DRAFT PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT...Net Loan Amount 7. Amount of Grant (Government of the Netherlands) Original Grant Amount ... 31 December 2008 30 June 2009 0 31 December 2008 30 September

Completion Report

Asian Development Bank

Project Number: 31137/31137-03 Loan Number: 1863-INO (SF) Grant Number: 0047-INO June 2012

Indonesia: Decentralized Basic Education Project

DRAFT PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT

CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS

At Appraisal At Project Completion 15 October 2001 15 June 2012

Rp1.00 = $0.0001 $0.0002 $1.00 = Rp9,935 Rp9,420

ABBREVIATIONS

ADB – Asian Development Bank BOS – Bantuan Operasional Sekolah (school operational

assistance) CFU – central facilitation unit CTC – central technical committee DAK – Dana Alokasi Khusus (special allocation fund) DBEP – Decentralized Basic Education Project DEDF – District Education Development Fund DEDP – district education development plan DEO – district education office GER – gross enrollment rate MONE – Ministry of National Education MORA – Ministry of Religious Affairs NER – net enrollment rate NTB – Nusa Tenggara Barat (West Nusa Tenggara) NTT – Nusa Tenggara Timur (East Nusa Tenggara) PMU – project management unit PSC – project steering committee SBM – school-based management SDF – School Development Fund SDP – school development plan SDR – special drawing right Susenas – national socioeconomic survey TA – technical assistance TTU – Timor Tengah Utara district

NOTE

In this report, ―$‖ refers to US dollars, unless otherwise stated.

In preparing any country program or strategy, financing any project, or by making any designation of or reference to a particular territory or geographic are in this document, the Asian Development Bank does not intend to make any judgments as to the legal or other status of any territory or area.

Vice-President S. Groff, Operations 2 Director General K. Senga, Southeast Asia Department (SERD) Director V. de Wit, Officer-in-Charge, Human and Social Development Division,

SERD Team leader Y. Hirosato, Principal Education Specialist, SERD Team members W. Duncan, Lead Education Specialist, SERD S. Sindhvad, Education Specialist, SERD

M. Camara-Crespo, Project Analyst, SERD

CONTENTS

BASIC DATA i

I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1

II. EVALUATION OF DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION 2

A. Relevance of Design and Formulation 2 B. Project Output 3 C. Project Cost 7 D. Disbursements 7 E. Project Schedule 7 F. Implementation Arrangements 8 G. Conditions and Covenants 8 H. Related Technical Assistance 8 I. Consultant Recruitment and Procurement 9 J. Performance of Consultants, Contractors, and Suppliers 9 K. Performance of the Borrower and the Executing Agency 10 L. Performance of the Asian Development Bank 10

III. EVALUATION OF PERFORMANCE 10

A. Relevance 10 B. Effectiveness in Achieving Outcome 10 C. Efficiency in Achieving Outcome and Output 12 D. Preliminary Assessment of Sustainability 12 E. Impact 13

IV. OVERALL ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14

A. Overall Assessment 14 B. Lessons 14 C. Recommendations 15

APPENDIXES 1. Other Assistance in Support of the Decentralized Basic Education Project 16 2. Project Framework and Results Achieved 18 3. Basic Implementation Data 25 4. Actual Project Cost Compared with Appraisal Estimates 34 5. Annual Loan Disbursements 36 6. Actual Project Implementation Schedule Compared with the Schedule at Appraisal 37 7. Status of Loan and Grant Covenants 40 8. Actual Consultant Services Compared with the Planned Services 54 9. Education Performance Indicators 59 10. Emergency School Reconstruction Programs 68

i

BASIC DATA

A. Loan and Grant Identification

1. Country 2. Loan Number Grant Number 3. Project Title 4. Borrower/Recipient 5. Executing Agency 6. Amount of Loan

Original Loan Amount Net Loan Amount

7. Amount of Grant (Government of the Netherlands)

Original Grant Amount Net Grant Amount

8. Project Completion Report Number

Indonesia 1863-INO (SF) 0047-INO Decentralized Basic Education Project Government of Indonesia Ministry of National Education SDR77,579,000 ($100,000,000) SDR75,306,130.47 ($112,067,404.89) $28,000,000 $27,479,402.96 PCR: INO1324

B. Loan and Grant Data

1. Appraisal – Date Started – Date Completed

2. Loan Negotiations

– Date Started – Date Completed

3. Date of Board Approval (Loan)

Date of Board Approval (Grant)

4. Date of Loan Agreement

5. Date of Loan Effectiveness – In Loan Agreement – Actual – Number of Extensions

6. Closing Date

– In Loan Agreement – Actual – Number of Extensions – In Grant Agreement – Actual – Number of Extensions

7. Terms of Loan

– Interest Rate – Maturity (number of years) – Grace Period (number of years)

8. Terms of Relending (if any)

– Interest Rate

6 July 2001 26 July 2001 3 October 2001 10 October 2001 29 November 2001 14 March 2006 20 February 2002 20 May 2002 20 May 2002 0 31 December 2008 30 June 2009 0 31 December 2008 30 September 2011 2 1% per year (1.5% amortization) 32 8

ii

– Maturity (number of years) – Grace Period (number of years) – Second-Step Borrower

9. Disbursements

a. Dates (Loan)

Initial Disbursement 25 June 2002

Final Disbursement 30 June 2009

Time Interval 85 months

Effective Date

20 May 2002

Original Closing Date 31 December 2008


Dates (Grant)

Initial Disbursement 3 October 2006

Final Disbursement 30 September 2011


Effective Date

1 July 2006

Original Closing Date 31 December 2008


b. Amount (Loan) ($ million)

Category Original

Allocation

Last Revised

Allocation Amount

Disbursed Undisbursed

Amount*

Equipment and furniture 0.500 0.492 0.429 0.064 Vehicles 0.500 0.454 0.368 0.086 SDF: School improvement 24.939 28.214 28.157 0.057 SDF: School rehabilitation 22.440 29.035 28.993 0.042 SDF: Mentoring operations (local

remuneration 2.706 5.577 5.509 0.068

District Education Development Fund 21.000 24.113 24.195 (0.082) Training and workshops 4.300 2.983 2.928 0.055 Consulting services (international

remuneration) 0.648 1.535 1.472

0.063 National consultants: Remuneration 5.299 4.852 4.268 0.584 Consultants’ in-country operation 3.999 2.808 2.804 0.004 Research, survey, and studies 1.000 0.476 0.425 0.051 Aceh: Civil works 7.444 7.254 0.190 Aceh: Project management 3.185 2.452 0.733 Aceh: Contingency 0.049 0.049 Interest charges 3.600 4.276 2.814 1.462 Unallocated 9.064 0.077 0.077

Total 100.000 115.570 112.067 3.502

SDF = School Development Fund. Note: Amounts may not add up to the totals given because of rounding. * Amount canceled on 30 June 2009.

iii

Amount (Loan) (SDR million)

Category

Original Allocation

Last Revised

Allocation Amount


Amount*

Equipment and furniture 0.388 0.354 0.313 0.041 Vehicles 0.388 0.321 0.265 0.056 SDF: School improvement 19.348 18.945 18.908 0.037 SDF: School rehabilitation 17.409 19.583 19.556 0.027 SDF: Mentoring operations (local

remuneration) 2.100 3.756 3.712 0.044

District Education Development Fund 16.292 16.221 16.274 (0.053) Training and workshops 3.336 2.066 2.030 0.036 Consulting services (international

remuneration) 0.503 1.036 0.996 0.041

National consultants: Remuneration 4.111 3.306 2.926 0.379 Consultants’ in-country operation 3.103 1.853 1.850 0.003 Research, survey, and studies 0.776 0.306 0.273 0.033 Aceh: Civil works 4.868 4.745 0.123 Aceh: Project management 2.088 1.612 0.476 Aceh: Contingency 0.032 0.032 Interest charges 2.793 2.793 1.844 0.949 Unallocated 7.032 0.050 0.050

Total 77.579 77.579 75.306 2.273 SDF = School Development Fund. Note: Amounts may not add up to the totals given because of rounding. * Amount canceled on 30 June 2009.

c. Amount (Grant) ($ million)

Category

Original Allocation

Last Revised

Allocation Amount


Amount

National consultants: Remuneration 1.067 1.067 1.350 (0.283) Consultants’ in-country operation 0.755 0.755 2.093 (1.338) Research, survey, and studies 0.163 0.163 0.514 (0.351) SDF: School improvement 6.405 6.405 8.394 (1.989) SDF: School rehabilitation 6.270 6.270 7.171 (0.901) SDF: Mentoring operations (local

remuneration) 0.821 0.821 0.000 0.821

District Education Development Fund 6.750 6.750 6.497 0.253 Equipment and furniture 0.151 0.151 0.166 (0.016) Vehicles 0.120 0.120 0.151 (0.031) Training and workshops 0.777 0.777 1.142 (0.365) Miscellaneous grant administration

and support cost: ADB 0.560 0.547 0.520 0.026

Contingency 4.160 4.173 0.000 4.173

Total 28.000 28.000 28.000 (0.000) ADB = Asian Development Bank, SDF = School Development Fund. Note: Amounts may not add up to the totals given because of rounding.

iv

10. Local Costs (Financed) – Amount ($ million) $85.854 – Percentage of local costs 78% – Percentage of total cost 62%

C. Project Data

1. Loan Cost ($ million)

Cost Appraisal Estimate Actual

Foreign-exchange cost 21.1 26.3 Local-currency cost 103.9 112.1

Total 125.0 138.4

Grant Cost ($ million)


Foreign-exchange cost 36.3 29.5 Local-currency cost 0.0 0.0

Total 36.3 29.5

2. Loan Financing Plan ($ million)


Implementation costs Borrower-financed 25.0 26.3 ADB-financed 96.4 109.3 Other external financing

Total 121.4 135.6

IDC costs Borrower-financed 0.0 0.0 ADB-financed 3.6 2.8 Other external financing

Total 3.6 2.8

ADB = Asian Development Bank, IDC = interest during construction.

Grant Financing Plan ($ million)


Implementation costs Borrower-financed 8.3 1.5 ADB-financed Government of the Netherlands 28.0 28.0

Total 36.3 29.5

IDC costs Borrower-financed ADB-financed Other external financing

Total

ADB = Asian Development Bank, IDC = interest during construction.

v

Cost Breakdown, by Project Category ($ million)

Item Appraisal Estimate Actual

Base cost

Consultants Consulting services: International remuneration .648 1.472 National consultants: Remuneration 5.300 4.268 Consultants’ in-country operation 4.000 2.804

School Development Fund School improvement 24.940 28.157 School rehabilitation 22.440 28.993 Mentoring operations (local remuneration) 2.707 5.509

District Education Development Fund 21.000 24.195 Local government basic education programs 3.600 .010 Training and workshops 4.500 3.123 Equipment and furniture .500 .429 Vehicles .500 .368 Research, surveys, and studies 1.000 .425 Implementation, operation and maintenance 13.500 26.119 Emergency assistance

Aceh: Civil works 7.254 Aceh: Project management 2.452

Subtotal (Base cost) 104.635 135.578

Contingencies

Price contingencies 7.700 Physical contingencies 3.965

Subtotal (Contingencies) 11.665

Taxes and duties 5.100

Interest/Charges during implementation 3.600 2.813

Total 125.000 138.391

vi

3. Cost Breakdown, by Grant Category ($ million)


Base cost Consultants

International consultants: Remuneration

National consultants: Remuneration 1.067 1.350 Consultants’ in-country operation 0.755 2.093

School Development Fund School improvement 6.405 8.394 School rehabilitation 6.270 7.171 Mentoring/Mentor operations 0.821 0.000

District Education Development Fund 6.750 6.497 Training and workshops 0.777 1.142 Equipment and furniture 0.151 0.167 Vehicles 0.120 0.151 Research, surveys, and studies 0.163 0.514 Non-category

Implementation, operation and maintenance 5.397 1.080 Local government basic education programs 2.850 0.435 Local training/workshop 0.056 0.013

Miscellaneous grant administration support cost 0.521 Subtotal (Base Cost) 31.583 29.528

Contingencies Price contingencies 2.328 Physical contingencies 2.392

Subtotal (Contingencies) 4.720

Total 36.303 29.528 Note: Amounts may not add up to the totals given because of rounding.

4. Project Schedule


Date of contract with consultants Package I: School-based management (field

facilitation) Q2 2002 7 Feb 2003

Package II: District capacity building and project implementation support

Q1 2002 7 Feb 2003

Package III: Independent monitoring and evaluation and reporting

Q1 2003 7 Feb 2003

Package A: School and district capacity building and project implementation support

17 Sep 2007

Package B: Independent monitoring and evaluation and reporting

31 Aug 2007

Benefit and impact study (loan) 27 Nov 2007 Benefit and impact study (grant) 3 Nov 2009 First procurement 19 Nov 2002 Last procurement 19 Dec 2008 First block grant under SDF 7 Oct 2003 First block grant under DEDF 10 Jul 2003

DEDF = District Education Development Fund, SDF = School Development Fund.

vii

5. Project Performance Report Ratings

Implementation Period

Rating

Development Objectives

Implementation Progress

1 Dec 2001–31 Aug 2003 Satisfactory Satisfactory 1 Sep 2003–30 Sep 2010 Satisfactory Highly satisfactory 1 Oct 2010–31 Oct 2010 Satisfactory Satisfactory 1 Nov 2010–30 Nov 2010 Satisfactory Highly satisfactory 1 Dec 2010–31 Dec 2010 Satisfactory Satisfactory

D. Data on Asian Development Bank Missions

Name of Mission

Date

No. of Persons

No. of Person-

Days Specialization of Members

a

Inception 25 Feb–26 Mar 2002 6 138 a, b, c, d, e

Handover 1 24–30 Apr 2002 2 14 a

Review 1 24 Sep–4 Oct 2002 3 26 a, f ,e

Review 2 16–31 July 2003 2 32 e, f

Special project administration 1 15–28 Oct 2003 5 70 e, c, g

Review 3 26 Feb–5 Mar 2004 2 14 d, f

Special project administration 2 2–7 Dec 2004 2 12 f, h

Midterm 1–14 Mar 2005 5 75 a, b, d, i

Review 4 (handover) 21–29 Nov 2005 5 40 d, j, k

Review 5 20 Mar–3 Apr 2006 3 45 e, j, k

Review 6 6–20 Nov 2006 3 45 j, l, m

Review 7 24 Apr–4 May 2007 5 55 d, j, n

Review 8 21–23 Nov 2007 2 6 e, n

Review 9 7–18 Jul 2008 2 24 d, a

Final 17–21 Dec 2008 2 10 d, a

Review 10 30 Mar–4 Apr 2009 1 6 a

Review 11 23–27 Aug 2010 1 5 a

Review 12 22 Nov–2 Dec 2010 1 11 a

Project completion review 8–19 Aug 2011 3 20 a, d

a a = education specialist, b = financial management specialist, c = social development specialist, d = project analyst,

e = staff consultant, f = project specialist, g = cofinancing specialist, h = project economist, I = poverty specialist, j = education economist, k = project officer, l = operations analyst, m = programs officer, n = project administration unit head.

I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

1. The Decentralized Basic Education Project (DBEP) was intended to support decentralized planning, management, and delivery of basic education services (grades 1–9) in 26 districts in Bali, West Nusa Tenggara (NTB), and East Nusa Tenggara (NTT) in the context of Law 22/1999 on Regional Governance and Law 25/1999 on Fiscal Decentralization. It was funded by Loan 1863-INO which was approved on 29 November 2001 for $100 million, and grant co-financing from the Government of the Netherlands of $28 million (Grant 0047-INO) approved on 14 March 2006. The loan closed on 31 December 2008, while the grant was extended for 1 year, to 31 December 2009, to allow the project to be completed in NTT, and later to 31 December 2010 to cover emergency reconstruction work in Sumatra. DBEP supported decentralization by institutionalizing innovations that the government tested in earlier national and externally supported programs, including the Asian Development Bank (ADB) crisis response program (1998)1 which provided block grants to schools and local governments for the first time. DBEP was complemented by a grant project involving the pilot-testing of school-based management approaches in NTB ($1.5 million from the Japan Fund for Poverty Reduction, approved in May 2002)2 and by two associated technical assistance (TA) projects3 aimed at building basic capacity to monitor the decentralization process and its effects (Appendix 1).

2. The project was designed to improve participation in, and completion of, compulsory nine year basic education, particularly among the poor. The project had three outcomes: (i) improved participation, transition, completion and performance among poor children in basic education in Bali, NTB and NTT, (ii) implementation of school-based management in project schools, and (iii) effective district education management in Bali, NTB and NTT. The expected major outputs were: (i) improved capacity of schools and local communities in implementing school-based management through the School Development Fund (SDF); (ii) improved capacity of districts to plan and manage decentralized basic education as reflected in a 5-year district education development plan and (iii) improved access to good quality education services, especially for the poor. The project framework and results achieved is in Appendix 2.

3. To achieve the intended impact and outcomes, DBEP supported the concerted capacity building of district education offices (DEOs) in the collection and analysis of information on basic education services and the preparation of district education development plans (DEDPs). These plans were funded through a combination of the district’s own decentralized budget mechanism and project funding (for eligible items). At the school level, the project facilitated the creation of school committees and the training of school stakeholders (principals, teachers, school committees) in baseline analysis and needs assessment to provide a basis for school development plans (SDPs), funded from the school’s own resources, community contributions, and project funding. Activities eligible for funding included quality improvements and physical rehabilitation of school facilities.

1 ADB. 1998. Report and Recommendation of the President to the Board of Directors: Proposed Loan for the Social Protection Sector Development Program (Loan 1622/23-INO). Manila.

2 ADB. 2002. Grant Assistance to Indonesia for Community-Based Basic Education for the Poor (Grant 9016-INO financed by Japan Fund for Poverty Reduction). Manila.

3 ADB. 2001. Technical Assistance to Indonesia for Decentralized Education Management (TA 3701-INO). Manila; ADB. 2002. Technical Assistance to Indonesia for the Integration of Poverty Considerations in Decentralized Education Management (TA 3957-INO). Manila.

2

Number and Types of Schools Covered by the Project

Item

Number of

Districts

Primary School

Primary Madrasah

Junior Secondary

School

Junior Secondary Madrasah

Total Public Private Public Private Public Private Public Private

Loan Bali 9 715 0 15 16 114 58 5 3 926 NTB 9 1,946 1 55 319 303 35 8 167 2,834 NTT 2 308 94 0 7 57 16 0 0 482 Subtotal 20 2,969 95 70 342 474 109 13 170 4,242 Grant NTT 6 468 363 3 19 96 44 1 2 996

Total 26 3,437 458 73 361 570 153 14 172 5,238

NTB = Nusa Tenggara Barat (West Nusa Tenggara), NTT = Nusa Tenggara Timur (East Nusa Tenggara). Source: Ministry of National Education, 2011.

4. The project targeted schools in poor villages and encompassed 5,238 schools (see table), of which 4,329 were primary and 909 were junior secondary schools. The school total included 620 madrasah operated under the authority of the Ministry of Religious Affairs. Of 1,573,540 student beneficiaries, 51.3% were girls (52% of the 1,291,306 students covered by the loan and 48% of the 282,243 students under the grant were girls). Detailed data on the implementation of the project are in Appendix 3.

5. Both the loan and the grant were also used in responding to emergency situations. After the earthquake and tsunami in Aceh and North Sumatra in December 2004, $10 million was reallocated from the loan for the development of an effective way of building earthquake-resistant schools and rebuilding 33 schools. Similarly, grant savings of $1.25 million were used for the reconstruction of 9 schools in West Sumatra after the 2009 earthquake.

