary-level education. It argues that basic education a ects the region’s performance in the Human Development Index, in which East Nusa Tenggara is the third-lowest region in national comparison (ACDP, 2016a, p.94). MOEC also acknowledged that the establishment of FPPS is in line with one of nine areas of the National Priority Agenda (Nawa Cita), speci cally number three on the Development of Peripheral Areas (ACDP, 2016b, p. 35; O ce of Presidential Sta , 2016, p. 26).

Furthermore, FPPS actively discussed inter-related topics such as how ine ective school leadership may a ect the schools’ performance in student learning, which in turn a ects the literacy levels of the students during their early years of primary school (ACDP, 2016b, pp. 5-8).

FPPS encouraged the involvement of representatives from all districts in Sumba to prevent leaving out any district when the forum addressed common issues or when it formulated speci c policy recommendations to bring before MOEC (ACDP, 2016b, p. x). The Forum engaged in horizontal coordination between all four districts in Sumba and vertical coordination with higher government levels. It also increased local government stakeholders’ ability to participate in national education policy design. Given these approaches, the program ful lled several dimensions of the UNESCO Framework, but a meaningful dialogue would have been enriched by representation of non-government actors, which would have encouraged and facilitated the accessibility and uptake of civil society experiences and their recommendations in the policy formulation process.

The consultative design allowed FPPS to identify risks of exclusion and it specified whether or not the existing regulations and the upcoming regional budget supported the policy recommendations they were formulating (ACDP, 2016b, pp. 15-19). As a result, FPPS was able to determine whether there were districts that needed to adjust their policies in accordance with existing regulations and the available budget. As above, the inclusion of civil society representatives within this dimension may have provided additional insights.

The FPPS design enabled the districts in Sumba to dynamically adjust and respond in a coordinated manner to the policies of the central government. The September 2016 meeting with MOEC o cials in Jakarta ended without a speci c commitment by the ministry to implement a task force responsible for policy review in disadvantaged regions as recommended by FPPS. FPPS responded by strengthening its own capacity to engage in continuous discussions with the ministry. FPPS considered whether to formalize FPPS and bestow it with its own budget and secretariat (ACDP, 2016b, pp. 35-36, 65-70).

Box 2. Implementation of Law No. 14/2005 Concerning Teachers and Lectures

Avenir Light is a clean and stylish font favored by designers. It's easy on the eyes and a great go to font for titles, paragraphs & more.

The Law No. 14/2005 was the most comprehensive strategy yet to improve Indonesian teacher quality. It formed the basis for a massive national teacher certi cation program in the last decade (Suryadarma & Jones, 2013, p. 146), establishing standard quali cations for teachers and lecturers to become eligible for teaching in Indonesian institutions of formal education.

Law No. 14/2005 also regulates nancial incentives for quali ed teachers and for teachers’ assignments to remote regions in Indonesia. Quali ed teachers became entitled to double their base salaries, while teachers assigned to remote regions were entitled to receive additional allowances of up to three times their base salaries (Suryadarma & Jones, 2013, p. 146). These incentives were meant to attract teacher participation in a nationwide certi cation program.

In line with the six-dimensional UNESCO Framework for Inclusive Policy Design, Law No. 14/2005 follows an overarching objective of improving student’s performance all across the country. The law is relational in the sense that it targets all formal education teachers in Indonesia, including those assigned to remote and underdeveloped areas. It connects risks and drivers as it gives district governments the authority to set the criteria that make teachers eligible to receive increased allowances. These criteria considered, for instance, the schools’ distance from district o ces and electricity supply.

The policy design also proved to be dynamic and responsive to unplanned results when the certi cation, which was channeled through di erent ministries, was reformed in 2012 to address the emerging risk of poor vertical coordination (Suryadarma & Jones, 2013, p. 148). With the new scheme, all teachers obtained certi cation through one of three channels: direct certi cation, portfolio assessment, and teacher retraining. The policy addresses contextual and multi-layered UNESCO markers when it vertically coordinates central and regional government institutions. For instance, determining the quota of allowances for remote teachers starts with MOEC and MORA setting quotas for bene ciaries in each province and the provincial governments then set quota for each district.

Finally, district and municipal governments identify schools whose teachers will receive the allowance.

