Decentralized Basic Education Three (DBE3) Relevant ...€¦ · Decentralized Basic Education Three (DBE3) Relevant Education for Youth June 7, 2005 – December 31, 2011 FINAL PROJECT

Decentralized Basic Education Three (DBE3) Relevant Education for Youth June 7, 2005 – December 31, 2011

FINAL PROJECT REPORT

VOLUME 1: MAIN PROJECT REPORT

LIST OF CONTENTS

VOLUME I: MAIN PROJECT REPORT

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. 1

1.1 PROJECT VALUE ........................................................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 ORIGINAL PROJECT PROGRAM ............................................................................................................................... 1 1.3 MID TERM EVALUATION .......................................................................................................................................... 2 1.4 REVISED PROJECT PROGRAM .................................................................................................................................. 2 1.5 CROSS CUTTING ...................................................................................................................................................... 5 1.6 DISTANCE LEARNING .............................................................................................................................................. 5 1.7 PROGRAM DISSEMINATION ..................................................................................................................................... 6 1.8 STUDIES ...................................................................................................................................................................... 6 1.9 PUBLICATIONS / WEBSITES ...................................................................................................................................... 6 1.10 PROJECT MONITORING ........................................................................................................................................... 7 1.11 PROJECT RESULTS IN THE FORMAL SECTOR ......................................................................................................... 7 1.12 SUMMARY OF DBE3 LESSONS LEARNED ............................................................................................................... 8

2. ORIGINAL PROJECT PROGRAM ............................................................................................ 11

2.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW............................................................................................................................................... 11 2.2 CREATING A SUPPORTIVE ENVIRONMENT .......................................................................................................... 12

2.2.1 Building Knowledge and Skills within the District ................................................................................................. 12 2.2.2 Engaging with Districts Stakeholders as Active Partners ................................................................................... 13 2.2.3 Strengthening existing Systems and Structures ..................................................................................................... 13

2.3 FORMAL EDUCATION ............................................................................................................................................ 13 2.3.1 School Selection ............................................................................................................................................................... 14 2.3.2 District Facilitators .......................................................................................................................................................... 14 2.3.3 Activities with Formal Schools ..................................................................................................................................... 16

2.4 NON FORMAL EDUCATION .................................................................................................................................. 20 2.4.1 Non Formal Provider Selection ................................................................................................................................... 20 2.4.2 District Facilitators .......................................................................................................................................................... 21 2.4.3 Activities with Non Formal Education Providers .................................................................................................... 22

2.5 RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................................................................. 24 2.6 THE DBE MID-TERM EVALUATION ..................................................................................................................... 27

3. REVISED PROJECT FOCUS: THE WHOLE SCHOOL APPROACH ................................... 29

3.1 REVISED INTERMEDIATE RESULTS .......................................................................................................................... 29 3.2 SUMMARY OF THE REFOCUSED PROGRAM .......................................................................................................... 29 3.3 THE WHOLE SCHOOL TRAINING PROGRAM ..................................................................................................... 30

3.3.1 Building on Original Project Programs ...................................................................................................................... 30 3.3.2 The whole school training program strategy .......................................................................................................... 32 3.3.3 The Better Teaching and Learning Training Modules......................................................................................... 33 3.3.4 Training of school principals and supervisors ........................................................................................................ 35 3.3.5 Building Local Government Ownership and Support........................................................................................... 36 3.3.6 Facilitator and School Evaluation ............................................................................................................................... 36 3.3.7 Result of the Whole School Program ....................................................................................................................... 39 3.3.8 Results and Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................ 42

3.4 WORKING WITH TEACHER TRAINING INSTITUTIONS ...................................................................................... 43 3.4.1 Overview of Work with Teacher Training Institutions and LPMPs ................................................................. 43 3.4.2 Pilot Program with Teacher Training Universities ................................................................................................. 43 3.4.3 Results and Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................ 45

3.5 CLASSROOM ACTION RESEARCH......................................................................................................................... 46 3.5.1 Overview of the Program .............................................................................................................................................. 46 3.5.2 Results and Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................ 47

4. PUBLIC PRIVATE ALLIANCES ............................................................................................... 49

4.1 EXXON MOBIL INDONESIA ................................................................................................................................... 49 4.2 INTEL ........................................................................................................................................................................ 52 4.3 CONOCO PHILLIPS ................................................................................................................................................ 54 4.4 LOCAL PUBLIC PRIVATE ALLIANCES .................................................................................................................... 55 4.5 REVIEW AND EVALUATION OF PUBLIC PRIVATE ALLIANCE PROGRAMS ......................................................... 56

5. CROSS CUTTING ..................................................................................................................... 57

5.1 PROMOTE THE USE AND INTEGRATION OF ICT TO ENHANCE TEACHING AND LEARNING ........................ 57 5.2 ENSURE SUCCESS IN THE ISLAMIC EDUCATION SECTOR ................................................................................... 60 5.3 PROMOTE GENDER EQUITY ................................................................................................................................. 61 5.4 USE POSITIVE YOUTH DEVELOPMENT APPROACHES ........................................................................................... 61 5.5 PROMOTE SHARING BETWEEN FORMAL AND NON-FORMAL EDUCATION PROVIDERS ................................. 62 5.6 ADAPT APPROACHES FOR POST-CONFLICT AND POST-DISASTER ENVIRONMENTS. ...................................... 62

6. DISTANCE LEARNING ............................................................................................................ 63

6.1 E-LEARNING MODULE ........................................................................................................................................... 63 6.2 RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................................................................. 64 6.3 SELF STUDY MATERIALS ......................................................................................................................................... 66 6.4 RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................................................................. 66

7. PROJECT DISSEMINATION .................................................................................................... 67

7.1 CONDUCTING DISTRICT, PROVINCIAL AND NATIONAL SHOWCASE MEETINGS ......................................... 67 7.2 PARTICIPATION IN NATIONAL, MEETINGS AND CONFERENCES ..................................................................... 68 7.3 SUPPORT FOR DONOR PROJECTS, NATIONAL AND LOCAL INSTITUTIONS AND THE GOVERNMENT OF

INDONESIA .............................................................................................................................................................. 69 7.4 DISTRICT AND PROVINCIAL DISSEMINATION .................................................................................................... 70

7.4.1 National Dissemination ................................................................................................................................................. 70 7.4.2 Dissemination by Quarter and Year .......................................................................................................................... 71 7.4.3 The Impact of Dissemination....................................................................................................................................... 72 7.4.4 The Funding for Dissemination ................................................................................................................................... 72 7.4.5 Dissemination by Location ............................................................................................................................................ 75 7.4.6 Dissemination by School Type ..................................................................................................................................... 75 7.4.7 Dissemination by Program ............................................................................................................................................ 76 7.4.8 Results and Conclusions................................................................................................................................................. 76

8. NATIONAL LEVEL STUDIES AND RESEARCH ................................................................... 77

9. PUBLICATIONS / WEBSITES ................................................................................................. 81

9.1 NEWSLETTERS ......................................................................................................................................................... 81 9.1.1 DBE Newsletter: Mitra Pendidik ................................................................................................................................. 81 9.1.2 DBE Newsletter: Mitra Pendidik ................................................................................................................................. 81 9.1.3 DBE3 Good Practices Newsletter: Inovasi Pendidikan......................................................................................... 81

9.2 WEBSITES ................................................................................................................................................................ 83 9.3 GOOD PRACTICES BOOKS ................................................................................................................................... 84 9.4 PUBLICATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF TRAINING MATERIALS ......................................................................... 85

10. PROJECT MONITORING ......................................................................................................... 87

10.1 ORIGINAL PROJECT MONITORING ...................................................................................................................... 87 10.2 REVISED PROJECT MONITORING ......................................................................................................................... 89

10.2.1 Monitoring Summary ...................................................................................................................................................... 89 10.2.2 Main Project Results Related to Schools .................................................................................................................. 91

10.3 PROGRAM EVALUATIONS ...................................................................................................................................... 92

11. SOME DBE3 LESSONS LEARNED .......................................................................................... 95

11.1 GENERAL PROGRAM ISSUES................................................................................................................................... 95 11.1.1 Building Local Government Ownership and Commitment ................................................................................ 95 11.1.2 Working with the Willing ............................................................................................................................................. 95 11.1.3 Integrating Project Activities at Different Levels .................................................................................................... 96 11.1.4 Focus on Building Local Capacity for Self-Development .................................................................................... 96 11.1.5 The Whole School Approach ...................................................................................................................................... 97 11.1.6 Working More Intensively at Province Level .......................................................................................................... 97 11.1.7 Strengthening the Teachers Working Groups (MGMP) ..................................................................................... 98

11.2 PRINCIPLES OF EFFECTIVE TEACHER TRAINING .................................................................................................. 98 11.3 WORKING EFFECTIVELY WITH TEACHER TRAINING UNIVERSITIES ................................................................. 99 11.4 PRIVATE PUBLIC ALLIANCES ................................................................................................................................ 100 11.5 PROVISION OF BOOKS AND EQUIPMENT .......................................................................................................... 100 11.6 SUPPORTING EFFECTIVE DISSEMINATION .......................................................................................................... 100 11.7 OTHER ISSUES ....................................................................................................................................................... 101

12. PROJECT MANAGEMENT ..................................................................................................... 103

12.1 DBE3 MANAGEMENT .......................................................................................................................................... 103 12.2 STAFFING ............................................................................................................................................................... 103 12.3 MANAGEMENT AND REPORTING ACTIVITIES ................................................................................................... 104 12.4 COST SHARE ......................................................................................................................................................... 105

VOLUME 2: PROVINCIAL REPORTS

1. North Sumatera

2. Banten

3. West Java

4. Central Java

5. East Java

6. South Sulawesi

VOLUME 3: ANNEXES

LIST OF TABLES AND CHARTS

Table 1: National Facilitators for Formal Education .................................................................................................................................... 13

Table 2: Number and Percentage of Partner Junior Secondary Schools by type ................................................................................ 14

Table 3: District Facilitators for the Life Skills Training Program ............................................................................................................ 15

Table 4: Teachers Trained using the Life Skills Training Program 2006 – 2008 .................................................................................. 17

Table 5: Number of Districts using each Non Curricular Toolkit........................................................................................................... 18

Table 6: Number and Percentage of Target Non Formal Education Providers by Type .................................................................. 21

Table 7: District Facilitators for Non Formal Education ............................................................................................................................ 22

Table 8: Non Formal Education Managers Trained ...................................................................................................................................... 22

Table 9: Non Formal Education Tutors Trained ........................................................................................................................................... 24

Table 10: List of DBE3 Extension and Core Districts ................................................................................................................................. 31

Table 11: Facilitators and Teachers Trained in the BTL packages ........................................................................................................... 34

Table 12: Number of Teachers, School Principals and Supervisors Trained in BTL School Level Training ................................ 35

Table 13: Additional School Supervisors Trained to Support the BTL Program ................................................................................. 35

Table 14: District Facilitator Evaluation Results by Province and Rank ................................................................................................. 37

Table 15: Partner School Evaluation Results by Province and Rank ....................................................................................................... 38

Chart 1. Comparison of Scores on Indicators Related to Teaching and Learning ............................................................................ 40

Chart 2. Average Acores on the GOI National Examinations 2008-10 ............................................................................................... 40

Chart 3. Overall Results by Subject / Competency by Year in DBE3 Tests ....................................................................................... 41

Chart 4. Comparison of Scores on Indicators Related to Management .............................................................................................. 42

Table 16: Number of Staff from Universities and LPMP taking part in DBE3 training ....................................................................... 43

Table 17: Beneficiaries in the DBE3 Pilot Program with Universities ..................................................................................................... 45

Table 18: Numbers of Teachers Trained in North Aceh ........................................................................................................................... 50

Table 19: Participants in MGMP Facilitator Training by Subject and Gender ....................................................................................... 51

Table 20: Master Trainer Profiles ...................................................................................................................................................................... 53

Table 21: Participant Teacher Profiles ............................................................................................................................................................. 54

Table 22: Participants in ICT training ............................................................................................................................................................... 60

Table 23: Distribution of the DBE3 E learning Module (CD Rom) ......................................................................................................... 64

Table 24: Use of the DBE3 E-Learning Website ........................................................................................................................................... 64

Table 25: Dissemination of DBE3 Innovations 2006 to 2011 .................................................................................................................... 70

Chart 5. Project Dissemination by Participants, Institutions and Year ................................................................................................. 71

Chart 6. Impact in Partner, Dissemination and Comparison Schools ................................................................................................... 72

Chart 7. Local Funding for Dissemination by Source January 2009 to September 2011 ................................................................. 73

Table 26: Dissemination by School Type ........................................................................................................................................................ 76

Table 27: DBE Newsletter Distribution: Mitra Pendidik ............................................................................................................................ 81

Chart 8. Distribution of DBE3 Provincial Newsletters ............................................................................................................................. 82

Table 28: DBE3 Provincial Newsletters .......................................................................................................................................................... 82

Table 29: Use of the DBE3 Website ................................................................................................................................................................ 83

Table 30: Top 20 Countries ............................................................................................................................................................................... 84

Table 31: Summary of DBE3 Monitoring and Evaluation Results in 2008 .............................................................................................. 87

Table 32: Summary of DBE3 Monitoring and Evaluation Results in Project Final Year ..................................................................... 89

Table 33: Results for USAID Custom Indicators 2006 -2011 ................................................................................................................... 93

TABLE OF TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS AED

Academy for Educational Development

APBD Anggaran Pendapatan dan Belanja Dearah (regional budget)

BAPPEDA Government Planning Board

BEP Basic Education Project (funded by AusAid) BTL1/2/3/4 Better Teaching and Learning

CAR Classroom Action Research

COP Chief of Party/Program Director

CLCC Creating Learning Communities for Children

DBE Decentralized Basic Education

DBE1 Improving the Quality of Management and Governance

DBE2 Improving the Quality of Primary Teaching and Learning

DBE3 Improving the Relevance of Junior Secondary Education

DC District Coordinator

DCOP Deputy Chief of Party

DINAS Provincial or district education office

DIKNAS Dinas Pendidikan Nasional (National Education Office)

DPRD Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat Daerah (Regional House of Representatives)

DF District facilitator

GOI Government of Indonesia

IR Intermediate Result

IRD International Relief and Development

ICT Information & communications technologies

KKKS Kelompok Kerja Kepala Sekolah (School Principals Working group)

LSE Life Skills Education

LPMP Lembaga Peningkatan Mutu Pendidikan (Institute for Assuring the Quality of Educational Personnel – MONE)

M&E Monitoring & Evaluation

MONE Ministry of National Education

MORA Ministry of Religious Affairs

MBE Managing Basic Education

MGMP Musyawarah Teacher Mata Pelajaran (junior high school subject teacher association)

MAPENDA Madrasah dan Pendidikan Agama (Madrasah and Religious Education – a section of Religious Affairs)

MKKS Musyawarah Kerja Kepala Sekolah (School Principal Working Group)

MT Management Team MTE Mid-Term Evaluation

NCG Non Cash Grant

NGO/LSM Lembaga Swadaya Masyarakat (Non Government Organization)

PC Provincial Coordinator

PKG Pemantapan Kemampuan Teacher supported by the World Bank, UNESCO and other donors

PPA Public-Private Alliances

PMPTK Ditjen Peningkatan Mutu Pendidik dan Tenaga Kependidikan (Directorate General for Quality Improvement of Teachers and Education Personnel)

P4TK Pusat Pengembangan Permberdayaan dan Tenaga Kependidikan (subject matter teacher training centers)

PMAB Program Management Advisory Board

SC Save the Children Federation, Inc SEAMOLEC South East Asian Minister of Education Organization Regional Open

Learning Center

SMA/SMK Senior high school/Vocational high school

SMP Junior secondary school

STTA Short-Term Technical Assistance

ToT Training of Trainers

USAID United State Agency for International Development

UT Universitas Terbuka (Open University of Indonesia)

DBE3 RELEVANT EDUCATION FOR YOUTH: FINAL PROJECT REPORT 1

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 Project Value

The DBE3 project started in June 2005 and was originally scheduled to end in June 2010, but was extended first through a no cost and then an at cost extension until December 2011. The original project value was USD 22,800,000 which was increased by USD 6,262,209 to a total of USD 29,062,209 to cover a one year cost extension from January to December 2011. DBE3 was also required to provide a cost share of USD 2,400,000, which was increased to USD 3,000,000 as part of the cost extension. The actual cost share achieved was USD 3,765,713.

The project was managed by Save the Children as the prime grantee with the Academy for Education Development (until December 2010), the Asia Foundation (until 20081) and International Relief and Development (for the length of the project) as sub-grantees.

1.2 Original Project Program

The primary aims of the original project were to:

• Improve the basic education received by students in Junior Secondary School so that it directly related to the skills needed upon entering the work force (life skills)

• Assist youth who had dropped out of school before receiving their Junior Secondary School certificate to build the skills needed better to participate in the community and workforce

DBE3 worked in 6 provinces expanding in two phases (cohorts) to cover 98 sub-districts in 44 districts. The project focused on three main areas of intervention and:

• Worked at district level to build support and capacity for quality relevant youth education programs and to promote the scale up (dissemination) of the project innovations. Activities included training 789 Facilitators, engaging District Governments in all project activities and strengthening the MGMP2;

• Partnered with 196 formal junior schools to implement a model of school improvement and student retention. This involved developing a comprehensive teacher training program and using it to train and mentor 15,810 teachers; developing five Life Skills oriented toolkits to provide ready to use resources for schools to implement activities that reinforce life skills and; using information and ideas from youth themselves to prepare a toolkit containing information, resources, and tools that can be used by students, teachers, schools, managers, parents and other community members to support young people to finish school;

• Selected and worked with 191 non formal education providers to implement a model of education improvement for programs for out of school youth. DBE3 developed the capacity of 407 managers in non formal education providers through implementing a Management training program and improved the instructional skills of 467 tutors. DBE3 also prepared three key policy documents for the Directorate of Equivalency Education for the improved management and implementation of the Junior Secondary School equivalency program (named Paket B)

The results of the program in the first three years were mixed. By 2008, teams of District Facilitators had successfully been established in each District and 88.6% of the Facilitators were performing at a high level. 85.8% of the teachers in partner schools were successfully using activity based learning approaches to build students life skills and 93.3% of students in partner schools were consistently demonstrating key life skills competencies. In Non Formal Education, 414 NFE Partner Managers had gained knowledge and experience on how to develop proposals for Life Skills

1 Letter of Resignation from The Asia Foundation was received on July 2nd 2008

2 District wide subject based teachers working groups


vocational training programs, 1690 out of school youth had participated in vocational training programs and learn skills which enabled many of them to enter the work force and DBE3 had mobilized additional support for partner NFEP and leveraged leverage in kind and financial support from other sources to the amount of 35,955 USD or 13.6% of the DBE3 contribution.

However, the project was having difficulty implement all the components effectively and the potential impact of the project suffered from working with only a limited number of schools and non formal education providers, teachers, tutors and students in each district3.

1.3 Mid Term Evaluation

A mid-term evaluation at the end of 2007 and into early 2008 concluded that DBE3’s scope was too broad and the project was attempting too many activities with little evidence that it could achieve impact in any of them; the lack of a whole-school approach was fundamental to the limited impact in schools. As a result, the independent mid term evaluation team recommended simplifying and refocusing the project on formal education only and developing a more comprehensive and intensive approach to whole school development.

1.4 Revised Project Program

On the instructions of USAID the DBE3 project underwent a considerable revision in 2008 in line with the recommendations of the mid-term evaluation. Non-formal education activities were phased out and resources redirected to achieve greater change in formal education.

The Whole School Program: From the beginning of 2009 DBE3 focused primarily on a more intensive program in formal junior secondary schools, initially in 25 “extension”4 districts where a more in-depth DBE3 school training program was implemented based on a “whole school integrated approach”5 to quality improvement. The program included:

• An increase in the number of directly supported schools in each of the extension districts in most cases from four to ten in order to create a greater presence and critical mass;

• The implementation of a school training program based on a “whole school integrated approach” to quality improvement which involved training teachers of all core subjects, school principals and other senior management staff in partner schools.

DBE3 supported the sustainability and intensified the impact of the whole school program by developing local ownership of the program and its innovations at all levels and building capacity to support and disseminate the program over the long term. This included:

• Selecting and training a team of district facilitators to train teachers in the core subjects in both the partner schools and to disseminate district-wide;

• Involving local government in the development and management of the program and working with school principals and supervisors to increase their role in supporting development and change;

3 Some key components of the project had only just started to be implemented by the end of 2007 including the school retention activities and out of school training programs. Moreover, the original project trained teachers of only English and Civics with some piloting of Mathematics and worked in only 4 schools and 5 non formal education providers in each district which was insufficient to create a momentum for change.

4 Owing to limited resources the revised program was introduced first in 25 districts, which had performed well in the earlier part of the project. These districts were called ‘extension’ districts (where an ‘extended’ program was taking place). The remaining 19 districts were called ‘core’ districts where the original ‘core’ program continued to be implemented.

5 Piecemeal approaches by training just a few teachers at a time have over the years proved ineffective in bringing about lasting and effective change in schools. The ‘whole school integrated approach’ is designed to achieve fundamental change in both teaching and school management. It involves training a critical mass of teachers (in the case of DBE3, teachers of the five core curriculum subjects) as well as the school principal, whose management and professional support is necessary to institute lasting change. It also involves a comprehensive set of activities including study visits, training and mentoring.


DBE3 Partner Districts and Summary of Training Received

Province Cohort One (from January 2006)

Training Received

Cohort Two (from March 2007)

Training Received

North Sumatra

Extension Districts

Binjai A & C Dairi B & C

North Tapanuli A* & C N. Tapanuli ** B* & C

South Tapanuli B & C

Tanjung Balai B & C

Core Districts

Kota Sibolga A & D

Tebing Tinggi A & D

Deli Serdang A & D

Banten

Extension District Kota Cilegon A & C

Core Districts Kota Tangerang A & D

Lebak A & D

West Java Extension Districts

Indramayu A & C Indramayu ** B & C

Karawang A & C Karawang ** B & C

Bogor B & C

Garut B* & C

Core Districts Sukabumi A & D Subang B & D

Central Java

Extension Districts

Karanganyar A* & C Purworejo B & C

Kudus A* & C Grobogan B & C

Boyolali A & C

Core Districts Jepara A & D Blora B & D

Klaten A & D Klaten ** B & D

Demak B & D

East Java

Extension Districts

Tuban A & C Tuban ** B & C

Sidoarjo A & C Pasuruan B* & C

Bojonegoro B & C

Nganjuk B* & C

Core Districts

Bangkalan A & D Sampang B & D

Kota Mojokerto A & D

Kota Surabaya A & D

South Sulawesi

Extension Districts

Palopo A & C Makassar B* & C

Soppeng A & C Pinrang B & C

Sidenrang Rappang B & C

Core Districts

Pangkep A & D Luwu B & D

Enrekang A & D

Jeneponto A & D

Key to List of Training Received A: Cohort 1 District Schools B: Cohort 2 District Schools Life Skills Program (2005 – 2009)

Better Teaching and Learning 1 Integrating Life Skills Education into Classroom Practice ICT for Life Skills Education Civics Modules English Modules Non Curricular Toolkits School Retention Toolkit

A* also included Mathematics module

Better Teaching and Learning 1 Integrating Life Skills Education into Classroom Practice ICT for Life Skills Education Civics Modules English Modules Non Curricular Toolkits

B* also included Mathematics Module C: Extension District Schools D: Core Districts Schools Whole School Approach (2009 – 2011)

Better Teaching and Learning 2 Better Teaching and Learning 3 Better Teaching and Learning 4 How to Use ICT in BTL Increasing the Capacity of School Principals and Supervisors

Better Teaching and Learning 2 Better Teaching and Learning 3 Better Teaching and Learning 4 Increasing the Capacity of School Principals and Supervisors

Schools in the extension districts, which joined the project in 2009 only received training packages as listed in C.

A list of training received by individual schools is included in Volume 2 of this report: Provincial Reports


• Involving the provincial quality assurance institutes (LPMP) and teacher training universities in the program at province, district and school levels in order to build up understanding of the program and capacity to support its sustainability and wider dissemination.

• Implementing strategies to identify and disseminate innovations between schools and districts and encourage their adoption a national level by the use district, provincial and central showcase meetings involving relevant GOI institutions to raise awareness as well as dedicated newsletters and a website to document and spread specific good practices.

• In late 2009 DBE3 also started to implement the ‘whole school’ approach in the remaining 19 so-called ‘core’ districts. This included the selection and training of district facilitators and training of principals, supervisors and teachers.

Building Government Ownership and Support: An important part of the DBE3 program involved building local government6 support and ownership of the DBE3 program in order to support the dissemination and sustainability of the programs. This included involving local government in program activities including the selection and training of district facilitators, monitoring the impact of the program on schools and holding regular showcase and planning meetings at district, province and national levels to present the achievements of the program to a variety of stakeholders and plan for the further development and dissemination of the program.

The Impact on Schools and Students: Between 2009 and 2011 an increasing impact was seen on schools in the extension districts, especially when compared to a group of comparison schools which barely registered on the indicators. For example, on indicators relating to teaching and learning 91% of teachers in the partner schools in the extension districts fulfilled the criteria on teacher behaviour. Figures for an improved classroom environment and student activity indicators are similar. When monitored in 2011 the schools in the core districts also demonstrated a similar impact of the DBE3 program. Increases were also observed in student performance. In the national examination (UN) the results in all subjects increased considerably between 2008 and 2010 with an average increase of 6.4% over the period. DBE3 undertook an assessment of its own which focused more on students’ skills. Over the two year period between 2009 and 2011 scores in all subjects showed a sustantial increase. Mathematics scores went up 48.2%. The English Listening, Reading and Writing and English Speaking test scores also rose 20% over two years and the overall scores in the Bahasa Indonesia tests were up 18.2% in the same time period.

Working with Teacher Training Institutions: From the start of the revised project program in March 2009 DBE3 started to involve staff from the training universities (LPTK) and Quality Assurance Institutes (LPMP) in each of the project provinces in project activities. The engagement with the Institutions was limited and mostly involved including working with a small group of individuals from them in the provincial BTL training program, both the training of facilitators and teachers and in the Classroom Action Research program. The activities were well received by those involved but resulted in limited impact given the small numbers of staff involved.

Pilot Program with Teacher Training Universities: As a result of the limited impact of the work with the Teacher Training Institutions, DBE3 implemented a more intensive pilot program in the final year of the project with the State Universities of Semarang (UNNES) and Makassar (UNM). This involved key pre-and in-service departments within the universities and a larger number of staff. The program was designed to encourage them to adopt and make use of some of the key project programs, and approaches in order to improve the quality of both their pre- and in-service teacher training courses. Lecturers were trained to use the whole school training modules and supported in using the approaches with their students, including practical teaching in schools. The materials were also used to train the university partner schools. The two universities also developed their own programs of classroom action research.

6 The term local government is used here to include both provincial and district governments and the provincial and district offices of the ministry of religious affairs (MORA). The MORA offices are in fact local branches of the central ministry, but have a considerable level of autonomy and happen in practice corporate a closely with the provincial and district education offices, whichever ranges of local government.


Classroom Action Research (CAR): During year 4 of the project 75 persons consisting of 25 university lecturers/LPMP trainers, 25 district facilitators and 25 teachers from partner schools took part in a classroom action research program. They were divided into 25 groups of three persons, all of which designed, implemented and reported on their CAR program. Eleven of the groups contributed to a CAR Journal which was published in both Indonesian and English. The program, results and a set of CAR Guidelines were presented to a group of university personnel from nine provinces in late 2011 and aroused considerable interest amongst the Universities represented. DBE3 recommends that future programs follow up on this. The program was also disseminated through the pilot university program mentioned in the previous paragraph.

1.5 Cross Cutting

DBE3 integrated six key cross cutting issues across all program activities. Only three were relevant for the full six years of project implementation:

Promote the use and integration of ICT to enhance teaching and learning: The goal of DBE3’s ICT strategy was to support schools to provide opportunities for students to develop their ICT capability7 through the use of ICT across the curriculum. To achieve this, DBE3 worked in partnership with Intel® to improve teachers ICT skills by training 1,338 teachers using the ‘Getting Started’ program; developed a program to train general curriculum teachers to integrate ICT into their teaching and learning activities in the classroom and trained 507 teachers. To support teachers to be able to implement what they had learned in the ICT training, DBE3 procured and distributed 932 computers and over 1,000 other peripherals to partner schools.

In 2009 the project collaborated with the South East Asian Minister of Education Organization Regional Open Learning Centre (SEAMOLEC) to convert some DBE3 Teacher Training materials into Distance Education (eLearning) materials and host them on a website http://www.dbe3elearning.net.

Ensure success in the Islamic Education Sector: Through all project activities, DBE3 took action to ensure equal success in Islamic Education Institutions and to encourage the greater integration of Islamic schools into the national education system. Key activities included creating integrated sub-district MGMPs and training clusters in all training programs and engaging with Islamic Universities as well as general Universities. The Islamic sector was well represented in the school training program with 40% of the partner schools being Madrasah Tsanawiyah (slightly higher than their proportion in the overall education system). These schools showed good levels of progress on the project indicators over the course of the project.

Promote Gender Equity: DBE3 prioritized the improvement of a relevant education to both male and female youth and ensured that its activities were of interest to both genders. DBE3 applied an affirmative action policy, where possible ensuring at least 30 per cent participation by females in all program activities and seeking to promote gender balance in project staffing. All training modules were reviewed for gender sensitivity.

1.6 Distance Learning

DBE3 worked with two national organizations to adapt some key DBE3 training materials to be used in different learning environments so that teachers had access to alternative modes of training delivery if they were unable to participate in face to face training workshops. During the last 3 years of the project DBE3 collaborated with the South East Asian Minister of Education Organization Regional Open Learning Center (SEAMOLEC) to convert the paper-based Better Teaching and Learning 1 module into an E-Module and host it on a website dedicated to promoting the use of ICT

7 ICT capability can be defined as the ability to use ICT and information tools appropriately and effectively to achieve a desired result. To be considered ICT capable, a person requires not only a set of basic skills, such as how to use a mouse, but also the ability to select appropriate routines, techniques and processes to produce a specific outcome


in Education www.dbe3elearning.net. By the end of the project the module now had over 1,300 registered users from 103 districts in 32 provinces across Indonesia.

DBE3 also made efforts to work with the Indonesian Open University (Unversitas Terbuka - UT) to re-purpose some of the DBE3 BTL materials from face to face workshop materials into self study materials for use in the UT teacher training distance education programs. However, after reviewing the materials and attending a workshop hosted by DBE3, the UT decided not to engage in efforts to adapt them but requested permission to use them directly with teachers in tutors.

1.7 Program Dissemination8

Dissemination of the DBE3 training programs reached 50,179 additional Junior Secondary School educators from 6,440 Junior Secondary Institutions over the life of the project. Most of the dissemination took place in Central and West Java which together account for 58.5% of the total number of the additional institutions and 60.7% of the additional educators.

Dissemination was conducted in 41 of the 44 DBE3 partner districts and covered 37.1% of the total number of Junior Secondary Schools in these districts. Dissemination also took place in 42 non partner districts although the coverage within each of theses districts was not as high as in partner districts.

A total budget of USD1, 738,860 was used for this dissemination with 78.2% coming from local sources. 28 of the partner districts and 10 non partner districts contributed budgets and/or MORA funds for the dissemination of DBE3 programs. Much dissemination was also supported by schools’ own operational funding (BOS).