II. EVALUATION OF DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION

A. Relevance of Design and Formulation

6. The project was highly relevant to the government’s long-standing policies of universal basic education and poverty alleviation, and was in line with ADB’s overarching goal of poverty reduction. By 2001, Indonesia was recovering from the effects of the 1997 Asian Crisis, but poverty incidence (23%) remained above precrisis levels. Although the widely anticipated large-scale dropout from education had been avoided, in part because of government safety net programs financed with international assistance (including ADB assistance), there was still concern over the longer-term effects of increased poverty on school enrollment, especially in basic education.

7. Fiscal and administrative decentralization took effect on 1 January 2001, but without a complete set of implementing regulations. At the national level, there was uncertainty about the readiness of local governments to manage the provision of public services in 11 areas, including basic education. The project responded to these issues. Its focus on district capacity building gave project districts a head start in their performance of functions that later became mandatory under the 2004 Planning Law (UU 25/2004) and the National Education Laws (UU 20/2003 and UU15/2005). In 2002–2004, other relevant laws, such as those on regional government and central–regional financial balance, the national planning system and national financial system (budgeting), and the national treasury (payments mechanism), were also passed. These new laws clarified the roles and responsibilities of district governments in the provision of basic education. The funds flow specified in the project design was successfully incorporated into the ―block grant,‖ a new form of direct central or provincial funding for districts or schools that the National Education Law introduced. This form of funding has proved highly successful and has

3

been applied to other externally financed projects involving post-decentralization improvements in basic education through the government-led programmatic approach.

8. The design was modified in two significant ways during an early stage of implementation. First, the four-tier criteria for school selection were simplified to a three-tier procedure where subdistricts, villages, and schools were ranked. However, anomalies in selection remained in the early phases. Eventually, this procedure was simplified further to a one-tier selection procedure based on the poverty ranking of schools within each district, for both the loan and the grant. Finally, again because of difficulties in implementation, demand-led financing was modified, and all schools were given standard amounts of block grant for rehabilitation and quality improvement.

B. Project Output

9. In preparation for this project completion report, ADB assessed the impact of the project in Bali, NTB, and NTT (in 2009) and the impact of the grant (in 2010). A representative sample of 23% of the 4,244 project schools in the loan districts, and 23% of the 996 project schools in the grant districts, were surveyed. The stakeholders interviewed were school principals, teachers, and school committee members. As no baseline study was done for the loan districts, the measurement of project benefits in these districts relied on the memory of stakeholders. In the grant districts, a baseline study enabled ADB to assess these project benefits more directly. The key achievements under the various categories of project output were as follows.

1. School-Based Management in Schools

10. This output category captured the key features of school-based management (SBM)—the development and implementation of SDPs, accompanied by strengthened community involvement in the schools.

11. School-based management implemented. All schools in the project were required to develop SDPs to qualify for, and justify, the school grants for the rehabilitation of facilities and quality improvement. Schools carried out a needs assessment to develop the plan. The plans developed were quite comprehensive, but schools were not required to report on achievements against their plans. School governance was strengthened through the creation of school committees in all schools. In the loan districts, around 90% of school committees held regular meetings; a third met four or more times a year, while 60% held meetings only once or twice a year (the legal requirement is twice a year). In the grant districts, the percentage of school committees holding regular meetings also increased.

12. Community involvement in schools strengthened. Considerable community involvement was reported in the project schools. In the loan districts, around 95% of the stakeholders interviewed reported attending meetings, and 80%–85% contributed ideas and labor. Only 35%–40% contributed funds (the project districts are highly impoverished). The degree of community participation in the grant districts was also impressive. By the end of the project, more than 95% of the stakeholders had discussed school conditions and program implementation, and 88% had discussed school programs and budgets. Involvement in decision making was likewise high. Labor was the most common form of community contribution (from 70%–80% of stakeholders); monetary or in-kind contributions were made by only 25%. Continuing community participation right up to project completion indicates the project’s success in raising community awareness of the importance of education and community participation in the implementation of education programs.

4

2. Improvements in School Quality, with School Development Fund Assistance

13. School quality improved. To help schools improve school quality, small grants ($6,000 for primary schools and $9,000 for junior secondary schools) were given to schools on the basis of their SDPs. Examination results were used as a proxy indicator of school quality, although the scores were not truly comparable across years, as the difficulty level and the passing grade had increased steadily since 2006. In Bali and NTB, both primary-school and junior-secondary students successfully improved their average grades in all subjects tested (Bahasa Indonesia, English, mathematics, and science), from 10% to 33%. In the last year of the project, all primary-school average grades exceeded 7 out of a maximum of 10 (passing grade 5.25) and all junior-secondary grades exceeded 6 (passing grade). Exam results continued to improve up to 2009/10, particularly in Bali but also in NTB.

14. The exam results for NTT were mixed. Primary-school results were complicated by the reinstatement of the primary-school national examination in 2008, which led to a decline in average primary-school scores in all districts except Timor Tenga Utara (TTU) and Alor. Junior-secondary scores showed a small improvement in three districts, and a weakening in three others. But final-exam grades for junior-secondary schools increased significantly in Bahasa Indonesia (5.5 to 6.5), English (5.2 to 5.6), mathematics (4.9 to 5.7), and science (5.9 to 6.1). Despite these improvements, however, grades in NTT were significantly lower than grades in Bali or NTB, with almost all districts scoring an average of less than 6 in 2008/9 for both school levels. NTT has ranked as the lowest-scoring province in all of Indonesia since 2006/7. In 2010, almost 40% of junior-secondary students in the province failed the national junior-secondary exam.

15. More schools meeting minimum conditions of learning. The project distributed small grants ($9,000 to primary schools, $12,000 to junior-secondary schools) to two-thirds of the project schools in loan and grant districts for the minor rehabilitation of physical facilities, based on needs identified in the SDPs. Over 90% of stakeholders in NTB and Bali reported that the condition of schools, classrooms, furniture, and toilets improved as a result of the project, and that some improvement had been made as well in libraries and laboratories. The impact study found that 71% of the classrooms in Bali and NTB were in good condition by the end of the project. Enough student desks and chairs were available in 60%–70% of schools; the percentage was slightly better in junior-secondary than in primary schools. Only 25% of primary schools and 39% of junior-secondary schools had libraries, while even fewer had laboratories. Nearly all schools had access to toilets with water (87% for primary schools, 95% for junior-secondary schools). Improvements in teaching and learning materials did not fare as well, with only 40% of principals reporting any improvement in books and teaching aids. The level of improvement reported ranged from a high of 65% in Bali, to 30%–40% in Lombok and Sumbawa, and only 23% in NTT. Almost all schools reported having better sports and music equipment.

16. In NTT, the impact evaluation found less improvement over the baseline in the condition of classrooms. By the end of the project, 12% of primary-school classrooms (baseline: 16%) and 10% of junior-secondary classrooms (baseline: 12%) were in poor condition. But all sampled schools had student desks and chairs. Junior-secondary facilities improved in particular, with 80% of junior-secondary schools having administrative offices, and 60% having libraries and science laboratories. The number of primary schools with libraries increased from 23% to 40%. Although the condition of toilets improved somewhat, only 39% were in good condition in 2010. A high proportion of schools were therefore without satisfactory toilets. Still, given the fact that facilities improvement was not the main focus of the project in NTT, these were positive results.

5

3. Increased Capacity in the Districts to Plan and Manage Basic Education

17. District education leadership strengthened. The project target was to establish education boards in all districts (in compliance with Ministerial Decree No. 044/2002), to take part in the monitoring of district education programs. All district education boards received training in various aspects of education management, including budget analysis, during the project. The education boards in Mataram, Central Lombok, West Sumbawa, and Sumba Barat, interviewed during the PCR mission, reported that they were working in partnership with the DEOs to improve district education, while reporting directly to the head of the district (bupati). The major work of the boards interviewed revolved around the monitoring of education programs and financing (school operational assistance [BOS] and the national special allocation fund [DAK]), capacity building and supervision of school committees, and mediation among parents, schools, and DEOs. The most common complaints from parents involved fees levied by schools. The education boards also coordinated between the DEOs and the district parliament. The frequency of meetings varied from 10 times a year in Mataram to twice a year in Sumbawa Barat and Sumba Barat.

18. The legal framework for the education boards was revised in 2010 through a new regulation on the management of education (PP 17/2010). Among other changes, the funding of the district education boards by districts became discretionary. The boards expressed concern that their influence and independence would weaken as a result. The number of board members was also reduced. Although all board members work in a voluntary capacity, the boards require funding for their operations.

19. District education development plans completed. All districts completed their DEDPs and published district education statistics yearly during the project, thereby satisfying the project targets. Some districts continue to update their DEDPs in the DBEP format and publish annual statistics, although time lags are now common. Districts visited have all retained at least one member of the DBEP-trained education statistics staff. The DEDPs are made operational through annual operations plans aligned with district education plans. The DEDPs viewed during the project completion review mission had only a few quantitative indicators, although the district officials reported that targets are now more specific than they used to be.4

4. Improvements in District Education, with District Education Development Fund Assistance

20. The targets for this output category were the preparation, implementation, and monitoring of strategic 5-year DEDPs and 5-year annual action plans by all districts. The districts prepared their DEDPs with input from a wide array of stakeholders and beneficiaries. Within DEDP, the districts developed systems for planning, managing, financing, staffing and monitoring teacher development; school supervision; principal recruitment, training and performance review; facilities expansion; and district financing of education. Education officials from Lombok, Sumbawa and West Sumba were interviewed during the PCR mission to assess the achievement of these targets.

21. Management of basic education strengthened. Generally, all districts have developed systematic approaches to education management but are still weak in some respects, most especially in teacher development. In some districts, efficiency could be improved through better

4 Districts are now required by statute to undertake several data collection, analysis, and reporting activities. For example, they must forward school census data to the central education management information system, and provide an annual report against the minimum service standards in education.

6

office management, and planning, and the collection and publication of annual statistics could be considerably strengthened. The effectiveness of DBEP programs in building the capacity of district staff was acknowledged, but these programs and structured systems have not been sustained long enough to expand the technical and management skills of district education staff.

22. Teacher quality developed. Although some training is provided at the province level, the basic model for teacher development remains that introduced under DBEP, whereby the district trains core subject teachers, who then pass on their training to teacher development clusters, supported by the districts. Training in the districts is unfortunately limited, by budget constraints and by the difficulty of finding good resource persons or trainers, to only 3–6 days of training per year for 5%–10% of teachers. Most districts and schools surveyed agreed that teachers need more training. The development of teacher quality was identified as the area most in need of improvements in current systems of district education management.

23. Management of principals systematized. Most districts and some provinces provide annual training for principals in management and leadership. Principals are appointed by districts on the basis of performance evaluations by supervisors and district officers, and experience in school management. A ministerial decree issued in 2010 (No. 28/2010) has attempted to systematize the management of principals.

24. School supervision improved. All districts have good systems and targets for school supervisors. Most school supervisors are recruited from among senior teacher or principals. In a few districts, there is a training course for prospective candidates. Most districts allocate 10 primary schools or 40–60 junior-school education subject teachers to each supervisor, who must visit these schools or teachers each month. This marks a major improvement over the pre-decentralization situation when schools were centrally supervised by three ministries through complex arrangements. The supervisors also assess teacher performance and supervise teacher clusters, sometimes acting as resource persons. The motorcycles purchased for the supervisors under DBEP are still being used. But, again, there are no structured development programs available for supervisors.

5. Effective Monitoring of Program and Financial Compliance

25. Financial management monitored independently and internally. Financial compliance monitoring has been very successful. A total of 57 audit cases, relating mostly to fund misuse due to overpayment, unclaimed penalties, and undeposited bank interest, were identified under the loan. Under the grant, 18 cases were identified. All 75 identified cases (less than 1.5% of schools) were resolved.

26. Public accountability systems in operation. The project was successful in improving transparency as a key element of SBM. Ninety-five percent of stakeholders in loan districts confirmed that their schools now inform the communities about their SDPs, funding, and education programs. Almost 60% said that schools now use school announcement boards (as required under the project). Accountability has also improved: 95% of schools report on the SDF, program and budget plans, and program and budget implementation. In addition, 85% of schools were reported to have established complaint mechanisms, though only 10% of school principals were seen as willing to receive complaints.

27. In NTT, stakeholders were also very positive about the transparent approach now followed by schools. In almost all schools, announcements are made at meetings; only 30% of schools use a notice board as required. Almost all stakeholders confirmed that the schools report on the SDF, budget, and programs. In 80% of schools, complaint mechanisms have been established. The most common complaints were about school facilities, followed by teacher

7

attendance and the education process. Compared with the baseline, there were fewer complaints, especially with regard to school facilities (33%, down from 61%), reflecting the success of the project in upgrading school facilities. All stakeholders reported that schools are willing to discuss all types of complaints made. The difference from the loan districts probably reflects the later implementation in the grant districts.

C. Project Cost

28. The planned and actual project costs are in Appendix 4. The planned total cost of the loan project was $125.0 million—$21.1 million in foreign-exchange cost and $103.9 million in local-currency cost. ADB was to finance the entire foreign-exchange cost of $100.0 million and $78.9 million equivalent in local-currency cost (76% of the local-currency total), while the government was to finance $25.0 million equivalent in local currency.

29. At loan closing, the actual project cost was $138.4 million, of which $112.1 million ($26.2 million in foreign-exchange cost and $85.8 million in local-currency cost) was financed by ADB, and $26.3 million by the government. The 11% increase in the loan amount was due to the appreciation of the special drawing rights (SDR) versus the dollar. There were no cost overruns or underruns, as project expenditures were linked to school and district development plans. The actual cost included a $10.0 million reallocation for emergency assistance in Aceh in April 2005. In addition, $3.5 million was canceled at loan financial closing in June 2009. In terms of cost categories, there was a significant increase in total expenditures relating to consulting services—international remuneration (127% increase) and SDF mentoring operations (103% increase)—against appraisal estimates. On the other hand, there was low expenditure on research, surveys, and studies (42% of the appraisal estimate), as the project did not carry out baseline and midterm evaluation surveys and other studies. The $26.1 million contributed by the government exceeded the planned amount of $17.3 million.

30. The estimated total cost of the grant project was $36.3 million, $28.0 million of this to be funded by the Government of the Netherlands and $8.3 million by the Government of Indonesia. Of the actual cost of $29.5 million, $28.0 million was funded by the Netherlands government and $1.5 million by the Government of Indonesia. In response to a request from the Indonesian government, $1 million was reallocated to the reconstruction of nine schools in Padang damaged by the earthquake.

D. Disbursements

31. At closing, the project had disbursed $112.1 million, about 112% of the original loan amount and 97% of the current loan value, which included an initial advance of $2.6 million (25 June 2002) to finance the cost of various small contracts. The loan account was financially closed on 30 June 2009, with the cancellation of $3.5 million (SDR2,272,869). The project disbursed $28.0 million in grant funds, including the ADB administration cost of $0.520 million. The grant was closed financially on 30 September 2011. Annual loan disbursements were consistently higher than the original projections, except in 2008 (Appendix 5). No projections were provided for the grant at the time of grant approval.

E. Project Schedule

32. The project was approved on 21 November 2001, took effect on 20 May 2002, and closed on schedule. Project implementation was in accordance with the agreed implementation arrangements, although there were some variations. Phased implementation was abandoned because the districts wanted to begin the project activities immediately. The batches were based on schools within districts rather than the districts themselves as originally planned. As a

8

result, all original districts began their project activities in mid-2003 and all districts continued to receive support for 5 years, with three different batches of schools within these districts receiving support for 3 years each. There were similar pressures to use the SDF quickly, and the funds were released 1 year before the consultants were mobilized, and before the schools had developed their SDPs. Program quality was affected. Despite some initial delays, implementation later sped up, as indicated in the comparison of appraisal and actual project implementation schedules in Appendix 6.

33. The grant project was approved on 14 March 2006 after a major change in scope. Although the grant project was planned to close at the same time as the loan project, the Government of Netherlands approved project extensions twice: (i) a 1-year extension to make sure that the programs benefited NTT, and (ii) a second 1-year extension to allow the grant savings to be used for the reconstruction of schools in Padang Pariaman.

F. Implementation Arrangements

34. The executing agency for the project was the Ministry of National Education (MONE). The Ministry of Religious Affairs (MORA) seconded staff to the project management offices at the different levels of government and was the co–executing agency. The project management provided policy and advisory, program and technical, and implementation functions, at the national, provincial, district, subdistrict, and school levels. At the national level, the project steering committee (PSC) provided policy guidance, while the central technical committee (CTC) provided technical and programmatic functions and the central facilitation unit (CFU) managed overall financial and administrative coordination. The PSC was assisted by the district coordination committees, education boards, and school committees, while the CFU was supported by the provincial and district project management units (PMUs). This implementation structure was appropriate, although the implementation responsibilities were complex, given the large size of the project and the constant changes in administrative context.

G. Conditions and Covenants

35. The project satisfactorily complied with standard assurances, and with 25 out of the 27 covenants (Appendix 7). The loan covenants on (i) the role of the provincial project monitoring units (schedule 6, para. 6, of the loan agreement), and (ii) gender (schedule 6, para. 21) were only partially complied with. Performance monitoring and evaluation was weak for the loan project, but better for the grant project. The provinces, which were expected to carry out this function in the loan project, lacked the capacity and interest to monitor project activities and impact. Changes should have been made in the monitoring arrangements to ensure adequate monitoring of output and outcomes. The impact study on beneficiary schools under the loan project and baseline and impact studies on beneficiary schools in NTT under the grant project were eventually done by an independent contractor. Lessons from the loan project were used in improving performance monitoring arrangements for the grant project. The participation of women in school committees improved markedly, particularly in NTT, where almost 70% of schools reached the target of two women per committee. The results in Bali were, however, poorer, and NTB and did not satisfy the covenant.

H. Related Technical Assistance

36. While the project did not have an attached TA, two related TA projects, as well as a small project funded by the Japan Fund for Poverty Reduction, which pilot-tested the SBM approach in NTT, complemented the project implementation (Appendix 1).

9

I. Consultant Recruitment and Procurement

37. The planned and actual consulting services are compared in Appendix 8. At appraisal, three packages of consulting services were envisaged under the loan project: (i) school-based management, (ii) district capacity building and project implementation support, and (iii) independent monitoring and evaluation, and reporting. During loan negotiations the number of international person-months was reduced and national person-months increased. In total, there were 82 person-months of international (compared with 78 person-months at appraisal) and 8,403 person-months of national consulting services (7,782 person-months at appraisal). The consultants for the loan were mobilized 1 year after project activities began. DEDPs had been developed in the interim, but all of these had to be revised.

38. Under the grant project, two additional packages were planned: (i) school and district building and project implementation support, and (ii) independent monitoring and evaluation. These grant packages used 1,288 person-months of national consulting input (against the planned 960 person-months) but no international consultants. The West Sumatra reconstruction required 22 person-months more of national consulting input. All consultants were recruited in accordance with the ADB Guidelines on the Use of Consultants (2010, as amended from time to time). Recruitment was delayed, as the many changes requested by the consulting firm entailed a significant increase in person-months and cost. The university research institute contracted for the baseline and midterm evaluation study (2006) performed poorly, and was replaced by a social survey firm in 2007, which satisfactorily conducted the required baseline and impact studies.

39. Most procurement was carried out by schools and districts, for items eligible under the DEDF and SDF. District PMUs procured DEDF-eligible items through direct purchase, using limited local tender. Schools procured SDF-eligible items through direct purchase. School committees handled procurement for school rehabilitation. Cash expenditures used direct purchase and were supplemented by in-kind contributions from the community (materials and labor). Training and workshops were provided by facilitators and trainers according to ADB and government guidelines.

J. Performance of Consultants, Contractors, and Suppliers

40. According to district project and school personnel, the package 1 and 2 consultants under the loan were helpful or very helpful. But project and school personnel found the package 3 consultants to be too oriented toward ―policing‖ schools’ use of SDF.