Law No. 14/2005 requires participatory action from multiple government stakeholders. In the end, however, the incentives set by the law may have improved teachers’ welfare, but it did not achieve its overarching goal of improving student performance (Suryadarma & Jones, 2013, p. 149). The Minister of Finance stopped the disbursement of additional allowances and was quoted by newspapers in July 2018 as saying, “I initiated the teacher certi cation program and I’m glad it happened. [But] It turns out that those certi cates mean nothing. It’s just a formal procedure to receive extra pay.” (The Jakarta Post, 2018)

Some shortcomings of Law No. 14/2005 can be tied back to a lack of inclusivity in policy design. It also failed to be su ciently multidimensional—the law should have been su ciently tried, tested, and improved before a national rollout. This might have prevented the Finance Minister from stopping its implementation and voicing her disappointment publicly. A meaningful dialogue, in particular the inclusion of user communities, might have provided the insight that nancial incentives for teachers are not su cient to increase student performance. Such a dialogue might have exposed structural, behavioral, and policy-related drivers as well as potential bottlenecks and loopholes with exclusionary potential. Finally, even though there was a certain responsiveness that led to the changes in 2012, the policy did not appear dynamic enough to sufficiently react to the lack of improvement in students’ performance.

Bi- and multilateral donors

Bi- and multilateral donors are the executors of foreign aid supplied by foreign governments or international organizations. Foreign aid is given with the aim of promoting economic development and/or the welfare of the population of the recipient country, and could be directed to the recipient government or channeled through civil society organizations in the bene ciary country. Bi- and multilateral donors develop their programs in close cooperation with government agencies of the recipient country and align these programs to national development plans and policies. Table 1 shows the ten largest providers of foreign aid to Indonesia in 2012.

The largest providers of foreign aid to

Education is a target sector for foreign aid to Indonesia. In this eld, bi- and multilateral donors implement programs and projects in cooperation with the Indonesian government to improve education in Indonesia through programs like USAID’s Prestasi scholarship program. They also provide research data to the Indonesian government for policy development purposes. For instance, MOEC requested that USAID analyze teachers’ deployment schemes to help the government improve the system’s e ciency. Bi- and multilateral donors mostly cooperate with Indonesian government stakeholders and work with both central and regional government agencies to implement their programs and projects (A former bilateral donor employee, personal communication, 2018). 

 

As part of their work, bi- and multilateral donor projects such as Local Solutions to Poverty (LSP—see Box 3) share data in the form of infographics, policy briefs, achievement briefs, booklets, baseline reports, annual reports, and quarterly reports (LSP, n.d.). LSP also involves local implementation partners BaKTI and the Smeru Research Institute. BaKTI has created a web portal called Batukar Info (https://batukarinfo.com/), with various reference documents on the development of the Eastern parts of Indonesia provided free of charge and openly, although registration is required for participation in discussions and collaborating in the network. Visitors can also register as contributors and moderators to send articles, provide latest information updates, and become moderators of discussion groups.

Both BaKTI and Smeru have their own websites, each of which has a publication page. The publications page on the Smeru website (http://www.smeru.or.id/en/publications) has separate pages for research reports, working papers, eld reports, newsletters, briefs, modules, and fact sheets, while BaKTI has a drop down menu showing its programs (https://bakti.or.id/). BaKTI has a news page, which is in Indonesian only. For both BaKTI and Smeru, there are no clear markers of which data on the web sites are related to LSP and which are related to other projects.

 

In general, bi- and multilateral donors and their local partners make any analysis gained through their projects highly available, though in various documents and typically as processed data. Raw data, such as survey results, statistics, gures and numbers, are not readily available on any of the web sites, though they can be obtained on request. All information is generally copyrighted but can be reproduced in whole or in part for non-commercial purposes with proper attribution.

Problems with the availability of bi- and multilateral donors’ evidence for the policymaking process might occur after the end of a specific project. Once the project teams have been dissolved and the local partners turn to other tasks and programs, existing raw data, and analysis available in the institutional memory are at risk of being lost. Proper storage and online availability of all data seems imperative, especially for bi- and multilateral donors’ programs, which usually have a clearly de ned term of a number of years.

MOEC has good access to evidence provided by bi- and multilateral donors. In case of the ACDP (Analytical and Capacity Development Partnership) project funded by the Australian government and the European Union, MOEC established an agreement in which the Ministry speci cally requested information, which the project then gathered through research, usually involving CSOs as contractors. The output of the research was delivered in form of research reports and policy papers. Prior to delivering the information to the Ministry, ACDP evaluated the output to ensure quality and reliability of the information (A former bilateral donor employee, personal communication, 2018).

ACDP delivered the information to the ministry in meetings in which the project and contractors shared their evidence with MOEC. Additionally, bi- and multilateral donors usually share information with other stakeholders, such as the media, CSOs, and the general public, sometimes through events to which representatives of the media are invited to learn about information gathered by the projects.