Dissemination had a positive impact on the schools. When compared to a group of DBE3 comparison schools9, the dissemination schools did better on all DBE3 teaching and learning indicators (with the exception of Instructional Leadership). However, the impact on teaching and learning in dissemination schools was not as significant as that on impact on partner schools.

1.8 Studies

DBE3 completed and shared 15 studies and research reports during the six years of the project. The purpose of these documents was to find and share information about the functioning of the Junior Secondary Education system at the national district and school level, to inform the nature of project interventions and influence Government Policy. Several of the studies were shared with other donors through the Education Sector Working Group.

1.9 Publications / Websites

Newsletters: DBE3 published 10 editions of the DBE newsletter “Mitra Pendidik” over the life of the project totalling 181,508 newsletters. From early 2009 DBE3 published regular project newsletters at national and provincial levels to record, publicize and disseminate good practices developed in program districts and schools as a result of project activities. Most of the articles were written by stakeholders and local project staff. The newsletters were distributed to stakeholders at province and district levels, including schools. Copies of the national newsletter were given to MONE, MORA, and USAID and to other education sector donors.

DBE3 Website: Since early 2009 DBE3 maintained its own website, which goes under the same name as the newsletter Inovasi Pendidikan (www.inovasipendidikan.net) and ensured that it was regularly updated and included all the project newsletters from national and provincial level as well as most of the training materials, which are available for download.

8 Dissemination refers to implementation of DBE3 training programs in schools and other institutions other than the designated DBE3 partner schools.

9 Schools which did not participate in the DBE3 program but were monitored as a “control group”


Good Practices Books: Materials were collected from the national and provincial newsletter recording good practices in teaching and learning, as well as school leadership and management. This was supplemented by materials specially solicited from known good practitioners. A number of workshops were conducted over final two years of the project to edit and lay out the materials. As a result, a series of six books documenting good practices were completed. They covered the five core curriculum subjects and school management and leadership to support change.

The BTL training materials were also published in their final version in late 2011. Copies of these and the good practices books were distributed to district and national facilitators, schools, school supervisors, provincial and district education and religious affairs offices, partner teacher training universities and LPMPs. Copies were also given to MONE, MORA and donors involved in the education sector.

The Project Newsletters, Good Practices Book and BTL Training Materials are available for download on the project website (www.inovasipendidikan.net).

1.10 Project Monitoring

Monitoring of the DBE3 project between 2005 and 2008 was based on 52 performance indicators agreed with USAID. The program of monitoring and evaluation for the original project started in October 2005 and ended in February 2009 following the re-scoping of the project following the mid term evaluation. During this period, data was collected from all 44 DBE3 partner districts, 196 schools and 191 Non Formal Education providers through a variety of instruments. The monitoring showed that the impact and progress of DBE3 between 2005 and 2008 was inconsistent over the years and across the project.

In 2009 a new set of 23 project indicators was agreed with USAID to measure progress in the revised project scope and considerable progress was made on these indicators between 2009 and 2011, as summarized in the next section.

1.11 Project Results in the Formal Sector

By the end of the project in 2011, DBE3 successfully achieved targets for 75% of the project indicators and exceeded many of these. Targets for only 5 indicators (21%) were not met with two of these related to project dissemination.

Teaching and Learning: The results on the three indicators related to teaching and learning (teacher behavior, student activities and classroom environment) showed a clear rise between 2009 and 2011. During the 2009 monitoring a considerable impact was already visible in each indicator in the extension district schools, where about 50% of classrooms were implementing changes, compared a group of the comparison schools which were not taking part in the project and barely registered on the indicators. This impact increased greatly by 2010 and was maintained in 2011, where approximately 90% of classrooms monitored had implementing the changes being measured. The schools in the core districts also scored similarly in the 2011 monitoring, demonstrating the impact of the DBE3 program.

Student Performance: The average scores from the national school examinations in the partner schools in the extension districts showed a small overall rise in scores of 6.4% between 2008 and 2010. DBE3 also undertook an assessment of student performance of its own in 2009, 2010 and 2011 in a sample of 54 schools using tests, which focused more on students’ skills. Over the two year period scores in all subjects showed a sustantial increase. Mathematics scores went up 48.2% reflecting students’ becoming accustomed to the problem solving style of questions in the test. The English Listening, Reading and Writing and English Speaking test scores also rose 20% over two years (despite a fall in 2011) and the overall scores in the Bahasa Indonesia tests were up 18.2% in the same time period.


Principal Leadership and Management: There was a large improvement in the partner schools in the extension districts on indicators related to school principal leadership and management. The percentage of school principals in the extension districts exercising professional leadership in their schools rose from only 12% to 72.8% between 2009 and 2011. The biggest increase on this indicator was in the number of principals monitoring teaching and learning.

Dissemination of the DBE3 training programs reached 50,179 additional Junior Secondary School educators from 6,440 Junior Secondary Institutions over the life of the project.

1.12 Summary of DBE3 Lessons Learned

a) General Program Issues

Building Local Government Ownership and Commitment: In order to build local capacity and commitment it is important that a broad spectrum of stakeholders should be involved in the programs from the start of the project in order to build understanding and support in local government. They should be involved in the planning and implementation of project activities. Activities can and should include: regular planning and review meetings with key stakeholders; their involvement in implementing program activities, monitoring the impact of activities and opportunities to showcase their achievements.

Working with the Willing: Given the limited resources available in donor programs the focus should be on maximizing the return and building models of good practice for dissemination. To achieve this means working primarily with willing and committed districts and schools. Where schools do not show improved performance after training, there should be no hesitation in replacing them with other schools with greater potential.

Integrating Project Activities at Different Levels: The division of DBE into three components led to problems in developing synergy between different parts of the education system in districts. Project activities at all levels should work in an integrated manner, since plans and activities at one level should influence and support activities at other levels. Activities at all levels should also be linked. District and school planning need, for example, to be linked to improvements in the delivery of education in the classroom.

Focus on Building Local Capacity for Self-Development: The focus of donor assistance should be on capacity building for local government rather direct service delivery. This involves building districts’ own training and support capacity and helping them build their own development strategies. Where at all possible, project staff should not be doing things which local government and school staff can do for themselves.

The Whole School Approach: The implementation of the whole school program by DBE3 confirmed that changes and improvements in teaching subject areas will only be successful if they are part of a wider program to improve the management and ethos of the school and the teaching methodologies used across the curriculum. Student centered education based on developing personal and academic skills must be applied consistently across the whole curriculum, not just in specific subjects and at specific times.

Working More Intensively at Province Level: In order to strengthen the involvement of provincial government and encourage them to mobilize their considerable financial resources, it is suggested that (i) a formal agreement such as an MOU be made with the provincial government; (ii) projects maintain a presence in the provincial government offices, much as they have at district level.; and (iii) regular meeting with and visits to districts are sponsored to build a flow of information between district and province level and between agencies at those levels. Additionally, at project level, much more management responsibility needs to be given to province level and to developing service provider capacity at province level.

Strengthening Teachers Working Groups (MGMP): Since the MGMP in many districts are not easily accessible to schools and teachers, attention needs to be given in future to encouraging


districts to establish sub-regional MGMP. DBE3 partner districts, which established sub regional MGMP should be called upon to give the benefit of their experience to others. Future training should also encourage the establishment of school level MGMP in all schools and train schools in how to make effective use of these groups.

b) Principles of Effective Teacher Training

• It is essential for training programs to have a simple, clear and well articulated objectives easily observable change. Training of teachers should be supported by a variety of other activities in order to be effective.

• Study visits are very effective in raising awareness of new practices and direct observation is much more meaningful than hearing at second hand.

• School principals and supervisors should have the opportunity to attend the training of teachers in order to discover at first hand what they are learning. They should also be trained separately to understand their role in supporting change in their schools.

• Mentoring of teachers by district facilitators was very valuable in supporting teachers after training in implementing the results of the training in their classrooms. However, the limited number of facilitators means that alternative ways of mentoring need to be developed for the future, such as developing teacher mentors from the best teachers in each individual school.

• Requiring schools and teachers to showcase the results of training approximately two months after training was very effective in encouraging schools and teachers to implement training

• District facilitators were effective in training and supporting teachers after training. However, it is recommended that the teams include one or more supervisors, one of whom can act as coordinator of the team and liaise with the district government.

• Training should seek to minimize the disturbance to school teaching and learning activities by designing some activities which can be implemented through regular teachers working group (MGMP) or other in-school activities.

Working Effectively with Teacher Training Universities:

• It is important to have a formal relationship, such as an MOU, with the universities, as this helps them mobilize their resources to support activities.

• It is essential to identify the key departments and personnel at the universities who are involved in pre- and in-service teacher training and to focus activities on them. As with districts and schools, it is important to work with willing and commitment staff.

• It is important to identify university programs which can usefully be strengthened using the materials and technical assistance available.

• The universities operate within catchment areas, and development activities should take note of this and not expect them to operate in areas well outside these catchment areas.

• Management capacity to run extended programs is weak. Most programs tend to be ad hoc and short term. In addition, few incentives exist for developing and selling high class services to districts and schools.

Private Public Alliances: PPA’s are a useful way of spreading the impact of projects by gaining new sources of funding. However, the activities funded by the PPA should be integrated into the whole of the project rather than run as separate and discrete activities, which may distract from the core objectives of the project.

Provision of Books and Equipment: In order to avoid donor dependency, distribution of books and equipment by projects needs to be carried out with the utmost caution and generally only to pilot specific activities. The recipient institutions should be involved in planning and procuring the goods in order to develop a sense of ownership and accountability in a manner that is in line with school and institutional based management principles which have been adopted by the GOI.


Principles of Dissemination:

• Programs should be designed to build GOI capacity to disseminate programs for themselves. This involves creating training capacity in the form of facilitators, creating examples of good practices which can be observed and emulated. Local government and key institutional staff at school and training provider level should be in planning and implementation. Therefore, in moving into new districts, building local capacity should be the first priority.

• Effective advocacy strategies need to be adopted in order to create awareness of the impact of development programs and generate interest amongst other potential adopters of the program. Showcase meetings at school, district and province levels have been particularly effective in this respect, especially when a variety of stakeholders including Education and Religious Affairs and Local Development Agency staff, as well as Local Parliament and Education Council representatives are involved.

• Dissemination approaches and strategies should be planned well in advance and be consistent across all geographic areas. Approaches to advocating for dissemination in Islamic and General schools may need to be slightly different due to the different funding mechanisms and management of the two sectors.

• Dissemination activities should not be viewed as a step child to project activities. Dissemination training should conform to exactly the standards of quality as direct service training.

• The earlier stages of involvement in a district are likely to require a higher level of project funding as capacity and models of good practice are built. However, as districts and schools recognize the value of the programs, funding should increasingly be provided by local sources and project assistance reduced.


2. ORIGINAL PROJECT PROGRAM

2.1 Project Overview

The DBE3 project started in June 2005. The primary aims of the project at that time were to:

• Improve the basic education received by students in Junior Secondary School so that it directly related to the skills needed upon entering the work force (life skills)

• Assist youth who had dropped out of school before receiving their Junior Secondary School certificate to build the skills needed better to participate in the community and workforce

The project worked with the Government, the private sector, community groups and other key stakeholders to achieve these aims through three inter-related objectives:

• To create a more supportive environment to improve capacity to sustain and disseminate relevant and quality youth education programs

• To better prepare Junior secondary school10 students for lifelong learning, entrance into the workforce and participation in community development (formal education)

• To better prepare out-of-school youth for lifelong learning, entrance into the workforce and participation in community development (non formal education)

DBE3 worked in 6 provinces expanding in two phases (cohorts11) to cover 98 sub-districts in 44 districts. The geographic location of these districts is shown in Volume 2: Provincial Reports.

Province Cohort One (from January 2006) Cohort Two (from March 2007) North Sumatra

Binjai Dairi Tebing Tinggi South Tapanuli Kota Sibolga Tanjung Balai North Tapanuli North Tapanuli (within district expansion) Deli Serdang

Banten

Lebak Kota Tangerang Kota Cilegon

West Java

Sukabumi Bogor Indramayu Indramayu (within district expansion) Karawang Karawang (within district expansion)

Subang Garut

Central Java

Jepara Blora Kudus Grobogan Karanganyar Demak Boyolali Purworejo Klaten Klaten (within district expansion)

East Java

Bangkalan Pasuruan Kota Mojokerto Bojonegoro Sidoarjo Nganjuk Tuban Tuban (within district expansion) Kota Surabaya Sampang

South Sulawesi

Pangkep Makassar Soppeng Pinrang Enrekang Sidenrang Rappang Jeneponto Luwu

10 DBE3 uses the general term “Schools” to cover both SMP and Madrasah Tsanawiyah. Where the term target schools is used within this report it therefore refers to both types.

11 Cohort 1 started in January 2006 and included 26 Districts and 52 sub districts and cohort 2 started in March 2007 and included 18 new Districts and expansion within 5 cohort 1 districts.


Palopo

The project provided mostly technical assistance and related services and focused on three main areas of intervention:

• Working at district level to build support and capacity for quality relevant youth education programs and to promote the scale up (dissemination) of the project innovations;

• Partnering with 4 formal junior schools per district to improve the quality and relevance of teaching and learning activities (primarily in English, Civics and Mathematics), non curricular activities and improving school retention;

• Selecting and working with 6 non formal education providers per district to improve the quality and relevance of education for out of school youth, which included building the capacity of managers and tutors and distribution of non cash grants.

2.2 Creating a Supportive Environment

One of the main objectives of the project was to build an environment which would support quality improvement in the Junior Secondary Education system. To do this, DBE3 focused on building human and institutional capacity within each partner district to understand, support and scale up project interventions within the formal and non formal system. The main DBE3 strategies were to:

• Build Knowledge and Skills within the District

• Engage with Districts Stakeholders as active partners

• Strengthen existing local systems and structures

Some of the specific activities under each strategy are summarized below.

2.2.1 Building Knowledge and Skills within the District

An overarching strategy used by the project was to build human capacity within the District to ensure there was the necessary knowledge, skills and understanding for Districts to be able to sustain and disseminate the project innovations independently of DBE3. To build human capacity DBE3 worked directly with key Government Education staff at the district level and:

• Established and built the capacity of a nucleus of teacher trainers (called Facilitators) at the National and District level to conduct the school level training and mentoring of teachers and to disseminate the project innovations. DBE3 worked closely with local Government to select a total 131 National Facilitators and 555 District Facilitators for formal education and 123 NFE District Facilitators. For the initial roll out of the project activities in Formal Education, National Facilitators were selected from experienced and successful trainers from other programs such as REDIP and MBE12 and consisted of between 3 and 5 persons per core subject. As the project progressed, National Facilitators were selected from the best performing District Facilitators. The role of the National Facilitators was to support the training in each province.

A list of National Facilitators between 2005 and 2008 is included in volume 3 annex 1.

• Developed, tested and refined a set of products which were user friendly, self contained and specifically designed as a manageable and affordable training program to promote local buy in. All Training workshops were kept a manageable length (each lasting a maximum of 3 days) and were implemented at low cost (for example, could be held in schools or MGMP venues and did not require a lot of expensive equipment).

12 REDIP: A JICA funded project in Junior Secondary Education in Indonesia and MBE, a USAID funded Managing Basic Education project (2003-2007)


Table 1: National Facilitators for Formal Education

Module13

Province BTL ICT LSE BEF Math Eng Civics Total

Jakarta 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 6

North Sumatra 3 3 3 2 3 3 4 21

West Java/ Banten 3 5 4 2 3 3 2 22

Central Java 3 3 5 4 6 6 4 31

East Java 5 3 5 4 3 3 4 27

South Sulawesi 3 3 3 3 3 5 4 24

Total 20 20 20 15 18 20 18 131

2.2.2 Engaging with Districts Stakeholders as Active Partners

Strong partnerships with local government and other stakeholders were essential to foster the commitment and sense of ownership needed for DBE3’s interventions to succeed and continue. Therefore, DBE3 engaged appropriate Government education authorities at the District level as active partners from project start up in order to promote local Government ownership of the project and awareness its successes (and failures) as it developed so that they would feel the project innovations were theirs. DBE3 achieved this through:

• Establishing DBE District Committees comprised of steering and technical representation from a variety of stakeholders in each District. These stakeholders included the Bupati and his/her office; regional house of representatives; regional development planning agency; offices of education (formal and non-formal), religious affairs, workforce and health; the Board of Education; local chamber of commerce; representatives of schools heads and teachers; the nongovernmental organization community and DBE Provincial Coordinators to advise and support DBE. The purpose of the committees was to better enable the planning, implementation and evaluation of DBE activities in each of the partner districts and to inform decision-makers and planners so that they could sustain, improve, scale-up and integrate DBE activities into the current and future management of education in the district.

2.2.3 Strengthening existing Systems and Structures

DBE3 also worked to strengthen local systems and processes which would provide an effective mechanism for the further dissemination of project innovations. The main DBE3 activity was to improve the existing systems for in service Junior Secondary Schools teacher quality improvement (the MGMP). DBE3 worked with the International Development Center of Japan (IDCJ) and:

• Conducted an assessment of the MGMP system (see section 8) and used the assessment to develop a project strategy for supporting the development of MGMP in partner districts.

• Facilitated the development of localized, sub district MGMP, in order to make them more easily accessible to teachers, and trained 264 MGMP coordinators in how to develop and implement a program which responds to teachers’ needs (see volume 3 annex 2).

• Made limited funds available to each sub district MGMP to support activities. This was mostly used to cover the costs of technical assistance to facilitate meetings.

2.3 Formal Education

The main aim of the Formal Education program was to improve the relevance of education that youth in the formal junior secondary education system received so that it better prepared them for lifelong learning, entrance into the workforce and participation in community development.

13 Refers to the seven packages included in the DBE3 School Training Program:


The project strategy was to develop and implement a model for school improvement in a selection of partner schools and at the same time ensure districts had the capacity to support, sustain and disseminate the model.

2.3.1 School Selection

DBE3 worked with District Governments to select 4 schools per district as partners to develop and implement a model of quality improvement. Between 2005 and 2008, DBE3 worked with 196 schools in 44 districts benefitting 112,423 students and 7,293 teachers14. The key selection criterion for schools was:

• Minimum number of students 90; Minimum number of teachers 6; Minimum 3 class rooms.

• Has been in operation with enrolled students for at least 3 years.

• Written commitment from the school (principal) to support DBE3 activities.

• The location of the school is near or within a DBE1-2 primary school cluster and inside a target sub district.

• The school has an extracurricular activity program or is willing to initiate an extracurricular activity program.

• The school is not receiving any other donor agency funded assistance.

• The school is ready and willing to provide access and facilities for non-formal education programs.

• The school has commitment to cooperate with other stakeholders, including the business sector.

• Where possible, the schools selected should be those that are statistically shown to have a low graduation rate

The majority of the schools selected were SMP (57.6%) as shown in table 2 below. A list of schools in each province is included in the provincial reports in volume 2. The 196 original schools are highlighted in pink.

Table 2: Number and Percentage of Partner Junior Secondary Schools by type

Madrasah SMP

State Private Total State Private Total

# % # % # % # % # % # %

33

16.8%

50

25.5%

83

42.4%

99

50.5%

14

7.2%

113

57.6%

2.3.2 District Facilitators

To support the implementation of the project activities at the School and District level and build capacity of the District to support and sustain the project, DBE3 selected and trained a group of

14 104 schools, 4,058 teachers and 62,632 students in cohort 1 and 92 schools, 3,235 teachers and 49,791 students in cohort 2


educationists in each partner district. The main selection criterion was that the nominated person had to:

• Be from an education institution in the district and respected by Peers and Teachers

• An experienced educator in the subject they would train on for DBE3

• Had educational beliefs in line with expectation of current Indonesian changes in policy and practice and with DBE3 approaches (participatory training, activity based learning, competency based education) and willing to commit to working with the DBE3 project for a minimum of a year.

All selected Facilitators had to be approved by the district education office and receive letter of recommendation and approval from the district.

DBE3 selected and trained 555 District Facilitators15 (12 - 15 per district) over a series of initial and refresher workshops in August/September 2006, October/November 2007 and March/April 2008. A list of the District Facilitators for the Life Skills program by province and district can be found in the provincial reports in volume 2.

Table 3: District Facilitators for the Life Skills Training Program

Province # of Facilitators

North Sumatra 96

Banten 30

West Java 80

Central Java 112

East Java 121

South Sulawesi 96

Total 535

The training for the District Facilitators included not only the contents of the training they would implement with teachers but a program specifically for Facilitators, designed to help them to become effective facilitators and coaches for adult, professional learners rather than “trainers” or “supervisors.” The key materials were the “Becoming an Effective Facilitator” module and “Beyond the Workshop: Guidelines for Conducting School Based Mentoring Activities, both of which are described in volume 3 annex 3.

15 282 in cohort 1 and 273 in cohort 2

Training District Facilitators for Mathematics in West Java

DBE3 Training of Facilitators Materials: Beyond the Workshop. Guidelines for

Conducting Mentoring Activities


2.3.3 Activities with Formal Schools

The DBE3 model for Junior Secondary School Improvement included three main areas of activity as follows:

1. Supporting teachers in formal Junior Secondary Education schools to improve the relevance of the teaching and learning process through designing and implementing programs to develop life and employment skills within the curriculum.

2. Expanding opportunities for students to practice life skills through non-curricular activities by providing practical and participative resources for teachers

3. Developing and implementing school and community based strategies to promote school retention.

1. Improving the Relevance of Teaching and Learning

The original Request for Applications called for the DBE3 project to work on improving the Local Content Curriculum16 offered in Junior Secondary Schools by designing and implementing curriculums in Citizenship, English and ICT which would be used by partner schools. This was included as a component of the original technical proposal for DBE3. However, following the start up of the project and extensive discussions with relevant partners at the Ministry of National Education and the Department of Religious Affairs, DBE3 determined that it was inappropriate to work on the local content17. Furthermore, this strategy was seriously questioned by GOI who preferred DBE3 to work on supporting Junior Secondary Schools to design and implement the new competency based national curriculum in Mathematics, Science, ICT and English. Therefore, with USAID approval, in late December 2005, DBE3 altered the original design and instead focussed on working on improving the quality and relevance of education that students in Junior Secondary Schools received through the curriculum through training and mentoring teachers to integrate Life Skills Education (LSE) into their daily teaching practice. The project continued to focus on the subjects of English, Citizenship and ICT as proposed in the RFA but also introduced a pilot program for Mathematics as requested by GOI.

The project completed the following activities:

• Developed, tested and refined, materials to train Teachers using the ICARE18 approach. The materials included (a) Life Skills Education teacher training program and (b) Learning Resource Box. The Life Skills program consisted of a set of foundation training modules which were designed to introduce LSE as a cross curricular theme for teachers of all subjects and a set of subject modules specifically to support teachers of Mathematics, Civic Education and English to integrate LSE into daily teaching and learning activities. The Learning Resource Box contained a range of teaching and learning resources and work books to help teachers implement what they had learned in the training program in their daily classroom practice. The materials were

16 2 to 6 hours a week set aside in the curriculum to be used for instruction based on the special needs, character and the potential of the region. The purpose of the local content curriculum is to develop knowledge, skills and attitudes which are relevant to the local situation and which are not already addressed in other subjects. 17 There were clear guidelines from the Ministry of National Education on local curriculum, which specified that the content should focus on either vocational skills relating to a profession specific to the region, local language and local arts or handicrafts. General curriculum subjects such as Citizenship, ICT and English were unsuitable for Local Curricular Content and if DBE3 continued with the plan to develop curricular in these subjects for Junior Secondary Schools they would not be used. Moreover the GOI was asked DBE3 not to work on Citizenship Education at all! 18 ICARE is an instructional framework used by DBE3 to structure the learning. The ICARE system covers the five key elements of any good learning experience (whether with children, youth or adults) Introduction, Connection, Application, Reflection and Extension. Using the ICARE system ensures that learners have the opportunity to apply what they have learned.


developed by a team including International and National Consultants, staff from relevant directorates and institutions at MONE and MORA and DBE3 technical staff.

• All the modules were submitted to the Directorate of Junior Secondary Education at MONE in draft form for review and approval19. The aims and contents of each of the modules are described in more detail in Volume 3 Annex 4.

• Supported the District Facilitators (see above) to train 7,175 teachers in the 196 partner schools using the Life Skills Program20. This included 3,387 male and 3,788 female teachers. 64.4% of these teachers worked in General Schools and 35.6% in Madrasah as shown in table 4 below. A breakdown of the teachers trained by province and district can be found in Volume 2.

• Used the Life Skills program to train 8,635 Mathematics, English and Citizenship teachers from non partner school through the MGMP mechanism, making a total of 15,810 teachers trained (see Volume 3 Annex 5)

• Provided 50021 Learning Resource Boxes to partner schools and trained 1,960 teachers to use the items in the box to support student learning.

Table 4: Teachers Trained using the Life Skills Training Program 2006 – 2008

Province

SMP MTs Total

M F Total M F Total M F Total

Banten 129 148 277 109 81 190 238 229 467

Central Java 379 410 789 374 273 647 752 683 1435

East Java 356 405 761 363 251 614 718 657 1375

North Sumatra 361 622 983 82 170 252 444 792 1236

South Sulawesi 463 663 1126 174 222 396 636 886 1522

West Java 349 337 686 250 204 454 599 541 1140

Total 2037 2585 4622 1352 1201 2553 3387 3788 7175

• Supported the District Facilitators to mentor teachers in partner schools to implement what they had learned in the training. Mentoring activities included syllabi development, lesson planning, classroom observation, peer observation, support for portfolio development and activities to continue to develop teachers ability to assess student learning, including life skills.

19 Although they were submitted on two occasions, DBE3 never received feedback.

20 The Mathematics training was only implemented in 7 Districts as it was a pilot program not in the original proposal. The Districts were North Tapanuli in North Sumatra, Makassar in South Sulawesi, Garut in West Java, Kudus and Karangangyar in Central Java and Nganjuk and Pasuruan in East Java

21 2 to 3 per school or Madrasah depending on the size of the school

Teachers in Kudus, Central Java look

inside the Learning Resource Box

Students building Life Skills through an interactive learning process

Students in South Sulawesi using some of the items from the Learning Resource box


2. Expanding opportunities for Youth to practice Life Skills

As curricular time is limited, it provides insufficient opportunities for young people to practice all life skills in the classroom. DBE3 decided to complement the activities to improve the relevance of teaching and learning activities in lessons with support to non-curricular22 activities so schools could expand opportunities for students to practice life skills outside the classroom. DBE3 provided focused implementing support to target schools by conducting the following activities:

• Developed five Life Skills oriented toolkits to provide ready to use resources for schools to implement activities outside of lessons that reinforce life skills. The toolkits were Student Governance; Peer Mediation; Opportunities for Life, Learning and Work; English for Life, Learning and Work and; ICT for Life, Learning and Work. All toolkits contained resources which were strongly linked to activities in the curriculum and required minimal on ongoing training and support. A detailed description of each of the toolkits is included in Volume 3 Annex 6.

• Conducted Focus Group Discussions with 980 youth23 in each partner district to allow them to rank the toolkits in order of preference and then select two out of the five toolkits they would like to use in their school. As table 5 shows, the most popular toolkit amongst the youth was the English for Life, Learning and Work, which was used in 33 out of partner Districts and was first choice for youth in 15 of them. The English toolkit was closely followed by the ICT for Life, Learning and Work. A list of the two toolkits used in each district is included in Volume 3 Annex 7.

Table 5: Number of Districts using each Non Curricular Toolkit

Non Curricular Toolkit # Districts where

toolkits selected as first choice

# Districts where toolkit

selected as second choice

Total # of Districts

where toolkit used

English for Life, Learning and Work 15 18 33

ICT for Life, Learning and Work 14 8 22

Opportunities for Life, Learning and Work 9 6 15

Peer Mediation 4 11 15

Student Governance 7 6 13

• Trained and mentored a total of 1,176 teachers in partner schools (3 per school per toolkit) to use two of the toolkits chosen by students. Teachers trained included OSIS teachers to use the Student Governance toolkit, Guidance and Counselling teachers for the Peer Mediation toolkit, English and ICT teachers for the respective subject toolkits and Class teachers for the Opportunities for Life, Learning and Work toolkit.

22 Non Curricular activities refers to school based activities which are not related to the core curriculum such as (1) extracurricular (or after school activities) (2) self-development and (3) local content curriculum activities

23 Between 18 and 20 youth took part per district, this number included students from partner schools and partner non formal education providers, as DBE3 planned to use the toolkits in the NFEP and to try and create links between formal schools and non formal education providers (see section 5.5).


DBE3 Life Skills Toolkits: Opportunities for Life, Learning and Work; ICT for Life, Learning and Work and Peer Mediation

3. Promoting School Retention

DBE3 was tasked with “drawing on experience from other successful programs to stem youth drop-out rates, to demonstrate that relatively simple community interventions can help reduce drop out, e.g., identify children at risk of dropping out and provide extra tutoring, raise awareness of the importance of schooling, agree on time set aside for home work, and parent education24”. To achieve this, DBE3 first worked to develop a better understanding of school drop out in Indonesia and then to create and use materials to support partner Junior Secondary Schools and their local communities to understand and address issues related to student retention: DBE3

• Conducted consultations with 386 youth across all partner provinces between December 2006 and February 2007 to better understand the issues surrounding school persistence. Males and females from three sample groups in each district25 were involved in the consultations as follows: youth still in formal education, young people who had dropped out of formal schools and were in non formal education, and young people not in any learning environment. The consultations asked youth about their experience in formal schools and asked key questions such as who drops out of school and why, who remains in school and why and what can be done to help all young people remain in and complete basic education. The consultations revealed that whilst there were different challenges for youth to complete their basic education in each province there were some common issues including violence in schools from both teachers and other students, costs of going to school and in particular the costs of transport, school uniforms and textbooks.

Students, Teachers and Parents working together in Klaten to finalize and discuss how to use the Central Java Provincial School

Retention Toolkit, Alit, a student in Binjai, North Sumatra, presents her group’s friendship poster during

Not one Less, School Retention toolkit training

24 USAID RFA for IQDBE3 2004

25 Cohort 1 districts only


• Undertook a study with national policy makers to understand what was being done at the national level by the Ministry of National Education and other donor projects to support school retention (see section 8). The study found that very little data is collected at school, district or national level on drop out and the Government were seeking to address some critical causes of drop out (for example the costs of education) but that these programs were not widespread or well known in the districts.

• Worked with a selection of District Facilitators from the Life Skills Training Program to use the results of both consultations to develop a toolkit containing information, resources, and tools that can be used by students, teachers, schools, managers, parents and other community members to support young people to finish school. As the toolkits were based on the results of the youth consultations, the contents of each toolkit were different in each province and were developed solely for use in that province (see Volume 3 Annex 8).

• Trained and supported 312 teachers, most of which were Guidance and Counselling Teachers, 94 school principals and 208 parents from 104 partner schools and the local community26 to use the toolkit to support youth to complete their basic education.

2.4 Non Formal Education

The primary aim of the project non formal education project was to assist youth who had dropped out of school before receiving their junior high school certificate to build the skills needed to better participate in the community and workforce. As the focus of the project was on basic education programs and youth, DBE3 concentrated efforts only on improving the quality of design and delivery of the strand of non formal education dealing with out of school youth aged between 12 and 18. The two objectives were to:

• Improve the capacity of managers in non formal education providers so that they could better design and support the implementation of relevant teaching and learning programs that helped youth to develop life skills;

• Enhance the quality and relevance of the out of school education programs for youth by supporting the Government in its efforts to improve the Paket B program and strengthen the capacity of tutors in the Non Formal Education system to deliver relevant, competency-based education for out of school youth.