41. The monitoring and evaluation covered program and financial compliance, progress and performance, and achievement of benefits. The consulting team for package 3 monitored financial compliance in the schools and districts, but did not carry out any program monitoring and evaluation after this activity was removed from the team’s contract. The monitoring and evaluation activities for the loan project did not refer to the design and monitoring framework indicators. The consultants hired for the grant project, on the other hand, worked well and achieved good results. The overall performance of the consultants was satisfactory, for both loan and grant projects.

42. The external auditor found few problems with procurement. Most of the problems identified related to overpayment for workshops and training. These findings suggest that community monitoring of school activities and finances is a viable method of ensuring compliance. The performance of suppliers was satisfactory.

10

K. Performance of the Borrower and the Executing Agency

43. The executing agency, MONE, faced difficulties at the start in managing consultants, collecting data (financial as well as performance), and submitting reports. After some adjustments and as the project progressed, MONE built sufficient capacity to implement the project. The implementation structure was in accordance with the design. Challenges, however, remained in program monitoring and evaluation. While the institutional capacity of the districts improved during implementation, record keeping and file management continued to be weak, both in the districts and at the national level, making it difficult to retrieve baseline and other data. The high turnover of staff in many districts also constrained capacity-building efforts. Overall implementation was nonetheless successful, and the performance of MONE was satisfactory.

L. Performance of the Asian Development Bank

44. The performance of ADB is rated partly satisfactory. ADB fielded two review missions each year on average. The review missions were effective in dealing with implementation problems and were flexible in responding to changes in the external environment. But the high turnover of ADB project officers (7 in total) resulted in a lack of continuity in supervision and support. The bridging TA moreover complicated the early implementation. These problems were overcome, thanks to the flexibility of MONE and ADB. ADB did not require the loan project managers to monitor, document, and report on achievement of the project framework; this deficiency was rectified under the grant.

III. EVALUATION OF PERFORMANCE

A. Relevance

45. The project is rated highly relevant. Besides supporting the most significant reform in Indonesian governance in recent years, it was aligned with the poverty reduction priorities of the government and ADB. It accommodated several legislative changes, which took effect during project implementation without significant revisions in the design and monitoring framework. Changes in scope made the project even more relevant. After five districts in Jakarta that were originally part of the project withdrew, funding was reallocated to two districts in NTT in 2005. In 2006, the grant from the Netherlands government enabled the extension of the project to six additional districts in NTT. The coverage of all districts in poverty-hit NTT enhanced the relevance of the project to poverty reduction. The project also enjoyed a high degree of ownership among stakeholders.

B. Effectiveness in Achieving Outcome

46. The project is rated effective, on account of the following: (i) the improvement in net enrollment rates (NERs), completion rates, transition rates, and examination scores (no specific targets); (ii) the implementation of SBM in 3,000 schools, compliance with minimum conditions for learning, and the establishment of effective community–school partnerships; and (iii) the increase in district education funding over 2001 levels, the development of data-based DEDPs, and the implementation of plans for quality and equity improvement. But while it is clear that SBM was successfully implemented, the impact on district capacity is less clear.

47. School enrollment. As in the rest of the country, access to basic education expanded in the provinces covered by the DBEP, during the project period. NERs increased in the three provinces, reaching 93%–98% for primary schools in Bali, NTB, and NTT, and 55%–79% for junior-secondary schools in NTT, NTB, and Bali. There was wide variation among provinces and districts, however. At the primary-school level, Bali and NTB both showed steady overall progress. Although NTT had lower enrollment rates, it made the most significant progress. At

11

the junior-secondary level, Bali had slower growth, possibly because of the 2002 bombings, which affected the economy. Both NTB and NTT made more rapid progress in expanding access to junior-secondary education. Despite remarkable progress, the NER of 55% for junior-secondary schools in NTT remained significantly below the 2008/09 national average of 72%. Significantly more children in the project provinces now have a better chance to complete higher levels of education. More children continue from primary to junior-secondary, and then to senior-secondary, school. The transition rate from junior- to senior-secondary school increased in all districts in NTT and NTB, but declined in several districts in Bali. Overall, the transition rate from junior to senior school increased in all three provinces, from 73%–83% in 2003/04 to 80%–95% in 2007/08.

48. Participation of the poor. In the project schools in Bali, around 38% of the children in primary school and 20% of those in junior-secondary school were classified as poor, compared with over 50% of primary-school and 40% of junior-secondary students in NTB. In line with national trends, both the gross enrollment rate (GER) and NER for Bali and NTB increased for the poorest 40% and the richest 20% of students in primary school.5 However, in NTB and NTT, the increase among the poorest in primary and junior-secondary school was slightly less than that for the richest 20%, meaning that inequality in enrollments increased slightly. This was not the case in Bali. The NER for the poorest 40% in NTB and NTT increased by more than the national average. For junior-secondary students in both NTB and NTT, enrollment rates among the poorest 40% increased quite significantly. The transition rates for poor children from primary to junior-secondary school in the project schools increased from 78% to 94% in Bali in 2003/04–2006/07, and from 87% to 94% in NTB. The transition rates from junior- to senior-secondary school among poor children also increased in NTB, from 78% to 88%, but declined in Bali. The number of poor children in NTT project schools (85% in primary school, 75% in junior-secondary school in 2006/07) was much higher than the number in Bali or NTB, and continued to increase to such an extent that, by 2009/10, almost 90% of all students in primary school in NTT and 80% of all junior-secondary students were considered poor. The transition rates of poor students increased overall, to a high of 97% for primary school and 94% for junior-secondary school, indicating a substantial increase in opportunities for these students to complete basic education.

49. School quality. Academic performance, as reflected in scores on the final examination at the end of junior-secondary education, showed clear improvement in all provinces. In 2009/10, scores remained lower in NTT, the poorest province, than in the other two provinces (6.0 for NTT, compared with 7.9 for Bali and 6.5 for NTB), and well below the national average of 6.9.

50. School-based management. The approach was implemented successfully in 5,238 primary and junior-secondary schools and madrasah, exceeding the project target of 3,996 schools (3,000 for the loan, 996 for the grant). SBM is now an official policy and is implemented in all schools nationwide. Active school committees formed in all project schools work in partnership with the principals. Conflicts that arise are generally resolved through the mediation of the district education board. Community awareness of the importance of education and community participation has increased, and parents and community members play a more active role in decision making and school affairs.

51. District education management. It is difficult to assess the impact of the project on district capacity. Districts saw the project primarily as an additional source of revenue to improve schools, and often overlooked the objective of developing decentralized education management.

5 National socioeconomic survey (Susenas) data were used in this analysis. The detailed data tables for the impact and outcome measures, by district, are presented in Appendix 9.

12

The expected output for district capacity was generally achieved. All districts have district education boards, now a legal requirement. Although the level of involvement in monitoring education policy and implementation varies across districts, the boards play an active role in monitoring and mediation. All districts have produced DEDPs. Annual updating and revision generally occurs through the district government’s annual plan and budget, which is consistent with government planning and budgeting processes. All project districts have information systems in place and use the data in planning. However, there are weaknesses in the information systems, particularly in keeping the data current and publishing the statistics on time.

52. District education funding. In 2003, the Indonesian Parliament passed the National Education Law, requiring national and local governments to allocate at least 20% of their budgets to education. This law has considerably increased district funding for education, fulfilling the project target of increased district education funding over 2001 levels. In addition, all public and private schools and madrasah receive school operations funds (BOS). The proportion of the district budget allocated to education seems to vary considerably. While there may be room to examine the way the budget is spent, the output in terms of increased allocation has been satisfied.

C. Efficiency in Achieving Outcome and Output

53. The project is rated efficient overall. Progress under the loan was initially slow, as expected, but it accelerated through implementation. The grant project required two extensions to achieve the project objectives, mainly as a consequence of the shorter implementation period (only 2.5 years), which proved inadequate for severely poor and often inaccessible districts. Funds were generally disbursed on time and the full budget allocation, as well as most of the additional funds generated through the rising exchange rate, was used each year.

D. Preliminary Assessment of Sustainability

54. The project is rated partly sustainable. Project initiatives (school and district planning and SBM) were mainstreamed through national policies. Until 2007, the national special allocation (DAK) for school upgrading could be used only for physical rehabilitation; now both school rehabilitation and quality improvement grants are allowed. The project pilot-tested implementation and provided capacity building for these national policies. A survey of district project managers for the government’s project completion report showed that only 5% felt that activities would be fully sustainable without project support, because of lack of financial support. Although district education budgets increased substantially from 2002 to 2009, almost all districts spend the bulk of the funds on teacher salaries, leaving only a small amount for capacity development and other investment activities.

55. More than 70% of the district project managers surveyed declared the project impact to be only partly institutionalized, the key institutionalized item being ―planning.‖ School and district planning has been institutionalized through the government’s national education standards and the budget procedures of the Ministry of Finance. While the project did not directly institutionalize these policies, it did prepare the capacity at the school and district level to implement the national policies successfully.

56. The use of scholarships to increase school enrollment and retention rates was considered highly successful. Scholarships have now become a significant budget item at the national, provincial, and district levels. District project managers reported that scholarship programs funded through the district budget were inspired by DBEP activities. The sustainability of school-level scholarships has yet to be established, however, especially for schools serving poor communities. These were not being offered in the schools visited during the PCR mission.

13

E. Impact

57. DBEP had a significant impact in the project districts and provinces. Improved school management involving parents and communities was a success. The district education boards benefited from the training, and have been able to play an active and successful role in education monitoring and mediation. Both the schools and the district education offices acquired a better understanding of school and district education planning. But the school-managed model for rehabilitation used successfully under DBEP has been discontinued under new legislation requiring a return to district contracting.

58. DBEP also influenced national government policy and procedures, including legally binding national education standards, introduced in 2006 to 2008; minimum service standards for districts, introduced in 2010; and the school operational funding assistance (BOS) program, based partly on the DBEP block grant concept, introduced in 2005. BOS immediately became a significant source of revenue for schools, although many districts now prohibit schools from receiving contributions from parents. This prohibition has constrained parental and community financial support for schools, which was one of the basic tenets of DBEP.

59. Economic and social impact. Almost all district project managers (78%) felt that the project had had a significant economic effect in their districts, particularly through the provision of scholarships. In addition, 75% of the managers felt that the project had a significant social effect by improving community participation and reducing school dropout rates. DBEP has trained a generation of parents, who, it is hoped, will continue to be involved in decisions about their children’s education. The same survey asked about project benefits. All district project managers noted that the project had a large positive impact on the achievement of the government’s 9-year compulsory basic education policy, in improving educational quality and the relevance of basic education.

60. Gender. DBEP did not have specific gender-related objectives but was designed to benefit poor girls and boys equally. All activities were planned to maintain this level of gender equity. There were some specific gender targets, including scholarships for girls, women’s participation in school committees, and equal access to in-service training, which delivered practical benefits. The enrollments of girls increased by 5% over the project period, and maintained the high participation of girls in junior-secondary education. More than half of the project input (scholarships, remedial programs, school feeding, and bicycles) went to girls. Women composed 47% of teacher training participants in Bali and NTB, and well over 50% of participants in NTT. Although the project encouraged greater participation of women in school governance, significant success was achieved only in NTT. This partly reflected the greater emphasis on gender in NTT than in NTB. Important sociocultural differences between the provinces may have contributed as well. While the project would have benefited from a thorough gender analysis and a gender action plan,6 the learning environment for girls and boys improved substantially, and many teachers, both women and men, benefited from training. 61. Earthquake-resistant school construction. A highly successful outcome of the project was the development of an innovative and cost-effective earthquake-resistant construction method for schools (Appendix 10). The construction technique was developed for the reconstruction of 33 schools on the remote island of Simeulue. The 33 schools built on Simeulue have survived subsequent earthquakes undamaged. School committees implemented construction with community participation, and the cost was below the official district cost for conventional building methods. To encourage the adoption of the approach across all high-risk

6 ADB. 2010. Gender Equality Results in ADB Projects: Indonesia Country Report. Manila.

14

earthquake areas, an additional nine schools were reconstructed in West Sumatra. MONE has produced a video on the method, using the experiences in Simeulue and Padang Pariaman, and a guide including all the detailed specifications. MONE’s guidelines for school construction have also been revised to allow this new alternative.

IV. OVERALL ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

A. Overall Assessment

62. The project is rated successful, on the basis of the ratings of highly relevant, effective, efficient, and partly sustainable. It succeeded in meeting the targets for school-level output, although it was less successful in sustaining district capacity building. The project achieved most outcomes for school enrollment, the participation of poor children, school-based management, school quality, district education management, and district education funding. These achievements are notable, given the complex design and rapidly changing policy and implementation environment. The project incorporated many ―add-ons,‖ including the emergency support for Aceh/North Sumatra and West Sumatra, as well as the large expansion in NTT. The project was implemented largely as envisaged, with the exception of the district phase-in approach under the loan and the demand-driven financing.

B. Lessons

63. Flexible management by the government and ADB allowed a complex project to be implemented successfully in a rapidly changing environment. Good communication from the project management team, together with flexible support from ADB, allowed project implementation to adapt to the changing legal and administrative environment while retaining the basic project rationale and objectives. ADB project supervision would have been enhanced if there had been greater continuity of project officers.

64. The experience of the project indicates the importance of systematic record keeping in addition to ongoing monitoring and evaluation. Although implementation was generally satisfactory, there was poor documentation and recording at the central and district levels of activities and updated data relating to project activities, output, and outcomes.

65. The project supported the development of district-based education information systems to strengthen district-based planning. Although most districts were still producing annual education statistics, there is room to improve data quality and the use of data in planning and management. Central MONE maintains education statistics for the provinces; in the districts, all data are accessible through the districts themselves.

66. The project framework was not stressed sufficiently by ADB during loan implementation. As a result, the government and the CFU were not fully aware of all of the objectives of the project. Further, as district project management teams were under considerable political pressure to accelerate the implementation of project activities, the project came to be viewed primarily as a funding mechanism and the emphasis on district capacity development tended to be lost.

67. An important lesson is the importance of integrating project funds and activities into government processes, wherever possible. The separation of DBEP funds for districts from district government budget mechanisms weakened the link between DEDPs and the annual budgeting process, and made district capacity building less effective.

15

C. Recommendations

1. Project-Related

68. The following recommendations relate to ensuring the future sustainability of the key project initiatives:

(i) Stronger focus on results. Project Managers need to focus on results in implementing the project and monitor the project framework.

(ii) An improved education management information system. More work is needed to improve the quality of district education statistics and instill a culture that values empirical data and uses the data in planning and decision making. Local officials must be committed, and education staff well trained. Schools must have the proper incentives, access to extensive training and support, and clear links to education planning and policy. District data should be school-based and show multiyear trends, while national data should be analyzed at the district level in line with decentralization.

(iii) Earthquake-resistant construction. The approach developed by DBEP has proven effective and cost effective in both capital cost and maintenance. MONE should require this type of school building for all new school construction and rehabilitation in earthquake-prone areas. ADB should also introduce this type of building to other donors who are helping the government to build significant numbers of new schools.

(iv) School toilets in NTT. The dry conditions in much of NTT mean that MONE standards for toilets cannot be met, as these specify toilets using water. This standard should be reconsidered for NTT, to give more students access to toilets.

(v) Timing of project performance evaluation report preparation. It is recommended that this report be prepared in 2012 because of the age of the loan and the high turnover of staff in some districts.

2. General

69. Monitoring and evaluation. Continuous monitoring and evaluation that feeds back into project implementation is critical to ensure the achievement of the expected results. Projects should develop a comprehensive monitoring and evaluation framework at the start, and conduct baseline studies in the first year. For this, a functioning management information system that is integrated across the national, provincial, and district levels of the education system is required.

70. System for district capacity development. District capacity development initiatives must be sustained, to fully realize the gains of projects. At present, there is no system through which district education staff, principals, or supervisors can develop their skills through progressive training programs. The same applies to district education board officials and school committee members. Although these groups were trained under DBEP, new staff must be trained and existing staff require ongoing development. National or province-level programs are urgently needed to ensure adequate education management at the district level.

71. Nutrition and education. Given the high levels of poverty and resulting poor child nutrition in NTT, which undermines educational performance, future basic education projects in NTT should consider including nutrition as an integral component, to help improve the nutrition status of young children and allow them to benefit more fully from education interventions.

16 Appendix 1

OTHER ASSISTANCE IN SUPPORT OF THE DECENTRALIZED BASIC EDUCATION PROJECT

A. TA 3701-INO: Support for Decentralized Education Management1 1. This bridging technical assistance (TA) began implementation in March 2002, 2 months before the loan for the Decentralized Basic Education Project (DBEP) took effect. The TA was aimed at supporting the initial steps of decentralizing education management to improve education service delivery. The TA objectives were to support capacity building of a special decentralization unit in the Ministry of National Education (MONE), develop a management framework, support the monitoring of decentralization, establish a foundation for information-based education sector planning and management, and identify the capacity-building requirements of district education officers. The expected outcomes were an agreed plan to guide the decentralization of education management, baseline information on basic education services and management capacity in 15 case districts (7 DBEP and 8 non-DBEP), medium-term development plans for basic education in each district, recommendations for an education management information system, and capacity-building plans for case districts. There were two separate but related components: (i) bridging support for DBEP districts until the loan consultants were recruited, and (ii) support for MONE in preparing policy recommendations to improve decentralized education management. The district-level support was more successful. The output included baseline information (including mapping), financial analysis, district education development plans, district capacity-building plans, and a simple education management information system. The loan consultants later noted that the district education development plans had been prepared by the consultants, not by the district personnel themselves. The development plans were completely revised after the loan consultants were fielded. The government’s project completion report noted that the relationship of the TA activities to loan activities was not fully understood by the government. Several Asian Development Bank (ADB) review missions dealt with this issue. 2. The technical assistance completion report rated the TA partly successful. B. JFPR 9016: Community-Based Basic Education for the Poor2 3. This project was approved in May 2002 and consultants were fielded in May 2003. The purpose of the project was to (i) increase access to and improve the quality of basic education for children in remote and disadvantaged areas, and (ii) pilot-test and demonstrate the effectiveness of school-based management (SBM) and community-based education as a pro-poor service delivery scheme in particularly underserved schools. The planned output consisted of the following: (i) social preparation and capacity building for participatory management of basic education, (ii) test implementation of SBM and a community-based incentive program for the poor, and (iii) increased advocacy for the poor. The project pilot-tested initiatives for a more inclusive and demand-driven approach to basic education focused on improving access and retention of children through the provision of a school development fund and scholarships for children. School-level assistance was given to schools located in poor and remote areas of West Nusa Tenggara (NTB), covering 148 schools in three subdistricts located within DBEP districts. The intention was to develop strategies for school development planning

1 ADB. 2006. Technical Assistance Completion Report: Support for Decentralized Education Management in

Indonesia. Manila. 2 ADB. 2007. Implementation Completion Memorandum for INO: Supporting Community-Based Basic Education

(JFPR 9016). Manila.