The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) supports the Indonesian government in strengthening reading skills of the children across 23,000 primary, junior-secondary, and faith based schools in the low-income areas across nine provinces. It also provides technical assistance and training to 49 teacher training institutions to improve their teaching practices (USAID, 2017). In designing its projects, USAID develops Country Development Cooperation Strategies (CDCS) in coordination with the Indonesian government. During the subsequent implementation of the project it regularly updates Indonesian government o cials and provides its evidence to MOEC and other agencies.

The New Zealand Agency for International Development (NZAID) supports the Indonesian government in education by providing a postgraduate scholarship program and English language training for Indonesian government o cials in New Zealand. It also works together with MOEC and UNICEF to improve the quality and access to early childhood education for up to 7,400 children in Kupang, East Nusa Tenggara Province. In its programs, NZAID uses sector-wide approaches known as SWAp.6 In SWAp, NZAID uses several key components to ensure active participation by local stakeholders, such as Partner Government Systems for reporting, budgeting, nancial management, and procurement activities of the program. More importantly in the context of this analysis, they also include Memoranda of Agreement or Understanding (MoA/MoU) between the national government, local government (provincial, district, or municipalities), and the local development partners.

The higher accessibility of bi- and multilateral evidence in the policymaking process also results in a higher likelihood that their evidence will be used in the policymaking process. This is because bi- and multilateral donors are able to provide information that the government demands through the agreements established between the Indonesian and foreign governments or the bi- and multilateral donors. Before implementing programs, bi- and multilateral donors hold discussions with the government about potential projects to establish what data are needed by the government and what interventions are needed to provide the data. This close cooperation continues as long as the project is implemented, up to the completion of the project.

An example of the usage of evidence provided by bi- and multilateral donors in the policymaking process is the implementation of a ngerprint system recording the attendance of teachers in class. Based on research released in 2014 by ACDP on teachers’ absenteeism, a recommendation was issued to use a ngerprint system to record teachers’ attendance in order to improve it (A former bilateral donor employee, personal communication, 2018).

 

Following this recommendation, public schools nationwide have implemented the ngerprint attendance system to accurately record teachers’ attendance in school. Teachers’ remuneration can be accurately calculated according to the record system and violation of working hours can be more easily identified. Based on the MOEC Regulation (Permendikbud) No. 15/2018 Concerning the Ful llment of Principals’, Teachers’ and School Supervisors’ Workload, regional Ministry offices (Dinas Pendidikan) supervise the system.

Local Solutions to Poverty (LSP) is a multi-donor trust fund assisting the Indonesian government to improve the quality of life of poor and vulnerable people. Established in 2007 as a PNPM Support Facility, it is a partnership between the Indonesian government (Bappenas; Ministry of Villages; Development of Disadvantaged Governments; MOHA; MOF; MOEC; TNP2K and a number of regency governments) and DFAT (Australia), the Millennium Challenge Account (United States), and the World Bank (LSP, n.d.).

As a multi-donor trust fund, LSP maintains several projects. Those related to education are KIAT Guru, ECED, and Generasi. KIAT Guru aims to improve education service delivery in remote villages by empowering communities to report on teachers’ attendance and performance and tying teachers’ allowances to their service quality. The project began in July 2016. It is being implemented in 203 schools and has evaluated 270 primary schools in ve underdeveloped regencies.

The Early Childhood Education and Development (ECED) program addresses low capacity of teachers in poor and remote areas by enhancing existing government teacher training programs, strengthening local capacity to deliver training at the regency level, and introducing community participation in the service delivery process. The training was piloted in 25 regencies, with the participation of 15,000 teachers from

2,647 villages.

Generasi is an incentivized, participatory block grant system targeting the health and education needs of women and children in poor and rural areas and promoting community participation to identify and implement local solutions to challenges in education and health, such as achievement of universal basic education.

Cooperation schemes involving several bi- and multilateral donors are created with the understanding that inclusion requires multiple programs operating in an integrated manner; a portfolio of interventions that serve an overarching objective of social inclusion. LSP projects, therefore, do not exclusively address education issues, but also health, basic services, human capital, infrastructure and governance, among others. The fund has a supra-goal (“improving quality of life”) that goes beyond its sectoral concerns.

The Generasi program addresses the stunting of children, continues with sustainable nutrition, and goes on with early childhood education. It is a continuum of interventions with intended chain reaction e ects that address various issues faced by vulnerable children at different points in their life. Efforts to resolve an issue in a single sector are deliberately designed to generate positive impacts in other sectors as well. KIAT Guru also makes use of technology with the ‘KIAT Kamera’ app that is used to photograph teachers before and after classes, providing evidence of attendance. The app re ects an approach to data (collection and utilization) that transcends geographical boundaries and allows the picking of low hanging fruits: teacher attendance immediately improves, followed by that of their pupils.