2.4.1 Non Formal Provider Selection

There are many types of Non Formal Education Providers (NFEP) in Indonesia; they can be private, community based, from the religious sector or from governmental or non governmental entities. DBE3 originally planned to work with Community Based Learning Centers (CLC) and Non Government Organizations (NGO) as these were felt to be more stable. However, an early assessment in 2005 showed that these types of NFEP did not exist in sufficient numbers in DBE partner districts, so the project expanded the pool of possible partners to include Pondok Pesantren (PONPES)27, Sanggar Kegiatan Belajar (SKB)28 and Paket B29. The criterion used for selection was that the NFEP:

26 These schools were all in cohort 1districts. School Retention Program was eliminated from the DBE3 program in March 2008 following the mid term evaluation before being implemented in cohort 2 districts.

27 Formal Education Institutions that are guided by the values and norms of Islam. They usually target young people who do not access formal education, and focus on religious teaching and learning, with the addition of vocational trainings

28 Government run (MONE) District level non formal education provider offering a range of programs including the Paket programs and Vocational Training


• Implemented life skills oriented programs with a written intention to target youth, especially aged 12-18 years;

• Signed commitment from the leadership of the institution to support DBE3 activities;

• Could provide proof of official status as an education service provider, in the form of an operating license, establishing decree, cooperative commitment, or other documentation;

• Had at least 4 tutors;

• The location of the NFEP is near or within a DBE1-2 primary school cluster and inside a target sub district;

• There were supporting facilities (teaching room, teaching tools, etc), which may be owned, rented, or borrowed;

• The institution was ready and willing to provide access and facilities for non-formal education programs;

• The institution has provided written commitment to cooperate with other stakeholders, including the business sector.

Ultimately DBE3 used this criterion to select 203 Non Formal Education providers30 to work with. However, the project only partnered with 191 as 12 others either closed during the period of performance or withdrew from the project. These 191 had 10,602 learners between the ages of 12 and 18 and 3,385 tutors. The majority of the partners were CLC as shown in table 6.

Table 6: Number and Percentage of Target Non Formal Education Providers by Type

NGO CLC Paket B31 SKB PONPES

# % # % # % # % # %

10

5.2%

99

51.8%

19

9.9%

5

2.6%

58

30.3%

A list of DBE3 partner Non Formal Education Providers in each province is included in the provincial reports in volume 2. NFEP who closed or withdrew from the project are identified by *.

2.4.2 District Facilitators

As with the Formal Education program, in the Non Formal Education program, to support the implementation of the project activities and build capacity of the District to support and sustain the programs, DBE3 selected and trained District Facilitators. DBE3 selected and trained32 125 District Facilitators (2 per partner district) in 2007 and 200833. A list of District Facilitators for Non Formal Education by province and district can be found in volume 2.

29 Informal clubs teaching paket A, B or C which do not have formal certification of establishment from government to organize out of school education provision.

30 106 NFEP, 1,327 tutors and 5,756 learners in cohort 1; 85 NFEP, 2,258 tutors and 4,846 learners in cohort 2

31 Informal clubs teaching the equivalency education program which do not have formal certification of establishment from government to organize out of school education provision. These groups tend to stop activities after one or two cycles of programs

32 However, unlike the Formal Education program, the District Facilitators for Non Formal Education were trained directly by DBE3 Consultants.

33 60 in cohort 1 and 63 in cohort 2


Table 7: District Facilitators for Non Formal Education

Province Facilitators

North Sumatra 18

Banten 6

West Java 16

Central Java 20

East Java 39

South Sulawesi 26

Total 125

2.4.3 Activities with Non Formal Education Providers

The DBE3 model for Non Formal Educational improvement included two main areas of activity as follows:

1. Improve the Management of Partner Non Formal Education Providers through training mangers to better design and support the implementation of relevant teaching and learning programs that helped youth to develop life skills.

2. Enhance the quality and relevance of the out of school education programs for youth by supporting improving the Junior Secondary equivalency education program and strengthening the capacity of tutors.

1. Improve the Management of Non Formal Education Providers

Although NFEP differ in their organizational forms they faced similar management challenges including lack of skills in participatory needs assessment and strategic planning, transparency in terms of budget planning and spending, limited networking with other institutions, poor administrative capacity (issues with filing, documentation, internal communication), and insufficient funding (too few qualified tutors/managers and inadequate learning media, such as books). DBE3 addressed these issues by:

• Developing a Management Training program to support managers of partner NFEP to practice good organization management and administration skills; mobilize community, public, and private sector resources; reach out more directly to out-of-school youth; and deliver relevant, quality programs that help young people develop life skills. This program included a Management training module and a follow up Management toolkit which provided additional resources. A key outcome of the program was that NFEP Managers developed an organizational plan, which listed out the growth and development of the NFEP for the following year.

Table 8: Non Formal Education Managers Trained

Province Managers

Male Female Total

West Java 64 7 71

Banten 18 5 23

North Sumatra 44 32 76

Central Java 66 11 77

East Java 54 30 84

South Sulawesi 57 19 76

Total 303 104 407


• Supporting the District Facilitators to use the Management Module and Toolkit to train 407 managers from 191 Non Formal Education Providers as shown in table 8 above. A breakdown of the Non Formal Provider Managers trained by province and district can be found in the provincial reports in volume 2.

• Implementing a non cash grants program between June 2007 and June 2010 which included (a) training 414 managers from partner NFEP to develop their knowledge and skills to design and offer needs-and community-based, demand-driven out of school programs for youth that can rely on locally-available resources (b) the provision of goods to the value of USD 1,750 per partner NFEP upon approval of a proposal to support the implementation of the program and (c) monitoring the implementation of the program and assets. A list of the 16734 programs supported through the non cash grants program can be found in Volume 3 Annex 9.

Computer Training For out of school Youth in Binjai, North Sumatra Received local press coverage

2. Enhancing the quality and relevance of the out of school education programs for Youth

DBE3 worked to enhance the quality and relevance of educational programs offered by NFEP to support the holistic development of youth and build young people work related skills. DBE3 achieved this by supporting the Government in its efforts to improve the Paket B equivalency education program and strengthen the capacity of tutors in the Non Formal Education system to deliver both the Paket B program and other relevant, competency-based education for out of school youth. DBE3:

• Worked with the Equivalency Education Directorate at the Ministry of National Education to identify key issues with the Paket B program and produce a series of policy papers providing recommendations and guidance on how to improve the quality and relevance of the program. These included (a) a review of the testing and certification process and a set of recommendations to improve the assessment of the integrated life skills program (b) a study to review, assess, and propose a new framework and new practices for monitoring and evaluation Paket B and (c) an analysis of the Multiple Entries Transfer Program (METP) for Paket B and recommendations to help implementers place learners into the correct level. See section 8 for more information on these studies.

• Developed a training module for tutors working in the non formal education system to improve teaching and learning activities for learners. This Instructional module included cross-cutting topics such as life skills, youth participatory planning /implementation/ evaluation, and a review of the concept of non formal education. It also contained topics that are specific to effective

34 DBE3 did not provide non cash grants to all 191 Partner Non Formal Education Providers as not all were able to meet the requirements for a grant in their proposal

Automotive Training in West Java

DBE3 Management Training Module


teaching practices in a non formal context including teaching methods and techniques and monitoring and evaluation of learning. DBE3 also developed an Instructional Toolkit to complement the training module designed to provide tutors with materials to support them to implement what they had learned in the training program.

• DBE3 then used the module to train 467 tutors working in DBE3 partner Non Formal Education Providers. See table 9 below. A breakdown of the Non Formal Provider Tutors trained by province and district can be found in the provincial reports in volume 2.

• Prepared a Bright Ideas for Students Activity Book to provide tutors with some concrete resources to start to implement what they had learned during the training. The activity book was developed with the support of National and International Consultants, the Directorate of Equivalency Education and over 200 tutors from DBE3 partner NFE providers in six provinces. The activity book contained over 150 activities and a tutors’ guide which explains how to use the activities. DBE3 printed and distributed 650 copies of the books.

Table 9: Non Formal Education Tutors Trained

Province Tutors

Male Female Total

West Java 57 21 78

Banten 14 19 33

North Sumatra 45 43 88


East Java 66 48 114


Total 255 212 467

2.5 Results and Conclusions

1. District Capacity Building

The results of the project were monitored using a set of indicators agreed with USAID. These are described in more detail in section 10. Project results in building district capacity were mixed. It was thought that having an officially-commissioned group such as a District Committee would provide local government with the impetus and justification to direct its staff to engage with the DBE3 projects. In reality, the composition and level of formality of these committees varied greatly from district to district and from the start effective meetings were only convened at the level of the technical working groups. Plenary meetings of the committees proved extremely difficult to convene due in part to a perception amongst stakeholders that the District Committee unnecessarily duplicated the role of the District Education Council. By the end of year one, most District Committees were not functioning.

The strategy of establishing sub district MGMP had similar results. Whilst teachers appreciated smaller, more accessible professional development meetings, they would only take place when funded and assisted by DBE3. As DBE3 only provided a very small start up grant for these sub district MGMP, they never became fully self sufficient and sustainable. It is clear that setting up parallel structures for the project were largely ineffective. However, working with the MGMP did allow DBE3 to reach and additional 8,635 teachers in non partner schools. A more in depth discussion on working with the MGMP is included in section 11.

Nevertheless, partner districts were committed to supporting and disseminating the project innovations. Between 2005 and 2008, besides the dissemination of the life skills training program to 8,635 additional teachers through Mathematics, English and Citizenship MGMP (see section 2.3.3)


DBE3 programs were also disseminated to an additional 18,658 educators in 1,254 junior secondary institutions in partner districts with USD 336,914 contributed by local stakeholders35.

DBE3 was also more successful in establishing teams of Facilitators. Of the 131 National Facilitators trained by DBE3, 88.6% of them passed a project developed performance evaluation in 2008. This performance evaluation assessed Facilitators ability to train and mentor teachers against the standards required by the project. The assessment was based on the knowledge, skills and understanding included in the DBE3 Facilitators training program (as previously described on page 14). For DBE3 one of the successes of the Facilitators program was the evolution of the composition of team of National Facilitators from national to regional level. At the start of the DBE3 program, National Facilitators were drawn from short term technical consultants, MONE staff and successful trainers from other education programs so most of them were experienced trainers based outside the DBE3 target areas. As the DBE3 program progressed, they were increasingly drawn from successful DBE3 district trainers. This was a deliberate strategy on the part of the project to ensure the project became decentralized and target provinces had “in house” or “home grown” capacity to support and disseminate the project. Moreover, a total of 548 local educators were trained and fully committed to the project.

2. Formal Education

The results of the Formal Education program varied. In terms of teaching and learning the results were very positive. By the end of 2008, 85.8% of the teachers in partner schools were successfully using activity based learning approaches to build students life skills during lessons and 93.3% of students were consistently demonstrating key life skills competencies. By 2009 this had reached 98%. This was a significant achievement.

Results of the activities using the Life Skills toolkits were not so positive. Only one third of the partner schools reported actually making use of them in non curricular time by the end of 2008. The reasons given for such a low take up was that schools already had existing programs and budgets for extra curricular activities and it would take time to change to change the programs and re-budget. There was a great deal of interest in the toolkits otherwise and in particular the ICT for Life, Learning and Work and the English for Life, Learning and Work. More schools also reported using materials in the toolkits in curricular time, especially during English lessons.

Furthermore, only 28% of partner schools had used any of the materials included in the provincial drop out prevention toolkit. This was primarily because many school managers and teachers did not believe that drop out was a problem in their school and therefore, did not support wide use of the toolkit. DBE3 found that where it was used, it was mostly at the initiative of the students who had been involved in its design. A very popular activity for students was the creation of classroom libraries and

friendship groups, which were implemented widely.

It is interesting to note, however, that at the same time as only a few schools were using the school retention toolkits, 71% of them reported a decrease in their drop out rate 2008 compared to their 2006 figure. It is possible that the positive developments in the area of teaching and learning also played a role in the decline in the drop out rate rather than the toolkits.

A critical issue with the Formal Education program was the low numbers of schools within a district and teachers within a school that the project was working with. As DBE3 was only working with four Junior Secondary schools per district (whereas as the average number per district was around

35 75% of the total budget spent on the Dissemination of DBE3 programs.

Kudus, Central Java: Following the development of the school retention toolkit, students in MTsN NU Al Hidayah set up a classroom library equipped with books contributed by students and DBE3 staff to support their friends to stay in school..


100) and working intensively with English and Citizenship teachers36 within each school, the project was never reaching the critical mass necessary either at the school or district level to create the momentum for real change. As the project work in the schools was subject specific, the School Principals were also not included in the program, so they were unaware of what their teachers were being asked to do and unable to support and guide them and to encourage the other teachers within the school to follow suit. The work in the formal education sector were also quite fragmented as activities under each strategy were often carried out separately with different products and facilitators for each, which resulting in the program becoming overly complex with different training workshops with different teachers at different times.

The most successful component of the Non Formal Education program was the non cash grants. Through this program 414 NFE Partner Managers gained knowledge and experience on how to develop proposals for Life Skills vocational training programs. 1690 out of school youth in target communities had the opportunity to participate in vocational training programs and learn skills which enabled many of them to enter the work force. Moreover, the program mobilized additional support for partner NFEP and leveraged leverage in kind and financial support from other sources to the amount of 35,955 USD or 13.6% of the DBE3 contribution. Although the non cash grants program was not well managed by DBE337, overall, it was innovative and challenging for a donor project and highly appreciated at the local level.

Unfortunately, other components of the Non Formal Education program were not so successful. Although DBE3 completed the 3 policy papers to provide guidance and recommendations to the Directorate for Equivalency education, there is no indication that they were ever either read or used by the Government to make positive changes to Paket B.

The training programs conducted with Non Formal Education providers did not produce any significant impact. By 2008 only a small percentage of partner Non Formal Education Providers reported that they used any of the materials provided by DBE3 including only 12.9% of tutors using the Student Activity Book and 9.7% using the supporting materials in the Instructional module and Toolkit. For the Managers, only 14.8% used the materials in the Management Module and Toolkit and only 19.8% produced an organizational plan following the DBE3 training. Project monitoring suggested that the low usage of the materials was not a reflection of the quality of the materials (the beneficiaries expressed enthusiasm for the Student Activity Book in particular) but more about the actual relevance of some of them (the Instructional Module in particular was felt to be too formal education centred) and a lack of understanding of the managers and tutors on how to actually use them. This lack of understanding was due to weaknesses in the implementation of the DBE3 training program resulting from confused technical leadership from project staff and therefore, insufficient and low quality training provided to the Non Formal Education District Facilitators.

The variable results in the non formal education program are also thought to be, to some extent, a consequence of the type of intervention. The flexible and diverse nature of non formal education in Indonesia made it very difficult to prepare a training program and materials suitable to all and this is why the Manager and Tutor training program was unsuccessful. However, the adaptable character of the DBE3 small grants program meant that it could be used to meet the needs of each individual non formal education provider, particularly in terms of vocational training, which is a key focus of non formal education in Indonesia.

36 Although DBE3 trained all teachers in a school using the foundation modules it was not as intensive as with the work with Citizenship and English teachers.

37 As found by an internal evaluation of the non cash grants program in 2010 (see section 10.3)


2.6 The DBE Mid-Term Evaluation

A scheduled independent mid-term evaluation of the DBE3 program (together with DBE 1 and DBE 2) was conducted at the end of 2007 and beginning of 2008 with a final report issued in March. The evaluation found little evidence that DBE3 involvement with Formal Schools and a wide variety of NFE providers was achieving much impact and concluded that this was largely because DBE3 was a such a broad and complex program tackling some of the most difficult educational tasks that its size and scope was actually impeding its implementation making it difficult to reach its multiple goals. Therefore the key recommendation of the mid term evaluation was for DBE3 to become a more focused program and in particular:

• Withdraw from the direct delivery of activities in Non Formal Education and hand over all material to the Government of Indonesia.

• Redirect remaining resources to the Junior Secondary School Formal Education Program.

• Focus on building life skills education in formal education junior secondary schools and use a “whole school” approach to improve the education at Junior Secondary level

• Provide training for principals and supervisors including the basics of what the teachers are trying to implement, and how to assess and support what is happening in classrooms

• Investigate ways to integrate Drop-Out Prevention activities in a limited way into the formal education program


3. REVISED PROJECT FOCUS: THE WHOLE SCHOOL APPROACH

Following the mid term evaluation, DBE3 worked closely with USAID and representatives from GOI to incorporate the key recommendations from the mid term evaluation, lessons learned from project monitoring and evaluation and implementation so far along with suggestions from GOI and USAID to develop a refocused project. The revised project proposal was finally approved by USAID in January 2009.

3.1 Revised Intermediate Results

The revised intermediate results (IR) were as follows:

IR1: Quality of Junior Secondary Education providers in target districts increased.

1.1: Performance of key personnel in target junior secondary education providers improved.

1.2: Capacity of target districts to support quality improvement of teaching and learning in junior secondary education providers strengthened

IR2: Support to the National GOI In-Service Teacher Training System Provided

2.1: Increased quality and relevance of in service teacher training programs at national, provincial and district level

2.2: Access to quality in service teacher training programs increased

IR3: GOI better positioned to respond to the needs of Junior Secondary Education sector

3.1: Knowledge and Information collected and shared

3.2 Advocacy and Policy Dialogue Conducted

In order to achieve these intermediate results DBE3 worked to

• Develop models of good practice to improve the quality and relevance of Junior Secondary Education (IR 1)

• Build district capacity and to support and disseminate these models (IR 1)

• Increase the capacity of GOI teacher training institutions to support the further development and dissemination of the models (IR 2)

• Raise GOI awareness of and develop ownership of the model (IR 3)

3.2 Summary of the Refocused Program

DBE3 altered the original tag line of “Life Skills for Youth” to “Relevant Education for Youth”. Non-formal education activities were phased out and resources redirected to achieve greater change and impact in formal education. From the beginning of 2009 DBE3 focused primarily on a more intensive program in formal junior secondary schools, SMP and MTs, initially in 25 “extension” districts, chosen from existing cohort 1 and 2 districts, in which a more in-depth DBE3 school training program was implemented based on a “whole school integrated approach” to quality improvement. The program included:

• An increase in the number of directly supported schools in each of the extension districts in most cases from four to ten in order to create a greater presence and critical mass;


• The implementation of a school training program based on a “whole school integrated approach” to quality improvement which involves training significant numbers of teachers of all core subjects, school principals and other senior management staff in partner schools.

DBE3 supported the sustainability and impact of the whole school program by developing local ownership of the program and its innovations at all levels and building capacity to support and disseminate the program over the long term. This included:

• Selecting and training a team of district facilitators to train teachers in the core subjects in both the partner schools and to disseminate district-wide;

• Involving local government in the development and management of the program and working with school principals and supervisors to increase their role in supporting development and change;

• Involving the provincial quality assurance institutes (LPMP) and teacher training universities in the program at province, district and school levels in order to build up their understanding of the program and their capacity to support its sustainability and wider dissemination.

• Implementing strategies to identify and disseminate innovations between schools and districts and encourage their adoption a national level by the use of a dedicated newsletter, website and district, provincial and central showcase meetings involving relevant GOI institutions.

• In late 2009 DBE3 also started to implement the ‘whole school’ approach in the remaining 19 so-called ‘core’ districts. This included the selection and training of district facilitators and training of principals, supervisors and teachers.

3.3 The Whole School Training Program

3.3.1 Building on Original Project Programs

The whole school training program built on the formal education training activities which had taken place over the first three years of the project. During that period “high quality educational materials”38 including general teacher training modules, as well as subject teaching modules for the English, Citizenship and Mathematics had been developed. National and District Facilitators had been trained to deliver these modules and had used them to train the partner schools in each of the 44 project districts.

For the whole school program, DBE3 made the decision to create a series of new modules, which, in keeping with the recommendation of the mid term evaluation would “deepen” the understanding and implementation of life skills education and could be used with the “whole school.” These new modules would be designed to allow the whole school to be trained together (which the previous modules did not) would reinforce the main concepts included in earlier training programs and address the weaknesses still evident after the first three years of the project. The new materials would also introduce new concepts for example instructional leadership, which had not been included before.

In developing the new modules, DBE3 made every effort to maintain the standards and ensure some consistency of the previous modules. The new modules continued to use the ICARE system (see section 2.3.3) and to be presented in the same way. Furthermore, one of the previous modules had been called Better Teaching and Learning and this name was continued. The three training modules developed for the whole school training program became volumes 2, 3 and 4 in the Better Teaching and Learning (BTL) series. The modules were each developed by a team of DBE3 experts (staff and consultants) and National Trainers, who were also teachers in the project provinces. Each of the

38 The Midterm Evaluation of USAID/Indonesia’s Decentralized Basic Education (DBE) Project in Indonesia: ABE-BE IQC (CONTRACT # EDH-I-00-05-0035-00)


four modules was designed to be implemented at low cost at local level over a period of 3 to 4 days. BTL1 and 2 dealt with basic concepts of active learning of life skills, the role of the facilitator and basic school leadership skills. BTL3 supported the development and implementation of a longer term teaching program using these skills, while BTL4 focused particularly on strengthening the MGMP as a vehicle for continuing professional development. The complete contents of the BTL modules are summarized in section 3.3.

Changing practices in schools take time and it was the purpose of this series of modules to provide a progressive set of materials, which could be implemented at intervals of 6 to 9 months over a period of 2 – 3 years in order to support continuing change and deepen the understanding of the trainees.

As one of the factors which had limited the impact of the school training in the early years of the project had been the small number of schools involved in each district, DBE3 felt that to ensure greater impact at the school and district level it would be essential to increase the number of schools in each district to at least 10. Because of limitations in terms of funding and personnel39 DBE3 decided that it would only be possible to implement the new program initially in only 25 of the 44 project districts. These districts were called extension districts as they would receive and extended program. The remaining 19 districts were called core districts as they would receive the main program. Districts were categorized into core or extension or districts after the following process:

• A letter was sent out to all partner districts explaining the new program and inviting all districts to submit a letter of interest if they wanted to take part in the whole school development activities. 32 Districts responded positively.

• DBE3 Provincial Staff graded each of the Districts according to an agreed certain which related to performance in the project to date. This included the impact on schools, the amount of dissemination which had taken place and local government commitment to the project.

• DBE3 met with DBE1 and DBE2 to review and take into account the ranking given to each district by the other projects.

• Using the DBE1, 2 and 3 ranking, DBE3 selected 25 districts for the whole school program. Letters were then sent to all the DBE districts notifying them of the selection.

A list of DBE3 extension and core districts is set out below in table 10 with the number of partner schools in each district in brackets.

Table 10: List of DBE3 Extension and Core Districts

North Sumatera West Java/Banten

Central Java East Java South Sulawesi

LIST OF DBE EXTENSION DISTRICTS (# of assisted schools)

Binjai (10) Bogor (10) Boyolali (10) Bojonegoro (10) Makassar (10)

Dairi (10) Cilegon (10) Grobogan (10) Nganjuk (10) Palopo (10)

Tanjung Balai (10) Garut (10) Karanganyar (10) Pasuruan (10) Pinrang (10)

Tapanuli Selatan (10) Indramayu (10) Kudus (10) Sidoarjo (10) Sidrap (10)

Tapanuli Utara (10) Karawang (10) Purworejo (10) Tuban (10) Soppeng (10)

LIST OF DBE CORE DISTRICTS (# of assisted schools)

Deli Serdang (4) Lebak (4) Blora (4) Bangkalan (4) Enrekang (4)

Kota Sibolga (4) Kota Tangerang (4) Demak (4) Kota Mojokerto (4) Jeneponto (4)

Tebing Tinggi (4) Subang (4) Jepara (4) Kota Surabaya (4) Luwu (4)

Sukabumi (4) Klaten (8) Sampang (4) Pangkep (4)

39 The introduction of an expanded school training program to include over twice the number of schools in each district challenged the personnel resources of the project needed to implement training of facilitators at province level and supervise training of schools at district level. This was the main reason for implementing the program initially only in 25 districts. After its successful implementation in these districts, the program was expanded to the other 19 districts.


Following the selection of the extension districts, DBE3 increased the number of partner schools in each extension district from 4 to 10. The selection of the additional schools was made by each district with assistance and guidance from DBE3 staff so that the choice enhanced the long term objectives of the school training activities. Districts were asked to take the following factors into account:

• Strategic factors which supported the aim of the project to develop models of good practice and disseminate these widely within the district:

• The previous involvement of schools in DBE1 school planning activities and/or DBE3 MGMP activities, which may make schools more disposed to change;

• The willingness of school management to learn and their commitment to change;

• The proportion of state and private, conventional and religious schools which should reflect the reality in the district;

• Social, economic and geographic factors which ensure a spread among different kinds of schools – urban, rural, richer, poorer.

A list of all schools involved in the project in core and extension districts by province is included in volume 2.

3.3.2 The whole school training program strategy

Building district capacity to improve the relevance and quality of education: The main objective of the whole school training program was to develop districts’ own capacity to improve the quality and relevance of the education delivered in their junior secondary schools. Therefore the emphasis was on:

• Creating training capacity by selecting and training suitable teachers, school principals and supervisors to act as district facilitators (trainers). As part of the effort to empower local government stakeholders the selection of these facilitators was made jointly by project staff and local government staff. 15 district facilitators (3 for each of the 5 core curriculum subjects40) were selected and trained in each of the 25 extension districts and 10 district facilitators (2 per subject) were selected and trained in each of the 19 core districts. The smaller number of facilitators in the core districts was due to the smaller number of partner schools (in general, only 4 per district, compared to 10 in each of the extension districts – see below).

• Creating examples of good practice in partner schools. Conventional and religious junior secondary schools from both the private and state sector were selected in each of the districts to become partner schools. Over the first three years of the project there were only four schools in each partner districts. At the start of the revised project program with the emphasis on whole school training, it was decided to expand to 10 the number of partner schools in each of the 25 extension districts. The aim of this expansion was to increase the critical mass of schools involved in the project and to increase the potential for creating examples of good practices.

• Involving key personnel from school and district level other than teachers in planning and implementation as well as training activities, in order to gain their understanding and support for the program. School principals and supervisors were given special training to ensure that they understood the BTL training program being given to teachers and were trained how to give material and professional support to their teachers in implementing the program in their classrooms and schools. Key representatives of the district education and religious affairs offices, local parliaments, education councils and local development agencies were involved in activities to showcase the achievements of the program and to plan and implement its dissemination.

40 The core curriculum subjects are far Bahasa Indonesia, mathematics, science, English and social studies.

DBE3 RELEVANT EDUCATION FOR YOUTH

A varied and practical training programwhich were focused on achieving real change in schools and clas

• Practical and participative learning which was expected to be developed in schools. Rather than participants being given ready made answers, they were expected througdiscussion and trial and error to find their own solutions to problems. Each of the training modules culminated in the participants doing practical teaching in the classroomobserved by their peers, who gave them feedback and ideas for improving their letraining was followed up by a review meeting 6 to 8 weeks later, to which participants had to bring examples of materials and students work developed as a result of the training. This was a very effective in ensuring that participants implemented the result of the training.

• Activities were varied and mutually supportive:was only one element in a comprehensive program to develop good educational practices in schools. Many formal and informal enabled teachers, school principals and others participants to observe directly these good practices and were instrumental in helping participants develop a vision of the changes they wished to make in their own schools. Most local visits took place without project funding, but visits between districts and provinces were supported by the project in order to expose key policy makers and outstanding practitioners and facilitators to new and different their professional development. Training was followed up by facilitators, who assisted them in planning their lessons either in their own schools or in the MGMP and then observed them teaching the lessand feedback. Other activities to support the spread of good practices included showcase meetings at district, provincial and national levels with displays and presentations of good practices in teaching and learnewsletters at provincial and national levels documenting good practices and a project good practices website www.inovasipendidikan.net

3.3.3 The Better Teaching and Learning Training Modules

3. Summary of Contents

The later modules built progressively on the previous modules. The training in each of the modules was designed to last for 3 each included practical teaching and planning followthe training. A number of themes run through the modules. These included:

• Developing effective learning strategies related to the development of life skills, including cooperative learning and problem solving;

• Using low cost media and the

• Developing challenging tasks and questions for students:

• Assessing students’ work and using the results of this assessment to help students;

• Empowering the MGMP to support the development of teaching and learning;

• How to become an effective facilitator, including how to mentor teachers;

• Lesson preparation, practical teaching observed by peers and review and improvement of the lesson;

• Working in school groups with the school principal to develop follow

OUTH: FINAL PROJECT REPORT

A varied and practical training program: The training program used a variety of activities, which were focused on achieving real change in schools and classroom, including:

ractical and participative training activities: Activities during training reflected the style of learning which was expected to be developed in schools. Rather than participants being given ready made answers, they were expected through discussion and trial and error to find their own solutions

Each of the training modules culminated in the participants doing practical teaching in the classroom observed by their peers, who gave them feedback and ideas for improving their lessons. The BTL3 module training was followed up by a review meeting 6 to 8 weeks later, to which participants had to bring examples of materials and students work developed as a result of the training. This was a very effective in ensuring that

s implemented the result of the training.

Activities were varied and mutually supportive: The participative training described above was only one element in a comprehensive program to develop good educational practices in schools. Many formal and informal study visits to schools exhibiting good teaching practices enabled teachers, school principals and others participants to observe directly these good practices and were instrumental in helping participants develop a vision of the changes they

e in their own schools. Most local visits took place without project funding, but visits between districts and provinces were supported by the project in order to expose key policy makers and outstanding practitioners and facilitators to new and different their professional development. Training was followed up by mentoring of teachers by the district

, who assisted them in planning their lessons either in their own schools or in the MGMP and then observed them teaching the lessons they had prepared and gave them support and feedback. Other activities to support the spread of good practices included showcase meetings at district, provincial and national levels with displays and presentations of good practices in teaching and learning and school management and leadership, the publication of newsletters at provincial and national levels documenting good practices and a project good

www.inovasipendidikan.net.

Teaching and Learning Training Modules

Summary of Contents

later modules built progressively on the previous modules. The training in each of the modules was designed to last for 3 – 4 days and each included practical teaching and planning follow-up activities after the training. A number of themes run through the modules. These

Developing effective learning strategies related to the development of life skills, including cooperative learning and problem solving;

Using low cost media and the local environment to support learning;

Developing challenging tasks and questions for students:

Assessing students’ work and using the results of this assessment to

Empowering the MGMP to support the development of teaching and learning;

ow to become an effective facilitator, including how to mentor teachers;

Lesson preparation, practical teaching observed by peers and review and improvement of the

Working in school groups with the school principal to develop follow-up action plans

33

: The training program used a variety of activities, sroom, including:

Activities during training reflected the style of learning which was expected to be developed in schools. Rather than participants being given

The participative training described above was only one element in a comprehensive program to develop good educational practices in

study visits to schools exhibiting good teaching practices enabled teachers, school principals and others participants to observe directly these good practices and were instrumental in helping participants develop a vision of the changes they

e in their own schools. Most local visits took place without project funding, but visits between districts and provinces were supported by the project in order to expose key policy makers and outstanding practitioners and facilitators to new and different ideas as part of

mentoring of teachers by the district , who assisted them in planning their lessons either in their own schools or in the

ons they had prepared and gave them support and feedback. Other activities to support the spread of good practices included showcase meetings at district, provincial and national levels with displays and presentations of good

ning and school management and leadership, the publication of newsletters at provincial and national levels documenting good practices and a project good

Empowering the MGMP to support the development of teaching and learning;

ow to become an effective facilitator, including how to mentor teachers;

Lesson preparation, practical teaching observed by peers and review and improvement of the

up action plans.