Appendix 1 17

and the use of school development grants to finance the implementation of the plans. The intensive consulting assistance for Japan Fund for Poverty Reduction (JFPR) schools was necessary in order to develop the new approaches but was not sustainable under DBEP. 4. The implementation completion memorandum (ICM) rated the project a success. The project made important contributions in preparing communities and education personnel to implement decentralized education management. It improved education governance at the community level, initiated advocacy on behalf of communities with the local government through the creation of community education forums, improved planning abilities and accountability of school staff, and formalized community contributions to school development. Net enrollment rates increased and student dropout decreased. The ICM pointed out, however, that these results were achieved with intensive consultant and financial support. It noted that the sustainability of the JFPR initiatives would depend largely on the capacity of local government to continue providing support for improved teaching and learning, and of communities to collaborate with each other and the government. C. TA 3957-INO: Integration of Poverty Considerations in Decentralized Education

Management3 5. This TA began implementation in April 2003, shortly after the DBEP consultants were fielded. The government requested the TA because capacity building for poverty targeting was not included in the DBEP activities, although DBEP was designed as a poverty project. The TA was intended to strengthen DBEP’s pro-poor orientation (i.e., poverty targeting) and to build stakeholders’ capacity for poverty analysis and planning. The planned output comprised poverty mapping for 16 DBEP districts and 50 participatory poverty studies. The poverty mapping activity was eventually implemented by the DBEP-financed district-based facilitator teams. This component of the TA was rated only partly successful in the TA completion report. The TA was also intended to provide capacity building in poverty targeting, which was implemented through participatory poverty studies and capacity-building workshops. The consultants undertook four poverty studies. After MONE requested a stronger focus on district capacity building in pro-poor planning and poverty targeting, the terms of reference were revised and a new consulting team was hired. This work was rated successful in the TA completion report, in view of the many capacity-development activities at district level. 6. The major finding of the participatory studies was that reducing the costs of schooling (or subsidizing family expenditures on education) was an important factor in increasing the demand for education. As a result, the TA was redirected to the preliminary design of a conditional cash transfer program, which would provide income supplements to families, conditional on the enrollment of children in school. This TA was followed by TA 4762-INO: Pro-Poor Planning and Budgeting, which assisted the State Ministry of National Development Planning (BAPPENAS) in developing manuals for pro poor planning and budgeting. 7. The TA was rated successful overall.

3 ADB. 2007. Technical Assistance Completion Report: Integration of Poverty Considerations in Decentralized

Education Management in Indonesia. Manila.

18 Appendix 2

PROJECT FRAMEWORK AND RESULTS ACHIEVED

Design Summary

Project Indicators and Targets Results Achieved Comments

1. Goal/Impact

To support the government’s goal of achieving universal basic education that serves the needs of poor and marginalized people and is responsive to local needs

Improved indicators for gross enrollment rates (GERs) of 120.7% for primary education and 78.9% for junior secondary education. Improved human development indicators in targeted provinces and districts.

GER, by Province

02/03 06/07 07/08 08/09

PS

Bali 102 128 128 130

NTB 107 106 107 109

NTT 105 112 114 116

National 113 114 116 117

JS

Bali 92 105 107 108

NTB 69 84 86 87

NTT 49 60 67 68

National 75 89 92 93

HDI, by Province

02 05 07 09

Bali 68 70 71 72

NTB 58 62 64 65

NTT 60 64 65 67


Target was not achieved for GER PS, even at national level. See Table A2.1 for GERs from 2002/03 to 2007/08, by district. GER target was achieved for JS, except in NTT. HDIs increased across all provinces. See Table A2.2 for HDIs from 2002 to 2009, by district.

2. Purpose/Outcome

Poor children’s participation, transition, completion, and performance in basic education in Bali, Nusa Tengarra Barat (NTB), and Nusa Tengarra Timor (NTT) improved

In each project district:

increased net enrollment rates (NERs); improved primary completion rates and junior-secondary graduation rates; improved primary to junior-secondary transition rates; and improved 6th- and 9th-grade national examination scores.

NER, by Province

02/03 06/07 07/08 08/09

PS

Bali 84 94 96 98

NTB 89 94 96 97

NTT 80 80 91 93


JS

Bali 70 77 78 79

NTB 59 70 72 75

NTT 33 46 52 55


Transition Rates, by Province

02/03 06/07 07/08 09/10

PS–JS

Bali 77 103 99 100

NTB 54 73 63 75

NTT 69 98 90 92


JS–SS

Bali 83 75 95 95

NTB 83 64 89 90

NTT 80 91 94 96


NERs increased in all provinces during the project; NTT remained below the national average for both PS and JS, very significantly so for JS. See Table A2.3 for district NER data.

Transition rates also increased in all provinces during the project but were much lower in NTB for PS to JS. NTB also had the lowest transition rate from JS to senior secondary (below the national average) but the disparity was less marked. See Table A2.4 for district data on transition rates.

Appendix 2 19

Design Summary


Examination Scores, by Province

03/04 06/07 07/08 09/10

JS

Bali 6.7 7.8 7.8 7.9

NTB 5.8 6.3 6.4 6.5

NTT 5.1 6.3 5.6 6.0

National 6.3 7.0 6.8 6.9

Examination Scores for All Provinces, by Subject

02/03 06/07

Indonesian

PS 6.6 7.4

JS 5.7 6.7

English

PS 7.0 8.2

JS 5.5 6.4

Mathematics

PS 6.0 7.0

JS 4.6 6.4

Science

PS 6.5 7.3

JS 6.0 6.8

Examination scores improved in all provinces, exceeding the 0.6 percentage point increase at the national level.

Examination scores for subjects showed impressive improvement in all core subjects. All subjects averaged above 6 (pass mark: 5.25). See Table A2.5 for district overall examination scores.

Among children from the poorest 40% of families:

increased NERs;

improved primary completion rates and junior-secondary graduation rates;

improved primary to junior-secondary transition rates; and

improved 6th- and 9th-grade national examination scores.

Susenas Data: NER for Poorest 40% of Students by Province

2000 2003 2006

PS

Bali 92 92 93

NTB 89 92 94

NTT 89 88 92

National 92 93 94

JS

Bali 58 54 51

NTB 53 51 66

NTT 27 34 41

National 51 55 59

Project Data: Examination Scores for Poor Students NTT

05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09

PS 6.0 6.0 6.0 5.9

JS 5.7 5.7 5.0 5.7

Transition Rates for Poor Students NTT

05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09

PS-JS 94 96 96 97

JS-SS 88 91 87 94

Data on poor students were not collected during the project for the loan districts, so Susenas data were used to analyze the enrollment of poor children retroactively. Results showed improvement at the PS level for all provinces, almost to the national level, but mixed progress at the JS level. Bali’s performance worsened, while NERs for both Bali and NTT remained below the national average. In NTT, data on examination scores and transition rates of poor students were collected. Exam scores did not change much during the project

20 Appendix 2

Design Summary


but rates of transition to JS and SS improved steadily.

School-based management (SBM) implemented in project schools

SBM implemented in about 3,000 primary and junior-secondary schools and madrasah in project districts.

Project schools meet minimum conditions for learning.

Effective community–school partnerships.

SBM was implemented in 5,240 project schools. School development plans (SDPs) were developed by all project schools. Small rehabilitation grants were distributed to 3,522 schools (67%) and quality improvement grants to all schools. There was high community involvement in schools, leading to stronger school–community partnerships.

SBM is now a national policy supported by the National Education Law (20/2003).

Districts in Bali, NTB, and NTT manage decentralized basic education effectively

Increased funding for basic education over 2001 levels. Data-based and goal-oriented 5-year development plans for basic education developed. Plans for equity and quality improvement in project districts implemented. Districts meet goals for achieving equitable access to basic education.

National Education Law (2003) requires national and local governments to allocate at least 20% of their budgets, considerably increasing district funding for education since 2001. All districts developed district education development plans (DEDPs) under the project, although the use of data was limited. Some districts now produce annual plans in line with district budget processes rather than DEDPs. Plans for equity and quality improvement in districts were implemented.

Data on district education budgets were collected but vary widely from year to year.

3. Output

3.1. School-Based Management Implemented in Schools

School baseline analysis and needs assessment carried out and SDPs developed

All school development plans (SDPs) contain baseline analysis and needs assessment, realistic targets and strategies for school improvement.

Participatory baseline studies and needs assessments were carried out before SDPs were developed. Some measurable targets were set.

Sustained support is needed for schools in the preparation of useful SDPs. Many schools now prepare only annual budgets rather than SDPs.

SBM implemented

SBM implemented in schools through:

functioning and active school committees; integrated school budgets; increased decision making at school level; annual school staff performance review;

All schools established school committees and held regular meetings. In all provinces, 95% of stakeholders interviewed attended meetings. Schools now prepare integrated budgets including BOS funds. Principals and supervisors carry out regular performance reviews of teachers, while supervisors review the performance of principals and make recommendations for promotions.

Government introduced new rules in 2010 (Decree 20/2010) to help systematize the procedures, but it is too early to evaluate the effects.

Appendix 2 21

Design Summary


and school-initiated innovations for improving effectiveness.

Community involvement in schools strengthened

Community involvement strengthened through:

school committees with wide community representation; quarterly school committee meetings; school committees making decisions about school programs and finances; and community contributions to schools, including money, labor, and materials.

NTB/Bali: One-third of school committees met four or more times a year, while 60% held meetings once or twice a year. A high level of improvement (20% overall) was seen in community involvement in school decision making. Participation improved the most in NTB, followed by NTT, and was much lower in Bali. NTT: The percentage of school committees holding regular meetings rose from 84% to 88%. More importantly, the percentage of school committees producing annual programs rose from 55% to 79%, and annual budgets from 34% to 51%. The proportion of stakeholders discussing school conditions and program implementation exceeded 95% by the end of the project, while 88% discussed the school program and budget. There was lower involvement in TTU and East Sumba than in other districts. Teachers, school committee members, and the community all contributed ideas and opinions at a high level (over 90%) and decision making (80% of teachers and committee members, 70% of the community). In NTB/Bali, only 1% of schools had women on their school committees by the end of the project. Women were better represented in NTT, with all committees having at least two female members and 68% having more than two women members (up from 54% in the baseline survey). . Community contributions were mainly in the form of labor, while monetary contributions were made by only 35%–40% of the school community in NTB/Bali and 25% in NTT.

This was one of the best achievements of the project. New government rules about finance flows and contracting require districts (rather than schools) to manage contracts for school rehabilitation, limiting room for schools to manage the construction themselves.

3.2. School Quality Improved with School Development Fund (SDF) Assistance

Improved school effectiveness

Project schools meet SDP targets for school quality improvement in:

student achievement; student and teacher attendance; teaching methods; teacher discipline; and extracurricular activities.

See Outcome measure above for academic performance. The attendance of teachers and students increased steadily every year in the NTT districts, from an average of 83%–88% to 90%–95% (not measured in loan districts). Training programs were highly appreciated by teachers. For many teachers in NTT this was the first formal in-service training they had ever received (and they have received none since then). Results of training in active learning are evident in many primary classrooms, where walls are decorated with colorful drawing and materials, and book corners have been established to encourage reading. JS classrooms are more traditional and

22 Appendix 2

Design Summary


often look bare. Almost all classrooms are arranged in traditional seating patterns. Some primary teachers were observed using teaching media from the local environment, but not in JS. Use of the materials supplied by DBEP, such as posters, maps, math teaching aids, and science equipment, varies, probably because of the inadequacy of training.

Increased number of poor children completing basic education

Project schools meet SDP targets for poor children in:

enrollment rates; retention rates; completion rates; transition and graduation rates; and academic and nonacademic performance.

See Outcome measure above.

More schools meet minimum conditions of learning

Project schools meet SDP targets for:

classrooms and average number of students in every classroom; furniture; water and sanitation; teaching aids and books; and equipment for extracurricular activities.

NTB/Bali: 90% of stakeholders reported that the condition of the school, classrooms, furniture, and toilets improved. There was less improvement in libraries and laboratories (only a requirement for JS). 71% of classrooms were in good condition at the end of the project and furniture was available in 60%–70% of schools. Availability of teaching and learning materials improved moderately, but the needs remain large. NTT: only 60% of PS and 47% of JS classrooms in good condition at end of project. But almost all schools had adequate furniture. The proportion of PS schools with libraries increased from 23% to 40%, and JS with laboratories from 50% to 60%. Only 39% of toilets were in good condition by end of project. Schools received teaching and learning materials (generally textbooks) and science kits, but the need for other kinds of materials remains high. All schools reported having more musical instruments and sports equipment.

3.3. District Capacity to Plan and Manage Basic Education Increased

District education leadership strengthened

Education boards established with community representation, according to decree. Education boards involved in monitoring implementation of district education programs.

Education boards in all districts received training during the project, including training in budget analysis. The boards work in partnership with the district education offices to improve district education, while reporting directly to the head of the district government. The major work of the boards revolves around monitoring and evaluation of education programs and education financing (BOS and DAK), capacity building and supervision of school committees, and mediation among parents, schools, and district education offices.

The legal framework for education boards was revised through PP 17/2010 (Management of Education) to make district funding of the district education boards discretionary. This may have impact

Appendix 2 23

Design Summary


on the effectiveness of the education boards.

5-year district basic education development plan completed

Project districts revise 5-year plans regularly, on the basis of up-to-date information.

All districts prepared education development plans during the project, but not all districts have continued the practice after the project.

Many districts now prepare annual plans and budgets based on district development plans.

Information systems in place

Timely and accurate district annual statistics produced. District plans are based on current data.

Annual education statistics are produced in districts, although there is a time lag, sometimes of several years. The failure of schools to submit information is blamed. In addition, there is a lack of capacity in this area in many district education offices.

Decision makers use education management information in policy formulation and planning in a limited way.

3.4 District Education Improved with District Education Development Fund (DEDF) Assistance

Management of basic education provision strengthened

In district education offices, systems in place for planning, managing, financing, staffing, and monitoring of:

teacher development;

school supervision;

principal recruitment, training, and performance review;

facilities expansion and improvement; and

district financing of education

Generally, all districts have developed systematic approaches in all of these areas, with the weakest being teacher development. However, from observations in several district education offices, it appears that efficiency could be improved through better office and staff management. The high rotation rate among staff remains a big issue. Planning, as well as the collection and publication of annual statistics, also remains weak in some districts. The effectiveness of the DBEP programs in building the capacity of district staff was acknowledged. All districts reported that DBEP-trained staff are highly regarded and keenly sought after to fill positions. In all districts visited, the basic model for teacher development is that introduced under DBEP. Under this model, the district provides training to core subject teachers, after which the core teachers are expected to pass on the training to the teacher development clusters (KKG, MGMP). The training provided by the districts is generally limited to 3–6 days per year for core teachers only (5%–10% of teachers). Most districts and teachers agreed that teachers need more training, but districts are unable to provide this because of budget limitations and the difficulty of finding good resource persons or trainers.

These programs have not been sustained. Indeed, there appear to be no structured systems for district education staff to expand their technical and management skills. The development of strong teacher quality is identified as the main need, and weakness, in current systems of district education management.

Improved educational quality and efficiency within the district

District-level improvements in:

enrollment rates; retention rates; and examination performance

Access, retention, and performance of poor children improved

District initiatives to monitor and improve education opportunities for poor children.

All districts have a strong pro-poor focus, in line with national policy.

3.5. Effective program and financial compliance monitoring

Independent and internal monitoring of

SDF and DEDF are managed in compliance with government and

Financial compliance systems were successful. Only a small number of cases of fund misuse were

24 Appendix 2

Design Summary


financial management and program procedures

ADB requirements

Verification procedures followed regarding: school selection, SDF allocation, eligibility of poor students, scholarship allocation, public accountability for SDF and DEDF, SDF and DEDF item eligibility

identified and all were resolved. Results of first phase of school selection were monitored and procedures changed to ensure correct selection, which was verified for all phases.

Public accountability systems operational

School committee holds regular public meetings on SDF use SDF budget and expenditures publicly posted, and updated quarterly Information about DEDF plans, progress, and expenditures available to the public

The use of the SDF funds was discussed during school committee meetings (in 88% of NTT committees) and budget and expenditure information was made public. It is not clear whether this also occurred for DEDF.

BOS = Bantuan Operasional Sekolah (school operational assistance), DAK = Dana Alokasi Khusus (special allocation fund), DBEP = Decentralized Basic Education Project, DEDF = District Education Development Fund, GER = gross enrollment rate, JS = junior-secondary, KKG = Kelompok Kerja Guru (Indonesian: Teacher development cluster), MGMP = Musyawarah Guru Mata Pelajaran (Indonesian: Teacher networks), NER = net enrollment rate, NTB = Nusa Tenggara Barat (West Nusa Tenggara), NTT = Nusa Tenggara Timur (East Nusa Tenggara), PS = primary-school, SDF = School Development Fund

Appendix 3 25

BASIC IMPLEMENTATION DATA

A. Activities Funded under the School Development Fund (SDF)

Table A3.1: SDF Implementation, by Loan District, 2002–2008

District

Beneficiaries Activity Rooms

Teaching-Learning Materials Books

F % Total % Total % Total % Total % Total %

LOAN (2002–2008)

Bali

Badung 4,463 72 33,770 9 … … 2,768 2 179,766 17 … …

Bangli 3,606 93 3,876 1 … … 2,768 2 179,766 17 … …

Buleleng 40,013 79 50,734 14 … … 29,837 22 269,638 25 845 43

Denpasar 8,873 26 34,156 9 … … … … 16,977 2 … …

Gianyar 31,258 47 65,924 18 3,005 76 48,539 36 81,989 8 38 2

Jembrana 20,232 42 48,559 13 970 24 8,692 7 55,549 5 362 18

Karangasem 57,264 86 66,538 18 … … 17,036 13 186,345 17 680 35

Klungkung 9,412 70 13,417 4 … … 6,776 5 39,641 4 43 2

Tabanan 375 1 58,591 16 … … 17,112 13 59,945 6 … …

Subtotal 195,496 52 375,565 100 3,975 100 133,528 100 1,069,616 100 1,968 100

NTB

Dompu 20,307 50 40,649 6 3,068 23 4,563 6 119,176 7 784 11

Kab Bima 11,322 51 22,242 3 … … 1,645 2 44,291 2 … …

Lombok Barat … … … … … … … … … … … …

Lombok Tengah

67,616 50 134,465 18 … … 21,438 26 479,611 27 1,959 27

Lombok Timur 160,936 48 32,671 45 … … 35,241 43 529,934 30 2,076 28

Mataram 15,073 53 28,685 4 1,467 11 6,404 8 131,591 7 518 7

Sumbawa 77,421 48 161,886 22 3,287 24 9,299 11 337,190 19 1,888 26

Sumbawa Barat

7,641 49 15,586 2 … … 1,030 1 117,000 7 136 2

Kota Bima 39 1 2,710 … 5,723 42 1,449 2 20,392 1 … …

Subtotal 360,355 49 738,894 100 13,545 100 81,069 100 1,779,185 100 7,361 100

NTT

Timor Tengah Selatan 59,185 46 129,844 73 12 100 6,970 244,657 82 873 89

Rote Ndao 6,756 14 47,003 27 … … 1,941 … 52,246 18 105 11

Subtotal 65,941 37 176,847 100 12 100 8,911 … 296,903 100 978 100

Total Loan 621,792 48 1,291,306 … 17,532 … 223,508 … 3,145,704 … 10,307 …

GRANT (2006–2009)

Kupang 22,957 50 46,320 16 1,630 8 651 27 15,087 14 95,102 18

Alor 16,246 49 32,913 12 3,496 16 369 16 26,107 24 88,484 17

Lembata 13,744 49 28,126 10 1,783 8 252 11 7,737 7 52,914 10

Timor Tengah 36,474 47 77,950 28 7,578 35 329 14 16,157 15 81,010 15

26 Appendix 3

District

Beneficiaries Activity Rooms


F % Total % Total % Total % Total % Total %

Utara

Sumba Timur 12,007 42 28,443 10 973 5 313 13 14,009 13 91,621 17

Sumba Barat 33,646 49 68,491 24 6,050 28 465 20 30,086 28 128,658 24

Total Grant 135,074 48 282,243 100 21,510 100 2,379 100 109,183 100 537,789 100

TOTAL 756,866 48 1,573,549 100 39,042 100 225,887 100 3,254,887 100 548,096 100

NTB = Nusa Tenggara Barat (West Nusa Tenggara, NTT = Nusa Tenggara Timur (East Nusa Tenggara), SDF = School Development Fund, Source: Human and Social Development Division, Southeast Asia Department (SEHS), based on project completion mission, August 2011.