LSP projects address the causes of exclusion, such as lack of income, education, or health. An example is the MELAYANI project (Untangling Problems to Improve Basic Services), which is tackling challenges in the provision of basic social service delivery, hence addressing the issue of access to services. Similarly, the Village Innovation Program helps villages to make sound development investments by enabling villages to allocate funds from scal transfers for business enterprises and human capital, in addition to infrastructure. Moreover, the Village Law PASA program supported a village in Central Lombok to develop a website and social media page for villagers to interact directly with the o cials, allowing villagers to actually have a voice in the governance of the village. Previously, in theory, they could do so, but few did, as there was no system allowing direct feedback for their inputs; the current system allows for the process to become transparent.

A person might be a member of multiple vulnerable groups, increasing their risk of being excluded by intersecting risks and drivers. While being a member of one group may expose an individual to a certain level of risk, the overlap of multiple characteristics will result in a more severe risk. This is the reason why programs such as Generasi address community participation to answer challenges faced by women and children in poor and rural areas: women are more vulnerable to exclusion as they tend to be marginalized in decision making, as well as being vulnerable to health issues during pregnancy and childbirth. Each of these issues is a problem faced by women, but in

combination, policies to prevent exclusion should be addressing both at the same time. To give another example, the INEY program aims to prevent stunting but does not limit itself to the health aspect (e.g., to providing adequate nutrition). It also provides supporting counseling, parenting classes, provision of clean water and sanitation facilities, and social protection in the form of birth certi cate ownership to guarantee access to services in the future.

Civil society organizations (CSOs)

These stakeholders are private Indonesian organizations. The majority of CSOs are not-for- pro t, and thus rely largely on grants and donations to fund their programs. Examples of CSOs in Indonesia working in the education sector are big organizations that initiate education programs and interventions on a relatively large scale (multi-province programs), including the Ancora Foundation, Bakti Barito Foundation, and the Tanoto Foundation. Smaller CSOs, such as Taman Bacaan Pelangi and Hoshizora Foundation, focus their activities in certain regions, while think tanks and research institutes, such as the Center for Indonesian Policy Studies (CIPS) and the Smeru Research Institute, focus on research and evidence-based policy advice.

For this situational analysis, the CSOs who joined in the national working group were interviewed and their interventions in the education sector were included. For instance, a program offered by

the Ancora Foundation focuses on providing high-quality primary education to children in remote areas of Indonesia so that children get a quality start in education, which will a ect their work opportunities in the future. Besides Ancora’s PAUD program, the foundation focuses on teacher competencies to allow for a more e ective teaching process and a better learning environment for the students.

The PAUD program by Ancora has a dynamic design that involves user communities. This dynamic design allows the program to adapt in response to input from users. Initially, this program was intended solely for children, but after the completion of their rst initiatives, they witnessed that the children’s mothers wanted to be involved—they kept coming and waiting at the venue from early morning until the afternoon. Ancora developed an additional program that makes these mothers rapporteurs to the organization and encourages them to join a WhatsApp group with Ancora’s supervisors. Through these measures, problems appearing in the PAUD program can be identi ed and solved quickly, since the mothers are very engaged and notice even details in programs assisting their children’s learning process.

Other programs established by CSOs aim at quick wins in the short term while planning to be inclusive in the long term. The Improvement of Teachers’ Quality program initiated by the Bakti Barito Foundation considers equipping teaching sta with better knowledge and accustoming them with new teaching standards a quick win. The long-term perspective is that students will receive a higher standard of education, leading to better quality of life.

Taman Bacaan Pelangi (TBP) tailors their programs to the speci c needs of their target groups. The program Building and Renovating Libraries in remote areas was designed for children who are less literate than children of the same age in Indonesia’s major cities. TBP creates libraries and o -school- hours reading activities intended to improve literacy among these children to bring them to the level of their peers in Java, Sumatra, Borneo, and Sulawesi. TBP does not generalize assumptions when creating their programs, instead conducting initial research to ensure the programs will be targeted and well received. Other CSOs follow the same pattern, researching and engaging in dialogue with local stakeholders before initiating their programs.

CSOs usually design their interventions for particular audiences. For instance, Hoshizora programs are speci cally created for younger children. EduforPapua was created on the notion that Papuans are left behind in terms of education, especially in comparison to Java, Sumatra, Borneo, and Sulawesi, and so offers quality education to children and teenagers in remote areas of Papua so that they can catch up with peers outside Papua. This program is only offered to residents of remote areas in Papua.