The BTL3 module training was followed up by a review meeting 6 to 8 weeks later, to which participants had to bring examples of materials and students work developed as a result of the training. This was very successful in ensuring that schools followed up and implemented the result of the training.

The BTL4 module was based on a lesson study approach, where participants plan a lesson, teach the lesson observed by their peers, review and improve the lesson, and then re-teach the improved lesson. The module was designed to be implemented in several sessions of the MGMP.

The BTL modules were also supported by training modules for school principals and supervisors to encourage and help them to support teachers in implementing the results of the training (see below).

An ICT module and an ICT toolkit were developed as part of the whole school training program and used to train ICT teachers and teachers of other subjects to use ICT, especially computers, to support learning across the curriculum. A more detailed description of this activity is included in section 5.

A brief summary of each of these modules is included in Volume 3, Annex 10

4. Pattern of Training

The general pattern of training was as follows:

1. Training of National Trainers (selected from the best district facilitators) at national level by DBE3 staff and consultants and a number of the National Trainers involved in the module development in one of the project provinces;

2. Training of District Facilitators at province level by the National Facilitators;

3. Training of School Principals and Supervisors by selected National Facilitators and DBE3 staff and consultants to brief them on the training package and discuss their role in supporting its implementation, supported also by study visits to local project partner schools;

4. Training of Teachers from the core subject areas at district level by the District Facilitators;

5. Mentoring of Teachers by District Facilitators to support them in implementing the results of the training in their schools.

5. List of Trainees

Below in table 11 is a list of the numbers of participants in the District Facilitator training for the Better Teaching and Learning (BTL) modules. The training included district facilitators and a number of others, mainly lecturers from teacher training universities and trainers from LPMPs.

Table 11: Facilitators and Teachers Trained in the BTL packages

All Province

Participants

District Facilitators

Others Total

Better Teaching and Learning 4 (BTL4) 577 73 650



Table 12 provides the numbers of teachers, school principals and school supervisors from or associated with partner schools trained in the BTL program. The number of school principals and supervisors trained in BTL4 appears to be fewer. This is a result of receiving separate training to support the BTL4 program and the BTL4 package being delivered through the MGMP, which school principals and supervisors do not normally attend. The participants taking part in the training in the modules 2, 3 and 4 were largely the same people.


Table 12: Number of Teachers, School Principals and Supervisors Trained in BTL School Level Training

All Districts Participants

Teachers Principals Supervisors Total

Better Teaching and Learning 4 (BTL4) 3928 39 23 3990

Better Teaching and Learning 3 (BTL3) 4,930 302 187 5419

Better Teaching and Learning 2 (BTL2) 4,608 292 170 5070

3.3.4 Training of school principals and supervisors

School principals and supervisors are key personnel in developing innovation in schools. They have played a major role in the many schools where changes in the classroom environment and teaching and learning have taken place in every single class. From the start of the whole school training program school principals were invited to take part in the training alongside their teachers, as were a small number of school supervisors from each district.

However, this was found to be insufficient and special training sessions for school principals and supervisors were developed and implemented to support the implementation of the BTL3 and 4 modules. The sessions were implemented at provincial level before the school training took place, in order to brief the school principals and supervisors on the training by teachers would be receiving and to prepare them to support the training through monitoring and mentoring teachers, as well as supporting their professional development. The training included hearing success stories from school principals who had successfully implemented change in the school, discussing areas of success and difficulty in implementing the BTL programs in schools and how schools had addressed the difficulties.

In response to requests from schools, material covering planning and budgeting to support the implementation of BTL programs was included in the BTL4 package but designed to be delivered separately to school principals and school supervisors.

Special Training Packages for School Principals and Supervisors: In the final year of the project it became evident that there was a need to train a greater number of school principals and supervisors in order to support the widespread dissemination of the project in many districts. The training package was developed to introduce school supervisors to the whole school training program. It introduced them to key aspects in changes in teaching and learning, how to support change in schools and how to mentor teachers. The training package, which lasted three days, was delivered to most school supervisors in the 44 partner districts.

Table 13: Additional School Supervisors Trained to Support the BTL Program

Province

Participants

School Supervisors

M F Total


North Sumatera 74 23 97

East Java 93 10 103

West Java/Banten 78 15 93


Total 417 67 484

DBE3 RELEVANT EDUCATION FOR YOUTH: FINAL

Following the successful implementation of this package, a similar package was developed to introduce school principals to the program. This package was delivered during the final project year to school principals in partner schools as part of a principals from dissemination schools.

3.3.5 Building Local Government Ownership and Support

An important part of the DBE3 program involved buildingof the DBE3 program in order to supportlocal government in program activities including the selection and training of district facilitators and monitoring the impact of the program on schmeetings at district, province and national levels to present the achievements of the program to a variety of stakeholders and plan for the further development and dissemination of the program.

Participants in the meetings included officials ansupervisors from District Education Offices and Members of local Parliaments (DPRD), Local Development Agencies (Bappeda), DBE3 District Facilitators and Staff and Principals from DBE3 partner schools. During 2010 districts and provinces made plansto sustain and spread the innovations of the DBE3 program and later meetings in 2011 focused on reviewing the progress in the implementation of these plans and sharing experiences from of the district and provinces

Some of the successes reported in implementing district plans included:

• Funding by local governmentprogram. Approximately IDR 15.66 billion2011 and substantial funding was realiMORA and from schools’ own budgets

• The issuance of decrees by a District Heads and Heads of the Religious Affairs Officeto support the implementation of the DBE3 program; decrees Active and Contextual Learning bythat they are formally recognized and funded by local government.

A review of the plans made in August 2010 by each extension district is included in the Provincial reports in volume 2. With the support garnered from local governments by these activities, and as a result of other activities to publicize the DBE3 program, a large amount of disseminboth within and beyond the DBE partner districts. Between 2009 and 2011 dissemination took place in 5,186 schools involving 31,521 educators and was funded mainly by contributions from the schools themselves through their BOS. Project ddetail in section 7.

3.3.6 Facilitator and School Evaluation

1. District Facilitator Evaluation

Table 13 below shows that 601 facilitators were trained and are currently available to support the implementation and dissemination of the whole school training program. In order to provide information on the effectiveness of these facilitators to those wishing to disseminate the program DBE3 evaluated their performance u

41 The term local government is used here to include both provincial and district governments and the provincial and district offices of the ministry of religious affairs (MORA). The ministry, but have a considerable level of autonomy and happen in practice corporate a closely with the provincial and district education offices, whichever ranges of local government.

INAL PROJECT REPORT

Following the successful implementation of this package, a similar package was developed to introduce school principals to the program. This package was delivered during the final project year to school principals in partner schools as part of a refresher program and to some of the school principals from dissemination schools.

Building Local Government Ownership and Support

An important part of the DBE3 program involved building local government41 support and ownership to support the sustainability of the programs. This included involving

local government in program activities including the selection and training of district facilitators and monitoring the impact of the program on schools and holding regular showcase andmeetings at district, province and national levels to present the achievements of the program to a variety of stakeholders and plan for the further development and dissemination of the program.

included officials and supervisors from District Education Offices and MORA, Members of local Parliaments (DPRD), Local Development Agencies (Bappeda), DBE3 District Facilitators and Staff and Principals from DBE3 partner

istricts and provinces made plans to sustain and spread the innovations of the DBE3

and later meetings in 2011 focused on reviewing the progress in the implementation of these plans and sharing experiences from of the district and provinces.

implementing district plans included:

Funding by local government to support the development and dissemination of the DBE3 IDR 15.66 billion (USD 1.75 million) was allocated in district

was realized in the previous year mainly from district, provincial and own budgets to support dissemination of the DBE3 program.

The issuance of decrees by a District Heads and Heads of the Religious Affairs Officeion of the DBE3 program; decrees for all schools to implement

Active and Contextual Learning by District Heads and decrees for the district facilitators (DF) so they are formally recognized and funded by local government.

n August 2010 by each extension district is included in the Provincial reports in volume 2. With the support garnered from local governments by these activities, and as a result of other activities to publicize the DBE3 program, a large amount of disseminboth within and beyond the DBE partner districts. Between 2009 and 2011 dissemination took place in 5,186 schools involving 31,521 educators and was funded mainly by contributions from the schools themselves through their BOS. Project dissemination is described and evaluated in more

Facilitator and School Evaluation

District Facilitator Evaluation

Table 13 below shows that 601 facilitators were trained and are currently available to support the semination of the whole school training program. In order to provide

information on the effectiveness of these facilitators to those wishing to disseminate the program performance using an instrument which focused on a number of key ar

The term local government is used here to include both provincial and district governments and the provincial and district offices of the ministry of religious affairs (MORA). The MORA offices are in fact local branches of the central ministry, but have a considerable level of autonomy and happen in practice corporate a closely with the provincial and district education offices, whichever ranges of local government.

36

Following the successful implementation of this package, a similar package was developed to introduce school principals to the program. This package was delivered during the final project year

refresher program and to some of the school

support and ownership . This included involving

local government in program activities including the selection and training of district facilitators and showcase and planning

meetings at district, province and national levels to present the achievements of the program to a variety of stakeholders and plan for the further development and dissemination of the program.

to support the development and dissemination of the DBE3 in district the year

district, provincial and to support dissemination of the DBE3 program.

The issuance of decrees by a District Heads and Heads of the Religious Affairs Office for all schools to implement

district facilitators (DF) so

n August 2010 by each extension district is included in the Provincial reports in volume 2. With the support garnered from local governments by these activities, and as a result of other activities to publicize the DBE3 program, a large amount of dissemination took place both within and beyond the DBE partner districts. Between 2009 and 2011 dissemination took place in 5,186 schools involving 31,521 educators and was funded mainly by contributions from the

ssemination is described and evaluated in more

Table 13 below shows that 601 facilitators were trained and are currently available to support the semination of the whole school training program. In order to provide

information on the effectiveness of these facilitators to those wishing to disseminate the program on a number of key areas:

The term local government is used here to include both provincial and district governments and the provincial and MORA offices are in fact local branches of the central

ministry, but have a considerable level of autonomy and happen in practice corporate a closely with the provincial and


• The extent to which the District Facilitator applies the training in their own work as a teacher, Principal or School Supervisor

• The extent to which the District Facilitator helps other teachers in their own school either as a teacher, Principal or Supervisor

• Their creativity in developing and implementing innovative training materials and approaches

• Their commitment as a District Facilitator for DBE3

• Their ability to relate to, communicate and interact with participants in the training and in mentoring

• Their initiative and ability to cooperate and support others District Facilitators during the training

• How effective they are as a mentor, whether they are able to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the teaching and learning process and provide good feedback to teachers

Following the evaluation, each District Facilitator was placed into one of four categories with 3 being the highest and 0 the lowest.

3 2 1 0

Category Very good, always works hard and is very able as a Facilitator

Good in general performance and ability as a Facilitator

Average, still needs to develop some skills as a Facilitator

Rarely works and not very able as a Facilitator

The assessment was completed in August 2011. The results, as shown in table 14, indicate that 39.4% of the DBE3 District Facilitators attained the highest ranking of three in the evaluation. The lowest number of District Facilitators scoring 3 was in North Sumatra with 17 but the lowest percentage was in West Java/Banten (15.2%). The highest number and percentage was in South Sulawesi with 76 out of 128 or 59.3% of District Facilitators achieving three stars. Only 5.1% of DBE3 Facilitators were placed in the bottom category with most of these being located in West Java/Banten42. The results were discussed with each district and facilitator so they understood the criteria by which they were being evaluated and the reasons for the evaluation.

Table 14: District Facilitator Evaluation Results by Province and Rank

Province # DF Results

3 2 1 0

North Sumatra 99 17 30 43 9

West Java\Banten 118 18 30 51 19

Central Java 129 55 42 29 3

East Java 127 71 56 0 0

South Sulawesi 128 76 42 10 0

Total 601 237 200 133 31

% 100% 39.4% 33.2% 22.1% 5.1%

The results for each individual District Facilitator is shown in the provincial reports in volume 2.

42 The differing proportion of highly ranked District Facilitators (scoring 3) in each province was to a large degree a result of different interpretations of the criteria. Over the course of the evaluation discussions were held with provincial and district staff to try to get more uniformity. However, the difference between, for example, North Sumatera and South Sulawesi, where 17% and 59% respectively were given the highest grading do not mean that the district facilitators in North Sumatera were generally poorer than in South Sulawesi but rather reflect this difference in interpretation of the evaluation criteria.


2. Evaluation of Partner Schools

DBE3 undertook a similar evaluation of partner schools which was completed in August 2011. An instrument was developed which assess which schools were implementing DBE3 innovations well and are worth visiting. The instrument evaluated 4 key areas of the school performance:

• Teacher Activities: Whether the teachers encourage interaction among students provided challenging and varied tasks (discussion, experimentation, problem solving) and used formative assessment techniques.

• Student Activities: Whether the student activities varied (working cooperatively, solving problems, experimenting), they expressed their own thoughts orally and in writing and used a variety of media in their lessons.

• Classroom Environment: Whether the students in the school sat, worked and interacted in groups, work was displayed on the wall and if they were learning using more diverse sources (media, environment)

• Principal Leadership: Whether the Principal in the school encouraged change, supported the professional development of teachers and supported other innovations in the school

Following the evaluation, each school was placed into one of four categories with 3 being the highest and 0 the lowest.

3 2 1 0

Category

Schools implementing the results of the DBE3 program well and widely, and there is a strong recommendation to visit.

Schools applying DBE3 results well in some classes but not widely there is encouragement to visit

The application of the results of the DBE3 program is limited and there is no encouragement to visit.

There are no visible results of the DBE3 program.

As the data in table 15 shows, 81 schools or 24.5% were placed in category three and therefore, given a strong recommendation as a destination for a study visit. 11.2% of schools were determined not to be showing meaningful changes following the implementation of the DBE3 program.

Table 15: Partner School Evaluation Results by Province and Rank

Province # Schools Results

3 2 1 0

North Sumatra 63 10 12 22 19

West Java\Banten 66 9 18 21 18

Central Java 70 18 29 23 0

East Java 66 18 27 21 0

South Sulawesi 66 26 30 10 0

Total 330 81 116 97 37

% 100% 24.5% 35.1% 29.3% 11.2%

Evaluation results for individual schools are presented in the provincial reports in volume 2.

The names of the facilitators and schools have been entered both on the DBE3 website, www.inovasipendidikan.net and the MONE good practices website: wapikweb.org.


3.3.7 Result of the Whole School Program

The impact on the DBE3 partner schools was monitored using a set of indicators agreed with USAID at the time of the project revision. The indicators for the schools were divided into three groups relating to:

a) Teaching and learning including teachers’ teaching behavior43, the classroom environment and student behavior in lessons. The data for these indicators was collected mainly by direct observation.

b) Student performance on government tests and specially designed DBE3 tests.

c) School management and Professional Development including school principal leadership, libraries and the effectiveness of the MGMP. The data for these indicators was collected mainly by interviews and group discussions.

Three rounds of monitoring in a sample of schools in the extension districts took place in February-March 2009, 2010 and 2011. A group of comparison schools, which had not taken part in the project, was monitored in early 2010 and a sample of schools in the core districts was monitored in February – March 2011 to compare the impact on the core districts schools with those from the extension districts.

A summary of the status of each indicator related to the impact on the extension district schools is included below. This summary is divided into three parts, (i) the status in 156 extension district partner schools in the 2009 monitoring; (ii) the status in the same 156 extension district partner schools in the 2010 monitoring; (iii) the status in the 156 extension district partner schools in the 2011 monitoring; (iv) the status in 43 core district partner schools in the monitoring in 2011; (v) the status in the 20 comparison schools.

a) Teaching and Learning

Chart 1, summarizing the results on the three indicators related to teaching and learning, can be seen on the next page. They all show a clear rise between 2009 and 2011 in the schools in the extension districts. During the 2009 monitoring a considerable impact was already visible in each indicator in the extension district schools compared to the comparison schools which barely registered on the indicators, since many of the schools had been taking part in the formal education training program before the project revision. This impact increased greatly according to the 2010 monitoring and was maintained in 2011 where in approximately 90% of the lessons monitored the changes were being implemented.

The schools in the core districts also scored similarly demonstrating the impact of the DBE3 program. For example, 91% of teachers in the partner schools in the extension districts fulfilled the criteria on teacher behavior, 88.5% of teachers observed in the core district schools also fulfilled the criteria. Figures for the classroom environment and student behavior indicators are similar.

43 The word ‘behavior’ is used here in the sense of ‘what teachers or students do in class’ related to teaching and learning, i.e. such as discussing, experimenting, writing rather than in the traditional sense of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ behavior.


Chart 1. Comparison of Scores on Indicators Related to Teaching and Learning

National Examinations: Chart 2 shows the average scores on the GOI National Examinations (UN) in the 250 partner schools in 25 districts/cities. The results in all subjects increased considerably between 2008 and 2010 with an average increase of 6.4% over the period. The highest improvement was seen in Mathematics test results, with scores increasing from 6.87 in 2008 to 7.68 in 2010.

Chart 2. Average Acores on the GOI National Examinations 2008-10

50.5

43.1

47.5

90.9 91.1

94.2

91.089.2

90.488.5

91.3

88.2

2.6 2.61.3

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

Teacher Behaviour Classroom Environment Student Behaviour

Pe

rce

nta

ge

Imp

lem

en

tin

g

2009 (extension districts)



2011 (core districts)

Comparison Schools


DBE3 Student Assessment: DBE3 undertook an assessment of its own in sample of 54 schools using tests, which focused more on students’ skills. The tests were implemented with the cohort of students in grade 8 in the same schools in 2009, 2010 and 2011 and at the same time of the school year in order to ensure comparability.

Chart 3 (next page) summarizes the results of the assessment between 2009 and 2011. Over the two year period scores in all subjects showed a sustantial increase. Mathematics scores went up 48.2% reflecting students’ becoming accustomed to the problem solving style of questions in the test. The English Listening, Reading and Writing and English Speaking test scores also rose 20% over two years (despite a fall in 2011 for which no explanation could be found) and the overall scores in the Bahasa Indonesia tests went up 18.2% in the same time period.

Chart 3. Overall Results by Subject / Competency by Year in DBE3 Tests

The analysis of the data from the individual tests shows that all groups – boys, girls, SMP, MTs, state and private schools – showed substantial rises on every test over a period of two years. The rise was particularly large in Madrasahs, which slightly outscored SMP on all of the tests. This is probably a reflection of the quality of the madrasahs selected to participate in the project. Scores in private schools, on the other hand, rose by conseridably less than those in state schools. This probably reflects the quality of teachers in private schools, where many are part time, lowly paid and lack appropriate qualifications.

c) School Management and Teacher Professional Development

In the 2009 monitoring the difference between the partner schools in the extension districts and comparison schools was not great on the indictors related to school principal leadership and MGMP. In fact, partner schools scored slightly less well on these indicators but scored better on the management and use of library indicator. There was, however, a large improvement on the indicators in the extension districts by 2011 as can be seen in Chart 4 below.

The percentage of school principals in the extension districts exercising professional leadership in their schools rose from only 12% to 72.8% between 2009 and 2011. This indicator assessed whether the principal held meetings with teachers to discuss curricular matters at least once per month, made regular monitoring visits to class to observe teaching and learning and whether the school implemented school level professional development activities. The biggest increase on this indicator

50.4

38.4

32.0

51.6

66.6

64.6

49.7

41.7

60.4

73.0

60.8

46.8

47.4

64.7

75.1

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0

English Speaking

English Listening, Reading,

Writing

Mathematics

B. Indonesia Writing

B. Indonesia Reading

Comprehension

Average Score (%)

2011

2010

2009


was in the number of principals monitoring teaching and learning. The reason for this is probably that school principal leadership training which focused on these issues was only introduced during the period of the revised project and had not been implemented before the 2009 monitoring.

The management and use of school libraries improved with 82.1% of schools having well organized and used libraries in 2011 compared to 61.8% in 2009. However, most libraries still suffer from a severe lack of suitable reading material.

Chart 4. Comparison of Scores on Indicators Related to Management

The scores on the effectiveness of the MGMP in the extension districts improved steadily with 39.6% assessed as effective in 2011 compared to 15.9% in 2009. The biggest deficiency appears to be in the frequency of meetings which are held in most cases less than once per month. Access is almost certainly a problem in many districts as one MGMP often covers a very large area (usually the whole district) and a large number of schools. It appears that teachers’ professional development needs are being met better in many cases by school level meetings (often called the school MGMP) rather than the district level MGMP.

The scores in the core districts were similar to those in the extension districts with the exception being the MGMP effectiveness, which was somewhat lower, possibly reflecting the fact that those districts had not yet received training in Better Teaching and Learning 4 (BTL4), which is focused on and implemented through the MGMP.

3.3.8 Results and Conclusions

There has been a considerable and visible impact on many, indeed most, of the 330 partner schools. A number of key factors are believed to have contributed towards this:

• The program was focused on specific and easily observable objectives related to teacher and student behaviour, the classroom environment, school principal management and leadership and the teacher professional development system, which mirrored the project indicators.

• The program supported the implementation of government regulations relating to school management and teaching and learning and training was practical and participative in its implementation.

12.0

61.8

15.9

62.8

84.7

28.7

72.8

82.1

39.6

69.3

80.6

25.0

15.0

40.0

23.0

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

School Principal Leadership Library Management and Use MGMP meets Teachers' Needs

Pe

rce

nta

ge

Imp

lem

en

tin

g




2011 (core districts)

Comparison Schools


• Program support took place over an extended period and involved a variety of mutually supportive activities. Training workshops for teachers was supported by training for school principals and supervisors, study visits to schools to view good practices, mentoring by district facilitators in the classroom and a variety of other activities to publicise good practices including showcase meetings, newsletters and a project website.

• The program was popular with schools and local governments as it had a positive impact on many teachers attitude to teaching and the attitude of many students to learning. It also had a positive impact on student learning as measured by government examinations.

• The program was successful in building up local government and school commitment and support as witnessed by the amount of dissemination of the program, which took place using local funding.

3.4 Working with Teacher Training Institutions

3.4.1 Overview of Work with Teacher Training Institutions and LPMPs

From the start of the revised project program, in order to achieve wider impact beyond the target districts and to support improvement across the (junior secondary) education system, DBE3 worked with a small number of staff from teacher training universities (LPTK) and Quality Assurance Institutes (LPMP) in each of the project provinces. Staff of these institutions took part in the provincial BTL training programs including the training of facilitators and training of teachers. Selected lecturers also participated in the classroom action research program and pilot program described in more detail in sections 3.4.2 below. Details of the numbers staff from the Universities and LPMP taking part in various DBE3 activities are presented in table 16. List of the universities involved in the program in each province are included in Volume 2: Provincial Reports

Table 16: Number of Staff from Universities and LPMP taking part in DBE3 training

Province Better

Teaching and Learning

Classroom Action

Research Pilot Program Total

North Sumatra 6 5 0 11

West Java/Banten 9 5 0 14

Central Java 21 5 30 26

East Java 7 5 0 12

South Sulawesi 20 5 30 25

Total 63 25 60 148

3.4.2 Pilot Program with Teacher Training Universities

Participation in the BTL training programs described in the previous section created considerable interest in the DBE3 program amongst the university and LPMP staff, but the number of staff involved was very limited – at the most 10 person per institution per training. In view of the importance of improving the capacity and performance of teacher training universities in both pre- and in-service training, DBE3 implemented a pilot program in the final year of the program with two teacher training universities. The program was designed to encourage them to adopt and make use of some of the key project programs, and approaches with a view to improving the quality of both their pre- and in-service teacher training courses. The plan was to target key staff in the institutions in the universities for involvement in the program as they could most likely influence changes and improvements in practice amongst their colleagues and the Institution as a whole.

The two universities selected were the State University of Semarang (UNNES) and the State University of Makassar (UNM). A program of activities was agreed with the universities in late


February and Terms of Reference signed in March 2011. Responsibility for the activities was shared between DBE3 and the universities. By the end of October 2011 all the activities were successfully completed with details as follows:

1. Training for University staff in selected core units from the BTL packages: 30 lecturers from UNM and 27 lecturers from UNNES from the departments of the universities covering the core curriculum subjects (B. Indonesia, Mathematics, Science, English and Social Studies). 10 teachers from DBE3 partner junior secondary schools in Makassar and 13 teachers from schools in Semarang City and District, which are used for teaching practice by the University, attended the training. The program covered a variety of topics from the BTL2 and 3 modules and concluded with practical teaching in DBE3 partner schools, discussion of the results of the teaching practice and making plans for future activities.

2. Implementation of BTL training by Lecturers to student teachers in pre service programs at the University: Following their attendance at the DBE3 hosted training on BTL materials, lecturers from UNNES and UNM used what they had learned to train their student teachers on teaching methodology. 400 student teachers at UNNES and 218 at UNM and were trained using BTL materials. This training was completed as part of the routine preparation for the students’ PPL (school based teaching practice program).

3. Developing Training Materials for Classroom Action Research: DBE3 conducted a joint workshop for lecturers from UNM and UNNES on how to develop training materials for Classroom Action Research and for Instructional Leadership in Yogyakarta in June 2011. During the workshop, the 60 lecturers in attendance reviewed the DBE3 training materials and developed a plan of action to integrate the materials into their own teacher training programs.

4. Training Teachers in Classroom Action Research: In August and September 2011, both UNM and UNNES completed a trial run of the Classroom Action Research (CAR) program they developed in the DBE3 program workshop. Staff from UNNES used some of the DBE3 training materials from workshop 1 of the CAR program to train 24 teachers from University partner Junior Secondary schools to understand the concept of CAR and be able to write a research proposal, while lecturers from UNM trained 30 teachers from Junior Secondary Schools in Barru to conduct Classroom Action Research. Funding for this activity was provided by the University.

5. Training for School Principals and Supervisors: Lecturers from UNM trained 30 School Principals and Vice Principals from Junior Secondary Schools in East Luwu from September 27 to October 1, 2011 using the DBE3 materials. This training was fully funded by the District Education Office. However, by the end of year 6, neither UNNES nor UNM had been able to conduct any training for School Supervisors. Both Universities commented that this was primarily due to the difficulty of coordination with Districts and allocations of funding.

6. Support for Mentoring of Student Teaching Practice: Teaching practice for student teachers in Semarang started in August and was completed at the end of October. During this period, 20 Lecturers from UNNES mentored 80 student teachers based in schools in Semarang City and the District of Semarang. Each student was visited a minimum of 3 times. In South Sulawesi, this activity started at the very end of September as the period of teaching practice


commenced. At UNM, 20 lecturers trained in the BTL materials supported 66 trainee teachers based in schools in Makassar during their teaching practice.

7. Follow-Up Activities: Following the completion of the agreed program with UNNES, the university planned additional activities, which they wished to implement with much of their own funding and with DBE3 support. DBE3 and UNNES conducted a workshop using the BTL materials for 15 lecturers from UNNES and 46 teachers from the University partner schools in charge of supervising university students’ practical teaching. 8 representatives from other Teacher Training Institution in Central Java and Yogyakarta also attended along with 2 representatives from Dinas Pendidikan Kabupaten Gunungkidul, as the District is interested in disseminating the DBE3 program.

This training was followed by training for the school principals of the partner schools and principals of partner schools of the other Teacher Training Institutions in Central Java and Yogyakarta involved in the previous training.

The facilitators for both trainings were 5 UNNES lecturers who have participated in the DBE3 Better Teaching and Learning implementation for the last three years and 5 DBE3 National Facilitators.

The participants in the training were very pleased. The School Principals involved felt that the training really met their needs in trying to supervise and provide technical assistance to teachers in their schools. They appreciated both the content of the training and the participatory approach in the process of training.

Table 17: Beneficiaries in the DBE3 Pilot Program with Universities

Training Program Lecturers Student

Teachers

Teachers from University

Partner Schools

School Principals from

University Partner Schools

BTL Materials 72 61844 69 30

Classroom Action Research 60 0 30 0

School Principal Training 60 0 0 30

School Supervisor Training 60 0 0 0

Mentoring 60 146 0 0


A final review and evaluation meeting on the pilot program with the Universities was conducted by DBE3 in Jakarta on October 27, 2011. 20 participants, 10 from each University, attended the meeting and provided feedback on the activities conducted and recommendations for future cooperation. Overall, lecturers from both Universities welcome the program and were enthusiastic about the content and approach of all DBE3 materials and planned to continue to use them.

With regards to the BTL materials, participants felt that these were very important and all teacher training staff at the Universities, especially the very senior staff, should be trained to use them as they were based on the very latest developments in education. They also commented that they needed now to look carefully at their current programs in order to assess how BTL could be integrated into it and the system.

Staff from the Universities admitted that it was quite a challenge for them to independently conduct the activities they were responsible for under the agreement and they really needed continue DBE3

44 This included 80 from each of the core curriculum departments (Mathematics, Natural Science, Social Science, Indonesian and English) at UNNES and 50 from Mathematics and Natural Science at UM, 40 from English and Indonesian and 30 from Social Science


support. This is not really surprising as the training provided by DBE3 was relatively short and many different subjects were introduced in a short amount of time. DBE3 overestimated the capacity of the University staff. Requests for DBE3 technical assistance were frequent but in all cases the requests were met.

In addition to technical capacity another problematic issue seems to be lack of time for the Universities to fully implement the activities. As the DBE3 innovations were not integrated into the initial teacher training programs at the University, and were just an add on, both UNNES and UNM lecturers said that they had to reduce the amount of material from BTL they used to train their students as they simply did not have time to use it all and complete their existing curriculum.

Moreover, although the Universities value the DBE3 programs highly, they also commented that they did not have sufficient funds to fully replicate the DBE3 program as it was implemented by the project and often had to cut down on training time, sessions and content, especially when using the materials with teachers and school principals in the field. Often they were constrained by the funding available from either their own departments or the districts and they felt that this meant they could not achieve the same results as the project.

Despite these challenges, both UNM and UNNES have concrete plans to continue to use the DBE3 materials, especially CAR and BTL into 2012. UNM plans to train all Lecturers on the BTL materials and then establish a core team of facilitators within the University to train pre and in service teachers. UNM will also socialize the programs available to local District Education Offices in order to generate demand and funding for these programs to be used with schools. For UNNES, a key activity is first to train in service teachers from UNNES partner schools using BTL materials so that they are able to also mentor the student teachers doing teaching practice on a daily basis.

3.5 Classroom Action Research

Participation in the whole school training by the teacher training universities and LPMPs was supplemented by a program of Classroom Action Research (CAR). During year 4 of the project, five lecturers or LPMP trainers from each province were selected to take part in the classroom action research. Each was partnered by a district facilitator and a classroom teacher from a DBE3 partner school to form teams of three persons to design and implement the action research. 75 persons in all consisting of 25 university lecturers/LPMP trainers, 25 district facilitators and 25 teachers from partner schools took part in CAR.

3.5.1 Overview of the Program

1. Implementing the Classroom Action Research

DBE3 conducted a series of short workshops to support the CAR participants to conduct the research, analyse and reflect on the data and write up a research report.

• An introductory workshop was held in August 2009 in Jakarta to introduce the program to the participants and to assist them plan their action research programs.