Table A3.2: SDF Activities, by Type of School Grant

Program Category

Beneficiaries

Activity Rooms

Teaching-Learning Materials Books F % Total

LOAN (2002–2008)

Quality improvement 621,792 48 1,291,306 17,532 10.479 227,859 2,999,444

Rehabilitation … … … … 8.096 39.435 …

Subtotal 621,792 48 1,291,306 17,532 18,575 267,295 2,999,444

GRANT ( 2006–2009)

Quality improvement 135,074 48 282,243 21,510 … 99,958 537,789

Rehabilitation … … … … 2,379 9,225 …

Subtotal 135,074 48 282,243 21,510 2,379 109,183 537,789

Total 756,866 48 1,573,549 39,042 20,954 376,478 3,537,233 SDF = School Development Fund Source: SEHS, based on project completion mission, August 2011.

B. Quality Improvement

Table A3.3: Quality Improvement Programs, by Major Type of Activity

Program Category

Beneficiaries

Activity %

Teaching-Learning Materials % Books F % Total %

LOAN (2002–2008)

Access improvement 606,821 49 1,232,994 95 11,651 66 … … …

Quality improvement … … … … … … 227,859 100 2,999,444

School-based management

14,971 26 58,312 5 5,881 34 … … …

Subtotal 621,792 48 1,291,306 100 17,532 100 227,859 100 2,999,444

GRANT ( 2006–2009)

Access improvement 3,187 35 9,101 27 23 … 9 … 30

Quality improvement 10,112 49 20,616 61 3,462 48 23,030 76 132,578

School-based management

1,531 40 3,878 12 3,673 51 7,328 24 14,275

Subtotal 14,830 44 33,595 100 7,158 100 30,367 100 146,883

Appendix 3 27

Program Category

Beneficiaries

Activity %

Teaching-Learning Materials % Books F % Total %

Total 636,622 46 1,324,901 100 24,690 100 258,226 100 3,146,327

Source: SEHS, based on project completion mission, August 2011.

1. Access Improvement

Table A3.4: Access Improvement and Equal Opportunity Programs

Subcategory

Beneficiaries

Activity


F % Total %

LOAN (2002–2008)

Scholarships for the poor 101,646 57 179,626 15 … … …

Better access for the poor 25,843 48 53,924 4 … … …

Remedial program for students 249,344 45 553,894 45 5574 … …

Outreach for truants, dropouts, and other marginalized children

25,016 50 50,319 4 … … …

Supplementary food for poor children

147,197 54 270,658 22 … … …

Assistance to girls for continued study

16,977 126 13,513 1 … … …

Teacher professional development on access and equal opportunity

22,096 43 50,946 4 7 … …

Other equal-opportunity programs

18,702 31 60,114 5 6070 … …

Subtotal 606,821 49 1,232,994 100 11651 … …

GRANT (2006–2009)

Scholarships for the poor 813 86 947 10 … … …

Better access for the poor 1.816 49 3,696 41 … … …

Remedial program for students 375 9 3,979 44 … … …

Outreach for truants, dropouts, and other marginalized children

25 38 66 … … … …

Supplementary food for poor children

38 45 84 1 … … …

Assistance to girls for continued study

… … … … … … …

Teacher professional development on access and equal opportunity

115 38 305 3 … … …

Other equal opportunity programs

5 21 24 … 23 9 30

Subtotal 3.187 35 9,101 100 23 9 30

Total 610,008 42 1,242,095 … 11,674 9 …


28 Appendix 3

Table A3.5: School-Based Management Program

Subcategory

Beneficiaries Teaching-Learning Materials % Books % F % Total %

LOAN (2002–2008)

SBM implementation 5,631 31 17,929 31 2,776 47 … …

School supervision by community 7,939 27 29,938 51 1,649 28 … …

Other school management programs 1,401 13 10,445 18 1,456 25 … …

Subtotal 1,4971 26 58,312 100 5,881 100 … …

GRANT (2006–2009)

SBM implementation 584 44 1,330 34 916 25 34 0.5

School supervision by community 316 40 783 20 282 8 … …

Other school management programs 631 36 1,765 46 2,475 67 7,294 100

Subtotal 1,531 39 3,878 100 3,673 100 7,328 100

Total 16,502 32.5 62,190 … 9,554 7,328 …

SBM = school-based management. Source: SEHS, based on project completion mission, August 2011.

2. Activities Funded under the District Education Development Fund

Table A3.6: DEDF Activities and Beneficiaries, 2006–2009

Program Category

Beneficiaries

Activity % Unit % F % Total %

LOAN (2002–2008)

District education service improvement 28,761 19 151,437 71 1,141 66 28,761 19

District education management system development 5,711 17 33,972 16 372 22 5,711 17

Training and workshops 4,467 16 28,017 13 214 12 4,467 16

Subtotal 38,939 18 213,426 100 1,727 100 38,939 18

GRANT (2006–2009)

District education service improvement 19,810 41 48,104 6 207 52 4 2

District education management system development 3,585 24 14,996 20 128 32 236 98

Training and workshops 3,734 32 11,542 15 63 16 … …

Subtotal 27,129 36 74,642 100 398 100 240 100

Total 66,068 23 288,068 … 2,125 … 39,179 …


Appendix 3 29

Table A3.7: DEDF Implementation, by District

DEDF = District Education Development Fund, NTT = Nusa Tenggara Timur (East Nusa Tenggara). Source: SEHS, based on project completion mission, August 2011.

District

Beneficiaries

Activities % F % Total %

LOAN (2002–2008)

Bali

Badung 1,670 17 9,820 9 21 4

Bangli 1,236 9 13,986 13 79 14

Buleleng 4,477 31 14,372 14 95 17

Denpasar 806 10 8,232 8 134 24

Gianyar 4,797 43 11,199 11 16 3

Jembrana 2,300 26 8,894 8 122 22

Karangasem 3,835 19 20,583 19 37 7

Klungkung 116 3 4,386 4 31 5

Tabanan 184 1 14,339 14 31 5

Subtotal 19,421 18 105,811 100 566 100

Dompu 20,307 50 40,649 6 3,068 23

Kab Bima 11,322 51 22,242 3 … …

Lombok Barat … … … … … …

Lombok Tengah 67,616 50 134,465 18 … …

Lombok Timur 160,936 48 32,671 45 … …

Mataram 15,073 53 28,685 4 1,467 11

Sumbawa 77,421 48 161,886 22 3,287 24

Sumbawa Barat 7,641 49 15,586 2 … …

Kota Bima 39 1 2,710 … 5,723 42

Subtotal

NTT

Timor Tengah Selatan 2,695 33 8,059 56 51 50

Rote Ndao 2,057 32 6,368 44 50 50

Subtotal 4,752 33 14,427 100 101 100

Total Loan 34,472 19 185,409 1,513

GRANT (2006–2009)

NTT

Kupang 8,591 44 19,480 26 63 16

Alor 2,441 24 10,182 14 71 18

Lembata 1,957 27 7,309 10 56 14

Timor Tengah Utara district 2,546 27 9,309 12 65 16

Sumba Timur 6,000 40 14,925 20 79 20

Sumba Barat 5,594 42 13,437 18 64 16

Subtotal 27,129 36 74,642 100 398 100

Total 61,601 27.5 260,051 100 1,911 100

30 Appendix 3

Table A3.8: District Education Service Improvement Program Activities

Program Category

Beneficiaries Activities %

F % Total %

LOAN (2002–2008)

Equal opportunity 4,680 19 24,283 16 122 11

Access improvement 9,146 22 42,260 28 144 13

Quality improvement 14,935 18 84,894 56 875 77

Subtotal 28,761 19 151,437 100 1,141 100

GRANT (2006–2009)

Equal opportunity 19 43 44 1 3 8

Access improvement … … … … … …


Subtotal 1,769 44 3,980 100 39 100

Total 30,530 31.5 155,417 100 1,180 100


Table A3.9: Implementation of the Quality Improvement Program

Program Category

Beneficiaries


LOAN (2002–2008)

In-service training for teachers 846 12 7,245 9 74 8

Contextual teaching and learning 2,412 15 15,761 19 78 9

Competency-based training 1,193 25 4,855 6 69 8

Mastery of teaching and learning materials 1,584 20 7,890 9 41 5

Teaching and learning methods 306 10 3,043 4 25 3

Classroom management 576 27 2,108 2 34 4

Teaching and learning media 254 12 2,140 3 23 3

Evaluation 468 17 2,743 3 24 3

Class action research 3,801 28 13,595 16 109 12

Other training … … … … … …

Leadership program 910 13 7,067 8 87 10

Training for school principals 1 100 1 … 1 …

Training for Office of Education … … … … … …

Other leadership programs … … 34 … … …

Teaching and learning systems improvement … … … … … …

School supervision system improvement 14 1 1,079 1 24 3

Training for supervisors … … 70 … 1 …

Other activities to improve school control systems

… … … … … …

Teaching staff 1,971 18 11,212 13 262 30

KKG/MGMP 391 38 1,037 1 5 1

Other activities … … … … … …

Madrasah teachers 208 4 5,014 6 17 2

Others … … … … … …

Subtotal 14,935 18 84,894 100 875 100

GRANT (2006–2009)

In-service training for teachers … … … … … …

Appendix 3 31

Program Category

Beneficiaries


Contextual teaching and learning 105 34 308 8 3 8

Competency-based training 21 11 189 5 2 6

Mastery of teaching and learning materials 283 53 532 14 4 11

Teaching and learning methods 547 60 902 23 4 11

Classroom management 95 63 150 4 2 6

Teaching and learning media 34 43 80 2 1 3

Evaluation 214 32 675 17 7 20

Class action research 33 25 131 3 2 6

Other training 160 77 208 5 1 3

Leadership program … … … … … …

Training for school principals 97 30 320 8 2 6


Other leadership programs … … 32 1 1 3

Teaching and learning systems improvement … … … … … …

School supervision system improvement … … … … … …

Training for supervisors 65 27 237 6 4 11


… … … … … …

Teaching staff … … … … … …

KKG/MGMP … … … … … …

Other activities 95 67 142 4 2 6

Madrasah teachers … … … … … …

Others 1 3 30 1 1 3

Subtotal 1,750 44 3,936 100 36 100

Total 16,685 31 88,830 … 911 …

KKG = Kelompok Kerja Guru (Indonesian: Teacher development cluster), MGMP = Musyawarah Guru Mata Pelajaran (Indonesian: Teacher networks). Source: SEHS, based on project completion mission, August 2011.

Table A3.10: Education Service Improvement Program Activities, by District

Program Category

Beneficiaries Activities %

F % Total %

LOAN (2002–2008)

Equal opportunity 9,146 22 42,260 15 144 7 Access improvement 14,935 18 84,894 31 875 41 Quality improvement 28,761 19 151,437 54 1,141 53

Subtotal 52,842 29 278,591 100 2,160 101

GRANT (2006–2009)

Equal opportunity 19 43 44 1 3 8

Access improvement … … … … … …


Subtotal 1,769 44 3,980 100 39 100

Total 54,611 31.5 282,571 … 2,199 …


32 Appendix 3

Table A3.11: Quality Improvement Program by Type of Activity

Program Category

Beneficiaries


LOAN (2002–2008)

In-service training for teachers 846 12 7,245 9 74 8

Contextual teaching and learning 2,412 15 15,761 19 78 9

Competency-based training 1,193 25 4,855 6 69 8

Mastery of teaching and learning materials 1,584 20 7,890 9 41 5

Teaching and learning methods 306 10 3,043 4 25 3

Classroom management 576 27 2,108 2 34 4

Teaching and learning media 254 12 2,140 3 23 3

Evaluation 468 17 2,743 3 24 3

Class action research 3,801 28 13,595 16 109 12

Other training … … … … … …

Leadership program 910 13 7,067 8 87 10

Training for school principals 1 100 1 … 1 …


Other leadership programs … … 34 … … …

Teaching and learning systems improvement

… … … … … …

School supervision system improvement 14 1 1,079 1 24 3

Training for supervisors … … 70 … 1 …


… … … … … …

Teaching staff 1,971 18 11,212 13 262 30

KKG/MGMP 391 38 1,037 1 5 1

Other activities … … … … … …

Madrasah teachers 208 4 5,014 6 17 2

Subtotal 14,935 18 84,894 100 875 100

GRANT (2006–2009)

Contextual teaching and learning 105 34 308 8 3 8

Competency-based training 21 11 189 5 2 6

Mastery of teaching learning materials 283 53 532 14 4 11

Teaching and learning methods 547 60 902 23 4 11

Classroom management 95 63 150 4 2 6

Teaching and learning media 34 43 80 2 1 3

Evaluation 214 32 675 17 7 20

Class action research 33 25 131 3 2 6

Other training 160 77 208 5 1 3

Leadership program … … … … … …

Training for school principals 97 30 320 8 2 6


Other leadership programs … … 32 1 1 3

Teaching and learning systems improvement

… … … … … …

School supervision system improvement … … … … … …

Training for supervisors 65 27 237 6 4 11


… … … … … …

Teaching staff … … … … … …

KKG/MGMP … … … … … …

Other activities 95 67 142 4 2 6

Appendix 3 33

Program Category

Beneficiaries


Madrasah teachers … … … … … …

Other 1 3 30 1 1 3

Subtotal 1,750 44 3,936 100 36 100

Total 16,685 31 88,830 … 911 …

KKG = Kelompok Kerja Guru (Indonesian: Teacher development cluster), MGMP = Musyawarah Guru Mata Pelajaran (Indonesian: Teacher networks). Source: SEHS, based on project completion mission, August 2011.

34 Appendix 4

ACTUAL PROJECT COST COMPARED WITH APPRAISAL ESTIMATES

Loan 1863-INO: Decentralized Basic Education Project ($ million)

Appraisal Actual

Item Foreign Local Total Foreign Local Total

Base Cost

Consultants

International consultants: Remuneration 0.648 0.648 1.472 1.472

National consultants: Remuneration 5.300 5.300 4.268 4.268

Consultants: In-country operation 4.000 4.000 2.804 2.804

School Development Fund 0.000

School improvement 5.487 19.453 24.940 7.009 21.148 28.157

School rehabilitation 4.937 17.503 22.440 6.379 22.615 28.993

Mentoring/Mentor operations 0.432 2.275 2.707 0.882 4.628 5.509

District Education Development Fund 4.000 17.000 21.000 5.471 18.724 24.195

Local government basic education programs 3.600 3.600 0.010 0.010

Training and workshops 4.500 4.500 3.123 3.123

Equipment and furniture 0.100 0.400 0.500 0.429 0.429

Vehicles 0.250 0.250 0.500 0.200 0.168 0.368

Research, surveys, and studies 1.000 1.000 0.425 0.425

Implementation, operation and maintenance 13.500 13.500 26.119 26.119

Emergency assistance

Aceh: Civil works 1.596 5.658 7.254

Aceh: Project management 0.392 2.059 2.452

Subtotal (Base Cost) 15.854 88.781 104.635 23.399 112.178 135.578

Contingencies

Price contingencies 1.000 6.700 7.700

Physical contingencies 0.665 3.300 3.965

Subtotal (Contingencies) 1.665 10.000 11.665

Taxes and Duties 5.100 5.100

Interest/Charges during Implementation 3.600 3.600 2.813 2.813

Total 21.119 103.881 125.000 26.212 112.178 138.391

Appendix 4 35

Grant 0047-INO: Decentralized Basic Education Project ($ million)

Appraisal Actual

Dutch Grant

Gov't of Indonesia

Total Cost

Dutch Grant

Gov't of Indonesia

Total Cost

A. Base Cost

1. Consultants

a. International Consultants - remuneration

b. Local Consultants - remuneration 1.067 1.067 1.350 1.350

c. Consultants - in-country operation 0.755 0.755 2.093 2.093

2. School Development Fund

a. School Improvement 6.405 6.405 8.394 8.394

b. School Rehabilitation 6.270 6.270 7.171 7.171

c. Mentoring/mentors Operations 0.821 0.821 0.000 0.000

3. District Education Development Fund 6.750 6.750 6.497 6.497

4. Training and Workshops 0.777 0.777 1.142 1.142

5. Equipment and Furniture 0.151 0.151 0.167 0.167

6. Vehicles 0.120 0.120 0.151 0.151

7. Research, Survey and Studies 0.163 0.163 0.514 0.514

8. Non-category 0.000

a. Implementation, operation and maintenance

5.397 5.397 1.080 1.080

b. Local government basic education programs

2.850 2.850 0.435 0.435

c. Local training/workshops 0.056 0.056 0.013 0.013

9. Miscellaneous Grant Admin and Support

0.550 0.550

Subtotal (A) 23.280 8.303 31.583 28.029 1.528 29.557

B. Contingencies

1. Price Contingencies 2.328 2.328 0.000

2. Physical Contingencies 2.392 2.392 0.000

Subtotal (B) 4.720 4.720 0.000 0.000

Total 28.000 8.303 36.303 28.029 1.528 29.557

36 Appendix 5

ANNUAL LOAN DISBURSEMENTS

PROJECTED DUSBURSEMENTS AGAINST ACTUAL DUSBURSEMENTS

Table A5.1 Annual Loan Disbursements against Annual Projections ($ million)

Year Projected Actual

2002 2.00 2.69

2003 5.00 10.90

2004 6.00 12.91

2005 10.00 13.52

2006 15.00 24.13

2007 20.00 34.71

2008 12.00 5.06

2009 8.00 8.16

Total 78.00 112.07

Loan Disbursement Graph ($ million)

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

35.00

40.00

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Projected Actual

A

pp

en

dix

6 3

7

Activity

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

Pre-implementation

Phase 1 (7 districts)

Component A: School Development

♦

♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

Component B: District Basic Education Development

♦

♦

♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

Year 6

2007

Year 7

2008

Year 5

2006

Year 0

2001

Year 1

2002

Year 2

2003

Year 3

2004

Year 4

2005

Establish management committees and units

Deployment of mentors

Socialization and community preparation

School selection (Batch 1)

Project socialization

School mapping

Preparation of activities

Preparation of consultant recruitment documents

DEDF plan preparation

DEDF implementation

DEDF annual review

Training (of schools in SDP preparation)

School self-assessment

School improvement plans

SDF implementation

Deployment of consultants


Self-assessment

District capacity development planning

ACTUAL PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE COMPARED WITH THE SCHEDULE AT APPRAISAL

38

Ap

pe

ndix

6

Activity


Phase 2 (14 districts)


♦

♦

♦ ♦ ♦ ♦


♦

♦

♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

Phase 3


Year 6

2007

Year 7

2008

Year 5

2006

Year 0

2001

Year 1

2002

Year 2

2003

Year 3

2004

Year 4

2005


Training


SDF implementation

Deployment of technical support


Self-assessment

District capacity development planning

DEDF plan preparation

DEDF implementation

DEDF annual review



50 pilots selected


SDF implementation




50 pilots selected


Training


Ap

pe

ndix

6

39

Activity


Phase 4


Component C:

♦

♦ ♦ ♦

Additional scope: Rehabilitation in Aceh


Decree on selected schools

Training (of schools in SDP preparation)



SDF implementation



Self-assessment

DEDF plan planning/preparation

DEDF implementation

DEDF annual review

Year 6

2007

Year 7

2008

Year 5

2006

Year 0

2001

Year 1

2002

Year 2

2003

Year 3

2004

Year 4

2005


Performance tests

Deployment of independent monitors


50 pilots selected


Monitoring evaluation and reporting (Impact study by HIS)

Training

Monitoring, evaluation and reporting (Financial Compliance)



SDF implementation

Legend:

DEDF = District Education Development Fund, SDF = School Development Fund, SDP = school development plan. Source: SEHS, based on project completion mission, August 2011.

Actual Planned

40 Appendix 7

STATUS OF LOAN COVENANTS

Covenant Reference in

Loan Agreement Status of Compliance

1. The Borrower shall cause the Project to be carried out with due diligence and efficiency and in conformity with sound administrative, financial, engineering, environmental and education and management practices.

Art. IV, Sec. 4.01 (a)

Complied with.

2. In the carrying out of the Project and operation of the Project facilities, the Borrower shall perform, or cause to be performed, all obligations set forth in Schedule 6 to this Loan Agreement.