Stakeholders in the CSO sector conduct risk assessments before their programs are launched in order to ensure that they run according to the organizations’ vision, mission, and within their nancial means. CSOs interviewed for this study pointed out, however, that a major risk they experience in running their programs is the government and bureaucracy. When the head of the local government changes, organizations need to be prepared to adjust their programs. This political risk is hard to include in risk assessment protocols because they are very di cult to predict.

 

Nevertheless, CSOs generally seek good relations with local governments, even as those government experience leadership changes, and they try to comply with changing regulations. After all, for the CSOs it is critically important to coordinate their programs with local government institutions, for whom they often provide a systematic assessment of the local situation. CSOs collect relevant data when they use participatory methods to identify the needs of the community and to design their intervention for the support of the community.

Several CSOs therefore provide available information related to the education sector in Indonesia. They gain their data through various means: research and eld observations, using data from research institutes (Bakti Barito Foundation used data from research conducted by McKinsey on behalf of the Asian Philanthropy Circle when designing their programs), or general information gained from experiences in program implementation.

 

As discussed earlier, most of CSOs make their data publicly available through communication channels such as social media, websites, and printed reports, though they do so at di erent levels and in di erent ways. For instance, organization like the Bakti Barito Foundation make their information available on their website and in discussions with relevant private and public stakeholders. Organization like Yayasan Usaha Mulia, the William & Lily Foundation, Taman Bacaan Pelangi, and TurunTangan, compile their information in reports that are presented to local governments. Some other organizations like Hoshizora do not make their information available on a website, in reports, or discussions, but they are prepared to share their insights when provided with documents explaining the purpose and intended use by the respective organization.

In spite of attempts to make information available and accessible, all CSOs, in our interviews, admitted that they do not know whether their information has been used or at the very least, considered by the government when creating education policy. If we refer to the policy cycle explained in the previous section, this should be expected since the channel through which CSOs are given to contribute to the policy creation is limited. Moreover, to determine whether a particular policy was inspired by, or originated from ideas given by CSOs is challenging. Extensive research must be done to verify any such claims. As far as this research has gone, we would like to emphasize that the CSOs we interviewed have never tried to claim that their insights inspired any education policy established by Indonesian governments, either at the central or the local level.

Requesting cooperation from local government bodies is often a burdensome process for CSOs, consuming considerable resources without any guarantee of success. Government bureaucracies are large organizations in which internal procedures are complicated and communication with external actors is often considered of secondary importance and may therefore face additional obstacles.

The lack of meaningful dialogue that was identified in the analysis of the inclusiveness of Indonesian education policy design creates limitations for CSOs’ assembled evidence to be effectively accessed and used in the policymaking process.

Box 4. Mapping CSO Education Initiatives

Three philanthropic foundations have introduced an interactive map of education interventions in Indonesia (https://www.asiaphilanthropycircle.org/edu-giving-guide- indonesia/interactive-map-indonesia-education-interventions/). The map allows institutions to share detailed information, pinpointing schools with a GPS marker where interventions took place.

The data that goes into the map includes information such as the names of institutions, the type of programs, site locations of the programs, and the level of education they focus on. The map is an excellent example of a highly accessible database, in which information is updated by respective organizations, presented in a way that is comprehensible by users, and easily accessible for public use. This map was initiated by the Tanoto Foundation, the Bakti Barito Foundation and the Reachout Foundation in mid-2018. These foundations actively promote the usage of this map by Indonesian education stakeholders, who can map their interventions in the education sector. The information helps to inspire other interventions and to prevent education stakeholders from duplicating programs.

conclusion 

The formulation of government policies in the Indonesian education sector is generally aligned with the six dimensions of inclusive policy design established by UNESCO. There is high availability of evidence related to national education. Various stakeholders (i.e., the government, bi- and multilateral donors, and CSOs) have gathered a broad range of data through systematic and reliable methods, such as research and surveys.

 

The accessibility of data requires further improvement. All stakeholders aim to be open to share information but some data have yet to be made available for wider access. CSOs hold some relevant information, such as evidence of student literacy in Eastern Indonesia that can only be required by personal requests to the institution. CSOs usually do not o er their data or explain in particular how to access it. Bi- and multilateral donors have a large amount of raw data that is available on request rather than proactively shared on their websites. Accessibility could be enhanced if the data were readily accessible, even if they were password protected with clear instructions for obtaining a password. Naturally, only data that is not restricted by the Minister of Communication and Informatics (MOCI) regulation regarding Personal Data Protection in Electronic Systems (MOCI Regulation No. 20/2016) can be shared. Moreover, projects of bi- and multilateral donors that are conducted over a limited amount of years need to put special emphasis on maintaining the accessibility of their data after the project expires.