• A second workshop was held in February 2011 for participants to have the opportunity reflect on, analyze and present the data they had collected through their action research and to plan for the next stages of the research in the field.

• DBE3 hosted a third workshop June 2010 for participants to complete the draft of their research reports with guidance from DBE3 staff and consultants. Following the third workshop, all participants completed their final research report.


• Between each workshop DBE3 technical staff and consultants visited all the teams to provide support and advice to complete the research.

• By the end of August 2010, all participants in the DBE3 Classroom Action Research program successfully completed their research papers and submitted them to the DBE3 technical team for review. A summary of all the research conducted is included in Volume 3 Annex 11 and a list of participants in Annex 12.

2. Classroom Action Research Journal

DBE3 created a CAR journal using 11 articles written by participants in the program not only to inspire other teachers to test some of the teaching strategies presented in the articles but also to try Classroom Action Research for themselves. An English language version was also prepared, printed and distributed in mid-2011.

3. Classroom Acton Research Guidelines

Following the completion of the CAR program, DBE3 prepared and published a set of Guidelines on How to Train and Support Teachers to complete Classroom Action Research based on the experience of the DBE3 program in order to inspire and support further CAR programs. The guidelines included:

• A description of the DBE3 CAR program - what was done (activities) how they were done (collaboratively, phased) and why

• The lessons learned from the DBE3 CAR program both positive and negative.

• Recommendations and advice to others doing a similar thing, comments from people involved in the DBE3 program including facilitators and researchers

• All the DBE3 training materials

4. Classroom Action Research National Seminar

The Guidelines were handed over to participants from Government Teacher Education Institutions including the Open University, LPTK, LPMP and representatives from MONE and MORA at a National Seminar hosted by DBE3 on September 14, 2011 in Jakarta. Participants at the meeting came from 27 different teacher training institutions, both DBE supported and non-supported, across 9 provinces including Maluku and West Kalimantan. Also present were representatives from the Directorate General of Higher Education (DIKTI) at the Ministry of National Education, A list of participant institutions is included in Volume 3 Annex 13.


DBE3 conducted a written evaluation of the Classroom Action Research program. This evaluation revealed that all participants were very satisfied with the program and felt that they had developed ‘good knowledge about Classroom Action Research’ from ‘well qualified staff’ and moreover they had finished the program with an end product which ‘was useful for certification and promotion.’

For many participants the process they went through in completing their action research was equally if not more important than the outcome. Many remarked that the Classroom Action Research process had made them think about what they were doing in their classroom more often and had made them ‘realize how important it was to constantly try to improve their practice’. Teachers said that it had ‘made [their] teaching better’ had made them ‘creative in looking at how to increase student performance’, had helped them to ‘think of how to solve problems in the classroom’ had given them ‘the


opportunity to try out new things in the classroom’ and most importantly ‘more able to reflect on whether their teaching was good or not’.

According to participants the DBE3 Classroom Action Research program also had the effect of ‘building cooperation amongst teachers and lecturers from LPMP and Universities.’ Teachers had been ‘able to learn and improve their theoretical knowledge and research skills from lecturers and lecturers had been able to learn more about the reality of teaching in schools’, which they felt would help them in their work in training new teachers. A number of teachers also reported that the program had improved the cooperation between them and their colleagues in school.

One of the most important and yet unexpected outcomes of the program was participants appreciation of how valuable Classroom Action Research is as a training tool for other teachers. A unanimous opinion amongst all participants was that DBE3 should disseminate the Classroom Action Research program to all other provinces, districts and schools in Indonesia as it is ‘really connected to the daily work of the teacher, unlike other types of scientific research’.

The program was also challenging. Most participants had never conducted any type of research before. For those that had, it had not involved an Action Research approach. The same was true for the DBE3 Facilitators. Therefore, a considerable challenge for all participants and most project facilitators was to understand that classroom action research is not what usually comes to mind when the word “research” is used in the Indonesian context.

For participants, the cyclical nature of the action research approach was complex and time consuming. Teachers often felt frustrated and overwhelmed by the process. Without exception all teachers struggled at some point in their research and needed guidance and encouragement to continue.

The DBE3 CAR program has proved to be very popular and was disseminated to Teacher Training Universities as part of the pilot program (see the previous section).


4. PUBLIC PRIVATE ALLIANCES

The formation and management of Public-Private Alliances (PPA) was “specifically required” by USAID as a part of the Decentralized Basic Education 3 (DBE3) project. These Alliances were intended to meet one or more of the following aims45:

• To more fully address the (project) objectives

• To address educational issues that complement, but are outside of, the project scope

• To reach new geographic areas that are generally harder (and often more expensive) to access

In forming and implementing Public Private Alliances, over the life of the project DBE3 was “obliged” to:

• Establish public private alliances using no less than 15% of its program activity resources (approximately USD 1,200,000);

• To leverage a ratio of 1:1 or greater from the private sector for each of the alliances

• Accept either in kind or cash resources from corporate partners

DBE3 formed and implemented three main Public Private Alliances between 2005 and 2011 with (a) Exxon Mobil Indonesia (b) Intel and (c) Conoco Phillips. DBE3 used USD 725,000 (9%) of its program resources to leverage USD 845,000 through these PPA, an overall ratio of 1: 1.16. 59% of these contributions were received kind and the remaining 41% in cash. Each of the Alliances addressed at least 1 of the 3 three intended objectives of PPA.

Under project modification 11 signed on June 3rd 2010, USAID gave permission for DBE3 to re-allocate remaining funds for PPA (USD 425,000) to program activities and not to pursue any additional PPA activities

4.1 Exxon Mobil Indonesia

The alliance with Exxon Mobil Indonesia (EMOI) aimed to “expand the DBE3 core program to another geographical area” outside of the project. The ratio was 1:1 which was provided in cash to DBE3 by EMOI.

Dates Total Value (USD)

Objective Location and Target

May 2007 to April 2010

USD 390,000 (USD195,000 from each partner)

To improve teachers ability to help young people develop life skills in junior secondary schools by using the DBE3 Life Skills training program to train teachers and school principals

District: North Aceh

Sub Districts: Matangkuli Nibong, Syamtalira Aron, Meurah Meulia, Lhoksukon, and Tanah Luas

25 Schools

The project strategy was to use some of the same materials and approaches used in the DBE3 core project to:

• Establish a model for school quality improvement in North Aceh, which included an extensive training program for teachers and managers and the provision of follow-up support for key personnel in 25 target schools and;

• Build the capacity and systems in North Aceh to support and disseminate the model to other schools.

45 As stated in the Request for Applications


A list of the 25 Schools DBE3 was to work in was provided by EMOI and is included in Volume 3 Annex 14. Project implementation was divided into four main phases for manageability and to maximize efforts in each school as below.

The main activities conducted by DBE3 in this program were:

• Selecting and training a team of 29 locally based District Facilitators using the DBE3 Life Skills Foundation modules, the Becoming an Effective Facilitator module and the Guidelines on Conducting School Mentoring activities, as described in section 2.3 of this report. A list of the names of the 29 North Aceh District Facilitators can be found in Volume 3 Annex 15.

• Supporting the District Facilitators to conduct school level training for 600 teachers in the 25 partner schools using the Life Skills Foundation modules between March 2008 and October 2009 as shown in table 18 below

Table 18: Numbers of Teachers Trained in North Aceh

• Enabling the District Facilitators, school principals and school supervisors to conduct mentoring activities on a two-weekly basis with the 600 teachers in the 25 partner schools. Examples of mentoring activities included syllabi development and lesson planning, classroom observation, peer observation, support for portfolio development and activities to continue to develop teachers ability to assess student learning, including life skills.

• Providing Teaching and Learning resources to partner schools to enable teachers to try some of the new teaching strategies learned during the training. A sum of USD1650 was allocated to each partner school for them to match and then purchase resources for needs based life

Phase Key Activities Period

1. Project planning and preparation June 2007 to December 2007

2. Phase 1 Project implementation with 12 target schools in the sub districts of Lhoksukon and Nibong

January 2008 to December 2008

3. Phase 2 Project implemetation with 13 target schools and on going support to phase 1 schools covered the sub districts of Syamtalira Arun, Meurah Mulia, Tanah Luas and Matang Kuli

January 2009 to December 2009

4. Project dissemination and close down January 2010 to April 2010

Date Schools Teachers

Male Female Total

Phase 1 March – July 2008 12 66 171 237

Phase 2 March - October 2009 13 128 235 363

Total 25 194 406 600

Students in target schools using teaching and learning resources provided

through the DBE3 non cash grants program in their lessons


skills (including vocational) programs. Examples of resources provided include computers, sewing machines, English books, Arabic language books and audio cassettes. A list of the schools and resources they received is included in Volume 3 Annex 16.

• Hosting district planning and preparation meetings to involve local government in DBE3 project activities, including joint program planning, preparation and implementation, selection of district trainers and project monitoring and evaluation activities.

• Facilitating Study Visits for district government staff involved in the management of Junior Secondary Education, School supervisors, District Facilitators and Principals and teachers from partner schools in North Aceh to visit schools exhibiting good practices in other DBE3 provinces. 30 participants visited DBE3 programs in Central and East Java to view good classroom practice and discuss management issues with senior school staff.

• Supporting the development of the district in service teacher training network (MGMP) through conducting additional trainings for 84 Facilitators from the Science, English and Mathematics MGMP in 2009.

Table 19: Participants in MGMP Facilitator Training by Subject and Gender

Date Subject Participants

Male Female Total

May 26-27 Science 4 23 27

May 28 – 29 Mathematics 7 21 28

May 28 – 29 English 10 19 29

Total 21 63 84

• Hosting a District Showcase meeting in December 2009 to sum up and publicize the achievements of the program and encourage local government and schools to sustain and further develop the program. The District showcase meeting was attended by over 100 people from Aceh. Presentations by students, teachers, school principals and district facilitators were delivered as were videos of activities in local schools. Participants visited four schools, which demonstrated the results of the program with displays of students’ work and practical and interesting lessons.

• Conducting a “how to” dissemination workshop to ensure that local education stakeholders had the necessary knowledge and skills to continue to disseminate the model following the end of DBE3 involvement. Through the one day workshop, participants learned how to use the knowledge, mechanisms and tools the project had already put in place within the district (e.g. facilitators, model schools and materials) to disseminate the DBE3 approaches.

• Supporting local education stakeholders to scale up the program in North Aceh through providing targeted support for dissemination activities to an additional 37 non target schools reaching 486 Junior Secondary Educators. DBE3 also supported the dissemination of the BTL2 training package to 10 of the original DBE3 partner schools. A complete breakdown of the dissemination activities is illustrated in Volume 3 Annex 17.

Results

Overall, the program in North Aceh was successful. Most of the teachers had never attended any teacher training courses since starting their teaching service and were enthusiastic and excited to participate. As a result of the school program 81% % of teachers improved their teaching practice.

36% of the DBE3 partner schools in North Aceh showed improved student performance in national examinations between 2007 and 2009 in all four subjects. 6 out of 25 (24%) showed an improvement in 3 out of 4 subjects and 5 (20%) showed an improvement in 2 subjects. Only 2


schools (8%) showed no improvement in any subject at all. The greatest improvement across the schools was in Indonesian language and the least was in Science.

• 88% of schools showed improved student performance in Indonesian language;

• 80% of schools with improved student performance in Mathematics;

• 60% in English language

• 44% in Science

The UAN results per partner school for the period DBE3 was working in North Aceh are included in Volume 3 Annex 18.

DBE3 provided a total of USD 40, 000 worth of teaching and learning resources to schools but used this amount to leverage an additional USD 50, 000 from schools to increase the amount of teaching and learning equipment available for Life Skills Education.

Moreover, although the total costs of the dissemination training supported by DBE3 between June 2009 and March 2010 was USD 23, 513 DBE3 only paid only USD 2,963 or 12.6% of this meaning that the project leveraged a ratio of USD 1:7. This is a significant achievement and demonstrated the commitment of local stakeholders in North Aceh.

The program in North Aceh had its challenges, both the budget and timeframe for the program was limited and restricted the program. The remoteness of the project context was also a challenge. North Aceh was a new area for DBE3 and the project and its staff had to be managed and supported by DBE3 managers and technical staff from a distance from the field where communications could often pose a challenge. Furthermore, travel to North Aceh by support staff was expensive and time consuming as was travel within North Aceh by project staff. DBE3 resolved these issues by linking the North Aceh program into the DBE3 program in Medan, North Sumatra and accessing logistic and administrative support from the Save the Children office located in the region. Despite the challenges, the program, in North Aceh was successful and worthwhile program. EMOI were willing to buy into the existing overall DBE3 project and the activities funded by the EMOI in Aceh could easily be integrated into the overall program.

4.2 Intel

The DBE3 – Intel Alliance was set up to more fully address one of the DBE3 project objectives, to improve students ICT capabilities through increasing the use of ICT across the general curriculum. The ratio was 1:1 which was provided in kind by Intel to the value of USD 500, 000. See section 5.1 for more detail.

Dates Total Value

(USD) Objective Location and Target

April 2007 to March 2010

USD 1,000,000

(USD 500,000 from each partner)

To support teachers to integrate ICT into the teaching and learning process by training teachers using the Intel Teach Program: Getting Started

All DBE3 target provinces

Marzuki Abdullah (SEKDA—Aceh Utara) officially starts the program

Scenes from the MGMP Facilitators Training in May 2009


The project strategy was to train teachers in selected DBE3 partner schools to use ICT to support the teaching and learning process across the curriculum through using the Intel “Teach” materials “Getting Started” program. The program was delivered in 2 phases. Phase 1 between 2007 and 2009 and phase 2 from 2008 to 2010. The main activities conducted through the alliance were as follows:

• Using a pre qualification criteria provided by Intel to conduct a ‘needs assessment’ of DBE3 partner schools to assess existing ICT facilities and capabilities in order to decide which schools would participate in the program. The assessment was used to select a total of 7646 schools (20 in phase 1 and 56 in phase 2).

• Procuring and providing ICT equipment to selected schools to ensure the pre-qualification criteria were met and the identified schools had the facilities to facilitate the training program. DBE3 procured and distributed 532 computers and 1,039 pieces of ICT equipment (such as software, UPS and anti virus) to the 76 schools as detailed in Volume 3 Annex 19.

• Selecting and training 134 Master Trainers (2 teachers from each selected school) using the Intel “Getting Started” program, the content of which is detailed in Volume 3 Annex 20.

Table 20: Master Trainer Profiles

Province Number of Trainers

Total Age Average Male Female

North Sumatra 15 3 18 33

West Java - Banten 23 1 24 36.5


East Java 17 5 22 34.5


Total 105 29 134 34.6

• Facilitating the Master Trainers to train 1,338 teachers (495 from phase 1 and 843 during phase 2) from the selected schools using the same materials.

• Conducting Principals Forums, lasting 4 to 8 hours with the 76 principals of the selected schools to assist them to understand the program, to identify their role in supporting the integration of technology to teaching and learning process and help them to develop an action plan to integrate technology across the curriculum

• Collecting data and documentation in a portfolio format to certify every teacher who had taken part on the program.

46 For phase one, DBE3 only worked in 1 district and selected 4 schools per district to work with. This was increased to 8 schools in phase 2. In Central Java for phase 2, DBE3 worked in 24 schools as the districts agreed to use their own funding to cover the additional costs of the program. This explains the higher figures for Central Java.

Computers provided through the DBE3 – Intel

partnership for use by teachers and students in

schools in Pangkep, South

Sulawesi


Table 21: Participant Teacher Profiles

Results and Conclusions

Following completion of each phase of the program, DBE3 conducted an evaluation in order to investigate how various aspects of the program were implemented and elicit feedback on the challenges and successes of the program components. The evaluations at the end of phase 1 and 2 produced very similar findings showing that the success of the program was mixed. The program was determined successful in terms of upgrading the ICT facilities of schools and improving teachers’ computer literacy but was much less successful at increasing students’ use of ICT to support their learning across the curriculum. The evaluation found that only 21% of teachers’ used computers in the classroom to support student learning following the program but, when they were used, they were only being used to replace the blackboard and being used to support teachers “lecturing’. As a result, DBE3 decided to withdraw from plans for a third phase and instead develop and implement a project ICT program which is described in detail in section 5.1.

4.3 Conoco Phillips

The USAID-Conoco Phillips Education Alliance was formed to support school reconstruction, rehabilitation and disaster education in communities affected by the May 2006 earthquake in Central Java and Yogyakarta. Conoco Phillips contributed USD 1 million to USAID for DBE1, 2 & 3 to restore education facilities in affected areas. DBE3 shared in the disaster relief efforts by pledging USD 30,000 of its PPA resources to develop tools and approaches that help youth to be prepared to respond to natural disasters, which addressed an educational issue that complemented but was outside of the immediate scope of the project. Conoco Phillips contributed USD 150,000 in cash to DBE3, leveraging a ratio of 1:5.

Dates Total Value (USD)

Objective Location and Target

From February to December 2008

USD

180,000

To equip youth with skills and knowledge related to disaster preparedness by designing, preparing and disseminating a pocket guide and accompanying performance

Central Java and DIY

The overall program strategy was to work directly with a group of youth to develop simple youth friendly earthquake preparedness guidelines which could be communicated through a performance. The main activities carried out through the program were as follows:

• Conducting two consultation workshops, in April and May 2008 one in Yogyakarta and one in Aceh with disaster relief specialists, junior and senior high school students, local and

Province Number of Teacher

Total Age Average Male Female

North Sumatra 45 141 186 39.5

West Java - Banten 65 110 175 40.5


East Java 117 120 237 39.5


Total 495 843 1,338 40.1


international NGOs, and government stakeholders working in disaster education programs in order to identify existing disaster preparedness activities and gather recommendations for developing a disaster preparedness guide and dissemination strategy targeting youth aged 12-18.

• Facilitating students from DBE3 in Klaten, Central Java and Aceh to participate in the Bangkok, Thailand Forum on Disaster and the Aftermath: Building Life Skills for Health and Education

• Establishing a Creative Youth Group of 30 students through a series of auditions with students from SMPN2 Jogonalan

• Recruiting a local consultant from DIY and the Disaster Research Center (PSBA) from the University of Gadjah Madah to work with youth to develop the Disaster Preparedness materials

• Facilitating a series of 6 meetings with the youth, consultants and PSBA between May – September 2008 to develop a pocket guide “Siaga Gempa” to describe the necessary actions to execute before, during and after a natural disaster strikes and develop a 4 stage drama to communicate the disaster preparedness messages.

• Conducting a project presentation and sustainability workshop to: a) Present the earthquake preparedness pocket guide and drama performance to stakeholders who participated in the consultation workshop, b) Distribute the pocket guide to Conoco target schools and c) develop sustainability and dissemination strategies.

• Distributing the pocket guide and CD to DBE3 partner schools and schools in Yogyakarta, and Solo.

Results and Conclusions

The program with Conoco Phillips was localized and DBE3 never really used the products or results of the program wider than in Central Java and Yogyakarta due to lack of funding and time. However, in evaluating the program, one of the major achievements of the Disaster Preparedness Program was the involvement of Youth as key participants in the design and development of the materials. Youth were the key actors in the process from the beginning to the end and were given the space to decide the content of the booklet, to review and approve the booklet, design the performance, decide the schedule for rehearsals and to choose their own uniform.

4.4 Local Public Private Alliances

In addition to these PPA with high profile companies, DBE3 facilitated a number of small scale public private alliances between schools and non formal education providers and local businesses between 2006 and 2008. These partnerships resulted from the DBE3 training program “Establishing Local Partnerships” which trained 636 staff from 196 schools and 191 Non formal education providers to identify gaps for providing needs based quality youth education programs and to take steps to develop a plan with the local private sector to fill the gaps or meet the needs.

Between 2007 and 200847 DBE3 successfully:

• Assisted 74 partner schools to develop alliances with private sector to provide support and resources for quality youth education leading to a total value of cash and in kind contributions to DBE3 schools of 726.11 million IDR (81,907 USD)

47 The program was first implemented in 2007. Although the program continued to run after 2008, data was not collected as the DBE3 Monitoring and Evaluation Plan was modified in line with program changes following the mid term evaluation. Anecdotal evidence suggests that many of these local alliances are still working.


• Supported 63 partner Non Formal Education Providers in developing alliances with local private sector to provide support in cash an in kind for quality youth education leading to a total value of 1326.17 million IDR (149,596 USD).

However, following DBE -USAID guidelines, these were not recorded as official PPA48.

4.5 Review and Evaluation of Public Private Alliance Programs

The mid term evaluation conducted in 2007 and 2008 concluded that Public Private Alliances were basically a management and resource burden for the DBE project and took precious time and effort away from the central themes of DBE, which was to improve teaching and learning. The mid term evaluation team recommended that PPA should be utilized only when they occurred naturally, without extraordinary effort, and when they contribute to DBE goals and programs or they should be eliminated.

In August 2010 following completion of all of the DBE3 PPA, the project also conducted an internal and informal review and appraisal of the PPA conducted under the project and came to many of the same conclusion as the mid term evaluation. The main findings of the evaluation were while the PPA conducted through the DBE3 program did bring in additional financial resources and enabled the project to expand to other areas and address new but linked educational issues in Indonesia, they were all very challenging to organize and implement and were not automatically a good thing. None of the DBE3 PPA seemed to substantially improve teaching and learning in Indonesia, which was the stated goal of the project

Key recommendations generated by the evaluation for future projects were to:

• Prioritize PPA which can use or be integrated into the existing program so there is no re-design work or customization required.

• Avoid partnerships with too many limitations set by private sector partners.

• Not underestimate the amount of work that can be involved in implementing a program with a private sector partner; ensure there is adequate time and staffing LOE to carry out the program

• Only engage in PPA that leverage appropriate partner capacity and competencies because effective program delivery only results when the right partners come together and leverage their respective and appropriate strengths, capacities and competencies

48 PPA is defined as “a partnership between USAID and private sector partner(s) working together to jointly define and solve development problems”. ……“The Mission has noted that it prefers to have a few large, high profile Alliances, preferably with private sector companies…..while smaller public-private alliances (e.g., local business contributions) may be developed as part of DBE, they may not be reported as a “PPA.” From USAID-DBE Operational Guidelines for Public Private Alliances


5. CROSS CUTTING

DBE3 integrated six key cross cutting issues across all program activities. The following three were addressed during the full six years of the project implementation:

• Promote the use and integration of information and communications technologies (ICT) to enhance teaching and learning

• Ensure success in the Islamic education subsector

• Promote gender equity

The remaining three issues listed below were only relevant to the project during the first three years of the period of performance prior to the technical revisions in 2009:

• Integrate positive youth development approaches and engage youth as partners

• Promote sharing between formal and non-formal education providers

• Adapt approaches for post-conflict and post-disaster environments.

5.1 Promote the use and integration of ICT to enhance teaching and learning

DBE3 was expected to dedicate no less than $500,000 from project funds to implement ICT related activities and to develop an integrated approach for utilizing ICT tools to achieve project objectives. This could include basic computer training for youth, distance learning and partnering with the private sector to implement ICT strategies and solutions.

As it was (and still is) a priority of the government of Indonesia to develop the use of ICT, as a learning tool in schools, DBE3’s general ICT strategy was specifically developed with the goal of supporting schools to provide opportunities for students to develop, practice and apply their ICT capability49 through the use of ICT in learning across the curriculum.

In order to understand the challenges that this would present, in 2007 DBE3 conducted a situation analysis of ICT in Junior Secondary Schools and Non Formal Education Providers (see section 8) which highlighted two main problems. First the provision of computers and other ICT equipment across junior secondary schools was varied. A few schools had well equipped computer laboratories but most had very little or no equipment and much of the equipment there was, was in a poor state of repair. Secondly, schools often took a skills based approach to ICT and focussed on students’ acquisition of the technical competencies through the ICT subject. Few teachers used the ICT equipment in their lessons as they themselves were not computer literate and therefore, had no confidence. Students only used what equipment there was during special computer lessons.

DBE3 implemented a number of programs to address these issues as follows:

• Worked in partnership with Intel® in implementing the Getting Started program which supported the development of computer laboratories and trained both trainers and teachers on computer literacy and to use technology to enhance student learning. This program is explained in detail in section 5.1.

• Collaborated with the South East Asian Minister of Education Organization Regional Open Learning Centre (SEAMOLEC) to convert some of the DBE3 Teacher Training materials into Distance Education (eLearning) materials to improve pre and in service teachers’ skills in using ICT for professional development and their teaching and learning practice in school. This program is described in detail in section 6.

49 ICT capability can be defined as the ability to use ICT and information tools appropriately and effectively to achieve a desired result. To be considered ICT capable, a person requires not only a set of basic skills, such as how to use a mouse, but also the ability to select appropriate routines, techniques and processes to produce a specific outcome


• Developed and implemented a program for Integrating ICT into Teaching and Learning which included the procurement and distribution of computers and other peripherals for schools to use in classrooms and training and supporting general curriculum teachers to integrate ICT into their teaching and learning. These activities are described in detail below:

1. Integrating ICT into Teaching and Learning

The program for integrating ICT into Teaching and Learning was implemented in two distinct phases during the project, the first between 2005 and 2009 and the second phase in 2010 under the revised technical approach.

Phase 1: 2005 – 2009

ICT interventions during the first phase were governed by the following principles, they must be sustainable, affordable, replicable, scalable, and must deliver educational benefit by enabling schools to deliver better quality teaching and learning. All interventions were linked to the PPA strategy with Intel that was simultaneously working to provide schools, teachers and students with increased level of access to technology and some further training on how to use them.

Key DBE3 activities involved the (a) development of ICT related training and support materials for teachers (b) the implementation of a training program to train teachers to integrate ICT into their teaching and (c) the provision of small grants to selected schools to pilot and support use of innovative ICT in teaching and learning.

a) Development of ICT related Materials

The ICT related materials developed under the first phase of the program included the ICT for Life Skills Education training module and the ICT for Life, Learning and Work Toolkit. These materials were an integral part of the Life Skills program and are therefore described in detail in section 2.3.3 and in volume 3 annexes 4 and 5.

b) Training for District Facilitators and Teachers

DBE3 used these materials to train and support 20 National Facilitators and 88 District Facilitators who then trained 7,175 teachers in partner schools. At the end of the training the teachers had developed the basic skills and confidence to use some ICT tools into their teaching so that youth have more opportunities to learn about and use ICT for learning.

c) Provision of Small Grants for ICT activities

The small grants for ICT program was designed to give partner schools access to funds to support ICT related activities or innovations. In 2007, DBE3 used these funds to provide ICT equipment to 32 schools in Central Java and South Sulawesi (see Volume 3 Annex 21) and support 30 schools in

ICT for Life, Learning and Work teacher training for cohort 2 districts in

Central Java

Screenshot of one of the home pages of school websites supported by the DBE3 ICT initiatives, created by Dedik Kurniawan from MTs Nurul

Huda, Sedati, Sidoarjo, East Java

Students using computers in a Mathematics lesson, West Java, 2007


East Java to establish school websites50. 65% of these websites were still running in September 2011.

Phase 1: Results and Conclusions

An evaluation of the ICT program in late 2009 suggested that the DBE3 project activities had made some substantial progress in achieving the project goal of developing students ICT capabilities but the there was still some way to go. It was felt that the teaching training program was conducted too early, at a time when other supporting ICT factors (e.g. procurement and distribution of equipment) had not taken place and so although the interest was there, the impact in the classroom and on students ICT capability was limited. This combined with the results of the evaluations on the Intel program (see section 5.1) led DBE3 to modify the ICT program in 2010.

Phase 2: 2010 – 2011

In 2010, DBE3 with approval from USAID modified the approach from the first phase. This involved ending the cooperation with Intel Teach program and replacing it with a refresher and more comprehensive ICT program designed by the project and integrated into the whole school training program. The second phase of the program built on work done previously by the project and involved (a) the purchase and distribution of laptop computers to supplement the equipment available in a number of the partner schools and (b) a short training program on integrating ICT across subject matter teaching and learning and (c) the distribution of a toolkit on how to manage and maintain ICT.

a) Computer Procurement

DBE3 provincial staff completed a survey of schools in order to select those to receive these computers. The criteria were as follows:

• A suitable secure room and adequate electricity supply was available.

• Schools showed commitment to using ICT and were willing to allocate counterpart funds for purchase and maintenance of equipment and had a credible plan to maintain the equipment.

• Schools which had already received equipment from the Intel or other DBE3 ICT initiatives were not eligible to receive equipment. It was also recommended that district should assist a maximum of four schools in order to avoid spreading the resources too thinly.

DBE3 used the results of the survey to make the final selection of schools to be involved in the program and initiated the procurement of laptop computers complete with software for each project province. During April and May 2010 these 400 computers were delivered to the 94 selected schools in each province. A list of recipients is included in Volume 3 Annex 22

b) Training for district facilitators and ICT teachers

Training materials were developed as part of the whole school training program, designed to encourage ICT teachers to work with teachers of other subjects to design and implement teaching and learning activities in those other subjects. The training of district facilitators and ICT teachers from the 25 extension districts took place in each province during May 2010. A total of 507 participants were trained mainly from the schools which had recently received laptop computers from DBE3.

The training lasted for two days and included the following activities:

• Discussing how computers can be used in teaching the main curriculum subjects;

• Developing, modelling and implementing lessons in the main curriculum subjects involving the use of computers;

• Reviewing the success of the lessons and making follow-up plans;

• Reading and reviewing the ICT toolkit prepared by DBE3;

• Making follow-up plans for the training for implementation in each district.

50 Only schools in 3 provinces requested to use the funds available in the ICT initiatives program.


Table 22: Participants in ICT training

Province Teachers Principals Supervisors GOI University

/LPMP Total

North Sumatera 93 2 3 0 0 98

West Java/Banten 86 1 4 1 3 95

Central Java 88 11 5 0 0 104

East Java 110 0 0 0 0 110

South Sulawesi 82 2 16 0 0 100

Total 459 16 28 1 3 507

c) ICT Toolkit

To support the use of computer in schools DBE3 developed an ICT toolkit to help schools maintain and make use of their ICT equipment. The toolkit addresses issues such as:

• What equipment is needed

• How to secure the equipment

• How to maintain the equipment and keep it in good working order

• How to use the equipment both during and outside lesson time to enhance student learning.

2. Results and Conclusions

The implementation of the ICT programs took place at a time when the incidence of various electronic devices including mobile phones and computers had increased dramatically. There was a corresponding interest in the training and support given by DBE3.

The provision of computers by the project met with mixed success. Many of the computers provided eventually broke down and most schools found it difficult to arrange for their repair. This was mainly because of the expense of some of the repairs and the distance from appropriate service centers. Even though there was a service center for the particular make of computer in each provincial capital, this was in many cases a long way from the schools, making the transport difficult and costly. This emphasizes the need for schools to purchase from local suppliers, where ready support and backup is available.

Reactions to the training on the use of ICT across the curriculum were very positive. Many teachers had not envisioned that computers could be used in any subject other then ICT. Some teachers purchased their own computers to take part in the training and some following the training.

From casual observation in schools, the use of computers across the curriculum appears to be increasing. This can be seen in many schools by the amount of work displayed, which has been prepared using computers. However, when talking to teachers and students, they report that in many cases students use computers outside the school especially at computer cafes, presumably because of the lack of facilities in their own schools.