Art. IV, Sec. 4.01 (b)

Complied with.

3. The Borrower shall make available promptly as needed, the funds, facilities, services, land and other resources which are required, in addition to the proceeds of the Loan for the carrying out of the Project and for the operation and maintenance of the Project facilities.

Art. IV, Sec. 4.02

Complied with.

4. In the carrying out of the Project, the Borrower shall cause competent and qualified consultants and contractors, acceptable to the Borrower and the Bank, to be employed to an extent and upon terms and conditions satisfactory to the Borrower and the Bank.


Complied with.

5. The Borrower shall cause the. Project to be carried out in accordance with plans, design standards, specifications, work schedules and construction methods acceptable to the Borrower and the Bank. The Borrower shall furnish, or cause to be furnished, to the Bank, promptly after their preparation, such plans, design standards, specifications and work schedules, and any material modifications subsequently made therein, in such detail as the Bank shall reasonably request.


Complied with.

6. The Borrower shall ensure that the activities of its departments and agencies with respect to the carrying out of the Project and operation of the Project facilities are conducted and coordinated in accordance with sound administrative policies and procedures.

Art. IV, Sec. 4.04

Complied with.

7. The Borrower shall make arrangements satisfactory to the Bank for insurance of the Project facilities to such extent and against such risks and in such amounts as shall be consistent with sound practice.


Complied with.

8. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the Borrower undertakes to insure, or cause to be insured, the goods to


Complied with.

Appendix 7 41



be imported for the Project and to be financed out of the proceeds of the Loan against hazards incident to the acquisition, transportation and delivery thereof to the place of use or installation, and for such insurance any indemnity shall be payable in a currency freely usable to replace or repair such goods.

9. The Borrower shall maintain, or cause to be maintained, records and accounts adequate to identify the goods and services and other items of expenditure financed out of the proceeds of the Loan, to disclose the use thereof in the Project, to record the progress of the Project (including the cost thereof) and to reflect, in accordance with consistently maintained sound accounting principles, the operations and financial condition of the agencies of the Borrower responsible for the carrying out of the Project and operation of the Project facilities, or any part thereof.


Complied with.

10. It is the mutual intention of the Borrower and the Bank that no other external debt owed a creditor other than the Bank shall have any priority over the Loan by way of a lien on the assets of the Borrower. To that end, the Borrower undertakes (i) that, except as the Bank may otherwise agree, if any lien shall be created on any assets of the Borrower as security for any external debt, such lien will ipso facto equally and ratably secure the payment of the principal of, and interest charge and any other charge on, the Loan; and (ii) that the Borrower, in creating or permitting the creation of any such lien, will make express provision to that effect.


Complied with.

11. The provisions of Art. IV Section 4.10(a) shall not apply to (i) any lien created on property, at the time of purchase thereof, solely as security for payment of the purchase price of such property; or (ii) any lien arising in the ordinary course of banking transactions and securing a debt maturing not more than one year after its date.


Complied with.

12. The term "assets of the Borrower" as used in paragraph (a) of this Section includes assets of any administrative subdivision or any agency of the Borrower and assets of any agency of any such administrative subdivision, including Bank Indonesia and any other institution performing the functions of a central bank for the Borrower.

Art. IV, Sec. 4.10 (c)

Complied with.

42 Appendix 7



Audit

13. The Borrower shall (i) maintain, or cause to be maintained, separate accounts for the Project; (ii) have such accounts and related financial statements audited annually, in accordance with appropriate auditing standards consistently applied, by independent auditors whose qualifications, experience and terms of reference are acceptable to the Bank; (iii) furnish to the Bank, as soon as available but in any event not later than nine months after the end of each related fiscal year, certified copies of such audited accounts and financial statements and the report of the auditors relating thereto (including the auditors’ opinion on the use of the Loan proceeds and compliance with the covenants of this Loan Agreement as well as on the use of the procedures for impress account/statement of expenditures), all in the English language; and (iv) furnish to the Bank such other information concerning such accounts and financial statements and the audit thereof as the Bank shall from time to time reasonably request.


Complied with. The 2002 Audited Financial Statement (AFS) was received on 30 September 2003. AFS for 2003 was received on 29 September 2004. Follow-up action on auditor’s findings of 2003 AFS was undertaken by EA. A progress report on the status was submitted to ADB in November 2004. AFS for 2004 was received in September 2005. One audit finding for 2004 remains pending. AFS for 2005 was received in September 2006. All concerned units have reported that the audit findings have been resolved. AFS for 2006 was received on 28 September 2007. While the auditors issued an unqualified opinion, they also noted audit findings pertaining to overpayment of some minor expenditures. All the audit findings had been resolved as of July 2008. AFS for 2007 was received in September 2008.

14. The Borrower shall enable the Bank, upon the Bank's request, to discuss the Borrower's financial statements for the Project and its financial affairs related to the Project from time to time with the Borrower's auditors, and shall authorize and require any representative of such auditors to participate in any such discussions requested by the Bank, provided that any such discussion shall be conducted only in the presence of an authorized officer of the Borrower unless the Borrower shall otherwise agree.


Complied with.

15. Without prejudice to the generality of Sections 4.06(b) of the Loan Agreement, for purpose of audit of accounts and financial statements of the Project carried out pursuant thereto, the Borrower shall ensure engagement of independent auditors to

Schedule 6, para. 14

Complied with.

Appendix 7 43



annually audit Project accounts. Any independent auditors shall be financed from proceeds of the Loan shall be selected and engaged in accordance with competitive selection procedures acceptable to the Bank.

16. The Borrower shall furnish, or cause to be furnished, to the Bank all such reports and information 'as the Bank shall reasonably request concerning (i) the Loan, and the expenditure of the proceeds and maintenance of the service thereof; (ii) the goods and services and other items of expenditure financed out of the proceeds of the Loan; (iii) the Project; (iv) the administration, operations and financial condition of the agencies of the Borrower responsible for the carrying out of the Project and operation of the Project facilities, or any part thereof; (v) financial and economic conditions in the territory of the Borrower and the international balance-of-payments position of the Borrower; and (vi) any other matters relating to the purposes of the Loan.


Complied with.

17. The Borrower shall furnish, or cause to be furnished, to the Bank quarterly reports on the carrying out of the Project and on the operation and management of the Project facilities. Such reports shall be submitted in such form and in such detail and within such a period as the Bank shall reasonably request, and shall indicate, among other things, progress made and problems encountered during the quarter under review, steps taken or proposed to be taken to remedy these problems, and proposed program of activities and expected progress during the following quarter.


Complied with. The second quarterly report (April–June 2005) was received on 9 September 2005. The annual report for 2004 was received on 28 July 2005. The annual report for 2005 was received in July 2006. No quarterly reports were submitted. During November 2006, CFU was reminded to meet reporting requirements in 2007. A new, improved quarterly reporting format has been developed for districts by CFU and integrated program and financial monitoring. Some districts started submitting reports in this format in 2006. The annual report for 2006 was received by ADB on 27 March 2007. The first quarterly report was received in June 2007, and the second quarterly report in October 2007. The annual report for 2007 was

44 Appendix 7



received by ADB on 3 June 2008. The EA was reminded to submit quarterly reports on time. The consolidated quarterly report for January–September 2008 is yet to be submitted by CFU.

18. The Borrower shall enable the Bank's representatives to inspect the Project, the goods financed out of the proceeds of the Loan, and any relevant records and documents

Art. IV, Sec. 4.08 Complied with.

19. The Borrower shall ensure, or shall cause to ensure, that the Project facilities are operated, maintained and managed in accordance with sound administrative, financial, engineering, environmental, and health services management and maintenance and operational practices.

Art. IV, Sec. 4.09 Complied with.

Project Completion Report 20. Promptly after physical completion of the

Project, but in any event not later than three (3) months thereafter or such later date as may be agreed for this purpose between the Borrower and the Bank, the Borrower shall prepare and furnish to the Bank a report, in such form and in such detail as the Bank shall reasonably request, on the execution and initial operation of the Project, including its cost, the performance by the Borrower of its obligations under this Loan Agreement and the accomplishment of the purposes of the Loan.


Complied with.

Imprest Account: Statement of Expenditures

21. Except as the Bank may otherwise agree, the Borrower shall establish immediately after the Effective Date, an impress account at Bank Indonesia. The impress account shall be established, managed, replenished and liquidated in accordance with the Bank’s ―Loan Disbursement Handbook‖ dated January 2001 (Handbook), as amended from time to time, and detailed arrangements agreed upon between the borrower and the Bank. The maximum amount to be deposited into the impress account shall not exceed the equivalent of $10,000,000.

Schedule 3, para. 8 (a)

Complied with. Imprest account was established with initial deposit of $2.6 million. As of 19 November 2008, CFU had submitted withdrawal applications to fully liquidate the imprest account. Imprest account under the grant was established in October 2006. As of 12 July 2011, CFU had liquidated the advance and had refunded ADB the amount of $0.114 million.

The statement of expenditures (SOE) procedure may be used for reimbursement of eligible expenditures and to liquidate

Schedule 3, para. 8 (b)

Complied with. SDF and DEDF transactions used

Appendix 7 45



advances provided into the imprest account, in accordance with the Handbook, and detailed arrangements agreed upon between the Borrower and the Bank.

SOE.

Execution of Project and Operation of Project Facilities

22. Project Executing Agency MONE shall be the Project Executing Agency and shall provide the overall national policy and technical coordination and guidance, mainly on the school-based management and minimum service standards. MORA will co-execute the Project by seconding its staff to the Central Facilitation Unit, Provincial Project Monitoring Units to ensure balanced attention of the Project to Madrasah.

Schedule 6, para. 1–2

Complied with. All institutional requirements have been put in place, and are staffed and functioning.

23. Project Steering Committee The Borrower shall establish, not later than the Effective Date, a Project Steering Committee (PSC) consisting of the director generals or equivalent senior staff from BAPPENAS, MOF, MONE, MORA and MOHA representatives of the Project Districts and representatives of Provincial Monitoring Unit. PSC will be chaired by MONE’s director general of primary and secondary education and will be responsible for: (i) setting Project implementation policy; (ii) reviewing Project progress and impact; (iii) advising on Project plans; and (iv) facilitating interdepartmental and inter-agency coordination.

Schedule 6, para. 3

Complied with. Established by the Minister of National Education (Decree No. 040/P/2002 on Establishment of DBEP Steering Committee dated 26 March 2002). The committee meets at least three times a year.

24. Central Technical Committee The Borrower shall establish, not later than the Effective Date, a Central Technical Committee (CTC) consisting of directors and heads of division from BAPPENAS, MOF, MONE, MORA and MOHA. PSC shall appoint the chairperson of CTC. CTC will (i) oversee and provide regular technical guidance to CFU on operationalization of the SBM and minimum service standards, (ii) review annual work plans and budget proposals; (iii) provide technical guidance, and review and approve project implementation guidelines; (iv) review project monitoring and evaluation reports and advise on follow-up action; and (v) resolve incidents and advise on follow-up actions.

Schedule 6, para. 4

Complied with. Established by the Director General of Primary and Secondary Education (Decree No. 355/C/C3/KP/DS/2002 on Establishment of DBEP Central Technical Committee dated 6 March 2002). The committee meets at least four times a year.

46 Appendix 7



25. Central Facilitation Unit The Borrower shall maintain a CFU, consisting of a team of staff appointed from MONE and MORA. CFU will be based at MONE and will be responsible for the overall planning, coordination, implementation and administration of the Project, particularly to

Schedule 6, para. 5

Complied with. Originally established in February 2002 and confirmed by the director of junior secondary education (Decree No. 304/C3/SK/2004 on Establishment of DBEP Central Facilitation Unit dated 8 March 2004). Staffing is confirmed annually by the director of junior secondary education.

(i) orient districts on Project objectives and design framework and project administration; (ii) monitor Project implementation in all districts and provide implementation support, as required; (iii) ensure adequate allocation of Project counterpart funds; (iv) consolidate Project quarterly reports and annual reports and submit those to the PSC and to the Bank, in English; (v) ensure annual audit of Project accounts (national and local accounts, including DEDF and SDF); (vi) ensure timely submission of unaudited and audited financial reports on the Project to the Bank; (vii) ensure timely transfer of funds to Project Districts; (viii) carry out regular compliance and progress monitoring of Project activities in each Project District; (ix) identify policy and technical issues requiring PSC and CTC’s review and decisions; and (x) prepare for and coordinate with regular review missions from the Bank

26. Provincial Project Monitoring Unit The Borrower shall ensure that each Project Province shall establish a Provincial Project Monitoring Unit (PPMU) within three months of the Effective Date. PPMU shall carry out the functions of MONE and MORA at provincial level and shall focus on coordinating, facilitating, monitoring and evaluating the Project activities and impacts. PPMU will be headed by a unit head appointed from the provincial Dinas education office and staffed by officers from Bappeda, MORA provincial office and other relevant provincial agencies.

Schedule 6, para. 6

Partly complied with. PPMUs were established in each loan project province on 15 May 2002. However, the PPMUs did not monitor or evaluate project activities and impact as intended. Performance monitoring and evaluation was weak throughout the project. This function was originally intended to be carried out by the provinces, but this never happened. Only progress and performance were monitored, not the achievement of indicators and targets. Changes in the monitoring arrangements should

Appendix 7 47



have been made early on in recognition of this. Eventually a firm was contracted to carry out baseline and impact surveys. The firm contracted in late 2007 collected impact data for NTB and Bali, and baseline data for NTT. Initial findings of the impact study were presented to the July 2008 review mission. The baseline and midterm evaluation studies for NTB and Bali were never carried out. The deficiencies in performance monitoring for the loan project were addressed under the grant through the transfer of responsibilities back to the consultants.

27. District Level District Coordination Committee/School Board The Borrower shall cause each Project District to establish a District Coordination Committee/School Board (DCC/SB). DCC/SB will consist of representatives from district planning board, direct education office, MORA, local NGOs and civil society and the chairman will be selected by the members of DCC/SB. The DCCs shall address and resolve policy issues affecting the Project in the relevant Project District, ensure adequate provision of counterpart funds, ensure fulfillment of the Project District’s responsibilities for the Project and approve SDF allocation for junior secondary schools. Each Project District shall also establish a school-based management (SBM) team, to be responsible for implementation of Part A of the Project. DCC authority in reviewing and approving school improvement plan (SIP) for primary schools will be carried out by supporting unit of DCC at Sub-District level.

Schedule 6, para. 7

Complied with. Heads of districts established the district coordination/steering committees on 15 May 2002 for the loan districts. The districts have established district coordination committees as required, and these are apparently functioning in all districts, to different degrees.

28. District Project Management and Monitoring Unit The Borrower shall cause each Project District to establish a District Project Management & Monitoring Unit (DPMMU). DPMMU will be headed by a project manager and supported by a secretary and a team of 6-8 persons. DPMMU shall be

Schedule 6, para. 8

Complied with. DPMMUs were established in each loan district through a decree of the head of district, on 15 May 2002, and confirmed annually by the heads of the districts or heads of district

48 Appendix 7



responsible for day-to-day management, administration and implementation of the Project, including (i) financial planning and management, administration and implementation of the Project, including (i) financial planning and management of both the proceeds of the Loan and counterpart funds, (ii) coordinating, planning and implementing project activities supported by DEDF, (iii) monitoring of SDF activities; and (iv) preparing the quarterly and annual financial statements and implementation progress reports on district level activities.

education offices.

Poverty and Social Dimensions

29. The Borrower shall ensure that priority will be given to children from poor families, remote rural villages and slum areas in the Project Districts. To such end, the Borrower shall ensure that at least 50% of the Project beneficiaries are children from households below poverty line. Prioritization of beneficiary sub-districts and schools will be based on the incidence and depth of poverty, based on (i) an integrated poverty factor based on the proportion of below poverty line pre-welfare families in the sub-district, (ii) net enrollment rate, and (ii) drop-out rate. The Borrower shall require the Project Districts to ensure that the prioritization process will be participatory. Each Project District shall conduct socioeconomic/poverty surveys at districts and subdistricts levels to capture the distribution and concentration of poor communities. Such surveys will be conducted three times during the implementation of the Project.

Schedule 6, para. 9

Complied with. The selection of eligible subdistricts and batch 1 schools was not accurate in terms of the poverty criteria because of the many criteria used. The guidelines were modified to reflect poverty as major criterion and used in the selection of batch 2, 3, and 4 schools. The revised guidelines assigned to poverty a weight of 50% in the overall scoring.

Environment

30. The Borrower shall cause each Project District to ensure that the siting, design, construction and operation of school facilities under the Project will follow the Bank’s Environmental Guidelines for Selected Infrastructure Development Projects and the Borrower’s prevailing environmental laws and regulations.


Complied with. Most civil works involved rehabilitation of existing facilities. For school construction in Simeulue district in Aceh, environmental feasibility studies or assessment reports were approved before construction.

Counterpart Funds

31. The Borrower shall ensure and shall cause each Project District to ensure that all necessary counterpart funds for Project implementation are provided in a timely


Complied with. National budget (APBN) and local budget from districts (APBD) were

Appendix 7 49



manner and, to such end, the Borrower and each Project District shall make timely submissions of annual budgetary appropriation requests and take all other measures necessary or appropriate for prompt disbursement funds during each year of Project implementation.

allocated for the project.

Laws 22 and 25

32. The Borrower shall ensure that the provision of funds from the Loan proceeds and the corresponding counterpart funds, necessary for financing the Project activities, would continue throughout the Project implementation period by earmarking the funds, notwithstanding (i) any reallocation of authority or responsibility for channeling of external assistance and provision of corresponding counterpart contributions between the national Government and the districts or (ii) any requirements for provision of matching counterpart funds for funding the Project activities from each Project District arising from the full implementation of Law No. 22 and 25 of 1999, unless otherwise agreed by the Bank.


Complied with. The districts implemented the project in line with Law No. 22 and 25 of 1999. Law No. 22/1999 was revised to Law No. 32/2004 and Law No. 25/1999 to 33/2004.

Comprehensive Review

33. The Borrower and the Bank shall carry out comprehensive reviews at the second and fourth year of implementation of the Project. The first comprehensive review, to be conducted at the end of the second year, will focus on the effectiveness of the implementation mechanisms of SDF, DEDF and poverty targeting. The second comprehensive review, to be conducted at the end of the fourth year, will focus on the overall impacts of the project and achievement of the Project objectives and goals.


Complied with. The ADB midterm review mission was undertaken in March 2005. Regular review missions are fielded.

School Development Fund

34. Identification and Selection of Eligible Schools The Borrower shall ensure and shall cause each Project District to ensure that funds financing for School Development Fund (SDF) will be provided to schools registered with the local government of the Project District and/or MORA that service poor communities and students. The Project shall employ a participatory process in selecting the SDF beneficiary schools, by adopting the following process:


Complied with. All schools were selected using agreed poverty selection criteria covering the community and student body. From a review of batch 1 school selection, lessons learned were incorporated into the selection of the next 3 batches to improve targeting of poor schools and students and ensure that at least

50 Appendix 7



(i) rank kecamatan by the incidence and depth of poverty, using:

(a) proportion of families below poverty line and/or categorized under the BKKBN welfare indicators (from district/sub-district BKKBN annual update for number of families categorized as sejahtera and prasejahtera);

(b) proportion of students from pre-welfare families;

(c) cost per student expenditure at the school;

(d) commitment to SBM; and (e) kecamatan level net enrollment and

drop-out rate.

50% of the project beneficiaries were children from households below the poverty line. Additional funds were allocated in 2008 for the rehabilitation of DBEP schools affected by the earthquake and flooding in Sumbawa Barat, Bima, Kota Bima, and Dompu districts, and for the quality improvement of 4 new districts in Sumbawa Barat, Kota Bima, Rote Ndao and TTS. (ii) kecamatan shall prepare a list of eligible

schools and conduct participatory assessments of eligible schools. The list will be prepared in consultation with the communities and will be categorized into:

(a) poor schools in poor neighborhoods; (b) better schools in poor neighborhoods; (c) poor schools in rich neighborhoods; and (d) better schools in rich neighborhood but with poor children.