 

Finally, the valorization or uptake of data in the policymaking process can be further improved through a meaningful dialogue with established and guaranteed channels. Since bi- and multilateral donors usually have better access to the policymaking process, this would allow, in particular, CSOs to o er their knowledge and evidence in the education policymaking process.

1. national working group members

 
Valorizing Research and Evidence for Social Inclusion in Indonesia:  A situational Analysis of the Current Information Uptake in Education Policymaking 

This study provides policy recommendations to improve the maize industry in Indonesia to ensure affordability for consumers.  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Annexes

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

2.Overview of Access to Quality Education in iNDONESIA

The government of Indonesia faces a serious challenge in its e orts to provide access to quality education, reduce illiteracy, and reduce education inequality in society (Statistics Indonesia, 2017). In recent years, access to education has been improved through new schools, the renovation of damaged classrooms, and an increasing number of libraries. Additionally, the government carries out the Smart Indonesia Program (Program Indonesia Pintar / PIP), which provides nancial assistance to poor families and covers some of their education expenditures. The main target for the education sector was set in the government’s National Medium-Term Development Plan (Rencana Pembangunan Jangka Menengah Nasional / RPJMN) 2015–2019 (Bappenas, 2014). The objective is for all citizens to at least complete their basic education, with a targeted a Gross Enrollment Ratio (GER) in 2019 of PAUD (77.2%), SD/Equal (114.1%), SMP/Equal (106.9%), SMA/SMK/Equal (91.6%) (MOEC, 2017).

The Indonesian GER has generally shown a positive trend. Enrollment in senior high schools (SMA) and vocational schools (SMK) increased the most, while junior high school (SMP) enrollment also improved slightly. The attendance of primary schools (SD) showed a negative trend (see Figure 2.1). The accomplishment of improved student participation in secondary education is mainly due to the nine-year compulsory education policy, which was implemented from 1996 to 2015 (Manan, 2015, p. 61), and the expansion of the compulsory education program from 9 years to 12 years since 2016.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Figure 2.1

Percentage of Gross Enrolment Ratio (GER) in Indonesia

 
 
 

However, there are education inequalities among the regions in Indonesia (Figure 2.2). Papua has the lowest enrollment on all education levels compared to other regions in Indonesia. Enrollment in SMP and SMA/SMK in Papua is at 85.17% and 70.95% respectively, while neighboring Maluku achieved 106.73% and 96.40% respectively.

Figure 2.2 

Percentage of Gross Enrolment Ration (GER) in Indonesia in 2017 Based on Region

While SD and SMP show only small differences in the enrollment of rural and urban residents, far fewer rural residents receive SMA/SMK education compared to the urban dwellers (Figure 2.3).

Figure 2.3

Percentage of Gross Enrolment Ration (GER) in Indonesia in 2015-2016 Based on Residential Area

The Indonesian government has successfully minimized gender inequality in education access (Figure 2.4). Through all level of education, equal proportions of Indonesian boys and girls have enrolled in educational institutions.

Figure 2.4 

Percentage of Gross Enrolment Ration (GER) in Indonesia in 2015-2016 Based on Gender

 

While the majority of Indonesian children have access to basic education, the challenge of how to ensure that education services received by these children are meeting the quality standards necessary to prepare children for their future in the working environment remains.

Government Regulation No. 19/2005 and its revision No. 32/2013 concerning National Education Standards set eight Minimum Service Standards (MSS) concerning facilities and infrastructure to be achieved by the national government. Libraries are among the education facilities regulated by these MSS. Educational institutions are mandated to develop a culture of reading by establishing libraries (Law No. 43/2007, Article 51 [3]). Law No. 20/2003 states the supporting role of libraries for the national education system. Finally, Government Regulation No. 24/2014, Article 83 requires that each school maintain a library.

However, in AY 2017/2018, an average of 38.5% of schools have yet to be equipped with libraries (Figure 2.5).

Figure 2.5 

Percentage of Library by the Number of Schools in Indonesia Ay 2017/2018

 

Teachers play the most signi cant role in educating the nation’s future generations and the quality of education is largely determined by the teachers’ standards of competency (BPS, 2017). According to Indonesian Law No. 14/2005 concerning Teachers and Lecturers, it is compulsory for teachers to attain at least a bachelor’s degree to become teachers in Indonesia. However, even though for the past four years there has been an increasing number of eligible teachers at all levels of formal education, 7% of Indonesian teachers had not achieved a bachelor’s degree in 2017/2018 AY (MOEC, 2017a) (Figure 2.6). SD conditions are the most concerned as 14% of SD teachers do not fall into the eligible teacher category. Rather, eligible teachers appear to satisfy the demand on higher levels of education.