5.2 Ensure success in the Islamic Education Sector

Through all project activities, DBE3 took action to ensure equal success in Islamic Education Institutions and to encourage the greater integration of Islamic schools into the national education system. This was intended to help raise the generally-lagging quality of Islamic schools and to effect a shift in mindset by staff and teachers in Islamic education environments to see themselves as equal


and rightful stakeholders in the national education system. This was achieved through the following project activities, which are described in detail throughout the report:

• Conducted an analysis of the situation of Islamic education institutions to better understand the specific challenges they faced (section 8).

• Reviewed all training modules and materials to ensure their appropriateness to the Islamic education sector

• Created integrated sub district MGMP and training clusters for all teacher training programs to promote cooperation between Islamic and general schools (see sections 2.3 and 3.3).

• Encouraged cooperation between Islamic and general schools by ensuring the teams of District Facilitators included supervisors from district education and religious affairs staff and practitioners from both sectors.

• Strengthened links between district education offices from MONE and MORA through including both in routine project activities where DBE3 gathers stakeholders and reinforced the consistent message that they are all are part of a unified national education system (see section 3.3.5).

• Facilitated exchange visits between officials, managers and teachers from Islamic and general school system and education institutions.

• Engaged with Islamic Universities as well as general Universities to build their capacity as teacher training service providers and to promote the uptake of DBE3 approaches (section 3.4).

As the results of the project show (see section 3.3.7). DBE3 was equally as successful in Islamic Schools as in the general school system and, in some cases, results in Islamic schools (MTs) were better than in conventional schools (SMP).

5.3 Promote Gender Equity

Throughout the life of the project, DBE3 prioritized the improvement of a relevant education to both male and female youth and ensured that its activities were of interest to both genders. DBE3 applied an affirmative action policy, where possible ensuring at least 30 per cent participation by females in all program activities and seeking to promote gender balance in project staffing. Other activities included:

• Undertaking a study on the potential gender-related issues concerning youth’s access to education and using the results and recommendations of the study to inform the initial program design and implementation (section 8).

• Conducting a gender sensitivity workshop in July 2006 for all DBE3 staff and consultants involved in developing project materials.

• Recruited gender specialists to review and provide input into all training modules and teaching and learning materials designed by DBE3

• Integrated gender sensitivity tools into key project training materials for teachers (Better Teaching and Learning 1 see volume 3 annex 4) and tutors (Instructional Module).

5.4 Use positive youth development approaches

The original aim of DBE3 was to ensure that young people in junior secondary schools and non formal education were better prepared for life. In order to achieve this, much of DBE3’s work was with the adults who work with young people in educational settings (teachers, tutors, and NFE managers), as it was these people who needed to rethink the way they worked with youth. However, DBE3 also engaged directly with youth as active, respected contributors in many project activities between 2005 and 2008 to ensure the project was responsive to their needs. DBE3 achieved this in a number of ways:


• Consulted with youth to inform the project school retention strategy and develop and implement the toolkit (section 2.3.3).

• Involved youth in the monitoring and evaluation of project activities and ensured their opinions were taken into account.

• Engaged youth in the selection and evaluation of DBE3 products (see section 2.3.3)

• Helped adults develop their abilities to use positive youth development approaches and work with youth by involving teachers and tutors in youth consultations and focus group discussions

• Developed and used training modules and materials that help teachers and tutors use positive youth development approaches and engage actively with youth (see volume 3 annexes 4, 6 and 7).

5.5 Promote sharing between formal and non-formal education providers

DBE3 recognized that good quality formal and non formal education must exist side by side and maintain their differences in order to ensure that there is diversity in the provision of basic education for youth. However, DBE3 also believed that both systems and professionals could learn from and support each other to become better providers of quality education for youth. Therefore, without trying to change either, between 2005 and 2008, DBE3:

• Facilitated meetings with formal and non-formal education staff at the district level to improve the quality of DBE3 activities and promote joint learning.

• Promoted use of appropriate project materials in both systems. This included the non-curricular toolkits and the Student Activity Book (section 2.3 and 2.4).

5.6 Adapt approaches for post-conflict and post-disaster environments.

Although the DBE3 program was primarily for non emergency settings, the project was also tasked with demonstrating how the project interventions could be used in conflict, post conflict or emergency environments: In doing this, DBE3:

• Expanded project activities to include North Aceh, a post conflict environment, and adapted the DBE3 life skills program for use in the project (see section 4.1).

• Adapted the consultants and materials development approach used in the DBE3 school retention program (section 2.3.3) for use in the DBE3 emergency response program in DIY (section 4.3).

Students of SMPN 1 Ma’rang, Pangkep,

South Sulawesi taking part in DBE3

quarterly monitoring activities in 2007


6. DISTANCE LEARNING

DBE3 supported the Government of Indonesia teacher training system to reach the target for certifying teachers and improving the quality and relevance of teaching and learning at junior secondary schools by increasing access to training opportunities for teachers. DBE3 worked with two national organizations to re-purpose some key DBE3 training materials to be used in different learning environments so teachers had access to alternative modes of training delivery if they were unable to participate in face to face training workshops. During the last 3 years of the project DBE3 worked with:

• The South East Asian Minister of Education Organization Regional Open Learning Center (SEAMOLEC) to convert the paper based Better Teaching and Learning 1 module into an online distance education teacher training program or E-Module;

• Attempted to work with the Indonesian Open University (UT) to re-purpose some of the DBE3 BTL materials from face to face workshop materials into self study materials for use in the UT teacher training distance education programs.

6.1 E-Learning Module

DBE3 collaborated with the South East Asian Minister of Education Organization Regional Open Learning Center (SEAMOLEC) to convert the paper based Better Teaching and Learning Module from the Life Skills program (described in Volume 3 Annex 4) into on line distance education teacher training program. The Better Teaching and Learning module was selected as it had been widely used within the DBE3 project had proven to be extremely successful and in great demand. The eLearning version of the module was designed to improve teachers’ skills in using ICT for professional development (as they would have to use a computer to complete the module) and also their teaching and learning practice in school (as the contents of the module focussed on pedagogical improvement). DBE3 staff, two International Consultants and 1 National consultant conducted the following activities to create the E-Module:

• Worked with SEAMOLEC to identify an E-Learning team of 30 persons from within the organization and its partners to undertake the development of the E- module.

• Conducted two workshops with the E-Learning team in May and July 2009 to enhance their conceptual understanding of ELearning, to prepare quality and pedagogical standards for creating the E-module and create the wireframe51 for the module.

• Formed a Final Production Team (FPT), consisting of 4 members of the E-Learning team and 1 National Consultant and tasked them with using the wire frame to finish the programming of the module.

• Carried out two usability tests with teachers from SMU Muthahhari, Bandung and SMP 31 Surabaya to elicit constructive feedback regarding the content and the user-friendliness of the E-Module. The testing was very successful with teachers commenting that the module was very interesting and they felt challenged but also very engaged. Many teachers said they were very curious about the content and did not want to stop when they were asked to but wanted to continue looking through the other sessions. The testing also highlighted a number of concerns with the module, such as some unclear instructions and some misleading phrases, which were subsequently addressed by the final production team.

• Presented the draft module to a wider audience in February 2010. The presentation was held at SEAMOLEC office and participants at the presentation included staff from SEAMOLEC, teachers

51 Also known as a page schematic or screen blueprint, that represents the skeletal framework of a website. The wireframe depicts the arrangement of the content, including interface elements and navigational systems, and how they work together


and principals from DBE3 and SEAMOLEC partner schools, staff from P4TK Bahasa and the LPMP as well as from other donor projects such as UNICEF and DBE1. The meeting was opened by Dr Ir Gatot Priowiranjto, Director of SEAMOLEC and during the presentation participants had the opportunity to try out the e-module and to provide some suggestions for making the module more accessible and engaging.

• Completed the E-module in March 2010 and developed a promotional brochure to accompany it. Distributed 650 CD Rom versions of the e-Learning module and brochure to teachers, schools, district, national and provincial GOI, as well as SEAMOLEC and SEAMOLEC partners, Universities, LPMP and P4TK and other donors working in education as shown in table 23.

• Established an e-learning website in May 2010 to host the E-Module with the following address www.deb3elearning.net. Re-designed and expanded the purpose of the website in February 2011 website so that it not only included the E-Module but a much wider range of information and materials to promote the use of ICT in Education including, electronic versions of the National Examinations, teaching and learning materials (such as Lesson Plans, Syllabi, Learning resources and videos) to support ICT in education, a variety of articles discussing the use of ICT in Education, an interactive forum and electronic versions of text books.

Table 23: Distribution of the DBE3 E learning Module (CD Rom)


Both the DBE3 E-Module and E-Learning website were successful. In the 19 months before the end of the project that the website was fully operational, there were 762,475 hits from 10,465 unique visitors. This was an average of 40,130 hits and 550 unique visitors per month.

Table 24: Use of the DBE3 E-Learning Website

Month Unique Visitors Hits

May 2010 37 10,184

June 2010 129 14,759

July 2010 117 5,793

August 2010 99 4,675

September 2010 74 2,391

October 2010 143 4,281

November 2010 120 3,034

December 2010 103 4,200

January 2011 369 29,026

Recipients # %

SMP teachers 136 20%

MTs teachers 95 14%

Other teachers 4 0.6%

Government Staff 106 16%

University Lecturers 36 5%

Other Donors 68 11%

SEAMOLEC 85 13%

National GOI 50 10%

Others 70 11%

Total 600 100%


Month Unique Visitors Hits

February 2011 372 96,128

March 2011 547 57,073

April 2011 1370 109,089

May 2011 876 53,227

June 2011* 624 33,707

July 2011 590 25,827

August 2011 515 23,626

September 2011 745 34,963

October 2011 1,555 75,203

November 2011 2,080 175,289

Total 10,465 762,475

The large majority of these visitors came from within Indonesia but people from other countries including Australia, the USA, Singapore, Malaysia and China also visited the website. The website was and still is linked to SEAMOLEC’s website www.seamolec.org and in 2011, was linked to GOI websites and to DBE3 partner schools, which have school websites.

As of end of the DBE3 project, there were 1,310 registered users of the E-module. 50.46% of these registered users were teachers and 36 % students. Most of the teachers registered were from Senior Secondary level (55.15%). Junior Secondary teachers made up 27% and Primary School teachers only 1.8%. The majority of the users (27.05%) decided to follow the module purely for self development purposes with only 9.12% stating they are following it in order to improve their chances of becoming certified as a professional teacher.

The E-Module achieved the aim of spreading DBE3 innovations to more teachers across Indonesia. Registered users of the E-Module came from 103 Districts in 32 provinces across Indonesia. Provinces with the highest number of registered users were the DBE3 partner provinces with 27% of the users being located in Central Java. A list of provinces and districts with registered users of the module can be found in Volume 3 Annex 23.

Following the end of the DBE3 program in December 2011, SEAMOLEC will continue to host the E-Module on their regional education network, South East Asian Education Network (SEA EduNet) at www.elearning.seamolec.org.

The development of the DBE3 E-Module was a challenging and interesting pilot, which inspired other organisations to develop their own on line training materials. Currently the KPK along with the USAID Strengthening Integrity and Accountability Program (SIAP1) are building on the DBE3 experience, working with DBE3 Consultants and adopting the DBE3 approach to developing an E-Module to train all Civil Servants across Indonesia on reporting gratuities.

Participants trying out the e-learning version of Better Teaching and Learning 1 at the formal presentation on February 2nd 2010

The Final Production Team from left to right Listya Arisanti, Iwan Sonjaya, Iqbal Rakhmat, Asep Jalalludin, Muhammad Andriansyah


6.3 Self Study Materials

At the end of year 4 of the project, DBE3 planned to work with the Open University of Indonesia (Universitas Terbuka – UT) to re-purpose some of the DBE3 teacher training materials into Self Study materials and integrate them into current and future UT Teaching Pedagogy courses. DBE3 shared all the project teacher training materials available and staff from UT examined and mapped which of the materials would be used.

Meetings were held with representatives of the Open University (UT) to investigate the possibility of working together and DBE3 conducted a one day workshop with UT staff in February at the Open University. Attended by 35 participants from the UT, the main activities of this workshop were:

• An explanation of the DBE3 program;

• A review of the DBE3 training materials and content;

• A simulation of two of the modules with the participants;

• Discussions on which of these materials would be most suitable for adaptation to self study materials and making plans for future activities.

Unfortunately the submission of DBE3 training materials did not coincide with the cycle of revision of UT training materials. However, following the meeting the UT staff decided that the materials would be most suited for use in tutorial activities, which would be guided staff at local level rather than for independent self study. The project does not have knowledge of the extent to which they have been used.


Participants at the meeting were impressed with the interactive nature of the materials and their practical application, since most of their materials addressed theory rather than practice.

Following the meeting UT worked internally to consider which materials they would like to adapt and how they will use them. In some cases, they indicated that the materials may be used to support tutorials at local level rather than as self study materials. However, in early March 2010, UT indicated that they would prefer to use all of the materials with tutors and not engage in efforts to re-purpose them and they requested permission from DBE3 to do this, which was granted this permission. DBE3 handed over print and soft copies of the BTL materials for the university to use. No further activities took place.

Screen Shots from the finished electronic version of the Better Teaching and Learning 1 Module


7. PROJECT DISSEMINATION

Throughout the life of the project, DBE3 made intensive efforts to support project sustainability and the dissemination of project innovations and good practices through a number of focused activities including:

• Conducting or participating in showcase meetings or workshops to raise awareness of the innovations developed in DBE 3 supported junior secondary schools and districts.

• Allocating time in the districts and provinces to discuss, plan and report on dissemination activities and make plans to support both further development in target schools and dissemination to non-targets schools (see section 3.3.5).

• Making training and other support materials freely available in electronic and paper form (see section 9).

• Publishing news of project innovations and success stories in provincial and national newsletters and on a website (see section 9).

• Responding to requests for support from other donor projects, national and local foundations and the Government of Indonesia

• Facilitating and supporting dissemination of DBE3 programs to additional Junior Secondary education institutions and schools within provinces and districts.

Some of these dissemination and sustainability activities are discussed elsewhere in this report as referenced. Others are described in more detail below.

7.1 Conducting District, Provincial and National Showcase Meetings

Activities to support the spread of good practices included showcase meetings at district, provincial and national levels.

• DBE Joint Provincial Showcase Meetings: Showcase meetings were held jointly with DBE 1 and 2 in late 2009, where project beneficiaries gave presentations of the benefits they had received from the project to audiences including representatives of partner district and non-partner district governments in the provinces. This resulted in increased demand for dissemination.

Joint provincial showcase and closeout meetings for all the DBE components (DBE1, 2 and 3) were held in September and October 2011 in each of the provinces. The meetings were intended as a formal closeout activity and again showcased the project achievements and encouraged the partners in each province to continue the innovations started by DBE.

• DBE3 District Showcase Meetings: In 2010 DBE3 started a program of district showcase meetings to advertise and spread the innovations, which were appearing in DBE3 partner schools. Between February and May 2010 showcase meetings were held in the 25 extension districts. These were linked to review meetings of the results of implementation of the BTL 3 training in the partner schools, for which exhibitions of teaching materials and students’ work and presentations by individual schools had already been prepared. Following the success of the first round of district showcase meetings, a further round of meetings was held in all 44 partner districts between February and July 2011. In the 19 core districts the meetings were generally linked to the review meetings following their BTL3 training. In the 25 extension districts the meetings took various forms and some of them extended over two days.


There were exhibitions of work from all the partner schools and from a number of non-partner schools which were disseminating DBE3 activities. Some districts also included, at their own cost, displays from primary and senior secondary schools. The meetings included presentations from students, teachers, school principals and supervisors and other education staff.

Several of the meetings were opened by district heads or their deputies and the Heads of the Education and Religious Offices and other senior staff were present in most cases, as were representative of the Local Development Agency (Bappeda), the Local Parliament (DPRD) and Education Council (Dewan Pendidikan). The participants included staff and students of partner and

disseminating schools and many school principals from schools who were not yet disseminating the program. The presence of all these participants supported the efforts to build the role of local government in supporting and replicating DBE3 programs and also created new demand for dissemination from some of the attending schools.

• National Planning and Review Meetings: Starting in August 2010 DBE3 started to host National Planning and Review meetings with government officials from the partner districts and provincial level. The main purpose of the meeting was to promote and plan for dissemination of the DBE3 program but they also acted as a national showcase meeting, as they included visits to partner schools in the area and exhibitions and presentations showcasing the achievements in the partner districts and schools. During each meeting partner districts produced a District Development and Dissemination Plan which were submitted to DBE3. National Meetings were held in Medan in August 2010, in Surabaya in January 2011 and in Solo in July 2011. The meetings were very successful in increasing Districts budget contribution to dissemination by 15% and by prompting Districts to take other measures to support the dissemination and sustainability of DBE3 such as training additional District Facilitators to support the dissemination of DBE3 programs, issuing District wide decrees for all schools to implement active and contextual learning and also decrees for District Facilitators so that they are formally recognized and funded by local Governments. Details of District Plans can be seen in Volume 2, Provincial Reports.

• National Closeout Meeting: A final joint national closeout meeting for DBE1, 2 and 3, which also served to showcase DBE achievement was held in October 2011 and was attended by over 500 people including local government staff and educationists from all partner and several non-partner districts and provinces, partner universities and LPMPs, central government representatives and representatives of donor organizations.

7.2 Participation in National, Meetings and Conferences

In addition to hosting conferences and showcases, DBE3 participated in conferences and showcase meetings conducted by others to raise awareness of the project innovations and outcomes in the hope that more people would became interested enough to want to know and understand more and to use them.

District Showcase Meetings in North Sumatera and West Java


• In April 2010, DBE3 participated in a National Education Conference organized by USAID and the Government of Indonesia. During the conference, each of the USAID-funded programs presented their activities. DBE3 was represented by a Teacher, a School Principal and two students from West Java and a District Facilitator from South Sulawesi. The DBE3 exhibition booth included materials from all the program’s partner provinces.

• The program ‘Mainstreaming Good Practices in Basic Education’ managed by UNICEF invited a DBE3 to take part in an exhibition in November 2010. The photograph on the left shows the DBE3 stand at the exhibition.

• DBE3 took part in the International Teachers’ Conference and Education Exhibition (ITCEE) in February 2011in Jakarta. DBE3 sponsored 10 participants (2 from each partner province) and also gave a presentation on Effective Teaching Strategies developed through the project.

• The Thematic Education Dialogue (TED) is a high level advisory forum for combined education donor input and is managed by the Deputy Minister for Education. DBE3 supported USAID at TED meetings in March and August 2011 by presenting what works when improving teachers’ quality and School Based Management. These presentations were based on project programs and experience.

• DBE3 contributed to the planning and implementation of the Teacher Education Summit (TES) in December 2011. The TES was organized by the Directorate of Higher Education to discuss and plan for the future improvement in both the Pre and In Service teacher training programs offered by the Teacher Training Faculties of Universities and included representatives from all Universities around Indonesia. DBE3 presented papers on the DBE3 project and also on “Innovations in Initial Teacher Training programs’ which focussed on how to improve not only the recruitment of teachers but the quality of training curriculums, trainers and the assessment of newly qualified teachers.

7.3 Support for Donor Projects, National and Local Institutions and the Government of Indonesia

DBE3 consistently responded to specific requests from other donor projects, national and local Institutions and the Government of Indonesia to provide a deeper understanding and equip them with the right skills, knowledge and understanding of the project so they would be able to use them.

• The Basic Education Capacity (BEC) project is funded by a grant from the World Bank and managed by Ministry of National Education. One aim of the project is to identify and disseminate good practices set up a Good Practices Information Network (GPIN). Throughout year 5 and 6, DBE3 staff and consultants assisted directly with the design of the site and uploaded DBE3 materials to the site. The website address is http://wakpikweb.org. A report on the activities is included in Volume 3 Annex 24.

• At the request of the Curriculum Development Center at the Ministry of National Education between May and June 2010, DBE3 conducted 3 workshops with 60 staff from the Curriculum Engineering Team to familiarize them with the DBE3 approach to developing training programs and how to use ICARE (see section 2.3.3) as a framework for designing training modules. Participants from CDC compared the ICARE approach with that used in the National Standards on Process and found they were similar. Consequently the CDC now uses ICARE in designing all training materials and in delivering training at the District level.

• Between March and June 2010, DBE3 disseminated project innovations to the Sampoerna Foundation (SF). The aim was for teacher trainers at SF to learn about DBE3 good practices and integrate them into the Foundation Teacher Training program at the Sampoerna School of Education (SSE). DBE3 conducted two workshops for 15 staff from SSE using materials from the


BTL2 and BTL3 modules and engaged in open discussions of project management monitoring and evaluation. Staff from the SSE also attended the DBE3 District Showcase in Karangangyar to see first hand the successes and weaknesses of the DBE3 training at the field level.

• In November 2011, at the request of the University of Semarang (UNNES), DBE3 provided limited financial and technical support to disseminate the BTL training to teachers and school principals in their partner schools52 so they were better equipped to mentor student teachers on a daily basis (see section 3.4.2). The workshop was very successful and many participants commented that they were more up to date with developments in teaching and learning and more confident in supporting student teachers during their teaching practice.

7.4 District and Provincial Dissemination

A core strategy of the DBE3 project was to develop exemplars of good practice in the partner schools and districts with the “specific intent” that these would be taken up and implemented by others (especially the Government of Indonesia) to additional schools and geographical areas.

DBE3 realized early on that it would be necessary to provide some level of concrete assistance to those wanting to use components of the DBE3 program. This would help to ensure quality and good management of early dissemination efforts so that they were successful which in turn would help create a momentum for more.

Therefore, DBE3 engaged in providing support for district and provincial dissemination.

DBE3 only provided support for dissemination at the District and Provincial level which met a specific criterion. This criterion aimed to ensure that the dissemination was as efficient and effective as possible in order to achieve maximum impact. The criterion is included in Volume 3 Annex 25.

The dissemination discussed in this section only refers to the dissemination that met the DBE3 criteria and was therefore, directly supported by DBE3. There are a number of incidents where dissemination took place independently of DBE3 but these are not reported.

7.4.1 National Dissemination

DBE3 supported a substantial amount of provincial dissemination over the six years of the project as illustrated in table 25 below.

Table 25: Dissemination of DBE3 Innovations 2006 to 2011

Schools Participants Contribution from

local adopters (IDR)

Contribution from DBE3 (IDR)

Total Budget Spent

(IDR)

6,440 50,179 12,050,073,846 3,365,035,157 15,415,109,003

Provinces Districts Contribution from

local adopters (USD)

Contribution from DBE3 (USD)

Total Budget Spent

(USD)

6 83 1,359,279 379,581 1,738,860

Contribution from local adopters (%)

Contribution from DBE3 (%)

78.2% 21.8%

Dissemination reached 50,179 additional Junior Secondary School educators from 6,440 Junior Secondary Institutions, which is around 7 times the number of educators and 19.5 times the number of Junior Secondary Education Institutions reached through the direct assistance program.

52 These were partner schools of UNNES and not DBE3. UNNES sends all student teachers to these schools for their long term teaching practice and felt that unless the teachers in these schools understood about BTL they could not mentor the student teachers, who had previously been trained in BTL.


A total budget of USD1, 738,860 was used for the dissemination of DBE3 innovations. 21.8% of this total was contributed by DBE3 with the remaining 78.2% came from local sources.

Most of the dissemination took place in Central and West Java which together account for 58.5% of the total number of the additional institutions and 60.7% of the additional educators. North Sumatra and Banten supported the least amount of dissemination with a combined percentage of 13% of institutions and 17% of the participants. Detailed information on the dissemination conducted in each province can be seen in the Provincial Reports in volume 2.

7.4.2 Dissemination by Quarter and Year

Dissemination of project innovations started in mid 2006 and continued until the end of the project in October 2011. However, as the graph in chart 5 below shows, the amount of dissemination conducted was not consistent. The least amount of dissemination took place in 2006 and the most in 2009 and 2010.

Chart 5. Project Dissemination by Participants, Institutions and Year

The graph shows a very clear pattern with the least amount of dissemination in terms of participants and Institutions taking place one year into the project in 2006 and the most taking place towards the end of the project in 2009 and 2010. The reason for this is clear. At the beginning of the project most potential adapters are likely to be unwilling to invest in innovations that are new and have not yet been proven to work. As the project become established and the benefits become more concrete and measurable, more stakeholders are willing to use their available funds to use a program that has a proven track record of being successful. DBE3 innovations continued to be disseminated until the end of the project in 2011 but this figure is lower than the previous two years mainly because it only includes data for 9 months rather than 12. However, unusually for many development projects, which show an increase in dissemination from year to year, the amount of dissemination of DBE3 innovations declined significantly in 2008 compared to 2007 before rising again in 2009. The primary reason for this is that between March and November 2008, the project underwent a revision of the technical approach, some activities were suspended at this time and others were unclear therefore, DBE3 did not promote or facilitate much dissemination. By 2009, was operating again at full speed


7.4.3 The Impact of Dissemination

The dissemination training had some positive impact. When compared to the DBE3 comparison schools the dissemination schools did better on all DBE3 teaching and learning indicators with the exception of Instructional Leadership. The reason for the lesser impact on instructional leadership was probably because training was confined mainly to teaching and learning, while the related school principal training was not implemented. However, the impact on teaching and learning in dissemination schools was not as significant as that on impact on partner schools suggesting that whilst dissemination training is beneficial, direct assistance achieves better results.

Chart 6. Impact in Partner, Dissemination and Comparison Schools

7.4.4 The Funding for Dissemination

The majority of the funding for the dissemination of DBE3 innovations came from local sources. Local stakeholders contributed 78.1% of the total costs with DBE3 paying the remaining 21.8% meaning that DBE3 leveraged a ratio of 1:3.5 USD.

The local funding provided for the dissemination of DBE3 program between July 2006 and September 2011 totalled USD 1,359,279. This came from a variety of different sources including Schools, local Government, MGMP, teachers and foundations. A total of USD 415,943 was used by local governments for the dissemination of DBE3 programs during the project and contributions from them increased as the program progressed.

A closer analysis of the sources of the local funding for the dissemination of DBE3 programs between January 2009 and September 201153 shows that Schools were the largest contributors to the dissemination of DBE3. 45% of the total local funding used for dissemination came from schools made up of 29% from the BOS and 16% from school funds. Local Government sources were not far behind contributing 43% of the budget. This was made up of 23% from the Department of Religious Affairs and 20% from APBD

53 Between 2006 and 2008 data was only collected in for three categories as follows: APBD, DBE3 and “other” sources and so can not be analyzed in detail. From January 2009 to September 2011 the data for “other” sources was divided into further categories including schools, BOS, MGMP and so on and so can be analyzed in more detail.


Chart 7. Local Funding for Dissemination by Source January 2009 to September 2011

According to the data, 39 Districts expended funds from their local government budgets to support dissemination between 2009 and 2011. 29 of these were DBE3 partner Districts54 as follows:

North Sumatra West Java Banten East Java Central Java South Sulawesi

Tanjung Balai Karawang Cilegon Pasuruan Boyolali Soppeng

Tebing Tinggi Garut Tangerang Nganjuk Grobogan Pinrang

South Tapanuli Sukabumi Tuban Jepara Makassar

North Tapanuli Subang Surabaya Kudus Sidrap

Kota Sibolga Indramayu Bangkalan Blora

Binjai Demak

Deli Serdang

• The Province with the most partner districts contributing money from district funds to support the dissemination of DBE3 programs was North Sumatra where 7 out of 8 districts used their local budgets.

• The province with the least number of partner districts contributing money from their own funds to support the dissemination of DBE3 programs was South Sulawesi with 4 out of 9 contributing.

• The partner District contributing the most from their APBD was Nganjuk in East Java with 33,840 USD spent on disseminating DBE3 programs.

54 Dairi, Lebak, Bogor, Karangangyar, Purworejo, Klaten, Bojonegoro, Sidoarjo, Mojokerto, Sampang, Pangkep, Palopo Luwu, Jeneponto and Enrekang were the 15 partner districts that did not provide any funds for the dissemination of DBE3 programs from Local Government Budgets, although dissemination took place in most of these Districts funded through other sources.


• The District receiving the most contributions from Kemenag was Cilegon in Banten with 18,301 USD.

Although the contributions for the dissemination of DBE3 programs from APBD appear significant, in fact they were actually considerably lower than many of the partner Districts planned to use. At the National Planning and Review meeting held in Medan in August 2010 (see sections 3.3.5 and 7.1) from the District Development and Dissemination plans submitted to DBE3 at the end of the meeting DBE3 partner districts planned to use a total of 15,661,962,250 IDR (1,751,352 USD55) for disseminating DBE3 programs during the remainder of 2010 and into 2011. However, by the end of September 2011, however, only 2,910,049,734 IDR (328,262 USD) had actually been used by these partner Districts for dissemination. This was only 18.7% of the planned allocations in District Development and Dissemination plans. Of this only 1,054,309,034 (118,292 USD) had come from APBD and 186,982,000 (21,092 USD) from MORA56.

Only 3 of the partner districts actually reached (and even exceeded) the budget allocations made in the 2010 District Development and Dissemination Plans. These were all in Central Java and were Klaten57, Demak and Boyolali. Some partner Districts, such as Indramayu, Sidrap and Bojonegoro fell far short of their target using only 3% and 4% respectively whereas others achieved around 50% including Sibolga (53%) and Purworejo (59%) respectively. The average was around 37%. A summary of the budget allocations made by each partner District and their actualization by September 2011 is included in the provincial reports in volume 2.

There were many reasons given to explain why most districts and provinces did not meet the planned allocations. The main reason was the difficulty of allocating funds from the APBD. There are many demands on the APBD as it covers the whole district and must meet the needs of several competing interests. Budgets are usually tight and Districts have to specify clearly what money in their APBD is committed at the beginning of the budget year. Once funding has been allocated it is difficult to alter this. First, it is possible that conducting a meeting in August was too late to influence the APBD budget allocations. Secondly in some cases, participants at the meeting were not in a position to guarantee the money they were planning to for DBE3, only to take it back to the District and Province as a suggestion. It is possible that far less money (if any) was allocated in the final APBD and if money is not allocated to support the dissemination of DBE3 programs at the time of District budget development, it is unlikely to happen. In some cases, specific reasons were given, in Central Java for example, although the provincial level planned and intended to use 145,116,050 IDR to support DBE3 dissemination in 2011 they were unable to secure the funds during budget preparations as there was no official agreement (Memorandum of Understanding between USAID DBE and the Provincial Government. In other cases, the budget was actually allocated to be used to disseminate DBE3 programs but then re-allocated to support other activities this was the case with East Java provincial Education Office (not MORA).

10 non partner districts provided money from their local government budgets to disseminate DBE3 programs, these were:

• West Bandung • Kulon Progo

• Serang • Sragen

• Yogyakarta • Pekalongan

• Gunung Kidul • Malang

• Bantul • Pamekasan

The largest contributor from local government budgets from amongst the non partner districts was Serang in Banten. The District of Serang used IDR 394,000,000 (USD 44,444) mostly from their APBD. This was more than any of the DBE3 partner Districts and is very impressive in comparison.

55 For most districts the figure they allocated was not solely from APBD and Kemenag but included School Funds and BOS. 56 The remainder was contributed by schools through the BOS and School Funds. 57 Considering that Klaten only budgeted 6,250,000 IDR (705 USD) in their Development Plan this was not too difficult to achieve.


7.4.5 Dissemination by Location

Dissemination was conducted in 41 of the 44 DBE3 partner districts and covered 37.1% of the total number of Junior Secondary Schools in these districts. As a general rule, the average amount of dissemination (% of schools covered by dissemination activities) taking place in extension districts was higher than in core districts with 47.5% of schools reached in extension districts compared to 25.3% in core districts.