(iii) The process will be based on: (a) student profile (parent’s occupation); (b) conditions of school facilities

against the minimum service standards (including furniture and sanitation); and

(c) interest/commitment to SBM.

35. Mechanism for Awarding SDF The Borrower shall cause each Project District to ensure that the process of awarding SDF to each eligible school shall be carried out in accordance with the following mechanisms: (i) each eligible school shall prepare a SIP, specifying priority activities to improve:

(a) enrollment and completion of primary/junior secondary education among the poverty-affected children in the area;

(b) effectiveness of the school; and (c) implementation and financing plan,

with a clear division of responsibilities among the local government, the school and the community.


Complied with. All schools approved SDPs during the project and these were revised annually and received block grants for rehabilitation and quality improvement. All schools completed the activities planned for these grants. There was a change in implementation method for the rebuilding after the earthquake and tsunami. In the first rebuilding (Aceh), the earthquake-resistant frameworks for the new schools were fabricated at factories in Java and shipped to Aceh. The local community then erected the framework and carried out the

Appendix 7 51



(ii) each eligible school shall submit the SIP for review and approval to (a) DCC supporting unit at Sub-District level if it is a primary school or (b) DCC if it is a junior secondary school; and (iii) the submitted SIP will be evaluated by the relevant or its supporting unit at Sub-District level DCC based on the following criteria:

(a) the SIP clearly identifies constraints on participation and completion among poor children and school effectiveness and the strategies to address these constraints; and

(b) the SIP show evidence of commitment for school community partnership in school development process.

remaining construction. In the case of Padang, the steel frames were fabricated by the local community, using materials generally procured locally. This latter method provided training in additional new skills (steel fabrication) for local workers involved in the project.

Disbursement of SDF in 2005 was delayed by the newly implemented funding mechanism of the government and, to a certain extent, by fund channeling problems (resulting from management reorganization in Bank Rakyat Indonesia, affecting funds release through local units to schools).

District Education Development Funds

36. The Borrower shall ensure that District Education Development Fund (DEDF) shall be awarded to Project Districts that satisfy the following requirements:


Complied with. All 21 districts, including Simeulue, had approved district education Development Plans (DEDPs). The DEDPs are supposed to be revised annually, but this revision did not happen in all districts. Instead, districts base their annual implementation on the government’s annual work plan, in line with government procedures. Case studies of high-performing DEOs were published and distributed to all stakeholders.

(i) the Project District shall have developed a medium-term (5 year) basic education development plan (DEDP), containing:

(a) analysis of the current status of basic education in the district;

(b) five year goals and priority activities to address constraints on equity and quality of basic education services; and

(c) annual implementation plans, financing strategies, and responsibilities of districts, schools, community and civil society for implementing the DEDP.

(ii) the Project District shall have submitted the DEDP to CTC for review and approval, which will review the DEDP against the following criteria:

(a) clarity of goals and objectives, with demonstrated commitment to improve equity and quality of basic education services;

(b) commitment of the Project District to basic education, as demonstrated by concrete contribution in financing strategies for DEDP; and

(c) evidence of stakeholder

52 Appendix 7



participation in the preparation of the DEDP.

Support for Madrasah

37. The Borrower shall ensure and shall cause each Project District to ensure that in each Project District madrasah shall be included/integrated through the process of identifying eligible schools and selecting the SDF beneficiary schools and identifying beneficiaries for the programs supported by DEDF. To this end, the Borrower shall cause each of the Project Districts to ensure that both the DCC/SB and DPPMU will have adequate staff to represent madrasah.


Complied with. No. of madrasah under the loan: 101 in batch 1 (783 schools) 120 in batch 2 (1,016 schools) 199 in batch 3 (1,262 schools) 158 in batch 4 (1,183 schools) 4 in Simeulue Aceh (33 schools) 620 madrasah under the grant.

Counterpart Staff

38. The Borrower shall cause each Project District to ensure, where appropriate, that all necessary staff and facilities for the CFU, PPMU, DCC/SB, SBM and DPMMU, will be maintained throughout the period of the Project implementation, in accordance with the Project design.


Complied with. The central facilitation unit (CFU), provincial project monitoring unit (PPMU), district coordination committee/school board (DCC)/SB), and monitoring unit (DPMMU) were established.

Community Participation

39. The Borrower shall cause each Project District to ensure that DPMMU employs participatory approaches (including the involvement of local communities, women and representatives from any indigenous people) in SDF and DEDF identification, planning, implementation as described in ADB’s Framework for Mainstreaming Participatory Development Processes.


Complied with. Community participation in the schools was high.

Gender

40. The Borrower shall cause each Project District to ensure that in each Project District special measures will be undertaken to promote participation of women in the project activities. To such end, in each Project District (i) the school education committees, sub district selection committees and board education committees will include at least 2 women representatives; (ii) women will comprise at least 50 percent of teacher development programs; (iii) women will comprise 30 percent of the participants in training workshops on SBM; (iv) girls will comprise at least 50 percent of recipients of the scholarship program; and (v) separate sanitation for girls and boys will be part of school rehabilitation component.


Partly complied with. The target of each school committee having at least two women was not met. For the loan districts, there was an average of only one female member per school committee by the end of the project. Implementation in the grant districts was stronger in this regard, with 68% of schools having more than two women on the school committee Teachers made up 47% of participants in teacher training programs in the loan districts, and 56% of training programs in the grant districts.

Appendix 7 53



The gender targets for scholarships and separate toilet facilities were met.

Monitoring

41. The Borrower shall ensure and shall cause each Project District to ensure that the award distribution and use of SDF and DEDF will be monitored to ensure that they are carried out in accordance with the agreed criteria and guidelines established under Part C of the Project. The Borrower and the Project District shall further ensure to maintain public accountability and transparency. To such end, benefit evaluation activities will be carried out to measure the Project results against the Project goals to (i) improve poor children’s participation and completion of nine years basic education, (ii) develop school capacity to be self-managed, accountable, transparent and effective and (iii) develop district capacity to plan, manage and govern basic education system and services.


Complied with. Compliance monitoring was the most successful aspect of the monitoring and evaluation. CFU followed up on reported cases of funds misuse. All of the 57 identified cases were resolved. Performance monitoring and evaluation was weak throughout the project. Nevertheless, this covenant is rated as complied with because there is overlap with regard to M&E with covenant no. 12, where M&E was already rated as ―partly complied with.‖

AFS – Audited Financial Statement, CFU = central facilitation unit, CTC = central technical committee, DCC/SB = district coordination committee/school board, DEDF = District Education Development Fund, DEDP = district education development fund, DEO = district education office, DPMMU = district project management and monitoring unit, KKG = Kelompok Kerja Guru (Indonesian: Teacher development cluster), MONE = Ministry of National Education, MORA = Ministry of Religious Affairs, PPMU = provincial project management unit, MGMP = Musyawarah Guru Mata Pelajaran (Indonesian: Teacher networks), PSC = project steering committee, SBM = school-based management, SDF = School Development Fund, SIP = School Improvement Plan, TTS = Timor Tengah Selatan district,.

54

Ap

pe

ndix

8

ACTUAL CONSULTANT SERVICES COMPARED WITH THE PLANNED SERVICES

Item

AT APPRAISAL ACTUAL

Number of Experts Number of Person-

Months Number of Experts Number of Person-

Months

International National International National International National International National

LOAN

Package 1: School-Based Management

Mentor system manager (team leader)

1 24 1 33

School management 1 48 2 78

Mentor team leaders (district) 12 636 14 671

Mentors 85 4,860 171 5412

Total 1 98 24 5,544 1 187 33 6,161

Package 2: District Capacity Building and Implementation Support

Education planning management

1 18 1 1 18

Organizational development 1 24 1 24

Education planning/ management

6 216 16 483

Teacher development 1 36 1 36

Socialization/Advocacy 1 6 1 12

Project management 1 60 1 60

Stakeholder consultation and appeals

1 12

Financial management 15 612 17 510

School rehabilitation/ civil works

13 468 13 468

Total 1 40 18 1380 1 53 1 1628

Ap

pe

ndix

8 5

5

Ap

pe

ndix

8 5

5

Item

AT APPRAISAL ACTUAL



Months


Package 3: Independent Monitoring Evaluation

Monitoring and evaluation (team leader)

1 36 1 48

Program compliance monitors

1 60 4 242.57

Financial compliance 1 60 1 60.00

Financial and program compliance

4 192 3 186.27

Benefit evaluation specialist

Research design 1 18 1 42.00

Qualitative research 1 18 1 24.00

Test development 3 100 0 0.00

Item writers 1 20 0 0.00

Test administrator 1 300 0 0.00

Data preparation 1 6 0 0.00

Data entry 1 48 0 0.00

Total 1 15 36 858 1 10 48 602.84

Aceh Assistance

Environmental and social safeguards

1 1.50

Team leader 1 21.00

Co–team leader 1 15.00

Education management 1 24.00

Financial management 1 27.00

Mechanical, electrical, and plumbing

1 24.00

56

Ap

pe

ndix

8

Item

AT APPRAISAL ACTUAL



Months


Procurement 1 3.00

Monitoring and evaluation 1 9.00

Civil works facilitator 7 189.00

Community facilitator 2 12.00

Project implementation and management oversight

1 6

Total

1 17 6 325.50

Benefit Evaluation

Team leader 1 2 1 2.00

Senior education analysis 1 1 1 1.00

Survey specialist 1 3 1 3.00

Data management specialist 1 2 1 2.00

Senior field coordinator 2 4 2 4.00

Field coordinator 2 2 2 2.00

Total 8 14 8 14.00

TOTAL LOAN 3 161 78 7,796 4 275 88 8,731.34

GRANT

Package A: School and District Capacity Building and Project Implementation Support

Education planning management/team leader

1 18 1 30.33

Institutional development 1 24 1 25.3

Teacher development 1 12 1 23.63

Financial management 7 168 7 169.79

Education planning/ management

6 108 6 134.87

Ap

pe

ndix

8 5

7

Ap

pe

ndix

8 5

7

Item

AT APPRAISAL ACTUAL



Months


School rehabilitation/civil works

6 108 6 47.40

Database specialist 1 22.37

Media specialist 1 10.00

Design graphics 1 3.00

Knowledge management facilitator/writer

1 5.20

Video editor 1 5.00

West Sumatra

Team leader 1 4.00

Civil works facilitators 5 18.00

Total 22 438 33 498.89

Package B: Independent Monitoring and Evaluation and Reporting

Monitoring and evaluation specialist (team leader)

1 18 1 28

Program compliance 1 24 1 28

Financial compliance 1 24 1 28

Financial and program compliance monitoring

6 144 6 123

Program compliance monitor 6 123

Data analysis 1 13

Workshop training manager 1 4

MIS assistance 1 24 1 28

Economic assistance 1 24 1 28

Education assistance 1 24 1 28

58

Ap

pe

ndix

8

Item

AT APPRAISAL ACTUAL



Months


Supporting staff 10 240 16 358

Total 22 522 36 789

Impact Evaluation, NTT

Team leader 1 1.25 1 1.25

Survey specialist 1 2.50 1 2.50

Data management specialist 1 1.00 1 1.00

Senior field coordinator 1 2.50 1 2.50

Field coordinator 2 4.50 2 4.50

Total 6 11.75 6 11.75

TOTAL GRANT 50 971.75 75 1,299.64

MIS = management information system, NTT = Nusa Tenggara Timur (East Nusa Tenggara).

59 Appendix 9

EDUCATION PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

Table A9.1A: Primary School Level Gross Enrolment Rate, by District, 2002/03–2008/09 (%)

District

School Year

2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09

BALI 102 104 102 105 110 112 113

Badung 117 119 122 126 128 129 130

Bangli 103 106 97 103 104 105 107

Buleleng 101 108 101 115 117 119 121

Denpasar 66 67 67 69 89 95 100

Gianyar 109 109 110 110 110 112 113

Jembrana 105 108 105 100 112 112 113

Karangasem 114 108 111 111 114 114 115

Klungkung 98 104 104 101 103 104 105

Tabanan 111 108 110 109 113 114 115

NTB 107 109 105 105 106 107 109

Kab Bima … … 119 97 102 105 107

Kota Bima 96 96 96 107 100 106 108

Dompu 106 105 105 105 108 108 109

Lombok Barat 112 92 108 109 107 108 110

Lombok Tengah 111 102 91 101 106 107 109

Lombok Timur 96 110 107 107 107 108 110

Mataram 103 103 104 104 104 107 109

Sumbawa … … 81 91 92 92 93

Sumbawa Barat …. … 80 82 84 86 88

NTT 105 106 107 108 112 114 116

Rote Ndao … … 122 106 109 110 111

TTS 121 118 122 121 118 119 120

Alor … … … 112 119 117 115

Kupang … … … 106 110 111 113

Lembata … … … 93 95 97 98

Sumba Barat … …. … 115 115 115 116

Sumba Timur … … … 113 114 115 117

TTU … … … 107 118 119 141

NATIONAL 113 113 114 114 114 116 117

NTB = Nusa Tenggara Barat (West Nusa Tenggara), NTT = Nusa Tenggara Timur (East Timur Tenggara), TTS = Timor Tengah Selatan district, TTU = Timor Tengah Utara district.

60 Appendix 9

Table A9.1B: Gross Enrollment Rate at Junior Secondary Level by District, 2002/03–2008/09 (%)

District

School Year

2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09

BALI 92 86 95 97 105 107 108

Badung 96 95 124 130 135 137 139

Bangli 74 71 70 71 86 90 91

Buleleng 68 68 70 70 78 81 82

Denpasar 96 94 97 96 89 95 96

Gianyar 106 106 105 105 107 107 108

Jembrana 94 102 135 136 144 144 146

Karangasem 100 55 77 78 118 78 79

Klungkung 95 81 94 94 90 92 93

Tabanan 98 106 98 101 101 102 103

NTB 69 68 79 79 84 86 87

Kab Bima 66 69 77 78 84 85 86

Kota Bima … … … 76 80 83 84

Dompu … 87 90 92 95 96 97

Lombok Barat 69 66 78 81 93 95 96

Lombok Tengah 64 84 85 84 94 97 98

Lombok Timur 71 72 67 63 67 67 69

Mataram … … 88 88 88 95 96

Sumbawa 79 78 82 81 84 85 86

Sumbawa Barat … … 88 92 83 84 85

NTT 59 60 67 68

Rote Ndao … … 52 64 75 77 78

TTS 86 87 88 87 94 96 97

Alor … … … 60 55 76 83

Kupang … … … 68 74 76 83

Lembata … … … 84 84 85 86

Sumba Barat … … … 84 84 87 96

Sumba Timur … … … 70 73 79 85

TTU … … … 78 78 87 98

NATIONAL … … … 85 89 92 93 NTB = Nusa Tenggara Barat (West Nusa Tenggara), NTT = Nusa Tenggara Timur (East Timur Tenggara), TTS = Timor Tengah Selatan district, TTU = Timor Tengah Utara district.

Appendix 9 61

Ap

pe

ndix

8 6

1

Ap

pe

ndix

8 6

1

Table A9.2: Human Development Indicators in DBEP Districts, 2002–2009

District

Year

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Bali 67.5 68.8 69.1 69.8 70.1 70.5 71.0 71.5

Badung 70.1 70.7 71.2 71.6 72.7 73.6 74.1 74.3

Bangli 66.7 67.2 67.9 68.7 68.9 69.5 69.7 70.1

Buleleng 63.9 65.1 67.3 68.1 68.4 69.2 69.7 70.2

Denpasar 74.6 74.8 74.9 75.2 75.7 76.6 77.2 77.5

Gianyar 67.7 68.6 69.3 70.8 71.1 71.7 72.0 72.3

Jembrana 68.9 69.3 69.7 70.4 70.7 71.4 72.0 72.4

Karangasem 59.3 60.4 61.4 63.3 64.3 65.1 65.5 65.9

Klungkung 64.6 66.9 68.1 68.7 68.9 69.0 69.7 70.2

Tabanan 70.4 71.0 71.5 72.3 72.4 73.1 73.7 74.3

NTB 57.8 59.2 60.6 62.4 63.0 63.7 64.1 64.7

Dompu 58.4 60.3 62,40 63,30 63,90 64,04 64,40 64,93

Kab Bima 59.0 59.7 60,20 61,70 63,13 63,86 64,39 64,81

Kota Bima … … 63.5 64,20 65,94 67,13 67,52 68,02

Lombok Barat 55.0 56.8 57,00 57,80 58,73 59,34 60,53 61,27

Lombok Tengah 53.9 55.2 56,90 57,90 58,48 59,02 59,66 60,26

Lombok Timur 56.1 57.4 58,80 59,50 60,31 61,12 61,77 62,21

Mataram 65.2 66.5 68,80 69,40 69,82 70,71 71,41 71,82

Sumbawa 61.0 62.2 63,20 64,00 64,76 64,99 65,36 65,72

Sumbawa Barat … … 61.9 63,40 65,01 65,52 65,64 66,16

NTT 60.0 61.7 62.7 63.6 64.8 65.4 66.2 66.6

Rote Ndao … … 60.3 61.4 64.3 64.6 65,29 66.1

TTS 57.7 58.8 59.8 61.8 63.6 64.4 64,83 65.1

Alor 57.1 58.6 62.1 65.4 66.9 67.3 67.8 68.2

Kupang 56.9 57.6 59.4 62.0 63.1 64.6 65.0 65.8

Lembata 61.6 62.1 63.2 65.1 65.6 66.1 66.6 67.2

Sumba Barat 53.4 54.1 57.6 59.8 60.1 60.8 62.2 63.1

Sumba Timor 56.9 57.2 58.4 59.6 60.0 60.3 60.8 61.2

TTU 59.5 61.3 62.7 63.1 64.0 65.8 66.5 67.1

NATIONAL 65.8 68.2 68.7 69.6 70,10 70,59 71,17 71,76


62 Appendix 9

Table A9.3A: Net Enrolment Rate at Primary Level, by District,

2002/03–2008/09 (%)

District

School Year

2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09

BALI 89 90 88 90 94 96 98

Badung 98 99 99 98 97 97 98

Bangli 85 92 84 90 91 98 99

Buleleng 95 94 88 93 98 93 94

Denpasar 61 63 66 65 86 99 100

Gianyar 96 97 93 95 96 98 99

Jembrana 78 85 92 98 92 94 95

Karangasem 98 94 97 97 99 99 99

Klungkung 93 98 88 88 85 87 89

Tabanan 93 91 94 93 97 98 99

NTB 89 89 92 90 94 96 97

Kab Bima 92 93 95 96 97 98 99

Kota Bima … … 93 92 97 98 99

Dompu 90 90 95 95 93 94 96

Lombok Barat 91 93 92 95 97 97 98

Lombok Tengah 81 80 93 93 93 94 95

Lombok Timur 94 89 89 81 91 92 93

Mataram 71 94 94 94 95 97 98

Sumbawa 89 90 92 88 92 93 94

Sumbawa Barat … … 68 74 79 80 82

NTT 76 80 91 93

Rote Ndao 89 91 92 93 94

TTS 81 83 85 84 82 84 85

Alor … … … 95 99 99 98

Kupang … … … 87 89 89 93

Lembata … … … 81 84 89 93

Sumba Barat … …. … 87 93 95 103

Sumba Timur … … … 89 90 91 100

TTU … … … 93 93 95 100

NATIONAL … … … 94 94 95 96


Appendix 9 63

Ap

pe

ndix

8 6

3

Ap

pe

ndix

8 6

3

Table A9.3B: Net Enrolment Rate at Junior Secondary Level, by District, 2002/03–2008/09 (%)