 
 

Figure 2.6

Percentage of Eligible Teachers by Education Levels AY 2014/2015 to 2017/2018

 

The lack of access to quality education has serious consequences for Indonesian students. Their performance in international tests, such as PISA, remains far below the world average, and also compared to other ASEAN countries (Table 2.1). Science education has seen a remarkable transformation (OECD, 2016) the science performance among 15 years-old students rose by 21 score points from 382 in 2012 to 403 in 2015. This made Indonesia the fth-fastest improving education system among the 72 countries that participated in PISA. A positive trend was also observed in mathematics, but reading skills did not improve. All in all, the 2015 test revealed that 42% of young Indonesians fail to meet minimum standards in all three areas.

Table 2.1

Country Performances in PISA (Indonesia, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam)

The impact of this situation appears in Indonesia’s performance in the United Nations’ Human Development Index (HDI). Overall, HDI scores of Indonesia have increased since 1990 from 0.528 to 0.694 in 2017 (UNDP, 2018), but Figure 2.7 shows how low scores in education in particular have been pulling down the level of human development in Indonesia.

Figure 2.7 

Trends in Indonesia's HDI Component Indices 2014-2017

 

Bibliography

ACDP - The Education Sector Analytical and Capacity Development Partnership (ACDP). (2016a).Strategies for Improving Basic Education School/Madrasah E ectiveness in Sumba,
NTT Volume 1: Comprehensive Situational Analysis. Jakarta: The Education Sector Analytical and Capacity Development Partnership (ACDP).

---------------- (2016b). Strategies for Improving Basic Education School/Madrasah E ectiveness in Sumba, NTT Volume 2: Knowledge to Policy. Jakarta: The Education Sector Analytical and Capacity Development Partnership (ACDP).

AusAID. (2012). Australia-Indonesia Partnership for Pro-Poor Policy: The Knowledge Sector Initiative Design Document. Available online: https://dfat.gov.au/about-us/publications/ Documents/indo-ks-design.pdf.

 

Bappenas. (2014). 2015-2019 National Medium Term Development Plans. Jakarta: Bappenas.

 

Breckon, J. and Dodson, J. (2016). Using Evidence. What Works? Discussion Paper. Available

online: https://media.nesta.org.uk/documents/using_evidence_what_works.pdf.

 

Datta, A., Nurbani, R., Satria, G., Antlov, H., Fatonie, I. and Sabri, R. (2018). “Policy, change and paradox in Indonesia: Implications for the use of knowledge”. Working Paper 29. Available online: http://www.ksi-indonesia.org/ le_upload/Policy-Change- and-Paradox-in- Indonesia-Implicati-06Feb2018172546.pdf.

 

Dugay, C. (2012). Indonesia’s top 10 donors: Responding to the promise of transformation. Available online: https://www.devex.com/news/indonesia-s-top-10-donors-responding-to- the- promise-of-transformation-78905.

 

Government Regulation No. 25/2000 concerning Central and Provincial Government Authorities as Autonomous Regions (President) (Indonesia).

 

Government Regulation No. 19/2005 Concerning National Education Standards (President) (Indonesia).

 

Government Regulation No. 32/2013 concerning the Revision of Government Regulation No. 19/2005 on National Education Standards (President) (Indonesia).

 

Government Regulation No. 24/2014 Concerning the Implementation of Law No. 43/2007 Concerning Library (President) (Indonesia).

 

INOVASI. (2018). Pembangunan Pendidikan di Nusa Tenggara Timur. INOVASI.

 

IDLO - International Development Law Organization. (2018). Where We Work: Asia: Indonesia. Available online: https://www.idlo.int/where-we-work/asia/indonesia.

 

The Jakarta Post. (2018). “Sri Mulyani reprimands teachers association over ‘complacency’.” Available online: http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2018/07/11/sri-mulyati- reprimands-teachers-association-over-complacency.html

 

Law No. 20/2003 Concerning National Education System (DPR) (Indonesia).

 

Law No. 10/2004 Concerning Formulation of Laws and Regulations (DPR) s.5 (Indonesia).

 

Law No. 32/2004 Concerning Regional Government (DPR) s.1 and 3 (Indonesia).

 

Law No. 14/2005 Concerning Teacher and Lecturer (DPR) (Indonesia).