Of the partner districts where dissemination did take place, the data shows that DBE3 reached 100% of schools in 12 of them as follows:

North Sumatra Banten Central Java East Java South Sulawesi

Kota Sibolga*

Kota Binjai

Tanjung Balai

Cilegon

Blora*

Demak*

Jepara*

Boyolali

Purworejo

Kudus

Tuban

Palopo

The 3 partner districts which did not disseminate DBE3 were:

• Mojokerto in East Java,

• Enrekang58 in South Sulawesi

• Jeneponto59 in South Sulawesi

Dissemination of DBE3 programs also took place in 42 non partner districts. 38 of these were in the project partner provinces and 4 in the non partner province of Yogyakarta. The average amount of dissemination of DBE3 in non partner districts was lower than in partner districts with an average of 12.6% of schools being reached.

A list of all districts reporting dissemination of DBE3 in each province and the amount of dissemination conducted included in the Provincial Reports in volume 2.

7.4.6 Dissemination by School Type

Of the 2,726 schools benefitting from the dissemination of DBE3 innovations between January 2009 and September 201160, the majority were SMP (57%) and the remaining 43% were MTs. Most of the SMP (75%) were public SMP but the large majority of the MTs were private (82.8%).

The project dissemination data is a reflection of the proportion of the different types of schools across Indonesia. Within the Junior Secondary Education sector there are around 50,640 Junior Secondary Schools the majority of which SMP (73%). Most of these SMP are public schools.

Of the MTs, 90% are private. Therefore, DBE3 was disseminated to more SMP than MTs because there are more SMP in Indonesia and reached more private MTs than public MTs because there are more private than public MTs in Indonesia and so on. Furthermore, there is often a greater demand from MTs for the dissemination of DBE3 programs as teachers in MTs are generally less qualified61 and do not have the same opportunities to join in as many in service teacher training activities as teachers in general schools, so when they have the chance, they are eager to participate, to learn and apply what they have learned. This is especially true for teachers in Private MTs62.

58 It has been reported that Enrekang has budgeted to disseminate DBE3 in 2012

59 Anecdotal evidence suggests that DBE3 programs were disseminated to MTs in Jeneponto in 2009 without any support from DBE3 or officially reported to DBE3.

60 DBE3 did not collect dissemination data on school type before January 2009

61 Qualified teachers often do not want to work in Madrasah due to the lower financial benefits

62 A major problem cited by both MORA and MONE is the low quality of education offered in many private MTs. In 2005, for example, when the project started, only 10.5% of private MTs were fully accredited, the rest only had partial


Table 26: Dissemination by School Type

Type of School Total # Percentage

SMP 1555 57%

Public 1178 75%

Private 377 25%

MTs 1171 43%

Public 201 17%

Private 970 82.8%

Total 2,726

7.4.7 Dissemination by Program

A number of different DBE3 programs were disseminated during project. Different programs were popular at different stages of the program with BTL1 and the Foundation modules being widely used between 2006 and 2010 and BLT2 and BTL3 in 2010 and 2011. Overall, the most frequently disseminated module was the BTL2 module (34%) closely followed BTL 1 module (33%). Others included BTL3 (12%), the Intel Teach Module (4%), the ICT toolkit (3%) and Becoming an Effective Facilitator (4%) and BTL4 (2%).


At the end of the project, DBE3 conducted an in depth study on the provincial and district level dissemination carried out by the project to order to derive maximum learning and make recommendations on how to disseminate for optimal change and wider overall impact and reach. As the data above has indicated, the study found that DBE3 had been very successful in scaling up and spreading the project innovations to new schools, districts and provinces and in securing local Government commitment and funds to support this process. However, the study also found that there was never an overall vision and strategy for the dissemination of DBE3 programs. Different provincial DBE3 offices used different approaches, with varying results. Moreover, most provincial and district level dissemination activities involved only the training workshop, other elements of the DBE3 program (study visits, mentoring) were not included as part of dissemination and there was no monitoring or follow up to dissemination. The study recommended that for future activities:

• The focus for dissemination activities should be on the quality of dissemination not the quantity.

• There should be an overall project approach to dissemination. Dissemination should be planned to initially prioritize all schools within partner districts first before spreading out to new districts and provinces. Dissemination schools will benefit if there is a DBE3 “partner school” nearby to work with.

• District Facilitators are the key to promoting dissemination and assuring quality. When moving into new Districts, projects should focus on establishing a team of Facilitators before disseminating to schools. Facilitators need continued endorsement, support and capacity building

• Dissemination should be conducted with as much rigor as direct program delivery. Standards should be set with regards to program participants, content, delivery and outcomes and these standards adhered to or results will be disappointing.

accreditation. In all project meetings with MORA the Ministry consistently requested DBE3 to focus on working with private MTs.


8. NATIONAL LEVEL STUDIES AND RESEARCH

DBE3 completed and shared a number of studies, research reports and guidelines during the six years of the project. The purpose of these was to find and share information about the functioning of the Junior Secondary Education system at the national district and school level to:

• Inform the nature of project interventions.

• Influence Government Policy

The main papers prepared by DBE3 between 2006 and 2011 were as follows:

• Competency-Based Education and Training Delivery: Status, Analysis and Recommendations (November 2005): This paper represented research conducted jointly by DBE3 and DBE2 and describes the competency based education system in Indonesia within the new decentralized environment of 2005. The purpose of this paper was to provide an analysis of the curriculum and teacher training, which were the main areas of focus for the DBE project. The paper recommended that DBE use the Competency Based Curriculum and the new quality standards for education as guiding principles in project design and implementation.

• Analysis of the Current Situation of Formal Education (January 2006 and updated in July 2008): This situation analysis was conducted in order to finalize the technical approach to the formal education component of the DBE3 project. The analysis reviewed the situation in junior secondary education at the national level in terms of policies on curriculum, teaching and learning and specifically Life Skills education and highlighted current developments, major issues and areas for improvement and used these to propose areas of focus for DBE3 formal education activities (see section 2.3).

• An Overview of Teacher Professional Development Networks (MGMP) in Junior Secondary Education in Indonesia (May 2006): This paper provided an overview of the situation of Junior High School teachers’ professional networks MGMP in Indonesia. Conducted by a team of consultants it was used to finalize the technical approach of the formal education component. The work on MGMP (1) reviewed the level of operation and effectiveness of the MGMP (2) listed the major issues and needs for improvement (3) examined the case study of the REDIP project which aimed to improve the effectiveness of MGMP through setting up sub district MGMP and (4) provided recommendations to DBE3 about working with MGMP.

• Gender Related Issues: Current Situation of Access to and Quality of Formal and Non Formal Junior Secondary Education in Project Areas (October 2006): The study was prepared as a discussion document. It presented potential gender-related issues concerning children’s access to education (enrolment, drop out) process (curriculum, management, teaching and learning) and selection of programs of study children’s access to and the quality of formal junior secondary and non formal education in provinces where the DBE3 project was implemented. The report provided recommendations on gender-related priority areas which were used to inform the initial program design and implementation (see section 5.3).

• Analysis of the Current Situation of Non Formal Education (January 2007): The first part of the report described the general context of non formal education in Indonesia in 2007 and provided information on the national government’s priorities for non formal education. The second part described the situation of non formal education in respect to management and teaching and learning and was used by DBE3 in 2007 to determine the contents of its training modules and other NFE related activities (see section 2.4).


• Analysis of the Current Situation of ICT in Junior Secondary Schools and Non Formal Education Providers (January 2007): This study reported on a an assessment by DBE3 on the use of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) in formal schools and non-formal education providers in the junior secondary education system in Indonesia. The primary purpose of the assessment was to identify avenues for DBE3 efforts to achieve the project’s aim of using ICT to improve teaching, and learning. The study provided a number of recommendations for DBE3 some of which were used in the project activities (see section 5.1).

• What is being done at the National Level to ensure all Young People in Indonesia are able to complete basic education? (January 2007): This paper provided a comprehensive summary of what was being done at the national level in Indonesia in 2007 to prevent dropping out of students from junior secondary education by the Ministry of National Education or other donor projects for the sole purpose of informing the DBE3 school retention strategy. This paper was a complement to the research conducted at the school and district level with youth to find out from their perspective what was preventing youth in Indonesia from completing basic education (see section 2.3.3).

• Analysis of the current situation of Islamic Formal Junior Secondary Education in Indonesia (July 2007): The study of Islamic Education in Indonesia was completed in July 2007 order to provide a snapshot of the formal education delivered through Islamic schools (madrasah) and Islamic boarding schools (pesantren) in Indonesia and to identify the quality issues specific to the Islamic education context, which could be addressed by the project (see section 5.2).

• A Monitoring and Evaluation Framework and Guidance notes for Equivalency Education (July 2007): The purpose of this study was to provide guidance and recommendations to the Government of Indonesia on a new approach to the monitoring and evaluation of the Equivalency Education program. The paper introduced a new system of monitoring and evaluation and explained the basic principles on which a revised system should be founded. It described the key stages of collecting, managing and analyzing data, set out the monitoring and evaluation tasks that people at each level of the management structure should undertake and the products or indicators associated with those tasks and finally proposed steps for introducing these changes.

• Current Practices of the Testing and Certification System: Equivalency Education Program Package B (July 2007): This study reviewed the practices for the testing and certification of the paket B equivalency education program. The main conclusion was that whilst there was a systematic testing and certification for the academic part of Paket B there was none for the integrated life skills program.

• Multiple Entries Transfer Implementation Guide for Placement, Credit Verification and Record Keeping for Package B Equivalency Program (October 2007): Within the equivalency education program, the Multiple Entries Transfer Program (METP) facilitated decisions that led youth and adults to the most efficient learning options and approaches. The purpose of this study was to provide recommendations and concrete steps to help implementers of Package B to place entering learners into the correct level (whether it was in non-formal education program or a formal school) and how to support a student to move back and forth between these two types of educational institutions if that was appropriate.


• A Review of the Implementation of Nine Years Universal Basic Education (September 2008): This study investigated the extent to which the GOI policy on Nine Years Universal Basic Education had been achieved especially in relation to the expansion of Junior Secondary Education. It examined the challenges and problems faced by the Government in achieving its target of a maximum participation rate in Junior Secondary Education and provided recommendations for ways to improve access, quality, relevance and persistence in JSE. These included supporting the government to improve the collection and use of data to support planning and developing measures to stabilize local government staffing in order to improve the management of local government services.

• Transition to and Participation in Junior Secondary Schools (August 2009): The purpose of this study was to develop a stronger basis for understanding what works in getting children into schools and ensuring that they stay and participate effectively so as to complete a full basic education in Indonesia. The study developed this understanding through an analysis of the complex concepts and processes of participation in education, a review of the literature on transition and participation, a re-consideration of available Indonesian data, and the outcomes of fieldwork undertaken by the DBE3 project in July 2007. Some key findings included the necessity for Districts to collect accurate data about education to inform better standards of planning school places to accommodate rising numbers of children in the education system and empowering communities and parents so that they are aware of their rights and obligations and can participate in the democratic management of schools and appropriately support and encourage their own children’s education.

• An Exploratory Study of the National Examination (January 2010): The main objectives of this study were to review the key issues surrounding the National Examination in Indonesia (UAN) and to indicate where and how technical assistance from donors might be effective in reforming the UAN. The research found that because the stakes associated with the examination were so high it led to distortions, corruption, and negative backwash effects on the quality of education and on students. The study recommended reform focussing on improving professional knowledge and ethical standards, the technical weaknesses in the design of the examination and most importantly reducing the stakes associated with the examination.

• A Study of Project Dissemination (December 2011): Through this study, DBE3 analyzed and evaluated project dissemination in order to derive maximum learning and make recommendations on how projects can disseminate for optimal change and wider overall impact and reach. One of the key findings of the study was that dissemination training under DBE3 was not conducted with as much care and rigor as direct project assistance and therefore, had less impact. Future projects need to focus on quality and not quantity when disseminating and set standards for program participants, content, delivery and outcomes and adhere to these standards to ensure maximum results.

By December 2011, all of the DBE3 project studies and research reports had been uploaded onto the USAID Development Experience Clearing House www.dec.usaid.gov and can also be downloaded from the DBE3 website: www.inovasipendidikan,net.


9. PUBLICATIONS / WEBSITES

9.1 Newsletters

9.1.1 DBE Newsletter: Mitra Pendidik

9.1.2 DBE Newsletter: Mitra Pendidik

DBE3 was responsible for publishing the DBE newsletter entitled ‘Mitra Pendidik’, which appeared at six-monthly intervals over the period of the project. Altogether 10 editions totalling 181, 508 copies of the newsletter were produced in both Indonesian and English and included success stories from DBE1, 2 & 3. The newsletters were distributed to all project provinces and partner institutions (schools, universities and LPMPs). Each DBE was given copies to distribute to its own partners as can be seen in table 27 below.

DBE3 distributed copies to teachers in the DBE3 partner schools and some non partner schools usually in partner districts, to GOI education officials and departments, to DBE3 District Facilitators and to education institutions such as Universities, LPMP and other donors working in education in the province.

DBE3 also distributed copies in English to donor institutions in Jakarta – hence the large number of English language copies distributed by DBE3.

The final edition of Mitra Pendidik was distributed to the districts almost entirely by DBE3, since by that time DBE1 and 2 had ceased to have a presence in the districts.

Table 27: DBE Newsletter Distribution: Mitra Pendidik

No. Date DBE1 DBE2 DBE3

Total Indonesian English Indonesian English Indonesian English

1 June 2006 6,500 150 6,350 150 4,500 1,300 18,950

2 December 2006 6,500 150 6,350 150 4,500 1,300 18,950

3 May-2007 6,500 150 6,350 150 4,500 1,300 18,950

4 November 2007 6,500 150 6,350 150 4,500 1,300 18,950

5 September 2008 6,500 150 6,350 150 4,500 1,300 18,950

6 April 2009 6,825 150 6,350 150 4,500 1,300 19,275

7 October 2009 6,978 200 6,350 200 4,500 1,400 19,628

8 April 2010 6,980 200 6,350 200 5,000 1,800 20,530

9 January 2011 5,250 300 6,350 200 5,500 1,500 19,100

10 September 2011 1,050 100 50 25 5,500 1,500 8,225

59,583 1,700 57,200 1,525 47,500 14,000 181,508

9.1.3 DBE3 Good Practices Newsletter: Inovasi Pendidikan

Since early 2009 DBE3 published regular newsletters at national and provincial levels to record and publicize project activities and document good practices developed under the project as they happened. Most of the articles were written by stakeholders and local project staff and documented good practices in teaching and learning and school management and leadership, as well as good practices by district and provincial governments to support the project and its dissemination.

Eleven quarterly editions of the national newsletter, Inovasi Pendidikan were published in both English and Bahasa Indonesia. DBE3 published 5,500 editions in Indonesian and 1, 500 in English. The newsletter were distributed to stakeholders at central, provincial and district levels, to USAID and to other donors involved in the education sector as detailed below:


• North Sumatera : 1,000 (Indonesian) /250 (English)

• West Java-Banten : 1,500 (Indonesian) /750 (English)

• Central Java : 1,000 (Indonesian) /250 (English)

• East Java : 1,000 (Indonesian) /100 (English)

• South Sulawesi : 700 (Indonesian)/300 (English)

• Jakarta : 300 (Indonesian)/ 100 (English) including to National MONE AND

MORA, USAID and other donor projects

Of these national newsletters, 70% were given to teachers in the DBE3 partners schools and non partner schools usually in partners districts, around 20% were given to GOI education officials and departments, around 5% were given to DBE3 District Facilitators and the remainder to education institutions such as Universities, LPMP and other donors working in education in the province.

All the DBE3 project provincial offices also published newsletters in Indonesian. They were originally planned to be produced on at least a quarterly basis. However, three provinces produced more frequent and shorter editions, while two provinces, North Sumatera and South Sulawesi produced less frequent but more comprehensive editions. These were distributed to stakeholders at province and district levels, including schools. Copies were given to USAID.

Chart 8. Distribution of DBE3 Provincial Newsletters

Table 28: DBE3 Provincial Newsletters

Province Newsletter # of editions produced Numbers per edition

North Sumatera Kabar DBE3 6 editions 1,500

West Java-Banten Mitra Didaktika 24 editions 2,500

Central Java Gambang 14 editions 2,000

East Java Warta DBE3 22 editions 2,000

South Sulawesi Panrita 8 editions 1,000

Jakarta (National) Inovasi Pendidikan 11 editions 6,200 English), 2,200 (Indonesian)


The newsletters were distributed slightly differently in each province but on average across the provinces, the majority of recipients were teachers. They were also distributed and meetings and training activities, where they were well read by the participants.

A brief and informal survey on the newsletter revealed that recipients found them very inspiring and useful. Teachers commented that the newsletters helped them to learn about and try out some good practices from teachers in other provinces and motivated them to try and be more creative in the classroom. Many teachers liked to contribute their ideas to the newsletters and felt very proud when they were published. Teachers in non target schools in South Sulawesi had actually asked to receive some newsletters so they could learn about the project and its innovations and the West Java/Banten office received some comments that the newsletter should represent and be distributed to all areas in the two provinces.

The newsletters also received some constructive critique from recipients who commented that the layout of the newsletters was often too crowded and they would like to have more good lessons and practices included rather than reports on activities.

9.2 Websites

Since early 2009 DBE3 maintained its own website, which goes under the same name as the newsletter Inovasi Pendidikan (www.inovasipendidikan.net), and ensured that it was regularly updated. The website includes for reading online and/or download:

• All the project newsletters from national and provincial level

• All the BTL the training materials

• The Good Practices books in school management and teaching and learning, and

• The DBE3 studies.

Table 29 shows that over the period October 2010 and October 2011 (a period of 13 months), there were 1,023,980 hits on the DBE3 website and 44,174 unique visitors, which is an average of almost 3,400 users per month or over 100 per day. The highest number of new visits to the website took place in November, January, March and April. August had the lowest number of visitors, most probably because it was the fasting month. A significant increase in bandwidth use is evident from May onwards, with very high usage in September and October 2011. This is a result of increasing downloads of DBE3 training materials and newsletters.

Table 29: Use of the DBE3 Website

Month Unique visitors Hits Bandwidth

October 2010 3623 87621 7.54 GB

November 2010 4208 80554 9.24 GB

December 2010 3258 64063 7.99 GB

January 2011 4,280 90,241 11.41 GB

February 2011 3,445 63,006 7.58 GB


Month Unique visitors Hits Bandwidth

March 2011 4,497 77,505 9.00 GB

April 2011 4,237 67,787 8.02 GB

May 2011 3,483 93,168 21.37 GB

June 2011 2,541 80,901 35.95 GB

July 2011 2,112 65,421 31.34 GB

August 2011 1,852 54,212 33.29 GB

September 2011 3,042 93,138 77.99 GB

October 2011 3,275 99,844 83.45 GB

Total 44,174 1,023,980 345.11 GB

Table 30: Top 20 Countries

Country Hits Country Hits 1. Indonesia 78,514 11. Czech Republic 104 2. United States 5,278 12. Russian Federation 97 3. Norway 2,733 13. China 73 4. Malaysia 1,459 14. Netherlands 57 5. Canada 868 15. Hong Kong 38 6. Romania 425 16. Japan 33 7. Germany 275 17. Great Britain 28 8. Ukraine 236 18. Singapore 23 9. Saudi Arabia 185 19. France 20 10. India 132 20. Sweden 11

The majority of visitors to the DBE3 website were located in Indonesia however there were considerable numbers of visitors from other countries, including the USA, Malaysia and several European countries.

Approximately 48% of the connections to the website were direct to the website through the web address or through a bookmark or e-mail link. 38% were from an Internet search engine including Yahoo and Google and the remaining 14% were through links from other non search engine, external pages (such as other websites). In terms of the key words used to locate the DBE3 website the following were the most used; ‘Pendidikan’, ‘Inovasi’ and ‘pembelajaran’.

The other DBE3 website focusing on ICT in Education is described in detail in section 5.1

9.3 Good Practices Books

Material documenting good practices in teaching and learning, as well as leadership and management were collected from the national and provincial newsletters and additional material was solicited from particular teachers, principals and supervisors known to have implemented good practices. A number of workshops were held over final two years of the project to edit and lay out the materials, a series of six books documenting good practices were completed as follows:

Title

1. Supporting Change in the Classroom

(Management of Successful Learning)

2. Good Practices in Teaching Bahasa Indonesia

3. Good Practices in Teaching Mathematics

4. Good Practices in Teaching English

5. Good Practices in Teaching Science

6. Good Practices in Teaching Social Studies

The books were distributed to district and national facilitators, schools, school supervisors, provincial and district education and religious affairs offices, partner teacher training universities and


LPMPs. Copies were also given to MONE, MORA and donors involved in the education sector. If used effectively, these should be a valuable resource in disseminating these specific practices in the future.

South Sulawesi and West Java/Banten also produced books of good practices across the curriculum using material taken from their provincial newsletters for use in their district and provincial showcase meetings.

9.4 Publication and Distribution of Training Materials

The BTL training materials were also published in their final version in late 2011 and distributed to district and national facilitators, schools, school supervisors, provincial and district education and religious affairs offices, partner teacher training universities and LPMPs. Copies were also given to the Directorate of Junior Secondary Education, the Education Training Directorate and the Curriculum Development Center of MONE, to the Islamic Education Directorate General of MORA and to donors involved in the education sector. The materials include:

Title

BTL 1, 2, 3 & 4

Training Package for School Principals

Training Package for School Supervisors

ICT Training Module

ICT Guidelines

All the documents were published in Bahasa Indonesia and the BTL 1 – 4 training packages were also published in English for distribution mainly to donors involved in Education development in Indonesia.

A list of all DBE3 publications completed over the life of the project is included in Volume 3 Annex 26.


10. PROJECT MONITORING

10.1 Original Project Monitoring

Monitoring of the DBE3 project between 2005 and 2008 was based on 52 performance indicators agreed with USAID. The aspects of DBE3 which were monitored were divided into

• Outcome Indicators: Measuring the impact of the project interventions in partner areas (e.g. number of partnerships generated as a result of the project, student’ satisfaction) and dissemination to non target areas.

• Input Indicators: Measuring the inputs from the project (e.g. institutions and individuals directly benefiting from project activities, how many schools served, students using project materials, teachers trained).

The program of monitoring and evaluation for the original project started in October 2005 and ended in February 2009 upon submission of the monitoring report for 2008. During this period, data was collected from all 44 DBE3 partner districts, 196 schools and 191 Non Formal Education providers.

Data was gathered using a variety of instruments including structured questionnaires, examination of documentary evidence, discussion with students, teachers, tutors, head teachers, non formal education provider managers and local government officials and direct observation.

Project monitors included DBE3 District Coordinators and District Facilitators. Each participating monitor attended annual training from the DBE3 Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist to ensure they understood how to use the instruments and to ensure instruments were used consistently across the DBE3 Project areas.

Every effort was made to secure the integrity of the data. Strategies to ensure validity and reliability included using primary, objective and observable sources of information (rather than secondary) as much as possible and seeking confirming evidence and cross checking of processes and outcomes.

The complete Monitoring and Evaluation plan is included in Volume 3 Annex 27. It shows quite clearly that the impact and progress of DBE3 between 2005 and 2008 was inconsistent over the years and across the project. Not much progress was made by the project until 2007 and into 2008. Even then, much greater progress was made in formal education than non formal education, where results were very disappointing and only 2 out of 10 targets were reached. However, even within the formal education component, some interventions had a greater impact than others. The teacher training program on integrating life skills into the curriculum for example was much more successful than the non curricular or school retention activities. Table 31 shows the results of the 2008 monitoring which was the final year of the project in its’ original form. Note that C refers to cohort63.

Table 31: Summary of DBE3 Monitoring and Evaluation Results in 2008

# Indicator Target 2008 Actual 2008

1.1 Number of Public Private Alliances initiated centrally to improve and sustain the quality of youth education programs

1 1

1.2 MONE/MORA and or other Institutions use DBE3 Non Formal Education Materials in non target districts and provinces

1 0

1.1.1 Number of non target districts in target provinces that report using DBE3 formal education modules and/or toolkits

5 5

63 As previously explained in section 2.1 - Project Overview - DBE3 expanded in two phases (cohorts). Cohort 1 began in January 2006 and included 104 formal schools and 106 Non Formal Education Providers. Cohort 2 started in March 2007 and involved 92 formal schools and 85 non formal education providers.



1.1.2 Number of DBE3 trained core trainers with knowledge and skills to replicate/disseminate DBE3 related training for life skills across the formal junior secondary curriculum

56 47

1.1.3 Number of DBE3 produced Paket B student activity books and CD Roms distributed throughout the country

150 250

1.1.4 Number of National Level DEE and MORA staff trained on innovations to strengthen assessment and certification of Paket B

0 0

1.1.5 Number of National Level DEE and MORA staff trained to strengthen the monitoring and evaluation of Paket B

5 0

1.2.1 Number of Target Districts that undertake new activities to support quality youth education programs that build life skills

7 15

1.2.2 Number of DBE3 District NFE Facilitators trained to on management and life skills learning

46 123

1.2.3 Number of District NFE Facilitators that provide follow up support to target NFE Providers

C1: 35

C2: 42

C1: 56

C2: 62

1.2.4 Number of non target junior secondary schools in target districts that are implementing youth life skills toolkits

10 73

1.2.5 Number of teachers in non target schools in target districts trained to provide opportunities for youth to develop life skills

C1: 879

C2: 1173

C1: 2519

C2: 5814

1.3 .1 Number of Target schools and non formal education providers that implement activities to help youth learn about work/career opportunities in their area

C1: 40 Schools, 45 NFEP


C1: 57 Schools and 67 NFEP

C2: 47 Schools and 43 NFEP.

1.3.2 Number of Target Schools and Non Formal Education Providers that conduct follow up activities with the private sector as a result of DBE3 training


C2 – 9 schools, 8 NFEP

C1: 53 Schools and 49 NFEP

C2: 25 schools and 38 NFEP

1.3.3 Value of Cash and In Kind Contributions from profit and non profit organizations and individuals to support quality youth education programs

USD 512,000 204, 625 USD

2.1 Number of students enrolled in target junior secondary schools who access DBE3 assisted life skills education

C1: 59, 430

C2: 43, 756

C1: 60, 142

C2: 47, 088

2.2 Percentage of Junior Secondary in target schools who have successfully developed a predetermined set of life skills competencies

C1: 50%

C1: 93.3%

2.3 % of schools reporting a decrease in junior secondary school drop out rate in targeted schools

C1: 50% C1: 71%

2.1.1 Percentage of teachers in target schools who employ activity based learning approaches to build life skills through the curriculum

85% 85.8%

2.1.2 Number of target teacher networks that develop life skills materials for youth

C1: 31 C1: 86

2.1.3 Number of teachers in target schools participating in DBE3 training

2208 7056

2.1.4 Increase in the percentage of youth in target schools who report being satisfied with their classroom experience

60% 25%

2.2.1 Number of Target Schools that use DBE3 related toolkit activities in non curricular activities

C1: 62 schools

C2: 55 schools

C1: 32 schools

C2: 30 schools



2.2.2 Percentage of Youth in target schools that report satisfaction with activities based on the non curricular toolkits

C1: 75% C1: 63%

2.3.1 Number of target junior secondary schools using DBE3 assisted approached to support youth to stay in school

C1: 83 Schools C1: 30 Schools

3.1 Number of target NFE providers using DBE3 materials to support youth to develop life skills

C1: 114

C2: 55

C1: 26

C2: 32

3.2 Number of target NFE providers which actively involve youth in assessing life skills training needs, opportunities and program design

C1: 68

C2: 55

C1: 65

C2: 39

3.3 Number of out of school youth who access DBE3 assisted life skills training

C1: 5358

C2: 3995

C1: 5756

C2: 4846

3.4 Number of out of school youth who access DBE3 assisted Paket B programs

C1: 3, 420

C2: 2, 250

C1: 3942

C2: 3587

3.1.1 Number of Target Non Formal Education Providers that produce center and/or organizational plans as a result of DBE3 training

C1: 79

C2: 42

C1: 48

C2: 28

3.1.2 Number of Target Non Formal Education Providers managers that use the DBE3 management toolkit

C1: 102

C2: 76

C1: 13

C2: 11

3.1.3 Number of Target Non Formal Education Providers that use DBE3 small sub grants/resources

C1: 102

C2: 42

C1: 96

C2: 0

3.2.1 Number of Target Non Formal Education Providers that use DBE3 produced student activity book

C1: 91

C2: 72

C1: 4

C2: 14

3.2.2 Number of Non Formal Education Learners using USAID produced junior secondary education equivalency materials

C1: 2736

C2: 1800

C1: 157

C2: 502

3.2.3 Number of Target Non Formal Education Providers tutors trained

C2: 255 C2: 172

As the purpose of project monitoring is to gather information, assess implementation and make decisions on appropriate courses of action to improve the project impact. DBE3 used the findings from project monitoring between 2005 and 2008 along with results and recommendations from the independent mid term evaluation and an internal evaluation to make significant changes to the project’s technical approach.

10.2 Revised Project Monitoring

10.2.1 Monitoring Summary

With the introduction of the revised project program in 2009 a revised set of project indicators was agreed with USAID. Reports were submitted in 2009, 2010 and 2011 based on these indicators. Table 29 below shows the results for the final year of the project. The complete Monitoring and Evaluation Plan used in the project with targets and actual since 2009 is included in Volume 3 Annex 28.

Table 32: Summary of DBE3 Monitoring and Evaluation Results in Project Final Year

# Indicator 2011 Target 2011 Actual

1.1.A1 # of trainers for core curriculum subjects trained 668 577

1.1.A2 # of teachers, principals and other education management staff trained in improved teaching and learning

4950 5,550

1.1.A3 # of principals/other senior management staff in partner schools and school supervisors trained in instructional leadership

700 1,056



1.1.R1 % of schools where school principals and/or other senior management staff in partner schools provide professional and instructional leadership to teachers

70%

72. 8% Ext. Districts

69.3% Core Districts

1.1.R2 % of teachers observed demonstrating improved teaching behaviors in class

90%

91% Ext Districts


1.1.R3 % of classroom with an improved learning environment which makes it more interesting for students to learn

90%

89.2% Ext Districts


1.1.R4 % of schools where libraries are organized and used to support student learning during lessons

80%

82.1% Ext Districts


1.1.R5

% of classes where students demonstrate at least three of the following learning behavior in class (1) demonstrate life skills (2) work is the result of their own thinking (i.e. written in their own words) (3) Use local learning resources (4) express their feelings, experiences and opinions during lessons (5) participate actively in experiments and/or discussion (cooperative work)

90%

90.4% Ext Districts


1.1.R6a % average improved performance as measured by results of GOI examinations in the five core subjects: B. Indonesia, Mathematics, English, Science and Social Studies

3 % Latest data for

2010: 6.4%

1.1.R6b % average improved student performance in each subject as measured by specially designed tests in B. Indonesia, Mathematics and English.