District

School Year

2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09

BALI 70 62 71 74 77 78 79

Badung 73 67 84 97 96 97 98

Bangli 53 46 51 54 54 56 56

Buleleng 53 51 53 50 59 60 60

Denpasar 70 53 70 76 89 91 92

Gianyar 80 79 81 90 83 84 85

Jembrana 89 97 99 100 99 99 99

Karangasem 77 43 73 61 61 62 62

Klungkung 72 55 66 67 64 65 65

Tabanan 68 74 71 73 69 71 74

NTB 59 56 64 65 70 72 75

Kab Bima 60 60 64 56 61 63 65

Kota Bima … … 63 64 64 64 65

Dompu … 85 86 87 88 89 90

Lombok Barat 62 48 64 77 91 93 93

Lombok Tengah 60 62 69 65 76 77 77

Lombok Timur 58 54 56 59 52 53 54

Mataram … … 69 69 70 73 75

Sumbawa 58 56 61 62 66 67 68

Sumbawa Barat … … 71 74 67 68 68

NTT … … … 39 46 52 55

Rote Ndao … … 44 58 70 71 73

TTS 36 36 37 46 61 63 63

Alor … … … 40 39 56 67

Kupang … … … 68 74 76 83

Lembata … … … 52 53 70 82

Sumba Barat … … … 84 84 87 96

Sumba Timur … … … 70 73 79 85

TTU … … … 78 78 87 98

NATIONAL … … … 62 66 71 72


64 Appendix 9

Table A9.4A: Transition Rates from Primary to Junior Secondary School, by District, 2002/03–2008/09 (%)

Province/ District

School Year

2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09

BALI 77 90 92 99 103 99 100

Badung 85 85 100 100 100 100 100

Bangli 65 66 78 83 93 95 96

Buleleng 80 80 85 84 86 87 88

Denpasar 66 66 74 75 100 100 100

Gianyar 80 80 66 98 99 100 100

Jembrana 96 98 98 99 99 100 100

Karangasem 80 82 82 78 87 88 89

Klungkung 86 87 97 93 85 87 90

Tabanan 76 76 87 95 95 97 99

NTB 54 60 61 71 73 63 75

Kabupaten Bima … 87 88 89 90 92 93

Kota Bima … … … 92 91 92 93

Dompu 82 84 84 85 86 87 90

Lombok Barat 80 82 84 89 100 100 100

Lombok Tengah 62 62 90 96 92 94 95

Lombok Timur 87 87 85 94 95 96 96

Mataram 97 97 98 96 97 99 100

Sumbawa 82 83 71 87 87 88 89

Sumbawa Barat 73 74 96 97 98

NTT 69 65 81 99 98 90 92

Rote Ndao … … 70 71 74 76 76

TTS 81 83 84 84 86 87 87

Alor … … … 60 55 88 96

Kupang … … … 70 78 83 98

Lembata … … … 100 100 100 100

Sumba Barat … … … 94 96 97 99

Sumba Timur … … … … … 73 93

TTU … … … 98 99 95 97

NATIONAL 70 70 71 80 82 76 85


Appendix 9 65

Ap

pe

ndix

8 6

5

Ap

pe

ndix

8 6

5

Table A9.4B: Transition Rates from Junior Secondary to Senior Secondary School, by District, 2002/03–2008/09

Province/ District

Transition Rate (TR) of Junior School by Years

2002/03 2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09

BALI 82.63 83.30 88.52 102.53 75.48 94.56 95.21

Badung … …. 93.36 88.74 92.89 93.24 94.47

Bangli … 46.34 49.57 80.65 45.97 47.21 49.32

Buleleng … 71,81 57.79 58.83 65.53 67.42 70.41

Denpasar … … 99,96 99,62 99,83 99.82 100

Gianyar … 91.96 99.92 59.25 59.82 69.42 70.34

Jembrana … 94,12 95,52 97.00 98,44 99.82 99.85

Karangasem … 59,74 67.81 64,78 91,81 93.24 94.35

Klungkung … 88.17 92.53 82.03 92.21 93.81 95.23

Tabanan … 58.30 77.74 66.28 58.48 63.54 67.62

NTB 83.23 77.67 80.65 96.89 64.44 88.88 90.23

Kabupaten Bima … 70.50 71.65 73.74 75.79 76.77 77.52

Kota Bima … … 72.15 73.12 76.54 76.62 77.21

Dompu 78.54 79.24 80.22 81.33 82.55 82.84 83.46

Lombok Barat … 85.69 79.85 91.70 99.00 83.54 84.22

Lombok Tengah … 52.94 67.43 70.65 76.78 77.87 78.62

Lombok Timur … 66.73 79.89 83.57 89.39 91.66 93.32

Mataram … 70.22 70.84 73.00 75.54 78.66 79.23

Sumbawa … 83.59 99.38 95.53 97.61 97.52 97.33

Sumbawa Barat … … 95 95.09 95.66 96.52 96.33

NTT 80.43 81.24 81.36 83.45 90.55 94.43 96.33

Rote Ndao … … … 78.25 78.56 79.34 79.82

TTS … … … 80.33 81.46 82.66 83.88

Alor … … … 46.24 68.35 78.45 83.66

Kupang … … … 54.42 88.66 109 137

Lembata … … … 97.33 97.54 93.66 93.25

Sumba Barat … … … 71.23 86.45 86.58 87.62

Sumba Timur … … … N/A N/A N/A 99.22

TTU … … … 85.45 98.24 91.66 93.82

NATIONAL 83.38 83.38 82.59 89.77 70.30 95.42 96.22


66 Appendix 9

Table A9.5A: Average National Examination Scores for Primary Schools, by District, 2003/04–2009/10

District

School Year

2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10

BALI

Badung 7.0 7.5 8.7 8.9 … … …

Bangli 6.4 7.2 6.8 0.6 … … …

Buleleng 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.8 … … …

Denpasar 6.8 6.8 7.2 7.1 … … …

Gianyar 7.0 7.0 7.1 7.2 … … …

Jembrana 6.6 6.7 6.9 7.1 … … …

Karangasem 6.5 6.7 7.0 7.0 … … …

Klungkung 6.1 6.3 7.8 6.6 … … …

Tabanan 6.7 6.7 7.0 7.8 … … …

NTB

Dompu 6.4 6.6 6.5 6.9 … … …

Kab Bima 6.9 7.3 … … …

Lombok Barat 6.8 6.8 7.1 6.9 … … …

Lombok Tengah 6.2 6.6 6.6 6.8 … … …

Lombok Timur 7.3 7.3 6.8 6.9 … … …

Mataram 6.2 6.3 6.7 6.9 … … …

Sumbawa 6.8 7.0 7.2 7.0 … … …

Sumbawa Barat 6.5 6.4 6.3 7.0 … … …

Kota Bima … … 6.3 6.8 … … …

NTT

Rote Ndao … … 5.8 6.6 … … …

TTS 5.6 5.7 5.9 6.5 … … …

Alor … … 5.9 6.0 5.5 5.9 …

Kupang … … 6.5 7.0 5.8 5.9 …

Lembata … … 6.7 6.5 6.1 6.5 …

Sumba Barat … … 5.7 6.2 5.3 5.4 …

Sumba Timur … … 6 6.1 5.4 5.6 …

TTU … … 6.0 6.1 5.7 6.3 …

NATIONAL


Appendix 9 67

Ap

pe

ndix

8 6

7

Ap

pe

ndix

8 6

7

Table A9.5B: Average National Examination Scores for Junior Secondary Schools, by District, 2003/04–2009/10

District

School Year

2003/04 2004/05 2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10

BALI 6.7 6.8 7.6 7.8 7.8 7.9 7.9

Badung 6.5 6.8 7.3 7.5 8.0 8.3 8.4

Bangli 6.2 6.8 7.4 7.0 7.3 7.7 7.7

Buleleng 5.9 6.3 6.9 7.3 7.6 7.8 7.8

Denpasar 6.9 7.0 7.1 7.5 8.2 8.3 8.6

Gianyar 6.4 6.4 7.1 7.5 7.9 8.3 8.3

Jembrana 6.0 7.0 7.5 7.5 7.8 8.2 7.8

Karangasem 6.1 6.5 7.2 7.4 7.3 8.0 8.1

Klungkung 6.4 6.5 7.4 7.5 7.4 7.8 8.1

Tabanan 6.0 6.4 6.9 7.5 8.4 8.4 8.1

NTB 5.8 5.9 6.5 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.5

Kab. Bima 6.5 6.5 6.8 7.2 6.8 7.0 6.8

Kota Bima 6.5 6.9 6.4 6.9 7.2

Dompu 6.1 5.9 6.3 6.4 5.8 5.9 6.8

Lombok Barat 5.6 6.2 6.7 6.6 6.9 7.1 7.7

Lombok Tengah 6.4 6.0 6.5 6.9 6.6 7.3 7.5

Lombok Timur 5.7 6.1 6.2 6.8 6.5 7.3 7.5

Mataram 6.1 6.2 7.0 6.4 6.5 6.5 7.6

Sumbawa 6.4 5.8 6.3 6.4 5.9 6.6 6.7

Sumbawa Barat … … 6.4 6.9 5.2 6.1 7.1

NTT 5.1 5.2 6.0 6.3 5.6 5.9 6.0

Rote Ndao … … 5.9 6.1 5.4 6.1 6.6

TTS 5.0 5.0 5.8 6.0 5.4 6.7 7.0

Alor … … 5.8 5.6 4.8 5.6 5.7

Kupang … … 5.8 6.1 5.5 5.9 5.8

Lembata … … 5.6 5.7 4.9 5.5 5.6

Sumba Barat … … 5.7 5.9 5.2 5.9 5.8

Sumba Timur … … 6.1 5.7 4.9 5.7 5.7

TTU … … 5.1 5.4 5.0 5.6 5.7

NATIONAL 6.3 6.4 7.0 7.0 6.8 6.8 6.9


Appendix 10 68

EMERGENCY SCHOOL RECONSTRUCTION PROGRAMS

A. Basic Education Recovery in Simeulue District, Aceh, after the Earthquake and Tsunami

1. On 26 December 2004 a 9.2-magnitude earthquake struck off the far north coast of Sumatera, triggering a tsunami of cataclysmic proportions. This historic event left a trail of death and destruction as the tsunami swept kilometers inland, killing an estimated 400,000 people and leveling entire towns and cities along the northern coastal regions of Sumatera and further afield. Indonesia’s province of Aceh was particularly hard hit, with the loss of life estimated to be over 240,000 and hundreds of coastal communities including the provincial capital of Banda Aceh destroyed or damaged. 2. In immediate response, an agreement was reached between the government and the Asian Development Bank (ADB) to reprogram $10 million of loan savings from the Decentralized Basic Education Project (DBEP) to assist the government in restoring basic education services in Aceh and North Sumatera. The reprogramming of this loan was intended only as a bridge for the urgent rehabilitation of basic education services while a larger program was being finalized. 3. With the unprecedented response of the international community to this disaster, the imperative of the government to immediately disburse these funds diminished. Consequently, it was not until April 2006 that the Ministry of National Education (MONE) signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with ADB on the use of the funds to support the rehabilitation and reconstruction of basic education services on the isolated island of Simeulue. This district was among the worst affected in Aceh province, especially after the second destructive earthquake of March 2005 leveled almost every rigid building (of brick and cement) on the island, including homes, health centers, schools, and government offices. The sheer scale of unmet needs, the relatively low level of donor commitment, and the few aid groups active in education recovery on Simeulue was the government’s justification to program the funds for this district. 4. The design of the Simeulue basic education recovery subproject was completed and endorsed by MONE in October 2006. The implementation of the subproject began in December 2006 with the establishment of the district project management unit (PMU) and the mobilization of the first consultants.

1. Project Description

5. The purpose of the project was to support the Simeulue district government in restoring basic education infrastructure and services to pre-tsunami levels. The project objective was to reconstruct selected district primary and junior-secondary schools and strengthen the capacity of the district education office to manage basic education recovery initiatives. Both the project purpose and the objective were achieved. There were two types of output:

(i) Output 1: Restored basic education administrative and teaching and learning environments at 33 primary and junior secondary schools and Madrasah; and

(ii) Output 2: Strengthened capacity of the district education office and the 33 target schools to plan, finance, manage, and deliver basic education services in a post-disaster setting.

Appendix 10 69

6. All targets and key activities in the work plan were achieved. The intended output was delivered satisfactorily and, while not within the planned time frame, was completed within the $10 million budget allocation.

2. Implementation

7. Although the MOU between the government and ADB for the Aceh program was signed in February 2005, there was a delay in its implementation because the program budget was allocated to the Board for Rehabilitation and Reconstruction as the single authority responsible for this work in Aceh and Nias. This arrangement proved difficult, however, and the funds were finally allocated to MONE in the third quarter of 2006. The central facilitation unit (CFU) tried to accelerate the program in Simeulue from the fourth quarter of 2006. 8. The basic education recovery program in Simeulue was prepared in close consultation with all stakeholders at national, provincial, and district levels, especially with the Simeulue District Education Office, so the program was ―owned‖ by the communities. The school selection was proposed by the district, and reviewed and approved by the Board for Rehabilitation and Reconstruction for Aceh and Nias, the provincial education office, and MONE. 9. Environmental and social safeguard studies were conducted before implementation to ensure that the program would not have a negative impact on the environment and local communities. After receiving the relevant clearances, the CFU and the district PMU carried out preparatory activities in October 2006, including recruiting consultants, developing the prototype for the school buildings, and holding community meetings. The school-building prototype was designed to be resistant to earthquakes. Unlike conventional school buildings, its frame was made of steel using a knockdown assembly system with stage flooring. Assisted by field consultants, the schools proposed their action plans for school reconstruction (school development plans) to the CFU through the district PMU, which also submitted its own district education development plan to the CFU. 10. The CFU released funds from the School Development Fund (SDF) and the District Education Development Fund (DEDF) through the block grant mechanism in December 2006. After receiving the funds, the target schools started to implement their reconstruction programs supported by their field consultants, and the district also started to implement training programs for the target schools. An innovative approach to procuring the steel needed for the steel frames for the schools was developed. An exhibition was held in Banda Aceh for potential suppliers from outside the district, so that agreements could be reached during the exhibition. 11. The school grants were provided to the school to purchase (i) the building materials and for the structures; (ii) furniture, fittings, and office equipment; (iii) replacement teaching and learning materials, including textbooks and other reference books to restock school libraries; (iv) general science equipment for junior-secondary schools; and (v) sports equipment. The grants were provided directly to school committees, with most of the materials and equipment selected and procured through exhibition workshops and fairs held in the district capital. 12. The program was expected to be completed by the end of 2007, but it was delayed because of the very high rainfall and the sinking, on 7 October 2007, of the ship carrying the steel frames. Therefore, the program was extended until 2008. Bolts and floors were upgraded during the extension to protect the school buildings against humidity and salinity.

70 Appendix 10

3. Results

13. The project outcomes and output were achieved successfully. All 33 primary and junior-secondary schools were completed and handed over to the district government. Through a series of training workshops, the capacity of the schools to develop and administer the school development plans (SDPs) was strengthened. A key feature of the Simeulue project was the use of contractors from the community, instead of external contractors, to implement all school-related reconstruction activities. While the works may have taken longer to complete for this reason, the approach provided a source of local income and a better-quality end product, more in tune with local conditions. 14. Earthquake resistance. The schools built under the project have proved remarkably resilient and have since survived, without damage, a series of large earthquakes (both during and after construction), including an earthquake of magnitude 7.5 on 20 February 2008, which destroyed and damaged many other newly reconstructed buildings on nearby sites. The new building design incorporates an earthquake-resistant structure, involving the use of a lightweight steel frame, which is bolted together for ease of assembly. The frame gives the structure its strength and flexibility. It is anchored to a series of elevated footings, which act as natural dampeners (shock absorbers), allowing the structure to ride the shock waves of an earthquake much like a ship does the waves in the ocean. 15. Earth resistance was the single most important factor considered when preparing the design specifications for the buildings. The rigidity of the ―ground-level bricks and mortar design‖ traditionally favored by local government has failed to withstand major earthquakes over the years. Therefore, the introduction of a new earthquake-resistant design was of paramount importance, to minimize the risks posed to children and teachers, as well as the capital investment itself. 16. Other key features of the design include (i) its knockdown assembly; (ii) the quickness and relative ease with which the materials can be assembled and the building constructed (especially if the materials are fully fabricated before shipment); (iii) the minimal need for skilled craftsmen; (iv) the long life of the structural materials, which are easily maintained (especially if stainless steel or hot-dipped galvanized steel is used); (v) the ease of installing and maintaining plumbing and electrical systems; (vi) the natural breezeways of the elevated design; (vii) the minimal site preparation required for the construction of concrete slab and drainage; and (viii) the ability to use local materials readily purchased in most village markets (wood boarding, multiplex, glassfiber reinforced cement for cladding of walls and decking, among others. 17. Price comparisons with other schools of similar size and standard that were reconstructed in Simeulue at that time provide evidence of the savings made by choosing this lightweight steel construction design. Of the four different types of schools built on Simeulue, DBEP schools presented the most attractive construction unit cost at Rp2.4 million per square meter (m2), followed by local government at Rp2.7million/m2, the Board of Rehabilitation and Reconstruction for Aceh and Nias at Rp3.1 million/m2, and an international nongovernment organization at Rp 3.5million/m2. B. Basic Education School Reconstruction in Padang Pariaman, West Sumatera 18. Although this method of construction proved very effective, it failed to serve as a model for others because of the inaccessibility of Simeulue Island. Therefore, after the earthquake in West Sumatra in late 2009, it was agreed that these same techniques would be demonstrated in

Appendix 10 71

a more accessible place, by using the grant savings of $1.25 million to reconstruct nine schools. Padang Pariaman was chosen as the location because of the extensive damage there. The intention was that the nine schools would serve as models of a successful method for earthquake-resistant school construction. As resources were limited, only the reconstruction of the building was supported. Unlike in Simeulue, furniture, equipment, textbooks, and learning materials were provided by the district government. 19. Earthquake-resistant construction. As in Simeulue, the construction technique was based on a steel frame for the floor, walls, and roof. This frame was placed on substantial concrete foundations, which were 1 meter underground and about 40–50 centimeters above grounds, so that it did not have contact with the ground. In Simeulue the steel frame was made of stainless steel because of the harsh weather conditions (very humid, salty air). In Padang Pariaman, the frame was zinc chromate, which was considered appropriate for the less extreme conditions. The material for the roofing was painted zinc aluminium, while lightweight fibro cement was used for the walls. Steel-reinforced fibro cement is used for the floor. This was strengthened, as the original specifications used for Simeulue were not sturdy enough. The walls were 4 meters high to allow good air circulation. Each separate unit contained three classrooms and two toilets. Most schools received three units. 20. Cost. The cost per square meter was Rp2.04 million, compared with the official district government cost for conventional building methods of Rp2.4 million. The cost was kept down in two main ways:

(i) Some of the materials were manufactured locally, using the designs of the project engineers. Local workers were trained as welders and taught to manufacture the materials needed for the wall columns, flooring, and other items. This was a successful case of technology transfer. However, if the materials were to be sourced from commercial suppliers (as for Simeulue), the price could be expected to increase. Even in Simeulue, however, the price was slightly below the local-government cost norm.

(ii) The reconstruction was carried out in collaboration with school committees, as was done successfully in Simeulue. The duties of the school committee were to install the wall material and the roofing, and do the landscaping.

C. Mainstreaming of the Technique 21. The project demonstrated a successful method of earthquake-resistant construction, with a view to the adoption of this approach in other high-risk earthquake zones. To inform districts about the new technique, a video was developed using the experiences of Simeulue and Padang Pariaman. A detailed guide, including all the specifications, was prepared, and the guidelines for school construction issued by MONE were revised to accommodate the new method.

Documents

DRAFT PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT...Net Loan Amount 7. Amount of Grant (Government of the Netherlands) Original Grant Amount ... 31 December 2008 30 June 2009 0 31 December 2008 30 September