 

Law No. 43/2007 Concerning Library (DPR) (Indonesia).

 

LSP – Local Solutions To Poverty. (n.d.). Web site. Available online: https://localsolutionstopoverty. org/

 

Manan, M. (2015). “The Implementation of the Right to Education in Indonesia”. Indonesia Law Review, 5(1), pp. 51-68. http://dx.doi.org/10.15742/ilrev.v5n1.137

 

MOEC Regulation No. 142/2014 Concerning Guidelines for Formulation of Ministry of Education and Culture Regulations. (MOEC) (Indonesia)

 

----------------. (2015). Education and Cultural Data Overview: 2015/2016. Jakarta: Center for Education and Cultural Data and Statistics.

 

----------------. (2016). Education and Cultural Data Overview: 2016/2017. Jakarta: Center for Education and Cultural Data and Statistics.

 

----------------. (2017a). Education and Cultural Data Overview: 2017/2018. Jakarta: Center for Education and Cultural Data and Statistics.

 

----------------. (2017b). Elementary School Statistics SD: 2017/2018. Jakarta: Center for Education and Cultural Data and Statistics.

 

----------------. (2017c). Junior High School Statistics: 2017/2018. Jakarta: Center for Education and Cultural Data and Statistics.

 

----------------. (2017d). Senior High School Statistics: 2017/2018. Jakarta: Center for Education and Cultural Data and Statistics.

 

----------------. (2017e). Vocational School Statistics: 2017/2018. Jakarta: Center for Education and Cultural Data and Statistics.

 

----------------. (2018). Indonesian Ministry of Education and Culture and Ministry of Religious A airs Gross Participation Rate (APK) and Net Participation Rate (APM).
Available online: http://apkapm.data.kemdikbud.go.id/index. php/cberanda/apkapmsekolahmadrasah?kode_wilayah=000000&tahun=2017

 

Office of Presidential Sta . (2016). 2-Year Achievements of Jokowi-JK Government. Available online: http://www.kemendag.go.id/ les/pdf/2016/10/20/2-tahun-jokowi--jk-kerja- nyata-id1-1476944594.pdf.

 

OECD. (2014). PISA 2012 Results in Focus: What 15-year-olds Know and What They Can Do With What They Know. Available online: http://www.oecd.org/pisa/key ndings/pisa-2012- results-overview.pdf

 

----------------. (2016). Country Note: Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA)Results From PISA 2015 - Indonesia. Available online: http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisa- 2015-Indonesia.pdf

 

----------------. (2018). Education at a Glance: OECD Indicators. Available online: http://dx.doi. org/10.1787/eag-2018-en.

 

Suryadarma, D., & Jones, G. (2013). Education in Indonesia. Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (ISEAS).

 

Statistics Indonesia. (2017). Potret Pendidikan Indonesia: Statistik Pendidikan 2017. Jakarta: Statistics Indonesia.

 

----------------. (2018). Basic Statistics: Education. Available online: https://www.bps.go.id/ subject/28/pendidikan.html#subjekViewTab3

 

UNDP. (2018). Human Development Reports: Indonesia. Available online: http://hdr.undp.org/ en/ countries/pro les/IDN

 

UNESCO. (2015). Analytical Framework for Inclusive Policy Design: Of what, why and how. Available online: https://en.unesco.org/inclusivepolicylab/analytics/ analytical-framework-inclusive-policy-design.

 

----------------. (2017). A Guide for ensuring inclusion and equity in education. Available online: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000248254.

 

United Nations. (n.d.). Sustainable Development Goal 4: Quality Education. Available online: https:// www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/education/
 

USAID. (2017). Scholarship Indonesia. Available online: https://www.usaid.gov/ indonesia/ participant-training

 

USAID. (2017). Scholarship Indonesia. Available online: https://www.usaid.gov/indonesia/ participant-training

 

Winingsih, L. (2016). “The Local Government’s Role in the Implementation of Curriculum 2013.”Jurnal Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan. Vol. 1. Available online: https://www. researchgate. net/publication/320712661_Peran_Pemerintah_Daerah_dalam_ Implementasi_Kurikulum_2013.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
kontak

+62 21 227 69 233

Jalan Terogong Raya No. 6B 

Cilandak

Jakarta Selatan 12430

Indonesia

ikuti
  • Facebook Social Icon
  • Twitter Social Icon
  • Instagram Social Icon
  • YouTube Social  Icon
Center for Indonesian Policy Studies is officially registered
under the name Yayasan Cipta Sentosa 

© 2019 Center for Indonesian Policy Studies