3% in each subject

Indonesian: +4.8%

Mathematics: + 13.7%

English -5.8%

1.2.A1 # of district education managers taking part in national planning and coordination workshops to support program implementation and replication

220 250

1.2.R1 % of districts involved in planning, implementation, monitoring of DBE 3 activities

100% 100%

1.2.R2a # of schools where DBE 3 activities have been replicated

2000 Schools in 44 target and 12 non

target districts

1,583 schools in 35 partner

and 1 non partner district

1.2.R2b Total Amount of Government of Indonesia Funds used to support dissemination of DBE3 programs

200,000 USD 116,049 USD

2.1.A1 # of district facilitators, supervisors and principals trained to organize and run professional development programs through the MGMP

900 1,349

2.1.A2 % Core Subject MGMP assisted 100% 100%

2.1.A3 # of University and LPMP staff taking part in DBE3 training activities

75 148

2.1.A4

# of workshops and other activities held, number of institutions taking part and number of participants to support the adoption and adaptation of DBE 3 materials for distance, e-learning and direct learning

1

4 workshops, 27 Institutions

and 147 participants



2.1.R1 % of schools where MGMP are effective in meeting the professional development needs of teachers

40% 39.6% Ext

Districts 25% Core Districts

2.2.R1 # teacher training institutions and LPMP’s using DBE3 materials

13 13

3.1/2.A1 # of District, Provincial and National workshops held to disseminate good practices in JSE from DBE 3 schools and districts

1 National 5 Provincial 44 District

= 51

1 National 5 Provincial 44 District

= 51

3.1/2.A2 # and frequency of newsletters distributed 4 National 4 Provincial

4 National 19 Provincial

3.1/2.A3: Website is set up and regularly updated

Website set up and linked to DBE and GOI

websites

Website set up and has an average of

76,673 hits per month

3.1/2.R1 GOI at central, provincial and district levels has access to information about good practices in JSE

GOI staff at Central,

provincial and district levels

receive newsletters

and take part in showcase

events.

Achieved

The summary shows that in 2011, DBE3 successfully achieved targets for 18 of the project indicators (75%) and even exceeded many of these in the final project year. Targets for only 5 indicators (21%) were not met with two of these related to project dissemination.

By the end of the project in 2011, DBE3 successfully achieved targets for 75% of the project indicators and exceeded many of these. Targets for only 5 indicators (21%) were not met with two of these related to project dissemination.

10.2.2 Main Project Results Related to Schools

The results on the three indicators related to teaching and learning (teacher behavior, student activities and classroom environment) show a clear rise between 2009 and 2011. During the 2009 monitoring a considerable impact was already visible in each indicator in the extension district schools, where about 50% of classrooms were implementing changes, compared a group of the comparison schools which were not taking part in the project and barely registered on the indicators. This impact increased greatly by the 2010 monitoring and was maintained in 2011, where approximately 90% of classrooms monitored were implementing the changes being measured. The schools in the core districts also scored similarly in the 2011 monitoring, demonstrating the impact of the DBE3 program.

The average scores from the national school examinations in the partner schools in the extension districts showed a small overall rise in scores of 6.4% between 2008 and 2010. DBE3 also undertook an assessment of its own in 2009, 2010 and 2011 in a sample of 54 schools using tests, which focused more on students’ skills. Over the two year period scores in all subjects showed a sustantial increase. Mathematics scores went up 48.2% reflecting students’ becoming accustomed to the problem solving style of questions in the test. The English Listening, Reading and Writing and English Speaking test scores also rose 20% over two years (despite a fall in 2011) and the overall scores in the Bahasa Indonesia tests were up 18.2% in the same time period.

There was a large improvement in the partner schools in the extension districts on indicators related to school principal leadership and management. The percentage of school principals in the


extension districts exercising professional leadership in their schools rose from only 12% to 72.8% between 2009 and 2011. The biggest increase on this indicator was in the number of principals monitoring teaching and learning.

Dissemination of the DBE3 training programs reached 50,179 additional Junior Secondary School educators from 6,440 Junior Secondary Institutions over the life of the project.

A summary of the school monitoring from 2009 – 2011 can also be found in section 3.3.7

10.3 Program Evaluations

DBE3 conducted a number of internal program evaluations in order objectively review and appraise programs with a view to illustrating the strengths and successes of the program or approach adopted by the project and also to highlight the weaknesses and challenges in order to derive maximum learning for future actions and development assistance projects. These evaluations included

• Evaluations of School Readiness to participate in ICT programs

• Evaluation of the Public Private Alliance program with Intel

• Evaluation of the Non Formal Education Non Cash Grants Program

• Evaluation of Project Dissemination.

Some of the evaluations completed enabled DBE3 to make some significant changes to the project approach. For example, following the evaluation of the public private alliance with Intel in 2009, DBE3 made the decision to revise the ICT program (see section 5.1). A full list of project evaluations can be found in Volume 3 Annex 24.

3.1.2 USAID Custom Indicators

The USAID custom indicators, which were reported on an annual basis, are listed in table 33 on the next page.


Table 33: Results for USAID Custom Indicators 2006 -2011

# Indicator

FY 2006

Actual

FY 2007

Actual

FY 2008

Actual

FY 2009

Actual

FY 2010

Actual

FY 2011

Actual

1 # of learners enrolled in USG supported secondary schools or equivalent non-school based settings

109,356 125,237 117,832 197,901 204,726 199,640

2 # of teacher/educators trained with USG support

5,83164 16,77365 21,01066 16,16867 19,88168 18,42969

3 # of textbooks and other teaching and learning materials provided with USAID assistance

2,32270 10,18571 50072 84673 40074 16,13175

4 # of administrators and officials trained

0 0 0 75 260 250

5 # of schools where DBE 3 activities have been replicated76

104 800 350 1,354 2,249 1,583

6 # of district governments that have officially budgeted funds for implementing USAID basic education programs

2 8 15 61 47 44

64 This includes 3884 through direct project assistance and 1,947 through dissemination 65 Consisting of 11,381 through dissemination training and 5,392 through direct service delivery 66 15,680 directly and 5,330 dissemination 67 5,368 directly and 10,800 dissemination 68 7,342 through direct project assistance and 12,539 through dissemination activities 69 5,550 through direct project assistance and 12,879 through dissemination activities 70 Earthquake Response Care kits 71 Books for Asia 72 Learning Resource Boxes and Computers 73 Learning Resource Boxes and Computers 74 Computers 75 School Kits 76 Calculated here on financial years (October to September) rather then project years (January to December) which explains difference in figures reported elsewhere in the report


11. SOME DBE3 LESSONS LEARNED

11.1 General Program Issues

11.1.1 Building Local Government Ownership and Commitment

Experience in DBE3: Over the final years of the DBE3 project a concerted effort was made to involve local government in the planning and implementation of activities, including selection of facilitators, monitoring, training, showcase meetings, study visits and, above all, regular meetings at district and national levels to plan and review their role in implementing and disseminating DBE3 programs. This had a considerable impact on the success of the program with large scale dissemination to non-partner schools an increase in the commitment of funds by local government and schools to support the process, as well as, most importantly, the personal commitment of many senior officials, including mayors and bupatis, to disseminating and sustaining the program.

District committees were established early in the program but failed to function effectively probably because they were imposed externally by the project not as a result of internal demand. Towards the end of the project regular meetings of district facilitators77, officials, school supervisors and principals to plan and review project activities took place at district and national levels fuelled by local demand and were fluid and flexible, corresponding to local needs. The national level meetings were particularly useful in attracting high level officials including Mayors, Bupatis and Head of Education and Religious Affairs Offices.

Lessons Learned for the Future: In order to build local capacity and commitment it is important that local governments and schools feel that project priorities and activities reflect their own aims and aspirations. They must be given the chance to be involved from the start of the project in the planning and implementation of project activities. This means in practice that they should not presented with a cut and dried program of project activities. Project activities need to be flexible and able to be adapted to local conditions, as do the procedures and mechanisms to encourage local involvement. Activities can and should include: regular planning and review meetings of key stakeholders; their involvement in implementing activities, monitoring the impact of activities and opportunities to showcase their achievements.

In order to build local government capacity and commitment consideration should be given to allowing them to manage that part of project funds linked to the training of their staff, including training of teachers. Such an approach has proved successful in various UNICEF projects.

11.1.2 Working with the Willing

Experience in DBE3: The impact of the DBE3 program has been variable across districts and schools. The most important factor in this variability has been the commitment of local government stakeholders and school staff. Where commitment has been high, results have been immediate and visible. However, in some cases considerable resources have been deployed too little effect in district and schools with little commitment and interest. In order to counter this, in the latter stages of the project, DBE3 and worked with some local governments to replace non-performing partner schools with schools showing and interest and commitment in change and development.

Lessons Learned for the Future: Donor assistance is most valuable where they build systems which can sustain development after the projects have finished. Most projects can only work in a small proportion of the districts and school which need assistance and should use their resources where they can make the most impact in order to create examples of good practice which can be disseminated.

77 District facilitators were selected jointly by district governments and DBE3 from the most committed and able teachers, school principals and supervisors to deliver and support the application of DBE3 training programs.


The chances of success are greatly increased by the careful selection of districts and schools, with preference being given to those showing the most enthusiasm and interest. This does not mean working only with the most favoured districts and schools. Indeed, based on recent experience, it is often the poorer and less favoured who are keenest to receive assistance and make best use of it. Experience of working this way has shown that success creates further demand, often including those who were at first among the unwilling.

Any new project might consider being rather more ‘market oriented’, supporting those districts and schools which show most interest and which are willing to make their own commitment of personnel and funds. The contribution of the project would be to help districts design and implement an effective program and provide technical expertise to support and supervise the implementation of the program. Where schools do not show improved performance after training, there should be no hesitation in replacing them with other schools with greater potential. Similar measures should be applied to districts, which do not perform satisfactorily over a period of time.

11.1.3 Integrating Project Activities at Different Levels

Experience in DBE3: The division of DBE into three components led to problems in developing synergy between different parts of the education system in districts. In the early days of the project the focus of DBE3 was on working with local education institutions both formal and non-formal with little involvement of higher levels of local government, since that was felt to be the domain of DBE1, with their brief to improve management and governance.

However, after the revised project started to be implemented there a much bigger push to involve local government. The DBE3 district coordinators were housed in the district education offices alongside their DBE1 counterparts and activities, as described in section 11.1 above, were implemented involving not only the Education and Religious Affairs Offices, but also the local parliament (DPRD), development agency (Bapeda) and education council (Dewan Pendidikan). Activities also increasingly involved school principals and supervisors, whose support was crucial to the success of the program. Although this overlapped with some of DBE1’s efforts, it led to a significant increase in government commitment and support as described above.

Lessons Learned for the Future: Project activities at all levels should work in an integrated manner, since plans and activities at one level influence and support activities at other levels. A broad spectrum of stakeholders as mentioned above should be involved in the programs in order to build understanding and support in local government. Activities at all levels should also be linked. For example, district and school level plans and budgets are not ends in themselves but should be made in order to address key issues such as access to education and the quality of education being delivered in the classroom.

One of the problems of working in many districts has been instability in staffing with unpredictable changes of official and sometimes school principals. Working with a wide variety of stakeholders at various levels has helped mitigate this problem, as, despite changes of staff, enough staff with experience of the DBE3 program remained and were able to carry the program forward and brief those new to their posts.

11.1.4 Focus on Building Local Capacity for Self-Development

Experience in DBE3: From the start, DBE3 focused on building local government’s own capacity to improve the quality of junior secondary education. This involved selecting and training local facilitators chosen from good practitioners who could sustain and disseminate the program. The partner schools were developed as models of good practice for other schools to visit and training materials were freely available for facilitators and school to make use of. Activities involving local government stakeholders and staff were implemented in order to build their understanding of and commitment to using this capacity.

Lessons Learned for the Future: The focus of donor assistance should be on capacity building for local government. Where at all possible, project staff should not be doing things which local


government and school staff can do for themselves. Training should be carried out by local government staff including teachers, who are in any case often the best people to do this.

In order to build and use capacity, personnel need to be identified, trained and implement a program of activities which is within their capacity. Teams of district managers and facilitators need team building activities just as much as project staff and need to have a program which keeps them active and engaged. As well as implementing training and mentoring, they need to have opportunities to meet and reflect on what they are doing and what they have learnt. They also need to have the opportunity for ongoing professional development through study visits and refresher training.

11.1.5 The Whole School Approach

Experience in DBE3: In the early stages of the project training in schools was confined to two or three subjects (English, Civics and Mathematics) and there was little involvement of school principals and supervisors. On returning to their schools to implement the results of the training, many teachers found themselves in an unsupportive environment, where the school principal and supervisor and other teachers failed to understand what they were trying to achieve. As a result, many gave up the struggle and reverted to their former practices.

In the revised project a substantially increased number of teachers from all the main subjects were trained and school principals and supervisors were involved in the teacher training, as well as being given special training on their role in supporting change. Many schools also used their own resources to extend training to teachers of other subjects in order to achieve wholesale change in their schools. The greatly increased impact on school practices and student performance have validated this approach.

Lessons Learned for the Future: The implementation of the whole school program by DBE3 confirmed that changes and improvements in teaching subject areas will only be successful if they are part of a wider program to improve the management and ethos of the school and the teaching methodologies used across the curriculum. Student centered education based on developing personal and academic skills must be applied consistently across the whole curriculum, not just in specific subjects and at specific times.

11.1.6 Working More Intensively at Province Level

Experience in DBE3: DBE3 found much more difficulty working with provincial governments than with district government, since the role and responsibility of the province is fundamentally unclear. One could envisage a role for the province where it accrued some of the powers of the central government to set, monitor and enforce standards, but that is not currently the case. While the provincial government has little legal power over districts, it does have a considerable amount of discretionary funding, which can be used to benefit districts and their schools. In DBE3 the North Sumatera provincial government has stood out in this respect by showing positive motivational leadership to districts and promising to allocate funding to support the dissemination of DBE3 programs at district level.

Lessons Learned for the Future: DBE3 project staff have often stressed the need to work more closely with provincial government in order to mobilize their resources and support for benefit of the districts. Three particular suggestions have been made; (i) that a formal agreement such as an MOU be made with the provincial government – this has been useful at district level in DBE; (ii) projects maintain a presence in the provincial government offices, much as they have at district level.; and (iii) regular meeting with and visits to districts are sponsored to build a flow of information between district and province level and between agencies at those levels.

DBE has still adopted a relatively centralized approach to management of project activities. However, given the size and diversity of provinces and the need to respond to local situations, much more management responsibility needs to be given to province level. This would also give the opportunity to build the capacity of those institutions in the province such as the teacher training


universities and LPMPs, which have the potential to offer long-term support to districts and schools, as well as building expertise and networks of good practice across provinces.

11.1.7 Strengthening the Teachers Working Groups (MGMP)

Experience in DBE3: DBE3 recognized very early on the importance of the MGMP structure and the need to work with it. However, the project also realized the challenges faced by the MGMP most noticeably that in most areas the MGMP for Junior Secondary Schools were organized at district level and covered too wide an area and included too many schools, with the result that teachers in many school found it difficult to participate in activities. Moreover, most MGMP activities were often not relevant to the needs of teachers and improving the quality of teaching and learning. Therefore, several DBE3 training modules and approaches focused on strengthening the MGMP as a means of professional support for teachers. Between 2006 and 2009 DBE3 attempted to use and build on the main concept of the REDIP project and set up sub district level MGMP but the lack of project financial support to these MGMP (which was different to the approach of REDIP) meant that these MGMP were not sustainable. From 2009 until the end of the project MGMP for DBE3 partner schools (which sometimes also included few other neighboring schools) grew up and operated for the period of the project with DBE3 support. However, neither of these approaches was very effective or sustainable as they were new structures outside of the existing system.

Lessons Learned for the Future:

In some DBE3 partner districts, most notably in Pasuruan and Tuban in East Java78, the local Government independently of DBE3 set up a number of sub-regional networks for schools covering several sub-districts in order to disseminate the DBE3 program. These systems were much more effective than the DBE3 created MGMP as they grew organically out of DBE3 project activities and were initiated and organized by local governments rather then the project. In future attention needs to be paid to discussions with Districts, the idea of establishing sub district or sub-regional MGMP and to encourage them to find a system that works for their schools and teachers. Projects should provide support to the Districts to implement their plans but Districts themselves should take the lead. The DBE3 districts which have already established and implemented their own system can be called upon to give the benefit of their experience to others.

11.2 Principles of Effective Teacher Training

Experience in DBE3: DBE3 implemented a comprehensive and effective program to improve the relevance and quality of education in junior secondary schools.


• It is more effective to train junior secondary school staff separately from primary school staff given the general larger size and different organization of junior secondary schools around subject teaching.

• It is essential for training programs to have a simple, clear and well articulated objectives for easily observable change. DBE3 spelt out clearly the changes which the project is trying to achieve in areas such as school principal leadership, improving the classroom environment, the role of the teacher and student activities and to reiterate these at every possible opportunity in meetings, training and newsletters to stakeholders at all levels. Some changes may at first seen superficial such as encouraging teachers to arrange students to sit in groups and to make displays of students’ work. Others are not, such as encouraging teachers to set more open ended tasks, to allow students to voice their own opinions and thoughts and stating that students’ work

78 In Pasuruan, the District Education Office established a cluster system called ‘base camp’ to disseminate DBE3 programs. Schools were divided into groups according to geographic areas covering a number of sub districts. For each geographic area, 10 District Facilitators were trained and one school was appointed as a DBE3 “base camp” with the responsibility to act as a learning centre for DBE3 programs. Tuban also developed a dissemination strategy through a cluster-based MGMP. Each cluster covered about 2-4 sub-districts to make more effective implementation and mentoring.


should be written in their own words. But seen as a package of changes, the impact in many schools has been remarkable.

• Training of teachers should be supported by a variety of other activities in order to be effective.

o Study visits are very effective in raising awareness of new practices and direct observation is much more meaningful than hearing at second hand.

o School principals and supervisors should have the opportunity to attend the training of teachers in order to discover at first hand what they are learning. They should also be trained separately to understand their role in supporting change in their schools. After training principals, supervisors and teachers should sit down together to formulate plans to implement the results of the training in their schools.

o Mentoring of teachers by district facilitators was very valuable in supporting teachers after training in implementing the results of the training in their classrooms. However, the limited number of facilitators means that alternative ways of mentoring need to be developed for the future, especially developing teacher mentors from the best teachers in each individual school.

o Requiring schools and teachers to showcase the results of training approximately two months after training was very effective in encouraging schools and teachers to implement training

• District facilitators were effective in training and supporting teachers after training. However, where the teams of facilitators were drawn only from teachers, they often found it difficult to operate in coordination with district government. It is, therefore, recommended that the teams include one or more supervisors, one of whom can act as coordinator of the team and with the the district government.

• Management training for school principals and school committees should be linked to and support teacher training. Indeed one of the frequent requests from principals and supervisors was to learn how to support teachers both professionally (through activities such the MGMP) and materially (through the use of the BOS.

• Some schools complained that teacher training disturbed their school schedule by removing teachers from the school for several days at a time. Other schools felt that the benefits of the training outweighed the disturbance over the longer term. However, DBE3 sought to minimize the disturbance by designing some activities which could be implemented through regular MGMP activities.

11.3 Working Effectively with Teacher Training Universities

Experience in DBE3: A small number of lecturers for universities in each project province joined in DBE3 training activities. Their experience was without doubt positive, but the impact on their institutions was very limited. The pilot program with two universities over the final year of the project proved much more positive and gave some pointers for future work with universities.


• It is important to have a formal relationship, such as an MOU, with the universities, as this helps them mobilize their resources to support activities.

• It is essential to identify the key departments and personnel at the universities who are involved in pre- and in-service teacher training and to focus activities on them. As with districts and schools, it is important to work with willing and commited staff.

• It is important to identify university programs which can usefully be strengthened using the materials and technical assistance available. Both the DBE3 teacher training and classroom action


research materials were in line with universities priorities and needs. Much more could have been developed, if more time had been available.

• The State University of Semarang has its own partner schools (not to be confused with lab schools), which are used for teacher training practice. These schools were included in the DBE3 supported activities.

• The universities operate within catchment areas, and development activities should take note of this and not expect them to operate in areas well outside these catchment areas.

• In the universities management capacity to run extended programs is weak. Most programs tend to be ad hoc and short term. In addition, few incentives exist for developing and selling high class services to districts and schools. Future training programs need to address these specific factors.

11.4 Private Public Alliances

Experience in DBE3: DBE3 ran a number of PPA programs. The most effective program was probably in North Aceh, where proven DBE3 programs were run with private funding. In other cases donors tended to determine programs based on their priorities or their own ready made materials, which were not always suitable for Indonesian conditions and not compatible with the project.

Lessons Learned for the Future: PPAs are a useful way of spreading the impact of projects by gaining new sources of funding. However, the activities funded by the PPA should be integrated into the whole of the project rather than run as separate and discrete activities. Where additional districts and schools are funded these should have the same package of activities and approaches as other districts and schools. Where specific activities are funded such as computer education, these should be integrated into and contribute to the overall objectives of the project rather than being a stand-alone activity.

Where PPA donors place heavy restrictions on how their funding may be used – such as helping only a very circumscribed number of schools in a small area without taking into account wider issues of development and sustainability – the value of such activities should be carefully considered before making a commitment.

11.5 Provision of Books and Equipment

Experience in DBE3: The provision of books, materials and other equipment, some of it through the cost share, was often ineffective as the materials donated bore little relation to the needs of schools and students.

Lessons Learned for the Future: In order to avoid donor dependency, distribution of books and equipment by projects needs to be carried out with the utmost caution and generally only to pilot specific activities. A case can be made for the limited supply of equipment, if it is linked to attempts to build models of good practice, but consideration must be given to how further funding will be provided by schools after the project has finished in order to ensure the sustainability of the models. The recipient institutions should be involved in planning and procuring the goods in order to develop a sense of ownership and accountability in a manner that is in line with school and institutional based management principles which have been adopted by the GOI.

Models that are built without donations of equipment from donor projects tend to have much more credibility in the eyes of other schools and districts who wish to emulate them.

11.6 Supporting Effective Dissemination

Experience in DBE3: The project supported a great deal of dissemination to non-partner districts and schools. This is described in section 7 of the report. The impact of the dissemination was generally lower than in partner schools.



• Programs should be designed to build GOI capacity to disseminate programs for themselves. This involves creating training capacity in the form of facilitators, creating examples of good practices which can be observed and emulated. Local government and key institutional staff at school and training provider level should be in planning and implementation. Therefore, in moving into new districts, building local capacity should be the first priority.

• Effective advocacy strategies need to be adopted in order to create awareness of the impact of development programs and generate interest amongst other potential adopters of the program. Showcase meetings at school, district and province levels have been particularly effective in this respect, especially when a variety of stakeholders including Education and Religious Affairs and Local Development Agency staff, as well as Local Parliament and Education Council representatives are involved.

• Dissemination approaches and strategies should be planned well in advance and be consistent across all geographic areas. Approaches to advocating for dissemination in Islamic and General schools may need to be slightly different due to the different funding mechanisms and management of the two sectors.

• Dissemination activities should not be viewed as a step child to project activities. Dissemination training should conform to exactly the standards of quality as direct service training.

• The earlier stages of involvement in a district are likely to require a higher level of project funding as capacity and models of good practice are built. However, as districts and schools recognize the value of the programs, funding should increasingly be provided by local sources

11.7 Other Issues

• Alignment with Government Policy and Stakeholder Aspirations DBE3 has to some degree been pushing at an open door, since many of the schools and teachers were already aspiring to implement the kinds of changes being encouraged by DBE3. These changes are in line with government policy to improve the quality and relevance of learning (a key chapter in the MONE strategic plan), the national curriculum and government regulations on using active learning methods. But more importantly, at the practitioner’s level, the kinds of changes being promoted (which translate these government policies into reality) were not entirely foreign. Active learning has been promoted (but often not applied) in primary schools for over 20 years and is used in many of the ‘international standard’ schools.

• Using Competent Personnel: In order to address effectively the educational issues faced in a project, it is essential to have properly qualified and experienced staff and personnel working on the project. Key staff at all levels, whether national and international, need to have a relevant background in education, experience in education development work and specific knowledge of the issues faced in developing education in Indonesia. There have been many cases where this principle has not been applied and where staff has been engaged with no particular expertise in the field for which they have been employed. Not surprisingly their impact has often been limited or negative as they have often less knowledge and insight than those they are meant to be helping.

• Building on Current Successes: ‘Building on’ DBE3 achievements means using the whole range of DBE3 resources to develop further and disseminate the innovations not just using the training manuals, as is often assumed. The most important resources are the people who know and understand how to implement the innovations and train others to do the same. These resources include the schools exhibiting good practices, the trainers who can train teachers and others and district government staff who can manage and promote the program.

• Strengthening, Deepening and Widening the Impact: The impact of the DBE3 program on schools and classes has inevitably varied from what were some relatively superficial changes confined to the visual layout and aspect of the class to significant shifts in teacher and student


activity and relationships. There are a small number of teachers who have been able to apply the changes at a very high level. There is a need to continue to work to deepen the impact on existing schools and spread to more districts and schools. Strategies need to use those best practitioners and examples of good practice but also need to be resource efficient, using current structures such as the MGMP and the limited available funding from BOS and district budgets.

• Staying Focused: In any large donor project including DBE3 there is pressure from the donor, stakeholders and beneficiaries to widen the scope of activities and sometimes take on activities which are not linked to the core focus of the program. This can lead to an overall lack of focus and negatively affect the impact of the project. Where additional activities are proposed and developed it is important that they relate to and enhance the core project focus rather than become a distraction from this focus.


12. PROJECT MANAGEMENT

12.1 DBE3 Management

Save the Children (SC) led the DBE3 project consortium, which included the Academy for Educational Development (AED), International Relief and Development (IRD), and The Asia Foundation (TAF) to implement this project. The project used a unified management structure, with all project staff reporting day-to-day through a chain of command to the COP. Partner agencies supported human resource, financial management, and some administrative functions.

The consortium made policy and programmatic decisions cooperatively, and each partner “led” the project design and development in a technical area. SC, IRD, and TAF also supported provincial offices that implemented a common set of provincial project activities.

As the project progressed, roles and responsibilities of the partner agencies changed. In July 2008 TAF resigned from the project as a result of the project re-scoping after the mid-term evaluation, and at the end of December 2010 the Academy for Educational Development also withdrew following their suspension by USAID. Following the departure of each agency, Save the Children absorbed the roles originally assigned to each agency as shown below.

Agency Technical Role 2005-08 Technical Role 2009–11 Provincial Implementation 2005 – 08

Provincial Implementation 2009 – 11

SC Dropout prevention

Nonformal education

Conflict-affected areas

Whole School Program

Classroom Action Research

University Programs

North Sumatra

East Java

North Sumatra

East Java

West Java

Banten

South Sulawesi

AED Formal education

ICT in Education

English language skills

Paket B support

Monitoring and evaluation

Distance Education (especially ICT)

None None

IRD Life and workforce skills None Central Java Central Java

TAF Civic Education

Peer education

Islamic Education

Gender

Resigned

12.2 Staffing

DBE3 had a core of full time staff based in a central office in Jakarta and an office in each of the target provinces. Staffing on DBE3 underwent numerous adjustments in personnel and positions during the project including 3 changes to the Chief of Party and 4 to the Deputy Chief of Party.

In addition to full time staff DBE3 recruited a number of consultants to work on different technical aspects of the project on an occasional basis according to project requirements. A general organizational chart of the project staff, list of Jakarta staff and a list of the key consultants who worked on DBE3 are included in Volume 3 Annex 29.


DBE3 through its partner organization, the Asia Foundation also worked in co-operation with the Centre for Teaching and Learning Development (CTLD) to revise and finalize the DBE3 Civic Education modules and with Indonesian Center for Civic Education (ICCE) to revise and finalize the Peer Mediation and Student Governance toolkits. Both these centers are based in the Islamic University of Jakarta.

Through AED, DBE3 also partnered with the International Development Center of Japan (IDCJ) to develop the projects’ strategy to work with MGMP and to design the MGMP related training materials described in section 2.3.

The numbers of DBE3 staff was relatively small in each province, however the project was also able to call on a national and district facilitators as described in sections 2.3.2 and 3.3.2 to support the implementation of the project. All of these personnel work on an occasional basis according to the project needs. These facilitators were invaluable asset to the project.

12.3 Management and Reporting Activities

Program management consisted of regular management and reporting activities that took place during the project. These included:

• Bi-Weekly Updates:

These internal newsletters were produced twice a month to help keep USAID, all regional staff and partners informed of program activities at the provincial level.

• Quarterly Progress Reports

These reports summarized the progress made during each quarter in relation to agreed upon objectives contained in the Annual Work Plan. They also specified any problems encountered and indicated resolutions or proposed corrective actions, to designated responsible parties and established a schedule for completion.

• Annual Report

DBE3 submitted an annual progress report at the end of each financial year of the project.

• Project Monitoring Reports

DBE3 presented the Monitoring and Evaluation reports on an annual basis. For the first two years of the project 2006 and 2007, the monitoring report was integrated into the annual report. From 2008, these were submitted separately.

• Provincial Coordinator/Project Meetings:

DBE3 held regular quarterly meetings with Project Managers based at the Provincial level. The intention of these meetings was to discuss and plan for project activities. Meetings were frequently held in conjunction with the National Planning and Review meetings (see section 3.3.5).

• Project Management Advisory Board Meetings (PMAB)

These meetings were held during the first 3 years of the project and included two senior management representatives from the four partner organizations plus the COP. The purpose of the meetings was for partner organizations to provide input and explore solutions to program challenges. The final PMAB meeting was held during year 3 in July 2008. During this meeting, the DBE3 COP presented and discussed the refocused technical and cost proposal with all members of the Board.


• Joint DBE Working Groups

DBE3 coordinated with DBE1 and DBE2 through USAID-facilitated COP meetings and DBE working groups which included (1) communications (2) monitoring and evaluation (3) public-private alliances (4) planning/managing/governance (5) information and communications technologies and (6) teaching and learning. Results from these meetings included developing a joint ICT strategy and planning for Cohort 2 district selection and co-operating with DBE1 to include junior secondary education in DBE1’s district education planning and school-based planning and financial management activities. Most of the working groups ceased to operate in 2009. A list of DBE3 reports is included in Volume 3 Annex 30.

12.4 Cost Share

Through the agreement, DBE3 was obligated to contribute no less than USD 2,400,000 of the total program costs necessary to achieve the project objectives. By the end of the project in December 2011, DBE3 through its partner agencies had contributed USD 3,765,713 as follows:

DBE3 Partner

Agency

Reported by December 2011

Activity

Save the Children USD 2,165,778 Field Office Head Office and Regional Office Staff support time; Staff support, resources support (e.g. vehicles, office, equipment, materials) for implementation of the DBE3 PPA program with EMOI in North Aceh.

The Asia Foundation USD 760, 000 Books for Asia Program: A total of

10,185 books distributed to all DBE3 provinces in 2007. Source of donations were various Publishers in the USA. A list of provinces and books received is included in Volume 3 Annex 31.

International Relief and Development

USD 639,935 2,322 items for Emergency Response to Earthquake in DIY and Central Java in 2006 valued at USD 425, 735 donated by Heart to Heart International. A list of items received is included in Volume 3 Annex 32

16,131 School Kits valued at USD 214,200 distributed in December 2010. See Volume 3 Annex 33.

Academy for Educational Development

USD 200, 000

ICT Sustainability Toolkit used in DBE3 ICT program.

Front Cover of one of the Mathematics Books provided to DBE3 target schools and non formal education providers through the Books for Asia Program

School Kit provided to DBE3 by the Cost Share

Program

Documents

Decentralized Basic Education Three (DBE3) Relevant ...€¦ · Decentralized Basic Education Three (DBE3) Relevant Education for Youth June 7, 2005 – December 31, 2011 FINAL PROJECT